Pre-Service Teachers’ Preparation to Teach Writing Using Genre-Based Strategy Instruction: Reporting Two Cycles of Design-Based Research

Abstract

Teacher preparation programs often prioritize reading instruction, with writing largely integrated into reading method courses. Consequently, many pre-service teachers feel unprepared to teach writing effectively. This design-based research study aimed to develop and assess the implementation of genre-based strategy instruction for writing during pre-service teachers’ internships. The study included two implementation cycles involving three pre-service teachers in the first cycle and two in the second, with whole-group instruction for sixth- and ninth-graders in both cycles. The results indicated that students’ writing quality and incorporation of argumentative elements improved significantly due to the instruction. Additionally, pre-service teachers responded positively to the instructional approach and the model that supported their implementation, which included observations of their coordinator and peers, along with immediate reflective briefings. The study discusses implications and suggestions for future research.

1. Pre-Service Teachers’ Genre-Based Writing Instruction: Practices and Implications for Teacher Preparation Programs

The topic of effective teacher preparation is complex and multifaceted. The responsibility of teacher preparation programs is vast, and despite differences in terms of perspectives, it is understood that effective preparation programs include carefully designed courses that pair content knowledge with field experience or hands-on applications (Bomer & Maloch, 2019; Ladson-Billings, 1995), opportunities to address the needs of diverse learners (Bomer et al., 2019), a focus on learners’ pedagogical content knowledge and confidence (Ciampa & Gallagher, 2021; Morgan & Pytash, 2014; Risko & Reid, 2019), and clear program objectives (Hoffman et al., 2005) that consistently work toward the preparation of teachers.

With regard to writing and teacher preparation programs, there is limited research on pre-service preparation (e.g., Goldhaber, 2019; Myers et al., 2016). Perhaps, due to policies and an emphasis on reading performance (see U.S. Department of Education, 2024), the focus tends to be on reading courses/methods. However, considering the importance of preparing teachers of literacy who can address writing and reading utilizing evidence-based practices on writing (e.g., Graham et al., 2016a, 2016b), the inclusion of evidence-based practices in methods courses is essential (Traga Philippakos & MacArthur, 2023; Philippakos, 2022). When referring to writing instruction, we are referring to instruction on processes (planning, drafting, revising, editing), skills (orthography, handwriting, typing), and addressing different purposes and audiences (e.g., Hayes, 2006; Graham, 2019, 2022; Graham et al., 2016a, 2016b). The purpose of the present study was to develop and evaluate the feasibility of a writing approach in the context of practical experience with a teacher preparation program in Greece.

1.1. Teacher Preparation to Teach Writing

Policies often address reading but neglect writing, while focusing on reading has direct implications for the teaching of writing, or its lack of presence, in classrooms (Brenner, 2014). This is evident in the United States, where the Common Core State Standards first addressed writing. Unfortunately, questions about writing instruction and its presence in teacher-preparation programs are common across the globe (Graham & Rijlaarsdam, 2016), with teachers raising concerns about their college experience and limited preparation to teach writing (e.g., see Gillespie Rouse et al., 2021). Indeed, there is a pattern in teachers’ responses across years, as they consistently share that they are ill-prepared to teach writing (e.g., Gilbert & Graham, 2010). Survey data from a study with primary grade teachers (Cutler & Graham, 2008) suggested that 28% of teachers reported being ill-prepared to teach writing; the same pattern was identified from a survey with high-school instructors (Kiuhara et al., 2009), where 70% of the participating teachers reported having minimal or no preparation to teach writing. A survey by Traga Philippakos et al. (2022) showed that 20% of teachers were not at all prepared to teach writing, while 46% were slightly prepared. A survey of teachers in Norway (Graham et al., 2021) also showed than 60% of teachers had minimal or no preparation. A study that examined teachers’ responses across Shanghai, Hong Kong, Macao, and Taip (Hsiang et al. (2018)) reported that 75% of teachers had minimal to no preparation to teach writing. A small-scale survey of 103 teachers in Greece across grades K to 6 (Ralli et al., 2022) found that 47% were adequately prepared to teach writing, and 13% were not prepared. Such challenging reports of teachers’ college preparation to teach writing may also explain teachers’ low confidence in teaching writing (Graham et al., 2001) and students’ writing outcomes (U.S. Department of Education, 2024; Persky et al., 2003; OECD, 2019).

The examination of teacher preparation programs has revealed that preparation to teach writing is minimal (T. Hodges et al., 2019; Myers et al., 2016) and the topic has not received adequate research attention (e.g., Goldhaber, 2019; Pardo, 2006). A small-scale survey by Myers et al. (2016) found that writing instruction method courses (how to teach the writing process and how to support composition) within a teacher preparation program were a rarity, and writing methods were part of the reading method courses but were not present on their own. Considering the overemphasis on reading across policies and assessments, it is unclear what percentage of method courses is indeed allocated to reading. A review by Brenner and McQuirk (2019) found that for courses classified as English Language Arts, the focus was on reading and not on writing. However, research shows that when pre-service teachers (PSTs) attend courses that focus on the teaching of writing, beginner-level teachers are more confident and feel better prepared to teach in their classrooms (T. S. Hodges, 2015; Morgan & Pytash, 2014).

