Comparing Two Methods of Writing

Running head: COMPARING TWO METHODS OF WRITING 1
Comparing Two Methods of Writing Instruction
Writing Workshops and Interactive Writing: Which Method Develops Confident and
Independent Writers in Kindergarten
Catrina Reid
Kennesaw State University

COMPARING TWO METHODS OF WRITING 2
Table of Contents
Abstract........................................................................................................................................... 3
Introduction..................................................................................................................................... 4
Importance of the Study............................................................................................................................ 4
Research Questions................................................................................................................................... 5
Background............................................................................................................................................... 5
Writing Workshop................................................................................................................................ 5
Interactive Writing ............................................................................................................................... 6
Similarities Between Writing Workshop and Interactive Writing ....................................................... 6
Differences Between Writing Workshop and Interactive Writing....................................................... 7
Writing with Independence .................................................................................................................. 7
Review of Literature ....................................................................................................................... 8
Methodology................................................................................................................................. 16
Purpose ................................................................................................................................................... 16
Setting..................................................................................................................................................... 16
Participants ............................................................................................................................................. 16
Research Design ..................................................................................................................................... 17
Data Analysis.......................................................................................................................................... 17
Results .................................................................................................................................................... 19
Implications for Teaching and Research....................................................................................... 21
Conclusion.............................................................................................................................................. 21
Limitations of Study ............................................................................................................................... 21
Implications for the Future for Educators............................................................................................... 22
Implication for the Future for Other Researchers................................................................................... 22
References..................................................................................................................................... 23
Appendix A................................................................................................................................... 27
Assessment Rubric ................................................................................................................................. 27
Appendix B................................................................................................................................... 28
Student one – Pre-Assessment............................................................................................................... 28
Student one – Writing Workshop ........................................................................................................... 31
Student one – Interactive Writing........................................................................................................... 33
Appendix C................................................................................................................................... 35
Student two – Pre-Assessment .............................................................................................................. 35
Student two – Writing Workshop.......................................................................................................... 37
Student two – Interactive Writing........................................................................................................... 39
Appendix D................................................................................................................................... 41
Student three – Pre-Assessment............................................................................................................. 41
Student three – Writing Workshop......................................................................................................... 47
Student three – Interactive Writing......................................................................................................... 49
Appendix E ................................................................................................................................... 52
Parental Consent Form With Child Assent Statement............................................................................ 52

Abstract
Students enter kindergarten with a wide variety of cognitive abilities and life experiences
as they transition from oral to written literacy. Writing is an essential skill that will benefit
students for the rest of their lives. It is the window to communication and has an effect on the
development of students’ academically, emotionally, and socially. Academically, writing
exercises support the development of critical thinking and problem solving skills. In this article,
there are two different writing techniques compared, writing workshop and interactive writing, to
see which technique produces the most independent writers at the kindergarten level.

Comparing Two Methods of Writing Instruction
Writing Workshops and Interactive Writing: Which Method Develops Confident and
Independent Writers in Kindergarten
Introduction
“Either write something worth reading or do something worth writing.” – Benjamin
Franklin. Students enter kindergarten with a wide variety of cognitive abilities and life
experiences as they transition from oral to written literacy. They begin to demonstrate their
understanding of the organizational and basics features of print as they learn to track print and
distinguish words from pictures and letters from words (Barge, 2012).
Importance of the Study
Writing is an essential skill that will benefit students for the rest of their lives. It is the
window to communication and has an effect on the development of students’ academically,
emotionally, and socially. Academically, writing exercises support the development of critical
thinking and problem solving skills. In early education, the writing process is introduced. With
the writing process the students learn planning and organizing. Emotionally, creative and
reflective writing exercises build confidence and the appreciation of writing. Through journals
and personal story writing, children can discover their identities and work through real-life
problems. Socially, writing helps children connect to the world around them. Things like
collaborative writing projects, enables the social inability of students.

Research Questions
Writing workshop and interactive writing are two frequently recommended writing
instructional methods. Comparing the two different writing techniques to prove which technique
yields the best results as far a producing writing independence, is the purpose of this study.
The questions to determine independence are: (1) Did the student choose the topic? (2)
Did the student write using his/her imagination? If not, did the teacher have to help? (3) Was the
student able to write two to three sentences while staying on topic? (4) Did the student start each
sentence with a capital letter? (5) Did the student use proper punctuation?
The principle research question addressed in this study is: In comparing two methods of
writing instruction: Writing Workshop and Interactive Writing, which method develops
confident and independent writers in the kindergarten grade level?
Background
Writing workshop. Writing workshop is an approach to teaching writing as students
learn and practice the importance of rehearsal, drafting/revising, and editing their pieces of
writing (Calkins, 1986; Graves, 1983). Calkins (1986) extended the concept of writing
workshop to include a more student-centered approach in the classroom by implementing peer
conferencing to assist in the organization and practice of writing. Writing workshop consists of
three parts: opening meeting (mini-lesson), work time, and closing meeting (sharing). In the
opening meeting, the teacher introduces the lesson in a whole-group setting, with some
interaction from the students. During work time, the students work independently on their
writing and conference with the teacher. In the closing meeting, the students share their work
with their peers.

