Social-Interac tive W riting for English Lan guag e … · Social-Interac tive W riting for English Lan guag e Learners! ... scaffold interactive and ... nam ed Social-Interactive

ADELINE (LEI) K. TEOChun Shan Medical University, Taiwan

Social-Interactive Writing forEnglish Language Learners

! This action research investigatedthe effects of the Social-InteractiveWriting for English LanguageLearners (SWELL) method on thesocial interaction and cognitivewriting processes of a pair of ele-mentary school Mandarin-speakingEnglish language learners (ELLs) inCalifornia. In the study, theresearcher modified Topping’spaired-writing method, a highlystructured process-writing approach,and designed a new model called theSWELL method to teach the pair ofELLs. Complex social and cognitivebehaviors of participants were foundin the study. The teacher’s constantmodeling of strategies to promote apositive attitude in the SWELLmethod played a crucial role. Use ofL1 between partners was also foundto be important, since it helped pro-mote more in-depth discussionsduring the interaction. Further-more, cont r ar y to Vygotsky ’s(1934/2000) idea of pairing an expertwith a novice to promote effectivelearning, this study indicated thatpairing intermediate-level noviceELLs also led to constructive socialcollaboration and high-level cogni-tive thinking skills.

Introduction

The process-writing approach has been astrongly influential trend in composition

research and pedagogy in the educational

institutions in the US since the 1970s. It isbelieved to help students acquire awareness oftheir writing processes, learn to write from areader’s perspective, and promote students’participation in editing their own and theirpeers’ written products through peer responseactivities. However, one of the main problemssecond language researchers have found in theprocess-writing approach is the lack of struc-tures when writers interact with each other(Berg, 1999; Ferris, 2003; Peregoy & Boyle,2001; Raimes, 1999). It means that there areusually no clear and specific guidelines in theprocess-writing approach, other than generaldirection such as brainstorming, drafting,revising, editing, and publishing, for studentsto follow when they write together with theirpeers. For example, Berg (1999) mentionedthat a largely ignored aspect of peer responseto writing, one of the widely used activities inthe process-writing approach, is a carefullyplanned peer-response training session toprovide learners with appropriate skills toparticipate in the required tasks. Peregoy andBoyle (2001) also emphasized that studentsneed explicit guidelines on what kinds ofthings to say and how to say them when theygive writing comments to their writing part-ners so as to benefit their group members.They also concluded that without a structuredmethod to implement the process approach,constructive collaboration seems unlikely tohappen, especially with inexperienced writerssuch as English language learners.

Topping (2001), a first language (L1) com-position researcher, designed a clearlydefined and structured procedure called“paired-writing method” to compensate forthe lack of structured guidelines in theprocess-writing approach. It was developed tohelp native English speakers assist each otherto write. The paired-writing method consistsof the typical steps in the process-writingapproach such as brainstorming, drafting,revising, editing, and publishing. However,each step is highly structured by providingwriters with brief directions to follow whenthey work together. Topping also added thesteps of reading and evaluating to the writing

160 • The CATESOL Journal 18.1 • 2006

process. In addition, Topping adoptedVygotsky’s zone of proximal development(1934/2000) construct of pairing up an expertwith a novice in the paired-writing method toscaffold interactive and collaborative behav-iors in writing. Thus, in the paired-writingmethod, student writers were placed in pairs,as the Helper and the Writer, to learn to writeby following a six-step writing process of:Step 1–Ideas, Step 2–Draft, Step 3–Read, Step4–Edit, Step 5–Best Copy, and Step6–Evaluate. Because of the different needs ofELLs, the researcher in this study decided toadopt the six steps in Topping’s paired-writ-ing method but to modify it and implement itto teach a pair of Mandarin-speaking ELLs inthe elementary school she taught. Themethod the researcher implemented isnamed Social-Interactive Writing for EnglishLanguage Learners (SWELL) method(Appendix A). Throughout the writingprocess using the SWELL method, the ELLsin this study were expected to show produc-tive social behaviors and complex cognitivethinking and problem-solving skills. Thedetails of the SWELL method are presented inthe following section.

Theoretical FrameworkThe SWELL method is primarily based on

the construct of social-cognitive theory, whichintegrates research on social context withresearch on cognition (Freedman, Dyson,Flower, & Chafe, 1987). In this section thesocial constructivist views are reviewed first,followed by the cognitivist view, and then bythe integrative social-cognitive theory. Finally,the researcher shows how the SWELL methodis tied to the social-cognitive theory.

Social constructivists such as Vygotsky(1934/2000) believe that from the moment ofbirth we enter into social relations that shapeand mold us. The relationships we establishwith others make us complex and dynamicsocial individuals. In Vygotsky’s zone of proxi-mal development (ZPD) construct (Vygotsky,1934/2000), he stated that human learning isalways mediated through others, such as par-

ents, peers, and teachers, and the interactionsthemselves are mediated. He believed thatsetting up a social context in which a morecapable peer gives guidance and support for aless proficient writer would provide a sup-portive structured framework to scaffoldinteractive and collaborative behaviors.Vygotsky explained that learning involves theinternalization of the social-interactionprocess, so the learner progresses from com-plex to conceptual thinking.

A supporter of social constructivist theo-ry, Santos (2001) furthered clarified that col-laborative writing was not the same as mereworking in groups. Instead, while studentswrite in groups, the implementer shouldensure that a composition class proceeds viaconstructive and well-planned group negotia-tion, that each participant is involved in anengaging and interactive learning climate,and that the final product represents thegroup’s best shared effort. In other words,guiding students to write collaboratively in anorganized step-by-step order becomes a cru-cial factor that leads to improvement in stu-dents’ writing.

At the same time, cognitivists such asFlower (1993) and Hayes (1996) emphasizeddeveloping writers’ mental processes, particu-larly strategies to create and revise text. Theirmodel attempted to investigate what goes onin the mind of individuals as they go throughthe writing process, regardless of what theproduct looks like. They also placed consider-able value on higher-order cognitive thinkingand problem-solving skills such as planning,defining rhetorical problems, positioningproblems in a larger context, operationalizingdefinitions, proposing solutions, and generat-ing firmly grounded conclusions (Flower &Hayes, 1981, 1983). Cognitivists believe thatwriting is a process of discovering and revis-ing ideas that should emphasize the writer’sprewriting, drafting, revising, editing, andpublishing processes. They also stated thatthe writing process should be learner-cen-tered, with students developing writingstrategies to meet various audiences ’ needson different topics.

