Teachers’ Use and Modification of Genre-based Reading and Writing Strategies After the Completion of Experimental Research Studies

Strategy Instruction on Writing

Strategy instruction in writing is an approach that promotes the systematic instruction of cognitive strategies (e.g., strategies for planning) (Graham, et al., 2016; Graham, 2006; MacArthur, 2011) through direct explanations of tasks and processes. In strategy instruction researchers and practitioners respond to the following questions: What strategies we teach? How do we teach them? and How we support independence? (MacArthur, 2011) These guiding questions address the application of evidence-based practices for the instruction of cognitively demanding tasks (e.g., evaluation to revise), the use of pedagogically sound methodologies (e.g., modeling), and the use of self-regulatory strategies (e.g., goal-setting) (MacArthur, 2011; Philippakos & MacArthur, 2020; Philippakos; Traga Philippakos, 2020b). When strategy instruction is combined with self-regulation, students learn not only how to respond to cognitively demanding tasks but also how to metacognitively identify their goals, monitor their progress, and reflect on their performance (Bruning & Horn, 2000; Harris & Graham, 2009; Harris, et al., 2011).

An effective model of strategy instruction is the Self-Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD) approach with over 40 studies within the United States and across the globe (Graham, 2006; Graham & Perin, 2007a, 2017b; Graham, et al., 2013; Santangelo, et al., (2016). Self-regulated strategy development includes six stages of instruction that support students’ writing performance and ability to complete writing tasks without feeling overwhelmed. Step 1: Develop background knowledge; Step 2: Discus it; Step 3: Model it; Step 4: Memorize it; Step 5: Support it; and Step 6: Support Independence (Graham & Harris, 2005; Harris & Graham, 2009). The steps are designed to provide multiple levels of support to students prior to them attempting to independently use a strategy.

Genre-Based Strategy Instruction

Genre-based strategy instruction emphasizes instruction on genre as this relates to text structure, syntax, and linguistics (McCutchen, 1986, 1988). The approach draws from SRSD as well as on research on reading and writing connections, on evaluation, on use of coping models, and on application of genre elements for planning and revision. Specifically, the instructional approach draws from research by Englert and colleagues (Englert et al., 1988, 1991) on the use of genre elements to develop ideas for planning and to evaluate to revise. Also, it draws from work on genres considering their linguistic and syntactic components as well as their organizational elements (McCutchen, 1986; Martin, 2009; Martin & Rose, 2012). Further, this work promotes reading and writing connections (Philippakos and Zoi, 2021) since reading and writing draw from the same “pool” of knowledge (Graham et al., 2016; Tierney & Shanahan, 1991). The approach connects writing and reading through notetaking for summarizing and critical rereading for evaluation (Philippakos; Traga Philippakos). Lessons emphasize such critical rereading for evaluation and meaning making using genre-specific criteria at the introduction of a unit and in preparation for peer review (Philippakos, 2017; Philippakos & MacArthur, 2016a, 2016b). Overall, there is a gradual release of responsibility from the teacher to students.

In the early grades (K to 2), instruction emphasizes dialogic interactions. For instance, when working on opinion writing, teachers engage students in collaborative reasoning and dialogic argumentation (Anderson et al., 2001). Teachers point out the linguistic and syntactic aspects of a genre (e.g., statement of opinion in opinion writing) and engage with students in an oral argument with the book’s character (e.g., The Pigeon Goes to School by Mo Willems). In this process, teachers model how to provide oral responses using sentence frames and scaffold students’ responses before they engage in writing using those same sentence frames (see Traga Philippakos & MacArthur, 2020; Philippakos, 2017).

Using design-based research methods, we developed instructional units (Philippakos & MacArthur, 2020; Philippakos et al., 2015; Traga Philippakos et al., 2018a) that are based on genre-based strategy instruction with self-regulation and on dialogic pedagogy principles. These units were refined with teacher and student feedback and analysis of students’ written responses. Finally, those instructional units were evaluated in experimental studies to examine the effects of this approach when used with primary students and their teachers. Results in these latter studies showed that students who used genre-based instruction, wrote papers of better quality compared to controls (Traga Philippakos, 2020, 2020b, Traga Philippakos et al., 2018a, 2018b; Traga Philippakos & MacArthur, 2020). Teachers also positively commented on the approach, on students’ growth, and on their own understanding about writing.

