Upload
jonas-james
View
217
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
The State of the Art of Writing:
The Neglected ‘R’—Then and Now
Matt Copeland, KSDE Writing ConsultantKansas State Department of Education
The Neglected ‘R’—Then Langer and Applebee (1978)
In How Writing Shapes Thinking,
Judith Langer and Arthur Applebee
(1978) came to some sobering
conclusions about students’ writing
ability:
The Neglected ‘R’—Then Langer and Applebee (1978)
• Students’ writing is often superficial,
and “even the ‘better’ responses show
little evidence of well-developed
problem-solving strategies or critical
thinking skills.”
(p. 4)
The Neglected ‘R’—Then Langer and Applebee (1978)
• A major conclusion to draw from the assessment of students’ writing at all grade levels is that students “are deficient in higher order thinking skills.” They have difficulty performing adequately on analytic writing tasks, as well as on persuasive writing tasks.
(p. 4)
The Neglected ‘R’—Then Langer and Applebee (1978)
• “Because writing and thinking are so deeply intertwined, appropriate writing assignments provide an ideal way to increase student experiences with such type of thinking.” As a result, “Students need broad-based experiences in which reading and writing tasks are integrated with their work throughout the curriculum.”
(p. 4)
The Neglected ‘R’—Then Langer and Applebee (1978)
• “Simply put, in the whole range of
academic course work, American
children do not write frequently enough,
and the reading and writing tasks they
are given do not require them to think
deeply enough.” (p. 4)
As Langer and Applebee were sounding the alarm that students in American schools were not writing enough, a mountain of research was emerging that clearly outlined the benefits received by those students who were fortunate enough to find themselves in rigorous writing programs.
The Neglected ‘R’—ThenBenefits of Rigorous Writing Programs
• The best incoming college freshmen
writers are those who do the most writing
in high school (McQueen, Murray, and
Evens 1963).
The Neglected ‘R’—ThenBenefits of Rigorous Writing Programs
• The best college freshmen writers are
those students who do more expository
writing in high school (Bamberg 1978).
The Neglected ‘R’—ThenBenefits of Rigorous Writing Programs
• Students who write two essays a week
do better in college than those who
write one (Lokke and Wykoff 1948).
The Neglected ‘R’—ThenBenefits of Rigorous Writing Programs
• Good writers are much more likely to do
more writing outside of school (Stallard
1974 and Donaldson 1967, in separate
studies).
The Neglected ‘R’—ThenBenefits of Rigorous Writing Programs
• A higher percentage of college freshmen
who entered as poor writers are those
students who did no writing in high school
(Woodward and Phillips 1967).
As a result of Langer and Applebee’s
finding and others that echoed their
concerns, you might think that much
of the educational reform over the
past two decades has focused on
bringing writing to the forefront in
our schools.
Unfortunately, the evidence suggests
that very little has changed.
Today, nearly two decades after
Langer and Applebee revealed that
our students simply were not writing
enough, the writing front in
America’s schools remains bleak.
In one recent study in grades one, three, and five, only 15 percent of the school day was spent in any kind of writing activity.
Two-thirds of the writing that did occur was word-for-word copying in workbooks.
(National Writing Project
2003, p.6)
The Neglected ‘R’—NowChildren today still receive little opportunity to
write
Ninety-seven percent of elementary students write less than three hours a week.
This is 15 percent of the total time they spend watching television.
(National Commission of Writing 2003, p.23)
The Neglected ‘R’—NowChildren today still receive little opportunity to
write
The Neglected ‘R’—NowChildren today still receive little opportunity to
write
Compositions of a paragraph or more in length are infrequent even at the high school level.
(National Writing Project and Carl Nagin 2003, p.6)
The Neglected ‘R’—NowChildren today still receive little opportunity to
write
Forty percent of twelfth graders report that they are “never” or “hardly ever” assigned a paper of three pages or more in length.
(National Commission on Writing 2003, p. 23)
Two decades after the research made
a compelling call for us to carve out
more writing time for our students,
the National Commission on Writing
(2003) declared in its report to the
United States Congress that writing
remains the “neglected ‘R’” in our
schools.