The CATESOL Journal 18.1 • 2006 • 161

Combining both the social and cognitivetheories, Freedman et al. (1987) proposed asocial-cognitive approach to studying writ-ing, an approach that integrates research onsocial context with research on cognition.Based on past research, their critique was thatstudies on the writing processes eitherfocused on cognitive processes with littleattention to social processes, or focused onsocial process without investigating closelyhow it helped promote the higher-order cog-nitive thinking skills in one’s writing.Freedman et al. (1987) explained that alllearning is socially based. They stated that“cognition and social context interact in writ-ers’ understanding of the task before them, inthe knowledge they bring to writing, and inthe options they possess and entertain” (p. 2).Thus, they proposed that research on this the-oretical concept should place instruction inwriting squarely in its social context and helpus see that learning to write is not simply skillacquisition, but it also is learning to enter intodiscourse communities that have their ownrules and expectations. This integrativeapproach is concerned with the cognitiveprocess people go through to write in interac-tion with their peers and teachers. Freedmanet al. (1987) claimed that social-cognitive the-ory in writing-process research could helpintegrate a social and cognitive perspectiveon composition studies, provide us with theopportunity to recognize the patterned vari-ety, and plot courses that could lead to moreeffective teaching and learning for all writers.

In this study, the goal was to design aclearly defined and structured writingmethod that would help develop writers’higher-level cognitive thinking skills in a con-structive social setting. Adopting the essenceof both the social and cognitive theoriesdescribed above, the researcher thus devel-oped the SWELL method and implemented itto teach a pair of ELLs. The characteristics ofthe social-cognitive-theory–based SWELLmethod are as follows:

1. The SWELL method involved pairingup 2 Mandarin-speaking ELLs, onebeing the Helper and the other being the

Writer, who went through the stages ofthe writing process in collaboration. Itensured that writing is regarded as asocial process relying on shared ideasand relationships between people.

2. As Santos (2001) mentioned, teachersshould ensure that students write col-laboratively under well-thought-outguidelines, so the researcher developedsix structured steps in the SWELLmethod that were believed to meet theparticipants’ linguistic and instruction-al needs as well as to help the ELLs pro-ceed via constructive pair negotiation.The structured guidelines in the flow-chart (Appendix A) were expected topromote the participants’ higher-ordercognitive thinking and problem-solvingskills during their interaction.

3. In Vygotsky’s (1934/2000) ZPD con-struct, he suggested that one should setup a social context in which an expertgives a novice guidance and support toprovide a supportive structured frame-work to scaffold interactive and collabo-rative behaviors. Adopting the ZPD con-struct, the researcher assigned the rolesof a Helper and a Writer in the SWELLmethod. However, the pairing up of anexpert and a novice was not appropriatein this study. The reason was that in thisstudy, both the ELL participants were atthe same writing level and both wereconsidered inexperienced writers. Thus,the pairing of the 2 Mandarin-speakingELLs in this study was novice-novice innature. In addition, the pair alternatedthe roles of Helper and Writer in eachwriting session to ensure that each of theparticipants had an equal opportunity tooffer help to his or her partner and toreceive help from his or her partner.

Purpose and NeedsThe purpose of this action research was to

investigate how the SWELL method affects apair of Mandarin-speaking English languagelearners’ social interaction and cognitive


writing process. The researcher was interest-ed in the Mandarin-speaking ELLs for tworeasons. First, in the district where theresearcher taught, many of the Mandarin-speaking ELLs were provided with a literacy-rich learning environment at home. However,after teaching this group of students for 6years in the district, the researcher noticedthat their L2 writing skill was not veryimpressive compared to their other languageskills, such as listening, speaking, and read-ing. Moreover, their L2 writing progress wasmuch slower than other groups of ELLs in theschool district, such as Israeli and EuropeanELLs. The researcher wanted to find out if theSWELL method (Appendix A) would make adifference in the Mandarin-speaking ELLs’writing skills.

The second reason is that althoughTopping’s paired-writing method has shownin several previous studies (Nixon & Topping,2001; Sutherland & Topping, 1999; Yarrow &Topping, 2001) successful outcomes inimproving L1 students’ writing, no researchhas been conducted before in investigating itseffects in an ESL/EFL setting. As researcherssuch as Gutierrez (1992) and Reyes (1991,1992) pointed out that ELLs have uniqueinstructional and linguistic needs that are dif-ferent from native speakers of English whenthey learn to write, the researcher in thisstudy acknowledged a crucial need to imple-ment a structured and replicable peer-assist-ed writing method that was specificallydesigned to meet the ELLs’ needs. In addition,according to Carson (1992), Chinese culture ishighly collectivistic, and its pedagogical prac-tices tend to reflect the importance of groupharmony and face-saving. On the other hand,in the highly individualistic culture of the US,collaborative-writing pedagogical practicesare geared to developing and maintainingindividualism and individuated skills. Thus,when process-writing instruction is imple-mented in US classrooms to teach Mandarin-speaking ELLs, one should not automaticallyassume that it will be as beneficial to thisgroup of ELLs as for many mainstream orother ethnic groups of students (Graves, 1978;

Hudelson, 1986). These reasons had motivat-ed the researcher to conduct this study.Implementing the SWELL method is believedto fulfill the need to compensate for the lackof clearly defined structures in many process-writing activities, as well as to assist ELL writ-ers more effectively since their linguistic andinstructional needs are taken into considera-tion in the structured procedure. In addition,based on the social-cognitive theory uponwhich the SWELL method is built, partici-pants were expected to show constructiveoperative social behaviors and complex cog-nitive thinking processes that were beneficialto their writing skills development.

Methodology The action research lasted for 10 weeks,

beginning in February 2004 and ending inApril 2004. The study was scheduled once aweek, 1 hour each session, and consisted of 10sessions total. For each session, the partici-pants were given a narrative writing topic towork on collaboratively. At the end of eachsession, they were expected to complete theirfinal written product. In the first session theresearcher trained the participants to followand use the procedure and strategies listed inthe SWELL Method Flowchart (Appendix A).After the training and modeling, the partici-pants began to write as partners using theSWELL method. To meet the participants’ lin-guistic and instructional needs, the 2Mandarin-speaking ELLs were encouraged touse their first language when necessary dur-ing their interaction. They were also providedwith L1 resources such as a bilingual diction-ary and the researcher’s explanation andcomments in the L1 when necessary.

Because of the fact that both May andBrian were at the same writing level, thenovice-expert arrangement based onVygotsky’s ZPD construct (1934/2000) couldnot be applied since neither could be consid-ered more or less proficient than the other.Thus, in each writing session in the study, theparticipants alternated the role of beingHelper and Writer. For example, in the 1st,


3rd, 5th, 7th, and 9th sessions, May was theHelper and Brian was the Writer. In the 2nd,4th, 6th, 8th, and 10th sessions, May becamethe Writer and Brian the Helper. During thestudy, the participants followed the procedureand strategies in the SWELL MethodFlowchart (Appendix A) when they wrote.

