Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education ...

This article was downloaded by: [Miami University Libraries], [Katherine Batchelor] On: 03 September 2014, At: 06:39 Publisher: Taylor & Francis Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ujec20

Investigating the Unit of Study Approach as a Way to Teach Writing to Early Childhood Education Preservice Teachers a

b

Katherine E. Batchelor , Denise N. Morgan , Melanie K. Kidderb

b

Brown & Belinda S. Zimmerman a

Department of Teacher Education, Miami University, Oxford, Ohio, USA b

Department of Teaching, Learning, and Curriculum Studies, Kent State University, Kent, Ohio, USA Published online: 18 Aug 2014.

To cite this article: Katherine E. Batchelor, Denise N. Morgan, Melanie K. Kidder-Brown & Belinda S. Zimmerman (2014) Investigating the Unit of Study Approach as a Way to Teach Writing to Early Childhood Education Preservice Teachers, Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 35:3, 276-289, DOI: 10.1080/10901027.2014.936073 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10901027.2014.936073

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

Downloaded by [Miami University Libraries], [Katherine Batchelor] at 06:39 03 September 2014

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/termsand-conditions

Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 35:276–289, 2014 Copyright © National Association of Early Childhood Teacher Educators ISSN: 1090-1027 print / 1745-5642 online DOI: 10.1080/10901027.2014.936073


Investigating the Unit of Study Approach as a Way to Teach Writing to Early Childhood Education Preservice Teachers KATHERINE E. BATCHELOR1 , DENISE N. MORGAN2 , MELANIE K. KIDDER-BROWN2 , AND BELINDA S. ZIMMERMAN2 1

Department of Teacher Education, Miami University, Oxford, Ohio, USA Department of Teaching, Learning, and Curriculum Studies, Kent State University, Kent, Ohio, USA

2

The purpose of this study was to better understand the learning opportunities within a university writing methods course centering on a unit of study experience. Specifically, we wanted to investigate what early childhood education preservice teachers (PSTs) learn about poetry and the writing process when engaged in a poetry unit of study. Our findings revealed that a unit of study format: (a) served as a vehicle to deconstruct and develop new genre awareness; (b) helped PSTs live process aspects of writing instruction; and (c) supported PSTs in developing genre-specific knowledge through the use of mentor texts.

The National Association for the Education of Young Children and International Reading Association (NAEYC & IRA, 2009) believe that in order for young children to become confident and adept readers and writers, early childhood educators must provide them with rich, appropriate, and effective instruction in both reading and writing. With the upcoming adoption of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS; National Governors Association, 2010) many early childhood teachers across the country are engaging in conversations about how to provide appropriate and effective instruction in writing. The CCSS expect young children to write regularly which only supports young children’s natural proclivity toward writing (Clay, 1975; Harste, Woodward, & Burke, 1984). As early as age three, by writing their own name, children can identify that print is an important symbol to read (Harste et al., 1984). Hence, early childhood teachers’ goals are to scaffold students through the complexities associated with the writing process so that eventually, young children will learn that “the power of writing is expressing one’s own ideas in ways that can be understood by others” (IRA & NAEYC, 1998, p. 7). However, research reveals a lack of writing instruction throughout the school day (Applebee & Langer, 2006; Cutler & Graham, 2008; Gilbert & Graham, 2010; Graham, Harris, MacArthur, & Fink-Chorzempa, 2003; Graham & Perin, 2007; National Writing Project & Nagin, 2003). For example, previous survey and observational studies of primary Received 25 November 2013; accepted 11 April 2014. Address correspondence to Katherine E. Batchelor, Department of Teacher Education, Miami University, 400 McGuffey Hall, Oxford, OH 45056, USA. E-mail: [email protected]

