A Survey of How English Language Arts Teachers Address Synthesis Writing in Classroom Instruction by Brett Mayhan A dissertation submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Auburn University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Auburn, Alabama May 4, 2014 Keywords: English, high school, source materials, synthesis, writing Copyright 2014 by Brett Mayhan Approved by Edna Brabham, Chair, Professor of Reading Education David Shannon, Professor of Educational Research and Evaluation Michelle Sidler, Associate Professor of English iii Abstract The use of information from source materials in service of an argument or idea original to a writer is, according to the scholarly literature, one of the most complex applications of reading and writing. It is also, according to the literature, a type of composition that is valued in higher education. In an effort to determine how teachers of various English Language Arts (ELA) courses are addressing this important type of writing, the author conducted a nationwide survey, collecting responses from 1,200 ELA teachers. The survey asked respondents to provide a definition of synthesis writing and to describe an example of a synthesis task that they would assign to students, and those definitions and task descriptions were categorized and coded. The survey also asked about the frequency with which respondents assign such synthesis-writing tasks, as well as the frequency with which they address key synthesis-writing strategies and with which they apply particular pedagogical strategies. Additionally, the survey asked respondents about their awareness of learning objectives pertaining to synthesis writing in their state course- of-study standards and the extent to which they received training on synthesis writing in college courses, professional development workshops, or in-service activities. Responses to these questions were analyzed against various demographic data provided by the respondents (e.g., type of ELA course taught, type of school, years of teaching experience) in order to determine if responses about synthesis writing correlated strongly with or were dependent on specific demographics. iv The survey data suggest that respondents across various types of ELA courses define synthesis writing differently. Furthermore, respondents often perceive synthesis writing differently than their articulated definition of synthesis writing. Additionally, the types of tasks that they identify as synthesis writing often do not align with their own definitions of that term. The data also suggest that ELA teachers in urban schools or those whose students are primarily nonwhite may provide more frequent opportunities for what they perceive as synthesis-writing tasks, but those tasks are less likely to actually involve synthesis of information from multiple source materials. The data also indicate that ELA teachers with 16 or more years of teaching experience are more likely to provide frequent instruction in key synthesis-writing skills. v Table of Contents I. Introduction: Relevance of Synthesis Writing in Education .............................................1 II. Literature Review ...............................................................................................................8 Defining synthesis writing ..................................................................................................9 Disciplinarity and task orientation as context for synthesis writing .................................18 The process of synthesis writing .......................................................................................23 Technology and synthesis writing ....................................................................................27 Instruction on synthesis writing ........................................................................................28 Conclusions from the literature review .............................................................................31 III. Methodology .....................................................................................................................33 Sampling ...........................................................................................................................35 IV. Results and Analysis .........................................................................................................44 Demographics ...................................................................................................................44 Research Question 1: How do English teachers reportedly define synthesis writing in their courses? ....................................................................................................50 Defining synthesis writing ....................................................................................50 Examples of synthesis-writing tasks .....................................................................58 Research Question 2: To what extent do English teachers reportedly provide explicit or direct instruction on the strategies involved in synthesis writing?....................65 Research Question 3: What are the characteristics of instruction on synthesis writing that English teachers report providing? ................................................................73 Research Question 4: What professional training do teachers report as having had the most impact on their instruction on synthesis writing? ...................................78 vi Research Question 5: Are different groups of high school ELA teachers (AP, IB, DE/DC, ELL, and regular English courses) characterized by different patterns of responses to the survey questions?..................................87 V. Discussion and Implications .............................................................................................92 VI. References ........................................................................................................................98 VII. Appendixes A. State English Language Arts Education Standards Addressing Synthesis Writing ................................................................................................................106 B. Synthesis-writing Survey ...........................................................................................124 C. Demographic Data .....................................................................................................130 D. Respondents' Synthesis Definitions ..........................................................................137 E. Descriptions of Synthesis-writing Tasks ...................................................................141 F. Frequency of Synthesis-writing Tasks .......................................................................148 G. Instruction on Synthesis-writing Strategies ...............................................................154 H. Regression Analyses of Frequency of Use of Pedagogical Strategies ......................177 I. Professional Development ...........................................................................................207 vi List of Tables Table 1: Frequency of synthesis references in state ELA standards, by grade level and task .............................................................................................................................16 Table 2: Research questions and survey construction .................................................................34 Table 3: Required survey-response rates .....................................................................................37 Table 4: Response rates by primary type of ELA course taught .................................................43 Table 5: Required response rates and obtained responses ...........................................................43 Table 6: Demographic summary...................................................................................................44 Table 7: School type and percent of low-SES students ...............................................................47 Table 8: Ethnic/racial minorities in respondents' primary courses ..............................................47 Table 9: Nonwhite students in course and school setting ............................................................48 Table 10: School type and nonwhite students in course ..............................................................49 Table 11: ELA course type and nonwhite students in course ......................................................49 Table 12: Categories for coding definitions of synthesis writing ................................................51 Table 13: Frequency of synthesis definition ................................................................................52 Table 14: Synthesis definitions by course type ............................................................................54 Table 15: Selection of given definitions of synthesis writing ......................................................55 Table 16: Respondents' definitions of synthesis writing coded to definitions of Flower et al.....................................................................................................................................56 Table 17: Examples of synthesis tasks coded to definitions of synthesis writing .......................58 Table 18: Alignment of definitions of synthesis writing with examples of synthesis tasks ........59 viii Table 19: Synthesis definitions and examples of synthesis tasks by course type .......................61 Table 20: Alignment of course types to synthesis definitions and synthesis tasks ....................62 Table 21: Definitions of synthesis tasks and other variables ......................................................63 Table 22: Definitions of synthesis task by percent of nonwhite students in ELA course ...........63 Table 23: Frequency of providing synthesis-writing tasks .........................................................65 Table 24: Frequency of synthesis-writing tasks by ELA course type .........................................66 Table 25: Frequency of synthesis-writing tasks by percent of nonwhite students in ELA course ................................................................................................................................67 Table 26: Frequency of synthesis-writing tasks and respondents' definitions of synthesis writing ...............................................................................................................................67 Table 27: Frequency of instruction on synthesis-writing strategies ...........................................68 Table 28: Significant predictors of frequency of instruction on synthesis strateg.ies ............... 70 Table 29: Regression analyses of frequency of instruction on synthesis strategies and independent variables .................................................................................................72 Table 30: Response frequency for pedagogy strategies................................................................73 Table 31: Significant predictors of frequency of use of pedagogical strategies .........................75 Table 32: Frequency of use of formats for receiving student writing .........................................77 Table 33: State COS explicitly addresses synthesis writing .......................................................79 Table 34: State COS requiring synthesis for an original rhetorical purpose ..............................80 Table 35: College courses that address synthesis writing ...........................................................81 Table 36: ELA course type and college courses addressing synthesis writing ...........................82 Table 37: Professional development offerings ............................................................................82 Table 38: Usefulness of professional development events ..........................................................84 Table 39: Need/desire for professional development on teaching synthesis writing ..................85 ix List of Figures Figure 1: Key Foci of Synthesis Research .....................................................................................9 Figure 2: Flower?s Continuum of Knowledge Transformation ...................................................10 Figure 3: Information collection structure ...................................................................................22 Figure 4: Problem-solution structure ...........................................................................................22 Figure 5: Decisions made during synthesizing (during and after reading source materials) .....25 1 I. Relevance of Synthesis Writing in English Language Arts Education English language arts (ELA) teachers have common expectations and objectives for student writing, such as expressing an opinion, telling a story, or explaining a process. They frequently ask students to write in response to a text or texts, and this writing can involve a range of stances (e.g., summarizing information, analyzing specific statements or assertions, providing an interpretation). As teachers guide their students to engage in progressively more challenging writing activities, the act of synthesizing information from various source materials and using it for a new purpose, original to the student author, is one of the most complex composition strategies that educators expect students to master. Synthesis writing has been described as essential to education generally and academic writing specifically (Flower et al., 1990; Lasch, 1995; Graff, 2003) and is associated with complex cognitive tasks (Braxton & Nordvall, 1985). Professional education organizations have acknowledged the importance of synthesis writing in college-level academic study (Council of Writing Program Administrators, 2000; Center for Education Policy Research, 2003; Academic Senates for California Community Colleges, 20021). Major educational organizations have addressed the issue of synthesis writing in high school curricula: the National Council of Teachers of English Standards for the English Language Arts (2007), the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (2003), and the 1 Although a survey of professors of first-year composition reported that synthesis writing is one of the stances most frequently expected of and assigned to students, the survey also indicated that only about one-third of their students were sufficiently prepared to engage in synthesis writing in first-year composition courses. Consequently, professors reported that synthesis writing was the third most common topic for instruction, cited by 63% of professors. The most frequently cited topic for instruction was writing argumentative essays, at 72%, followed by analyzing information or arguments at 69%. 2 Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts & Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects (2010) all emphasize the importance of being able to synthesize information in secondary education. If synthesis writing is valued in college-level study, then an important next question is to what extent are high schools preparing their college-bound students to engage in synthesis writing? 2 Understanding the extent to which and the means by which high schools are addressing synthesis writing can have important ramifications for state high school writing curricula, assessment emphases for students, and professional development resources for high school teachers. Although students in any high school course of study can seek a college degree, some high school courses are specifically designed to prepare students for the types of academic engagement they will encounter in college. Dual enrollment or dual credit (DE/DC) courses offer high school students the opportunity to participate in college courses, which are offered on the campuses of high schools or local colleges (usually a community college or two-year college) campus. In these courses, students can earn both high school and college course credit. Because these courses are based on the curricula of individual higher education institutions or systems, however, significant variability may exist in DE/DC course curricula, degrees of rigor, and means of assessment. 2 This is not to say that synthesis writing is not important for students who do not intend to attend college. However, the focus of previous studies has been on synthesis as a college-level task, and this study continues that line of inquiry. The argument can be made that all high school students, not just those preparing to attend college, benefit from academically rigorous curricula. The Southern Regional Education Board (SREB) has long advocated the incorporation of high academic standards throughout the high school curriculum, including career and technical education (CTE) programs, not only because their research indicates that doing so contributes to higher graduation rates (SREB, 2011) but also because businesses and industries cite an increasing need for workers with strong academic skills, including writing (SREB, 2011). SREB cites the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Improvement Act of 2006, which stipulates that states align CTE courses with state academic content standards, including writing standards; the act further stipulates that rigorous academics be linked with programs of study in high-demand career fields. 3 The International Baccalaureate (IB?) Diploma Program, which is offered to high school students, is "designed as an academically challenging and balanced programme of education with final examinations that prepares students, normally aged 16 to 19, for success at university and life beyond" (IB2011, The IB Diploma Programme). One of the core components of the IB Diploma Program is the completion of an extended essay, described as "an independent, self- directed piece of research, culminating in a 4,000 word paper" (IB, 2011, Diploma Programme curriculum -- core requirements). Furthermore, IB claims that participation in this research process develops various abilities in students, including the capacity to synthesize knowledge (IB, 2011, Diploma Programme curriculum -- core requirements). The IB website does not, however, define their use of the term synthesize, so it isn't clear exactly what action is intended by the term. Advanced Placement (AP?) courses are explicitly developed to present curricula which are equivalent to those found in typical introductory-level college courses (AP English Course Description).3 Four of the 28 AP courses (English Language and Composition, European History, United States History, and World History) explicitly require students to write essays based on information from multiple sources, and the courses address this requirement on their corresponding AP Exams. The AP European History and United States History courses noted include the following writing requirement: ?The course provides students with frequent practice in writing analytical and interpretive essays such as document-based questions (DBQ) and thematic essays? (AP European History: Curricular Requirements, 2010). The AP European History Course 3 The author of this dissertation is a senior director of curriculum and content development for the AP Program. 4 Description (2007) describes its DBQ in a way that is similar to the descriptions of the DBQs for the AP U.S. History and World History courses): The primary purpose of the document-based essay question is not to test students? prior knowledge of subject matter but rather to evaluate their ability to formulate and support an answer from documentary evidence?.The document -based question is an exercise in both analysis and synthesis. It requires that students first read and analyze the documents individually and then plan and construct an appropriate response to the essay question based upon their interpretation of the documentary evidence as a whole. (p. 20-21) The AP World History course curriculum was revised in 2010, and its curricular requirements contain the following two statements related to the use of source materials in student writing:4 ? The course provides opportunities for students to develop coherent written arguments that have a thesis supported by relevant historical evidence. ? The course provides opportunities for students to analyze evidence about the past from diverse sources, including written documents, maps, images, quantitative data (e.g., charts, graphs, tables), works of art and other types of sources. ("AP World History: Curricular Requirements," 2010) The AP English Language and Composition course, which is designed to address the typical curricular requirements of introductory rhetoric and composition courses in college, also requires students to write essays based on information from source materials: The course teaches research skills, and in particular, the ability to evaluate, use, and cite primary and secondary sources. The course assigns projects such as the researched argument paper, which goes beyond the parameters of a traditional research paper by 4 At the time of this writing, the AP European History and U.S. History courses were undergoing similar revisions of their course curricula. 5 asking students to present an argument of their own that includes the analysis and synthesis of ideas from an array of sources. (AP English Language and Composition: Curricular Requirements, 2010) While the AP history courses require students to write analytical and interpretive essays based on a variety of sources, the AP English Language and Composition course specifically requires students to utilize information from multiple sources to inform an argument generated by the student. This requirement was added to the AP English Language and Composition curriculum in 2006, after consultation with the Council of Writing Program Administrators ("AP English Language and Composition 2007 Released Exam," 2008). As the literature review will demonstrate, the term synthesis writing can be interpreted in several ways. Colleges and universities, for example, indicate a preference for defining synthesis writing as the organization of information from source materials around a controlling idea that serves as a complex concept or purpose invented by (i.e., originating with) the student writer. It is this application of the term synthesis that is the focus of this study. The literature review will also show that most of the research to date on this topic has focused on the characteristics and process of effective synthesis writing and that little research has been conducted on how teachers' instruction addresses this important reading and composition strategy. It is important, therefore, to collect data on the ways that teachers of a variety of ELA courses address synthesis writing in their instruction; this includes AP, IB, DE/DC, English Language Learners (ELL), and regular ELA courses. The AP English Language and Composition course requires students to analyze and utilize information from source materials in service of the student writer?s own argument (i.e., the student?s own rhetorical purpose). This application of the term synthesis writing is similar to that valued and expected in 6 higher education (i.e., the organization of information from sources around a controlling idea to address the writer?s own complex concept or purpose). Gathering data about the ways teachers of the AP course reportedly address synthesis writing can serve as a useful baseline of data. Comparing AP teachers' data with information about the ways that other ELA teachers reportedly address synthesis writing may reveal patterns among the ways that different groups of ELA teachers reportedly address this important form of academic writing, especially when they may not be required to teach such writing. This, in turn, may suggest how professional- development resources regarding synthesis writing might be created to meet the needs of specific categories or populations of teachers and allow them to prepare more students for successful experiences with college-level academic writing. This study was conceived to gather information specific to the teaching of synthesis writing in high school ELA courses (AP, IB, DE/DC, ELL, and regular English courses). The primary research questions for the study were the following: 1. How do English teachers reportedly define synthesis writing in their courses? 2. To what extent do English teachers reportedly provide explicit or direct instruction on the skills involved in synthesis writing? 3. What are the characteristics of instruction on synthesis writing that English teachers report providing? (These characteristics pertain to factors such as task impression, awareness of audience and academic discourse community, selection and use of source materials, application of a rhetorical purpose, and the writing process.) 4. What professional training do teachers report as having had the greatest impact on their instruction on synthesis writing? 7 5. Are high school ELA teachers of AP, IB, DE/DC, ELL, and regular English courses characterized by different patterns of responses to these questions? 8 II. Literature Review The body of literature on synthesis writing, which has accumulated over thirty years, does the following: ? Identifies multiple definitions of synthesis writing. ? Argues for the relevance of a particular type of synthesis writing, interpretation for a rhetorical purpose, in academics. ? Describes contexts that affect synthesis writing (e.g., academic discipline, discourse community). ? Explains processes in which students engage when learning synthesis writing (e.g., forming task impressions, activating prior knowledge, selecting source materials, developing an original argument or interpretation). ? Describes pedagogical strategies that affect synthesis writing (e.g., orienting to topoi, guided reading, modeling, scaffolding). These areas of scholarly focus are illustrated in Figure 1. 9 Figure 1. Key Foci of Synthesis Research I will use these overarching themes to frame my discussion of the literature, during the course of which it will become clear that the existing research on synthesis writing does not adequately describe the ways and extent to which teachers typically address synthesis writing in their courses and instruction. Defining Synthesis Writing Before one can begin investigating how teachers provide instruction on the topic of synthesis writing, it is important to determine the type of writing situation intended by that term. The consensus of Kinneavy (1971), Spivey and King (1989), Flower et al. (1990), and Kantz (1990) seems to be that the synthesis writing valued and expected in college involves the Synthesis: Use source materials to select and organize information around a central idea to address the writer?s own complex concept or purpose. Relevance: Important in college-level education. Context: Specialized, discipline-specific forms of writing which affect rhetorical awareness. Process: Involves prior knowledge, reading ability, generating an original product or idea, and source selection/ integration. Pedagogy: Addresses topoi, task impressions, reading strategies, scaffolding, and publication. 10 organization of a discussion or composition, based on source materials, around a controlling concept that the writer has constructed (i.e., a concept or purpose invented by or originating with the student writer) by making coherent connections across various source texts. Further, synthesis writing tasks that require the formation of a rhetorical purpose, including sensitivity to audience and context, may generate more knowledge than synthesis writing that does not. Flower et al. (1990) assert that the amount of knowledge transformation that occurs during the act of composing is an accurate measure of the cognitive complexity of a writing task. These researchers offer the following graphic (1990, p. 64) to demonstrate this range of complexity (see Figure 2): Low Transformation High Transformation Figure 2. Continuum of Knowledge Transformation Flower et al. also identified several desirable reading and writing processes that were encouraged by engaging in basic (non-argumentative) synthesis writing (1990, p. 47): ? Reading source texts for gists instead of details. ? Creating an overarching structure for ideas. ? Integrating source information and prior knowledge into a unified concept. Flower et al. further identified the additional benefits of engaging in synthesis writing that includes a rhetorical purpose (1990, p. 53): Synthesis with a familiar idea Summary of a complex discussion Synthesis or interpretation that invents a complex concept or purpose 11 ? Facilitating the construction of an argument to address the types of tasks encountered in college courses. ? Approximating adult professional writing. ? Serving as an entry point to critical literacy (i.e., questioning, testing, and/or transforming information from source materials, required for participation in academic discourse communities). ? Facilitating sensitivity to the response of the reader. ? Facilitating the understanding that texts, including the writer?s own texts, are subject to ?scrutiny and transformation.? (1990, p. 53) The focus of this study is synthesis writing that involves cognitive complexity that generates a new (i.e., original to the student author) concept or purpose from source materials, and which demonstrates rhetorical awareness (i.e., sensitivity to audience and context). While that may be the definition of synthesis writing that seems to be most valued in higher academic study, the question remains as to whether that same definition is used by high school teachers who are preparing students for higher academic study. A logical place to begin when determining how teachers define synthesis writing is to examine the ELA standards mandated by state departments of education. At the time of this writing, forty-five states plus the District of Columbia, four U.S. territories (Guam, American Samoa Islands, U.S. Virgin Islands, and Northern Mariana Islands), and the Department of Defense schools had adopted the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) for writing and literacy; Puerto Rico and five states (Alaska, Minnesota, Nebraska, Texas, and Virginia) had not yet adopted those standards (Common Core State Standards Initiative: ?In the States?, 2010). 12 CCSS uses the term synthesize 10 times in the primary standards document for ELA (Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts and Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects). In the ELA standards statements themselves, synthesis writing is addressed under the heading ?Research to Build and Present Knowledge?:5 ? Grades 11-12: o CCSS.ELA-Literacy.W.11-12.7: Conduct short as well as more sustained research projects to answer a question (including a self-generated question) or solve a problem; narrow or broaden the inquiry when appropriate; synthesize multiple sources on the subject, demonstrating understanding of the subject under investigation. o CCSS.ELA-Literacy.W.11-12.8: Gather relevant information from multiple authoritative print and digital sources, using advanced searches effectively; assess the strengths and limitations of each source in terms of the task, purpose, and audience; integrate information into the text selectively to maintain the flow of ideas, avoiding plagiarism and overreliance on any one source and following a standard format for citation. ? Grades 9-10: o CCSS.ELA-Literacy.W.9-10.7: Same as W.11-12.7 above. o CCSS.ELA-Literacy.W.9-10.8: Gather relevant information from multiple authoritative print and digital sources, using advanced searches effectively; assess the usefulness of each source in answering the research question; integrate 5 Since this study focuses on the application of synthesis writing in high schools, only those Common Core State Standards applicable to high school grades are examined here. 13 information into the text selectively to maintain the flow of ideas, avoiding plagiarism and following a standard format for citation. CCSS Writing Standard 7 for the 9-10 and 11-12 grade bands, by including the statement that students should conduct research ?to answer a question (including a self-generated question)? (2010, p. 46), seems to indicate that ideas or purposes original to the student writer are expected in CCSS?s application of synthesis. Even in this example, however, the intended level of synthetic complexity is unclear. Students are expected to conduct research to answer a self- generated question, which seems to imply a higher degree of cognitive complexity. However, if the question is generated by the student prior to his or her engagement with source texts, then the information synthesized from those sources does not actually inform the student's creation of the research question. In other words, the student has already determined what the focus of the research and writing should be and will then seek information specific to that question, to the possible exclusion of other relevant information. In contrast, by first engaging with the source materials pertaining to a particular topic, analyzing the information available, and then identifying any questions that arise from that information, the student actually integrates synthesis into the formation of the research (Kantz, 1989a). Additionally, CCSS Writing Standard 8 for the 11-12 grade band includes the statement ?assess the strengths and limitations of each source in terms of the task, purpose, and audience? (2010, p. 46), which suggests that students are expected to evaluate information from source materials in light of the student writer?s rhetorical purpose for writing. This same emphasis on determining the rhetorical usefulness of information from source materials is not, however, manifested in CCSS Writing Standard 8 for the 9-10 grade band, which merely directs the 14 student to ?assess the usefulness of each source in answering the research question? (2010, p. 46). The Common Core Reading Standards for Literacy in Science and Technical Subjects for grades 11-12 include the following statement: ?Synthesize information from a range of sources (e.g., texts, experiments, simulations) into a coherent understanding of a process, phenomenon, or concept, resolving conflicting information when possible? (2010, p. 62). This description seems to fall somewhere in a gray area between summarization and actual invention of a complex concept or rhetorical purpose for writing, depending on the extent to which the "understanding" involves originality. The Common Core Writing Standards for Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects for grades 6-12 include statements about writing discipline-specific arguments based on evidence and data, but those statements do not clearly indicate that the arguments should include invention of a complex concept or rhetorical purpose for writing. The CCSS, therefore, seem to refer to synthesis inconsistently with regard to the definition of the term most applicable to higher academic writing. The fact that the CCSS glossary in Appendix A does not define the terms synthesis or synthesize only adds to the lack of clarity regarding expectations for application of the term (Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts and Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects, Appendix A: Research Supporting Key Elements of the Standards, Glossary of Key Terms, 2010). Nevertheless, CCSS does take significant steps to formalize expectations regarding the use of source materials in students? original compositions. Some states and U.S. territories, however, have not yet adopted CCSS for their K-12 public education systems, and those that have adopted CCSS are in various stages of implementing those standards. It is therefore likely that teachers 15 inconsistently address synthesis in instruction. Because of this, it is worth looking at the ELA instruction standards created by state departments of education, since those are the curricular guidelines teachers followed for instruction prior to the publication of CCSS. A review of the standards for ELA instruction in grades 9-12 for the fifty states and the District of Columbia (see Appendix A) reveals that 42 states and the District of Columbia have or had at least one ELA standard that addressed the synthesis of information from source materials. ELA standards from eight states (Alabama, Alaska, Idaho, Kentucky, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, and South Carolina) did not use the term synthesis or any derivation of it, nor did they describe with other terminology any activities that resemble the synthesis of information from source materials. Furthermore, among the states and the District of Columbia that did address synthesis in their ELA standards, the lack of agreement or consistency in the application or interpretation of synthesis is readily apparent. Only two states (Connecticut and Delaware) defined synthesis or synthesize in their ELA standards. Thirty-seven states referenced those terms in their ELA standards with no indication of the specific task expected of students, and they made no clear reference to synthesizing source materials to invent a complex concept or purpose. The following standard statement from Hawaii is typical of the references to synthesis in this group: "Synthesize and cite information from multiple sources" (Hawaii Department of Education, 2005, LA 11.4.3, p. 223). Six states (Colorado, Delaware, Oklahoma, Oregon, , Rhode Island, and Washington) included at least one ELA standard statement using language that referenced the use of source materials to invent a complex concept or purpose. Of those six, only Colorado had a standard explicit on this point: "Uses information from sources to express one's own thoughts, ideas, and impressions" 16 (Colorado Department of Education, 1995). The other five states in this category expressed a spectrum of interpretations of synthesis, including the following: ? Delaware: Persuasive writing, 1.3 (Grades 11 and 12): Use information from sources when appropriate; combine information from text with prior knowledge to elaborate ideas. ? Oklahoma: Language Arts, Grades 10, Standard 4.2.3, p. 95: Synthesize information from multiple sources to draw conclusions that go beyond those found in any of the individual studies. Delaware had the most references to synthesis or synthesizing information from sources, with 22 such statements (see Appendix A, Table A2); eight states, as mentioned above, had no references to synthesis or synthesizing. Across all state standards, synthesis was referenced at each grade level about twice as often in standards statements regarding reading than in those that address writing (see Table 1 and Appendix A, Table A2); when a synthesis standard did not explicitly apply to a particular grade level, it was assumed to apply to all high school grade levels. Table 1 Frequency of synthesis references in state ELA standards, by grade level and task Grade Reading Writing Research Other Total 9th 36 14 9 3 62 10th 39 19 11 4 73 11th 35 19 13 10 77 12th 33 23 17 9 82 Total 143 75 50 26 States' definitions of synthesis in these standards documents were inconsistent at best, although these data suggest that curricular requirements or expectations regarding synthesis increased with each grade level. Furthermore, while requirements for synthesis as applied to reading remained 17 fairly consistent across grade levels, the application of synthesis to other tasks (writing, research, or other) increased with advanced grade levels. The twelfth-grade level had 23 synthesis references related to writing and 17 references related to research, which were more in those categories that at other grade levels. This review also identified 26 ELA standards references to synthesis in contexts other than reading, writing, or research. The following are examples of such standards: ? Delaware: Oral communication, Standard 1.4, Grades 9-12: Synthesize and present results of research projects (accurately summarize main ideas). (Delaware Department of Education, 2010, English Language Arts Grade Level Expectations: Written and Oral Communication). ? New Mexico: Benchmark III-F, Grade 12, #2: Clarify, elaborate, and synthesize the explicit and implicit meanings of messages (New Mexico Public Education Department, 2009). Among these examples, one can find a range of applications of synthesis. The New Mexico example describes a task more akin to summarization than synthesis because it includes no statement about generation of new ideas or products. The example from Delaware is a more vague statement about synthesis and presentation of research projects and indicates that the students' synthesis may be summary of main ideas from findings of others (i.e., "My research revealed x"). Only if the student takes those research findings and applies them to invent a complex concept or rhetorical purpose for writing (i.e., "My research revealed x, which leads me to conclude y") will the task actually involve a higher level of cognitive complexity. Given this inconsistency in application of the term synthesis in standards for secondary- level ELA instruction, it is reasonable to assume that high school English teachers do not 18 uniformly define the term. A study focusing on the ways that ELA teachers define this term in the context of their classroom instruction can shed light on the degree of cognitive complexity that may be occurring in their synthesis assignments. This investigation, in turn, can provide data that allows educational organizations and policy makers to clarify their intentions regarding synthesis tasks and inform professional development and instructional resources for teachers to potentially change high school writing tasks so they may better prepare students for the academic writing that will be expected of them in college. Disciplinarity and Task Orientation as Context for Synthesis Writing Integrating information from sources with one?s own knowledge and interpreting one?s reading and adapting one?s writing for a specific purpose are the core components of academic discourse (Flower, 1989; Greene, 1991; Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts, 2010). Conversely, limited fluency with these components, which are also core components of cognitively complex synthesis, can limit one?s active participation in an academic discourse community. The context in which synthesis writing occurs can have a significant impact on a student's successful engagement with that strategy, and one important dimension of the context of writing in secondary and college-level courses is the academic discipline in which the writing occurs (Prior, 2006). In a study of graduate students at Carnegie Mellon and Pittsburgh Universities, Ackerman (1990) examined writings from sources on topics in or out of their chosen fields of study and found that a writer's rhetorical awareness (i.e., the writer's decisions about the structure, content, and context of the writing) is sensitive to academic discipline as well as the 19 writing topic selected.6 McCarthy (1987) conducted a three-year case study of one Loyola College student's writing experiences and found that the context or academic discipline in which synthesis writing occurs can convey varying task impressions for a student (i.e., different academic disciplines suggested, in the student's mind, different types of tasks). Understanding the academic subject area or disciplinary domain in which synthesis writing is embedded, therefore, may help ensure that students accurately perceive the assigned writing task as well as help them make better rhetorical decisions about the writing task. Knowledge of or familiarity with the academic discipline is not, however, the only significant factor in successful task orientation for synthesis writing. In their study of heterogeneous groups of fourth- and fifth-grade students at an urban neighborhood school, Raphael and Boyd (1991) cited appropriate overlap of the instructor?s and the student?s task impressions for synthesis as key to mastering that composition strategy, suggesting that explicit instruction in ?the specific features of synthesis (e.g., balance of information, elaborated with relevant details from text or knowledge base)? could help better align the student?s and instructor?s task impressions (p. 38). A series of studies conducted at Carnegie Mellon University support the importance of forming accurate task impressions when writing. Ackerman (1989a) and Nelson (1990) found that freshmen and their instructors frequently disagreed on the type of writing that was required and actually produced in a given assignment. Ackerman (1989b) also found that students faced with unfamiliar tasks like synthesis writing revert to types of writing with which they are familiar. Ackerman noted that once this occurs it is difficult for students to effectively switch to the type of writing indicated in the task. Flower et al. (1990), in a study of the writing processes 6 However, in this study the term academic discipline was more suggestive of the degree of prior knowledge about a topic, so the findings may be more indicative of general differences in rhetorical preferences and composing strategies among academic subject areas. 