1

STUDENT ATTITUDES AND PROCESS-ORIENTED WRITING

Action Research Brief

Relationships Between Student Attitudes about Writing, Process-Oriented Writing, and

Student Writing Quality

Zena Hatchman

June 19, 2022

Sacramento State University, in fulfillment of the Master of Arts in Curriculum and Instruction
2

STUDENT ATTITUDES AND PROCESS-ORIENTED WRITING

INTRODUCTION

Research Focus

The purpose of this work was to determine whether informal opportunities for writing

help improve students’ attitudes about writing and whether a process-oriented writing approach

increases students’ writing quality. Research suggests early literacy skills, which include writing,

are vital for future academic success. However, according to Miller and McCardle (2011), there

is a need for additional research in writing instruction and intervention. In order to gain

perspective on increasing student writing achievement, my research questions are as follows:

 What happens to students’ attitudes about writing when they engage in informal writing

exercises?

o Sub question: When students’ attitudes about writing change, how does the

quality of their writing change, if at all?

o Sub question: What happens to students’ writing fluency when they are given a

variety of informal opportunities to write?

 What happens to the quality of students’ writing when they engage in scaffolded process-

oriented writing?

Context/Setting

My school site is a year-round elementary school serving over 800 students ranging from

TK to sixth grade, and over 50% of current students come from low socioeconomic backgrounds.

My first grade classroom is comprised of 25 students ranging from ages six to seven years old.

40% of students identified as Hispanic, 8% identified as White, and the remaining 52% identified

as African-American, Asian, or other. Of the 25 students, seven are English Language Learners.
3

STUDENT ATTITUDES AND PROCESS-ORIENTED WRITING

Two of the seven English Language Learners are fluent in their primary languages. Additionally,

one student is a foster youth, and one student has an IEP under speech services for deficits

excluding articulation.

RESEARCH DESIGN

Round 1

Innovations/Interventions

Interventions and innovations chosen for Round 1 included process-oriented writing

instruction with graphic organizers and editing checklists for self- and peer-editing. I also

implemented letter writing for an informal writing exercise. Student attitudes were measured

using a Likert scale survey.

Data

Quantitative data collected included student surveys and students’ final draft rubric

scores. Qualitative data collected included observation notes and students’ written work.

Data Analysis Methods

Quantitative data was analyzed using descriptive statistics. Survey scores from the

beginning of the round were compared to scores from the end of the round. Students’ final draft

scores were used to analyze the mean, median, mode, and range to understand class averages,

gaps, etc. Qualitative data was analyzed using open coding methodology and memos. Student

observations were coded, and student work was analyzed using analytical memos which I then

coded.

Round 1 Findings

By the end of Round 1, students’ attitudes about writing improved minimally. One

variable on the survey even scored lower on average. More data was needed to determine why
4

STUDENT ATTITUDES AND PROCESS-ORIENTED WRITING

there were little changes, which is discussed in Round 2. However, I learned that students

performed lower in writing conventions compared to scores related to content on their final

drafts. Also, students struggled with the transfer of writing from their first drafts to their final

drafts, which resulted in lower writing quality on their final drafts compared to their first drafts.

Moreover, students engaged in more productive conversation during letter writing and drafting

compared to during peer feedback on their drafts. I was anticipating more conversation during

peer feedback sessions that would benefit the students and their writing.

Table 1: Averaged survey scores from beginning and end of Round 1

Survey Statement Beginning of Round 1 End of Round 1
I like writing. 2.27 2.48
I am good at writing. 2.64 2.61
I like to read what I wrote. 2.14 2.22
I like my friends to read what I wrote. 2.41 2.48
Writing is fun. 2.27 2.48
It’s easy for me to write. 2.41 2.43

Connections

Observing that the transfer of writing from paragraph planners to final drafts leads to

lower quality of writing on their final drafts compared to paragraph planners, I implemented a

period of self-reflection and review after writing the final drafts for Round 2. Additionally, based

on low scores in writing conventions, I needed to include mini-lessons for discussions about

writing conventions and their purposes. Finally, students needed more guidance with self- and

peer-editing. Students needed to be taught how to effectively give feedback to their peers.

