chapter 19 2/4

19. The Process Approach to Writing Instruction279fourth-grade teachers and 14,435 eighth-grade teachers revealed that, across theUnited States, considerable time is devotedeach week to working with students on thewriting process (Greenwald, Persky, Camp-bell, & Mazzeo, 1999). The data from theNAEP assessments in 1998 and 2002 thatcorrelate the amount of time spent on thewriting process with student achievement arestill unavailable. Except for the NAEP assessmerits, few large-scale studies are specifi-cally designed to study the relation of theprocess instructional approach to the qualityof written products. Fewer yet use an experi-mental and control group design. Even the NAEP data are so broad thatthey do not give us clear evidence aboutwhat kind of instruction is regarded as "pro-cesswriting’Parthey-Chavez er al. (2004)concluded that "students appear to respondto the type of feedback they recelve， andwhen they are asked to standardize theirwriting rather than to develop it, that is pre-cisely what they do" (pp. 46，一70). Soif teachers embrace a standardized linearmodel of the writing process,or a n open-ended recursive model, or a direct instruc-tion model, or an integrated model, orwriting as problem-solving model, their stu-dents will respond accordingly. The authorsof one of the studies we reviewed (MacAr-thor, Schwartz, Graham, Molloy, & Harris,1996), cite a similar comment by MichaelFullan (1982) that "teachers may reject inno-varions not consonant with their current be-liefs and practices" (p. 169). This principlepertains to how teachers-and, ultimately,researchers-dresearcherse6nethe writing process andinterpret findings. In our review of the research, we foundthat researchers hold surprisingly differentviews of what the process approach entails.For example, some see it as a loosely moni-tored series of steps,a "natural process"the context of authentic tasks, without ex-plicit instruction in planning, revising, andother strategies (MacArthur et al., 1996). Inthis view, "process writing [is] primarilybased on indirect rather than direct methodsof instruction" (Graham & Harris, 1997, p.252). On the other hand, others regard directstrategy instruction and guided practice inte-grated into the writing process as crucialto the definition of the process approach(Applebee, 1986; Atwell, 1987; Calkins,1986;Cramer, 2001; DeFoe, 2000; Honeycutt &Pritchard, 2005; Poindexter & Oliver, 1998/1999). Cramer (2001) sees the writing pro-cess as "a set of theories, procedures, andactivities which emphasize the operations,changes and procedures by which writing is“ccomplished" (p. 53). Applebee (1986) conserued the writing process as "strategies thatwriters employ for particular purposes. Fordi角cult tasks, writers will use different strat-egies, and for some tasks these strategies mayinvolve no more than the routine productionof a first and final draft" (p. 106). Hence, theprocess writing that researchers have studiedmay be a routine first and final draft devoidof specific strategy instructions, or it may bea framework in which strategies and skill de-velopment are embedded. To complicate matters even more, the basicdefinition of the process model has evolvedin the theoretical literature, so that now it isregarded quite differently than in its earlyyears， when, for example, explicit instruc-tion, reflection, guided revision， and self-assessment were not commonly associatedwith the process model. These varying vieof the process approach alert us to the poten-tial bias exerted by a researcher's paradigmand definition of the writing process An ERIC (Educational Resources Infor-mation Center) search of dissertation a6-stracts on the writing process, as well as asearch for studies in electronic educationaldatabases, reveals that during the 1970s and1980s, research focused on how componentsof the writing process are related to spe-cific variables, such as syntactic complexity(Moriarity, 1978); catalysts for the writingprocess (Schwartz, 1980); writing apprehen-sion (Butler, 1980); language ability skills(Hayes, 1984); journal writing (Robinson-Merz, 1985); thought and emotions (Miller,1985); prior knowledge (DeGroff, 1985);ELLS (So, 1986; Watkins-Goffman, 1986);and verbal skills (Robbins, 1986). All ofthese studies show some positive associationof the writing process with the variables be-ing studied. However, the variables did notalways include improved products. From the late 1980s through 2003, re-search increased that was specifically de-signed to measure the quality of