SettingThe participants, Brian and May, were

Mandarin-speaking students in theresearcher’s English Language Development(ELD) class. An ELD program is a district-specific instructional program provided forELLs in the district where the researchertaught. ELLs who do not pass the district’slanguage-arts benchmark when they firstenroll in the district are sent to the ELD class-es for a year. As in many mainstream classes,students in the ELD program are in self-con-tained classes taught by teachers who possessa Cross-cultural, Language, and AcademicDevelopment (CLAD) credential. In an ELDclass, subject matter is taught entirely inEnglish and is organized to promote secondlanguage acquisition while teaching cogni-tively demanding, grade-level–appropriatematerial through specialized strategies suchas Specialized Designed AcademicInstruction Delivered in English (SDAIE). Toexit the ELD program, ELLs have to pass thegrade-level speaking, listening, reading, andwriting assessments administered by theschool district at the end of each school yearand the annual California English LanguageDevelopment Test (CELDT). If the ELLs passthe assessment, they will be put in the main-stream education classes in a new school year.If they do not pass the assessment, their par-ents are given the option of either continuingenrolling their children in the ELD programor moving their children to the mainstreameducation program.

ParticipantsDuring the time when the researcher was

planning to conduct the study, there were 6Mandarin-speaking ELLs in her class. After

contacting their parents to obtain their per-mission for their children to be in the study, 2participants responded that they were willingto participate in this study. In this study, pseu-donyms were used to protect the participants’confidentiality.

Participant 1: Brian. Brian was a 5th-grade ELL who immigrated to the UnitedStates from mainland China in August 2002.He was an only child, and he used Mandarinat home with his parents. He finished 3rdgrade in China and has attended the 4th- and5th-grade ELD program since arriving in theUnited States. Based on his performance inthe language arts in L2 in 2003–2004, he metthe grade-level standard in his listening,speaking, and reading, but he was still belowgrade level in his writing skills. His grade inoverall writing score in the first-semesterreport card (December, 2003), based on theresearcher’s School District Holistic ScoringRubric for ELLs (Appendix B), indicated thathe was at the intermediate level. His overallwriting score was 3.

Participant 2: May. May was a 3rd-gradeELL who immigrated to the United Statesfrom Taiwan in June 2002. She attendedkindergarten and 1st grade in Taiwan. Whenshe first arrived in the US, she was enrolled inthe ELD program as a 2nd-grader. She usedMandarin with her parents most of the time,but she preferred to use English with her sis-ter. May had an active personality and wasimproving in her listening, speaking, andreading skills, but she showed slow progressin her writing skill. Her grade in overall writ-ing score in the first-semester report card(December, 2003) based on the researcher’sSchool District Holistic Scoring Rubric forELLs (Appendix B) indicated that she was atthe intermediate level, the same as Brian, whowas her writing partner in this study. Heroverall writing score was 2.63.

Training and Modeling of the Use ofAppropriate Social Strategies

Before each writing session, theresearcher modeled and reviewed with the


participants the appropriate social strategiesused during the writing process. Constantlyproviding modeling before each writing ses-sion helped each participant become familiarwith the appropriate social strategies andhelped foster a positive attitude between theparticipants. It also ensured that the partici-pants worked together with the intention ofhelping each other, not criticizing each otherin negative ways. The social strategies weremodeled to the participants through role-play. In the role-play, the researcher part-nered with a teacher at the school where theresearcher taught. They demonstrated to theparticipants one scenario in which inappro-priate social skills were used and one sce-nario in which appropriate social skills wereused in the following situations:

1. Offering praise. The role-play showedhow to give compliments to one’s part-ner. Suggestions the researcher gave tothe participants were: Don’t hesitate tocomplement your partner when you likehis or her ideas or writing. Say, “I likethis idea” or “That is a good point.”

2. Offering encouragement. The role-playshowed that the Helper may provide theWriter with encouragement when theWriter could not move on with his orher writing by saying,“Don’t worry, let’swork together to solve the problem.”

3. Discouraging authoritativeness. Theresearcher emphasized that very oftenthere was no definite right or wronganswer to an issue. The role-playshowed that one should avoid saying,“You are wrong!” when your partnerbrings up a point with which you don’tagree. Suggestions given were: “I seeyour point. But I don’t agree with youbecause…”

4. Discouraging passivity. The researcheralso emphasized that in a collaborativelearning environment one should notfeel shy to defend one’s view. Suggestionsthe role-play gave were: If your partnerdisagreed with you on an issue, youshould avoid saying,“Whatever you say.”

Instead, you can say,“Thank you for youridea. But I believe . . .”

5. Discouraging negative language. Theresearcher reminded participants not touse language that would put their part-ner down when they made commentson their partner’s writing. For example,words such as “stupid,” “crazy,” and“nonsense” should be avoided.

6. Asking for clarification politely. Theresearcher modeled ways to ask for clar-ification of writing. Suggestions givenwere: Avoid saying, “Terrible. I don’tknow what you are writing about.” Say,“I don’t understand your point. Can youtell me what you mean, please?”

Implementation of the SWELL MethodIn the SWELL method, the Helper and the

Writer followed six structured steps(Appendix A) while writing as partners. Thesix steps are: Step 1–Ideas, Step 2–Draft, Step3–Read, Step 4–Edit, Step 5–Best Copy, andStep 6–Teacher Evaluate. The SWELL methodwas used to help ELLs learn to write narrativewriting. Unlike the brief direction given inTopping’s paired-writing method, the SWELLmethod provided writers with more detailedguidelines to meet ELLs’ linguistic andinstructional needs. The following sectionprovides information regarding what modifi-cations were made in each step in the SWELLmethod and how it was implemented in thisstudy to achieve its optimal effectiveness.

Step 1: Ideas. In the paired-writingmethod, writers were provided with merelywords such as “who, what, where, when, how,why, do, to, with” to help them brainstormideas. In the SWELL method, to help ELLsunderstand important components such ascharacter, setting, problem, and solution innarrative writing, the researcher provided theparticipants with complete questions thatmostly begin with “wh” words to generateideas. The questions are as follows:

Who did what?Who did what to whom?


What happened?Where did it happen?When did it happen?Who are the important people (maincharacters) in the story?Why did he/she/they do that?What was the problem?How did he/she/they solve the problem?What happened next?Then what?Did anyone learn anything at the end?What was it?(Ask any questions you can think of)…?

To help the Writer stimulate ideas, theHelper began by asking the Writer the list ofquestions stated above. The Helper couldraise the questions with the Writer in any rel-evant order. A blank option (. . .) on the listwas provided to indicate that the Helper couldthink up his or her own questions. As theWriter responded verbally to the questionsasked by the Helper, the Writer also noted keywords. To encourage the Writer to come upwith his or her own ideas, the Writer was alsotold that he or she might also add any relevantinformation he or she wanted to write aboutto the notes.