Interactive writing. Interactive writing takes a different approach. It is a group writing
experience that helps children attend to the details of letters, sounds, and words while creating
meaningful text (Pinnell & Fontas, 1998). The focus of interactive writing is to provide young
students with instruction on print concepts, phonemic awareness, phonics, and high-frequency
words (Hammerberg, 2001; Tompkins, 2010). The main components of interactive writing
instruction include negotiating, constructing, and rereading text. During interactive writing, the
students and teacher negotiate the writing topic and detail of the text to be written. Next, the text
is co-constructed as the teacher and students share the pen to create a sentence or brief story.
Teacher guidance focuses on student attention on applying letter-sound correspondence,
segmenting and blending, letter identification and formation, and high-frequency recognition.
Mistakes students might make while sharing the pen in letter formations and spellings are
corrected with teacher help. The group-created text is reread each time a new word is written for
reading practice (D’on Jones, Reutzel, & Fargo, 2010).
Similarities between writing workshop and interactive writing. The two writing
techniques have some similarities between them. Both interactive writing and writing workshop
create a literacy environment that emphasizes the importance of writing by utilizing writing
models, recognizing the unique contributions of each writer, and providing instruction in
response to student needs (D’on Jones, Reutzel, & Fargo, 2010).
Writing is valued and instructional time is dedicated to writing in both writing
techniques. Writing workshop and interactive writing, both, build on the importance of writing
in early literacy. Students are involved in authentic writing tasks with genres such as opinion,
informative and narrative writing. Both writing techniques help develop problem-solving skills
in a highly supported social context through the group discussions in interactive writing and

during conferences in writing workshop. Both methods are responsive to children’s
development with the teacher providing instruction based on student needs. Inclusion of writing
instruction through the interactive active writing technique or the writing workshop approach
gets important benefits to the literacy environment for young children.
Differences between writing workshop and interactive writing. There are also
differences between the two writing techniques such as: content of the learning risk – the things
that are taught during the sessions; and sequencing of skills – bottom up versus top down. The
major difference that drives the focus of the research is the role of the teacher.
The role of the teacher differs in the level and degree of teacher support between
interactive writing and writing workshop. Interactive writing is a form of shared teacher-student
writing. Writing workshop is based on independent student writing. During interactive writing,
the teacher’s role is to provide guidance to create written text. The teacher’s role in writing
workshop is to organize the workshop into a predictable structure and to provide modeling
support for individual writers (D’on Jones, Reutzel, & Fargo, 2010).
Writing with independence. Independent writing gives students opportunities to do their
own writing using both self-selected and assigned topics. Independent writing occur as a follow-
up to a series of writing lessons – involving modeled, shared, and guided writing – with a focus
on a particular concept of skill. As an independent writer at the kindergarten level, students are
expected to successfully write a story without any scaffolding. Writing independently occurs
only after the writing lessons. The students should be able to choose their own topic and write
two to three supporting sentences while staying on the topic. The students should be able to start
their sentences with a capital letter and end the sentence with the proper punctuation. All these

writing techniques are taught in both the interactive writing model and the writing workshop
model.
Review of Literature
D’on Jones, Reutzel, and Fargo (2010) conducted a study comparing Interactive Writing
and Writer’s Workshop and the effects on Kindergarten Students’ Reading Skills. The study
included phonological awareness, alphabet knowledge, and word reading. In all three areas,
there was a steady growth with no significant differences in the two writing techniques. They
concluded that when consistently implemented during the first 16 weeks of kindergarten,
interactive writing and writing workshop are equally effective in promoting acquisition of the
early reading skills of phonological awareness, letter knowledge, and word reading ability.
The effects of Writing Workshop on the abilities of first grade students to become
confident and independent writers was studied by Jasmine and Weiner (2007). This study
implemented a mixed methodology design incorporating qualitative and quantitative analysis by
administering a pre-survey to each child before he/she began the Writing Workshop and a post
survey after the intervention; systematic observational research as a checklist to record observed
practices of students during peer revising conferences; portfolios to assess student writing and
graded via a rubric; and lastly review of students regarding confidence and ability in writing.
They concluded that the writing workshop model has proven to be an effective instructional
method to support first graders in learning the writing process by choosing a topic, revising and
editing drafts, and sharing their work. By the end of the study, students were working
independently and helping each other add detail and edit through student/student conferences.
Craig (2006) studied the effects of an adapted interactive writing intervention of
kindergarten children’s phonological awareness, spelling, and early reading development. She

