----

##  Writing Instruction: Changing Views over the Years. ERIC Digest D155.        

The emphasis in writing instruction over the past forty years has               shifted from product to process. This Digest will review the course             and the primary features of this evolution. 
In the early 1960s,               the National Council of Teachers of English commissioned a study to             find out what was known about the teaching of composition. The                  result was a report entitled "Research in Written Composition" by               Braddock, Lloyd-Jones, and Schoer (1963), commonly known as "The                Braddock Report." The authors found only rudimentary understanding              of the teaching of writing: "Some terms are being defined usefully,             a number of other procedures are being refined, but the field as a              whole is laced with dreams, prejudices, and makeshift                           operations" (p. 5). 
FROM PRODUCT TO PROCESS: THE 1970S AND                    1980S 
Writing in 1986, Arthur Applebee pointed out that                       instruction in the past had been largely "prescriptive and                      product-centered," stressing correct usage and mechanics while                  emphasizing  "the traditional modes of discourse (narration,                    description, exposition, persuasion, and sometimes poetry)."                    However, the 1970s and 1980s saw "a groundswell of support                      for 'process approaches' to learning to write" (p. 95). Today, the              five-step approach to the writing process is widely accepted, along             with related activities such as brainstorming, journal writing,                 teacher/student conferences, and an emphasis on multiple                        drafts. 
Looking back on the 1970s and early 1980s, Applebee found             that three questions needed to be answered: 
*How widely had they              been adopted by that time? 
*When adopted, how successfully were               they implemented? 
*When implemented, did they lead to                         noticeable 
improvement in student writing? 
PROCESS APPROACHES IN            THE 1970S AND 1980S 
Although they dominated the professional                  literature, process approaches had not been fully implemented in all            classrooms by the mid 1980s. Because less than half of student                  writing was done for the English teacher, assignments in English                classes should not differ too much from other kinds of writing lest             students "decide that what they learn in English is irrelevant to               the rest of their writing" (p. 98). Furthermore, student writing too            often focused on textbook material, with the emphasis on accuracy of            recitation rather than on each student's own thinking. 
In 1986,               Applebee found little use of process approaches to writing                      instruction. In particular, prewriting was often slighted and many              papers did not progress beyond the first draft (p. 100). On the                 other hand, he did encounter terms such as "prewriting," "revising,"            and "editing" in textbooks, suggesting that increased use of such               textbooks would lead to "more widespread attention to                           process-oriented activities" (p. 101). Applebee had also hoped                  to "develop a series of models of effective instruction" and to find            evidence that efforts to use the process approach paid significant              dividends. Instead, he found that he had been too optimistic; his               studies pointed to "some serious problems in current                            conceptualizations of writing processes" (p. 102). 
Some of these              problems were rooted in the difficulties involved in helping                    students understand what real writers actually do. Often, activities            included in process writing became separated from the purposes they             were supposed to serve, preventing students from developing "a                  generalized conception of the 'writing process' that the writers                used in all contexts" (p. 102). Other problems arose from the fact              that the process approach is not suited to every writing project:               Some may require extensive prewriting, while others may require more            careful editing and revision. Because students often ignore the                 great diversity of writing tasks, "process-oriented instruction                 easily degenerates into an inappropriate and lockstep formula" (p.              102). 
Obviously, process-oriented instruction is of little value              unless it makes a difference in student writing. A study undertaken             by Hillocks (1982) analyzed "the results of experimental studies of             writing instruction published between 1963 and 1982" (Applebee,                 1986, p. 104). Hillocks considered four broad approaches: a) a                  product-oriented, teacher-centered mode of instruction; b)                      individualized instruction; c) natural process (an activity-based               version of process-oriented instruction); and (d) the environmental             mode, a structured process approach involving inquiry-based learning            and group problem solving (adapted from Applebee, 1986, pp.                     104-105). 