The pair then reviewed the keywords inthe notes and found out if the order or organ-ization should be changed. This could be indi-cated by numbering the ideas. Alternatively,the ideas may seem to fall into obvious sec-tions, which can be dealt with in turn. Suchsections could be color-coded and the ideasbelonging to them underlined or highlightedwith a marker. Pairs may also choose to drawlines linking or around related ideas, so that a“semantic map” is constructed. Other ways oforganizing ideas include word webs, cluster-ing, and mind maps.

Step 2: Draft. The key words in the notescreated in Step 1 should be placed where bothmembers of the pair can easily see them. Asshown in Appendix A, there are five differentstages in Step 2, and each has varied degreesof task difficulty. The researcher chose onespecific stage from the five stages given to theparticipants before they moved on to writing.

However, one should keep in mind that thestages chosen should not be stagnant. Theyshould rely on the students’ writing develop-ment. In other words, throughout the study,teachers may choose a higher stage for thepair to work on when the students progress intheir writing. They may also go back one stage(or more) when they find that their studentsencounter a particularly “hard” bit.

After the teacher chose a stage, the pairedwriters would receive instruction from theteacher regarding what they were expected todo in that particular stage. The pair then pro-ceeded to write. In Step 2, Draft, the teacheremphasized that the writer did not have toworry about spelling too much when he orshe wrote. There was great emphasis on hav-ing the students continue writing and allow-ing the ideas to flow.

Step 3: Read. The Writer read the writingaloud. If he or she read a word incorrectly, theHelper provided support if he or she werecapable of doing so.

Step 4: Edit. Helper and Writer looked atthe draft together, and the Writer consideredwhere he or she thought improvements werenecessary. At the same time, the Helper alsoconsidered if there were any improvement theWriter might want to make. The problemwords, phrases, or sentences could be markedwith a colored pen, pencil, or highlighter.There are four edit levels in this step. They aremeaning, order (referring to the organizationof the separate ideas in the text, organizationwithin a phrase or sentence, or organizationof the order of sentences), style (whichincludes the word choice and sentence struc-ture), spelling, and punctuation. The Writersand Helpers may wish to inspect the draftmore than once, checking on different criteriaon each occasion. In Topping’s paired-writingmethod, only words such as “meaning, order,spelling, punctuation” were listed. To providemore scaffolding to ELLs, the researcherchanged the single-word direction to com-plete questions in this step. The researcheralso added one more category, “style,” to thequestion list since it was one of the writingcomponents listed in the researcher’s School


District Holistic Scoring Rubric for ELLs(Appendix B).

While editing, the Writer would ask him-self or herself the following questions:

1. Does the Helper (H) understand what Iwant to say in my writing? (idea andmeaning)

2. Did my writing have a clear beginning,middle, and ending? (order)

3. Did I use all the words and write all thesentences correctly? (style)

4. Did I spell all the words correctly?(spelling)

5. Did I put all the punctuation (, . ? ! “…”)in the right places? (punctuation)

The questions for the Helper are:

1. Do I understand what the Writer (W)wants to say in his or her writing? (ideaand meaning)

2. Did the writing have a clear beginning,middle, and ending? (order)

3. Did W use all words and write all sen-tences correctly? (style)

4. Did W spell all words correctly?(spelling)

5. Did W put all punctuation (, . ? ! “…”) inthe right places? (punctuation)

The order of each question shows theranking of the importance of each criterion,the first question being the most important,and the last being the least. Questions 1 and 2(which are bolded) are the two most impor-tant questions the pair should pay attention towhile editing the written products. With thequestions in mind, the Helper marked anyareas the Writer had missed, and the Writercould make any additional suggestions aboutchanges based on his or her own reflection onthe writing. The symbol “!” between Step 4and 5 in Appendix A indicates that it is aninteractional process between the Writer andthe Helper in the Edit step. The pair discussedthe best correction to make, and when agree-ment was reached, the new version wasinserted in the text (preferably by the Writer).

If the pair had the slightest doubt aboutspelling, they could refer to the dictionary.

Step 5: Best Copy. The Writer then usual-ly copied out a neat or best version of the cor-rected draft. The Helper could provide helpwhen necessary, depending on the skill of theWriter. The best copy was a joint product ofthe pair and both students should have theirnames on it. The pair then turned in the com-pleted copy to the teacher.

Step 6: Teacher Evaluate. TeacherEvaluate was the final step. In Topping’spaired-writing method, this step was called“Student Evaluate” since students evaluatedtheir own writing. However, because of thefact that the participants in this study wereconsidered novice ELL writers, the researcherchanged this step to “Teacher Evaluate” sothat the participants would have an opportu-nity to receive comments and instructivefeedback directly from the researcher. Whenthe Writer and the Helper turned in their bestcopy, the researcher met with them and pro-vided them with explicit writing and gram-matical instruction as well as corrective feed-back. The teacher’s comments focused onmeaning/idea, order, style, spelling, and punc-tuation, which were the five editing criteriastated in Step 4. The writers then were expect-ed to review the correction and feedbacktogether as a pair.

Procedure for Information Gathering To examine how the SWELL method

affected the participants’ social interactionand cognitive writing process, field notesfrom participant observation were used. As aparticipant observer, the researcher intro-duced the SWELL method to the participants,taught them the strategies in each step, andobserved their writing processes. Each ses-sion was also videotaped and transcribed bythe researcher for reviewing purposes afterthe study. The participants were treated asindividuals as well as a cooperative pair.While observing the participants, theresearcher interpreted the patterns andthemes that emerged to gain a deep under-


standing of each individual’s cognitive writ-ing-process development with the SWELLmethod. In addition, field notes taken fromobserving the interaction and collaborationbetween the participants were used to exam-ine the role of the social aspect in L2 writing.

ResultsBased on the social-cognitive theory upon

which the SWELL method is built, partici-pants were expected to show rich and com-plex social behaviors as well as cognitivethinking processes that were beneficial totheir writing skills during their interaction.Through careful observation and review ofthe transcripts based on the 10 video record-ings of interactions between the pair of par-ticipants, the researcher was able to report onthe findings in the participants’ social inter-action and cognitive writing process whenthey used the SWELL method to write.

Social AspectThe social interaction between the two

participants engaging in the SWELL methodwas complex and productive. The partici-pants demonstrated various types of socialbehaviors, categorized by the researcher as“being supportive,” “helping to brainstormideas,”“feeling responsible for partner’s writ-ing,” and “developing trust.” The followingprovides detailed examples for each socialbehavior.

Being Supportive. The participants sup-ported and cooperated with each other toaccomplish a writing task. Example: In Step1–Ideas, both May and Brian worked togetherto decide the sequence of the events in thestory written.

May: It is hard to decide.Brian: That’s OK. I can help you. (He points

at the line.) I think this sounds likebeginning, so you can put number 1here.

