Development of the Writing Workshop
"To date the need for developmental studies related to children's writing has been virtually ignored" (Graves, 1975, p. 241). Donald Graves was one of the first researchers to look into the entire writing process of children, including the prewriting, composing, and postwriting phases (Graves, 1975). His preliminary research showed the learning environment a student was exposed to directly impacted their writing output. When given the choice of what to write, students produced longer written work. Surprisingly, when given the choice of whether to write or not, students also produced longer written work (Graves 1975). Going against traditional teaching centered methodologies, Graves (1975) also found, "results in writing done in the informal environments demonstrate that children do not need motivation or supervision in order to write" (p.235). Student choice and autonomy in writing was a foundational principle in the development of what would become the Writing Workshop model. "Topic choice, a subject the child is aware that he knows something about, is at the heart of success in writing" (Graves, 1985, p.39). That does not mean the children should have no guidance however. Teachers must teach the students strategies to develop topics independently, provide a framework from which students can choose a topic, or even guide students towards specific recommendations if they are struggling (Behymmer, 2003; Calkins, 1986, 2011; Fletcher & Portalupi, 2001; Hertz & Heydenberl, 1997; Towell & Matanzo, 2010). Appropriate limits on choice must be observed as well. As Fletcher & Portalupi (2001) describe, "Choice is not an absolute right, a blank check giving kids a right to write about [subjects inappropriate for school]" (p. 23).
Further research determined that writing should occur at a minimum of four times per week in the classroom (Calkins 1986, 2011; Graves, 1985). The frequency of writing and the collection of completed work give students a level of immersion in the writing process and motivation that they are growing and improving. Additionally, the students' skill of topic selection is improved with frequent instances of writing and sharing. Instead of writing on teacher suggested topics, students who write and share frequently provide inspiration for topic choice for each other through interactions (Graves, 1985). Graves (1975) noted that, "Children write for unique reasons, employ highly individual coping strategies, and view writing in ways peculiar to their own person. In short, the writing process is as variable and unique as the individual's personality" (p.237). With this high level of individuality in the students' writing processes, student needs will vary within a classroom. With frequent writing incorporated into the schedule, a teacher will have the time to address these student needs individually (Graves, 1985).
At it's core, writing is a means to communicate. In order to communicate, one needs an audience. Graves (1985) determined that both the teacher and peers should be the audience of student writing. While students are writing, the teacher can become the first audience of their work in progress. Through showing or negotiating understanding of student work, a teacher not only becomes an appreciated audience to their writing, but can also confirm that students are conveying the intended meaning and encourage them to further develop their ideas (Behymmer, 2003; Calkins, 1986, 2011; Graves, 1985; Hertz & Heydenberl, 1997). Students can become audiences for their peers as well, once work is completed. Through peer sharing and asking questions, students give purpose to the writing their peers created (Behymmer, 2003; Calkins, 1986, 2011; Graves, 1985; Hertz & Heydenberl, 1997).
These discoveries have been melded together to create the Writing Workshop. While the Writing Workshop model is still in ongoing development, it must be considered a model, not a step by step process. As Graves (2004) noted, "One of the early problems we faced... was a sudden epidemic of orthodoxies. Artful response, listening, flexibility in decision making were replaced by attempts to regularize the process" (p.90). Teachers and researchers have attempted to adapt the Writing Workshop model, a model that leans heavily on flexibility and adaptability, into strictly scheduled step by step processes. While rigid scheduling should be avoided, the flexibility of the Writing Workshop model has led to the development of many strategies to effectively teach within it's framework. Even with so much variety within its application, Writing Workshop contains three core components: the mini-lesson, conferencing during writing time, and sharing (Behymmer, 2003; Calkins, 1986, 2011; Fletcher & Portalupi, 2001; Graves, 1985; Hertz & Heydenberl, 1997; Ray & Laminack, 2001; Spence, 2009; Towell & Matanzo, 2010).
Mini-Lesson
“The mini-lesson is a chance to give students a focused burst of writing instruction” (Fletcher & Portalupi, 2001, p.120). Individual conferencing can be an inefficient way to to give relevant information that applies to all students though. Calkins (1986) introduced the concept of the mini-lesson (Graves, 2004). Explicit instruction on a topic of the writing process is presented to the whole class before they begin writing (Calkins, 1986, 2011; Graves, 2004; Hertz & Heydenberl, 1997; Towell & Matanzo, 2010). Graves (2004) reflected, "I shall forever be grateful to Lucy Calkins (1986)...[who] developed the concept of mini-lessons. Up until that point, the writing conference was the primary vehicle for writing process instruction, but the strain was too much. There simply wasn't enough time" (p.89). A mini-lesson brings explicit focus on a language topic such as high-frequency words or phrases, writing strategies like using speech bubbles in illustrations or introducing a conflict in fictional writing, or even receptive skills to encourage interactive behavior when peers share their work (Behymmer, 2003; Calkins, 2011; Hertz & Heydenberl, 1997). Given the limited time and scope of a mini-lesson, it is recommended that each lesson focus on one topic that will that will help students become better writers or members of the writing communities (Calkins, 2011; Dennis & Votteler, 2013; Hertz & Heydenberl, 1997).
