Preserving Authenticity in Writing Instruction
While much of the conversation around literacy development has recently focused on revolutionizing the way that we teach reading, much less has been propounded about writing instruction. Yet, if we were to consider the reciprocal relationship of reading and writing in literacy development, then we must reflect and reevaluate the ways in which we teach writing.
Over the past two decades, the writing workshop model transformed writing instruction in schools. Students were finally given the space and permission to write about their personal experiences, topics of diverse expertise, and issues they were passionate about. The writing process had finally been made visible for students as teachers explicitly taught into process, along with the characteristics of genres, and qualities of good writing, such as organization, development, and conventions. Students’ voices were finally heard, valued, and celebrated and students’ writing in many ways, improved. Students were taught how to be writers and how to write. Writing was no longer a mystery that only a few inherently talented writers were able to unlock. Teachers discovered that when writing was meaningful for students, the easier they were able to generate topics, organize, plan, and develop their writing because they felt invested in their projects and moreover, had enough experience, knowledge, and passion to draw on for details. However, some critics claimed to observed a decline in student’s use of conventions (mechanics and usage) and their ability to research, synthesize information well, and write to convey new knowledge.
This was a direct contrast to the approaches that dominated writing “instruction” in schools previously (and still today in some places) where students were either assigned tasks, topics, or prompts or simply given “creative freedom,” to write freely without any parameters. In many of these experiences, the prompts or creative writing assignments were connected to subjects and content that students were studying in school or that were related to generalized and assumed student experiences. However, explicit writing instruction and feedback tended to be absent with the exception of corrections for errors related to conventions. Students weren’t necessarily being taught how to write well. Instead, they were just given feedback on the ways in which they didn’t write well. Furthermore, any explicit instruction in conventions were typically taught separately, in isolation, with little or no connection for transfer to authentic writing experiences. However, many teachers felt that at least they were teaching and assessing conventions even if it was in isolation of real writing experiences.
Today, it seems we’ve come to a crossroads. The science of reading and the role of writing calls for more reciprocity for reading-writing connections and writing in the content areas. Additionally, the importance of foundational skills has returned to the forefront and rightfully so. However, we mustn’t abandon all we’ve learned about teaching writing well to make space for such needed improvements to literacy instruction.
Newly published reading curriculum programs branding themselves as “Structured Literacy” and based in “The Science of Reading” now include components of writing, spelling, and grammar. However, it seems like they’ve gone about it in the wrong ways. Writing is often prompted or solely a response to literature. Grammar is taught in workbooks with skills in isolation and worksheet practice. And, spelling is assessed through dictation of words and sentences connected to the phonics skill of the week. In some writing experiences students are implicitly taught about writing process and genre but it’s often highly scaffolded where students’ hands (or should I say, pens) are held throughout the process as students complete a single task per day leading to a finished product. These scaffolds are never released, allowing for independence and transfer.
So, what if we were to refrain from the typical knee-jerk reaction in education that calls to abandon all that we’ve been doing (and doing well) to replace it with something different? What if instead, we preserve what’s working while revising our approach for much needed improvements? Here, I propose three ways in which we can embed more “science” into our writing instruction:
1. Preserve process writing instruction where students are given choice and independence in order to learn how to write well in a genre. Yet, give them the ability to write in reciprocal ways that support reading and knowledge-building through culminating projects.
2. Include more writing in response to reading to support note taking and research skills through shared experiences.
3. Infuse much needed explicit instruction in conventions that feels connected to writing experiences.
When planning a knowledge-building, reading unit, consider a real world type of writing that would support presenting information that students will learn at the end of the unit. Some examples might include, a feature article, an expository picture book, realistic or historical fiction, a list book, a petition, persuasive letter or speech, fantasy or sci-fi, lab reports, research report, etc. Once you have an idea for this culminating project, consider the text type or specific genre that students will be writing and create a process-based writing unit that will prime students for writing well in that text type or genre by providing opportunities to write about topics of choice. For example, if students will be required to write a feature article on a form of extreme weather at the conclusion of the unit, teach them to write feature articles on topics of their own choosing, experiences, and expertise, such as topics related to sports, video games, or cultural traditions, etc. If students will be writing a historical fiction piece at the end of the unit in the time period of westward expansion, then perhaps they can write realistic fiction pieces based on themselves and their own real world experiences. When the text type or genre might be difficult to create multiple choice-based writing experiences, consider writing experiences that might support an aspect of the writing students will do. For example, if students will need to create a lab report in the culminating project, consider having them write procedural How-tos on topics of their own expertise, or observational poetry. If students are given multiple opportunities to go through the writing process, writing topics of their choosing, while receiving explicit instruction and feedback in process, genre, and qualities of good writing, we can preserve what we have learned about good writing instruction and teach them how to be writers and write well. If we create writing units that are designed with culminating projects that allow students to present knowledge, then we are able to embed more science of reading supported reciprocal-writing experiences into our instruction.
Throughout these integrated units, we can also fold in more writing experiences in response to reading to support research, note taking, and knowledge building that will prepare students for the culminating projects. So much of our focus and attention in recent years have included responses to independent reading by way of sticky notes that all too often seem to capture or chronicle random ideas readers have throughout a text without any depth or cohesion. This kind of response to literature didn’t necessarily support knowledge-building around key concepts, themes, or ideas, nor did it support students’ ability to annotate or notetake in support of research. If we move towards more science-supported, integrated, content-area based units of study to support knowledge-building, then the reciprocal writing in response to reading, needs to support such knowledge-building. If we use essential and guiding questions to frame our units, then our read aloud and shared reading experiences become more focused on the knowledge-building and our responses to reading can support that knowledge-building through guided practice. Have students keep reader’s notebooks rather than sticky notes. We can utilize these notebooks during read aloud and shared reading experiences by guiding students at critical stopping points in a text to stop and jot questions, information gleaned, and ideas they have developed. In shared reading experiences, we can guide students on how to annotate texts that support research skills. In collaborative and independent practice, we can have students read texts that are connected to the content that we are teaching and replicate some of these skills more independently with feedback. This reciprocal reading and writing work supports the science of reading and writing but it also connects it to authentic writing projects, making it more meaningful and purposeful for students.
Finally, to help students communicate their ideas in ways that follow the conventions of language, skills need to be taught in ways that are connected to authentic writing experiences. The writing workshop is a natural place to study language and the conventions of language. We can use weekly mini lessons to teach conventions that need to be addressed through studying mentor sentences from texts we are using in read aloud. By displaying the sentence and creating a little inquiry, we create the space where students become more curious and interested in how language works. At the conclusion of each day’s writing workshop, we can reconvene students to address conventions and have students immediately go into their writing pieces to find places to mimic or edit for particular skills or sentence structures. We can even reserve a week or two inbetween writing units of study for “conventions boot camp” where we look for patterns of skills that need to be addressed and take the opportunity to do just that in meaningful ways that feel connected by having students return to previously written drafts or notebook entries, or have students create new ones where they can experiment with both composition and editing of language skills and conventions being studied.
As we continue to critically review our approach to reading and writing, embed new standards, mandates, and initiatives, let’s remember to retain practices and strategies that have been working rather than abandon all we’ve done well to address areas in need of improvement. Let’s continue to evolve our practice rather than reverse course to only later regret it. We can find practical ways to embed needed changes while still preserving what students enjoy and find meaningful.