1.2. Strategy Instruction in Writing

Several approaches and programs are used to teach the writing and composition process (see Graham, 2006, 2019; Graham et al., 2012). Strategy instruction is one of the most effective instructional approaches that, contrary to others, is based on the systematic instruction of writing processes and related tasks. Across several metanalyses, strategy instruction is found to be effective for all learners, and supports their writing growth as they compose papers of higher quality (e.g., see Graham et al., 2023). Self-Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD), one of the most widely studied models of instruction, has shown strong effects on students with learning disabilities (e.g., Graham et al., 2015; Harris et al., 2006; MacArthur & Philippakos, 2010). Genre-based strategy instruction (Philippakos, 2021; Philippakos & MacArthur, 2020; Traga Philippakos et al., 2025) draws from principles of strategy instruction addressing the systematic instruction of the entire writing process, connecting the organizational elements of planning to writing and revising (also see Englert et al., 1991; MacArthur, 2011, 2014). Instruction addresses genres as types of writing that have specific purposes and serve specific communication purposes (Martin, 2009; Martin & Rose, 2012; Meyer, 1985). Students are taught the organizational elements of genres (e.g., compare–contrast, argument), as well as specific linguistic and syntactic structures that are specific to that genre (McCutchen, 2000, 2006; Rose, 2016; Philippakos, 2022), and complete the writing process. Specifically, they are systematically taught to analyze assignments to determine the topic, purpose, and audience, and to identify the genre (type of writing); then, they plan using organizational structures that connect with that genre (e.g., in-favor-of and against columns when working on ideation for argument); they draft using sentence frames and genre-related syntactic structures, and they evaluate their work by critically rereading it to identify revision goals and goals for their future writing work. Finally, they edit by considering their sentences, capitalization, indentation, punctuation, and spelling. There is a strong emphasis on the evaluation-to-revise component and the preparation of students to self-evaluate and peer-review (see Philippakos & MacArthur, 2016; also see Traga Philippakos & MacArthur, 2023). Self-regulation through goal setting is also promoted (Harris & Graham, 2009); thus, learners are supported in goal setting using information from their self-evaluation, and strive for continuous improvement. Information from student self-evaluation also supports teachers’ goal setting, as they consider instructional goals to reteach content that students find challenging and professional goals for their own learning and growth. Finally, in the approach, specific dialogic practices (e.g., collaborative argumentation) are included to assist students with ideation and revision.

The instructional approach has been found to be effective across primary (e.g., Traga Philippakos et al., 2025), intermediate (Traga Philippakos, 2020b), secondary learners (e.g., Traga Philippakos & MacArthur, 2021), and postsecondary learners (e.g., MacArthur et al., 2023). Pedagogically, teachers provide instruction using think-aloud modeling with problem solving, collaborative practice, and guided practice with supports to continuously work toward mastery through goal setting. Instruction is provided using a strategy for teaching that includes the following instructional procedures:

• Discussion about writing purposes, the genre, and its elements;
• Student pre-assessment;
• Reading aloud with note-taking and summarization;
• Evaluation of a well-written and weak paper with self-evaluation and goal setting;
• Teacher modeling with problem solving and goal setting;
• Collaborative practice with problem solving and goal setting;
• Guided practice and mini lesson on a genre-specific task;
• Preparation for peer review and self-evaluation for goal setting;
• Peer review and revision;
• Editing using mnemonic SCIPS for spelling, capitalization, indentation, punctuation, and sentences;
• Sharing and continuous guided practice to mastery.

At the end of each paper, students reflect on their performance and identify the strategies that worked for them and the ones they need to include in their work so they can achieve their goals for their next paper (e.g., include a rebuttal for the opposing position).

1.3. Current Project

The present work designed and implemented an evidence-based writing approach in PSTs’ internship in Greece. Writing instruction was not central in the Greek educational system until 2021 (Ν. 5768/Β/10-12-2021). The emphasis in the education programs is on linguistics and on grammar (Koutsogiannis, 2017), and less on the writing and composition process that addresses different purposes and genres, while reading is also emphasized in the method courses. Throughout much of the 20th century, writing was treated primarily as a product rather than a process, with classroom practices centered on copying, dictation, and the reproduction of model texts. Although curricular reforms in the early 2000s—such as the 2003 Cross-Thematic Curriculum Framework (ΔΕΠΠΣ)—and subsequent updates between 2011 and 2014 aimed to incorporate more communicative and process-oriented approaches to writing, including elements like audience awareness and revision strategies, their practical implementation has been inconsistent. Research indicates that traditional models continue to dominate many classrooms, where writing is often taught through decontextualized exercises focusing on formal correctness rather than creative expression or critical thinking (Ralli et al., 2022).

