The Writing Workshop Approach

Writing Workshop Approach

The writing workshop approach is strongly advocated by a number of experts in

the field of composing. Atwell, Romano, and Rief recommend it for middle and

high school students. Donald Graves and Lucy Calkins also advocate this approach

for elementary students. Similar preferences can be found to a lesser degree in

the writings of Donald Murray and Peter Elbow, both of whom focus mainly on the

college level.

Many people upon first reading about writing workshops see a laissez faire

situation much like the open classroom of the 1960s. On the surface there are

similarities in descriptions and to the casual observer in classrooms where

writing workshops are conducted, there are similarities in appearance. However,

what makes writing workshops work is what was missing in the open classroom: a

sound underlying structure based on a clearly defined philosophy developed from

a solid research base. In short, in the 1960s most teachers who tried open

classroom approaches were not at all sure why they were doing this, what they

hoped to achieve, and how to provide instruction and monitor progress within

this environment. The open classroom was an import from England. Unfortunately,

the advocates who tried to transplant it here told us a great deal about what

not to do but very little about what to do. The approach failed not because it

was flawed but because teachers didn’t know how to make it work and nobody was

around with the information.

Writing workshops are different. Yes, they are student-centered. Yes, students

do have a great deal of control over their writing. But in the writing workshop

the teacher does not simply stand back and let the learning (or lack of it) take

place. Rather, the teacher is deeply immersed in the work in progress. More than

that, the teacher creates the environment, supports and facilitates learning,

provides instruction when needed, and carefully monitors progress up to and

including setting requirements for students who need that kind of structure.

Before going further it is necessary to point out that students have to be

taught how to function in a writing workshop setting. You can’t just start out

with an open situation and expect students to respond. Younger students who have

had little exposure to school or those who have worked in workshops before will

need less ofan introduction than older students who are accustomed to being told

what to do all the time. Even high school students who say they are fed up with

school structure have a difficult time adjusting to a writing workshop approach.

Therefore, any teacher who wants to attempt this needs to start with some kind

of structure and a clear set of guidelines for behavior and work production.

Later this structure can be modified and the guidelines adjusted or relaxed

often in conjunction with student recommendations.

What should a fully functioning writing workshop look like? There seem to be 5

factors which distinguish the writing workshop.

* First, there is total involvement in composing. All students are engaged

in prewriting, drafting, revising, editing, or sharing/publishing.

*

* Second, there is diversity. Students are working on writing that they have

chosen to do, so all kinds of writing are going on simultaneously and students

are at all different stages in the writing process.

* Third, the environment is cooperative. As a result, there is a constant

hum of voices rather than silence. Students work in small groups, pairs, and

alone. They are free to move about the room as the need dictates.

* Fourth, the teacher knows the current work of each student as well as the

progress each has been making. In many cases, the teacher also has goals for

individuals. Related to this monitoring and planning for instruction, the

teacher is actively engaged working with individuals and small groups throughout

the workshop time. Even when he/she is not conferring with students, he/she is

observing and making notes about students’ composing processes and products.

* Fifth, students behave autonomously. When they finish a piece of work,

they know what to do next. They do not wait for teacher directions or for a new

assignment, nor do they refer to an assignment sheet to see what they are

supposed to do. When students come into the classroom or begin the time set

aside for writing workshop, they know what to do and they can begin working

immediately. They make their own decisions about when to get help with revising

and editing and whom to ask for assistance.

Occasionally there is some kind of special event–a guest speaker, a videotape,

maybe even a field trip. Occasionally there is a day set aside for public

readings of specially chosen papers. Occasionally there is a whole class lesson

on a skill everyone seems to be having trouble with. For the most part, though,

one day’s work in a writing workshop looks much like the next.

What are the advantages of a writing workshop approach? One advantage is that

this approach builds on what we know about the natural way that young children

learn to speak. It allows them to extend that natural process of trial and error

learning into the realm of writing. It also allows them to control the

difficulty level so that they adjust the risk factor to match their own sense of

competence. Another advantage is that motivation comes from the student. The

teacher does not have to expend time and energy convincing students that they

should work hard on the tasks they have been given. Another advantage is that

instruction can be individualized and students can progress at their own rates.

Probably the most important advantage is that students spend nearly all of the

available time involved in writing or in some activity related to writing. They

do not wait for instructions or wait for special help or wait for classmates to

finish or wait for papers to be passed out or wait for the teacher to grade

their work. When it functions well, the writing workshop is one of the most

efficient methods of composition instruction.

But efficient and effective are two different factors. Lecturing is also

efficient for covering the material. The problem is that it isn’t very

effective. Whether or not the writing workshop is effective depends on two

things. First, how effectiveness is defined. And second, whether or not the

teacher makes provisions for the necessary instruction. If the goals of

instruction are fluency and self-confidence as a writer, the writing workshop

has the potential for success. If one goal of instruction is learning to write

in many different [nodes for different purposes and addressing different

audiences, then the workshop approach can still be used, but students will have

to be allowed fewer choices of tasks. If students self-select all of their

tasks, they are not likely to produce as wide a range of discourse as they need

to practice. Additionally, most of us probably hope that the students will gain

some knowledge about the different modes of discourse and develop some criteria

for judging quality. Further, students may need to be introduced to some

concepts that they might not discover on their own. In short, they may need more

than just practice; they may need formal instruction. For this to occur, the

teacher must plan for it.