used a pretest-posttest comparison-group design. The primary goal was to compare a form of
contextualized instruction based on an adapted interactive writing program with a field-tested
program of metalinguistic games. The interactive writing-plus and metalinguistic games-plus
children demonstrated comparable performances on measures of phonological awareness,
spelling, and pseudo-word reading; however, the children in the interactive writing-plus group
showed greater progress on measures of real word identification, passage comprehension, and
word reading development. The findings verified that the children participating in a
contextualized approach matched or exceeded the achievement of the children participating in a
skill-sequenced program using metalinguistic games.
According to Patterson, Schaller, and Clemens in their article, A Closer Look at
Interactive Writing, “Interactive writing can take on many different forms and is used in a variety
of ways in the classroom. This type of writing helps build a bridge between writing and all other
areas of curriculum.” This is because students and teachers use this form of writing as a
collaborative effort. English Language Learners (ELL) benefits from this type of writing by
using the collaboration while interacting socially and linguistically with their peers. Making a
class book is a great way to use the interactive writing technique.
A Meta-Analysis of Writing Instruction for Students in the Elementary Grades was a
study conducted by Graham, Kiuhara, McKeown, and Harris. In an effort to identify
instructional practices for teaching writing to elementary grade students, they conducted the
study focusing their efforts on true and quasi-experiments. The purpose was to find a use
approach for identifying instructional practices that have the power to transform students’
writing. They use 13 instructional practices: strategy instruction; adding self-regulation to
strategy instruction; text structure instruction; creativity/imagery instruction; teaching

transportation skills; grammar instruction; prewriting activities; peer assistance; product goals;
assessing writing; word processing; extra writing; and comprehensive writing programs. They
calculated an average weighted effective size for the 13 writing treatments, for all but one
treatment, the average weighted effective size was positive and statistically greater than 0. The
findings from the review provide support for the theoretical contention that writing strategies and
knowledge plan an important role in elementary students’ growth as writers. When students
receive instruction designed to enhance their strategic prowess as writers they become better
overall writers.
Schulz detailed Effective Writing Assessment and Instruction for Young English
Language Learners. According to Schulz, the total number of ELL in the American public
schools is more than 4.5 million students or 9.6% of the total school population. Teachers are
unprepared for the unique needs and complexities that accompany ELL in elementary schools
today. This article focused on instructional writing strategies and assessments for ELL in the
elementary classroom. Some of the instructional strategies are self-assessment checklists,
writing conferences, and writing portfolios. ELL students are not a homogenous group. They
have different academic abilities. Teacher’s expectations play an important role in writing
instruction as well. Effective teaching is the key to sustained academic achievement for all
students, especially ELL who may struggle with writing. Effective teachers are able to
differentiate instruction to meet the needs of all students at different points in the educational
continuum.
Interactive Writing Beyond the Primary Grades was discussed by Wall. While writers’
workshop is commonly used to provide an authentic context for addressing students’ writing
needs, teachers struggle with ways to teach spelling, punctuation, and grammar in similarly

authentic ways. Interactive writing was developed in 1991 by a group of researchers and
teachers associated with The Ohio State University. By adapting McKenzie’s research on shared
writing to include student participation through a “shared pen” approach, they made the process
collaborative and interactive for students. Interactive writing served to provide a shared text
around which class discussions of grammar, punctuation, and writer’s craft revolved. Interactive
writing can provide students in the upper elementary grades a chance to apply and experiment
with new and more advanced writing concepts with the help and support of their peers.
The National Assessment of Educational Progress found that only 25% of 4th
, 8th
, and
12th
grade students were at grade-level writing proficiency. This statistic was found in the
article, The Effectiveness of an Explicit Instruction Writing Program for Second Graders, by
Hough, Hixson, Decker, and Bradley-Johnson. Insufficient writing skill is a major contributor to
lack of school and college success. They evaluated a modification of Quickwrite, a strategic
writing program that explicitly teaches students how to brainstorm, plan, draft, and revise within
brief time periods. Teachers who did not have knowledge of the study or the participants rated
overall number of story elements included in second-grade students’ stories higher after the
intervention. The rate of student writing did not improve. Results were maintained 4 weeks after
the intervention.
There are educational benefits of Interactive Writing which an approach to beginning
writing instruction appropriate for kindergarten and first grade children. Williams and Pionieta
discusses these benefits in their article, Using Interactive Writing Instruction with Kindergarten
and First-Grade English Language Learners. Interactive writing is an approach to beginning
writing instruction that teaches young children what it means “to write” and how they go about
it. The lessons begins with a shared activity, most often storybook reading. While reading the

