An Investigation of Writing Needs in the Upper School and How to Address Them
by
Paul Shoebottom November 2010 Note:A significant part of the report has been omitted from this publicly-available version. The main omitted part contains the internal research data and its analysis,
conducted and written up by a collaborator on the project. The three accessible sections are linked to in the Table of Contents below.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
A. Executive Summary
B. Extended Summary
C. Complete Report
1. Introduction
2. Internal Research
4. Recommendations
5. Role of the Administration
6. Conclusion
8. Appendices (Appendix 8-8 only) 11 15 33 33 34 188 230 244 249 250 290 Full
Table of Contents Executive Summary
...................................................................................................
10 B Extended Summary
....................................................................................................
15 B-1
Introduction.......................................................................................................................................................................
15 B-2 Internal
Research............................................................................................................................................................
15 B-2-1
Overview......................................................................................................................................................................
15 B-2-2 Standardized Test
Results.........................................................................................................................................
16 B-2-3 Teacher Interviews and
Survey................................................................................................................................
16 B-2-4 First Student
Survey...................................................................................................................................................
18 B-2-5 Second Student
Survey.............................................................................................................................................
21 B-2-6 Individual Student
Help.............................................................................................................................................
21 B-2-7 In-Class
Help...............................................................................................................................................................
21 B-2-8 Rubicon Atlas Curriculum Map
Analysis...............................................................................................................
22 B-3 External
Research.............................................................................................................................................................
22 B-3-1
Overview......................................................................................................................................................................
22 B-3-2 Writing
Centers...........................................................................................................................................................
22 B-3-3 Writing Across the
Curriculum.................................................................................................................................
23 B-3-4 Writing in the English Language
Arts.....................................................................................................................
24 B-4
Recommendations.............................................................................................................................................................
24 B-5 The Role of the
Administration......................................................................................................................................
25 B-6
Conclusion.........................................................................................................................................................................
25 B-7
Bibliography......................................................................................................................................................................
26 B-8
Appendices.........................................................................................................................................................................
27 B-8-1 Standardized Writing Test
Results..........................................................................................................................
27 B-8-2 Student Survey
Results..............................................................................................................................................
29 Complete
Report........................................................................................................
33 An Investigation of Writing Needs in the
Upper School and How to Address
Them.................................................................................................................................................
33 1
Introduction.............................................................................................................
33 2 Internal
Research................................................................................................
34 2-1
Overview..........................................................................................................................................................................
34 2-2 Standardized Test
Results...........................................................................................................................................
35 2-2-1 Australian Council for Educational
Research International Schools Assessment (ACER ISA)................. 36 2-2-1-1 Overall
Results..................................................................................................................................................
37 2-2-1-2 Writing
Results.................................................................................................................................................
42 2-2-1-3 Scoring
Criteria.................................................................................................................................................
44 2-2-1-4 Narrative and Exposition/Argument
Writing Tasks...................................................................................
45 2-2-2 Educational Records Bureau Writing Assessment
Program (ERB WrAP)..................................................... 51
2-2-2-1
Results...............................................................................................................................................................
51 2-2-2-2 Scoring
Criteria.................................................................................................................................................
53 2-2-3 College Board Preliminary SAT Test
(PSAT)......................................................................................................
55 2-2-3-1 Overall
Scores....................................................................................................................................................
55 2-2-3-2 Analysis of Writing Scores by
Question Type............................................................................................
57 2-2-3-3 Analysis of Writing Scores by
Question Difficulty.....................................................................................
62 2-2-3-4 Analysis of Writing Scores by Skill
Tested.................................................................................................
64 2-2-4
Summary....................................................................................................................................................................
65 2-3 Teacher Surveys and
Interviews.................................................................................................................................
66 2-3-1
Overview....................................................................................................................................................................
66 2-3-2 Challenging Aspects of Writing for
Students......................................................................................................
67 2-3-2-1 Writing with a Clear Thesis,
Argument or Main Idea.................................................................................
68 2-3-2-2 Structure and
Organization..............................................................................................................................
69 2-3-2-3 Providing and Incorporating Supporting
Evidence.................................................................................... 72 2-3-2-4 Planning and
Outlining....................................................................................................................................
75 2-3-2-5
Note-making......................................................................................................................................................
76 2-3-2-6 Register; Formality and
Sophistication of Written Expression.................................................................
78 2-3-2-7 Audience and Genre
Awareness...................................................................................................................
79 2-3-2-8 Gap Between Oral and Written
Communication Skills................................................................................
80 2-3-2-9 Gap Between Thinking and
Writing..............................................................................................................
80 2-3-2-10 Understanding the Task and
Answering the Question; Responding to Command Terms................ 81 2-3-2-11 Analyzing, Evaluating and Drawing
Conclusions; Thinking Independently and Critically............... 81 2-3-2-12 The Feel for Good Writing:
Models........................................................................................................
84 2-3-2-13 Grammar, Mechanics, Language
Use..........................................................................................................
85 2-3-2-14
Handwriting.....................................................................................................................................................
86 2-3-2-15 Research
Skills................................................................................................................................................
87 2-3-2-16 Style and
Presentation...................................................................................................................................
88 2-3-3 Other Observations and
Questions.......................................................................................................................
89 2-3-3-1 Grade-oriented Nature of
Students................................................................................................................
89 2-3-3-2
Feedback............................................................................................................................................................
90 2-3-3-3 Distribution of Writing
Assignments...........................................................................................................
91 2-3-4 Patterns in Students who Commonly
Struggle with Writing............................................................................
91 2-3-4-1 Students New to FIS: Cultural
Differences...................................................................................................
91 2-3-4-2 Non-ESL,
Non-Learning Support
Students..................................................................................................
92 2-3-5 Writing-Related
Needs............................................................................................................................................
94 2-3-5-1 Limited Time, Class Sizes,
Mixed-Ability Classes and External Help....................................................... 94 2-3-5-2 In-Class
Help.....................................................................................................................................................
97 2-3-5-3 A More Collaborative, Consistent and
Trans-Disciplinary Approach to Writing................................. 97
2-3-6 Ideas on External Writing
Help..............................................................................................................................
99 2-3-6-1 Nature of help that could be
given................................................................................................................
99 2-3-6-2 Practical
issues...............................................................................................................................................
101 2-3-6-3 Peer
tutoring....................................................................................................................................................
102 2-3-6-4 Grade-specific targeting of writing
support...............................................................................................
102 2-3-6-5 Writing
Techniques.......................................................................................................................................
103 2-4 First Student
Survey...................................................................................................................................................
105 2-4-1 Best Writing
Language.........................................................................................................................................
106 2-4-2 Challenging Types of
Writing.............................................................................................................................
107 2-4-2-1
Overview...........................................................................................................................................................
107 2-4-2-2 Reponses by
Grade.........................................................................................................................................
108 2-4-2-3 Responses by
Gender.....................................................................................................................................
112 2-4-2-4 Responses by Language
Background.........................................................................................................
114 2-4-3 Reasons for Finding the Various Types
of Writing Challenging............................................................... 115 2-4-3-1
Essays..............................................................................................................................................................
116 2-4-3-2 Lab
Reports.....................................................................................................................................................
118 2-4-3-3
Reflections.......................................................................................................................................................
119 2-4-3-4 Creative
Writing..............................................................................................................................................
122 2-4-3-5
Note-making....................................................................................................................................................
123 2-4-4 Challenging Aspects of
Essay-Writing..............................................................................................................
124 2-4-5 Where Students Go for Help with their
Writing................................................................................................
126 2-4-6 Levels of Interest in External Writing
Help........................................................................................................
127 2-4-6-1
Overview..........................................................................................................................................................
127 2-4-6-2 Levels of Interest in External
Writing Help by Grade...............................................................................
137 2-4-6-2-1 Individual
Help.......................................................................................................................................
138 2-4-6-2-2 Group
Help..............................................................................................................................................
140 2-4-6-2-3 Online
Help..............................................................................................................................................
141 2-4-6-3 Summary of Student Interest in
External Writing Support....................................................................... 144 2-4-7 Student Follow-Up
Interviews.............................................................................................................................
146 2-4-7-1 Types of Challenging
Writing......................................................................................................................
146 2-4-7-2 Interest in External Writing
Help..................................................................................................................
148 2-4-7-3 Writing
Strategies..........................................................................................................................................
149 2-4-7-4
Summary..........................................................................................................................................................
150 2-5 Second Student Survey Writing Habits
and Attitudes to Writing.................................................................. 150 2-5-1
Overview.................................................................................................................................................................
150 2-5-2 Questions and
Responses....................................................................................................................................
151 2-6 Individual Student
Help...............................................................................................................................................
164 2-6-1
Overview.................................................................................................................................................................
164 2-6-2 Common Types of Help
Given.............................................................................................................................
168 2-6-2-1 Understanding the
Task................................................................................................................................
168 2-6-2-2
Pre-writing.......................................................................................................................................................
169 2-6-2-3
Structure..........................................................................................................................................................
170 2-6-2-4 Thesis
Statements..........................................................................................................................................
170 2-6-2-5 Using Examples and
Evidence......................................................................................................................
170 2-6-2-6 Transition and Linking
Words.....................................................................................................................
172 2-6-3 Practical
Issues.......................................................................................................................................................
172 2-6-3-1 Scheduling and
Timetabling.........................................................................................................................
172 2-6-3-2 Time Needed for Preparation and
Follow-up.............................................................................................
172 2-6-3-3 Policy and
Protocol........................................................................................................................................
173 2-6-4 Student
Feedback..................................................................................................................................................
174 2-7 In-Class
Help................................................................................................................................................................
175 2-8 Rubicon Atlas Curriculum Map
Analysis..............................................................................................................
176 2-8-1 Brittons
Taxonomy................................................................................................................................................
176 2-8-2 Analysis of Assessed Work at the Upper
School............................................................................................
178 2-9 Reflections and Areas for Further
Research.........................................................................................................
184 3 External
Research...........................................................................................
188 3-1
Overview........................................................................................................................................................................
188 3-2 The Theory and Practice of Writing
Centers........................................................................................................
188 3-2-1 Theoretical
Issues..................................................................................................................................................
189 3-2-1-1 Should writing centers seek to fix
the writing or the writer?.................................................................... 189 3-2-1-2 Should students be engaged as
writing center tutors?............................................................................
190 3-2-1-3 Who owns the writing
center?.....................................................................................................................
192 3-2-1-4 Should the writing center also be
responsible for Writing Across the Curriculum?........................... 192
3-2-2 Practical
Issues.......................................................................................................................................................
194 3-2-3 Current High School Writing
Centers.................................................................................................................
196 3-2-4 Evaluation of Writing
Centers.............................................................................................................................
197 3-3 Writing Across the
Curriculum..............................................................................................................................
198 3-3-1
Overview.................................................................................................................................................................
198 3-3-2 The History of Writing Across the
Curriculum.................................................................................................
198 3-3-3 Principles of Writing Across the
Curriculum.....................................................................................................
199 3-3-3-1 First
Principle..................................................................................................................................................
199 3-3-3-2 Second
Principle.............................................................................................................................................
200 3-3-3-3 Third
Principle.................................................................................................................................................
201 3-3-3-3-1
Note-making............................................................................................................................................
202 3-3-3-3-2 Journal
writing........................................................................................................................................
203 3-3-3-3-3 Impromptu
writing..................................................................................................................................
204 3-3-4 Additional Reasons to Implement WAC
Activities.........................................................................................
205 3-3-4-1 WAC as Formative
Assessment..................................................................................................................
206 3-3-4-2 WAC to Increase Student
Involvement.....................................................................................................
206 3-3-4-3 WAC to Give Practice in Writing
under Time Pressure........................................................................... 207 3-3-5 Teacher
Concerns..................................................................................................................................................
207 3-3-6
Implementation.......................................................................................................................................................
208 3-3-7
Evaluation...............................................................................................................................................................
209 3-4 Teaching and Learning Writing in the
English Language Arts........................................................................ 210 3-4-1
Overview.................................................................................................................................................................
210 3-4-2 Writing
Curriculum................................................................................................................................................
210 3-4-3 Writing
Process......................................................................................................................................................
211 3-4-4 Assessment of Written
Work..............................................................................................................................
212 3-4-5 Feedback on Written
Work..................................................................................................................................
214 3-4-6
Grammar...................................................................................................................................................................
215 3-4-7
Spelling....................................................................................................................................................................
217 3-4-8
Mechanics...............................................................................................................................................................
219 3-4-9
Modeling.................................................................................................................................................................
220 3-4-10
Vocabulary............................................................................................................................................................
221 3-4-11 Twenty-First Century
Writing...........................................................................................................................
222 3-4-12 Writing
Myths......................................................................................................................................................
223 3-4-13 Best Teaching
Practices......................................................................................................................................
223 3-5 Writing-Related
Research........................................................................................................................................
226 3-5-1
Reading....................................................................................................................................................................
226 3-5-2 Brain-Based
Learning............................................................................................................................................
227 4
Recommendations..............................................................................................
230 4-1 Upper School Writing
Center...................................................................................................................................
230 4-2 Writing Across the
Curriculum..............................................................................................................................
231 4-3 English Language Arts Curriculum and
Pedagogy..............................................................................................
233 4-3-1
Introduction............................................................................................................................................................
233 4-3-2 To what extent should English be a
service department?...............................................................................
234 4-3-3 What is an appropriate response to the
results in standardized tests of writing?...................................... 235 4-3-4 Does the internal data collected from
students and teachers have implications for the ELA curriculum and pedagogy? 236 4-3-5 Is there an appropriate balance in the
different types of writing opportunities for students?.................. 236
4-3-6 Is there an appropriate balance of
literature-based/non-literature-based writing?...................................... 236 4-3-7 Does the mandatory reading provide
sufficient modeling for academic writing?........................................ 237 4-3-8 Are the criteria for selecting the
vocabulary to be learned appropriate?...................................................... 238 4-3-9 Should the English curriculum contain
systematic instruction in Language Awareness?........................ 239 4-3-10 What kinds of writing feedback are
most effective?......................................................................................
240 4-3-11 What can be done to take full
advantage of web 2.0 technologies?........................................................... 240 4-3-12 Are there significant differences
between our ELA curriculum and the curricula of comparable schools? 241 4-3-13 Is there a consistent approach to
developing spelling ability and helping students who struggle with spelling? 242 4-3-14 Is there a consistent response to
poor handwriting?.....................................................................................
242 4-4 ESL Curriculum and
Pedagogy................................................................................................................................
242 5 Role of the
Administration........................................................................... 244 5-1 Ensuring the Success of the Recommended
Initiatives........................................................................................
244 5-1-1 The Success of a Writing
Center.........................................................................................................................
244 5-1-2 The Success of a Writing Across the
Curriculum Program............................................................................. 244 5-1-3 Optimization of ELA Curriculum and
Pedagogy in Respect of Writing........................................................ 246 5-1-4 Optimization of ESL Curriculum and
Pedagogy in Respect of Writing......................................................... 246 5-2 Other Areas of Administrative
Responsibility or Influence...............................................................................
246 5-2-1 Include an explicit reference to
writing in curriculum review documentation............................................... 246 5-2-2 Ensure consistency of terminology in
Rubicon Atlas.....................................................................................
247 5-2-3 Promote cross-curricula projects to
embed writing in authentic contexts.................................................... 247 5-2-4 Promote consistent writing
approaches.............................................................................................................
248 5-2-5 Expect high writing
standards..............................................................................................................................
248 6
Conclusion..............................................................................................................
249 7 Annotated
Bibliography................................................................................. 250 8
Appendices...............................................................................................................
290 8-1 Writing Investigation
Overview................................................................................................................................
291 8-2 A Writing Center at Frankfurt
International
School..........................................................................................
294 8-2-1
Overview.................................................................................................................................................................
294 8-2-2 Launching the Writing
Center.............................................................................................................................
294 8-2-3 Expanding the Writing
Center..............................................................................................................................
296 8-2-4 Evaluating the Writing
Center.............................................................................................................................
297 8-2-5 A Writing Center
Website....................................................................................................................................
298 8-3 ACER ISA Writing
Tests..........................................................................................................................................
300 8-3-1 Writing Task Definitions and Sample
Questions..............................................................................................
300 8-3-2 ISA School Reports,
2004-2009............................................................................................................................
301 8-3-2-1 2004 Grade
7..........................................................................................................................................
302 8-3-2-2 2005 Grade 7 & Grade
9........................................................................................................................
303 8-3-2-3 2006 Grade
7..........................................................................................................................................
304 8-3-2-4 2006 Grade
9..........................................................................................................................................
305 8-3-2-5 2007 Grade
7..........................................................................................................................................
306 8-3-2-6 2007 Grade
9..........................................................................................................................................
307 8-3-2-7 2008 Grade
7..........................................................................................................................................
308 8-3-2-8 2008 Grade
9..........................................................................................................................................
309 8-3-2-9 2009 Grade
9..........................................................................................................................................
310 8-3-2-10 2009 Grade
10...................................................................................................................................
311 8-3-3 ACER ISA: FIS and Other Like Schools
Mean Scores Comparison............................................................ 312 8-3-4 ISA Descriptors for Raw
Scores..........................................................................................................................
319 8-3-4-1 Sample Rubric for Writing Task A
(Narrative), 2007-2008....................................................................... 320 8-3-4-2 Sample Rubric for Writing Task B
(Exposition/Argument), 2007-2008.................................................. 321 8-4 WrAP Writing Types (Modes of
Discourse) Tested at Each Grade.............................................................. 322 8-5 College Board Preliminary Standardized
Achievement Test (PSAT)------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
323 8-5-1 Mean PSAT
Scores on All Sections, by
Gender...............................................................................................
323 8-5-2 PSAT Writing
Section Question
Types.............................................................................................................
324 8-6 First Student
Survey...................................................................................................................................................
325 8-6-1 First Student Survey
Questionnaire....................................................................................................................
325 8-6-2- Types of Writing Students Feel They
Are Good At.................................................................................... 328 8-7 Student Follow-up Interview
Data.............................................................................................................................
332 8-8 Handbook of Research on Teaching the
English Language Arts....................................................................... 336 The external research
focused on a review of the literature in three main areas that have the
improvement of student writing at their core: the theory and practice of
writing centers, writing cross the curriculum, and the teaching and learning of
writing in the English Language Arts. Clearly, research that
offers insights into the teaching and learning of writing is not limited to the
three areas listed above. Reading , in particular, can have a significant impact
on writing ability. Brain-based research can provide useful information about
the cognitive processes at work during writing. These two topics are addressed
in the final section of this part of the report under the heading Writing -related research. 3.2 The Theory
and Practice of Writing Centers Writing
centers were first introduced in universities
in the USA about
40 years ago, largely in response to open admission
policies that brought in more students of lower writing proficiency. Since then
writing centers have become a permanent part of most U.S.
tertiary
education institutions and of many U.S. high schools. They are less common in the U.K. ,
and our efforts to identify international schools with a writing center have
been unsuccessful. Early implementation of
writing centers has been likened to playing a violin while building it
(Harris, 1988). In other words, students began arriving at the writing center
door before there was a clear conceptualization of what kind of help should be
given and how. The uneven and not always principled responses to this situation
resulted in the rather poor regard in which many writing centers were initially
held. In the intervening
time, however, a large body of theoretical and practical information has been
produced that facilitates the establishment of new writing centers and helps directors
to avoid some of the problems faced by their predecessors. This body of knowledge,
as it pertains to writing centers in secondary education, is encapsulated in the
following two sections: theoretical issues and practical issues. The final
sections discuss typical current high school writing centers and how to evaluate
the effectiveness of a school writing center. The extensive
literature includes four issues of relevance to writing centers in high schools,
as summarized below. The issues are indicative of the efforts that have been
made to establish a clear role for the writing center and its status in a
school or college. 3.2.1.1 Should writing centers seek to
fix the writing or the writer? This question is at the
heart of writing center theory. The debate was set off by Norths seminal
article The Idea of a Writing
Center (1984) [18]
in which he expressed his exasperation at early implementations of writing
centers as fix-it shops, where students handed in their drafts and expected
to come back an hour later to pick up the corrected version, or where reluctant
students were sent to get lessons in grammar or punctuation. North was
overstating his case, but the point was valid. He wanted to see a shift in the
role of the writing center tutor from teacher/proof-reader to collaborator in the
lengthy process by which students improved their writing proficiency: Any given
projecta class assignment, a law
school application letter [] is for the writer the prime, often exclusive
concern. [] In the center, though, we look beyond or through that particular
project, that particular text, and see it as an occasion for addressing our
primary concern, the process by which it is produced. In summary, North
states: Our job is to produce better writers, not better writing. Norths article was
extremely influential in changing the focus of writing center assistance, but
his ideas were not universally supported. It was pointed out that he had an
over-idealistic view of why students sought out writing center help. Most
students do indeed want specific suggestions on how to improve the writing they
are working on, and this is also what their teachers expect of the writing
center [19]
.
Most writing center tutors
now conceive their role as both helping the student to identify areas for
improvement of specific writing assignments, while at the same time
contributing to the general writing development of the student, through
reinforcement of the strategies of the writing process. The way in which this
dual role is realized varies. Some theorists advise tutors not to look at the
student writing, but to ask a series of questions about it and have the student
take notes. This approach has been designated the Socratic Method ( Colorado State University ). Using this method the
language in which the
writing was done is irrelevant. The tutor can help the student to see potential
areas for improvement by posing questions about the purpose of the writing and
the criteria for assessing it. So, for example, a writing center tutor at FIS
could help a student with a Spanish essay even if the tutor herself spoke no
Spanish. Others theorists
suggest looking at the writing but not holding a pen, to make it clear that the
responsibility for improvement of the writing lies with the student. For yet
others, highlighting areas of the paper for the student to work on is an efficient
and acceptable practice. One important area of
consensus that has come out of the debate initiated by North is this: A writing
center that is conceived solely as a place for those in need of remedial help,
and that thereby stigmatizes its student clients, fails to take advantage of
the writing centers full potential and is unlikely to flourish. It is for this
reason that most theorists advise that writing center attendance should not be
made mandatory. It is also why the launch of a writing center is critical. From
the beginning it needs to be clear that all students, at whatever level of
proficiency, can improve their writing and improve as writers with the help of
a knowledgeable writing tutor. 3.2.1.2 Should students be engaged as
writing center tutors? A writing center that
consists of the director who is also the sole tutor is unlikely to be able to meet
the individual writing needs of students in even a small high school. The
solution is either to rigorously prioritize whom to help, thereby excluding a
sizeable number of potential clients, or to employ tutors from the teacher,
student or parent body. Our review of writing
center websites suggests that most writing centers, particularly at tertiary
level, employ peer tutors. Apart from the obvious advantage of increasing the
number of one-to-one sessions a writing center can offer, the engagement of
peer tutors reinforces the collaborative element of effective writing
development. Peer tutors will probably have a better understanding of the
student clients mental and emotional state as they work together on a piece of
writing. There are also clear benefits
to the students tutors themselves. In some institutions they receive course or
service credit for their work. Perhaps more importantly, they gain insights
into writing that help them become better writers themselves
[20] . Not all theorists,
however, are convinced of the value of peer tutoring. They note that some
teachers are justly concerned about the quality of advice that students receive
from peers who may know even less about rhetoric and grammar than they do
themselves. They note too that student clients may perceive peer help as less
authoritative than teacher help and decline the appointment or take the tutored
session less seriously. The value for the peer tutors themselves is also
disputed. Trimbur (1987), in his famous article Peer Tutoring: A
Contradiction in Terms , claims that students who work as writing
center tutors often suffer from cognitive dissonance, which arises from the impossibility
of being simultaneously peer and tutor. The current consensus
is that student tutors not only benefit from their work in the writing center themselves
but are also indispensable in allowing the center to cater for all who wish to
take advantage of its services. They thereby help to avoid the stigmatization
of writing center attendance. This is because the need to prioritize will
almost inevitably result in the writing center choosing to help first those who
are most in need of help. In practical terms, however,
peer tutors need to be carefully selected, adequately trained and properly
supervised. This is a time-intensive process for the writing center director
and has to be repeated each year. So the decision to engage students to work in
the writing center is one that has to be weighed very carefully. 3.2.1.3 Who owns the writing center? This question is about
the place or space of a writing center in the high school. In particular,
should the writing center be an integral part of the English department or
deliberately maintain a distance from it? Some theorists claim that writing is
the natural province of the English Language Arts, and so it makes sense to
make the link explicit. Writing centers that are staffed by English specialists
are more likely to be able to help students with rhetoric and grammar issues. Other theorists
maintain that independence from English reinforces the notion that the writing
center is for help with all kinds of writing (regardless of subject? Or
writing in all subjects). Independence sends the subliminal message that writing does
not just belong to (is not the exclusive domain of) English but that all
subjects are responsible for the writing development of their students. They
point to English-based writing centers that have turned into remediation
centers for the kind of problems that teachers have no time or desire to cover
in English class. Some schools writing
centers are closely linked with the library. Students generally enjoy going to
the library for self-selected reading or for independent study, and they value
it as a place to get informed advice. A writing center that is part of the
library conveys the message that it is for all students and that discussing
writing or seeking feedback on writing is a perfectly normal, even enjoyable,
thing to do.