Current Study and Research Questions

The purpose of this current work was to follow-up with teachers who had participated in experimental studies to examine how they used the strategies and what modifications they had made (and why). It is anticipated that participants will use strategies and will adapt them to their needs. Thus, it is anticipated that even with a structured approach, teachers will make instructional adaptations. The interest in this work was to better understand what changes from the original study protocol and pedagogical adaptations teachers made (a) to consider revisions to the PD model for the instruction and (b) to examine whether those modifications improve the instruction. No other study thus far had attempted to follow teacher practitioners. A study conducted with adult postsecondary students followed up with students to examine their adaptations (Traga Philippakos, et al., 2018b), but no such work has been done with classroom teachers.

The research questions for this investigation were: (a) What are current teachers’ practices and how closely do they align with the previously taught principles of instruction? and (b) What modifications teachers made and what were the reasons for those?

Instructional Practice

Lessons in genre-based strategy instruction follow an instructional sequence called, Strategy for Teaching Strategies (STS; Philippakos, et al., 2015) that supports teachers’ gradual release of responsibility and strives to support them in developing their own genre-based lessons The STS components are:

• Introduction to the writing purpose: Teachers discuss with students the purposes of writing (and reading) and present those in a chart that display a pie that includes three sections: Persuade, Inform, Entertain, or Convey Experience (PIECE). Teachers introduce the specific purpose that will be their instructional focus (Philippakos et al, 2018).

The Strategy for Teaching Strategies (STS) for the primary grades (Philippakos & MacArthur, 2020) guides teachers to provide extensive modeling/collaborative practice for students’ oral language and sentence development. Also, teachers in Kindergarten and in Grade 1 are encouraged to model evaluation, ask students to reread their work and examine clarity for readers but not to engage in structured peer review in which students read their partner’s paper and use a rubric to evaluate it. This recommendation is provided because handwriting can inhibit a paper’s readability. The emphasis is on learners to listen to each other’s work, examine clarity of ideas, and provide comments without numerical values.

Participants and Setting

Participants were three classroom teachers who had participated in two experimental studies (n = 3 female) and were in two sites. Initially, five teachers were approached who were participants (three on Site A and two on Site B). The three teachers from Site A were part of a study on genre-based procedural writing with first graders (Traga Philippakos, 2019a) and the two teachers from Site B had participated in a study on genre-based opinion writing with second graders (Traga Philippakos & MacArthur, 2020). Both studies included a timeframe of two-weeks of instruction on genre-based writing provided by these classroom teachers. In the procedural study with first graders, teachers instructed students through systematic, strategy instruction principles and by incorporating dramatization in planning and revision. In the study with second graders, teachers provided systematic instruction using principles of genre-based instruction and collaborative reasoning/dialogic argumentation. Thus, students practiced orally how to state their opinion, reasons, and evidence before they saw the teacher model the writing process. Across both studies, students of the treatment outperformed their control peers. Teachers at the completion of the studies had stated their increased confidence to teach writing and had shared positive comments about the instructional components and the professional development.

On Site A, after a year of the completion of the experimental study, two out of the three teachers had left the school and the one who was still on site was asked by the principal to focus on responses to reading, which was part of a reading program. Therefore, when she was contacted, she explained that she no longer taught writing as a process. One of the teachers who had left from Site A, was teaching in a nearby school that had adopted genre-based instruction and was willing to share her current practices. The other two participants were in a suburban area of a district located Southeast of the United Stated and had participated in a research project with second graders that examined the effects of collaborative argumentation on their writing quality. Those two teachers from site A were still in the same grade and were willing to participate in this work. All teachers across both sites had received instruction and coaching on genre-based writing and had access to materials for all genres after the completion of the research collaboration.

Teacher A from Site A had more than 20 years of teaching experience. She had taught K and Grade 1 for most of her career and had a bachelor’s degree in early childhood education, a special education endorsement, a reading endorsement, and a gifted endorsement.