book the teacher is discussing unknown vocabulary words. This provides children with the
background knowledge. Next, the text is planned and is often a one- or two-sentence response to
the book that was shared. Once they have decided on the message, the teacher begins to write the
oral text on a large writing tablet. At strategic points in the lesson-those with high instructional
value-the teacher “shares the pen” with her students. Throughout the lesson, the teacher models
phonemic segmentation skills. Throughout the lesson the teacher asks the students to constantly
reread their writing. Learning to write can be complex process for all young children, and most
likely, ELL will need additional instructional support. Interactive writing incorporates the
instructional support that research had determined is essential to literacy instruction for young
Ells, including structure, interactive conversation, teacher and peer collaboration, and explicit
instruction.
An option to relieve the stress of teaching writing in writers’ workshop is integrating
writing partnerships, per Hsu in her article, Writing Partnerships. Writers’ workshop consists of
a three part lesson: the opening, work-time, and closing. According to Hsu, an opening was
easy enough because she had a captive audience and the closing the students would just share
their work, it was the work-time that was agonizing. Partnering in the writers’ workshop, a
concept from educator Lucy Calkins, takes a few days to implement it. Partnerships have five
features of authentic literacy: the presence of other people, feedback from others, access to tools,
multiple options for activity, and problem-solving situations. The partners have to be matched.
Matching the partners is a skill because you would want to avoid social gatherings while finding
two compatible students that will work well together. Things to consider are gender, strengths,
weaknesses, organizational habits, personality, ELL needs, and potential interference from
pullout support. Before writing partnerships, the writers’ workshop was a traditional way.

Writing partnerships reshaped the way writers’ workshop work causing it to run more smoothly.
It made the students more independent and more excited about writing.
Can writing be introduced to students as young as pre-kindergarten? According to King
in the article, Workshop in Preschool: Acknowledging Children as Writers, it can and she
explains how. Most preschoolers are not sitting down at desks scribing letters into words and
sentences. This does not mean they are incapable of creating stories that can be put into print.
Typically, writing workshops consist of four major components: teacher-directed mini-lessons
about writing; child-centered, open-ended writing time; teacher-student conference time and
author share time. All this can be done with certain modifications for preschoolers. The
modifications are things like limiting the times on mini-lessons and pushing the shared
conferences back to later times in the year. The steps are to set up a time in your preschool
classroom when students can all write together each day (journal time), provide a time for the
students to share, start conferences midyear, and be very observant.
Writing is a fundamental part of engaging in professional, social, community, and civic
activities. Nearly 70 percent of salaried employees have at least some responsibility for writing,
and the ability to write well is a critical component of being able to communicate effectively to a
variety of audiences. Students should develop an early foundation in writing in order to
communicate their ideas effectively and efficiently. Graham, Bollinger, Olson, D'Aoust,
MacArthur, and McCutchen details a report, Teaching Elementary School Students to Be
Effective Writers, while making recommendations based on the best available research evidence,
as well as the combined expertise and experience of the panel members. The recommendations
are: (1) Provide daily time for students to write; (2) Teach students to use the writing process for

a variety of purposes; (3) Teach students to become fluent with handwriting, spelling, sentence
construction, typing and word processing; and (4) Create and engage a community of writers.
The writing process can pose real challenges for some children. Dunn and Finley discuss
some of the struggles in their article, Children’s Struggles with the Writing Process. Composing
text is an essential skill for students. To produce a publishable story that fits the expectations for
a sequence of events that makes sense and to move to a beginning, middle, and an end that still
has a problem and a solution, students need to demonstrate command of writing practices such as
idea generation, grammar, paragraphing, and story structure. A variety of strategies and activities
exist to address areas of concern for struggling writers. One strategy deals with a series of seven
questions basically reviewing who, what, when, where, why, and how. The ART strategy is
another used. The ART strategy uses Ask, Reflect, and Text. Based on the writers’ workshop
and Ernst’s artists’ workshop, the Thirsty Thinkers writers’ workshop was developed for
children to have the opportunity to learn a narrative story-writing strategy which incorporated
using art in the prewriting stage of creating their own story. In the final thoughts, Nancy, a
writers’ workshop teacher, commented that, “Thirsty Thinkers participants were really excited to
write. Even first graders made a real effort to apply the strategy.” Students of all ages can use
illustrations. Applying them to writing may or may not be a new practice to them. For struggling
writers, the use of art can help make their story products more elaborate.
Williams, Sherry, Robinson, and Hungler details an article, The Practice Page as A
Mediational Tool for Interactive Writing Instruction, which describes the ways in which an
experienced primary-grade teacher used and continually modified “the practice page” to mediate
specific aspects of interactive writing instruction. With mediated action, people typically employ
tools of the culture to accomplish specific tasks. The mediated tool the teacher uses in the

practice page during the interactive writing instruction. The practice page consists of two
unlined spiral notebooks that are turned sideways to create two writing areas. The bottom page
of the spiral is where the child writes his or her story. The top page, which is called the
“working space,” “working page,” or “practice page,” provides an area for the teacher and child
to “work together on words.” The teacher used the practice page in the majority of her writing
lessons and the primary purpose for which she used this tool was “word solving” – working out
the spelling of specific words to be written in the group story. The authors’ analysis
demonstrated that the teacher’s instruction on the practice page made the internal cognitive
processes involved in spelling external visible for her students.
Writers’ workshop from a parent’s perspective was detailed in Baker’s article, Writing
and Reading in a First-Grade Writers’ Workshop: A Parent’s Perspective. The author spent a
year as a volunteer in her son’s first-grade classroom. In the article, she describes her
experiences and reflects on the growth she saw in children as readers and writers. She reviews
her responsibilities as a volunteer such as sit face-to-face with the child as you are conferring,
listen carefully, say something positive, ask questions, and do not spell words for the children.
She felt that misspelled words would become a problem and didn’t understand that phonetic
spelling was a part of the student’s writing growth. She saw the link between reading and
writing. She understood that children get a voice through their writing. Lastly, she understood
writing could be fun but it is work. Her final thoughts were that she believes whole language
instruction reflects the close relationship between reading and writing. The approach to writing
that was used in the classroom does not turn all children into prolific writers. The approach does
allow each child to write successfully, however, no matter what difficulties he or she encounters.