Overall, the teaching of writing expression takes place through language and literature classes. In early stages, students learn basic grammar structures and correct language usage. As they progress in schooling, they are exposed to various types of texts, such as narrative, research, and persuasive essays. Students learn the proper use of expression, with keywords, connectors, and syntactic rules. There is an emphasis on grammar, especially from the point of view of Systemic–Functional Grammar and Critical Discourse Analysis aiming at identifying power relations (Kostouli & Stylianou, 2017), such as the use of an active or passive voice that reveals the genuine intentions of the writer/speaker. Additionally, cognitive perspectives in writing have been undermined and not used either in schools or in universities (Koutsogiannis, 2017). A small-scale survey of kindergarten to grade 6 teachers by Ralli et al. (2022) found an emphasis on instruction at the word level and at the sentence level, and a higher frequency of instruction of foundational skills with planning and revising at a monthly and weekly rate, but without information on genres or on grade-level tasks. The purpose of this work was to design and evaluate processes related to pre-service teachers’ preparation to teach writing utilizing strategy instruction, and examine the feasibility of the approach and model. Considering that teachers report being unprepared to teach writing, the goal was to examine the affordances and feasibility of preparation at the internship stage of a pre-service program for initial-teacher licensure. The study employed two cycles of design-based research implementation. Each cycle’s findings are presented in a separate section. Across both cycles, the participants in this study were fourth-year students who, when they graduate, will work as secondary teachers of Greek Language Arts. While they had completed six courses with an orientation toward education, these courses were predominantly theoretical in nature (e.g., Sociology of Education, Introduction to Pedagogy) and did not include practical training in teaching writing or writing pedagogy. Potentially the most relevant course was Introduction to Applied Linguistics, which mainly introduces how people acquire their first and second languages. Reading and writing development is not included in the particular course. The research questions were the same for each of the cycles.

1.4. Research Questions

• Does this instructional approach significantly affect the quality of students’ argumentative essays and their inclusion of elements?
• How feasible is the application of the approach and instructional procedures within practical experiences of PSTs? What revisions are suggested?

2. Cycle 1 Methods

2.1. Participants and Setting for Cycle 1

The PST participants in the first cycle were three pre-service secondary teachers of Greek Language Arts (GLA) (n = 3 females). The pre-service teachers were in the last semester of their study during internship and had attended all classes and completed all coursework in Teaching Greek as First Language and Cognitive Psychology. As shared previously, there was no instruction on how to teach writing as a process, but learners had been taught linguistics and the function of grammar. The relevant courses they had completed addressed linguistics (e.g., development of phonology and syntax).

The procedures of this collaboration were explained to the pre-service teachers (PSTs), who then consented to participate in this study. If teachers refused to participate, they were given the choice not to work on this specific instructional approach; however, all PSTs agreed to participate. The student participants were 22 students from the Experimental Junior High School (age 12–13 years old) who attended sixth grade. One parental consent form was not returned, and even though the student completed all instructional tasks in the classroom, no data were collected from that learner. Further, two learners were absent at post-test and one was absent at pretest. Thus, a total of 19 learners completed pretest and post-test responses, and their work was included in the analysis. The school is a public charter school and admission is based on an open lottery without criteria for entry in the lottery pool. It is also classified as a lab school that collaborates with the university (according to the law Ν. 4692/2020) in conducting research on innovated approaches.

2.2. Research Design

This study uses the design-based research (DBR) methodology, with the collection of qualitative and quantitative data to better understand the feasibility of the approach, its acceptability, and its effects on writing outcomes. DBR facilitates close collaboration with participants and acknowledges the ecology of the setting at the design and revision stages (Brown, 1992; Gravemeijer & Cobb, 2006; Traga Philippakos & MacArthur, 2021). In the first cycle of the implementation, we designed the processes with the instructor, and then we examined students’ academic performance and the feasibility of using this model of instruction in the provided setting. Based on the feedback given by the participants and the examination of data, we identified revisions required and then proceeded with a second cycle of implementation.

2.3. Procedures and Timeline for Cycle 1

The first cycle of implementation occurred during the PSTs’ internship cycle (September to January). The PSTs were interviewed before they visited their classrooms and at the end of the practicum experience. The practicum coordinator/coach first modeled the story-writing process to introduce the instructional approach to the students. During this time, PSTs observed and shared questions. Then, each PST taught three lessons on the genre of opinion. When one of them taught, all read the lesson and observed. At the end of each taught lesson, they met as a group, and each first reflected on their performance before receiving comments from the coordinator/coach and their colleagues. The first PST worked on the introduction to the genre and reading aloud with note taking, self-regulation and mini lesson, and explanation for peer review and self-evaluation. The second candidate worked on the modeling of planning, drafting, and evaluation to revise, followed by editing, guided practice, and editing again. The third candidate worked on the evaluation of well-written and novice samples, on collaborative writing, and on modeling and practicing the reviewing process in preparation for peer review, explaining how to critically evaluate and give feedback.