20 of 72 freshmen at Carnegie Mellon University, identified five distinct (but nonhierarchical) forms of writing that students typically engaged in when instructed to compose an original text based on source materials:7 ? Summary: identifies key words in paragraphs, summarizes paragraphs, and constructs a composition around the sets of summaries (?gist and list?) but doesn?t allow for the introduction of original ideas (Flower et al., p. 44); what Spivey (1990) refers to as ?isomorphic summary," because it replicates the structure of the source text(s) (p. 265) ? Response to the topic: uses source texts to launch one?s own ideas or respond to the topic in general (?skim and respond?) but uses the ideas of the source texts superficially (Flower et al., p. 45) ? Review and comment: adds one?s own comments to a summary or commentary on source texts but doesn?t integrate ideas (Flower et al., p. 46) ? Synthesis: generates a new product or idea from various source materials (Flower et al., p. 47) ? Interpretation for a rhetorical purpose: uses source materials to select and organize information to address a specific audience and the writer?s specific rhetorical goals (Flower et al., p. 47). Note that these categories do not necessarily describe the writing outcomes intended by the instructors; rather, they describe the types of products that students generated. This indicates significant degrees of latitude in the ways that students applied the term synthesize when they are given a generic or vaguely defined task of creating original writing based on information from source materials. 7 Kantz (1990) also acknowledged these same five types of writing based on source materials. 21 In her study of essays written by 69 college freshmen in an introductory composition course, Kantz (1990) found that confusion about task impressions affected teachers as well as students. After students were instructed to engage in synthesis writing, their teachers frequently disagreed among themselves and even within their own readings (from one essay to another) of how to characterize students' essays. The greatest disagreement came when the teacher-readers attempted to discern between writing characterized as review and comment (i.e., distilling information from source texts and commenting on them) and synthesis writing (i.e., using information from sources to invent a product or idea). The teacher-readers indicated that they had difficulty determining whether students were engaging in independent thought (transforming knowledge) or reproducing sources (telling knowledge). The accuracy of a student's task impression may affect not only how he or she engages with the writing task itself, but it also can affect the student's selection and use of source materials. In a study of the writings of 15 undergraduate students who were given the task of writing either a report or a problem-based essay, Greene (1991) noted that the type of writing task directly affected not only the information that students selected and used when writing from sources but also the way that they constructed meaning from that information (p. 6).8 Those students who were assigned an informational report interpreted the task as relying on source materials to write the report, which was structured as a collection of information (see Figure 3). Those who were assigned a problem-based argument essay interpreted the task as integrating prior knowledge with information from source materials, and the essays were structured in a problem-solution response pattern (see Figure 4). 8 See also Kantz, 1989b. 22 Figure 3. Information collection structure (Greene 1991, p. 20) Figure 4. Problem-solution structure (Greene 1991, p. 20) To summarize, it seems that successful synthesis writing in an academic setting is informed by the following: ? Knowledge of the academic subject area or domain in which the writing occurs ? Understanding of the instructor's intentions regarding the writing task (e.g., review and comment or create an original argument) ? The type of writing task (e.g., informational report or argumentative essay) European Recovery Issue Issue Issue European Recovery Problem Description Historical background US Goals Western European Goals Causation Cause Conflicting Goals Conflcting Goals Effect Social Economic Solution (Proposal) Aid Human Rights 23 It seems important, then, to determine not only the definition or definitions that high school ELA teachers apply to synthesis writing but also whether teachers provide explicit instruction regarding the factors listed above. The Process of Synthesis Writing The existing literature on synthesis writing offers descriptions of subprocesses and characteristics of successful engagement in the synthesis-writing task. Relevant to the management of information from source texts and the invention of a complex concept or rhetorical purpose for writing are reading ability, or the level of textual complexity at which one can read fluently (Spivey and King, 1989) and discourse synthesis, or the ability to construct meaning from texts as a reader in order to then construct meaning in a new text one is creating (Raphael and Boyd, 1991). Development of reading ability and discourse synthesis skills begins in the early grades; the acquisition and development of synthesis skills can be adversely affected by limited reading ability and lack of familiarity with necessary discourse skills such as identifying relevant information, integrating information with background knowledge, and using appropriate text structures. In addition to literacy skill and understanding the context for and nature of the writing task, the ability to select and use source materials in synthesis writing is a critical factor in the process. As noted previously, Greene (1991) identified the role of task impression in students? selection and use of source materials. Kennedy (1985) and Nelson (1992), who studied the composing processes of college students engaged in source-based writing, found that such writing was significantly affected by extensive note taking from the source materials and processing, as well as the level of detail in planning the writing. In her studies conducted at 24 Carnegie Mellon University, Kantz (1989a) examined the ways that source materials are used during synthesis writing. She found that synthesis writing requires a reading strategy different from that employed by writers who use a ?summarize-the-main-ideas approach? (p. 17). While the latter may be able to plan the writing before actually reading the sources, the former requires the writer to gather information from the sources in order to formulate a topic and plan for writing. Spivey (1990), in her article on the constructive processes involved in reading and writing, asserted that writers use four general criteria for selecting information from source texts: ? Relevance (i.e., importance) of the information in the source text; often used when creating gists through summarization. ? Hierarchical placement of content, often used when creating isomorphic (i.e., structurally similar) summaries of texts. ? Intertextual relevance (between sources) often used when compiling general information about a topic from multiple sources. ? Relevance to the new content that the writer is creating, where relevance is determined by the relation of the information from source texts to the writer's rhetorical purposes (p. 274-275). It is the last criterion that may be most important when writing cognitively complex syntheses, where the writer is creating a complex concept or rhetorical purpose for writing. In a study of undergraduate students who were instructed to create syntheses in response to a problem-based task (1989b), Kantz drew the following conclusions: ? Successful writers selected source material to use in their syntheses based on the context of the task, instead of merely reproducing text (p. 13). 25 ? Decisions about what to do with source material (e.g., create an original argument, explain the material, summarize the material) had a greater impact on the quality of the synthesis than did decisions about organization of the writing, such as the format of the essay (p. 14). ? The more successful synthesis writers divided the task into manageable components (p. 14). Kantz described this decision-making process in the following flow chart (see Figure 5). Figure 5. Decisions made during synthesizing, during and after reading source materials, Kantz, 1989b, p. 14 While this process does not specifically emphasize the use of source materials to generate a new product or idea or address the writer's particular rhetorical goals, Kantz (1989b) noted that the writers who produced "the most successful essays defined the writing problem as requiring original thought about the topic and sources" and "set rhetorical goals that required interpretation (not reproduction) of sources" (p. 16). Raphael and Boyd (1991) studied the abilities of fourth- and fifth-grade students to synthesize information from multiple source materials; they also studied the way that source Define problem Choose source material Choose format Decide use of sources Decide rhetorical stance Plan organization 26 texts are used in synthesis writing and analyzed written texts for evidence of different patterns or approaches to synthesis. Raphael and Boyd (1991) identified the following four criteria that seemed relevant to successful syntheses (p. 13-14): a. Balance of information: the selection and use of information collected across source texts, and the proportion of information from source texts as compared with the student's own background knowledge b. Degree of integration: establishing relationships in the information of various source texts (e.g., may be signaled by key words/phrases such as both, alike, different from) c. Degree of categorical elaboration: the extent to which ideas included are elaborated to explain categories of information d. Audience sensitivity: utilizing structure (text organization) and stance (i.e., position as writer in relation to the reader and source materials) congruent with the disciplinary domain Conversely, Raphael and Boyd (1991) also identified four strategies which, when employed by those young writers, seemed to inhibit successful synthesis (p. 14-15): ? Associative memory/recall: association of ideas without overall organization ? Audience insensitivity: the question apparently being addressed is not readily identifiable ? Digression: Students digress from writing a report to writing a narrative or including inappropriate background knowledge ? Copying: Students may (a) copy random text; (b) copy strategic sentences; or (c) paraphrase text sentence by sentence 27 Summary of findings. The literature seems to indicate that factors such as the following are important to successful synthesis writing: ? Reading-ability level ? Selection of relevant source materials ? Integration of and elaboration on source materials ? Audience awareness ? Invention of an argument original to the author (i.e., inventing a complex concept or purpose for writing) ? Note taking and planning the composition ? Management of the writing task Determining the extent to which teachers are addressing and providing instruction on these components of the synthesis-writing process could impact the focus of instructional resources and teacher professional development. Technology and Synthesis Writing The growing role of technology in student composition has an impact on synthesis writing. Standard 7 (Integrated Instruction) of the Adolescence and Young Adulthood English Language Arts Standards (National Board for Professional Teaching Standards, 2003) emphasizes the importance of technology in facilitating argumentative writing. In 1993, Palumbo noted a connection between synthesis writing and, at that time, the growing emphasis on and utilization of computer-based research and writing and hypermedia for the creation of meaning as opposed to the mere discovery of meaning. This view of synthesis writing consequently 28 demands an increased emphasis on higher-order cognitive development, which in turn could be facilitated by the use of computer-based technologies, because "[b]oth synthesis writing environments and hypermedia environments support the cognitive demands of knowledge construction" (Palumbo, 1993, p. 61). This supports the assertion by Flower et al. (1990) that the transformation of knowledge from source materials for the creation of a new concept or rhetorical purpose for writing is more cognitively complex than other forms of source-based writing. Palumbo?s observation was made over a decade ago, and computer and Internet technology has become even more ubiquitous in education since then. Therefore, knowing the extent to which technology is employed in synthesis instruction and writing can inform the focus of future instructional materials and professional development. Instruction on Synthesis Writing Instruction seems likely to be a key component of successful student engagement with synthesis writing, so the quality or effectiveness of that instruction is an important factor in the acquisition of this writing strategy. Raphael and Boyd (1991), in their analysis of the composition patterns of 38 fourth- and fifth-grade students, examined the means by which learners engaged in synthesis writing. The first phase involves modeling by the teacher of the strategies related to discourse synthesis (e.g., selection, integration, and elaboration of information) and appropriation of those strategies by the learner (Raphael & Boyd). The second phase involves the learner's internal application of synthesis strategies to her specific uses or goals. The third phase involves publication of the synthesis product, and the fourth phase involves adoption of the synthesis strategies as conventions of the synthesis process. 29 Kennedy?s study (1985) found a lack of congruence between the ways that academic writing is presented through college-level instructional resources and the ways in which students actually engage in that process. Kennedy noted that academic writing textbooks at that time typically presented a linear model of the academic writing process (i.e., read, re-read, take notes, outline, write, revise). Students in this study, however, typically did not engage in that process in a linear fashion. Instead, students tended to engage in the process stages as needed, both before and during writing, in a more recursive manner. Kennedy's findings suggest that it may be important, then, to determine whether teachers present the writing process as linear or non-linear. Knowing this and how this design feature occurs in conjunction with other factors affecting synthesis writing can inform the design of more effective professional development opportunities focused on synthesis writing. Kantz (1989a) describes two primary challenges to synthesis writing as (1) requiring the writer to engage in a familiar subtask (e.g., reading source materials) but at a higher level of difficulty (e.g., using longer or more textually difficult sources, using more sources, considering the rhetorical contexts of sources) and (2) requiring the writer to engage in new subtasks (e.g., developing one's notes into an original argument). She notes that many students may not have developed the task management skills necessary to successfully address these issues when first attempting synthesis writing. It may also be important, therefore, to determine whether high school ELA teachers are addressing task management of the composing process. The issue of the student writer's participation in the academic discourse community, discussed previously in the Context section of the literature review, has pedagogical implications. Wilder and Wolfe (2009) studied the effects of explicit instruction in disciplinary discourse conventions on the writing of college students. They found that students who received 30 explicit instruction in the specific topoi 9 of a discipline wrote higher scoring essays than did students who were just aware of the topoi. It may be important, then, to determine not only the extent to which teachers present synthesis writing as a critical component of academic discourse communities but also the extent to which they address the writing conventions and forms of those communities. Wilder and Wolfe indicated that it is important for students to be aware of the discourse conventions of academic communities and that problem-oriented synthesis writing is an important component of those communities. Therefore, knowing the extent to which teachers understand and address synthesis writing and other conventions of those academic discourse communities can have significant implications for the development of instructional resources and professional development opportunities on the subject of synthesis writing. Other studies (Nelson, 1992; Greene, 1991, Flower, 1995) found that students should be provided opportunities to present drafts of their writing or engage in oral discussion about writing before completing the final draft, in order to allow students time to refine their thinking about a topic, and teachers need to provide explicit instruction regarding the goals for writing assignments. These studies suggest that teachers should address the following: ? Design research and composition tasks that encourage student self-reflection on their work. ? Create a classroom environment that encourages safe and constructive commentary (from the teacher as well as from student peers) on student work. ? Ensure that students are interpreting the synthesis task accurately. 9 Topoi: common warrants, often unstated premises which seek to connect with an audience's hierarchy of values; inventional tools for students. For example, some special topoi of literary analysis are (a) ubiquity, or pointing out a form that is repeated throughout a text; (b) paradox, or pointing out "the unification of apparently irreconcilable opposites;" and (c) context, or assuming that "historical and textual detail should be brought to bear on textual interpretation" (Wilder & Wolfe, 2009, p. 175). 31 ? Structure synthesis assignments so that students have ample time to share and discuss drafts of their writing well before final versions are due. Effective pedagogy is clearly an important factor in successful student engagement in synthesis writing, and data about how teachers are addressing the cognitive complexity of such synthesis writing in their instruction can help inform the development of appropriate instructional resources and professional development opportunities. Conclusions from the Literature Review The existing literature identifies several factors involved with students? successful engagement in synthesis writing, particularly the more cognitively complex form involving invention of a concept or rhetorical purpose for writing. Such factors include the following: ? Orientation to the appropriate academic discourse community (i.e., understanding the language of that community) ? Accurate understanding of the specific writing task (i.e., the type of writing intended) ? Accurate understanding of the writing context (i.e., the rhetorical situation of the writing) ? Understanding of organizational structures for argumentative and expository writing ? Modeling of synthesis writing by the teacher or knowledgeable other ? Appropriate instructional support during synthesis writing (i.e., scaffolding, teaching task management skills) ? Rhetorical reading of source materials ? Integration of source materials with each other and with the student's prior knowledge ? Opportunities for student self-reflection on writing in progress ? Opportunities for student discussion about writing in progress 32 The literature review, including empirical studies, suggests that teachers' conceptual understanding of these factors and how they are addressed in instruction can have a significant impact on successful student engagement with synthesis writing. While the body of literature on synthesis writing provides a significant baseline of information on the task of synthesis writing (as evidenced by the preceding list of factors), a significant gap in information exists, however, on the subject of how teachers actually understand and provide instruction on synthesis writing. Data on the ways that high school teachers across the United States conceptualize the synthesis task and report that they integrate synthesis writing into composition curricula are needed in order to determine whether new teacher resources targeting this topic are required. Additionally, comparisons among categories of English teachers based on the type of ELA course they teach (AP, IB, DE/DC, ELL, and regular ELA courses) and demographic factors (e.g., state in which they teach, type of school, years of teaching experience) may indicate how and where high school teachers have designed promising methods for teaching synthesis writing. 33 III. Methodology The survey used for data collection in this dissertation was developed to address the following issues specifically relevant to synthesis writing as identified in the literature review of this proposal: ? Teacher definitions of synthesis writing ? Professional development events that have addressed the use of source materials to invent a complex concept or rhetorical purpose ? The effectiveness of such professional development events ? Awareness of state-mandated curricular requirements that address the use of source materials to invent a complex concept or rhetorical purpose ? Confirmation of task impressions about synthesis writing (including contextual awareness) ? Explicit instruction on o Rhetorical conventions of the academic discourse community o Evaluation of source materials o Integration of information from source materials with prior knowledge o Types of writing tasks o Metacognitive strategies o Creating a complex concept or rhetorical purpose for writing ? Providing teacher and peer feedback to student synthesis writing 34 Table 2 provides a blueprint for the organization of the survey (see Appendix B) around my research questions. Table 2 Research questions and survey construction Research Question Definition of construct Survey items 1. How do English teachers reportedly define synthesis writing in their courses? Synthesis writing addresses the use of source materials to inform an original product or idea. Teachers apply various definitions to this term and/or have various expectations for student work products resulting from engagement in this task. 3, 4, 5 2. To what extent do English teachers reportedly provide explicit or direct instruction on the skills involved in synthesis writing? The skills involved in synthesis writing include ? familiarity with the relevant academic discourse community ? understanding the context for writing ? understanding the writing task ? considering the audience for the writing ? understanding the organizational structure for the writing ? selecting appropriate source materials ? reading source materials rhetorically ? integrating information from source materials 6,7 3. What are the characteristics of instruction on synthesis writing that English teachers report providing? These characteristics of instruction on synthesis writing include ? ensuring student understanding of the writing task ? modeling synthesis writing ? scaffolding instruction ? providing feedback to students regarding their writing ? providing opportunities for collaborative learning and peer feedback 6, 8, 9, 10 4. What professional training do teachers report as having had the greatest impact on their instruction on synthesis writing? Professional training is regarded as any professional development experiences, either within or outside the local school setting, that teachers have participated in after obtaining their teaching certification. Impact refers to the extent to which the professional training affected the development of or a change in a teacher's pedagogy regarding synthesis writing. 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 35 Research Question Definition of construct Survey items 5. Are different groups of high school ELA teachers (AP, IB, DE/DC, ELL, and regular English courses) characterized by different patterns of responses to these questions? The question seeks to determine whether teachers of similar types of ELA courses provide similar ? responses regarding preparation for teaching synthesis writing ? definitions of synthesis ? characteristics of instruction on synthesis writing ? frequency of instruction on synthesis writing 1, 2, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 Sampling Since my goal was to gather information about synthesis writing and instruction from a large and geographically broad population sample, I used the Qualtrics website to conduct an online survey. An invitation to participate in the survey was sent to all ELA teachers at schools with at least one authorized AP English Language and Composition course (since that course requires the type of synthesis writing which is the focus of this survey). In 2007, the College Board initiated the AP Course Audit, a process for AP teachers to verify that they are aware of the curricular requirements for their AP courses; by doing so, the courses could be authorized by the College Board as official AP courses. The list of authorized AP courses is then made publicly available (see https://apcourseaudit.epiconline.org/ledger/). The AP Course Audit is conducted annually, and authorized AP courses must be re-authorized each year. A review of AP Course Audit data for the 2011-2012 academic year indicates that 12,609 AP English Language and Composition courses had at that time been authorized in the United States. A sample size calculator (www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm), with a confidence-level setting of 95% and a confidence interval of 5, indicates that for the total population of AP English Language and Composition instructors, a sample size of 373 would be adequate. Studies of response rates for online surveys (Kaplowitz, Hadlock, Levine, 2004; Hamilton, 2009) 36 reported median response rates of 20-26%; accordingly, I needed to send 1,500 to 1,800 survey invitations in order to obtain the desired sample size for AP teachers. Data from the National Center for Education Statistics (http://nces.ed.gov/programs/ digest/d11/tables/dt11_075.asp) indicate that, during the 2007-2008 academic year (the most recent period in which such data are available), there were 172,200 English language arts teachers in U.S. public high schools. A sample size calculator (www.surveysystem.com/ sscalc.htm), with a confidence-level setting of 95% and a confidence interval of 5, indicates that, for the total population of English language arts teachers in public high schools, a sample size of 383 would be adequate. Administering the survey electronically to these representative populations allowed me to gather data from a broad demographic cross-section of English teachers (i.e., reflecting diversity in geography, school type, school size, years of teaching experience, and range of professional development) to determine if significant differences regarding synthesis writing exist between groups based on those demographic characteristics. By sending the survey to all ELA teachers at each school, comparisons of AP and non-AP teachers were more valid because many of the survey participants will have student populations with the same demographics. A 2005 study by Waits, Setzer, and Lewis, which examined nationwide school data for the 2002-2003 school year, found that approximately 11,700 high schools offered DE/DC courses. Forty-nine percent of these courses were offered by schools that also offered AP courses. No data that are more current are available from the U.S. Department of Education or from the National Alliance of Concurrent Enrollment Partnerships (which certifies DE/DC programs). A sample size calculator (www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm), with a confidence- level setting of 95% and a confidence interval of 5, indicates that, for the total population of 37 DE/DC English language arts teachers in public high schools, a sample size of 372 would be adequate. Assuming that the 49% figure referenced above is still reasonably accurate, I expected that my strategy of surveying all ELA teachers at schools that have at least one authorized AP English Language and Composition course would yield an adequate sample size of DE/DC ELA teachers. The International Baccalaureate (IB) website indicates that 787 schools in the United States offer the IB Diploma Program (http://ibo.org/school/search/index.cfm?programmes =DIPLOMA&country=US®ion=&find_schools=Find) . A sample size calculator (www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm), with a confidence-level setting of 95% and a confidence interval of 5, indicates that, for the total population of IB English language arts teachers in public high schools, a sample size of 258 would be adequate (assuming one IB English teacher per IB diploma program). Cumulatively (and assuming no categorical overlap), I would need the following numbers of responses for my survey to be statistically representative: Table 3 Required survey-response rates Teacher category Number of respondents required AP English Language and Composition 373 IB English 258 DE/DC English 372 Other English 383 Total 1,386 The survey initially targeted ELA teachers at schools in the following states, based on their pre- Common Core ELA standards: 38 ? The two states that explicitly defined synthesis in their pre-Common Core ELA standards: Connecticut and Delaware ? The six states that included at least one statement in their pre-Common Core ELA standards that referenced the use of source materials to invent a complex concept or purpose: Colorado, Delaware, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington ? The eight states that did not reference in their pre-Common Core ELA standards synthesis or the use of source materials: Alabama, Alaska, Idaho, Kentucky, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, South Carolina I used the AP Course Audit Ledger to identify in these 15 states all schools with at least one authorized AP English Language and Composition course. Most but not all of the schools in those statewide lists provided links to their school websites; for each listed school that provided a Web link, I searched their school websites for the lists and e-mail addresses of English teachers. By taking this approach, I could ensure that the school and student demographics for the AP English Language and Composition teachers would be the same for the non-AP teachers, since I would be sending the survey invitation to all English teachers at a given school. Initial efforts to compile a mailing list for the survey revealed some limitations to the approach described above: ? For the sake of expediency, I did not attempt to find school websites for those schools in the AP Course Audit ledger that did not provide Web links. ? Many of the provided Web links were not functional. ? Many schools that provided a link to their website did not provide public access to faculty rosters. ? Some schools that do provide access to faculty rosters on their websites did not provide access to teachers' e-mail addresses. 39 ? Some schools that provide access to teachers' e-mail only allow the user to send a message to a teacher via a comment box; the teachers' individual e-mail addresses are not displayed, so it isn't possible to obtain their e-mail addresses for the purpose of sending the survey invitation via mass e-mailing, which was necessary for a high-volume survey such as this. After sending the survey invitation to the teachers for whom I could collect e-mail addresses in the 15 aforementioned states, I then conducted searches of those states via the ledger of IB diploma programs. Some schools listed in the IB ledger were also listed in the AP ledger. Since those schools had already been addressed in the previous search, I could focus on searching the websites of other schools in the IB lists. The same difficulties with locating teachers? e-mail addresses, as described previously with regard to schools listed in the AP ledger, also applied to the schools listed in the IB ledger. I then conducted searches of other states via the AP Course Audit ledger, using the same approach described previously. For each of these additional states, I also conducted a search of the IB ledger. In total, I sent the survey invitation to 15,858 separate e-mail addresses10 in 41 states and the District of Columbia.11 Approximately one week after the initial e-mail message, I sent a follow-up e-mail reminder about the survey; approximately one week after the reminder message, I sent a third and final e-mail reminder (Dillman, 2000). The survey was available for 46 days. 10 This number does not include e-mail addresses that were identified as undeliverable or e-mail addresses for teachers who responded that they no longer teach an English course or that they did not wish to participate in the survey. 11 Technical issues with mailing limits in the Qualtrics website and with sending mass e-mail via Auburn University e-mail system, as well as time constraints, prevented me from sending the survey invitation to teachers in the nine remaining states. Additionally, these issues precluded me from sending larger numbers of invitations to several other states. 40 Despite sending the survey invitation to 15,858 individual teachers during that timeframe, only 1,217 teachers began the survey, and only 851 completed the entire survey, yielding a response rate of 7.7%. Anecdotal evidence suggests some possible factors in this low response rate: ? E-mail spam filters used by school-level or district-level computer networks may have blocked many of the survey invitations, precluding teachers from participating in the survey. ? After I had sent about half of the total initial invitations, I received some e-mail responses asking if non-AP teachers should complete the survey.12 I looked at the language of the survey invitation again. The heading of the message (not the subject line of the e-mail) read "Information regarding a Research Study entitled 'A survey of how AP and non-AP English teachers address synthesis writing in classroom instruction'.? Some teachers, therefore, may have declined to participate because they interpreted the survey message as not being relevant to their teaching role. To clarify the intent of the survey further, I changed the heading to "Information regarding a Research Study entitled 'A survey of how English teachers address synthesis writing in classroom instruction'.? Following that change, I received no further messages about which English teachers are invited to participate; however, some teachers who thought that the initial survey invitation did not apply to them may have disregarded the two follow-up invitations that I sent and therefore were not aware of the clarification in the language of the invitation. 12 Some respondents, either in e-mail messages to me or in the open-response sections of the survey, stated that they were not AP English Language and Composition teachers and so they did not teach synthesis writing, but that they would forward my survey invitation to the AP English teachers in their schools. 41 ? At that same point, I also changed the subject line of the survey invitation from "Survey on synthesis writing" to "Research on synthesis writing." I made this change because it occurred to me that teachers might view a message titled "Survey" as an onerous task or something to avoid. By changing the subject line to "Research...." I thought that teachers might find the opportunity to participate in research more inviting. ? Also at that time, I changed additional language in the survey invitation. The boilerplate text of the invitation (taken from the IRB website) included the following statements: "HAVING READ THE INFORMATION ABOVE, YOU MUST DECIDE IF YOU WANT TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS RESEARCH PROJECT. IF YOU DECIDE TO PARTICIPATE, PLEASE CLICK ON THE LINK BELOW. YOU MAY PRINT A COPY OF THIS LETTER TO KEEP." This language seemed to me somewhat harsh ("You must decide...") and perhaps even condescending ("You may print a copy..."). So I changed the statements above to soften the language somewhat: "HAVING READ THE INFORMATION ABOVE, PLEASE DECIDE IF YOU WANT TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS RESEARCH PROJECT. IF YOU DECIDE TO PARTICIPATE, PLEASE CLICK ON THE LINK BELOW. PLEASE FEEL FREE TO PRINT A COPY OF THIS LETTER TO KEEP. Thank you in advance for your cooperation and participation!" ? I sent the two reminder messages to groups of states. Response rates from each mailing group increased immediately following the first reminder and then tapered off; response rates did not increase as much following the second reminder message. ? Responses to these reminder messages seem also to be linked to the completion rate of the survey. Only 851 teachers completed the full survey, which was 366 fewer than started the survey. Questions 3 and 4 of the survey were open-response items, and I 42 reviewed and coded each of the responses for statistical analysis. During that review, it was apparent that many of the teachers who responded later in the survey window (meaning that they would have received at least one reminder message before they began the survey) left those open-ended items blank. For Question 3, which asked respondents to define synthesis writing as they apply it in their classrooms, 239 teachers did not enter a response. For Question 4, which asked respondents to briefly describe an example of a synthesis task that they use, 315 teachers did not enter a response. Once the survey was closed, I analyzed the survey data to determine the following: 1. If relationships exist among the attribute independent variables13 (i.e., type of English course, geographic location, school setting, student population) and the important components of teaching of synthesis writing (the dependent variables) (Ary et al., 2002). 2. The extent or relative strength of any such relationships. 3. Whether a significant difference exists between such relationships for AP English teachers, the relationships for IB English teachers, the relationships for teachers of dual- credit English courses, and the relationships for teachers of other high school English courses. Since most high schools have only one or two AP English teachers but several teachers of college preparatory, honors, or regular ELA courses),AP English Language and Composition teachers were not oversampled in the survey and indeed would not be the category of ELA teacher that received the most survey invitations. The response rates indicated in Table 4 seem to confirm the anecdotal feedback that many potential survey participants may have equated synthesis writing with the AP English Language and Composition course because it is required 13 An attribute independent variable is one that cannot be actively manipulated by the researcher (Ary et al., 2002). 43 in that curriculum and featured on the AP Exam. If so, they may not have viewed this survey as applicable to their course or pedagogy. Conversely, it is likely that many AP English Language and Composition teachers easily identified the connection between this survey topic and their course and so were more likely to participate in the survey. Table 4 Response rates by primary type of ELA course taught ELA course type Response % AP English Language and Composition 278 23% College Preparatory English 232 19% English Department curriculum course 212 18% Honors English 201 17% AP English Literature and Composition 114 9% Other English course14 57 5% International Baccalaureate English 44 4% English language learner course 41 3% Dual credit/dual enrollment English course 24 2% Total 1,203 100% Comparing the survey data to the numbers of respondents required for statistical significance, Table 5 clearly demonstrates that I did not obtain the required number of responses from AP English Language and Composition, IB, or dual credit teachers. Table 5 Required response rates and obtained responses Teacher category Number of respondents required Number of responses obtained AP English Language and Composition 373 278 IB English 258 44 DE/DC English 372 24 All other English 383 857 Total 1,386 1,203 14 "Other English", per respondents' descriptions, include courses such as ELA for special-needs students, pre-AP ELA, journalism, reading, communications, writing, and literature. 44 IV. Results & Analysis Demographics Respondents were distributed across high-school grade levels. The total number of respondents for the survey item pertaining to grade level taught was 1,182; however, the survey item asked respondents to indicate all grade levels at which their primary ELA course is offered, so the total number of responses to this item was 1,757. Table 6 provides a summary of respondents' demographics. Table 6 Demographic summary Demographic variable N (%) Grade Level 9 312 (26%) 10 358 (30%) 11 599 (51%) 12 488 (41%) Years of teaching experience N = 857 Mean = 16.10 Mode = 10 Standard Dev. = 9.77 Years experience in current teaching assignment N = 854 Mean = 8.52 Median = 7.00 Mode = 1 Highest degree obtained Bachelors 175 (20%) Masters 590 (69%) Specialist 45 (5%) Doctorate 44 (5%) Instructional setting: Urban 189 (22%) Suburban 557 (65%) Rural 110 (13%) 45 Demographic variable N (%) Online15 0 Student population: 500 or fewer 132 (15%) 501 - 1,000 124 (15%) 1,001 - 1,500 207 (24%) 1,501 - 2,000 191 (22%) More than 2,000 201 (24%) School type: Conventional public school 618 (72%) Independent school 88 (10%) Parochial school 77 (9%) Public magnet school 33 (4%) Public charter school 20 (2%) Boarding/other school type16 20 (2%) Online school/course 0 Low-SES students in school 0-10% 227 (27%) 11-25% 219 (26%) 26-50% 207 (25%) 51-75% 129 (15%) 76-100% 61 (7%) For the course that respondents identified in question 1 as their primary ELA course, over half reported that they offer the course to 11th grade students. This is not surprising, since the highest percentage of respondents teach the AP English Language and Composition course, and that course is most often offered at the 11th grade level.17 Only 70% of respondents provided demographic information, which was requested at the end of the survey; this suggests that the 30% of respondents who started the survey but who 15 In the AP Course Audit ledger, most of the online providers of AP courses did not provide teachers' e- mail addresses on their websites. 16 Respondents who selected "Other" for their school type described schools such as grade 6-12 schools and laboratory schools affiliated with universities. 17 Of the 442,835 students who took the 2012 AP English Language and Composition Exam, 85% (376,846) took the exam as 11th-grade students (AP Program Summary Report, 2012). 46 didn't provide demographic information may have chosen to not finish the survey before they came to the demographic items. Respondents included teachers with one year of classroom experience to teachers with 36 or more years of experience. The mode for years of teaching experience was 10 years, and the mean was 16.10 years. The mean for years of service in their current teaching assignment (i.e., the course that they indicated as their primary assignment in survey question 1) was about half (8.52 years) of their total years of teaching experience, and the mode for years of experience in their current position was one year. The majority of respondents reported a master?s degree as the highest degree they had obtained. Over 60% of respondents indicated that they teach in a suburban school. Respondents seemed to be more evenly distributed based on the reported size of their schools, with 15% indicating that they teach at high schools with 500 or fewer students, and 24% reporting that they teach at high schools with more than 2,000 students. Over 70% of respondents indicated that they teach at conventional public schools. The majority of respondents indicated that less than 50% of the students in their schools are from low-income families; this seems consistent with respondents' indication that most of them teach at suburban public schools. A chi-square analysis (see Appendix C, Tables C1-C3) confirmed dependent relationships among respondents' school types and the percentage of students from low-SES families (Pearson Chi Square = 134.722, p < 0.05). Z-tests confirmed proportionally significant differences (see Table 7).18 The majority of respondents indicated that less than half of the students in their primary course are of nonwhite/non-Caucasian racial or ethnic minorities (see Table 8). 18 Although 8 cells in this analysis had less than five values per cell, the large sample size negated the need for a Fisher's Exact Test. 47 Table 7 School type and percent of low-SES students % low SES School type 0-25% The percentage of parochial schools at this level was proportionally higher; the percentages of conventional public schools and public charter schools were proportionally lower at this level. 26-50% The percentage of public charter schools at this level was proportionally higher; the percentages of independent and parochial schools were proportionally lower at this level. 51-75% The percentages of conventional public schools and public magnet schools were proportionally higher at this level; the percentage of independent schools was proportionally the lowest at this level. 