The National Commission on Writing believes we must improve the quality of our students’ writing if they are to succeed in college and in life.
The Neglected ‘R’National Commission on Writing’s
Recommendations
1. Every state should revisit its
educational standards to make
sure they include a comprehensive
writing policy.
The Neglected ‘R’National Commission on Writing’s
Recommendations
2. More out-of-school time should be
used to encourage writing.
The Neglected ‘R’National Commission on Writing’s
Recommendations
3. School districts should insist that
writing be taught in all subjects
and at all grade levels.
The Neglected ‘R’National Commission on Writing’s
Recommendations
4. Every district should require each
teacher to successfully complete a
course in writing theory and
practice as a condition for teacher
licensing.
The Neglected ‘R’National Commission on Writing’s
Recommendations
5. Schools should aim to double the
amount of time most students
spend writing.
Then, in 2004, and against a backdrop of increased levels of accountability in the areas of math and reading because of No Child Left Behind, the National Commission on Writing began meeting with groups of teachers, listening to experts in the field share their thoughts on the state of student writing and the best practices to teach writing.
In May of 2006, the National Commission on Writing summarized the seven clear messages of those meetings.
Seven Messages from Teachers in the Field
to the National Commission on Writing
1. Many excellent examples of
effective practice in writing
instruction do exist.
Seven Messages from Teachers in the Field
to the National Commission on Writing
2. The standardization and scripting
of instruction threaten to
undermine this writing instruction.
Seven Messages from Teachers in the Field
to the National Commission on Writing
3. A climate to encourage writing
must be created in the classroom
and in the school.
Seven Messages from Teachers in the Field
to the National Commission on Writing
4. Genuine reform requires
personalization of instruction.
Seven Messages from Teachers in the Field
to the National Commission on Writing
5. Maintaining a sense of
“community” in schools is essential
to writing.
Seven Messages from Teachers in the Field
to the National Commission on Writing
6. Integrating writing into the reform
agenda, while challenging, is
integral to the success of both.
Seven Messages from Teachers in the Field
to the National Commission on Writing
7. The best hope for improving both
writing and schools generally lies
in high-quality professional
development.
Writing also appears to be among
the priorities on the radar screens of
many Americans from very different
walks of life.
The 2007 Survey on Teaching
Writing, a national public opinion
survey conducted for the National
Writing Project by the research firm
Belden, Russonello and Stewart,
reported the following results:
The 2007 Survey on Teaching Writing
A broad majority of Americans believes
good writing skills are very important
(74% say “greater need to write well to
succeed than 20 years ago”).
The 2007 Survey on Teaching Writing
More then four-fifths (84%) of American
say students should learn to write well as
a requirement for high-school graduation.
This puts writing below reading (94%)
and math (94%) and ahead of American
history (73%), algebra (56%), biology
(48%) and foreign language (31%).
The 2007 Survey on Teaching Writing
Both blue-collar workers (80%) and white-
collar workers (93%) say writing is
important to success in their particular
careers.
The 2007 Survey on Teaching Writing
Americans say students need writing
skills to succeed in college (67%
“essential”), expressing a stronger belief
that writing is essential for success in
college than it is for any occupation.
The 2007 Survey on Teaching Writing
Learning to read and write go hand in hand, according to a large majority of the public (79%) – rejecting the view that reading skills need to come first.
Further, learning to write well is perceived as a key ingredient for students to acquire other skills such as effective communication (66% “essential”), grammar (63%) and critical thinking (52%).
The 2007 Survey on Teaching Writing
By a margin of two to one (66% vs. 31%),
the public sees more benefit in helping
teachers teach writing, than putting those
resources into testing students to see how
well they are learning to write.
The 2007 Survey on Teaching Writing
Americans want to see teacher-training
programs include courses on teaching
writing (79% “good idea”) and
professional development for current
teachers (75% “good idea”).
In 2003, the National Commission on
Writing suggested “American
education will never realize its
potential as an engine of opportunity
and economic growth until a writing
revolution puts the power of
language and communication in
their proper place in the classroom”
( p. 14).