276


Poetry and PSTs

277

grades reported that students spent 3 hours or less on writing during the school week (Cutler & Graham, 2008; Graham et al., 2003). Unfortunately, this is simply not enough time devoted to writing instruction (National Commission on Writing, 2003). Moreover, what young children are asked to do in the name of writing instruction does not necessarily constitute sound writing practices. In a national survey of primary grade writing instruction, Cutler and Graham (2008) found that young children spent only 20–25 minutes per day on writing, and when they did write, it consisted of note taking and filling in worksheets. It is clear that students need ample time to write in order to become strong writers (National Commission on Writing, 2003) and teachers who can teach writing well. Early childhood teacher education programs must be a place that engages early childhood preservice teachers to develop a sense of what it means to teaching writing, and more importantly, to regard writing as an important literacy construct beyond handwriting, beyond journaling, and beyond their own, often limited, past experiences with writing. Early childhood educators must recognize that writing and the teaching of writing is “more than just spelling and grammatically correct sentences” (NAEYC & IRA, 2009, p. 7). A recent survey found that the early childhood classrooms “typically provide writing materials but teachers rarely incorporate writing into daily activities or routines, draw attention to writing, engage in shared writing (i.e., where teacher and child write together), or scaffold child writing” (Gerde, Bingham, & Wasik, 2012, p. 352). Having young children develop sound, confident writing practices in early childhood classrooms depends on an early childhood classroom teacher who is comfortable with teaching writing. Specifically, IRA and NAEYC (1998) state that it is important for early childhood teachers to provide young children daily opportunities to engage in writing a range of text forms that include “stories, lists, messages to others, poems, reports, and responses to literature” (p. 10) that will enhance communication with their peers. From infancy through third grade, “children’s ability to become successful readers and writers is enhanced by investments in early education, especially for children who are at greatest risk of school failure” (NAEYC & IRA, 2009, p. 2). Unfortunately, there is little research on how to prepare early childhood preservice teachers to teach writing to young children. For example, a 20-year research review on teacher preparation in writing revealed early childhood is the least researched population (Morgan & Pytash, in press). According to Riojas-Cortez, Alanis, and Flores (2013), “Children benefit most from teachers who have the skills, knowledge, and experience to make good decisions” (p. 36). In order to understand the writing process and how to teach writing, teachers must be writers themselves (Colby & Stapleton, 2006; National Writing Project & Nagin, 2003; Stang & Street, 2011; Whyte et al., 2007). However, many teachers do not feel comfortable teaching writing, which may stem from their own personal experiences as writers (Frank, 2003; Gallavan, Bowles, & Young, 2007; Street & Stang, 2009). Teachers bring extensive knowledge of their subject area to the classroom, but they also bring their own histories as students in these subject areas, which shape how and what they teach (Lortie, 1975). Teachers often rely on instructional practices that mirror their own school experiences, even when those practices do not align with the research base and what is considered to be best practice (Britzman, 1991; Willis & Harris, 1997). This is especially true in the case of teaching writing, where it may be initially difficult to have teachers objectively examine the deeply held beliefs acquired from their own participation in schooling and separate these ideas from the learning of methods coursework (Florio-Ruane & Lensmire, 1990; Lortie, 1975). However, when teachers are able to experience comfort and familiarity with writing, they are better able to objectively examine these deeply held beliefs (Parr, 2005).


278

K. E. Batchelor et al.

Despite awareness of these elements, many teacher professional development opportunities do not assist early childhood educators in applying these principles in practice, nor do many university-based teacher preparation programs around the country (National Commission on Writing, 2003; National Writing Project & Nagin, 2003). The National Commission on Writing (2003) noted that, “only a handful of states require courses in writing for certification, even for elementary school teachers” (p. 23). Bowie (1996) found teachers believed their preparation programs minimally addressed how to become a better writer and teacher of writing and wished for more instruction. The National Commission on Writing also noted that universities should emphasize writing as a “complex (and enjoyable) form of learning and discovery, both for themselves and for their students” (p. 5). Often when writing is taught in university settings, the teaching of writing is often “sandwiched in” with a reading- or literacy-focused course (Morgan, 2010). However, with teacher education programs being the “foremost settings for learning how to teach” (Smagorinsky, Cook, & Johnson, 2003, p. 1407), the absence of focused writing instruction within a methods course may leave teachers unprepared to teach writing that is theoretically strong and pedagogically sound. With comfort and familiarity being an important element in teaching writing effectively, the first steps in teacher education programs to bridge the gap between preservice education methods courses and the classroom are for preservice teachers to have new experiences regarding the teaching of writing.

Review of Literature The preparation of preservice teachers to teach writing is not a robust area of research within the field of teacher education as compared to research on preparing preservice teachers to teach reading (Morgan & Pytash, in press). What is known is that many preservice teachers enter their teacher preparation programs with strong, often negative, views on writing (Gallavan et al., 2007). They carry preconceived notions of what it means to teach writing based on their own past experiences (Lortie, 1975). Furthermore, many regard it as the most difficult aspect of literacy to teach (Gallavan et al., 2007; Lickteig, Johnson, & Johnson, 1999). Preservice teachers who do not like to write may ask their students to write less than teachers who enjoy writing, thus creating a cycle of avoidance in writing (Moore-Hart & Carpenter, 2008). However, methods courses have the potential to break this cycle (Zimmerman, Morgan, Kidder-Brown, & Batchelor, 2012). University methods can better inform, shape, and influence early childhood preservice teachers’ perceptions of themselves as writers and therefore, influence how they teach writing (Grossman, et al., 2000). By engaging in writing methods experiences, future teachers may begin to appreciate writing while also increasing their own confidence in writing, which in turn positively affects how they view their students’ writing ability (Street & Stang, 2008). The social interactions within a writing methods course, the sharing of writing, and the opportunities to think collaboratively support preservice teachers in developing insights into the subject matter of writing and how to best instruct their future learners (Martin & Dismuke, under review). Preservice teachers do draw upon the learning acquired in methods courses during their student teaching experience (Morgan, Zimmerman, Kidder-Brown, & Dunn, 2011) and even in their 2nd year of teaching (Grossman, et al. 2000). Specifically, methods courses can help early childhood preservice teachers confront their own writing histories, helping them deconstruct the instruction that took place in their own learning and then critique it (Hall & Grisham-Brown, 2011). Researchers have found methods courses that emphasize writing in a holistic manner rather than view writing as a structured linear process improve preservice teachers’ writing identities and reduce their