The process of developing a mini-lesson can vary greatly between teaching contexts. A teacher in the US must assure their students meet the demands of Common Core Standards and may choose to use these guidelines as a foundation for some mini-lessons (Calkins, 2011). Mini-lessons can also educate students on the routines and expectations of being part of the local writing community. Being able to organize finished work in a folder, get resources for a new writing project, listen attentively to peers share, use emotive speaking when sharing, and attempt to solve problems independently are all functional skills students need to be effective community members that can be learned through mini-lessons (Behymmer, 2003; Calkins, 2011; Hertz & Heydenberl, 1997). Calkins (2011) encourages the use of mini-lessons to develop writing strategies, advising that "mini-lessons will often teach your students particular things writers sometimes do" (p.4). Calkins has come under criticism for neglecting phonics and other explicit language instruction (Feinberg, 2007). Behymmer (2003) included generous amounts of explicit language focus mini-lessons, often based on the contents of student work observed in conferencing. While mini-lessons may be typically thought of as preceding writing, Behymmer's (2003) use of a mini-lesson after writing time is completed allows for student work and immediate student needs to be the basis of mini lessons. This unplanned approach to mini-lessons can be difficult though. Behymmer (2003) noted, "The important thing to remember in teaching your mini lessons is that you must have spontaneity and be alert to what the children need" (p.87).
Conferencing
Conferencing during writing time is “the essential teaching act” (Ray & Laminak, 2001, p. 155). This is the opportunity for teachers to spend one-on-one time with students to focus on their specific needs. In addition to teaching skills specific to individual students, conferencing also builds a sense that other people will read a student’s writing and that their writing is significant (Behymer, 2003; Fletcher & Portalupi, 2001; Ray & Laminak, 2001). Fletcher & Portalupi (2001) suggest that as a teacher, it is crucial to be receptive of student work to conference effectively . Listen intently and read their work as their audience, not a judge. Building on the strengths of the students is important to enhance their confidence and protect their often fragile egos as writers (Fletcher & Portalupi, 2001; Ray & Laminak, 2001). Ray and Laminak (2001) list four stages of conferencing during writing time:
Research- The teacher will check how the writing is going for the student through observation and student explanation. What successes and difficulties do they have? By requesting that students tell about their work on a regular basis, students are required to be metacognitive about their writing.
Decide- The teacher must determine what to teach the student during this valuable conference time? What is important now? What can wait for later or be addressed to the whole class? Would this student benefit from information aimed at giving short or long term success?
Teach- A show and tell model can be helpful to teach a new concept. Students learn better through examples than through definitions. If student work contains a concept, students will be pleased to learn the name of that concept.
Record- What did you talk about with the student? Records can help further develop lesson plans for the class as a whole or conferencing strategies for individual students. Keeping records also ensure each student gets adequate conferencing opportunities in a busy classroom environment.
Different approaches to conferencing can be taken however. Conferences can be focused on writing conventions like phonics, punctuation, and grammar (Behymer, 2003; Fletcher & Portalupi, 2001; Hansen, 2007). The conference can also a time for adult underwriting, where a complete, grammatically correct transcription of the student's writing is written out beneath their work. This gives students the chance to compare their invented spelling to the teacher's proper spelling without covering student work with corrections (Behymer, 2003). Spence (2009) used conferencing time to encourage and lead students to write on topics that would help develop a more complete final product in a research assignment. Similarly, Fletcher & Portalupi (2001) encourage students to further develop the work they have done by adding to drawings, adding details, and expanding written work through the use of a beginning, middle, and end. Whatever content is chosen for a conference, the focus should be firmly on the needs of the student and how their writing can be improved.
Sharing
"Writing is a social act. If social actions are to work, then the establishment of a community is essential" (Graves, 1985, p.40). In order to establish a writing community in the classroom, students must share their written work with their peers. Sharing gives students an audience to their writing, which in turn gives the writing process more meaning (Caulkin, 1986, 2011; Fletcher & Portalupi, 2001; Graves, 1985; Hertz & Heydenberl, 1997). A sharing session in Writing Workshop involves more than just the presentation of writing work by the authors. Listeners must actively understand what has been presented and respond with questions and comments on the work (Behymmer, 2003; Calkins, 1986, 2011; Fletcher & Portalupi, 2001; Hertz & Heydenberl, 1997). Through the sharing process, authors can feel proud about what they have accomplished, receive valuable feedback from peers, and discover opportunities to expand their work from listeners feedback. Listeners can learn from the perspectives and backgrounds of their peers while also developing active listening skills needed to discuss the authors' works (Calkins, 2011; Fletcher & Portalupi, 2001; Graves, 1985).
There are many sharing strategies a teacher can use in Writing Workshop, but teachers must remember it is crucial that students understand the operational aspects of these sharing strategies for them to be effective (Behymer, 2003; Calkins, 2011; Fletcher & Portalupi, 2001). By using a variety of sharing strategies, teachers can help build the writing community. A common sharing strategy is one Calkins (2011) calls 'the Author's Chair', where a few students per day read their work to the whole class and then field questions. While well regarded, the Author's Chair is not without limitations. Younger students may become impatient sitting quietly with limited chances to ask questions or respond, while older students may feel self conscious (Fletcher & Portalupi, 2001). Other grouping patterns can be used to manage these problems. One-on-one peer conferencing can be used to provide students with an audience and feedback on their work in a comfortable environment that supports revision (Calkins, 2011; Hertz & Heydenberl, 1997). Fletcher & Portalupi (2001) found that small group sharing can provide students with feelings of a more wide audience while also allowing several students to present their work at the same time. Small groups help address young students' strong desire to share to friends and get attention, as well as "pre-adolescent kids [who] become more self-conscious and private" (Fletcher & Portalupi, 2001, p.124) and do not wish to share to a large group. Spence (2009) had students engage members of the community for ideas and feedback and share their writing with parents on the school's Family Night. No matter their skill level, children have an urge to express themselves to other (Graces, 1985). By using a variety of grouping patterns, a teacher can adapt the classroom to create a comfortable, productive environment for sharing.