Inquiry Research Paper

Non-Traditional Instruction for the Non-Traditional Learner:How can daily freewriting affect the quality and depth of students’ writing skills?

Undergraduate Full Practicum Inquiry ProjectApril 2012

BA in Secondary EducationLynch School of Education

Boston College

Non-Traditional Instruction for the Non-Traditional Learner 1

AbstractThe purpose of this intervention was to examine the effects of three weeks of daily, timed

freewriting on the overall quality and depth of student writing as well as on student enthusiasm for writing. Before and after the intervention, students responded to survey questions relating to their enthusiasm for writing and their perceived writing abilities. Following daily independent reading and reading responses, students responded for 7 minutes to a freewrite prompt written on the board. At the end of 7 minutes, pupils counted the number of words they had written and recorded this number at the bottom of their entries. Students also had the opportunity to share their writing with their peers, either by reading their entries aloud or by passing their entries to a neighbor. A cross-sample of low-, medium-, and high-achieving students from each period were selected and their freewrite entries were collected for analysis. Survey questions were analyzed for changes in response, word counts were analyzed for significant increases or decreases in value, and cross-sample entries were codified for elements of writing quality and depth of writing. Overall, the intervention was successful, indicating that daily, timed freewriting increases quality and depth of student writing as well as student enthusiasm for writing.


Problem Statement

The ability to write, to express oneself logically and eloquently in print, opens academic and

professional doors for those students who master it. Students who write well perform better in all

academic classes and have an easier time applying to colleges and entering many careers. Furthermore,

writing gives individuals the chance to better understand themselves and the world around them and to

communicate more effectively with others. In the eighth grade ELA classes at my school, I noticed a

marked incompetence in students’ writing abilities. Homework assignments and essays revealed

mechanical problems such as spelling and punctuation errors, incomplete sentences, and incorrect verb

conjugation. Worse, some students failed to write coherently, errors distorting the very meaning of their

thoughts. Having observed students during writing instruction, and having made connections with many

students on a personal level, I realized that the writing illiteracy in my classroom stemmed in part from

their apathetic and even defeatist attitudes towards the writing process. As many of my students were

ELLs, had IEPs, or struggled with difficult home situations that inhibited proper academic growth,

traditional writing instruction had thus far failed to meet their individual needs. They did not enjoy

writing because they had never been good it nor seen a purpose for it, and thus they put little effort into

their assignments. Through a writing intervention involving daily, timed freewriting, I hoped to increase

the quality and depth of student writing as well as their enthusiasm for writing.

Context and Frame of Reference

Frame of Reference

I grew up in West Chester, Pennsylvania, a suburb just west of Philadelphia, where I attended a

public, middle-class high school with a predominantly white demographic; according to the school

website, approximately 83.35% of students are white, 7.37% are black, 5.29% are Asian, and 3.92% are

Hispanic. We benefited from plentiful academic resources including libraries, computer rooms, an

auditorium and music rooms, and classrooms equipped with the latest technology. With every resource at

my finger-tips, and with teachers and a family who firmly believed in my ability to achieve, I developed

the academic skills necessary for success.


Having thus experienced a relatively privileged educational upbringing surrounded by mostly

white peers, I have noticed some similarities but more differences in the educational environments of my

practicum placements while at Boston College. In the last three years, I have taught in a public, low SES

school with a majority of black and Hispanic students, I have taught at a private, all-girls school

composed of wealthy white students, and I have taught at a public school with both low and high SES

students and a relatively even spread of races. Each of these schools brought its own demographics,

teaching goals, and educational problems to the table, opening my eyes to the pros and cons, the benefits

and challenges, of various educational settings.

From these three, varied teaching experiences as compared to my own educational background, I

have developed personal practical theories that I think apply to all pupils regardless of school, race,

gender, or SES. Firstly, I believe that every student sincerely wants to learn and therefore deserves the

opportunity to learn in a manner appropriate to his/her needs and skills. In other words, teachers should

understand that everyone learns differently and should thus incorporate accommodations for all learners

into their lessons in order to ensure that every student’s needs are met. I believe that it is an individual’s

right to receive an appropriate education and that it is the teacher’s job to make this happen. As this

relates to my writing intervention, I believed that traditional writing instruction had not thoroughly met

the learning needs of ELLs or students on IEPs, as demonstrated by the poor writing produced in my full-

inclusion ELA classes. Students struggled with basic English skills and thus required teaching

accommodations that would spark their enthusiasm for the writing process by making it less intimidating

and more engaging, allowing them to express themselves freely and without criticism from an instructor.

They also needed repeated practice – more practice, perhaps than other students – to increase the quality

of their writing. I believed that a freewriting intervention would promote this kind of enthusiasm and

writing quality by allowing students to write consistently about topics that interested them without the

threat of negative feedback for mechanical writing errors.

Secondly, I believe that a teacher’s responsibilities go beyond just academics, that he/she should

make personal connections on some level with every student. I really believe that mutual respect is the


key for good classroom management and effective learning and that the only way to establish a genuine

teacher-student relationship is for the teacher to actively know the student. Thus, an instructor should

memorize all his/her students’ names, he/she should be familiar with his/her students’ academic strengths

and weaknesses, he/she should have some familiarity with each students’ personality in the classroom,

and he/she should make some effort to talk to every student in a social context (during breaks, between

classes, etc.). In this way, the class will feel comfortable with the teacher, will respect the teacher, and

will behave better and absorb more from instruction. Furthermore, by knowing a student well, the teacher

is better able to plan his/her instruction around that student’s abilities, needs, and interests. Through

writing and discussing topics related to students’ lives and experiences, I believed my writing

intervention would facilitate this kind of personal connection between myself and the individuals in my

classes. It would allow me to understand the way my students thought, to learn a bit about their lives

while also monitoring their strengths and weaknesses as writers. In establishing these relationships, I

would be better prepared to deliver the kind of instruction each individual required.

Context

For four months, I taught in three 8th grade ELA classes at a public, urban K-8 school. According

to the Massachusetts Department of education website, this school has 838 students between pre-

kindergarten and eighth grade, 45.9% of whom are Hispanic, 27.6% of whom are African American,

12.2% of whom are white, and 11.1% of whom are Asian, along with a small minority of other races.