Methodology
Purpose
The primary purpose of this research study is to determine which writing technique yields
the most independent writers at the kindergarten level. Interactive writing and writing workshop
are efficient ways of teaching, but they are slightly two different ways of teaching writing.
Setting
The research took place in a suburban but urban school setting. The school teaches PK –
5th
grade. In the 2010 – 2011 school year the student population is 642 (not including PK). The
race population for the school is 4% Asian, 9% Black, 85% Hispanic, and 2% White. Students
with Disabilities are 4%, Limited English Proficient is 60%, and Free/Reduced Meals are 95%.
(The State of Georgia, 2011)
There is 3.6% of the population participating in Special Education, 48.3% of the students
are participating in the English Spanish Other Languages (ESOL) program, and 41.8% of the
students are participating in the Early Intervention Program (EIP) program. (The State of
Georgia, 2011)
Participants
The research was done in a kindergarten classroom with a total of 24 students. Eighty-
five percent of the students are Hispanic with their first language being Spanish. They were
receiving ESOL and EIP services. The classroom was split into two random groups: A and B.
There were three students selected for scoring known as: student one, student two, and student
three. Student one was chosen from a low ability group of students. Student two was from a
median student ability group. Students three was from a higher ability group. This was done for
validity purposes. By selecting the students from different ability groups, this allowed the

considerations if the student does or does not understand the changes in the writing styles. Some
children get it faster than others. The comparison was to see if one writing technique is better or
the same.
Research Design
The research included a mixed-method analysis. The classroom was currently using the
writing workshop model to complete all writing assignments. The writings done were used as
the pre-assessment using the rubric in appendices A.
One teacher continued the writing instruction using the writing workshop model for
fifteen days while the students were producing writing pieces. The other writing teacher taught
using the interactive workshop model for fifteen days while requiring the students to produce
independent writing pieces. On the sixteenth day, the teacher sampled the most current writing
piece, using the rubric in appendices A. On the seventeenth day, the two teachers exchanged
groups and continued to use their same techniques for fifteen days. After the fifteen-day
instructional period the teacher selected the latest written piece from the sample students and
scored it using the rubric, in appendices A, making a comparison.
Data Analysis
Data was analyzed using a mixed methods approach. According to John Creswell in
Research Design, a mixed methods approach is one, which the researcher tends to base
knowledge claims on pragmatic grounds such as consequence-oriented studies. It has strategies
of inquiry that involve collecting data either simultaneously or sequentially to best understand
research problems. The data collection also involves gathering both numeric information as well
as text information so that the final database represents both quantitative and qualitative
information.

The analysis included: the pre-assessment results which was one piece from each sample
student; a writing workshop writing piece from each sample student; and an interactive writing
piece from each sample student all using the rubric provided in appendices A.
The criteria for determining which writing techniques gave the best results of
independent writing is:
The excellent and good writers were determined as “independent”. The fair or needs
improvement writers were determined as not independent. The pre-assessment, which was a
writing workshop piece, was scored using the above criteria. After the second technique was
taught, interactive writing, that piece was scored using the same criteria. After all the writing
pieces were scored, they were compared to be determined if there were changes. If the writing
workshop piece scored higher, it was determined the writing workshop technique works best. If
the interactive writing piece scored higher, it was determined the interactive writing technique
works best. If there were no changes and each piece scored the same, it was determined that
neither writing technique was better. The margin of determining is ± 2. For example, if the pre-
assessment has a score of 14 and the post-assessment has a score of 15, it was determined that
there was no significant difference between the two writing techniques. If the pre-assessment
has a score of 11 points and the post-assessment has a score of 9 or lower it would be determined
that the Interactive writing technique did not work.
TABLE 1. Writing Scores
Excellent Writer 15 points
Good Writer 10 – 14 points
Fair Writer 6 – 9 points
Need Improvement 0 - 5 points

Results
Student one started the year as a fair writer according to the pre-assessment score of eight
points. After learning to write under writing workshop student one moved up to a good writer
with a score of 11 points. After implementing the interactive writing technique scored a total of
13 points, which kept him at the good writer level. (See rubric in appendices A and writing
samples in appendices B.)
TABLE 2. Student One Results
Pre-Assessment Writing Workshop Interactive Writing
Choose Topic 1 3 3
Imagination 3 3 3
Supporting Sentences 2 3 3
Capital Letters 1 1 1
Punctuation 1 1 3
Totals 8 11 13
Student two started the year as a fair writer with seven points on the pre-assessment. On
the writing workshop writing piece student two scored 12 points, which was a significant
0