76- 100% The percentages of conventional public schools and public charter schools were proportionally higher at this level; the percentage of parochial schools was proportionally the lowest at this level. Table 8 Ethnic/racial minorities in respondents' primary courses19 Percent racial/ethnic minority In course In school Number Percent Number Percent 0 - 25% 525 61% 469 56% 26 - 50% 137 16% 184 22% 51 - 75% 101 12% 118 14% 76 - 100% 92 11% 68 8% A chi-square analysis confirmed a dependent relationship among the levels of these two variables (percent racial/ethnic minority in the course and in the school): Pearson Chi Square = 1362.641, p < 0.05. Z-tests indicated no significant differences among the percentages of nonwhite students reported in respondents' courses as compared with the nonwhite populations reported in respondents' schools (see Appendix C, Tables C4-C6). A chi-square analysis for nonwhite student population in respondents' courses and the settings of respondents' schools (see Appendix C, Tables C7-C9) indicated a dependent 19 While the survey item collected data at the 0-10 percent and 11-25 percent levels of nonwhite students in respondents' courses and schools, that data was combined to form a 0-25 percent category for the purposes of statistical analyses. 48 relationship between the variables (Pearson Chi Square = 74.347, p < 0.05). The results were as follows (see Table 9): Table 9 Nonwhite students in course and school setting20 % nonwhite population in ELA course Significantly higher proportion 0-10% Rural 11-25% Suburban 26-50% No difference among settings 51-75% Urban 76-100% Urban A Chi-square analysis of the percentages of nonwhite students across school types (see Appendix C, Tables C10-C12) indicated dependence between the variables (Pearson Chi Square = 40.323, p < 0.05). Z-tests were conducted to determine if significant proportional differences exist among the variables21; Table 10 presents a summary of those results. An examination of the percentages of nonwhite students across course types (see Appendix C, Tables C13-C15), again using the chi-square and z-tests, indicated a dependent relationship between in-course student ethnicity and course type (Pearson Chi Square = 131.858, p < 0.05).22 Significant differences in proportions are presented in Table 11. 20 The 0-10 and 11-25 percent categories are used in this analysis because the differences between those two categories were significant. 21 Although 8 cells in this analysis had less than five values per cell, the large sample size negated the need for a Fisher's Exact Test. 22 Although the chi-square analysis indicated that 11 cells had less than 5 values per cell, the large sample size negated the need for a Fisher's Exact Test. 49 Table 10 School type and nonwhite students in course % nonwhite in course School type 0-25% The percentage of parochial schools was proportionally highest at this level. 26-50% The percentage of public magnet schools was proportionally highest at this level; the percentage of independent schools was proportionally lowest. 51-75% The percentage of public charter schools was proportionally highest at this level; the percentages of independent and parochial schools were proportionally lower. 76-100% The percentages of conventional public schools, public magnet schools, and public charter schools were proportionally higher at this level; the percentage of parochial schools was proportionally the lowest. Table 11 ELA course type and nonwhite students in course % nonwhite in course ELA course type 0-25% The percentage of dual credit courses was proportionally highest at this level; the percentage of ELL courses was proportionally the lowest. 26-50% The percentage of IB courses was proportionally highest at this level; the percentages of AP English Literature and ELL courses were proportionally lowest. 51-75% The percentages of ELL and "other" ELA courses were proportionally higher at this level; the percentages of AP English Language and dual credit courses were proportionally lowest. 76-100% The percentage of ELL courses was proportionally highest at this level; the percentages of AP English Language and AP English Literature courses were proportionally lowest. Demographic summary Of the 1,203 respondents who began the survey, almost one quarter were AP English Language and Composition teachers, and over half of respondents teach an ELA course in the 11th grade. The mean for respondents' years of teaching experience was 16, and the mean for years teaching their current primary course was 8.5; the mode for teaching their current primary course was one year. Almost 70% of respondents reported a master's degree as their highest degree earned. Over 60% of respondents teach in suburban schools, and almost 70% teach in large, conventional public schools (1,000 students or more). Students in respondents' courses are 50 mostly white and of middle or high economic status: almost 80% of respondents reported less than half of the students in their courses are nonwhite or from low-SES households. Teachers of ELL and "other ELA courses" reported the highest proportions of nonwhite students, while teachers of AP English Language, AP English Literature, and dual-credit courses reported the lowest proportions of nonwhite students. Research Question 1: How Do English Teachers Reportedly Define Synthesis Writing In Their Courses? Defining synthesis writing. One question on the survey asked respondents to define synthesis writing in their own words. I conducted content analyses (Ary et al., p. 442) to identify patterns in teachers' definitions of "synthesis writing." While reviewing the first 150 responses, I identified key words and phrases that recurred in the responses; I then created categories based on those key words and phrases, and I refined these categories by application of the constant comparative method (Ary et al., pp. 467-469). Table 12 presents the 12 categories of synthesis writing definitions that I identified via this process. Next, I assigned numeric codes to each category and then coded each response. The frequency of definitions falling under each category was calculated, as was the percentage of all survey participants who offered definitions in each category. Table 13 presents the definitions in descending order of frequency of use. 51 Table 12 Categories for coding definitions of synthesis writing Category Criteria Example Original argument/thesis23 References development of an argument original to the student's rhetorical purpose Students use a variety of sources (including visual argument) to compose an argument of their own, using the sources as support or in counter- argument. Literary argument References student creation of an argument based on two or more works of imaginative literature The final project asks them to make an argument using 2 literary texts and 1 or 2 outside sources (literary criticism, historical background, etc.). Original perspective/analysis References inclusion of a student's own ideas/conclusions, informed by source materials; no specific reference to creation of an argument Weaving together evidence from multiple sources to expose a new or more nuanced meaning (than what could be drawn from once source alone). Argument References development of an argument, but there is no clear indication that the argument should be original to the student (i.e., the position taken in the argument could be mandated by the teacher) Synthesis writing explicitly incorporates multiple sources to be evaluated for their contribution as support for a position or claim. Rhetorical analysis Emphasis on analysis of rhetorical strategies/techniques across source materials; no specific reference to student creation of an argument Students read a variety of newspaper articles by a single syndicated columnist. They analyze syntax, tone, diction, and various other rhetorical devices in order to create a rhetorical analysis. Analysis of themes/ideas Emphasis is on analyzing themes or ideas across source materials; no specific reference to student creation of an argument Drawing from multiple texts, fictional or nonfiction, in an effort to identify unifying themes or ideas, or to contrast ideas. Connecting to other texts/topics Emphasis is on identifying connections among source materials; no specific reference to student creation of an argument Synthesis is taking material from one or more primary sources and relating it to literature and/or current events. Literary analysis Emphasis is on analysis of two or more works of imaginative literature; no specific reference to student creation of an argument Using several sources of information in writing one paper. For example, writing about the American Dream as it applies to The Great Gatsby, Death of a salesman, and Ethan Frome. 23 Use of the term thesis, even absent the term argument, was still viewed as referencing an argument, per the common use of thesis as a primary component of an argument (DiYanni & Hoy, 2001; Axelrod & Cooper, 2010; White & Billings, 2011). 52 Category Criteria Example Prompt response Prompt provided by teacher limits range of possible responses; no reference to inclusion of the student's original rhetorical purpose; source materials usually specified or limited by the teacher I provide students with AP-style prompts that include six to seven excerpts of various readings (for each writing prompt). Students must respond to the prompt by making their own arguments and then must use the accompanying sources to support their arguments. Summary Emphasis on explaining or integrating information from source materials; no specific reference to student creation of an argument I expect my students to collect two or more resources and synthesize the information to offer a well-rounded, thorough explanation of the combined resources. Composition support References use in student writing of information from source materials, but the type of writing isn?t specified, nor is specific reference made to student creation of an argument Taking from multiple sources and producing work. No synthesis Does not reference use of multiple source materials Engaging with the text: highlighting key points and responding to the text, extending it and taking a position on the facts presented. Table 13 Frequency of synthesis definition Teacher's synthesis definition Frequency Valid % Valid Original argument/thesis 214 22.1 Composition support 204 21.1 No synthesis 134 13.9 Original perspective/analysis 110 11.4 Argument 89 9.2 Prompt response 73 7.5 Connecting to texts/topics 50 5.2 Analysis of themes/ideas 34 3.5 Literary analysis 30 3.1 Summary 21 2.2 Rhetorical analysis 5 .5 Literary argument 3 .3 Total 967 100.0 Missing 250 Total 1217 53 That "Original argument/thesis" was the most frequently cited type of synthesis definition is not surprising, since 23% of survey participants were AP English Language and Composition teachers, and of those 38% defined synthesis writing in this way (see Table 14). Over 20% of respondents defined synthesis writing in such vague terms that the type of writing intended could not be determined, so those responses were categorized under the general heading "composition support." Another 13% of respondents defined synthesis writing in such a way that no real synthesis (i.e., use of multiple source materials to inform the student's writing) was evident. The percentages for the "composition support" and "no synthesis" categories were each higher than those for respondents defining synthesis as an argument or as the application of a student's original perspective or analysis. I also analyzed respondents' definitions of synthesis writing by the type of ELA course they primarily teach (see Appendix D, Tables D1 and D2). Table 14 presents a summary of the frequencies and percentages of types of definition use by teachers of different course types. More AP English Language and Composition teachers and teachers of dual-credit courses defined synthesis writing as creating an original argument or thesis, an original perspective or analysis, or an argument than did teachers of other ELA course types. More AP English Language and Composition teachers also used definitions that fell into the "Prompt response" category than did teachers of other ELA courses. Lastly, over half of respondents who teach ELL courses provided definitions that did not address synthesis writing as previously defined. 54 Table 14 Synthesis definitions by course type Synthesis definition Course-type comparisons Original argument/thesis 38.3% of AP English Language and Composition teachers defined synthesis writing this way, proportionally more than teachers of any other course type. Dual-credit teachers were least likely to define synthesis this way. Original perspective/analysis 19% of dual credit teachers defined synthesis writing this way, proportionally more than teachers of other course types. IB teachers were the least likely to define synthesis this way. Argument 14.3% of dual credit teachers defined synthesis writing this way, proportionally more than teachers of any other course type. ELL teachers were the least likely to define synthesis this way. Literary argument There was no proportionally significant difference among teachers of any English course in the frequency with which they used this definition; only three respondents defined synthesis writing this way. Rhetorical analysis 2.6% of teachers of IB and "other English" courses defined synthesis writing this way, proportionally more than teachers of any other course type (although only one teacher in each category and a total of only 5 respondents from all course types used this definition). Analysis of themes/ideas 5.9% of teachers of college prep ELA courses used this definition, proportionally more than teachers of other course types. Connecting to other texts/topics 7.8% of teachers of honors ELA courses and 8.2 % of teachers of regular ELA courses defined synthesis writing this way, proportionally more than teachers of the other course types. Literary analysis 11.4% of teachers of AP English Literature and Composition and 13.2 % of teachers of IB English courses used this definition, proportionally more than teachers of other types of courses. Prompt response 12.5% of AP English Language and Composition teachers defined synthesis writing this way, proportionally more than teachers of any other course type. Summary 3.8% of teachers of regular English courses used this definition, proportionally more than teachers of the other courses. Composition support 25.7% of teachers of college prep and 25.5% of teachers of honors English courses used this definition, proportionally more than teachers of other types of courses. 21.6% of AP English Literature teachers and 22% of teachers of regular ELA courses also defined synthesis this way, making it the most frequently used definition for those courses as well. No synthesis 57.7% of teachers of ELL courses used a definition that fell into this category, proportionally more than teachers of other types of courses. 26.3% of IB teachers, 33.3% of dual-credit teachers, and 20.5% of teachers of "other" ELA courses also defined synthesis this way, making it the most frequently used definition for those courses, as well. Following the survey item asking teachers to define synthesis writing, respondents were also asked to select one of five provided definitions as best aligning with their conception of 55 synthesis writing; those five definitions align with Flower et al.'s (1990) description of five types of products of synthesis writing: ? Identify key words in paragraphs, summarizes paragraphs, and constructs a composition around the sets of summaries. (Summary) ? Use source texts as a starting point for one?s own ideas or respond to the topic in general. (Response to topic) ? Add one?s own comments to a summary or review of source texts. (Review and comment) ? Identify or create a unifying theme or controlling concept from the source materials, then organize around that concept a text original to the student writer. (Original theme-focused text, or Synthesis) ? Use source materials to select and organize information to address a specific audience and create an argument original to the student writer. (Interpretation for a rhetorical purpose) Table 15 presents the frequencies and percentages of respondents' selections. Table 15 Selection of given definitions of synthesis writing Frequency Valid % Valid Summary 17 1.8 Response to topic 107 11.1 Review and comment 2 0.2 Original theme-focused text 365 37.9 Interpretation for a rhetorical purpose 472 49.0 Total 963 100.0 Missing System 254 Total 1217 56 When presented with definitions of synthesis writing, most respondents (86.9%) indicated that their understanding of the term is the use of source materials to create an original theme-focused text or interpret those materials for a rhetorical purpose, the two types of synthesis writing that the literature suggests are most valued in academic studies. This clearly conflicts with the data from respondents' own definitions of synthesis writing (see Table 13). In order to make a more direct comparison, I coded each of respondents' own definitions of synthesis writing to the Flower definition that it best matched (see Table 16). Table 16 Respondents' definitions of synthesis writing coded to Flower's definitions Frequency Valid % Valid Summary 28 2.9 Response to topic 88 9.1 Review and comment 21 2.2 Original theme-focused text 171 17.7 Interpretation for a rhetorical purpose 313 32.4 No alignment 346 35.8 Total 967 100.0 Missing System 250 Total 1217 Based on respondents' own definitions of synthesis writing, 68.2% of them understand the term as using source materials to create an original theme-focused text or interpret those materials for a rhetorical purpose, the two types of synthesis writing that the literature suggests are most valued in academic studies; this is clearly less than the 86.9% indicated in the preceding data (Table 15). I conducted chi-square analyses to determine if dependent relationships exist between respondents' definitions of synthesis writing and other variables, such as years of teaching experience, school setting, school type, percent of low-SES students in the school, and percent of 57 nonwhite students in respondents' courses. Such analyses found these variables to be independent (see Appendix D, Tables D3-D7). Synthesis definition summary. When asked to provide a definition of synthesis writing, over 20% of respondents described the use of source materials in service of an original argument or thesis; this definition was given by proportionally more AP English Language and Composition teachers than teachers of other courses. (AP English Language teachers comprised 23% of all survey responses.) AP English Language and Composition teachers provided proportionally more definitions that fell into the "Prompt response" category. Twenty percent of respondents gave vague definitions, and 13% gave definitions that didn't actually describe the use of multiple source materials; teachers of ELL courses comprised over half (57%) of all responses in the latter category. Teachers of dual-credit courses provided proportionally more definitions that fell into the "original perspective or analysis" or "argument" categories, which is possibly a function of the college curricula that are used in their courses. When asked to select one of five provided definitions (based on work by Flower et al., 1990) that best aligns with their own concept of synthesis writing, over 80% of respondents selected "Creation of an original theme-focused text" or "Interpretation for a rhetorical purpose." However, when I coded respondents' own definitions of synthesis writing to those five definitions, only 50% aligned with those same two definitions. Furthermore, my coding resulted in 35% of respondents' own definitions not aligning with any of the five provided definitions.. 58 Examples of synthesis-writing tasks. Survey respondents were also asked to briefly define a synthesis task that they might assign to students. (It is interesting to note that when the respondents were asked to define synthesis writing, many of them instead described a synthesis task.) Those task examples were then coded to the 12 previously identified definitions of synthesis; Table 17 shows the frequencies and percentages of task examples aligned with those 12 definitions. Table 17 Examples of synthesis tasks coded to definitions of synthesis writing Frequency Valid % Valid Prompt response 262 29.2 No synthesis 183 20.4 Original argument/thesis 123 13.7 Composition support 73 8.1 Literary analysis 54 6.0 Original perspective/analysis 45 5.0 Connecting to texts/topics 44 4.9 Analysis of themes/ideas 39 4.4 Argument 25 2.8 Summary 23 2.6 Literary argument 14 1.6 Rhetorical analysis 11 1.2 Total 896 100.0 Missing System 321 Total 1217 Table 18 presents a comparison of the distribution of respondents' definitions of synthesis writing and their descriptions of synthesis-writing tasks coded to those same definitions. The far right column shows the difference between the frequency of respondents? definitions that aligned with a particular category and the frequency of respondents? descriptions of synthesis tasks that aligned with that same category. Positive numbers in that column indicate that the percentage of task examples that aligned with a definition category was higher than the percentage of definition 59 responses that aligned with that category; negative numbers in that column indicate that the percentage of task examples aligned with a definition category was lower than the percentage of definition responses that aligned with that category. Table 18 Alignment of definitions of synthesis writing with examples of synthesis tasks Definition of synthesis writing % using definition % task examples aligned with definition % variance of task example Prompt response 7.5 29.2 +21.7 No synthesis 13.9 20.4 +6.5 Literary analysis 3.1 6.0 +2.9 Literary argument 0.3 1.6 +1.3 Analysis of themes/ideas 3.5 4.4 +0.9 Rhetorical analysis 0.5 1.2 +0.7 Summary 2.2 2.6 +0.4 Connecting to texts/topics 5.2 4.9 -0.3 Argument 9.2 2.8 -6.4 Original perspective/analysis 11.4 5.0 -6.4 Original argument/thesis 22.1 13.7 -8.4 Composition support 21.1 8.1 -13.0 The data previously reviewed indicated that over 80% of respondents (see Table 15) thought that their definitions of synthesis writing aligned with either of the two types of synthesis writing valued in higher academic study (Flower et al., 1990): using source materials to (a) organize an original text around a central idea or theme, or (b) in service of the student's rhetorical purpose. However, when the definitions of synthesis writing that respondents provided were coded to Flower's categories, just over 68% aligned to those same two categories (see Table 16). Furthermore, Table 18 shows that in some instances respondents' descriptions of synthesis- writing tasks, when coded to the 12 types of synthesis writing identified from the respondents' own definitions, vary significantly from those definitions. In other words, the tasks that respondents described as examples of synthesis writing often do not align with their own 60 definitions of synthesis writing, which in turn do not often align with definitions of the types of synthesis writing most valued in higher education. As Table 18 indicates, far more respondents described synthesis tasks that aligned with the definition "Prompt Response" (prompt provided by teacher limits range of possible responses; no reference to inclusion of the student's original rhetorical purpose; source materials usually specified or limited by the teacher) than who defined synthesis writing that way themselves. 24 Conversely, fewer respondents described synthesis-writing tasks that actually indicated argument, creation of an original perspective or analysis, or an original argument or thesis than who provided definitions that fit those categories. Again, many respondents' concepts of implementation of synthesis writing seem different from their concepts of synthesis writing itself. While 21.1% of respondents provided a definition of synthesis writing that fell into the category "Composition support" (references use in student writing of information from source materials, but the type of writing isn?t specified, nor is specific reference made to student creation of an argument), only 8.1% of respondents described a synthesis-writing task which aligned with that definition. I also found that the descriptions of synthesis-writing tasks differed significantly by ELA course type (see Appendix E, Tables E1-E3). The results indicated significant differences (Pearson Chi Square = 168.55825, p < .05); Table 19 presents a summary of the analysis of the z- test for equivalent proportions. 24 I focus on the "prompt response" category because it describes tasks where teachers provide a specific prompt and specific resources for use in the task, limiting students' abilities to explore various aspects of topics, how they respond to topics, and/or use a variety of resources pertaining to that topic. This seems to also limit students' abilities to invent a complex concept or purpose for writing, which Flower et al. (1990) suggested requires a higher degree of cognition and leads to greater knowledge transformation. 25 63 cells (58.3%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .25. 61 Table 19 Synthesis definitions and examples of synthesis tasks by course type Synthesis task definition Course-type comparisons Original argument/thesis 30% of teachers of dual-credit ELA courses described synthesis-writing tasks that aligned with this definition, proportionally more than teachers of other ELA courses. Original perspective/analysis 7.7% of teachers of honors ELA courses described synthesis-writing tasks that aligned with this definition, proportionally more than teachers of other ELA courses. Argument 5.4% of teachers of IB English courses described synthesis-writing tasks that aligned with this definition, proportionally more than teachers of other ELA courses. Literary argument 3.9% of teachers of AP English Literature and Composition described synthesis- writing tasks that aligned with this definition, proportionally more than teachers of other ELA courses. Rhetorical analysis 5.7% of teachers of dual-credit ELA courses described synthesis-writing tasks that aligned with this definition, proportionally more than teachers of other ELA courses. Analysis of themes/ideas Teachers of ELL, college prep, and regular ELA courses described synthesis- writing tasks that aligned with this definition significantly more frequently than did teachers of other types of ELA courses. Connecting to other texts/topics There was no significant difference in the rates at which teachers of various ELA courses described synthesis-writing tasks that fit this definition. Literary analysis 16.9% of teachers of AP English Literature and Composition described synthesis-writing tasks that aligned with this definition, significantly more than teachers of other ELA courses. Teachers of AP English Language and "other" ELA courses were least likely to describe synthesis-writing tasks that aligned with this definition. Prompt response 43.6% of teachers of AP English Language and Composition described synthesis-writing tasks that aligned with this definition, significantly more than teachers of other ELA courses. This definition also aligned most often with descriptions of synthesis-writing tasks for teachers of AP English Literature, honors ELA, and college prep ELA courses. Summary There was no significant difference in the rates at which teachers of various ELA courses described synthesis-writing tasks that fit this definition. Composition support 21.6% of teachers of IB English described synthesis-writing tasks that aligned with this definition, significantly more than teachers of other ELA courses. No synthesis 55% of teachers of ELL courses described synthesis-writing tasks that aligned with this definition, significantly more than teachers of other ELA courses. This definition also aligned most often with descriptions of synthesis-writing tasks for teachers of IB, dual credit, regular ELA, and "other" ELA courses. Table 20 shows the comparison of these course-type alignments of synthesis definitions and synthesis tasks. 62 Table 20 Alignment of course types to synthesis definitions and synthesis tasks Synthesis definitions Highest % course type(s) by teacher definition Highest % course type by task description Original argument/thesis AP English Language (38.3%) Dual credit (30%) Original perspective/analysis Dual credit (19%) Honors (7.7%) Argument Dual credit (14.3%) IB (5.4%) Literary argument n/a AP English Literature (3.9%) Rhetorical analysis IB, "Other ELA" (2.6%) Dual credit (5.7%) Analysis of themes/ideas College prep (5.9%) ELL (10%), college prep (6.2%), regular ELA (6.2%) Connecting to other texts/topics Regular ELA (8.2%), honors ELA (7.8%) n/a Literary analysis IB (13.2%), AP English Literature (11.4%) AP English Literature (16.9%) Prompt response AP English Language (12.5%) AP English Language (43.6%) Summary Regular ELA (3.8%) n/a Composition support College prep (25.7%), honors ELA (25.5%) IB (26%) No synthesis ELL (57.7%) ELL (55%) Although only 9.5% of teachers of dual-credit ELA courses defined synthesis as using source materials to create an original argument or thesis (and a third of such respondents provided definitions that didn't actually indicate the use of multiple source materials), 30% of them described synthesis tasks that aligned with this definition. However, dual-credit teachers also had the highest percentages of synthesis-writing definitions that aligned with the categories "original perspective/analysis" and "argument", but they did not have the highest percentages of synthesis tasks that aligned with those categories. ELL teachers had the highest percentages of synthesis writing definitions and synthesis tasks that aligned with the category "no synthesis." I also conducted chi-square analyses to determine whether a dependent relationship exists between respondents' descriptions of synthesis tasks and other variables such as school setting, school type, percent of low-SES students in the school, percent of nonwhite students in their ELA courses, and years of teaching experience. Table 21 presents a summary of those results. 63 Table 21 Descriptions of synthesis tasks and other variables Variable Pearson Chi Square Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Conclusion School setting 26.376 0.236 Independent School type 72.054 0.285 Independent Percent low-SES students in school 45.204 0.421 Independent Percent nonwhite students in course 50.724 0.025 Dependent Years teaching experience 68.258 0.400 Independent Since the ethnicity of students in the ELA course was the only variable to indicate a dependent relationship with respondents' descriptions of synthesis tasks, Z-tests were conducted to determine equivalent proportions (see Appendix E, Tables E8-E10); Table 22 presents a summary of those tests. Table 22 Definitions of synthesis task by percent nonwhite students in ELA course Synthesis task description Relation with % nonwhite students in ELA course Original argument/thesis There were no significant differences in proportional use of this definition across categories of percentage of nonwhite students. Original perspective/analysis There were no significant differences in proportional use of this definition across categories of percentage of nonwhite students. Argument There were no significant differences in proportional use of this definition across categories of percentage of nonwhite students. Literary argument Respondents from schools with 51-75% nonwhite students had proportionally the highest use of this category; those from schools with 26-50% nonwhite students had the lowest use. Rhetorical analysis There were no significant differences in proportional use of this definition across categories of percentage of nonwhite students. Analysis of themes/ideas Respondents from schools with 51-75% nonwhite students had proportionally the highest use of this category; those from schools with 0-25% nonwhite students had the lowest use. Connecting to other texts/topics There were no significant differences in proportional use of this definition across categories of percentage of nonwhite students. Literary analysis There were no significant differences in proportional use of this definition across categories of percentage of nonwhite students. Prompt response Respondents from schools with 51-75% nonwhite students had proportionally the highest use of this category; those from schools with 76-100% nonwhite students had the lowest use. 64 Synthesis task description Relation with % nonwhite students in ELA course Summary There were no significant differences in proportional use of this definition across categories of percentage of nonwhite students. Composition support There were no significant differences in proportional use of this definition across categories of percentage of nonwhite students. No synthesis Respondents from schools with 76-100% nonwhite students had proportionally the highest use of this category; those from schools with 51-75% nonwhite students had the lowest use. Respondents who reported more than 75% of their ELA students as nonwhite provided the highest proportion of definitions that did not reflect synthesis of multiple source materials. This may suggest that more professional development regarding the teaching of synthesis writing is necessary for teachers of such student populations. Synthesis task summary. Almost a third of respondents described synthesis tasks that fell into the "Prompt response" category, a rate 20% higher than respondents? definitions of synthesis writing which fell into that category. Over 38% of AP English Language and Composition teachers defined synthesis writing as the creation of an original argument or thesis, but over 40% of their descriptions of synthesis-writing tasks fell into the "Prompt response" category. Thirty percent of teachers of dual-credit courses described synthesis tasks that fell into the "original argument or thesis" category, even though only 9% of those respondents defined synthesis writing that way. As with their definitions of synthesis writing, teachers of ELL courses had the highest percentage of synthesis-task descriptions that fell into the "no synthesis" category. Variables such as school setting, type of school, percentage of low-SES students, and years of teaching experience do not appear to have any dependent relationship with the way respondents described synthesis-writing tasks. The percentage of nonwhite students in respondents' ELA courses did, however, indicate a significant relationship with respondents' 65 descriptions of synthesis-writing tasks. Respondents whose students are 51-75% nonwhite had significantly higher rates of task descriptions that fell into the "Prompt response," "literary argument," and "analysis of themes or ideas" categories. Those whose students are 76-100% nonwhite had a significantly higher rate of descriptions that fell into the "no synthesis" category. Research Question 2: To What Extent Do English Teachers Reportedly Provide Explicit Or Direct Instruction on the Strategies Involved in Synthesis Writing? The survey asked respondents about the frequency with which they provide instruction on synthesis writing. Ninety-seven percent of respondents answered this question, and Table 23 presents a summary of their responses. Table 23 Frequency of providing synthesis-writing tasks Frequency Number of responses % of responses Daily 70 6% Weekly 432 37% Monthly 375 32% Once per quarter 167 14% Once per semester 77 7% Once each academic year 35 3% Not at all 13 1% Total 1,169 100% I conducted chi-square analyses to determine if dependent relationships exist between frequency of synthesis-writing tasks and various other variables.26 Such tests for school setting, type of school, percent of low-SES students in the school, percent of nonwhite students in the school, examples of synthesis tasks, and years of teaching experience indicated no dependent relationships with frequency of synthesis-writing tasks (see Appendix F, Tables F1-F6). Such 26 For the purposes of these analyses, I consolidated the survey responses for frequency of synthesis writing into five categories: 1-2 times per week, monthly, 2-4 times per academic year, once per year, or not at all. 66 analyses did, however, show dependent relationships for ELA course type, percent of nonwhite students in the ELA course, and respondents? definitions of synthesis writing. The analysis of frequency of synthesis-writing tasks and ELA course type yielded the following results: Pearson Chi Square = 70.000, p < 0.05 (see Appendix F, Tables F7-F9) 27. Z-tests were used to determine equivalent proportions; Table 24 presents a summary of those data. Table 24 Frequency of synthesis-writing tasks by ELA course type Frequency ELA course type Once or more per week Teachers of dual-credit courses had the highest proportion of responses in this category. AP English Language teachers had the lowest proportion of responses. Monthly AP English Language teachers had the highest proportion of responses in this category. There were no significant differences in response proportions among teachers of other ELA courses. 2-4 times per year Teachers of honors ELA courses had the highest proportion of responses in this category. Teachers of "other" ELA courses had the lowest proportion of responses. Not at all Teachers of AP English Literature courses had the highest proportion of responses in this category; teachers of college preparatory courses had proportionally the fewest responses. The test of frequency of synthesis-writing tasks and percent of nonwhite students in respondents' ELA courses yielded the following results: Pearson Chi Square = 17.092, p < 0.05. Z-tests were again used to determine equivalent proportions (see Appendix F, Tables F10-F12)28; Table 25 presents a summary of those data. 27 Although the chi-square analysis indicated that 9 cells had less than the expected frequency of 5, the large sample size negated the need for a Fisher's Exact test. 28 Although the chi-square analysis indicated that 3 cells had less than the expected frequency of 5, the large sample size negated the need for a Fisher's Exact test. 67 Table 25 Frequency of synthesis-writing tasks by percent of nonwhite students in ELA course Frequency % nonwhite students in ELA course Once or more per week Respondents who reported 76-100% nonwhite students in their ELA course had proportionally the highest number of responses in this category. Respondents who reported 0-25% nonwhite students in their ELA course had proportionally the lowest number of responses. Monthly Respondents who reported 0-25% nonwhite students in their ELA course had proportionally the highest number of responses in this category. Respondents who reported 51-75% nonwhite students in their ELA course had proportionally the lowest number of responses. 2-4 times per year Respondents who reported 51-75% nonwhite students in their ELA course had proportionally the highest number of responses in this category. Respondents who reported 76-100% nonwhite students in their ELA course had proportionally the lowest number of responses. Not at all There were no significant differences among responses for this category. The test of frequency of synthesis-writing tasks and respondents' definitions of synthesis writing yielded the following results: Pearson Chi Square = 75.933, p < 0.05. Z-tests were again used to determine equivalent proportions (see Appendix F, Tables F13-F15).29 Table 26 presents a summary of those data. Table 26 Frequency of synthesis-writing tasks and respondents' definitions of synthesis writing Frequency Respondents' definition of synthesis writing Once or more per week Respondents who provided definitions that were categorized as "no synthesis" had the highest proportion of responses in this category. Monthly Respondents who provided definitions that were categorized as "Prompt response" had the highest proportion of responses in this category. 2-4 times per year Respondents who provided definitions that were categorized as "no synthesis" had the lowest proportion of responses in this category. Not at all Respondents who provide definitions categorized as "literary analysis" had the highest proportion of responses in this category. 29 Although the chi-square analysis indicated that 19 cells had less than the expected frequency of 5, the large sample size negated the need for a Fisher's Exact test. 68 The survey also asked respondents to describe the frequency with which they provide instruction on the types of skills or strategies identified in the literature review of this study as important for synthesis writing. Table 27 presents a summary of those findings; the parenthetical numbers in the column headings are the values assigned to each response for the purpose of determining mean scores for each strategy category, and the rows are arranged in descending order of mean scores. Table 27 Frequency of instruction on synthesis-writing strategies Strategy Every assign. (4) Most assign. (3) Some assign. (2) No assign. (1) Number Mean Understand type of writing task 655 170 69 12 906 3.62 Consider audience for the writing task 551 221 120 14 906 3.44 Integrate source materials into student- generated analysis, argument, or interpretation with a specific rhetorical purpose 526 265 100 14 905 3.44 Integrate information from various source materials 510 258 134 4 906 3.41 Select appropriate source materials, based on context of writing task 515 245 138 9 907 3.40 Understand organizational structures for argumentative synthesis and expository writing 500 269 126 13 908 3.38 Balance information from source materials with prior knowledge 395 351 140 17 903 3.24 Understand discourse expectations of academic English 434 271 168 28 901 3.23 Understand rhetorical context of writing task 435 259 174 35 903 3.21 Read source materials rhetorically 337 309 214 45 905 3.04 I conducted a reliability analysis on these items, which yielded a Cronbach's Alpha score of 0.818 (see Appendix G, Tables G2-G4). The analysis also indicated that removal of any of the scale items would not raise the reliability score. A multivariate analysis confirmed that the differences among the means are significant (see Appendix G, Tables G5-G12). Mauchly?s test 69 indicated that the assumption of sphericity had been violated: ?2 (44) = 532.89, p < 0.05. Therefore, a corrected value (Greenhouse-Geisser correction) of F was used (0.880), indicating that the variances between means are significantly different. With high mean scores, ranging from 3.04 to 3.62, and a modal score of 4 (providing instruction in every assignment) for every skill category, most respondents clearly felt that they were addressing each of these skills frequently. "Understanding the type of writing task" seems to be the strategy most often addressed by respondents, with a mean score significantly higher than all others. The mean for "Consider audience for the writing task" was significantly higher than all others except "Understand the type of writing task" and "Integrate source materials..." The strategy "Reading source materials rhetorically" had a mean score significantly lower than all others and seems to be the strategy addressed least often in respondents' instruction. Since all respondents would hypothetically provide responses for each of these strategies (which were featured together in the same survey item; see Appendix B, item #7), and since values of 1-4 were assigned to each response choice for each item30, I was able to construct a scoring scale which could be used to compare the slate of synthesis-strategy responses to other dependent variables. I used those scaled scores and criterion coding of the independent variables to conduct a backward regression analysis to determine if any independent variables were significant predictors of respondents? instruction on the identified synthesis strategies (see Appendix G, Tables G13-G24). The analysis indicated that the following five independent variables are the most statistically significant predictors, F(5, 732) = 23.743, p < .001, R2 = .140: 30 Originally these response choices were coded 0-3, but because SPSS setting required the use of "0" to indicate missing items, I needed to change the response codes to a 1-4 scale. 