Round 2

Innovations/Interventions

Interventions and innovations chosen for Round 2 included process-oriented writing

instruction with graphic organizers and editing checklists for self- and peer-editing. Additionally,
5

STUDENT ATTITUDES AND PROCESS-ORIENTED WRITING

I targeted specific writing skills in mini-lessons during process-oriented writing instruction time.

I continued utilizing letter writing and added writing sprint exercises for informal writing

exercises. Student attitudes were measured using a Likert scale survey.

Data

Quantitative data collected included student surveys and students’ final draft rubric

scores. Qualitative data collected included observation notes, students’ written work, and

interviews with focal students.

Data Analysis Methods

Quantitative data was analyzed using descriptive statistics. Survey scores from Round 2

were compared to scores from Round 1. I also used descriptive statistics to analyze students’

final draft scores. I calculated the mean, median, mode, and range and compared the scores to

Round 1 scores. Qualitative data was analyzed using open coding methodology and memos.

Student observations and focal student interviews were coded, and student work was analyzed

using analytical memos which I then coded.

Round 2 Findings

Including mini-lessons for targeted skills, which I based on Gibson’s (2008) writing

framework, led to improved writing quality in students’ formal writing products. Writing

convention scores increased for every variable under writing conventions. Additionally,

including reflection time for final drafts increased students’ ability to transfer writing from their

first drafts to their final drafts. The quality of student discussions during peer feedback sessions
6

STUDENT ATTITUDES AND PROCESS-ORIENTED WRITING

also improved, which may have played a part in the increase in final draft scores.

Process- Improved
Mini-
oriented writing
lessons
writing scores

Students’ attitudes about writing also improved. In focal student interviews, most

students mentioned enjoying interacting with their peers when asked about their ratings on the

surveys. However, students were associating the term writing solely with formal writing

assignments.

Connections

Considering that the mini-lessons led to increased scores for the targeted skills, they were

continued in Round 3 with different targeted skills. I also made the decision to incorporate time

for students to share their work with their classmates due to their interest in interacting with their

peers. However, I realized I needed to spend time discussing different forms of writing and their

purposes to help students understand that the term writing expands beyond formal writing

assignments.

Round 3

Innovations/Interventions

Interventions and innovations chosen for Round 3 included process-oriented writing

instruction with graphic organizers and editing checklists for self- and peer-editing. I targeted

specific writing skills different from Round 2 in mini-lessons during process-oriented writing

instruction time. An Author’s Chair was added to allow students time to share their writing

products with their peers. I continued utilizing letter writing and writing sprint exercises for

informal writing exercises. Student attitudes were measured using a Likert scale survey.
7

STUDENT ATTITUDES AND PROCESS-ORIENTED WRITING

Data

Quantitative data collected included student surveys and students’ final draft rubric

scores. Qualitative data collected included observation notes, students’ written work, and

interviews with focal students.

Data Analysis Methods

Quantitative data was analyzed using descriptive statistics. Survey scores from Round 3

were compared to scores from Rounds 1 and 2. I also used descriptive statistics to analyze

students’ final draft scores. I calculated the mean, median, mode, and range and compared the

scores to Rounds 1 and 2 scores. Qualitative data was analyzed using open coding methodology

and memos. Student observations and focal student interviews were coded, and student work was

analyzed using analytical memos which I then coded.

