The State of Writing

Applebee, A.N., & Langer, J.A. (2009). What’s happening in the teaching of writing? English Journal, 98(5), 18-28.

Author: Arthur N. Applebee (Ph.D. University of London) – Director of Center on English Learning and Achievement, University at Albany SUNY; I read his history of the teaching of English (1974) in Spring 12 with Allison Skerrett – shed a lot of light on what the field was/has become. I think it is important for English teachers to read. Reconceptualized the role of curriculum in Curriculum as Conversation: Transforming Traditions of Teaching and Learning (1998). I need to look into The Child’s Concept of Story: Ages Two to Seventeen as a possibility for literature review material. aapplebee@albany.edu

            Judith A. Langer (Ph.D. Hofstra University) – Has been working in academia since 1973. Professor, University at Albany SUNY. She has a focus on improving urban and low-performing schools, but she looks at all of education through research on the “literate mind” – using reading and writing to learn and how people become highly literate. Working on a 5-year National Study of Writing Instruction with Applebee. Her thoughts on literature, literacy, and learning have affected national policy, practice, and theory since 1990. jlanger@albany.edu

Date: Published in 2009 – thinking about what it means to be a highly-qualified educator, research on new and multi-literacies, thoughts on identity (teacher and student).

Research Questions: Before the big question “What has been happening to the teaching and learning of writing in American schools?” (p. 18) can be answered: How well do students write? How much writing do students do? Is there any evidence of writing across the curriculum? Is technology used to support writing instruction? What is being taught in writing instruction? Are teachers engaging in appropriate professional development?

Context (need for study): “It has been almost 30 years since the last systematic look at writing instruction in middle schools and high schools in the United States” (p. 18). Tools and context of schooling has changed, current focus on standards and assessments as well as reading over writing.

Methods: Examined National Assessment of Educational Progress data on student writing achievement from 2007 all the way back to 1969.

Findings: Inequities in reading achievement between Whites and their Black or Hispanic counterparts remains large. By 1998 40% of 12^th graders were not writing papers of any substantial length. High school emphasizes the essay above all other genres. Research in the 1980s suggested more writing is done in classes (combined) other than English. 12^th graders report more writing in English and less in other content areas. Between 2002 and 2007, 8^th graders appear to be using a computer less often for writing while 12^th graders use it more often – many state tests are still given pencil and paper format. Between 1992 and 1998, process-oriented instruction was the dominant mode in 8^th grade classrooms. Over 23 years, students tend to show even some type of overt planning before writing. 20-30% of teachers did not have professional learning experiences made available to them, and half recognize a dissonance between professional development and “notions of good performance” in comparison to statewide tests (p. 26).

Discussion (my connection): It is interesting to think about writing in this way, in a way in which I buy into what national-level tests are saying about young people. I assume that in order to sell to the bidder of today’s market, you have to speak the buyer’s language, but the “How well do students write?” portion seems odd to me. I assume that since this article is in preparation for a bigger job, the current study that the two are involved in, and the funding comes from NWP, the College Board, and the Spencer Foundation (http://www.spencer.org/content.cfm/mission), had to draw on a national database of information to show that there is some sort of need to get their next study done. Some of the differences between 8^th and 12^th grade students were surprising – not quite what I would expect. I’m not surprised, though, about the gap indicated between White and non-White students. Are there conclusions to be made from what they will find about what is happening in classrooms, or will they just report what they find and it is up to those who are reading them to make change? With Langer’s policy clout, perhaps there will be leanings toward system-wide changes, for there have to be radical shifts – only moving in small steps doesn’t change the landscape of education.

Graham, S., Bollinger, A., Booth Olson, C., D’Aoust, C., MacArthur, C., McCutchen, D., & Olinghouse, N. (2012). Teaching elementary school students to be effective writers: A practice guide (NCEE 2102-4058). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gove/ncee/wwc/publications_reviews.aspx#pubsearch.

Author: Steve Graham (chair) – Professor of SPED at Arizona State. Current editor of What Works for Special Needs Learners and author or Handbook of Writing Research and Handbook of Learning Disabilities with others. Looks at what goes into the creation of writing developments as well as difficulties.

            http://ies.ed.gov/ncee - Evaluates federal programs. Runs the Regional Educational Laboratory Program; the What Works Clearinghouse, the Education Resources Information Center (ERIC), and the National Library of Education.

Date: 2012 – This is happening right now; it was published in June of this year. Contexts include the looming Presidential election as well as a growing emphasis on charter schools as part of educational reform.

Research Questions: Based on the belief “that students who develop strong writing skills at an early age acquire a valuable tool for learning, communication, and self-expression” (p. 6), what amount and type of writing instruction practices can best develop these skills?

Context (need for study): Less than 1/3 of students scored (they write performed – think about the difference) at or above “proficient” in writing for the 2007 National Assessment of Educational Progress Writing Assessment.

Methods: Searched publications for writing instruction and strategies in the past 20 years. 118 of the more than 1500 found citations used experimental or quasi-experimental designs. 34 of the 41 that met the causal validity standards were relevant to the recommendations of the group and used as support evidence.

            I am not clear if they made their recommendations and then found the research to support them or the other way around. It seems slightly backward.

