Cultivating a Writer’s Identity: The Effect of Writing Workshop on Writing Proficiency and Confidence in an Intermediate Montessori Classroom
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This action research investigated the effect of Writing Workshop on the writing proficiency and confidence of intermediate Montessori students. The study took place in a public community school of a major Canadian city with 24 participants of a grade 4, 5, and 6 Montessori classroom. Research was conducted over a six-week period and implemented Calkins, Ochs, and Luick’s (2017) Up the Ladder Writing Workshop Narrative Unit. Data was collected using writing samples scored by adapted 6+1 Traits of Writing Rubrics and students’ self-assessed scores using adapted 6+1 Traits of Writing Student Rubrics, adapted Bottomley et al.’s (1997/1998) Writer Self-Perception Scales, writing surveys, and observational field notes. The data demonstrated an increase in writing proficiency in 96% of students and feeling confident most of the time or always when writing by 31%. This action research recommends further research be done to supplement the Montessori language arts curriculum with Writing Workshop.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".