Poetry and PSTs

279

apprehension toward teaching writing (Chambless & Bass, 1995; Daisey, 2008; Lenski & Pardieck, 1999; Martin & Dismuke, under review). By having preservice teachers engage in writing experiences as writers first, they viewed the teaching of writing as beneficial to assist their future students in the writing process too (Morgan, 2010). Furthermore, methods courses can increase preservice teachers’ knowledge about writing instruction and assist in aligning their beliefs and practices in the teaching of writing (Grisham & Wolsey, 2011; Martin & Dismuke, under review). Given the promising findings from previous research, we wanted to examine early childhood preservice teachers’ experiences and practices with one genre in particular: poetry. Poetry is a genre that preservice teachers find the most challenging to write and teach (Hughes & Dymoke, 2011; Mathis, 2002; Parr & Campbell, 2006). Teaching poetry in methods courses, especially an early childhood literacy methods course, expands preservice teachers’ views of poetry to include forms other than rhyming schemes (Elster, 2000), gives preservice teachers freedom in their writing (Clark, 2009), and builds confidence in their writing (Dymoke & Hughes, 2009; Kane & Rule, 2004). Moreover, preservice teachers who engage in poetry units are more likely to include poetry throughout the year within their own classrooms (Hughes & Dymoke, 2011) and are eager for their future students to come to enjoy poetry as they did in the same manner (Kane & Rule, 2004). One manner that is effective in teaching a writing genre is the unit of study. A unit of study is a collection of minilessons about a genre or topic of interest (Ray, 2006). Within the unit of study teachers use mentor texts to serve as resources for students to guide their own writing, helping them study how writers craft their sentences and use techniques that are unique to a specific genre (Lattimer, 2003; Ray, 2006). Units of study hone in on specific genre techniques and then students are encouraged to try these techniques in their own writing. For example, a teacher may specifically ask students to focus on line breaks in their mentor texts and then ask them to practice line breaks in their own poems. Furthermore, a unit of study allows students to begin learning at an individualized level and move forward, which serves all students’ writing needs, including struggling learners and English language learners. This structure offers opportunities for student differentiation throughout the unit. A unit of study approach to teaching writing has also been identified in developing preservice teachers’ conceptual and pedagogical knowledge about teaching writing (Grisham & Wolsey, 2011; Hall & Grisham-Brown, 2011; Morgan et al., 2011). More importantly, in the few available studies early childhood preservice teachers have identified working within a unit of study experience as helpful in that it provides them with a process to use when teaching their future students (Morgan, 2010). Therefore, in this study we wanted to explore how a unit of study experience supports early childhood preservice teachers in learning about the writing process. The purpose of this study was to better understand the learning opportunities within a unit of study experience. Specifically we wanted to investigate what early childhood preservice teachers learn about poetry and the writing process when engaged in a poetry unit of study. This study will add to the limited number of studies that specifically focus on early childhood preservice teacher preparation in teaching writing.

Methods Participants and Context Participants for this study included 35 preservice teachers from two cohorts enrolled in an early childhood education writing methods course during their junior year at a public university in the Midwest. Participants were between the ages of 21 and 24, with the exception


280


of one nontraditional student. The participants were Caucasian except for one Latina student. Within this 16-week writing methods course, preservice teachers participated in a unit of study approach (Ray, 2006) to teaching writing. Each class met weekly for 2 hours and 45 minutes. Early childhood preservice teachers engaged in multiple units of study throughout the course. The poetry unit of study lasted 5 weeks and focused on instruction in grades K–3. For the purpose of this article, we focus specifically on the poetry unit of study. We chose poetry because many preservice teachers have strong negative responses to writing poetry (Zimmerman et al., 2012). Poetry mentor texts were selected from authors such as Naomi Shihab Nye, Eve Merriam, and Mary Oliver. The researchers involved in this study included two early childhood professors and one instructor who have taught this course several times before and one doctoral candidate interested in researching the writing process. Denise and Belinda conceptualized the study and Belinda was the instructor for the course. Data Sources We draw upon multiple data sources for this investigation. We administered two pre- and post-measures about poetry. At the beginning of the semester, early childhood preservice teachers wrote an initial essay about their poetry experiences. They were asked five openended questions: (a) How do you view poetry? (b) What are you personal experiences with reading and/or writing poetry? (c) What are your school experiences with poetry? (d) How was poetry taught when you were in school? and (e) Do you anticipate using poetry when you teach? If so, how do you envision that you will teach poetry? At the end of the unit, preservice teachers were asked to complete an open-ended final reflection responding to eight questions about their poetry experiences. Also, prior to the poetry unit, preservice teachers completed eight open-ended writing prompts about poetry (from Apol & Harris modified by Damico, 2005). They responded to questions such as “When I think about poetry, I think about . . . ” and “Are you a poet? How do you know?” They also responded to the same eight questions at the conclusion of the poetry unit. The pre-open-ended writing prompts were returned to the students at the end of the course to allow them the opportunity to see where and how their thinking had shifted. We also asked preservice teachers to mark their noticings about a poem at the beginning and end of the unit. They were also encouraged to annotate their responses while reading the poem. At the end of the post-analysis, preservice teachers’ original pre-analyses were returned to them in order to reflect on differences. Additionally, each preservice teacher created a personal poetry book consisting of at least three poems. The poems were inspired by classroom conversations and mentor texts that were read, shared, and analyzed in class. We had 105 total poems in the data set. Accompanying their poetry book was a written reflection describing their intentions, thoughts, and feelings for each poem they wrote. We also drew upon their reflective essays written during the first week of the course describing preservice teachers’ past experiences with writing. Data Analysis Data were analyzed and coded using the constant comparative method (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). To prepare the data for coding we created multiple charts so that we could examine the preservice teachers’ pre- and post-responses across one question for the writing prompts. We created similar charts for the initial and final poetry reflection. We also created