Teacher B had a bachelor’s degree in literacy education and a master’s in curriculum and instruction. She had participated in writing workshops for the Writing Project and had been appointed as the lead teacher for second grade.

Teacher C had less than 5 years of teaching experience, bachelor’s degree in literacy and was working on her master’s in math education. She had been identified by her peers as very knowledgeable in mathematics and had taken the role of the “leader” on the curriculum on mathematics.

Data Sources and Analysis

Case study principles (Merriam, 1988; 1998; Stake, 1995) were utilized to better understand if participants continued to use the taught practices, if they modified them, and what modifications they made. In this work, the goal was not to simply count the components of instruction that were present in teachers’ practice but rather to gain insight in their use of those practices in their everyday classroom experiences. Teachers already had established rapport with the researcher which allowed them to be frank in their responses and explanations of the factors that supported or inhibited their genre-based reading and writing instruction.

Each teacher was asked to participate in a phone interview. Teachers’ interviews were conducted using a structured protocol that asked them to share their overall impression and thoughts about the instructional approach, discuss components that they had found to be more effective for them and their students, share challenges they faced, comment on modifications they had made and why, and share whether they had expanded the use of specific pedagogical approaches across the curriculum, and if they had then how. Interviews ranged from 20 to 45 min depending on each participant’s experience and talking points.

The interviews were transcribed, and transcriptions were cross checked for accuracy by a graduate student who was unaware of the purposes of this project. Interviews were analyzed by examining patterns in responses and emersion of themes per question (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). For instance, when teachers were asked to explain how they planned, they either referred to the components of instruction that were part of the program or commented on some of them. The researcher identified the themes and an independent assistant reviewed and confirmed them. The researcher then summarized the information per response and participant.

Teachers were also observed using video. The purpose of the video was to examine implementation of the approach and also to examine modifications. The video was used as a second data point that confirmed the information each teacher shared in the interview. The researcher examined the video against the STS and lesson components and an assistant independently watched the same videos and completed the form to examine agreement. The interobserver reliability was .96. Teacher A taught a lesson on story writing and Teachers B and C taught lessons on report writing. Even though the genres teachers taught were not the genres they had worked on during the studies, the STS was the same. Teacher A taught the introduction to the genre of story, conducted a read aloud, and summarized the book using the story elements. This work was collected in two videos of 30 min each. Teachers B and C had already taught the modeling and collaborative practice to report writing and were at the stage of guided practice. They shared their videos of review for the genre and of guided practice. The length of each video was for 30–40 min, and each teacher shared two. Teachers B and C were also asked to share two videos on mathematics (2 days) as they shared that they had applied the approach in problem-solving. Each video lasted for 40 min.

Teachers’ Interview and Their Overall Responses

All three teachers provided positive comments about the instructional approach and all shared that they still followed it. Teachers expressed their enthusiasm about the results with Teacher A from Site A saying, “It works for my kids. You know they come in and they do not know how to write a word and by the end of the year they write five sentences independently.”

Most Effective Components

Teachers varied in their responses about what they found most effective. Teacher A from Site A found the tasks analysis that was used in both reading and writing and examined the Form, Topic/Title for a book, Audience, Author, Purpose and Genre most effective. In addition, she found the editing process that was guided through the use of the mnemonic SCIPS very useful. As she explained, “It [Task Analysis] teaches them once they have a paper to know how to write; they have the tools to be writers and SCIPS helps them to go back and check. Do they have Spelling, Capitalization, Punctuation, Indentation?”

Teacher B commented on the repetition across genres as all genres were taught using the STS and had a predictable organization in their layout. Further, Teacher B commented on the instructional consistency and on the ways that the writing process and strategies were introduced to students and supported them in developing confidence.