3.2.1.4 Should the writing center also
be responsible for Writing
Across the Curriculum? Writing
across the curriculum will be covered in full
the next section. It is mentioned here because of the voluminous debate on the
value of having the writing center also responsible for generally promoting writing
in the institution. Clearly, the ultimate goal of both the writing center and
writing across the curriculum is the same: the improvement of students writing
proficiency. This is the principal reason why some theorists are in flavor of
the writing center taking the lead in cross-curricular writing initiatives. In
practical terms this means that the writing center advises on suitable writing
assignments in the various disciplines and how teachers can respond to them. Writing center personnel hold workshops
on writing issues and the
center serves as repository of writing advice sheets and related materials for
teachers. Waldo (1993) contends
that subject teachers are more likely to assign writing tasks if they know that
the writing center can relieve them of some of the load associated with
effective writing instruction. In particular, this means helping students who
are struggling to plan their writing and giving feedback to students on first
drafts. Theorists who oppose the
writing center being in charge of cross-disciplinary writing state that writing
center tutors usually do not have the expertise to advise students in the
specialist writing they must produce in the various disciplines and that they neither
have the knowledge nor the status to advise teachers. They claim, moreover,
that in taking on the responsibility for writing, the writing center will make
it easier for teachers in the disciplines to wash their hands of their own
significant responsibility to improve their students as writers. One theorist
(Pemberton, 1995) highlights the differing functions of writing centers and
writing across the curriculum programs by calling them, respectively,
centripetal and centrifugal. The centripetal force attempts to find the common
elements in all types of writing. The centrifugal force acknowledges that
students need to be taught the discourse specific features of the discipline in
which they are writing [21]
.
Pemberton claims that the elision of the two services is often done out of
administrative expediency rather than pedagogical principle. The discussion about
general versus discipline-specific writing proficiency is more relevant at
university level than in schools, where practical rather than theoretical
criteria are likelier to determine the relationship of the writing center and
writing across the curriculum. Clearly, a school that is committed to the
writing across the curriculum philosophy needs someone to take responsibility
for promoting it and supporting teachers in adopting it. While there are sound arguments
for placing the responsibility on the shoulders of the writing center, this
will significantly add to the overall writing center workload and may well
compromise its ability to fulfill the principal goal of helping individual
students with their writing assignments. As Barnett (1999) says
in summary: Less important
than the physical location or the ownership of the respective programs (brackets)
(writing center/ WAC ) is the
idea of creating a writing environment through ongoing dialogue about writing
and its relationship to thinking among faculty as well as students.
The literature contains
a wealth of information and advice pertaining to the establishment and running
of a writing center. The authors of these books or articles are unanimous in
stating that there is no one-size-fits all solution (Simpson, 1996). Each
institution needs to do a careful analysis of its situation and establish clear
goals that it expects a writing center to meet. The practical advice
includes how to: Much of the literature
gives attention to the problems or delicate situations that can arise in the
tutoring sessions. Rafoth (2005), for example, includes transcripts of tutoring
sessions that have gone wrong for various reasons. Following is a brief
overview of some of these tutoring issues, which are usually labeled the
ethics of the writing center: The literature also
deals with the problems that can arise between writing center tutors and teachers
of the students who attend help sessions. A common source of discontent is when
the teacher believes that the writing center has given either too much or too
little help, or the wrong kind of help. This situation is exacerbated if the teacher
and the writing center tutor have different concepts of what constitutes good
writing. Another problem arises when a teachers comments to the class or to individual
students in it convey the impression that the writing center attendance is for
struggling students only. In general, these
problems can be avoided if the opening of the writing center is preceded by extensive
consultation with teachers and administrators. There needs to be an explicit statement
of the functions of the writing center and exactly how students are helped with
the various assignments. It is essential that writing center tutors then stick
to these principles in their day-to-day tutoring sessions. The importance of protocols
and common understandings has been underlined by our work with individual
students in the year of the investigation.
3.2.3 Current
High School Writing Centers A review of the
websites of several U.S. high school writing centers indicates that a
significant number of them offer many more services than the core one of
individual help with student writing assignments. These additional services
include: Clearly, only those
writing centers that are adequately staffed with teacher and student tutors, together
with clerical and technical assistance, can offer all these services in
addition to their core function of supporting individual students. 3.2.4 Evaluation
of Writing Centers School writing centers need to be funded
and administrators need to be assured that the funds are well-spent. This
entails an evaluation of the extent to which the writing center meets its
primary goals. In general terms research has proved the efficacy of the
one-to-one advice and support that is the mainspring of writing center work. As
Harris (1988) states: Numerous studies indicate not only
that tutorial
instruction benefits writers but also that it enhances their motivation and
attitudes. Anxieties about writing are reduced by helpful coaching, positive
reinforcement and the friendly listening ear of the tutor. However, evaluation of
the success of a specific writing center, and by extension its director
and tutor(s), is problematic. It is theoretically possible to measure the contribution
made by the writing center to the development of writing proficiency in student
clients. In practical terms, however, this is a very difficult undertaking. Schools
simply do not have the resources to develop reliable and valid tests of this
nature. It is unsurprising, therefore, that it has not proved possible to
locate any studies where just this kind of analysis has been done. Even if it were
possible to accurately and reliably assess the contribution made by the writing
center to student writing development, it leaves open the question as to how
much development it is reasonable to expect and for how many students. Again,
we have found nothing in the literature that could guide a school in this
matter. What schools do instead
is to evaluate their writing center by collecting numerical and attitudinal data.
For example, they count the number of students who voluntarily make use of the
various writing center services. They also devise surveys which ask students
and faculty to rate the usefulness of the help the students have received. No matter how a school
decides to evaluate the success of its writing center, (it is clear from the
literature that) the literature is clear that the center is unlikely to
succeed, and thus to continue to exist, if it is not perceived to be fulfilling
a useful function by all the schools constituent groups: students, parents,
faculty and administrators. 3.3 Writing
Across the Curriculum While the goal of writing centers is to
help individual students become better writers, the aim of Writing Across the Curriculum ( WAC ) programs is
not only to raise writing
standards in general but also to improve student learning. Bazermann (2005)
offers a good summary: WAC has been primarily a
programmatic and pedagogical movement, aimed
at changing practices in the classroom, increasing the amount of and attention
to writing in all classes, improving the assignments, and changing the
awareness of teachers in all fields to the role of writing in learning. This section includes a brief history of
the movement and an analysis of its principles and most important classroom
activities. It also covers the implementation and evaluation of WAC initiatives.
3.3.2 The History
of Writing Across the Curriculum Writing
across the curriculum as a movement is widely
regarded as having its origin in the Bullock Report ( U.K.
1975) A
Language for Life . One of the chapters of the report was entitled Language
Across the Curriculum , and ended with the words: We strongly recommend
that whatever the means chosen to implement it a policy for language across the
curriculum should be adopted by every secondary school. The recommendation was
based on the conviction that the English department could not and should not
bear the sole responsibility for developing students literacy skills. The claim that language
is central to learning and should receive a cross-curricular focus convinced educationalists
in the U.S. too.
The pedagogical philosophy was enthusiastically
adopted in many universities and schools there under the more narrowly defined
term Writing across the curriculum .
Administrators saw the program as a way to
address the perceived literary crisis, sensationalized in the famous 1975
Newsweek cover article Why Johnny cant write. [24] WAC , as it
has evolved over the last four decades, is
characterized by various manifestations in the different institutions that have
adopted it. In secondary education WAC is less likely to be an institutional program
than the sum of several departments or individual teachers within them implementing
one or other of the WAC instructional practices. WAC
continues to attract strong support into the
present. The National
Commission on Writing s report The Neglected R: The Need For a Writing Revolution
(2003), for example, contains the following recommendation: Research is crystal clear:
Schools that do well insist that
their students write every day. [] Writing is every teachers responsibility. [...] We
strongly endorse writing across the curriculum. 3.3.3 Principles
of Writing Across
the Curriculum Despite the differences
in implementation of WAC in the various institutions, there are three fundamental
principles that they all share:
Each subject has its own specific
writing strategies and genres. Students need to be
explicitly taught those strategies and how to write in those genres. Examples
of subject-specific genres at high school level are lab reports, analyses of
poems, history essays, and health reflections. The following extract, from the Michigan State
Department of Education, underlines the principle that all teachers, in this
case of science, should consider themselves as writing teachers too: Many science
educators feel that students should already know how to write effectively when
they come to their classrooms. This is not usually the case. Students have
learned to write from their English teachers, but they usually do not know how
to apply these skills to science. Science teachers will find that they may have
to explicitly teach and provide scaffolding for each of these writing
strategies before their students will be able to implement writing either for
learning science or to demonstrate scientific knowledge. ( Writing
Across the Curriculum in
Science ) The ability to write fluently and
coherently in response to examination questions is a primary determinant of
success in those examinations. It is the subject teachers responsibility to
ensure that students can do so. All teachers can and should contribute
to the general writing development of their students. The second principle builds on the first. It
makes subject teachers responsible for the development not only of writing
skills specific to their subject, but of students general writing proficiency
too. The principal implies that teachers must know what constitutes good
academic writing and how to promote it. It presupposes, for example, that they
are aware of the strategies of the writing process as the most effective ways
for student to produce good text. Implementation of this principle has led to
teachers building peer consultation into the process of writing the
subject-specific assignment and offering advice on first drafts. In other words,
teachers see their role as going beyond simply teaching the subject content, assigning
the writing task and grading the result. This second WAC principle
also underlies the drive to achieve institutional
consistency in respect of writing assessment and feedback. It is considered
important that students do not receive conflicting messages about what
constitutes good writing and how it is graded. As an example of the second principle in
action, consider a typical student homework task: Answering questions at the
end of a unit in a subject textbook in order to demonstrate understanding or
learning. A simple way to extend the requirements of such a task to include a
focus on writing is to expect a full sentence answer, disallowing a sentence fragment
or a few words in note form
[25]
.
Full answers usually require the construction of complex sentences, which is
particularly useful practice for ESL students.
More importantly for subject teachers,
however, full sentence answers promote learning of subject content because: Writing
is learning. The core of the WAC
philosophy can be expressed in the three words of this principle.
Clearly, it is through writing that students demonstrate knowledge of what they
have learned. But if the purpose of writing is conceived in these limited terms,
then students are denied the opportunity to use writing as a powerful tool in
its own right for understanding and learning. Although there are many types of writing
that are termed expressive or writing-to-learn activities, the research in this
field has concentrated on note-taking, journal writing and impromptu writing. The literature is very clear: Note-making [26] is not simply something
to be done in preparation for a later task such as writing an essay or giving a
presentation. The act of making notes is itself an important way to think and learn.
As Boch (2004) states in Note-taking and Learning: A Summary of Research: The result of taking notes is much
more than the production of a
passive external information store, as the note taking action itself is part of
the memorization process and results in the creation of a form of internal
storage. Furthermore, the taking of notes seems to ease the load on the working
memory and thereby helps people resolve complex problems. Krashen (2005) quotes research that shows: Students
who take notes during lectures typically retain more than those who do not. Researchers in the field are unanimous
about the implications of their findings for teachers. Most importantly, note-making
is a complex skill that must be taught, modeled and practiced. This applies to
both the making of notes (from aural and written texts) and the using of notes.
Boch (ibid) points to the correlation between a.) the degree of cognitive
processing that students engage in during the various stages of making and
using notes and b.) the amount of learning that takes place. He states: It is
better to highlight notes than simply to read them, and better again to
summarize them (re-write them) than highlight them. Another insight from the literature is that
while students need to be aware of the theoretical learning benefits of note-making,
they also need to be given incentives to do so. Here are some of the things
teachers can do: o
set announced and unannounced open-notebook
tests; o
give grades for notebooks; o
have students write a summary paragraph of a
page of notes; o
ask students to give an oral summary of their
notes. Journals, or learning logs as they are
sometimes called, are typically used for students to keep a kind of running
dialogue with themselves (and often also with the teacher). This is where students
reflect on what they have learned, what they dont understand, what they would
like to find out, connections to personal experiences, and so on. Fulwiler
(1980) notes the theoretical justification: Journal writing
works because every time students write, they individualize instruction; the
act of silent writing, even for five minutes, generates ideas, observations,
emotions. Another study on journal writing (Davison,
1990), reported on in the Mathematics Education Research Journal, comes to the
conclusion: It is clear that
regular, systematic writing over an extended period improves the students
performance in and attitudes towards mathematics. Some teachers are prescriptive of the kinds
of entry they expect; others leave it to the student to decide how much, how
often, and about what to write. The former approach is more suitable for
younger students. Again, the literature recommends the explicit teaching, modeling
and practicing of what is required of the students. There is no consensus,
however, on whether or not to grade journals, although doing so tends to
increase their status with students. Most teachers who do assign grades give a
cumulative grade at the end of an instructional period, either for the quantity
of the entries or their quality, or both. There is no reason why the journal or
learning log should not also contain notes. Chesbro (2006), a science teacher,
designates this combination of input (notes from class; summaries of internet
articles, etc.) and output (personal response to input data, including mind
maps, questions, reflections, etc.) an Interactive Science Notebook (ISN). He
concludes: The ISN is an
extremely effective constructivist innovation in enhancing general learning
through the encouragement of writing across the curriculum, personalization
and metacognition strategies, while simultaneously serving to promote more
specific inquiry-based science instruction by which students focus, experiment,
reflect and apply based on their personal connections to learning. Impromptu writing is the term given to
short or very short writing tasks that are assigned at any time during the
lesson. Typical impromptu tasks include: o
summarizing the most important information
learned in the previous lesson; o
summarizing information or a new concept just
taught; o
reviewing background knowledge on the new topic
to be taught; o
listing what the student would like to learn in
the forthcoming topic; o
listing questions or unresolved issues. Krashen (2004) reports on a study in which
".. college mathematics students who devoted three minutes per period to
describing in writing an important concept easily outperformed a comparison
group on the semester final exam." The following is from the abstract of an
article about using short writing tasks in the computer classroom: The literature
on writing strongly suggests that writing assignments can help the students
master difficult concepts and develop the higher level skills that should be
part of their education. Short, narrowly focused writing assignments have been
used effectively to supplement a wide range of computer science courses.
(Sanders, 1991) Very short writing tasks, such as the
production of a headline to summarize lesson content, are common aspects of
Visible Thinking promulgated by Project Zero (Harvard University). Visible
Thinking has been the focus of attention of several Upper School teachers as
way to make thinking and thought processes explicit. The research in this area is clear that the
learning potential of such short writing activities correlates to the cognitive
processing demanded by the task. So, for example, simply listing five important
things accomplished by a Roman emperor is not as beneficial as selecting and justifying
the most significant thing he did. Describing the function and parts of a body
system is not as effective a learning task as comparing and contrasting two
body systems. Blooms taxonomy is helpful in determining the likely cognitive
demands of a writing assignment: evaluating, comparing, explaining, summarizing
and drawing conclusions require more thinking than tasks that require the mere
retrieval of information such as listing, identifying and describing (quoted in
Gregory, 2006). It is worth repeating the consensus of
researchers in the field that the students should be taught how to do such
writing and why they are doing it: It is important
for learners to understand why the task is valuable and how it will support
their learning, so they see writing as a natural part of the learning process.
It is also important that learners have the knowledge and skills to complete
the writing task and that teachers provide modeling and feedback for the
writing-to-learn process. (Farman & Dahl, 2003) 3.3.4 Additional
Reasons to Implement WAC Activities
The benefits for students of note-making, journal
writing and impromptu short writing are outlined above. Wiggins & McTighe
(2006) claim that the self-evaluation or self-monitoring that such writing-to-learn
activities engender are arguably the most important facet of understanding for
lifelong learning. Krashen (2003) summarizes the value of such expressive
writing as follows: We write to clarify and stimulate
our thinking. As Elbow
(1973) has noted, it is difficult to hold more than one thought in mind at a
time. When we write our ideas down, the vague and abstract become clear and
concrete. When thoughts are on paper, we can see relationships among them, and
can come up with better thoughts. Writing , in other words, can make you smarter. However, the effects are not limited to the
learning or cognitive benefits for students. There are three further reasons
why teachers may wish to set such writing tasks regularly in class or as
homework: as a means of formative assessment, to increase student involvement,
and to give practice in writing under time pressure. 3.3.4.1 WAC
as Formative Assessment Through WAC activities the
teacher can gauge student knowledge and
understanding of the topic in focus or the information, skills and concepts
that have been taught. In other words, the writing activities can serve as
formative assessment. Formative assessment was the theme of the Upper
School faculty in-service in 2008
(presented by S.
Naylor of Millgate House Education). Naylor was a
strong advocate of short writing tasks to activate background knowledge,
connect to new knowledge to existing knowledge or to expose gaps in
understanding. [27]
McLeod (2000) offers a good summary: Learning occurs
at the intersection of what students already know and what they are ready to
learn. Writing to learn then
becomes more than a way for students to learn new subject matter. Journals,
letters, and other cognitive writing tasks also reveal to instructors and peers
something of the writers thought processes. Writing to
learn becomes a way for instructors to learn about the
individuals seated in that classroom. Who are they? What do they already know? 3.3.4.2 WAC
to Increase Student Involvement Another reason for the teacher to use these
various writing activities is that they offer a way for all students, not just
the voluble, to contribute their thoughts, questions, ideas and opinions. This
is especially important for the shyer students, or those who are not confident
about the level of their spoken English. Indeed, beginning ESL students could be offered the chance to
produce some of the writing tasks in their own language. Langer & Applebee, in their seminal
work How Writing Shapes Thinking
(1987), summarize this
advantage for teachers and students: The
opportunities for individuals to make extended contributions during class
discussion are necessarily limited. Writing then becomes
a primary and necessary way for practicing the ways of
organizing and presenting ideas that are most appropriate to a particular
subject area. Fulwiler (1980) claims that regular writing
in class will not make passive students miraculously active learners; however,
regular writing makes it harder for students to remain passive. He also says
that if students are occasionally asked to read out and discuss with the class what
they have written, then they become more conscious how their language affects
people. 3.3.4.3 WAC
to Give Practice in Writing under Time Pressure
Frequent short writing tasks have a further
advantage. As Wolfe (2001) points out, the regular requirement to write a short
text by hand under significant time pressure is useful practice for writing by
hand under time pressure in examinations. Studies of schools that have introduced
writing across the curriculum (e.g., Searchwell, 2008) have shown that teachers
can be reluctant to assign more writing to their students because: The usual solution for the first of these
concerns is to provide in-service opportunities for teachers to learn how to
teach and assess student writing. In particular, it is helpful if teachers
understand the writing process and the value of peer or teacher input before
the final draft is produced. As for the second concern, research suggests that
it is not necessary for teachers to respond to or even read all the written
work done by their students. Bangert-Drowns (2004), in an important
meta-analysis of 48 studies in writing-to-learn, states: If the concept of
not responding to student writing seems too radical, then teachers can use a
simple rubric or a generic grading sheet such as the Education Northwest 6+1 writing
rubric. Alternatively, students could be asked to identify what they consider to
be their most important journal entries or short writing answers, and the
teacher responds only to those. In general, however, it is helpful if the
students are aware of how writing helps them think and learn, regardless of
whether anyone reads what they have written. The third concern can be countered by
pointing out that many of these writing activities need not take up very much
class time at all. Indeed, the Bangert-Drowns (2004) analysis comes to the
conclusion that shorter writing tasks are more effective than longer ones. Some teachers
set short writing activities to be done in the first minutes of the lesson as
the students arrive, so no teaching time is wasted. Furthermore, most of the
activities are also suitable as homework. The most important counter to the third
concern, however, is to remind teachers that students are learning their subject
while doing appropriate writing activities and teachers are learning about
their students and how best to teach them. Much of the WAC literature
contains first-hand accounts of the introduction and
running of WAC programs in the
various institutions. Common to all accounts is the warning that such
initiatives are unlikely to be successful if they are imposed on faculty from
above. McLeod (2000) emphasizes this essential point: WAC is a faculty-driven phenomenon,
involving changes in teaching methods; WAC assumes that
students learn better in an active rather than a
passive mode, that learning is not only solitary but also a collaborative
social phenomenon, that writing improves when critiqued by peers and then
rewritten. Faculty must see these as important and useful ways of teaching
before they will institute them in their own classrooms; they will never be
convinced by having WAC imposed
on them. In fact, experience suggests that they will usually do their best to
resist it. Writing across the
curriculum programs are even more difficult to evaluate reliably and accurately
for efficacy than writing centers. Data can be collected on writing center
students to determine if there is any correlation, for example, between how
often they attend and how their grades change over time. With WAC initiatives, which typically grow
piecemeal rather than as a system imposed on all teachers, it is difficult even
to determine which students to target for analysis, let alone to estimate how
much exposure to WAC activities
they have had. Searchwells 2008 study of WAC in two U.S. charter schools is an example of
the kind of scientifically-based evaluation
that can be conducted if sufficient resources are allocated. Her conclusion: The study revealed
that students who engaged in WAC had high scores on
standardized writing tests, advanced placement
tests, and they passed college placement tests more frequently, eliminating the
need to take a remedial writing class in college. In most cases, however, schools do not have
these resources and they need to evaluate the success of WAC initiatives through less scientifically
rigorous methods. The most common of these methods is to survey teachers and
students on their opinions about the enjoyment and perceived efficacy of WAC
activities. Bazermann (2005) provides a useful overview
of the literature in the field. He makes the point that the very act of
periodically surveying teacher experiences and opinions contributes to
reflective professional practice and can lead to a wider understanding and
acceptance of the WAC
philosophy in general, with a concomitant willingness to try out some WAC
activities. 3.4 Teaching
and Learning Writing in the
English Language Arts The principal source of our research into
the teaching and learning of writing was the Handbook of Research on
Teaching the English Language Arts (Flood, 2003) [28] . This is a large volume
with summaries and analyses of the most important studies in the field. The
book was published in 2003; the online journal Research in the Teaching of
English (National Council of Teachers of English, 2010) was
consulted for more recent research. Other research in the field has been
accessed via JSTOR At the start of our investigation it was
assumed that the review of the literature conducted by PS would be guided by
and inform the ongoing curriculum analysis carr ied out
by the English department as part of stage 1 of the English
curriculum review cycle. In fact, however, the committee and its sub-groups
decided to first complete the documentation and alignment of cross-grade scope
and sequence. Completion took all year, and so there was no time for the
expected curricular analysis. This will now take place in the school year
2010-2011. We believe that the general review of the literature provided here
will serve to focus and facilitate that analysis. The main areas of writing or writing-related
research reported on in this section are: writing curriculum, writing process,
assessment and feedback, grammar teaching, mechanical errors, modeling,
vocabulary, writing in the 21 st century, writing myths, and best
teaching practices. The kinds of writing students do in English
class have been variously categorized. For example: Bereiter & Scardamalia
(1987) distinguish between writing as knowledge-telling and writing as knowledge-transforming
.
