chapter 1 - andrea butzler's principal internship...

Developing Literacy through Writing in Science

Andrea Butzler

Southwest Baptist University

Educational Administration

Writing Literacy and Science 2

CHAPTER I

Introduction

Developing Literacy through Writing in Science

Introduction

Literacy has always been a part of American public schools. Since the 17th

century, emphasis has been put on the ability to read and write. Yet there is an ever

increasing need for new and improved literacy teaching strategies. For so long the norm

has been that reading and writing are taught in isolation of other content areas, however it

is not news that students struggle to comprehend and evaluate texts. Scientific literacy

has been pursued by education reformers since 1992 with many other countries

outperforming the United States on science assessments. According to Cervetti (2012)

and Pearson, “positioning text and language experiences as tools for involvement in

inquiry and the development of conceptual understanding, actually benefit literacy

development—and, of course, science learning” (p. 581).

Cross-circular lessons that lend themselves to the elementary classrooms seem to

be non-existent in the secondary setting. The researcher considers the idea that these

practices have led to a lack of the reading and writing literacy in sixth grade students in

science classes at Hillcrest School in Lebanon, Missouri. Students in the researcher’s

class struggle to complete various writing tasks and some students are unable to compose

a written response independently. The lack of writing skill in these students raises a

concern. This study seeks to explore how through technology, student motivation to write


and literacy teaching strategies can be incorporated into the researcher’s science

classroom.

Problem Statement

Students struggle to write in the researcher’s sixth grade science class at Hillcrest

School in Lebanon, Missouri.

Research Questions

1. Why are literacy skills relevant in the field of science?

2. What literacy teaching strategies can be integrated into the science classroom?

3. What effect does technology have on student motivation to write?

4. How does the use of added technology increase student motivation to write

and the quality of student writing?

Purpose Statement

The purpose of this study is to research the effect of technology on the writing

skills of sixth grade science students. The researcher will also study how technology

effects student motivation to write. The researcher will then identify teaching strategies

that can be effectively integrated in the science classroom. The researcher will collect

data pertaining to students’ writing preferences and performance. A plan of action will

then be developed in attempt to improve the writing skills of students at Hillcrest School.

Significance of the Study

Literacy in science is important to educators as reading and writing literacy is

becoming the responsibility of all teachers. The Missouri State Board of Education

adopted Common Core State Standards (CCSS) and implementation is set to begin during


the 2013-2014 school year. Common Core specifically addresses literacy across

disciplines such as History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Studies.

Literacy in science is also important to students as college readiness is an issue

that many students are facing. One aspect of reading, students struggle with is the ability

to analyze and evaluate texts. The need for literacy exists in all fields of study. Students

with the ability to read and across the curriculum will be better prepared for college and

careers in science and technical fields.

Background of the Problem

The demand for literacy skills in science related careers is greatly underestimated.

Students and teachers participate in science in a more hands on manner while real world

scientists spend much of their time reading and writing. Elementary and secondary

science students then fail to see the connection science has to reading and writing.

Students’ lack of understanding of the relevance that these skills have in any classroom,

especially the science classroom may be leading to a lack of motivation to complete

writing tasks. The structure of most secondary schools does not lend itself to cross-

curricular lessons and so students often do not understand the importance of literacy in

areas such as social studies and science. Adults working in science related careers spend

a great deal of time reading and researching as well as writing to communicate their

findings. Students in the researcher’s sixth grade science class are often unmotivated to

complete writing tasks and it is the researcher’s opinion that the lack of motivation stems

from primarily from lack of understanding of the relevance of writing in the field of

science.

Limitations and Delimitations


1. This study will be conducted in the researcher’s sixth grade classroom at

Hillcrest School.

2. The researcher has no control of honesty of student responses.

3. The researcher has no control of the degree to which action plan will be

implemented.

Summary

In chapter one, the researcher presented the problem along with research

questions, purpose statement, significance of the study, background information,

limitations and delimitations.

In chapter two, the researcher will present a review of the literature. The literature

review will focus on three themes: teaching literacy and science, relevance for learning

writing in science, and the effect of technology on motivation to write. Chapter two will

describe what current literature tells us about these topics.

In chapter three, the researcher will present the methodology and procedures for

the study. The researcher will provide details including materials and process of data

collection including how data collected will be implemented in the study.

In chapter four, the researcher will present the data collected through the use of

tables and graphs detailing student inventory of preferences and writing samples. The

researcher will include analysis and evaluation of the data. In chapter five, the researcher

will summarize the study and outline a suggested action plan for implementation.


CHAPTER II

Review of Literature

Introduction

As students move from elementary to middle school, instruction of the disciplines

becomes more and more divided causing students to lack the understanding of how

learning can be transferred from one content area to another. Often students do not

understand the importance of reading and writing in areas such as math, social studies,

and science. It is the observation of the researcher that the misconception of the

importance of writing across the curriculum has led to a lack of skill and motivation to

write in the science classroom.

