Links between teachers' pedagogical beliefs and teaching practices were investigated with respect to process writing instruction. Participants included 5 teachers, 44 general education students, and 23 special education students in 2 elementary multi-age inclusion classrooms. Findings suggested that, although the teachers shared similar views on inclusion and were convinced of the uniqueness of their respective instructional approaches, they nuanced their writing instruction to conform to their implicit theories about teaching, learning, and disability. One set of teachers believed that the writing “breakdowns” of students with disabilities required a structural approach— sequenced, individualized, phonics-based instruction targeting individual performance levels. Another set of teachers advocated a relational approach, wherein students with disabilities are “protected” and “empowered” in learning communities characterized by shared activities, student choice, and interpersonal communication.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Abelson, R.P. (1979). Differences between belief and knowledge systems . Cognitive Science, 3, 355—366.
2.
Baker, S., Gersten, R., & Graham, S. (2003). Teaching expressive writing to students with learning disabilities: Research-based applications and examples. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 36, 109—123.
3.
Banicky, L.A. (2000). Opportunity to learn (Policy Brief Vol. 7). Retrieved February 16, 2003, from http://www.udel.edu/chep/edbriefs/opplearn.pdf
4.
Beach, S.A. (1994). Teacher's theories and classroom practice: Beliefs, knowledge, or context? Reading Psychology: AnInternational Quarterly, 15, 189—196.
Boundy, K.B. (1999). Opportunity to learn and education reform: Ensuring access to effective education for all students. Retrieved September 24, 2003, from http://specialed.principals.org/discidea/topdocs/peer/opportunityib.html
7.
Brantlinger, E. (1996). Influence of preservice teachers' beliefs about pupil achievement on attitudes toward inclusion. Teacher Education and Special Education, 19, 17—33.
8.
Brophy, J.E., & Good, T.L. (1974). Teachers' communication of differential expectations for children's classroom performance: Some behavioral data. Journal of Educational Psychology, 61, 365—374.
9.
Clark, C.M., & Peterson, P.L. (1986). Teachers' thought processes . In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Teaching (pp. 255—296). New York : Macmillan.
10.
Cooper, D.H., & Valli, L.R. (1996). Designing classrooms for inclusion: Beyond management . In D. L. Speece & B. K. Keogh (Eds.), Research on classroom ecologies: Implications for inclusion of children with learning disabilities (pp. 143—162). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum .
11.
Cresswell, J.W. (1994). Research design: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
12.
Dixon, C., & de la Cruz, E. (1992, December). Making visible the invisible: Exploring the construction of communities of writers in classrooms . Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Reading Conference, San Antonio, TX.
13.
Englert, C.S., Berry, R., & Dunsmore, K. (2001). A case study of the apprenticeship process: Another perspective on the apprentice and the scaffolding metaphor. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34, 152— 171.
14.
Gersten, R., & Baker, S. (2001). Teaching expressive writing to students with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis [electronic version]. Elementary School Journal, 101, 251—272.
15.
Graham, S., & Harris, K.R. (1997). Whole language and process writing: Does one approach fit all? In J. W. Lloyd, E. J. Kame'enui , & D. Chard (Eds.), Issues in educating students with disabilities (pp. 239— 258). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum .
16.
Graham, S., Harris, K.R., MacArthur, C., & Fink, B. (2002). Primary grade teachers' theoretical orientations concerning writing instruction: Construct validation and a nationwide survey . Contemporary Educational Psychology, 27, 147—166.
17.
Graham, S., Harris, K.R., Fink, B., & MacArthur, C.A. (2001). Teacher efficacy in writing: A construct validation with primary grade teachers. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5, 177—202.
18.
Gregg, N., & Mather, N. (2002). School is fun at recess: Informal analyses of written language for students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35, 7—22.
19.
Gutiérrez, K. (1994). How talk, context, and script shape contexts for learning: A cross-case comparison of journal sharing. Linguistics and Education, 5, 335—365.
20.
Gutiérrez, K.D., & Stone, L.D. (1997). A cultural—historical view of learning and learning disabilities: Participating in a community of learners. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 12, 123—131.
21.
Heath, S.B. (1983) Ways with words. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
22.
Herman, J.L., & Klein, D.C.D. (December). Assessing opportunity to learn: A California example (CSE Technical Report 453). Retrieved November 15, 2003, from www.cse.ucla.edu/CRESST/Reports/TECH453.pdf
23.
Hillocks, G., Jr. (1984). What works in teaching composition: A meta-analysis of experimental treatment studies. American Journal of Education , 93, 133—170.
24.