5

10

15

Writing
Scores

Figure 1. Assessment Results
Student
One

Student
Two

Student
Three

increase. A 12-point score increases student two to a good writer. Student two’s exposure to the
interactive writing technique only moved up one point which still is determined to be a good
writer. (See rubric in appendices A and writing samples in appendices C.)
Student three started the year as a fair writer and a scoring of six points. Student three
was taught under the writing workshop technique and scored 13 points, a significant jump to a
good writer. After learning to write using the interactive writing technique, student three stay at
13 points and a good writer. (See rubric in appendices A and writing samples in appendices D.)
TABLE 4. Student Three Results
Pre-Assessment Writer's Workshop Interactive Writing
Choose Topic 1 3 3
Imagination 1 3 3
Punctuation 2 3 3
Totals 6 13 13
TABLE 3. Student Two Results
Pre-Assessment Writing Workshop Interactive Writing
Choose Topic 1 3 3
Imagination 3 3 3
Punctuation 0 1 3
Totals 7 12 13

Implications for Teaching and Research
Conclusion
In comparing two methods of writing instruction: writing workshop and interactive
writing, which method develops confident and independent writers in the kindergarten grade
level? According to the results, there was not a difference between the two writing techniques
with developing confident and independent writers in the kindergarten grade level. After
learning to write using both techniques all three of the sample students scored the same or within
the margin of good writer status. Implementing Interactive writing didn’t increase nor decrease
the students’ writing ability. Neither writing technique proved to be better than the other.
Writing workshop and interactive writing are two different writing techniques. In this research,
the comparison is the difference in making confident and independent writers using the two
different writing techniques. Currently, writing workshop involves all of the teacher’s time and
attention to individual students. Writing workshop is designed for students to work
independently while writing their stories, but currently they are unable to do so. The Interactive
Writing technique will, in the beginning, require the teacher’s involvement. Toward the end, the
expectation is for the students to learn from the process and develop ways to work on a more
independent level. The students were equally as independent using both writing techniques.
Limitations of Study
This study has limitations that should be considered. First, the teacher’s understanding
and delivery of each technique is a limitation. The teacher has previous experience in teaching
writing with the Writing workshop technique. The teacher had to research and learn to teach
writing using the Interactive Writing technique just prior to the start of the study. Second, the
length of the research period was a limitation. The research was conducted in a four-week

period. The study should be extended to a full academic year to allow time for potential effects
of writing instruction to emerge. It would allow writing to be sampled during different maturity
levels of the students. Last, the time of the academic year in which the study was conducted is a
limitation. The study was done during the second semester of the kindergarten year. This
allowed for the students to mature in their writing and schooling. The study should be conducted
in the beginning of the kindergarten year.
Implications for the Future for Educators
The writing workshop model is less hands-on for the teacher, while interactive writing is
more hands-on, neither worked best for any particular student. Further research should be done.
The research period should be longer and the sample population should be increased. In the
future, this research should be conducted in the first semester of school. to exclude the limitation
of student maturity. The research should include more than one kindergarten classroom and more
than one teacher.
Implication for the Future for Other Researchers
This study did not include a control group. In order to establish conditions consistent with each
method of writing instruction, the teachers need to be trained on both methods of writing
instruction and the implementation of each method should be monitored. Further researchers
could consider comparing either method against a writing control group. As these two methods
are the most used and the popular approaches to writing instruction, the resulting study could
potentially be a comparison of each particular method of writing instruction against different
versions of itself.

References
Baker, E. C. (1994). Writing and reading in a first-grade writers' workshop: a parent's
perspective. (writers' workshop helps children develop reading and writing skills). The
Reading Teacher, (5), 372
Barge, J. D. Georgia Department of Education, (2012). Teacher Guidance for Teaching the
Common Core Georgia Performance Standards: Kindergarten. Retrieved from website:
https://www.georgiastandards.org/Common-Core/Common Core
Frameworks/CCGPS_ELA-Kindergarten-Guidance.pdf
Calkins, L. M. (1986). The art of teaching writing. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Carpol, J. (2013). Importance of writing in elementary schools. Retrieved from
http://everydaylife.globalpost.com/importance-writing-elementary-schools-8215.html
Craig, S. A. (2006). The effects of an adapted interactive writing intervention on kindergarten
children's phonological awareness, spelling, and early reading development: A
contextualized approach to instruction. Journal Of Educational Psychology, 98(4), 714-
731. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.98.4.714
Creswell, J. (2003). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Method Aproaches
(2nd ed., pp. 18-20). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications
Cox, C. (2012). Interactive writing. Retrieved from http://www.readingrockets.org/article/48489/
D'On Jones, C., Reutzel, D., & Fargo, J. D. (2010). Comparing Two Methods of Writing
Instruction: Effects on Kindergarten Students’ Reading Skills. Journal Of Educational
Research, 103(5), 327-341.
Dunn, M. W., & Finley, S. (2010). Children's Struggles with the Writing Process: Exploring
Storytelling, Visual Arts, and Keyboarding to Promote Narrative Story Writing.

