From: Subject: =?iso-2022-jp?B?TW9kZWxpbmcgaW4gdGhlIENsYXNzcm9vbTogV2hhdCBBcHByb2FjaGVzIGFyZSBFZmZlY3RpdmUgdG8gSW1wcm92ZSBTdHVkZW50cycgV3JpdGluZz8gfCBpbiBlZHVjYXRpb24=?= Date: Thu, Jun 09 2011 14:54:27 GMT-0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0000_7153CCD4.54838208"; type="text/html" ------=_NextPart_000_0000_7153CCD4.54838208 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Location: file:///D:/Digital%20Collections%202/in%20education/17(1)%20html/2e-modeling-classroom-what-approaches-are-effective-improve-students-writing.htm =EF=BB=BF Modeling in the Classroom: What Approaches are Effective to Improve= Students' Writing? | in education
Skip to Content

in education

exploring our connective educational landscape

Home= =C2=BB Modeling in the Classroom: What Approaches are Effective to Improve= Students' Writing?

Modeling in the Cla= ssroom: What Approaches are Effective to Improve Students' Writing?
=20
=09 =20
=20 =20
Abstract 

Effective writing is a learned skill, required to advance many forms of learning both in classroom contexts, and in job=20 and career contexts.  Previous research (Graham & Perin, 2007)=20 has identified many strategies that promote improvements in students=E2=80= =99=20 writing through a meta-analysis of research studies and previous=20 meta-analyses.  Other authors and researchers identify approaches=20 to effective teaching (DeRiddler, 2002; Englemann, Becker, Carmine,=20 & Gersten, 1988; McLaughlin, Gregory, Weber, & Stookey, 2005;=20 Rosenshine, 1997; Stahl & Nagy, 2006; Waldrep, 2005).  This=20 study uses 10 of the 11 high impact writing strategies identified by=20 previous writing research, as well as more general approaches to=20 effective instruction, to examine the gain scores in three forms of=20 writing by 81 students in Grades 3 to 6 classes to determine the=20 combined effects of high impact approaches to writing on students=E2=80=99= =20 ability to write definitions (concept clarification), compare, and write in argumentative formats.

Author Name(s) 
Nancy Maynes
Jeff Scott

Modeling in the Classroom: What Approaches are Effective= to Improve Students=E2=80=99 Writing?

     The value of learning to=20 write well is a foundational skill in schools and in post-school work=20 contexts.  Much of the work students are required to produce at all levels of schooling involves some form of writing.  Much of the=20 assessment work done by teachers requires students to produce some form=20 of writing as evidence of their learning.  School writing=20 applications and goals are varied (Diamond, 1999; Graham, 2006) and=20 include many forms of writing, related to specific purposes. =20 Analysis of local curriculum guidelines related to writing expectations=20 in language contexts uncovers the goals of having students write in many formats for the purposes of entertaining, explicating, informing,=20 exploring, chronicling, persuading, and defending.

Writing is also a learning tool.  Through=20 writing, students can learn to clarify their own thoughts, relate ideas=20 and concepts (Bangert-Drowns, Hurley, & Wilkenson, 2004; Graham=20 & Perin, 2007), and review inherent connections in new=20 learning.  A focus of language instruction is the improvement of=20 writing skills for both school and post-schooling applications.

Many employment contexts require writing as a=20 method of doing business, as well as a standard to support employment=20 and promotion within a wide range of jobs.  Many jobs require=20 communication facilitated through written formats via email, web-based=20 connections, or more traditional letter and report formats. =20 Writing is an aspect of social networking, which is increasingly in use=20 as a communication tool for educational and social applications. =20 Increasing numbers of students are seeking some form of post-secondary=20 education, where the approaches to learning require many forms of=20 writing for both learning and demonstrating learning.

In the local context, writing is one of the three=20 major foci of provincially mandated third party assessments required for provincial accountability measures.  Along with measures of=20 reading and basic mathematics skills, writing skill measures are=20 providing public accountability data that are being used to focus school improvement goals, allocate resources, direct professional development, and profile school successes.

Theoretical Framework

Writing is a complex skill requiring students to=20 learn ways to manage content, while applying a number of skills to=20 display the content in ways that are effective with the intended readers of their written work (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1982; Flower &=20 Hayes, 1980; Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1991).  While a=20 considerable amount of attention is given to various forms of writing in schools, many jurisdictions report below goal writing achievement on=20 standardized assessments (EQAO, 2010).  Graham and Perin (2007)=20 suggest that one possible reason why students=E2=80=99 writing efforts may= not=20 approach required standards is because teachers are not doing a=20 effective enough job of teaching writing.  A focus for improvement=20 of this historical outcome has been to teach teachers to unpack or=20 deconstruct the skills required in more complex forms of writing so that those subskills can become the focus of instruction.  Unpacking=20 the subskills involved in more complex forms of writing is a strategy=20 that has the potential to support teachers=E2=80=99 reflective practice in= =20 relation to the teaching of writing, and thereby, to support=20 improvements in students=E2=80=99 achievement in relation to this critical= =20 skill.

Research about approaches to teaching writing has=20 been prolific in the language field.  Typical research-focused=20 approaches to writing isolate a single approach and attempt to measure=20 the impact of a single treatment designed to improve one aspect of=20 writing.  Since 1986, there have been several meta-analysis studies conducted to attempt identification of strategies that have high impact on writing outcomes (Bangert & Drowns et al., 2004; Goldring,=20 Russell, & Cook, 2003; Graham, 2006; Graham & Harris, 2003;=20 Hillocks, 1986;) and result from such single variable research=20 approaches.  A stringent analysis of the body of writing research=20 was undertaken by Graham and Perin in 2007.  The strength of this=20 latest meta-analysis was its focus on attempting to sort and analyze=20 previous studies by identifying their strengths and weaknesses as=20 methods of research related to experimental writing intervention. =20 This meta-analysis attempted to identify high quality research studies=20 that addressed the focus of isolating promising instructional practices=20 that could be expected to improve the quality of students=E2=80=99=20 writing.  The variety of treatments that were examined in this=20 extensive meta-analysis combined approaches that drew from different=20 theoretical bases for writing, including approaches informed by=20 cognitive theory (Hayes, 2000), social and/or contextual approaches=20 (Prior, 2006; Pritchard & Honeycutt, 2006), self-regulation=20 approaches (Sperling & Freedman, 2002; Zimmerman & Risenberg,=20 1997), schema theory (Anderson & Pearson, 1984) and discourse theory (Chafe & Tammen, 1987).

