Anderson, K



Writing Instruction:

What approaches are student-centered, interactive and beneficial?

An Annotated Bibliography

Lisa Randlett

Reading 5710

Appalachian State University

Introduction

Rutherford County Schools has placed a huge emphasis on writing in response to a growing concern about student writing proficiency. Because of this emphasis and as a member of Rutherford County Schools’ Literacy Focus Team, I have become very interested in writing instruction. The goals of the Literacy Focus Team are to support teachers and to promote and model good practices in reading and writing instruction. Our team, which consists of teachers from across Rutherford County, has focused on approaches to writing instruction throughout the school year. Through our planning and sharing I have realized that teachers engage their students in writing through a variety of approaches that range from journal writing, packaged writing programs to writer’s workshop type approaches. I believe that authentic, student-centered, interactive approaches to writing benefit students the most. It seems evident from my discussions with other teachers that we often agree with this notion but don’t always utilize these types of approaches (and I am including myself when I say this). When I was a first and second grade classroom teacher I utilized a writer’s workshop type approach but many of my instructional practices were not student-centered or interactive. I often focused on the final written product with my students and took away their ownership because of this. Now as I work with small groups in reading and writing instruction I want to be sure this doesn’t happen. I want my instruction to reflect an authentic, student-centered writing situation. My research question originated from these reflections, observations and discussions.

Annotated Bibliography

Anderson, K. G. (2002). Developing independent writers. Retrieved March

20, 2005, from

.

Anderson is attempting to determine whether process writing or product-focused writing develops more independence in her second grade students’ writing during writer’s workshop. She is especially interested in her English language minority students. Her attempts include using a retelling approach that was suggested by her colleagues and a combined approach using mini-lessons, shared writing, interactive writing and process oriented writer’s workshop. She doesn’t go into much detail regarding the alternative approach (that she describes as a retelling approach) and doesn’t explain why she thinks that approach is product-focused writing. She determines with little explanation that the combined approach worked best for her students especially her English Language Learners. Anderson discusses the use of a game board that includes all the processes involved in writing along with clothes pins for students to indicate which part of the writing process they were involved in for that given day during the writer’s workshop. Anderson explains that she teaches the parts of the writing process which are on this game board through mini-lessons. Anderson shows through her data that this combined approach resulted in independence, more communication among students, and an overall positive impact on writing performance. She explains that the students were also involved in publishing their favorite written pieces. She believes that the process approach is more beneficial to students’ writing development especially English Language Learners.

Her combination of instructional strategies demonstrates student-centered interactive approaches to writing instruction because her students are involved in publishing pieces (of their choice) as well as writing in a workshop type environment. Although she explicitly teaches the process of writing through mini-lessons and the use of the game board, all students are involved in various stages of writing at various times, which allows students to make decisions and choices just a real authors would do. I particularly like the use of the game board as a method for allowing all students to be at a variety of stages in the writing process. This seems like a good tool for teachers who might struggle with having all his/her students at different stages in the writing process. Anderson exemplifies how teachers of writing should make decisions and changes in instruction based on the needs of their students.

Baines, L. (2001). Out of the box. Voices from the Middle, 9(1), 12-20.

This article discusses the use of audiovisual stimuli to help improve writing. Baines discusses the process approach to writing as forcing students to think and write within a two-dimensional box. He argues that if students struggle with syntax, vocabulary or ideas, revisions often go nowhere. In this article he describes how he asked students to write in response to a scripted poem, then had the student find images that would represent each line in the poem. The students inserted their images into a PowerPoint presentation. Baines encouraged the students to consider font, color and sounds or music that would impact the PowerPoint poem presentation. The students then shared these presentations and finally revised the poems so that the music and images would be reflected in the words. Many students’ poems showed dramatic improvements. Baines credits these improvements to the concrete nature of the images and sounds, which enabled students to find better words that fit the idea they had. Baines also found that this approach motivated the students and they were more excited about what they were writing. This approach is very interactive and student-centered because it allows the students choice in the presentation. Allowing choice helped to improve their overall writing and motivation. This technique was used with older students but could be adapted and used with elementary students. Baines offers a good example for using alternative approaches to reach and meet the needs of today’s students.

Behymer, A. (2003). Kindergarten writing workshop. The Reading Teacher,

57(1), 85-88.