This example shows that Brian not only gavethe necessary support to his partner, but he

also provided her with assistance in organiz-ing her ideas in writing, such as which partshould be in the beginning of the paragraph.

Helper Helping Writer to BrainstormIdeas. When the Helper saw that the Writercould not move on with his or her writing, heor she came up with questions to help pro-mote ideas for the writing. The pair was ableto do so without strictly following the ques-tions listed in Step 1 in the flowchart.Example: May was supposed to describe howshe would like to spend a day with a famousperson she admired. But she did not knowwho to write about.

Brian: Who is the famous person?May: I don’t know.Brian: Any cartoon character, writer, illustra-

tor?May: I like Dr. Seuss’s books.Brian: So, maybe…(He paused and then

looked at May.)May: Oh, yeah. Maybe I can write about Dr.

Seuss.

Brian’s question helped May find the maincharacter for her story.

Feeling Responsible for Partner’sWriting. When the text written by the Writerwas questioned or criticized by a third partysuch as a reader, the Helper felt that he or shewas responsible for the missing informationor parts that needed to be revised. Example:

In Step 6–Teacher Evaluate, the researcherasked the Writer: You said that “I saw a lit-tle lion chasing a rabbit.”But you didn’t tellme where it happened.”Brian felt that he should be responsible forthe missing information. He asked May:“You wrote it in the notes, right?”Then he turned to the researcher and said,“Actually, I should read the notes to herwhen she wrote it. I forgot, sorry.”

Developing Trust. This refers to one’sbelief in the sincerity and ability of one’s writ-ing partner. During the study, the researchermade sure that the participants were given


time and opportunities to establish friend-ship. The researcher also constantly taughtand modeled appropriate strategies to foster apositive attitude between the participants. Itwas noticed that mutual trust graduallydeveloped between the participants through-out the study. Brian changed from not want-ing to cooperate with his partner, because oflack of trust in the beginning sessions, tobeing relaxed in the social interaction as wellas being trustful and open-minded to hispartner’s suggestions. The following twodetailed examples show how the gradualgrowth of these two participants’ relationshipmade a difference in their social interactionand the quality of their ideas in writing. Thefirst interaction was transcribed during thefirst writing session when the SWELLmethod was first introduced to the partici-pants and when they were first paired as writ-ing partners. The second one was transcribedfrom the sixth writing session when the pairhad become more familiar with the SWELLmethod and also had become closer friends.

Example of the first interaction (from thefirst writing session): Brian was writing aboutan occasion when he got lost in an unfamiliarplace. May was his Helper.

May: Who did what to who?Brian: No one did anything to me.

Something just happened to me.May: Oh. What happened?

Brian could not move on. May went on andasked more questions.

May: What happened? Anything happened,like, when you go to a place, and yourparents forgot you. What would youdo?

Brian: I got lost.May: How did you get lost?Brian: (Quiet, no response.)May: Like you want to go to a place, you for-

got your mom and dad and you justfound your place yourself?

Brian: No.May: Then what did you do? Did your mom

find that you are lost?Brian: I got lost at an unfamiliar place.May: What happened to you?

Brian did not answer. So May went on elabo-rating her question.

May: Did anyone find you? Like did yourfriend found you?

Brian: (No response.)May: How about did you have a sister or

brother?Brian: No.May: Did you go to the police station?Brian: Why?May: So you can tell the police that you can’t

find your parents.Brian: I wrote,“My friend found me inside a

house.” I think that’s enough. Youshould ask the questions on the list.

Throughout the interaction, Brian’s responsewas mostly brief and his attitude showed hisdoubt of May’s ability in helping him to gen-erate ideas. However, several weeks after theyhad worked together as writing partners, theresearcher noticed that they had established amuch closer bond with each other, whichhelped develop their trust in each other. Thefollowing example shows how much thesocial interaction between them and the qual-ity of ideas had changed because of theincrease of trust.

Example of the second interaction (fromthe sixth writing session): The topic for thewriting session was to describe how onewould spend in 3 hours a prize of $10,000.Brian was the Writer, and May was the Helper.Instead of beginning the question-answeractivity in Step 1–Ideas in the SWELLmethod right away as they did in the previousexample, they chatted a little about their opin-ion on this topic. This is an indicator that theyhad become more comfortable with eachother.

Brian: If I had so much money, I would saveit.

May: I would spend it all.


Brian: But then you will have no money.May: But the topic said,“Pretend.”Brian: That’s right. (He paused a little.) OK,

let’s start. Why don’t you ask me ques-tions now?

May: Who are the main characters in thestory?

Brian: Me.May: What happened?Brian: I got $10,000.May: When did it happen?Brian: Sunday 12 o’clock.May: Where did it happen? What place?Brian: At the park.May: What is the problem?Brian: I need to spend $10,000 in 3 hours.May: Then what?Brian: So I went to the shopping center to

buy lots of things.May: What did you buy?Brian: A bike and a robot.May: Do you still have money left? What

else can you buy?Brian: I still have a lot of money left. Maybe I

can buy a tree house.May: Good idea! I always want a tree house.

How much is it to buy all these things?Brian: (He calculated the entire cost.) I still

have $4,000 left. Can I just throw it inthe water?

May: Maybe. How about buy a camera?Brian: I don’t need a camera, though. Oh,

maybe a TV. I am done!

In this example, Brian was not resistant orhesitant in responding to May’s questions. Heeven chatted with her before beginning towrite. Because of Brian’s increasing trust andcooperation, May did not have to come upwith many extra questions to help him moveon. In addition, we can see that his acceptanceof May had helped the ideas for his writingflow more smoothly and improve in quality.

Cognitive AspectIn addition to constructive cooperative

social behaviors, the structured design of theSWELL method had helped generate many

complex and dynamic cognitive activitiesbetween the participants. The following para-graphs describe the types of cognitive strate-gies the participants employed when theyused the SWELL method to learn to write.

Use of L1 or L1 Dictionary. Vygotsky(1934/2000) stated that one’s use of psycho-logical sign systems such as language andexternal resources to assist social interactionis the sign of using semiotic mediation, whichis a strategy necessary for higher mentalfunctioning. The participants in this studywere found making use of this strategy tocope with task demands during their interac-tion. They used their first language (L1) andexternal aids available such as hard copyand/or electronic dictionaries for help.Example:

May: What would you do if you have$10,000?

Brian: I want to buy a huge huge huge house.You know what I mean?

May: Like a bie shu (a Chinese term)?Brian: That’s right. What do you say it in

English?May: I don’t know. I have a dictionary. (She

then typed the Chinese phonetic sym-bols in her bilingual electronic dic-tionary and found the word.) Here.

Brian: I don’t know this word. (He read thespelling out loud to himself.) M-a-n-s-i-o-n. But I’ll just copy it down.