I feel the constant repetition starts imprinting [the information] in their brain. I see that. […] They can go back in that [brain] file cabinet and do it. It is the repetition of the whole program. And this is the beauty of this. You know sometimes when we taught narrative and informative, we don’t make the connection. We never really said, there is a Beginning, Middle, and End. We assumed kids will understand that. We never explained to them, and we do say, ‘You need a topic sentence’ but I don't think they saw that. This work brings kids to an understanding and seeing all these connections and instead of being afraid to write a narrative, you have written something similar, you have a pattern, you have a procedure in your brain. They love the FTAAP and telling you the FTAAP and I think it is that certainty. There is not a feeling of uncertainty that children have sometimes because our programs don’t connect. […] This repetition helps them be confident and comfortable. It is that predictability that children need. But it is not predictable like oh, this is so easy. It is predictable to give them the confidence to do the task.

Teacher C from Cite B also explained that the repetition and consistency of the instructional approach were such that they supported students and their writing. Therefore, she found most effective the, “Consistency and repetition of the elements within the genre; the writing strategy ladder gives the guide for the whole process ; makes it stand out when you look at it.”

All teachers commented on the consistent presentation of genres through STS. Teachers B and C, who taught second grade, did not comment as much on SCIPS. Teacher A who was in Kindergarten and was teaching the first expectations of mechanics and usage, emphasized editing but also recognized the value of the rhetorical analysis (FTAAP) that guided the analysis of an assignment and of a book to determine how to plan or how to take notes and make meaning.

Comments on Writing Process

Teacher A from Site A identified the value of representing the writing process as a ladder that visually represented the flexible movement of the writer up and down the steps. That visual representation of the writing process helped the presentation of the specific cognitive tasks and of the strategies. As Teacher A explained, It is helpful for me because it gives me a visual to hang on. For example, if I am not with them, they know what the FTAAP stands for. Not as much in kindergarten because they are still learning this, but in first grade they really start to memorize it and remember it well. In kindergarten, they know there are several parts in FTAAP and they need to go through the steps of the ladder when they write. Regarding the writing strategy that represented the flexible transition across steps and stages Teacher B explained,

[it is] a good way to guide students and gives them a way to organize their thinking to see what they have to do. And having the visual of it [helps] … [They think] I have to take the next step. And we kind of embedded that they go through the steps like when they go through steps for problem solving.

Teacher B in her explanation indicated that writing is a challenging cognitive task (Harris & Graham, 1999), and students used the writing strategy ladder as a way to navigate through the challenges of the writing process to effectively problem solve. In this case, problem solving did not involve reaching a correct answer but conveying meaning to the reader.

Similarly, Teacher C from Site B explained that the process of using the writing strategy ladder functioned as a guide to problem solve and complete the writing tasks; therefore, it assisted students with the management of their time and their effort. As she shared,

It is easier for them to write compared to how it was we were using another approach. The way it is laid out and the way we use the GO [Graphic Organizer] and they have these clear concise steps that they have to use to get to the final product. I think they like going through it [thinking] ‘no matter what type of genre I am writing I know I will have to plan, and I know I will have to write and to evaluate to revise and to edit and to be ready to share.’ That’s something that makes writing not so scary because they have a way to get their ideas onto the paper.

Evaluation to Revise

Regarding the evaluation process, all teachers referred to it and some commented overall on its function or on its components. Teacher A from Site A explained that the rubric was helpful for Grade 1 students, whom she taught during the study she participated in and was taught to use it, but she did not use it with her Kindergarten students. As she said, “I like the evaluation for First grade, but in Kindergarten I do not use it as much. I do go back, read, and ask, ‘Does this make sense,’ but I don’t really do the rubric because I lose them.” Even though her reply seems to dismiss the use of evaluation, she explains that she still adheres to meaning and clarity of ideas; however, she does not apply the procedural aspects of the rubric that evaluate the clarity and quality of each genre element.

In reference to the evaluation process, both teachers from Site B noted that it scaffolded students’ process of careful rereading. Teachers once again referred to the repetitive nature of the writing strategy ladder that built the expectation for evaluation and careful rereading across all writings students completed. Teacher B explained,

This is what empowers students. Number one. No one will be always sitting with them. They need to have the skill to understand themselves as learners and writers. Now I don't even have to say anything to them. They ask, ‘Don't I need to evaluate this?” And I say, Ok! Go for it. They are young and can be egocentric, but they have a partner. There is a partnership here and everyone is accountable.