In this article Behymer describes kindergarten writing instruction where the teacher uses modeling and workshop approaches to support students as beginning writers. This particular model is based on the book Kid Writing: A Systematic Approach to Phonics, Journals and Writer’s Workshop (1999). The six steps to this type of Kindergarten writing workshop include: drawing, “kid writing” (where students spell phonemically), adult underwriting (which includes the teacher writing below the students’ writing and individual conferencing), large group focused mini-lessons, mini-sharing (where students share their writing with partners), and publication (which involves editing the student’s work). Beheymer describes this model, which emphasizes the use of journals, choice in seating for students, writing daily at the same time, peer helping, teachers circulating to help individual students, and praise for student attempts to foster a risk-free environment. The children’s writing is published often in books and on bulletin boards. Beheymer indicates that the students feel like real authors and become more independent. She also points out that time is often a challenge when beginning this type of writing instruction. However, using journals, the teaching of phonics and writing were all combined and integrated into this Kindergarten writing workshop model, which helps with the time issue. This article offers some helpful suggestions and practices for Kindergarten teachers who want to create a student-centered writing atmosphere. This approach explains a child-centered writing environment because the students are allowed to make choices about various things including topics and seating. Student writing is valued and published in this type of writing situation. This approach is beneficial because all students become successful independent writers.

Button, K., Johnson, M. J., & Furgerson P. (1996). Interactive writing in a primary

classroom. The Reading Teacher, 49(6), 446-454.

This article describes the use of an approach to writing that is based on the language experience approach and is similar to shared writing. This approach that is described involves students working collaboratively writing as a group with the teachers assistance. Students come up to an easel or board and actually write a particular letter or word in the story that is being composed by the group. The Kindergarten teacher described in this article uses this opportunity to directly teach many aspects of writing to her Kindergarteners including concepts of print, phonics, spacing and directionality. Interactive writing is dynamic and meaningful to children because they are actively involved in all aspects of this writing process. This type of writing technique could be applied to any grade level. Teachers could work on many areas including content or conventions of writing depending on the needs of the students. This technique includes active engagement and collaboration for all students in a risk free environment. Also the teacher provides scaffolding and appropriate instruction that fosters writing development. This type of approach would benefit students in the primary grades because there is a good balance between teacher support and student involvement.

Fletcher, R. & Portalupi, J. (2001). Writing Workshop: The Essential Guide. Portsmouth,

NH: Heinemann.

Fletcher and Portalupi provide teachers with the essential elements and tools for beginning a writer’s workshop approach to writing instruction in this book. They stress and support authentic writing, student choice in writing and creating an environment where students view themselves as real writers. This book contains several helpful sections to teachers who may want to begin this approach to writing instruction. Each major section of this book is concluded with a Making it Work section, which provides teachers with a suggested action plan that would help them to begin implementing this kind of approach. There is also a Troubleshooting chapter that addresses many of the problems that arise when using this type of approach. This book obviously supports a workshop type model that is extremely interactive and student-centered it does a good job of addressing and acknowledging the practical problems that will inevitably arise in classroom environments attempting to implement writer’s workshop. It also provides teachers with tools and suggestions for dealing with these kinds of problems. Regardless of the suggestions, activities or tools that Fletcher and Portalupi provide in this book, the teacher and his/her attitudes about children, writing and how they connect in a learning situation determines the successfulness this approach or any other approach.

Fromherz, R. W. (2003). Create a traveling literacy trunk. The Reading Teacher, 57(2),

192-195.

This article describes an idea that was utilized by a group of teachers working with a young writer’s camp sponsored by the Oregon Writing Project in Salem, Oregon. These teachers utilized Nancy Atwell’s book In the Middle (1998) but needed time, materials, books, and space to achieve their goals. The Literacy Trunks were created to meet these needs. Teachers created a trunk (out of a cardboard box) based on a theme and filled the box with engaging writing activities, which were based on writing standards. These boxes were then shared with other teachers. This allowed teachers who normally wouldn’t or couldn’t collaborate the opportunity to collaborate and share writing ideas and techniques. This article contained a sample traveling literacy trunk and an assessment form that was used by teachers to assess the trunk. This idea is great for teachers because it encourages sharing and collaboration. It could be used throughout a grade level, school or county as a way of sharing successful writing techniques based on standards. Again the success of Literacy Trunks would depend on the teachers’ willingness and attitude about writing. The types of activities and the effectiveness of the activities would also depend on the teachers who are involved in creating the trunks as well as those teaching the writing. The amount of student choice would also be dependent on the teacher utilizing the trunk. The article did not state whether the children chose the theme that they were interested in or if the teacher made those decisions.

Kazemek, F. E., & Logas, B. (2000). Spiders, kid curlers and white shoes: telling and

writing stories across generations. The Reading Teacher, 53(6), 446-451.

