The Teaching of Writing Teachers

My inquiry paper connects my passion for teacher education and literacy instruction in preservice teacher education programs. As I began to learn more about the history of writing throughout our course this semester, I have found that writing instruction has received less attention and devotion than reading instruction in the classroom. This is not just the case in K-12 classrooms. It seems this dichotomy carries through to teacher education programs, as well. The majority of courses taken in teacher education literacy programs focus their attention on the theory and practice needed to successfully teach reading. However, very few courses are solely devoted to teaching students how to become effective writers. My preliminary research has found that this lack of preparation creates a feeling of apprehension and lack of confidence in preservice teachers, with many reverting to teaching writing as they were taught, or relying heavily on professionals in the K-12 classrooms to compensate for their lack of writing instruction at the college level.

Various studies have determined that many instructional practices during literacy methods courses have had a positive impact on creating more effective writing teachers. I will explore the areas of literacy histories, increased collaborations with K-12 students, writing circles, book clubs, and multigenre writing as opportunities for preservice teachers to bridge theory and practice in literacy instruction and become more confident, effective teachers of writing.

I will be drawing background knowledge from Chapter 22: Teaching of Writing and Writing Teachers Throughout the Ages in the Handbook of Research on Writing. Roen, Goggin, and Clary-Lemon (2008) provide an overview of writing instruction from the classical period through the twentieth century. My main area of interest focuses on the latter sections of the chapter that are devoted to the writing instruction of elementary, secondary education, and post secondary instructors.

The following are key components from Chapter 22:

• Perceived literacy crisis in the United States resulted in more government funding and value on the teaching of English including writing.
• The National Writing Project (NWP) was established in 1974 at the University of California-Berkely as a commitment to strengthening the writing instruction of K-16 teachers across the United States. "The NWP's mission is to improve the teaching of writing by developing and sustaining university-based writing projects" (Roen, et al., 2008, p, 353).
• A shift in focus from product-oriented to process-oriented writing was seen in the 1970s and 1980s with the publication of a variety of articles devoted to composition in NCTE's journals.
• The 1980s and 1990s, saw an emergence of writing workshops and instructional techniques from researchers and educators including Donald Graves, Lucy Calkins, Tom Romano, and Nancie Atwell. These names are still widely read and cited in writing research today.
• There is still a predominance of writing instruction that workshop oriented compared to effective teaching of English.
• There are vast discrepancies between writing instruction for K-12 teachers and instruction for college writing teachers. As previously stated, K-12 teachers are given less preparation for the teaching of writing.
  

New Historical Criticism and Multi-Genre Writing

After Julie's Wiki presentation last week, I decided to read further about New Historical Critical Theory. As Tyson explains in Critical Theory Today, there is a distinct difference between what questions historians and new historians ask. "Traditional historians ask, 'What happened?' and 'What does the event tell us about history?' In contrast, new historicists ask, 'How has the event been interpreted' and "What do the interpretations tell us about the interpreters?'" (Tyson, 2006, p. 282).

Looking at this theory with a writing perspective in mind, led me to the topic of multigenre writing. I have recently been researching this topic as an concept for my Inquiry Paper, and I began making the connection between this topic and New Historical Critical Theory, after Katie made the suggestion in class. I was introduced to the topic of multigenre writing in the professional book club in which I am a member with Petra, Karen, and other former members of the National Writing Project. The group, which is comprised of a wide array of instructors, from a kindergarten teacher to a graduate school professor, meets periodically to discuss Calkin's The Art of Teaching Writing and share our own accomplishments and challenges with teaching writing in the classroom.