The following is a review of current literature will present the relevancy of

writing skills in science, two teaching strategies that can be incorporated into the science

classroom for the purpose of helping students understand text structure and improve the

organization of their writing, and finally how through technology teachers can motivate

students to write with thoughtfulness. It should be said that while this study focuses

primarily on writing literacy and science, the ability to read and write is what makes a

person literate so at times, it is difficult to address writing without addressing reading.

Review of Literature

Relevance of Literacy in Science

In many classroom and schools, reading and writing literacy is taught solely in the

language arts or communication arts classroom causing misconceptions of the importance


of writing in science. “Students frequently misunderstand the nature of disciplinary

boundaries—believing, for instance, that writing is only important in English classes”

(Yule, Wolf, & Young, 2010, p. 15). However, scientists spend a great deal of time

inquiring about the scientific work of others as well as communicating their own

findings. “No scientist simply walks into a lab and starts manipulating materials, tools,

and phenomena. Investigations are always framed by other investigations. Texts are the

artifacts of those past investigations” (Pearson, Moje & Greenleaf, 2010, p. 460).

Scientists use literacy skills in every aspect of their work. According to Yore, Florence,

Pearson, and & Weaver (2006) printed language is essential to the research,

documentation, and communication of scientific processes and findings. All the

necessary skills of scientists require the ability to not just read science, but also to write

science (Subramaniam, 2010).

Literacy plays a part in both inquiry-driven and research-based investigations.

Science provides a setting in which students must use the same skills that define good

readers and writers such as making inferences, constructing arguments, and drawing

conclusions (Pearson, Moje, & Greenleaf, 2010). Students must know how to read and

interpret texts but they also must be able to use writing as a way to report their findings

(Pearson, Moje, & Greenleaf, 2010). “The communication of scientific findings is the

final critical step in the process of science. Consequently, education in a scientific

discipline should also develop scientific writing skills” (Morgan, Fraga & Macauley,

2011, p. 149).

Writing instruction, however, should not take over the science classroom, but

rather support science instruction. When literacy skills are embedded in the curriculum,


students gain a deeper understanding of the concepts being taught (Freidus, 2010).

Literacy instruction placed in a secondary role can actually be used to support and enrich

the pursuit of knowledge and proficiency in other disciplines (Cervetti & Pearson, 2012).

According to Pearson, Moje and Greenleaf (2010) “When science literacy is

conceptualized as a form of inquiry, reading and writing activities can be used to advance

scientific inquiry, rather than substitute for it” (p. 459). Teachers and students must

understand that writing in science is a tool for communication just as reading in science is

a tool for gaining information. It is vital that scientists have good literacy skills to carry

out the process of scientific inquiry.

Literacy Teaching Strategies for the Science Classroom

Everyday teachers incorporate literacy activities in their classrooms to assist

students in the organization and clarity of their writing. Gina Cervetti and Pearson offer

the following as guidelines for allowing students to participate in inquiry-based literacy

activities,

Engineer teachable moments by using baffling text that create the need to use a

clarifying or other sense-making strategy for everyone, including you; and always

keep a mini lesson for every useful strategy in your hip pocket so you can pounce

on real teachable moments whenever they present themselves—for a whole class,

a small work group, or an individual student (2012, p. 582).

Science teachers can meet the challenges that students face when trying to comprehend

and evaluate science content by scaffolding their learning through exercises involving the

reading and writing of expository texts and vocabulary (Montelongo & Herter, 2010).

Jose Montelongo and Herter suggest that one way to scaffold literacy activities in science


is through the use of a modified sentence completion task (2010). In a modified sentence

completion task the teacher separates and mixes up the sentences from an expository text.

The teacher then replaces one key word in each sentence with a blank. The students are

given the mixed up sentences to fill in the blank with a word from the word bank.

Students must then work to organize the sentences into a paragraph that uses text

structures and makes sense. The modified sentence completion activity may include the

use of graphic organizers as well as a lesson on signal words that teach skills such as

cause-and-effect and compare-and-contrast. The purpose of this activity is to help

students see how the organization of a piece of writing can have an effect on the reader.

Kathigeyan Subramaniam (2010) promotes the use writing frames as “a method to

foster scientific writing skills in the inquiry-based science classroom” (p. 31). A writing

frame is a skeleton outline of a non-fiction piece of writing designed to “enable students

to organize and construct the written text” (Subramanium, 2010 p. 32). Writing frames

also give the students a list of leads and starters that can be used for the topic and each

section of the writing piece. The goal of writing frames is to open-up student’s thoughts

past the mechanics of writing while still exposing them to the patterns that exist in

scientific writing (Subramaniam, 2010). Strategies such as the modified sentence

completion task and writing frames can be easily incorporated into science to help

students learn how to organize their own writing.

