When I present at teaching conferences, I preach the value of daily writing. I typically phrase it as "Write everyday. Write relentlessly. But start small and make it routine." It's only when writing becomes the currency that you can build to other directions. If kids discuss what they wrote about literature, you cover any "standard" in context.
Teachers should never underestimate the discussion aspect. Before any activity like a Think-Pair-Share, a turn and talk, a Socratic circle, and so on, if kids spend just five minutes writing out their opinion first, everyone has participated.
But if I comment more, I'll just have to link to my workshop "Help! I don't know how to teach writing."
Informal writing and journaling are staples of a writing classroom. Your approach builds fluency as it opens the doors to germane cognitive activity, asking writers to figure out what they happen to know and think about a thing. Writing began as a community tool to connect one thinker with another. Your enthusiasm is contagious!
I think there are a few grades where writing does need its own block and those are the earliest grades, K-2. Writing is harder to learn than reading. We have no issue with having a block of time to teach basic reading skills in the early grades. But when it comes to writing it seems everyone wants a shortcut. Instead of carving out the time it takes to thoroughly teach writing, especially to the kids who have been least exposed to it and need it most, it seems easier to "combine" it with other subjects. I am totally supportive of a knowledge rich curriculum and kids writing responses, but I don't think the most struggling writers (the ones who need and deserve explicit instruction) are going to get enough by putting a mini writing lesson into a reading or social studies lesson.
I completely agree that writing is harder than reading--in fact, I say that all the time. As I mentioned, I couldn't cover everything about writing in this post, and I don't mean to suggest that writing instruction should ONLY happen in the way I described here -- just that using it in this way is an opportunity to foster both writing ability and learning.
I'm glad you mentioned K-2, because I want to make it clear that at those grade levels much of what I'm describing here should be done orally and collectively. For example, the teacher could provide a sentence stem, orally, and then students could provide possible responses orally. That lays the groundwork for later independent writing. But young children absolutely need a dedicated time for instruction in things like letter formation and spelling. The Writing Revolution method doesn't cover those aspects of writing.
Thank you for this reminder about the importance of integrating reading and writing instruction. I know I've mentioned Steve Graham's research before, but it bears repeating. Here's an excerpt from my instructional guide to reading, From Sound to Summary: Braiding the Reading Rope to Make Words Make Sense.
"But first, a literacy component we haven’t talked about: writing. Just as spelling facilitates word recognition, writing facilitates language comprehension through its reciprocal process of language expression. The relationship between writing and reading comprehension is explained in a report from the Carnegie Corporation of New York, Writing to Read: Evidence for How Writing Can Improve Reading (See Resources). Note that the report's authors, Steve Graham and Michael Hebert, recommend teaching both the skills for word recognition and the processes for language comprehension that go into reading comprehension by teaching their counterparts in writing, thus reinforcing the reciprocity between reading and writing. Note, too, that the first recommendation is to “have students write about the texts they read,” and they list science and social studies in addition to language arts."
Love your work Natalie, but this piece worries me. Essentially the example of writing about Wilbur showcases a grammar lesson as well as a test of reading comprehension and not a writing lesson. The goal was to practice using conjunctions and not to have students express an original idea about Wilbur with justification from the text. Of course correct use of conjunctions needs to be learned, but best to do that in the context of students’ thoughtful written work during the process of writing. As a standalone grammar lesson, it is fine, but not as effective as learning grammar at the point of need.
I'm afraid I don't understand your concern. What I've tried to show is that in that those third-graders were simultaneously learning a point of grammar or syntax (i.e., how to use conjunctions) AND expressing their original ideas with justification from the text, as you say, while also deepening their overall understanding of the story. Those things are intertwined. It was not a "standalone grammar lesson." To finish a sentence using "but," for example, you need to be able to understand how to use "but" correctly and also to come up with an idea, based in the text, that makes sense in a sentence that uses it.
I spent a day in the district where that lesson and others like it are being used on a daily basis, in connection with research for a new book I have in the works. What I saw in multiple classrooms and heard from many teachers there was pretty convincing evidence that this approach can have remarkable benefits.