Use of Visual Aids. Unlike borrowingtools such as one’s L1 or dictionary asresources, another cognitive mediating strate-gy is the use of visual aids. When the Writerwanted to express a complex idea but was notable to use words to do so, he or she mightthink of using visual aids such as drawings orpictures to help his or her Helper understandwhat he or she tried to express. This strategywas also observed in this study when May(the Writer) wanted to describe the image ofan animal she created in her story to Brian,her Helper. Example:

Brian: How does the lion look?


May: I don’t know how to say it. Can I drawa picture to show you? (Then she wenton and drew a lion on a piece ofpaper.)

Brian: I see. So, it’s a small lion.May: No, no. How can a small lion have so

much hair? (She then drew anotherlion on her paper to show Brian.) Thelion has some huxu (a Chinese termfor “moustache”).

May: (Then she switched to Mandarin toprovide further description.) Na zhishi zi yi jing hen da le, bu shi xiao de(The lion is a grown-up one, not ababy).

Brian: Oh, I get it! Maybe you can write, “Afather lion.”

May actually wanted to express that althoughthe lion she had in mind looked small, it wasin fact a grown male lion. (This is a rathercomplicated idea for a 3rd-grader to express.)May created such a unusual-looking lion forher story, but she was not able to describe itsappearance in words to Brian when he askedher what the lion looked like. To make herselfunderstood, she believed that drawing a pic-ture to show him would help him compre-hend what she meant. When she realizedBrian was still confused, she switched to herL1 to provide further clarification.

Scaffolding. The researcher found thatthroughout the study, scaffolding was a com-monly found cognitive mediating strategy inpaired writing. Its main function was for thewriter and his or her writing partner to assistthemselves and each other in achieving taskgoals. Scaffolding required rather high mentalfunctioning. The strategies found included“writer self-correcting,” “writer evaluatinghelper’s comments,” and “helper evaluatingthe usefulness of own feedback.” Examplesare shown below.

The first scaffolding strategy, “writer self-correcting” occurred when the Writer self-corrected himself or herself after he or shereceived questions or feedback from theHelper. Example:

Brian: (Brian wanted to explain in his writ-ing how he spent his $10,000.) So, Iwent to the shopping center to buylots of things.

May: (May realized that “to buy lots ofthings” is too general, and so she wenton asking.) What did you buy?

From this question, Brian realized that hisinformation was too general when he said,“To buy lots of things,” and so he crossedout “lots of things” in his notes and listedtwo items, which were a bike and a robot,on his notes. Brian self-corrected himselfafter he heard the question, which hebelieved was rather reasonable feedbackasked by his Helper.

The second scaffolding strategy, “writerevaluating helper’s comments,” occurredwhen the Helper commented on the writingor offered feedback, and then the Writer eval-uated the usefulness of the comments beforedeciding if the suggestion should be accepted.Example:

Brian: What did you two do?May: I kicked him all day.Brian: I don’t think that’s a good idea. Maybe

you can say something like, “I amsorry because I kicked you.”

May: Good idea.

May realized that Brian’s suggestion was abetter one than her original idea, and thus sheresponded by saying, “Good idea.” She thenadded to her draft, “I said sorry to Dr. Seussbecause I kicked him.”

The third scaffolding strategy found iscalled “helper evaluating the usefulness ofown feedback.” When the Helper offered helpto the Writer, he or she assessed consciouslywhether his or her feedback was helpful to theWriter. When he or she realized that he or shewas not really helping the Writer, such as giv-ing him or her an answer directly and thusmaking it too easy for him or her, the Helperheld himself or herself back from providingfurther help. Example: May (the Writer)explained to Brian (the Helper) that the main


problem in the story she wrote was that “Icouldn’t find my favorite book.” Brian cameup with more questions to help her expandher ideas.

Brian: What book couldn’t you find?May: What do you mean?Brian: What is the book’s title?May: I don’t know.Brian: I can give you some ideas. (Then, he

wrote the title Harry Potter. Afterawhile, he decided to erase it.)

Brian: Maybe you should think about abook’s name yourself. I shouldn’twrite it for you.

Later in her draft, May wrote “SleepingBeauty.” The reason Brian erased the book’sname he wrote was that he realized that giv-ing May a direct answer would make it tooeasy for her, and that it might not be an appro-priate or the best way to help May become abetter writer. Thus, he evaluated his own feed-back and decided that he should erase thebook title he wrote so that May could come upwith a title on her own.

Discussion An in-depth field observation in this

study provided the researcher a great oppor-tunity to discover the participants’ dynamicand productive interaction when they usedthe SWELL method to write. With the helpof the structured guidelines in the SWELLmethod, the participants were able to par-ticipate in constructive collaboration. Theparticipants were found to be independentand comfortable while following the proce-dures in the SWELL Method Flowchart(Appendix A). Many of the ideas becamericher, more vivid, and more organizedbecause of the effective collaborationbetween the participants. Many of the cog-nitive mediating strategies that requiredone’s higher mental functioning were alsodemonstrated during the interaction.

Furthermore, the relationship of the Writerand the Helper plays an important role in

ensuring success of the SWELL method. Themodeling of appropriate social strategiesbefore each writing session had proven to behelpful since they generated the participants’constructive cooperation and helped improvetheir relationship while working together. Forexample, at the early writing sessions, Brian’srefusal to accept May’s help frustrated both ofthem. Their writing could not move on easilybecause of doubts and lack of cooperationbetween the pair. But with the use of appropri-ate social-interaction strategies such as,“That’s OK, I can help you” (see transcriptionin the Results section), Brian and May gradu-ally built a closer friendship and became moreaccepting of their partner’s comments, whichled to the improvement in the productivityand quality of their interaction. They felt morerelaxed and more willing to voice their opin-ion, which in turn had contributed to thedevelopment of richer ideas and better organ-ization for their writing. It indicated that inpaired writing, trust and bond between themembers can be crucial and one of the deter-mining factors that decide whether the peer-writing method works effectively. Therefore, itis imperative that teachers give the studentssufficient time and opportunities to establishfriendship. Teachers need to be fully aware ofthe possibility of any behaviors, such as atti-tudes of passivity and authoritativeness, thatmight negatively affect the relationshipbetween the writers.