This article explains an intergenerational project that brought together a group of elders involved in a writing group and a group of 5th grade students who participate in writer’s workshop in school. Kasemek and Logas say the purpose of this project was to get students to see literacy as a life long activity that spans many generations. They describe biographical sketches, which each participant (old and young) completed after interviewing each other. Kasemek and Logas share some of the moving writing that came from this project and credits this to the authentic talking and interviewing which resulted in authentic writing. These writings were then published into bound books. The authors discuss other types of authentic writing that has been published and shared from this intergenerational experience including poetry, book writing and letter writing. Ways to begin a project like this are also discussed in this article. This type of project shows that purposeful, authentic writing is important to writers of all ages. It also shows that publishing is an important part of the writing process and helps students to view themselves as real writers. This project is a great idea for teachers who want to foster relationships to encourage authentic student writing. However, teachers who wanted to try a project like this must be willing to invest a lot of planning and time. Some other alternatives might be to pair students up with an adult who works at the school (like the PE teacher, librarian, lunchroom worker, or another school worker) or with an upper grade student (like a 5th grade student with a 2nd grade student). Although you would not have the same “intergenerational” experience you could still foster relationships and create situations for authentic writing. The benefits from this type of experience are apparent because of the relationships that are formed and the authenticity of the writing that is produced.

Lee, G. (2000). Getting in line to publish online. Voices from the Middle, 8(1), 23-34.

In this article Lee says that good teachers of writing have always known the positive impact publishing makes on students’ writing. She says that the Internet is a good way to give students an authentic audience. In this article she reviews websites or ezines (online magazines) that offer free web spaces and web editors for publishing children’s writing. She offers some valuable tips for getting started with this new way of publishing on the web. She also includes safety and legal issues involved in publishing on the Internet. This is a creative way to allow students the opportunity to see themselves as real writers who publish their work. Using computer for publishing is very interactive for children, causes a positive impact on students’ writing, motivates students and allows for interactions among children from different areas.

Moulton, M. R. (1999). The multigenre paper: increasing interest, motivaiton and

functionality in research. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 42(7), 528-539.

This article discusses an alternative approach to the traditional research paper that is often used with high school students. The multi-genre paper allowed student the choice to report their research findings though a variety of creative genres in the place of a traditional research paper. Some of the genres used included poems, brochures, posters, journal entries, greeting cards, letters and many other creative genres. This process was enjoyable for the students and demonstrated a higher level of thinking and creativity. Although this article was written about high students, this method of transforming knowledge can be used for elementary aged students as well. Elementary teachers can use this type of response when concluding a unit of study. Students show their learning through writing, they are given choice in how to show their learning (genre) and they take ownership in the product they create.

Richgels, D. J. (2003). Writing instruction. The Reading Teacher, 56(4), 364-368.

This article reviews some new books dealing with writer’s workshop. Richgels reveals that although there are many new resources for teachers in the area of writing there are really no easy steps to successful writing instruction. He suggests that many of these new resources offer a “quick fix” for writing instruction in response to the No Child Left Behind legislation. He suggests that this type of “quick fix” really does not exist. Graves book Writing: Teachers and Children at Work (1993) and Calkins book The Art of Teaching Writing (1986; 1994) are mentioned by Richgels as the best resources for elementary teachers of writing. Richgels supports a student-centered workshop approach where teachers are aware of student interests and strengths. Richgels echos Graves notion that children want to write, that good teachers are also writers themselves and that writing takes time and involves hard work. This article affirms for me that an interactive, student-centered writing curriculum is hard work, which is possibly one reason many teachers opt for an easier avenue in writing instruction. The hard work involved in creating this kind of writing environment could be viewed as a weakness for this type of approach. The difficulty that surrounds implementation might deter some teachers from attempting this kind of approach.

Smith, C. B. (2003). Writing: classroom techniques. Clearing House on Reading, English

and Communication, , 3-6.

Smith discusses classroom strategies that focus on student-centered learning and interaction over lecture type formats. The techniques that are discussed include the use of writer’s workshop, literature-based mini-lessons and creative drama. Other aspects of this type of approach are discussed and include time, space and students taking on more decision-making. Smith describes these approaches resulting in increased student interest and increased interactions between students and teachers. These positive results support a student-centered interactive workshop approach to writing instruction. The use of drama in writing instruction is one approach that I had not considered but after reading this article I see the value of this interactive approach. Following the use of drama, the students would begin to use more descriptive, exact language to describe a situation. Acting situations out is a concrete way for students to show things rather than tell about things. This is exactly what good writers do in their writing, they show rather than tell.