Multicultural Education, 18(1), 33-42Gilbert, J., & Graham, S. (2010). Teaching Writing
to Elementary Students in Grades 4-6: A National Survey. Elementary School Journal,
110(4), 494-518.
Family Health International. (n.d.). Qualitative Research Methods: A Data Collector’s Field
Guide. In www.ccs.new.edu. Retrieved January 15, 2014, from
http://www.ccs.neu.edu/course/is4800sp12/resources/qualmethods.pdf
Graham, S., Bollinger, A., Olson, C., D'Aoust, C., MacArthur, C., McCutchen, D., & ... National
Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, (ED). (2012). Teaching
Elementary School Students to Be Effective Writers: A Practice Guide. NCEE 2012-
4058. What Works Clearinghouse.
Graham, S., McKeown, D., Kiuhara, S., & Harris, K. R. (2012). A meta-analysis of writing
instruction for students in the elementary grades. Journal Of Educational Psychology,
104(4), 879-896. doi:10.1037/a0029185
Graves, D. (1983). Writing: Teachers and children at work. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Hammerberg, D. D. (2001). Reading and writing “hypertextually”: Children’s literature,
technology, and early writing instruction. Language Arts, 78, 207–216.
Hough, T., Hixson, M., Decker, D., & Bradley-Johnson, S. (2012). The Effectiveness of an
Explicit Instruction Writing Program for Second Graders. Journal Of Behavioral
Education, 21(2), 163-174. doi:10.1007/s10864-012-9146-0
Hsu, C. (2009). Writing Partnerships. Reading Teacher, 63(2), 153-158.

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. doi:10.1007/s10643-007-0186-3
King, K. A. (2012). Writing Workshop In Preschool. Reading Teacher, 65(6), 392.
doi:10.1002/TRTR.01059
Mediational Tool for Interactive Writing Instruction. Reading Teacher, 65(5), 330-340.Ontario
Education. (2005). A Guide to Effective Instruction in Writing. Retrieved October 22,
2013, from
http://www.eworkshop.on.ca/edu/resources/guides/Guide_Writing_%20K_3.pdf
Ouyang, R. (n.d.). Basic inquiry of quantitative research. Retrieved from
http://ksumail.kennesaw.edu/~rouyang/ED-research/details.htm
Patterson, E., Schaller, M., & Clemens, J. (2008). A Closer Look at Interactive Writing. Reading
Teacher, 61(6), 496-497.
Pinnell, G. S., & Fountas, I. C. (1998). Word matters: Teaching phonics and spelling in the
reading/writing classroom. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Rhodes, L. K., & Dudley-Marling, C. (1996). Readers and writers with a difference: A holistic
approach to teaching struggling readers and writers (2nd ed.). Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.
Schulz, M. (2009). Effective Writing Assessment and Instruction for Young English Language
Learners. Early Childhood Education Journal, 37(1), 57-62. doi:10.1007/s10643-009-
0317-0
Tompkins, G. E. (2010). Literacy for the 21st century: A balanced approach (5th ed.). Boston:
Allyn & Bacon.

True Ink. (n.d.). Why writing is important. Retrieved from http://www.true-ink.org/why-writing-
is-important.html
Wikipedia. (2012). Writing workshop. Retrieved from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Writing_Workshop
Williams, C. (2012). Using Interactive Writing Instruction with Kindergarten and First-Grade
English Language Learners. Early Childhood Education Journal, 40(3), 145-150.
Williams, C., Sherry, T., Robinson, N., & Hungler, D. (2012). The Practice Page as a

Appendix A
Assessment Rubric
Assessment
Rubric
Objective 3 2 1 0
Choose topic The student chose
topic
independently
The student
chose topic with
some assistance
from the teacher
The student was
not able to choose
topic
Imagination The student used
imagination to
write the story
The student used
imagination with
the assistance
from the teacher
to write the story
The student did
not use
imagination and
relied solely on
the teacher to
write the story
Supporting
sentences
The student wrote
two or more
supporting
sentences with no
assistance from
the teacher
The student
wrote 1 sentence
with no support
from the teacher
The student
wrote one
supporting
sentence with
assistance from
the teacher
The did not write
any supporting
sentences and
relied solely on
the teacher
Capital letters The student used
all capital letters
correctly
The student used
a capital letter at
the beginning of
the sentence but
not on the proper
nouns
The students had
capital letters
placed
incorrectly
throughout the
story
The student did
not use any capital
letters
Punctuation The student used
the correct
punctuation
The student used
correct
punctuation with
the assistance
from the teacher
The student had
punctuation
placed
incorrectly
The student did
not use
punctuation