Furthermore, 81.7% of students are low SES, with 75.1% qualifying for free lunch and 6.7% qualifying

for reduced lunch. In terms of English proficiency, 52.4% of students do not speak English as a first

language and 39.4% of students have limited English proficiency. 21% of students require special

education. The 71 pupils in my CT’s three classes, therefore, consisted mainly of black, Hispanic, and

Asian students who spoke a variety of languages. Because the school operated under full inclusion, a

large portion of my students had learning or language needs. Furthermore, probably as a result of their

low SES, many students lived in difficult home environments in which they suffered physical, sexual, or

emotional abuse, experienced broken families, or were directly exposed to the violence so prevalent in


their communities. Such living conditions fostered students with little to no academic confidence or

ambition. Lacking support from family and friends, my pupils began failing academically at an early age

and, believing they could not succeed because they had never succeeded, continued to fail. It is in this

environment that my CT must teach academic writing, accommodating students with learning and

language needs as well as students who never read and who disliked writing because these skills were

never encouraged at home. It is no wonder that traditional methods of writing instruction had not

adequately prepared these non-traditional students to write effectively.

My school demonstrated some characteristics of a bureaucratic school culture and some

characteristics of a collegial school culture. It was bureaucratic in that the teachers must follow various,

constantly changing orders from on high such as a pre-determined district curriculum, a school-mandated

uniform, or the administration’s “Bright Light” program in which students received Bright Light slips

from their teachers for demonstrating good behavior. The school culture was collegial in that teachers

had some freedom for experimentation in their instruction and in that there was constant communication

between teachers within each grade. For instance, although the district dictated what books my CT must

teach and required that she teach them based on the “reciprocal teaching” approach, a technique which

emphasizes general reading comprehension, she could utilize whatever methods and activities she

deemed most effective for accomplishing this task. Furthermore, eighth grade teachers and

administrators met twice a week to discuss struggling students and to propose new tactics for helping

individuals improve. In a learning environment which promoted instructional experimentation and

collaboration between teachers, I was able to implement those measures I believed would best meet the

varied needs of my students. Specifically, I received full support for the implementation of my

freewriting intervention.

My educational role at the Edison was to help my CT with various tasks (collecting papers,

making copies, answering questions, reading aloud to students, etc.), to grade students’ daily Do Now

activities (either grammar or poetry) and check homework, and to help students during group or

independent activities by answering their questions and by engaging them in discussion about the task at


hand. I also taught many individual lessons and completed two full takeover weeks with 3rd and 4th blocks

(the last and second-to-last periods of the day). I implemented my intervention with these periods

because I had made connections with most of these students and I thought they would cooperate in

completing surveys, doing interviews, and responding seriously to freewriting prompts. Furthermore,

because I knew these classes well, I knew which individuals were high-, middle-, and low-achieving

students and could thus choose samples from each group for data collection purposes.

Students in my 3rd and 4th block classes were, generally speaking, a lively and talkative bunch. As

a group, they had a keen sense of humor and got along well with each other. Although they respected my

CT, the classes’ learning and behavioral problems combined with their overall apathy towards reading

and writing often resulted in students who did not pay attention, were frequently off-task, or distracted

their neighbors during instruction. Despite their sociable nature – or perhaps because of it – students

benefitted most from whole-group and individual learning, tending to be distracted and unproductive

during group activities. Certain students in each class, most notably two male pupils in 3rd block and a

male and female pupil in 4th block who had been held back, consistently refused to complete their work

or participate in class activities. The rest of the students generally worked to the best of their ability, or at

least attempted the majority of their work, on a daily basis.

I also chose a cross-section of one low-, middle-, and high-achieving student from each period to

use as a sample of the classes. I selected these students based on my CT’s recommendations. My CT, in

turn, chose these students based on a combination of grades and effort. In other words, she recommended

students who earned A’s and B’s and who consistently tried their best as high-achieving, students who

earned low B’s, C’s, and high D’s and who sometimes tried their best as middle-achieving, and students

who earned lower than D’s and who rarely or never tried their best as low-achieving. From 3rd block I

chose Joe (low-achieving), Danielle (middle-achieving), and Allison (high achieving), and from 4th block

I chose Mark (low-achieving), Kelly (middle-achieving), and Evan (high-achieving) to represent a cross-

sample of each class1. Although none of these students had IEPs, Danielle, Mark, and Evan were ELLs,

1 Names of students have been changed to protect their identities.


as indicated by their responses to the survey question, “Is English your native language? If not, what

other language(s) do you speak?”

Research QuestionsHow can daily freewriting affect the quality and depth of students’ writing skills?

How do students feel about writing, and how will structured writing prompts alter this attitude?

How will recording word counts of freewrite entries affect the quality of student writing and student enthusiasm for writing?

Mini Literature Review

Introduction

In recent years, the increased focus on standardized testing in schools has led to an emphasis on

traditional teaching methods and formal writing assignments. According to Ortiz-Marrero and

Sumaryono (2010), teachers gravitate towards direct instruction and whole group approaches as a way to

complete the curriculum and cover all necessary material in a limited time. However, some specialists

worry that traditional approaches do not “…allow sufficiently for individual student growth and

reflection” (Greenwood, 1989, p. 184), especially since governmental and administrative powers have

nearly eliminated “…affective development, e.g., activities to get to know students and foster

community…” (Knight, 2008, p. 13). Furthermore, research indicates that traditional “chalk and talk”

methods overlook the special needs of both ELLs and students who speak non-standard dialects of

English, as the heavy emphasis on correction in traditional teaching belittles non-traditional languages

and discourages non-native English speakers from expressing themselves comfortably. On the other

hand, more interactive and critical methods of learning, such as freewriting, have been found to teach

necessary skills while promoting emotional growth, creativity, and the celebration of various cultures

(Ortiz-Marrero & Sumaryono, 2010). Given the high population of ELLs and students on IEPs in my

classroom, and given my CT’s highly MCAS-oriented and traditional teaching, my students may not

have received proper support for personal engagement in their learning. This lack of creative instruction

can hinder the development of their writing abilities. Knight (2008) quotes Linda Rief in defending the

necessity of opportunities for personal expression and creativity in American education: “Good writing

comes from creativity, imagination, and passionate beliefs, feelings, opinions, questions” (p. 8). Below, I


will review the literature on freewriting and journal writing in order to assess its effect on students’

attitude toward and quality of writing.

Freewriting Methods

In the search for more interactive teaching methods to promote creativity and improve the quality

of student writing, researchers and teachers have implemented freewriting and journaling procedures in

various classroom contexts and then analyzed the results. Most of the studies reviewed here focus on the

frequency of journal writing, the implementation of writing prompts, the amount of time spent writing,

and the effects of these variables on student writing. Lutz and Moxley (1995) include four studies on

freewriting in first, second, third, and fourth grade classrooms, Knight (2008) focuses on 16 students in a

sixth grade homeroom, and Greenwood (1989) discusses journaling as implemented in seventh grade.

Although I taught students in the 8th grade, a large majority of my class wrote well below grade level as a

result of learning disabilities or lack of English fluency; Lutz and Moxley’s studies of elementary school

students applied to my pupils’ learning situation in that many of them were essentially beginning writers.