Spence, L. K. (2003). Stepping out of the conversation: giving students a space to co-

construct writing. Bilingual Research Journal, 27(3), 523-532.

In this article Spence describes her endeavor with her 4th grade English Language Learners to shift from a teacher-centered writing environment to a more student-centered writing environment. She describes how she removed herself from the revision groups (used during writer’s workshop) in her classroom because the students seemed too dependent on her. She felt like the questions the revision group asked of the author sharing lacked substance. She decided to have the students in the revision groups to retell the story that the author had shared to force them and the author to see where key details were missing. The students began to rely on each other and have more meaningful conversations about the writing that was being shared. Essentially the retelling had the students working together to make sense of the story. They worked together to construct meaning as authors and readers. Spence said that removing herself made room for the students’ voices. This technique shows how giving students a voice and purpose results in positive results. By having the students retell what was being shared she guided her student to be more successful while they remained in control of their own writing and learning. Spence also demonstrates how teachers need to be decision makers who adjust instruction when needed. This is an example of how teachers are crucial to making a model of instruction like writer’s workshop successful.

Stephens, L. C., & Mandeville, T. (2000). Wired and inspired: publishing student writing

in the world wide web. Voices from the Middle, 8(1), 35-41.

This article describes how middle school aged students use the Internet to publish writing. The authors describe how the writing process becomes more interactive when experienced online. Students can get immediate feedback from around the world through e-mail. The authors point out that the integration of computers in writing instruction made the difference on the NAEP report card. The NAEP also points out that publishing writing often results in improved writing and using the Internet allows more opportunities for publishing. Stephens and Mandeville explore the differences in traditional Internet magazines and the non-traditional interactive websites. Traditional formats are more like a gallery where finished works are displayed and the non-traditional formats offer interactions between the reader and the writer and the writing is viewed as a work in progress rather than a finished piece. This article also has a table of websites that have been analyzed for teachers based on important components. This table is very helpful for anyone interested in publishing student work on the Internet. This article supports using the Internet to publish student work and to offer more interactions for student writers. It offers another way to help students to see themselves as real writers. Although this article focused on middle school students, primary grade students could publish their writing individually or collaborative classroom works.

Wood Ray, K. (2001). The Writing Workshop: Working Through the Hard Parts (and

They’re All Hard Parts). Urbana, IL: NCTE.

Katie Wood Ray writes this book as a resource for teachers who are attempting as Wood Ray describes the very difficult task of utilizing the writer’s workshop approach to writing in the elementary classroom. She is very honest about the challenges that teachers of a writer’s workshop approach confront on a daily basis. She describes the perceived chaos of the classroom with students all working on a variety of different things but reminds teachers of the complexity of writing which demands this type of approach where students are writing purposefully and viewing themselves as real writers. She focuses on all the aspects of writer’s workshop including environment, time, space, management issues, planning, teaching, conferencing, sharing, publishing, assessing, and suggests units of study. Throughout the book there are short commentaries from Lester Laminack following the comments from real writers about specific topics. Wood Ray does a good job of explaining the importance of using real writers as mentors for our students. She also points out the difference of writer’s workshop verses process writing approach. Writing is a complex, difficult task and this book demonstrates how a writer’s workshop approach is very student-centered, authentic and interactive. Wood Ray explains and supports (from the point of view of real writers) why this type of approach although difficult can be very successful and rewarding for teachers and students.

The research base of the Collins Writing program. (n.d.). Retrieved Apr. 01, 2005, from

.

This research base supports a structured writing program that uses focused practice where the teacher structures a writing experience to apply and practice a specific writing skill. The research by George Hillocks is mentioned in this article as a basis for determining best practices in writing instruction. This article describes the practices utilized in this program as using student models to refine skills, using a practice known as focused correcting where students focus on a few key elements of writing at a time, using techniques that enhance content like combining sentences and varying sentences and learning ways to organize and analyze ideas. The basis of this program is the utilization of effective writing assignments. These assignments focus on one of these seven elements of writing: purpose, audience, form, writer’s perspective, focus correction areas, procedures and summaries. This research is obviously used to support a program that can be bought by schools as a packaged writing curriculum. It appears that this program is more teacher-centered and that the students are not writing for authentic reasons because of the emphasis on writing assignments. If students are not given choices about what to write about, the writing loses it’s authentic audience and purpose and is only an assignment for school. However, programs like this one can offer some good ideas for mini-lessons to use in writer’s workshop.