            IES selects the topic informed by responding to need at WWC Help Desk, surveys, and a limited literature search. Recruitment of a nationally recognized chair with topical expertise. Selection of the panel who works “together to develop relevant, evidence-based recommendations” (p. 43). Given samples and templates of practical guides, the panel identifies important research which are reviewed against prestanding WWC standards. Peer review to make sure evidence is current and there are no major oversights or omissions of current research.

Findings: The recommendation to “Teach students to use the writing process for a variety of purposes” has the most evidence from the found literature.  I would suggest that the findings are not their recommendations, but rather how much experimental/quasi-experimental research has been done in the last 20 years that backs up their claims. Recommendation 3, to teach students to become fluent in the formulas and conventions, even mediums (word processing), has the second most amount of research to support it. The ideas of writing in community or commitment to time spent writing have the least amount of experimental support.

Discussion (my connection): It’s easy to tell people, especially teachers who may be new or find themselves in daunting situations, that a work like this should be seen as something to pick and choose from in response to your specific needs, but with so many “cookbooks” actually out there – I may be making that up, but there seems to be system after system saying, “If only we could all get on board with this then we’d make a difference at our school,” so much so that it becomes another tranquilizer for the elephant in the room. All that said, what they present doesn’t appear to be how their disclaimer made it out to be, as far as the cookbook goes.

            I appreciate their urging teachers to see (in this case for younger students who are just starting to find themselves as writers) writing activities in a variety of ways, such as an interpretive drawing. I wonder what (if there is one) the conversation regarding writing and reading as “defined from a developmental standpoint, which begins with the acquisition of foundational skills and then leads to the application of more sophisticated techniques” (p. 6). I probably would have agreed whole-heartedly at one point, probably because I did well in a system that emphasized this point, but I think writing can be thought of in a more holistic manner, not to discount foundations and some fundamentals that make a communication forum easier, but I do question the marriage to this educational lens.

            Figure 1. “Gradual release of responsibility to students” on page 18 looks like the outline for a minilesson in Writing Workshop even though the verbiage and time frame doesn't match up to me.

Juzwik, M. M., Curcic, S., Wolbers, K., Moxley, K. D., Dimling, L. M., & Shankland, R. K. (2006). Title of article. Written Communication, 23(4), 451-476.

Author: Mary M. Juzwik (Ph.D. in English, University of Wisconsin at Madison) – At Michigan State in the department of Teacher Education; co-coordinator of the secondary English Education program and lead researcher for Literacy Achievement Research Center, 2012 co-editor of Research in the Teaching of English. In studying literacy teaching and learning, some of what she has studied that I am interested in are approaching moral issues in class, writing theory and instruction, and teacher identity. Right now she is focused on “interactional dynamics of classrooms” – all the discourses of the acts of teaching and learning. Former NCTE Promising Researcher. LRA gave a book award for The Rhetoric of Teaching: Understanding the Dynamics of Holocaust Narratives in an English Classroom (2009). Look into Narrative Discourse Analysis for Teacher Educators: Managing Cultural Difference in Classrooms (2011, co-editor).

           

            The others were doctoral students at the time of publication now in places such as Tennessee, Appalachian State, and Bowling Green.

Date: 2006 was the middle of the final term for President George W. Bush. Focus on classroom practices of tracking; thoughts on responsibility to multicultural education, equity within a system not built for non-speakers of English.

Research Questions: All within 6 years (1999-2004): What are the current trends and foci in research on writing? (a) What are the general problems being investigated by contemporary writing researchers? Which of the various problems dominate recent writing research, and which are not as prominent? (b) What population age groups are prominent in recent writing research? (c) What is the relationship between population age groups and problems under investigation? And (d) What methodologies are being used in research on writing?

Context (need for study): Citing Durst (1990) as the most recent, broad offering of the current state of the field in writing research. Since the field appears to be expanding, it is important to evaluate the current state.

Methods: Authors searched and characterized “various lines of inquiry” in 1502 refereed journal articles in 3 databases – ERIC, PsychINFO, Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts. Focusing on problems, population, and methodologies, the researchers make comparisons of findings with the 1990 study. Used the search terms: writing, composition, and written language. Criteria for sources: specific sample – participants, texts, and discourse are all data driven and specified within the design. Coded for problems, age category, and methodology.

Findings: “Social context and writing practices, bi- or multilingualism and writing, and writing instruction are the most actively studied problems during this period, whereas writing and technologies, writing assessment and evaluation, and relationships among literacy modalities are the least studied problems. Undergraduate, adult, and other postsecondary populations are the most prominently studied population age group, whereas preschool-aged children and middle and high school students are least studied. Research on instruction within the preschool through 12th grade (P-12) age group is prominent, whereas research on genre, assessment, and bi- or multilingualism is scarce within this population. The majority of articles employ interpretive methods” (p. 451)

Discussion (my connection): In response to the cognitive emphasis in the 80s and 90s, a more current focus has been on sociocultural functions of literacy. In early 2000s there is still quite a bit of cognitive strategies – I see this as the tranquilizer for the elephant in the room – indicates a range of discourses, perhaps even multiple discourses. As the conversation begins to include more people and folks gravitate toward what interests them most, I see how easily it comes to a point where certain types of articles and research becomes preaching to the choir. Dr. Skerrett mentioned thinking deliberately about how to go about and present research in a way that reaches across the aisle. They write a lot of “the study may suggest,” making logical connections to causes that are still assumptions. This method of compiling research systematically is daunting. There is wide-casting and lots of sifting through to find smaller and smaller levels of what becomes acceptable for inclusion.