students'written products as a result of using the writ-ing process. Robinson (1986) conducted anexperimental study with 120 fifth-grade sm-280III. INSTRUCTIONAL MODELS AND APPROACHESdents to investigate the effects of processwriting instruction on the number and levelsof revision as a result of 1- and 2-day lessonsonrevision. She found that students taughtage and above ninth- and tenth-grade students. Students assigned to the experimentalgroup received instruction in the protheach to writing based on Emig's rrchusing the process approach scored higher oncontrol groups received instruction usingfinaltimesUsing(:roeswriting samplesand engaged in 2.5the standard methods of teaching composithan students taughttion at the time (textbooks, worksheets,a traditional method of composing(1990) used a nonequivalent control:裂ing grammar in isolation, providing theto students, giving assignments and duegroup design tostudy the efficacy of thewriting process in helping 157 learningdisdates)dentsScannella found that, overalltaught in the process methodabled students in grades 1巧improve theiroverall writing performance. Harris (1992)denced greater improvement in their e)stu'viposinvestigated the relationship betwequality and attitudes toward wstudy of 34 third graders random[to one of four treatment groups. en writing sting in y assigned These lasttwo studies indicate some positive effects oftory writing, but not in their creative writing,than did students in the control group. Fur-thermore, the experimental group evidenceda statistically significant increase in positiveattitudes toward writing, whereas the con-trol group showed a slight decrease in overallthe writing process on the variables examinedMore recent studies have involved the usepositive attitudes toward writing.In an experimental study with 654 third-,fourth-, and fifth-grade students, Brunoof personal cor印Undenceprocess by 236亡e印ondenceand the writingrespsecond-grade children in tra-/1983) compared the writing achievement ofstudents taught using the writing prosingtheting俪声ditional and process(Hamilton, 1992); theprocessapproach classroomsas thewritingforcontext fordeveloping 16 "nonnative" stucontextmethod with that of students taught usingthe textbook and workbook method. Usingpre- and posaests, Bruno found that thedents' writing ability (Chiang, 1992); a casestudy of the development of writing skillswriting of students taught using the wriprocess approach was rated superior toover 1 year for three first graders usingof students using the traditional methodproapproach (Eitelgeorge, 1994);comparisoncomParlsonditional andbetween the effects of using asProCcSSoProCcSSnProCcSS sProCcSSeProCcSScProCcSSoProCcSSnProCcSSdprocessapproaches黔rs'19粼ttena de票黔of storiesby genderIBoydof writattitudes黔蒜留称嘿怨about writing ofprocesses and:first graders (Billman, 1995); the effectspecially in terms of the overall organizationformat.and A research team funded by the NationalInstitute of Education (Graves, 1984) pub-lished 26 articles about the writing behaviorsof 16 children in five elementary classroomsIna New Hampshire school. A contributionxpllcltly teaching thewxpllcltly teaching therxpllcltly teaching theixpllcltly teaching thetxpllcltly teaching theixpllcltly teaching thenxpllcltly teaching thegxpllcltly teaching the pxpllcltly teaching therxpllcltly teaching theoxpllcltly teaching thecxpllcltly teaching theexpllcltly teaching thesxpllcltly teaching thesxpllcltly teaching the txpllcltly teaching theoxplicitly teaching thewrltlng Process toof this qualitative study w毗41ofimprove the writing skillsgrade Tide I students (DeanofRu15 seventhmethod of observingc卜lldre「,method of observingc卜lldre「hmethod of observingc卜lldre「emethod of observing childrentheresearch while theywrite, rather than using retrospective analyand the impact of direct teaching,seyof1998);writingstrategies and skills tomiddle school students to facilitate their execution of the writing process (De La Paz改Graham, 2002)Again, all of these‘degrees positive resLby using the writingses of written products and postcomposinginterviews. One member of this team, LucyCalkins, used direct observations of childrencomposing, field notes, transcripts of inter-views with children and teachers, collections0 .1writing productsproThe following examinations of two experimental and two qualitative studies withK-12 students are illustrative of researchdesigned specifically to measure how instruc-tion in the writing process affects the overallof all drafts, and videotapes of children dur-ing composing