Howe, K. (2001). Qualitative educational research: The philosophical issues. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 201—208). Washington, DC: AERA.
25.
Jordan, A., & Stanovich, P. (2003). Teachers' personal epistemological beliefs about students with disabilities as indicators of effective teaching practices. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 3, 1—14.
26.
Kagan, D.M. (1992). Implications of research on teacher belief. Educational Psychologist, 27, 65—90.
27.
Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
28.
Lipson, M.Y., Mosenthal, J., Daniels, P., & Woodside-Jiron, H. (2000). Process writing in the classrooms of eleven fifth-grade teachers with different orientations to teaching and learning [electronic version]. Elementary School Journal , 101, 209— 231.
29.
Macbeth, D. (2003). Hugh Mehan's “Learning lessons” reconsidered: On the differences between the naturalistic and critical analysis of classroom discourse. American Educational Research Journal, 40, 239—280.
30.
Mariage, T.V. (1995). Why students learn: The nature of teacher talk during reading. Learning Disability Quarterly, 18, 214—234.
31.
Mariage, T.V. (2001). Features of an interactive writing discourse: Conversational involvement, conventional knowledge, and internalization in “Morning Message.” Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34, 172—196.
32.
McDermott, R. (1993). The acquisition of a child by a learning disability . In S. Chaiklin & J. Lave (Eds.), Understanding practice: Perspectives on activity and context (pp. 269—305). New York : Cambridge University Press.
33.
Miles, M.B., & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
34.
Morocco, C.C., & Hindin, A. (2002). The role of conversation in a thematic understanding of literature. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice , 17, 144—159.
35.
Muijs, D., & Reynolds, D. (2002). Teachers' beliefs and behaviors: What really matters?Journal of Classroom Interaction, 37, 3—15.
36.
Munby, H. (1987). Metaphor and teachers' knowledge. Research in the Teaching of English, 21, 377—397.
37.
Nespor, J. (1987). The role of beliefs in the practice of teaching . Journal of Curriculum Studies, 19, 317—328.
38.
Nystrand, M., & Gamoran, A. (1991). Student engagement: When recitation becomes conversation . In H. C. Waxman & H. J. Walberg (Eds.), Effective teaching: Current research (pp. 257—276). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.
39.
O'Connor, M.C., & Michaels, S. (1996). Shifting participant frameworks: Orchestrating thinking practices in group discussion. In D. Hicks (Ed.), Discourse, learning, and schooling (pp. 63—103). New York: Cambridge University Press.
40.
Pajares, M.F. (1992). Teachers' beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62, 307—332.
41.
Rankin-Erickson, J.L., & Pressley, M. (2000). A survey of instructional practices of special education teachers nominated as effective teachers of literacy. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 15, 206— 225.
42.
Ryan, G.W., & Bernard, H.R. (2000). Data management and analysis methods. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 769—802). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
43.
Schwartz, W. (1995). Opportunity to learn standards: Their impact on urban students (ERIC/CUE Digest Number 110). (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED389816) Retrieved November 15, 2003, from http://www.ericfacility.net/ericdigests/ed389816.html
44.
Sexton, M., Harris, K.R., & Graham, S. (1998). Self-regulated strategy development and the writing process: Effects on composition writing and attributions [electronic version] . Exceptional Children, 64, 295—312.
45.
Slee, R. (1997). Inclusion or assimilation? Sociological explorations of the foundations of theories of special education. Educational Foundations, 11(1), 55—71.
46.
Stanovich, P.J., & Jordan, A. (1998). Canadian teachers' and principals' beliefs about inclusive education as predictors of effective teaching in heterogeneous classrooms . Elementary School Journal, 98, 221— 238.
47.
Stringer, S.J., Morton, R.C., & Bonikowski, M.H. (1999). Learning disabled students: Using process writing to build autonomy and self esteem [electronic version]. Journal of InstructionalPsychology, 26, 196—200.
48.
Tuyay, S., Jennings, L., & Dixon, C. (1995). Classroom discourse and opportunities to learn: An ethnographic study of knowledge construction in a bilingual third-grade classroom. Discourse Processes, 19, 75—110.
49.
Vaughn, S., & Schumm, J.S. (1996). Classroom ecologies: Classroom interactions and implications for inclusion of students with learning disabilities. In D. L. Speece & B. K. Keogh (Eds.), Research on classroom ecologies: Implications for inclusion of children with learning disabilities (pp. 107— 124). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
50.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
51.
Ysseldyke, J., Thurlow, M., & Shin, H. (1995). Opportunity-to-learn standards (Policy Directions No. 4). Retrieved March 1, 2003, from http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Policy4.html
