Home Resources Standards Inspiration About the Author
Literature Review Problem Analysis Community
History/Rationale
I am one of four English teachers at my small high school of approximately 350 students. We, like English teachers everywhere I suppose, struggle to find ways to get our students to complete writing assignments. On the day these assignments are due, it is not uncommon for only two-thirds of the class to turn in the assignment. We throw our hands in the air and exclaim, “We showed them how. We gave them examples. We talked about the material they were to write about. So, why won’t or can’t they write?” And we are unique in our opportunities to get these children to write. Most have been in our district since kindergarten. It is easy for our department to collaborate and articulate the writing expectations at each grade level, yet still we have seniors who do not complete their writing assignments, or do but “can’t write,” and therefore earn a failing grade. In an attempt to force students to write, my colleagues and I have even gone so far as to have all essay assignments performed as on-demand writing where students are provided with the writing prompt and expected to respond in one in-class writing session. The result, of course, is on-demand writing, which is first draft by definition, and while it may prepare students to meet the demands of various on-demand writing assessments they will encounter as detailed by the California Writing Project (2004), it does not truly address or measure the complexity of writing skills we are intended to teach.
We know that writing is an important form of personal expression, but rarely do we address the very personal yet social nature of the writing task. Good writers are generally enthusiastic about writing, confident that they can succeed, and resilient enough to learn from feedback and critique and revise their writing to improve. So what happens when a student lacks one or all of these attributes?
Even for students who do complete and submit writing assignments, most often their writing is “first draft” in nature—not in that it contains spelling or grammatical errors, but in that it could be so much better and more meaningful to audience and writer if revision had occurred. Even when we use worksheets or other peer edit protocols, students complete the review as what it is—an assignment meant to be completed as quickly and painlessly as possible. It is a constant struggle to make critique and feedback a part of the larger writing process, perhaps for a variety of reasons. I believe as educators, however, that we have an obligation to better understand why so many students “can’t,” or “won’t” write and resist revision. Beyond meeting certain content standards, we know that writing is an important means of communication—one our students would greatly benefit from mastering.
Writing that serves a purpose rather than merely completing an assignment, and which is reflected upon in a revisionary process, has the capacity to sustain our knowledge construction and acquisition (Wolsey & Grisham, 2012), but because as teachers we are tasked with “teaching writing,” it is difficult to imagine the possibilities of a more transformative approach to the process of writing with our students. If we think about it, most of our students “write” all day long. They text, tweet, and post at a sometimes alarming rate. While most teachers of writing would likely agree that most of this “writing” is without much redeeming academic value, it is of the utmost importance to the students we serve, so it is, therefore, invaluable because it opens a window into what motivates young people to write—reaching out to and communicating with those with whom they are not currently face-to-face—and these are the basic requirements for successful completion of any writing task I could assign. The give-and-take nature of these digital communications takes for granted the revision process. As miscommunications occur, clarifications can occur almost simultaneously. The truncated nature of most digital communication adolescents use eliminates any need for worry or concern over spelling or other “rules” of writing. All of this, for me, begs the question: If students can and do write regularly, why can’t or won’t they write for me and what can I do about it?
My experiences with student writing over the course of my thirteen years as an English teacher, as well as my own use of digital writing tools and awareness of the ways in which teens use digital media prompted me to research the possible benefits of using digital tools with students. My guiding research question has been: How can the use of digital writing tools increase the enthusiasm, confidence, and resiliency of students for academic writing tasks? I have been and remain hopeful that if students are allowed and encouraged to use various digital writing tools they will become not just better writers, but more knowledgeable about the academic content they are studying and themselves as conveyers of message and meaning through a written text.