I’m still struggling with the creative task that was asked of the students. The answers to the questions posed were clearly discerned from the story, so I see the assignment as more a test of reading comprehension than creative expression which writing is. No doubt students need to know how to use “but” correctly and the assignment as described is clearly helpful for that, but I was hoping to see an assignment that asked students to use their imagination which would surely make their responses more interesting to read. That would be a writing assignment.
Worries me, too. I’ve been in kindergartens when the kids kept journals using whatever they knew about print at the time. Writing is about expression in print, not a tool to memorize and recite.
Self Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD) is fantastic research based method of teaching writing. You can find out more about it from these two websites https://thinksrsd.com/ and https://srsdonline.org/
Can SRSD be used with the sentence level activities of the writing revolution? I've used both the writing revolution and SRSD and found SRSD to more comprehensive, sans the sentence writing activities.
Hello, is there any research regarding physically writing vs typing on a computer? I have been teaching The Writing Rev for several years. 3 trainings with the program, dynamic, but very similar to ECAW, which I had training in 20 years ago. I'm SO utterly frustrated now with teachers not giving students draft books and journals, but having the Chromebooks constantly open. I'd love some references for my PD's.
Thank you and looking forward to TWR 2.0. Does it have the same sequence and scope? Mora Luke
Yes, there is research showing that there are benefits to writing by hand vs. typing -- although the evidence is more equivocal about cursive vs. printing by hand. There are lots of articles on this out there, which you can find by Googling. One that we cite in TWR 2.0 is this one:
It's behind a paywall, but you can read the abstract for free.
We did make some revisions to the sequence of activities. As for pacing, we stress that teachers need to use their judgment, but we provide a few guidelines.
We use a method of oral “free write”, while developing the fluency and stamina of physically writing separately. A hundred years ago they called this Narration. Combined with Doug Lemov’s cold calling, it can be used in a classroom setting. You will listen to what the teacher reads aloud very closely, if you might be the one having to narrate!
When I present at teaching conferences, I preach the value of daily writing. I typically phrase it as "Write everyday. Write relentlessly. But start small and make it routine." It's only when writing becomes the currency that you can build to other directions. If kids discuss what they wrote about literature, you cover any "standard" in context.
Teachers should never underestimate the discussion aspect. Before any activity like a Think-Pair-Share, a turn and talk, a Socratic circle, and so on, if kids spend just five minutes writing out their opinion first, everyone has participated.
But if I comment more, I'll just have to link to my workshop "Help! I don't know how to teach writing."
Informal writing and journaling are staples of a writing classroom. Your approach builds fluency as it opens the doors to germane cognitive activity, asking writers to figure out what they happen to know and think about a thing. Writing began as a community tool to connect one thinker with another. Your enthusiasm is contagious!
I think there are a few grades where writing does need its own block and those are the earliest grades, K-2. Writing is harder to learn than reading. We have no issue with having a block of time to teach basic reading skills in the early grades. But when it comes to writing it seems everyone wants a shortcut. Instead of carving out the time it takes to thoroughly teach writing, especially to the kids who have been least exposed to it and need it most, it seems easier to "combine" it with other subjects. I am totally supportive of a knowledge rich curriculum and kids writing responses, but I don't think the most struggling writers (the ones who need and deserve explicit instruction) are going to get enough by putting a mini writing lesson into a reading or social studies lesson.
I completely agree that writing is harder than reading--in fact, I say that all the time. As I mentioned, I couldn't cover everything about writing in this post, and I don't mean to suggest that writing instruction should ONLY happen in the way I described here -- just that using it in this way is an opportunity to foster both writing ability and learning.
I'm glad you mentioned K-2, because I want to make it clear that at those grade levels much of what I'm describing here should be done orally and collectively. For example, the teacher could provide a sentence stem, orally, and then students could provide possible responses orally. That lays the groundwork for later independent writing. But young children absolutely need a dedicated time for instruction in things like letter formation and spelling. The Writing Revolution method doesn't cover those aspects of writing.