Teacher C from that same site also explained,

They have seen [the elements] at planning and have seen it at writing and is for them like a check point where they can see well, ‘Did I do that?’ When you ask them to look back into their work, they do not know what they are looking for, but now having the same elements [for planning and revision] it gives them a direct way about how to revise their paper. They own what they are writing.

Editing with SCIPS

Teachers were also positive about the use of the acronym SCIPS that referred to Spelling, Capitalization, Indentation, Punctuation, and Sentences and was used at the editing stage of the writing process (Traga Philippakos, 2019b; Philippakos & MacArthur, 2020; Philippakos, et al., 2015). Teacher A from Site A, who had also referred to SCIPS earlier in her comments on the writing process, was able to further explain the use of this editing mnemonic,

I am using SCIPS every time, and every time I do a dictation sentence that we do every day I will use the SCIPS strategy for them to go back and check their sentences. And we made a SCIPS chart and use it for everything we write.

Teacher B also commented on SCIPS and how she engaged students in carefully rereading their papers and looking at their sentences. She explained that the goal was not just to look for spelling errors but to examine the ways that sentences connected with one another and ideas were presented for readers.

They know they have to use SCIPS and use it in everything they write. They will use the sentence starters, and let me tell you, even the most reluctant ones will write. They read the sentences and then go through each one of the parts [of SCIPS] and check them, but they always check ok, ‘does it make sense with what I said so far?’

Similarly, teacher C from Site B commented on the use of SCIPS and how it had become a tool for students to examine the structure of their sentences and also an additional reason for them to reread their work and closely review the clarity of their sentences.

I think my class has really used the parts of the sentences and the sentence starters. This is something they emphasized with each other and then [with] the indentation of paragraphs they have this idea when a new thought should create a new paragraph. And then for the punctuation with the quotation marks and the commas. It added to the grammar element that we did not have with the other approach. Spelling is still something we are working, but it is a good guide for them to read back their paper and look for specific things we have taught them.

Challenges and Modifications

When teachers were asked about changes they made in their instruction, they all shared that the primary challenge they faced was time and ways to support their students’ needs. Therefore, modifications were on instructional time. Teacher A, who was teaching Kindergarten, explained that when she entered Kindergarten she focused on word and sentence writing in order to support students’ understanding of usage and mechanics. However, she continued to model the writing process and make visible to students the process of planning, drafting, evaluating to revise (by asking if the writing made sense), and editing by using SCIPS. In this modeling, she still utilized thinking out loud and explaining the use of the strategy ladder.

No [changes], but you know with Kindergarten we begin with Brainstorming and they draw a picture, and they label it, and we begin with sentences. But that is in Kindergarten because you need to teach them how to form words.

The main modification for the two teachers from Site B was also time as they devoted more time to the drafting of a paper and to the transition from the Graphic Organizer (GO) to the draft. Further, Teacher B from Site B explained that a modification she and her colleagues had made was to make the font of the Brainstorm and Graphic Organizers (GO) larger, and the space of the rows on the GO wider for students to have more space to write.

Challenges with no Modifications

Teacher B shared a challenge that she and Teacher C also faced, but did not provide a modification for it, and this challenge was not mentioned by Teacher C when the researcher asked. Teacher B explained that SCIPS (the editing acronym used) was a challenge for students to apply as the incoming second graders struggled phonetically, and they needed more support on phonics prior to working on sentence structure, indentation of paragraphs, and punctuation. Teacher B commented,

As we are working on our curriculum I would say that this [SCIPS] is what we need to work on more. But I will also say, too, that our kids don’t have strong phonetic base coming from first grade. I do not know if the word study that they got has been consistent in classrooms. So, it is somewhat unfair to say that SCIPS is weak because what they come up with is already all over the place.