On the other hand, Knight’s and Greenwood’s studies of middle school students demonstrate that

individuals with the emotional development of pre-teenagers can also benefit from these methods. Some

of the above studies implement freewriting two or three times each week (Lutz & Moxley, 1995; Knight,

2008). Others implement daily journaling (Lutz & Moxley, 1995). Greenwood’s study focuses on a self-

regulated writing schedule with a quota of pages per week (1989). In terms of writing prompts, the

majority of these studies provide an optional topic to guide student thinking but allow writers to use these

prompts at their own discretion. In Knight’s study (2008), for instance, “students were provided with, but

not required to use school-wide prompts, nor were they required to write in particular genres” (p. 13), yet

students generally choose to answer the prompt because, as they reveal in post-study interviews, the

questions interest them and encourage them to think more deeply (Knight, 2008). In Greenwood’s (1989)

study, students receive no prompt, allowing them the freedom to discuss personal issues, reflect about

themselves and the world around them, and share goals and dreams. Since my CT already implemented


reading response journaling every day, I intended to replace these reading responses with daily

freewriting, providing writing prompts taken from an online source for students to respond to.

The research articles reviewed here also explore the effects of strictly timed, loosely timed, and

untimed journaling on writing ability. Lutz and Moxley (1995), for example, analyze the effect of both

strictly restricted and loosely restricted time limits on the amount and quality of student writing. The

second grade study reveals that strictly-restricted time limits do not significantly deteriorate writing

mechanics. The third grade study, “…illustrates the benefits of timed writing in increasing the total

amount of freewriting,” and reveals that, “…the timed writing generally had more expressive detail…”

(Lutz & Moxley, p. 7). Furthermore, teachers who implement timed writing note that students enjoy it

and specifically request it.

Still another variable shown to influence the freewriting process is word counting, or the

calculation of words written per journal entry. Lutz and Moxley (1995) discuss the implications of word

counting as a means of increasing both the amount and quality of student writing. In all four studies,

students count the number of words they write each day and record this number on personal and class

charts, and various prizes are awarded for the completion of set goals. The rationale behind this method is

that, “…writing more and at a higher rate already has a demonstrated link to improved quality of writing

and that self-recorded word counts of freewriting can facilitate increased writing in early grades” (Lutz &

Moxley, 1995, p. 2). The four studies support this rationale, as participants increase their words counts

over time and as, “increases in writing speed were accompanied by increases in expression…” (Lutz &

Moxley, 1995, p. 8).

Considering the improvements in amount and quality of writing caused by strictly-timed writing

limits and word counting, and because freewriting would take the place of reading-response journaling,

which generally took about 5-10 minutes, I chose to implement a 7-minute journaling limit with several

minutes after writing reserved for word counting and sharing.

Interactive Learning


In order for students to experience, as Fox and Suhor (1986) say, “…both student interaction and

thoughtfully structured classroom activities” (p. 35) teachers must incorporate certain elements in the

freewriting process to encourage interactive learning. For example, many researchers emphasize the

benefits of non-graded journal writing. Chandler (1997), upon experiencing graded journaling in a

graduate course, realizes that grading, “…is an effort to direct or correct my thinking, to criticize what

I’ve said or felt. I feel inadequate and stupid, put down, and punished…” (p. 46). She suggests that grades

do not motivate critical thinking but rather encourage students to guess and conform to what the

instructor wants. Furthermore, studies show that grading inhibits, “participation, performance, and

creativity,” that it, “reject[s] diversity,” and even, “contribute[s] to students’ misbehavior, cheating, and

cutting class” (Chandler, 1997, p. 47). Greenwood (1989) insists that teachers should resist the urge to

“red-ink” journal entries, focusing on content instead. Knight (2008) proposes that writing completed

during journal writing should be treated as practice because students require opportunities, “…to express

themselves without the pressure to perform for a grade” (p. 20). Non-graded freewriting benefits every

student, including ELLs and students who speak non-standard dialects of English, because it provides

them an opportunity to communicate and express themselves without judgment or corrections (Ortiz-

Marrero & Sumaryono, 2010).

Rather than grading freewrite entries, many researchers and teachers promote the implementation

of real student-teacher dialogue about student writing. In one study, participants have the option to put

their journals in a crate to be read and commented on by the teacher (Knight, 2008). Wanting to avoid

criticizing or correcting their entries, the teacher asks students what they expect from her responses; the

majority of students seek, “…honest feedback… they wanted the compliments but they also wanted to

know where they needed improvement” (Knight, 2008, p. 5). This teacher finds that her role changes

from the “teacher-critic” to the “coach for a recreational team” who encourages and does not criticize.

Chandler (1997) finds that her students, like those of another study she quotes below, prefer, “…

thoughtful comments about the subject at hand, preferably comments I made as a fellow human being

rather than as a teacher” (p. 46). Such an approach eliminates the traditional school culture of teacher


versus students and prevents learning from being a pointless ritual focused on making a grade. Instead, it

promotes a democratic environment that cultivates open communication (Chandler, 1997). Chandler

(1997) suggests that, “…journals not be assessed or evaluated, but be… accepted as either credit for

completion or no credit for failure to complete” (p. 48). In addition to commenting on student journals,

Greenwood (1989) proposes that teachers freewrite as a model. In her own studies, she writes every day

along with the class and leaves her journal in the room for everyone to read as a way to build trust

between herself and her students. In an effort to promote authentic and creative thinking, I planned not to

grade my students’ journal entries for content or mechanics. Instead, I would collect notebooks every

Friday and give credit for completion and record word counts. I would also write thought-provoking

comments about elements that interested me.

For 3-5 minutes after the 7-minute writing time, I planned to allow volunteers to read their entries

aloud to the class. Students may comment on these shared thoughts or they may simply listen and ponder

them silently. Research has found that sharing freewriting with peers can create real dialogue about

important topics and promote democratic and interactive learning in the classroom. Chandler (1997)

suggests that students share journals with a partner who will respond to an entry in writing or pass their

journals around the classroom for several students to read. These sharing activities “…reinforce common

understanding and point to common misunderstandings,” and also, “…expose students to multiple

viewpoints and interpretations” (Chandler, 1997, p. 49). In the sixth grade study, students have the

opportunity to share their writing at the end of each day of writing but are not required to do so. Four of

sixteen students describe sharing as their favorite part of journaling while others remain too shy to share

with the class and instead pass their journals only to their friends. According to Knight (2008), “they

didn’t want or need feedback; they simply wanted another human being to acknowledge that they had

written something, to share the writing in a safe environment” (p. 18). In the studies conducted by Lutz &

Moxley (1995), “modeling occurred when the students heard or saw what other students had written,”

while student comments provide formative feedback on this writing (p. 3). In all four of these studies,

students are encouraged to share their writing with a neighbor or aloud to the class. I hoped that sharing


entries and discussing writing prompts as a class – even if only for a few minutes – would increase my

classes’ enthusiasm for writing and improve their writing skills by exposing them to other points of view

and writing styles.