70 Table 28 Significant predictors of frequency of instruction on synthesis strategies Mean Std. Deviation N Synthesis-task example 3.3495 .07246 738 School type 3.3480 .02902 738 Years teaching experience 3.3471 .08609 738 Synthesis definition 3.3457 .07734 738 ELA course 3.3227 .19347 738 The mean for synthesis-task example was significantly higher than those for the other four independent variables; the mean for ELA course type was significantly lower than those for the other four independent variables. School setting, percent of low-SES students in the school, percent of nonwhite students in the ELA course, and frequency of synthesis-writing tasks were not significant predictors of frequency of instruction on synthesis-writing strategies. One-way ANOVAs were then conducted for each of the significant predictors to determine where significant differences lie among the categories of those predictors (see Appendix G, Tables G25-G35). The results of those ANOVAs are as follows: ? ELA course type: F(8, 899) = 12.771, p < .001. o The mean score for AP English Language and Composition teachers was significantly higher than the scores of all other respondents except teachers of AP English Literature and Composition or dual credit courses. o The mean score for teachers of ELL courses was significantly lower than the scores for all other respondents except those who teach regular English courses. ? School type: F(5, 831) = .767, p = .573. This analysis indicated that there is no significant difference among the mean scores of categories of school type, suggesting that 71 this variable may not actually be a significant predictor of frequency of instruction on synthesis strategies. ? Years of teaching experience: F(6, 831) = 4.612, p < .001. The mean score for respondents with five years or fewer of teaching experience was significantly lower than the mean scores of respondents with 16-25 or 31 or more years of teaching experience. ? Definition of synthesis writing: F(11, 822) = 1.931, p = .032. Tukey's post hoc test indicated no significant differences among the mean scores of the categories of synthesis- writing definitions, which suggests that such definitions may not actually be significant predictors of respondents' frequency of instruction on synthesis strategies. ? Examples of synthesis tasks: F(11, 793) = 1.649, p = .081. This analysis indicated that there is no significant difference among the mean scores of categories of definitions of synthesis tasks, suggesting that this variable may not actually be a significant predictor of frequency of instruction on synthesis strategies. Summary of Instruction on synthesis strategies. Thirty-two percent of respondents indicated that they provide opportunities for students to engage in synthesis writing on a monthly basis, and 37% reported providing such opportunities weekly. Table 29 presents a summary of the analyses regarding respondents' reported frequency of providing opportunities for synthesis writing. The literature on synthesis writing identifies 10 strategies that are conducive to effective synthesis writing. Most respondents reported providing instruction on these strategies for every or most assignments. The most frequently taught strategy is understanding the topic of the writing task; the strategy taught least frequently is reading source materials rhetorically. 72 Table 29 Frequency of opportunities for synthesis writing by variables Frequency category Proportionally higher scale scores Proportionally lower scale scores At least once per week Dual-credit teachers "No synthesis" definition 76-100% nonwhite in course AP English Language teachers 0-25% nonwhite in course Monthly AP English Language teachers "Prompt response" definition 0-25% nonwhite in course "Summary" definition 51-75% nonwhite in course 2-4 times per year Honors English teachers "No synthesis" definition 51-75% nonwhite in course 76-100% nonwhite in course Not at all AP English Literature teachers "Literary analysis" definition College-prep teachers Regression analysis indicated that the frequency of providing opportunities for synthesis writing had no significant effect on the frequency with which the synthesis-writing strategies are taught. Similar tests for school setting, percentage of nonwhite students in the ELA course, and percentage of low-SES students in the school likewise indicated that those variables do not have a significant effect on the frequency with which the synthesis-writing strategies are. Subsequent ANOVAs also eliminated school type, definition of synthesis writing, and examples of synthesis tasks as significant predictors of frequency of instruction on synthesis strategies. The type of ELA course respondents teach and their years of teaching experience were, however, identified as significant predictors of frequency of instruction on synthesis strategies. Respondents who teach AP English Language and Composition had significantly higher mean scores for frequency of instruction on synthesis strategies than did respondents who teach other ELA courses except AP English Literature and Composition and dual-credit ELA courses. Respondents who teach ELL or regular English courses had means scores that were significantly lower than those of teachers of all other ELA course types. Additionally, respondents with five 73 years or fewer of teaching experience had significantly lower mean scores than did respondents who have 16-25 or 31 or more years of teaching experience. Research Question 3: What Are the Characteristics of Instruction on Synthesis Writing That English Teachers Report Providing? The survey asked respondents to indicate the frequency with which they use nine pedagogical strategies that are identified in the literature as being conducive to effective synthesis writing. Table 30 summarizes their responses; the parenthetical numbers in the column headings are the values assigned to each response for the purpose of determining mean scores for each strategy category, and the rows are arranged in descending order of mean scores. Table 30 Response frequency for pedagogy strategies Pedagogical strategy Every assign. (4) Most assign. (3) Some assign. (2) No assign. (1) Number Mean Mode Ensure student understanding of the specific type of writing task 723 129 24 0 876 3.80 4 Provide feedback to student writing 650 186 36 0 872 3.70 4 Scaffold student learning 412 310 126 21 869 3.28 4 Provide opportunities for students to review and reflect on their synthesis writing 332 327 200 14 873 3.12 4 Model synthesis writing 301 319 235 18 873 3.03 3 Provide opportunities for cooperative/collaborative learning 278 327 250 16 871 3.00 3 Provide opportunities for peer feedback to student writing 246 327 272 26 871 2.91 3 Encourage or provide opportunities for students to utilize Web-based information sources when engaging in synthesis writing 256 268 310 39 873 2.85 2 Encourage or provide opportunities for students to utilize multimedia publication of their work product when engaging in synthesis writing 106 186 382 196 870 2.23 2 74 The data seem to indicate that respondents frequently help students understand their specific writing tasks and provide feedback to students about their writing, but they less frequently structure synthesis-writing assignments so that students can use Internet resources or electronic publication of their writing. This seems consistent with the high rate of respondents' definitions of synthesis writing and synthesis tasks that were coded as "Prompt Response," where specific resource materials are usually provided to the students, rather than having students conduct research to find their own resources. A multivariate analysis confirmed that the differences among the means are significant (see Appendix H, Tables H1-H17). Tests of within-subjects effects yielded an F score of 402.707, indicating that sphericity is assumed. A corrected value (Greenhouse-Geisser correction) of F was used (0.843), indicating that the variances between means are significantly different. I conducted a reliability test to determine the internal consistency of the items in the "Frequency of use of pedagogy strategies" scale (see Appendix H, Tables H8-H14). The test resulted in a Cronbach's Alpha score of 0.752, indicating a fairly high rate of consistency among the nine pedagogy strategies. However, the test also indicated that the Cronbach's Alpha score would improve moderately to 0.756 if the item "Ensure student understanding of the specific type of writing task" were removed from the scale. Since the score change would be minimal, I elected to not remove the item from subsequent scale analyses. The pedagogy scale demonstrated mean scores ranging from 2.23 to 3.80, with a mean of the means of 3.10 and a modal score of 3 (using the identified pedagogical strategies in most assignments). "Ensuring student understanding of the specific type of writing task" seems to be the strategy most often used by respondents, with a mean score significantly higher than all 75 others. The mean for "Provide feedback to student writing" was significantly higher than all others except "Ensuring student understanding of the specific type of writing task". The strategy "Encourage or provide opportunities for students to utilize multimedia publication of their work product when engaging in synthesis writing" had a mean score significantly lower than all others and seems to be the strategy used least often in respondents' instruction. Since all respondents would hypothetically provide responses for each of these strategies (which were featured together in the same survey item; see Appendix B, item #8), and since values of 1-4 were assigned to each response choice for each item31, I was able to construct a scoring scale which could be used to compare the slate of pedagogical-strategy responses to other dependent variables. I then used the scaled scores and criterion coding to conduct a backward regression analysis to determine if any independent variables were significant predictors of respondents? use of the identified pedagogical strategies (using the scaled cumulative score for respondents? answers about all nine strategies; see Appendix H, Tables H15-H24). The analysis indicated that the following four independent variables are the most statistically significant predictors, F(5, 727) = 12.489, p < .001, R2 = .079. Table 31 Significant predictors of frequency of use of pedagogical strategies Mean Std. Deviation N Synthesis definition 3.1109 .05757 733 School type 3.1072 .07180 733 Years teaching experience 3.1054 .03160 733 ELA course type 3.1024 .06900 733 31 Originally these response choices were coded 0-3, but because SPSS setting required the use of "0" to indicate missing items, I needed to change the response codes to a 1-4 scale. 76 These four variables were also indicated as significant predictors of respondents' frequency of instruction on synthesis-writing strategies. According to these data, school setting, the percent of nonwhite students in the ELA course, the percent of low-SES students in the school, the definition of synthesis tasks, and frequency of synthesis writing are not significant predictors of respondents' use of pedagogical strategies that facilitate effective synthesis writing. One-way ANOVAs were then conducted for each of the significant predictors to determine where significant differences lie among the categories of those predictors (see Appendix H, Tables H25-H45). The results of those ANOVAs are as follows: ? Synthesis definition: F(11, 801) = 1.168, p = .306. This analysis indicated that there is no significant difference among the mean scores of categories of definitions of synthesis, suggesting that this variable may not actually be a significant predictor of frequency of instruction on synthesis strategies. ? School type: F(5, 827) = 4.443, p = .001. Tukey's post hoc test indicated that the mean score for parochial schools was significantly lower than the mean score for conventional public schools; no other significant differences were noted among the categories for this variable. ? Years teaching experience: F(6, 827) = .665, p = .678. This analysis indicated that there is no significant difference among the mean scores of categories of years of teaching experience, suggesting that this variable may not actually be a significant predictor of frequency of instruction on synthesis strategies. ? ELA course type: F(8, 865) = 2.535, p = .010. Tukey's post hoc test indicated no significant difference among the mean scores of the different ELA course types, 77 suggesting that this variable may not actually be a significant predictor of the frequency of respondents' use of the identified pedagogical strategies. The survey also asked respondents about the format in which they receive students' writing. Up to 880 respondents (72% of total respondents) answered the questions on this topic; their responses are summarized in Table 32. The parenthetical numbers in the column headings are the values assigned to each response for the purpose of determining mean scores for each format category, and the rows are arranged in descending order of mean scores. Table 32 Frequency of use of formats for receiving student writing Writing Format Every assign. (4) Most assign. (3) Some assign. (2) No assign. (1) Number Mean Mode Printed word-processed documents 116 345 384 35 880 2.62 2 Handwritten 63 224 522 62 871 2.33 2 Electronic documents as e-mail attachments 34 122 430 268 854 1.91 2 Electronic documents posted online 58 133 287 393 871 1.83 1 These data seem to indicate that respondents use a variety of formats for receiving student writing, instead of relying on one primary format. Student use of word-processing software is clearly anticipated by most respondents, but sending electronic documents as e-mail attachments or posting such documents online are used less frequently. Pedagogy Summary. The literature review identified nine pedagogical strategies that are conducive to effective synthesis writing: ? Ensure student understanding of the specific type of writing task. 78 ? Provide feedback to student writing Scaffold student learning. ? Provide opportunities for students to review and reflect on their synthesis writing. ? Model synthesis writing. ? Provide opportunities for cooperative/collaborative learning. ? Provide opportunities for peer feedback to student writing. ? Encourage or provide opportunities for students to utilize Web-based information sources when engaging in synthesis writing. ? Encourage or provide opportunities for students to utilize multimedia publication of their work product when engaging in synthesis writing. Most survey respondents reported that they frequently provide instruction on the strategies described in the first four bullets above, but regression analyses indicated that the only variable that may have significant effects on the frequency with which teachers apply these strategies is school type: respondents from conventional public schools use the identified pedagogical strategies significantly more frequently than do respondents from parochial schools. The survey also indicated that respondents receive students' writing in handwritten or printed word-processed formats more frequently than they receive students' writing in electronic formats. Research Question 4: What Professional Training Do Teachers Report as Having Had the Most Impact on Their Instruction on Synthesis Writing? The first survey item pertaining to professional development asked respondents about their awareness of any state course-of-study (COS) standards pertaining to synthesis writing. Only 74% of respondents answered this question; Table 33 presents a summary of their responses. 79 Table 33 State COS explicitly addresses synthesis writing Response Number % Yes 504 56% No 186 21% Don't know 204 23% Total 894 100% A chi-square analysis of these responses by respondents' states, school settings, course types, percent of nonwhite students in the course, and years of teaching experience indicated that those variables are independent (see Appendix I, Tables I1-I5). A chi-square analysis of awareness of COS synthesis requirements by school type, however, did indicate a significant relationship (Pearson Chi Square = 142.886, p < 0.05; see Appendix I, Table I6-I8)32. Respondents from independent schools reported significantly lower proportions of acknowledging synthesis-writing requirements in the state COS, but they responded that they didn't know about such requirements at a proportionally higher rate than teachers of other school types. This may possibly be due to many independent schools not being subject to state courses of study. Regarding "Yes" responses, teachers from conventional public schools, public charter and magnet schools, and "other" schools responded at similarly high rates. Teachers from conventional public schools and boarding schools had significantly higher proportions of "No" responses. A chi-square analysis of awareness of state COS synthesis requirements by percent of low-SES students also indicated a dependent relationship between those variables (Pearson Chi Square = 47.954, p < 0.05; see Appendix I, Table I9-I11). Respondents from schools whose 32 Although six cells in this analysis had less than the expected count of five values per cell, the large sample size negated the need for a Fisher's Exact Test. 80 student populations included 10% or fewer low-SES students reported proportionally fewer "Yes" responses than did respondents from schools with higher percentages of low-SES students; this group also had a significantly higher proportion of "Don't Know" responses. Respondents from schools with 76-100% of students from low-SES households had a significantly higher proportion of "No" responses. The survey also asked respondents about their awareness of a state COS requirement that specifies the use of source materials to inform a concept original to the student writer and/or for a specific rhetorical purpose. Only 41% of respondents answered this question; Table 34 presents a summary of their responses: Table 34 State COS requiring synthesis for an original rhetorical purpose Response Number % Yes 330 66% No 81 16% Don't know 88 18% Total 499 100% Chi-square analyses of these responses by school setting, school type, percent of low-SES students in the school, course type, percent of nonwhite students in the course, and years of teaching experience did not indicate any dependent relationships among these variables (see Appendix I, Tables I12-I17). The survey also asked respondents about the number of college courses they took which in some way addressed the teaching of synthesis writing. Seventy-four percent of respondents who started the survey answered this question; a summary of their responses can be found in Table 35. 81 Table 35 College courses that addressed synthesis writing Number of courses Number of responses Percent No courses 402 46% 1 course 146 16% 2 courses 100 11% 3 courses 42 5% 4 or more courses 113 13% Don't know 89 10% Total 892 100% As the data indicate, almost half of respondents reported taking no college courses that addressed in any way the teaching of synthesis writing. I conducted chi-square analyses to determine whether dependent relationships exist between college courses and other variables. Such analyses by years of teaching experience and school type indicated no dependent relationships (see Appendix I, Tables I18 and I19). An analysis of type of ELA course, however, did indicate a dependent relationship (Pearson Chi Square = 57.364, p < 0.05)33. Z-tests were conducted to determine significant differences in proportions of responses (see Appendix I, Tables I20-I22, and the results of those tests are summarized in Table 36. AP English Language and Composition teachers, whose curriculum explicitly requires that they teach synthesis writing for an original rhetorical purpose, were among those who indicated in proportionally higher numbers that they had no courses that addressed the teaching of synthesis writing. In fact, 51.9% of AP English Language and Composition teachers had this response, a higher percentage than teachers of any other ELA course type. 33 Although 23 cells in this analysis had less than the expected count of five values per cell, the large sample size negated the need for a Fisher's Exact Test. 82 Table 36 ELA course type and college courses addressing synthesis writing Number of courses Responses No courses AP English Language, AP English Literature, and teachers of regular ELA courses had proportionally more responses in this category. 1 course Teachers of regular ELA courses had proportionally more responses in this category. 2 courses AP English Literature teachers had proportionally more responses in this category. 3 courses Responses in this category were similarly low across all ELA course types. 4 or more courses Teachers of dual credit courses had proportionally more responses in this category Don't know Teachers of IB, dual credit, honors, college prep, and "other" ELA courses had similarly high response rates. Next, the survey asked respondents about professional development (PD) events that were offered to them and, if they attended, how useful those events were for helping respondents teach synthesis writing. Table 37 presents their responses about PD offerings, listed in descending order of affirmative responses. These data indicate that respondents were most aware of PD offerings at their local school and district level. Table 37 Professional development offerings PD event Yes No Don't Know Total Academic departmental meeting at your school 589 70% 242 26% 14 2% 845 Professional learning group 510 61% 290 35% 40 5% 840 College Board Advanced Placement workshop or summer institute 474 56% 279 33% 86 10% 839 Inservice or workshop at your school 430 51% 381 45% 27 3% 838 School district staff development workshop or inservice 403 48% 382 46% 50 6% 835 Online discussion group 231 28% 464 56% 139 17% 834 College Board/Advanced Placement regional forum 214 26% 414 50% 205 25% 833 Professional organization regional conference 217 26% 436 52% 180 22% 833 Professional organization national conference 213 26% 431 52% 187 23% 831 Advanced Placement Annual Conference 198 24% 435 53% 183 22% 826 English Language Learner professional development event 163 20% 467 56% 202 24% 832 83 PD event Yes No Don't Know Total State educational association conference 148 18% 488 59% 196 24% 832 Dual enrollment/dual credit professional development event 137 16% 473 57% 221 27% 831 International Baccalaureate professional development event 101 12% 482 58% 245 30% 826 Respondents were then asked to indicate the extent to which any of the PD events they attended in the last two years was useful for helping them teach synthesis writing. I conducted a reliability test to determine the internal consistency of the items in the "Usefulness of PD Events" scale (see Appendix I, Tables I23-I28). The test resulted in a Cronbach's Alpha score of 0.752, indicating a fairly high rate of consistency among the nine pedagogy strategies. However, the test also indicated that the Cronbach's Alpha score would improve moderately to 0.763 if the item "College Board Advanced Placement workshop or summer institute" were removed from the scale. Since the score change would be minimal, I elected to not remove the item from subsequent scale analyses. Table 38 presents a summary of those data; the parenthetical numbers in the column headers indicate the values assigned to each, for the purpose of computing the mean score. As with the data regarding respondents' awareness of professional development events, they seem to place the most value on PD opportunities at the local level, rather than regional or national events. 84 Table 38 Usefulness of PD events PD event Didn't attend (1) Not Useful (2) Some-what Useful (3) Useful (4) Very Useful (5) Total Mean Academic departmental meeting at your school 19 3% 170 28% 182 30% 162 27% 72 12% 605 3.16 Professional learning group 56 10% 98 18% 165 30% 149 27% 84 15% 552 3.19 College Board Advanced Placement workshop or summer institute 195 36% 10 2% 47 9% 101 19% 189 35% 542 3.15 Inservice or workshop at your school 51 11% 151 31% 146 30% 90 19% 43 9% 481 2.84 School district staff development workshop or inservice 70 16% 134 30% 123 27% 82 18% 44 10% 453 2.77 Online discussion group 190 53% 26 7% 62 17% 55 15% 27 8% 360 2.18 Professional organization national conference 248 71% 9 3% 18 5% 45 13% 28 8% 348 1.84 Professional organization regional conference 243 69% 14 4% 35 10% 37 10% 26 7% 355 1.84 English Language Learner professional development event 199 66% 31 10% 26 9% 28 9% 20 7% 304 1.81 Dual enrollment/dual credit professional development event 205 70% 13 5% 28 10% 22 8% 23 8% 291 1.78 College Board/Advanced Placement regional forum 263 74% 7 2% 22 6% 32 9% 32 9% 356 1.77 International Baccalaureate professional development event 221 77% 11 4% 19 7% 18 6% 18 6% 287 1.61 State educational association conference 232 76% 12 4% 26 9% 25 8% 9 3% 304 1.58 Advanced Placement Annual Conference 281 83% 3 1% 8 2% 21 6% 26 8% 339 1.55 85 The survey also asked respondents to indicate their need or desire for PD on the subject of teaching synthesis writing. Seventy percent of respondents answered this question, and Table 39 presents the summary of their responses. Table 39 Need/desire for professional development on teaching synthesis writing Frequency Valid Percent Valid Unnecessary 30 3.5 Helpful but not necessary 454 53.2 Definitely want 370 43.3 Total 854 100.0 Missing System 363 Total 1217 Only 3.5% of respondents who answered this question indicated that PD on teaching synthesis writing is unnecessary, and over 40% indicated that this is training that they definitely want. I conducted chi-square tests to determine if a dependent relationship exists between respondents' reported need for PD on synthesis writing and the following variables: ELA course type, school type, school, setting, percent of nonwhite students in the ELA course, percent of low-SES students in the school, and years of teaching experience (see Appendix I, Tables I29- I34). Of those, school setting was the only variable to demonstrate such a dependent relationship (Pearson Chi Square = 10.711, p = .030). I then conducted z-tests for school setting and need for PD on teaching synthesis writing, and the results indicated that teachers from rural schools responded at proportionally higher rates that such PD would be "Helpful but not necessary" and something they "Definitely want" (see Appendix I, Tables I35 and I36). 86 Professional Development Summary. Over half of all respondents indicated that they are aware that their state courses of study address synthesis writing; respondents from independent schools reported being least aware of this requirement, likely because many independent schools are not subject to state course-of- study requirements. Over 60% of respondents reported that their state courses of study require synthesis writing in service of a student's original idea or rhetorical purpose. This seems unusual, because Common Core State Standards are not explicit about this application of synthesis writing, nor are most pre-CCSS state ELA courses of study. Almost half of all respondents reported taking no college courses that addressed the teaching of synthesis writing; AP English Language, AP English Literature, and teachers of regular ELA courses had proportionally more responses of this type. Teachers of dual-credit courses responded at a proportionally higher rate for taking four or more such college courses. Regarding types of professional development offerings pertaining to the teaching of synthesis writing, respondents indicate more awareness of such training offered at the local or district level, rather than regional or national events. They also indicated that the training offered at the local or district level was more useful for teaching synthesis writing. An exception was AP English Language and Literature teachers, who rated the training they receive at College Board AP workshops and summer institutes as being highly useful for this purpose. When asked if training on the teaching of synthesis writing is something they want, less than 4% indicated that they do not need such training; over 40% indicated that it is something they "definitely want." Respondents from rural schools indicated the desire for such training at proportionally higher rates than teachers in other instructional settings. 87 Research Question 5: Are Different Groups of High School ELA Teachers Characterized by Different Patterns of Responses to the Survey Questions? I have addressed this research question in my explanations of the various statistical analyses that were conducted for the other research questions, so that all significant independent variables for a given dependent variable could be explained together. What follows here is a summary of the issues for which each of respondents? primary ELA courses was a significant factor. The categories of course types are listed in descending order of the percentage of all respondents that each category represents. AP English Language and Composition. Teachers of this course comprised 23% of all respondents. They are less likely than other respondents to have taken a college course that addressed synthesis writing. Compared to respondents who teach other ELA courses, these teachers have fewer classes with more than 25% nonwhite students. They are more likely to define synthesis writing as the creation of an original argument or thesis (due to the explicit curricular requirements of the course) or as a ?Prompt response? (most likely due to their familiarity with the format of the synthesis prompt on the AP exam and use of that format in classroom assignments). Their descriptions of synthesis-writing tasks are also more likely to be categorized as ?Prompt response.? They tend to provide such synthesis-writing opportunities on a monthly basis. These respondents reportedly address key synthesis-writing strategies more frequently than teachers of other ELA courses. Again, this is likely due to the explicit curricular requirements for this course. These respondents are also less likely to scaffold learning or use Web resources for synthesis-writing assignments than respondents who teach other ELA courses. (The infrequent use of Web resources is probably due to most of their synthesis-writing assignments being ?Prompt response? tasks, 88 where the source materials are provided.) Because the minimum sample size was not met for this category of ELA teacher, the results described above may not be broadly applicable to all AP English Language and Composition teachers. College-preparatory English: Teachers of this course comprised 19% of all respondents. Like AP English Language and Composition teachers, they also have fewer classes with more than 25% nonwhite students. They are less likely to know whether they had any college courses that addressed synthesis writing. They are more likely to define synthesis writing as the analysis of themes or ideas; however, more frequently their definitions were too general to determine a specific purpose, so they were categorized as ?composition support.? Their descriptions of synthesis-writing tasks, however, are more often categorized as the analysis of themes or ideas. In those tasks, they are more likely to require students to submit printed word-processed documents. General curriculum (regular) English: Teachers of this course comprised 18% of all respondents. They are more likely to have taken one or nor college courses that addressed synthesis writing. They are more likely to define synthesis writing as connecting texts to other topics or, to a lesser extent, as summary. Their descriptions of synthesis-writing tasks, however, are more likely to be categorized as analysis of themes or ideas. These respondents are also less likely to scaffold learning than respondents who teach other courses. Honors English: Teachers of this course comprised 17% of all respondents. They are less likely to know if they had any college courses that addressed synthesis writing. They are less likely to teach courses with more than 25% nonwhite students. Their definitions of synthesis writing are more 89 likely to be categorized as general ?composition support? due to lack of details about the purpose of the writing; to a lesser extent, their definitions may also be categorized as ?connecting texts to other topics.? Their descriptions of synthesis-writing tasks, however, are more likely to be categorized as the creation of an original perspective or analysis. They typically provide opportunities for such tasks two to four times per year. They are more likely to require students to post their writing online as electronic documents. AP English Literature and Composition: Teachers of this course comprised nine percent of all respondents. They are more likely to have had two courses or no courses in college that addressed synthesis writing. They are less likely to teach courses with more than 25% nonwhite students. They are more likely to define synthesis writing as literary analysis; their descriptions of synthesis-writing tasks are also more likely to be categorized as literary analysis or, to a lesser extent, literary argument. They are least likely to assign synthesis-writing tasks. Other English courses: Teachers of courses in this category (which includes courses such as ELA for special- needs students, pre-AP ELA, journalism, reading, communications, writing, and literature) comprised 5% of all respondents. They are more likely to not know if they had any college courses that addressed synthesis writing. They are also more likely to teach courses with 51-75% nonwhite students. They typically define synthesis writing as rhetorical analysis. The small sample size for this group, however, significantly limits the extent to which generalizations can be made about the population of such teachers. 90 International Baccalaureate: Teachers of this course comprised four percent of all respondents. They are less likely to know if they had any college courses that addressed synthesis writing. They are more likely to teach courses with 26-50% nonwhite students. They typically define synthesis writing as literary analysis or, to a lesser extent, rhetorical analysis; their descriptions of synthesis-writing tasks, however, are more likely to be categorized as general ?composition support? due to lack of information about the purpose for writing or, to a lesser extent, are categorized as argument. The small sample size for this group, however, significantly limits the extent to which generalizations can be made about the population of such teachers. Because the minimum sample size was not met for this category of ELA teacher, the results described above may not be broadly applicable to all IB English teachers. English language learners: Teachers of this course comprised three percent of all respondents. They are more likely to teach courses with more than 50% nonwhite students. Their definitions of synthesis writing are more likely to be categorized as ?No synthesis,? often due to the use of one text instead of multiple source materials. Their descriptions of synthesis-writing tasks are also more likely to be categorized as ?No synthesis? or, to a lesser extent, ?analysis of themes or ideas.? They are more likely to require handwritten documents for all of their assignments. The small sample size for this group, however, significantly limits the extent to which generalizations can be made about the population of such teachers. Dual-credit English: Teachers of this course comprised two percent of all respondents. They are more likely to have had four or more college courses that addressed synthesis writing or to not know if they had 91 any such courses. They are less likely to teach courses with more than 25% nonwhite students. They are more likely to define synthesis writing as the creation of an original perspective or analysis or, to a lesser extent, an argument. Their descriptions of synthesis-writing tasks, however, are more likely to be categorized as the creation of an original argument or thesis or, to a lesser extent, a rhetorical analysis. (In any case, all of their definitions and task descriptions address the types of synthesis writing most valued in college-level study. This is not surprising, given that such courses have college curricula and are often taught on college campuses.) They are also more likely to require students to submit printed word-processed documents. The small sample size for this group, however, significantly limits the extent to which generalizations can be made about the population of such teachers. Because the minimum sample size was not met for this category of ELA teacher, the results described above may not be broadly applicable to all dual-credit ELA teachers. 92 V. Discussion and Implications Since the number of survey respondents fell short of the goals for statistical significance based on ELA course type (see Table 5), the extent to which any of this study?s data can be extrapolated to teachers of AP English Language and Composition, AP English Literature and Composition, IB, or dual-credit ELA courses may be limited. This is unfortunate, because a primary purpose of the study was to gather valid and reliable data about AP English Language and Composition teachers so that comparisons could be made to other ELA teachers, particularly those who teach college-level courses or curricula. If, however, one focuses on the data in this study that is not ELA-course specific, then the sample size is sufficient to make observations about ELA teachers in general. One such observation is that ELA teachers define synthesis writing in a variety of ways, and many of those definitions may be inconsistent with the types of synthesis writing most valued in higher academic study. Twenty-two percent of respondents (mostly AP English Language and Composition teachers) defined synthesis writing as the creation of an original argument or thesis; 11% (mostly dual-credit teachers) defined it as the creation of an original perspective or analysis, and 9% (again, mostly dual-credit teachers) defined it as an argument. This means that less than half (42%) of respondents defined synthesis writing in a way that aligns with the types of writing most valued in college-level study. Another 20% of respondents provided definitions that were so vague as to the purpose of the writing task that they were simply categorized as ?composition support?; still another 13% provided definitions that did not 93 actually describe the synthesis of materials from multiple sources. One-third of respondents, therefore, may be providing instruction on writing tasks that they are describing as ?synthesis? but which may not actually involve synthesis of information from multiple sources or the formation of the student writer's own argument or idea. Respondents were also asked (after they had provided their own definitions of synthesis writing) which of five provided descriptions of synthesis writing best aligned with their own concepts of that task. Over 80% of respondents selected ?Creation of an original theme-focused text? or ?Interpretation for a rhetorical purpose?, which reflect the types of writing that Flowers et al. (1990) identified as most appropriate for college-level writing. When I coded respondents? own definitions to those five statements, however, only 50% of the definitions they provided aligned to those two statements. This suggests that many teachers may understand or identify with the concept of synthesis writing as applied in advanced academic study, but they may not be able to accurately articulate that concept in their own instruction. Additionally, respondents were asked to briefly describe a synthesis-writing task that they would assign; almost one third (29.2%) of respondents provided descriptions that were categorized as ?Prompt response? (i.e., defining the writing topic and response options and providing a specific set of source materials), which is almost 22% higher than respondents? definitions of synthesis writing that were categorized as ?Prompt response.? This is may be due to the influence of the AP English Language and Composition Exam, which features a synthesis prompt in which students are provided a topic for writing and a set of 7-10 source materials from which they must draw information to support their argument or thesis. Many of the respondents who teach that course described synthesis tasks in terms of that exam prompt, as did many respondents who teach other ELA courses. This suggests that many teachers may be 94 conceptualizing synthesis tasks in a way that is narrower than and inconsistent with the ways that such writing is manifested in college-level study, where students may more frequently be required to generate their own research questions or theses and explore source materials themselves. Furthermore, while 13.9% of respondents provided definitions of synthesis writing that were actually categorized as "No Synthesis," 20.4% of respondents' descriptions of synthesis tasks fell into that category. This suggests that some ELA teachers may conceptualize synthesis writing as the use of source materials for a specific purpose, but they may have difficulty articulating that as a task for students. Almost one-third of respondents (32%) reported providing opportunities for synthesis writing on a monthly basis (mainly AP English Language and Composition teachers), and approximately 40% reported providing such opportunities once or more each week. Respondents whose courses include primarily nonwhite students were more likely to describe synthesis tasks that were categorized as ?Prompt response? or ?no synthesis.? Respondents from urban schools or with more than 75% nonwhite students in their courses, however, reported a significantly higher rate of offering opportunities for synthesis writing on a daily basis. This suggests that teachers who work with high minority student populations may be more likely to misinterpret or fail to accurately articulate the synthesis task and therefore may be frequently engaging students in writing that does not actually reflect the type of synthesis valued in higher academic study. Such a phenomenon may be attributable to higher teacher turnover in urban schools or schools with higher populations of minority students, which may result in more inexperienced teachers serving in such schools. The survey data suggest that more teacher training in the application of synthesis tasks may be warranted. The survey data on respondents' desire for such training, however, indicated 95 that school setting was a more significant factor than percent of nonwhite or low-SES students in the school, as respondents from rural schools indicated a significantly higher demand for such training. Respondents indicated that they were more likely to attend such training and find it useful if it is offered locally, as opposed to opportunities for professional development at regional or national conferences. Most respondents reported providing frequent instruction on ten key skills or strategies for synthesis writing; "Understand the writing task" was the skill most often taught, and "Read source materials rhetorically" was the skill taught least often (but still taught with almost every synthesis-writing task, according to the respondents). Years of teaching experience was the only demographic factor to significantly predict the frequency of skill instruction: respondents with five years or fewer of teaching experience were less likely to provide such instruction than were teachers with 16-25 or more than 30 years of teaching experience. The study also identified nine pedagogical strategies that support effective synthesis writing. School type was the only significant demographic predictor of the frequency with which these pedagogical strategies are used: respondents who teach in conventional public schools were most likely to apply the nine pedagogical strategies. Most survey respondents reported that they frequently apply four of these: ? Ensure student understanding of the specific type of writing task. ? Provide feedback to student writing. ? Scaffold student learning. ? Provide opportunities for students to review and reflect on their synthesis writing. However, the other five pedagogical strategies had frequency scores lower than the lowest frequency score for key synthesis skills ("Read source materials rhetorically"); the least 96 frequently used pedagogical strategy was "Provide opportunities for students to utilize multimedia publication." Further study is needed to determine whether this is a reflection of student or teacher access to appropriate technology or if this is more a reflection of teachers' familiarity and comfort with such technology. Respondents were much more likely to receive students' compositions as handwritten documents or documents printed from a word processor; they were much less likely receive students' work as e-mail attachments or electronic documents posted online. As stated previously, the applicability of this study's findings to specific types of ELA courses is limited due to low response rates. The study may, however, still serve as a useful foundation for exploring more deeply the ways that this crucial type of reading and composition is currently addressed in high school classrooms, which hopefully will lead to better teacher preparation for providing effective instruction on synthesis writing. The following are some suggestions for possible next steps for research on this issue: ? Qualitative studies of classroom instruction are needed to better understand how ELA teachers are actually addressing synthesis writing in different school settings. Data should be collected on the ways that teachers articulate synthesis tasks and how students are oriented to synthesis tasks, how key synthesis skills are addressed, the specific pedagogical strategies teachers use, the processes that students use, and the characteristics of their work products. ? A similar survey of targeted populations of teachers of specific types of ELA courses may yield appropriate sample sizes and produce data that confirm or refute the course- specific findings in this survey. Understanding more accurately the ways that teachers of different ELA courses conceptualize and provide instruction on synthesis writing may 97 lead to the development of instructional resources for use with specific populations of teachers. ? A similar survey of writing instructors in colleges and universities would provide useful information about their perceptions of synthesis writing. Gathering such data from instructors of introductory composition courses would certainly be beneficial, as those courses may be the only writing courses many students experience. But it would also be useful to survey instructors of writing-intensive courses in the disciplines, as well as other departmental faculty, to determine the ways that synthesis writing may be conceptualized and manifested differently in various academic discourse communities. ? Faculty in colleges of education may use this initial study to begin evaluating how synthesis writing is addressed in teacher training. It may be desirable to include information on synthesis writing in specific education courses, but further studies on the ways synthesis writing is manifested in various school settings and among various populations of teachers may lead to projects, possibly in collaboration with local school districts or state departments of education, to develop resources and support for specific groups. 