Grace

Self Concept as a Writer

In most classroom settings, Grace can be found participating in activities, volunteering to answer questions, repeatedly reading pages from textbooks, helping her neighbor, or being social with friends. Her behavior changed when she was engaged in writing workshop. When producing written work, Grace focused intensely on ensuring it was both beautiful and as correct as possible. She paid little attention to friends and had few social interactions aside from helping a neighbor spell a word occasionally.

In our interview, Grace mentioned she felt she was good at writing beautifully, using full sentences, and spelling well. She also noted that she felt her writing skills had improved through Writing Workshop because her handwriting was beautiful. Grace's focus on aesthetics and correctness carried over into her use of illustrations in her writing as well. Grace spent a large amount of time developing clear, neat, detailed illustrations that accurately reflect what she wrote about. On a few occasions, Grace focused so much on drawing a picture that she managed to only write a sentence or a few words during writing time (Figure G1). In the interview, Grace included drawing as one of the reasons she like to write. She also noted that when she writes at home, she includes drawings with her writing. This shows that Grace considers illustrations and writing mechanics to be main indicators of quality writing. Her drawings gave Grace a safe way to organize and express ideas (Behymer, 2003; Calkins, 2011; Fletcher & Portalupi, 2001). When we began writing time, Grace regularly asked me if she could draw for a bit before she started writing. She referred back to her drawings to help recall the next thing she had planned to write about (Figure G2). Having this reference was important to Grace because she focused so intensely on her writing mechanics when in the act of writing.

Figure G1 - Focus on Illustrations

Figure G2 - Use of Drawings as a Reference for Writing

Grace's desire for explicit praise and sensitivity to corrections, which she perceives as criticism, are contributing factors to her focus on writing mechanics. Young writer's egos can be fragile and explicit praise can help boost their egos and preserve their motivation to write (Behymer, 2003; Calkins, 2011; Dennis & Votteler, 2012; Fletcher & Portalupi, 2001; Graves, 1985; Hertz & Heydenberl, 1997). Grace found that she could build a positive self concept as a writer by gaining praise for using full sentences in her writing. I sometimes read her full sentences loud enough for others to hear and praise her ability to write full sentences during a conference (Hertz & Heydenberl, 1997). Using the adult underwriting process described in Behymer (2003) to show how her work would be written with formal conventions helped maintain Grace's positive self image as a writer as well. Direct corrections on her work were much more difficult to accept and her motivation to write suffered drastically if she perceived any criticism, a tendency common to young writers (Calkins, 2011; Dennis & Votteler, 2012; Fletcher & Portalupi, 2001; Graves, 1985; Hertz & Heydenberl, 1997) .

Effects of Teacher Modeling

Grace showed less variation in her writing style than other students when target language was modeled differently. Her writing habits when language was modeled with verbal discussions or verbal discussions plus key words written on the board were particularly similar. Grace used similar, but not identical grammatical structures as was presented during these styles of modeling. She expanded on the structures we discussed by using 'and' frequently, and added her own sentence structures as well. Grace's speed and volume of writing was moderate to slow/small due to her attention on form, spelling, and other writing mechanics. Grace comfortably added vocabulary to her writing that was not discussed or presented during modeling. Altering language structures and vocabulary shows that Grace was able to capitalize on having freedom of choice and openness encouraged by the Writing Workshop model (Calkins, 2011; Fletcher & Portalupi, 2001; Graves, 1975, 1985; Hertz & Heydenberk, 1997). These two models of presenting language encouraged Grace to creatively engage in Writing Workshop.

Grace's writing behavior changed some when strong models were written on the board. Since spelling and word order were presented, Grace wrote faster not having to focus on these areas. Grace expanded on the model language, but much less than with other styles of modeling, usually repeating the target structure several times and only altering the object of the sentence (Figure G3). Grace's written work when strong models were presented showed that the exercise resembled a fill-in-the blank activity more than communicative, student generated writing. Strong models restricted Grace's engagement in realistic communication and her ability to write in her own voice, a critical part of engaging in Writing Workshop (Calkins, 2011; Fletcher & Portalupi, 2001; Graves, 1975, 1985; Hertz & Heydenberk, 1997).

Figure G3 - Repeated Grammatical Structure

Writing Product development

Grace began writing workshop with spelling skills above the class average, usually the phonetic or semi-phonetic stages of invented spelling. Sometimes Grace did not record vowel sounds, a feature of pre-phonetic spelling. Other times she wrote in the phonetic stage of spelling with most or all surface features of words being expressed (Gentry, 1982; Lehr, 1986; Lutz, 1986). Grace was near the top of the class in her command of grammar. She often used familiar, high frequency words in simple subject/verb/object word order that made her work comprehensible to me and other students. Sometimes, Grace used 'and' repeatedly to create run-on sentences, reducing comprehensibility. Grace capitalized 'I' and names, but did not capitalize other words that begin sentences. She also noted from early on in the Writing Workshop that her handwriting was better than mine. Her biggest areas of difficulty were focusing on illustrations and handwriting so much that she was not able to develop a full written piece in a timely manner.

Over the six weeks of engaging in Writing Workshop, Grace improved in several areas of writing mechanics but remained stagnant in others. Punctuation, capitalization, are the variety of words used in writing remained unchanged. Grace began to represent all surface sounds of words with letters, fully entering the phonetic stage of invented spelling (Gentry, 1982; Lehr, 1986; Lutz, 1986). She successfully wrote about her opinion, explain past events, and give information, the three genres required by Common Core Standards (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, 2010). Much of Grace's improvement came through the one-on-one conferencing provided by the Writing Workshop model that allowed me to focus on her specific needs (Behymer, 2003; Calkins, 2011; Dennis & Votteler, 2012; Fletcher & Portalupi, 2001; Graves, 1975, 1985; Hertz & Heydenberk, 1997). Through conferencing, I encouraged Grace to reduce her use of 'and' that was causing run on sentences. After a few conferences encouraging this strategy, Grace more consistently used simple, direct sentences that were more easily understood (Figure G4). I also addressed Grace's speed of writing and focus on illustrations in conferences. She was initially apprehensive about the effect writing more quickly would have on her handwriting, but after I showed her how it was still better than mine she adopted a 'medium' speed of writing. Conferencing about being able to revisit drawings later also gave Grace confidence to manage her drawing time better. These two strategies helped Grace produce a larger amount of written work that met her demands for aesthetic quality. These areas of improvement would have been more difficult to address with only whole class instruction, so conferencing played a valuable role in Writing Workshop for Grace.

Figure G4 - Simple, Clear Sentence Structure

Page updated

Google Sites

Report abuse