The same teacher also commented on goal-setting challenges. She recognized the value of goal setting for constant reflection and progression, but she also identified the challenge she faced instructionally in supporting students to set goals but mostly to revisit those goals. For this she requested additional guidance to further support students and her process of instructional goal setting. As she explained,

Do we always set goals for ourselves, and how we are going to improve? I don’t know it is as thorough. We talk about it and we write it, but I don’t know we go back and check, ‘Did you meet your new goal of writing?’ I think as a teacher I have always struggled about how to go back and help my students set their new goal. I dont think they understand what they are supposed to do about that.

The teacher shared that they did not use journals as much (this suggestion was included in the manuals teachers received at the end of the research collaboration) but recognized that the inclusion of journals would have supported the process of reflection.

Extension to Other Subjects

All teachers independently of their grade level shared that they used the strategies for writing and reading across the curriculum. In the following section the analysis is provided for the specific strategies they mentioned.

Task Analysis Using FTAAP

Teacher A from Site A commented on the use of FTAAP for writing and reading and explained that she used this every time students were conducting a read aloud with her. She did share that mostly the readings were on stories, but she used FTAAP when she worked in other subject areas (e.g., science) and when they analyzed assignments prior to completing a response.

We use the FTAAP every time. Every time. They now know when I read a book and they will start by saying, ‘It is a book with pictures, it is a picture book.’ I always begin with the Form and then work with title and the rest. It helps them better follow… […]. And when we have a question, any question we will do FTAAP in reading, in science, every time.

Responses to Reading

Teacher B from Site B commented positively on the use of the responses to reading as an introduction to opinion writing, which was the unit she had participated in research and explained that this was something they had used in their reading workshop. She shared,

We have been doing this for the whole year. So, we make sure that if there is one opinion question, they are not going to write five paragraphs necessarily, but what we want them to use is the same procedure and to write their opinion and say, ‘From my perspective, ___’ or ‘I think ____’ and then provide their examples. [..] I like it because they are really thinking about their responses.

Teacher C also mirrored her partner’s reply on the use of the approach on responses to reading.

And in the reading responses, we used the same process. We ask, ‘Did you use reasons and evidence to answer the question?’ Like one day we said we will stay inside because it was raining. The next day we could go outside and asked them for reasons and evidence about why we should have indoor recess. And they are going through all of it, and [as a teacher I say,] I am Okay you convinced me, this is what we will do. I think them seeing the power of maybe I do not want to write but if I can think this way and express myself this way, this is really powerful, which I think it is the purpose of this approach.

Use in Mathematics

Both teachers on Site B explained that they collaborated to plan their instruction and used the structure of the evaluation rubric (with the scoring of zero (element absent), one (unclear to reader), two (well-written)) that guided genre-evaluations of well-written and not-so well-written papers and was used for self-evaluation and peer review in mathematics. Specifically, teachers engaged students in careful review of their paper prior to discussing the solution to a problem and their response with a peer. They developed questions that guided students’ problem solving and engaged them in self-evaluation. Both teachers were very proud of this extension and commented on students’ willingness to reread their work and critically examine its clarity. Teacher B explained this extension to mathematics,

“We took the evaluate to revise and put it in the math problem solving. We have steps of the problem solving in math that we kind of used as a stepping stool from our strategy ladder: First you do this, then that. So, when our kids are problem solving, we would introduce it to them and then use it when problem solving. ‘Did I visualize the problem? Did I read and plot what I knew, and what I need to find?’ And then they would score themselves 0-1-2 and they would be thinking about the problem and what they are trying to find. So that is one way.

Teacher C explained that they taught them a strategy, and they learned to monitor through the process of questioning their use of strategy and their own progress,

“They have to explain the process and have to give a score. For each step of the problem solving they had to give a score whether they used it or not to get an answer. Did you label your answer with 0,1, 2? And this is good because some students will answer and will not label their answer or the label does not match what they should be answering. What I like about the evaluation is it gives them time to reflect and ask themselves, ‘Did I complete the task the way I was supposed to” and also, ‘Do I need to go back and make some changes?’ We just did a project on data collection, a graphing data project so we created criteria they had to see if they got that. It was not looking [at elements] as you would do in a written composition, but [they could ask] do I have the elements in my document that make this clear, to understand, and readable to my audience?