Hillocks favored the "environmental mode" and said that             the process-oriented approach was least effective of all. Applebee              noted that each of the four approaches led to some improvement in               writing achievement and that "the environmental mode that Hillocks              champions is itself a version of process-oriented instruction and               draws on a panoply of techniques he seems to be attacking" (1986, p.            105). RECONCEPTUALIZING THE PRINCIPLES OF PROCESS                             INSTRUCTION"Most instruction is based on the simple assumption              that we can specify a curriculum by studying what experts do and                teaching our students to do likewise" (p. 106). Process-oriented                approaches were not effective in their early stages because they                were based on mistaken notions of what writers do and of how the                process should be taught. Applebee pointed out the need "to develop             more adequate conceptualizations of both of these aspects of writing            instruction" and specified the following criteria: 
1. Writing                 processes must be reconstrued as strategies that writers employ for             particular purposes. 
2. For different tasks, writers will use                 different strategies, and for some tasks these strategies may                   involve no more than the routine production of a first and final                draft. 
3. More extensive writing routines must be recognized as               problem-solving heuristics appropriate to work-in-progress; they are            unlikely to be so useful in writing about things (or in ways) the               writer already knows well. (Applebee, 1986, p. 106) INSTRUCTIONAL             SCAFFOLDINGAnother important aspect of process writing is the               concept of instructional scaffolding, based on the belief                       that "learning is a process of gradual internalization of routines              and procedures available to the learner from the social and cultural            context in which the learning takes place" (p. 108). New skills are             learned as children work on tasks that might be too difficult to                undertake alone. Parents or teachers can ask questions and rephrase             children's comments to provide focus and direction. In the                      classroom, "The scaffolding provided is embedded in the materials of            instruction (textbooks, assignments, direct instructional                       activities) as well as in the more immediate interactions between               teacher and student" (p. 109). 
Finally, Applebee discussed several            aspects of instructional scaffolding that "suggest some of the                  features that a more comprehensive reconceptualization of teaching              will require": (a) allowing students to take a more active role; (b)            building on students' knowledge while introducing challenging new               material; (c) following a natural sequence of thought that helps                students learn useful approaches to the task; (d) collaborating with            students to help them solve problems; and (e) encouraging students              to take increasing responsibility for their own learning (adapted               from Applebee, 1986, p. 110). 
Application of the preceding                    principles would result in more effective application of                        process-oriented approaches to writing. 
*Students would be                    encouraged to choose their own topics whenever possible, and                    assignments would be expanded to allow students' opinions and                   solutions to play a part. 
*Teachers would become interested                   readers and skilled editors of students' writing, not just                      evaluators. 
*Emphasis would shift from students' knowledge about              writing to strategies and procedures they need to deal with more and            more challenging tasks. (p. 111) 
THE VIEW FROM THE 1980S AND                  1990S 
In the early 1980s, Hairston (1982) asserted that writing               instruction had undergone a "paradigm shift" as a result of research            in the preceding decades. Some of the elements in the new paradigm              include focusing on the writing process, with teacher intervention              as needed, and teaching strategies for invention and discovery.                 Furthermore, writing is evaluated according to how well it fulfills             the writer's intentions, and writing is also considered a recursive             rather than a linear process. Finally, writing is viewed as a way of            learning and developing and as a disciplined creative activity that             can be analyzed and described (adapted from Hairston, 1982; cited in            Graves, 1999, p. 13). 
Thirty years after publication of The                   Braddock Report, Jensen (1993) followed up on its findings by asking            a number of experts to respond to this question: "What is the single            most important thing that we as a profession know now that we didn't            know 30 years ago about the teaching and learning of writing in the             elementary school?" After reviewing the 16 responses received, she              reached these conclusions: 
*Writing in the early years is a                   natural "gateway to literacy." 
*All children can be                           writers. 
*Understanding writing and writers means understanding               complex and 
interrelated influences--cognitive, social, cultural,             psychological, 
linguistic, and technological. 
*We write so that             both we and others can know what we think. 