Round 3 Findings

Overall, students’ attitudes toward writing improved in Round 3 due to more

collaboration and sharing their writing with their peers. Students enjoy the collaborative nature

of process-oriented writing and informal writing exercises. By the end of Round 3, students’

writing quality for formal writing assignments also improved from Round 2, resulting in

significant improvements overall since Round 1. This was achieved by the process-oriented

approach with mini-lessons for targeted skills and guided peer conferences. The process-oriented

approach played a big part in why students improved, but the additional interventions were

necessary for continued improvement. What’s more, students’

8

STUDENT ATTITUDES AND PROCESS-ORIENTED WRITING

writing fluency, or the number of Table 3: Focal students’ informal writing fluency scores

words written in a single writing Focal Student R2 R3 ∆ R2 → R3

Student 1 1 10 +9
piece, improved with informal
Student 2 8 11 +3
writing exercises. The use of Student 3 3 8 +5

writing conventions decreased in Student 4 14 29 +15

Student 5 4 23 +19
informal writing products, but it is
Student 6 10 62 +52
important to note that students Student 7 20 23 +3

were told their informal writing would not be scored. Most notably, students’ quality of their

content improved in informal writing, responding to the prompts more accurately and with more

details.

SYNTHESIS OF RESULTS

Synthesis of Findings

Student attitudes about writing overall improved throughout the rounds, most notably

with students liking writing and feeling that writing is fun. While students’ feelings about their

own writing skills decreased by .03, this is due to students becoming aware of where their

writing needs improvement. Their awareness of skills necessary to be good writers had no effect

on their attitudes about writing. Rather, it shows an improved understanding of writing.

Table 4: Student survey scores

Survey Statement Beginning of Round 1 End of Round 2 End of Round 3
I like writing. 2.27 2.65 2.74
I am good at writing. 2.64 2.52 2.61
I like to read what I wrote. 2.14 2.13 2.17
I like my friends to read what I wrote. 2.41 2.52 2.70
Writing is fun. 2.27 2.61 2.70
It’s easy for me to write. 2.41 2.70 2.70
However, I was anticipating students’ attitudes would improve with the implementation

of informal writing opportunities, yet this had a small influence. What mattered most to students
9

STUDENT ATTITUDES AND PROCESS-ORIENTED WRITING

and affected their feelings towards writing was process-oriented writing and interaction with

their peers. With scaffolded process-oriented writing, students grew more confident with the

writing process and felt writing was easy and fun. Additionally, the most impactful component of

the writing process was collaboration and discussion with their peers. Teaching students how to

engage in productive peer feedback and implementing a platform for students to present their

work led to improved feelings about writing.

Nevertheless, informal writing exercises impacted students’ writing fluency and content.

While writing conventions were utilized infrequently in informal writing, focal students’ writing

fluency improved in their writing sprints samples, producing more words in Round 3 compared

to Round 2. Furthermore, a notable change was the content produced. Students produced more

relevant and descriptive writing compared to before implementing writing sprints. Therefore,

these aspects of writing quality improved in their informal writing.

Table 5: Student final draft scores

Rubric Variables Round 1 (n=22) Round 3 (n=22) ∆ R1 → R3
Text Types and Purposes/Production and
Distribution of Writing (Literacy.W.1.1-6)
Genre 3.65 3.91 + .26
Introduction 3.35 3.82 + .47
3 details 3.30 3.68 + .38
Transitions 3.04 3.73 + .69
Conclusion 2.17 3.45 + 1.28
On topic 3.30 3.95 + .65
Descriptive 2.78 3.32 + .54

Conventions of Standard English

(Literacy.L.1.1-2)
Complete sentences 3.09 3.72 + .63
Punctuation 2.48 3.36 + .88
Capitalization 2.59 3.32 + .73
Phonetic spelling 2.95 3.50 + .55
Upper/lowercase letters used correctly 2.50 3.27 + .77
10

STUDENT ATTITUDES AND PROCESS-ORIENTED WRITING

Process-oriented writing led to improved quality of writing in formal writing products.

