CITE-ITEL A dialogical synthesis of research into initial literacy teacher preparation
Login

Learning to teach the five-paragraph theme

Abstract

The five-paragraph theme, while widely used by writing instructors, has often been criticized for its tendency to focus on a rigid formula rather than a writer’s ideas. This study investigates the decision of an early-career teacher, Leigh, to teach her eighth-grade students the five-paragraph model in the context of a state-mandated writing assessment that rewarded such writing. The key settings for Leigh in learning to teach were her structurally fragmented teacher education program, her relationship with her mentor teacher during student teaching, and, as she embarked on her first teaching job, her entry year supervisory committee and her English department colleagues. Through an activity-theory analysis of field notes, observation-based interviews, and other data, we interpret Leigh’s decision making as a function of her participation in tool-mediated action in these settings. Leigh’s teaching was affected by forces without (e.g., community expectations to produce passing scores on the state writing test) and within (e.g., her colleagues’ pressure on Leigh to teach to the test). These pressures superceded the motives of other settings in which Leigh participated, primarily her administration’s downplay of the need to teach to the test. The study concludes with a reflection on why Leigh in particular and other teachers in general find this form useful enough to serve as a primary tool in their approach to teaching writing.

Reference

  • Johnson, T. S., Thompson, L., Smagorinsky, P., & Fry, P. G. (2003). Learning to teach the five-paragraph theme. Research in the Teaching of English, 136–176.

Journal

Research in the Teaching of English

Analysis

Is this article part of a larger project or series of studies?

no

Does this study draw on a large, preexisting data set?

no

Research Approach

  • Case study

Geographic Setting

  • United States

Institutional Context

  • University based

Certification Level

  • Secondary

Programatic Focus

  • not stated

Research Location Context

  • field placements (not related to methods courses)
  • middle school
  • University

Preservice Participants

  • Inservice
  • undergraduate preservice teachers

Preservice Sample Size

1

Duration of Data Collection

  • More than 1 year

Data Sources

  • artifacts
  • Interviews
  • Observations

Data Analysis Tools

  • coding to a prior categories
  • Qualitative Analysis

Researcher Positionality

  • inside (staying their own students)

Research Questions

What were the principal settings in which Leigh’s writing instruction took place?
Is this research question explicit from the manuscript? Yes
What overriding motives governed action within these settings, and what mediational tools encouraged action toward those ends?
Is this research question explicit from the manuscript? Yes
Within these settings, what influenced Leigh’s appropriation of the five-paragraph theme as her principal pedagogical tool for teaching writing, and how did her instruction develop in relation to contextual constraints?
Is this research question explicit from the manuscript? Yes

Categories

2PTP Category: Preservice teachers teaching practices (including shifts in teaching practices as a function of growth or context).

4FIS Category: Field Experiences: inside schools

7WTG Topic: Writing

7CHG Topic: Coaching

6GLP Category: Graduates literacy practices in classrooms

7TRN Topic: Transitions

Comments

Subscribe
Notify of
Please login to comment
0 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted

© 2015–2026 The University of Texas at Austin
Supported by the Office of Instructional Innovation
Web Privacy Policy | Web Accessibility Policy | Contact

The University of Texas at Austin College of Education

The Literacy Research Association provided pilot funding for portions of this project.

wpDiscuz
0
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x
| Reply
wpDiscuz
0
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x
| Reply