Poetry and PSTs

281

charts that allowed us to examine the early childhood preservice teachers’ poems and their responses about their decisions for their poems (e.g., why they chose the topic, mentor texts that influenced their poem, and intentional decisions they made). We began open coding of the data in the charts, each representing a specific question or prompt collectively. We created a codebook which we refined as we progressed in coding. We coded two questions for all 35 early childhood preservice teachers together. We then coded the first six preservice teachers for the remaining questions together and then individually coded separate questions. Codes included, “preconceptions,” “inner growth,” “freedom of writing topic,” and “intentional writing decisions.” After our initial coding, a doctoral student also coded these questions using our codes to a clean set of data. As a second layer of analysis, we constructed individual profiles for each preservice teacher. The purpose of developing these profiles was to provide context for the individual experience within this study. In doing so, we pulled from all data sources to create one profile per student to help us examine their responses and reflections across their poetry experiences. It was here that we wrote up an analysis of their poems along with quotes that provided specific data on techniques used and intentional decisions made in their poems. This allowed us to examine each preservice teacher’s experience in context and allowed us to look for patterns within the whole of their experiences. We each wrote descriptive and reflective memos throughout the coding process. This also provided support as corroborating evidence for findings from the initial codes. We believe we were able to control for bias since four researchers examined the data. Final findings prompted us to return to our memos and patterns we recognized in the data and align our codes into categories that we describe in the next section.

Findings We set out to investigate what early childhood preservice teachers learn about teaching writing when engaged in a unit of study on poetry. We found the unit of study format: served as a vehicle to deconstruct and develop new genre awareness; helped early childhood preservice teachers live process aspects of writing instruction and supported them in developing genre-specific knowledge through the use of mentor texts. Pseudonyms are used throughout the study. Units of Study Serve as a Vehicle to Deconstruct and Develop New Genre Awareness Many early childhood preservice teachers held a “behind the velvet rope” view of poetry. While 58% (n = 20) of preservice teachers had an overall positive perspective of poetry, there was variation in their reasons for this perspective. For five preservice teachers, their reasons were like Jess’s: “I love writing poems. I like to rhyme and write creatively.” Others gave more all-inclusive answers (n = 8) such as Nancy: “I think everyone is a poet in some way. Therefore, I think I am a poet” or they gave lukewarm responses (n = 7) (e.g., “Yes, because all you need is confidence and something to write about”). Poetry appeared to be something the preservice teachers seemed to appreciate from afar but not something they “did,” but rather, something someone else “did.” Those individuals had a “gift,” one Brittany believed she did not possess but was “envious” of those who did. Stefanie indicated that writing poetry made her feel “silly and pretentious” and thus, it was something she avoided. Others (42%) had a more negative view of poetry, sharing feelings of angst when required to write poetry. For example, Tara had been “afraid” when she encountered past


282


poetry writing assignments in school. She reflected, “I thought, ugh . . . a poem? I’m not good at writing poems.” Emily confessed that poetry was “boring” and something she did not “get.” Megan recalled being told her poetry was not “right” by previous teachers and her rhyming poems made sense to her but never her teachers. Within the unit of study, preservice teachers came face to face with their past poetry experiences, and it allowed them to refine or develop new understandings of and familiarity with poetry. As a result, preservice teachers noted a new perception of themselves as poets, a shift in their confidence, and a new appreciation for the genre. At the end of the unit 91% (n = 32) of preservice teachers identified themselves as a poet with a newfound confidence in their answers, often indicating this with a “Yes! .” The 9% (n = 3) of preservice teachers who still did not consider themselves poets stated it was because writing poems was not part of their regular writing lives; they liked to write poetry, but they just didn’t do it in their “free time.” However, many preservice teachers commented on their new comfort and confidence with poetry. For Leah, this confidence came from realizing that she could express herself in a “new and different way now that [she] never thought [she] could.” With this newfound confidence came “pride” and feeling “proud to share” her writing with others. Lindsey described her poetry experiences as a “rewarding process” as well as a way for writers “to creatively express themselves.” In the preservice teachers’ pre- and post-comments were multiple examples where they noted their sense of being a poet was tied to their personal writing of poetry. For example, prior to the poetry unit of study experience Veronica wrote: I believe anyone is a poet. When I take the time to write a poem, I find it easier to focus on the main points of what is being discussed. When I was young I would always write my thoughts down in a journal. To me, that was being a poet. When asked the same question at the end of the experience, she wrote: Yes! I would definitely say I am a poet. I have written poetry ever since I was young but my favorite and most meaningful poem was written this semester. I was able to take what was going on in my life and use that as fuel to write a personal poem that I want to publish. Thus, for these early childhood preservice teachers, their experiences within the unit of study on poetry provided them with opportunities to redefine their understandings of poetry and develop or refine their identity as someone who writes poetry. For most preservice teachers, it was no longer an experience for “others” but an important experience for themselves. Units of Study Help Early Childhood Preservice Teachers Live Process Aspects of Writing Instruction In introductory reflections, preservice teachers shared they wrote to complete school assignments. They identified with and focused on the end goal rather than the writing process itself. Working within a unit of study structure allowed students to slow down and become aware of and even enjoy the process of writing. The unit of study experience created moments of quiet reflection for the preservice teachers, moments to share and discuss their writing with other writers in the class, and moments to revisit their poems and revise.