Thank you for this reminder about the importance of integrating reading and writing instruction. I know I've mentioned Steve Graham's research before, but it bears repeating. Here's an excerpt from my instructional guide to reading, From Sound to Summary: Braiding the Reading Rope to Make Words Make Sense.
"But first, a literacy component we haven’t talked about: writing. Just as spelling facilitates word recognition, writing facilitates language comprehension through its reciprocal process of language expression. The relationship between writing and reading comprehension is explained in a report from the Carnegie Corporation of New York, Writing to Read: Evidence for How Writing Can Improve Reading (See Resources). Note that the report's authors, Steve Graham and Michael Hebert, recommend teaching both the skills for word recognition and the processes for language comprehension that go into reading comprehension by teaching their counterparts in writing, thus reinforcing the reciprocity between reading and writing. Note, too, that the first recommendation is to “have students write about the texts they read,” and they list science and social studies in addition to language arts."
Love your work Natalie, but this piece worries me. Essentially the example of writing about Wilbur showcases a grammar lesson as well as a test of reading comprehension and not a writing lesson. The goal was to practice using conjunctions and not to have students express an original idea about Wilbur with justification from the text. Of course correct use of conjunctions needs to be learned, but best to do that in the context of students’ thoughtful written work during the process of writing. As a standalone grammar lesson, it is fine, but not as effective as learning grammar at the point of need.
I'm afraid I don't understand your concern. What I've tried to show is that in that those third-graders were simultaneously learning a point of grammar or syntax (i.e., how to use conjunctions) AND expressing their original ideas with justification from the text, as you say, while also deepening their overall understanding of the story. Those things are intertwined. It was not a "standalone grammar lesson." To finish a sentence using "but," for example, you need to be able to understand how to use "but" correctly and also to come up with an idea, based in the text, that makes sense in a sentence that uses it.
I spent a day in the district where that lesson and others like it are being used on a daily basis, in connection with research for a new book I have in the works. What I saw in multiple classrooms and heard from many teachers there was pretty convincing evidence that this approach can have remarkable benefits.
I’m still struggling with the creative task that was asked of the students. The answers to the questions posed were clearly discerned from the story, so I see the assignment as more a test of reading comprehension than creative expression which writing is. No doubt students need to know how to use “but” correctly and the assignment as described is clearly helpful for that, but I was hoping to see an assignment that asked students to use their imagination which would surely make their responses more interesting to read. That would be a writing assignment.
Worries me, too. I’ve been in kindergartens when the kids kept journals using whatever they knew about print at the time. Writing is about expression in print, not a tool to memorize and recite.
Self Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD) is fantastic research based method of teaching writing. You can find out more about it from these two websites https://thinksrsd.com/ and https://srsdonline.org/
Can SRSD be used with the sentence level activities of the writing revolution? I've used both the writing revolution and SRSD and found SRSD to more comprehensive, sans the sentence writing activities.
Hello, is there any research regarding physically writing vs typing on a computer? I have been teaching The Writing Rev for several years. 3 trainings with the program, dynamic, but very similar to ECAW, which I had training in 20 years ago. I'm SO utterly frustrated now with teachers not giving students draft books and journals, but having the Chromebooks constantly open. I'd love some references for my PD's.
Thank you and looking forward to TWR 2.0. Does it have the same sequence and scope? Mora Luke
Yes, there is research showing that there are benefits to writing by hand vs. typing -- although the evidence is more equivocal about cursive vs. printing by hand. There are lots of articles on this out there, which you can find by Googling. One that we cite in TWR 2.0 is this one:
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0956797621993111?journalCode=pssa.
It's behind a paywall, but you can read the abstract for free.
We did make some revisions to the sequence of activities. As for pacing, we stress that teachers need to use their judgment, but we provide a few guidelines.
What is writing rev and ECAW?
We use a method of oral “free write”, while developing the fluency and stamina of physically writing separately. A hundred years ago they called this Narration. Combined with Doug Lemov’s cold calling, it can be used in a classroom setting. You will listen to what the teacher reads aloud very closely, if you might be the one having to narrate!
Thank you for heralding writing to learn.
That's absolutely brilliant!