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

 

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

 

3. External Research

3.1 Overview

 

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.

 

3.2.1 Theoretical Issues

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.

 

3.2.2 Practical Issues

 

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:

• research writing needs in an institution;
• convince administrators and faculty of the value of a writing center;
• prepare the ground for the launch of a writing center;
• prioritize student help [22] ;
• determine the nature of the writing assistance to be given;
• set up the writing center space;
• write a mission statement;
• establish writing center procedures: booking appointments, recording help given collection and storage of teaching materials;
• gain and maintain the trust of faculty;
• train student, teacher and parent tutors;
• structure and conduct help sessions;
• take advantage of computer software and online technologies to assist student writing.

 

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:

 

• what to do if the writing assignment is considered ambiguous, inappropriate or over-demanding;
• what to do if the writing center tutor agrees with the student that a piece of work has been unfairly graded or that the feedback is unhelpful or overly negative;
• what to do if student asks if his or her writing is good and what grade can be expected;
• how to decide when to relax standard writing center principles; for example, to help a student who wants last-minute feedback on a writing assignment or asks for grammar errors to be pointed out;
• how to treat a student who is angry at being referred to the writing center;
• how to deal with a student who is uncooperative during the tutoring session;
• how to prevent students from becoming over-dependent on writing center help;
• how to respond if a student makes critical remarks about a teacher or assignment ;
• what to do if the writing is in a field of which the tutor has no knowledge;
• how to respond to writing that is obviously plagiarized;
• how to respond to writing with shocking content; for example, that includes offensive comments or harrowing personal experiences;
• how to tutor online in a way that is compatible with writing center policy.

 

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:

 

• in-class writing assistance to students (for example, as they are composing in a computer lab, or revising in the classroom);
• class pull-out of a few students to offer remedial help;
• online individual help (for example, via email or Google Docs after school hours);
• writing advice to individual members of the faculty;
• group workshops or tutorials for students and teachers in the major and minor aspects of writing (plus advice on college admission essays);
• management of writing across the curriculum activities;
• maintenance of a web site [23] ;
• creative writing circles;
• writing contests.

 

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

3.3.1 Overview

 

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:

 

3.3.3.1 First Principle

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.

 

3.3.3.2 Second Principle

 

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:

• they require the student to work a little harder in order to construct a complete thought; research has shown that in general the more cognitive processing students have to do, the more they learn and remember;
• the student ends up with a set of meaningful sentences to facilitate test review.

 

3.3.3.3 Third Principle

 

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.

3.3.3.3.1 Note-making

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.

 

3.3.3.3.2 Journal writing

 

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.

 

3.3.3.3.3 Impromptu writing

 

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.

 

3.3.5 Teacher Concerns

 

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:

 

• they do not feel they have enough expertise in how to teach or how to correct writing and give appropriate feedback;
• they do not have enough time to respond to or grade the extra written work they set;
• they believe it will take time away from other essential work, and hence they will not complete the syllabus.

 

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.

3.3.6 Implementation

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.

3.3.7 Evaluation

 

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

 

3.4.1 Overview

 

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.

 

3.4.2 Writing Curriculum

 

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.

 

3.4.3 Writing Process

 

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.

 

3.4.6 Grammar

 

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.

 

3.4.7 Spelling

 

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.

 

3.4.8 Mechanics

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:

 

• that the text is set aside for a certain time to allow the reader to come to it fresh;
• that the text is read backwards sentence by sentence (this is particularly useful for detecting fragments);
• that the text is read aloud;
• that the text is read more than once.

 

As Hodges (2003) summarizes: Whatever techniques are taught, direct instruction of proofreading techniques appears to have a positive outcome.

 

3.4.9 Modeling

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.

 

3.4.10 Vocabulary

 

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 :

 

• Teachers should identify the words that students need to learn for their various writing purposes.
• Students need to be taught how to learn words independentlythis includes instruction in use of a dictionary and thesaurus.
• Students should be helped to develop an appreciation for words and to experience enjoyment and satisfaction in their use.

 

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.

 

3.4.12 Writing Myths

 

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:

 

• Good writers are born. I wasnt one of them. [44]
• Good writers get it done in one draft.
• Every paper is a brand-new ballgame.
• If my grammar and spelling are right, the writing will be good.
• Writing teachers grade subjectively.

 

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.

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 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.

 

3.5 Writing -Related Research

 

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.

 

3.5.1 Reading

 

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:

 

• a significant proportion of the vocabulary students acquire is through reading;
• vocabulary knowledge correlates strongly with reading ability and with reading volume;
• writing proficiency correlates with reading ability and volume;
• reading ability correlates strongly with academic success, of which writing is an integral part.

 

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.

 

3.5.2 Brain-Based Learning

 

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.

7. Annotated Bibliography

 

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.
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.

 

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.
The remaining sections of the chapter focus on the application of anthropological perspectives to the status of language, literacy, literature, and learning.

 

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.
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.

 

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).
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).

 

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.
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.

 

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.
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.

 

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.
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.

 

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.
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

 

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.
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.

 

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.
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.

 

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.
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.

 

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.
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.

 

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.
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.

 

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.
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.

 

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).
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.

 

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?
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.

 

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.
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.

 

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.
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.

 

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.
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.

 

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.
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.

 

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).
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?

 

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 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.

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.