and conferencing. In her 2-year longitudinal case study of one child'swriting development in a writing workshop,Calkins (1982; 1983) charted writing sam震瓤changes in punctuation, handwriting, topic, structure, flow, and read﹃srades，︸﹃quality ofScannell九products.982) conducted a yearlong experi ental study of the effects of the writingas-process model on the writing of 121 averability. She observed the child's daily wrbehaviors through third and fourthdocumenting the child's gradualgrasp ofprocess, her development19. The Process Approach to Writing 1pstruchotwriter's executive functions, and her inter-默ation of writing and revising strategies's findings indicate that as the childinternalized a repertoire of process wing strategies especially revising strategiesher writing products steadily improved. Con-sidering how limited Calkins s research was-just one child's processes-her research has(Bomomley, Henk, & Melnick, 1997/1998),as well as qualitative data consisting fteacher lesson plans, student writing portfo-漂written renotes o镖ons by stferences,案is, instruc-individualand focus-group interviewsgrade students and shad enormous impact otypes of procedures (Denzin,to verify the data: (1) across with 11 fifth-teachers. Three1989) were usedcollection meth-process is implemented ithow the writing the elementaryods (document analysis, scores on thegrades.The work。。Graves and Calkins;，，samples and the Writer Self-Perceptio i，and focus groups), (2)garded as contributing to theory from apractitioner's perspective, bur since the samacross data sources (students and teachers),and (3) across investigators (two researchers,pies are small and the designs areformal member checking in focus groupsmental, this research has beennot expert criticizedand informal member checking with individagorinsky (1987), for example, states thatcase study methodology that Graves anduals). In the context of a writHoneycutt (2002) examinedtheworkshop,effects ofcolleagues advocated is merely "report(P.G333). Validity concerns are legitiaves and Calkins employed an earlyapplication of qualitative research that didnot specifically addressof validity that are ncthe numerous typesualitative research is more rigorousRecentad-ressing types of validity, such as constructexplicit instruction and practice in how toapply writing process strategies and strate-gies for dealing with negative emotions thataris e during various stages of the writingprocess. Pre- and posttests indicated that theoverall quality of students' texts improvedwhen students (1) internalized specific strate-gies for prewriting, writing, and revising; (2)validity, internal validity, external validity,employed self-regulation strategies to momdemocratic validity, process and outcome vafor the development of a text; and (3) actilidity, catalytic validity, and dialogic validity(Anderson, Herr, & Nihlen, 1994; Bogdan& Bilken, 1998; Erlandson, Harris, Skipper,vated str:emotronstegnthatfor dealing withnegativearise during the composing倪Allen, 1993). Honeycutt's research design (2002;process.Like Calkins's (1982) case study sstudents in the Honeycutt studyubject,(2002)Honevcutt & Pritcha2005) explains how-iced specific processes until the processesthePra比he triangulated therd,d.ta, kept field noteame automatized during compoto record any researcher biases that mightHoneycutt's research introducedemerge, and transcribed video and audio retheory about what subprocesses agrond s器cords that were reviewed with the subjectsfor ac curacy. His purpose was to create agrounded theory aboutgood readers who卜or have noinstructional aspects of the writingexert the most influence on students'dispositions andt writing productsstudies are needed to study and refinethMore,his,he-or behavioral disability. His defini-the process model includes explicitory, especially in light of the recognition thatsome practitionersusing the process apstrategy instruction, such as schema strate-gies for story gram and searching priorproach donf)t See it asencompassing explicitinstructionor dealing with emotional issuesknowledge, as well as guided practice, peerAlthough most researchers agree that thegroup feedback,teac her-student conferenstrategies and mental processesInvnlved hcing, and the usual stages fordraft. In examining the impact.cmgaa processthe writing pro器 a recursive and inter-locked, many have discovered that studyingbased model on improving student wrione component at a time makes an eHoneycutt used quantitative datastandardized and teacher-developed恶asmously complex research task