(Jensen, 1993; cited in            Graves, 1999, p. 26) 
Elaborating on the first point, Peter Elbow              of the University of Massachusetts said that very young                         children "can write anything they can say, whereas they can read                only a fraction of the words they can say." Therefore, "writing is              easier, quicker, and, in a sense, more 'natural' than                           reading--certainly more naturally learned" (Graves, 1999, p. 27).               Concerning the idea that all children can be writers, Glenda L.                 Bissex of Northeastern University said that an expanded view of                 writing allows many more children to see themselves as writers. They            include "not only the young poets and storytellers, but the                     inventive spellers who are working to understand and use our writing            system, the children who write about dinosaurs and kittens" (p.                 28). 
Colette Daiute of the Harvard Graduate School of Education               stressed that "gaining an interdisciplinary view of the myriad                  influences on writing will increase our ability to help children who            have serious difficulties with literacy." Susan Florio-Ruane of                 Michigan State University pointed out that "the forms and functions             of literacy in school children's lives transcend classroom reading              and writing instruction." We must consider "both the different home             and community experiences children have around literacy and the                 nature (and limitations) of classrooms as places to learn and                   practice literacy" (Graves, 1999, pp.                                           28-29). REFERENCESApplebee, A. N. (1986). Problems in process             approaches: Toward a reconceptualization of process instruction. In             Petrosky and Bartholomae (Eds.), "The teaching of writing:                      Eighty-fifth yearbook of the National Society for the Study of                  Education", Part II, Chapter 6. Pages 95-113. 
Braddock, R.,                   Lloyd-Jones, R., & Schoer, L. (1963). "Research in written                      composition". Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of                       English. 
Graves, R. L. (Ed.). (1999). "Writing, teaching,                     learning: A sourcebook". Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook. 
Hairston,              M. (1982). The winds of change: Thomas Kuhn and the revolution in               the teaching of writing. "College Composition and Communication",               33, pp. 76-88. In R. L. Graves, (Ed.), "Writing, teaching, learning:            A sourcebook" (pp. 3-5). Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook. 
Hillocks,              G. (1984). What works in teaching composition: A meta-analysis of               experimental treatment studies. "American Journal of Education", 93,            133-170. 
Jensen, J. M. (1993). What do we know about the writing              of elementary school children? "Language Arts", 70, pp. 290-94. In              R. L. Graves, (Ed.), "Writing, teaching, learning: A                            sourcebook" (pp. 25-32). Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook. 
Petrosky,              A. R., & Bartholomae, D. (Eds.). (1986). "The teaching of writing:              Eighty-fifth yearbook of the National Society for the Study of                  Education". Part II. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago                         Press. 
----- 
Digest #155 is EDO-CS-00-06 and was published in               November 2000 by the ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading, English and                 Communication, 2805 E 10th Street, Bloomington, IN 47408-2698,                  Telephone (812) 855-5847 or (800) 759-4723. ERIC Digests are in the             public domain and may be freely reproduced. Additional copies may be            ordered by contacting the ERIC Document Reproduction Service                    at (800) 443-3742. 
This project has been funded at least in part              with Federal funds from the U.S. Department of Education under                  contract number ED-99-CO-0028. The content of this publication does             not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the U.S. Department            of Education nor does mention of trade names, commercial products,              or organizations imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.                   **Title:** Writing Instruction: Changing Views over the Years. ERIC Digest D155.        **Document Type:** Information Analyses---ERIC Information Analysis Products (IAPs) (071); Information Analyses---ERIC Digests (Selected) in Full Text (073); **Available From:** ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading, English, and Communication, Indiana              University, 2805 E. 10th Street, Suite 140, Bloomington, IN                     47408-2698. Tel: 800-759-4723 (Toll Free); Web site:                            http://eric.indiana.edu.                                                     **Descriptors:**  Educational Change,  Educational History, Educational Practices,               Educational Trends, Elementary Secondary Education, Instructional               Effectiveness,  Process Approach (Writing),  Writing Instruction             **Identifiers:** ERIC Digests                                                                 
###
[Return to ERIC Digest Search Page]