After each lesson, the PSTs reflected in writing journals. Those consisted of notebooks wherein candidates wrote their thoughts about what went well in the lesson, and what could have been improved. The coordinator/coach conducted group meetings once a week and an in-person meeting with each PST twice a month. Additionally, interviews were conducted before and after the intervention. Sixth-grade learners responded to persuasive papers that asked them to state their position and support it with reasons and explanations at pretest and post-test. Also, they completed questionnaires before and after instruction. The main educational material were drawn from Philippakos et al. (2015) and Philippakos and MacArthur (2020). All materials and resources were translated into Greek. The student learners and PSTs had access to the educational materials through the educational platform Edmodo.

2.4. Measures for Cycle 1

Data were collected from PSTs and from student learners. In the following section, these data sources are described and explained.

2.5. Pre-Service Teachers’ Data Sources

Interviews. Pre-service teachers were interviewed at the pretest and post-test using a structured protocol (30 min each time). At the pretest, the protocol included questions that asked teachers to share their understanding about persuasive writing, its requirements, the process of planning, drafting, evaluating to revise, editing for a persuasive paper, and the process of editing. At post-test, the same questions were included as well as questions that asked the PSTs their perspectives on the approach, revisions required to address limitations or needs they/their students had, and comments they wanted to share.

Journal entries. In addition, PSTs were asked to complete three journal entries (responses in their notebooks). The first entry was on the lesson that introduced persuasion and evaluated well-written and novice samples. The second entry addressed teacher modeling, and the third entry addressed the explanation of the peer review and the completion of self-evaluation. The questions asked teachers to comment on the instructional tasks and on their instructional and professional goals (see Philippakos, 2022; Traga Philippakos & MacArthur, 2023).

Observations. A fidelity protocol was developed addressing the structure of the lessons. Based on the observations of the coordinator/coach and of the overall data, revisions were considered for the second cycle.

2.6. Student Data

Pretest and post-test essays. Sixth graders were asked to respond to controversial topics before the start of the study and at the end.

Questionnaire. Students responded to a questionnaire (alpha = 0.80) before and after the intervention. The questionnaire included five questions measured on a five-point Likert scale that examined students’ confidence (e.g., How sure do you feel to prepare an outline for a persuasive paper?).

2.7. Analysis for Cycle 1

Quality of pretest–post-test essays. All students’ papers were typed in order to avoid biasing the raters by perception of handwriting. All spelling and other sentence-level errors were retained. Writing quality was measured using a seven-point rubric that examined organization, ideas, word choice, sentence structure, and conventions (adapted from Philippakos & MacArthur, 2016). Members of the research team met, selected anchor papers, and established reliability (r = 0.93; 91% exact agreement, 100% within one point). They then met with two raters who were unaware of the purposes of the study and trained them. The interrater reliability was good (r = 0.89; 87% exact agreement, 95% within one point). The raters proceeded with the scoring of the study papers with high reliability (r = 0.99; 92% exact agreement, 100% within one point). A paired sampled t-test was conducted in order to examine statistically significant differences from pretest to post-test in terms of writing quality.

Student questionnaires. A paired-sample t-test was conducted to examine changes in students’ confidence in their responses from pretest to post-test.

Analysis of elements of persuasion. In order to examine what changes occurred upon the inclusion of elements of persuasion, and whether those were statistically significant (see Traga Philippakos & MacArthur, 2020; Philippakos & MacArthur, 2016), all student essays were divided into t-units, and each t-unit was classified according to an element of persuasion or as a non-functional unit (Hunt, 1970). The first and second authors examined their agreement and then a different rater unaware of the purposes of the study independently scored all papers. The reliability of the elements was 100%, with exact agreement seen for issue and position, the restatement of the position and the message to the reader; there was also 92% agreement for reasons and 87% for explanations.

Length. To examine changes in length and whether students increased word count as a result of learning how to plan and write a persuasive paper using this instructional approach, the length of papers was calculated. The word count feature of the Word program was used and a paired-sample t-test was employed.

Interview data, journal entries, and open-ended questionnaire. PSTs’ interviews were transcribed and examined for accuracy by a member of the research team. Since a structured protocol was used, responses were analyzed by identifying patterns/themes through constant comparative analysis (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). A similar process was followed for the open-ended questionnaires and journal entries. The first author identified the themes and provided the codes for the analysis. The second author applied those independently to confirm agreement on the determination of the findings. Finally, the notes were reexamined and the findings per theme were summarized.

2.8. Results for Cycle 1

Student essays. The results show a statistically significant improvement in writing quality from pretest (M = 1.42; SD = 1.21) to post-test (M = 5.34; SD = 1.04); [t(18) = 13.32, p < 0.001] (Cohen’s d = 1.28).