Jeffery Yule, Wolf and Young (2010), suggest that when integrating writing into

science class, “a two-part approach, focusing first on content and subsequently on

grammar, punctuation, and format” (p. 17). The primary goal of the science teacher is to


give feedback on the students writing, not to proofread. This practice will encourage

students to take writing seriously as a way to communicate ideas (Yule et al, 2010).

There are times, however, when a student’s writing contains accurate content and

displays understanding of the topic but it is obvious that the student has not proof-read

their work. Anne Davis and McGrail suggest a strategy called Proof-Revising. Proof-

Revising involves the use of podcasts and blogs to motivate students to do their best

writing. The teacher makes an audio recording of a student’s writing, reading the words

exactly as the words are written. “Such reading shows them where their writing is not

understood and where it is enjoyable, engaging, and clear for the readers” (Davis &

McGrail, 2009, p. 522). The audio recording is posted as a podcast on the student’s blog

for students to review and use when revising their writing.

There are many writing activities that can be incorporated into the science

classroom. Both the modified sentence completion task and writing frames can be

integrated easily into the science classroom through the use of technology. Proof-

Revising could be as simple as using a tape recorder and allowing the student to play

back the recording as they are editing their work. It is the observation of the researcher

that added technology leads to increased student motivation.

Effect of Technology on Writing Motivation

The challenged offered by science concepts coupled with the misconceptions of

the relevancy of writing in science can impact student motivation to write. According to

Cervetti and Pearson reading and writing, “in the interest to understand [science

concepts] demands persistence, attention, and application of strategies” (2012, p. 582).

This demand placed on students can often cause students to shut down because they lack


the confidence needed to persevere through the more difficult tasks such as writing to

show understanding of a concept. Student’s motivation plays a large part in the success

of students especially when dealing with challenging concepts. Technology provides a

venue for the scaffolding of student learning resulting in increased student motivation.

The way people are gaining and communicating information has led to an

increased need for digital media use in the classroom. Outside of the school setting,

people depend on technologies such as television, cell phones, computers and gaming

systems in their everyday life for the purpose of communication and entertainment. It is

unrealistic to then insist that students only perform school tasks using strictly pencil and

paper. Teachers must use technology to drive learning in content area skills that are less

than motivating. Current technologies offer ways for students to collaborate and share

their knowledge including blogs, wikis, podcasts, online chat, and social networking.

Through these types of collaboration, students are motivated to participate because they

can see the value in their work knowing that their work will be viewed by others (Beach,

2012). Blogging can motivate students to write better because of the extended audience

they have the ability to connect with (Davis & McGrail, 2009, p. 522)

The use of multimedia resources with informational texts increases science

learning (Montelongo & Herter, 2010). The modified sentence completion task is an

activity that could be incorporated into multimedia programs and websites to increase

motivation and participation from students. One benefit of creating a website for student

learning is it allows students to participate in the learning from home as well as in the

classroom.


Current research also shows that science-literacy integration offers compelling

motives for students to use and learn literacy skills (Cervetti & Pearson, 2012). The key

component to this research is that student investigation must be purposeful and include

student reading and composition of meaningful texts. Learners typically write for

evaluation by teachers with little attention being paid to who the audience is. Learners

that are allowed to write in more authentic situations have increasing amounts of success

(Magnifico, 2010). Teachers can create those authentic situations for students through

the use of message boards, wikis, and blogs. These online situations offer students an

audience capable of immediate feedback which motivates writers to be more purposeful

in their writing (Magnifico, 2010). Blogging provides a novice writer with an

opportunity to gain nearly instant feedback allowing the writer to grow in their skills

(Lapp, Shea, & Devere, 2011). Given the primary purpose of writing in science is to

communicate findings, the addition of blogs and wikis for the purpose of communication

results as well as for questioning and inquiry, allows students to create text that is

meaningful for them while practicing the scientific process.

In traditional classroom settings, the student makes decisions alone or with a peer

for how to improve their writing. Writing is then submitted to the teacher and the student

must then wait for additional feedback. Online blogging provides the opportunity for

students to not only receive feedback from the teacher but prompt, sometimes instant

feedback from peers and parents. In addition to prompt feedback having students submit

writing through a blog allows for meaningful whole group instruction. Diane Lapp, Shea,

and Devere state that, “each time the instructor provides feedback to one student, the


entire class receives feedback” (2011, p. 34) creating an active learning environment for

all students.

Students are often motivated by activities that they can relate to their own lives.

There are many ways to motivate students to complete a task, however by incorporating

technology and the internet into the classroom, the audience for a student writing piece is

immediately expanded making the task seem more purposeful for the student.

Summary

In chapter two, the researcher presented a review of the literature. The literature

review focused on three themes: teaching literacy and science, relevance for learning

writing in science, and the effect of technology on motivation to write. Chapter two

described what current literature tells us about these topics.

