Writing as literacy development for low achievers

Lee, N. F. R. (2012). Writing as literacy development for low achievers: The case of a neighbourhood school in Singapore (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.

Background

This study was motivated by the desire to address Singapore’s stratified literacy instruction and the negative impact deficit pedagogical practices had on lower stream students.

Aims

This study investigated (1) how different the writing culture between high- and low-achieving classes was, (2) how writing literacy in these classes was conceptualised, and (3) how effective a writing intervention based on sociocultural theory of writing would be in improving writing.

Sample

One high-achieving and one low-achieving class (mean PSLE score: 204.2 and 169.9 respectively) of Secondary 3 students (n=79) from two secondary schools were chosen to participate in the study.

Method

A questionnaire was used to find out how students were oriented towards school writing in terms of: (1) value and interest, (2) beliefs in own abilities, (3) affective feelings, (4) sustaining of motivation, and (5) regulation of cognitive and metacognitive strategies. Other data collected included transcripts from semi-structured interviews with focal students (n=8) and the English teachers (n=2), and classroom observations.

The writing intervention, which was implemented in the low-achieving class, used a reporting task to teach students to write in an expository style. Rhetorical features associated with the genre were explicitly taught. After the task, the students completed a questionnaire.

Findings

The questionnaire showed that students in both classes shared similar orientations towards the five key motivational variables. The classroom observations showed little teaching of higher meta-cognitive skills or personal construction of voice and meaning in both classes. Differences in class disposition towards writing were observed. The high-achieving students were self-regulated, desired to succeed, and perceived the school and the teacher favourably, whereas the low-achieving students were disengaged, resisted writing, and perceived the teacher negatively. The writing intervention improved the low-achieving students’ writing performance. However, the students’ opinions of their own abilities remained the same as before.

Implications

The author suggested that there was a need for curricular changes aimed at helping low achievers to enhance their experiences in doing writing at school, notably in teachers’ classroom practices.

Original article retrieved through Google Scholar.