Conclusions

I have included a variety of references in response to my research question regarding the teaching of writing through interactive, student-centered ways. These resources range from books, websites, to journal articles. This variety also spans many grade levels but all of the ideas in these articles, books and websites can be adapted or applied to the elementary grades where I work. All of these resources offer great publishing ideas, procedural ideas, writing techniques that can be utilized in writer’s workshop, ideas for creating authentic purposes for writing, ways to make writing time more student-centered, and interactive, motivational approaches to writing.

These resources also point to several key ideas that help to create writing instruction that is student-centered, interactive and beneficial. These keys include:

• Allowing for consistent daily writing (Beheymer, 2003), (Fletcher & Portalupi, 2001), (Wood Ray, 2001).

• Teachers being decision makers and basing instruction on the needs of their students (Fletcher & Portalupi, 2001), (Spence, 2003), (Wood Ray, 2001).

• Teachers allowing their students to make decisions and choices about things that are important to them as real writers (Fletcher & Portalupi, 2001), (Smith, 2003), (Wood Ray, 2001).

• Teaching the writing process (Anderson, 2002).

• Teachers modeling and being writers themselves (Beheymer, 2003), (Fletcher & Portalupi, 2001), (Richgels, 2003), (Wood Ray, 2001).

• Utilizing unique approaches (Baines, 2001), (Moulton, 1999), (Smith, 2003).

• Fostering relationships that encourage writing for real purposes (Kazemek & Logas, 2000).

• Collaboration between teachers and fellow writers (Fromherz, 2003), (Kazemek & Logas, 2000), (Stephens and Mandeville, 2000).

• Fostering a risk-free environment (Fletcher & Portalupi, 2001), (Wood Ray, 2001).

• Stepping back and letting the students solve problems independently (Spence, 2003).

• Publishing often and in creative ways (Baines, 2001), (Fletcher & Portalupi, 2001), (Lee, 2000), (Moulton, 1999), (Stephens and Mandeville, 2000), (Wood Ray, 2001).

• Utilizing real authors as mentors or models for students (Wood Ray, 2001).

Many of the resources sited also point to an overall truth that writing is a very complex process and therefore the teaching of writing is very complex as well (Fletcher & Portalupi, 2001), (Richgels, 2003), (Wood Ray, 2001). These resources also indicate that writing is important and that students need to begin to see themselves as real writers, writing for real purposes to become successful (Fletcher & Portalupi, 2001), (Wood Ray, 2001). The difficulty lies in creating this “realistic” situation for students in classrooms where traditionally teachers are in charge of the activities and planning. Time constraints also effect teachers and the practices that they use. I know that during my small group times I have an allotted amount of time and I often focus on completing a student’s writing during that time frame. I have decided that in the future I will not be as concerned with all students having a completed written product. I will try to focus on the process and allow the students more time to make decisions, discuss and revise independent of me. I think because of the time constraints on my small groups I am too quick to offer solutions and fix my students’ writing for them.

I also believe based on my research that writer’s workshop is the approach that is most student-centered, interactive and beneficial because the students in this kind of situation take charge of their writing and the teacher facilitates situations where students achieve success and view themselves as real writers. However, teachers of a writer’s workshop have a very demanding and complex job that includes keeping up with individual students’ writing progress, maintaining some type of procedures and order, continuing to foster a risk free student-centered environment, planning and teaching mini-lessons that address a variety of issues and needs, conferencing with individual students, and allowing for authentic publishing and sharing of writing. The planning and implementation of this kind of writing environment is hard work (Fletcher & Portalupi, 2001), (Richgels, 2003), (Wood Ray, 2001). Therefore the teacher becomes the most important ingredient in writing instruction because he/she is the controlling factor in the classroom. The teacher determines the direction of the writing program in his/her classroom. The teacher’s attitude towards writing and how students learn to write will ultimately affect the type of writing instruction that is utilized. The teacher’s ability to make decisions and changes in instruction will also impact the quality of writing instruction. A teacher must be willing to relinquish some control, work hard, deal with a little productive chaos, expose himself/herself to students as a writer and continually make decisions and changes in instruction based on students’ developing needs (Fletcher & Portalupi, 2001), (Richgels, 2003), (Wood Ray, 2001). Teaching writing is difficult and using this type of approach is difficult. Difficulty is the one weakness some may claim when arguing against this type of instruction. However, I believe it is important to remember that teaching is not easy nor is anything worthwhile.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download