The Graham and Perin (2007) meta-analysis of=20 bodies of writing research identified 11 strategies shown to improve=20 aspects of writing in experimental studies that were analyzed for the=20 strength of the approach used in the studies.  These 11 writing=20 instruction strategies include setting specific, reachable product goals for the writing assignment; using computers as an instructional support for writing tasks; explicit teaching of sentence combining techniques;=20 instruction in the pre-writing tasks of organization and idea=20 generation; teaching data management approaches specific to forms of=20 inquiry that support idea development and strengthen content for=20 writing; using process writing approaches that allow for extended=20 writing opportunities; authentic writing task engagement;=20 conference-style, personalized scaffolding during writing; clear=20 engagement in the processes of a writing cycle; providing models and=20 exemplars of the expected writing products accompanied by structured=20 opportunities to analyze the examples; and application of writing as a=20 learning to learn tool so that writing was employed to learn new=20 content.

The common feature of all of these successful=20 research approaches to improving writing is the emphasis on the impact=20 of explicit strategy instruction, whether process approaches are also=20 embedded in the strategy or not.  Process approaches are by their=20 nature explicit strategy focused.  Explicit strategy instruction is characterized by the timely and responsive use of instruction that=20 teaches students how to write for specific purposes, targets support as=20 writing tasks are undertaken, provides timely and specific feedback to=20 focus improvement efforts, gives instruction in specific subskills of=20 the task (e.g., punctuation, paragraphing, sentence combining), and=20 provides models or exemplars, including teaching students to use rubrics that clarify targeted standards as growth schemes to work toward in=20 their own writing tasks.  Each of these approaches seeks to=20 solidify skills for writing in ways that have the potential to support=20 students=E2=80=99 independent use of the skill or approach following=20 instruction.

Explicit or direct instruction (although the=20 original use of direct instruction referred to scripted teaching=20 methods) has a long history in public education endeavors. =20 However, the use of specific approaches with the potential for high=20 yield outcomes may be challenged by what Graham (2007) refers to as=20 delivery issues.  That is, the researched strategies with potential have been identified but they may not be employed effectively in=20 classrooms to improve writing outcomes.  The delivery issues may,=20 at least in part, be attributed to the vastly different realities of=20 research contexts and real classroom contexts where many approaches may=20 be used in conjunction.

To consider ways to leverage the use of known=20 effective strategies, a model was needed to support teacher candidates=E2= =80=99=20 developing conceptions of the elements of direct instruction and the=20 instructional actions that would support explicit or direct teaching of=20 any specific strategies for writing.  When planning for=20 instruction, the teacher can choose either a direct (explicit)=20 instruction approach or an indirect approach such as cooperative=20 learning, activity centers, projects, contract learning, project-based=20 learning, inquiry, and/or computer-directed instruction. Research has=20 highlighted that teachers may not be as strong at providing direct=20 instruction, or as clear about what actions constitute direct=20 instruction, as we might expect based on our knowledge of the efficacy=20 of this approach (DeRiddler, 2002; Englemann, Becker, Carmine, &=20 Gersten, 1988; Gersten, Carmine, & Woodward, 1987; Lloyd, Cullinan,=20 Heins, & Epstein, 1980; McLaughlin, Gregory, Weber, & Stookey,=20 2005; Stahl & Nagy, 2006; Waldrep, 2005).  In response to the=20 need to clarify the steps of explicit, direct instruction in a teacher=20 preparation program, we developed a graphic representation of the phases of instruction (see diagram 1 ) that was then used to support the design of our approach to improving writing instruction in=20 the research context of this study.

Diagram 1 Phases of instruction involving modeling

= 3D""

While it is beyond the scope of this paper to=20 examine this model in detail, such detail can be found in other papers=20 (Maynes, Dunn, & Julien-Schultz, 2010a; 2010b).  The critical=20 aspect that informed the current study was the relationship between the=20 explicit instruction of many strategies and the supports, practice=20 opportunities, applications, and feedback that guided students=E2=80=99 pra= ctice with newly taught skills, using 10 of the 11 approaches identified by=20 Graham and Perin (2007).  This model also supports the=20 instructional sequence for new learning identified by many other=20 researchers (Duke & Pearson, 2002; Fisher & Frey, 2008; Fisher,=20 Frey, & Lapp, 2008; Fullan, Hill, & Crevola, 2006; Hattie &=20 Timperley, 2007; Hill & Flynn, 2006).

Problem Identification

While the work of Graham and Perin (2007) is a=20 crucial contribution to our body of knowledge about writing instruction=20 and the potential of several high yield strategies to promote writing=20 achievement, the instructional challenge of that meta-analysis is=20 identified by its authors.  Graham and Perin (2007) explain that=20 the meta-analysis does not reveal the combination of activities nor the=20 saturation of each that is needed to maximize writing instruction for=20 students.  This acknowledges the relative complexity of real=20 instructional applications in classrooms in contrast to the single=20 variable approaches typical of a research focus.  If we use the=20 strategies revealed by the Graham and Perin (2007) meta-analysis of high yield and high validity studies of writing completed over the past 30=20 years as a starting point for classroom research, we can learn about the combined impact of promising strategies on specific writing=20 tasks.  The challenge we set for ourselves was this: What impact=20 would a combination of high yield writing strategies have on three forms of complex writing tasks with students from Grades 3 to 6?

Methodology

A school board superintendent, who was our=20 research contact, randomly selected four classrooms that met the=20 following criteria: a school improvement goal of focusing on writing=20 improvements in students from Grades 3 to 6; an accessible location of=20 the schools to the researchers; the willingness of the classroom=20 teachers to engage in research in their regular classroom environment; a breadth of age range among the students with those targeted by mandated external assessments at the Grades 3 and 6 levels being the bookends of the age group; and, the willingness of parents of these students to=20 provide research access.

Eighty-one students between 8 and 12 years old=20 participated in the study. Gain scores (pre and posttests) were used to=20 calculate the impact of the instructional treatment.  Local=20 curriculum guidelines were analyzed to identify three forms of writing=20 that would be taught in the study.  All three forms of writing were target forms of writing for the grade levels encompassed in this=20 study.  These writing forms included: writing definitions (which we termed concept clarification), comparing, and argumentative=20 writing.  All three forms of writing were found to be included in=20 external assessments in recent provincial tests of students=E2=80=99 writin= g=20 achievement, making them valued forms for writing in the curriculum, and supporting the guideline mandates to address instruction in these forms of writing.