Britton (1975) determines three functions for writing: transactional,
expressive and poetic. Further ways of categorizing writing are discussed by
Applebee (2000). Britton highlighted the dominance of
transactional writing and the minimal emphasis on expressive or poetic
writing across the subjects in U.K. schools at the time
of his study. A more recent survey of U.S. high school
students' writing
experiences (Scherf, 2005) comes to a similar conclusion about the limited
opportunities for students to engage in expressive or creative writing, while
at the same time noting that writing about literature dominated class time. Both Britton and Scherf criticize the
preponderance of transactional writing, whose tasks are determined by the
teacher, at the expense of expressive and poetic/creative writing opportunities.
Neither, however, are prepared to state what they consider to be the ideal
proportion of the different types of writing in the school curriculum. The
ideal will vary from context to context. The consensus is, however, that
schools should at the least have a rough idea of that proportion in their own
curriculum and be assured that is appropriate for their student needs and
interests. A significant amount of literature, both in
the field of writing and in other areas, points to the desirability of students
having some control over the content and form of what they write. [29] Some of our own students
made comments to the same effect in their survey responses. Starting in the late 1970s there was a major
paradigm shift in writing instruction from a focus on the product of writing to
a focus on the process of writing. Early implementations of process writing in
the classroom were characterized in some cases by a reluctance of the teacher
to be too prescriptive, both in terms of what the students should write about
and the extent to which they should concern themselves with formal aspects of
their writing [30]
.
Current process writing teaching, however,
is likely to feature a more prescriptive approach to the writing genre and a
direct focus on the grammatical and rhetorical aspects of writing that students
are expected to master. Mini-lessons throughout the writing process serve to
focus students attention on these aspects. At the same time, however, there
has been a move away from a lock-step march through the five writing stages
towards a more flexible, recursive approach. Numerous research studies in the last four
decades have established the efficacy of teaching students the reflective and
recursive strategies that make up the various stages of the writing process. For
example, research by Graham and Perin (2007) puts the writing process in first
place of the 11 ways to improve student writing. The work of Vygotsky (1962),
with his concept of the Zone of Proximal Development , has been
particularly influential in helping teachers understand how to scaffold the
writing process with a view to fostering independent writing proficiency in
their students. The current understanding is that writing
is not only a cognitive process but one that benefits from interaction and
co-construction with a teacher or supportive, knowledgeable peer. This is the
principal reason why writing centers have proved successful in helping students
to improve as writers and to develop positive attitudes to writing. 3.4.4 Assessment
of Written Work The rubric has become the standard way to
assess student writing and thereby to determine the appropriate grade. Despite
a few dissenting voices [31]
,
there is wide acceptance of the benefits that rubrics bring to both teacher and
student. Not only do rubrics provide the teacher with a reliable and valid way
to rate student performance, but they can also serve to improve that
performance. This occurs when the teacher goes through the rubric with the
students at an early stage in the writing process and makes explicit the
qualities or characteristics the written work must have in order to get a top
grade. Influenced by the strong recommendations of Wiggins & McTighe (2006)
and other researchers, many teachers also involve students in the production of
rubrics for the various kinds of writing they do, or have students evaluate
their own or each others work using some or all of the rubrics categories. A study by Beaudry (1997) is one that
shows a correlation between use of rubrics and student achievement: (According
to our survey) 85 percent of high school teachers in high-achieving schools
reported that they used holistic rubrics to evaluate student work as compared
with 65 percent of teachers in low-achieving schools. Svingby and Johnson (2007), after
conducting a meta-analysis of 75 studies in the use of rubrics, come to the
following conclusion: Rubrics seem to have
the potential of promoting learning and/or
improve instruction. The main reason for this potential lies in the fact that
rubrics make expectations and criteria explicit, which also facilitates
feedback and self-assessment. Rubrics play an important part in portfolio
assessment, which became increasingly popular in ELA education in the latter
decades of the 20 th century. The portfolio is a good way for
students and teachers to see development in writing proficiency and to involve
students in the process of self-evaluation. Students use rubrics and other
evaluation materials to assess the quality of their work and determine areas
for improvement. The importance of helping students develop metacognitive
strategies is attested in many areas of educational research (e.g., Bangert-Drowns,
2004). A writing portfolio offers students many opportunities to engage in such
strategies. Portfolio assessment has become less
popular in recent years. Some researchers claim that such assessment lacks the
reliability and validity that many (parents or administrators, for example)
expect or need in order to make sound educational decisions. Brown (1997) and
Guard (2010) have a good overview of the issues. Another significant reason for the
declining popularity of portfolios is the time and effort it takes to maintain
them, as well as the cost in terms of storage materials and space. However,
with the advent of Web 2.0 technologies and virtually unlimited online storage
space, it is possible that portfolio assessment may increase in popularity
again. Ohler (2006) provides a good discussion of the theory and practice of
online portfoliosor blogfolios as he calls them. An important advantage
of storing work online is that it opens such work to a potentially unlimited
authentic audience. The motivational factor of writing for an audience other
than the teacher has been noted by The National Commission on Writing
in its 2006 report Writing
and School Reform , among others. 3.4.5 Feedback
on Written Work Research [32]
shows that English teachers spend a large amount of time giving students
feedback on their writingwhether in individual conferences or through written
comments on the students drafts or finished papers. The copious studies in
this field [33]
have come to differing but mostly rather pessimistic conclusions about the
effectiveness of such teacher feedback. Freedman (1987), for example,
highlights the uncanny persistence in students to misunderstand the
written response they receive on their papers and claims that ... teacher
written response is misunderstood even in classrooms that strongly reflect what
we consider the best of current thought on the teaching of writing. Hillocks (1986) also questions the value of
post-writing comments but is more sanguine about the value of teacher input
during the drafting, revising or editing stages of the writing process. His
summary is: Teacher assessment and intervention during the process of writing
a paper has a significant effect for good on the final product, far better than
teachers written comments on final drafts. A study by Kim (2004) reviews more recent
research in the field and offers a helpful synopsis, which is summarized below: o
feedback can result in improved writing but is
superfluous unless students understand it, and agree with it; o
even the best of students may not make the most
of teacher feedback because of faulty understanding of the purpose of the
feedback; o
positive comments are more effective than
negative ones (not only in improving writing but also in creating positive
attitudes to writing); o
credibility (competence and trustworthiness) and
likeability are the two most important teacher characteristics that influence
the persuasiveness and efficacy of feedback; o
students are emotionally close to their writing
and ideas, and identify strongly with their compositions; o
teacher feedback is potentially threatening to a
student; the threat is lessened in an online context; o
online feedback can help shyer and less able
students interact more with the teacher; o
teacher feedback is a persuasive act, the
communication of ideas through complex social interaction that incorporates a
number of functions at onceinstruction, encouragement, individual lesson,
development, maintenance of social ties, and so on. Until the end of the 1950s it was common
for students in English class to be taught how to identify the parts of speech
and parse or diagram sentences. Although this practice has largely disappeared
from current English teaching, some ELA curricula, particularly in the USA
, still include explicit instruction in
the elements and rules of grammar, usually accompanied by workbook or worksheet
practice in the form of multiple-choice, fill-the-blank or error correction
exercises. This is despite a clear consensus in the literature that not only do
such exercises have no positive effect on writing proficiency and accuracy, but
in some cases the effect may even be negativeif only because such practice
takes away time from more authentic writing tasks. Following is an extract from the results
section of a meta-study entitled The effect of grammar teaching in English
on 5 to 16 year olds accuracy and quality in written composition (Andrews, 2005)
which claims to be the largest systematic review in the history of
research on the topic to date: The main implication of our
findings is that there is no high
quality evidence that the teaching of grammar, whether traditional or
generative/transformational, is worth the time if the aim is the improvement of
the quality and/or accuracy of written composition. This is not to say that the
teaching of such grammar might not be of value in itself, or that it might lead
to enhanced knowledge and awareness of how language works, and of systems of
language use. But the clear implication, based on the available high quality
research evidence, is that the evidence base to justify the teaching of grammar
in English to 5 to 16 year-olds
in order to improve writing is very small. The above extract contains the suggestion
that teaching students about grammar, while unlikely to result in improved
writing proficiency, may be justified for other reasons. One of these reasons
is that knowledge about the terminology of language is important knowledge in
its own right. Hirsch (1993), for example, includes grammatical terms in his
influential Dictionary of Cultural Literacy , which lists the facts that
every educated (American) adult should have acquired. A second reason is that
it is useful if teachers and students can share a common language
(metalanguage) to discuss writing [34] .
Krashen (2010) supports the teaching of basic grammatical terminology so that
students can use independently the grammar and stylistic advice they access via
books or the internet. A further reason is that knowledge about
grammar, in the wider context of language and its use, is fundamental to an
understanding of the modern world; for example, how politicians and advertisers
seek to influence people; how words have the power to elevate and denigrate,
and so on. Instruction in such aspects of grammar and language is usually
entitled Language Awareness . [35]
Notwithstanding the strong case against the
decontextualized teaching of the various elements and rules of grammar, there
are two types of explicit focus on grammar that have been found to have a
positive effect on students writing proficiency. The first is practice in sentence
combining. This entails students learning how to combine clauses or embed
phrases to create complex sentences. The efficacy of such activities is
underlined by early researchers in the field: No other single teaching
approach has ever been consistently shown to have a beneficial effect on
syntactic maturity and writing quality and The best advice I can give
teachers today, relative to sentence combining, is Do it. (quoted in
Hillocks & Smith. 2003) More recent research has come to less effusive
conclusions about the long-term effects of sentence-combining activities on
student writing quality. In the main, however, there is still persuasive
evidence in their favor, provided they are set in a meaningful context; for
example, via sentences from student work or model answers. The second area where a focus on grammar
can have a positive effect is in the context of the writing process, in what
are usually called mini-lessons. [36]
These lessons may be given to the whole class, to a sub-group of the class, or
to an individual student. The grammar taught is based on the immediate needs of
the student(s) in improving current or future pieces of writing. In this way
students gain the crucial understanding that grammar is not a set of arcane and
isolated rules but of fundamental importance in expressing thought clearly and
effectively, whether in order to persuade, move, inform, entertain or fulfill
any of the other functions of written language. According to Zachrisson [37] : Of all languages ...
English has the most inconsistent and illogical spelling. This is because
English orthography (spelling) is influenced by both phonetics and morphology.
Broadly, this means that some words reflect a sound-letter consistency (e.g.,
head-bread), and other words reflect common units of meaning (e.g., sign
signature). Early teaching of spelling was based on a
system of rote memorization. This was replaced in the second half of the 20 th
century with a focus on helping students learn sound-spelling patterns. A
significant increase in research in the field in the latter part of the century
led to an understanding that such a focus is insufficient, since spelling
ability depends also on the development of morphological knowledge. Recent research has revealed that learners
go through fairly predictable stages in the development of spelling accuracy,
albeit at varying speeds and with varying final outcomes, and that reading is
instrumental in the process. As Templeton (2003) notes: Krashen has
offered the most compelling argument in support of the position that spelling
knowledge develops primarily through reading and writing without studying words
out of context. The insights gained from the proliferation
of research have resulted in many schools abandoning decontextualized, one
size fits all spelling instruction which focuses, for example, on frequently
misspelled words or common sound-spelling patterns. This has been supplanted by
instruction that integrates a focus on spelling with vocabulary development.
Templeton (2003) states: At upper levels,
students may be shown how the spelling/morphological relationships they are
exploring can also be tools for vocabulary expansion. The most productive
exercise of this knowledge is through the analysis of unfamiliar words
encountered in reading. Acquiring a high degree of orthographic
knowledge is important for students. Clearly, spelling ability influences their
reading fluency, but more significantly for this study, it has an influence on
writing proficiency and attitudes to writing. As Templeton (2003) states: In writing, the
higher level aspects of intended meaning, audience, word choice, and so forth
cannot be effectively exercised if a significant amount of attention must be allocated
to spelling the words. Students who are poor spellers often lack
confidence in the content of their writing and develop a negative attitude to
writing in general. Furthermore, research [38]
has shown that poor spelling commonly induces a negative response from the
reader, even to the point where the intelligence or competence of the writer is
called into question. This is particularly undesirable if the reader is an
examiner or a potential employer. In the
introduction we noted the disagreement about trends in general standards of
writing. One important recent study on student writing errors was undertaken by
Lunsford & Lunsford (2008). This research was conducted to replicate a
study conducted by the same authors 20 years previously. The 2008 study found
no evidence of a decline in mechanical standards. Significantly, however,
the 2008 research showed that today's students are making different
kinds of mistakes than their 1988 counterparts. In the 1988 study spelling
errors were by far the most common kind of mistake, with wrong word errors in
fourth place. In the 2008 study [39]
the positions were reversed, with wrong word errors being much more prevalent
than any other mistake. The second most significant category of mistake in the
recent study was faulty inclusion and citing of sources. The recent study also
showed an increase in capitalization, hyphenation and sentence errors. The authors
hypothesize that the types of mistake now made in student writing are due to
misuse of the computer spell-check and thesaurus, or lack of care in cutting
and pasting. They state that teachers need to ask how we might adapt our
technologies to reduce certain errors and how we might adapt our pedagogies to
address the errors to which technologies contribute. Research in effective strategies to avoid
mechanical errors suggests the following: As Hodges (2003) summarizes: Whatever
techniques are taught, direct instruction of proofreading techniques appears to
have a positive outcome. There are two
facets to modeling. In the first, teachers provide model answers so that the
students can see what is expected of them, not only in terms of the whole text,
but also how good writers express ideas and the transitions between them at the
sentence-level. The second modeling method involves students observing as
teachers model one of the stages or sub-stages of the writing process. This
kind of modeling is often referred to a think-aloud since the teacher gives a
running commentary on how he or she is producing or revising text. [40] The research
literature is clear on the importance of modeling. Myhill (2008), for
example, states: The study of models is one of the effective teaching
practices .. soundly endorsed in professional journals and reviews of classroom
resources. Bazerman (2006), in recommending
modeling, emphasizes the positive influence of reading around in a topic before
writing about it: There is a relationship between
the length of time students
spend reading information related to their writing assignments and the quality
of the writing they produced. Students who engaged more extensively with models
of an essay similar to the one they were writing and/or a set of guidelines for
writing that kind of essay [] produced better writing. For students to write
fluently and well it is important that they possess a wide vocabulary. As Reid
(2008) states: Several decades of research have demonstrated that the level of
vocabulary in our writing plays a significant role in the readers overall
perception of the quality of our writing. Corson (1999) writing
about language across the curriculum claims: The
importance of words in education is so obvious that it was taken for granted
for much of the history of schools. This is despite the fact that to a large
extent the teaching and learning of words is the central activity of schools. Other research [41] has
highlighted the strong correlation of vocabulary size with reading ability and with
success in education and the workplace. For the authors of a recent report, Promoting
Vocabulary Development: Components of Effective Vocabulary Instruction, the
implications are clear: Finding ways to increase students vocabulary growth
must become a major educational priority. ( Texas
Reading
Initiative, 2002) What is less clear are
the implications for ELA curricula and how teachers should assist students in
developing their vocabularies. A consensus seems to have formed around the
following principles, as outlined by Baumann et al. (2003) in their chapter Research
in Vocabulary Instruction from the Handbook of
Research on Teaching the English Language Arts :
3.4.11 Twenty-First
Century Writing Twenty-first century
writing is the term given to the new kinds of writing made possible by
developing technologies, particularly online. Research in this field has shown
that todays students are writing more than ever; for example, via email,
social sites and blogs. They use these media for real writing purposes and for
communicating with real audiences (NATE 2008). The National
Writing Commission (2003) recommends that teachers tap into students inherent interest
in these methods of creating and sharing writing . Ohler (2009) in New-Media
Literacies claims: Being literate in a real world sense means being able
to read and write using the media forms of the day, whatever they may be. He
too underlines the powerful incentive to write that is afforded by the chance
to be read by an authentic audience, and suggests blogfolios (online
portfolios) as one way to accomplish this. Another important feature of the new
writing media is the opportunity for collaborationwhich has been identified in
the FIS Curriculum Councils model of 21st Century Transdisciplinary Learning
as one of the key skills to be fostered among our students
[42] . Web
2.0 programs such as Wikis greatly facilitate student collaboration on a piece
of writing they are jointly creating. And blogs (moderated by the teacher)
enable collaboration through writing in the construction of knowledge and
understanding about an issue. Nevdon Jamgochians grade 7 humanities blog [43] is testimony to the power
of this kind of collaborative writing and an example of Vygotskys
constructivist model of student learning (1962). Online journals and blogs have
the further advantage that they provide students who are less spontaneous or
voluble in class the chance to contribute their thoughts and ideas. Yancey (2009) cautions that a principled
adoption of the Web 2.0 technologies entails designing a new curriculum to
support the new composing models and creating new pedagogies to enact that
curriculum. Some research has focused on students
knowledge about the processes of writing and what makes for good writers. In
the course of this research several writing myths have emerged. Reid (2004)
lists a number of these false conceptions, explains how they are
counter-productive and discusses what can be done to dispel them. The most
common misconceptions are: Dispelling these myths is important for
teachers who wish to ensure their students acquire a positive attitude to
writing and an accurate understanding of what writing well entails. It is not only students who may hold myths
about writing. As Gere (2010) notes, there are several unhelpful beliefs held
by teachers. These include the assumption that all mistakes in student writing
must be identified or that writing instruction is the sole responsibility of
the English teacher. 3.4.13 Best Teaching
Practices This review of the literature in the field
of writing in the English Language Arts concludes with two lengthy extracts
from research into best practices for teaching writing. The extracts serve as a
summary of many of the points made in sections above. The first quote is from Glatthorn &
Shouses chapter Secondary English classroom environments from the Handbook
of Research on Teaching the English Language Arts. The advice applies not
just to English but also to extended writing across all the subject areas. The
authors make the following recommendations: Teachers should
take special pains to communicate the task clearly to students, noting that
students often misinterpret assigned tasks. In this explanation, they should
clarify the assignment, identify the steps and strategies to be used, analyze a
model response, call attention to the goal, and identify the criteria to be
used for grading. Second, they
should carefully monitor students' understanding of the work and the strategies
for accomplishing it. In making long-term assignments, like reading a novel or
writing an essay, the teacher should confer with individual students at the
start of the task, to be sure that they understand both task and strategies.
They should ask students "strategic questions" that probe for
understanding and ask students to explain their answers. They should also
monitor student group work and observe student-student interactions. Third, they
should encourage students to engage in novel tasks that involve more risk for
the student. Since students will exert pressure for the teacher to do their
work for them, teachers should determine which aspects of the task should be carr
ied out completely by the students and
insist that students carr y out
those aspects, regardless of student questions and requests. They should also
provide "safety nets" for students doing novel work: let them revise
and resubmit without penalty, provide for cooperative learning, and adjust the
grading system. The points made here
about the importance of students finding meaning in tasks and building
meaningful systems of related tasks are repeated throughout the literature that
has been reviewed for this investigation. Krashen, during his visits to FIS,
made similar points in several sessions. The second extract is
from a recent meta-study of research into the effects of specific types of
writing instruction on writing proficiency (Graham & Perin, 2007). The
authors list the eleven instructional elements that their analysis indicates
are most helpful to adolescent writers. The list, reproduced here verbatim from
the Recommendations section, shows the instructional elements in descending
order of efficacy: 1.
Writing Strategies, which involves teaching
students strategies for planning, revising, and editing their compositions. 2.
Summarization, which involves
explicitly and systematically teaching students how to summarize texts. 3.
Collaborative Writing ,
which uses instructional arrangements
in which adolescents work together to plan, draft, revise, and edit their
compositions. 4.
Specific Product Goals, which assigns
students specific, reachable goals for the writing they are to complete. 5. Word Processing,
which uses computers
and word processors as instructional supports for writing assignments. 6.
Sentence Combining, which involves
teaching students to construct more complex, sophisticated sentences. 7.
Prewriting, which engages students in
activities designed to help them generate or organize ideas for their
composition. 8.
Inquiry Activities, which engages
students in analyzing immediate, concrete data to help them develop ideas and
content for a particular writing task. 9. Process
Writing Approach, which
interweaves a number of
writing instructional activities in a workshop environment that stresses
extended writing opportunities, writing for authentic audiences, personalized
instruction, and cycles of writing. 10. Study of Models,
which provides
students with opportunities to read, analyze, and emulate models of good
writing. 11. Writing
for Content Learning, which uses writing
as a tool for learning content material. This section contains a
brief overview of research in the fields of reading and brain-based learning.
Research in these areas has produced insights that can inform writing
curriculum and pedagogy. There is a vast amount
of research into reading, some of which concerns its relationship with writing
in general and with vocabulary in particular. The most useful insights from
this research are: Krashen (2004) makes
the reading/writing connection explicit: We learn to write by reading. To be
more precise, we acquire writing style, the special language of writing, by
reading. Krashen states that it is impossible to learn (through direct
instruction) all the ways that formal and informal language differ, and that
[i]t is, therefore, sensible to suppose that writing style is not consciously
learned but is largely absorbed, or subconsciously acquired, from reading. Although a good general
writing style, together with a large vocabulary, can be acquired subconsciously
through extensive reading, it is less easy to develop the writing proficiency
required for academic success in such a way. Students are usually not reading
enough in the academic genres for subconscious acquisition to take place. The
process can be accelerated through having attention drawn to specific aspects
of academic textthis is known as modeling. The research literature
makes clear that the best way to take advantage of symbiotic relationship of
reading, writing and vocabulary is to give students plenty of opportunities and
reasons to read diverse texts, particularly of their own choice. In many
schools this is achieved through silent reading sessions, which often feature
as part of reading workshop programs. Instilling a positive attitude to reading
is considered to be a primary educational task. Rhiannon Wood has made considerable efforts
over the last few years to bring to the attention of FIS teachers the findings
of brain-based research and their implications for the classroom. These efforts
have included professional development days with Dr. Greenleaf, several CPTI
sessions and two Brain-Based Learning conferences with presentations given by
researchers or practitioners in the field The insights gained from the above
in-service opportunities, together with a brief review of the literature in the
field, point to several areas where brain-based research can inform writing
pedagogy. For example, the value of the short writing activities that are
typical of WAC initiatives is
underpinned by what we have learned about how the brain functions best in the
classroom. Greenleaf notes the importance of avoiding brain-overload, with
short writing tasks being an excellent way to refresh and reflect. Important,
however, is that the task requires some kind of more complex cognitive
processing than the mere regurgitation of facts. Marzano (2004), in his much-cited Classroom
instruction that works, conducts a meta-analysis of the effectiveness of instructional
strategies that affect student achievement. His findings are that the top three
strategies, with by far the highest average effect size are identifying
similarities and differences, followed by summarizing and note-taking. These
are all writing strategies. In Brain Matters: Translating Research
into Classroom Practice Wolfe (2001) explains how strategies covered by the
term elaborative rehearsal enhance understanding and retention of
information. Among these strategies are writing activities such as those
recommended in WAC . Wolfe makes
the oft-repeated point that writing is thinking and learning, and she cites
several examples of writing to learn in mathematics, humanities and science. She
points out that elaborative rehearsal strategies may increase the strength of
the learning because these strategies allow consolidation to take place. She
notes that the time needed to build in more opportunity for elaborative
rehearsal presupposes a curriculum that is deeper than it is broad. The problem (of
students memorizing information for a test and then promptly forgetting it) is
exacerbated by the demands to cover more curriculumand covering is often all
that happens. Coverage does not build strong neural connections and, therefore,
is seldom remembered or remembered incorrectly. The recommendation for curriculum depth
rather than breadth is a common theme running through the literature that has
been reviewed in this investigation. In their influential book Understanding
by Design Wiggins & McTighe (2006) discuss at length the advantages of
uncoverage (depth) over coverage (breadth). The same recommendation was made by
both Stephen Krashen and Blaine Ray in their presentations to FIS faculty in
the year of the investigation. Such curricular recommendations are relevant to
an investigation of writing because, if implemented, they build in additional
opportunities for students to engage in various writing activities to deepen
understanding. Brain research provides further insights that
have curricular implications, particularly in terms of giving students reasons
to write and promoting an enjoyment of writing. For example, research has proved
unequivocally that people pay attention to, remember and learn from experiences
that are personally relevant or meaningful, or provoke an emotional response. Jensen
(2005) claims that personal relevance is one of the factors that support
coherent learning and the development of thinking skills. This means that
teaching should include the use of choice, real-world personal applications
and project-based learning. Wolfe, too, interprets the research as suggesting
that students should be given more choice in the topics they write about or the
form in which the response is written. Further support for giving students
authentic writing tasks and audiences is provided by Scherf (2005), who writes:
Engaging in real-world writing tasks ought to be part of schools curricular
scope and sequence. Krashens (2003) claim that students learn
best by solving real-world problems which are relevant to them is supported by
the brain research reviewed by Jensen and summarized as: The human brain seems
to be designed to solve problems. The project-based learning that Jensen
recommends is a typical feature of transdisciplinary curricula. This is too
large a subject to be considered here, except to point out that project-based
writing can have an authenticity that many other types of school writing do not
have, and for this reason alone can be motivating to students
[45] . Cummins, too, is
an advocate of project-based learning and considers language to be a very
suitable topic for project-based work in an international school. His 1996
report to the school contains the following recommendation: Students at all
grade levels should have the opportunity to carr y out
one major project related to Language during the course of the
year. For example, students could carr y out a language
survey of their class or grade level or FIS as a
whole with respect to languages spoken by students, with whom, how well, etc.