Appendix B
Student one – Pre-Assessment

Student one – Writing Workshop

Student one – Interactive Writing

Appendix C
Student two – Pre-Assessment

Student two – Writing workshop

Student two – Interactive Writing

Appendix D
Student three – Pre-Assessment

Student three – Writing Workshop

Student three – Interactive Writing

Appendix E
Parental Consent Form With Child Assent Statement
Title of Research Study:
• Comparing Two Methods of Writing Instruction. Writing Workshops and Interactive Writing: Which
Method Develops Confident and Independent Writers in Kindergarten?
Researcher's Contact Information:
• Catrina Reid, 678-676-7302, catrina_d_reid@fc.dekalb.k12.ga.us
Your child is being invited to take part in a research study conducted by Catrina Reid of
Kennesaw State University. Before you decide to allow your child to participate in this
study, you should read this form and ask questions if you do not understand.
Description of Project
• The purpose of the study is to develop a way to teach the student how to write stories with
confidence and independence in Kindergarten.
Explanation of Procedures
• The teacher will teach writing using two different techniques: writing workshop & interactive
writing. Interactive Writing: a group writing experience that helps children attend to the details
of letters, sounds, and words while creating meaningful text. The focus of interactive writing is to
provide young students with instruction on print concepts, phonemic awareness, phonics, and
high-frequency words. The main components of interactive writing instruction include
negotiating, constructing, and rereading text. During interactive writing, the students and teacher
negotiate the writing topic and detail of the text to be written. Next, the text is co-constructed as
the teacher and students share the pen to create a sentence or brief story. Teacher guidance
focuses on student attention on applying letter-sound correspondence, segmenting and blending,
letter identification and formation, and high-frequency recognition. Writing Workshop: an
approach to teaching writing as students learn and practice the importance of rehearsal,
drafting/revising, and editing their pieces of writing . Writing Workshop consists of three parts:
opening meeting (mini-lesson), work time, and closing meeting (sharing). In the opening
meeting, the teacher introduces the lesson in a whole-group setting, with some interaction from
the students. During work time, the students work independently on their writing and conference
with the teacher. In the closing meeting, the students share their work with their peers.
• There will be a total of three writing pieces scored from the students. One piece will be scored
before the research begins as a pre-assessment, one writer’s workshop piece will be scored and
one interactive writing piece will be scored after teaching with each method.
Time Required
• There will be no additional time required outside of the normal instructional period. The normal
instructional period is one hour per day. The research period is 30 days.
Risks or Discomforts
• There will be no risks or discomforts.

Benefits
• The research will expose the students to another writing technique.
Compensation (if applicable)
• There will be no compensation.
Confidentiality
• The results of this participation will be anonymous. The students will be randomly chosen. Once they are
chosen, they will be identified as Student 1, Student 2, and Student 3. No names or personal information
will be used.
• The samples will remain in a locked filed cabinet for the research period of 30 days. After the research is
complete the samples will be given to the parents for their records.
Use of Online Surveys (if applicable)
• There will be no online surveys.
Inclusion Criteria for Participation
• The ages of the students are between five and six years old.
Parental Consent to Participate
I give my consent for my child,
__________________________________________________________, to participate in the
research project described above. I understand that this participation is voluntary and that I may
withdraw my consent at any time without penalty. I also understand that my child may withdraw
his/her assent at any time without penalty.
__________________________________________________
Signature of Parent or Authorized Representative, Date
__________________________________________________
Signature of Investigator, Date
______________________________________________________________________________
_______
PLEASE SIGN BOTH COPIES OF THIS FORM, KEEP ONE AND RETURN THE
OTHER TO THE INVESTIGATOR
Research at Kennesaw State University that involves human participants is carried out under the
oversight of an Institutional Review Board. Address questions or problems regarding these
activities to the Institutional Review Board, Kennesaw State University, 1000 Chastain Road,
#0112, Kennesaw, GA 30144-5591, (678) 797-2268.

______________________________________________________________________________
_______
Child Assent to Participate
My name is Mrs. Reid. I am inviting you to be in a research study about writing stories. Your
parent has given permission for you to be in this study, but you get to make the final choice. It is
up to you whether you participate.
If you decide to be in the study, I will ask you to write a story using your own imagination.
You do not have to answer any question you do not want to answer or do anything that you do
not want to do. Everything you say and do will be private, and your parents will not be told what
you say or do while you are taking part in the study. When I tell other people what I learned in
the study, I will not tell them your name or the name of anyone else who took part in the research
study.
If anything in the study worries you or makes you uncomfortable, let me know and you can stop.
No one will be upset with you if you change your mind and decide not to participate. You are
free to ask questions at any time and you can talk to your parent any time you want. If you want
to be in the study, sign or print your name on the line below:
_____________________________________________
Child’s Name and Signature, Date
Check which of the following applies (completed by person administering the assent.)
£ Child is capable of reading and understanding the assent form and has signed above as
documentation of assent to take part in this study.
£ Child is not capable of reading the assent form, but the information was verbally
explained to him/her. The child signed above as documentation of assent to take part in
this study.
_____________________________________________
Signature of Person Obtaining Assent, Date

Comparing Two Methods of Writing

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked (8)

Similar to Comparing Two Methods of Writing (20)

More from cdm6789 (8)

Recently uploaded (20)

Comparing Two Methods of Writing