The experimental treatment of each of the three=20 forms of writing included the use of 10 of the 11 high impact strategies identified in the Graham and Perin (2007) meta-analysis.  Through a series of classroom lessons, students were taught each form of writing=20 by: setting specific, reachable product goals for the writing=20 assignment; explicit teaching of sentence-combining techniques and other forms of sentence design; instruction in the prewriting tasks of=20 organization and idea generation; teaching data management approaches=20 specific to forms of inquiry that support idea development and=20 strengthen content for writing; using process writing approaches that=20 allow for extended writing opportunities; authentic writing task=20 engagement; conference-style, personalized scaffolding during writing=20 from three adults; clear engagement in the processes of a writing cycle, providing models and exemplars of the expected writing products=20 accompanied by structured opportunities to analyze the examples; and,=20 application of writing as a learning to learn tool so that writing was=20 employed to learn new content.  We referred to this combination of=20 strategies as Cavitational Modeling.  The only high impact strategy not used in our experimental treatment was the use of=20 computers and word processing to support writing tasks.  This=20 approach was not used because computer technology was neither readily=20 nor equitably available across all treatment subjects because of=20 technology limitations and access issues in some schools.  The=20 combined use of the other eleven strategies addressed the issue of=20 realistic implementation provided in the discussion of the Graham and=20 Perin (2007) meta-analysis.

Lessons in the three writing approaches spanned a=20 2-month time period with teaching blocks averaging 50 minutes three=20 times per week for a total contact average time of 20 hours. =20 Writing efforts from each contact time were evaluated against=20 pre-established and pre-communicated criteria and written feedback was=20 provided for each student about their writing progress through comments=20 directing students to specific areas for personal growth and a summative score between 1 and 4; 4 was the target level of achievement for each=20 task.  Teachers were provided with a checklist of progress for=20 their class during each contact and a cumulative assessment of each=20 writing task at the end of the treatment.

During lessons, researchers were guided in their=20 treatment design by Rosenshine=E2=80=99s (1997) approach to direct=20 instruction.  This background formed the basis of our approach to=20 applying the 11 high impact strategies noted by Graham and Perin (2007). Rosenshine (1997, 1990) summarized much of the cognitive research of=20 the last 30 years to identify critical strategies used by effective=20 teachers to ensure learning.  He referred to these critical=20 strategies as the Functions for Teaching Well-Structured Tasks.&nb= sp; Writing is certainly a well structured task. Rosenshine=E2=80=99s (2007= ) summary of these actions includes the following:  

  • review (motivation, a hook, or the surfacing of prior knowledge)=20 including reviewing homework, relevant previous learning, and the=20 prerequisite skills and knowledge for the day=E2=80=99s lesson;
  • presentation, including modeling the new learning (as per the direct instruction diagram presented earlier), stating lesson goals and=20 providing an outline or agenda for the time together, presenting the=20 material in small steps, modeling procedures, and providing positive and negative examples as models or exemplars;
  • using clear language, and avoiding digressions;
  • providing guided and heavily scaffolded, timely practice, including pra= ctice until comfort with the skill was evident;
  • frequent individual and group checking for understanding through questi= oning; regular, targeted, timely and detailed feedback;
  • insurance of high levels of task success, and maintenance of practice= opportunities until fluency was evident across subjects;
  • ongoing guided practice supported by corrections and formative=20 feedback specific to task targets; supportive feedback to enhance=20 confidence; sustained feedback, cues and re-teaching as needed;
  • independent practice supported by on-demand assistance; active supervis= ion and differentiated supports; and
  • reviews of each contact time learning goal to create metacognitive=20 awareness and support students=E2=80=99 growing awareness of their strength= ening strategies (strategy efficacy).

To set specific, reachable goals for each=20 treatment contact time, we deconstructed the three writing skills into=20 manageable subskills that would develop students=E2=80=99 complex skills se= ts=20 over the treatment time.  Each of these manageable subskills would=20 become a pre- and post-test variable to guide analysis of the complex=20 writing skills of concept clarification (definitions), comparison, and=20 argumentative writing.  Twenty-eight variables were identified for=20 pre- and post-test analysis.

Pre-and post-scores on the 28 variables that identi= fied the characteristics students=E2=80=99 writing we wanted to measure (se= e Table 1 ) were collected from the 81 students.  Students were in Grades 5/6=20 (3 classrooms; n =3D 61) and 3/4 (1 classroom; n =3D 20).  Gain scores= =20 were calculated on each variable by analyzing the three types of writing submitted prior to treatment and following the treatment.

Most of the variables were assessed on a 5-point=20 scale (0-4); however, two were assessed on a 3-point scale (0-2) and=20 five were coded on a 4-point scale (0-3); these variations reflected the anticipated observable variations in writing that researchers were able to identify for each of the subskills. Pre- and post-test codings were=20 conducted by a trained research assistant (RA).  Inter-rater=20 agreement between the Principal Investigators (PI) and the RA was=20 investigated on 10 cases, using Intraclass Correlation Coefficients=20 (ICC); the ICC was acceptable for all variables (Table 1 ).  To determine whether the sample improved follow the training, re= peated measures t-tests were conducted on all 28 variables.  A total score was also=20 computed by summing the score assigned to each variable.  To ensure internal consistency for the 28 variables, separate Chronbach=E2=80=99s Al= phas=20 were calculated for the two time points and were found to be acceptable=20 at pre-training (pre =CE=B1 =3D .65) and excellent at post-training (post= =CE=B1 =3D=20 .90).  Students improved significantly on 27 of the 28 criteria=20 being measured (Table 1; coded here as C1, C2,=20 etc.).  Only students=E2=80=99 ability to state their decision clearly= did=20 not change significantly from pre- to post-measures.

Table 1: Paired Samples Statistics and Intrac= lass Correlation Coefficients
3D""
All t=E2=80=99s >  -23.97, all p=E2=80=99s <= .001   except * t =3D 0.57, p > .05

Each of the 28 variables, identified as C1 to C28 in Tab= le 1, is expanded as a specific subskill of one of the three targeted= forms of writing (Table 2).