In chapter three, the researcher will present the methodology and procedures for

the study. The researcher will provide details including materials and process of data

collection including how data collected will be implemented in the study.






CHAPTER III

Methodology

Introduction

The ability to write is just as important across the curriculum as it is in the

communication arts classroom as application of literacy skills is necessary in nearly every

profession, especially in the field of science. In the researcher’s science classroom there

is a problem with student willingness to write to demonstrate understanding as well as the

level of skill being demonstrated in students’ writing assignments. This study seeks to

understand student preferences for writing in the science classroom as well as effective

ways that technology can be incorporated into the science classroom for the purpose of

increasing student motivation to write and ultimately student writing levels.

Population

The Lebanon R-III School District is located in Lebanon, Missouri. Lebanon is

an industrial community located on Interstate 44, approximately 54 miles east of

Springfield and 163 miles southwest of St. Louis. According to the 2010 census

information from the Missouri Census Data Center Lebanon is a community stretching 15

square miles with a population of 14,474 people.

The Lebanon R-III School District consisted of 4,669 students enrolled in pre-

kindergarten through 12th grade during the 2012-2013 school year. According to the

Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE), 92 percent of

students enrolled in the district are white and 57 fifty-seven percent of students in the

district are eligible for the free or reduced lunch program. The Missouri Department of

Elementary and Secondary Education provided no other information on ethnic


demographics due to the small number of students falling into categories other than

white. The Lebanon R-III School District is made up of seven buildings separated by

grade levels. This includes four elementary buildings, one junior high, one high school,

an alternative education center, and the Lebanon Technology and Career Center which is

housed at Lebanon High School.

Hillcrest School is part of the Lebanon R-III School District and services all sixth

grade students in the district with an enrollment of 323 students during the 2012-2013

school year. Hillcrest faculty consists of 13 homeroom teachers, five special area

teachers, two special education teachers, three special education paraprofessionals, and

two at-risk paraprofessionals. Students are placed into a homeroom teacher’s class and

each homeroom teacher is part of four teacher team. Each teaching team consists of two

communication arts teachers, one science teacher, and one math teacher. Students

receive approximately 120 minutes of reading and writing instruction each day, 60

minutes of science, and 60 minutes of math. Social studies is integrated into

communication arts. Hillcrest school also includes one self-contained classroom for the

purpose of servicing students who have been identified as being at-risk not to graduate.

This classroom consists of ten students, one teacher, and one paraprofessional.

This study will be conducted in the researcher’s four science classes. Each class

has from 25-27 students for a total of 104 students. There are a total of 55 male and 49

female students. The teacher will present the same lesson and activities to each class each

day.


Methodology

The research study on student writing in science will be conducted during the

2013-2014 school year. The study is two-fold in that data will be collected on student

writing preferences through a survey administered to students during class. The second

part of the study involves the collection of student writing samples which will be used to

gage student progress. A letter of consent addressing both the survey and collection of the

writing samples will be sent to parents prior to any data being collected. A letter of

assent addressing both the survey and student writing samples will also be given to

students at this time. The researcher will seek help from her communication arts teaching

partners to administer a survey on writing preferences. The survey will be administered

in the communications arts classroom to the same population of students as are in the

researcher’s science classes. Third party administration and collection of student writing

preferences surveys will ensure confidentiality of student responses. The survey will be

administered twice during the 2013-14 academic year. The first administration will be in

August with the second administration in April of 2013. Names will not be used in the

survey data collection. The researcher will collect two writing assignments, one

traditional (paper/pencil or typed) and one non-traditional (Edmodo post, Go Animate

script and video, Kerpoof digital story book) from each student. The first traditional

sample will serve as baseline data for students’ writing skill level. The second, non-

traditional writing sample will serve as a point of comparison used to assess student

progress and growth. The data from both the student survey and writing samples will be

reported by gender, homeroom teacher, type of sample (traditional or non-traditioanl),

and date taken.


Instrumentation

The writing preferences survey will consist of a rank order scaling question. The

survey will ask students about their preferences for publishing a writing piece with and

without the use technology, specifically focusing on traditional writing with pencil and

paper and four digital tools that incorporate writing. Students will rank the items

(pencil/paper, Microsoft Word, Edmodo, Go Animate, and Kerpoof) in order with 1

being the most preferred writing medium and 5 being the least preferred writing medium.

preferences for writing without the use of technology or hand-written work. Data from

writing preferences survey will be reported by gender, homeroom teacher, and pre- or

post-survey. The researcher will use the survey data to gear student writing activities for

the purpose of motivating students to write. The survey data may also show that

students’ writing preferences change after the introduction of new technologies in the

classroom.

The researcher will use a rubric to score student writing samples for pre-

determined writing skills. The rubric

score the quality of student writing by taking into account sentence structure,

grammar, punctuation, and content of writing. Data collected from writing samples will

be reported by gender, homeroom teacher, quarter, and hand-written versus electronic

sample. Data collected from student writing samples will be used to determine if

students’ writing skills have improved through the use of added technology.