Consistent Use of Sentence Frames Across Writing Tasks

Something that all teachers commented on was the use of sentence starters and use of sentence frames in oral language interactions, in discussions about literature, in responses to reading, and in mathematics. They explained that the use of sentence frames scaffolded students’ responses and helped better make those frames part of their way of expression and not only part of a subject’s expectations. Teacher A shared,

“I use them [sentence frames] when I speak, and I expect them to use them when they speak to me even when we are at recess. They will not say, “I think I want to sit on the bench, you know, but they will say, “I would like to sit on a bench because I feel tired.” The starters and structures helped students speak and write better.

Teachers B and C both explained that sentence frames were an expectation for both writing and for speaking. As teacher C shared,

And when they speak and talk about those in the circle, they will be using the same sentence starters they will be using when they are writing their piece, ‘In my opinion; From my perspective,’ They are using those as they are speaking to one another and it moves from their circle to their conversations and to their writing. You know, like, ‘even though I see what -name- is saying, I respectfully disagree. From my perspective.

Teacher Confidence

Teachers commented positively on the collaboration and opportunity to work on writing. Teacher A said,

[Researcher’s name], I will be honest with you. Before we do calendar or anything else we start our day with writing. When that bell rings, I do my writing lesson. I start my day with writing because they love it so much, and because it is most important part of the day. And if they can write, they can read; and if they can read they can write. I appreciate you so much for coming and teaching me how to teach writing. Making me, helping me be a better teacher. [ …] I feel much better.

Teacher C shared that she was more confident in her instruction and also explained that writing as a subject was not something she initially enjoyed, but her affect had changed as a result of this collaboration.

I appreciate the opportunity to use this. I feel much stronger than I did before as a writing teacher. I feel there is more of a guide and students have clearer expectations because you see from the beginning to the end you see the goal. And I think being able to use the mentor text and have that repetition with building blocks on each other, as a teacher I like teaching writing now. It was a subject that I didn’t really enjoy, but this is a fun way of teaching it and students like it.

Teacher B shared that she liked the approach, and commented further on students’ confidence,

For the Cohort that started with this approach, the writing that they are producing is much more thoughtful. It is clear and the content is more; It is interesting, and it really exhibits who they are as writers-better than previous approaches. And when we have conferences and parents come and show them the work they are doing, the parents are even more impressed about what 2^nd graders can say in writing, which is really neat! I definitely see a benefit with students!

Videos of Instruction

The analysis shows that all teachers followed the components of instruction but had elaborated in their explanations and discussions with students about the genres’ use in real life-applications. The lessons were still within 30 min of instruction with teachers in Site B allocating 10 more min since they taught for 45-min segments. Teacher A explained the process of writing, commented on the components of Beginning, Middle, and End, and reminded students that everything they worked on had a Beginning, Middle, and End. Further, the teacher explained the elements of story writing, did the FTAAP analysis, began the reading, and completed the notes and summarization (See Table 1). This was completed in two sessions as in the first session she spent time explaining the genre, its use, and reviewed the Purposes Pie (PIECE of Pie). Her pace was quick and, in her instruction, she engaged students by soliciting their ideas, too, and by engaging them in dramatization (as it is suggested in that unit).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Teacher’s A Video Observation.

Task	Teacher A
Review and discussion about writing as a literacy outcome: Writing in school and in real life Writing purposes PIECE of PIE (Day 1)	Completed as expected with reference to the previous genres of opinion writing and procedural. Students provided responses even before they were asked (e.g., what is procedural writing)
Introduction of and discussion about the genre of story and its purpose (Day 1)	Review of BME for all genres and of the elements of story writing
Introduction to the read aloud FTAAP analysis (Day 2)	Explanation about the FTAAP and how it helps comprehension
Notetaking and summarization (Day 2)	Note taking took place and partial summarization
Review and closure with goals for next day (Day 2)	Review of the elements with a goal for the next day to complete the reading and its summary

Teachers B and C had made several extensions to real life and to books when reviewing the meaning of report writing (See Table 2). Further, they both spent time explaining the meaning of categories and reviewing the sentence frames. Students were at the stage of research. Teacher C commented after the review on the importance of exhausting all information from a book while Teacher B modeled the use of FTAAP for every book with notetaking for each book so students knew the origin of information. Table 2 shows the lessons’ components and those teachers included in their instruction.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 2.