Based on the work of Romano (1995), "A multigenre research paper involves students in conducting research, and instead of writing in a traditional research paper format, they write in a range of genres. Each genre reveals one facet of the topic, and it can stand alone to make its own point" (Allen & Swistak, 2004, p. 224). This writing format, enables students to share their interpretations of an event using various forms including poetry, art, diary entries, journals, broadcasts, and newspaper articles. Allen & Swistak's (2004) research with multigenre writing is shared in Multigenre Research: The Power of Choice and Interpretation, which involved the collaboration between fifth grade students and preservice teachers. Both groups were responsible for writing a multi-genre paper. However, the preservice teachers also served as guides and writing role models for their middle school counterparts. View the Annotated Bibliography of Allen & Swistak and various others researchers of multigenre writing for further information.

During their research, the authors developed a new strategy referred to as FQI (Facts-Questions-Interpretations), which enabled students to chart facts on a topic, determine questions that need to be answered, and suggestions for interpretations through various genres. The article included an example based on the life of Eva Peron, otherwise known as "Evita". Through multigenre writing, Allen and Swistak's students were taught to interpret a historical event or an individual's life through various lenses and write about their research using genres that were appealing to them. This seems to relate to New Criticism and how specific interpretative questions form the foundation of an event or a person's life. "For new historians consider history a text that can be interpreted the same way literary critics interpret literary texts, and conversely, it considers literary texts cultural artifacts that can tell us something about the interplay of discourses, the web of social meanings, operating in the time and place in which those texts were written" (Tyson, 2006, p. 287). One of the key components that Tyson (2006) describes in New Historical Criticism is that the writing of history is not just facts, but on the interpretation. Therefore, students' multigenre research papers are just that-the interpretation of facts garnered through research, expressed and articulated in myriad ways that foster creativity and enable students to make instructional choices in their own assignments.

I am exploring the use of multigenre writing with preservice teachers, and I am hoping to use this strategy in future classrooms to advocate a greater sense of student choice and use of personal interpretations on pedagogical practices and theory in literacy methods classrooms.

New Criticism

Since Reader Response Theory, my assigned area to study, is a response to the New Criticism of the 1940s-1960s, I decided to explore this theory further to investigate if the notions of New Criticism are still relevant today. Tyson (2006) states, "'The text itself' became the battle cry of the New Critical effort to focus our attention on the literary work as the sole source of evidence for interpreting it"(p. 136). Although Tyson claims that New Criticism is not a contemporary literary criticism, and no longer practiced by literacy critics, I beg to differ.

The standardized manangement system that still dominates the majority of our school systems today, relies heavily on the use of high stakes testing, including the Ohio Achievement Test and the Ohio Graduation Test. The results of these assessments often determines funding, programs, and sometimes the faculty/staff for the subsequent school year. Test preparation dominates many districts, often from the first day of the school year. Students are often taught that only "one correct" answer exists, based on the format of the testing that the students are preparing to take. To me, this is the underpinnings of the New Criticism movement-the interpretation lies in the text, not in the reader.

Last spring, I had the opportunity to interview several K-8 reading teachers in order to collect data for the inference project that I am researching. I spoke with Cathy, a third grade teacher in a large public school system, who candidly admitted that test preparation begins on the very first day of school in her building. She teaches her students to answer literal questions by retrieving the answer from the actual text, often marking the page number on which the "correct answer" can be found. She does not spend any time introducing or reinforcing the concept of inference, since she beleives the Ohio Achievement Test at the third grade level asks very few higher-level questions that would require students to make an inference. I am currently researching standardized reading tests in five states, inclusdng Ohio, so I will be interested to determine if Cathy's statements are justified, or perhaps, just a response to the system in which she teaches.

Another premise of New Criticism that still pervades high school and college classrooms, is the concept of "close reading". This theory states that the "formal elements" of the language of text leads to its interpretation. The McClennan's Close Reading Guide defines several of the "formal elements" that Tyson (2006) describes in Critical Theory Today, including imagery, irony, and theme. Purdue University's Online Writing Lab also states that "close reading" is making a comeback and provides students a sample of applying "close reading" with a Shakespearean sonnet. Again, students are being taught to focus on the specific syntax and semantics of a text instead of making a personal connection.