Such a project could potentially integrate research skills, mathematics,
geography, history and other academic areas. This section
contains summaries of the sources of information used in the external research.
Not all of the sources listed below are cited in the report. They are included
here to facilitate further investigation by anyone wishing to pursue the issues
covered. The bracketed
information at the end of some of the citations shows either the number of the
printed articles in the Writing Center s resource
collection or the location of the book (e.g., Upper
School
library, Languages resource room). The
printed articles and the Writing Center books are
available for inspection or borrowing. Abbs, P. (1989). A is for Aesthetic:
Essays on Creative & Aesthetic Education. The author outlines his ideal content of a
secondary-level English curriculum. He concedes the need for English class to
teach the English language and skills that will serve students across the
curriculum but maintains that the principal focus should be literature. Chapter
4 includes a discussion of the various roles of English teaching, as well as
the concept of English as a service department. [Google Books] Abel, I. (1988).
Writing in
the Mathematics Classroom. Clearing House. 62(4) . The author briefly reviews the research
supporting writing activities in the mathematics classroom, then discuss the
various types of activity that could be included. Examples include: journals,
story problems, microthemes (or short impromptu writing tasks), etc. The
remainder of the article deals with ways of assessing or giving feedback on
such writing. [93] About.com. Writing Across the Curriculum . <
http://712educators.about.com/cs/writingresources/a/writing.htm > This is a useful overview of the topic
(written primarily for non-English teachers). It also lists some objections to WAC
and how to address these. Andrews, R. et al. (2005). The effect of
grammar teaching (sentence combining) in English on 5 to 16 year olds' accuracy and
quality in written composition. Department of Educational Studies, University of York
. Research Paper . A meta-analysis (of 267 research papers)
into the efficacy of grammar teaching (in particular, sentence-combining). It
concludes: "An overall synthesis .. comes to a clear conclusion: that
sentence combining is an effective means of improving the syntactic maturity of
students in English between the ages of 5 and 16." A document of major
importance in the field. [108] Applebee, A. (2000). Alternative Models of Writing Development. In Indrisano, R.
Writing : Research/Theory/Practice.
International Reading Association. An overview of the history and various
issues concerning writing curricula, particularly as they have developed in
American schools. [136] Applebee, A. (2006). The state of writing
instruction in America 's
schools: What existing data tell us. Center
of English Learning and
Achievement . This is a careful analysis of the current
state of teaching and learning to write in U.S. high
schools. The authors note the "remarkable stability"
of writing standards over the past 40 years. They remark that many students are
not doing much writing in school or for homeworkeven in English class. Process
writing is a very strongly established paradigm. [122] ACER. International Schools' Assessment ( ISA
). <
http://www.acer.edu.au/tests/isa > Homepage of the ISA test.
It includes much useful information about the content of the
writing test and criteria for assessing it. Baldwin, D. (2004). A Guide to Standardized
Writing Assessment. Educational
Leadership, 62(2) . How writing is tested in the USA and its (mainly negative) implications
for the classroom. [33] Bangert-Drowns, R. (2004). The Effects of
School-Based Writing -to-Learn
Interventions on Academic Achievement: A Meta-Analysis. Review of
Educational Research, 74(1) . An important investigation into the
effectiveness of WAC
activities. In summary, such activities have been found effective; the most
successful are those that involve metacognitive reflection and are short.
Younger students learn less from such activities than older ones. [81] Barnett, R. (1999). The WAC / Writing Center Partnership: Creating a
Campus-wide Writing Environment. Writing Centers and
Writing Across the Curriculum Programs
. The author concludes: More important than
the physical location or the ownership of the respective programs (writing
center/ WAC ) is the idea of
creating a writing environment through ongoing dialogue about writing and its
relationship to thinking among faculty as well as students. [Google Books] Barnett, R. (2001). Writing
Center Theory and
Practice . Boston :
Allyn and
Bacon. An indispensable resource. It contains
numerous seminal articles on all issues pertaining to the establishment and
running of a writing center. [ Languages Resource Center ]
Bazerman, C. et. al. (2005). Reference Guide
to Writing Across
the Curriculum . West
Lafayette : Parlor Press. An indispensable overview of the history of
the WAC movement, together with
its theoretical and research base. It includes some practical suggestions and
well as advice on how to evaluate WAC initiatives. [
Writing Center ] Beaudry, J. (1997). Does The Use of
Holistic Rubrics Affect Student Performance in Reading
and Writing ?
This is a brief account of an investigation
that came to the conclusion that students write better when they are involved
in the production of assessment rubrics. [138] Bereiter C. & Scardamalia, M. The
Psychology of Written Composition . The authors analyze the cognitive processes
underlying the production of writing, in particular as they differ between
novice and expert writers. There is a lengthy discussion of conceptualizing
writing as knowledge-telling or knowledge-transforming. [Google Books] Biancarosa, C. & Snow, C. (2006).
Reading
next: A vision for action and research in middle and high school literacy . The report provides a blueprint for
improving the literacy (particularly the reading comprehension skills) of Upper
School students. It describes 15
instructional and infrastructural
(curriculum, PD, leadership, etc) strategies to achieve this goal. It includes
a useful discussion on how to implement context-based action research to
determine which (mix of) strategies to prioritize, together with a
comprehensive bibliography. [145] Bittel, K. (2006). Kinesthetic Writing , of Sorts. ScienceScope (Middle
School Science Journal of the National Science Teachers Association), 29 . The authors describe how to use a graphic
organizer (a flipbook) to guide (grade 8) students in the writing of
conclusions to science experiments. [101] Boch, F. (2004). Note-Taking and Learning:
A Summary of Research. WAC Journal, 16
. A very helpful resource. The author
explains why note-making is important and how it can be taught. [54] Boland, S. (1989). A Review of Useful Works
on Writing Across the
Curriculum. Writing
Across the Curriculum, Vol 1 . The author offers a discursive review of
four books on the topic of WAC ,
with lengthy expansions on the history of the movement, the effectiveness of
learning journals and the problems of peer response to written work. [112] Booher, D. (2001). E- Writing
: 21st Century Tools for
Effective Communication . New
York : Pocket. This is a very helpful book with much clear
advice on writing well. It focuses principally on job-related writing, e.g.,
emails or reports to administrators, but most of the tips could usefully be
adopted by students too. [ Upper
School Library] Bomengen, M. (2010). Writing
across the curriculum:
Research on the effects of writing practice on standardized tests A brief overview of research into the
effects of application of the writing process and WAC
strategies on test scores. These two approaches are recommended but
should be used reflectively: "It is foolhardy for administrators to issue
simple, blanket directives to increase writing assignments across the
curriculum in the misguided belief that having students write more will raise
test scores." [146] Bowker, R. (2010). Annotated
Bibliography on Vocabulary and Success . A useful document with short summaries of
several research projects that have found strong correlations between
vocabulary knowledge and success in education and the workplace. The summaries
contain numerous quotations from the original studies. [140] Bransford, J. et al. (2000). How people
learn: brain, mind, experience, and school . National Research Council. The authors summarize current understanding
of how the brain works and the implications for teachers. The key
recommendations can be summarized as follows: 1. Assess and activate background
knowledge; 2. Help students acquire knowledge (facts) in a conceptual framework
and organize that knowledge in ways that facilitate retrieval and application;
3. "A metacognitive approach to instruction can help students to take
control of their own learning by defining learning goals and monitoring their progress
in achieving them." The authors support curricula with depth over breadth:
"Teachers must teach some subject matter in depth .. to allow key topics
in that discipline to be understood"; "Formative assessments are
essential." [Google Books] Britton, J. (1975). The Development of
Writing Abilities (11-18) . NCTE.
The influential study which categorizes
writing according to audience and function. Britton determines the three main
functions of writing to be: transactional, expressive and poetic. [ Upper
School Library] Brown, B. (1997). Portfolio Assessment:
Missing Link in Student Evaluation . A very short overview of the advantages and
limitations of using portfolios in the assessment of writing, together with a
useful annotated bibliography. [132] Burns, M. (2004). Writing
in Math. Educational Leadership, 62 . A useful overview of the issue. The author
discusses two reasons for students writing in the mathematics classroom: a.) it
helps them think more deeply and clearly about the subject, and b.) it provides
the teacher with "a window into their understandings, their
misconceptions, and their feelings about the content they're learning."
The author then outlines the different kinds of writing that could be set and
how to incorporate them seamlessly into lessons. [30] California State
Board of Education. (1997). ELA
Content Standards for California Public Schools . An example of a fully-documented ELA K-12
curriculum. [60] Calkins, L. (1994). The Art of Teaching
Writing . Portsmouth
: Heinemann. Most of the book is a discursive account of
the writing process and how to get the most out of writing workshops in English
class. One important chapter covers the theory and practice of writing to think
and learn. [Other] Carino, P. (2001). Theorizing the Writing
Center : An Uneasy Task. In Barnett, R.
& Blumner, J. (eds). Writing
Center Theory and Practice . Boston : Pearson. The author addresses the tensions that
often arise between the theory and practice of writing centers. [ Languages
Resource
Center ] Chesbro, R. (2006). Using Interactive
Science Notebooks for Inquiry-Based Science. ScienceScope (Middle School
Science Journal of the National Science Teachers Association), 26 . Detailed instructions on how to make and
use a science notebook for all science writing and diagrams. It includes useful
information about assessing such notebooks. [105] Childers, P. (2004). The Secondary School Writing
Center :
A Place to Build Confident, Competent Writers. Praxis: A
Writing Center
Journal, 2(1) . A useful overview of the various ways that
writing centers can help students and also benefit student tutors. There is a
section on how writing centers positively impact writing throughout the school.
[86] Claremont Graduate
University .
Writing Center
homepage . <
http://www.cgu.edu/pages/726.asp > A useful example of a writing center
homepage. College Board. About PSAT . <
http://www.collegeboard.com/student/testing/psat/about.html > Home page of site by the producers of the
PSAT. College Board.(2009). Official Student
Guide to the PSAT/NMSQT. Information for students, including sample
questions, and a full-length practice test. [150] Collins, J. (1997). Strategies for
Struggling Writers . New York : Guilford
Publications. Much useful advice on how to help
strugglers use but extend and then supplement the default strategies they use
to produce a piece of writing, such as copying, visualizing and narrating.
Strategies cannot be imposed but must be co-constructed with the learner. [
Writing Center ] Colorado State
University . Basic Principles of
WAC . .
A useful resource, in FAQ format, for
teachers who want to know more about the practical issues concerning the use of
WAC activities with their
students. It contains a lengthy section on creating and assessing major writing
assignments in the various genres (WID). [131] Colorado State
University .
WAC , CAC , and Writing
Centers in Secondary Education . < http://WAC.colostate.edu/aw/secondary
> The page links to a number articles about
writing programs at the secondary level. CompPile Homepage . <
http://comppile.org/search/comppile_main_search.php > A very useful, extensive searchable
database of publications in the teaching of writing. Computers and Composition. HomePage .
< http://www.bgsu.edu/cconline/home.htm >
A useful resource. From the homepage:
"Computers and Composition Online is the refereed online journal. Our goal
is to be a significant online resource for scholar-teachers interested in the
impact of new and emerging media upon the teaching of language and literacy in
both virtual and face-to-face forums." ConceptualMath. (2008). Standardized
Testing Accuracy and Precision . A critical look at the NWEA MAP test. The online article covers
philosophical errors, accuracy problems, precision problems, and a cost-benefit
analysis. It concludes: "For a school whose population is average or
higher, the costs and risks of MAP testing do not
justify the benefits of the test." [109] Conference on College Composition and
Communication. (2009). Best Practices in Online Writing
Instruction. A very useful resource that comprises an
annotated bibliography in 1. online writing instruction pedagogy; 2.
online
writing instruction technology; 3. E-Learning; and 4. online
Writing Centers. [79] Connolly, P. (1989). Writing
to Learn Math and Science . New
York : Teachers
College Press. A collection of articles showing how
writing activities help students learn science and mathematics concepts.
[Other] Corson, D. (1999). Language Policy in
Schools . New Jersey : Lawrence Erlbaum. The theory and practice of establishing
language policies in schools. The book has several sections devoted to writing
issues and includes a model high school writing policy. One excellent chapter
concerns the topic Critical Language Awareness. [ Languages Resource Center
] Cottrell, S. (2003). The Study Skills
Handbook . Basingstoke : Macmillan.
The book is addressed to the student
getting ready to attend tertiary education, but contains much helpful advice
that teachers could convey in class or online. It covers all study skills and
includes several useful chapters concerned with writing. [ Upper School Library] CozyEnglishCourses. Homepage . < http://www.splashesfromtheriver.com/index.html
> Complete grammar course on DVD . Some topics available via YouTube. Cummins, J. (1996). Report to the
Frankfurt International
School on
Language Policy Options . Among Cummins' suggestions for
consideration is the promotion of language awareness across the curriculum. He
comments: "Students at all grade levels should have the opportunity to carr
y out one major project related to
Language during the course of the year. For example, students could carr
y out a language survey of their class
or grade level or FIS as a whole with respect to languages spoken by students,
with whom, how well, etc. Such a project could potentially integrate research
skills, mathematics, geography, history and other academic areas." [99] Daily Writing Tips.
Homepage . < http://www.dailywritingtips.com/
> Daily tips, plus links to writing advice
and many short, clear grammar explanations. Dartmouth College
. Materials for Writing Tutors . <
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~writing/materials/tutor/index.html > A helpful resource. It contains advice
(plus videos) on how to help students with their writing and how to train
writing center tutors. Davison, D. (1990). Perspectives on Writing
Activities in the Mathematics
Classroom. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 2(1) . This paper reports on a study to examine
the effectiveness of writing activities in the mathematics classroom. The
author concludes: "It is clear that regular, systematic writing over an
extended period improves the students performance in and attitudes towards
mathematics." [90] de la Paz, S. (2001). Teaching Writing to Students with Attention Deficit
Disorders and Specific Language Impairment. Journal of Educational Research,
95(1) . The author reports on a small-scale study
that investigated the effectiveness of the SRSD (self-regulated strategy
development) meta-strategy in improving the compositions of 3 SEN (special educational needs) students.
The author concludes that instruction in the strategy had "a positive
effect on the students approach to writing and overall writing
performance." [94] Draper, R. & Siebert, D. (2004).
Different Goals, Similar Practices: Making Sense of the Mathematics and
Literacy Instruction in a Standards-Based Mathematics Classroom. American
Educational Research Journal, 41(4) . This is an interesting investigation,
jointly conducted by a literacy teacher and a mathematics teacher. It explores
the gap in perceptions and mutual subject knowledge between the two teaching
groups, and how that gap could be bridged. [95] Duke University
. Writing Studio
. < http://uwp.duke.edu/wstudio/index.php
> A university writing center homepage with
links to various student advice pages and other resources. Durst, R. & Newell, E. (1989). The Uses
of Function: James Britton's Category System and Research on Writing . Review of Educational Research,
59 (4). A comprehensive analysis of Britton's
categorization of school writing into 3 fields (transactional, expressive and
poetic) and of the research influenced by Britton's seminal work, including on note-making
and summarizing. Applebee's subdivision of Britton's categories is reviewed.
Critiques of both Britton's original model and Applebee's extension are
summarized. [147] Dynamic Business Writing .
What Writing Training Can--and
Can't--Do . <
http://www.dbwriting.com/index2.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_view&gid=3&Itemid=28
> The article discusses Krashen's theory of
competence and performance in writing. Dyson, A. & Freedman, S. (2003) Writing . In Flood, J. (ed). Handbook of
Research on Teaching the English Language Arts . New
Jersey : Lawrence Erlbaum.
A general overview of the issues concerning
writing and the teaching of it. (See Appendix 8.8 for a full summary of the
chapter.) [English Department] East Carolina
University (2004). Writing to Learn .
This page from the university's WAC site is a useful overview of the
history of WAC . It
distinguishes 3 kinds of short writing activities: orientation, mid-lecture,
and assimilative. The author propounds the use of note-cards for these short
writing pieces as being easier for the teacher to collect and review. [126] Education Northwest. 6+1 Trait Writing
. <
http://educationnorthwest.org/resource/949 > The page contains a set of rubrics for the
generic assessment of writing across the grades and subjects. [88] Ehrfurth, C. (2005). Learning Inextricably
Linked to Writing .
Minnesota Council of Teachers of
English . The article contains a brief overview of
the history of WAC (noting the wider
focus in Britain on Language
across the Curriculum), and includes recent studies which attempt to give an
empirical base to the claims of WAC proponents. The
author notes faculty education as the critical
factor in the success of WAC
initiatives. [63] Emig, J. (1977). Writing
as a Mode of Learning. College Composition and Communication .
This is the seminal article on the unique
importance of writing in learning. Emig claims: " Writing involves the fullest possible functioning of the brain, which entails
the active participation in the process of both the left and right
hemispheres". [48] Farman, A. & Dahl, S. (2003) Childrens
Writing : Research and Practice.
In Flood, J. (ed). Handbook of Research on Teaching the English Language
Arts . New Jersey :
Lawrence Erlbaum. The chapter focuses mainly on early
literacy development. (See Appendix 8.8 for a full summary of the chapter.)
[English Department] Farrell, P. (ed) (1989). The High
School Writing
Center . Urbana : NCTE. The book deals with the different stages of
setting up a writing center in a high school and their associated problems. It
includes a helpful, if somewhat outdated, section on the use of computers in
the teaching of writing. [ Languages Resource Center ]
Frankfurt International
School . (2009). Curriculum Review
Cycle, A document describing the FIS/ISW
curriculum review process. Fish, S. (2010) What Should Colleges
Teach? . New York Times. < http://fish.blogs.nytimes.co
> The writer, a college professor, claims
that writing standards are declining. Composition classes should be
content-free and concentrate on teaching students to write well. Flash, P. (2010). Informal, In-Class Writing
Activities. WAC Clearinghouse
. A very useful overview of short writing
activities for every subject, including suggestions for teachers on how to
respond to the various products of short writing. [71] Flood, J. (2003). Handbook of Research
on Teaching the English Language Arts . New Jersey : Lawrence Erlbaum. The major resource for investigating the
teaching and learning of writing in English class. See Appendix 8.8 for chapter
summaries.) [Other] Foulk, D. & Hoover, E. (1996).
Incorporating Expressive Writing into the Classroom
Technical Report Series, (16) . The authors focus on short writing
activities as examples of expressive writing. They provide examples of how such
activities can be used in lecture-dominant classrooms. Their findings indicate
that: "Students who engaged in the writing tasks asked more numerous and
thoughtful questions in class and performed better on complex exam
questions." It includes a useful hand-out for students explaining what
expressive writing is and why it is important. [144] Fowler, F. (2001). Survey Research
Methods . London : Sage. The book is a useful overview of the main
issues concerning the design of good surveys and the analysis of the
information they produce [ Writing Center ] Fowler, J. (2008). The Little Brown
Handbook . <
http://wps.ablongman.com/long_fowler_lbh_10/ > The site to accompany the grammar, writing
and research reference book of the same name. It contains many writing
resources, including video lessons. Freedman. S. (1987). A Good Girl Writes
Like a Good Girl: Written Response and Clues to the Teaching/Learning Process .
National Center For The Study Of Writing . An interesting look at how even good
students can fail to interpret correctly the feedback that teachers give them
on their written work. [78] Fullan, M. (2010). Leading in a Culture
of Change . San Francisco : Jossey-Bass.
A short and coherent introduction to
managers and administrators on how to lead change in business or schools, but
too general to be of much use in the context of implementing new writing
programs or initiatives. [Other] Fulwiler, T. (1980). Journals across the
Disciplines. English Journal, 69 . An important article that argues for the
use of journals across the curriculum as a way to promote thinking and
learning. [58] Gallagher, K. (2009). Readicide: How
Schools Are Killing Reading and
What You Can Do About It . United States
: Stenhouse. This book is a research-based polemic
against current practices in the teaching of literature in American schools.
Among other things, the author rails against the pernicious influence of
standardized tests and the sacrifice of depth for breadth, as well as both the
over- and the under-teaching of response to literature. Despite the
sensationalist title, this is a serious and important work. [ Writing
Center ] Ganguli, A. (1994). Writing
to Learn Mathematics: An
Annotated Bibliography. This paper contain brief (up to half-page)
summaries of 47 articles published between 1997 and 1990 on the topic of
writing in the mathematics class. [8] Gere, A. (2010). Taking Initiative on Writing : A Guide for Instructional Leaders.
Principal Leadership, 11(3). The article provides strategic advice to
High School principals who wish to raise writing standards in their schools.
After dispelling several myths about writing commonly held by teachers, the
author discusses how to maximize the chances that initiatives to improve
writing in a school will be successful. It includes the following quotation:
Research shows that U.S.
workers write more today than at any time in history, and schools need to
prepare students to write well for many different audiences (National Writing
Project & Nagin, 2006). [149] Geller, A. (2007). The Everyday Writing
Center : A Community of Practice . Logan
: Utah
State University Press.
An idiosyncratic and philosophical book
about various writing center issues, such as how to be "awakened to
moments of discernment about uncertainty". Their main point is that
writing centers tutors need to be reflective and flexible; relying on rigid strategies
will fail most students and be a recipe for boredom for the teacher. [ Languages
Resource
Center ] Genesee , F. (2007).
Report on the Language Programs of FIS and ISW. The report focuses on language programs at
FIS, and includes recommendations to promote language across the curriculum and
to foster teacher collaboration. [10] George Mason University . Homepage of
WAC . <
http://WAC.gmu.edu/ > The site includes WAC
information and resources for both students and teachers. Gillespie, P. (2003). The Allyn &
Bacon Guide to Peer Tutoring . Boston :
Pearson. The book is addressed to peer tutors at
tertiary level and deals with all issues concerning one-to-one writing support,
including providing online help. There are also chapters on the history and
theory of writing centers. The final chapter is a useful one on what to do in
tutoring sessions that are difficult for various reasons. [ Upper School Library] Graham, S. & Perin, D. (2007). Writing
Next: Effective strategies
to improve writing of adolescents in middle and high schools .
Alliance for
Excellent Education . The authors characterize the low writing
ability of many young Americans as evidence of a crisis. Their study is a
meta-analysis of the effects of different writing strategies on writing
proficiency. These strategies are (in decreasing order of effectiveness): Writing
Strategies, Summarization,
Collaborative Writing , Specific
Product Goals, Word Processing, Sentence Combining, Prewriting, Inquiry
Activities, Process Writing
Approach, Study of Models, and Writing for Content
Learning. Explicit instruction in the parts of speech
and parsing sentences was found to have a negative effect. The report includes
a useful annotated bibliography of the various studies that were analyzed.
