This study sought to explore the effects of prewriting strategy instruction upon
students’ written organization and idea development. To assess these effects, idea
organization and development were assessed using a graphic organizer rubric (Appendix
D) and a 6+1 Trait writing rubric (Education Northwest, 2012, Appendix A). A third
assessment entitled the Metacognitive Awareness Inventory (Schraw & Dennison, 1994,
Appendix E) measured metacognitive growth.
Over the course of one semester, February through April, students moved through
three writing units. For each writing task, students created a rough graphic organizer that
was then submitter to me. I scored the rough graphic organizer based on the graphic
organizer rubric (Apppendix D) and gave each student feedback on the organization and
ideas within the rough graphic organizer. Students received their rough graphic organizers
back before continuing work on the composition. I spoke with each student regarding my
comments on the rough graphic organizer to make sure all questions were answered and
all confusion cleared up. Students then began the process of revising their graphic
organizers and writing their rough drafts of the essays. Students edited their rough drafts
during class while I was present to answer questions and support the revision process.
Then final drafts of essays were submitted with final drafts of the graphic organizers.
Prior to beginning the study, students read an article about metacognition and
filled out a Metacognitive Awareness Inventory (Schraw & Dennison, 1994, Appendix E). At
the end of the study students, filled out a second copy of the Metacognitive Awareness
Inventory so that I could measure changes in self-knowledge. The three assessments
utilized are discussed in further detail below.
Graphic Organizer Assessment
For the initial and final assessments, students were prompted to write a
persuasive essay but were not required to create a graphic organizer. For each of the other
writing tasks in this study, students created graphic organizers that were assessed on their
organization and arrangement of concepts (Appendix D). If the relationship between the
concepts was clear, the main concept easily identified, and the subconcepts branched
clearly from the main ideas, then the graphic organizer received 1.5 points for
organization. A graphic organizer received 1.5 points for content if it reflected all essential
information such as main idea and subconcepts and contained concepts that were logically
arranged and not too broad or too narrow in their focus, depending on the role of the
idea. A graphic organizer received 1 point for organization if the main concept was easily
identified and most subconcepts branched from the main idea, while still needing more
clarity in the organization or more supporting concepts. A graphic organizer received 1
point for content if it reflected most of the essential information such as main ideas and
subconcepts, presented concepts without too many excess words, and included ideas that
were clearly worded to support the thesis. A graphic organizer received .5 points for
organization if the main concept was not clearly identified and if the subconcepts did not
branch from the main idea. A graphic organizer received .5 points for content if it
contained extraneous information, if the concepts were too broad, or if the thesis was not
supported by the subconcepts.
Writing Assessments
Student writing was assessed on all five assessments, including the initial and final
assessments using the 6+1 WriteTraits Rubric (Education Northwest, 2012, Appendix A).
Although students were assessed on each of the traits, only data for organization and
ideas were included in the research. Students received 5 points if their writing’s
organizational structure enhanced and showcased the central idea or theme of the paper
and included a strong introduction and satisfying conclusion. Writing should include
thoughtful transitions, logical and effective sequencing, and controlled pacing. Students
received 3-4 points if their writing’s organization was strong enough to move the reader
through the text without too much confusion. Writing at this 3-4 point level should have a
recognizable introduction and conclusion and transitions that sometimes work. It should
also have sequencing that shows some logic, though the structure might take attention
away from the content. Pacing should be fairly well controlled. Student writing received 1-
2 points if it lacked a clear sense of direction. At this level, writing may not have a real
lead or conclusion, may lack connections between ideas, or contain connections that may
be confusing. Also, sequencing may need work, and the pacing may feel awkward.
Additionally, the organizational structure makes it hard for the reader to understand the
main point, and paragraphing may not be present.
Students received 5 points on their ideas if the paper was clear and focused and held
the reader’s attention. Furthermore, relevant anecdotes and/or details should enrich the
central theme. Writing at the 5-point level should have a narrow and manageable topic with
supporting details that go beyond the obvious. Ideas should be crystal clear, well-
supported, and original. The reader’s questions should also be anticipated and answered,
and the topic should be insightful. Students received 3-4 points on their ideas if the writer
was beginning to define the topic, though development was still basic or general. Writing at
the 3-4-point level may have a topic that is broad, and the writer may have difficulty
moving from general observations about the topic to specific details. Support should have
been attempted, and ideas should be reasonably clear, though the reader may still have
questions. Students received 1-2 points if the paper had no clear sense of purpose or a
central theme. At this level, the reader may need to make inferences due to sketchy or
missing details. Also, the writing may still be in search of a topic, information may be
limited or unclear, and the length may not be adequate for development. The idea may be a
simple restatement or a simple answer to a question, and the writer has not begun to
define the topic. The topic also may be repetitious, disconnected, and contain too many
random thoughts.
Metacognitive Awareness Inventory
Students were administered the Metacognitive Awareness Inventory in the first week of
the study and again on the last day of the study. The Metacognitive Awareness Inventory
(Appendix E) was designed by Schraw & Dennison (1994) to assess metacognition. The
inventory is divided into two categories, knowledge about cognition and regulation of
cognition. Subcategories for knowledge about cognition include declarative, procedural,
and conditional. Subcategories for strategies related to regulation cognition include
planning, information management, debugging, comprehension monitoring, and
evaluation.