Transferable Skills

Researchers and teachers have found that freewriting can lead to significant improvements in the

overall quality of student writing. In all four studies conducted by Lutz and Moxley (1995), increased

writing speed as demonstrated by word counts ultimately produces increased expression with only minor

decreases in mechanics. Specifically, higher rates lead to, “…increases in concrete detail, such as

dialogue, and in sentence complexity, as indicated by both word length and syntax” (Lutz & Moxley,

1995, p. 8). In concluding interviews, participants in the sixth grade study claim to have improved as

writers as a result of journaling. One student notes that her writing has become more interesting because

she finds the writing process more engaging; two other students in the same study notice that they have

begun incorporating higher-level words and are writing more and longer sentences (Knight, 2008).

Furthermore, one student believes that her writing ability transfers over to writing in other academic

classes: “she also felt that she had make improvements in writing in her other classes, ‘…because my

writing makes sense [now]’” (Knight, 2008, p. 18).

Studies indicate that, in addition to improving the quality of student writing, journaling results in

more personal points of view and reflections on personal experiences (Lutz & Moxley, 1995). Knight

(2008) finds that student confidence increases noticeably, as “they grew to like writing more and felt

proud of themselves for their accomplishments” (p. 18). One student reports that this newly developed

confidence allows her to participate and share more in other classes and to stand up for herself at home

(Knight, 2008). Another student claims that freewriting increases his critical thinking skills because,

“‘when I hear some of [these] question that I have never thought makes me think’” (Knight, 2008, p. 20).

One teacher notes that journaling promotes, “critical self-appraisal,” discussions about “…youngsters’

emerging interest in the opposite sex, school pressure, and parental expectations,” and the sharing of

dreams (Greenwood, 1989, p. 186). Furthermore, researchers have found that teaching outside the


confines of traditional instruction produces, “…remarkably enthusiastic readers and writers” (Fox &

Suhor, 1986, p. 34). Because my CT generally taught with traditional direct instruction, a method that

had so far correlated with overall apathetic writers and thinkers, I hoped a more democratic learning

environment as implemented through freewriting and sharing would encourage confidence, self-

reflection, critical thinking, and increased enthusiasm as demonstrated in the studies.

Conclusion

Although my students’ overall lack of writing fluency and apathy toward the writing process may

not have been directly related to my CT’s traditional teaching methods, research suggests that more

interactive learning techniques such as freewriting can increase the quality of student writing and

encourage student enthusiasm, especially in ELLs and students with learning needs. However, Fox and

Suhor (1986) point out several shortcomings of journaling as a method of teaching writing. Namely, “…

both time and preparation are required to move from free writing to the more structured composition

called for in school settings” (p. 35), especially since students accustomed to freewriting may resist the

revising and editing process. Furthermore, they emphasize two excesses of the freewriting process when

used alone to teach writing: “…the tendency to reject skills instruction without reservation and the naïve

expectation that fluid writing will somehow become good writing…” (Fox & Suhor, 1986, p. 35).

However, when used in conjunction with traditional teaching methods that promote technical skills and

revision, freewriting can develop creativity, expression, and critical thinking. I believed it would improve

my students’ attitude toward writing as well as the depth and quality of their writing.

Intervention

As stated above, I implemented my writing intervention during my CT’s 3rd and 4th blocks of

ELA. In total, for both classes, I studied the effects of freewriting on 47 students, 25 of whom were girls

and 23 of whom were boys. The freewriting intervention consisted of three weeks of daily, timed

freewriting. I chose to time the freewriting so as to be able to complete the activity on a daily basis within

the time constraints of the class period. Furthermore, the literature states that timed writing increases the

amount and quality of freewriting and that students prefer timed writing over untimed writing.


Every day in my CT’s classes, students read their independent reading books for 20-25 minutes

and then responded to the reading for 5 minutes in their independent reading journals – a task designed to

improve students’ reading comprehension and writing abilities. Students were allowed to choose their

own books, to read whatever interested them, with the idea that this freedom of choice would increase

students’ involvement in their reading. The journal prompt was also very open; students were asked to

make connections with the text but were given little other guidance in their writing. My CT collected

these journals randomly to assess them for depth of response according to a general rubric she had given

students at the beginning of the year. Unfortunately, the majority of students simply summarized the

reading rather than analyzed it. Some students did not respond to the reading at all but rather wrote about

other things. They seemed uninterested in journaling, despite the fact that these 5 minutes served as an

opportunity to be creative and connect to the text on a personal level. Furthermore, poorly-written essays

and homework assignments suggested that independent reading journals did little to enhance the quality

of student writing. Thus, I wondered if daily, structured writing prompts and class discussions about

these prompts would improve the quality of student writing and their enthusiasm for writing.

Before implementing my intervention, I distributed a survey which asked students to rate their

feelings about different aspects of writing as a way to determine student’s enthusiasm for writing and

their perceived writing abilities.

I also picked a low-, medium-, and high-achieving pupil from each class as a cross-sample to

track their writing progress throughout the intervention. I interviewed these six students in-depth about

writing at the start of the intervention. I analyzed their freewriting journals throughout the intervention to

evaluate the quality and depth of their entries and to assess any improvements in quality or depth.

Specifically, I looked for concrete detail, sentence complexity, level of vocabulary, and expressive

language (metaphors, similes, descriptive words, etc.) as indicators taken from my research to

demonstrate writing quality. In terms of writing depth, I looked for the use of personal points of view and

personal experiences.


I originally intended the following intervention to take the place of the independent reading

journals as described above. However, because my CT resisted this change, I decided to implement the

intervention in addition to the reading response journals. Thus, following independent reading and

response time, I asked students to open their journals to a fresh page, write the date at the top of the page,

and respond to a freewriting prompt I had written on the board for a time duration of 7 minutes. When the

7 minutes ended, I gave them 2-3 minutes to count up the number of words they had written and to write

and circle this number at the bottom of the page. The literature claims that word counting increases both

the amount and quality of student writing, and I thus intended to track changes in word counts throughout

the intervention.

After 10 minutes devoted to writing and counting words, students had the opportunity to share

their entries. Sharing was to be completely voluntary. For the first week of the intervention, I allotted a

few minutes for volunteers to read their entries aloud, as some research claims that sharing aloud

facilitates an interactive learning environment. However, when students seemed reluctant to read their

writing, and when my CT insisted on cold-calling students to share despite my explicit explanation of the

intervention, I changed the sharing activity slightly; for the last two weeks of the intervention, I asked

students to pass their journals to a neighbor, read each other’s entries, and write a comment or two – a

compliment or a helpful suggestion or a thoughtful response to a point made by the writer – in the

margins. Research states that sharing in any form is beneficial because it exposes students to new

viewpoints, because reading others’ writing serves as a form of modeling, and because student comments

provide helpful feedback to improve student writing.