Questions for the ‘Writing Revolution’
• Does my school have a
comprehensive, across-the-
curriculum writing approach?
Questions for the ‘Writing Revolution’
• Considering all of my students’
classes, are they writing enough in
school?
Questions for the ‘Writing Revolution’
• Are my students writing enough out of school?
Questions for the ‘Writing Revolution’
• Is writing taught at my school in all
classes at all grade levels?
Questions for the ‘Writing Revolution’
• Have the teachers at my site, in all
grade levels and subjects, been
given extensive writing training?
Questions for the ‘Writing Revolution’
• Have the administrators of my
school and my district
demonstrated their devotion to
high-quality professional
development for all teachers in the
area of writing?
Questions for the ‘Writing Revolution’
• Do teachers at my site have
opportunities to discuss with one
another student writing and the
strengths and weaknesses we see in
that student writing?
Questions for the ‘Writing Revolution’
• Am I creating an environment that
supports both students and their
writing?
Questions for the ‘Writing Revolution’
• Is writing instruction in my
classroom personalized and based
on the writing needs of individual
students?
Questions for the ‘Writing Revolution’
• Are students’ writing skills being
built from their reading and studying
of effective model texts in my
classroom?
Questions for the ‘Writing Revolution’
• Am I providing choice for my
students in their writing while still
maintaining high expectations and
rigorous standards?
Questions for the ‘Writing Revolution’
• Are my students receiving
instruction in writing for real-life
purposes and audiences and are
they writing for a variety of
contexts?
Questions for the ‘Writing Revolution’
If not you? Who?
Questions for the ‘Writing Revolution’
If not now? When?
BibliographyBamberg, B. 1978. “Composition Instruction Does Make a
Difference: A Comparison of the High School Preparation of College Freshmen in Regular and Remedial English Classes.” Research in the Teaching of English 12: 47-59.
Donaldson, K. 1967. “Variables Distinguishing Between Effective and Ineffective Writers in the Tenth Grade.” Journal of Experimental Education 4: 37-41.
Gallagher, K. 2006. Teaching Adolescent Writers. Portland, ME: Stenhouse. Available online at http://www.stenhouse.com/productcart/pc/viewPrd.asp?idProduct=9032.
Krashen, S. 1984. Writing: Research, Theory and Applications. New York: Pergamon Institute of English.
BibliographyLanger, J. A., and A. N. Applebee. 1978. How Writing Shapes
Thinking: A Study of Teaching and Learning. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
Lokke, V., and G. Wykoff. 1948. “‘Double Writing’ in Freshman Composition—an Experiment.” School and Society 68: 437-439.
McQueen, R., A. K. Murray, and F. Evans. 1963. “Relationships Between Writing Required in High School and English Proficiency in College.” Journal of Experimental Education 31: 419-423.
National Commission on Writing for America’s Families, Schools, and Colleges. 2003. The Neglected “R”: The Need for a Writing Revolution. New York: The College Board. Available online at http://www.writingcommission.org/prod_downloads/writingcom/neglectedr.pdf.
BibliographyNational Commission on Writing for America’s Families, Schools,
and Colleges. 2006. Writing and School Reform. New York: The College Board. Available online at http://www.writingcommission.org/prod_downloads/writingcom/writing-school-reform-natl-comm-writing.pdf.
National Writing Project. 2007. The 2007 Survey on Teaching Writing: American Public Opinion on the Importance of Writing in Schools. Washington DC: Belden, Russonello, & Stewart Research and Communications. Available online at http://www.nwp.org/cs/public/download/nwp_file/8856/NWP_2007_Survey_Report.pdf?x-r=pcfile_d.
National Writing Project and Carl Nagin. 2003. Because Writing Matters. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Stallard, C. 1974. “An Analysis of the Writing Behaviour of Good Student Writers.” Research in the Teaching of English 8: 206-218.
Woodward, J., and A. Phillips. 1967. “Profile of the Poor Writer.” Research in the Teaching of English 1: 41-53.