Chapter 14 page 337
improved. This practice increases their self-efficacy as a writer, as they see that effort and strategy use
have contributed to making them much better writers.
Problem 14.7. Evaluating teaching. Writing instruction.
An elementary school has adopted an approach to writing called “Writer’s Workshop.” In their
implementation of Writer’s Workshop, the teachers use the following teaching practices to promote
students’ writing:
- The teachers have students follow this procedure when writing essays. Students first plan their
composition. Then they write a first draft. After that, they edit the draft. Finally, they “publish” the
completed paper in a class publication. - The teacher meets individually with students in one-on-one conferences to discuss their writing.
Some teachers meet with students daily; others meet less frequently, but at least once a week. - The teacher has students share their work with peers and critique each others’ work. Teachers vary
in how frequently they have students share their work, from daily to about twice a month. - The teachers conduct mini-lessons several times a week. The mini-lessons were based on what
teachers judged students would profit from learning. For instance, if teachers believed that students
would benefit from a short lesson on planning, then they developed a single lesson to cover planning.
In that lesson, the teachers explained and modeled the strategy, and then asked students to apply the
strategy. In later instruction, teachers sometimes remind students to use the strategy. Teachers offered
mini-lessons on topics such as generating main ideas, brainstorming, and constructing concept maps.
Based on what is described here, evaluate this approach to instruction. In comparison to SRSD,
how effective will it be?
Response: In the research by Graham and Harris on which this section is based (Graham et al., 2005;
Harris et al., 2006), SRSD was much more effective than the Writer’s Workshop, which was
implemented as described above. Although the Writer’s Workshop had many positive features
(including teaching planning and other strategies, teachers helping students and giving them feedback,
and engaging students in peer evaluation), it is also missing critical features, such as:
- Teachers did not provide enough varied practice with strategies. Teachers introduced strategies in
mini-lessons but have students keep practicing these strategies over and over for weeks and months, as
is done in SRSD. One lesson is not enough to master any strategy. It is important to keep using the
same strategies repeatedly over a long period of time. - Teachers did not use scaffolds such as the cognitive prompts embedded in the POW and TREE
acronyms and the diagrammatic representations in Figures 14.7 and 14.8 to promote strategy use. - It appears that teachers using Writer’s Workshop did not systematically teach criteria of good stories
and essays to students. Criteria give students more ideas for goal setting and evaluating performance.
Incorporating effective motivational techniques. SRSD incorporates many motivational
techniques. In fact, all of the G^2 REATEST motivational techniques that we discussed in Chapter 10 are
incorporated into SRSD. These include:
Ɣ Goals. Students set goals and evaluate how well they have achieved their goals.
Ɣ Groups. Students work regularly in pairs, proving situational interest as well as increasing skills and
self-efficacy as students work with each other.
Ɣ Rewards and Evaluation. Teachers’ feedback on papers is specific and closely tied to students’
performance. Teachers write specific feedback such as, “Your first reason is very persuasive. You
have given clear facts to explain why we need to save grizzly bears. One thing to improve is the
number of reasons. You only have two reasons so far.”
Ɣ Autonomy. The topics that students write about are relevant and interesting to them. For example,
students write about issues such as whether children should be allowed to choose their own pets.