Table 2: Subskills taught for the writing ski= lls of concept clarification, comparison, and argumentative writing

3D""
Interpreting the Data

Intensive interaction with researchers to learn to write using three locally mandated forms of writing resulted in=20 positive gains across all members of the experimental group.=20 Parenthetically, students with special needs were not separated from the classroom groups for any aspects of this study.  We hypothesized=20 that good instruction for the whole group would support the special=20 learning needs of every student and allowed for individual scaffolding=20 throughout the learning, regardless of identified needs.

The 28 variables that were individually assessed=20 as aspects of the three forms of writing in this study were examined in=20 pre- and post-test writing samples of definitions (concept=20 clarification), comparison, and argumentative writing.  The=20 researchers and research assistant scored each of the 28 variables on=20 the scales as outlined previously in Table 1 . =20 All variables showed highly significant gains with the exception of=20 students=E2=80=99 ability to state their decision.  This lack of gain= on=20 this score appears to reflect students=E2=80=99 ability to make a simple=20 decision (e.g., What will I do to celebrate a relative=E2=80=99s birthday?)= =20 based on an unstated criterion even though the targeted skill for=20 argumentative writing taught the employment of multicriterion decision=20 making for more complex decisions.

In the three forms of writing, 27 of the 28=20 variables being examined in students=E2=80=99 pre- and post-test writing sh= owed=20 highly significant gains due to treatment instruction.  We=20 attribute these significant gains to the deliberate use of high impact=20 strategies revealed through previous research; the clarity of our own=20 conception about approaches to modeling and the gradual release of=20 responsibility; and the precision teaching of the 28 targeted subskills=20 that supported each form of writing (Table 2). 

As stated by Graham and Perin (2007) in their=20 meta-analysis study, there was a need to address the impact of a=20 combination of activities to determine the impact of such a combination=20 on students=E2=80=99 writing.  Fullan, Hill, and Crevola (2006) refer= to=20 the strongest teaching as precision teaching, which is targeted at supporting students=E2=80=99 acquisition, practice, and independent use= =20 (application) of identified skills.  By taking these approaches in=20 our study and engaging students in intense and prolonged writing=20 improvement tasks, we were able to achieve strong writing improvements=20 in all three forms of writing which reflect writing achievement goals in local curriculum guidelines.

Discussion

Graham (2007) discusses the writing strategies=20 that hold researched promise for improvement of writing instruction as=20 =E2=80=9Cbig ticket effects=E2=80=9D (p. 6).  These big ticket effects= are=20 desirable outcomes for writing instruction with students.  Specific strategies, precision teaching of targeted subskills of writing, and=20 opportunities for students to experience individualized, scaffolded=20 support of writing efforts throughout writing tasks are crucial elements of effective writing instruction, and we would argue, aspects of the=20 precision teaching of any skill.  These approaches are reflected in our model for direct instruction and made possible by identifying and=20 deconstructing the subskills in the three forms of writing we chose to=20 address.

This study has built on the work of Graham &=20 Perin (2007) by examining the impact of a combination of 10 of the 11=20 high impact strategies that previous research has identified as having=20 the potential for big ticket effects.  The direct instruction=20 graphic helped us to maintain a focus on the various aspects of=20 instruction with each of the 10 strategies as the 20 hours of writing=20 instruction unfolded with each of the four classes of students in this=20 research group. This focus ensured that each instructional contact was=20 delivering precision teaching of one or more of the targeted skills that are subskills of the overall three writing formats.

The Graham and Perin (2007) meta-analysis of writin= g studies demonstrated that how we teach writing skills matters to the outcomes of writing skill=20 instruction.  Our study has shown that individual strategies can be combined in reflective and responsive ways to sequence precise and=20 skill-focused writing instruction.  The concept of direct and=20 precise instruction in these writing skills was informed by the work of=20 previous researchers such as Fisher and Frey (2008), Fullan, Hill and=20 Crevola (2006), Rosenshine (1997, 1990) and our own model of direct=20 instruction.

Limitations

When a number of approaches are used in a research treatment, it is difficult to impossible to attribute the effects of=20 the treatment to any specific cause.  This is the true nature of=20 teaching in a classroom.  The work of Graham and Perin (2007) and=20 previous researchers, who conducted meta-analysis studies, provides=20 valuable insights about specific strategies that have instructional=20 potential.  The recognition of Graham and Perin (2007) that their=20 research was limited by the isolated nature of the impacts of single=20 researched strategies and the gap between research and classroom=20 implementation provides opportunities to consider the role of research=20 as information for classroom implementation.  However, the=20 day-to-day instruction in a classroom is much more complicated than the=20 single variable conditions that typify research approaches.  The=20 down side of this is the inability to be precise about which approaches=20 have which impacts when a combination of high potential strategies is=20 implemented in classroom instruction.  The role of research in=20 education is to provide guidance for classroom instruction and this end=20 is achieved through the use of combined high impact approaches to=20 learning tasks.

Evidence-based writing practices that result from=20 high quality research inform classroom practices in writing=20 instruction.  Attempting to combine many evidence-based practices=20 to strengthen instruction in three mandated forms of writing was a=20 challenging task in terms of many considerations.  Over 80 hours of contact time with research subjects was one demanding aspect of this=20 study.  It brings into focus the decisions that teachers must make=20 as they address mandated learning goals for any subject area.  How=20 much time can they devote in the regular classroom day to getting any=20 one skill =E2=80=9Cright=E2=80=9D?  In addition to the contact time,= every aspect=20 of students=E2=80=99 daily writing was thoroughly analyzed against=20 pre-established and pre-communicated criteria.  In addition to pre- and post-test writing samples, each of the 81 participants produced=20 writing samples in each of the three formats for the purposes of=20 practice and moved toward gradual independence with each writing=20 format.  Each piece of writing was analyzed and formative feedback=20 given between research treatment times.  This created a very=20 demanding schedule that intensified the data collection process. =20 Such intensity may not be sustainable over the longer term in regular=20 classrooms where other subject demands also require the teacher=E2=80=99s=20 planning and assessment attention.

Finally, because four classrooms and a 5-year age=20 span were involved in the different groups in this study, we have not=20 sought to attribute nor examine any effects that may relate to=20 maturation.  Each student served as their own base line for=20 measuring change in the pre- and post-test context.  We cannot,=20 therefore, make any claims about the possible impact of age and=20 schooling experience on the results of this study.