Poetry and PSTs

283


Lindsey commented, “I feel like writing poetry is a really rewarding process. For all my poems I had several drafts where I revised and changed things.” Theresa added, “If I continue to put my heart into the poems I am writing, they mean so much more to me than if I were writing something for an assignment with a list of requirements.” Recognizing and developing their own writing process. Furthermore, preservice teachers worked within the writing process differently. Some chose to brainstorm quickly, writing without judgment. For example, Veronica used brainstorming techniques to help her gather ideas for her poems. She noted, “I felt that it was important to write whatever thoughts and feelings I had at the moment. Even if it did not make sense at the time, I knew I could go back and reword what I had written.” Veronica showed faith in the process, knowing that she would be able to refine her thinking at another time, but that it was best for her not to block ideas initially. Some preservice teachers considered the content and message first and did not write until those ideas were in place. As one preservice teacher eloquently stated, “Writing a poem is about observing the world within me or around me.” Other preservice teachers prioritized/considered the crafting of words and spaces as being the entry points for their writing. For example, Lindsey said, “I tried to create ‘fresh music’ as (Ralph) Fletcher calls it, by creating rhythms in my poetry. I played around with word choice and placement to make my poems sing.” Hayley, too, placed word crafting as important to the writing process. She wrote, “I thought about the words I used. I thought about the actual craft of putting the words together and the sort of spacing and punctuation I wanted to use.” Sam agreed: “I really had to think hard about the words that I chose and how to express myself the way that I wanted to.” Rather than all beginning at the same place, they learned what avenues they wanted to travel first as writers. There was no single “you must begin with . . . ” experience for them. They found their own way to the same end goal. Discovering the emotional pull of writing. Many preservice teachers found the process of writing poetry “therapeutic.” Samantha wrote, “It is like all of my emotions are spilled out into this beautiful piece of art, and I am very proud of that. It is a process that brings back many emotions and feelings, but once you are done you are relieved and stress free.” Brittany and Courtney also found poetry to be an “outlet for emotions” and a “type of therapy.” Jessi shared a similar sentiment as she discovered that writing poetry made her “feel better” as she wrote about meaningful topics. Courtney also found the emotional release of writing poetry to be beneficial, stating, “Writing poetry is not a painful task but a relaxing art-form that I now have in my back pocket to go to when I am in need of a release.” Kayla “loved” that poetry writing allowed her to “let go” and “divulge” her “inner feelings.” The preservice teachers experienced firsthand the emotional connection writers can have with their writing. Thus writing was not something to finish but something to experience and live through. Preservice teachers came to determine the personal process they wanted to live when writing their own poems, helping them see the multiple pathways to the same end goal. Units of Study Help Early Childhood Preservice Teachers Develop Genre-Specific Knowledge Through the Use of Mentor Texts Preservice teachers did gain genre-specific knowledge about poetry primarily through the use of mentor texts. Additionally, their understanding of poetry translated into their intentional decisions when writing their own poems, both macrostructurally and microstructurally.


284


Mentor texts. Preservice teachers were inspired by a variety of mentor texts. They learned they could model their own writing of poetry after these poets, either through adopting the format of the poem, noticing intentional written decisions, or writing about similar topics. Some looked to classic poets, such as Robert Frost, Emily Dickinson, or Langston Hughes while other received inspiration from contemporary poets such as Nikki Giovanni, Catherine Paladino, or Arnold Adoff. For example, Hayley stated, “Nikki Giovanni uses large spacing between certain words in some of her poems. To me, she does this to indicate that there needs to be a longer pause between those words while reading. I used this technique in my poem between the words where I wanted a longer, exaggerated pause.” Additionally, some students’ personal poems became mentor texts for others. For example, Samantha noted, “The first mentor text I used was Leah’s. She wrote a poem about her and her brother’s relationship, and this inspired me to write a poem about one of my best friends.” The instructor’s own poem entitled The Wave was also noted several times as a mentor text for preservice teachers. In using this poem as one of her mentor texts, Emily wrote, “Belinda repeated the same first line in all of her stanzas. I think it brings the reader back to the point of the poem and I wanted to try that in my own poem.” Erin also commented on using the instructor’s poem stating, “I chose this poem as a mentor text because I liked the fact of a repeating line at the end and how it morphed from a peaceful wave to a violent one. That gave me an idea for my poem.” Preservice teachers also turned to popular culture using music from artists like Bob Dylan and Taylor Swift as well as commercials to gain inspiration. Emily wrote, “Bob Dylan’s play on words and symbolism in his lyrics inspire me to look for hidden meanings and use descriptive words in my own writing.” Learning to look at writing in a deeper way. At the beginning of the poetry unit of study, each preservice teacher was given a copy of a poem “Lava” by Lisa Westberg Peters. The preservice teachers were asked to annotate the poem with anything they noticed. They stated they felt apprehensive when first analyzing this poem. Their analyses typically consisted of one to four brief comments, noting obvious items, such as “it is a non-rhyming poem” or “it has a comparison.” They also commented on the literal meaning of the poem. For example, in her initial analysis, Emily noted one comparison, a simile: “It squeezed out of a volcano like fiery black toothpaste.” She also noticed the repetition of the word “lava” throughout the poem but did not question why the author would choose to repeat this word. Finally, she added that the poem would come in handy during a science unit about volcanoes. Throughout the unit of study, the close reading of mentor texts helped the preservice teachers uncover different levels of meaning within the poems as well as helped them notice the author’s intentional decisions with the poems. Preservice teachers began to question and consider the possible thinking behind the title, the use of specific repeating words, lines, and phrases as well as the symbolism with specific objects. Collaborative discussions surrounded these mentor texts, and by modeling their own writing after their favorite poems, preservice teachers were able to reconsider their initial findings from the first round of the “Lava” analysis. When the preservice teachers analyzed the same poem again at the end of the unit of study, preservice teachers’ comments included many annotations, connections to their own ideas, and identified numerous intentional decisions they learned throughout the unit. More importantly, their analyses deepened in reflection and confidence. Students identified and discussed the poem’s “hidden message.” For example, in his reflection, Michael