Last Monday, during class, it was suggested that Advanced Placement Testing, may be another avenue to explore in relation to New Criticism Theory. It was somewhat ironic, that on Tuesday, the topic of Advanced Placement Tests was brought up by my dentist. Dr. F. began by asking my opinion on where his current eighth-grade son should attend high school next year. His son is deciding between the local public high school and an all-boys Catholic school in Cleveland. Dr. F stated that his son is already enrolled in advanced classes and plans to take Advanced Placement courses while in high school. A little research has revealed that the number of students taking Advanced Placement tests has significantly increased in the past years. However, the percentage of students passing the tests has decreased. Students can earn college credit by receiving a passing score of 3, 4, 0r 5 on the assessment. The New York Times and USA Today have both published statitistics on this area of concern for eductors. In the past, Advanced Placement tests were taken by "elite" students hoping to jumpstart their college career. Now, it seems that a different popluation of students are taking these exams. Has this contributed to the increased failure rate? Or, does the test perpetuate the notion of the "one correct answer or response," which disallows students' variations in the interpretation of the material? I hope to explore this area further, and look forward to sharing my findings.

Reader Response Theory

By luck of the draw, I happily selected Reader Response Theory to read, reflect, and respond to as a form of literary criticism. The first theories posited about reader response are attributed to Louise Rosenblatt and her description of Transactional Reader Response Theory. This theory, generally stated, "analyzes the transaction between text and reader" (Tyson, 2006, p.173). The text and the reader are considered equally important and require that an aesthetic approach be taken by the reader in order to create the "poem" or interaction between the two factors.

Read more about The Significance of Louise Rosenblatt on the Field of Teaching Literature.

Since Rosenblatt's initial work, other theorists, most notably Stanley Fish and Norman Holland, have expanded the views of Reader Response Theory to include the importance of the social environment that affects a reader's interpretation, as well as the personal revelations about the reader based on psychological responses. As Tyson (2006) states, "A literary interpretation may or may not reveal the meaning of the text, but to a discerning eye it always reveals the psychology of the reader" (p. 183).

Much research can be found on reader response theory, and fortunately, many educators are including reader response journals and critiques as part of their literacy instruction, in order for students to make a more personal connection to the text being read. To truly interpret a piece of literature, a student's background knowledge and experiences must be taken into consideration and valued as integral components of response to literature.

My first concerted effort to focus on reader response theory as an educator occurred almost four years ago, when I was still teaching fifth grade language arts full-time, and teaching part time at Baldwin-Wallace College. I engaged in an action research study with a colleague which entailed pairing teacher education candidates enrolled in a literacy methods course at Baldwin-Wallace College with my fifth grade students, to read and respond to the Newbery Award winning novel, Bud, Not Buddy by Christopher Paul Curtis. The students and candidates dialogued about the novel through a weekly online journal. The interactions were printed, analyzed, and coded, based on the work of Marjorie Hancock. Our study revealed the types of questions asked and comments shared by the students and teacher education candidates. Our results were further disseminated at the annual College Reading Association conference in October, 2006.

Students, in both classes, benefited from the opportunities provided to engage in reader response through online dialogue journals. My students truly moved beyond asking and responding to literal questions, and began using higher-level thinking skills to question the author, make text to self connections, and discern relevant information from the text. Their background knowledge and experiences were key to sharing their thoughts, as well. I also valued the writing connection that was a central component of this research. Many students expressed themselves more deeply and candidly in writing, rather than in general oral discussions. I also found this to be true when conducting literature circles in my classroom. It was the journal writing component that led to critical thinking and deeper ponderings, prior to sharing their thoughts with others aloud.

It was somewhat ironic that I happened upon an article on reader response theory that was very similar to my action research using Bud, Not Buddy. I wish I had published my findings year ago! Perhaps, it is not too late. In the meantime, I will add the article's link to my Wiki page, as well as other useful documents and teaching strategies.