Statistical Process

The statistical treatment of the student survey and writing sample data will be

based on frequency counts. The data collected will be disaggregated by gender,

homeroom teacher, handwritten or electronic writing sample, and date.


A one-sample t-test will be used to determine if there is a significant difference

between student writing skills before instruction and student writing skills after

instruction. The researcher will compare before and after writing samples to determine

the effectiveness of using writing teaching strategies and added technology in the science

classroom.

Duplication of Project

This research project may not be generalizable in other school districts. The

intention of this research project is to identify the preferences and writing skill levels of

sixth grade science students in the researcher’s science classes. The overall design of this

research project is intended for the researcher’s science classes may not be suitable for

duplication.

Summary

In chapter three, the researcher presented the methodology and procedures for the

study. The researcher provided details including materials and process of data collection

including how data collected will be implemented in the study.






CHAPTER IV

Analysis of Data

Team

The Action Research Team consists of the blue team at Hillcrest School: ELA

teacher, Ashley Sutherland, ELA teacher, Andrea Lewis, and science teacher, Andrea

Butzler. These teachers were chosen to be part of the team because they are 6th grade

teachers at Hillcrest School and members of the blue team. This is a collaborative

teaching team that works with the same group of students.

Agenda and Minutes

10-8-2013 Introduce Project

o Andrea Butzler introduced her proposed project. o During 1st semester, students on the Blue Team will write a narrative in

ELA class.o Scoring guides will be collected and given to Butzler for use in this study. o Writing strategies will be taught in both the ELA and science classrooms

throughout 1st and 2nd semester. o The primary focus of the study is to assess student motivation in

relationship to student performance. Plan to collect Data

o ELA teachers will give copies of scoring guides to Butzler upon the completion of the narrative writing piece in ELA class.

o Butzler will survey all students participating in the study twice (January and March)

o Butzler will collect performance data using a comparable scoring guide (science content specific) to assess performance of writing when technology is incorporated.

2-15-2014 Input Data

o The research team worked to organize survey and performance data. Analyze Data


o The research team analyzed data for student motivation and performance.o The team noticed a lack of motivation to write when technology was not

involved.o Student needs include writing for content and mechanics.

4-15-2014 Complete Project Management Grid

o The Blue team chose to use Edmodo for the upcoming school year.o Research team discussed and then completed project management grid.

Introduction

The researcher conducted a survey of four sixth grade classes at Hillcrest

School in Lebanon, Missouri during second semester of the 2013 – 2014 school years.

Ninety-three students were surveyed, 48 girls and 45 boys. The researcher asked students

to order their preference for five different writing mediums with 1 being the least

preferred method of writing and 5 being the most preferred method of writing. Students

also were asked to rate their motivation to write in science class on a 1-10 scale. Students

were surveyed twice, once in January and once in April to see if writing preferences had

changed once students were introduced to the programs included in the survey. The

survey did not question student familiarity of the programs listed. The research team

hypothesized that with some instruction in each of the programs student preference may

change. During the months of February and March students were given the opportunity

to learn one or more of the programs and then students were surveyed again in April.

The post-survey given in April was similar to the post-survey given in January. During

the post-survey students were asked to rate their motivation to write in science class with

technology on a 1-10 scale. See the Appendix for a sample of the surveys completed.


Student performance data was collected in the English Language Arts (ELA) and

Science classrooms. This data was collected on a summative project that included

writing skills such as organization and mechanics as a graded criterion. The scoring

rubrics used also scored students in the content areas of science and social studies. See

the appendix sample of the scoring guides used to assess student performance. This

chapter seeks to analyze the data collected. Charts and graphs are included about student

writing preferences and performance. Written summaries identifying relationships and

themes are also included.

Table 1: Student Motivation to Write in Science Class shows the results of the

writing preferences survey. Data was collected in a pre-survey during January 2013.

Twenty-eight percent of students rated their motivation to write in the science classroom

at a 9 or 10 on a scale of 1-10, with 1 being very uninterested and 10 being very

interested. Forty percent of students voiced some lack of motivation by answering a 1, 2,

3, or 4 to the same question. Data from the post-survey shown in Table 2: Student

Motivation to Write in Science Class using technology indicated a slight increase in the

boy’s motivation to write with technology, after a variety of technology had been used to

complete the final summative project. Twenty-four percent of boys responded that they

were either somewhat motivated or highly motivated to write in science class using

technology compared to the thirty-five percent of boys that responded in the pre-survey

that they were somewhat or highly motivated to write. Motivation increased among

female students as well when comparing motivation to write with technology and

motivation to write without technology.