But that need not mean planning whole class instruction. Rather the teacher may

plan to work one-on-one in conferences to provide individual instruction. Or

he/she may plan to teach needed skills to small groups. Or he/she may plan

regularly scheduled mini-lessons which introduce various discourse forms which

students can list and try immediately or later or not at all. The teacher can

plan sharing opportunities wherein students can introduce modes they have used

to classmates and describe what they have learned about writing these modes. The

teacher may even plan some whole class instruction during which he/she models

writing a certain kind of discourse or models a particular writing strategy

which students then practice through rough drafting or by using some of their

own work-in-progress. The particular method or combination of methods has to be

chosen by the teacher depending upon the needs of students and the goals of

instruction. And the teacher must monitor the learning closely so as to

determine progress and to decide whether or not the current format of writing

workshop is having the desired effect or whether the format needs to be

modified.

One of the keys to insuring effectiveness seems to be record keeping. Atwell

recommends taking a maximum of 3 minutes at the start of each workshop to

collect a status-of-the-class report. Each student states verbally what he/she

intends to do that period. This helps the teacher chart progress and identify

which students need immediate assistance and which students can wait until later

in the period. However, Atwell believes that every student should receive some

teacher attention every period.

Other teachers make it a point to confer with every student each day to gather

data about the student’s writing. These teachers carry with them a notepad or

index cards or even a tape recorder for making anecdotal records of each

encounter. Other teachers provide students with a calendar. At the end of each

work session students report what they plan to do the next day and turn in the

calendars. The teacher reviews these each evening and identifies possible

interventions to be implemented the next day. Other teachers have students

maintain a log in which they record what they accomplish each day. If the

teacher is unable to confer with everyone that day, he/she can review the logs

of those who were skipped.

Many teachers who are using a writing workshop approach also maintain some kind

of checklist on each student. Often this checklist includes several processes

which can be observed and checked off. Some checklists also include skills that

the teacher expects students to become aware of and/or master. These, too, can

be checked off as they appear in student conversation and written products.

These checklists provide an overview of student progress and patterns of work.

Nearly all teachers who conduct writing workshops have students maintain writing

folders. Some teachers have students keep records of their work in these

folders. They make lists of writings they have done and the processes they used

by having a column for prewriting, one for drafting, another for revising,

another/or editing, and one more for sharing/publishing. Students check the

columns that apply. Some teachers also have students keep lists in their folder

of what they have learned. On the list might appear items such as the following:

I have learned to put periods at the ends of sentences.

I have learned to punctuate dialogue.

I have learned to check my work for misspelled words.

I have learned to move paragraphs around to find the best arrangement.

This list often acts as a reference guide for students. They check it to make

sure they have applied what they have learned before they consider a paper

finished.

One of the most difficult factors, if not the most difficult, is evaluation.

Assigning grades to students who are working in a writing workshop situation is

extremely problematic. While the teacher may have a great deal of data about

what students are doing and have done and the progress they have made, this

information cannot easily be translated into a grade. Checklists help, but they

tend to promote a set of standards which contradicts allowing students to

progress at their own rate. Even when fluency is the central goal, should the

grade be based on the amount of writing produced or should the factor of

increase over initial fluency be taken into account? And will basing the grade

entirely on the quantity of writing send the message to students that quality is

of little significance?

Most advocates of writing workshops would probably prefer that grades not be

given at all, but in many school districts that is not a realistic possibility.

An alternative which is being used in many classrooms is directly involving

students in evaluating their own work via an evaluation conference or a written

evaluation report in which the student assesses what he/she has learned during

the grading period. Some teachers are using this approach in conjunction with

the creation of a writing portfolio which contains pieces selected from the

folder which contains all the writing produced. Another approach is to allow

students to choose pieces which they want to be graded. If this approach is

used, the teacher should periodically require submissions; otherwise, he/she

will be swamped with papers to grade at the same time that report cards have to

be made out. Periodic grading also is useful if parents frequently request

progress reports on their children.

There are no easy solutions to the matter of evaluating in a writing workshop,

but then evaluating writing and writing progress has always been a problem.

Using a writing workshop approach may in some ways complicate the process but

the evaluation which comes from a collection of data which includes both writing

processes as well as products is likely to be a more realistic assessment of

student learning than an average based entirely on grades given to products

alone.

Recommended Further Reading:

Atwell, N. (1987). In the middle; Writing. reading, and learning with

adolescents. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook.

Dudley, M. (1989). The writing workshop: Structuring for success. English

Journal, 78 (1), 28-32.

Feeley, J., Strickland, D., & Wepner, S. (Eds.) (1991). Process reading and

writing: A literature-based approach. NY: Teachers College, Columbia.

Harwayne, S. (1992). Lasting impressions: Weaving literature into the writing

workshop. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

McVitty, W. (Ed.) (1986). Getting it together: Organising the readine-writing

classroom. Rozelle, NSW, Australia: Primary English Teaching Association.

Rief, L. (1992). Seeking Diversity. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Romano, T. (1987). Clearing the way: Working with teenage writers. Portsmouth,

NH: Heinemann.

Simpson, M. (1986). What am I supposed to do while they’re writing? Language

Arts, 63 (7), 680–684.

Vogt, M. (1991). An observation guide for supervisors and administrators: Moving

toward integrated reading/language arts instruction. The Reading Teacher, 45

(3), 206-211. (especially the Observation Guide Used to Develop an Integrated

Reading/Language Arts Program on pp. 208-