Poetry and PSTs

285

noted that this experience allowed him to look more at the meaning of the poem by “looking deeper into what the words may be symbolizing.” Preservice teachers considered theme in their post-analyses, which was omitted in their initial analyses. For example, Megan suggested that the poem contained a circle pattern and focused on regrowth and healing. Returning to Emily, the preservice teacher who initially noted “Lava” could come in handy when teaching volcanoes, her post-analysis focused on technique and craft of each stanza, such as the white space, the emphasis of the word lava that begins each stanza, stating “the author makes it stand out.” Moreover, she commented that the lava in the poem had “come full circle.” She wrote, “It is not only a destroyer, but a maker.” Preservice teachers’ intentional decisions also focused more on a microlevel aspect of writing poetry, frequently centered on word choice, line length and breaks, punctuation, either omitting or inserting commas and periods, as well as repetition of lines. For example, Hayley stated, “I could have had some longer lines, but I decided to break them up and make them shorter, separate ones.” Emily wrote, “I specifically tried to put certain words in lines with other words. I knew that was an important part to how someone reads a poem.” Hayley wrote, “I was inspired by the work of a poet named Nikki Giovanni. In her poems, she never really uses any punctuation. I tried this technique in one of my poems.” Later, she added, “Using no punctuation feels a little bit unstructured; it is a way to let all of your feelings hang out without being restricted. I needed to do that in this poem. I just needed to get all of the fears and feelings out I had about this topic without being constrained by punctuation.” The preservice teachers saw growth in their ability to make intentional decisions about their poetry and also in their ability to examine a poem closely and identify what they noticed about how the piece was crafted.

Discussion In this study, we investigated how a unit of study facilitated early childhood preservice teachers’ learning about writing, and specifically, poetry. Given the well-noted lack of writing instruction occurring in primary schools and the lack of teacher preparation in this area we wanted to explore what this learning experience offers preservice teachers. We deliberately selected to investigate their experiences within a poetry unit of study due to our past findings about early childhood preservice teachers’ mixed or negative feelings toward this specific genre. Could a specific experience support preservice teachers in developing a new appreciation of a particular genre along with providing them with some fundamental understanding about the processes associated with writing and specific genre knowledge? While other researchers have examined single facets of writing instruction such as the influence of instructor modeling of his own writing process on preservice teachers (Kaufman, 2009) and the use of analyzing student writing samples in class (Gibson, 2007), few have made the unit of study a central focus within a methods course. The unit of study offered students a way to reexperience a known and highly preconceived genre. Early childhood preservice teachers were asked to recall their prior experiences and knowledge about the genre. Preservice teachers’ thinking about poetry grew from general pre- statements such as, “poetry is rhyming,” and “poetry is a group of lines/stanzas that go together to form meaning” to more personal relevance connecting poetry to themselves. For example, in their final reflections, preservice teachers wrote that their writing of poetry centered on personal issues they needed to address in their lives, while others stated that they needed to relieve anger and frustration. All of these factors matter in teaching writing well—personal beliefs, past experiences, trying to get ideas on