[124] GrammarBook. Parts of the Sentence .
<
http://www.nald.ca/clr/academic/english/grammar/sentence/module6.pdf > Online textbook for students about sentence
structure, subject/predicate, plus exercises. Greetham, B. (2008). How to Write Better
Essays . Basingstoke :
Macmillan. This is a self-help book for
undergraduates. It leads them through each of the stages in writing a good
essay, including advice on how to write exam essays. As such it is also a
useful resource for teachers who set essay assignments for their students. [
Writing Center ] Guard, N. (2010). Portfolio Assessments .
A short and useful overview of the use of
portfolios in education, with a comprehensive bibliography. It covers both the
advantages and the problems of portfolio assessment. [135] Hargreaves, A. (1997). Rethinking
Educational Change . Alexandria : ASCD. The book contains some useful advice on how
to maximize the chances that proposals for educational change will be accepted
by faculty and be implemented successfully. [ Upper
School Library] Harris, M. (1998). The Concept of a Writing
Center . SLATE (
Support for the Learning and Teaching of English)
. A very useful article that sets out a
number of principles which, it is claimed, apply to writing centers in every
setting (for example: writing center tutors are coaches and collaborators, not
teachers; writing centers are for students at all proficiency levels). The
article concludes with some of the major issues facing writing centers as they
begin and develop in schools. [72] Harris, M. (2001). A Writing Center without a
WAC
Program: The De Facto WAC
Center/ Writing Center. In
Barnett, R. & Blumner, J. (eds). Writing Center Theory and
Practice . New Jersey
: Pearson. The author outlines the problems of writing
centers also being responsible for writing across the curriculum. [English
Department] Harvard University
. Visible Thinking . <
http://pzweb.harvard.edu/vt/VisibleThinking_html_files/VisibleThinking1.html > This is the homepage of Harvard University 's Project Zero visible thinking
resources. High and Middle School Writing Centers. Homepage . <
http://guest.portaportal.com/wcenters > This is an excellent portal to all issues
concerning high school writing centers. Hillocks, G. (2005). The Focus on Form vs.
Content in Teaching Writing . Research
in the Teaching of English, 40(2) . The author decries the huge emphasis in the
focus on form at the expense of content over last 50 years of ELA teaching.
(Form is, e.g., the teaching of sentence structure, mechanics, elements of
style, but also the analysis of model written answers. Content is described
here as longer pieces of inquiry-based writing of interest or importance to the
student.) [77] Hinkel, E. (2003). Teaching Academic
ESL Writing . New York :
Lawrence Erlbaum. This is an important resource. Although it
is aimed at teachers of ESL
students, it is based in research done at tertiary level into aspects of
academic text in various subjectsparticularly at the sentence level. The
author discusses the lexical and grammatical features of academic language and
how to teach them. [ ESL ] Hirsch, E. (1993). The Dictionary of
Cultural Literacy: What Every American Needs to Know . Boston
: Houghton Mifflin. Hirsch includes the conventions of writing
as one element of knowledge that should have been acquired by every educated
American adult. [ Upper School
Library] Horton, W. (2000). Designing Web-Based
Training . Canada : Wiley. The book is a comprehensive overview of all
issues concerning planning, setting up and evaluating complete online training
courses. There is a useful chapter on designing interesting and effective
online learning tasks, and another on testing acquired knowledge and skills. A
further useful chapter contains advice on how to motivate voluntary learners. [
ESL ] Horton, W. (2006). E-Learning By Design .
San Francisco : Pfeiffer. This book complements the previous one by
the same author ( Designing Web-Based Training ). As well as a general
overview of what makes for good online instruction, it contains much more
detailed advice on the most effective presentation and navigation features of
online lessons. [ ESL ] Hudson, R. (2001). Grammar teaching and
writing skills: the research evidence. Syntax in the Schools . This is a review of the research into the
effects of explicit teaching grammar on writing. The author concludes that
there has not been enough good, focused research to reject the teaching of
grammar out of hand, despite the mostly negative study results. [114] IBO Online Curriculum Centre. (2004). Extended
Essay Report: Biology . This document gives an excellent overview
of the typical problems that students have in extended essay writing in this
subject. Most of the comments are applicable to students writing in other
subject areas, too. [98] IBO. Past Papers . <
http://oldmain.fis.org/IBDP/Past%20Exams/menu.html > Link to past IB examination papers in all
subjectson the FIS intranet. Indrisano, R. (2005). Learning to Write;
Writing to Learn.
Theory and Research in Practice . Newark
: International Reading Association.
The book focuses on writing as a way of
learning. It includes chapters on WAC , the relationship
between reading and writing, and the potential of
using new technologies in writing, as well as problems involved. [ Upper
School Library] International Writing
Centers Association. Homepage . <
http://writingcenters.org/ > A very useful resource on all issues
relating to writing centers. It contains a recent interview with a teacher who
set up a high school writing center, and it includes dates of conferences. Jablon, P. (2006). Writing
Through Inquiry. ScienceScope (Middle School Science Journal of
the National Science Teachers Association) . The article, heavily influenced by
Vygotsky's constructivist theories, describes the process of integrating
writing activities into the carr ying out of a science
experiment. The teacher scaffolds the process
and leads students to the inclusion of appropriate content and vocabulary.
[100] Jamgochian, N. Creative Writing
and Journalism at FIS . < http://fiscwj.edublogs.org/ > A great example of the power of blogs in
teaching, created by Nevdon Jamgochian. Jensen, E. (2005). Teaching with the brain
in mind . Alexandria : ASCD. A useful overview of the implications of
brain research for teaching. It includes sections on the value of feedback, the
importance of background knowledge, and the need for school work to be made
interesting and relevant. [ Upper School Library] Kairos. A Journal of Rhetoric,
Technology, and Pedagogy . <
http://kairos.technorhetoric.net/ > From the homepage: Kairos is a refereed
online journal exploring the intersections of rhetoric, technology, and
pedagogy. Each issue presents varied perspectives on special topics such as
"Critical Issues in Computers and Writing ,"
"Technology and the Face of Language Arts in the K-12
Classroom," and "Hypertext Fiction/Hypertext Poetry." Kay, K. (2009). Middle Schools: Preparing
Young People for 21st Century Life and Work. Middle School Journal, 40(5) .
Twenty-first century skills include:
critical thinking, problem solving, communication, collaboration, creativity,
financial and health literacy and global awareness. The article has some
examples of projects that require modern skills. [40] Kent, R. (2006). A Guide to Creating
Student-Staffed Writing Centers
6-12 . New
York : Peter Lang. This is a very useful guide to all aspects
of setting up and running a high school writing center. It contains many
helpful templates and links to other sources of information on writing centers.
[ Languages Resource
Center ] Kessler, P. (2010). Best Practices in the Writing
Center : A Collective
Responsibility. Inside English (32/2) . An interesting article about how one
college runs its writing center in close cooperation with the English
department. The author touches on the logistical problems of employing student
tutors and having a mandatory writing center attendance policy for some
students. [129] Kim, L. (2004). Online Technologies for
Teaching Writing : Students
React to Teacher Response in Voice and Written Modalities. Journal: Research
in the Teaching of English, 38(3) . This is a carefully designed and constructed
study into student online feedback preferences, namely if they prefer oral or
written feedback. The prediction that oral feedback would be preferred was not
confirmed. The article contains a very useful review of research into writing
feedback in general (in the Vygotskian context of regarding learning processes
as both cognitive and social.) [84] Kohn, A. (2006). The Trouble with Rubrics. English
Journal, (95/4). . The author lists several objections to the
widespread and uncritical use of rubrics. His main objection is that they deny
students opportunities for creativity and force them to think only about the
grade they are going to get. [133] Krashen, S. (1984). Writing
: Research, Theory,
Applications . Oxford
: Pergammon. Krashen distinguishes between writing
competence, which is acquired by extensive reading, and writing performance,
which can be improved by judicious use of strategies such as the writing
process. He deals with various writing myths; for example, that good writers
produce their good writing effortlessly. [ Upper
School Library] Krashen, S. (2003). Explorations in
Language Acquisition and Use . Portsmouth :
Heinemann. Most of the book is about the acquisition
of a second language . In one section, however, Krashen focus on writing. He
stresses the importance of reading in becoming a good writer. He reviews the
considerable research base supporting the use of the writing process, including
the need for an incubation period. He cites studies showing how writing
activities, especially summarizing and note-making, aid cognitive development.
[ ESL ] Krashen, S. (2004). The Power of
Reading . Westport :
Libraries Unlimited. Krashen's seminal work on the importance of
reading also contains several excursions into writing issues, including the
positive effect of frequent short writing on knowledge acquisition and
retention. [ Languages
Resource Center ] Krashen, S. Personal communication. May
2010. Krashen was asked whether or not writing
standards are declining in the U.S. His response can be
summarized as follows: When the test results
of children at risk are removed from standardized test data, Americans do no
worse in tests of reading and writing than students in comparable countries or
from previous decades. Kruth, D. (1996). Mathematical Writing
. Washington :
Mathematical Association of America . The book itself is a collection of papers
from a conference and therefore does not have standard paragraphing and
subdivisions. However, it contains many very specific examples of and some generic
advice about how to write mathematical text. It would be of particular use
teachers helping students write a mathematics project. [ Upper School Library] Langer, J. & Applebee, A. (1987). How
Writing Shapes
Learning: A Study of Teaching and Learning .
Urbana : NCTE. A seminal work in WAC . It
reports on a three-year study of 23 teachers in different
disciplines and their use of WAC activities. The first
half of the book investigates the thoughts
and experiences of the teachers who incorporated WAC ,
and how, for many, this led to a re-evaluation of what they wanted
students to learn and be able to do. It contains a useful section on curricular
change. The second half begins with a review of research in the learning that
takes place via WAC and then
investigates the amount and nature of the learning that took place as students
in the current study carr ied
out writing activities in various classes. The authors conclude: "...
there is clear evidence that activities involving writing lead to better
learning than activities involving reading and studying only". [ Writing
Center ] LeCourt, D. (2004). The Writing Center Staff Handbook. Colorado State
University .
A handbook for student tutors containing
very clear and useful advice on how to conduct individual writing sessions. The
general principal is to fix the writer, not the writing. There is a section on
the typical problems of ESL
students and how to help them. [130] Literacy Matters. Reading . <
http://www.literacymatters.org/content/readandwrite/reading.htm > A concise overview of "Content-area
reading" with many useful links. Lunsford, A. (2008). Mistakes are a Fact of
Life: A National Comparative Study. College Composition and Communication,.
59 . This is an important wide-scale study that
compares the writing errors made by current first-year composition students
with those made by their counterparts 20 years ago (and with those of 100 years
agosuch as the data exists). The major findings are: a. student written
assignments are much longer than 20 years ago, b. typical writing genres have
changed towards a much greater focus on argument and research-based
assignments, and c. The total number of writing errors remains broadly unchanged,
but there has been a significant change in the nature of the errors most
frequently occurring, such as word choice and spelling. [68] Marzano, R. (2004). Building Background
Knowledge for Academic Achievement: Research on what works in schools .
Alexandria : ASCD. The author makes a strong case for helping
students acquire the background knowledge necessary to facilitate the
acquisition of new knowledge. Background knowledge is acquired through reading
and, in particular, direct vocabulary instruction. It is consolidated by the
processing of new information through note-making. [ Upper School Library] Marzano, R. (2004). Classroom
Instruction That Works: Research-Based Strategies for Increasing Student
Achievement . Alexandria : ASCD.
A useful introduction. The author discusses
research showing the following strategies to be the most effective of the 20
listed: Identifying similarities and differences, summarizing, and note-taking.
[ Upper School Library] McCallie School
. Writing
Center homepage . <
http://www.mccallie.org/podium/default.aspx?t=109648 > An example of an online high school writing
center with information and links. McLeod, S. (2000). Writing
Across the Curriculum: A
Guide to Developing Programs . Newbury
Park : Sage Publications. The book focuses primarily on setting up WAC
programs at the tertiary level, but it
has many useful insights and implications for WAC
programs at secondary schools. There is a particularly useful section
on how to educate faculty in the principles and practice of WAC , and another section on the vital role
of administrators in the successful introduction of WAC
initiatives. [ Writing Center
] Michigan Department of Education. (2009).
Writing Across the Curriculum .
This is a major document with extensive,
useful resources for ELA, mathematics, science, and social studies. The subject
sections are divided into two parts: a. writing to learn (including numerous
strategies, plus links to extension materials, sources of graphic organizers,
etc.), and b. writing to demonstrate knowledge. [53] Michigan Education.
Writing Across the
Curriculum . <
http://www.slideshare.net/hickstro/writing-across-the-curriculum-mra-2009 > A very good slideshow overview of the
concepts and strategies behind WAC programs.
Mid-continent Research for Education and
Learning Using Writing in
Mathematics to Deepen Student Learning . < http://www.mcrel.org/topics/products/375/ >
A very useful overview of the theoretical
background and practical issues concerning the use of writing activities in the
mathematics classroom. Murphy, R. (1996). Writing
in Technology . Adelaide
: TTA . A guide for students about the various
types of writing task in Design and Technology classes and how to complete them
clearly, accurately and efficiently. In essence, it covers the stages of the
writing process as it pertains to written work in D&T. [ Writing Center ] MY Access. Vantage Learning . <
http://www.vantagelearning.com/school/products/myaccess/ > Home page of a company that produces
software that can be used by teachers to grade students writing
electronically. National Association of Teachers of
English. (2007). ICT in English: A Position Paper . A short paper about use of IT in the
English classroom published by NATE. It answers the questions: Where are we
now? Where do we want to be? What are the barriers to getting there and what
can help us get there? The conclusion is that IT offers considerable
possibilities for establishing learning environments that attract young people,
and that English teachers should be driving curricular changes, not
technocrats, bureaucrats and target-setters. [66] National Association of Teachers of
English. (2008). Making hard topics in English easier with ICT . A very useful resource for English teachers
interested in exploring the different uses of technology in the ELA curriculum.
The paper starts with a brief overview of what is hard to teach in English
class and why, followed by a summary of the positive outcomes of using modern
computer technology and software. The bulk of the paper is a comprehensive
account of 20 English projects which incorporated ICT. [87] National Council of Teachers of English.
(2004). Beliefs about the Teaching of Writing . A helpful document listing and discussing
the 11 core beliefs of the National Council of Teachers of English. The first
two beliefs are: 1. Everyone has the capacity to write, writing can be taught,
and teachers can help students become better writers. 2. People learn to write
by writing. [64] National Council of Teachers of English.
(2010). Research in the Teaching of English . < http://www.ncte.org/journals/rte/issues >
Homepage of links to the quarterly issues
of the online English research journal. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics
(2007). Principles and Standards for School Mathematics: Executive summary .
A few paragraphs in the document address
the issue of writing in mathematics. For example: "When students are
challenged to communicate the results of their thinking to others orally or in
writing, they learn to be clear, convincing, and precise in their use of
mathematical language. Explanations should include mathematical arguments and
rationales, not just procedural descriptions or summaries." [92] National Council of Teachers of
Mathematics. SearchPage . <
http://www.nctm.org/search.aspx?c=journals&q=writing > This goes to the search page of the NCTM
websites with links to numerous published articles on writing activities in the
mathematics classroom. National Endowment for the Arts. (2004). Reading
At Risk: A Survey of
Literary Reading
in America . The following quote is from the executive
summary of the article: "This comprehensive survey of American literary
reading presents a detailed but bleak assessment of the decline of readings
role in the nations culture. For the first time in modern history, less than
half of the adult population now reads literature, and these trends reflect a
larger decline in other sorts of reading." [43] National Literacy Trust. (2009). Young
People's Writing :
Attitudes, Behaviour and the Role of Technology . An indispensable article, which reports on
a recent major writing survey of British children aged 8-16. The authors
conclude: "We believe that it is paramount that the school curriculum
reflects and utilises writing forms that young people enjoy and engage with, in
order to demonstrate that writing is more than a compulsory task: it is an essential
life skill.". [41] National Literacy Trust. Homepage .
< http://www.literacytrust.org.uk/index.html
> The U.K. National Literacy Trust website
has links to reports about writing and other useful materials. Newkirk, T. (2003) The Learner Develops:
The High School Years. In Flood, J. (ed). Handbook of Research on Teaching
the English Language Arts . New Jersey :
Lawrence Erlbaum. A comprehensive analysis of the issues
concerning learning and teaching English at high school level, including
sections on language development and process writing. (See Appendix 8.8 for a
full summary of the chapter.) [English Department] Nielsen, J. (2008). How Users Read on
the Web. . <
http://www.useit.com/alertbox/9710a.html > An article by web research guru Jakob
Nielsen. Basically: "People rarely read Web pages word by word." Northeastern Conference Teachers. . <
http://www.teacherbulletin.org/TB_VOL9/ppts/Creative%20Writing%20Across%20the%20Curriculum%202008.ppt
> A PowerPoint presentation to non-English
teachers, introducing WAC and
its related issues. It contains many onward links. Northwest Evaluation Association. Computer-Based
Adaptive Assessments . <
http://www.nwea.org/products-services/computer-based-adaptive-assessments > Homepage of the MAP
testing site. Ntenza, S. (2006). Investigating Forms of Writing
in Grade 7 Mathematics Classrooms. Educational
Studies in Mathematics, 61(3) . The study shows the limited amount of
writing being done in the 7th grade math classroom in South
Africa , despite new initiatives to give writing
greater emphasis. The author concludes that more effective professional
development is important to convince mathematics teachers of the value of
writing activities, and that it would be helpful if textbooks contained more
opportunities for students to write. [80] O'Conner, P. (2000). Words Fail Me: What
Everyone Who Writes Should Know about Writing . San Diego : Harcourt
Brace. General advice on all aspects of writing
process, plus use of vocabulary and sentence structure. It is written in a
chatty style and more suitable for adult creative (fiction) writers than for
students. [ Upper School
Library] Ohler, J. (2009). New-Media Literacies. Academe
Online . The author argues that the term literacy
now includes being conversant with new forms of media, including sound,
graphics and video. Web 2.0 has enabled "collaborative narrative
construction". The main section of the article deals with blogging and
describes a blogfolio system of collecting student writing. [115] Panofsky, C (2005). Approaches to Writing
Instruction for Adolescent English
Language Learners. Education Alliance
. An important, comprehensive summary of
research into issues related to the development of ESL
students' writing in English, plus implications for teaching. There
is also a useful overview of the ELA writing standards (descriptors) across all
the American states, plus an annotated bibliography of source materials. [62] Pemberton, M. (2001). Rethinking the WAC
/ Writing Center Connection. In Barnett,
R. & Blumner, J. (eds). Writing
Center Theory and Practice . Boston : Pearson. The author believes that it is possible to
combine WAC and the Writing
Center , but the components need
careful theorizing and practical alignment.
[English Department] Peters, E. (2006). Write it, Do it. ScienceScope
(Middle School Science Journal of the National Science Teachers Association),
26 . The author reports on an activity to convey
to students the importance of clear writing in science, particularly in the
writing of directions. [103] Peterson, F. (1982). Note-taking Made
Easy . Chicago : Contemporary
Books. This is a short book written for the
student reader. It explains why note-making is important and how to make notes
(from both aural and written text). Much useful information for the teacher
too. [Other] Peterson, S (2005). Writing
Across the Curriculum:
Because All Teachers Teach Writing .
Winnipeg : Portage and Main Press. This book is aimed at middle school
teachers, and covers the theory and practice of including writing activities in
the various subject classes. It contains some useful templates and checklists.
[ Writing Center ] Plainfield High School
. Writing Across the
Curriculum Resource Center
.
<
http://teachers.plainfield.k12.in.us/WAC/default.htm > A WAC homepage from an
American high school. It includes many links to WAC
resources, including an article
entitled: "Does taking time out of all subjects across the curriculum to
practice writing negatively impact students?" In summary, the answer is:
On the contrary! Praxis. : A Writing
Center Journal -
HomePage . <
http://projects.uwc.utexas.edu/praxis/ > The site of an online journal, with links
to archive issues dating back to 2003. Public Schools of North
Carolina : State Board of Education. (2003). Approaches
to Teaching Grammar and Language Usage . A useful document that gives the
theoretical basis for teaching grammar in the context of the writing process.
It has very helpful guidelines for selecting the aspects of grammar to be
prioritized in mini-lessons. [137] Qualifications and Curriculum Authority.
(1998). The Grammar Papers: Perspectives on the teaching of grammar in the
national curriculum . A comprehensive U.K.
government document. It includes 6 papers on the topic of grammar,
including: What is grammar? Assessing knowledge and use of grammar, and
Recent research on teaching grammar. Its basic standpoint is that grammar (in
the wider sense of language awareness) should be taught, not only because of
its importance as a subject itself but also because it can help students to
become better writers. The document contains a wealth of interesting
information that is indispensable to a language teacher. [111] Rafoth, B. (2005). A Tutor's Guide:
Helping Writers One to One . Portsmouth :
Heinemann. An indispensable guide to helping
individual students who make an appointment at the writing center. Each chapter
concludes with a Complicating Matters section, which addresses the fact that
the advice might not always apply in every situation and that the tutor needs
to be flexible. There is also a helpful addendum to each chapter with annotated
suggestions for further reading in the topic covered. [ Writing Center ] Reichelt, M. (2005). WAC
Practices at the Secondary Level in Germany .
WAC Journal, 16(1) .
A research paper on the ways writing is
used in the various subjects at a German Gymnasium. Basically, writing is to
used learn content and discipline-specific ways of thinking, and to demonstrate
learning. Writing is done in
all the subjects so the German and English departments do not feel they carr
y the whole burden. [57] Reid, J. (ed) (2008). Writing
Myths . Michigan : University of
Michigan Press. An interesting book that analyses research
dispelling 9 student and teacher myths about writing, such as: Good writers
are born. I wasn't one of them. It also contains a section on the importance
of vocabulary in attaining good grades for writing. [ Writing Center ] Reynolds, J. (2007). Visible Thinking
Journal. (Conservation Biology). . This is an information sheet for students
about why and how to keep a visible thinking journal. The author quotes the 4 reasons
to write: writing helps you remember, observe, think, and communicate. The
visible thinking journal is an example of the learning log widely used in Writing
Across the Curriculum initiatives.
[117] Ritchhart, R. (2008). Making Thinking
Visible. Educational Leadership, 65(5) . A useful summary of the principles
underlying visible thinking, with some examples from teaching practice. Action
research data from one school showed that "... thinking routines helped
students structure their thinking before they began writing essays for their
state graduation exams, which boosted their confidence and increased the time
they spent writing." [116] Room for debate : "Happy Birthday,
Strunk and White Strunk and White". New
York Times 2009 ) <
http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/24/happy-birthday-strunk-and-white/ >
A critique of Strunk and White's influence
on writing and attitudes to grammar. (Strunk and White are authors of the
highly influential prescriptive writing manual, The Elements of Style.) Rosenfeld, M. et. al. (2001). The Reading
, Writing , Speaking, and Listening Tasks
Important for Academic Success at
the Undergraduate and Graduate Levels. Educational Testing Service . A comprehensive survey of tertiary-level
teachers with a view to establishing the most important criteria for success in
examinations in the different language skills. In writing, the top criteria are
organization, and use of supportive details. [148] Rowsell, J. (2009). Reading by Design: Two Case Studies of
Digital Reading Practices. Journal
of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 53 . The article investigates how young people
"navigate" online material, suggesting that the processes involved
are more complex than teachers perhaps believe, particularly in the way readers
respond to various design features. It concludes that teachers are failing to
grasp the opportunities offered by web 2.0 to develop students' learning
capacities. [51] Ryan, L. (2010). The Bedford
Guide for Writing Tutors . Boston :
Bedford/St. Martins. The book contains clear and comprehensive
advice on all aspects of helping students one-to-one. It is addressed to
student writing centers tutors, but would be helpful also for any teacher
starting work in the writing center. The associated website contains extra
materials to accompany the book [ Writing Center ] Salt Lake Community
College . Writing
center homepage . <
http://www.slcc.edu/wc/ > The writing center website of an American
community college. Sanders, D. (1991). Writing Activities Can Improve Learning in
Computer Science Courses. Computer Science Education, 2(2). . The article is about using writing to help
students understand and learn about computers and programming. This is from the
abstract: "The literature on writing strongly suggests that writing
assignments can help the students master difficult concepts and develop the
higher level skills that should be part of their education. Short, narrowly
focused writing assignments have been used effectively to supplement a wide
range of computer science courses. Holistic grading and follow-up discussions
can reduce the grading burden without sacrificing the quality of the feedback."
