Writing Instruction: Changing Views over the Years

In the early 1960s, the National Council of Teachers of English commissioned a study to find out exactly 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 that knowledge about the teaching of writing was still in a fairly rudimentary state: "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).

Approaches toward writing instruction have evolved considerably from the amorphous state described in the Braddock Report. This Digest shows how these changes took place and provides some background for dealing with questions that may remain unresolved.

Writing in 1986, Arthur Applebee pointed out that instruction in the past had been largely "prescriptive and product-centered." At the sentence level it stressed correct usage and mechanics, while at the text level it "emphasized the traditional modes of discourse (narration, description, exposition, persuasion, and sometimes poetry)" (p. 95).

The 1970s and 1980s saw a major change in ideas on writing instruction. "In direct opposition to the focus on the final written product, there has been a groundswell of support for 'process approaches' to learning to write." Although opinions differed as to what constituted "process approaches," they usually included "instructional activities designed to help students think through and organize their ideas before writing and to rethink and revise their initial drafts" (1986, p. 95).

Today, the five-step approach to the writing process is widely accepted: Prewriting, Drafting, Revising, Editing, and Publishing. The writing process also includes 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 concerning process approaches to writing instruction:

1. How widely had they been adopted by that time?
2. When adopted, how successfully were they implemented?
3. When implemented, did they lead to noticeable improvement in student writing?

Although they dominated the professional literature, process approaches had not been fully implemented in all classrooms by the mid 1980s. Applebee found that less than half of student writing was done for the English teacher; the rest was done in other subjects. As a result, he pointed out the need to take care that assignments in English classes 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 all too often focused exclusively on textbook material, with the emphasis on accuracy of recitation rather than on each student's own thinking. Imaginative and personal writing had little place in most classrooms. Although analytic and imaginative writing were sometimes required in English classes, the emphasis in other classes was on writing summaries and reports of observations and experiments.

At least as of 1986, Applebee found little use of process approaches to writing instruction. In particular, prewriting often averaged no more than three minutes, and "few papers went beyond the first draft, and even on the first draft 60 percent showed no revisions of any kind" (p. 100). On the other hand, Applebee did find that a change in attitude was beginning to emerge. He noticed increasing use of terms such as "prewriting," "revising," and "editing" in textbooks at both the elementary and secondary level, and anticipated that increased use of such textbooks would lead to "more widespread attention to process-oriented activities" (p. 101).

As a result of his study, Applebee hoped to "develop a series of models of effective instruction" and also 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).

A number of problems were rooted in the difficulties involved in helping students understand what real writers actually do. In too many classrooms, the activities included in process writing became separated from the purposes they were supposed to serve. "The choice of appropriate strategies was driven by the task at hand-not by a generalized conception of the 'writing process' that the writers used in all contexts" (p. 102).

Other problems arose from the fact the process approach is not suited to every writing project. While some tasks may require extensive planning and organization before writing begins, others may require more careful editing after they are finished. Because students too 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. In order to evaluate the merits of process writing as well as other approaches, 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:

1. a product-oriented, teacher-centered mode of instruction;
2. individualized instruction (including tutorials and programmed materials);
3. natural process (a student-centered, activity-based version of process-oriented instruction); and
4. the environmental mode (a structured process approach that often involves 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 interpreted the results differently, pointing out that each approach 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" (p. 105).

Applebee says that "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." Process-oriented approaches were not effective in their early stages because they were based on mistaken notions of what experts really do and of how the process should be taught. "The most critical task facing both research and practice in the teaching of writing is to develop more adequate conceptualizations of both of these aspects of writing instruction" (p. 106).

A more adequate view of writing instruction should include these points:

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. (p. 106)

By taking this broader view, students discover that they can draw on a number of strategies, choosing those that best fit each situation. The use of process approaches would thus be tailored to suit each situation, not imposed as an unchanging formula.

Applebee emphasizes that another 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 the child works with parents and teachers on tasks that might be too difficult to undertake alone. Throughout this process, adults provide support that allows the child not only to complete the task but also to acquire some understanding of the problem and of the ways it can be solved.

Scaffolding can be provided in simple conversations between children and parents or teachers, who can ask questions and rephrase children's comments to provide focus and direction. In a formal classroom setting, the interchange between teacher and student is more structured. "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 discusses several aspects of instructional scaffolding. "Though not in themselves an alternative model of instruction, they suggest some of the features that a more comprehensive reconceptualization of teaching will require" (pp. 109-110).

• By being allowed to take an active role, students acquire ownership of the learning event.
• Students' existing knowledge must provide the basis of the activity, but some challenging new material can be introduced.
• By following a natural sequence of thought and language, students learn useful strategies and approaches to the task.
• Teachers collaborate with students to help them solve problems together.
• Students can take increasing responsibility for their own learning as they master new procedures and routines. (p. 110)

• 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)

• It focuses on the writing process; instructors intervene in students' writing during the process.
• It teaches strategies for invention and discovery; instructors help students to generate content and discover purpose.
• Audience, purpose, and occasion figure prominently in the assignment of writing tasks.
• Instructors evaluate the written product by how well it fulfills the writer's intention and meets the audience's needs.
• It views writing as a recursive rather than linear process; prewriting, writing, and revision are activities that overlap and intertwine.
• It emphasizes that writing is a way of learning and developing as well as a communication skill.
• It views writing as a disciplined creative activity that can be analyzed and described; its practitioners believe that writing can be taught.
• It stresses the principle that writing teachers should be people who write. (adapted from Hairston, 1982; cited in Graves, 1999, p. 13)

• Writing during 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 idea of writing as a gateway to literacy, 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, pp. 26-27).

On the same point, Martha L. King of The Ohio State University pointed out that young children can and will write very early if they are in a positive writing environment and if parents and teachers recognize that their early efforts contain a real message. Research into "children's early concept of story, elements, and structure of story" has "changed expectations of teachers and led to a virtual explosion of writing in the early years" (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" (Graves, 1999, p. 28).

Colette Daiute of the Harvard Graduate School of Education stressed the need to integrate our understanding of the many factors that affect writing as well as reading. "I think that gaining an interdisciplinary view of the myriad influences on writing will increase our ability to help children who have serious difficulties with literacy" (Graves, 1999, pp. 28-29). Along the same lines, 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, p. 29).

For additional information, see the ERIC Digest entitled Writing Instruction: Current Practices in the Classroom.

Applebee, 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.

| NEWS ABOUT READING | ONLINE EDUCATION | WEB RESOURCES | BOOKS & BULLETINS | DIGESTS & BIBLIOS | FAMILY INFO CENTER | LESSON PLANS | Q & A ARCHIVE | DATABASE SEARCH | CHARACTER ED CENTER | The Clearinghouse on Reading, English, and Communication is an information repository of the Indiana University School of Education. Dr. Carl B. Smith, Professor