Motivation LevelNumber of Students

Male Students

Female Students

Unmotivated (1) 15 10 5Somewhat Unmotivated (2-4) 22 12 10

Neutral (5) 13 5 8Somewhat Motivated (6-8) 14 5 9

Highly Motivated (9-10) 26 11 15

Table 1: Student Motivation to Write in Science Class

Motivation Level Number of Students

Male Students

Female Students

Unmotivated (1) 9 7 2Somewhat Unmotivated (2-4) 18 11 7

Neutral (5) 12 3 9Somewhat Motivated (6-8) 23 8 15

Highly Motivated (9-10) 31 16 15

Table 2: Student Motivation to Write in Science Class with Technology

The majority of students that voiced a reluctance to write were boys. Lack of

motivation to write in science class was voiced more by male students. The data from

table 1 is shown in Graph 1 in a circle graph that compares boys and girls that are

unmotivated or somewhat unmotivated to write. Fifty-nine percent of students that rated

their motivation level at a 4 or below were boys compared to 41% girls.


In addition, to rating their motivation to write students were asked to rank

teacher-chosen programs in order of their preference for using these programs to write

and demonstrate understanding of a topic or skill. Students were asked to rate five

different programs that could be used to demonstrate understanding of a topic. Students

ordered each program sequentially with 1 being the most preferred writing method and 5

being the least preferred writing medium. Graph 2: Most Preferred Writing Medium

(Pre-Survey) shows that a majority of students prefer to use some sort of technology

when completing a project to demonstrate understanding of a topic or skill. Seventy-

nine percent of students: 86% of boys and 72% of girls, prefer to use some kind of

technology to complete a project or piece of writing. The boys were more interested in

Graph 2: Most Preferred Writing Medium (Pre-Survey)

programs usch as Animoto and Go Animate which the girls were more interested in

Powerpoint and Prezi. Following the pre-survey students were given instruction and the

opportunity to one or more of the programs from the survey. The post-survey data

showed changes in what student said was their most-preferred writing medium compared


to the pre-survey. Graph 3: Most Preferred Writing Medium shows that more students

now prefer using programs such as Go Animate, Powerpoint, Prezi, and Animoto.

Graph 3: Most Preferred Writing Medium (Post-Survey)

In ELA class, students were assigned the task of completing a personal narrative

to demonstrate understanding of social studies content. Students used a combination of

pencil/paper and Microsoft Word to create revise drafts of their narrative writing, and

used Microsoft word to publish their final writing pieces. The research team scored each

student’s writing using the scoring guide found in the appendix. A summary of student

performance can be found below.

Table 3 displays the pre-assessment data and shows the average score for all

students in each criteria skill that was assessed during this writing task. The table also

includes male and female subgroups. Graph 3 gives a pictorial representation of the data.

A slight discrepancy can be seen been the female performance and the male performance

in the areas of dialogue, organization, content, and mechanics. This data shows student


needs in the area of mechanics which includes sentence structure, grammar, punctuation,

and spelling as well as organization of their writing.

Table 3 Writing Performance Score on Pre-AssessmentCriteria Average Score Boys Girls Points Possible

Point of View 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00Dialogue 3.62 3.51 3.73 5.00

Organization 4.05 4.09 4.02 5.00Organization 3.99 3.93 4.04 5.00

Content 4.05 3.84 4.25 5.00Mechanics 1.33 1.24 1.42 2.00

Graph 3: Writing Performance Score on Pre-Assessment

After the initial data was collected including the writing preferences survey and

performance data. The research team met to discuss and identify student needs and plan

science instruction to include research and writing skills. Following instruction in


science which included a mini-lesson on research techniques, writing complete sentences,

and citing sources; students completed a technological project which required them to

research an invention or scientist and produce a project that they would present to the

class. Students had the option to produce their final project using paper/pencil, Microsoft

word, Prezi, PowerPoint, Animoto, or Go Animate. These projects were chosen by the

research team because they all require the students to either write or type their

information.

Table 4: Project Choices shows how many students chose each of the available

project mediums. Go Animate was a popular choice among both boys and girls, with

over 55% of boys and 33% of girls choosing to create a video skit using dialogue. It was

also noticed that although 21 students stated that their most preferred writing medium

was paper/pencil during the pre-survey, no students chose to use paper/pencil to produce

their project.

Table 4: Project ChoicesChoice of Project Number of Boys Number of Girls Total

Paper/Pencil or Word Document 0 0 0Prezi 7 12 19

PowerPoint 9 14 23Animoto 4 6 10

Go Animate 25 16 41

Table 5: Writing Performance Score on Post-Assessment shows the average score

of students for each criterion included on the post-assessment scoring guide. Graph 4:

Writing Performance on Post-Assessment shows how performance of boys and girls

compares to each other. In both table and graph 5, it is evident that students needs

include the areas of mechanics and content. Instruction in the science and ELA


classrooms should focus on strategies that students can use to both read and write for

content information as well as the mechanical structures of writing.

