The Non-narrative Writing of Young Children.

This study examined the structure of 100 pieces of non-narrative writing composed by students in Grades 1, 2, and 3. Using a two dimensional diagramming system, the researcher examined the coherence in each of the pieces and the hierarchical ordering of information. Eight basic discourse structures were identified and the 100 pieces were reliably sorted into these categories. The distribution of discourse structures by grade level indicates that the younger writers in the sample wrote labels and lists with little coherent connection between items. By third grade 49 percent of the pieces were classified as paragraphs. The results suggest the inadequacy of the term "expressive writing" to describe the initial writing students in the sample did, and they suggest that early non-narrative student writing is strongly tied to the drawing students do. Anyone reading the literature on young children's writing development could well arrive at two mutually incompatible conclusions: 1 . Exposition is particularly difficult for children and for that reason the first extended writing children do will be in the narrative mode. 2. Children, even before they enter school, are attuned to the uses of writing in their environments and explore a variety of non-narrative forms. The first conclusion is embedded in the most widely accepted developmental schemes (Moffett, 1968; Britton et al., 1975). Skill at exposition is viewed as a late-developing competence or, as Moffett writes, "children must, for a long time, make narrative do for all (p. 49). " Similarly Britton (1982), Wells (1986), and Mayher, Lester, and Pradl (1983) claim that children naturally begin to write by writing stories. Bereiter and Scardamalia (1982) provide considerable evidence for the difficulty of exposition in their report on a series of experiments. They found that fourth graders generally were unable to do the global planning necessary for expository writing and instead used a "what next" strategy resulting in writing that was a chain of memories or associations. This study was partially supported by a grant from the Central University Research Fund of the University of New Hampshire. I would also like to express thanks to Elizabeth Chiseri Strater, Russel Durst, Suzanne Jacobs, and Tom Hilgers for their assistance. Research in the Teaching of English, Vol. 21, No. 2, May 1987 121 This content downloaded from 157.55. 39.136 on Thu, 19 May 2016 06:33:38 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor. org/terms 122 Research in the Teaching of English Yet researchers who have looked at the writing young child do in home settings (e.g., Bissex, 1980; Collerson, 1983; Gundlach, 1982; Newkirk, 1984; Taylor, 1983) have found that children attempt a variety of non-narrative forms, including lists, letters, signs, alphabet books, quizzes, and certificates. Heath (1983) has shown that while bedtime reading usually consists of stories, the kind of writing children see adults doing is primarily nonnarrative. If one accepts the semiotic perspective of Harste, Woodward, and Burke (1984) and views children as attuned to the "signifying structures" in their environments, one would expect that children's writing would not be limited to one particular form. The recent work of Langer (1985, 1986) also suggests that researchers like Bereiter and Scardamalia have overestimated the difficulty children have with exposition. She found that the report writing of third graders does have an overall structure although one dominated by the topic and not by a thesis concerning the topic. In her more recent study she reports 53 percent of the third graders' comments in composing aloud and retrospective conditions dealt with global text units. This concern with overall structure is startling even if one acknowledges that Langer's third graders were probably a more select group than Bereiter and Scardamalia's fourth graders. Of course, some of the conflict in claims results from differing meanings given to "exposition. " If one defines exposition as any written form used to convey information in a non-chronological way, there is little doubt that children can write exposition. If, like Moffett, one sets the "essay" with linked hierarchical assertions as the model, that form is surely beyond the capability of young children. The key question, though, is how (or whether) children move from these initial forms of exposition to those more commonly required in school writing. Moffett claims that exposition builds upon narrative competence as the writer generalizes from "what happened" to "what happens. " This study will examine an alternative possibility: that competence in exposition develops as students build upon early labelling and list-making. The study will attempt to identify intermediate forms that children attempt as they move toward the more integrated forms of exposition required in the later school years. Collection of Sample The student texts used in this study were drawn from 6 elementary school classrooms, two first grade, two second grade, and two third grade. The texts were collected at the end of the academic year and were produced as part of the writing program in each classroom. While other studies (most notably Britton et al., 1975) have used classroom samples to explore writing development, the basic problem with such a sample is the possible lack of This content downloaded from 157.55. 39.136 on Thu, 19 May 2016 06:33:38 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor. org/terms The Non-narrative Writing of Young Children 123 comparability between work collected at different grade levels. For example, if the second grade writing was done early in the year and the third grade late in the year, this discrepancy would distort any developmental trend. For that reason, special attention was taken to ensure comparability. The samples were drawn from the cumulative folders of student work done during the entire year and from the "books" students published throughout the year. The researcher and an associate selected 170 pieces from 100 students; any piece of writing that was "predominantly non-chronological" was selected. Fifty percent of the pieces were dated, and these dates suggest an average completion date of December 1984 for the first and second grade pieces, and January 1985 for the third grade pieces. While the entire sample of 170 was used to develop the categories of nonnarrative forms and to establish reliability, it was necessary to reduce the sample to 100 so that no student was represented by more than one piece of writing. If a student had multiple pieces in the large sample his latest piece was selected if his pieces were dated; otherwise a random piece was selected. This smaller sample included 34 first grade pieces, 31 second grade pieces, and 35 third grade pieces. In all, 73 percent of the children in the six classes were represented and the percentage of representation was approximately the same for each grade (74 percent Grade 1, 70 percent Grade 2, 74 percent Grade 3). Instructional Context The sample was drawn from two schools in a middle to upper-middle class community where the parents of many of the children have some connection with the University of New Hampshire. The six teachers involved in the study had each received extensive training in a "writing process" approach (Graves, 1983). All had either taken courses or been part of regular study groups which explored ways to create a workshop approach where students regularly choose topics of interest to themselves and their peers and where they regularly receive response. The principals of each school had taken courses emphasizing this approach to teaching writing and each had given presentations to other teachers and administrators. At one of the sites a major research project conducted by Jane Hansen and Donald Graves was concluding at the time the samples were collected. In each classroom students wrote regularly. They were not taught prescribed forms or formats for their expository writing, although it is likely that they were influenced by the writing of their classmates. (Blackburn, 1985, offers a good description of peer influence on writing forms.) During the writing period the teacher would confer with individual students, and, as the year progressed, students would share their writing with other students. Conferences generally involved praising portions of the writing that This content downloaded from 157.55. 39.136 on Thu, 19 May 2016 06:33:38 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor. org/terms 124 Research in the leaching of English were effective, asking for additional information and clarification, and focusing selectively on spelling and usage errors. While the teacher might make suggestions for revision, the writer made the final decision about any changes to be made. In addition to one-to-one conferences students would regularly meet as an entire class, and individual students would read their work aloud and receive reactions from the class. Once pieces were finished they were placed in a cumulative folder and students could choose their best work to be published. The books were typed by an aide, illustrated by the student, and placed in a classroom library where they might be read by other students.