Teachers’ B and C Lesson Observation.

Task	Teacher B	Teacher C
Review and discussion about writing as a literacy outcome: Writing in school and in real life	Completed with a review of the writing strategy ladder and request for students to provide the information for each step (plan, draft, evaluate to revise, edit, and share)	Review of the PIECE of pie and the genres completed thus far
Writing purposes PIECE of PIE (Day 1)
Review of and discussion about the genre of report and its purpose (Day 1)	Review of the components for any paper (Beginning, Middle, End (BME))	Review of BME and of the elements of report writing
	Discussion about the elements-students provided the elements as a group. Review of elements of genre
	*Change—concept instead of category
Guided practice (different group goals) (Day 1)
Introduction to the Read Aloud	Completed as expected	Completed as expected
FTAAP analysis (Day 1)
Note taking and modeling of use of research in planning and drafting. (Started Day 1-ended Day 2)	Completed as expected	Completed as expected
Review	Review of the tasks completed the day before	Review of tasks from day before
		Explanation about a specific category and how to develop sentences
	Discussion and explanation of a category and how to use sentence frames to introduce it in a topic sentence
Explanation about goals in research
		Discussion and explanation about ways to complete the note taking across selected books
Directions for students to complete tasks	Directions were provided and students followed	Directions were provided and students (two_ were asked to repeat those for the group to listen again). Overall, the teacher would stop and repeat or ask students to repeat directions
Ended Day 2
Review and closure with goals for next day	Review of tasks and individual students goals shared	Review of completed tasks, teacher explanation of goals for the next day, students shared with each other their goals for the next day

Overall, teachers included lesson components and engaged in review of sentence frames and of the genre elements. The main difference between teacher B and C was that they both reviewed the information about the genre and purposes, but teacher B also reviewed the strategy ladder in her lesson. Further, teacher B called categories (or main ideas) as Concepts. In both classrooms, though, students provided information promptly and this indicated that the instruction was consistent and systematic (not sporadically provided).

Videos were also collected from teachers B and C on math instruction to examine how they applied the strategies from writing in mathematics. Teachers used the same language on the importance of using strategies when problem solving to avoid confusions. Teachers explained that in the process of problem-solving students needed to read and carefully reread the problem and do a type of FTAAP but for mathematics. In the process of their analysis, they would use the problem’s words to visualize the problem, they would then reread to identify what was known and was unknown, select a strategy to solve it, use another strategy to check themselves (optional), and at the end, self-evaluate using their rubric to confirm that they used all the needed steps and then peer review. Teachers modeled on day 1 how to complete the process to solve one problem, worked with students’ problem solving by following the process as a group, and then students proceeded to solve problems. Students were also asked to self-evaluate using their checklist. The design of the checklist mirrored the design of the writing rubric that included the genre elements, linguistic and syntactic characteristics of that genre, and assigned scores of 0 for absent, 1 for present but unclear, and 2 for present and clear. In the case of mathematics, teachers had included the following criteria:

1. Read the problem and visualize it.

Label the answer

On day 2, teachers reviewed the process and then asked students to self-evaluate and then work on peer review. Across all tasks, students were attentive and repeated or explained to whole or small groups the process and strategies they needed to complete.

Limitations and Future Research

There are several limitations that should be noted. First, the study included only three teachers who were part of two experimental studies. Considering the wealth of studies on strategy instruction (Graham, et al., 2016), it is of interest to examine if teachers continue to use the taught strategies, how they use them, and what factors contribute to their continuous use of those evidence-based approaches or in their discontinuance. Therefore, future research could examine teachers’ applications and modifications across a larger number of experimental studies. An additional limitation is that in this work, even though student samples were collected as representative of students’ work (n = 27 samples across three teachers), they were not further analyzed as they could not be used to draw conclusions on quality. Future research could coordinate the collection of students’ works and its analysis in accordance with observations of teachers’ instruction, and to teacher and student interviews.