286


paper, and living the process, which is what our preservice teachers experienced throughout their poetry unit of study. Teaching writing through a unit of study approach can be effective when engaging in a writing genre that preservice teachers may have difficulty writing (Hughes & Dymoke, 2011). Our findings showed that preservice teachers, while initially apprehensive about writing poetry, embraced their poetry writing experiences. By confronting their own writing histories and critiquing how they learned poetry in their own schooling, preservice teachers were able to reassess and give poetry a second chance (Hall & Grisham-Brown, 2011; Norman & Spencer, 2005). Many preservice teachers stated that by immersing themselves in poetry through a unit of study, they now view poetry as an approachable and teachable topic for their future early childhood students; moreover, they feel comfortable enough to call themselves poets. Few universities have methods courses devoted to the teaching of writing. As this study suggests, writing methods courses immerse preservice teachers, especially in early childhood in the writing process, which can increase their confidence as writers and reduce their apprehension toward teaching writing (Chambless & Bass, 1995; Daisey, 2008; Lenski & Pardieck, 1999; Martin & Dismuke, under review). In turn, this writing experience will increase the chances of them becoming early childhood teachers of writing and how they view writing overall (Street & Stang, 2008). Furthermore, the specific focus of researchers on the preparation of early childhood preservice teachers to teach writing is limited. Our study adds to the limited research literature on preparing preservice teachers in this foundational grade band to teach writing and specifically adds to the knowledge base on preparing early childhood preservice teachers in particular. Our research suggests that using a unit of study approach in writing is a powerful way to allow early childhood preservice teachers to build confidence in their writing as well as hone in on specific techniques of the writing process, particularly with poetry writing. This study suggests that the unit of study assisted preservice teachers’ immersion in poetry in a positive way, thus encouraging them to continue writing poetry outside of the school experience. The unit of study offers teacher educators an instructional approach within their methods courses that allow their preservice teachers to experience writing in a meaningful, holistic manner. We encourage practicing early childhood teachers and early childhood teacher educators to use these findings to inform their own literacy instruction.

References Applebee, A. N., & Langer, J. A. (2006). The state of writing instruction in America’s schools: What existing data tell us. Albany, NY: Center on English Learning & Achievement. Bowie, R. L. (1996). Future teachers’ perceptions of themselves as writers and teachers of writing: Implications for teacher education programs. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the College Reading Association, Charleston, SC. Britzman, D. (1991). Practice makes practice: A critical study of learning to teach. Albany, NY: SUNY. Chambless, M. S., & Bass, J. F. (1995). Effecting changes in student teachers’ attitudes toward writing. Reading Research and Instruction, 35(2), 153–159. Clark, A. (2009). When privilege meets poverty: Using poetry in the process of reflection. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 20(2), 125–142. Clay, M. M. (1975). What did I write? Beginning writing behavior. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.


Poetry and PSTs

287

Colby, S. A., & Stapleton, J. N. (2006). Preservice teachers teach writing: Implications for teacher educators. Reading Research and Instruction, 45(4), 353–376. Cutler, L., & Graham, S. (2008). Primary grade writing instruction: A national survey. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(4), 907–919. Daisey, P. (2008). Using drawings by secondary preservice teachers to study their writing process and apprehension. College Reading Association Yearbook, 29, 201–218. Damico, J. (2005). Evoking hearts and heads: Exploring issues of social justice through poetry. Language Arts, 83(2), 137–146. Dymoke, S., & Hughes, J. (2009). Using a poetry wiki: How can the medium support pre-service teachers of English in their professional learning about writing poetry and teaching poetry writing in a digital age? English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 8(3), 91–106. Elster, C. A. (2000). Entering and opening the world of a poem. Language Arts, 78(1), 71–77. Florio-Ruane, S., & Lensmire, T. J. (1990). Transforming future teachers’ ideas about writing instruction. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 22(3), 277–289. Frank, C. R. (2003). Mapping our stories: Teachers’ reflections on themselves as writers. Language Arts, 80(3), 185–195. Gallavan, N. P., Bowles, F. A., & Young, C. T. (2007). Writing to learn and learning to write: Insights from teacher education. Action in Teacher Education, 29(2), 61–69. Gerde, H. K., Bingham, G. E., & Wasik, B. A. (2012). Writing in early childhood classrooms: Guidance for best practices. Early Childhood Education Journal, 40(6), 351–359. Gibson, S. A. (2007). Preservice teachers’ knowledge of instructional scaffolding for writing instruction. Mid-Western Educational Researcher, 20(2), 9–15. Gilbert, J., & Graham, S. (2010). Teaching writing to elementary students in grades 4-6: A national survey. Elementary School Journal, 110(4), 494–518. Graham, S., Harris, K. R., MacArthur, C., & Fink-Chorzempa, B. (2003). Primary grade teachers’ instructional adaptations for weaker writers: A national survey. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(2), 279–293. Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007). Writing next: Effective strategies to improve writing of adolescents in middle and high school. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education. Grisham, D. L., & Wolsey, T. D. (2011). Writing instruction for teacher candidates: Strengthening a weak curricular area. Literacy Research and Instruction, 50, 348–364. doi:10.1080/19388071.2010.532581 Grossman, P., Valencia, S., Evans, K., Thompson, C., Martin, S., & Place, N. (2000). Transitions into teaching: Learning to teach writing in teacher education and beyond. Journal of Literacy Research, 32(4), 631–662. Hall, A. H., & Grisham-Brown, J. (2011). Writing development over time: Examining preservice teachers’ attitudes and beliefs about writing. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 32(2), 148–158. Harste, J., Woodward, V., & Burke, C. (1984). Language stories and literacy lessons. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Hughes, J., & Dymoke, S. (2011). “Wiki-Ed poetry”: Transforming preservice teachers’ preconceptions about poetry and poetry teaching. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 55(1), 46–56. International Reading Association & National Association for the Education of Young Children. (1998). Learning to read and write: Developmentally appropriate practices for young children. Retrieved from http://www.naeyc.org./positionstatements/learning_readwrite Kane, S., & Rule, A. C. (2004). Poetry connections can enhance content area learning. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 47(8), 658–669. Kaufman, D. K., (2009). A teacher educator writes and shares student perceptions of a publicly literate life. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(3), 338–350. Lattimer, H. (2003). Thinking through genre: Units of study in reading and writing workshops 4-12. Portland, ME: Stenhouse Publishers.


