Skip to main content

ETHNOS_APP

Home • Search • Journals • List 0

Collaborative Analysis of Writing Instruction

Bibliographic Data

ID13682582
AuthorsJoan Pettigrew (Boston University, corresponding author), Robert A Shaw (0000-0002-9977-0835, Brown University), Albert D Van Nostrand (John Brown University)
Year1981
Volume15
Issue4
Pages329-341
Publication date1981-12-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessNo
TypeARTICLE
VenueResearch in the Teaching of English (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0034-527X • E-ISSN: 1943-2348
PublisherRoutledge (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.58680/rte198115756
OpenAlexW2501584706
LanguageEN
References cited2

During 1919-80, a team of eight teachers and eight researchers at the Center for Research in Writing, working collaboratively, derived a grounded description of the unique and characteristic qualities of writing instruction in the classrooms of the eight teachers. This description was developed through the procedure of progressive coding, which is a method for the continuous analysis of a phenomenon. Progressive coding consists of systematically and repetitively comparing the description of a behavior with the actual behavior and then refining the description to make it conform to the behavior as perceived by the participants. The description of writing instruction in these classes, coupled with an analysis of the institutional context in which the instruction took place, has called into question some common assumptions about writing instruction and the present institutional ways of supporting it. During 1979-80, a team of teachers and researchers at the Center for Research in Writing derived a grounded description of the unique and characteristic qualities of writing instruction in eight elementary school classrooms.1 This description features the teachers' perceptions of the instruction in which they engaged. Framed in an institutional context, it calls into question some of the common assumptions about writing instruction and the present conventional ways of supporting it. Most of the findings of this study resulted from two characteristics of its inquiry, one of which made the other possible. The inquiry was collaborative: the teachers were participants - not subjects, but colleagues of the researchers on the team. And the inquiry was progressive: we engaged in ongoing data analysis, coding information as we gathered it and evaluating our description of behavior by stages. This procedure for evolving a grounded description has particular consequence for writing instruction, since it provides a controlled means of generalizing information beyond the limits of this study; it can be used in framing questions raised by the findings it has already generated and in forming hypotheses about writing instruction for further testing

Axial coding · Coding (social sciences · Context (archaeology · Grounded theory · Mathematics education · Pedagogy · Perception · Professional writing · Qualitative research · Sociology · Educational Leadership and Administration · Psychology · Teacher Education and Leadership Studies · Writing and Handwriting Education

  • The Discovery of Grounded Theory

    Barney G Glaser, Anselm L Strauss•Discovery of Grounded Theory•2017

  • Teacher Planning, Teacher Behavior, and Student Achievement

    Penelope L Peterson, Ronald W Marx et al.•American Educational Research…•1978

Citation velocityhistorical
Highly citedNo

Tools

Open DOI
Ethnos_APP • Open Source Project • MIT License • Frontend v2.0.0 • Privacy and Cookies • API Documentation: api.ethnos.app/docs • API Source Code: GitHub • DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17049435 • Frontend Source Code: GitHub • DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17050053 • cruz.rio.br • Expectantes Misericordiae