Every Friday, I collected student journals and graded their responses for completion (100% for

effort and 0% for no entry). This non-graded journaling policy coincided with studies suggesting that

grades discourage creativity and effort, that non-graded freewriting benefits ELLs and students who

speak non-standard English by allowing them to express themselves without the fear of judgment. I

recorded the word counts of each student’s entries in an Excel graph. The three individuals with the

highest total word counts at the end of each week received a candy prize of their choosing. I informed the


classes of this word count competition on the first day of the intervention as an incentive for students to

write as much as possible for the full 7 minutes of the freewrite.

While grading journals for the first week, I made comments and notes in the margins of the

entries, following the advice of studies that promote honest feedback and encouragement on the part of

the instructor in order to facilitate teacher-student relationships. For the last two weeks, when students

read and commented on their neighbors’ journals, I made no comments, both because time constraints

made doing so difficult and because students had already read and commented on the writing.

On the last day of the intervention, I distributed another survey, one which asked students to rate

their feelings both about different aspects of writing and about the freewriting activity as a way to assess

changes in their responses from the beginning to the end of the intervention and as a way to determine the

overall success of the intervention.

Data Sources

In order to assess the effectiveness of my intervention, I collected a variety of qualitative and

quantitative data to document student learning and to measure desired outcomes.

Before starting the intervention, for instance, I distributed a survey meant to assess students’

enthusiasm for writing and perceived writing ability (see Figure 11 in Appendix). Students were asked to

rate their agreement with 4 statements related to writing on a scale of 1-5, with 1 representing “not at all”

and 5 representing “very much.” They were also expected to respond to 2 open response questions, one

about their favorite type of writing and one about their native language. At the end of the intervention, I

distributed a similar survey (see Figure 12 in Appendix). I repeated all 4 questions from the original

survey as a way of determining changes in answers, and I asked 3 new questions meant to assess the

effectiveness of the intervention. I also required students to answer open response questions about their

favorite and least favorite writing prompts and their favorite and least favorite parts of the freewriting

activity. Changes in answers from survey one to survey two were expected to demonstrate how

freewriting affected student enthusiasm for writing. I entered overlapping survey responses into graphs

(see Figures 1-4 in Appendix) and analyzed the results. I also entered students’ responses to the questions


related to the freewriting activity on survey two into charts (see Figures 7-9 in Appendix) and used this

information to help analyze the changes in overlapping survey questions.

At the start of the intervention, I interviewed my cross-sample students more in-depth about their

attitudes towards writing, their feelings about writing instruction in their classroom, and their thoughts

and suggestions about the freewriting activity. I intended to use these sources to assess the writing

enthusiasm of these cross-sample students. However, later analysis revealed that these interviews added

little valuable information to my understanding of the study, and so I did not include the interview

responses in my final analysis.

Every day during the intervention, I made detailed observations about student participation. I

noted which students wrote furiously for the entire 7 minutes and which students slacked off or seemed

uninterested. I also observed when students seemed particularly interested, uninterested, or confused by

specific prompts. During the first week, I kept a tally of those students who chose to share, noting

whether or not students were eager to read what they wrote. During the second and third weeks, I

observed how eager students were to read their peers’ entries and to respond to them.

Every day after responding to prompts, I asked that students count and record the number of

words they had written. I put these word counts into an Excel chart for later analysis. By the end of the

intervention, students had responded to and recorded word counts for a total of 12 writing prompts: 4

from the first week, 3 from the second week, and 5 from the third week. Since research suggests that

increased word counts relate to increased quality of writing, this data was expected to correlate with

improved student writing. Furthermore, I expected that the number of words written would relate to

students’ enthusiasm for writing. I entered word count data into two graphs (see Figures 5 and 6 in

Appendix) in order to analyze the results.

Most important for my study was the collection of freewrite entries I took from the selected cross-

sample of students. I read and analyzed these entries for writing quality and depth of writing.

Specifically, I considered concrete detail, sentence complexity, strength of vocabulary, and expressive

language (metaphors, similes, descriptive words, etc.) as signifying quality of writing. I considered


personal points of view and experiences, as well as critical self-reflection, as signifying depth of writing.

In order to analyze these entries, I color-coded each element of writing quality and each element of depth

of writing and high-lighted examples of these elements within the entries using the appropriate color.

Results

Finding One

Analysis of journal entries written by a cross-sample of students addressed the question of whether or

not freewriting affects the quality and depth of students’ writing skills. The following findings suggest

that, overall, every students experienced some increase in both the quality and the depth of their writing.

However, these results varied from student to student.

The journals revealed that one or more elements of writing quality (concrete details, sentence

complexity, vocabulary, and expressive language) improved in the course of the freewrite intervention

for all six cross-sample students. Between the first and last freewrite entries, high-achieving students

Allison and Evan improved the concrete detail and sentence complexity of their writing while their level

of vocabulary and expressive language remained relatively the same. Middle-achieving student Danielle

increased significantly in the sentence complexity of her writing from the first entry to the last entry, with

moderate improvements in the level of her vocabulary and use of expressive language; although she

incorporated many concrete details in her entries, the frequency of these concrete details did not

significantly increase from the beginning to the end of the intervention. Middle-achieving student Kelly’s

use of concrete details significantly increased between her first and last entries, and her sentence

complexity improved somewhat, while her level of vocabulary and expressive language showed no

significant change. Low-achieving student Joe’s sentence complexity, concrete detail, and vocabulary

improved only slightly from the first to the last entry, although his use of expressive language increased

noticeably throughout the intervention. Low-achieving student Mark markedly improved the sentence

complexity of his writing and showed slight increases in the use of concrete detail, but his level of

vocabulary and expressive language remained very low throughout.


The journals also revealed that five out of six cross-sample students improved in one or more of

the elements of depth of writing (personal points of view and personal experiences). High-achieving

students Allison and Evan improved in both elements of depth of writing throughout the course of the

intervention. Middle-achieving student Danielle increased slightly in her use of points of view and

personal experiences; middle-achieving student Kelly’s points of view remained consistent, and she

incorporated no personal experiences in her writing throughout the intervention. Low-achieving student

Joe’s points of view and personal experiences increased slightly. Low-achieving student Mark used no

personal experiences in his writing, but his incorporation of personal points of view increased

significantly from the beginning to the end of the intervention.

Finding Two

Analysis of responses to survey questions distributed at the beginning and end of the intervention

addressed the question of whether or not daily freewriting affects students’ enthusiasm for writing. The

following results suggest that the three-week-long freewriting intervention increased students’ enjoyment

of writing and level of comfort with the writing process. However, results relating to students’ perceived

writing abilities and students’ perception of writing as a means of expression were inconclusive.