The transfer of research effects into classroom=20 contexts is complex.  Single variable applications of strategies=20 are not reflective of the reality of busy classrooms.  By=20 demonstrating the combination of strategies garnered from high impact=20 strategies in this research context, we have tried to show how teachers=20 can benefit from the ideas of researched approaches and apply these in=20 context while still using mandated curriculum requirements as their=20 starting point.  Our approach in this study gave attention to most=20 of the high impact writing improvement strategies identified by previous researchers.  We recognized the pivotal role of modeling in=20 writing instruction as this was found by Graham and Perin (2007) to be=20 the most powerful of the individual writing intervention strategies=20 shown in previous single strategy studies.  By deconstructing the=20 mandated writing tasks, employing big ticket strategies, and maintaining a focus on precise instructional actions informed by a clear conception of direct instruction, we believe that the results we have achieved=20 with teaching these three forms of writing are transferrable to most, if not all, classrooms.

References

Anderson, R., & Pearson, D. (1984). A schema-t= heoretic view of basic process in writing. In
D. Pearson (Ed.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 378-455). New= York, NY: Longman.

Bangert-Drowns, R. L., Hurley, M. M., & Wilken= son, B. (2004). The effects of school-based
Writing-to-Learn interventions on academic achievement: A meta-analysis.&nb= sp; Review of Educational Research, 74, 29-58.

Bereiter, C., & Scardalalia, M. (1982). From=20 conversation to composition: The role of instruction in a developmental=20 process.  In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology= , Vol. 2 (pp. 1-64). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Chafe, W., & Tannen, D. (1987). The relation= between written and spoken language.  Annual Review of Anthropolo= gy, 16, 383-407.

DeRidder, I. (2002). Visible or invisible links:=20 Does the highlighting or hyperlink affect incidental vocabulary=20 learning, text comprehension, and the reading process? Language, Learni= ng & Technology, 6, 123-149.

Diamond, J. (1999). Guns, germs and steel: The= fates of human societies. New York, NY: Norton.

Duke, N.K., & Pearson, P.D. (2002). Effective practices for developing reading comprehension. In A. E. Farstup &=20 S. E. Samuels (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instructio= n (pp.205-242). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Englemann, S., Becker, W. C., Carnine, D., &=20 Gersten, R. (1988). The direct instruction follow through model: Design=20 and outcomes. Education and Treatment of Children, 11, 303-317.

Education Quality and Accountability Office (E= QAO), (2010). Retrieved from: eqaoweb.eqao.com/eqauweborgprofile/profi= le.aspx?_Mident...E

Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2008). Better lear= ning through structured teaching: A framework for the gradual release of re= sponsibility. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curricul= um Development.

Fisher, D., Frey, N., & Lapp, D. (2009). I= n a reading state of mind. Newark, DE: International Reading Associati= on.

Flower, L., & Hayes, J. (1980). The dynamics= of composing: Making plans and juggling
constraints. In L. Gragg, & R. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive process= in writing (pp. 31-50). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Fullan, M., Hill, P., & Crevola, C. (2006). Breaktthrough. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Gersten, R., Carnine, D., & Woodward, J. (1987= ). Direct instruction research: The third decade. Remedial and Special= Education, 8(6), 48-56.

Goldring, A., Russell, M., & Cook, A. (2003).= The effects of computers on student writing: A
meta-analysis of studies from 1992-2002. Journal of Technology, Learnin= g, and Assessment, 2, 1-51.

Graham, S. (2006). Strategy instruction and the te= aching of writing: A meta-analysis. In C.
MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing= research (pp. 187-
207). New York, NY: Guilford.

Graham, S. (2007). Write-minded. Writing Next.=   Retrieved from
www.all4ed.org/publ= ications/WritingNext/index.html

Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (2003). Students=20 with learning disabilities and the process of writing: A meta-analysis=20 of SRSD studies. In L. Swanson, K.R. Harris, & S. Graham (Eds.), Ha= ndbook of research on learning disabilities (pp. 322-344). New York,= NY: Guilford.

Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007). A meta-analysi= s of writing instruction for adolescent students. Journal of Educationa= l Psychology, 99(3), 445-476.

Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power= of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77 (1), 81-112.

Hayes, J. R. (2000). A new framework for=20 understanding cognition and affect in writing. In R. Indrisano, &=20 J.R. Squire (Eds.), Perspectives on writing: Research, theory and pract= ice (pp. 6-44). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. (Original work=20 published in 1996. In C.M. Levy, & S. Randsell (Eds.), The science= of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences, and applications (pp.1-27). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.)

Hill, J., & Flynn, K. (2006). Classroom in= struction that works with English language learners. Alexandria, VA:= ASCD.

Hillocks, G. (1986). Research on written compo= sition: New directions for teaching. Urbana, IL: National Council of= Teachers of English.

Lloyd, J., Cullinan, D., Heins, E.D., &=20 Epstein, M. H. (1980). Direct instruction: Effects on oral and written=20 language comprehension. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 3, 70-76.=

Maynes, N., Julien-Schultz, L., & Dunn, C.=20 (2010). Managing direct and indirect instruction: A visual model to=20 support lesson planning in pre-service programs. The International Jour= nal of Learning, 17(2), 125-139.

Maynes, N., Julien-Schultz, L., & Dunn, C.=20 (2010). Modeling and the gradual release of responsibility: What does it look like in the classroom? Brock Education, 19(2), 65-77.

McLaughlin, T. F., Gregory, A., Weber, K. P.,=20 & Stookey, S. (2005). The effect of using direct instruction and=20 re-reading contingency with a high school student. International Journa= l of Special Education, 20(1), 50-54.

Prior, P. (2006). A sociocultural theory of writin= g. In C. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of= writing research (pp. 54-66). New York, NY: Guilford.

Pritchard, R. J., & Honeycutt, J. (2006). Proc= ess writing. In C. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J.
Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 275-290). New= York, NY: Guilford.

Rosenshine, B. (2007). Systematic Instruction. In= T.L. Good (Ed.) 21st century education: A reference handbook. Cal= ifornia: SAGE Publications.

Rosenshine, B. (1990). Explicit teaching and teach= er training. Educational Psychology, 41(4), 34-44.

Rosenshine, B. (1997). Advances in research on= instruction: Issues in educating students with disabilities (197-221)= . Mahwah, N.J: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1991). Litera= te expertise. In K.A. Ericsson, & J. Smith (Eds.), Toward a general= theory of expertise: Prospects and limits (pp. 172-194). Cambridge,= UK: Cambridge University Press.