[139] Scherf, L. (2005). The More Things Change,
the More They Stay the Same: A Survey of High School Students' Writing
Experiences. Journal: Research
in the Teaching of English, 39(3) . The bulk of the article reports on a
large-scale student survey into the types of writing done in ELA classes in
Florida . Major findings: a. response to
literature was the most common type of writing task; b. a quarter of students
were dissatisfied with lack of creative writing opportunities: c. there was
little process writing: and d. explicit modeling is an effective form of
instruction. [83] Schumacher, G. (1991). Conceptualizing and
Measuring Knowledge Change Due to Writing . Research
in the Teaching of English, 25(1) . The article reviews research in the field of
writing to learn. The authors note the evidence that learning (knowledge
creation or knowledge transformation, as opposed to the mere accretion of
facts) takes place through writing. However, they find fault with some of the
research methodologies and suggest a new way to conceptualize learning for
future research. [74] Searchwell, V. (2008). Writing
across the curriculum:
Exploring promising practices in two California
charter schools . Unpublished
dissertation. This is a comprehensive study of the implementation
of writing across the curriculum at two U.S. charter
schools [63]
.
The author concludes: "Certain classroom practices were found to be
effective in implementing writing across the curriculum. Among those were class
discussions, journal writing, and note-taking. The study revealed that students
who engaged in writing across the curriculum had high test scores on
standardized writing tests, Advanced Placement tests, and they passed college
placement tests more frequently, eliminating the need to take a remedial
writing class in college". In addition, "Consistent, on-going
professional development, on the topic of writing across the curriculum, was
found to be a critical component of implementation.". The report also
includes the role of the administration in establishing WAC , and has many useful resources in the
appendices. [125] Shamoon, L. & Burns, D. (2001). A
Critique of Pure Tutoring. In Barnett, R. & Blumner, J. (eds). Writing
Center Theory and Practice . Needham
Heights : Pearson. The authors challenge the notion of
tutoring through Socratic techniques and assert the advantages of directive
tutoring. [English Department] Shoebottom, P. How to get good homework
grades . <
http://esl.fis.edu/learners/advice/grades.htm/ > This page is an introduction to the U.D.S
(Understand, Do, Show) technique for maximizing the chances of getting a good
grade for a piece of writing. Students need to make sure that they have fully
understood the assignment and then to do exactly what is required. They show
their understanding and compliance with the task requirements by, among other
things, organizing writing into paragraphs with topic sentences. Silva, P. (2004). Launching a High School Writing
Center . Praxis: A
Writing
Center Journal, 2(1) . The author reports on how she started a
writing center. It was crucial to her that the center addressed the
"entire continuum of student ability" and offered services to
teachers too. A strong launch to the writing centers is of great importance.
[85] Simon sen, F.
(2001). Best Practices in Spelling Instruction: A Research Summary. Journal
of Direct Instruction, (1,2) . This document is a meta-analysis of over
600 articles on the teaching and learning of spelling (most of which pertain to
early literacy development). The author discusses the three major instructional
approaches: phonemic, whole-word and morphemic. Various spelling programs in
the three approaches are analyzed and evaluated. [143] Simpson, J. (1996). The Writing
Lab Newsletter (21/1) . A sample issue of the Writing Lab online newsletter. One article
is about the need for writing centers to become more professional and cooperate
in order to develop accreditation procedures. Another article has useful
suggestions on how to ensure that students and teachers are aware of the role
and services of the writing center. A third article is about writing center
ethics and discusses the case of a student who wants the kind of help that
writing centers do not usually offernamely proofreading. [72] Smartthinking. Homepage . < http://www.smarthinking.com/ > This is a site which offers individual
online writing help for students (for individual payment or via a school-funded
account). Some schools have considered this system as an alternative to a
writing center. Springfield College
. Writing Effective
Essays . <
http://www.spfldcol.edu/homepage/dept.nsf/D02DEA1C0FC6F99D45256BD800296E8C/80348352C653FA8F85256F31006C33DC?OpenDocument
> A visually clean and appealing webpage with
some good advice on the various aspects of essay writing. St Cloud State
University . Literacy Education Online
. < http://leo.stcloudstate.edu/ > An excellent online resource for students. Steenson, C. (2006). Learning Logs in the
Science Classroom. The Literacy Advantage. ScienceScope (Middle School Science
Journal of the National Science Teachers Association), 29 . A useful short article on how to use
two-column learning journals in the science classroom (left side: notes; right
side: questions based on notes). The author stresses the importance of teachers
modeling the process of journal entry and discusses ways that teachers can
respond to student notes and questions. [102] Stewart, M. (1983). Teachers' Writing Assessments across the High School
Curriculum. Research in the Teaching of English, (17,2) . This is a report on an investigation to
determine which aspects of students writing are perceived by teachers across
the curriculum as contributing most to writing quality. The author summarizes:
"The effect of vocabulary on quality judgments seems most pervasive",
in comparison with syntactic complexity. Mechanical errors had a negative
impact on quality ratings. [141] Summer Institute for Writing Center Directors. Writing Center
Assessment Bibliography . <
http://web.mit.edu/nlerner/Public/WCAssessmentBib.pdf > This is a useful annotated bibliography on
how to evaluate the effectiveness of a writing center. Swales, J. (2008). Academic Writing
for Graduate Students . University of Michigan . This book is aimed at older students who
wish to instruct themselves in the writing of academic text at the discourse
(whole text) and sentence levels. [Other] Swenson, J. (2005). Beliefs about
Technology and the Preparation of English Teachers. Contemporary Issues in
Technology and Teacher Education Technology and Teacher Education . The article focuses on: a. The influence of
new technologies on literacy (and the teaching of it), b. composing with the
modern technologies, and c. the political, economic and socio-cultural
dimension of new technologies. The section on composing is a very useful
overview of the implications of new web-based technologies for the writing
process. [59] Swinson, K. (1992). An Investigation of the
Extent to which Writing Activities
are used in Mathematics Classes. Mathematics Education Research Journal,
4(2) . This is a report of a study in Australian
schools. In summary: Not much writing is done in the mathematics classroom
despite the well-founded arguments in favor of it. Rectifying this situation
requires better teacher training and an increase in the number of writing
activities in mathematics textbooks. There is also a need for more research on
the types of writing activities that are most appropriate in the various topics
and at various ages. [91] Templeton, S. (2003) Spelling. In Flood, J.
(ed). Handbook of Research on Teaching the English Language Arts . New
Jersey : Lawrence Erlbaum.
A history of the teaching of spelling, with
an emphasis on the implications of current research. (See Appendix 8.8 for a
full summary of the chapter.) [English Department] Texas Reading
Initiative (2002). Promoting Vocabulary Development: Components of Effective
Vocabulary Instruction . This is a comprehensive review of the
issues associated with the teaching and learning of vocabulary in the ELA
class. It has three sections: 1. What makes vocabulary development a difficult
task? 2. What are the components of effective vocabulary instruction? 3.
What
are some specific techniques in teaching word meanings as concepts? [128] Texas Reading
Initiative. (2002). Research-Based Content-Area Reading
Instruction . This is a very useful overview of issues
concerning reading in subject areas. Students lack familiarity with expository
texts containing common discourse features such as cause and effect or compare
and contrast. The report contains helpful advice on content-based vocabulary
work, helping students read fluently, and applying appropriate comprehension
strategies. [52] The Branson School . Writing Center Homepage
. <
http://www.branson.org/podium/default.aspx?t=2484 > The Writing Center homepage of
an independent grade 9-12 school. The Modern Language Association of America
. MLA Handbook for Writers of
Research Papers. 2009. New York . Print. [
Upper School Library] This is a guide to formatting and presenting
research documents. It is the styling system that is mandated for students in
the Upper School at FIS. The EServer Technical Communication
Library. Writing
Across the Curriculum . <
http://tc.eserver.org/dir/Writing-Across-the-Curriculum > This is a very useful WAC
portal, with links to seminal articles. The National Commission on Writing . (2003). The Neglected R: The
Need For a Writing Revolution
. The authors discuss evidence that, while
most U.S. students have
adequate writing proficiency, "the problem is that most students cannot
write with the skill expected of them today." They make several
recommendations to remedy this problem, including the need for all teachers to
consider themselves writing teachers and set written assignments. A passionate
and helpful document. [70] The National Commission on Writing . (2004). Writing : A Ticket to
Work . An investigation into the importance of
writing in the workplace in the USA . The basis of the
report is a survey of personnel officers of
leading corporations. The message is clear: Writing is
an important skill for many of the employees of these
businesses. You will not get an interview with a poorly written application and
you will not get the job or promotion if you cannot communicate clearly in
writing. [69] The National Commission on Writing . (2006). Writing and School
Reform . This is a report of a number of hearings
involving top U.S. educators on
how to improve writing standards in the U.S. . The main
findings are: standardization and standardized testing
exerts a malignant influence; writing instruction should be personalized;
reform is successful when it grows bottom-up through professional development
opportunities and time to discuss new initiatives. [123] The National Commission on Writing . (2008). Writing , Technology
and Teens . A recent large-scale U.S.
survey into student writing habits
and preferences, particularly as relating to technology. Some very useful
insights into what motivates students to write. [121] The National Commission on Writing . The National Commission on Writing . <
http://www.host-collegeboard.com/advocacy/writing/ > A U.S. government website
with links to many reports on writing. The National Council of Teachers of
English. Homepage . < http://www.ncte.org/ >
The website of the principal U.S. organization for English teachers. It
contains a wealth of useful material. The WAC Clearinghouse.
Writing across the curriculum
. <
http://WAC.colostate.edu/intro/index.cfm > The seminal websitean indispensable
website containing a wealth of materials on writing across the curriculum. The WAC ClearingHouse.
An Introduction to Writing Across
the Curriculum . <
http://WAC.colostate.edu/intro/ > This is an excellent introductory resource
to the topic, and includes links to Writing to Learn - 5 minute activities. The Writing Center Journal
Online. The Writing Center Journal . < http://www.english.udel.edu/wcj/ > A very useful resource. It includes a
writing center blog. The Writing Lab Newsletter. The Writing Lab Newsletter . < http://writinglabnewsletter.org/ > The Writing Lab Newsletter is a forum for exchanging ideas and information
about writing centers in high schools, colleges, and universities. The Writing Site. Writing Across the Curriculum . < http://www.thewritingsite.org/resources/curriculum/default.asp > This is another very useful WAC portal. Thomas, T. (2004). The Negative Impact of
Testing of Writing Skills. Educational
Leadership, 62(2) . The main focus of the article is on the new
SAT writing test and its likely
impact on the teaching of writing. The authors note the cultural bias of some
tests. The article also includes information about the computerized grading of
written texts, which is set to become more widespread. [35] Trimble, J. (2000). Writing with Style . New Jersey :
Prentice Hall. Another style guide aimed at the older
student or teacher. It has some useful general advice about the writing
process, in particular writing introductions and conclusions. Half the book is
about punctuation. [ Writing Center ] Trimbur, J. (2001). Peer Tutoring: A
Contradiction in Terms? In Barnett, R. & Blumner, J. (eds). Writing Center Theory and Practice . Boston : Pearson. The author suggests that peers cannot be
both peers and tutors. With careful training and realistic expectations from
all parties, however, peers can be helpful in improving their fellow students' writing. [English Department]
U.K. Department for Children, Schools and
Families. (2007). Effective Ways of
Teaching Complex Expression in Writing . An important meta-study into the teaching
and learning of complex expression (defined as the ability of writers to make
sophisticated decisions which can accurately and effectively match writing
choices to purposes and intentions). The authors make several recommendations,
including using models and fostering a reflective use of the writing process.
[89] Unger, J. (2004). Is Process Writing the "Write Stuff"?. Educational
Leadership, 62(2) . This is an analysis of the history of
process writing and its success. The author comes to the cautious conclusion
that using the writing process can improve student writing, but that other
factors are involved, particularly reading. [34] University of North
Carolina . Writing Center homepage
. <
http://www.unc.edu/depts/wcweb/handouts/ > Another excellent online writing center. University of Notre
Dame. Writing
Center homepage .
< http://www.nd.edu/~writing/ > A further model writing center homepage. van de Ven, P. (2009). Developing a Writing
Centre: Professional Development of
Teachers. Zeitschrift Schreiben . The author reports on the research carr
ied out before setting up a writing center
in a Dutch school, including student and teacher surveys. There is a useful
overview of the Dutch approach to writing, which is based on Vygotskys
constructivist model. The author quotes research that posits dialogue with and
professional development for teachers as the most critical factor in the
success of educational initiatives. [65] Vygotsky, L. (1962). Thought and
language . Cambridge : MIT
Press. A classic work on how children learnparticularly
in regard to literacy. It introduces the concept of the ZPD (Zone of Proximal
Development) which posits that children learn when they move to the next level
(proximal zone) of understanding or ability via the mediation of a teacher or
knowledgeable peer. Vygotskys ideas have been extraordinarily influential; his
name was encountered repeatedly in the review of the literature on writing.
[Other] Waldo, S. (2001). The Last Best Place for Writing across the Curriculum: The
Writing Center . In Barnett, R. & Blumner, J. (eds). Writing
Center Theory and
Practice . Pearson. The author argues that the writing center
is the best place from which to promulgate writing across the curriculum.
[English Department] Warda, R. (2005). Research-Based
Tutoring of English Spelling . After a brief review of research showing why
spelling matters and a discussion of the limitations of spellcheckers, the
author outlines the problems that teachers have in meeting the individual
spelling needs of their students. An online spelling program is introduced that
meets these needs and reflects good practice as suggested by current research.
The document includes a comprehensive bibliography on the topic. [142] Weaver, C. et al., (2006). Grammar
intertwined throughout the writing process: An inch wide and a mile deep. English
Teaching: Practice and Critique, 5(1) . A useful article on the theory and practice
of teaching grammar via mini-lessons embedded in the writing process. It
contains a wealth of practical examples, including sentence-combining and how
to edit for mechanics. [134] Weigle, S. (2002). Assessing Writing
. Cambridge :
Cambridge University Press. This book is aimed at ESL
teachers but contains much of relevance
to mainstream English teachers, including an overview of the purposes of
writing, cultural differences in writing styles and research into writing as a
cognitive activity. [ ESL ] Wheeler-Toppen, J. (2006). Helping Students
Write About Science Without Plagiarizing. ScienceScope (Middle School
Science Journal of the National Science Teachers Association), 26 . The article focuses on three strategies
that form part of the prewriting (planning) stage of the writing process:
summarizing, data charting and discussion webs. The author stresses the
importance of modeling these strategies, as well as conveying to students why they
are important and when they can be used. This will obviate the temptation to
plagiarize. [104] Why Johnny Can't Write. Newsweek.
December 1975. The famous article which claimed literacy
standards were falling. It generated a huge response and resulted in the
introduction of programmatic solutions such as writing across the curriculum. Wiggins G. & McTighe, J. (2006). Understanding
By Design . Alexandria : ASCD.
The authors recommend applying the
principle of backwards design to the process of constructing curricula or units
of work: Firstly, identify desired results; secondly, determine acceptable
evidence that the results have been achieved; thirdly, plan learning
experiences and instruction accordingly. The book contains a lengthy discussion
of assessment (with strong evidence of the advantages of using rubrics) and a
plea for curriculum depth (uncoverage) rather than breadth (coverage). [ Upper
School Library] Wikipedia. Writing Across the Curriculum . <
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Writing_Across_the_Curriculum > A useful overview of the main WAC issues. The article applies most
directly at college-level. Williams, J. (2007). Style: Lessons in
Clarity and Grace . Boston : Pearson.
This book contains very useful knowledge
for the writing teacherto be conveyed in measured doses to the students. The
main focus is on writing at the sentence level, with lots of examples of poorly
constructed sentences and suggestions for revision. [ Upper School Library] Wolfe, P. (2001). Brain Matters:
Translating Research into Classroom Practice . Alexandria : ASCD. The book provides a theoretical basis from
current brain research for the practices many teachers have long been using.
Examples include making content interesting and meaningful, activating
background knowledge, and using advanced organizers. There is also a useful
section on writing, with suggestions for quick writing activities. [ Upper
School Library] Wong, B. (2002). Effects of Guided Journal Writing on Students' Story Understanding. Journal
of Educational Research, 95(3) . The authors report on a study to
investigate the influence of guided journal writing on the understanding of
literature. They set this discussion in the broader context of the role of
writing in student learning and review several previous studies showing, among
other things, that: a.) writing increased students learning in science and
social studies; b.) writing increased students critical thinking, and c.) writing
increased literary understanding. [96] Wormeli, R. (2008). Notes on Note Taking. Middle
Ground: The Magazine of Middle Level Education . A useful article on taking notes from aural
texts. The recommendation is to break lectures/presentations into short chunks
and allow students only to note single words as prompts during their listening.
They then use the prompts to write up their understanding or questions about
what they just heardwith teacher support. The rest of the article discusses
the various forms this write-up can take. [106] Writeboard. Homepage . <
http://writeboard.com/> A very promising Web 2.0 site that allows
students to collaborate on the same document or teachers to give feedback to
students on writing in progress. [108] Writing Fix. Homepage .
< http://writingfix.com/index.htm > A site with many links to writing resourcessponsored
by Northern Nevada Writing
Project. It contains useful links to WAC activities in
science, mathematics and history. Writing Power. StyleWars .
< http://blog.writingpower.net/ > A blog on many aspects of writing, e.g., a
page on what it means to be a good writer. Yancey, K. (2009). Writing
in the 21st Century . An overview of the history of writing
instruction in the USA ,
including the radical change brought about by computer technology. Now writers
can write for multiple and often huge authentic audiences. Composing can be
regarded as a system of "peer co-apprenticeship". The author
recommends that ELA teachers: a. document the new models of composing, b.
design a new writing curriculum to reflect these, and c. create new
(essentially collaborative) models for teaching writing. [82] You can teach writing. Homepage .
<
http://www.you-can-teach-writing.com/proper-grammar.html > The site has resources and strategies for
teaching expository writingby a teacher for teachers. Young, A. (1994). The Wonder of
Writing Across the Curriculum. Center
for Interdisciplinary Studies of Writing , University of
Minnesota . A personal account by one of the key
figures in WAC . It includes a
brief history of the movement, including the change in focus from writing as a
cognitive activity to writing as a social activity (cf. Vygotsky). Also useful
is the summary of all the ways in which WAC can be
subverted in an institution. The article concludes with an
account of a WAC practice in
the English literature classroomnamely, student co-constructed response to
issues in the study novel. [113] Zinsser, W. (2006). On Writing
Well . New York
: Collins.
Discursive, entertaining advice on how to
write non-fiction in the various genres. Aimed at teachers or graduate
students. Like all style guide it contains advice that some teachers might
find contentious; for example, the recommendation to cut most adverbs or
adjectives from non-fiction writing. [ Writing
Center ] Zouev, A. (2009). Three: The Ultimate
Student's Guide to Acing Your Extended Essay and Theory of Knowledge .
New York : Collins. Written by a recent IB student for current
students. The essential advice can be summarized as: Understand exactly what
you have to do (and how you will be graded), and do it. [ Writing Center ] 8.8 Handbook of Research on
Teaching the English Language Arts The handbook was a major resource in the
review of external writing research. Chapter summaries are provided below (with
the exception of chapters pertaining to ELA at elementary school level).
Chapters containing information of direct relevance to writing are indicated
with an asterisk*. 1. The History of the Profession The history of English teaching in the
USA . The chapter includes sections on: o
Major curricular reforms; o
Teaching of reading, including phonics and whole
language methods; o
Education of English teachers; o
The teaching and production of literature; o
School reform; o
Testing and accountability; o
Process writing; o
Oral language; o
Teaching conditions, including class size; o
The future of English teaching. 2. Historical Considerations A look at two generations of English
teaching: the 1930s and the 1960s. The chapter is a discussion of what was
taught, how and why it was taught by the two different generations of English
teachers. The key insight is that teachers and teaching were driven by external
factors identified as Tests, textbooks and canonical texts. The chapter
concludes with an account of attempts in last three decades of 20th century to
break free of this external domination (e.g., through the process writing
movement) and then the more recent backlash against this chain-busting, such
as the rise of testing and accountability movements in both the U.K. and USA. 3. Linguistics and Teaching the Language
Arts An introduction to linguistics (psycho-
and socio-) and its implications for English teachers. The chapter begins by outlining the two
major language learning paradigms: a. Language learning as habit formation
(Skinner), and b. Language learning as resulting from innate language ability (
LAD Chomsky. The chapter then focuses on
how young children learn their mother tongue (including pragmatics) and later
become literate. The chapter concludes with an analysis of sociolinguistic
issues that can cause dissonance in the English classroom. 4. A Psychological Analysis of What
Teachers and Students do in the Language Arts Classroom An overview of what psychological
research tells us about students, how they learn and how they should be taught
(not specifically by English teachers). The chapter begins with a brief history of
psychology in the 20th century: o
first 50 years Behavioursim; o
second 50 years Cognitive Psychology. It continues with an account of how
Cognitive Psychology then split into 2 paradigms: o
the student as information processor; o
the student as meaning-maker. 5. Child development An overview of research on early child
development. The chapter starts with a review of
research into early oral language, reading and writing development, and why
research does not always have implications for teachers: Teachers need answers
to build into practice. Psychologists want questions that will lead to
breakthroughs in understanding. Following is an overview of problems in
educational research, with more on Vygotsky and Piaget. 6. Anthropology and Research on Teaching
the English Language Arts. A discussion of what an anthropological
perspective can contribute to the teaching of English. How an anthropological perspective can
contribute to an understanding of: o
the culture of the English language classroom in
the context of the education system as a whole; o
the role of education systems in society at
large. 7. Literary Theory An analysis of which texts can be
considered literary and how should they be interpreted. The chapter provides an overview of competing
theories on what constitutes literary text, including 19 th century
theories, New Criticism, Reader-Response (e.g., feminist, Marxist) and
deconstructionism. The chapter concludes with an analysis of the extent to
which the vociferous debating of these theories in academia has influenced the
teaching of English in schools. 8. The Tao of Instructional Models An analysis of the fluctuation between
student-centred and content-driven English curricula. The chapter starts with a review of
educational trends such as the move to increase accountability, the
proliferation of technology and the field of brain-based learning. 9. Who has the Power? Policymaking and
Politics in the English Language Arts An analysis of how policy decisions
affect English teachers, with a main focus on the USA
. The chapter starts with an overview of how
media portray a negative picture of the literacy skills of U.S. students. It continues with a look at
the influence of (and in-fighting in) the NCTE (National Council of Teachers of
English) and the IRA (International Reading Association). It then goes on to analyze
the interference of state and federal government in English curriculum and
assessment issues, especially in California . This is
followed by a review of initiatives concerning testing and
standards. It looks at the influence at the district level, including issues
such as how special interest groups attempt to determine the choice of
literature. The chapter finishes by opining that the real power resides with
the teacher in his/her classroom once the door is shut. 10. Trends and Issues in Research in the
Teaching of the English Language Arts The chapter focuses on the influence of
Postmodernism in recent research in the teaching and learning of English. The first main section surveys research
into issues thrown up by changing demographics in U.S.
schools. The chapter continues with an account of the limitations
of theory and the frequent mismatch between theory and classroom practice.