Figure 1 shows the frequency of responses to the survey question, “How much do you enjoy

writing?” The average response increased from 2.91 to 3.56, indicating that students enjoyed writing

more after the intervention than before the intervention.

Figure 2 shows the frequency of responses to the survey question, “How comfortable do you feel

with the writing process?” The average response increased from 2.7 to 3.26, indicating that the

intervention had a positive effect on students’ comfort with the writing process.

Figure 3 shows the frequency of responses to the survey question, “How well do you write?” The

average response increased slightly from 3.12 to 3.35. However, since this increase was not statistically

significant, my findings about students’ perceived writing ability were inconclusive.

Figure 4 shows the frequency of responses to the survey question, “To what extent do you see

writing as a way to express yourself?” The average response decreased from 3.58 to 3.53. Since this


decrease was not statistically significant, my findings about students’ perceptions of writing were

inconclusive.

Finding Three

Analysis of word counts for the 12 freewrite entries of the intervention addressed the question of

whether or not word counting affects the quality of student writing and student enthusiasm for writing.

The following results suggest that word counts had a slight upward trend and that word counts increased

more steadily for those students who reported enjoying writing more at the end of the intervention than

for students who did not report enjoying writing more at the end of the intervention.

Figure 5 shows the average number of words written per journal entry throughout the course of

the intervention. The graph indicates a general upward trend in word counts.

Figure 6 compares the average number of words written per entry for those students whose

enjoyment in writing increased versus words written per entry for those students whose enjoyment in

writing did not increase. The graph indicates that word counts for students who reported enjoying writing

more after the intervention increased more steadily than did word counts for students who did not report

enjoying writing more after the intervention.

Analysis/Interpretation

Finding one, based on my analysis of freewrite entries written by a cross-sample of students from

3rd and 4th blocks, revealed that overall writing quality and depth of writing increased from the beginning

to the end of the freewriting intervention. Because I never corrected journals but only graded them for

completion, this finding would suggest that improved writing quality and depth of writing resulted

naturally from the freewriting process rather than from students’ desire to meet specific grading criteria

dictated by the teacher. In other words, they did not improve so as to conform to my expectations. The

comments I made during week one and the comments made by peers during weeks two and three may

have influenced this improvement to some extent, with compliments, suggestions, and reflections

encouraging students to include more elements of writing in their subsequent entries. A study on the


effect of commenting might have revealed the correlation between commenting, writing quality, and

depth of writing.

Of course, I based my analysis of student journals on a somewhat subjective coding system. I

took liberties in deciding which examples of students’ entries signified or did not signify each element of

writing quality and depth of writing. Thus, it was impossible to measure writing improvements precisely

or definitely, and so I based my findings on subjective conclusions. This subjectivity should be taken into

account when considering the results of finding one.

With that in mind, the journal analyses suggest that, although every student in the cross sample

increased their writing quality and depth of writing, the writing of higher-achieving students improved

more noticeably than did that of lower-achieving students. High-achieving Allison and Evan improved

significantly in two elements of writing quality and in both elements of depth of writing. Middle-

achieving Danielle only improved significantly in one element of writing quality, with slight

improvements in other elements of writing quality and depth of writing; Kelly only improved

significantly in two elements of writing quality with no improvements in other elements of writing

quality or depth of writing. Low-achieving students Joe and Mark also improved in one element of

writing quality and one element of depth of writing, with slight or no improvements in other elements of

writing quality and depth of writing. Greater improvements in the writing of high-achieving students

could be a result of many variables. For instance, the better class grades of high-achieving students may

suggest a more dedicated work ethic which positively affected their performance during the freewriting

activity. In other words, these students generally try harder than middle- or low-achieving students and

thus applied themselves more consistently throughout the course of the intervention. Similarly, the

natural intelligence and learning skills which allow high-achieving students to succeed in school may

have also allowed them to self-regulate their own writing abilities. Finally, because low-achieving

students frequently develop a self-defeatist attitude toward learning as a result of years of failure, this

attitude may have hindered them from putting their full effort into the intervention, thereby improving.


Finding two, deduced from survey responses given at the beginning and end of the intervention,

revealed that students’ enthusiasm for writing and their comfort level with the writing process increased

significantly over the course of three weeks. When creating the graphs shown by Figures 1 and 2, I made

sure to eliminate the answers of any student who did not respond to both surveys. Therefore, if a student

was absent or refused to participate on the day of either the first or second survey, I eliminated their data

from the chart so as to avoid any bias.

The great increase in students’ enthusiasm for writing, from an average of 2.91 to 3.56, pleasantly

surprised me, as I did not anticipate such a drastic change to occur within three weeks. However,

responses to a survey question as seen in Figure 7, “How much did you enjoy the freewriting activity?”

partially explain this unexpected result. With an average response of 3.84, students indicated that they

enjoyed my intervention. This enthusiasm for the intervention, however, might suggest that students’

interest in freewriting as a genre increased more than their interest in writing as a more general concept.

On the other hand, this answer may simply demonstrate that enjoyment of one style of writing carries

over into the enjoyment of all types of writing.

The increase in students’ comfort with the writing process also came as an unexpected result of

my intervention. As a possible explanation, students who formerly struggled with writers’ block, who

found writing to be intimidating because they doubted their own skills, may have felt freed by the ability

to write without the threat of losing points for poor grammar or organization. More in-depth survey

questions or a study about the effects of freewriting on the writing process might have revealed the

connection between these two activities.

Survey responses furthermore revealed a slight increase in students’ perceived writing ability and

a slight decrease in students’ perceptions of writing as a means of self-expression. Although too

insignificant to be considered conclusive, the increase in students’ perceived writing abilities can be

supported by responses to a survey question as seen in Figure 9, “To what extent do you think the

freewriting activity improved your writing ability?” Students responded to this question with an average

of 3.49. In other words, answers to this survey question suggest that, because students considered the


intervention as having improved their writing abilities, they also perceived themselves to be better overall

writers by the end of the intervention. Similarly, while too insignificant to be considered conclusive, the

decrease in students’ perception of writing as a means of self-expression – perplexing because the

freewriting prompts focused on students’ personal thoughts and experiences – can be contradicted by

responses to a survey question as seen in Figure 8, “How applicable were the writing prompts to your

life, experiences, and interests?” Students responded to this question with an average of 3.49. Thus,

although students reported that they considered writing less as a means of self-expression following the

intervention, their answers to the above survey question suggest that they considered the intervention

prompts to promote self-expression by connecting to their lives, experiences, and interests. On the other

hand, these results may mean that students only view freewriting, and not other types of writing, as a

means of self-expression.