Sperling, M., & Freedman, S. W. (2002). Resear= ch in writing. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research in teaching= (4th ed., pp. 370-389). Washington, DC: American Education= al Research Association.

Stahl, S. A., & Nagy, W. E. (2006). Teachi= ng word meanings. Mahwah, N. J: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Waldrep, R. (2005). Soaring to the top: Temple Ele= mentary School, Orbit, 35(3), 23.

Zimmerman, B., & Risemberg, R. (1997). Become= a self-regulated writer: A social cognitive
perspective. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 22, 73-101.

 

=20


=20

Subscribe

3D"" Subscribe via RSS Reader

Enter Email Address for Updates:

<= /input>

=20

Issues

=20 =20 =20
=20
16(1)
=20
15(2)
=20
16(2)
=20
17(1)
=20 =20 =20 =20 =20 =20

=20

3D"University

=20

User login

=
3D"C=
This wo= rk is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial= -No Derivative Works 3.0 Unported License.=20
------=_NextPart_000_0000_7153CCD4.54838208 Content-Type: image/x-icon Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Location: http://ineducation.ca/sites/all/themes/zeropoint/favicon.ico AAABAAEAEBAAAAAAAABoBQAAFgAAACgAAAAQAAAAIAAAAAEACAAAAAAAAAEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEA AAAAAAAAAAAAJ4vpALBfFwAljOwAuGUdAK9gGAAli+gAsGAYALFfFgAli+kAuGUeACaL6QAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAQHCAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAcHBwcHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAgHBwcHBQAAAAAAAAAAAAAHBwcH BwcLCwAAAAAAAAAAAAcHBwcHCwsLAAAAAAAAAAAHBwcHBwsLCwAAAAAAAAAAAAcHBwcLCwAAAAAA AAAAAAACBwcHCwsJAAAAAAAAAAAAAAcHBwsLCwsAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAcLCwsLCwAAAAAAAAAAAAAA CwsLCwsGAAAAAAAAAAAAAAsLCwsLAwAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAQsLCwAAAAAAAAAAAAAACgAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAcAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAPH/AADg/wAAwP8AAMA/AADgHwAA4B8AAPA/ AADwHwAA+A8AAP4HAAD/AwAA/wMAAP+HAAD/fwAA/38AAP9/AAA= ------=_NextPart_000_0000_7153CCD4.54838208 Content-Type: text/css Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Location: file:///D:/Digital%20Collections%202/in%20education/17(1)%20html/2modeling-classroom-what-approaches-are-effective-improve-students-writing_files/node.css /* $Id: node.css,v 1.5 2008/01/25 21:21:44 goba Exp $ */ .node-unpublished { background-color: #fff4f4; } .preview .node { background-color: #ffffea; } #node-admin-filter ul { list-style-type: none; padding: 0; margin: 0; width: 100%; } #node-admin-buttons { float: left; /* LTR */ margin-left: 0.5em; /* LTR */ clear: right; /* LTR */ } td.revision-current { background: #ffc; } .node-form .form-text { display: block; width: 95%; } .node-form .container-inline .form-text { display: inline; width: auto; } .node-form .standard { clear: both; } .node-form textarea { display: block; width: 95%; } .node-form .attachments fieldset { float: none; display: block; } .terms-inline { display: inline; } ------=_NextPart_000_0000_7153CCD4.54838208 Content-Type: text/css Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Location: file:///D:/Digital%20Collections%202/in%20education/17(1)%20html/2modeling-classroom-what-approaches-are-effective-improve-students-writing_files/defaults.css /* $Id: defaults.css,v 1.5 2007/10/02 12:10:40 dries Exp $ */ /* ** HTML elements */ fieldset { margin-bottom: 1em; padding: .5em; } form { margin: 0; padding: 0; } hr { height: 1px; border: 1px solid gray; } img { border: 0; } table { border-collapse: collapse; } th { text-align: left; /* LTR */ padding-right: 1em; /* LTR */ border-bottom: 3px solid #ccc; } /* ** Markup free clearing ** Details: http://www.positioniseverything.net/easyclearing.html */ .clear-block:after { content: "."; display: block; height: 0; clear: both; visibility: hidden; } .clear-block { display: inline-block; } /* Hides from IE-mac \*/ * html .clear-block { height: 1%; } .clear-block { display: block; } /* End hide from IE-mac */ ------=_NextPart_000_0000_7153CCD4.54838208 Content-Type: text/css Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Location: file:///D:/Digital%20Collections%202/in%20education/17(1)%20html/2modeling-classroom-what-approaches-are-effective-improve-students-writing_files/system.css /* $Id: system.css,v 1.48 2008/01/09 09:56:39 goba Exp $ */ /* ** HTML elements */ body.drag { cursor: move; } th.active img { display: inline; } tr.even, tr.odd { background-color: #eee; border-bottom: 1px solid #ccc; padding: 0.1em 0.6em; } tr.drag { background-color: #fffff0; } tr.drag-previous { background-color: #ffd; } td.active { background-color: #ddd; } td.checkbox, th.checkbox { text-align: center; } tbody { border-top: 1px solid #ccc; } tbody th { border-bottom: 1px solid #ccc; } thead th { text-align: left; /* LTR */ padding-right: 1em; /* LTR */ border-bottom: 3px solid #ccc; } /* ** Other common styles */ .breadcrumb { padding-bottom: .5em } div.indentation { width: 20px; height: 1.7em; margin: -0.4em 0.2em -0.4em -0.4em; /* LTR */ padding: 0.42em 0 0.42em 0.6em; /* LTR */ float: left; /* LTR */ } div.tree-child { background: url(../../misc/tree.png) no-repeat 11px center; /* LTR */ } div.tree-child-last { background: url(../../misc/tree-bottom.png) no-repeat 11px center; /* LTR= */ } div.tree-child-horizontal { background: url(../../misc/tree.png) no-repeat -11px center; } .error { color: #e55; } div.error { border: 1px solid #d77; } div.error, tr.error { background: #fcc; color: #200; padding: 2px; } .warning { color: #e09010; } div.warning { border: 1px solid #f0c020; } div.warning, tr.warning { background: #ffd; color: #220; padding: 2px; } .ok { color: #008000; } div.ok { border: 1px solid #00aa00; } div.ok, tr.ok { background: #dfd; color: #020; padding: 2px; } .item-list .icon { color: #555; float: right; /* LTR */ padding-left: 