Table 5: Writing Performance Score on Post-AssessmentCriteria Average Score Boys Girls Points PossibleContent 4.23 4.18 4.44 5.00Content 4.36 4.54 4.25 5.00Content 3.67 3.54 3.88 5.00Content 3.78 3.67 3.87 5.00

Organization 1.90 1.67 2.07 2.00Presentation 1.80 1.89 1.75 2.00

Citation 1.67 1.42 1.87 2.00Mechanics 1.24 1.16 1.34 2.00

Graph 4: Writing Performance Score on Post-Assessment

Student survey data showed an increase in motivation to write when using

technology. Student performance data showed a need in the areas of mechanics and

writing for content. Edmodo is a web-based free tool that allows teachers to invite


students to participate in an online version of the classroom. The literature review spoke

of a difference in student motivation and performance when writing was authentic.

Edmodo will offer this authentic writing by allowing students to blog and participate in

online discussion board posts. All students and their parents will be invited to participate

which is increase the audience and authenticity of the writing.


Chapter V

Presentation of Project

Objective Steps Person Responsible

Resources Needed

Timeline Budget

Students will participate in authentic writing activities in ELA, Science, Math, and Social Studies.

1. Set up teacher Edmodo account.2. Send home Edmodo information to parents.3. Collect parental permission for students to use Edmodo.4. Provide password information to parents and administrator.

Blue Team eMINTs Teachers (Sutherland, Goans, Butzler)

Time

Edmodo Information sheet and permission slip

Computerw/internet

1st semester None – Paper, ink, and computer resources already budgeted. Edmodo is free to teachers and students.

Incorporate CCSS literacy standards into science and social studies instruction.

1. Review literacy standards.2. Plan for mini lessons to increase performance in weak areas in writing.3. Implement writing strategies and CCSS into the science classroom,.

Science teacher Time

Current Curriculum

GLE’s

CCSS

1st and 2nd semester

Paper, ink, and computer resources already budgeted.

$200 - CCSS teacher resources to assist in implementing literacy standards in the science classroom.


Objective Steps Person Responsible

Resources Needed

Timeline Budget

Students will participate in authentic writing activities in ELA, Science, Math, and Social Studies.

1. Instruct students on how to use the discussion board/blogging feature of Edmodo.2. Assign discussion board posts questions.3. Moderate student discussions.4. Allow students to comment on each other’s post.5. Invite parents to view/comment on their child’s posts.

Blue Team eMINTs Teachers (Sutherland, Goans, Butzler)

Time

Computerw/internet

1st and 2nd Semester

None – Paper, ink, and computer resources already budgeted. Edmodo is free to teachers and students.


Appendix A

Writing Preferences Survey

Homeroom teacher: ________________________________________________

Circle one: male female

Rank the following methods for writing in order from 1-5 to show your preference for how you like or would like to publish a piece of writing. If you are not familiar with the writing method, read the description before ranking.

1 = most preferred writing medium5 = least preferred writing medium.

YOU MAY ONLY USE EACH NUMBER ONCE!

______ Pencil/paper - (Writing assignment is handwritten. All drafts are completed with paper and pencil).

______ Microsoft Word - (Student types writing assignment and saves document so that multiple drafts may be created during revision).

______ Powerpoint or Prezi – (Student presents written information in the form of a presentation using visual aids and animations.)

______Edmodo – (Student’s blog ideas and understanding of a subject to a real life audience.)

______ Go Animate/Animoto (Online video maker turns pictures, text, and/or music into a video.)

Using a 1-10 scale, with 10 being very interested and 1 being very uninterested,

how willing are you to complete a project involving writing in science class?

_________


Appendix B

Narrative Writing Rubric

5 Points 4 Points 3 Point 2 Points 1 PointVoice: Point of View

Exemplary use of 1st person point of view

1st person point of view used accurately with 2 or less mistakes

1st person point of view used accurately most of the time

Very little evidence of 1st person point of view

No evidence of point of view

Voice: Dialogue

4 Examples of dialogue meeting all criteria

3 Examples of dialogue meeting criteria with no more than 2 mistakes

2 Examples of dialogue meeting criteria with 3-4 mistakes

1 Example of dialogue with 5 or more mistakes

No examples of dialogue

Organization: Beginning and End

Effective, appropriate lead

Natural, thoughtful ending

Clear lead Clear but

unsatisfying ending

Predictable lead

Forced ending

Purpose of lead unclear

Ineffective ending

No real lead

No real conclusion

Organization: Body of Story

Excellent use of sequence and transition words

Logical, well-paced details

Good use of sequence and transition words

Reasonably well-paced details

Common sequence and transition words

Canned structure

Connections between ideas only implied

Illogical structure

Random thoughts with no connections

No sense of order or logic

Content-Area Facts Support Topic

Four content-area facts to support topic

Three content-area facts to support topic

Two content-area facts to support topic citation

One content-area facts to support social role with citation

No content-area facts to support social role with citation

Non-Negotiable

Non-Negotiable’s are met

Non-Negotiable’s are not met

Total Score ________/27 ______%

Appendix C


CATEGORY 4 3 2 1 0Introduction of Inventor or Scientist

Gives a detailed introduction of the inventor or scientist, including at least 3 noteworthy facts. Also, includes difficulties that this inventor/scientist faced during their lifetime that may have influenced their invention/discovery.