Finding three was pulled from charts demonstrating an upward trend in word counts throughout

the course of my intervention. Although word counts generally increased from the beginning to the end

of the three weeks, slight spikes and dips in the data can be partially explained by students’ interest or

disinterest in particular prompts. The table shown in Figure 10 demonstrates which prompts students

especially enjoyed or disliked based on survey questions about their favorite and least favorite prompts,

and this information relates generally to the graph of word counts. For instance, one especially low point

in the graph correlates to prompt 8, which 15 students indicated as being their least favorite prompt and

which 0 students indicated as being their favorite prompts. Similarly, one especially high point in the

graph correlates to prompt 4, which 3 students listed as being their favorite and which 0 students listed as

being their least favorite. Another high point correlates to prompt 9, which received 9 votes for favorite

prompt and 1 vote for least favorite prompt, while still another high point correlates to prompt 11, which

received 9 indications of favorite prompt and 3 indications of least favorite prompt. In other words,

students generally wrote more about prompts they enjoyed and less about prompts they disliked.

Field notes further support the correlation between student interest and word counts. For example,

students wrote very little for prompt 8: “What do we mean when we say, ‘The grass is always greener on


the other side of the fence?’” Upon revealing this prompt to the class and asking them to respond, I noted

that the majority of students looked around the room, made confused faces, or exclaimed, “Huh? I’ve

never heard that expression!” Baffled by the meaning of this prompt, students were at a loss of what to

write, thus explaining their low word counts for that day. On the other hand, students wrote the most

words of the entire intervention for prompt 9: “Three goals I have set for my life are…” I observed that

students were especially focused and quiet while writing on this day. They seemed intrigued by the

prompt because it asked them to consider their futures. Furthermore, students seemed hesitant to share

these particular entries, probably because (as I discovered when I collected the journals at the end of the

week) they had written very personal confessions about their dreams and desires. In other words, the

reluctance to share indicated that these entries had special meaning to the students, thus explaining their

high word counts for that day.

The three findings, as analyzed above, indicate that all three elements of my research questions

improved or increased as desired. That is, writing quality and depth of writing improved as demonstrated

by the analyzed freewrite entries discussed in finding one, overall enthusiasm for writing increased as

indicated by answers to the survey questions discussed in finding two, and word counts rose at an upward

trajectory as indicated by the graph discussed in finding three. Moreover, data suggests that these three

elements – writing quality and depth, enthusiasm, and word counts – are inextricably interrelated. As

indicated by my research, increases in word counts generally correlate with improvements in student

writing quality and depth of writing. My analyses of student entries supported this hypothesis, as writing

quality and depth of writing within these entries generally improved over the course of the intervention.

In turn, students’ word counts rose and fell in relation to their enthusiasm for daily writing prompts.

Finally, two separate indicators suggest that enthusiasm relates directly to the quality and depth of

student writing. Specifically, the cross-sample students’ survey answers to the question, “How much do

you enjoy writing?” suggest that higher levels of enthusiasm lead to higher-quality writing. Allison’s

survey answers increased from 4 to 5, and Evan’s survey answers increased from 3 to 4; high and

increasing levels of enthusiasm therefore correlate with improved writing quality and depth, as the


writing of these high-achieving students improved the most throughout the intervention. Middle-

achieving students Danielle and Kelly responded to both surveys with a consistent answer of 3, thus

suggesting that moderate, unchanging enthusiasm relates to moderate improvements in writing quality

and depth of writing (as the writing of these middle-achieving students improved somewhat). Finally,

Joe’s answers fell from 4 to 3 while Marquis’ answers remained at a consistent 2. Since the writing

quality and depth of writing of these low-achieving students increased the least during the intervention,

decreasing and low levels of student enthusiasm relate to less improvement in student writing. Moreover,

the graph shown in Figure 6 demonstrates the relationship between enthusiasm and quality and depth of

writing, as the word counts of students who reported enjoying writing more at the end of the intervention

increased at a steadier pace than did the word counts of students who did not report enjoying writing

more at the end of the intervention. Since word counts relate directly to quality of writing, one could

deduce that a steadier increase in word counts means a steadier improvement of writing quality and depth

of writing.

Implications

This intervention, a study of the effect of freewriting on the quality and depth of student writing

and on the level of student enthusiasm for writing, calls attention to the most important goal of effective

teaching – to meet the unique learning needs of students, instructing them in the manner most appropriate

to their individual strengths and weaknesses. In a classroom full of ELLs and students on IEPs, my

intervention has demonstrated that non-traditional teaching methods better accommodate non-traditional

learners. As implemented on a daily basis for a span of three weeks, freewriting was shown to increase

both the quality and depth of student writing as well as student enthusiasm for writing. More importantly,

it showed the high correlation between students’ attitudes towards learning and their academic

achievement. In other words, students who are excited and confident about their education will perform

better. With this in mind, teachers should modify their practices to accommodate the specific interests of

their students as a way to keep the curriculum engaging and effective. However, one must always


remember that – as shown in my study when low-achieving students improved less than higher-achieving

students – not every student will respond well to every type of instruction.

Were I to implement my freewriting intervention a second time, with the intention of collecting

more in-depth data and making broader conclusions about the ultimate effects of freewriting on students’

writing abilities, I would require, above all else, more time. For one, I had originally planned to show

how my intervention influenced the quality and depth of student writing outside the narrow boundaries of

the study. That is, I had intended to collect sample essays written by the cross-section students from

before and after the intervention. I would have analyzed these compositions to determine if my

intervention improved students’ general writing abilities or if student writing only developed within the

limits of the freewriting activity. Unfortunately, time constraints made such data collection impossible;

the class began a research project at the start of my intervention and wrote nothing substantial for the

entire three weeks of my intervention, thus providing me with no post-intervention writing samples to

evaluate. Secondly, although student writing did improve slightly from the beginning to the end of my

three-week intervention, the true development of writing skills requires more time. Thus, I would

implement the freewriting activity for an entire year in the hopes that results would be more drastic and

longer-lasting. Furthermore, I would increase the time limit of the freewrite slightly to 10 or 15 minutes,

allowing students more time to really consider and thoroughly respond to the freewriting prompts.

Had I been the teacher of record in the classroom, I would have changed several variables of the

study. For instance, I would have replaced independent reading responses with the intervention as

originally planned, since my intention had been to evaluate how freewriting compares to more traditional

methods for teaching writing skills. Furthermore, I would have ensured that sharing remained a voluntary

activity so as to reduce shy students’ anxiety, preserve all students’ privacy, and encourage authentic

enthusiasm for sharing and discussing the prompts. I would also participate in the freewrite along with

my classes and share my entries with them so as to build a sense of trust between myself and the students,

as suggested by my research. Finally, were I the teacher of record in the classroom, I would develop the

most engaging freewrite prompts – as indicated by number of words written – into formal essay


assignments so as to demonstrate how stream-of-conscious writing, or pre-writing, can transition into a

formal composition. In this way, I would combine the non-traditional instruction necessary the learning

needs of ELLs and students on IEPs with the more traditional instruction practiced by and expected in

modern American education. In utilizing both non-traditional and traditional teaching styles, I would

hope to meet the needs of all (or at least more) students, which is the ultimate goal of my profession.