Elements of persuasion. The results of a paired-sample t-test showed that students’ papers at post-test included more elements compared to post-test, and those changes were across all sections (beginning [t(18) = 6.45, p < 0.001], middle, [t(18) = 7.84, p < 0.001], end [t(18) = 3.51, p = 0.001]) (see

Table 1. Cycle 1 elements from pretest to post-test.

Elements	Mean (SD)
Beginning pretest	0.42 (1.12)
Beginning post-test	3.00 (1.43)
Middle pretest	1.05 (3.10)
Middle post-test	10.00 (3.44)
End pretest	0.63 (1.73)
End post-test	2.37 (1.34)
Issue pretest	0.35 (1.05)
Issue post-test	1.68
Position pretest	0.11 (0.31)
Position post-test	1.00 (0.00)
Reasons pretest	0.47 (1.06)
Reasons post-test	3.42 (0.82)
Explanations pretest	0.71 (2.14)
Explanations post-test	6.58 (3.43)
Restatement of Position pretest	0.35 (0.99)
Restatement of Position post-test	1.47 (0.77)
Message to reader pretest	0.35 (0.86)
Message to reader post-test	0.89 (0.87)
Total t-units pretest	13.06 (5.70)
Total t-units post-test	15.53 (4.80)

Note: M: means; SD: standard deviation.

). No statistically significant difference was found in the number of t-units. An examination of the change from pretest to post-test on the specific elements followed, using Wilcoxon ranked data due to violation of normality (Kolmogorov–Smirnov test of normality, p < 0.001), and Bonferroni correction was applied (p = 0.008). The results show statistically significant differences across the elements of issue (Z = −3.21, p < 0.001), position (Z = −3.50, p < 0.001), reasons (Z < −3.47, p < 0.001), explanations (Z = −3.11, p < 0.001), and the restatement of position (Z = −2.63, p = 0.008), but not for the message to the reader (Z = −1,83 p = 0.067) (see Table 1 for means and standard deviations). Further, the results show that students’ responses were on-topic at post-test compared to their responses at pretest.

Length. A paired-sample t-test was also conducted to examine whether there were statistically significant differences in the length of students’ papers. The results indicated no statistically significant difference in length from pretest (M = 163.47; SD = 62.50) to post-test (M = 172.84; SD = 55.50); [t(19) = 0.89, p < 0.38] (Cohen’s d = 1.28).

Student Questionnaire. The results indicated a statistically significant difference in students’ confidence from pretest (M = 3.46; SD = 0.72) to post-test (M = 4.92; SD = 0.67) [t(18) = −2.76, p < 0.03] (Cohen’s d = 0.66).

Pre-service pretest teachers’ interviews. Overall, the PSTs identified the need to reread their work and compare the produced writing with the intended writing (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1986). On one occasion, they were interested in assuring that the reader would develop the same understanding as their intended one. Regarding the writing process, they all commented on rereading the topic, developing ideas and organizing them as they wrote. Only the third candidate commented on using a diagram.

2.9. Post Interviews

At post-test, the PSTs accurately explained the writing process using this approach, and offered explanations. All commented positively on the instructional process and overall approach. They found the evaluation process especially interesting, and commented on the self-evaluation and its value, as well as on the explicitness of instruction that guided students to critically reread. Regarding the self-evaluation process, the first pre-service teacher explained as follows:

“The use of self-evaluation [is effective] as it helps them improve. They do not feel as if someone else is correcting them first to perceive it as something negative because many times a corrected error by the teacher may be taken wrong by the student without even considering that this correction can help them grow. However, when they self-evaluate and correct their work first, I think helps them improve much faster and more efficiently.”

PSTs also identified time management as a challenge that they anticipated to overcome through practice; regardless, they all positively commented on the approach and on its evaluate-to-revise component, which guided students to critically reread and self-evaluate before their teacher offered any suggestions. All three stated they would have liked to see this approach in schools, as it was clearer and could better guide students to learn how to write. The second candidate shared that it was also helpful for instructors, who could more effectively monitor students’ growth:

“It helps all children. I believe it also helps the educators to have the graphic organizer and charts to see where children started and where each student has ended; how much each one of them grew.”

Journal entries. When asked to reflect on what had worked well instructionally, all PSTs commented on the student participation, and the first candidate identified their challenges with the think-aloud process, as they said it was “a stressor because of the need to make the thinking happen live in front of the students, which is not a practice I did before”. When considering what had worked well for students, the candidates commented on their participation. Further, they commented on students’ responses during evaluation. Two PSTs stated that they were impressed with students’ understanding about persuasion, and that they needed to convince a reader, not just say what they liked; thus, they needed to critically reread in order to evaluate their work.

Regarding the PSTs’ goals and the process of goal setting, a challenge was reported by the first candidate in separating professional goals from instructional goals. The second candidate’s professional goals were general educational goals that were not specific to the discipline (writing), but rather addressed educational reform requirements. For the third pre-service teacher, there was repetition across responses, which did not reveal additional information. The inclusion of specific questions might have better supported the PSTs’ reflection.