Moreover, unlike many collaborative writ-ing programs implemented in ELL class-rooms, the researcher in this study encour-aged the participants to use their L1,Mandarin, when they interacted with eachother. The researcher also provided themwith help in the L1 when necessary. The useof the L1 was believed to fulfill the linguisticand instructional needs of the ELLs. Fromthe examples given in the Results section, itwas noticed that allowing the use of the L1 inthe study provided the participants with theopportunity to be involved in using more in-depth cognitive strategies during the processof interaction. For example, the participantssometimes used L1 vocabulary to express


their thoughts or meanings when they didnot know the equivalent vocabulary inEnglish. The Helper was able to provide fur-ther scaffolding during the interaction basedon his or her understanding of the L1 vocab-ulary used by the Writer. The Helper attempt-ed to help find the equivalent terms for the L1vocabulary in English and participatedactively in the process of making the Writer’swriting better because he or she knew whathis or her partner meant. The feedback orcomments made during the interactionwould not have been as productive if the L1were not allowed or encouraged in the ELLsetting in this study. In addition, the use of L1resources such as bilingual dictionaries pro-vided the participants with valuable assis-tance that an English-only setting would notbe able to offer.

Conclusion and ImplicationThe questions listed in Step 1 (Appendix

A) helped the Writers establish a reader-based perspective while writing, whichmeans that they wrote with a sense of audi-ence. At the same time the questions listedalso helped the Helpers establish a writer-based perspective while reading, whichmeans that they were able to read the writtentext through the eyes of the author. During theinteractive process, the ability to write like areader and read like a writer enabled both theWriter and the Helper to reflect on their part-ner’s comments as well as to evaluate thefeedback they offered to their partner. Thisobservation was consistent with Katz’s (2004)argument that if peer response is carefullyguided, ELLs are capable of providing helpfulfeedback on content, despite their nonnativeproficiency in English.

In addition, although the method wasmodified to meet the instructional needs ofELLs, it should not be regarded as a one-size-fits-all method. The participants in this studywere intermediate-level ELL writers, andthey were found to be rather independentand comfortable with the procedures listedon the SWELL Method Flowchart (Appendix

A) after being trained to use the method.However, whether the exact procedure wouldbe appropriate for less proficient ELL writersremains unknown until further studies havebeen conducted. Much teacher modeling andguidance might be required for this peer-assisted method to function effectively withlow proficiency ELL writers. In other words,while using the SWELL method to promoteELLs’ writing, researchers or classroomteachers may have to further modify the pro-cedures in the flowchart based on individuallearners’ specific needs. One should notadopt the entire SWELL method withoutconsidering the L2 proficiency level of thetarget population.

Another implication is that pairing onlyan expert with a novice to achieve effectivelearning can be no more than a simplifiedview. Vygotsky’s (1934/2000) concept ofexpert-novice pairing suggests that learningtakes place most effectively when instruc-tion is socially orchestrated, especially byhaving students work in an “expert-novice”social setting. In Vygotsky’s framework thekey concept is “expert-novice pairing,” orhaving a novice student work with someone,such as an adult, who is more proficient andmature in a skill.

This study, however, examined the effect ofpeer-assisted writing in a novice-novice pair.The participants wrote in a pair and theyalternated the roles of the Writer and theHelper. They were both regarded as “novice”writers since they were intermediate-level ELLwriters who did not meet the exit requirementof the district to advance to the mainstreamclasses. This study showed that in a novice-novice pair, effective learning could happenduring the process of the novice writers’ inter-action. Simply looking at the labels of “novice”and “expert” oversimplifies the issue. Athoughtful and well-structured design of aprocess-writing approach might be the key tobenefiting the learners. Although the partici-pants in this study were formed based onnovice-novice pairing, they participated indynamic, complex, effective, and constructiveinteraction as do many “expert-novice” pairs.


In addition, some past studies (Carson &Nelson, 1994, 1996) indicated that peer-assist-ed writing, although effective in individualis-tic cultures such as among native speakers ofEnglish in American educational settings, didnot receive similar results in the Chinese ESLgroup. This was due to the fact that Chinesestudents’ primary goal was to maintain groupharmony, an important “virtue” in collectivis-tic cultures, which affected the nature andtypes of interaction they allowed themselvesin group discussions. In this study, however,the conscious effort in maintaining group har-mony was not found. Instead, many com-ments were made and dynamic interactiontook place. It indicates that a peer-assistedwriting model may still play a significant rolein promoting writing skills of ELLs whose cul-ture is collectivistic. In this study, the partici-pants had lived in the US for at least a yearwhen the study was conducted. Their youngage and more than a year of exposure to theAmerican individualistic culture might havehelped them overcome the initial barriers thatCarson and Nelson’s (1994, 1996) adult partic-ipants faced in collaborative writing.Therefore, it may be suggested that the degreeof the learners’ familiarity with and exposureto Western values can be another importantfactor that determines whether the SWELLmethod works successfully in a Mandarin-speaking ELL setting.

Recommendation Based on the findings of this study, some

recommendations are made for futureresearch. First, the type of writing the partici-pants learned in this study was narrativewriting. Future research is needed to deter-mine whether the SWELL method can begeneralized to other forms of writing, such asexpository and persuasive writings. Second,in this study, the structured SWELL methodwas implemented to teach elementary schoolMandarin-speaking ELLs. Future researchshould be conducted to examine its effects ondifferent age groups and other nonmain-stream ethnic groups. In addition, the partic-

ipants of this study were intermediate-levelELL writers in elementary school, and thusfurther research needs to be conducted toexamine the effects of the SWELL method onELLs of different levels of writing proficiency.Last, because of the limited scope of thisstudy, only the description of the nature andcharacteristics of the various types of interac-tion found were covered. In future research, itis worth taking a step further to investigatewhich type of interaction is more conduciveto learning.

AuthorAdeline Teo is an assistant professor at ChunShan Medical University, Taiwan. This articlewas based on a research project she conductedwhen she taught at Collins Elementary School,Cupertino, California, in 2004. When she livedin California, she actively participated in pub-lishing lesson plans for the ELD programs inthe Santa Clara County Office of Education.She now teaches writing and research method-ology courses at Chun Shan Medical University.Her research interests include ESL/EFL writingand cooperative learning.

ReferencesBerg, E. C. (1999). The effects of trained peer

response on ESL students’ revision typesand writing quality. Journal of SecondLanguage Writing, 8(3), 215-241.

Carson, J. (1992). Becoming biliterate: Firstlanguage influences. Journal of SecondLanguage Writing, 1(1), 37-60.

Carson, J. G., & Nelson, G. L. (1994). Writinggroups: Cross-cultural issues. Journal ofSecond Language Writing, 3(1), 17-30.

Carson, J. G., & Nelson, G. L. (1996). Chinesestudents’ perceptions of ESL peerresponse group interaction. Journal ofSecond Language Writing, 5(1), 1-19.

Ferris, D. R. (2003). Response to student writ-ing: Implications for second language stu-dents. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Flower, L. S. (1993). Problem-solving strategiesfor writing. New York: Harcourt BraceJovanovich.


Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitiveprocess theory of writing. CollegeComposition and Communication, 32(4),365-387.

Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1983). Uncoveringcognitive processes in writing: An intro-duction to protocol analysis. In P.Mosenthal, L. Tamor, & S. Walmsley(Eds.), Research on written language:Principals and methods (pp. 30-45). NewYork: Guilford Press.

Freedman, S. W., Dyson, A. H., Flower, L., &Chafe, W. (1987). Research in writing: Past,present, and future. (Tech. Rep. No. 1).Center for the Study of Writing. Universityof California at Berkeley and CarnegieMellon University.

Graves, D. H. (1978). Balance the basic. NewYork: Ford Foundation.

Gutierrez, K. D. (1992). A comparison ofinstructional contexts in writing processclassrooms with Latino children.Education and Urban Society, 24(2), 244-262.

Hayes, J. (1996). A new framework for under-standing cognition and affect in writing.In C. M. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.), The sci-ence of writing: Theories, methods, individ-ual differences, and application (pp.1-27).Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Hudelson, S. (1986). ESL children’s writing:What we’ve learned, what we’re learning.In P. Rigg & D. S. Enright (Eds.), Childrenand ESL: Integrating perspectives (pp. 23-54). Washington, DC: Teachers of Englishto Speakers of Other Languages.

Katz, S. R. (2004, April). Peer response in theEFL academic writing classroom inEastern Europe: A critical analysis. Paperpresented at the meeting of the AmericanEducational Research Association, SanDiego, CA.

Nixon, J. G., & Topping, K. J. (2001). Emergentwriting: The impact of structured peer

interaction. Educational Psychology, 21(1),41-58.

Peregoy, S. F., & Boyle, O. F. (2001). Reading,writing, and learning in ESL: A resourcebook for K-12 teachers. New York:Longman.

Raimes, A. (1999). Exploring writing throughthe process approach (2nd ed.). New York:Cambridge University Press.

Reyes, M. de la Luz. (1991). A processapproach to literacy instruction forSpanish-speaking students: In search of abest fit. In E. H. Hiebert (Ed.), Literacy fora diverse society: Perspectives, practices,and policies (pp. 157-171). New York:Teacher College, Columbia University.

Reyes, M. de la Luz. (1992). Challenging ven-erable assumptions: Literacy instructionfor linguistically different students.Harvard Educational Review, 62(4), 427-446.

Santos, T. (2001). Ideology in composition: L1and ESL. In T. Silva & P. K. Matsuda (Eds.),Landmark essays (pp.159-172). Mahway,NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Sutherland, J. A., & Topping, K. (1999).Collaborative creative writing in eight-year-olds: Comparing cross-ability fixedrole and same-ability reciprocal role pair-ing. Journal of Research in Reading, 22(2),154-179.

Topping, K. (2001). Paired collaborative writ-ing. Retrieved July 31, 2003, fromwww.scre.ac.uk/rie/n167/n167topping.html

Vygotsky, L. S. (2000). Thought and language.(A. Kozulin, Ed. & Trans.) Cambridge, MA:MIT Press. (Original work published1934)

Yarrow, F., & Topping, K. J. (2001).Collaborative writing: The effects ofmetacognitive prompting and structuredpeer interaction. British Journal ofEducational Psychology, 71, 261-28



Appendix A The SWELL Method Flowchart

H = Helper W = Writer

Step 1: IdeasH asks W questions:

Who did what?Who did what to whom?What happened?Where did it happen?When did it happen?Who are the important people (main characters) in the story?Why did he/she/they do that?What was the problem?How did he/she/they solve the problem?What happened next?Then what?Did anyone learn anything at the end? What was it?(Ask any questions you can think of) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ?

"W answers and takes notes. W can add things that are not in H’s questions.

"Then both H and W read the notes. Are ideas in proper places? Make changes if needed.

"Step 2: Draft

Teacher will give and explain to you one of the following jobs.

"STAGE 1 STAGE 2 STAGE 3 STAGE 4 STAGE 5H writes it all, H writes hard H writes hard H says how to W writes it allW copies it all words for W words in rough, spell hard words

W copies in

"Use the notes; begin writing. Don’t worry about spelling.

"Step 3: Read

W reads drafts out loud and makes it sound good! H corrects words read wrong if she/he can.


"Step 4: Edit

H and W both look at draft

W asks himself or herself:06. Does H understand what I want to say in my writing? (meaning)07. Did my writing have a clear beginning, middle, and ending? (order)08. Did I use all the words and write all the sentences correctly? (style)09. Did I spell all the words correctly? (spelling)10. Did I put all the punctuation (, . ? ! “…”) in the right places? (punctuation)

H asks himself or herself:01. Do I understand what W wants to say in his/her writing? (meaning)02. Did the writing have a clear beginning, middle, and ending? (order)03. Did W use all the words and write all the sentences correctly? (style)04. Did W spell all the words correctly? (spelling)05. Did W put all the punctuation (, . ? ! “…”) in the right places? (punctuation)

"W makes changes ! H suggests changes

Use dictionary when necessary

"Step 5: Best Copy

W copies “best” writing from Step 4. H may help if necessary.Write both H & Ws’ names on paper.

Turn in the completed copy to teacher.

"Step 6: Teacher Evaluate

H and W read teacher’s comments together, and then discuss and make corrections.


Appendix BThe Researcher’s School District Holistic Scoring Rubric for ELLs

Mechanics

Superior use ofspelling, punctua-tion and grammar

Adequate use ofspelling, punctua-tion, and grammar

Some misspellingsof words; some mistakes in usage of punctuation andgrammar

Many mistakes inspelling, usage ofgrammar and punctuation

Write only alphabets or isolated words

Score

5

4

3

2

1

Ideas

Develops topic withthe right details,examples, reasons

Develops topic withdetails, examples,and reasons

Develops topic withgeneral rather thanspecific details, oroften confusing

Fails to develop thetopic; needs details,description, exam-ples, and reasons


Style

Word choice is precise rather thangeneral; superior use of sentencestructure and vocabulary

Adequate sentencestructure andvocabulary;sentences are com-plete and varied

Use simple orunvaried sentences;vocabulary is unvaried but appropriate

Sentences are brief,incomplete, or longwith little meaning.Word choice isunvaried and inappropriate


Organization

Clear plan of organi-zation with an invit-ing introduction,thoughtful transi-tions, and a satisfy-ing conclusion

Groups details intosimple plan oforganization

Minimal organiza-tion, may only listideas with littlecomment; may omit sections ofthe prompt or digresses from topic

No apparent orderthat shows begin-ning, middle, andending of an eventdescribed


Note: Overall Score = The sum of each category /4 = _____________

Level Overall ScoreBeginning 1–1.99Basic 2–2.99Intermediate 3–3.99Advanced 4–4.99Nativelike 5 or above

Documents

Social-Interac tive W riting for English Lan guag e … · Social-Interac tive W riting for English Lan guag e Learners! ... scaffold interactive and ... nam ed Social-Interactive