Although my freewriting intervention answered several pertinent research questions relating to

student writing ability, certain unresolved aspects of the study offer new suggestions for future

investigation. For instance, as mentioned above, a study demonstrating the influence of this intervention

on the quality and depth of student writing outside the confines of the freewriting activity would better

determine the effectiveness of freewriting as an established method of writing instruction. Also, as

mentioned in my analysis, a study demonstrating the effects of teacher and peer commenting on the

quality and depth of student writing could demonstrate the benefits of non-graded instruction on student

achievement.

As a professional teacher, I hope to maintain an inquiry stance toward instruction in order to best

understand the learning needs of my students and to alter my instructional methods in order to

accommodate their differences. This freewriting intervention, a non-traditional teaching approach which

improved the quality of writing for ELLs and students on EIPs, is a good start. As a teacher, I would like

to implement it on a daily basis in my own English classroom.


ReferencesOrtiz-Marrero, F. W., & Sumaryono, K. (2010, July). Success with ELLs: ELLs at the center: Rethinking high-stakes testing. English Journal, 99(6), 93-96. Retrieved from http://www.ncte.org.proxy.bc.edu/library/NCTEFiles/Resources/Journals/EJ/0996jul 2010/EJ0996Success.pdf

Lutz, P. A., & Moxley, R. A. (1995, May). Self-recorded word counts of freewriting in grades 1-4. Education and Treatment of Children, 18(2), 138-157. Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com.proxy.bc.edu/ehost/detail?sid=fe7a5013-fa58-44ad- b59bb52baaed9eef%40sessionmgr10&vid=1&hid=108&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWh vc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=ehh&AN=9508180427

Knight, A. K. (2008, January 1). Finding the center of gravity: Unexpected benefits of non- graded writing. Language Arts Journal of Michigan, 24(1), 13-21. Retrieved from http://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1099&context=lajm

Greenwood, S. C. (1989, December). Journal writing for middle school students. The Clearing House, 63(4), 184-187. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/30182069.pdf?acceptTC=true

Chandler, A. (1997, January). Is this for a grade? A personal look at journals. The English Journal, 86(1), 45-49. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/820780.pdf?acceptTC=true

Fox, D., & Suhor, C. (1986, December). Limitations of free writing. The English Journal, 75(8), 34-36. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/819077.pdf?acceptTC=true

http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/820780.pdf?acceptTC=true

http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/30182069.pdf?acceptTC=true

http://www.ncte.org.proxy.bc.edu/library/NCTEFiles/Resources/Journals/EJ/0996jul


Appendices

1 2 3 4 50

5

10

15

20

25

Figure 1:How much do you enjoy writing?

Before InterventionAfter Intervention

Survey Responses

Frequency

1 2 3 4 502468

101214161820

Figure 2:How comfortable do you feel with the writing process?


Survey Responses

Frequency


1 2 3 4 50

5

10

15

20

25

Figure 3:How well do you write?


Survey Responses

Frequency

1 2 3 4 502468

10121416

Figure 4:To what extent do you see writing as a way to express

yourself?

Before Intervention

After Intervention

Survey Responses

Frequency


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 120

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Figure 5:Average of Non-Zero Word Counts by Day

Journal Entry

Number of Words

020406080

100120140160180

Figure 6:Word Counts by Level of Enjoyment after the Intervention

People Who En-joyed Writing More After In-tervention

People Who Didn't Enjoy Writing More Af-ter Intervention

Journal Entry

Number of Words


1 2 3 4 50

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Figure 7:How much did you enjoy the freewriting activity?

Student Responses

Frequency

Average: 3.84

1 2 3 4 502468

1012141618

Figure 8:How applicable were the writing prompts to your life,

experiences, and interests?

Student Responses

Frequency

Average: 3.49


1 2 3 4 50

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Figure 9:To what extent do you think the freewriting activity

improved your writing ability?

Student Responses

Frequency

Average: 3.49


Figure 10Prompt Chart

Freewrite Prompt

Number of Students Who Listed Prompt as

Favorite

Number of Students Who Listed Prompt as

Least Favorite1 2 12 2 23 7 44 356 57 4 28 159 9 110 3 311 9 312

Number of students who said they liked ALL of the prompts: 13Number of students who said they liked NONE of the prompts: 1


Figure 11Name: ______________________________________________ Date: __________________

Survey 1Instructions: Answer questions 1-4 to the best of your ability by circling the number that best correlates to your response, with 1 representing “not at all” and 5 representing “very much.” For questions 5-6, respond in a sentence or two.

6. How much do you enjoy writing?

1 2 3 4 5

2. How comfortable do you feel with the writing process (brainstorming, outlining, organizing your thoughts, editing and revising, etc.)?

1 2 3 4 5

3. How well do you write?

1 2 3 4 5

4. To what extent do you see writing as a way to express yourself (thoughts, feelings, opinions, etc.)?

1 2 3 4 5

5. What is your favorite type of writing (journal writing, creative writing, poetry, literary analysis, research papers, etc.)?

6. Is English your native language? If not, what other language(s) do you speak?


Figure 12Name: ______________________________________________ Date: __________________

Survey 2

Instructions: Answer questions 1-9 to the best of your ability by circling the number that best correlates to your response, with 1 representing “not at all” and 5 representing “very much.” For questions 10-15, respond in a sentence or two.

1. How much do you enjoy writing?

1 2 3 4 5

2. How comfortable do you feel with the writing process (brainstorming, outlining, organizing your thoughts, editing and revising, etc.)?

1 2 3 4 5

3. How well do you write?

1 2 3 4 5

4. To what extent do you see writing as a way to express yourself (thoughts, feelings, opinions, etc.)?

1 2 3 4 5

5. Overall, how much did you enjoy the freewriting activity?

1 2 3 4 5

6. How applicable were the writing prompts to your life, experiences, and interests?

1 2 3 4 5

7. To what extent do you think the freewriting activity improved your writing ability?

1 2 3 4 5


8. What was/were your favorite writing prompt(s)? Why?

9. What was/were your least favorite writing prompt(s)? Why?

10. What was your favorite part of the freewriting activity (writing, sharing, reading/hearing your peers’ entries, the word count competition, etc.)? Why?

11. What was your least favorite part of the freewriting activity? Why?

12. At any time during the last three weeks, did you ever choose not to participate in the freewriting activity? Circle one:

Yes / No

13. If you answered yes to the above question, please explain why you chose not to participate.