98 VI. References 2007 AP English Language and Composition Released Exam. (2008). New York, NY: College Board. Academic Senates for California Community Colleges. (2002). Academic Literacy: A Statement of Competencies Expected of Students Entering California's Public Colleges and Universities. Sacramento: Intersegmental Committee of the Academic Senates of the California Community Colleges, the California State University, and the University of California. Retrieved from http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/senate/reports /acadlit.pdf Ackerman, J. (1989a). Students? self-analyses and judges? perceptions: Where do they agree? (Technical Report No. 23). National Center for the Study of Writing and Literacy. Retrieved from http://www.nwp.org/cs/public/download/nwp_file/71/TR23.pdf?x- r=pcfile_d Ackerman, J. (1989b). Translating context into action (Technical Report No. 27). National Center for the Study of Writing and Literacy. Retrieved from http://www.nwp.org/cs /public/download/nwp_file/74/TR27.pdf?x-r=pcfile-d Ackerman, J. (1990). Reading, writing, and knowing: The role of disciplinary knowledge in comprehension and composing (Technical Report No. 40). National Center for the Study of Writing and Literacy. Retrieved from http://www.nwp.org/cs/public/download /nwp_file/83/TR40.pdf?x-r=pcfile_d 99 AP English Course Description. (2010). New York, NY: College Board. Retrieved from http://apcentral.collegeboard.com/apc/public/repository/ap-english-course- description.pdf. AP English Language and Composition 2007 Free Response Questions. (2007). New York, NY: The College Board. AP English Language and Composition 2007 Released Exam. (2008). New York, NY: The College Board. AP European History Course Description. (2007). New York, NY: College Board. AP Program Summary Report. (2013). New York: College Board. Retrieved from http://media.collegeboard.com/digitalServices/pdf/research/2013/Program-Summary- Report-2013.pdf Ary, D., Jacobs, L.C., & Razavieh, A. (2002). Introduction to Research in Education. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning. Axelrod, R.B., & Cooper, C.R. (2010). The St. Martin's Guide to Writing, Short 9th Ed. Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin's. Braxton, J. M., & Nordvall, R.C. (1985). Selective liberal colleges: Higher quality as well as higher prestige? Journal of Higher Education, 56(5). Center for Education Policy Research. (2003). Understanding University Success. Eugene, OR: University of Oregon. Retrieved from http://www.epiconline.org/files/pdf/ UUS _Complete.pdf College Board. 2010 AP Program Report. (2010). Retrieved from http://professionals .collegeboard.com/profdownload/AP-Program-Summary-Report-2010.pdf 100 College Board. AP Course Audit Ledger. Retrieved from https://apcourseaudit.epiconline.org /ledger/ College Board. AP English Language and Composition: Curricular Requirements. (2010). Retrieved from http://www.collegeboard.com/html/apcourseaudit/courses/english _curricular_requirements.html College Board. AP European History: Curricular Requirements. (2010). Retrieved from http://www.collegeboard.com/html/apcourseaudit/courses/european_history_curricular _requirements.html College Board. AP United States History: Curricular Requirements. (2010). Retrieved from http://www.collegeboard.com/html/apcourseaudit/courses/us_history_requirements.html College Board. AP World History: Curricular Requirements. (2010). Retrieved from http://www.collegeboard.com/html/apcourseaudit/courses/world_history_requirements. html Colorado Department of Education. (1995). Colorado Model Content Standards For Reading and Writing. Retrieved from http://www.cde.state.co.us/cdeassess/documents/OSA /standards/read.htm Common Core State Standards Initiative. 2010. Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts and Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/assets/CCSSI_ELA%20Standards.pdf Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2010). Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts and Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects, Appendix A: Research Supporting Key Elements of the Standards, Glossary of Key Terms. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/assets/Appendix_A.pdf 101 Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2010). In the States. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/in-the-states Council of Writing Program Administrators. (2000). WPA Outcomes Statement for First-year Composition. Retrieved from http://www.wpacouncil.org/positions/outcomes.html Dillman, D. (2000). Mail and Internet surveys. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons, Inc. DiYanni, R., & Hoy, P.C. II. (2001). The Scribner Handbook for Writers, 3rd Ed. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Downing, D.B., & Sosnoski, J.J. (1995). Working with narrative zones in post-disciplinary pedagogy. Narrative, 3, 271-286. Flower, L. (1987). The role of task representation in reading to write (Tech. Rep. No. 6). Berkeley, CA: Center for the Study of Writing at University of California, Berkeley, and at Carnegie Mellon University. Flower, L. (1989). Negotiating academic discourse (Technical Report No. 29). National Center for the Study of Writing and Literacy.. Retrieved from http://www.nwp.org/cs/public /download/nwp_file/76/TR29.pdf?x-r=pcfile_d Flower, L. (1995). The writing of arguments across diverse contexts. Berkeley, CA: National Center for the Study of Writing and Literacy. ERIC ED# 397421. Flower, L., Stein, V., Ackerman, J., Kantz, M., McCormick, K., & Peck, W. (1990). Reading-to-write. Exploring a cognitive and social process. New York: Oxford University Press. Graff, G. (2003). Clueless in academe. New Haven and London: Yale University Press. Greene, S. (1991). Writing from sources: Authority in text and task (Technical Report No. 55). Retrieved from http://www.nwp.org/cs/public/download/nwp_file/88 102 /TR55.pdf?x-r=pcfile_d Hamilton, M.B. (2009). Online survey response rates and times: Background and guidance for industry. Retrieved from http://www.supersurvey.com/papers/supersurvey_white_paper _response_rates.pdf Hawaii Department of Education. (2005). Hawaii Content and Performance Standards for Language Arts K-12. Retrieved from http://165.248.30.40/hcpsv3/files/final_hcpsiii _la_librarydocs_6.pdf International Baccalaureate. The IB Diploma Programme. Retrieved from http://www.ibo.org/diploma/index.cfm International Baccalaureate. Diploma Programme Curriculum--core requirements. Retrieved from http://www.ibo.org/diploma/curriculum/core/essay/ Iowa Department of Education. (2010). Iowa Core Standards. Retrieved from http://www.corecurriculum.iowa.gov/ContentArea.aspx?C=Literacy Kantz, M. (1989a). Shirley and the Battle of Agincourt: Why it is so hard for students to write persuasive researched analyses (Occasional paper No. 14). Center for the Study of Writing, Berkeley, CA; Center for the Study of Writing, Pittsburgh, PA. Kantz, M. (1989b). Written rhetorical syntheses: Processes and products (Technical report no. 17). Berkeley, CA: Center for the Study of Writing. ERIC ED #303821. Kantz, M. (1990). Promises of coherence, weak content, and strong organization: An analysis Of the students? texts. In L. Flower (Ed.), Reading to write: Exploring a cognitive and social process. New York: Oxford University Press. 103 Kaplowitz, M.D., Hadlock, T.D., & Levine, R. (2004). A comparison of Web and mail survey response rates. Public Opinion Quarterly, 68(1): 94-101. Retrieved from http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/68/1/94 Kennedy, M.L. (1985). The composing process of college students writing from sources. Written Communication, 2(4), 434-456. Lasch, C. (1995). The revolt of the elites. New York: Norton. McCarthy, L. (1987). A stranger in strange lands: A college student writing across the curriculum. Research in the Teaching of Writing, 21(3), 233-265. National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. (2003). Adolescence and Young Adulthood English Language Arts Standards, 2nd Ed. Arlington, VA: National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. National Center for Education Statistics. Table 70: Percentage of public school teachers of grades 9 through 12, by field of main teaching assignment and selected demographic and educational characteristics: 2007-2008. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d09/tables/dt09_070.asp National Council of Teachers of English. (2007). Standards for the English Language Arts. Retrieved from http://www.ncte.org/about/over/standards/110846.htm Nelson, J. (1990). This was an easy assignment: Examining how students interpret academic writing tasks. Research in the Teaching of English, 24(4), 362-396. Nelson, J. (1992). Constructing a research paper: A study of students? goals and approaches (Technical Report No. 59). from http://www.nwp.org/cs/public/download/nwp_file/92 /TR59.pdf?x-r=pcfile_d Palumbo, D.B., & Prater, D. (1993). The role of hypermedia in synthesis writing. 104 Computers and Composition, 10(2), 59-70. Retrieved from http://computersandcomposition.osu.edu/archives/v10/10_2_html/10_2_6_Palumbo.html Prior, P. (2006). A sociocultural theory of writing. In Handbook of Writing Research. MacArthur, C.A., Graham, S., Fitzgerald, J., Eds. New York: The Guilford Press. Raphael, T.E., & Boyd, F.B. (1991). Synthesizing information from multiple sources: A descriptive study of elementary students' perceptions and performance of discourse synthesis. East Lansing, MI: Center for the Learning and Teaching of Elementary Subjects. ERIC ED #335704. Southern Regional Education Board. Access to Challenging and Relevant Learning Opportunities Improves Achievement for All: A Comparison of Most-Improved and Non-Improved HSTW Schools from 2004 to 2006. Atlanta, Georgia: Southern Regional Education Board. Retrieved from http://www.sreb.org/page/1078/high_schools _that_work.html Spanos, W.V. (1993). The end of education: Toward posthumanism. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Spivey, N. (1984). Discourse synthesis: Constructing texts in reading and writing. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Spivey, N. (1989). Construing constructivism: Reading research in the United States (Occasional paper no. 12). Retrieved from http;//www.nwp.org/cs/public/download /nwp_file/104/OP12.pdf?x-r=pcfile_d Spivey, N. (1990). Transforming texts: Constructive processes in reading and writing. Written Communication; 7(2), 256-287. Spivey, N. (1991). Discourse synthesis: Questions/answers. In K.S. Jongsma (Ed.), Questions 105 and answers column, Reading Teacher, 44 (702-703). Spivey, N., & King, J.R. (1989). Readers as writers composing from sources. Reading Research Quarterly, 24 (7-26). Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind and society: The development of higher mental processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press Waits, T., Setzer, J.C., & Lewis, L. (2005). Dual Credit and Exam-Based Courses in U.S. Public High Schools: 2002?03 (NCES 2005?009). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2005/2005009.pdf White, F.D., & Billings, S.J. (2011). The Well-Crafted Argument: A Guide and Reader. 4th Ed. Boston, MA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning. Wilder, L., & Wolfe, L. (2009). Sharing the tacit rhetorical knowledge of the literary scholar: The effects of making disciplinary conventions explicit in undergraduate writing about literature courses. Research in the Teaching of English, 44(2), 170-209. WPA Outcomes Statement for First-Year Composition. (2000). Adopted by the Council of Writing Program Administrators. Retrieved from http://www.wpacouncil.org /positions/outcomes.html 106 Appendix A State English Language Arts Education Standards Addressing Synthesis Writing For the purposes of this analysis, the desired application of the term "synthesis writing" is defined as gathering information from various sources, identifying a common or unifying information thread across or among the sources, and then using that information in service of one's original rhetorical purpose. A text search was conducted of each state standards document for "synthesize," "synthesizing," or "synthesis;" any use of these terms was noted, regardless of whether it matched the desired application described above. Where no clear reference to these words was found, further searches were conducted for the terms "sources" and/or "argument" to see if the preferred definition of synthesis writing was described in other ways. Searches were limited to standards for high school grade levels. The search results were categorized as follows: I. The standard references synthesis in the context of using information from various sources in the service of an original rhetorical purpose. (Six states meet this standard.) II. The standard references synthesis in the context of using information from various sources. (37 states are in this category.) III. The standard does not reference synthesis in student composition. (Eight states are in this category.) Table A1 State Category How synthesis is addressed Comments Alabama III No reference to synthesis writing. Alaska III No reference to synthesis writing. Arizona II Grade 12: Research writing: Synthesizes information by integrating evidence from various sources in support of a thesis or claim. No glossary Arkansas II Grade 12: Research/Inquiry process: Synthesizes information by integrating evidence from various sources into a formal research paper. Glossary does not define "synthesis" or "synthesize" California II Grades 9-10: ? Reading comprehension: Synthesize and paraphrase information from various sources. ? Writing: Synthesize information from various sources to identify complexities, discrepancies, and perspectives. Grades 11-12: ? Write responses to literature using source materials. ? Write historical investigation reports using source materials to identify ? Glossary does not define "synthesis" or "synthesize" ? "Synthesis" and "synthesize" not used in Grade 11-12 standards 107 State Category How synthesis is addressed Comments similarities and differences in historical records. Colorado I Grades 9-12: ? Analyzing, synthesizing, and evaluating information. ? Using information from sources to express one's own thoughts, ideas, and impressions. These expectations only applicable to "students extending their English/ Language Arts education beyond" the basic standards. Connecticut II ? School district's responsibilities, Secondary: Develop students? abilities to question, explore, observe, synthesize and draw conclusions based on their understanding of text. ? Communicating, Grades 2-12: Research information from multiple sources for a specific purpose. "Synthesize": to form by combining parts or elements. (The word is not used in the standards document.) Delaware I ? Persuasive writing (Grades 11 and 12): Use information from sources when appropriate; combine information from text with prior knowledge to elaborate ideas. ? Informative writing (Grades 11 and 12): Use information from various sources to support generalizations, theses, or ideas. ? Oral communication (Grades 9-12): Synthesize and present results of research projects (accurately summarize main ideas). ? Reading (Grades 9-12): Connect and synthesize information from various sources to generate ideas or expand knowledge. ? Reading (Grades 9-12): Synthesize experience and knowledge to apply judgments about literature and nonfiction. ? Reading (Grades 9-10): Synthesize, compare, and contrast diverse interpretations of the same reading. ? Grades 9-12: Use technology to synthesize information to express ideas and create texts. ? Grades 11-12: Synthesize information as appropriate to a specific purpose. "Synthesis" in glossary: Demonstrate ability to compile information in a different way by combining concepts or parts in a new pattern or proposing alternative solutions. District of Columbia II Grade 9: ? Write interpretations of readings, justified through use of textual evidence. ? Write research papers that build an argument with supporting evidence. Grade 10: ? Informative texts: Synthesize information from multiple sources to draw conclusions. ? Expository writing (research report): Marshal evidence in support of a "Synthesize" not defined. 108 State Category How synthesis is addressed Comments thesis. Grade 11: Synthesize information from various sources for media presentations. Grade 12 (expository writing): Construct arguments that use relevant evidence. Florida II Grades 9-12: The student will organize, synthesize, analyze, and evaluate the validity and reliability of information from multiple sources to draw conclusions using a variety of techniques, and correctly use standardized citations. "Synthesize" not defined. Georgia II ? Grade 12, Expository writing: Explain an idea or concept and/or convey information and ideas from primary and secondary sources accurately and coherently ? Grades 11 and 12, Research/technology: Synthesizes information from multiple sources and identifies complexities, discrepancies, and different perspectives found in a variety of media. ? Grades 9-10, Research/technology: Synthesizes information from multiple sources and identifies complexities and discrepancies in the information and the different perspectives found in each medium. "Synthesize" not defined. Hawaii II ? Understand complex relationships and synthesize and create new ones. ? Grades 11 and 12, Writing: Synthesize and cite information from multiple sources. "Synthesize" not defined. Idaho III No reference to synthesis. Illinois II ? Middle/Junior High School: synthesize new meaning gleaned from multiple sources. ? Late High School: synthesize information to support a thesis. "Synthesize" not defined. Indiana II Grades 9-12, Writing: Synthesizes and evaluates information from a variety of sources and draws conclusions from that information. "Synthesize" not defined. Iowa II Grades 9-12: ? Synthesize information from multiple sources. ? Synthesize literary materials. ? Synthesize new understandings with background knowledge. ? Synthesize information from multiple resources into a brief and focused response. "Synthesize" not defined. Kansas II Write expository and persuasive texts, using research to meet the reader's needs, draw conclusions, and create an appropriate point of view. "Synthesize" or "synthesis" not used in the standards. Kentucky III No reference to synthesis Louisiana II ? Grades 9-12: Students locate, select, and synthesize information from a "Synthesize" not defined. 109 State Category How synthesis is addressed Comments variety of texts, media, references, and technological sources to acquire and communicate knowledge. Maine II ? Grades 5-8: Synthesize data for research topics. ? Grades 9-12: Synthesize concepts in informational texts. "Synthesize" not defined. Maryland II ? Reading: Synthesize significant ideas in texts. ? Writing: Synthesize information sources to fulfill a self-selected or given purpose. "Synthesize" not defined. Massachusetts II Grades 11-12: ? Research: Gathers information from various sources. ? Media production: Synthesize information from various sources. "Synthesize" not defined. Michigan II Select, interpret, evaluate, and synthesize information from various sources (print and media, primary and secondary) "Synthesize" not defined. Minnesota II Grade 8: Synthesize information from a variety of sources. Grades 9-12: ? Reading: Synthesize information from multiple selections in order to draw conclusions, make predictions, make thematic connections, and form interpretations. ? Writing: Organize and synthesize information from a variety of sources and present it in a logical manner. "Synthesize" not defined. Mississippi II ? Grades 9-11 Reading: Analyze or evaluate texts to synthesize responses for summary, pr?cis, explication, etc. ? Grades 9-10 Writing: Research a topic comparing and/or contrasting information from a variety of sources to present findings. ? Grade 11 Writing: Compose formal persuasive texts, providing evidence as support. ? Grade 12 Reading: Analyze or evaluate text to synthesize responses for annotated bibliography. ? Grade 12 Writing: Compose formal persuasive texts, providing evidence as support. "Synthesize" not defined. Missouri III No reference to synthesis Montana II Reading: Synthesize information within and across texts and draw conclusions. Writing: Use information problem solving process to synthesize information to research a topic. "Synthesize" not defined. Nebraska III No reference to synthesis 110 State Category How synthesis is addressed Comments Nevada III No ELA standards information available New Hampshire II Grades 8, 10, 12: ? Reading (informational texts): Synthesizing and evaluating information within or across text(s) (e.g., constructing appropriate titles; or formulating assertions or controlling ideas) ? Reading (research): Support judgments/conclusions with evidence. ? Writing: Make a support analytical judgments about a text by drawing a conclusion by synthesizing information (e.g., demonstrate a connection to the broader world of ideas). "Synthesize" not defined. New Jersey II See Common Core State Standards: ? Research: Synthesize multiple sources on the subject, demonstrating understanding of the subject under investigation. "Synthesize" not defined. New Mexico II ? Reading: o Infer, analyze, and synthesize to increase comprehension. o Synthesize information from a variety of sources (informational, technical, primary and secondary) ? Listening/Speaking, Grades 11 and 12: Clarify, elaborate, and synthesize the explicit and implicit meanings of messages. ? Research, Grades 11 and 12: o Synthesize a variety of types of visual information. o Synthesize information from multiple research studies to draw conclusions that go beyond those found in any individual study. "Synthesize" not defined. New York II ? Synthesize information from diverse sources and identify complexities and discrepancies in the information. ? Compare and synthesize information from different sources. "Synthesize" not defined. North Carolina II ? Analyze, synthesize, and organize information to discover related ideas, concepts, or generalizations. ? English III: Critically analyze texts to synthesize ideas. ? AP English Language and Composition: o Research and synthesize information. o Synthesize connections between text and historical and cultural context. "Synthesize" not defined. North Dakota II ? Research, Grade 11: Synthesize information in a logical sequence. ? Writing: o Grade 10: Defend a personal opinion using facts as support. "Synthesize" not defined. 111 State Category How synthesis is addressed Comments o Grade 12: Write persuasive compositions, defending positions with evidence. Ohio II ? Reading: o Grades 8-12: Demonstrate comprehension of print and electronic text by responding to questions (e.g., literal, inferential, evaluative and synthesizing). o Grades 9-12: Answer literal, inferential, evaluative and synthesizing questions to demonstrate comprehension of grade-appropriate print texts and electronic and visual media. o Grades 11-12: Synthesize the content from several sources on a single issue or written by a single author, clarifying ideas and connecting them to other sources and related topics. ? Research, Grades 11-12: Synthesize information from multiple sources. "Synthesize" not defined. Oklahoma I ? Reading/Research, Grades 10-12: Synthesize information from multiple sources to draw conclusions that go beyond those found in any of the individual studies. ? Visual Literacy, Grades 11 and 12: Use a range of strategies to interpret visual media (e.g., synthesize material viewed) "Synthesize" not defined. Oregon I ? Reading: o Synthesize information in various parts of texts to reach supported conclusions. o Synthesize the content from several sources or works by a single author dealing with a single issue; paraphrase the ideas and connect them to other sources and related topics to demonstrate comprehension. o Extend ideas presented in primary or secondary sources through original analysis, evaluation, and elaboration. ? Research writing: Synthesize information from multiple sources and identify complexities and discrepancies in the information and the different perspectives found in each medium. "Synthesize" not defined. Pennsylvania II ? Research, Grades 11-12: Synthesize information gathered from a variety of sources, including technology and one?s own research, and evaluate information for its relevance to the research question. ? Composition: Analyze, synthesize, and integrate data, creating a reasoned product that supports and appropriately illustrates inference and conclusions drawn from research. "Synthesize" not defined. 112 State Category How synthesis is addressed Comments Rhode Island I ? Metacognition strategies: After reading, students synthesize. ? Reading-Writing connection (Grades 8, 10, 12): Draw a conclusion by synthesizing information (e.g., demonstrate a connection to the broader world of ideas). ? Informational writing: o Grades 8, 10, 12: Draw a conclusion by synthesizing information. o Grade 10: Synthesize information from multiple research studies, including primary sources. o Grade 12: Synthesize information from multiple sources to draw conclusions beyond those found in any single source. "Synthesize" not defined. South Carolina III No reference to synthesis South Dakota II ? Reading: o Grades 9-12: Students can access, analyze, synthesize, and evaluate informational texts. o Grade 12: Synthesize information from multiple sources to analyze issues and to make decisions for research. ? Writing: o Grade 9: Write an informational document using primary and secondary sources. o Grade 10: Write a research document that cites sources to support a thesis. "Synthesize" not defined. Tennessee II English I-IV: ? Informational texts: Synthesize information across two or more informational or technical texts. ? Research: Write an extended research paper, using primary and secondary sources. "Synthesize" not defined. Texas II Reading: ? English I-IV: Synthesize and make logical connections between ideas and details in several texts selected to reflect a range of viewpoints on the same topic and support those findings with textual evidence. ? English II: Synthesize information from multiple graphical sources to draw conclusions about the ideas presented. Research: ? English I and II: "Synthesize" not defined. 113 State Category How synthesis is addressed Comments o Clarify research questions and evaluate and synthesize collected information. o Synthesize the research into a written or an oral presentation that marshals evidence in support of a clear thesis statement and related claims. ? English III and IV: Synthesize the research into an extended written or oral presentation that provides an analysis that supports and develops personal opinions, as opposed to simply restating existing information. Writing: ? English III and IV: Produce a multimedia presentation that synthesizes information from multiple points of view. Utah II Reading: ? Grade 11: Synthesize information from a variety of sources. Writing: ? Grade 10: Write to synthesize information to solve a problem or deepen understanding. ? Grade 11: o Analyze and synthesize ideas and information to refine thinking through writing. o Consolidate and synthesize connections between texts, between texts and self, and between texts and different world connections. "Synthesize" not defined. Vermont II ? Reading: Synthesize and evaluating information within or across text(s) (e.g., constructing appropriate titles; or formulating assertions or controlling ideas). ? Writing: o Response to literature: Draw a conclusion by synthesizing information. o Informational writing: Draw a conclusion by synthesizing information from report and relating it to broader ideas/concepts. "Synthesize" not defined. Virginia II ? Reading, Grade 9: Synthesize information from sources and apply it in written and oral presentations. ? Research: o Grade 11: Synthesize information in a logical sequence. o Grade 12: Synthesize information to support the thesis. ? Writing, Grade 11: Develop informative and persuasive compositions by locating, evaluating, synthesizing, and citing applicable information. "Synthesize" not defined. 114 State Category How synthesis is addressed Comments Washington I Reading: Oral and written responses analyze and/or synthesize information from multiple sources to deepen understanding of the content. ? Grades 9 and 10: o Synthesize ideas from selections to make predictions and inferences. o Integrate information from multiple sources to draw conclusions that go beyond those found in individual sources. o Integrate information from different sources to research and complete a project. o Integrate information from different sources to form conclusions about author?s assumptions, biases, credibility, cultural and social perspectives, or world views. "Synthesize" not defined. West Virginia II ? Writing: o Grade 10: Synthesize into one?s writing a variety of informational media using primary and secondary sources. o Grades 10-12: Plan and incorporate varied note taking skills to organize and synthesize information from print and electronic sources. ? Journalism: Compile, synthesize, produce and disseminate information using technology. "Synthesize" not defined. Wisconsin II Grade 12: ? Analyze and synthesize the concepts and details encountered in informational texts. ? Analyze, synthesize, and integrate data, drafting a reasoned report that supports and appropriately illustrates inferences and conclusions drawn from research. "Synthesize" not defined. Wyoming II ? Grade 11: o Synthesize relevant data through note-taking and questioning. o Students evaluate literary merit and synthesize universal themes across texts. ? Webb's depth-of-knowledge, Level 4: o Analyze and synthesize information from multiple sources. o The standard at this level is a multi-paragraph composition that demonstrates synthesis and analysis of complex ideas or themes. "Synthesize": To combine in order to create a new idea, form, or product. 115 The following table indicates the number of statements pertaining to synthesis that were found in each state's ELA standards, disaggregated by grade level and curricular context (i.e., reading, writing, research, or other). Table A2 Synthesis statements in state ELA standards State 9th read- ing 9th re- search 9th writ- ing 9th Other 10th read- ing 10th re- search 10th writing 10th Other 11th read- ing 11th re- search 11th writing 11th Other 12th read- ing 12th re- search 12th writing 12th Other Total Alabama 0 Alaska 0 Arizona 1 1 Arkansas 1 1 California 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 Colorado 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 Connecticut 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 Delaware 3 1 1 3 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 22 District of Columbia 2 1 1 1 1 6 Florida 1 1 1 1 4 Georgia 1 1 1 1 1 5 Hawaii 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 Idaho 0 Illinois 1 1 1 1 4 Indiana 1 1 1 1 4 Iowa 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 16 Kansas 1 1 1 1 4 Kentucky 0 Louisiana 1 1 1 1 4 116 State 9th read- ing 9th re- search 9th writ- ing 9th Other 10th read- ing 10th re- search 10th writing 10th Other 11th read- ing 11th re- search 11th writing 11th Other 12th read- ing 12th re- search 12th writing 12th Other Total Maine 1 1 1 1 4 Maryland 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 Massachu- setts 1 1 1 1 4 Michigan 1 1 1 1 4 Minnesota 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 Mississippi 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 Missouri 0 Montana 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 Nebraska 0 Nevada 0 New Hampshire 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 New Jersey 1 1 1 1 4 New Mexico 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 12 New York 2 2 2 2 8 North Carolina 1 1 2 2 1 7 North Dakota 1 1 1 3 Ohio 2 2 3 1 3 1 12 Oklahoma 1 1 1 1 1 5 Oregon 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 16 Pennsylva- nia 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 Rhode Island 1 2 1 1 2 1 8 South Carolina 0 South Dakota 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 117 State 9th read- ing 9th re- search 9th writ- ing 9th Other 10th read- ing 10th re- search 10th writing 10th Other 11th read- ing 11th re- search 11th writing 11th Other 12th read- ing 12th re- search 12th writing 12th Other Total Tennessee 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 Texas 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 13 Utah 1 1 2 4 Vermont 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 12 Virginia 1 1 1 1 4 Washington 3 1 3 1 8 West Virginia 2 1 1 1 5 Wisconsin 1 1 2 Wyoming 0 2 2 TOTAL 36 9 14 3 35 11 14 4 35 13 19 10 33 17 23 9 118 State Standards Bibliography Alabama Department of Education. (2007). English Language Arts Standards. Retrieved electronically on Aug. 21, 2010, from http://alex.state.al.us/browseEnglish.php Alaska Department of Education. (2005). Standards and Grade Level Expectations. Retrieved electronically on Aug. 21, 2010, from http://alex.state.al.us/browseEnglish.php Arizona Department of Education. (2008). Arizona Academic Content Standards: Writing Standard Articulated by Grade Level. Retrieved electronically on Aug. 20, 2010, from http://www.ade.az.gov/standards/language-arts/writing/grade12.pdf. Arkansas Department of Education. (2006). English Language Arts Curriculum Framework. Retrieved electronically on Aug. 20, 2010, from http://arkansased.org/educators/pdf/ela_9- 12_2006.pdf. California Department of Education. (1997). English?Language Arts Content Standards for California Public Schools: Kindergarten Through Grade Twelve. Retrieved electronically on Aug. 21, 2010, from http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/st/ss/documents/elacontentstnds.pdf. Colorado Department of Education. (1995). Colorado Model Content Standards For Reading and Writing. Retrieved electronically on Aug. 21, 2010, from http://www.cde.state.co.us/cdeassess/documents/OSA/standards/read.htm. Delaware Department of Education. (2010). English Language Arts Grade Level Expectations: Written and Oral Communication. Retrieved electronically on Aug. 21, 2010, from http://www.doe.k12.de.us/infosuites/staff/ci/content_areas/files/ela/Stnd_1-Writing-Oral_LFS_7- 10.doc. Delaware Department of Education. (2010). English Language Arts Grade Level Expectations: Reading. Retrieved electronically on Aug. 21, 2010, from file:///C:\Users\Brett\AppData\Local\Temp\Stnd_2-Reading_LFS_7-10.doc. Delaware Department of Education. (2010). English Language Arts Grade Level Expectations: Research. Retrieved electronically on Aug. 21, 2010, from file:///C:\Users\Brett\AppData\Local\Temp\Stnd_2-Reading_LFS_7-10.doc. District of Columbia Public School System. (?). Grade 12 English Language Arts Standards. Retrieved electronically on Aug. 21, 2010, from http://dcps.dc.gov/DCPS/Files/downloads/TEACHING%20&%20LEARNING/Learning%20Sta ndards%202009/DCPS-Learning-Standards-English-LA-Grade12.pdf. District of Columbia Public School System. (?). Grade 11 English Language Arts Standards. Retrieved electronically on Aug. 21, 2010, from 119 http://dcps.dc.gov/DCPS/Files/downloads/TEACHING%20&%20LEARNING/Learning%20Sta ndards%202009/DCPS-Learning-Standards-English-LA-Grade11.pdf. District of Columbia Public School System. (?). Grade 10 English Language Arts Standards. Retrieved electronically on Aug. 21, 2010, from http://dcps.dc.gov/DCPS/Files/downloads/TEACHING%20&%20LEARNING/Learning%20Sta ndards%202009/DCPS-Learning-Standards-English-LA-Grade10.pdf. District of Columbia Public School System. (?). Grade 9 English Language Arts Standards. Retrieved electronically on Aug. 21, 2010, from http://dcps.dc.gov/DCPS/Files/downloads/TEACHING%20&%20LEARNING/Learning%20Sta ndards%202009/DCPS-Learning-Standards-English-LA-Grade9.pdf Florida Department of Education. (2007) Next Generation Sunshine State Standards. Retrieved electronically on Aug. 21, 2010, from http://www.floridastandards.org/Standards/FLStandardSearch.aspx. Georgia Department of Education. (?). Twelfth grade composition, conventions, and listening, speaking, and viewing. Retrieved electronically on Aug. 21, 2010, from https://www.georgiastandards.org/Standards/Georgia%20Performance%20Standards/Grade- Twelve-Writing-et-al.-with-tasks.pdf. Georgia Department of Education. (?). Eleventh grade composition, conventions, and listening, speaking, and viewing. Retrieved electronically on Aug. 21, 2010, from https://www.georgiastandards.org/Standards/Georgia%20Performance%20Standards/Grade- Eleven-Writing-et-al%5B1%5D-with-tasks.pdf Georgia Department of Education. (?). Tenth grade composition, conventions, and listening, speaking, and viewing. Retrieved electronically on Aug. 21, 2010, from https://www.georgiastandards.org/Standards/Georgia%20Performance%20Standards/Grade-Ten- with-asks.pdf Georgia Department of Education. (?). Ninth grade composition, conventions, and listening, speaking, and viewing. Retrieved electronically on Aug. 21, 2010, from https://www.georgiastandards.org/Standards/Georgia%20Performance%20Standards/Grade- 9.pdf Hawaii Department of Education. (2005). Hawaii Content and Performance Standards for Language Arts K-12. Retrieved electronically on Aug. 21, 2010, from http://165.248.30.40/hcpsv3/files/final_hcpsiii_la_librarydocs_6.pdf. Idaho State Department of Education. (?). Language Arts Standards. Retrieved electronically on Aug. 21, 2010, from http://www.sde.idaho.gov/site/content_standards/language_standards.htm. Illinois State Board of Education. (?). Illinois Learning Standards. Retrieved electronically on Aug. 21, 2010, from http://www.isbe.net/ils/ela/standards.htm. 120 Indiana Department of Education. (?) Indiana Standards and Resources. Retrieved electronically on Aug. 21, 2010, from http://dc.doe.in.gov/Standards/AcademicStandards/index.shtml. Iowa Department of Education. (2010). Iowa Core Standards. Retrieved electronically on Aug. 21, 2010, from http://www.corecurriculum.iowa.gov/ContentArea.aspx?C=Literacy. Kansas State Department of Education. (2009). Writing Standards. Retrieved electronically on Aug. 21, 2010, from http://www.ksde.org/Default.aspx?tabid=1726. Kentucky Department of Education. (2001). Student Performance Level Descriptions: Reading. Retrieved electronically on Aug. 21, 2010, from http://www.education.ky.gov/NR/rdonlyres/19A2A6EA-770D-4E10-AF52- ACF7B2E0365E/0/SPLDReading.pdf. Kentucky Department of Education. (2001). Kentucky Writing Assessment: Holistic Scoring Guide. Retrieved electronically on Aug. 21, 2010, from http://www.education.ky.gov/NR/rdonlyres/C8F2CB4F-2561-4730-BADE- C42FC09890FB/0/WritingHolisticScoringGuide.pdf. Louisiana Department of Education. (2004). Louisiana English Language Arts Content Standards. Retrieved electronically on Aug. 21, 2010, from http://www.doe.state.la.us/lde/uploads/2909.pdf. Maine Department of Education. (1997). Learning Results: English Language Arts. Retrieved electronically on Aug. 21, 2010, from http://www.state.me.us/education/lres/ela.pdf. Maryland Department of Education. (2004). Core Learning Goals for English. Retrieved electronically on Aug. 22, 2010, from http://mdk12.org/assessments/clg/english.html. Massachusetts Department of Education. (2001). Massachusetts English Language Arts Curriculum Framework. Retrieved electronically on Aug. 22, 2010, from http://www.doe.mass.edu/frameworks/ela/0601.pdf. Michigan Department of Education. (2006). High School Content Expectations: English Language Arts. Retrieved electronically on Aug. 22, 2010, from http://www.michigan.gov/documents/ELA11-14open1_142201_7.pdf. Minnesota Department of Education. (2003). Minnesota Academic Standards: Language Arts K- 12. Retrieved electronically on Aug. 22, 2010, from http://education.state.mn.us/mdeprod/groups/Standards/documents/LawStatute/000269.pdf. Mississippi Department of Education. (2006). Mississippi Language Arts Framework. Retrieved electronically on Aug. 22, 2010, from http://www.mde.k12.ms.us/ACAD/ID/Curriculum/LAER/frameworks.html. 121 Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. (2008). Communication Arts Course Level Expectations. Retrieved electronically on Aug. 21, 2010, from http://dese.mo.gov/divimprove/curriculum/GLE/documents/ca_cle_1008.pdf. Montana Board of Public Education. (2010). Montana K-12 Communication Arts Content Standards Framework. Retrieved electronically on Aug. 22, 2010, from http://www.opi.mt.gov/pdf/Standards/ContStds-CommArts2010.pdf. National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO). (2010). Common Core State Standards. Retrieved electronically on Aug. 21, 2010, from http://www.corestandards.org/the-standards/english-language-arts-standards Nebraska Department of Education. (2001). Nebraska Reading/Writing Standards. Retrieved electronically on Aug. 21, 2010, from http://www.education.ne.gov/ndestandards/documents/ReadingWritingStandards_000.pdf. Nevada Department of Education. http://nde.doe.nv.gov/APAC.htm New Hampshire Department of Education. (2006). K-12 Reading New Hampshire Curriculum Framework. Retrieved electronically on Aug. 22, 2010, from http://www.education.nh.gov/instruction/curriculum/english_lang/documents/reading_frame.pdf. New Hampshire Department of Education. (2006). K-12 Written and Oral Communication New Hampshire Curriculum Framework. Retrieved electronically on Aug. 22, 2010, from http://www.education.nh.gov/instruction/curriculum/english_lang/documents/writing_frame.pdf. New Jersey Department of Education. http://www.njcccs.org/ New Mexico Public Education Department. (2009). New Mexico Language Arts Standards Grades 9-12. Retrieved electronically on Aug. 22, 2010, from http://www.ped.state.nm.us/AssessmentAccountability/AssessmentEvaluation/dl10/Language%2 0Arts%209-12.pdf. New York State Academy for Teaching and Learning. (?) English Language Arts Standards. Retrieved electronically on Aug. 25, 2010, from https://stateaid.nysed.gov/scripts/sa/pi_find.idc. North Carolina Department of Public Instruction. (2004). English Language Arts Standard Course of Study and Grade Level Competencies. Retrieved electronically on Aug. 25, 2010, from http://www.dpi.state.nc.us/docs/curriculum/languagearts/scos/2004/elacurriculumall.pdf. North Dakota Department of Public Instruction. (2005). North Dakota English Language Arts Content and Achievement Standards. Retrieved electronically on Aug. 25, 2010, from http://www.dpi.state.nd.us/standard/content/ELA/ELA.pdf. Ohio Department of Education. (2001). Academic Content Standards: K-12 English Language Arts. Retrieved electronically on Aug. 25, 2010, from 122 http://www.ode.state.oh.us/GD/Templates/Pages/ODE/ODEDetail.aspx?page=3&TopicRelationI D=1699&ContentID=489&Content=86687. Oklahoma Department of Education. (2010). Priority Academic Student Skills: Language Arts. Retrieved electronically on January 9, 2014, from http://ok.gov/sde/sites/ok.gov.sde/files/C3langartsPASS.pdf. Oregon Department of Education. (2008). Standards by Design: High School English Language Arts. Retrieved electronically on Aug. 29, 2010, from http://www.ode.state.or.us/teachlearn/real/standards/sbd.aspx. Pennsylvania Department of Education. (2009). Academic Standards for Reading, Writing, Speaking and Listening. Retrieved electronically on Aug. 29, 2010, from http://www.pdesas.org/Standard/StandardsDownloads. Rhode Island Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. (2006). NECAP and Local Reading GLEs and GSEs for grades 5-12. Retrieved electronically on Aug. 29, 2010, from http://www.ride.ri.gov/Instruction/DOCS/gle/GLE%20pdf/FINAL/Grades%205- 12%20Reading%20GLEs%20%20GSEs%20Final%20Version%202006.pdf. Rhode Island Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. (2006). NECAP and Local Written and Oral Communication GLEs and GSEs for grades 5-12. Retrieved electronically on Aug. 29, 2010, from http://www.ride.ri.gov/Instruction/DOCS/gle/GLE%20pdf/FINAL/Grades%205- 12%20Written%20and%20Oral%20Communication%20GLEs%20GSEs%20Final%20Version %202006.pdf. South Carolina Department of Education. (2008). ELA Academic Standards. Retrieved electronically on Aug. 29, 2010, from http://ed.sc.gov/agency/Standards-and- Learning/Academic-Standards/old/cso/standards/ela/. South Dakota Department of Education. (2007). Reading Standards: Grades 9-12. Retrieved electronically on Aug. 29, 2010, from http://doe.sd.gov/contentstandards/languagearts/reading/07/March%209-12%20Reading.pdf. South Dakota Department of Education. (2007). Writing standards, grades 9-12. Retrieved electronically on Aug. 29, 2010, from http://doe.sd.gov/contentstandards/languagearts/writing_LVS/docs/March%209- 12%20Writing.pdf. Tennessee Department of Education. (2009). Tennessee English Language Arts Standards, English I. Retrieved electronically on Aug. 29, 2010, from http://state.tn.us/education/ci/english/doc/ENG_3001.pdf. 123 Tennessee Department of Education. (2009). Tennessee English Language Arts Standards, English II. Retrieved electronically on Aug. 29, 2010, from http://state.tn.us/education/ci/english/doc/ENG_3002.pdf. Tennessee Department of Education. (2009). Tennessee English Language Arts Standards, English III. Retrieved electronically on Aug. 29, 2010, from http://state.tn.us/education/ci/english/doc/ENG_3003.pdf. Tennessee Department of Education. (2009). Tennessee English Language Arts Standards, English IV. Retrieved electronically on Aug. 29, 2010, from http://state.tn.us/education/ci/english/doc/ENG_3005.pdf. Texas Education Agency. (2008). Chapter 110. Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills for English Language Arts and Reading Subchapter C. High School. Retrieved electronically on Aug. 29, 2010, from http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/rules/tac/chapter110/ch110c.html. Utah State Office of Education. (2006). Secondary Core Curriculum: Language Arts 7-12. Retrieved electronically on Aug. 29, 2010, from http://www.schools.utah.gov/curr/core/corepdf/LA7-12.pdf. Vermont Department of Education. (2010). Literacy Grade Expectations: High School. Retrieved electronically on Aug. 29, 2010, from http://education.vermont.gov/new/html/pgm_curriculum/literacy/gle.html. Virginia Department of Education. (2002). English Standards of Learning for Virginia Public Schools. Retrieved electronically on Aug. 29, 2010, from http://www.doe.virginia.gov/testing/sol/standards_docs/english/complete/stds_englishk-12.pdf. Washington Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction. (?) Reading K?10 Grade Level Expectations: A New Level of Specificity Retrieved electronically on Aug. 29, 2010, from http://www.k12.wa.us/Reading/pubdocs/ReadingEALR-GLE.pdf#cover. West Virginia Board of Education. (2009). 21st Century Reading and English Language Arts Content Standards and Objectives for West Virginia Schools. Retrieved electronically on Aug. 29, 2010, from http://wvde.state.wv.us/policies/p2520.1.pdf. Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction. (2009). Wisconsin 's Model Academic Standards for English Language Arts. Retrieved electronically on Aug. 29, 2010, from http://www.dpi.state.wi.us/standards/elaintro.html. Wyoming Department of Education. (2008). Wyoming Language Arts Content and Performance Standards. Retrieved electronically on Aug. 29, 2010, from http://www.k12.wy.us/SA/standards/Standards%202008%20Language%20Arts.pdf. 124 Appendix B Synthesis-writing Survey The following survey is being conducted to learn how high school English teachers address the topic of synthesis writing (i.e., writing from source materials) and the means by which they are prepared to do so. While several studies have been conducted about the components of effective synthesis writing, little research has been done on the features of instruction on synthesis writing. Data from this survey will be made available to all survey participants. [[The statements in brackets below are instructions for the creation of the online survey; the survey participants will not see those statements. Survey items are coded to the research questions for the proposed study: Q1 = question 1, Q2 = question 2, etc.]] I. Instruction and assessment 1. For the purposes of this survey, please select the type of English course that you view as your primary instructional responsibility, and answer the remainder of the questions in this survey with that course in mind. [[Q5]] ? AP English Language and Composition ? AP English Literature and Composition ? IB English ? Dual credit/dual enrollment English course ? English language learner course ? Honors English ? College Preparatory English ? Regular English course ? other English course: Please specify _________________________________ 2. At what grade level is this course offered? [[Q5]] ? 9th grade ? 10th grade ? 11th grade ? 12th grade ? Two or more grade levels: please specify _____________________________ 3. Please define synthesis writing as it applies to the writing that you expect of your students. [[Q1]] [[Open-ended response; participants will not be able to go back and revise their statements once they have proceeded to the next question.]] 4. Please describe briefly an example of a synthesis task that you would give to your students. [[Q1]] 125 [[Open-ended response; participants will not be able to go back and revise their statements once they have proceeded to the next question.]] 5. Which of the following statements most closely matches your understanding of the definition of synthesis writing as it applies to the writing that you expect of your students? [[Q1]] ? Identify key words in paragraphs, summarizes paragraphs, and constructs a composition around the sets of summaries. ? Use source texts as a starting point for one?s own ideas or respond to the topic in general. ? Add one?s own comments to a summary or review of source texts. ? Identify or create a unifying theme or controlling concept from the source materials, then organize around that concept a text original to the student writer. ? Use source materials to select and organize information to address a specific audience and create an argument original to the student writer. ? Other: please specify______________________________________________________ 6. How often do you provide opportunities for students to engage in synthesis writing? [[Q2]] ? Daily ? Weekly ? Monthly ? Once each quarter ? Once each semester ? Once each year ? Not at all 7. Please indicate approximately how often you provide instruction on the following synthesis writing skills, using this scale for each: [[Q2, Q3]] 3 - For every synthesis-writing assignment 2 - For most synthesis-writing assignments 1 - For some synthesis-writing assignments 0 - For no synthesis-writing assignments ? Understanding the discourse expectations of the academic discipline ? Understanding the rhetorical context of the writing task ? Selecting appropriate source materials, based on the context of the writing task ? Reading source materials rhetorically ? Integrating information from various source materials ? Balancing information from source materials with prior knowledge ? Considering the audience for the writing ? Understanding the type of writing task (e.g., expository, argumentative) ? Understanding organizational structures for argumentative synthesis writing and expository writing? ? Integrating source materials into a student-generated analysis, argument, or interpretation with a specific rhetorical purpose 126 8. Please indicate the extent to which you address the following in your writing instruction, using this scale for each: [[Q2, Q3]] 3 - For every synthesis-writing assignment 2 - For most synthesis-writing assignments 1 - For some synthesis-writing assignments 0 - For no synthesis-writing assignments ? Ensure student understanding of the specific type of writing task ? Model synthesis writing ? Scaffold student learning ? Provide opportunities for cooperative/collaborative learning ? Provide feedback to student writing ? Provide opportunities for peer feedback to student writing ? Encourage or provide opportunities for students to utilize Web-based information sources when engaging in synthesis writing ? Encourage or provide opportunities for students to utilize multimedia publication of their work product when engaging in synthesis writing ? Provide opportunities for students to review and reflect on their synthesis writing 9. Which of the following best describes the writing process approach that you instruct your students to use? [[Q3]] ? Linear (i.e., read, take notes, reread, take additional notes, outline, write, revise) ? Nonlinear (i.e., students apply writing-process stages repeatedly and in variable order as needed) ? Other: please specify______________________________________________________ 10. Please indicate the extent to which students use the following methods to submit their writing to you, using this scale for each: [[Q3]] 3 - For every writing assignment 2 - For most writing assignments 1 - For some writing assignments 0 - For no writing assignments ? Handwritten ? Printed word-processed documents ? Electronic documents as e-mail attachments ? Electronic documents posted online ? Other: please specify_________________________________________________ 127 II. Professional Development 11. In your college studies (undergraduate and graduate), how many courses did you have that included at least SOME instruction about teaching students to synthesize information from multiple sources for a concept original to the student writer or for a specific rhetorical purpose? [[Q4]] ? 0 ? 1 course ? 2 courses ? 3 courses ? 4 or more courses ? Do not know 12. Do the state curricular requirements for your course explicitly address synthesis writing? [[Q4]] ? Yes ? No ? Do not know [[If the answer is yes, go to Question 14. If the answer is no, go to Question 15.]] 13. Does the state curriculum requirement regarding synthesis writing refer to the use of source materials to inform a concept original to the student writer or for a specific rhetorical purpose? [[Q4]] ? Yes ? No ? Do not know 14. For each of the following PD forums, please indicate whether it was offered to you in the past two years and, if you attended, how useful it was in helping you teach students to synthesize source materials to serve students' own ideas or rhetorical purposes. ? Academic departmental meeting at your school ? Professional learning group ? Inservice or workshop at your school ? School district staff development workshop or inservice ? Online discussion group ? State educational association conference ? Professional organization regional conference ? Dual enrollment/dual credit professional development event ? English Language Learner professional development event 128 ? College Board/Advanced Placement regional forum ? Professional organization national conference ? Advanced Placement Annual Conferenc ? International Baccalaureate professional development event ? Other learning opportunities (please specify) [Will use Likert scale, with "1" indicating "Not at all useful" and "5" indicating "Very useful.] 15. To what extent would you say that you need professional development specifically on the subject of teaching students to synthesize information from source materials to serve the students' own ideas or rhetorical purposes? [[Q4]] ? Definite need ? Possible need ? Beneficial to have but not a need ? Completely unnecessary III. Background [[Since we are not requiring survey participants to identify themselves or their schools, we have to ask that they provide this demographic information; otherwise, we won't have any way to link survey participants to specific school types or settings.]] 16. How many years of teaching experience do you have? Please indicate the number of years only (round to the nearest whole year). [[Q5]] 17. How many years have you been teaching in your current primary instructional position (identified in your response to Question 1 in this survey)? Please indicate the number of years only (round to the nearest whole year). [[Q5]] 18. In what setting do you teach? [[Q5]] ? Urban ? Suburban ? Rural ? Online 19. What is the approximate number of students in the high school in which you teach? [[Q5]] ? 500 students or fewer ? 501 - 1000 students ? 1001 - 1500 students ? 1501 - 2000 students ? More than 2,000 students 20. Which of the following best describes the high school in which you teach? [[Q5]] ? Conventional public school ? Private ? Parochial ? Charter 129 ? Magnet ? Online ? Other 21. Approximately what percentage of the students in your class(es) belong to a nonwhite/non-Caucasian ethnic or racial group? [[Q5]] ? 0-10% ? 11-25% ? 26-50% ? 51-75% ? 76-100% 22. Approximately what percentage of the students in your school belong to a nonwhite/non- Caucasian ethnic or racial group? [[Q5]] ? 0-10% ? 11-25% ? 26-50% ? 51-75% ? 76-100% 23. Approximately what percentage of students in your school come from low income homes (e.g., qualify for free or reduced-price lunch)? [[Q5]] ? 0-10% ? 11-25% ? 26-50% ? 51-75% ? 76-100% 24. In what U.S. state do you teach? [[Survey form will list all 50 states and the District of Columbia.]] [[Q5]] 25. What is the highest academic degree that you have completed? [[Q5]] ? Bachelor?s degree ? Master?s degree ? Specialist degree ? Doctorate NOTE: If you are willing to name your school, please do so. This information will only be used for data analysis, and no school names or any other identifying information will appear in the final survey report. School name: _________________________________________________________________ City: ________________________________________________________________________ State: _________________________________________ 130 Appendix C Demographic Data School type and low-SES percent Table C1 Case Processing Summary Cases Valid Missing Total N Percent N Percent N Percent Low SES % in school * Type of school 842 69.2% 375 30.8% 1217 100.0% Table C2 Chi-Square Tests Value df Asymp. Sig. (2- sided) Pearson Chi-Square 134.722a 15 .000 Likelihood Ratio 161.164 15 .000 Linear-by-Linear Association 86.620 1 .000 N of Valid Cases 842 a. 8 cells (33.3%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 1.45. 131 Table C3 Conventional public Public charter Public magnet Independent Parochial Boarding/other Total Low SES % in school 0- 25% Count 262a 6a 17a, b 77c, d 69d 15b, c 446 % within Low SES % in school 58.7% 1.3% 3.8% 17.3% 15.5% 3.4% 100.0% % within Type of school 42.9% 30.0% 53.1% 90.6% 93.2% 75.0% 53.0% 26- 50% Count 176a, b 9b 8a, b 6c 4c 3a, c 206 % within Low SES % in school 85.4% 4.4% 3.9% 2.9% 1.9% 1.5% 100.0% % within Type of school 28.8% 45.0% 25.0% 7.1% 5.4% 15.0% 24.5% 51- 75% Count 120a 2a, b 5a 0c 1b, c 1a, b 129 % within Low SES % in school 93.0% 1.6% 3.9% 0.0% 0.8% 0.8% 100.0% % within Type of school 19.6% 10.0% 15.6% 0.0% 1.4% 5.0% 15.3% 76- 100% Count 53a 3a 2a, b 2b, c 0c 1a, b, c 61 % within Low SES % in school 86.9% 4.9% 3.3% 3.3% 0.0% 1.6% 100.0% % within Type of school 8.7% 15.0% 6.3% 2.4% 0.0% 5.0% 7.2% Total Count 611 20 32 85 74 20 842 % within Low SES % in school 72.6% 2.4% 3.8% 10.1% 8.8% 2.4% 100.0% % within Type of school 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Each subscript letter denotes a subset of Type of school categories whose column proportions do not differ significantly from each other at the .05 level. % Nonwhite students in ELA course and in school Table C4 Case Processing Summary Cases Valid Missing Total N Percent N Percent N Percent Nonwhite % in school * % nonwhite in course 838 68.9% 379 31.1% 1217 100.0% 132 Table C5 Table C6 % nonwhite in course Total 0-25% 26-50% 51-75% 76-100% Nonwhite % in school 0-25% Count 447a 4b 7b, c 10c 468 % within Nonwhite % in school 95.5% 0.9% 1.5% 2.1% 100.0% % within % nonwhite in course 87.0% 3.0% 7.1% 11.1% 55.8% 26- 50% Count 59a 109b 10a 6a 184 % within Nonwhite % in school 32.1% 59.2% 5.4% 3.3% 100.0% % within % nonwhite in course 11.5% 80.7% 10.1% 6.7% 22.0% 51- 75% Count 6a 21b 81c 10b 118 % within Nonwhite % in school 5.1% 17.8% 68.6% 8.5% 100.0% % within % nonwhite in course 1.2% 15.6% 81.8% 11.1% 14.1% 76- 100% Count 2a 1a 1a 64b 68 % within Nonwhite % in school 2.9% 1.5% 1.5% 94.1% 100.0% % within % nonwhite in course 0.4% 0.7% 1.0% 71.1% 8.1% Total Count 514 135 99 90 838 % within Nonwhite % in school 61.3% 16.1% 11.8% 10.7% 100.0% % within % nonwhite in course 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Each subscript letter denotes a subset of % nonwhite in course categories whose column proportions do not differ significantly from each other at the .05 level. % Nonwhite students in ELA course and school setting Table C7 Case Processing Summary Cases Valid Missing Total N Percent N Percent N Percent Instructional setting * Nonwhite % in course 853 70.1% 364 29.9% 1217 100.0% Chi-Square Tests Value df Asymp. Sig. (2- sided) Pearson Chi-Square 1362.641a 9 .000 Likelihood Ratio 1000.081 9 .000 Linear-by-Linear Association 577.356 1 .000 N of Valid Cases 838 a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 7.30. 133 Table C8 Chi-Square Tests Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 74.347a 8 .000 Likelihood Ratio 70.665 8 .000 Linear-by-Linear Association 59.256 1 .000 N of Valid Cases 853 a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 11.86. Table C9 Instructional setting Total Urban Suburban Rural Nonwhite % in course 0-10% Count 38a 214b 59c 311 % within Nonwhite % in course 12.2% 68.8% 19.0% 100.0% % within Instructional setting 20.2% 38.6% 53.6% 36.5% 11-25% Count 35a 157b 21a 213 % within Nonwhite % in course 16.4% 73.7% 9.9% 100.0% % within Instructional setting 18.6% 28.3% 19.1% 25.0% 26-50% Count 36a 84a 16a 136 % within Nonwhite % in course 26.5% 61.8% 11.8% 100.0% % within Instructional setting 19.1% 15.1% 14.5% 15.9% 51-75% Count 38a 55b 8b 101 % within Nonwhite % in course 37.6% 54.5% 7.9% 100.0% % within Instructional setting 20.2% 9.9% 7.3% 11.8% 76-100% Count 41a 45b 6b 92 % within Nonwhite % in course 44.6% 48.9% 6.5% 100.0% % within Instructional setting 21.8% 8.1% 5.5% 10.8% Total Count 188 555 110 853 % within Nonwhite % in course 22.0% 65.1% 12.9% 100.0% % within Instructional setting 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Each subscript letter denotes a subset of Instructional setting categories whose column proportions do not differ significantly from each other at the .05 level. % Nonwhite students in ELA course and school type Table C10 Case Processing Summary Cases Valid Missing Total N Percent N Percent N Percent % nonwhite in course * Type of school 854 70.2% 363 29.8% 1217 100.0% 134 Table C11 Chi-Square Tests Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 40.323a 15 .000 Likelihood Ratio 42.916 15 .000 Linear-by-Linear Association 10.451 1 .001 N of Valid Cases 854 a. 8 cells (33.3%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 2.15. Table C12 Type of school Total Conventional public Public charter Public magnet Independent Parochial Boarding/ other % nonwhite in course 0- 25% Count 362a 8a 14a 67b, c 63c 11a, b 525 % within % nonwhite in course 69.0% 1.5% 2.7% 12.8% 12.0% 2.1% 100.0% % within Type of school 58.7% 40.0% 43.8% 76.1% 81.8% 55.0% 61.5% 26- 50% Count 109a, b 4a, b 9b 5c 7a, c 3a, b, c 137 % within % nonwhite in course 79.6% 2.9% 6.6% 3.6% 5.1% 2.2% 100.0% % within Type of school 17.7% 20.0% 28.1% 5.7% 9.1% 15.0% 16.0% 51- 75% Count 72a, b, c 5c 5a, b, c 8b 5b 5a, c 100 % within % nonwhite in course 72.0% 5.0% 5.0% 8.0% 5.0% 5.0% 100.0% % within Type of school 11.7% 25.0% 15.6% 9.1% 6.5% 25.0% 11.7% 76- 100% Count 74a 3a 4a 8a, b 2b 1a, b 92 % within % nonwhite in course 80.4% 3.3% 4.3% 8.7% 2.2% 1.1% 100.0% % within Type of school 12.0% 15.0% 12.5% 9.1% 2.6% 5.0% 10.8% Total Count 617 20 32 88 77 20 854 % within % nonwhite in course 72.2% 2.3% 3.7% 10.3% 9.0% 2.3% 100.0% % within Type of school 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 135 Each subscript letter denotes a subset of Type of school categories whose column proportions do not differ significantly from each other at the .05 level. % Nonwhite students in ELA course and ELA course type Table C13 Case Processing Summary Cases Valid Missing Total N Percent N Percent N Percent % nonwhite in course * Type of course 851 69.9% 366 30.1% 1217 100.0% Table C14 Chi-Square Tests Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 131.858a 24 .000 Likelihood Ratio 103.964 24 .000 Linear-by-Linear Association 10.582 1 .001 N of Valid Cases 851 a. 11 cells (30.6%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 2.27. 136 Table C15 Type of course Total AP English Language AP English Literature IB English Dual credit ELL Honors College prep Regular English Other English % nonwhite in course 0-25% Count 156a, b 55a, b 16c, d 20b 1e 90a, d 86d 90a, d 9c 523 % within % nonwhite in course 29.8% 10.5% 3.1% 3.8% 0.2% 17.2% 16.4% 17.2% 1.7% 100.0% % within Type of course 69.3% 71.4% 47.1% 87.0% 4.8% 63.8% 54.4% 62.5% 32.1% 61.5% 26- 50% Count 32a, b 7b 11c 2a, b, d 0b 19a, b, d 35c, d 22a, b, d 7a, c, d 135 % within % nonwhite in course 23.7% 5.2% 8.1% 1.5% 0.0% 14.1% 25.9% 16.3% 5.2% 100.0% % within Type of course 14.2% 9.1% 32.4% 8.7% 0.0% 13.5% 22.2% 15.3% 25.0% 15.9% 51- 75% Count 20a 10a, b 5a, b 0a 5b 19a, b 18a, b 18a, b 6b 101 % within % nonwhite in course 19.8% 9.9% 5.0% 0.0% 5.0% 18.8% 17.8% 17.8% 5.9% 100.0% % within Type of course 8.9% 13.0% 14.7% 0.0% 23.8% 13.5% 11.4% 12.5% 21.4% 11.9% 76- 100% Count 17a 5a 2a, b 1a, b 15c 13a, b 19a, b 14a, b 6b 92 % within % nonwhite in course 18.5% 5.4% 2.2% 1.1% 16.3% 14.1% 20.7% 15.2% 6.5% 100.0% % within Type of course 7.6% 6.5% 5.9% 4.3% 71.4% 9.2% 12.0% 9.7% 21.4% 10.8% Total Count 225 77 34 23 21 141 158 144 28 851 % within % nonwhite in course 26.4% 9.0% 4.0% 2.7% 2.5% 16.6% 18.6% 16.9% 3.3% 100.0% % within Type of course 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Each subscript letter denotes a subset of Type of course categories whose column proportions do not differ significantly from each other at the .05 level. 137 Appendix D Respondents' synthesis definitions Synthesis definitions and ELA course type Table D1 Case Processing Summary Cases Valid Missing Total N Percent N Percent N Percent Teacher's synthesis definition * Type of course 959 78.8% 258 21.2% 1217 100.0% Table D2 AP English Language AP English Literature IB English Dual credit ELL Honors College prep Regular English Other English Total Prompt response Count 31a 5a, b 2a, b 0a, b 1a, b 9b 16a, b 7b 1a, b 72 % within Type of course 12.5% 5.7% 5.3% 0.0% 3.8% 5.9% 8.6% 4.4% 2.6% 7.5% Original argument/thesis Count 95a 10b 4b 2b 4b 32b 34b 27b 5b 213 % within Type of course 38.3% 11.4% 10.5% 9.5% 15.4% 20.9% 18.2% 17.0% 12.8% 22.2% Original perspective/analysis Count 21a, b 9a, b 1b 4a 2a, b 22a 21a, b 23a 7a 110 % within Type of course 8.5% 10.2% 2.6% 19.0% 7.7% 14.4% 11.2% 14.5% 17.9% 11.5% Connecting to texts/topics Count 8a 3a, b 1a, b 0a, b 0a, b 12b 10a, b 13b 3a, b 50 % within Type of course 3.2% 3.4% 2.6% 0.0% 0.0% 7.8% 5.3% 8.2% 7.7% 5.2% 138 AP English Language AP English Literature IB English Dual credit ELL Honors College prep Regular English Other English Total Summary Count 2a 3a, b 1a, b 1a, b 0a, b 3a, b 4a, b 6b 1a, b 21 % within Type of course 0.8% 3.4% 2.6% 4.8% 0.0% 2.0% 2.1% 3.8% 2.6% 2.2% Analysis of themes/ideas Count 4a 4a, b 2a, b 0a, b 0a, b 6a, b 11b 5a, b 2a, b 34 % within Type of course 1.6% 4.5% 5.3% 0.0% 0.0% 3.9% 5.9% 3.1% 5.1% 3.5% Literary analysis Count 4a 10b 5b 1a, b 0a, b 3a 4a 2a 1a, b 30 % within Type of course 1.6% 11.4% 13.2% 4.8% 0.0% 2.0% 2.1% 1.3% 2.6% 3.1% Literary argument Count 0a 1a 0a 0a 0a 1a 0a 1a 0a 3 % within Type of course 0.0% 1.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.7% 0.0% 0.6% 0.0% 0.3% Composition support Count 38a 19a, b 9a, b 3a, b 4a, b 39b 48b 35a, b 6a, b 201 % within Type of course 15.3% 21.6% 23.7% 14.3% 15.4% 25.5% 25.7% 22.0% 15.4% 21.0% No synthesis Count 17a 12a, b, c, d 10d, e 7e, f 15f 13a, c 24b, c 25b, c, d 8b, d, e 131 % within Type of course 6.9% 13.6% 26.3% 33.3% 57.7% 8.5% 12.8% 15.7% 20.5% 13.7% Rhetorical analysis Count 2a, b, c 1a, b, c 1c 0a, b, c 0a, b, c 0b 0b 0b 1a, c 5 % within Type of course 0.8% 1.1% 2.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.6% 0.5% Argument Count 26a, b 11a, b 2a, b 3b 0a 13a, b 15a, b 15a, b 4a, b 89 % within Type of course 10.5% 12.5% 5.3% 14.3% 0.0% 8.5% 8.0% 9.4% 10.3% 9.3% Total Count 248 88 38 21 26 153 187 159 39 959 % within Type of course 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Each subscript letter denotes a subset of Type of course categories whose column proportions do not differ significantly from each other at the .05 level. 139 Table D3 Synthesis definitions and years of experience Chi-Square Tests Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 80.086a 66 .114 Likelihood Ratio 86.611 66 .045 Linear-by-Linear Association .432 1 .511 N of Valid Cases 795 a. 36 cells (42.9%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .27. Table D4 Synthesis definitions and school setting Chi-Square Tests Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 16.919a 22 .768 Likelihood Ratio 18.067 22 .702 Linear-by-Linear Association 1.039 1 .308 N of Valid Cases 793 a. 11 cells (30.6%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .37. Table D5 Synthesis definitions and school type Chi-Square Tests Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 79.719a 66 .120 Likelihood Ratio 65.892 66 .481 Linear-by-Linear Association 1.012 1 .314 N of Valid Cases 793 a. 60 cells (71.4%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .03. Table D6 Synthesis definitions and % nonwhite students in ELA course Chi-Square Tests Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 59.562a 44 .059 Likelihood Ratio 61.315 44 .043 Linear-by-Linear Association .399 1 .527 N of Valid Cases 792 a. 22 cells (36.7%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .33. 140 Table D7 Synthesis definitions by % low-SES students in school Chi-Square Tests Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 37.146a 44 .758 Likelihood Ratio 40.020 44 .643 Linear-by-Linear Association .026 1 .873 N of Valid Cases 782 a. 20 cells (33.3%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .22. 141 Appendix E Descriptions of synthesis-writing tasks Descriptions of synthesis-writing tasks and ELA course type Table E1 Case Processing Summary Cases Valid Missing Total N Percent N Percent N Percent Teacher's task example * Type of course 890 73.1% 327 26.9% 1217 100.0% Table E2 Chi-Square Tests Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 168.558a 88 .000 Likelihood Ratio 171.425 88 .000 Linear-by-Linear Association 23.732 1 .000 N of Valid Cases 890 a. 63 cells (58.3%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .25. 142 Table E3 Type of course Total AP English Language AP English Literature IB English Dual credit ELL Honors College prep Regular English Other English Teacher's task example Prompt response Count 103a 22b 4c 2b, c 1c 38b 43b, c 38b 9b, c 260 % within Teacher's task example 39.6% 8.5% 1.5% 0.8% 0.4% 14.6% 16.5% 14.6% 3.5% 100.0% % within Type of course 43.6% 28.6% 10.8% 10.0% 5.0% 26.8% 24.2% 26.2% 25.7% 29.2% Original argument/thesis Count 47a, b 7c 3b, c 6a 2a, b, c 16c 27a, b, c 13c 2c 123 % within Teacher's task example 38.2% 5.7% 2.4% 4.9% 1.6% 13.0% 22.0% 10.6% 1.6% 100.0% % within Type of course 19.9% 9.1% 8.1% 30.0% 10.0% 11.3% 15.2% 9.0% 5.7% 13.8% Original perspective/analysis Count 10a, b 1b 1a, b 0a, b 0a, b 11a 10a, b 9a, b 3a, b 45 % within Teacher's task example 22.2% 2.2% 2.2% 0.0% 0.0% 24.4% 22.2% 20.0% 6.7% 100.0% % within Type of course 4.2% 1.3% 2.7% 0.0% 0.0% 7.7% 5.6% 6.2% 8.6% 5.1% Connecting to texts/topics Count 11a 4a 1a 0a 1a 8a 8a 9a 2a 44 % within Teacher's task example 25.0% 9.1% 2.3% 0.0% 2.3% 18.2% 18.2% 20.5% 4.5% 100.0% % within Type of course 4.7% 5.2% 2.7% 0.0% 5.0% 5.6% 4.5% 6.2% 5.7% 4.9% Summary Count 7a 2a 1a 1a 0a 5a 2a 3a 2a 23 % within Teacher's task example 30.4% 8.7% 4.3% 4.3% 0.0% 21.7% 8.7% 13.0% 8.7% 100.0% 143 Type of course Total AP English Language AP English Literature IB English Dual credit ELL Honors College prep Regular English Other English % within Type of course 3.0% 2.6% 2.7% 5.0% 0.0% 3.5% 1.1% 2.1% 5.7% 2.6% Analysis of themes/ideas Count 5a 2a, b 1a, b 1a, b 2b 7a, b 11b 9b 1a, b 39 % within Teacher's task example 12.8% 5.1% 2.6% 2.6% 5.1% 17.9% 28.2% 23.1% 2.6% 100.0% % within Type of course 2.1% 2.6% 2.7% 5.0% 10.0% 4.9% 6.2% 6.2% 2.9% 4.4% Literary analysis Count 6a 13b 4b, c 1a, b, c 1a, b, c 10c 12c 6a, c 1a, c 54 % within Teacher's task example 11.1% 24.1% 7.4% 1.9% 1.9% 18.5% 22.2% 11.1% 1.9% 100.0% % within Type of course 2.5% 16.9% 10.8% 5.0% 5.0% 7.0% 6.7% 4.1% 2.9% 6.1% Literary argument Count 4a, b 3b 0a, b 1a, b 0a, b 4a, b 1a 1a, b 0a, b 14 % within Teacher's task example 28.6% 21.4% 0.0% 7.1% 0.0% 28.6% 7.1% 7.1% 0.0% 100.0% % within Type of course 1.7% 3.9% 0.0% 5.0% 0.0% 2.8% 0.6% 0.7% 0.0% 1.6% Composition support Count 13a 6a 8b 1a, b 2a, b 10a 15a 15a, b 2a, b 72 % within Teacher's task example 18.1% 8.3% 11.1% 1.4% 2.8% 13.9% 20.8% 20.8% 2.8% 100.0% % within Type of course 5.5% 7.8% 21.6% 5.0% 10.0% 7.0% 8.4% 10.3% 5.7% 8.1% No synthesis Count 19a 16b 11b, c 7b, c 11c 27b 41b 39b 10b, c 181 % within Teacher's task example 10.5% 8.8% 6.1% 3.9% 6.1% 14.9% 22.7% 21.5% 5.5% 100.0% 144 Type of course Total AP English Language AP English Literature IB English Dual credit ELL Honors College prep Regular English Other English % within Type of course 8.1% 20.8% 29.7% 35.0% 55.0% 19.0% 23.0% 26.9% 28.6% 20.3% Rhetorical analysis Count 4a, b, c, d 0b, d 1c, d 0a, b, c, d 0a, b, c, d 0b 2a, b, c, d 2a, b, c, d 2a, c 11 % within Teacher's task example 36.4% 0.0% 9.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 18.2% 18.2% 18.2% 100.0% % within Type of course 1.7% 0.0% 2.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.1% 1.4% 5.7% 1.2% Argument Count 7a, b 1a, b 2b 0a, b 0a, b 6a, b 6a, b 1a 1a, b 24 % within Teacher's task example 29.2% 4.2% 8.3% 0.0% 0.0% 25.0% 25.0% 4.2% 4.2% 100.0% % within Type of course 3.0% 1.3% 5.4% 0.0% 0.0% 4.2% 3.4% 0.7% 2.9% 2.7% Total Count 236 77 37 20 20 142 178 145 35 890 % within Teacher's task example 26.5% 8.7% 4.2% 2.2% 2.2% 16.0% 20.0% 16.3% 3.9% 100.0% % within Type of course 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Each subscript letter denotes a subset of Type of course categories whose column proportions do not differ significantly from each other at the .05 level. 145 Table E4 Descriptions of synthesis-writing tasks and years of teaching experience Chi-Square Tests Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 68.258a 66 .400 Likelihood Ratio 77.509 66 .157 Linear-by-Linear Association 1.725 1 .189 N of Valid Cases 771 a. 41 cells (48.8%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .89. Table E5 Descriptions of synthesis-writing tasks and % low-SES students in school Chi-Square Tests Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 45.204a 44 .421 Likelihood Ratio 50.464 44 .233 Linear-by-Linear Association 3.183 1 .074 N of Valid Cases 758 a. 21 cells (35.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .71. Table E6 Descriptions of synthesis-writing tasks and school type Chi-Square Tests Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 72.054a 66 .285 Likelihood Ratio 85.578 66 .053 Linear-by-Linear Association .360 1 .548 N of Valid Cases 769 a. 61 cells (72.6%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .12. Table E7 Descriptions of synthesis-writing tasks and school setting Chi-Square Tests Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 26.376a 22 .236 Likelihood Ratio 25.774 22 .261 Linear-by-Linear Association .007 1 .934 N of Valid Cases 769 a. 11 cells (30.6%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 1.22. 146 Descriptions of synthesis-writing tasks and % nonwhite students in ELA course Table E8 Case Processing Summary Cases Valid Missing Total N Percent N Percent N Percent Nonwhite % in course * Teacher's task example 768 63.1% 449 36.9% 1217 100.0% Table E9 Chi-Square Tests Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 50.724a 33 .025 Likelihood Ratio 50.721 33 .025 Linear-by-Linear Association 2.050 1 .152 N of Valid Cases 768 a. 18 cells (37.5%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 1.09. Table E10 % nonwhite in course Total 0-25% 26-50% 51-75% 76-100% Teacher's task example Prompt response Count 136a, b 40a, b 32b 18a 226 % within Teacher's task example 60.2% 17.7% 14.2% 8.0% 100.0% % within % nonwhite in course 28.9% 32.0% 36.0% 21.4% 29.4% Original argument/thesis Count 64a 21a 13a 10a 108 % within Teacher's task example 59.3% 19.4% 12.0% 9.3% 100.0% % within % nonwhite in course 13.6% 16.8% 14.6% 11.9% 14.1% Original perspective/analysis Count 25a 7a 2a 1a 35 % within Teacher's task example 71.4% 20.0% 5.7% 2.9% 100.0% % within % nonwhite in course 5.3% 5.6% 2.2% 1.2% 4.6% Connecting to texts/topics Count 25a 7a 3a 5a 40 % within Teacher's task example 62.5% 17.5% 7.5% 12.5% 100.0% % within % nonwhite in course 5.3% 5.6% 3.4% 6.0% 5.2% 147 % nonwhite in course Total 0-25% 26-50% 51-75% 76-100% Summary Count 16a 3a 1a 1a 21 % within Teacher's task example 76.2% 14.3% 4.8% 4.8% 100.0% % within % nonwhite in course 3.4% 2.4% 1.1% 1.2% 2.7% Analysis of themes/ideas Count 18a 4a, b 8b 5a, b 35 % within Teacher's task example 51.4% 11.4% 22.9% 14.3% 100.0% % within % nonwhite in course 3.8% 3.2% 9.0% 6.0% 4.6% Literary analysis Count 33a 5a 5a 3a 46 % within Teacher's task example 71.7% 10.9% 10.9% 6.5% 100.0% % within % nonwhite in course 7.0% 4.0% 5.6% 3.6% 6.0% Literary argument Count 7a, b 0b 4a 1a, b 12 % within Teacher's task example 58.3% 0.0% 33.3% 8.3% 100.0% % within % nonwhite in course 1.5% 0.0% 4.5% 1.2% 1.6% Composition support Count 35a 14a 6a 7a 62 % within Teacher's task example 56.5% 22.6% 9.7% 11.3% 100.0% % within % nonwhite in course 7.4% 11.2% 6.7% 8.3% 8.1% No synthesis Count 93a 20a, b 9b 31c 153 % within Teacher's task example 60.8% 13.1% 5.9% 20.3% 100.0% % within % nonwhite in course 19.8% 16.0% 10.1% 36.9% 19.9% Rhetorical analysis Count 5a 2a 3a 0a 10 % within Teacher's task example 50.0% 20.0% 30.0% 0.0% 100.0% % within % nonwhite in course 1.1% 1.6% 3.4% 0.0% 1.3% Argument Count 13a 2a 3a 2a 20 % within Teacher's task example 65.0% 10.0% 15.0% 10.0% 100.0% % within % nonwhite in course 2.8% 1.6% 3.4% 2.4% 2.6% Total Count 470 125 89 84 768 % within Teacher's task example 61.2% 16.3% 11.6% 10.9% 100.0% % within % nonwhite in course 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Each subscript letter denotes a subset of % nonwhite in course categories whose column proportions do not differ significantly from each other at the .05 level. 148 Appendix F: Frequency of synthesis-writing tasks Table F1 Frequency of synthesis-writing tasks and years of teaching experience Chi-Square Tests Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 13.084a 18 .787 Likelihood Ratio 13.472 18 .763 Linear-by-Linear Association .129 1 .720 N of Valid Cases 853 a. 7 cells (25.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .94. Table F2 Frequency of synthesis-writing tasks and school setting Chi-Square Tests Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 8.039a 6 .235 Likelihood Ratio 8.057 6 .234 Linear-by-Linear Association .015 1 .902 N of Valid Cases 852 a. 2 cells (16.7%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 1.42. Table F3 Frequency of synthesis-writing tasks and type of school Chi-Square Tests Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 13.142a 15 .591 Likelihood Ratio 15.232 15 .435 Linear-by-Linear Association .612 1 .434 N of Valid Cases 852 a. 7 cells (29.2%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .26. Table F4 Frequency of synthesis-writing tasks and percent of nonwhite students in the school Chi-Square Tests Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 8.596a 9 .475 Likelihood Ratio 8.739 9 .462 Linear-by-Linear Association 1.222 1 .269 N of Valid Cases 835 a. 3 cells (18.8%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .90. 149 Table F5 Frequency of synthesis-writing tasks and % low-SES students in the school Chi-Square Tests Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 17.949a 12 .117 Likelihood Ratio 18.612 12 .098 Linear-by-Linear Association 7.196 1 .007 N of Valid Cases 839 a. 5 cells (25.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .80. Table F6 Frequency of synthesis-writing and description of synthesis task Chi-Square Tests Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 45.672a 33 .070 Likelihood Ratio 45.881 33 .067 Linear-by-Linear Association 3.681 1 .055 N of Valid Cases 882 a. 17 cells (35.4%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .02. Table F7 Frequency of synthesis-writing tasks and ELA course type Case Processing Summary Cases Valid Missing Total N Percent N Percent N Percent Frequency of synth writing * Type of course 1167 95.9% 50 4.1% 1217 100.0% Table F8 Chi-Square Tests Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 70.000a 24 .000 Likelihood Ratio 64.154 24 .000 Linear-by-Linear Association .137 1 .712 N of Valid Cases 1167 a. 9 cells (25.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .27. 150 Table F9 Frequency of synthesis writing * Type of course Crosstabulation Type of course Total AP English Language AP English Literature IB English Dual credit ELL Honors College prep Regular English Other English Frequency of synthesis writing Not at all Count 1a, b, c 6d 0a, b, c, d 0a, b, c, d 1c, d 2a, b, c 0b 2a, b, c 1a, c, d 13 % within Frequency of synthesis writing 7.7% 46.2% 0.0% 0.0% 7.7% 15.4% 0.0% 15.4% 7.7% 100.0% % within Type of course 0.4% 5.5% 0.0% 0.0% 2.5% 1.0% 0.0% 1.0% 2.1% 1.1% 2-4 times per year Count 56a, b, c, d, e 19d, e 10a, b, c, d, e, f 2c, e 9a, b, c, d, e, f 58f 62b, f 57b, f 6a, c, d, e 279 % within Frequency of synthesis writing 20.1% 6.8% 3.6% 0.7% 3.2% 20.8% 22.2% 20.4% 2.2% 100.0% % within Type of course 20.5% 17.3% 23.3% 8.3% 22.5% 29.6% 27.1% 27.8% 12.8% 23.9% Monthly Count 122a 33b 12b 5b 9b 55b 72b 53b 14a, b 375 % within Frequency of synthesis writing 32.5% 8.8% 3.2% 1.3% 2.4% 14.7% 19.2% 14.1% 3.7% 100.0% % within Type of course 44.7% 30.0% 27.9% 20.8% 22.5% 28.1% 31.4% 25.9% 29.8% 32.1% Once or more per week Count 94a 52b 21a, b, c 17c 21b, c 81a, b 95a, b 93b 26b, c 500 % within Frequency of synthesis writing 18.8% 10.4% 4.2% 3.4% 4.2% 16.2% 19.0% 18.6% 5.2% 100.0% % within Type of course 34.4% 47.3% 48.8% 70.8% 52.5% 41.3% 41.5% 45.4% 55.3% 42.8% Total Count 273 110 43 24 40 196 229 205 47 1167 % within Frequency of synthesis writing 23.4% 9.4% 3.7% 2.1% 3.4% 16.8% 19.6% 17.6% 4.0% 100.0% % within Type of course 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Each subscript letter denotes a subset of Type of course categories whose column proportions do not differ significantly from each other at the .05 level. 151 Frequency of synthesis-writing tasks and % nonwhite students in the ELA course Table F10 Case Processing Summary Cases Valid Missing Total N Percent N Percent N Percent Frequency of synthesis writing * % nonwhite in course 851 69.9% 366 30.1% 1217 100.0% Table F11 Chi-Square Tests Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 17.092a 9 .047 Likelihood Ratio 17.135 9 .047 Linear-by-Linear Association 2.253 1 .133 N of Valid Cases 851 a. 3 cells (18.8%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 1.19. Table F12 Frequency of synthesis writing * % nonwhite in course Crosstabulation % nonwhite in course Total 0-25% 26-50% 51-75% 76- 100% Frequency of synthesis writing Not at all Count 7a 1a 2a 1a 11 % within Frequency of synthesis writing 63.6% 9.1% 18.2% 9.1% 100.0% % within % nonwhite in course 1.3% 0.7% 2.0% 1.1% 1.3% 2-4 times per year Count 123a, b 29a, b 33b 17a 202 % within Frequency of synthesis writing 60.9% 14.4% 16.3% 8.4% 100.0% % within % nonwhite in course 23.5% 21.5% 32.7% 18.5% 23.7% Monthly Count 189a 44a, b 22b 24a, b 279 % within Frequency of synthesis writing 67.7% 15.8% 7.9% 8.6% 100.0% % within % nonwhite in course 36.1% 32.6% 21.8% 26.1% 32.8% Once or more per week Count 204a 61a, b 44a, b 50b 359 % within Frequency of synthesis writing 56.8% 17.0% 12.3% 13.9% 100.0% % within % nonwhite in course 39.0% 45.2% 43.6% 54.3% 42.2% Total Count 523 135 101 92 851 % within Frequency of synthesis writing 61.5% 15.9% 11.9% 10.8% 100.0% % within % nonwhite in course 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Each subscript letter denotes a subset of % nonwhite in course categories whose column proportions do not differ significantly from each other at the .05 level. 152 Frequency of synthesis-writing tasks and definition of synthesis writing Table F13 Case Processing Summary Cases Valid Missing Total N Percent N Percent N Percent Frequency of synth writing * Teacher's synthesis definition 946 77.7% 271 22.3% 1217 100.0% Table F14 Chi-Square Tests Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 75.933a 33 .000 Likelihood Ratio 72.283 33 .000 Linear-by-Linear Association 3.361 1 .067 N of Valid Cases 946 a. 19 cells (39.6%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .01. Table F15 Frequency of synthesis writing * Teacher's synthesis definition Crosstabulation Prompt resp- onse Original argument/ thesis Original perspective / analysis Connect- ing to texts/ topics Sum- mary Analysis of themes/ ideas Liter- ary analy- sis Literary argu- ment Composi- tion support No synthe- sis Rhetori -cal analysis Argu- ment Total Freq ue ncy of syn thes is wr itin g Not at all Count 0a, b, c 0c 1a, b, c 0a, b, c 0a, b, c 0a, b, c 1b 0a, b, c 1a, b, c 0a, c 0a, b, c 0a, b, c 3 % within Frequency of synthesis writing 0.0% 0.0% 33.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 33.3% 0.0% 33.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0 % % within Teacher's synthesis definition 0.0% 0.0% 0.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3.4% 0.0% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 2-4 times per year Count 14a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, j, k, l, m, n, o, p 58e, f, g, h, m, n, o, p, q, r 26c, d, g, h, k, l, o, p, q, r 10a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, j, k, l, m, n, o, p, q, r 8i, j, k, l, m, n, o, p, r 6a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, j, k, l, m, n, o, p, q, r 4a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h 1a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, j, k, l, m, n, o, p, q, r 53b, d, f, h, j, l, n, p, q, r 16a 0a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, j, k, l, m, n, o, p, q, r 30q, r 226 153 Prompt resp- onse Original argument/ thesis Original perspective / analysis Connect- ing to texts/ topics Sum- mary Analysis of themes/ ideas Liter- ary analy- sis Literary argu- ment Composi- tion support No synthe- sis Rhetori -cal analysis Argu- ment Total % within Frequency of synthesis writing 6.2% 25.7% 11.5% 4.4% 3.5% 2.7% 1.8% 0.4% 23.5% 7.1% 0.0% 13.3% 100.0 % % within Teacher's synthesis definition 20.0% 27.5% 24.5% 20.4% 40.0% 17.6% 13.8% 33.3% 26.2% 12.2% 0.0% 34.9% 23.9 % Month ly Count 33a 83a, b 32b, c, d, e 15a, b, c, d, e 3c, d, e 10a, b, c, d, e 11a, b, c, d, e 1a, b, c, d, e 63b, e 28d 3a, b 30a, b, c, e 312 % within Frequency of synthesis writing 10.6% 26.6% 10.3% 4.8% 1.0% 3.2% 3.5% 0.3% 20.2% 9.0% 1.0% 9.6% 100.0 % % within Teacher's synthesis definition 47.1% 39.3% 30.2% 30.6% 15.0% 29.4% 37.9% 33.3% 31.2% 21.4% 60.0% 34.9% 33.0 % Once or more per week Count 23a, b, c, d 70c, d 47b, d, e 24b, e 9a, b, c, d, e, f 18e, f 13a, b, c, d, e 1a, b, c, d, e, f 85a, b, c, d, e 87f 2a, b, c, d, e, f 26a, c 405 % within Frequency of synthesis writing 5.7% 17.3% 11.6% 5.9% 2.2% 4.4% 3.2% 0.2% 21.0% 21.5% 0.5% 6.4% 100.0 % % within Teacher's synthesis definition 32.9% 33.2% 44.3% 49.0% 45.0% 52.9% 44.8% 33.3% 42.1% 66.4% 40.0% 30.2% 42.8 % Total Count 70 211 106 49 20 34 29 3 202 131 5 86 946 % within Frequency of synthesis writing 7.4% 22.3% 11.2% 5.2% 2.1% 3.6% 3.1% 0.3% 21.4% 13.8% 0.5% 9.1% 100.0 % % within Teacher's synthesis definition 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0 % 100.0% 100.0 % 100.0 % 100.0% 100.0 % 100.0 % 100.0 % 100.0 % Each subscript letter denotes a subset of Teacher's synthesis definition categories whose column proportions do not differ significantly from each other at the .05 level. 154 Appendix G Instruction on synthesis-writing strategies Table G1 Frequency of instruction on synthesis-writing strategies Teach discourse expectations Teach rhetorical context Teach source selection Teach rhetorical reading Teach information integration Teach information balance Teach audience awareness Teach type of writing task Teach organizational structures Teach source use for own purpose N Valid 901 903 907 905 906 903 906 906 908 905 Missing 316 314 310 312 311 314 311 311 309 312 Mean 3.23 3.21 3.40 3.04 3.41 3.24 3.44 3.62 3.38 3.44 Median 3.00 3.00 4.00 3.00 4.00 3.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 Mode 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Skewness -.762 -.761 -.945 -.484 -.886 -.696 -1.156 -1.779 -.967 -1.140 Std. Error of Skewness .081 .081 .081 .081 .081 .081 .081 .081 .081 .081 Kurtosis -.479 -.513 -.281 -.769 -.464 -.305 .282 2.479 -.059 .486 Std. Error of Kurtosis .163 .163 .162 .162 .162 .163 .162 .162 .162 .162 Sum 2913 2900 3080 2748 3086 2930 3121 3280 3072 3113 Reliability test of frequency of instruction on synthesis-writing strategies Table G2 Case Processing Summary N % Cases Valid 878 72.1 Excludeda 339 27.9 Total 1217 100.0 a. Listwise deletion based on all variables in the procedure. 