Revisions from cycle 1 to cycle 2. Revisions were prepared to address the following: time allocated per lesson, explanations of the meaning of goals, guiding questions for teachers to comment on their goals, and additional emphasis on transition words, since students’ writing showed that those were absent. In addition, to better support students’ ability to determine writing assignments’ goals, practice using Form–Topic–Audience–Author–Purpose (FTAAP) daily to analyze writing topics took place. Indeed, it may be a challenge for pre-service teachers to identify professional learning goals in order to advance their pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) at the same time as applying PCK in the field and juggling instruction, management, and time for student learning. In Cycle 2, we included specific questions to support PSTs’ reflection, and to help them set goals. Further, students’ papers revealed a challenge with the issue section of the beginning component. Students would not elaborate on the issue, but rather began with a question or their position/opinion. Hence, the revision included the teacher modeling ways to develop an introductory paragraph, followed with collaborative practice and student application. The development of a fidelity checklist proceeded in this second cycle.

3. Cycle 2 Methods

3.1. Participants

In the second cycle of implementation, the PSTs were two undergraduate students who completed their practicum at the lab school of the university. The student participants were 23 students in 9th grade (n = 10 males) who attended the lab school at the university.

3.2. Design for Cycle 2

Design-based research was employed as in the previous cycle.

3.3. Procedures and Timeline for Cycle 2

The duration of the internship was four months (from February to May). Ten lessons were taught that were equally distributed between the PSTs. Lessons occurred twice a week for approximately 45 min. Contrary to the first cycle, where PSTs observed the coordinator/coach teach a lesson on story writing while they taught persuasion, in this cycle, they observed the coordinator teaching the same genre. Further, prior to any instruction, the coordinator/coach met with each to discuss the lesson and address any questions they might have. Each taught a lesson and observed the other colleague. In addition, the coordinator/coach shared feedback at the end of a lesson (for 45–90 min) both orally and via a discussion as a form of reflection at the end of each meeting. Based on the revisions and the findings from the first cycle, the coordinator/coach met with each of the PSTs regarding the think-aloud process before their instruction. This process was followed to address through explanations time, self-regulatory self-talk with problem solving, and the management of the process.

3.4. Measures for Cycle 2

The same measures as in Cycle 1 were utilized. Regarding the analysis of students’ writing quality, the researchers met and trained two raters who were unaware of the purposes of the study. The raters independently scored the papers for the study (ICC over 93%; exact agreement 87%, within one at 91%, r = 0.98).

3.5. Analysis for Cycle 2

Student writing quality and confidence were analyzed using a paired-sample t-test. Qualitative interviews with teachers followed the same process of analysis as in the pretest with the use of the same codes, as the same structured protocol was used.

3.6. Results for Cycle 2

Results

Student essays. The results from a paired-sample t-test show a statistically significant improvement in writing quality from pretest (M = 4.43; SD = 1.72) to post-test (M = 6.00; SD = 1.41); [t(22) = 4.72, p < 0.001] (Cohen’s d = 1.52).

Elements of persuasion. The paired-sample t-test (with p adjusted to 0.16) indicated that there was a statistically significant difference in the beginning and middle sections of the papers (beginning [t(22) = −4.47, p < 0.001], middle, [t(22) = −5.40, p < 0.001], respectively), but not for the end ([t(22) = −2.40, p = 0.025]) (see

Table 2. Cycle 2 elements from pretest to post-test.

Elements	Mean (SD)
Beginning pretest	1.36 (0.62)
Beginning post-test	2.28 (0.82)
Middle pretest	1.40 (0.61)
Middle post-test	2.27 (0.75)
End pretest	1.21 (0.72)
End post-test	1.76 (0.88)
Issue pretest	1.97 (1.05)
Issue post-test	3.57 (1.46)
Position pretest	0.87 (0.34)
Position post-test	1.00 (0.00)
Reasons pretest	1.09 (0.42)
Reasons post-test	3.32 (0.302)
Explanations pretest	2.70 (1.18)
Explanations post-test	4.18 (2.58)
Opposing position pretest	0.84 (0.85)
Opposing position post-test	1.00 (0.30)
Reasons for opposing position pretest	1.46 (0.68)
Reasons for opposing position post-test	2.90 (1.60)
Elaborations for opposing position pretest	0.74 (0.69)
Elaborations for opposing position post-test	1.70 (0.68)
Rebuttal pretest	0.65 (0.64)
Rebuttal post-test	1.17 (0.57)
Restatement of Position pretest	0.70 (0.47)
Restatement of Position post-test	1.00 (0.57)
Message to reader pretest	1.74 (1.25)
Message to reader post-test	2.61 (1.67)
Total t-units pretest	12.22 (4.55)
Total t-units post-test	19.35 (4.72)

Note: M: means; SD: standard deviation.

).