more manageable. Thus, to date, the vast majority ofthe research has investigated specific com-p onents of the writing process, especiallyprewriting and revising.282III. INSTRUCTIONAL MODELS AND APPROACHES Affording timein the classroomandis .and Freedman (2003) noted that ethough the 1998 NAEP found a strong corthe process aFrelation between higher scores andmod,proachI, Ipresence to prewritinginap, consequence ofUntil the advent of therewntmgwasusuallytion of the writing process, it is "dire，se d apart from a teacher makingtottheassignment and giving due dates. Now, pre-writing is explicitly addressed, with the put-pose of teaching students to develop person-alized strategies that they can apply not onlyto develop contents was the focus origi-evaluate the degree to which the approach in[the United States] as a whole has improvedstudent writing" (p. 976). Furthermore,Dason ansearch on豁烹默argued thatss does n恶re-ffernally-but also ton 12.tlonIn the tcreate structure and orga-arly years of the processnmodel, prewrw分5considered one stepthe process-ter did it and dispensedwith it. Now, as with the other stages of theprocess approach, prewriting is regarded asany "simple prescriptions for practice, but itcan offer a vocabulary for talking about thenature of writing" (p. 974). Cramer (2001)asked whether there is sufficient weight inthe criticisms to abandon the process model.As a result of our review of the literature, weagree with his answer:recursive; prewnnng strategies may emergeduring the revising stage, for example. More-over, prewriting can take the form of inquiry,a method that Hillocks (1986) found to beover 2.5 times more effective than the studyof writing anodeactivity. Althoughs, a traditional prewriting]nquiry can occur anytimeduring the writing process, it constitutes aneffective prewriting strategy in that students'focus is on transforming raw data.It is best to face this truth: the writing prohas its weaknesses; it is poorly implemented川nlany instances;It 15 not a panacea. Bur it is abetter candidate for improving writing perfor-1llan<e than the traditional approach.服must listen to the critics; we mor he willing torethink and adjust our theories, procedures,and practices. But there is not sufficient ev]-den, to cause us to abandon the writing pro-cess. (p. 39)Like prewriting, revls]011 instruction wlargely neglected in composition classes untilthe process approach. Before this, revisionusually provoked as a mandate to stu-dents to "improve your paper," made afterthe paper w complete and had been turnedin to the teacher. The results were usually ed-firing, not a true re-visioning of the paper,noted in the title of Lee O'Dell and JoanCohick's (1975) article, "You Mean, Write ItOver in Ink?" Today, the counterpart wouldbe, "You mean, run spell check and lasernr】nt It;" Numerous researchers and writersview revision as the most important part ofthe composing process; it has also been theImost researched subproces s of the writingprocess. Genrood not as裂舞revision has been under-which the author cor-rects errors, but as a process of discoveringwhat one has to say and adapting the text tomaximize the clarity of the message (Calkins,1986; Elbow, 1973; Graves, 1983; Murray,Research on the Impact of the National WritingProject Professional Devel叩ment ModelAs an exemplary professional developmentmodel with roots in the 1973 Bay Area Writ-ing Project, the NWP "eschews a singularformula for teaching writing" (Friedrich &LeMahieu, 2004, p. 19). However, "the fun-damental belief of the NWP that the processof writing needs to be taught deliberately,systematically, and extensively in the class-room has deeply affected writing instructionat all grade levels during the decade ofthe 1980's" (Inverness Research Associates,1997, p. 191. Our review of the current liter-atureindicates that the process pedagogy hascontinued to affect writing instruction in thenew millennium The NWP summer institute is the enter-prise most closely identified with the processapproach. Blau 119881 characterizes the sa- Taken together, these studies of the impactof using the process approach on studentachievement indicate mainly positive effects,but they are based on uneven implementa-tions of the writing process. In their reviewof the research on process writing, Dysonlient features of NWP institutes: "Teacherconsultants emphasized reaching writing as aprocess, spoke of an instructional sequencethat proceeded from fluency to form to cot-recmess, practiced the ase of writing re-spouse groups, and explored the various