155 Reliability Statistics Cronbach's Alpha N of Items .818 10 Table G3 Item Statistics Mean Std. Deviation N Teach discourse expectations 3.23 .858 878 Teach rhetorical context 3.21 .886 878 Teach source selection 3.39 .784 878 Teach rhetorical reading 3.04 .898 878 Teach information integration 3.40 .751 878 Teach information balance 3.24 .783 878 Teach audience awareness 3.45 .777 878 Teach type of writing task 3.62 .685 878 Teach organizational structures 3.38 .774 878 Teach source use for own purpose 3.44 .748 878 Table G4 Item-Total Statistics Scale Mean if Item Deleted Scale Variance if Item Deleted Corrected Item-Total Correlation Cronbach's Alpha if Item Deleted Teach discourse expectations 30.17 19.470 .513 .801 Teach rhetorical context 30.19 18.808 .585 .792 Teach source selection 30.02 20.147 .473 .805 Teach rhetorical reading 30.37 19.314 .503 .802 Teach information integration 30.00 20.426 .456 .806 Teach information balance 30.17 20.511 .418 .810 Teach audience awareness 29.95 20.124 .482 .804 Teach type of writing task 29.79 20.619 .482 .804 Teach organizational structures 30.02 19.856 .527 .799 Teach source use for own purpose 29.97 19.782 .563 .796 156 Multivariate analysis of frequency of instruction on synthesis-writing strategies Table G5 Descriptive Statistics Mean Std. Deviation N Teach discourse expectations 3.23 .858 878 Teach rhetorical context 3.21 .886 878 Teach source selection 3.39 .784 878 Teach rhetorical reading 3.04 .898 878 Teach information integration 3.40 .751 878 Teach information balance 3.24 .783 878 Teach audience awareness 3.45 .777 878 Teach type of writing task 3.62 .685 878 Teach organizational structures 3.38 .774 878 Teach source use for own purpose 3.44 .748 878 Table G6 Multivariate Testsa Effect Value F Hypothesis df Error df Sig. Partial Eta Squared Noncent. Parameter Observed Powerc SynthSkillsFreq Pillai's Trace .308 42.958b 9.000 869.000 .000 .308 386.621 1.000 Wilks' Lambda .692 42.958b 9.000 869.000 .000 .308 386.621 1.000 Hotelling's Trace .445 42.958b 9.000 869.000 .000 .308 386.621 1.000 Roy's Largest Root .445 42.958b 9.000 869.000 .000 .308 386.621 1.000 a. Design: Intercept Within Subjects Design: SynthSkillsFreq b. Exact statistic c. Computed using alpha = .05 Table G7 Mauchly's Test of Sphericitya Within Subjects Effect Mauchly's W Approx. Chi- Square df Sig. Epsilonb Greenhouse- Geisser Huynh- Feldt Lower- bound SynthSkillsFreq .543 532.893 44 .000 .880 .889 .111 Tests the null hypothesis that the error covariance matrix of the orthonormalized transformed dependent variables is proportional to an identity matrix. a. Design: Intercept Within Subjects Design: SynthSkillsFreq b. May be used to adjust the degrees of freedom for the averaged tests of significance. Corrected tests are displayed in the Tests of Within-Subjects Effects table. 157 Table G8 Tests of Within-Subjects Effects Source Type III Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Partial Eta Square d Noncent. Para- meter Observed Powera SynthSkillsFreq Sphericity Assumed 209.153 9 23.239 53.074 .00 0 .057 477.668 1.000 Greenhouse- Geisser 209.153 7.921 26.405 53.074 .00 0 .057 420.393 1.000 Huynh-Feldt 209.153 8.000 26.145 53.074 .000 .057 424.586 1.000 Lower-bound 209.153 1.000 209.153 53.074 .000 .057 53.074 1.000 Error (SynthSkillsFreq) Sphericity Assumed 3456.047 7893 .438 Greenhouse- Geisser 3456.047 6946.590 .498 Huynh-Feldt 3456.047 7015.877 .493 Lower-bound 3456.047 877.000 3.941 a. Computed using alpha = .05 Table G9 Tests of Within-Subjects Contrasts Source SynthSkillsFreq Type III Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Partial Eta Squared Noncent. Parameter Observed Powera SynthSkillsFreq Linear 74.051 1 74.051 131.109 .000 .130 131.109 1.000 Quadratic .246 1 .246 .504 .478 .001 .504 .109 Cubic 16.441 1 16.441 29.957 .000 .033 29.957 1.000 Order 4 7.975 1 7.975 20.448 .000 .023 20.448 .995 Order 5 8.043 1 8.043 22.683 .000 .025 22.683 .997 Order 6 14.815 1 14.815 43.182 .000 .047 43.182 1.000 Order 7 .895 1 .895 2.526 .112 .003 2.526 .355 Order 8 43.738 1 43.738 89.268 .000 .092 89.268 1.000 Order 9 42.948 1 42.948 105.724 .000 .108 105.724 1.000 Error(SynthSkillsFreq) Linear 495.331 877 .565 Quadratic 428.807 877 .489 Cubic 481.316 877 .549 Order 4 342.035 877 .390 Order 5 310.981 877 .355 Order 6 300.882 877 .343 Order 7 310.733 877 .354 Order 8 429.702 877 .490 Order 9 356.260 877 .406 a. Computed using alpha = .05 158 Table G10 Tests of Between-Subjects Effects Transformed Variable: Average Source Type III Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Partial Eta Squared Noncent. Parameter Observed Powera Intercept 97978.235 1 97978.235 40674.202 .000 .979 40674.202 1.000 Error 2112.565 877 2.409 a. Computed using alpha = .05 Estimates SynthSkillsFreq Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound Upper Bound 1 3.233 .029 3.177 3.290 2 3.213 .030 3.154 3.272 3 3.388 .026 3.336 3.440 4 3.036 .030 2.977 3.096 5 3.403 .025 3.353 3.453 6 3.238 .026 3.186 3.290 7 3.452 .026 3.401 3.504 8 3.618 .023 3.573 3.664 9 3.383 .026 3.331 3.434 10 3.440 .025 3.390 3.489 Table G11 Pairwise Comparisons (I) SynthSkillsFreq (J) SynthSkillsFreq Mean Difference (I-J) Std. Error Sig.b 95% Confidence Interval for Differenceb Lower Bound Upper Bound 1 2 .021 .029 .483 -.037 .078 3 -.155* .032 .000 -.218 -.092 4 .197* .035 .000 .129 .266 5 -.170* .034 .000 -.237 -.103 6 -.005 .034 .895 -.072 .063 7 -.219* .033 .000 -.284 -.153 8 -.385* .031 .000 -.446 -.323 9 -.149* .031 .000 -.210 -.089 10 -.206* .032 .000 -.269 -.143 2 1 -.021 .029 .483 -.078 .037 3 -.175* .033 .000 -.241 -.110 4 .177* .029 .000 .121 .232 5 -.190* .034 .000 -.257 -.124 6 -.025 .035 .470 -.093 .043 7 -.239* .033 .000 -.304 -.174 8 -.405* .032 .000 -.468 -.343 9 -.170* .032 .000 -.233 -.106 10 -.227* .031 .000 -.288 -.166 159 (I) SynthSkillsFreq (J) SynthSkillsFreq Mean Difference (I-J) Std. Error Sig.b 95% Confidence Interval for Differenceb Lower Bound Upper Bound 3 1 .155* .032 .000 .092 .218 2 .175* .033 .000 .110 .241 4 .352* .034 .000 .285 .419 5 -.015 .029 .610 -.072 .042 6 .150* .032 .000 .088 .213 7 -.064* .032 .050 -.127 .000 8 -.230* .030 .000 -.289 -.171 9 .006 .032 .860 -.057 .069 10 -.051 .029 .081 -.109 .006 4 1 -.197* .035 .000 -.266 -.129 2 -.177* .029 .000 -.232 -.121 3 -.352* .034 .000 -.419 -.285 5 -.367* .034 .000 -.434 -.300 6 -.202* .035 .000 -.270 -.134 7 -.416* .034 .000 -.483 -.348 8 -.582* .034 .000 -.649 -.515 9 -.346* .034 .000 -.413 -.280 10 -.403* .032 .000 -.465 -.341 5 1 .170* .034 .000 .103 .237 2 .190* .034 .000 .124 .257 3 .015 .029 .610 -.042 .072 4 .367* .034 .000 .300 .434 6 .165* .030 .000 .106 .224 7 -.049 .032 .127 -.112 .014 8 -.215* .030 .000 -.274 -.156 9 .021 .031 .512 -.041 .082 10 -.036 .027 .176 -.089 .016 6 1 .005 .034 .895 -.063 .072 2 .025 .035 .470 -.043 .093 3 -.150* .032 .000 -.213 -.088 4 .202* .035 .000 .134 .270 5 -.165* .030 .000 -.224 -.106 7 -.214* .031 .000 -.276 -.153 8 -.380* .031 .000 -.441 -.320 9 -.145* .033 .000 -.209 -.080 10 -.202* .031 .000 -.262 -.142 7 1 .219* .033 .000 .153 .284 2 .239* .033 .000 .174 .304 3 .064* .032 .050 .000 .127 4 .416* .034 .000 .348 .483 5 .049 .032 .127 -.014 .112 6 .214* .031 .000 .153 .276 8 -.166* .025 .000 -.215 -.118 9 .069* .030 .021 .010 .129 10 .013 .031 .682 -.047 .072 8 1 .385* .031 .000 .323 .446 2 .405* .032 .000 .343 .468 3 .230* .030 .000 .171 .289 4 .582* .034 .000 .515 .649 5 .215* .030 .000 .156 .274 6 .380* .031 .000 .320 .441 160 (I) SynthSkillsFreq (J) SynthSkillsFreq Mean Difference (I-J) Std. Error Sig.b 95% Confidence Interval for Differenceb Lower Bound Upper Bound 7 .166* .025 .000 .118 .215 9 .236* .026 .000 .185 .286 10 .179* .029 .000 .121 .236 9 1 .149* .031 .000 .089 .210 2 .170* .032 .000 .106 .233 3 -.006 .032 .860 -.069 .057 4 .346* .034 .000 .280 .413 5 -.021 .031 .512 -.082 .041 6 .145* .033 .000 .080 .209 7 -.069* .030 .021 -.129 -.010 8 -.236* .026 .000 -.286 -.185 10 -.057* .027 .037 -.110 -.003 10 1 .206* .032 .000 .143 .269 2 .227* .031 .000 .166 .288 3 .051 .029 .081 -.006 .109 4 .403* .032 .000 .341 .465 5 .036 .027 .176 -.016 .089 6 .202* .031 .000 .142 .262 7 -.013 .031 .682 -.072 .047 8 -.179* .029 .000 -.236 -.121 9 .057* .027 .037 .003 .110 Based on estimated marginal means *. The mean difference is significant at the .05 level. b. Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Least Significant Difference (equivalent to no adjustments). Table G12 Multivariate Tests Value F Hypothesis df Error df Sig. Partial Eta Squared Noncent. Parameter Observed Powerb Pillai's trace .308 42.958a 9.000 869.000 .000 .308 386.621 1.000 Wilks' lambda .692 42.958a 9.000 869.000 .000 .308 386.621 1.000 Hotelling's trace .445 42.958a 9.000 869.000 .000 .308 386.621 1.000 Roy's largest root .445 42.958a 9.000 869.000 .000 .308 386.621 1.000 Each F tests the multivariate effect of SynthSkillsFreq. These tests are based on the linearly independent pairwise comparisons among the estimated marginal means. a. Exact statistic b. Computed using alpha = .05 161 Backward regression analysis of frequency of instruction on synthesis-writing strategies Table G13 Descriptive Statistics Mean Std. Deviation N SynthSkills 3.3536 .48078 738 ELA course criterion 3.3227 .19347 738 school setting criterion 3.35 .038 738 School type criterion 3.3480 .02902 738 SES in school criterion 3.3456 .02819 738 % nonwhite in course crit 3.3468 .01552 738 years experience criterion 3.3471 .08609 738 synth definitions criterion 3.3457 .07734 738 synthesis task criterion 3.3495 .07246 738 Frequency synth writing criterion 3.3363 .01298 738 Table G14 Correlations SynthSkills ELA course criterion school setting criterion Pearson Correlation SynthSkills 1.000 .286 .089 ELA course criterion .286 1.000 .102 school setting criterion .089 .102 1.000 School type criterion .057 -.025 -.030 SES in school criterion .069 .035 .224 % nonwhite in course crit .032 .186 .197 years experience criterion .215 .129 .054 synth definitions criterion .179 .226 .053 synthesis task criterion .160 .168 .062 Frequency synth writing criterion .043 -.034 .064 Sig. (1-tailed) SynthSkills . .000 .008 ELA course criterion .000 . .003 school setting criterion .008 .003 . School type criterion .062 .246 .208 SES in school criterion .030 .174 .000 % nonwhite in course crit .195 .000 .000 years experience criterion .000 .000 .071 synth definitions criterion .000 .000 .075 synthesis task criterion .000 .000 .047 Frequency synth writing criterion .122 .182 .041 N SynthSkills 738 738 738 ELA course criterion 738 738 738 school setting criterion 738 738 738 School type criterion 738 738 738 SES in school criterion 738 738 738 % nonwhite in course crit 738 738 738 years experience criterion 738 738 738 162 SynthSkills ELA course criterion school setting criterion synth definitions criterion 738 738 738 synthesis task criterion 738 738 738 Frequency synth writing criterion 738 738 738 Table G15 Correlations School type criterion SES in school criterion % nonwhite in course crit Pearson Correlation SynthSkills .057 .069 .032 ELA course criterion -.025 .035 .186 school setting criterion -.030 .224 .197 School type criterion 1.000 -.041 -.124 SES in school criterion -.041 1.000 .231 % nonwhite in course crit -.124 .231 1.000 years experience criterion -.047 .044 .048 synth definitions criterion .012 .029 .058 synthesis task criterion .072 -.014 -.010 Frequency synth writing criterion -.028 -.002 .046 Sig. (1-tailed) SynthSkills .062 .030 .195 ELA course criterion .246 .174 .000 school setting criterion .208 .000 .000 School type criterion . .133 .000 SES in school criterion .133 . .000 % nonwhite in course crit .000 .000 . years experience criterion .100 .116 .094 synth definitions criterion .368 .219 .056 synthesis task criterion .026 .348 .393 Frequency synth writing criterion .220 .476 .107 N SynthSkills 738 738 738 ELA course criterion 738 738 738 school setting criterion 738 738 738 School type criterion 738 738 738 SES in school criterion 738 738 738 % nonwhite in course crit 738 738 738 years experience criterion 738 738 738 synth definitions criterion 738 738 738 synthesis task criterion 738 738 738 Frequency synth writing criterion 738 738 738 163 Table G16 Correlations years experience criterion synth definitions criterion synthesis task criterion Pearson Correlation SynthSkills .215 .179 .160 ELA course criterion .129 .226 .168 school setting criterion .054 .053 .062 School type criterion -.047 .012 .072 SES in school criterion .044 .029 -.014 % nonwhite in course crit .048 .058 -.010 years experience criterion 1.000 .025 .000 synth definitions criterion .025 1.000 .318 synthesis task criterion .000 .318 1.000 Frequency synth writing criterion -.012 .095 .047 Sig. (1-tailed) SynthSkills .000 .000 .000 ELA course criterion .000 .000 .000 school setting criterion .071 .075 .047 School type criterion .100 .368 .026 SES in school criterion .116 .219 .348 % nonwhite in course crit .094 .056 .393 years experience criterion . .248 .500 synth definitions criterion .248 . .000 synthesis task criterion .500 .000 . Frequency synth writing criterion .374 .005 .103 N SynthSkills 738 738 738 ELA course criterion 738 738 738 school setting criterion 738 738 738 School type criterion 738 738 738 SES in school criterion 738 738 738 % nonwhite in course crit 738 738 738 years experience criterion 738 738 738 synth definitions criterion 738 738 738 synthesis task criterion 738 738 738 Frequency synth writing criterion 738 738 738 Table G17 Correlations Frequency synth writing criterion Pearson Correlation SynthSkills .043 ELA course criterion -.034 school setting criterion .064 School type criterion -.028 SES in school criterion -.002 % nonwhite in course crit .046 years experience criterion -.012 synth definitions criterion .095 synthesis task criterion .047 Frequency synth writing criterion 1.000 164 Frequency synth writing criterion Sig. (1-tailed) SynthSkills .122 ELA course criterion .182 school setting criterion .041 School type criterion .220 SES in school criterion .476 % nonwhite in course crit .107 years experience criterion .374 synth definitions criterion .005 synthesis task criterion .103 Frequency synth writing criterion . N SynthSkills 738 ELA course criterion 738 school setting criterion 738 School type criterion 738 SES in school criterion 738 % nonwhite in course crit 738 years experience criterion 738 synth definitions criterion 738 synthesis task criterion 738 Frequency synth writing criterion 738 Table G18 Variables Entered/Removeda Model Variables Entered Variables Removed Method 1 Frequency synth writing criterion, SES in school criterion, years experience criterion, synthesis task criterion, School type criterion, ELA course criterion, school setting criterion, % nonwhite in course crit, synth definitions criterionb . Enter 2 . % nonwhite in course crit Backward (criterion: Probability of F-to- remove >= .100). 3 . school setting criterion Backward (criterion: Probability of F-to- remove >= .100). 4 . Frequency synth writing criterion Backward (criterion: Probability of F-to- remove >= .100). 5 . SES in school criterion Backward (criterion: Probability of F-to- remove >= .100). a. Dependent Variable: SynthSkills b. All requested variables entered. 165 Table G19 Model Summary Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate Change Statistics R Square Change F Change df1 1 .383a .147 .136 .44684 .147 13.915 9 2 .381b .145 .136 .44689 -.001 1.168 1 3 .380c .144 .136 .44688 -.001 .968 1 4 .377d .143 .135 .44703 -.002 1.505 1 5 .374e .140 .134 .44750 -.003 2.522 1 Table G20 Model Summary Model Change Statistics df2 Sig. F Change 1 728a .000 2 728b .280 3 729c .325 4 730d .220 5 731e .113 a. Predictors: (Constant), Frequency synth writing criterion, SES in school criterion, years experience criterion, synthesis task criterion, School type criterion, ELA course criterion, school setting criterion, % nonwhite in course crit, synth definitions criterion b. Predictors: (Constant), Frequency synth writing criterion, SES in school criterion, years experience criterion, synthesis task criterion, School type criterion, ELA course criterion, school setting criterion, synth definitions criterion c. Predictors: (Constant), Frequency synth writing criterion, SES in school criterion, years experience criterion, synthesis task criterion, School type criterion, ELA course criterion, synth definitions criterion d. Predictors: (Constant), SES in school criterion, years experience criterion, synthesis task criterion, School type criterion, ELA course criterion, synth definitions criterion e. Predictors: (Constant), years experience criterion, synthesis task criterion, School type criterion, ELA course criterion, synth definitions criterion 166 Table G21 ANOVAa Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. 1 Regression 25.004 9 2.778 13.915 .000b Residual 145.354 728 .200 Total 170.359 737 2 Regression 24.771 8 3.096 15.504 .000c Residual 145.588 729 .200 Total 170.359 737 3 Regression 24.578 7 3.511 17.582 .000d Residual 145.781 730 .200 Total 170.359 737 4 Regression 24.277 6 4.046 20.247 .000e Residual 146.081 731 .200 Total 170.359 737 5 Regression 23.773 5 4.755 23.743 .000f Residual 146.585 732 .200 Total 170.359 737 a. Dependent Variable: SynthSkills b. Predictors: (Constant), Frequency synth writing criterion, SES in school criterion, years experience criterion, synthesis task criterion, School type criterion, ELA course criterion, school setting criterion, % nonwhite in course crit, synth definitions criterion c. Predictors: (Constant), Frequency synth writing criterion, SES in school criterion, years experience criterion, synthesis task criterion, School type criterion, ELA course criterion, school setting criterion, synth definitions criterion d. Predictors: (Constant), Frequency synth writing criterion, SES in school criterion, years experience criterion, synthesis task criterion, School type criterion, ELA course criterion, synth definitions criterion e. Predictors: (Constant), SES in school criterion, years experience criterion, synthesis task criterion, School type criterion, ELA course criterion, synth definitions criterion f. Predictors: (Constant), years experience criterion, synthesis task criterion, School type criterion, ELA course criterion, synth definitions criterion 167 Table G22 Coefficientsa Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients t Sig. B Std. Error Beta 1 (Constant) -15.125 6.125 -2.470 .014 ELA course criterion .578 .090 .233 6.396 .000 school setting criterion .506 .452 .040 1.122 .262 School type criterion 1.057 .574 .064 1.843 .066 SES in school criterion .930 .612 .055 1.520 .129 % nonwhite in course crit -1.220 1.129 -.039 -1.081 .280 years experience criterion 1.024 .193 .183 5.295 .000 synth definitions criterion .552 .230 .089 2.404 .016 synthesis task criterion .561 .242 .084 2.315 .021 Frequency synth writing criterion 1.543 1.281 .042 1.204 .229 2 (Constant) -18.554 5.240 -3.541 .000 ELA course criterion .561 .089 .226 6.303 .000 school setting criterion .440 .447 .035 .984 .325 School type criterion 1.125 .570 .068 1.972 .049 SES in school criterion .802 .600 .047 1.337 .182 years experience criterion 1.022 .193 .183 5.287 .000 synth definitions criterion .547 .230 .088 2.383 .017 synthesis task criterion .572 .242 .086 2.364 .018 Frequency synth writing criterion 1.484 1.280 .040 1.159 .247 3 (Constant) -17.845 5.190 -3.439 .001 ELA course criterion .569 .089 .229 6.405 .000 School type criterion 1.114 .570 .067 1.954 .051 SES in school criterion .933 .585 .055 1.593 .112 years experience criterion 1.029 .193 .184 5.324 .000 synth definitions criterion .548 .230 .088 2.390 .017 synthesis task criterion .583 .242 .088 2.412 .016 Frequency synth writing criterion 1.567 1.277 .042 1.227 .220 4 (Constant) -12.616 2.961 -4.261 .000 ELA course criterion .562 .089 .226 6.342 .000 School type criterion 1.091 .570 .066 1.913 .056 SES in school criterion .930 .586 .055 1.588 .113 years experience criterion 1.027 .193 .184 5.313 .000 synth definitions criterion .575 .229 .092 2.515 .012 synthesis task criterion .591 .242 .089 2.444 .015 5 (Constant) -9.447 2.189 -4.315 .000 ELA course criterion .566 .089 .228 6.377 .000 School type criterion 1.057 .570 .064 1.853 .064 years experience criterion 1.038 .193 .186 5.371 .000 synth definitions criterion .585 .229 .094 2.559 .011 synthesis task criterion .581 .242 .088 2.403 .016 a. Dependent Variable: SynthSkills 168 Table G23 Excluded Variablesa Model Beta In t Sig. Partial Correlation 2 % nonwhite in course crit -.039b -1.081 .280 -.040 3 % nonwhite in course crit -.034 c -.937 .349 -.035 school setting criterion .035c .984 .325 .036 4 % nonwhite in course crit -.031d -.873 .383 -.032 school setting criterion .038d 1.063 .288 .039 Frequency synth writing criterion .042d 1.227 .220 .045 5 % nonwhite in course crit -.017e -.494 .621 -.018 school setting criterion .048e 1.385 .166 .051 Frequency synth writing criterion .042e 1.220 .223 .045 SES in school criterion .055e 1.588 .113 .059 Table G24 Excluded Variablesa Model Collinearity Statistics Tolerance 2 % nonwhite in course crit .882b 3 % nonwhite in course crit .899 c school setting criterion .933c 4 % nonwhite in course crit .901d school setting criterion .937d Frequency synth writing criterion .986d 5 % nonwhite in course crit .949e school setting criterion .985e Frequency synth writing criterion .986e SES in school criterion .995e a. Dependent Variable: SynthSkills b. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), Frequency synth writing criterion, SES in school criterion, years experience criterion, synthesis task criterion, School type criterion, ELA course criterion, school setting criterion, synth definitions criterion c. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), Frequency synth writing criterion, SES in school criterion, years experience criterion, synthesis task criterion, School type criterion, ELA course criterion, synth definitions criterion d. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), SES in school criterion, years experience criterion, synthesis task criterion, School type criterion, ELA course criterion, synth definitions criterion e. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), years experience criterion, synthesis task criterion, School type criterion, ELA course criterion, synth definitions criterion 169 ANOVA: Synthesis-writing strategies and ELA course type Table G25 Descriptives SynthSkills N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound AP English Language 239 3.5540 .43293 .02800 3.4989 AP English Literature 79 3.4122 .44821 .05043 3.3118 IB English 36 3.2778 .54096 .09016 3.0947 Dual credit 22 3.4586 .42108 .08977 3.2719 ELL 23 2.8783 .56645 .11811 2.6333 Honors 148 3.2710 .45704 .03757 3.1968 College prep 171 3.3035 .45748 .03498 3.2345 Regular English 157 3.1673 .50334 .04017 3.0879 Other English 33 3.2822 .56756 .09880 3.0809 Total 908 3.3413 .49234 .01634 3.3092 Table G26 Descriptives SynthSkills 95% Confidence Interval for Mean Minimum Maximum Upper Bound AP English Language 3.6092 1.30 4.00 AP English Literature 3.5126 1.80 4.00 IB English 3.4608 2.00 4.00 Dual credit 3.6453 2.20 4.00 ELL 3.1232 1.90 4.00 Honors 3.3453 2.10 4.00 College prep 3.3726 1.80 4.00 Regular English 3.2466 1.90 4.00 Other English 3.4834 1.67 4.00 Total 3.3733 1.30 4.00 170 Table G27 ANOVA SynthSkills Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Between Groups 22.436 8 2.804 12.771 .000 Within Groups 197.420 899 .220 Total 219.856 907 Post Hoc Tests Table G28 Multiple Comparisons Dependent Variable: SynthSkills Tukey HSD (I) Type of course (J) Type of course Mean Difference (I- J) Std. Error Sig. 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound Upper Bound AP English Language AP English Literature .14179 .06082 .324 -.0473 .3309 IB English .27624* .08378 .028 .0157 .5367 Dual credit .09544 .10441 .992 -.2292 .4201 ELL .67576* .10231 .000 .3577 .9939 Honors .28300* .04902 .000 .1306 .4354 College prep .25050* .04694 .000 .1046 .3964 Regular English .38673* .04814 .000 .2370 .5364 Other English .27187* .08703 .048 .0013 .5425 AP English Literature AP English Language -.14179 .06082 .324 -.3309 .0473 IB English .13446 .09423 .887 -.1585 .4275 Dual credit -.04635 .11297 1.000 -.3976 .3049 ELL .53398* .11103 .000 .1887 .8792 Honors .14122 .06530 .431 -.0618 .3442 College prep .10872 .06375 .743 -.0895 .3069 Regular English .24494* .06464 .005 .0440 .4459 Other English .13008 .09713 .919 -.1719 .4321 IB English AP English Language -.27624* .08378 .028 -.5367 -.0157 AP English Literature -.13446 .09423 .887 -.4275 .1585 Dual credit -.18081 .12681 .888 -.5751 .2135 ELL .39952* .12509 .039 .0106 .7885 Honors .00676 .08708 1.000 -.2640 .2775 College prep -.02574 .08593 1.000 -.2929 .2414 Regular English .11048 .08660 .938 -.1588 .3797 Other English -.00438 .11294 1.000 -.3555 .3468 Dual credit AP English Language -.09544 .10441 .992 -.4201 .2292 AP English Literature .04635 .11297 1.000 -.3049 .3976 171 (I) Type of course (J) Type of course Mean Difference (I- J) Std. Error Sig. 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound Upper Bound IB English .18081 .12681 .888 -.2135 .5751 ELL .58032* .13975 .001 .1458 1.0149 Honors .18756 .10708 .714 -.1454 .5205 College prep .15507 .10614 .873 -.1750 .4851 Regular English .29129 .10668 .139 -.0404 .6230 Other English .17643 .12898 .910 -.2246 .5775 ELL AP English Language -.67576* .10231 .000 -.9939 -.3577 AP English Literature -.53398* .11103 .000 -.8792 -.1887 IB English -.39952* .12509 .039 -.7885 -.0106 Dual credit -.58032* .13975 .001 -1.0149 -.1458 Honors -.39276* .10503 .006 -.7193 -.0662 College prep -.42526* .10408 .002 -.7489 -.1016 Regular English -.28903 .10463 .128 -.6144 .0363 Other English -.40389* .12729 .041 -.7997 -.0081 Honors AP English Language -.28300* .04902 .000 -.4354 -.1306 AP English Literature -.14122 .06530 .431 -.3442 .0618 IB English -.00676 .08708 1.000 -.2775 .2640 Dual credit -.18756 .10708 .714 -.5205 .1454 ELL .39276* .10503 .006 .0662 .7193 College prep -.03250 .05261 1.000 -.1961 .1311 Regular English .10373 .05369 .592 -.0632 .2707 Other English -.01113 .09021 1.000 -.2916 .2694 College prep AP English Language -.25050* .04694 .000 -.3964 -.1046 AP English Literature -.10872 .06375 .743 -.3069 .0895 IB English .02574 .08593 1.000 -.2414 .2929 Dual credit -.15507 .10614 .873 -.4851 .1750 ELL .42526* .10408 .002 .1016 .7489 Honors .03250 .05261 1.000 -.1311 .1961 Regular English .13623 .05180 .176 -.0248 .2973 Other English .02137 .08910 1.000 -.2557 .2984 Regular English AP English Language -.38673* .04814 .000 -.5364 -.2370 AP English Literature -.24494* .06464 .005 -.4459 -.0440 IB English -.11048 .08660 .938 -.3797 .1588 Dual credit -.29129 .10668 .139 -.6230 .0404 ELL .28903 .10463 .128 -.0363 .6144 Honors -.10373 .05369 .592 -.2707 .0632 College prep -.13623 .05180 .176 -.2973 .0248 Other English -.11486 .08974 .937 -.3939 .1642 Other English AP English Language -.27187* .08703 .048 -.5425 -.0013 AP English Literature -.13008 .09713 .919 -.4321 .1719 IB English .00438 .11294 1.000 -.3468 .3555 172 (I) Type of course (J) Type of course Mean Difference (I- J) Std. Error Sig. 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound Upper Bound Dual credit -.17643 .12898 .910 -.5775 .2246 ELL .40389* .12729 .041 .0081 .7997 Honors .01113 .09021 1.000 -.2694 .2916 College prep -.02137 .08910 1.000 -.2984 .2557 Regular English .11486 .08974 .937 -.1642 .3939 *. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level. Table G29 Homogeneous Subsets SynthSkills Tukey HSDa,b Type of course N Subset for alpha = 0.05 1 2 3 ELL 23 2.8783 Regular English 157 3.1673 3.1673 Honors 148 3.2710 3.2710 IB English 36 3.2778 3.2778 Other English 33 3.2822 3.2822 College prep 171 3.3035 3.3035 AP English Literature 79 3.4122 3.4122 Dual credit 22 3.4586 3.4586 AP English Language 239 3.5540 Sig. .058 .054 .069 Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed. a. Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 49.226. b. The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the group sizes is used. Type I error levels are not guaranteed. 173 ANOVA: School type and frequency of instruction on synthesis-writing strategies Table G30 Descriptives SynthSkills N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound Upper Bound Conventional public 602 3.3508 .49254 .02007 3.3114 3.3903 Public charter 20 3.3400 .40833 .09131 3.1489 3.5311 Public magnet 33 3.4158 .35502 .06180 3.2899 3.5417 Independent 85 3.3731 .49514 .05371 3.2663 3.4799 Parochial 77 3.2646 .48679 .05547 3.1541 3.3751 Boarding/other 20 3.2572 .48581 .10863 3.0299 3.4846 Total 837 3.3452 .48543 .01678 3.3123 3.3782 Table G31 Descriptives SynthSkills Minimum Maximum Conventional public 1.67 4.00 Public charter 2.50 4.00 Public magnet 2.80 4.00 Independent 1.30 4.00 Parochial 1.80 4.00 Boarding/other 2.30 4.00 Total 1.30 4.00 Table G32 ANOVA SynthSkills Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Between Groups .905 5 .181 .767 .573 Within Groups 196.090 831 .236 Total 196.995 836 174 Post Hoc Tests Table G33 Multiple Comparisons Dependent Variable: SynthSkills Tukey HSD (I) Type of school (J) Type of school Mean Difference (I-J) Std. Error Sig. 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound Conventional public Public charter .01083 .11041 1.000 -.3045 Public magnet -.06499 .08685 .976 -.3131 Independent -.02228 .05629 .999 -.1831 Parochial .08622 .05879 .686 -.0817 Boarding/other .09361 .11041 .958 -.2218 Public charter Conventional public -.01083 .11041 1.000 -.3262 Public magnet -.07582 .13766 .994 -.4690 Independent -.03311 .12073 1.000 -.3779 Parochial .07539 .12191 .990 -.2728 Boarding/other .08278 .15361 .995 -.3560 Public magnet Conventional public .06499 .08685 .976 -.1831 Public charter .07582 .13766 .994 -.3174 Independent .04272 .09963 .998 -.2419 Parochial .15121 .10107 .667 -.1375 Boarding/other .15860 .13766 .859 -.2346 Independent Conventional public .02228 .05629 .999 -.1385 Public charter .03311 .12073 1.000 -.3117 Public magnet -.04272 .09963 .998 -.3273 Parochial .10850 .07642 .715 -.1098 Boarding/other .11589 .12073 .930 -.2289 Parochial Conventional public -.08622 .05879 .686 -.2542 Public charter -.07539 .12191 .990 -.4236 Public magnet -.15121 .10107 .667 -.4399 Independent -.10850 .07642 .715 -.3268 Boarding/other .00739 .12191 1.000 -.3408 Boarding/other Conventional public -.09361 .11041 .958 -.4090 Public charter -.08278 .15361 .995 -.5216 Public magnet -.15860 .13766 .859 -.5518 Independent -.11589 .12073 .930 -.4607 Parochial -.00739 .12191 1.000 -.3556 175 Table G34 Multiple Comparisons Dependent Variable: SynthSkills Tukey HSD (I) Type of school (J) Type of school 95% Confidence Interval Upper Bound Conventional public Public charter .3262 Public magnet .1831 Independent .1385 Parochial .2542 Boarding/other .4090 Public charter Conventional public .3045 Public magnet .3174 Independent .3117 Parochial .4236 Boarding/other .5216 Public magnet Conventional public .3131 Public charter .4690 Independent .3273 Parochial .4399 Boarding/other .5518 Independent Conventional public .1831 Public charter .3779 Public magnet .2419 Parochial .3268 Boarding/other .4607 Parochial Conventional public .0817 Public charter .2728 Public magnet .1375 Independent .1098 Boarding/other .3556 Boarding/other Conventional public .2218 Public charter .3560 Public magnet .2346 Independent .2289 Parochial .3408 176 Table G35 Homogeneous Subsets SynthSkills Tukey HSDa,b Type of school N Subset for alpha = 0.05 1 Boarding/other 20 3.2572 Parochial 77 3.2646 Public charter 20 3.3400 Conventional public 602 3.3508 Independent 85 3.3731 Public magnet 33 3.4158 Sig. .710 Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed. a. Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 38.286. b. The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the group sizes is used. Type I error levels are not guaranteed. 177 Appendix H Backward Regression Analysis of Frequency of Use of Pedagogical Strategies Multivariate analysis of frequency of pedagogical strategies scale Table H1 Descriptive Statistics Mean Std. Deviation N Understand writing task 3.80 .467 849 Model synthesis writing 3.04 .835 849 Scaffold learning 3.28 .799 849 Use cooperative learning 3.00 .821 849 Provide feedback about writing 3.71 .539 849 Use peer feedback 2.91 .843 849 Use Internet source materials 2.84 .900 849 Use multimedia publication 2.23 .937 849 Review/reflect on writing 3.12 .812 849 Table H2 Multivariate Testsa Effect Value F Hypothesis df Error df Sig. Partial Eta Squared Noncent. Parameter Observed Powerc PedFreq Pillai's Trace .755 323.910b 8.000 841.000 .000 .755 2591.281 1.000 Wilks' Lambda .245 323.910b 8.000 841.000 .000 .755 2591.281 1.000 Hotelling's Trace 3.081 323.910b 8.000 841.000 .000 .755 2591.281 1.000 Roy's Largest Root 3.081 323.910b 8.000 841.000 .000 .755 2591.281 1.000 a. Design: Intercept Within Subjects Design: PedFreq b. Exact statistic c. Computed using alpha = .05 178 Table H3 Mauchly's Test of Sphericitya Measure: MEASURE_1 Within Subjects Effect Mauchly's W Approx. Chi- Square df Sig. Epsilonb Greenhouse- Geisser Huynh- Feldt Lower- bound PedFreq .488 606.149 35 .000 .843 .850 .125 Tests the null hypothesis that the error covariance matrix of the orthonormalized transformed dependent variables is proportional to an identity matrix. a. Design: Intercept Within Subjects Design: PedFreq b. May be used to adjust the degrees of freedom for the averaged tests of significance. Corrected tests are displayed in the Tests of Within-Subjects Effects table. Table H4 Tests of Within-Subjects Effects Measure: MEASURE_1 Source Type III Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Partial Eta Squared Noncent. Parameter Observed Powera PedFreq Sphericity Assumed 1492.787 8 186.598 402.7 07 .000 .322 3221.655 1.000 Greenhouse- Geisser 1492.787 6.742 221.430 402.7 07 .000 .322 2714.877 1.000 Huynh-Feldt 1492.787 6.801 219.488 402.707 .000 .322 2738.903 1.000 Lower-bound 1492.787 1.000 1492.787 402.707 .000 .322 402.707 1.000 Error(PedF req) Sphericity Assumed 3143.435 6784 .463 Greenhouse- Geisser 3143.435 5716.8 51 .550 Huynh-Feldt 3143.435 5767.444 .545 Lower-bound 3143.435 848.000 3.707 a. Computed using alpha = .05 179 Table H5 Tests of Within-Subjects Contrasts Measure: MEASURE_1 Source PedFreq Type III Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Partial Eta Squared Noncent. Parameter Observed Powera PedFreq Linear 526.745 1 526.745 808.341 .000 .488 808.341 1.000 Quadratic 14.452 1 14.452 38.083 .000 .043 38.083 1.000 Cubic 6.212 1 6.212 11.317 .001 .013 11.317 .919 Order 4 637.251 1 637.251 1179.923 .000 .582 1179.923 1.000 Order 5 22.621 1 22.621 54.248 .000 .060 54.248 1.000 Order 6 9.357 1 9.357 26.050 .000 .030 26.050 .999 Order 7 .368 1 .368 1.056 .304 .001 1.056 .177 Order 8 275.780 1 275.780 597.355 .000 .413 597.355 1.000 Error(PedFreq) Linear 552.588 848 .652 Quadratic 321.809 848 .379 Cubic 465.470 848 .549 Order 4 457.986 848 .540 Order 5 353.610 848 .417 Order 6 304.591 848 .359 Order 7 295.886 848 .349 Order 8 391.496 848 .462 a. Computed using alpha = .05 Table H6 Pairwise Comparisons Measure: MEASURE_1 (I) PedFreq (J) PedFreq Mean Difference (I-J) Std. Error Sig.b 95% Confidence Interval for Differenceb Lower Bound Upper Bound 1 2 .761* .029 .000 .703 .818 3 .516* .030 .000 .458 .574 4 .793* .031 .000 .733 .853 5 .091* .022 .000 .048 .133 6 .889* .032 .000 .827 .951 7 .953* .034 .000 .886 1.020 8 1.567* .035 .000 1.497 1.636 9 .678* .030 .000 .620 .737 2 1 -.761* .029 .000 -.818 -.703 3 -.245* .029 .000 -.302 -.188 4 .032 .032 .315 -.030 .094 5 -.670* .031 .000 -.730 -.610 6 .128* .034 .000 .061 .196 7 .192* .038 .000 .118 .266 8 .806* .039 .000 .729 .882 9 -.082* .034 .016 -.149 -.015 3 1 -.516* .030 .000 -.574 -.458 2 .245* .029 .000 .188 .302 4 .277* .029 .000 .219 .334 5 -.425* .031 .000 -.486 -.364 180 (I) PedFreq (J) PedFreq Mean Difference (I-J) Std. Error Sig.b 95% Confidence Interval for Differenceb Lower Bound Upper Bound 6 .373* .034 .000 .307 .440 7 .437* .037 .000 .364 .510 8 1.051* .039 .000 .975 1.127 9 .163* .034 .000 .096 .230 4 1 -.793* .031 .000 -.853 -.733 2 -.032 .032 .315 -.094 .030 3 -.277* .029 .000 -.334 -.219 5 -.702* .031 .000 -.763 -.641 6 .097* .029 .001 .039 .154 7 .160* .036 .000 .089 .231 8 .774* .037 .000 .701 .846 9 -.114* .033 .001 -.179 -.050 5 1 -.091* .022 .000 -.133 -.048 2 .670* .031 .000 .610 .730 3 .425* .031 .000 .364 .486 4 .702* .031 .000 .641 .763 6 .799* .031 .000 .738 .859 7 .862* .032 .000 .800 .925 8 1.476* .034 .000 1.409 1.543 9 .588* .029 .000 .531 .645 6 1 -.889* .032 .000 -.951 -.827 2 -.128* .034 .000 -.196 -.061 3 -.373* .034 .000 -.440 -.307 4 -.097* .029 .001 -.154 -.039 5 -.799* .031 .000 -.859 -.738 7 .064 .035 .073 -.006 .133 8 .677* .037 .000 .605 .750 9 -.211* .032 .000 -.274 -.148 7 1 -.953* .034 .000 -1.020 -.886 2 -.192* .038 .000 -.266 -.118 3 -.437* .037 .000 -.510 -.364 4 -.160* .036 .000 -.231 -.089 5 -.862* .032 .000 -.925 -.800 6 -.064 .035 .073 -.133 .006 8 .614* .032 .000 .552 .676 9 -.274* .037 .000 -.346 -.203 8 1 -1.567* .035 .000 -1.636 -1.497 2 -.806* .039 .000 -.882 -.729 3 -1.051* .039 .000 -1.127 -.975 4 -.774* .037 .000 -.846 -.701 5 -1.476* .034 .000 -1.543 -1.409 6 -.677* .037 .000 -.750 -.605 7 -.614* .032 .000 -.676 -.552 9 -.888* .036 .000 -.959 -.818 9 1 -.678* .030 .000 -.737 -.620 2 .082* .034 .016 .015 .149 3 -.163* .034 .000 -.230 -.096 4 .114* .033 .001 .050 .179 5 -.588* .029 .000 -.645 -.531 6 .211* .032 .000 .148 .274 7 .274* .037 .000 .203 .346 181 (I) PedFreq (J) PedFreq Mean Difference (I-J) Std. Error Sig.b 95% Confidence Interval for Differenceb Lower Bound Upper Bound 8 .888* .036 .000 .818 .959 Based on estimated marginal means *. The mean difference is significant at the .05 level. b. Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Least Significant Difference (equivalent to no adjustments). Table H7 Multivariate Tests Value F Hypothesis df Error df Sig. Partial Eta Squared Noncent. Parameter Observed Powerb Pillai's trace .755 323.910a 8.000 841.000 .000 .755 2591.281 1.000 Wilks' lambda .245 323.910a 8.000 841.000 .000 .755 2591.281 1.000 Hotelling's trace 3.081 323.910a 8.000 841.000 .000 .755 2591.281 1.000 Roy's largest root 3.081 323.910a 8.000 841.000 .000 .755 2591.281 1.000 Each F tests the multivariate effect of PedFreq. These tests are based on the linearly independent pairwise comparisons among the estimated marginal means. a. Exact statistic b. Computed using alpha = .05 Reliability test for Pedagogy variables Table H8 Case Processing Summary N % Cases Valid 849 69.8 Excludeda 368 30.2 Total 1217 100.0 a. Listwise deletion based on all variables in the procedure. Table H9 Reliability Statistics Cronbach's Alpha Cronbach's Alpha Based on Standardized Items N of Items .752 .747 9 182 Table H10 Item Statistics Mean Std. Deviation N Understand writing task 3.80 .467 849 Model synthesis writing 3.04 .835 849 Scaffold learning 3.28 .799 849 Use cooperative learning 3.00 .821 849 Provide feedback about writing 3.71 .539 849 Use peer feedback 2.91 .843 849 Use Internet source materials 2.84 .900 849 Use multimedia publication 2.23 .937 849 Review/reflect on writing 3.12 .812 849 Table H11 Inter-Item Correlation Matrix Under- stand writing task Model synthesis writing Scaffold learning Use coopera- tive learning Provide feedback about writing Use peer feedback Use Internet source materials Use multi- media publica- tion Review/ reflect on writing Understand writing task 1.000 .239 .150 .128 .209 .108 .060 .050 .163 Model synthesis writing .239 1.000 .467 .381 .213 .293 .200 .185 .272 Scaffold learning .150 .467 1.000 .444 .132 .285 .202 .165 .237 Use cooperative learning .128 .381 .444 1.000 .155 .471 .259 .258 .314 Provide feedback about writing .209 .213 .132 .155 1.000 .221 .246 .169 .266 Use peer feedback .108 .293 .285 .471 .221 1.000 .301 .276 .355 Use Internet source materials .060 .200 .202 .259 .246 .301 1.000 .498 .229 Use multimedia publication .050 .185 .165 .258 .169 .276 .498 1.000 .289 Review/reflect on writing .163 .272 .237 .314 .266 .355 .229 .289 1.000 Table H12 Summary Item Statistics Mean Minimum Maximum Range Maximum / Minimum Variance N of Items Item Means 3.103 2.231 3.797 1.567 1.702 .220 9 Item Variances .620 .218 .878 .660 4.022 .049 9 Inter-Item Correlations .247 .050 .498 .448 9.889 .012 9 183 Table H13 Item-Total Statistics Scale Mean if Item Deleted Scale Variance if Item Deleted Corrected Item- Total Correlation Squared Multiple Correlation Cronbach's Alpha if Item Deleted Understand writing task 24.13 15.822 .217 .091 .756 Model synthesis writing 24.89 13.251 .476 .303 .722 Scaffold learning 24.65 13.547 .452 .306 .726 Use cooperative learning 24.92 12.980 .539 .359 .711 Provide feedback about writing 24.22 15.166 .331 .147 .744 Use peer feedback 25.02 13.021 .512 .305 .716 Use Internet source materials 25.08 13.139 .444 .303 .728 Use multimedia publication 25.70 13.102 .422 .292 .733 Review/reflect on writing 24.81 13.475 .455 .227 .726 Table H14 Scale Statistics Mean Variance Std. Deviation N of Items 27.93 16.846 4.104 9 Backward Regression Table H15 Descriptive Statistics Mean Std. Deviation N Pedagogy 3.1114 .44453 733 Course_PedStrat_Crit 3.1024 .06900 733 SettingPedCrit 3.1058 .01636 733 TypePedCrit 3.1072 .07180 733 SESPedCrit 3.1072 .05616 733 ClassEthPedCrit 3.1064 .02834 733 SynthDefPedCrit 3.1109 .05757 733 TaskExPedCrit 3.1106 .05403 733 FreqPedCrit 3.1033 .03577 733 ExpPedCrit 3.1054 .03160 733 184 Table H16 Correlations Pedagogy Course_PedStrat_Crit SettingPedCrit TypePedCrit Pearson Correlation Pedagogy 1.000 .167 .035 .160 Course_PedStrat_Crit .167 1.000 .005 .100 SettingPedCrit .035 .005 1.000 .091 TypePedCrit .160 .100 .091 1.000 SESPedCrit .111 .119 .128 .362 ClassEthPedCrit .059 .117 -.006 -.048 SynthDefPedCrit .126 -.035 -.084 -.032 TaskExPedCrit .107 .071 .016 .052 FreqPedCrit .047 .048 .080 .008 ExpPedCrit .083 -.036 .002 -.002 Sig. (1-tailed) Pedagogy . .000 .173 .000 Course_PedStrat_Crit .000 . .451 .003 SettingPedCrit .173 .451 . .007 TypePedCrit .000 .003 .007 . SESPedCrit .001 .001 .000 .000 ClassEthPedCrit .056 .001 .434 .096 SynthDefPedCrit .000 .169 .011 .197 TaskExPedCrit .002 .028 .328 .079 FreqPedCrit .104 .096 .016 .410 ExpPedCrit .013 .167 .481 .482 N Pedagogy 733 733 733 733 Course_PedStrat_Crit 733 733 733 733 SettingPedCrit 733 733 733 733 TypePedCrit 733 733 733 733 SESPedCrit 733 733 733 733 ClassEthPedCrit 733 733 733 733 SynthDefPedCrit 733 733 733 733 TaskExPedCrit 733 733 733 733 FreqPedCrit 733 733 733 733 ExpPedCrit 733 733 733 733 185 Table H17 Correlations SESPedCrit ClassEthPedCrit SynthDefPedCrit Pearson Correlation Pedagogy .111 .059 .126 Course_PedStrat_Crit .119 .117 -.035 SettingPedCrit .128 -.006 -.084 TypePedCrit .362 -.048 -.032 SESPedCrit 1.000 .189 -.031 ClassEthPedCrit .189 1.000 -.063 SynthDefPedCrit -.031 -.063 1.000 TaskExPedCrit .007 -.021 .185 FreqPedCrit .032 .039 .031 ExpPedCrit -.012 .019 -.016 Sig. (1-tailed) Pedagogy .001 .056 .000 Course_PedStrat_Crit .001 .001 .169 SettingPedCrit .000 .434 .011 TypePedCrit .000 .096 .197 SESPedCrit . .000 .199 ClassEthPedCrit .000 . .045 SynthDefPedCrit .199 .045 . TaskExPedCrit .426 .287 .000 FreqPedCrit .197 .147 .199 ExpPedCrit .372 .300 .330 N Pedagogy 733 733 733 Course_PedStrat_Crit 733 733 733 SettingPedCrit 733 733 733 TypePedCrit 733 733 733 SESPedCrit 733 733 733 ClassEthPedCrit 733 733 733 SynthDefPedCrit 733 733 733 TaskExPedCrit 733 733 733 FreqPedCrit 733 733 733 ExpPedCrit 733 733 733 186 Table H18 Correlations TaskExPedCrit FreqPedCrit ExpPedCrit Pearson Correlation Pedagogy .107 .047 .083 Course_PedStrat_Crit .071 .048 -.036 SettingPedCrit .016 .080 .002 TypePedCrit .052 .008 -.002 SESPedCrit .007 .032 -.012 ClassEthPedCrit -.021 .039 .019 SynthDefPedCrit .185 .031 -.016 TaskExPedCrit 1.000 -.019 .045 FreqPedCrit -.019 1.000 -.108 ExpPedCrit .045 -.108 1.000 Sig. (1-tailed) Pedagogy .002 .104 .013 Course_PedStrat_Crit .028 .096 .167 SettingPedCrit .328 .016 .481 TypePedCrit .079 .410 .482 SESPedCrit .426 .197 .372 ClassEthPedCrit .287 .147 .300 SynthDefPedCrit .000 .199 .330 TaskExPedCrit . .302 .111 FreqPedCrit .302 . .002 ExpPedCrit .111 .002 . N Pedagogy 733 733 733 Course_PedStrat_Crit 733 733 733 SettingPedCrit 733 733 733 TypePedCrit 733 733 733 SESPedCrit 733 733 733 ClassEthPedCrit 733 733 733 SynthDefPedCrit 733 733 733 TaskExPedCrit 733 733 733 FreqPedCrit 733 733 733 ExpPedCrit 733 733 733 187 Table H19 Variables Entered/Removeda Model Variables Entered Variables Removed Method 1 ExpPedCrit, TypePedCrit, SynthDefPedCrit, ClassEthPedCrit, FreqPedCrit, SettingPedCrit, Course_PedStrat_Crit, TaskExPedCrit, SESPedCritb . Enter 2 . SettingPedCrit Backward (criterion: Probability of F-to- remove >= .100). 3 . SESPedCrit Backward (criterion: Probability of F-to- remove >= .100). 4 . FreqPedCrit Backward (criterion: Probability of F-to- remove >= .100). 