Further, statistically significant differences were found in the number of t-units, with students writing more t-units at post-test ([t(22) = −6.67, p < 0.001]). Due to violations of normality (p < 0.001), we proceeded with the Wilcoxon test and applied the Bonferroni correction (p = 0.025 for elements of the beginning and p < 0.01 for elements of the middle section). The results show statistically significant differences in the element of issue (Z = −3.60, p < 0.001), but not for position (Z = −1.73, p = 0.08). Statistically significant differences were also detected for elaborations on the opposing position (Z < −3.16, p < 0.001), and rebuttal (Z = −2.50, p = 0.01) (see Table 2 for means and standard deviations).

Length. To examine whether there were statistically significant differences in the length of students’ papers, a paired-sample t-test was conducted. The results indicated no statistically significant difference in length from pretest (M = 199.61; SD = 83.15) to post-test (M = 252.70; SD = 71.45); [t(23) = −3.54, p < 0.001] (Cohen’s d = 0.73).

Student questionnaire. The results indicated a statistically significant difference in students’ confidence from pretest (M = 2.81; SD = 0.70) to post-test (M = 3.70; SD = 0.52) [t(21) = −6.18, p < 0.001] (Cohen’s d = 0.65).

Pre-service teachers’ pretest interviews. The PSTs were aware of the organizational structure of a persuasive paper. However, their responses did not indicate a clear process for planning, as planning was primarily based on thinking and then writing based on the main structural elements. In addition, when examining ways to evaluate a paper, responses addressed grammar and rereading in general. The PSTs referred to rereading their paper to determine revisions, with one of them suggesting grammatical and syntactic changes, and the other one suggesting rereading and then comparing their paper with other persuasive papers to tell if theirs was as “good”.

Pre-service teachers’ post interviews. At post-test, the PSTs’ responses indicated an understanding of the importance of emphasizing revision and editing in writing. The candidates referred to the systematic nature of the instruction and the absence of guessing. As one participant shared, “It is an easy-to-understand approach and provides students with the opportunity to think critically”. They were guided by the process and strategies, but they were free to develop the paper and ideas they wanted. Teachers explained the use of a checklist/rubric and the ways that the elements of the rubric related to the organizational elements of the target essay. One of the teachers explained as follows:

“The writer will use the evaluation checklist to examine each part of the paper and check the reasons and evidence using a score of a zero, one, or two. If the elements are great, they will give a score of two. If the writer could write something better, they will use a score of a one, and if the element is completely missing, they will score a zero. Further, another person can evaluate their paper. The writer will read their paper out loud to someone else. Then the partner will use the evaluation checklist to write their comments and share with the writer. This was very clear.”

The PSTs did not identify any areas for improvement. However, they did comment on the importance of systematic instruction and on ways that this instructional approach should be taught to all students in middle and high school to prepare them as writers.

Journal entries. Both PSTs were enthusiastic about the clarity of the resources and strategies that guided them how to teach. They also appreciated that they had the opportunity to observe their coach, as this process allowed them to better understand the level of explicitness they needed to follow. The first candidate also commented on the ways that the evaluation rubric supported students in being honest, and offering honest evaluations instead of only offering a high score.

Regarding challenges, both PSTs found that thinking out loud was a challenge and something that they had to think about, as it was easier to present or tell. Further, time management was challenging for both, especially during the think-aloud process. The first PST found comprehension an inhibiting factor when working on the evaluation of strong and weaker samples. Specifically, the PST suggested telling students from the beginning the position of an author’s work so students would not need to map the position along with reasons, as reading comprehension was challenging for some. The second PST shared that they realized they needed to prepare by pre-reading the papers and evaluating them so as to better explain to students the scoring decisions. The PST also shared that students needed to show some kind of differentiation in transcription skills.

3.7. Student Questionnaire

Students’ pretest responses. When asked to explain the tasks that writers perform prior to writing to persuade, three of the students stated that they did not know, while five referred to thinking, two to looking up information, three to writing sentences, and four referred generally to introduction, body paragraphs, and conclusions. When asked to share how writers should check the quality and clarity of their argument, seven students shared that they did not know, five suggested rereading, two referred to checking for spelling errors, one suggested asking for feedback from others, and one referred to rereading and comparing with published works.

Regarding the organizational elements of argumentation, nine students said that they did not know them, eight referred to the general structure of papers (introduction, body paragraphs, conclusion), two referred to including a main idea, and one referred to including clear arguments and evidence to support them. Finally, when asked to share their goals as a writer of argumentative papers, four students said that they did not know what goals they had as they did not know what this was, three referred to a clear argumentative paper that will be convincing, five to writing a paper that will have no spelling errors, and four to “get[ting] better” in general.

Post-test responses. At post-test, ten students provided a detailed description of the planning strategies. One of the students responded that they did not know, three referred to the rubric of stating what the expectations of the writing assignment are, and five referred to the development of an outline, with a beginning with their opinion, a middle with reasons and examples/evidence, and an end with a restatement of the position and a message to the reader. In reference to the ways to evaluate their papers, all students explained the use of a checklist/rubric that would include the elements of the genre. Regarding their goals, four students referred to spelling errors as a personal goal, three to self-evaluation so they can write clearer arguments, four to better informing the audience, four to better organizing their papers, and three to the use of better vocabulary.