288


Lenski, S. D., & Pardieck, S. (1999). Improving preservice teachers’ attitudes toward writing. In J. R. Dugan, P. E. Linder, W. M. Linek, & E. G. Sturtevant (Eds.), Advancing the world of literacy: Moving into the 21st century (pp. 269–281). Commerce, TX: Texas A & M University Press. Lickteig, J., Johnson, B., & Johnson, D. (1999). Future teachers’ reflective perceptions and anticipations about reading and writing. Journal of Reading Education, 19(3), 22–43. Lortie, D. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Martin, S. D., & Dismuke, S. (under review). What did they learn? How did they learn? Teacher candidates’ perceptions of their learning and engagement in a writing methods course. Mathis, J. B. (2002). Poetry and preservice teachers: Perceptions and possibilities. The Dragon Lode, 20(2), 12–19. Moore-Hart, M. A., & Carpenter, R. (2008, December). Improving preservice teachers’ attitudes toward writing: An avenue to enhanced instructional practices. Paper presented at the National Reading Conference, Orlando, FL. Morgan, D. N. (2010). Preservice teachers as writers. Literacy Research and Instruction, 49, 357–365. Morgan, D. N., & Pytash, K. E. (in press, October 2014). Preparing preservice teachers to become teachers of writing: A 20-year review of the research literature. English Education. Morgan, D. N., Zimmerman, B. S., Kidder-Brown, M. K., & Dunn, K. (2011). From writing methods to student teaching: Vision development and the implementation of conceptual and practical tools by preservice teachers. In P. Dunston, L. B. Gambrell, K. Headley, S. K. Fullerton, V. R. Gillis, C. C. Bates (Eds.), 60th Literacy Research Association Yearbook (pp. 100–112). Oak Creek, WI: Literacy Research Association. National Association for the Education of Young Children & International Reading Association. (2009). Where we stand on learning to read and write. Retrieved from http://www.naeyc.org./ positionstatements/learning_readwrite National Commission on Writing for America’s Families, Schools and Colleges. (2003). The neglected “R”: The need for a writing revolution. Retrieved from http://www.writingcommission. org National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common Core State Standards for English language arts. Washington, DC: Authors. National Writing Project, & Nagin, C. (2003). Because writing matters: Improving student writing in our schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Norman, K. A., & Spencer, B. H. (2005). Our lives as writers: Examining preservice teachers’ experiences and beliefs about the nature of writing and writing instruction. Teacher Education Quarterly, 32(1), 25–40. Parr, M. (2005). Knowing is not enough: We must do! Teacher development through engagement in learning opportunities. International Journal of Learning, 12(6), 135–140. Parr, M., & Campbell, T. (2006). Poets in practice. The Reading Teacher, 60(1), 36–46. Ray, K.W. (2006). Study driven: A framework for planning units of study in the writing workshop. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Riojas-Cortez, M., Alanis, I., & Flores, B. B. (2013). Early childhood teachers reconstruct beliefs and practices through reflexive action. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 34, 36–45. Smagorinsky, P., Cook, L., & Johnson, T. (2003). The twisting path of concept development in learning to teach. The Teachers College Record, 105(8), 1399–1436. Stang, K. K., & Street, C. (2011). Get it write: Teachers as writers. Journal of Content Area Reading, 9(1), 27–49. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Street, C., & Stang, K. (2008). Improving the teaching of writing across the curriculum: A model for teaching in-service secondary teachers to write. Action in Teacher Education, 30(1), 37–49. Street, C., & Stang, K. K. (2009). In what ways do teacher education courses change teachers’ self confidence as writers? Teacher Education Quarterly, 36(3), 75–94.


Poetry and PSTs

289

Whyte, A., Lazarte, A., Thompson, I., Ellis, N., Muse, A., & Talbot, R. (2007). The National Writing Project, teachers’ writing lives, and student achievement in writing. Action in Teacher Education, 29(2), 5–16. Willis, A., & Harris, V. (1997). Preparing preservice teachers to teach multicultural literature. In J. Flood, S. B. Heath, & D. Lapp (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching literacy through the communicative and visual arts (pp. 460–469). New York, NY: Macmillan. Zimmerman, B. S., Morgan, D. N., Kidder-Brown, M. K., & Batchelor, K. E. (2012). Exploring poetry writing in a methods course: Changes in preservice teachers’ identities as teachers of writing. In P. Dunston, S. K. Fullerton, C. C. Bates, K. Headley, & P. M. Stecker (Eds.), 61st Literacy Research Association Yearbook (pp. 145–157). Oak Creek, WI: Literacy Research Association.