Narratives are suggested as an alternative to theory. The chapter concludes
with an analysis of how research has shifted in the last 50 years from a focus on
the teacher to a focus on the learner. It also looks at the influence of
external agencies such as the NCTE and politicians (cf. chapter 9). The authors
predict that English teachers will continue to grapple with the pedagogical
and political issues confronting teachers and students in a multicultural
society. 11. Understanding Research on Teaching
the English Language Arts: An Introduction for Teachers A general introduction to research on
teaching the English Language Arts. The purpose of research is not to provide
specific solution to a particular problem, but to enhance a teachers ability
to make intelligent instructional decisions. The chapter starts with a
description of two kinds of research, Conceptual and Empirical, and contrasts
quantitative and qualitative studies. It then examines the question: How do we
determine the theoretical and practical value of research? It concludes by
cautioning us to expect research to throw up conflicting results. 12. Teacher Professionalism and the Rise
of Multiple Literacies: How to Describe our Specialized Knowledge A general analysis of the term
professional as it pertains to the English language teacher. Professional means having conceptual and
practical knowledge. Current professionalism presupposes a familiarity with
multiple literacies (shaped by culture, gender and class). 13. The Design of Empirical Research An overview of how to conduct research
in the field of language arts. Research has three stages: frame the
question, select a context, and think forward to the findings and how they will
be defended. The chapter concludes with a discussion of concepts such as
validity and variable type, and how to interpret results. 14. What Longitudinal Studies Say about
Literacy Development An overview of longitudinal studies from
the last 50 to 60 years. Most longitudinal studies are in the
development of literacy at home and in school. There are relatively few
longitudinal studies conducted at the high school level. One such study shows
the importance of rich language exposure in the home. A recent longitudinal
study into literacy development has shown the positive influence of multiple
uses of technology. The chapter closes with a summary of the problems and
promises of longitudinal research. 15. Case Studies: Placing Literacy
Phenomena within their Actual Context An overview of case study research. Early case studies focused on investigating
such issues as language development, attitudes to reading, and response to
literature. Currently, case studies tend to have more than one area of focus. 16. Ethnography as a Logic of Inquiry A theoretical overview of ethnographical
studies in education. The chapter begins with a lengthy survey of
the internal battles within the field of anthropology to agree on what
ethnography is. The consensus is that: Ethnography seeks understandings of the
cultural patterns and practices of everyday life of the group under study from
an insiders perspective. Integral to ethnographical study are rich points
(namely key exchanges between members of the study group). The chapter
continues with advice on choosing a suitable topic for ethnographical study and
how to design and conduct the research. 17. Teacher Researcher Projects: From an
Elementary School Teachers Perspective How do design empirical studies that
provide meaningful data. The chapter contains an overview of action
research and suggestions for research questions at elementary level. It
suggests that action research is an optimal kind of professional development. 18. Teacher Inquiry into Literacy,
Social Justice and Power. How teachers can bring social issues
into the classroom. The chapter focuses on how teachers can
investigate and discuss issues such as language and culture, privilege, race,
gender. It then analyses the limitations of teacher research. 19. Synthesis Research in Language Arts
Instruction * How to conduct meta-research ( a
synthesis of research). The chapter deals with two main points: a.
the purpose of knowledge synthesis, and b. the qualities of good synthesis
research. The appendix contains summaries of several synthesis studies,
including Writing Across the
Curriculum and Teacher Effectiveness. 20. Fictive Representation: An Alternative
Method for Reporting Research How to report research through
story-telling (fictive representation). The chapter is an account of a highly
unconventional way to report research, namely via narrative methods. It focuses
on the documentation through narrative of research into mentoring. 21. Contemporary Methodological Issues
and Future Directions in Research on the Teaching of English. A review of previous research chapters
of the book and a preview of future research. The chapter starts with a brief history of
educational research from psychometric studies to current qualitative and
observational descriptive methods. It goes on to summarize previous chapters in
the book, including a very critical review of fictive representation (see
chapter 20). It predicts that future research will move further away from
testing towards cognitive, affective processes, including think aloud. 22. Who really goes to school? Teaching
and learning for the students we really have. An overview of student demographics in
the U.S. and how
schools (fail to) meet diverse needs. The chapter starts with a review of
American cultural history and current demographics. It analyses how students
are currently categorized and labeled. There is a brief excursion into the
problems of standardized testing before a lengthy section on the importance of
early family life (exposure to rich language and books.)The chapter continues
with an analysis of how schools vary in their effectiveness at educating
students, and concludes with a brief synopsis of the desirable general
characteristics of inclusive schools of the future. 23. The Development of the Young Child
and the Emergence of Literacy An overview of research in pre-school
literacy development. [There is no summary of this chapter.] 24. Student Achievement and Classroom
Case Studies of Phonics in Whole Language First Grades A good overview of the contentious
phonics/whole language debate. There is no summary of this chapter. 25. Development in the Elementary School
Years A comprehensive review of studies
showing how literacy develops from oracy in the early years of compulsory
education. There is no summary of this chapter. 26. Todays Middle Grades: Different
Structures, Students and Classrooms A comprehensive review of issues concerning
middle school English and the students in English classes. The chapter focuses first on the emergence
of the middle school as an entity in its own right. It notes the spread of the
inter-disciplinary approach to instruction. Next is a wide-ranging section on
the nature of middle school students and their world outside school. There is
then a brief (somewhat outdated) analysis of the implications for curriculum of
the increase in technology. Following is a long section about YA (young adult)
literature and censorship. 27. The Learner Develops: The High
School Years A comprehensive account of adolescent
literacy, including sections on language development and process writing. The chapter opens with an analysis of the
increasingly complex issues that high schools are required to address, and how
the proliferation of standardized testing impedes good practice. The author
continues with a review of studies on instructional practices and student
achievement . Many of the studies paint a gloomy picture of the nature of the
tasks many students perform in ELA programs regurgitation at the expense of
critical thinking, and of the correspondingly poor showing of higher order
skills in reading and writing tests. The author concludes: these surveys of
instruction are painfully consistent. There is a repetitive attention to basic
facts and skills and a corresponding lack of attention to intellectual
development: the ability to think rationally, the ability to use, evaluate and
interrelate knowledge. 28. Literacy Learning after High School A review of research on adult literacy
mostly reading. The author states that there has not been
much research into adult literacy and what has been done is of relatively poor
quality. The author is critical of ELA teaching in high school, claiming there
is evidence that too strong an emphasis on the reading of literature in high
school is detrimental. Elementary and high school reading instruction has
[...] been constructed around good literature, leaving most students to
acquire information processing skills own. The author concludes with a plea to
take the issue of adult illiteracy seriously and devote research funds to
investigating its primary causes and remedies. 29. Children with Reading Difficulties Short chapter on common causes of
reading difficulty and measures to remediate. The chapter starts with a brief synopsis of
the correlation of reading problems with educational, personal and social
problems. It summarizes the two main causes of reading difficulty: a. growing
up in a low-income family and b. having a learning difficulty. It then focuses
on remediative measures (including the recent use of technology), concluding
that such measures have good chances of success. 30. Teaching Bilingual and ESL
Children and Adolescents A summary of research into effective
programs for non-native speakers of English in American schools. The chapter starts with an overview of the
development of bilingual programs in the USA , which
have been introduced to support the significantly increased
numbers of non-native English speakers. It then reviews the effectiveness of
various ESL program models in
elementary and secondary schools. 31. Language Varieties, Culture and Teaching
the English Language Arts A discussion of the increase in cultural
and linguistic diversity in American schools. The chapter begins with the definition of
key terms such as dialect and non-standard language, and continues with an
overview of research into cultural and linguistic differences. It then looks at
the political and educational responses to cultural and linguistic diversity in
the U.S. It concludes that
increased diversity calls for a more effective response in order to avoid the
alienation of large numbers of young Americans. 32. Variation in Language and the Use of
Language across Contexts: Implications for Literacy Learning An overview of sociolinguistics and how
schools should respond to sociolinguistic research findings. The chapter begins with an account of
research in the field of sociolinguistics. It then looks in detail at various
aspect of the field: for example, literacy among learners of low economic
status, gender differences and ethnic/cultural differences. It concludes by
stating that knowledge of research findings is helpful in understanding student
behaviours and planning appropriate instruction. 33. Issues in Teacher Preparation and
Staff Development in the English Language Arts An overview of the content and structure
of ELA teacher training. After a brief review of the history of ELA
teacher training, the author focuses on the 9 areas of knowledge that typify
todays preparation programs: subject matter, teaching strategies, time
management, management of student variation, learning systems, knowledge of
technology and computerized lesson design, the history of subjects and literacy
policies, school structure and culture, and reflective practice. 34. Teacher Evaluation An overview of the ways in which
teachers are evaluated and by whom. The chapter starts by surveying the
evolution in attitudes towards assessing teaching including recent methods by
which teacher evaluation is based on the scores gained by their students in
standardized tests. Next is an account of the impact of the 1983 report A
nation at Risk and the resulting public dissatisfaction with ELA teaching.
Following is an overview of the response of teacher associations to imposed
teacher evaluation programs. The chapter ends with a discussion of various
related issues, including the influence of politics, and the rhetorical
question: Is it reasonable to use evaluation instruments that make little use
of the research and accumulated wisdom of the language arts field? 35. Pursuing Diversity * A polemic on the need for ELA teachers
to lead educational reform. The authors argue that the 21st century
curriculum should reflect the diversity of the modern world. They investigate
research into multiple literacies (e.g., Writing in the
Disciplines), multiple intelligences (e.g., Gardner ),
and multiple realities. They
report on initiatives to see if curriculum could be organized around the
personal and social inquiry questions of learners rather than around the
disciplines... They conclude with pedagogic recommendations such as the use of
Visible Thinking strategies. 36. The Elementary School Classroom A summary of studies that have
investigated what actually happens in elementary school classrooms. There is no summary of this chapter. 37. Secondary English Classroom
Environments * A review of research on the physical,
group, work and psychosocial environments in the classroom. The chapter starts with an overview of the
findings of research into learning and teaching spaces, such as the effects on
achievement of seating arrangements or student density. The section on group
environments is an extensive analysis of what has been learned about the
effects of grouping/tracking. It contains this quote on class size: ...it now
seems reasonably safe to conclude that greater achievement occurs in smaller
classes than larger ones. The section on work environments is about the
influence of academic work factors on student achievement. These factors
include: teacher planning, student behaviour, classroom tasks and testing. The
final section is about the psychosocial environment and focuses on factors such
as student involvement, teacher support, and competitiveness or collaboration. 38. Family Literacy at the Turn of the
Millennium: The Costly Future of Maintaining the Status Quo The inadequacy of research into home
literacy and an overview of programs to address perceived home literacy needs. There is no summary of this chapter. 39. Technology and the English Language
Arts: Implications of an Expanded Definition of Literacy * How the definition of literacy has
widened to encompass the proliferation of computer technologies in todays
schools. (The article is somewhat dated already there is nothing on Web 2.0). The chapter notes that technology has
triumphed in schools despite the lack of (or in advance of) research evidence
that it is effective or desirable. Literacy is no longer restricted to print
media but encompasses the reading of multimedia. The authors summarize recent
research into school use of technology and suggest that new research
methodologies are needed. 40. Grouping for Instruction in Literacy Investigation into research on how
grouping affects the development of reading ability. This chapter focuses mostly on early
reading instruction. It concludes that good readers do not suffer from being
grouped with less proficient readers, but that less proficient readers do
benefit from being grouped with stronger readers. 41. Unifying the Domain of K-12 English
Language Arts Curriculum * A discussion of general curricular
issues followed by an analysis of one specific English curriculum model. The chapter starts with a discussion of the
most popular general curricular models, such as the mastery model, cultural
heritage model, or process model. The authors posit that an effective ELA
curriculum model should be based on 4 principles: a. conceptual framework, b.
explicit identification of content, c. a clear sequence of study, and d. an
aligned assessment system. 42. Evaluating Language Development * A focus on the formal evaluation of
student competence in English. The chapter starts with a definition of
formal assessment and contrasts it with informal assessment (see next chapter).
The authors review the concepts of test reliability and validity and then go on
to discuss historical trends in the formal assessment of the ELA. They note
that the influence of process writing has lead to a significant increase in
assessment through writing samples (cf. standardized testing). They then analyze
the difficulties of grading written samples. They conclude with a
recommendation that teachers are always aware of the purpose of assessment,
emphasizing the importance of informal assessments and training teachers in its
methods. 43. Informal Methods of Evaluation * A summary of the various informal
methods of evaluation of student progress, particularly in the lower grades. The author begins by noting the paucity of
research into informal evaluation, in part because it is not taken seriously
enough. This is regrettable since teachers continuously engage in the informal
evaluation of their students. The author cites Atwell and calls for more
teacher-researchers. 44. Teacher-Based Literacy and Learning
* Research into assessment as a basis for
planning instruction (formative assessment). The author notes the influence of Vygotsky
in the field of assessment, namely that assessing a students or a classs
current level of competence allows the teacher to plan instruction in a ZPD.
The rest of the chapter is more or less a repetition of the previous chapter.
The authors note the critical role of teacher questioning in assessing student
knowledge and proficiency, and they review strategies and methods such as KWL,
rubrics and portfolios. 45. High-Stakes Assessment in the
English Language Arts: The Piper Plays, the Players Dance, but Who Pays the
Price? A critical analysis of standardized
testing in the USA .
The chapter starts with a definition of
high stakes tests, how and by whom they are driven noting the significant
economic factors. The authors then present an overview of standardized testing
in Texas and Michigan
. They analyze the impact of such
tests on students, teachers, the curriculum and assessment in general. They
conclude with a plea for educators to exert greater influence over the tests
their students take. 46. Elementary Language Arts Textbooks:
A Decade of Change An overview of the literacy materials
used among younger grades particularly in the teaching of reading. There is no summary of this chapter. 47. Literature for Literacy: What
Research Says about the Benefits of Using Trade Books in the Classroom * An analysis of the use of literature in
ELA programs. The main focus of the chapter is on using
literature in the elementary classroom. The authors summarize research,
including that by Krashen, which shows strong correlations between a.) the
amount of exposure to literature and b.) language and reading development. The
authors cite studies showing the influence of reading on writing. 48. Roles for New Technologies in
Language Arts: Inquiry, Communication, Construction, and Expression A (seriously outdated) overview of how
technology can be used to enhance ELA teaching. The authors classify the use of computers
in four areas: for communication, for expression, for inquiry and for
construction. They conclude the chapter with a prediction of how future
technologies will particularly affect inquiry and communication in the
classroom and beyond. 49. The Media Arts An (already rather dated) overview of
trends in the teaching the media arts. . The chapter summarizes research into
various aspects of the media arts; for example, the influence of television on
reading, and the efficacy of multimedia input on student learning. It concludes
with the assertion that much of the research has been unfettered by theory
and that this needs to change in future research, so that the increasing number
of media literacy courses have a firm theoretical base. 50. Reading matters: How Reading
Engagement Influences Cognition A summary of research into the positive
effects of independent reading. The chapter starts with an analysis of
written text and spoken text (e.g., via the medium of TV), demonstrating the
comparative vocabulary richness of the former. The authors stress the primacy
of (independent) reading as a means of vocabulary and cognitive development.
The chapter concludes with a summary of research showing the strong influence
of positive early reading experience on later reading ability, volume and
enjoyment. 51. Balancing the Curriculum in the
English Language Arts: Exploring the Components of Effective Teaching and
Learning * A fairly conventional overview of the
elements underpinning an effective ELA curriculum. The author reminds us that effective
instruction is based on interactions among the teacher, students and
curriculum. He reviews trends in the teaching of writing over the past decades:
from a skills-based, sentence level focus to the extremes of process writing,
settling on the current synthesis of the two approaches. Similar trends in the
teaching of reading are noted. 52. Language, The Language Arts, and
Thinking * A comprehensive overview of cognitive
processes in operation in the ELA classroom. This important and useful chapter (by
Robert Marzano, a renowned researcher in the field of cognitive development)
starts with an analysis of the interrelationship of thought and language,
including language as a form of thought, language as a mediator of thought and
language as a tool for enhancing thought: it is only when teachers plan
instructional activities that result in a high level of student autonomy and
interaction about the problems faced in composing that writing instruction has
a powerful effect on student thinking. 53. Teaching the Roots of Modern
English: The History of the Language in the English Language Arts Class A very short chapter lamenting the lack
of instruction on the historical development of the English language. The chapter contains a brief overview of
the history of instruction on the development of the English language, noting
that there is little will to include the topic in the ELA curriculum, often
because it is considered too boring. 54. Grammars and Literacy Learning * A comprehensive look at the teaching of
grammar in ELA. The chapter introduces the paradox that
grammar teaching continues to be widespread despite the proliferation of
research studies showing that it is pointless or even harmful. 55. Spelling * A history of the teaching of spelling,
with an emphasis on the implications of current research. The author starts with the notion that, if
approached morphologically rather than phonetically, English spelling is not as
difficult as it is reputed to be. He continues with an analysis of the three
stages in the historical development in the teaching of spelling: 1. spelling
as rote memorization, 2. spelling as pattern abstraction, 3. spelling as
a
developmental process (heavily influenced by the work of Chomsky). 56. Research on Vocabulary Instruction:
Voltaire Redux * A very comprehensive analysis of
vocabulary research and implications for teaching. The first section focuses on questions such
as: What is a word? What does it mean to know a word? How can word knowledge be
assessed? How many words do students know? 57. Rhetoric * A discussion of classical and new
rhetoric. The authors list the canons, modes,
appeals, and aims of classical rhetoric. They note that the meaning of the term
has changed and expanded over the centuries. Its basis is now held to reside in
the meeting of author, audience, subject matter and text. Since the 1950s
rhetoric has subsumed practices such as process writing, creative writing, and
writing across the curriculum. They conclude by noting how students who study
or are explicitly taught rhetorical conventions are more able to use them
themselves. 58. Childrens Responses to Literature An analysis of research into how
children respond to literature particularly in the younger grades. There is no full summary of this chapter
since most of the research focuses on younger children. The research into the
response of older children to literature suggests that: a. they should get to
choose much of their reading themselves; b. plenty of opportunity for
discussion of reading materials promotes enjoyment and learning; c. teachers
should facilitate but not dominate discussions; d. writing journals support
growth in response to literature. 59. Response to Literature An analysis of how students respond to
literature, why, and how teachers can influence the response. The chapter is an overview of studies that
have attempted to categorize response to literature and correlate this with
features of texts, personality traits and instructional methods. The authors
conclude that the answer to the question, How should teachers shape literary
response? is not amenable to empirical analysis; rather, it is one for
philosophy to answer. 60. Multiculturalism, Literature, and
Curriculum Issues An overview of multiculturalism and how
it has influenced the ELA curriculum.. The chapter starts with a definition of the
term multiculturalism and a brief history of its development as an idea in
politics and education. The author then focuses on the use of multicultural literature
in the classroom and the often acrimonious objections to it. The authors note
how multiculturalism has found its way into teacher education programs and how
teachers have responded to encouragement to make their classrooms more
multicultural. 61. Reading Preferences A comprehensive survey of research on
childrens reading preferences. The chapter starts with an overview of
early research in the field, with a good explanation of Thorndikes
psychometric instrument (Interest Score) and discussions on how to categorize
literature topics. The research quoted includes findings that are categorized
principally by age and gender. Children generally prefer narratives
(particularly with humor) over non-fiction. 62. The School Subject Literature An overview of the teaching of
literature in ELA. The authors start with definitions of terms
such as culture and cultural literacy, noting the influence of Hirsch on
ELA curricula. They point out the current trend in focus away from language
towards literature, and analyze issues concerning the English canon; for
example, the influence of the drive towards educational standards. They note
the influence of publishing companies, particularly with regard to literature
anthologies. 63. Motivating Lifelong Voluntary
readers An overview of the research into the
reading habits of U.S. adults.
The chapter starts with gloomy statistics
on literacy and post-school reading in the U.S. . It
looks at the history of efforts to inculcate literacy, noting
the pendulum swing from phonics to whole language and back towards approaches
that combine both methodologies. The rest of the chapter focuses on voluntary
reading in the home and at school, and investigates systematic pedagogical
efforts to promote reading enjoyment, e.g., through regular silent reading. It
concludes: Every classroom can and should become a literacy-rich environment
in which children read not because they have to but because they want to. 64. Reflections and Refractions of
Meaning: Dialogic Approaches to Reading with Classroom Drama A discussion of how drama can be used as
an aid to understanding and appreciating (mainly) literary texts. The authors contrast monologic
(uncontested, static) and dialogic (fluid, explorative) dramatical approaches
to the understanding of literature and characters motives. Extensive examples
of the dialogic approach are given using Steigs Dr de Soto and Hesse
s Out of the Dust as source
material. The chapter concludes with an overview of recent research in the
field of using drama in the ELA classroom (especially with regard to the
influence of Bakhtin). 65. Oral Language: Speaking and
Listening in Elementary Classrooms A review of research on how speaking and
listening can best be taught to and learned by young children. There is no summary of this chapter. 66. Reading An account of how reading, spelling and
writing develop in young children. Most of the first section is about research
into issues concerning the development of young children as readers in the home
and at school. The following section looks at vocabulary research, noting for
example the problems associated with determining vocabulary knowledge and the
wealth of studies showing its correlation with reading volume. The chapter
concludes with the implications of vocabulary research for ELA teachers,
stressing the importance of voluntary reading. It disparages typical vocabulary
worksheet activities and suggests alternative methods of acquiring deeper and
lasting word knowledge, including semantic mapping and active process through
writing example sentences. 67. Reading Comprehension Instruction An overview of research on reading
comprehension and its instruction. The authors begin by noting that
comprehension is contingent on four variables: reader, text, educational
context, and teacher. The next section reviews research into the
characteristics and strategies of competent readers. Following is a lengthy
passage on research on the teaching of reading comprehension (including
historical perspectives). The authors conclude: there is ample and ever
increasing evidence that comprehension instruction has been effective. The
chapter ends with an overview of research on several instructional strategies,
including the activation of prior knowledge, KWL, summarizing and note-taking. 68. Studying: Skills, Strategies, and
Systems * An overview of research on the efficacy
of study strategies and how they might be taught. The authors categorize the research into
study strategies and study systems. Under the first category they analyze
the following strategies: defining study tasks, previewing, questioning,
underlining, note-taking, outlining (graphic organizers), summarizing and
writing to learn. Study systems are sequences or combinations of strategies
such as SQ3R, PORPE, SPIN (student-initiated) and DRA or KWL (teacher
initiated). Research has generally shown the effectiveness of such strategies. 69. Balanced Literacy Instruction:
Implications for Students of Diverse Backgrounds A review of the battle for supremacy
between the phonics and whole language approaches to the teaching of early
literacy. There is no summary of this chapter. 70. Writing * A general overview of the issues
concerning writing and the teaching of it. The authors begin by noting the complex
nature of writing and its teaching. They then review various out-of-school
writing purposes and styles, recommending that teachers consider defining
school writing more widely than is currently usual. 71. Childrens Writing
: Research and Practice * A discussion focused mainly on early
literacy development. The authors start by noting that research
into reading has traditionally far outweighed that in writing. Recently,
however, writing has become a more popular source of study. Following are two
sections analyzing the influence of writing on reading and reading on writing
(cf. Krashen). 72. Imaginative Expression * Research into the development of
expressive writing (especially via drama, play scripts, poetry and creative
fiction). The chapter summarizes studies which show
the positive effects of expressive writing on literary appreciation and writing
performance. There is a lengthy anecdote of how one teacher alienated his class
by a poorly-thought out attempt to foster expressive writing. The author
concludes with a recommendation that ELA teachers should consider themselves as
facilitators and encouragers but not the directors of students expressive
writing. 73. The Language Arts Interact * An extended plea for a student-centred
classroom and curriculum. The chapter begins with a lengthy
justification of diverse classroom (in terms of ability, culture, etc.), and
decries the narrowness of many ELA curricula. The author calls for
content-rich, student-centred classrooms (with particular emphasis on lower
grades). She quotes Emigs famous deconstruction of the 5-paragraph essay and
regrets that most teachers are not writers and hence misconceive both the
simplicity and complexity of the writing process. The chapter ends with more
anecdotes on how multiple perspectives can transform ELA education. 74. Curriculum Integration to Promote
Literate Thinking: Dilemmas and Possibilities An overview of issues concerning
interdisciplinary curricula. The authors start with a history of
curriculum integration, noting that it is more widespread (because easier) in
the elementary school than the Upper School . They note
also the paucity of research into its effectiveness at secondary level, bedeviled
by the profusion of terms to describe the concept (e.g., transdisciplinary,
interdisciplinary, integrative). The authors conclude with a discussion of
various issues still to be resolved in the development of integrative
curricula; for example, the malign influence of assessment standards and the
implications for teacher training. 75. The Conventions of Writing
* The chapter focuses mainly on spelling
and how to teach it. After a lengthy section on spelling (and
the English orthographic system) the author reviews research into strategies
for proof-reading, and correcting/improving punctuation, capitalization and
handwriting. The chapter finishes with an analysis of the curricular and
instructional implications of the research in this field. The author outlines
how the conflicting views on the teaching of spelling is but one example of the
ongoing debate concerning the merits of student-centred versus
teacher-centred approaches to curriculum development. * Chapters indicated by an asterisk
above deal with writing-related issues.
