Response to The Art of Teaching Writing by Lucy Calkins

Predictable and simple are two concepts Calkins uses to describe classrooms that foster creativity, and as I reflect back to my first year back in the elementary setting, I couldn’t agree more. There are several ways I addressed organization of space that I think helped students grow in their writing. First, I put our schedule on the board daily and honored it. I did this knowing that many students feel more secure when they can count on what is coming next in their day, and this included writing time. I also discussed with my students that at certain times, we needed a library-like atmosphere so people could think more clearly. There is ample brain research to support the need for quiet, but for students to understand, I use an analogy. I have them think about how computers work—that computers use RAM memory( to process information here and now and to run programs) and ROM memory—space the computer uses to store information that will be retrieved later. Students readily understand that talking with neighbors, listening to music, or general classroom hubbub requires the brain to use short-term memory (like RAM on a computer) to filter through it all. But, we need our working memory to create. We also need to be able to access our long-term memory (ROM) at times during the creative process. So, the best environment to create in is often quite, simple and predictable.

I have found over the years that students are much more willing to follow guidelines when they understand that there is a purpose—and even research—to support them.

A Response to Emig

Response to Non-Magical Thinking: Presenting Writing Developmentally in Schools
By Janet Emig

In her piece, Janet Emig poses the question, “What if it is just as natural to write books and read them as it is natural to die or be born?” This question inspired me to really think about how language developed, its purpose, and just how I teach literacy in my classroom. First, let me say that I don’t believe writing can happen “just naturally,” at least in terms of advancing young writers to an acceptable point. For example, if I want my students to write more descriptively, I can’t just say, “You need to write more descriptively,” and leave it at that. (In the beginning of my career, I honestly struggled with how to get my students to write more descriptively beyond simply teaching about adjectives or adverbs as discreet sub skills) Rather, I need to be intentional while weaving the idea of purpose when discussing with students how they can make their writing more descriptive; in fact, it’s not about being descriptive, it’s about making writing more interesting to compose and read.

A Response to James Britton

From, “Now That You Go to School”
James N. Britton

I think Britton’s big ideas concerns labeling different types of writing or communicating in terms of their purpose. Expressive communication is not rehearsed, is responsive to what others might say or do, and the purpose is to communicate in writing or speech in the present. Poetic writing seems to have the purpose of storytelling. It is one-way communication, and while it may (and should) evoke thought, it is meant for the purpose of sharing the writer’s point of view. Transactional writing seems to serve the purpose of a well-organized, two-way dialogue. The writer is meant to communicate thoughts or ideas to an audience that serve the purpose of evoking thought. The reader is supposed to react to the piece.

In class, we completed an activity that required us to conceptualize Britton’s and Moffett’s ideas visually. I chose to represent them on a continuum, and while Moffett’s ideas seem to lend themselves readily to a continuum, I had to force expressive, poetic and transactional communication to fit. In retrospect, a Venn diagram much more responsively represents these ideas. This is primarily due to the influence expressiveness (in other words emotion, expression, spontaneity) has on the other forms of communication Britton discusses.

One Teacher’s Reaction to I, You and It by James Moffett

I, You and It by James Moffett

(originally printed in College Composition and Communication, Volume 16, No. 5 (December, 1965), 243-48.)

First, when Moffett says that a student “…get some kind of feedback other than red marks,” I couldn’t agree more. In my experience, students who have the opportunity to learn in an environment in which risk-taking is encouraged (and not punished by grades) are able to raise the level of their writing to much higher standards. Mind you, risk-taking is an exceptionally important aspect to learning. But so many times students conform to the format and never really branch out because risks are so often rewarded with low or even failing grades. My views regarding this issue have been shaped by years of reflection as well as by Alfie Kohn’s Punished by Rewards and Ken O’Conner’s How to Grade for Learning: Linking Grades to Standards. Kohn’s general premise—that rewards can in many ways act as a punisher—give cause to reflect about practices such as putting stars on papers (why did you get a star on your paper when mine was just as good?) or using mass punishment (since Johnny can’t get started, we’re all staying in until he gets something down on paper). From O’Conner’s work, educators are encouraged to think about grading practices that are, in actual fact, illogical. Take the giving of a “zero” on a piece for whatever reason—turned in late, didn’t follow directions exactly, etc. Typical grading systems are based on a scale, such as 60-69=D, 70-79=C, and so on. Using this system, an “F” should be scaled from 50-59. If a student truly did not attempt to write or did not turn something in, they should receive a 50. By awarding a 50, an educator recognizes that the student did at least do something (even if it was just thinking), and the grade will not permanently damage the entire grading period. In other words, the student can still pass, and the grade has greater potential to reflect learning, not just whether or not the student finished. Feedback for students’ writing, then, should come in multiple forms, including conferencing with peers and teacher or adults, written feedback and opportunities to share drafts in any stage. Students then feel free to take risks, dig deeper in their thinking and soar in their writing.

Moffett goes on to say something with which I disagree completely. He states, that he is “leery of asking the student to read about writing.” Moffett explains that “trial and error best develop judgment and taste, and that explanations of good style, technique and rhetoric create more problems than they solve.” I believe it is essential for students to read, discuss and thoroughly study well-written pieces. Similarly, reading about the thought processes good writers use to produce their work certainly has benefited all levels of writers. Just as a quick example, I am reading Bird by Bird by Anne Lamott. I am learning about writing in two ways: first, studying word choice, flow, and structure from a superb writer will give me pause about my own word choice; second, I will benefit from her own reflections about writing in terms of the process she uses when she writes.