Gives a satisfactory introduction of the inventor or scientist, including at least 3 noteworthy facts.

Gives an introduction of the inventor or scientist, including at least 2 noteworthy fact.

Gives an introduction of the inventor or scientist, including at least 1 noteworthy fact.

This component is missing.

Description of Inventor or Scientific Discovery

Gives a detailed description of the invention or scientific discovery, including at least 3 noteworthy facts. Also, includes the benefits and drawbacks associated with this invention or discovery.

Gives a satisfactory description of the invention or discovery, including at least 3 noteworthy facts.

Gives a satisfactory description of the invention or discovery, including at least 2 noteworthy fact.

Gives a satisfactory description of invention or discovery is including at least 1 noteworthy fact.


Society's Influence

Explains in detail how society had an effect on this invention or discovery. Also includes any inventions or discoveries

that led up to this one.

Explains in detail how society had an effect on this invention or discovery.

Explains how society society's influence of invention or discovery but explanation lacks some details.

Explains how society society's influence of invention or discovery but explanation lacks major details.


Contributions to Science, Technology, and Human Activity

Explains in detail why the invention or discovery is

Explains in detail why the invention or discovery is

Includes why the invention or discovery is important to

Includes why the invention or discovery is important to



important to Science, Technology, and Human Activity. Fully supports explanation with details of how modern life has advanced because of this invention or discovery. May also include what other discoveries were made possible because of this.

important to Science, Technology, and Human Activity. Fully supports explanation with details of how modern life has advanced because of this invention or discovery.

Science, Technology, and Human Activity. Offers an explanation but lacks major details.

Science, Technology, and Human Activity. Offers not explanation or explanation lacks major details.

Category 4 3 2 1 0


Organization

Content is well organized using headings or bulleted lists.

There was no clear or logical organizational structure, just lots of facts.

Presentation

Presentation is strong. Presenters are knowledgeable of the topic and maintain eye contact with the audience.

Presenter lacks knowledge of the topic. Does not maintain eye contact and/or reads from notes for the majority of presentation.

Sources A list of resources used is included.

A list of resources used is not included.

Mechanics No grammar, spelling, or punctuation errors.

Various errors in grammar, spelling, and/or punctuation.


References

Beach, R. (2012). Constructing Digital Learning Commons in the Literacy Classroom.

Journal Of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 55(5), 448-451.

Cervetti, G., & Pearson, P. (2012). Reading, Writing, and Thinking Like a Scientist.

Journal Of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 55(7), 580-586.

Davis, A., & McGrail, E. (2009). "Proof-Revising" With Podcasting: Keeping Readers in

Mind as Students Listen To and Rethink Their Writing. Reading Teacher, 62(6),

522-529.

Freidus, H. (2010). Find the Passion in Teaching and Learning: Embedding literacy skills

in content-rich curriculum. The New Educator, 6, 181-195.

Lapp, D., Shea, A., & Wolsey, T. (2011). Blogging and Audience Awareness. Journal Of

Education, 191(1), 33-44.

Magnifico, A. (2010). Writing for Whom? Cognition, Motivation, and a Writer's

Audience. Educational Psychologist, 45(3), 167-184.

Montelongo, J. A., & Herter, R. J. (2010). Using Technology to Support Expository

Reading and Writing in Science Classes. Science Activities, 47(3), 89-102.


Morgan, W., Fraga, D., & Macauley, W. J. (2011). An Integrated Approach to Improve

the Scientific Writing of Introductory Biology Students. American Biology

Teacher, 73(3), 149-153.

Pearson, P.D., Moje, E., & Greenleaf, C. (2010). Literacy and Science: Each in the

Service of the Other. Science, 328(1), 459-463.

Subramaniam, K. (2010). Integrated writing frams into inquiry-based instruction. Science

Educator, 19(2), 31-34.

Yule, J. V., William, W. C., & Young, N. L. (2010). Emphasizing the “Literacy” in

“Scientific Literacy”: A concise blueprint for integrating writing into biology

classes. Scientific Literacy, 36(2), 15-21.

Yore, L. D., Florence, M. K., Pearson, T. W., & Weaver, A. J. (2006). Written Discourse

in Scientific Communities: A conversation with two scientists about their views

of science, use of language, role of writing in doing science, and compatibility

between their epistemic views and language. International Journal of Science

Education, 28(2/3), 109-141.

chapter 1 - andrea butzler's principal internship...

Documents