Finally, and perhaps most important, teachers should help students find meaning
in the tasks they are doing. The researchers noted that they seldom saw
students doing tasks in which they were required to struggle with meaning. ....
To help students find meaning in their classroom tasks, the authors recommend
several strategies: When assignments are introduced, make explicit statements
about the relationship between the current work and previous work; build a
meaningful system of related tasks, instead of fragmented and disjointed ones;
culminate units by assigning tasks that require students to review and
integrate previous work.
The next section deals with emotion and motivation in the learning process, the
importance of prior knowledge and learning strategies.
Following is a section on the importance of language in learning, with a
discussion of Vygotsky, classroom language and cultural influences on learning.
The chapter concludes with a useful overview of what teachers now know, thanks
to psychological research, about their students and optimal ways to help them
learn.
The remaining sections of the chapter focus on the application of
anthropological perspectives to the status of language, literacy, literature,
and learning.
The chapter concludes with an overview of various curricular models such as the
Mastery Model (breaking learning goals into discrete assessable tasks with
much testing), Heritage Model (via the literary canon), and the Process Model.
The last section considers what should be taught in language arts, and
concludes that what gets learned is based on teacher, student and classroom
variables.
The chapter then explores the mismatch between what public and politicians
expect of teachers as professionals and what the teachers themselves believe.
It concludes with a plea for English teachers to become more political in
fighting for what they believe in (cf. Krashen in discussion with FIS language
teachers).
The chapter then analyses the distribution of English class time, noting that
more focus is given to language (e.g., grammar exercises a la Warriner) than to
literature and much more than to composition. It contains an interesting speculation
as to why this should be. The author then notes an increasing focus on
language awareness, whole language and the influence of Atwells seminal
book In the Middle: New Understandings About Writing ,
Reading, and Learning.
Next is a lengthy section on reading and the testing of it, together with an
overview of the increasing calls for testing and accountability. The reading
section closes with a review of measures to help individual struggling readers.
The writing section reports on the widespread adoption of the Writing
Process, including writing for
different purposes and audiences, writing to learn, peer response, and the use
of portfolios.
The chapter concludes with a discussion of assessment, including standardized
testing, and notes the mismatch between what the teaching profession and what
the general public and politicians think is important.
The next section deals with language development, particularly research that
addresses the question: Should instruction focus on the sentence level or will
syntactic competence arise naturally out of a writers attempts to deal with
more global rhetorical issues? Firstly, the author states that it has become
very clear that formal grammar instruction is ineffective. Nevertheless,
studies have shown that practice in sentence-combining does indeed lead to an
increase in syntactic complexity and writing quality. The author states that
The point had been proven, sentence-combining could accelerate writing
development, but notes that later research suggested the gains may not be permanent.
Following is a summary of a major study in England which
revealed that: Writing , by this point (i.e., from grade
7 onwards, cross-curricular) was
essentially a means of testing the student.
The next section deals with how the response to literature develops at high
school level. This is followed by an analysis of the history of process writing
together with a review of studies critical of aspects of it. The importance of
reading in preparation for composing is emphasized: Correlational studies
consistently show that writing ability is strongly related to reading ability
.. The author approvingly quotes a researcher in the field who castigates the
tyranny of the thesis: the ability to support an assertion is more important
than the ability to examine an issue.
The chapter continues with the claim that effective writing instruction is
severely hampered by the workload of high school English teachers, and
concludes with recommendations for reducing the workload through significant
adjustments to the ways education and the curriculum are structured.
These sections contain numerous summaries of studies in the relevant fields.
For example: Applebee found that overall, 78% of time in English classes was
allocated to literature-related activities. Freedman pointed to the value of
thoughtfully conceived one-on-one conferences in the teaching of writing.
Hillocks recommended the Environmental Mode of instruction (embedded in actual
or simulated real-life situations) as the most effective in the teaching of
writing. Cooper emphasized the importance of working individually with
students on their writing, increasing the writing of pieces of at least a
paragraph length and devoting much of class time to writing so that teachers
can be available to give help and guidance. The author concludes this section
with a reaffirmation of the importance of teachers and the correlation of
teacher knowledge and skills with student learning.
The chapter finishes with an analysis of who controls the preparation of
English teachers in the USA and
where this should take place.
There follows an analysis of how the internet has changed the writer-reader
relationship. Next is a large section that follows a student as she
researches and puts together a cross-disciplinary PowerPoint presentation
stating that her task is of enormous complexity.
The authors continue with recommendations that Language Arts education should
include instruction and practice in: information searching, multimedia
interpretation and information evaluation. They speculate on how such skills
could be assessed, and the implications for the education of teachers.
The chapter concludes with an account of the divide between technology-rich and
technology-poor families and schools
The chapter continues with a comprehensive analysis of one ELA curriculum
model, whose conceptual framework is the sociocognitive perspective. The
curriculum (Michigan Curriculum Framework) comprises four strands: 1. Genre,
Craft and the Conventions of Language; 2. Literature and Understanding; 3.
Elements of effective Communication; 4. Skills, Strategies, Processes and
Dispositions.
Following is an overview of the methods of collecting data that can answer
substantive questions about student proficiency and progress. These include:
checklists, interviews, portfolios, learning logs, observation, conferences,
and self-evaluation.
The chapter concludes with suggestions on how to promote formative assessment
measures in ELA classes, by means of pre- and in-service training, and through
action research.
The author promulgates a constructivist metaphor for teaching/learning and
analyses its five significant features (including Ownership, whereby students
self-select writing tasks, Appropriateness and Support
). He concludes with recommendations concerning the sequence and
continuity of ELA curricula.
The next section focuses on approaches to the teaching of thinking in ELA,
including metacognitive, componential, heuristic and critical/creative-thinking
processes. Among the teaching and learning strategies discussed are
scaffolding, wait-time, process writing, think-alouds, mnemonics, and KWL. The
author comments on note-taking: A number of studies have demonstrated its
[note-takings] effects on recall for information in notes.
The chapter concludes with a lengthy section on how ELA can integrate insights
from cognitive research. The author lists 5 principles: 1. Affect
influences thought;
2. Learning occurs in an attitudinal context (cf. Krashen); 3. Knowledge comes
in two types: declarative and procedural; 4. Knowledge involves non-linguistic
representations; 5. Higher-order thinking involves mindfulness.
The next important section focuses on how grammar specifically TSG
(traditional school grammar)
developed as a school subject, and how it has been under attack since the
mid-20 th century. The authors then discuss more recent alternatives
to TSG , such as structural/generative
grammar (Chomsky) and functional grammar (Halliday).
Following is a lengthy section on the reasons why grammar is taughtsuch as for
its humanistic value or in order to improve composition. A long passage
investigates instruction in sentence combining. The authors include a
comprehensive analysis of what research tells us about the efficacy of such
teaching. They conclude with the recommendation to avoid explicit, systematic
grammar teaching until research provides a much greater justification for doing
so.
The chapter concludes with a discussion of the implications of research for the
teaching of spelling. The author is in favor of more decontextualized
morphological analysis of polysyllabic words.
Subsequently, the authors review research in direct vocabulary instruction vs.
leaving students to learn from context. They conclude that incidental learning
is a necessary but not sufficient condition for the development of a large vocabulary.
The next section returns to a very lengthy analysis of research into teaching
vocabulary, including the use of basal readers and various teaching/learning
strategies such as synonymy, mnemonics, semantic mapping and morphemic
analysis.
The authors conclude with a discussion of what is currently known and not known
about vocabulary instruction. For example, we know that: incidental vocabulary
learning takes place but do not know its optimal conditions; there is a
correlation between vocabulary knowledge and comprehension but not, quite, that
it is causal; vocabulary teaching and learning strategies can be effective, but
not which ones under which conditions.
The chapter concludes with a useful set of principles by which to make informed
decisions about the teaching of vocabulary in any given situation, and with
three recommendations: 1. Teach students to learn words independently; 2.
Teach
students the meaning of specific words; 3. Help students to develop an
appreciation of words and to experience enjoyment and satisfaction in their
use.
The chapter concludes with a look to what future research should address, such
as a more robust way of measuring reading preference and the effects of teacher
input and instruction on reading preference.
Next comes a useful chart which suggests the division of the ELA literature
curriculum into three aspects: Practice (e.g., retelling, analyzing,
interpreting); Knowledge/Understanding (cultural allusion, styles); and
Preference (evaluating, criticizing).
The chapter concludes with some implications for the ELA teacher, including the
recommendation that he/she step back a little from the role as expert and final
arbiter over the literature covered in class.
The authors present four conclusions: 1. students need a bank of strategies for
various purposes; 2. it is necessary to teach test-taking strategies; 3.
computer-based instruction in strategies learning and use can be very effective;
4. strategy teaching and practice must be cross-curricular.
The next section deals with classroom interactions in the learning and teaching
of writing. The authors point out the influence of Vygotskys constructivist
theories, and review studies investigating the benefits and challenges of peer
interaction in the writing process. Following is a brief investigation of how
critical literacy (as associated with Freire) can be used to address issues of
importance in students lives.
Next is a section on the evaluation of written language, summarized by the
authors as follows: The most common classroom practices for evaluating student
writing have proven problematic. Portfolios have become popular alternatives,
not only with individual teachers but also as external testing measures.
The authors then focus on the processes of writing and review many studies on
aspects of the writing process, including research on the differences between
novice and expert writers, and how teachers can influence the quality of
student work (for example: students expend significantly more effort and
tackle more difficult tasks when their teachers monitor and support them
throughout their writing processes [] and ask them questions along the way.)
Following this is a brief overview of the problems that some investigators
believe are inherent in a rigid application of the writing process.
The next section of the chapter is about the development of writing ability from
grade to grade. In sum, research tells us that there is not a regular,
predictable pattern of skills and ability development. Nevertheless, some generalizations
can be made, and the authors review the research base for these in the final
subsection, focusing in particular on early literacy growth.
The chapter continues with a history of the adoption of process writing in the
ELA, noting that most teachers and writers currently use recursive rather than
rigid sequential approaches. Following is an overview of studies in the various
aspects of process writing (particularly in the younger grades.) The authors
note, for example, conflicting research on the efficacy of peer feedback.
The next section investigates the theory and practice of Writing to Learn (influenced by the
Constructivist theories of Vygotsky and Bruner). Several studies show that
learning is more likely to take place if the writing task requires analysis,
reflection etc. than the mere retrieval of information. Summary writing is
particularly useful but students must be taught how to do it.
The authors then review research into the assessment of writing, indicating a
preference for holistic (including portfolios) over discrete-point measures of
writing, but noting that reliability is contingent on rater-training.
Following is a summary of research into focus on writing feedback, including
the correction of mechanical errors. Research seems to show that this latter is
ineffective or even counter-productive.
Next is a (somewhat dated) analysis of the effects of computers on writing.
Computers allow a much more flexible and recursive approach to writing. They also
allow teachers to use Smartboard technology to focus on aspects of writing
worthy of the attention of the whole class. Students writing on the computer
tend to produce work that is longer, of higher overall quality and more
accurate mechanically than students using paper.
The authors conclude with several questions still to be resolved by research.
The last question is: What effects do teacher comments have on students
thinking about their writing and on their writing achievement?
The chapter continues with a recommendation (influenced by Vygotsky) for a
greater emphasis on oral language in the classroom. Next are case studies of
teachers who have integrated the LA with other content areas (mainly in lower
grades) The most popular approach is to group tasks around a guiding question,
concept or theme.
[1] The section numbers of this extended summary correspond to the section numbers in the full report.
[2] The investigation covered all forms of writing done for academic purposes, primarily inbut not limited tothe English language (i.e., also in foreign languages). The first student survey focused, however, solely on English-language writing.
[3] English teachers were invited to have their classes complete the survey during an English lesson. Teachers who could find no time to do so encouraged their students to do the survey in their own time.
[4] In broad terms, transactional writing conveys ideas or information to others; expressive writing (such as note-making) is done to clarify thought and not intended for others; poetic writing is creative writing.
[7] Appendix 8.1 has a full account of the investigation content and methods. It details who was responsible for the various aspects of the investigation and who wrote the different sections of this document.
[8] ESOL stands for English for Speakers of Other Languages. This Language criterion is, however, applied to all students writing regardless of language background, with attention to ESOL / ESL characteristics, as listed in the table. See the ACER ISA website: http://www.acer.edu.au/tests/isa/sample-writing1.
[9] See the College Board website: http://sat.collegeboard.com/about-tests.
[10] A six-step approach for teaching research skills: 1) Task definition (defining the problem and information needed) 2) Information-seeking strategies (determining all sources and selecting best sources) 3) Location and access of sources (locating sources and finding information within sources) 4) Use of information (engaging with sources and extracting relevant information) 5) Synthesis (organizing from multiple sources and presenting the information) and 6) Evaluation (judging the product and process of research). More information can be found at http://www.big6.com/what-is-the-big6/
[13] This second student survey was designed and analyzed by PS, who was also responsible for writing this report section.
[15] Spelling mistakes in the students comments have been corrected.
[16] The issue of writing on the computer vs. writing by hand was also raised by teachers in interviews and on the teacher survey.
[17] See Shoebottom (2010) for more information about the U.D.S technique.
[18] Carino (1995) calls Norths article perhaps the most revered and oft-cited piece of writing center discourse ever-written.
[19] For example, see Shamoons 1995 article A Critique of Pure Tutoring .
[20] Childers (1986) has a useful overview of the benefits of peer tutoring.
[21] This aspect of WAC is usually more narrowly defined as Writing in the Disciplines (WID). Bazerman (2005) has a good explanation of the difference between WAC and WID.
[22] There are suggestions for the prioritization of student help at FIS in Appendix 8.2.
[23] See Appendix 8.2 for examples of the kind of information and materials that can be made available via a web site.
[24] This polemic has spawned a number of follow-ups over the years in book or article form, such as Why Johnny cant read , Why Johnny still cant write, Why Johnny cant spell, and so on.
[25] Here is a sample question from the grade 7 science book (page 75. Question 5a.)
Explain why car bodies are usually made of steel, but aircraft bodies are made from aluminium.
Short answer: steel is strong and aluminium is light.
Full-sentence answer : Cars are made of steel because steel is a strong metal and can protect the passengers in a crash. Aircraft bodies are made of aluminium because aluminium is a light metal, which minimizes the weight of the plane.
[26] The literature refers almost exclusively to note-taking. At FIS there is a push to settle on the term note-making to convey to students that the process is an active, creative one of deciding which information to record and in what form.
[27] Naylors term was active rather than formative assessment.
[28] There is a chapter-by-chapter summary of the handbook in Appendix 8.8.
[29] For example, see the National Literacy Trusts 2009 report Young People's Writing: Attitudes, Behaviour and the Role of Technology.
[30] Following is an example of a critique of process writing [ footnote continues on next page ]:
The problem with process writing is that it does not actually teach how to write. Rather than showing the students how to achieve the fundamentals of sentence variety, paragraph development, organization, and detail before they begin to write, the process writing method expects them to somehow arrive at competency through time-consuming trial and error, multiple drafts, and the advice of their peers, who are often no more skilled than they are. http://writeforcollege.com/index.htm
This critique is in itself questionable: Firstly, in the assumption that students must be taught about rhetoric and grammar before they begin to write, and secondly in the assumption that the main task of peer review is to comment on such features.
[31] Kohn (2006) is one of the dissenting voices; for example, see his article The Trouble with Rubrics .
[32] Newkirk (2003) reports on studies that show the heavy workloads of English teachers.
[33] For example, s ee The Evaluation of Written Language (Dyson & Freedman , 2003 )
[34] Hillocks (2003), in his review of studies in grammar instruction, states: The question of the importance of grammatical terminology is one that research has not fully answered. It could be that one of the reasons why even good students misinterpret teacher feedback is that they do not understand the grammar terms used in that feedback. This possibility is briefly considered by Freedman (1987) in the study referred to above, but not pursued.
[35] Corson (2003) in his book on language policy has a useful chapter on what a good language awareness curriculum could contain.
[36] Weaver et al. (2006) provide good advice on how to conduct effective mini-lessons in their paper Grammar intertwined through the writing process . A further useful resource is Approaches to Teaching Grammar and Language Usage from the Public Schools of North Carolina (2003). Research on the efficacy of mini-lessons is not universally positive. See Effective Ways of Teaching Complex Expression in Writing (U.K. Department for Children, Schools and Families; 2007) for a good, recent overview of the issues.
[37] Zachrissons comment is quoted by Templeton (2003) in the chapter entitled Spelling in the Handbook of Teaching the English Language Arts .
[38] Warda (2005), for example, states: Poor spelling skills are associated with limited intellectual ability in our society and carr y a negative stigma. She reports on surveys of Fortune 500 companies published in the Career Development Journal which reveal that more weight is given to job candidates spelling in resumes than even their grade average or previous work experience. [...] Mastery in this area is more than ever taken as an indicator of a superior education, a hard-working character and intelligence.
[39] In the 1988 study none of the papers analysed were written on the computer; in the 2008 study, all of them were.
[40] The Smartboard is an excellent tool for both kinds of modelling.
[41] Bowker (1981) writes: English vocabulary level has been shown to be strongly related to educational success. In respect of ESL writers Hinkel (2003) quotes research showing that the proportion of core academic vocabulary in L2 writers text correlated positively with higher ratings of essays on standardized tests. And OConnor (1981) claims: "An extensive knowledge of the exact meanings of English words accompanies outstanding success in this country [USA] more often than any other single characteristic we have been able to isolate and measure.
[42] Collaboration skills are also an essential aspect of top-level jobs as noted in The National Commission on Writings report A Ticket to Work (2004).
[43] Nevdon Jamgochians blog is at: http://fiscwj.edublogs.org/
[44] Krashen addressed the first two of these myths in his session with FIS Upper School students in May 2010.
[45] An excellent example of a transdisciplinary initiative undertaken at FIS is the grade 8 Structures project by Darren Trebel. As part of this project students had to compose (in French) an advertisement for the model house they were building in art class. There is a description of this project at: http://esl.fis.edu/teachers/support/idu.htm .
[46] In fact, the whole of this sentence is capitalized in Genesee 's report (2006: 8). It is the only one in the report to be highlighted in this way, and so can be regarded as indicating the importance Genesee places on it.
[47] Several years ago there was a drive to align the assessment and grading of writing in the taught languages (English, ESL , French, German and Deutsch). Some progress was made but the initiative was abandoned before cross-department consensus could be reached.
[48] Such style matters include advice on use of the first person or the passive voice, starting sentences with conjunctions, how to abbreviate and punctuate, and use of footnotes.
[49] McLeod (2000) has a useful chapter on designing effective faculty training.
[51] Literature-based writing is defined here as writing (about) fiction: short stories, poetry, plays and novels.
[52] Scherf states: Findings from the present study support past research (i.e., Applebee, 1981,1993), which finds writing about literature dominating class time.
[53] For example, the vocabulary preview for a story in the grade 7 Literature Anthology ( Last Cover , p63) contains the words surly , wily and incredulous . Such words are useful to acquire but are generally not the kinds of words that students will need in their cross-curricular writing.
[54] Albeit, constraint, refute, notwithstanding, facilitate, predominant, supplementary are examples of academic or semi-technical vocabulary. There is a detailed analysis of academic vocabulary, plus a 1000+ word list, on the schools ESL website at: http://esl.fis.edu/teachers/support/semi.htm .
[55] The lack of a wide academic vocabulary is also a severe impediment to fluent reading, and one of the most serious reasons why non-native English students struggle in mainstream classes.
[56] Cooperation between English and ESL teachers is recommended by Genesee in his 2007 report:
It is also clear from research on language learning in educational contexts that traditional language arts curricula do not usually include the kinds of language skills that students need to succeed in academic domains such as mathematics, science, history and so on. Identifying and teaching these kinds of language skills can be better ensured if HR (English teachers) and ESL specialists work together.
[57] Corson (1999) has an excellent chapter on the instruction of language awareness. Language Awareness syllabi in the UK typically include teaching the structuring patterns of the mother tongue, their similarities to and differences from other languages, as well as how to judge the appropriateness and correctness of language in use.
[58] Synchronous feedback is feedback that is given while the student is writing in the computer lab in class time or after school hours within a pre-determined time span when the teacher makes him- or herself available. Asynchronous feedback (i.e., feedback given after the draft is completed) has also been found to be effective - see http://imej.wfu.edu/articles/2002/1/07/index.asp.
[59] The National Association of Teachers of English's (2008) document. Making hard topics in English easier with ICT has numerous excellent suggestions.
[60] On the other hand, response to poorly-presented work (including careless handwriting) is more properly a school-wide issue. A curriculum coordinator might want to determine an appropriate proportion of handwritten/computer-written assignments across the subjects to ensure that students continue to get adequate opportunities to develop or maintain handwriting skills.
[61] Langer & Applebee (1987: 68) have an account of the problems caused by what they call terminological confusion, i.e., different terms for the same writing task.
At FIS the term reflection is an example of the reverse problem, namely the use of a single word to describe a variety of writing tasks. Many of our students reported that they do not like writing reflections, often because they regard them as pointless or because they claim not to have been taught how to do them. Some of this antipathy could be dissipated if the writing tasks were named differently, with reflection being used only for those tasks that require students to look back on a completed project and analyze the insights they have gained about themselves as learners. A curriculum coordinator might wish to review the usefulness of reflections, how they are taught, and whether students, grade by grade, have enough or too many opportunities to write them.
[62] Genesee underlines this word in his report.
[63] A charter school in the U.S. is a school that receives public funding but is not subject to all the regulations binding public schools. In exchange for this relative freedom to pursue its own curriculum and pedagogy, a charter school commits itself to producing certain results, as set out in its charter.
[65] The writing center director who is also the sole tutor cannot be available for appointments all day. It is estimated that, at least initially, the director will be able to spend about a third of the day in one-to-one sessions with students. The other two thirds of the time will be needed for administrative work (e.g., talking to teachers, collecting resources, etc.) and tutorial preparation or follow-up (e.g., reading over student work, preparing tutorial materials, etc.) The director might wish to block off some parts of the day for these non-teaching duties or may prefer to allow for a flexible completion of such tasks in order to be most responsive to students requests for help. The configuration of the appointments calendar depends on which system is chosen.
[66] An alternative to completing the custom-made software that was designed during the year of the investigation to manage writing center bookings and record information about the help given to students is to use a commercially available system. Accutrack ( http://www.accutrack.org/indexMain.htm ) and TutorTrac ( http://www.tutortrac.com/ ) are examples of programs with many features and modules. It may also be possible to use Serco for this purpose. The software that is chosen should allow easy collection and analysis of the data that will be used in the evaluation of the success of the evaluation of the writing center.
[67] At some point it would useful to discuss if and how the writing center could be more closely associated with or even assimilated by the library.
[68] This depends on the tricky decision as to whether attendance should be required of some students.