HELP GOOD READERS WHO ARE POOR WRITERS
2. THE WRITING ACADEMY 1 Description
Research (Pritchard & Marshall 1994; 2002a; 2002b) has concluded that children produce better writing when their teachers have been trained in the writing-as- process instructional model. The Writing Academy was developed by one of the researchers who had been trained in a summer institute of the National Writing Pro- ject (NWP), a network of funded programs across the USA that endorses the process approach. The premise that guides the Writing Academy is that students more easily learn to improve their writing if they are provided developmentally appropriate in- struction and assignments where they are allowed to experiment with their writing while simultaneously being provided specific, supportive feedback. Students in the Writing Academy receive direct small group and individualized instruction in the writing process, narrative structure, conferencing, and Six Traits assessment (Ideas, Organization, Voice, Word Choice, Sentence Variety, and Conventions). Addition- ally, they identify and learn to overcome emotional factors that inhibit their writing, and are provided explicit instruction in schema and self-regulation (meta-cognition) strategies related to the production of narrative text. Mini-lessons are designed to address such narrative features as story structure, character development, and key concept. The instructor models self-regulation strategies during whole class demon- strations with applications and illustrations provided during one-on-one conferenc- ing. The teacher-researcher (TR) who designed the Writing Academy set these spe- cific goals for students to attain by the time they completed the 16 week program:
Each student will: (a) learn to feel emotionally in control when writing, (b) engage
in writing for long periods of time on a regular basis, practising the writing process at every stage as it relates to the creation of narrative text, (c) learn to assess and revise his/her own writing using the Six Traits rubric and story grammar, and (d) learn to transfer and use the skills and strategies practiced in the Writing Academy to writing assignments in the regular classroom.
By the end of the Writing Academy, each student is required to have completed at least three narrative stories that the student has revised at least three times after conferencing with the instructor. Students are also required to have a minimum of one individual conference with the teacher and to lead one peer conference each week. During track-out times when students are not in school, students practice composing stories in their journals and sharing their writing with their parents, sib- lings, and friends. At the end of the Writing Academy, the students submit a writing portfolio and take a retest of the fourth grade Narrative Writing Test. After the in- structor scores each student’s writing samples and the retest, two independent raters read and score the writing samples and the retest in order to protect against bias.
The original Writing Workshop, as conceptualized by the National Writing Pro- ject (NWP) approximately 25 years ago, is grounded in part in the work of Carl Rogers (1969), who stressed that the role of an effective teacher is that of facilitator, not conveyor of information. Moreover, the stages in the writing process were de- rived through interviews with real writers who acknowledged that they did not em- ploy textbook methodologies when composing; rather they engaged in considerable prewriting in their head and on paper, and varied in how much structure they ini- tially impose on writing and in how and when they revise. Furthermore, they did not know all of the specifics of their texts prior to writing their first words. They wrote in order to discover meaning.
Graves (1983) modified these ideas for elementary students by organizing the teaching of writing into five categories: (a) brainstorming, (b) drafting, (c) revising, (d) editing, and (e) publishing. In a writing workshop, the teacher creates a non- threatening environment that encourages students to take risks, to experiment with their writing, and to foster a supportive relationship with the other participants.
Other researchers and practitioners (Atwell, 1987; Calkins, 1997; Murray, 1987;
Pritchard, 1993) have extended the concept of Writing Workshop to include applica- tions to literature study, student-teacher conferencing, peer conferencing, self- evaluation, and self-reflection on one’s writing process.
Six basic principles guide the daily procedures in the Writing Academy. First, students are provided regular, significant portions of time to write each day. A minimum of 40 out of 60 minutes is set aside each class period for students to en- gage in the recursive process of writing; this includes completing a self-reflection sheet for each completed piece of writing. Second, students are provided numerous prompts for writing and for journal topics in order to gain practice in writing-on- demand; however, students also follow their own topics of interest in additional as- signments. Third, each class begins with a mini-lesson on a skill or strategy. Fourth, students meet regularly with the teacher individually for conferencing and instruc- tion and to learn how to conference, as well as in small groups of 2 – 4 students to gather responses to their writing and practice providing feedback to peers. During these activities, students are introduced to a composing vocabulary, e.g., freeze
frame, key concept, voice, story grammar, cohesive tie, WOW! moment, honor the process, and make a promise to the reader. Fifth, at appropriate times, students gather in response groups to read aloud their pieces, and afterwards the peers share what they liked about the piece and offer suggestions for improvement. Selected pieces are shared with the whole class in the Author’s Chair. Finally, a certificate of achievement and a bound copy of each student’s writing are presented during a cele- bration and author’s signing.
2.2 Students in the Writing Academy
To participate in the Writing Academy, students must meet the following criteria:
(a) they must have taken and failed the fourth grade Narrative Writing Test during the previous school year, and (b) they must meet with the instructor prior to the be- ginning of the Writing Academy to personally explain to the instructor why s/he wants to be in the Writing Academy and what his/her goals are. For the purpose of this study of good readers who are poor writers, only those students who do not have any identifiable behavioral problems or written language disabilities that would re- quire the expertise of a Special Educator, and those who had passed the state Read- ing Test and failed the Writing Test were scrutinized.
Good readers who are poor writers have been relatively neglected as a focus in most of the professional literature. Only two formal studies have been devoted to them.
Thacker (1990, 1991) and Jordan (1986) have both found that good readers who are poor writers tend to compose texts that do not make sense. They omit important de- tails that help the reader in understanding the text, producing writer-based rather than reader-based prose, even when they have a defined public audience.
Palmer (1986) suggests that good readers who are poor writers and who have no learning or behavioral disabilities are by several unique characteristics. He summa- rized the current literature as follows: Regular education students who are good readers but poor writers utilize four basic strategies when reading: (a) they plan, (b) they translate or interpret, (c) they read, and (d) they reflect upon and/or evaluate what they read. Conversely, when writing, these same students: (a) make scant use of planning, (b) limit the use of reading what they produce during the creation of text, (c) revise only after the production of text, and (d) devote little or no time for reflection or evaluation of text after its production.
The authors of this chapter undertook a study to confirm/refute, and elaborate on Palmer’s general characteristics of good readers who are poor writers, and to inves- tigate the impact of the Writing Academy on the emotions, strategies, and overall writing performance of participants. Eleven participants in the Writing Academy who were identified as good readers who are poor writers were the focus of study.
One of the researchers served as teacher-researcher (TR) in the data collection; the other is director of the NWP site that provides staff development in the process ap- proach.
3. METHOD