0.25em; /* LTR */ clear: right; /* LTR */ } .item-list .title { font-weight: bold; } .item-list ul { margin: 0 0 0.75em 0; padding: 0; } .item-list ul li { margin: 0 0 0.25em 1.5em; /* LTR */ padding: 0; list-style: disc; } ol.task-list li.active { font-weight: bold; } .form-item { margin-top: 1em; margin-bottom: 1em; } tr.odd .form-item, tr.even .form-item { margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0; white-space: nowrap; } tr.merge-down, tr.merge-down td, tr.merge-down th { border-bottom-width: 0 !important; } tr.merge-up, tr.merge-up td, tr.merge-up th { border-top-width: 0 !important; } .form-item input.error, .form-item textarea.error, .form-item select.error { border: 2px solid red; } .form-item .description { font-size: 0.85em; } .form-item label { display: block; font-weight: bold; } .form-item label.option { display: inline; font-weight: normal; } .form-checkboxes, .form-radios { margin: 1em 0; } .form-checkboxes .form-item, .form-radios .form-item { margin-top: 0.4em; margin-bottom: 0.4em; } .marker, .form-required { color: #f00; } .more-link { text-align: right; /* LTR */ } .more-help-link { font-size: 0.85em; text-align: right; /* LTR */ } .nowrap { white-space: nowrap; } .item-list .pager { clear: both; text-align: center; } .item-list .pager li { background-image:none; display:inline; list-style-type:none; padding: 0.5em; } .pager-current { font-weight:bold; } .tips { margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0; padding-top: 0; padding-bottom: 0; font-size: 0.9em; } dl.multiselect dd.b, dl.multiselect dd.b .form-item, dl.multiselect dd.b se= lect { font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; width: 14em; } dl.multiselect dd.a, dl.multiselect dd.a .form-item { width: 8em; } dl.multiselect dt, dl.multiselect dd { float: left; /* LTR */ line-height: 1.75em; padding: 0; margin: 0 1em 0 0; /* LTR */ } dl.multiselect .form-item { height: 1.75em; margin: 0; } /* ** Inline items (need to override above) */ .container-inline div, .container-inline label { display: inline; } /* ** Tab navigation */ ul.primary { border-collapse: collapse; padding: 0 0 0 1em; /* LTR */ white-space: nowrap; list-style: none; margin: 5px; height: auto; line-height: normal; border-bottom: 1px solid #bbb; } ul.primary li { display: inline; } ul.primary li a { background-color: #ddd; border-color: #bbb; border-width: 1px; border-style: solid solid none solid; height: auto; margin-right: 0.5em; /* LTR */ padding: 0 1em; text-decoration: none; } ul.primary li.active a { background-color: #fff; border: 1px solid #bbb; border-bottom: #fff 1px solid; } ul.primary li a:hover { background-color: #eee; border-color: #ccc; border-bottom-color: #eee; } ul.secondary { border-bottom: 1px solid #bbb; padding: 0.5em 1em; margin: 5px; } ul.secondary li { display: inline; padding: 0 1em; border-right: 1px solid #ccc; /* LTR */ } ul.secondary a { padding: 0; text-decoration: none; } ul.secondary a.active { border-bottom: 4px solid #999; } /* ** Autocomplete styles */ /* Suggestion list */ #autocomplete { position: absolute; border: 1px solid; overflow: hidden; z-index: 100; } #autocomplete ul { margin: 0; padding: 0; list-style: none; } #autocomplete li { background: #fff; color: #000; white-space: pre; cursor: default; } #autocomplete li.selected { background: #0072b9; color: #fff; } /* Animated throbber */ html.js input.form-autocomplete { background-image: url(../../misc/throbber.gif); background-repeat: no-repeat; background-position: 100% 2px; /* LTR */ } html.js input.throbbing { background-position: 100% -18px; /* LTR */ } /* ** Collapsing fieldsets */ html.js fieldset.collapsed { border-bottom-width: 0; border-left-width: 0; border-right-width: 0; margin-bottom: 0; height: 1em; } html.js fieldset.collapsed * { display: none; } html.js fieldset.collapsed legend { display: block; } html.js fieldset.collapsible legend a { padding-left: 15px; /* LTR */ background: url(../../misc/menu-expanded.png) 5px 75% no-repeat; /* LTR */ } html.js fieldset.collapsed legend a { background-image: url(../../misc/menu-collapsed.png); /* LTR */ background-position: 5px 50%; /* LTR */ } /* Note: IE-only fix due to '* html' (breaks Konqueror otherwise). */ * html.js fieldset.collapsed legend, * html.js fieldset.collapsed legend *, * html.js fieldset.collapsed table * { display: inline; } /* For Safari 2 to prevent collapsible fieldsets containing tables from dis= sapearing due to tableheader.js. */ html.js fieldset.collapsible { position: relative; } html.js fieldset.collapsible legend a { display: block; } /* Avoid jumping around due to margins collapsing into collapsible fieldset= border */ html.js fieldset.collapsible .fieldset-wrapper { overflow: auto; } /* ** Resizable text areas */ .resizable-textarea { width: 95%; } .resizable-textarea .grippie { height: 9px; overflow: hidden; background: #eee url(../../misc/grippie.png) no-repeat center 2px; border: 1px solid #ddd; border-top-width: 0; cursor: s-resize; } html.js .resizable-textarea textarea { margin-bottom: 0; width: 100%; display: block; } /* ** Table drag and drop. */ .draggable a.tabledrag-handle { cursor: move; float: left; /* LTR */ height: 1.7em; margin: -0.4em 0 -0.4em -0.5em; /* LTR */ padding: 0.42em 1.5em 0.42em 0.5em; /* LTR */ text-decoration: none; } a.tabledrag-handle:hover { text-decoration: none; } a.tabledrag-handle .handle { margin-top: 4px; height: 13px; width: 13px; background: url(../../misc/draggable.png) no-repeat 0 0; } a.tabledrag-handle-hover .handle { background-position: 0 -20px; } /* ** Teaser splitter */ .joined + .grippie { height: 5px; background-position: center 1px; margin-bottom: -2px; } /* Keeps inner content contained in Opera 9. */ .teaser-checkbox { padding-top: 1px; } div.teaser-button-wrapper { float: right; /* LTR */ padding-right: 5%; /* LTR */ margin: 0; } .teaser-checkbox div.form-item { float: right; /* LTR */ margin: 0 5% 0 0; /* LTR */ padding: 0; } textarea.teaser { display: none; } html.js .no-js { display: none; } /* ** Progressbar styles */ .progress { font-weight: bold; } .progress .bar { background: #fff url(../../misc/progress.gif); border: 1px solid #00375a; height: 1.5em; margin: 0 0.2em; } .progress .filled { background: #0072b9; height: 1em; border-bottom: 0.5em solid #004a73; width: 0%; } .progress .percentage { float: right; /* LTR */ } .progress-disabled { float: left; /* LTR */ } .ahah-progress { float: left; /* LTR */ } .ahah-progress .throbber { width: 15px; height: 15px; margin: 2px; background: transparent url(../../misc/throbber.gif) no-repeat 0px -18px; float: left; /* LTR */ } tr .ahah-progress .throbber { margin: 0 2px; } .ahah-progress-bar { width: 16em; } /* ** Formatting for welcome page */ #first-time strong { display: block; padding: 1.5em 0 .5em; } /* ** To be used with tableselect.js */ tr.selected td { background: #ffc; } /* ** Floating header for tableheader.js */ table.sticky-header { margin-top: 0; background: #fff; } /* ** Installation clean URLs */ #clean-url.install { display: none; } /* ** For anything you want to hide on page load when JS is enabled, so ** that you can use the JS to control visibility and avoid flicker. */ html.js .js-hide { display: none; } /* ** Styles for the system modules page (admin/build/modules) */ #system-modules div.incompatible { font-weight: bold; } /* ** Styles for the system themes page (admin/build/themes) */ #system-themes-form div.incompatible { font-weight: bold; } /* ** Password strength indicator */ span.password-strength { visibility: hidden; } input.password-field { margin-right: 10px; /* LTR */ } div.password-description { padding: 0 2px; margin: 4px 0 0 0; font-size: 0.85em; max-width: 500px; } div.password-description ul { margin-bottom: 0; } .password-parent { margin: 0 0 0 0; } /* ** Password confirmation checker */ input.password-confirm { margin-right: 10px; /* LTR */ } .confirm-parent { margin: 5px 0 0 0; } span.password-confirm { visibility: hidden; } span.password-confirm span { font-weight: normal; } ------=_NextPart_000_0000_7153CCD4.54838208 Content-Type: text/css Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Location: file:///D:/Digital%20Collections%202/in%20education/17(1)%20html/2modeling-classroom-what-approaches-are-effective-improve-students-writing_files/system-menus.css /* $Id: system-menus.css,v 1.1 2007/10/05 14:50:25 goba Exp $ */ ul.menu { list-style: none; border: none; text-align:left; /* LTR */ } ul.menu li { margin: 0 0 0 0.5em; /* LTR */ } li.expanded { list-style-type: circle; list-style-image: url(../../misc/menu-expanded.png); padding: 0.2em 0.5em 0 0; /* LTR */ margin: 0; } li.collapsed { list-style-type: disc; list-style-image: url(../../misc/menu-collapsed.png); /* LTR */ padding: 0.2em 0.5em 0 0; /* LTR */ margin: 0; } li.leaf { list-style-type: square; list-style-image: url(../../misc/menu-leaf.png); padding: 0.2em 0.5em 0 0; /* LTR */ margin: 0; } li a.active { color: #000; } td.menu-disabled { background: #ccc; } ul.links { margin: 0; padding: 0; } ul.links.inline { display: inline; } ul.links li { display: inline; list-style-type: none; padding: 0 0.5em; } .block ul { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0.25em 1em; /* LTR */ } ------=_NextPart_000_0000_7153CCD4.54838208 Content-Type: text/css Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Location: file:///D:/Digital%20Collections%202/in%20education/17(1)%20html/2modeling-classroom-what-approaches-are-effective-improve-students-writing_files/user.css /* $Id: user.css,v 1.7 2007/06/21 04:38:41 unconed Exp $ */ #permissions td.module { font-weight: bold; } #permissions td.permission { padding-left: 1.5em; /* LTR */ } #access-rules .access-type, #access-rules .rule-type { margin-right: 1em; /* LTR */ float: left; /* LTR */ } #access-rules .access-type .form-item, #access-rules .rule-type .form-item { margin-top: 0; } #access-rules .mask { clear: both; } #user-login-form { text-align: center; } #user-admin-filter ul { list-style-type: none; padding: 0; margin: 0; width: 100%; } #user-admin-buttons { float: left; /* LTR */ margin-left: 0.5em; /* LTR */ clear: right; /* LTR */ } #user-admin-settings fieldset .description { font-size: 0.85em; padding-bottom: .5em; } /* Generated by user.module but used by profile.module: */ .profile { clear: both; margin: 1em 0; } .profile .picture { float: right; /* LTR */ margin: 0 1em 1em 0; /* LTR */ } .profile h3 { border-bottom: 1px solid #ccc; } .profile dl { margin: 0 0 1.5em 0; } .profile dt { margin: 0 0 0.2em 0; font-weight: bold; } .profile dd { margin: 0 0 1em 0; } ------=_NextPart_000_0000_7153CCD4.54838208 Content-Type: text/css Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Location: file:///D:/Digital%20Collections%202/in%20education/17(1)%20html/2modeling-classroom-what-approaches-are-effective-improve-students-writing_files/content-module.css /* $Id: content-module.css,v 1.1.2.6 2009/03/14 18:45:38 yched Exp $ */ /* Node display */ .field .field-label, .field .field-label-inline, .field .field-label-inline-first { font-weight:bold; } .field .field-label-inline, .field .field-label-inline-first { display:inline; } .field .field-label-inline { visibility:hidden; } /* Node form display */ .node-form .content-multiple-table td.content-multiple-drag { width:30px; padding-right:0;/*LTR*/ } .node-form .content-multiple-table td.content-multiple-drag a.tabledrag-han= dle{ padding-right:.5em;/*LTR*/ } .node-form .content-add-more .form-submit{ margin:0; } .node-form .number { display:inline; width:auto; } .node-form .text { width:auto; } /* CSS overrides for Views-based autocomplete results. - #autocomplete uses "white-space:pre", which is no good with Views' template-based rendering - Field titles are rendered with