5 . ClassEthPedCrit Backward (criterion: Probability of F-to- remove >= .100). a. Dependent Variable: Pedagogy b. All requested variables entered. Table H20 Model Summary Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate Change Statistics R Square Change F Change df1 1 .293a .086 .075 .42764 .086 7.551 9 2 .292b .085 .075 .42748 -.001 .446 1 3 .290c .084 .075 .42749 -.001 1.039 1 4 .287d .082 .075 .42762 -.002 1.450 1 5 .281e .079 .073 .42805 -.003 2.462 1 Table H21 Model Summary Model Change Statistics df2 Sig. F Change 1 723a .000 2 723b .504 3 724c .308 4 725d .229 5 726e .117 a. Predictors: (Constant), ExpPedCrit, TypePedCrit, SynthDefPedCrit, ClassEthPedCrit, FreqPedCrit, SettingPedCrit, Course_PedStrat_Crit, TaskExPedCrit, SESPedCrit b. Predictors: (Constant), ExpPedCrit, TypePedCrit, SynthDefPedCrit, ClassEthPedCrit, FreqPedCrit, Course_PedStrat_Crit, TaskExPedCrit, SESPedCrit c. Predictors: (Constant), ExpPedCrit, TypePedCrit, SynthDefPedCrit, ClassEthPedCrit, FreqPedCrit, Course_PedStrat_Crit, TaskExPedCrit 188 d. Predictors: (Constant), ExpPedCrit, TypePedCrit, SynthDefPedCrit, ClassEthPedCrit, Course_PedStrat_Crit, TaskExPedCrit e. Predictors: (Constant), ExpPedCrit, TypePedCrit, SynthDefPedCrit, Course_PedStrat_Crit, TaskExPedCrit Table H22 ANOVAa Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. 1 Regression 12.428 9 1.381 7.551 .000b Residual 132.221 723 .183 Total 144.649 732 2 Regression 12.347 8 1.543 8.446 .000c Residual 132.303 724 .183 Total 144.649 732 3 Regression 12.157 7 1.737 9.503 .000d Residual 132.492 725 .183 Total 144.649 732 4 Regression 11.892 6 1.982 10.839 .000e Residual 132.757 726 .183 Total 144.649 732 5 Regression 11.442 5 2.288 12.489 .000f Residual 133.207 727 .183 Total 144.649 732 a. Dependent Variable: Pedagogy b. Predictors: (Constant), ExpPedCrit, TypePedCrit, SynthDefPedCrit, ClassEthPedCrit, FreqPedCrit, SettingPedCrit, Course_PedStrat_Crit, TaskExPedCrit, SESPedCrit c. Predictors: (Constant), ExpPedCrit, TypePedCrit, SynthDefPedCrit, ClassEthPedCrit, FreqPedCrit, Course_PedStrat_Crit, TaskExPedCrit, SESPedCrit d. Predictors: (Constant), ExpPedCrit, TypePedCrit, SynthDefPedCrit, ClassEthPedCrit, FreqPedCrit, Course_PedStrat_Crit, TaskExPedCrit e. Predictors: (Constant), ExpPedCrit, TypePedCrit, SynthDefPedCrit, ClassEthPedCrit, Course_PedStrat_Crit, TaskExPedCrit f. Predictors: (Constant), ExpPedCrit, TypePedCrit, SynthDefPedCrit, Course_PedStrat_Crit, TaskExPedCrit 189 Table H23 Coefficientsa Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients t Sig. B Std. Error Beta 1 (Constant) -17.898 4.264 -4.198 .000 Course_PedStrat_Crit .937 .234 .145 4.010 .000 SettingPedCrit .656 .983 .024 .668 .504 TypePedCrit .825 .239 .133 3.444 .001 SESPedCrit .295 .312 .037 .943 .346 ClassEthPedCrit .746 .578 .048 1.292 .197 SynthDefPedCrit 1.004 .282 .130 3.563 .000 TaskExPedCrit .513 .300 .062 1.712 .087 FreqPedCrit .503 .447 .041 1.126 .261 ExpPedCrit 1.284 .504 .091 2.547 .011 2 (Constant) -15.955 3.117 -5.118 .000 Course_PedStrat_Crit .934 .233 .145 4.000 .000 TypePedCrit .831 .239 .134 3.477 .001 SESPedCrit .316 .310 .040 1.019 .308 ClassEthPedCrit .734 .577 .047 1.272 .204 SynthDefPedCrit .987 .281 .128 3.518 .000 TaskExPedCrit .520 .299 .063 1.735 .083 FreqPedCrit .528 .445 .042 1.185 .236 ExpPedCrit 1.287 .504 .092 2.554 .011 3 (Constant) -15.680 3.106 -5.049 .000 Course_PedStrat_Crit .949 .233 .147 4.073 .000 TypePedCrit .922 .222 .149 4.154 .000 ClassEthPedCrit .859 .564 .055 1.522 .128 SynthDefPedCrit .986 .281 .128 3.514 .000 TaskExPedCrit .516 .299 .063 1.723 .085 FreqPedCrit .536 .445 .043 1.204 .229 ExpPedCrit 1.281 .504 .091 2.542 .011 4 (Constant) -13.953 2.755 -5.064 .000 Course_PedStrat_Crit .961 .233 .149 4.125 .000 TypePedCrit .924 .222 .149 4.163 .000 ClassEthPedCrit .885 .564 .056 1.569 .117 SynthDefPedCrit .999 .280 .129 3.561 .000 TaskExPedCrit .507 .299 .062 1.695 .091 ExpPedCrit 1.217 .501 .087 2.427 .015 5 (Constant) -11.233 2.144 -5.240 .000 Course_PedStrat_Crit 1.005 .231 .156 4.345 .000 TypePedCrit .903 .222 .146 4.070 .000 SynthDefPedCrit .974 .280 .126 3.474 .001 TaskExPedCrit .500 .300 .061 1.667 .096 ExpPedCrit 1.235 .502 .088 2.463 .014 a. Dependent Variable: Pedagogy 190 Table H24 Excluded Variablesa Model Beta In t Sig. Partial Correlation Collinearity Statistics Tolerance 2 SettingPedCrit .024b .668 .504 .025 .966 3 SettingPedCrit .028 c .771 .441 .029 .977 SESPedCrit .040c 1.019 .308 .038 .822 4 SettingPedCrit .031d .869 .385 .032 .984 SESPedCrit .041d 1.041 .298 .039 .822 FreqPedCrit .043d 1.204 .229 .045 .983 5 SettingPedCrit .031e .859 .390 .032 .984 SESPedCrit .052e 1.350 .177 .050 .861 FreqPedCrit .045e 1.262 .207 .047 .985 ClassEthPedCrit .056e 1.569 .117 .058 .978 a. Dependent Variable: Pedagogy b. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), ExpPedCrit, TypePedCrit, SynthDefPedCrit, ClassEthPedCrit, FreqPedCrit, Course_PedStrat_Crit, TaskExPedCrit, SESPedCrit c. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), ExpPedCrit, TypePedCrit, SynthDefPedCrit, ClassEthPedCrit, FreqPedCrit, Course_PedStrat_Crit, TaskExPedCrit d. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), ExpPedCrit, TypePedCrit, SynthDefPedCrit, ClassEthPedCrit, Course_PedStrat_Crit, TaskExPedCrit e. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), ExpPedCrit, TypePedCrit, SynthDefPedCrit, Course_PedStrat_Crit, TaskExPedCrit ANOVA: ELA course type and frequency of use of pedagogical strategies Table H25 Descriptives Pedagogy N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound AP English Language 232 3.0395 .45133 .02963 2.9811 AP English Literature 76 3.0950 .44248 .05076 2.9939 IB English 34 3.0882 .49372 .08467 2.9160 Dual credit 22 3.3283 .47696 .10169 3.1168 ELL 21 3.2857 .49263 .10750 3.0615 Honors 145 3.1504 .42744 .03550 3.0802 College prep 165 3.1021 .43698 .03402 3.0349 Regular English 150 3.0709 .47560 .03883 2.9942 Other English 29 3.2797 .47663 .08851 3.0984 Total 874 3.1030 .45566 .01541 3.0727 191 Table H26 Descriptives Pedagogy 95% Confidence Interval for Mean Minimum Maximum Upper Bound AP English Language 3.0978 1.56 4.00 AP English Literature 3.1961 1.67 4.00 IB English 3.2605 1.78 4.00 Dual credit 3.5398 2.11 4.00 ELL 3.5100 2.44 4.00 Honors 3.2205 2.00 4.00 College prep 3.1693 2.00 4.00 Regular English 3.1476 2.00 4.00 Other English 3.4610 2.33 4.00 Total 3.1332 1.56 4.00 Table H27 ANOVA Pedagogy Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Between Groups 4.152 8 .519 2.535 .010 Within Groups 177.103 865 .205 Total 181.255 873 Post Hoc Tests Table H28 Multiple Comparisons Dependent Variable: Pedagogy Tukey HSD (I) Type of course (J) Type of course Mean Difference (I- J) Std. Error Sig. 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound Upper Bound AP English Language AP English Literature -.05558 .05980 .991 -.2415 .1304 IB English -.04878 .08309 1.000 -.3072 .2096 Dual credit -.28883 .10094 .100 -.6027 .0251 ELL -.24626 .10311 .292 -.5669 .0744 Honors -.11093 .04790 .334 -.2599 .0380 College prep -.06265 .04608 .912 -.2059 .0806 Regular English -.03146 .04741 .999 -.1789 .1160 Other English -.24024 .08912 .151 -.5174 .0369 AP English Literature AP English Language .05558 .05980 .991 -.1304 .2415 IB English .00679 .09336 1.000 -.2835 .2971 Dual credit -.23325 .10955 .454 -.5739 .1074 ELL -.19069 .11155 .741 -.5376 .1562 Honors -.05535 .06408 .995 -.2546 .1439 College prep -.00708 .06273 1.000 -.2021 .1880 Regular English .02412 .06371 1.000 -.1740 .2222 192 (I) Type of course (J) Type of course Mean Difference (I- J) Std. Error Sig. 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound Upper Bound Other English -.18466 .09876 .635 -.4918 .1225 IB English AP English Language .04878 .08309 1.000 -.2096 .3072 AP English Literature -.00679 .09336 1.000 -.2971 .2835 Dual credit -.24005 .12381 .587 -.6250 .1450 ELL -.19748 .12558 .820 -.5880 .1930 Honors -.06215 .08622 .999 -.3303 .2060 College prep -.01387 .08522 1.000 -.2789 .2511 Regular English .01732 .08595 1.000 -.2499 .2846 Other English -.19146 .11438 .762 -.5471 .1642 Dual credit AP English Language .28883 .10094 .100 -.0251 .6027 AP English Literature .23325 .10955 .454 -.1074 .5739 IB English .24005 .12381 .587 -.1450 .6250 ELL .04257 .13804 1.000 -.3867 .4718 Honors .17790 .10353 .735 -.1440 .4998 College prep .22618 .10270 .405 -.0932 .5455 Regular English .25737 .10330 .237 -.0639 .5786 Other English .04859 .12793 1.000 -.3492 .4464 ELL AP English Language .24626 .10311 .292 -.0744 .5669 AP English Literature .19069 .11155 .741 -.1562 .5376 IB English .19748 .12558 .820 -.1930 .5880 Dual credit -.04257 .13804 1.000 -.4718 .3867 Honors .13533 .10565 .937 -.1932 .4639 College prep .18361 .10484 .714 -.1424 .5096 Regular English .21480 .10543 .517 -.1130 .5426 Other English .00602 .12965 1.000 -.3972 .4092 Honors AP English Language .11093 .04790 .334 -.0380 .2599 AP English Literature .05535 .06408 .995 -.1439 .2546 IB English .06215 .08622 .999 -.2060 .3303 Dual credit -.17790 .10353 .735 -.4998 .1440 ELL -.13533 .10565 .937 -.4639 .1932 College prep .04828 .05151 .991 -.1119 .2084 Regular English .07947 .05270 .852 -.0844 .2433 Other English -.12931 .09204 .896 -.4155 .1569 College prep AP English Language .06265 .04608 .912 -.0806 .2059 AP English Literature .00708 .06273 1.000 -.1880 .2021 IB English .01387 .08522 1.000 -.2511 .2789 Dual credit -.22618 .10270 .405 -.5455 .0932 ELL -.18361 .10484 .714 -.5096 .1424 Honors -.04828 .05151 .991 -.2084 .1119 Regular English .03119 .05105 1.000 -.1275 .1899 Other English -.17759 .09111 .580 -.4609 .1057 193 (I) Type of course (J) Type of course Mean Difference (I- J) Std. Error Sig. 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound Upper Bound Regular English AP English Language .03146 .04741 .999 -.1160 .1789 AP English Literature -.02412 .06371 1.000 -.2222 .1740 IB English -.01732 .08595 1.000 -.2846 .2499 Dual credit -.25737 .10330 .237 -.5786 .0639 ELL -.21480 .10543 .517 -.5426 .1130 Honors -.07947 .05270 .852 -.2433 .0844 College prep -.03119 .05105 1.000 -.1899 .1275 Other English -.20878 .09179 .359 -.4942 .0766 Other English AP English Language .24024 .08912 .151 -.0369 .5174 AP English Literature .18466 .09876 .635 -.1225 .4918 IB English .19146 .11438 .762 -.1642 .5471 Dual credit -.04859 .12793 1.000 -.4464 .3492 ELL -.00602 .12965 1.000 -.4092 .3972 Honors .12931 .09204 .896 -.1569 .4155 College prep .17759 .09111 .580 -.1057 .4609 Regular English .20878 .09179 .359 -.0766 .4942 Homogeneous Subsets Table H29 Pedagogy Tukey HSDa,b Type of course N Subset for alpha = 0.05 1 AP English Language 232 3.0395 Regular English 150 3.0709 IB English 34 3.0882 AP English Literature 76 3.0950 College prep 165 3.1021 Honors 145 3.1504 Other English 29 3.2797 ELL 21 3.2857 Dual credit 22 3.3283 Sig. .056 Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed. a. Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 46.377. b. The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the group sizes is used. Type I error levels are not guaranteed. 194 ANOVA: School type and frequency of use of pedagogical strategies Oneway Table H30 Descriptives Pedagogy N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound Upper Bound Conventional public 601 3.1435 .44870 .01830 3.1075 3.1794 Public charter 20 3.1278 .33094 .07400 2.9729 3.2827 Public magnet 33 3.1246 .47366 .08245 2.9566 3.2925 Independent 82 3.0024 .46857 .05175 2.8994 3.1053 Parochial 77 2.9187 .45500 .05185 2.8154 3.0219 Boarding/other 20 3.0444 .50520 .11297 2.8080 3.2809 Total 833 3.1053 .45593 .01580 3.0743 3.1363 Table H31 Descriptives Pedagogy Minimum Maximum Conventional public 2.00 4.00 Public charter 2.44 3.78 Public magnet 2.00 4.00 Independent 1.56 4.00 Parochial 1.67 3.78 Boarding/other 2.33 4.00 Total 1.56 4.00 Table H32 ANOVA Pedagogy Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Between Groups 4.524 5 .905 4.443 .001 Within Groups 168.426 827 .204 Total 172.950 832 195 Post Hoc Tests Table H33 Multiple Comparisons Dependent Variable: Pedagogy Tukey HSD (I) Type of school (J) Type of school Mean Difference (I-J) Std. Error Sig. 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound Conventional public Public charter .01571 .10258 1.000 -.2773 Public magnet .01891 .08069 1.000 -.2116 Independent .14111 .05313 .085 -.0106 Parochial .22483* .05462 .001 .0688 Boarding/other .09904 .10258 .929 -.1940 Public charter Conventional public -.01571 .10258 1.000 -.3087 Public magnet .00320 .12788 1.000 -.3621 Independent .12541 .11255 .876 -.1961 Parochial .20913 .11326 .436 -.1144 Boarding/other .08333 .14271 .992 -.3243 Public magnet Conventional public -.01891 .08069 1.000 -.2494 Public charter -.00320 .12788 1.000 -.3685 Independent .12221 .09303 .778 -.1435 Parochial .20593 .09390 .242 -.0623 Boarding/other .08013 .12788 .989 -.2852 Independent Conventional public -.14111 .05313 .085 -.2929 Public charter -.12541 .11255 .876 -.4469 Public magnet -.12221 .09303 .778 -.3879 Parochial .08372 .07161 .852 -.1208 Boarding/other -.04207 .11255 .999 -.3636 Parochial Conventional public -.22483* .05462 .001 -.3809 Public charter -.20913 .11326 .436 -.5326 Public magnet -.20593 .09390 .242 -.4741 Independent -.08372 .07161 .852 -.2883 Boarding/other -.12579 .11326 .877 -.4493 Boarding/other Conventional public -.09904 .10258 .929 -.3920 Public charter -.08333 .14271 .992 -.4910 Public magnet -.08013 .12788 .989 -.4454 Independent .04207 .11255 .999 -.2794 Parochial .12579 .11326 .877 -.1977 196 Table H34 Multiple Comparisons Dependent Variable: Pedagogy Tukey HSD (I) Type of school (J) Type of school 95% Confidence Interval Upper Bound Conventional public Public charter .3087 Public magnet .2494 Independent .2929 Parochial .3809* Boarding/other .3920 Public charter Conventional public .2773 Public magnet .3685 Independent .4469 Parochial .5326 Boarding/other .4910 Public magnet Conventional public .2116 Public charter .3621 Independent .3879 Parochial .4741 Boarding/other .4454 Independent Conventional public .0106 Public charter .1961 Public magnet .1435 Parochial .2883 Boarding/other .2794 Parochial Conventional public -.0688* Public charter .1144 Public magnet .0623 Independent .1208 Boarding/other .1977 Boarding/other Conventional public .1940 Public charter .3243 Public magnet .2852 Independent .3636 Parochial .4493 *. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level. 197 Homogeneous Subsets Table H35 Pedagogy Tukey HSDa,b Type of school N Subset for alpha = 0.05 1 Parochial 77 2.9187 Independent 82 3.0024 Boarding/other 20 3.0444 Public magnet 33 3.1246 Public charter 20 3.1278 Conventional public 601 3.1435 Sig. .250 Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed. a. Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 38.180. b. The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the group sizes is used. Type I error levels are not guaranteed. ANOVA: Years teaching experience and frequency of use of pedagogical strategies Oneway Table H36 Descriptives Pedagogy N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval for Mean Minimum Lower Bound Upper Bound <= 5 106 3.0954 .47126 .04577 3.0046 3.1861 1.56 6 - 10 187 3.0818 .44460 .03251 3.0176 3.1459 2.11 11 - 15 170 3.1072 .45047 .03455 3.0390 3.1754 2.00 16 - 20 122 3.1571 .47889 .04336 3.0713 3.2429 2.00 21 - 25 88 3.1528 .43290 .04615 3.0611 3.2445 2.00 26 - 30 72 3.0804 .49501 .05834 2.9641 3.1968 1.67 31+ 89 3.0649 .43048 .04563 2.9742 3.1556 2.11 Total 834 3.1053 .45568 .01578 3.0743 3.1363 1.56 198 Table H37 Descriptives Pedagogy Maximum <= 5 4.00 6 - 10 4.00 11 - 15 4.00 16 - 20 4.00 21 - 25 4.00 26 - 30 4.00 31+ 4.00 Total 4.00 Table H38 ANOVA Pedagogy Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Between Groups .830 6 .138 .665 .678 Within Groups 172.139 827 .208 Total 172.969 833 199 Post Hoc Tests Table H39 Multiple Comparisons Dependent Variable: Pedagogy Tukey HSD (I) Years teaching experience (Binned) (J) Years teaching experience (Binned) Mean Difference (I-J) Std. Error Sig. 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound Upper Bound <= 5 6 - 10 .01361 .05547 1.000 -.1503 .1776 11 - 15 -.01180 .05646 1.000 -.1787 .1551 16 - 20 -.06172 .06058 .950 -.2408 .1173 21 - 25 -.05739 .06580 .977 -.2519 .1371 26 - 30 .01495 .06968 1.000 -.1910 .2209 31+ .03049 .06559 .999 -.1634 .2244 6 - 10 <= 5 -.01361 .05547 1.000 -.1776 .1503 11 - 15 -.02542 .04835 .998 -.1683 .1175 16 - 20 -.07533 .05310 .792 -.2323 .0816 21 - 25 -.07100 .05898 .893 -.2453 .1033 26 - 30 .00133 .06328 1.000 -.1857 .1884 31+ .01688 .05875 1.000 -.1568 .1905 11 - 15 <= 5 .01180 .05646 1.000 -.1551 .1787 6 - 10 .02542 .04835 .998 -.1175 .1683 16 - 20 -.04991 .05413 .969 -.2099 .1101 21 - 25 -.04559 .05991 .988 -.2227 .1315 26 - 30 .02675 .06415 1.000 -.1629 .2164 31+ .04229 .05969 .992 -.1341 .2187 16 - 20 <= 5 .06172 .06058 .950 -.1173 .2408 6 - 10 .07533 .05310 .792 -.0816 .2323 11 - 15 .04991 .05413 .969 -.1101 .2099 21 - 25 .00433 .06381 1.000 -.1843 .1929 26 - 30 .07666 .06780 .919 -.1237 .2771 31+ .09221 .06360 .774 -.0958 .2802 21 - 25 <= 5 .05739 .06580 .977 -.1371 .2519 6 - 10 .07100 .05898 .893 -.1033 .2453 11 - 15 .04559 .05991 .988 -.1315 .2227 16 - 20 -.00433 .06381 1.000 -.1929 .1843 26 - 30 .07234 .07250 .954 -.1419 .2866 31+ .08788 .06859 .861 -.1148 .2906 26 - 30 <= 5 -.01495 .06968 1.000 -.2209 .1910 6 - 10 -.00133 .06328 1.000 -.1884 .1857 11 - 15 -.02675 .06415 1.000 -.2164 .1629 16 - 20 -.07666 .06780 .919 -.2771 .1237 21 - 25 -.07234 .07250 .954 -.2866 .1419 31+ .01554 .07232 1.000 -.1982 .2293 31+ <= 5 -.03049 .06559 .999 -.2244 .1634 6 - 10 -.01688 .05875 1.000 -.1905 .1568 11 - 15 -.04229 .05969 .992 -.2187 .1341 16 - 20 -.09221 .06360 .774 -.2802 .0958 21 - 25 -.08788 .06859 .861 -.2906 .1148 26 - 30 -.01554 .07232 1.000 -.2293 .1982 200 Homogeneous Subsets Table H40 Pedagogy Tukey HSDa,b Years teaching experience (Binned) N Subset for alpha = 0.05 1 31+ 89 3.0649 26 - 30 72 3.0804 6 - 10 187 3.0818 <= 5 106 3.0954 11 - 15 170 3.1072 21 - 25 88 3.1528 16 - 20 122 3.1571 Sig. .757 Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed. a. Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 107.117. b. The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the group sizes is used. Type I error levels are not guaranteed. ANOVA: Synthesis definition and frequency of use of pedagogical strategies Oneway Table H41 Descriptives Pedagogy N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound Prompt response 63 3.0077 .42922 .05408 2.8996 Original argument/thesis 192 3.1221 .40761 .02942 3.0641 Original perspective/analysis 89 3.0808 .49732 .05272 2.9761 Connecting to texts/topics 42 3.1005 .42844 .06611 2.9670 Summary 19 3.3070 .44567 .10224 3.0922 Analysis of themes/ideas 31 3.1470 .45487 .08170 2.9801 Literary analysis 22 3.2525 .48150 .10266 3.0390 Literary argument 3 3.2222 .50918 .29397 1.9574 Composition support 162 3.1357 .43284 .03401 3.0686 No synthesis 112 3.0501 .53104 .05018 2.9507 Rhetorical analysis 5 3.2222 .33333 .14907 2.8083 Argument 73 3.1218 .43199 .05056 3.0210 Total 813 3.1102 .45157 .01584 3.0791 201 Table H42 Descriptives Pedagogy 95% Confidence Interval for Mean Minimum Maximum Upper Bound Prompt response 3.1158 1.56 4.00 Original argument/thesis 3.1801 2.11 4.00 Original perspective/analysis 3.1856 2.00 4.00 Connecting to texts/topics 3.2340 2.22 4.00 Summary 3.5218 2.44 4.00 Analysis of themes/ideas 3.3138 2.00 4.00 Literary analysis 3.4660 2.11 4.00 Literary argument 4.4871 2.67 3.67 Composition support 3.2029 2.00 4.00 No synthesis 3.1495 1.67 4.00 Rhetorical analysis 3.6361 2.78 3.56 Argument 3.2226 2.22 4.00 Total 3.1412 1.56 4.00 Table H43 ANOVA Pedagogy Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Between Groups 2.613 11 .238 1.168 .306 Within Groups 162.963 801 .203 Total 165.576 812 202 Post Hoc Tests Table H44 Multiple Comparisons Dependent Variable: Pedagogy Tukey HSD (I) Teacher's synthesis definition (J) Teacher's synthesis definition Mean Difference (I-J) Std. Error Sig. 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound Upper Bound Prompt response Original argument/thesis -.11438 .06549 .846 -.3290 .1003 Original perspective/analysis -.07312 .07427 .998 -.3165 .1703 Connecting to texts/topics -.09281 .08985 .997 -.3873 .2017 Summary -.29930 .11806 .319 -.6863 .0877 Analysis of themes/ideas -.13924 .09896 .962 -.4636 .1851 Literary analysis -.24481 .11170 .556 -.6109 .1213 Literary argument -.21451 .26654 1.000 -1.0882 .6592 Composition support -.12800 .06697 .752 -.3475 .0915 No synthesis -.04238 .07103 1.000 -.2752 .1905 Rhetorical analysis -.21451 .20957 .997 -.9014 .4724 Argument -.11405 .07756 .948 -.3683 .1402 Original argument/thesis Prompt response .11438 .06549 .846 -.1003 .3290 Original perspective/analysis .04126 .05784 1.000 -.1483 .2308 Connecting to texts/topics .02157 .07684 1.000 -.2303 .2734 Summary -.18492 .10848 .866 -.5405 .1706 Analysis of themes/ideas -.02486 .08731 1.000 -.3110 .2613 Literary analysis -.13043 .10152 .981 -.4632 .2023 Literary argument -.10013 .26244 1.000 -.9604 .7601 Composition support -.01362 .04812 1.000 -.1713 .1441 No synthesis .07200 .05363 .973 -.1038 .2478 Rhetorical analysis -.10013 .20433 1.000 -.7699 .5696 Argument .00033 .06202 1.000 -.2030 .2036 Original perspective/analysis Prompt response .07312 .07427 .998 -.1703 .3165 Original argument/thesis -.04126 .05784 1.000 -.2308 .1483 Connecting to texts/topics -.01969 .08444 1.000 -.2965 .2571 Summary -.22618 .11399 .704 -.5998 .1475 Analysis of themes/ideas -.06612 .09407 1.000 -.3745 .2422 Literary analysis -.17169 .10739 .909 -.5237 .1803 Literary argument -.14139 .26477 1.000 -1.0092 .7265 Composition support -.05488 .05951 .999 -.2500 .1402 No synthesis .03074 .06405 1.000 -.1792 .2407 Rhetorical analysis -.14139 .20731 1.000 -.8209 .5381 Argument -.04093 .07122 1.000 -.2744 .1925 203 (I) Teacher's synthesis definition (J) Teacher's synthesis definition Mean Difference (I-J) Std. Error Sig. 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound Upper Bound Connecting to texts/topics Prompt response .09281 .08985 .997 -.2017 .3873 Original argument/thesis -.02157 .07684 1.000 -.2734 .2303 Original perspective/analysis .01969 .08444 1.000 -.2571 .2965 Summary -.20649 .12471 .887 -.6152 .2023 Analysis of themes/ideas -.04642 .10680 1.000 -.3965 .3037 Literary analysis -.15200 .11871 .981 -.5411 .2371 Literary argument -.12169 .26956 1.000 -1.0052 .7618 Composition support -.03519 .07810 1.000 -.2912 .2208 No synthesis .05043 .08161 1.000 -.2171 .3179 Rhetorical analysis -.12169 .21339 1.000 -.8211 .5777 Argument -.02124 .08736 1.000 -.3076 .2651 Summary Prompt response .29930 .11806 .319 -.0877 .6863 Original argument/thesis .18492 .10848 .866 -.1706 .5405 Original perspective/analysis .22618 .11399 .704 -.1475 .5998 Connecting to texts/topics .20649 .12471 .887 -.2023 .6152 Analysis of themes/ideas .16006 .13142 .988 -.2707 .5908 Literary analysis .05449 .14126 1.000 -.4085 .5175 Literary argument .08480 .28022 1.000 -.8337 1.0033 Composition support .17130 .10938 .921 -.1872 .5298 No synthesis .25692 .11191 .480 -.1099 .6237 Rhetorical analysis .08480 .22671 1.000 -.6583 .8279 Argument .18525 .11617 .911 -.1955 .5660 Analysis of themes/ideas Prompt response .13924 .09896 .962 -.1851 .4636 Original argument/thesis .02486 .08731 1.000 -.2613 .3110 Original perspective/analysis .06612 .09407 1.000 -.2422 .3745 Connecting to texts/topics .04642 .10680 1.000 -.3037 .3965 Summary -.16006 .13142 .988 -.5908 .2707 Literary analysis -.10557 .12574 1.000 -.5177 .3066 Literary argument -.07527 .27273 1.000 -.9692 .8187 Composition support .01124 .08842 1.000 -.2786 .3011 No synthesis .09685 .09154 .996 -.2032 .3969 Rhetorical analysis -.07527 .21738 1.000 -.7878 .6372 Argument .02519 .09669 1.000 -.2918 .3421 Literary analysis Prompt response .24481 .11170 .556 -.1213 .6109 Original argument/thesis .13043 .10152 .981 -.2023 .4632 Original perspective/analysis .17169 .10739 .909 -.1803 .5237 Connecting to texts/topics .15200 .11871 .981 -.2371 .5411 Summary -.05449 .14126 1.000 -.5175 .4085 204 (I) Teacher's synthesis definition (J) Teacher's synthesis definition Mean Difference (I-J) Std. Error Sig. 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound Upper Bound Analysis of themes/ideas .10557 .12574 1.000 -.3066 .5177 Literary argument .03030 .27760 1.000 -.8796 .9402 Composition support .11681 .10249 .993 -.2191 .4527 No synthesis .20243 .10519 .744 -.1424 .5472 Rhetorical analysis .03030 .22347 1.000 -.7022 .7628 Argument .13076 .10970 .990 -.2288 .4903 Literary argument Prompt response .21451 .26654 1.000 -.6592 1.0882 Original argument/thesis .10013 .26244 1.000 -.7601 .9604 Original perspective/analysis .14139 .26477 1.000 -.7265 1.0092 Connecting to texts/topics .12169 .26956 1.000 -.7618 1.0052 Summary -.08480 .28022 1.000 -1.0033 .8337 Analysis of themes/ideas .07527 .27273 1.000 -.8187 .9692 Literary analysis -.03030 .27760 1.000 -.9402 .8796 Composition support .08651 .26282 1.000 -.7749 .9480 No synthesis .17212 .26388 1.000 -.6928 1.0371 Rhetorical analysis .00000 .32940 1.000 -1.0797 1.0797 Argument .10046 .26571 1.000 -.7705 .9714 Composition support Prompt response .12800 .06697 .752 -.0915 .3475 Original argument/thesis .01362 .04812 1.000 -.1441 .1713 Original perspective/analysis .05488 .05951 .999 -.1402 .2500 Connecting to texts/topics .03519 .07810 1.000 -.2208 .2912 Summary -.17130 .10938 .921 -.5298 .1872 Analysis of themes/ideas -.01124 .08842 1.000 -.3011 .2786 Literary analysis -.11681 .10249 .993 -.4527 .2191 Literary argument -.08651 .26282 1.000 -.9480 .7749 No synthesis .08562 .05543 .928 -.0961 .2673 Rhetorical analysis -.08651 .20481 1.000 -.7578 .5848 Argument .01395 .06358 1.000 -.1945 .2224 No synthesis Prompt response .04238 .07103 1.000 -.1905 .2752 Original argument/thesis -.07200 .05363 .973 -.2478 .1038 Original perspective/analysis -.03074 .06405 1.000 -.2407 .1792 Connecting to texts/topics -.05043 .08161 1.000 -.3179 .2171 Summary -.25692 .11191 .480 -.6237 .1099 Analysis of themes/ideas -.09685 .09154 .996 -.3969 .2032 Literary analysis -.20243 .10519 .744 -.5472 .1424 Literary argument -.17212 .26388 1.000 -1.0371 .6928 Composition support -.08562 .05543 .928 -.2673 .0961 Rhetorical analysis -.17212 .20617 1.000 -.8479 .5037 205 (I) Teacher's synthesis definition (J) Teacher's synthesis definition Mean Difference (I-J) Std. Error Sig. 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound Upper Bound Argument -.07167 .06785 .996 -.2941 .1507 Rhetorical analysis Prompt response .21451 .20957 .997 -.4724 .9014 Original argument/thesis .10013 .20433 1.000 -.5696 .7699 Original perspective/analysis .14139 .20731 1.000 -.5381 .8209 Connecting to texts/topics .12169 .21339 1.000 -.5777 .8211 Summary -.08480 .22671 1.000 -.8279 .6583 Analysis of themes/ideas .07527 .21738 1.000 -.6372 .7878 Literary analysis -.03030 .22347 1.000 -.7628 .7022 Literary argument .00000 .32940 1.000 -1.0797 1.0797 Composition support .08651 .20481 1.000 -.5848 .7578 No synthesis .17212 .20617 1.000 -.5037 .8479 Argument .10046 .20851 1.000 -.5830 .7839 Argument Prompt response .11405 .07756 .948 -.1402 .3683 Original argument/thesis -.00033 .06202 1.000 -.2036 .2030 Original perspective/analysis .04093 .07122 1.000 -.1925 .2744 Connecting to texts/topics .02124 .08736 1.000 -.2651 .3076 Summary -.18525 .11617 .911 -.5660 .1955 Analysis of themes/ideas -.02519 .09669 1.000 -.3421 .2918 Literary analysis -.13076 .10970 .990 -.4903 .2288 Literary argument -.10046 .26571 1.000 -.9714 .7705 Composition support -.01395 .06358 1.000 -.2224 .1945 No synthesis .07167 .06785 .996 -.1507 .2941 Rhetorical analysis -.10046 .20851 1.000 -.7839 .5830 206 Homogeneous Subsets Table H45 Pedagogy Tukey HSDa,b Teacher's synthesis definition N Subset for alpha = 0.05 1 Prompt response 63 3.0077 No synthesis 112 3.0501 Original perspective/analysis 89 3.0808 Connecting to texts/topics 42 3.1005 Argument 73 3.1218 Original argument/thesis 192 3.1221 Composition support 162 3.1357 Analysis of themes/ideas 31 3.1470 Literary argument 3 3.2222 Rhetorical analysis 5 3.2222 Literary analysis 22 3.2525 Summary 19 3.3070 Sig. .772 Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed. a. Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 16.030. b. The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the group sizes is used. Type I error levels are not guaranteed. 207 Appendix I Professional Development Table I1 COS synthesis requirement and state Chi-Square Tests Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 94.710a 74 .053 Likelihood Ratio 96.698 74 .039 Linear-by-Linear Association .145 1 .704 N of Valid Cases 844 a. 72 cells (63.2%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .21. Table I2 COS synthesis requirement and instructional setting Chi-Square Tests Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 7.426a 4 .115 Likelihood Ratio 7.446 4 .114 Linear-by-Linear Association 5.740 1 .017 N of Valid Cases 852 a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 22.98. Table I3 COS synthesis requirement and course type Chi-Square Tests Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 11.293a 16 .791 Likelihood Ratio 11.201 16 .797 Linear-by-Linear Association .533 1 .465 N of Valid Cases 890 a. 2 cells (7.4%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 4.55. 208 Table I4 COS synthesis requirement and percent nonwhite students in course Chi-Square Tests Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 11.344a 8 .183 Likelihood Ratio 11.252 8 .188 Linear-by-Linear Association 3.682 1 .055 N of Valid Cases 851 a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 19.24. Table I5 COS synthesis requirement and years teaching experience Chi-Square Tests Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 18.082a 12 .113 Likelihood Ratio 17.868 12 .120 Linear-by-Linear Association 2.824 1 .093 N of Valid Cases 853 a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 15.23. Table I6 COS synthesis requirement and school type Case Processing Summary Cases Valid Missing Total N Percent N Percent N Percent Synthesis writing in state COS * Type of school 852 70.0% 365 30.0% 1217 100.0% Table I7 Chi-Square Tests Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 142.886a 12 .000 Likelihood Ratio 125.135 12 .000 Linear-by-Linear Association 54.352 1 .000 N of Valid Cases 852 a. 6 cells (28.6%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 2.08. 209 Table I8 Type of school Total Conventional public Public charter Public magnet Independent Parochial Boarding Other Synthesis writing in state COS Yes Count 380a 15a 23a 22b 31c 2b, c 8a 481 Expected Count 347.2 11.3 18.1 49.7 43.5 5.6 5.6 481.0 % within Synthesis writing in state COS 79.0% 3.1% 4.8% 4.6% 6.4% 0.4% 1.7% 100.0% % within Type of school 61.8% 75.0% 71.9% 25.0% 40.3% 20.0% 80.0% 56.5% No Count 143a 2a, b 5a, b 8b 15a, b 3a 1a, b 177 Expected Count 127.8 4.2 6.6 18.3 16.0 2.1 2.1 177.0 % within Synthesis writing in state COS 80.8% 1.1% 2.8% 4.5% 8.5% 1.7% 0.6% 100.0% % within Type of school 23.3% 10.0% 15.6% 9.1% 19.5% 30.0% 10.0% 20.8% Don't know Count 92a 3a 4a 58b 31c 5b, c 1a, c 194 Expected Count 140.0 4.6 7.3 20.0 17.5 2.3 2.3 194.0 % within Synthesis writing in state COS 47.4% 1.5% 2.1% 29.9% 16.0% 2.6% 0.5% 100.0% % within Type of school 15.0% 15.0% 12.5% 65.9% 40.3% 50.0% 10.0% 22.8% Total Count 615 20 32 88 77 10 10 852 Expected Count 615.0 20.0 32.0 88.0 77.0 10.0 10.0 852.0 % within Synthesis writing in state COS 72.2% 2.3% 3.8% 10.3% 9.0% 1.2% 1.2% 100.0% % within Type of school 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Each subscript letter denotes a subset of Type of school categories whose column proportions do not differ significantly from each other at the .05 level. 210 Table I9 COS synthesis requirement and low-SES percent in course Case Processing Summary Cases Valid Missing Total N Percent N Percent N Percent Synthesis writing in state COS * Low SES % in school 840 69.0% 377 31.0% 1217 100.0% Table I10 Chi-Square Tests Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 47.954a 8 .000 Likelihood Ratio 44.927 8 .000 Linear-by-Linear Association 18.215 1 .000 N of Valid Cases 840 a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 12.85. Table I11 Low SES % in school Total 0-10% 11-25% 26-50% 51-75% 76-100% Synthesis writing in state COS Yes Count 101a 133b 127b 80b 33a, b 474 Expected Count 128.1 123.0 115.7 72.8 34.4 474.0 % within Synthesis writing in state COS 21.3% 28.1% 26.8% 16.9% 7.0% 100.0% % within Low SES % in school 44.5% 61.0% 62.0% 62.0% 54.1% 56.4% No Count 39a 45a, b 48a, b 27a, b 18b 177 Expected Count 47.8 45.9 43.2 27.2 12.9 177.0 % within Synthesis writing in state COS 22.0% 25.4% 27.1% 15.3% 10.2% 100.0% % within Low SES % in school 17.2% 20.6% 23.4% 20.9% 29.5% 21.1% Don't know Count 87a 40b 30b 22b 10b 189 Expected Count 51.1 49.1 46.1 29.0 13.7 189.0 % within Synthesis writing in state COS 46.0% 21.2% 15.9% 11.6% 5.3% 100.0% % within Low SES % in school 38.3% 18.3% 14.6% 17.1% 16.4% 22.5% Total Count 227 218 205 129 61 840 Expected Count 227.0 218.0 205.0 129.0 61.0 840.0 % within Synthesis writing in state COS 27.0% 26.0% 24.4% 15.4% 7.3% 100.0% % within Low SES % in school 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Each subscript letter denotes a subset of Low SES % in school categories whose column proportions do not differ significantly from each other at the .05 level. 211 Table I12 COS original argument requirement and school setting Chi-Square Tests Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 2.652a 4 .618 Likelihood Ratio 2.928 4 .570 Linear-by-Linear Association .954 1 .329 N of Valid Cases 478 a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 10.79. Table I13 COS original argument requirement and school type Chi-Square Tests Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 20.691a 12 .055 Likelihood Ratio 19.919 12 .069 Linear-by-Linear Association 9.325 1 .002 N of Valid Cases 480 a. 11 cells (52.4%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .33. Table I14 COS original argument requirement and % low-SES students Chi-Square Tests Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 9.935a 8 .270 Likelihood Ratio 9.900 8 .272 Linear-by-Linear Association 1.280 1 .258 N of Valid Cases 473 a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 5.44. Table I15 COS original argument requirement and type of course Chi-Square Tests Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 19.756a 16 .231 Likelihood Ratio 21.629 16 .156 Linear-by-Linear Association .005 1 .945 N of Valid Cases 497 a. 8 cells (29.6%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 1.75. 212 Table I16 COS original argument requirement and % nonwhite students in the ELA course Chi-Square Tests Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 5.623a 8 .689 Likelihood Ratio 6.008 8 .646 Linear-by-Linear Association .165 1 .684 N of Valid Cases 479 a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 8.79. Table I17 COS original argument requirement and years of teaching experience Chi-Square Tests Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 4.984a 12 .958 Likelihood Ratio 5.133 12 .953 Linear-by-Linear Association .021 1 .885 N of Valid Cases 480 a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 6.83. Table I18 College courses and years of teaching experience Chi-Square Tests Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 42.111a 30 .070 Likelihood Ratio 43.337 30 .055 Linear-by-Linear Association .732 1 .392 N of Valid Cases 855 a. 3 cells (7.1%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 3.38. Table I19 College courses and school type Chi-Square Tests Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 37.729a 30 .157 Likelihood Ratio 36.260 30 .200 Linear-by-Linear Association 2.533 1 .111 N of Valid Cases 854 a. 23 cells (54.8%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .47. 213 Table I20 College courses and ELA course type Case Processing Summary Cases Valid Missing Total N Percent N Percent N Percent Courses addressing synthesis * Type of course 888 73.0% 329 27.0% 1217 100.0% Table I21 Chi-Square Tests Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 57.364a 40 .037 Likelihood Ratio 59.102 40 .026 Linear-by-Linear Association .039 1 .843 N of Valid Cases 888 a. 20 cells (37.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 1.02. Table I22 Type of course Total AP English Language AP English Literature IB English Dual credit ELL Honors College prep Regular English Other English Courses addressing synthesis None Count 120a 40a 14a, b, c 5c 7a, b, c 66a, b 70a, b, c 71a 8b, c 401 Expected Count 104.3 37.0 15.4 10.4 9.9 65.9 75.0 69.5 13.5 401.0 % within Courses addressing synthesis 29.9% 10.0% 3.5% 1.2% 1.7% 16.5% 17.5% 17.7% 2.0% 100.0% % within Type of course 51.9% 48.8% 41.2% 21.7% 31.8% 45.2% 42.2% 46.1% 26.7% 45.2% Don't know Count 11a 7a, b 7b 5b 3a, b 15b 22b 14a, b 5b 89 Expected Count 23.2 8.2 3.4 2.3 2.2 14.6 16.6 15.4 3.0 89.0 % within Courses addressing synthesis 12.4% 7.9% 7.9% 5.6% 3.4% 16.9% 24.7% 15.7% 5.6% 100.0% % within Type of course 4.8% 8.5% 20.6% 21.7% 13.6% 10.3% 13.3% 9.1% 16.7% 10.0% 214 Type of course Total AP English Language AP English Literature IB English Dual credit ELL Honors College prep Regular English Other English One Count 30a, b 7b 5a, b, c 3a, b, c 3a, b, c 30a, c 27a, b, c 33c 7a, c 145 Expected Count 37.7 13.4 5.6 3.8 3.6 23.8 27.1 25.1 4.9 145.0 % within Courses addressing synthesis 20.7% 4.8% 3.4% 2.1% 2.1% 20.7% 18.6% 22.8% 4.8% 100.0% % within Type of course 13.0% 8.5% 14.7% 13.0% 13.6% 20.5% 16.3% 21.4% 23.3% 16.3% Two Count 25a, b 14b 1a 3a, b 4a, b 15a, b 16a, b 17a, b 4a, b 99 Expected Count 25.8 9.1 3.8 2.6 2.5 16.3 18.5 17.2 3.3 99.0 % within Courses addressing synthesis 25.3% 14.1% 1.0% 3.0% 4.0% 15.2% 16.2% 17.2% 4.0% 100.0% % within Type of course 10.8% 17.1% 2.9% 13.0% 18.2% 10.3% 9.6% 11.0% 13.3% 11.1% Three Count 10a 4a 0a 1a 1a 8a 9a 5a 3a 41 Expected Count 10.7 3.8 1.6 1.1 1.0 6.7 7.7 7.1 1.4 41.0 % within Courses addressing synthesis 24.4% 9.8% 0.0% 2.4% 2.4% 19.5% 22.0% 12.2% 7.3% 100.0% % within Type of course 4.3% 4.9% 0.0% 4.3% 4.5% 5.5% 5.4% 3.2% 10.0% 4.6% Four or more Count 35a, b 10a, b, c 7a, b 6b 4a, b, c 12c 22a, b, c 14a, c 3a, b, c 113 Expected Count 29.4 10.4 4.3 2.9 2.8 18.6 21.1 19.6 3.8 113.0 % within Courses addressing synthesis 31.0% 8.8% 6.2% 5.3% 3.5% 10.6% 19.5% 12.4% 2.7% 100.0% % within Type of course 15.2% 12.2% 20.6% 26.1% 18.2% 8.2% 13.3% 9.1% 10.0% 12.7% Total Count 231 82 34 23 22 146 166 154 30 888 Expected Count 231.0 82.0 34.0 23.0 22.0 146.0 166.0 154.0 30.0 888.0 % within Courses addressing synthesis 26.0% 9.2% 3.8% 2.6% 2.5% 16.4% 18.7% 17.3% 3.4% 100.0% % within Type of course 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Each subscript letter denotes a subset of Type of course categories whose column proportions do not differ significantly from each other at the .05 level. 215 Reliability test for usefulness of PD opportunities Table I23 Case Processing Summary N % Cases Valid 188 15.4 Excludeda 1029 84.6 Total 1217 100.0 a. Listwise deletion based on all variables in the procedure. Table I24 Reliability Statistics Cronbach's Alpha Cronbach's Alpha Based on Standardized Items N of Items .752 .760 14 Table I25 Item Statistics Mean Std. Deviation N Department meeting at school 3.14 1.189 188 Professional learning group 2.89 1.389 188 Inservice at school 2.70 1.231 188 District workshop 2.63 1.262 188 College Board/AP workshop 2.45 1.713 188 Online discussion group 1.70 1.169 188 State ed assoc. conference 1.34 .902 188 Professonal org. regional conf. 1.43 1.034 188 Dual credit PD event 1.54 1.139 188 ELL PD event 1.56 1.124 188 College Board/AP regional forum 1.40 1.068 188 Professional org. national conf. 1.45 1.096 188 AP Annual Conference 1.39 1.087 188 IB PD event 1.28 .872 188 216 Table I26 Inter-Item Correlation Matrix Depart- ment meeting at school Profes- sional learning group Inser- vice at school District work- shop College Board/ AP work- shop Online discus- sion group State ed assoc. confer- ence Profes- sional org. regional conf. Dual credit PD event ELL PD event College Board/ AP regional forum Profes- sional org. national conf. AP Annual Confer- ence IB PD event Department meeting at school 1.000 .453 .514 .415 -.133 .092 .165 .039 .099 .138 .019 .050 -.084 .091 Professional learning group .453 1.000 .556 .437 .096 .289 .252 .272 .143 .280 .103 .199 .128 .123 Inservice at school .514 .556 1.000 .663 .029 .204 .159 .113 .202 .268 .031 .172 -.004 .104 District workshop .415 .437 .663 1.000 -.009 .098 .190 .161 .190 .168 -.032 .109 .036 .099 College Board/AP workshop -.133 .096 .029 -.009 1.000 .136 .121 -.025 .124 -.018 .391 .230 .458 .104 Online discussion group .092 .289 .204 .098 .136 1.000 .053 .209 .147 .215 .141 .178 .115 -.010 State ed assoc. conference .165 .252 .159 .190 .121 .053 1.000 .457 .310 .160 .201 .374 .195 .156 Professional org. regional conf. .039 .272 .113 .161 -.025 .209 .457 1.000 .263 .199 .173 .410 .198 .062 Dual credit PD event .099 .143 .202 .190 .124 .147 .310 .263 1.000 .211 .172 .344 .157 .245 ELL PD event .138 .280 .268 .168 -.018 .215 .160 .199 .211 1.000 .127 .111 .042 .182 College Board/AP regional forum .019 .103 .031 -.032 .391 .141 .201 .173 .172 .127 1.000 .446 .493 .141 217 Depart- ment meeting at school Profes- sional learning group Inser- vice at school District work- shop College Board/ AP work- shop Online discus- sion group State ed assoc. confer- ence Profes- sional org. regional conf. Dual credit PD event ELL PD event College Board/ AP regional forum Profes- sional org. national conf. AP Annual Confer- ence IB PD event Professional org. national conf. .050 .199 .172 .109 .230 .178 .374 .410 .344 .111 .446 1.000 .451 .174 AP Annual Conference -.084 .128 -.004 .036 .458 .115 .195 .198 .157 .042 .493 .451 1.000 .097 IB PD event .091 .123 .104 .099 .104 -.010 .156 .062 .245 .182 .141 .174 .097 1.000 Table I27 Summary Item Statistics Mean Minimum Maximum Range Maximum / Minimum Variance N of Items Item Means 1.922 1.282 3.138 1.856 2.448 .454 14 Item Variances 1.391 .760 2.934 2.174 3.862 .287 14 Inter-Item Correlations .185 -.133 .663 .796 -4.972 .022 14 218 Table I28 Item-Total Statistics Scale Mean if Item Deleted Scale Variance if Item Deleted Corrected Item-Total Correlation Squared Multiple Correlation Cronbach's Alpha if Item Deleted Department meeting at school 23.77 57.859 .287 .367 .745 Professional learning group 24.02 51.887 .533 .446 .717 Inservice at school 24.20 54.077 .491 .588 .723 District workshop 24.27 55.386 .399 .476 .733 College Board/AP workshop 24.45 55.992 .216 .318 .763 Online discussion group 25.21 57.834 .296 .165 .744 State ed assoc. conference 25.56 57.830 .425 .316 .734 Professonal org. regional conf. 25.48 57.598 .370 .364 .737 Dual credit PD event 25.37 56.512 .389 .227 .735 ELL PD event 25.35 57.885 .311 .178 .742 College Board/AP regional forum 25.50 57.257 .376 .364 .736 Professional org. national conf. 25.45 55.201 .496 .427 .725 AP Annual Conference 25.51 57.310 .363 .404 .737 IB PD event 25.62 60.514 .236 .111 .748 219 Table I29 Need for synthesis-writing PD and course type Chi-Square Tests Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 21.067a 16 .176 Likelihood Ratio 23.473 16 .102 Linear-by-Linear Association 4.594 1 .032 N of Valid Cases 850 a. 5 cells (18.5%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .74. Table I30 Need for synthesis-writing PD and school type Chi-Square Tests Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 17.080a 12 .147 Likelihood Ratio 18.444 12 .103 Linear-by-Linear Association .344 1 .558 N of Valid Cases 852 a. 8 cells (38.1%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .34. Table I31 Need for synthesis-writing PD and % nonwhite students in course Chi-Square Tests Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 5.595a 8 .692 Likelihood Ratio 5.535 8 .699 Linear-by-Linear Association .038 1 .846 N of Valid Cases 851 a. 3 cells (20.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 3.14. Table I32 Need for synthesis-writing PD and % low-SES students in school Chi-Square Tests Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 8.841a 8 .356 Likelihood Ratio 8.872 8 .353 Linear-by-Linear Association 1.238 1 .266 N of Valid Cases 839 a. 2 cells (13.3%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 2.04. 220 Table I33 Need for synthesis-writing PD and years of teaching experience Chi-Square Tests Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 13.166a 12 .357 Likelihood Ratio 13.627 12 .325 Linear-by-Linear Association 9.342 1 .002 N of Valid Cases 853 a. 5 cells (23.8%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 2.60. Need for synthesis-writing PD and school setting Table I34 Valid Missing Total N Percent N Percent N Percent Need for PD on synthesis * Instructional setting 852 70.0% 365 30.0% 1217 100.0% Table I35 Chi-Square Tests Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 10.711a 4 .030 Likelihood Ratio 10.608 4 .031 Linear-by-Linear Association 4.644 1 .031 N of Valid Cases 852 a. 1 cells (11.1%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 3.84. 221 Table I36 Instructional setting Total Urban Suburban Rural Need for PD on synthesis Unnecessary Count 7a 20a 3a 30 Expected Count 6.6 19.5 3.8 30.0 % within Need for PD on synthesis 23.3% 66.7% 10.0% 100.0% % within Instructional setting 3.7% 3.6% 2.8% 3.5% Helpful but not necessary Count 103a 307a 43b 453 Expected Count 100.0 295.1 58.0 453.0 % within Need for PD on synthesis 22.7% 67.8% 9.5% 100.0% % within Instructional setting 54.8% 55.3% 39.4% 53.2% Definitely want Count 78a 228a 63b 369 Expected Count 81.4 240.4 47.2 369.0 % within Need for PD on synthesis 21.1% 61.8% 17.1% 100.0% % within Instructional setting 41.5% 41.1% 57.8% 43.3% Total Count 188 555 109 852 Expected Count 188.0 555.0 109.0 852.0 % within Need for PD on synthesis 22.1% 65.1% 12.8% 100.0% % within Instructional setting 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Each subscript letter denotes a subset of Instructional setting categories whose column proportions do not differ significantly from each other at the .05 level.