Implementing the processes with scaffolds set the groundwork for clear and organized writing in

my students. Each step of the writing process brought out different areas where my students

succeed and struggle which led to improved instruction tailored to my students’ needs. The basic

process-oriented approach with planning, drafting, and editing primarily helped my students with

the content of their writing. After Round 1, I identified that my students were, on average,

approaching grade level in ELA CCSS writing production standards but were lacking in

standards for writing conventions. Going forward, I added interventions for writing conventions

during lessons. The use of mini-lessons for targeted writing skills is a widely practiced

component of the process-oriented writing approach. Including these lessons with the process-

oriented approach led to increased scores in both writing content and conventions.

Ultimately, as students’ attitudes improved, their enthusiasm and willingness to

participate in the writing process increased. Their improved attitudes toward writing are

correlated with the improvement in their writing quality, but it is important to understand why

their attitudes toward writing improved. Informal writing exercises had little to do with their

feelings about writing. In fact, throughout rounds, students

were associating the term “writing” with formal writing Process-

oriented
assignments and only occasionally drew upon informal writing
writing experiences at the end of Round 3. The combination
Student
Peer
of process-oriented writing and peer interaction led to attitudes
interaction
about writing
students listening, collaborating, and engaging in writing

lessons and exercises due to newfound understanding,

11

STUDENT ATTITUDES AND PROCESS-ORIENTED WRITING

confidence, and skills with academic peer interactions. With student attitudes improving

alongside the implemented interventions and innovations, their writing quality improved. Based

on my analysis, each part is essential in improved writing quality.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

The effects of process-oriented writing with young students was a driving component

behind my research. Process-oriented writing is widely used with upper elementary students

while the focus with lower elementary students revolves around spelling and handwriting, but

lower elementary students may benefit from the process-oriented approach as my first grade

students did (Arrimada et al., 2019). Rather, spelling and handwriting can be taught in

conjunction with writing processes that lead to increased writing skills. Moving forward, I will

begin teaching planning strategies for writing at the beginning of the school year while targeting

skills students need improvement in.

I also sought to understand how students’ attitudes about writing would change with a

variety of informal writing exercises. Chohan (2018) noted that students’ writing achievement

improved when student attitudes about writing were more positive, which is true to what I saw

with my students with their writing fluency and content in informal writing, but informal

exercises alone had very little to do with their improved attitudes. Rather, my students’ attitudes

improved with more peer interactions. According to Peterson (2019), peer discussions are

effective towards building motivation and engagement due to the sense of ownership in their

own learning. As such, it is no surprise that peer interaction led to increased attitudes in my

students. Even so, peer interactions should be modeled and guided. Jasmine and Weiner (2018)

note the importance of teaching students how to engage in peer discussions, and it led to

increased attitudes and writing, which mirrored what I saw with my own students.
12

STUDENT ATTITUDES AND PROCESS-ORIENTED WRITING

Overall, this study found that process-oriented writing, student attitudes about writing,

and peer interaction all improved my students’ quality of writing when combined together. I will

continue to utilize process-oriented writing and opportunities for productive peer interaction, and

in the future, I plan to continue researching informal writing and how to use it to benefit my

students further.
13

STUDENT ATTITUDES AND PROCESS-ORIENTED WRITING

REFERENCES
Chohan, S. (2011). Any Letter for Me? Relationships Between an Elementary School Letter
Writing Program and Student Attitudes, Literacy Achievement, and Friendship Culture.
Early Childhood Education Journal, 39, 39-50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-010-
0438-5
Gibson, S. (2008). An Effective Framework for Primary-Grade Guided Writing Instruction. The
Reading Teacher, 62(4), 324-334. https://doi.org/10.1598/RT.62.4.5
Jasmine, J. & Weiner, W. (2007). The Effects of Writing Workshop on Abilities of First Grade
Students to Become Confident and Independent Writers. Early Childhood Education
Journal, 35(2), 131-139. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-007-0186-3
Miller, B. & McCardle, P. (2011). Reflections on the need for continued research on writing.
Reading and Writing, 24, 121-132. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-010-9267-6
Peterson, D. (2019). Engaging elementary students in higher order talk and writing about text.
Journal f Early Childhood Literacy, 19(1), 34-54.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1468798417690918