4. Discussion

The purpose of the study was to examine the feasibility of a genre-based writing strategy approach in the context of teacher education programs in a language other than English, where this approach was developed and evaluated. The results across two cycles of implementation show that the approach was feasible and resulted in increases in students’ writing quality, while PSTs offered positive comments and welcomed the implementation of the approach as pre-service and in-service teachers. Further, PSTs found the approaches effective for their students and systematic for their own preparation as teachers. The inclusion of peers as observers supported the learning of those who were observers. In addition, PSTs found that the briefing sessions allowed them to share their thoughts/questions and receive feedback and clarifications from the coach.

The process of learning-by-observing is utilized in writing, and specifically in revision. The observation of readers while they attempt to make sense of the text produced by a writer can support students’ revising practices. When students are confronted by the reactions of a reader or are given the opportunity to observe the reactions of readers, they may improve their writing (e.g., Rijlaarsdam et al., 2008). In this work, the live observation by PSTs of peers who engaged in the teaching of a systematic approach allowed them to better understand the lessons and expectations. The process of observing was supportive (see Fidalgo et al., 2015), as was the delivery of immediate feedback by the coach. Immediate feedback in this case was given at the end of the instructional session and not during the instruction. Studies on professional development and coaching that address the same instructional approach have also indicated the benefits of immediate feedback that is based on specific instructional components (see Traga Philippakos, 2020a, 2020b). Feedback is also identified as a component of teacher preparation programs that supports PSTs’ confidence to teach (Morgan & Pytash, 2014). In this study, feedback was provided by the coach and the peers who observed. This process of observing, discussing, and reflecting may have improved PSTs’ confidence, as well as their collegiality. Thus, knowledge was shared among all members, as it was not only transmitted from the coach to the PSTs.

4.1. Limitations, Future Research, and Implications for Programs

This article undertakes design-based research and cannot provide inferential applications for the population. However, it shows that the approach is feasible in an internship setting for PSTs who found it useful, informative, and effective, and welcomed its use in their future classrooms. There were statistically significant improvements on students’ writing quality and inclusion of genre elements in their compositions; however, there was no control group and comparisons were within groups. Moreover, even though all students’ scores increased from pretest to post-test, due to the lack of a control group, we did not specifically examine which students benefited the most (profiles of learners). Future research could examine the effects of this model and approach in larger settings.

Further, future research could examine the knowledge and experience a coach needs to develop teachers’ reflections and learning at the briefing sessions. Also, it would have been helpful to have had information on students’ reading levels and overall reading ability in order to further examine relationships between reading and writing. Future research could examine additional measures that would incorporate reading skills and consider them as a covariate, and even address the differentiation of instruction. Finally, in this study, we did not work with PSTs on differentiated instruction or on ways to support different writing needs (Traga Philippakos & MacArthur, 2023). Future research could examine both small-group (Tier II) and whole-group (Tier I) implementations. Finally, future research could follow PSTs in their first year of experience, and examine whether this knowledge and practice is retained and is helpful, as well as what other information is needed.

Based on the information derived from the interviews, journal entries, and students’ responses, the instructional approach supported students’ learning, and pre-service teachers found it to be feasible. Challenges were encountered related to the process of thinking out loud. Think-aloud modeling is a challenging component of strategy instruction, as it is based not on telling and directing, but on making the thinking process audible and visible through the use of specific strategies (MacArthur et al., 2023; Philippakos et al., 2015). It is possible that such challenges might not have been as prominent if instruction on strategy instruction was part of the academic program, as in this design-based work, it was part of the internship alone. Thus, future research could examine the feasibility and effects of this model of internship within a program where the pedagogical and instructional components of this instructional approach are part of its programmatic planning. Time management is a common goal of programs (Morgan & Pytash, 2014) and a challenge that in-service teachers also identify (Cutler & Graham, 2008; Gilbert & Graham, 2010). Even though the PSTs in this work managed to complete tasks within the time set, they were worried about their time. It is important that programs address the anticipated time for instruction, discussion, and independent work so that beginning teachers are in a position to better navigate the challenge of time.

4.2. Conclusions

It is imperative that PST programs address not only reading, but also writing; however, there is a prevalence of reading method courses with limited focus on writing (Gillespie Rouse et al., 2023; Morgan & Pytash, 2014). In this study, we show that the approach was feasible, and suggest considerations for the inclusion of evidence-based practices in PSTs’ preparation to equip them with knowledge that they can carry in their classrooms. Possibly, this can be a way to address the complaints teachers share regarding their preparation to teach writing. PSTs in this work commented specifically on the benefits of the approach for their students’ self-evaluation and peer-review, but they also commented on the specificity of the approach that allowed them to grow.