In order to be considered “proficient” in a California ninth or tenth grade English language arts class, students must be able to perform both an aesthetic evaluation and an historical analysis of imaginative literature (O'Malley, 1999). These literary analysis standards do not require or even invite students to make a personal connection to the texts, and neither do the newly adopted Common Core State Standards (CCSS, 2010[MG1] ). For students who do not enjoy reading, evaluating, or analyzing literature, there is little opportunity for enthusiasm, engagement, or making meaning from the writing tasks that may be assigned to measure proficiency on these standards. Perhaps that is why it is so common for students to not complete (or even begin) these types of writing assignments. If teachers are not thoughtful and creative in developing writing prompts, there is no opportunity for students to respond on a more personal, and therefore meaningful, level. Furthermore, when curriculum is tightly focused on these literary analysis standards, and students either do not or only superficially respond, we have lost an opportunity to develop the writing skills we know our students will need in order to be successful in their future educational, professional, and personal endeavors. The ability to articulate one’s thoughts and opinions successfully in writing requires practice and deep engagement, which in turn has the capacity to help us not only communicate with others more effectively, but also helps us more fully understand ourselves and the world in which we live.
Ensuring that students are able to have a personal connection to their writing tasks, however, is only a starting place. If we want our students to feel and be successful, we must take into account the ways and places they are already using writing to communicate and express themselves. The results of my study suggest that taking advantage of “low risk” social networking environments, as well as tools that allow students to incorporate various elements of multimedia, has the potential for building student enthusiasm, confidence, and resiliency when faced with academic writing tasks.
We know that writing is an important form of personal expression, but rarely do we address the very personal yet social nature of the writing task. Good writers are generally enthusiastic about writing, confident that they can succeed, and resilient enough to learn from feedback and critique and revise their writing to improve. So what happens when a student lacks one or all of these attributes?
Even for students who do complete and submit writing assignments, most often their writing is “first draft” in nature—not in that it contains spelling or grammatical errors, but in that it could be so much better and more meaningful to audience and writer if revision had occurred. Even when we use worksheets or other peer edit protocols, students complete the review as what it is—an assignment meant to be completed as quickly and painlessly as possible. It is a constant struggle to make critique and feedback a part of the larger writing process, perhaps for a variety of reasons. I believe as educators, however, that we have an obligation to better understand why so many students “can’t,” or “won’t” write and resist revision. Beyond meeting certain content standards, we know that writing is an important means of communication—one our students would greatly benefit from mastering.
Writing that serves a purpose rather than merely completing an assignment, and which is reflected upon in a revisionary process, has the capacity to sustain our knowledge construction and acquisition (Wolsey & Grisham, 2012), but because as teachers we are tasked with “teaching writing,” it is difficult to imagine the possibilities of a more transformative approach to the process of writing with our students. If we think about it, most of our students “write” all day long. They text, tweet, and post at a sometimes alarming rate. While most teachers of writing would likely agree that most of this “writing” is without much redeeming academic value, it is of the utmost importance to the students we serve, so it is, therefore, invaluable because it opens a window into what motivates young people to write—reaching out to and communicating with those with whom they are not currently face-to-face—and these are the basic requirements for successful completion of any writing task I could assign. The give-and-take nature of these digital communications takes for granted the revision process. As miscommunications occur, clarifications can occur almost simultaneously. The truncated nature of most digital communication adolescents use eliminates any need for worry or concern over spelling or other “rules” of writing. All of this, for me, begs the question: If students can and do write regularly, why can’t or won’t they write for me and what can I do about it?
My experiences with student writing over the course of my thirteen years as an English teacher, as well as my own use of digital writing tools and awareness of the ways in which teens use digital media prompted me to research the possible benefits of using digital tools with students. My guiding research question has been: How can the use of digital writing tools increase the enthusiasm, confidence, and resiliency of students for academic writing tasks? I have been and remain hopeful that if students are allowed and encouraged to use various digital writing tools they will become not just better writers, but more knowledgeable about the academic content they are studying and themselves as conveyers of message and meaning through a written text.
In order to be considered “proficient” in a California ninth or tenth grade English language arts class, students must be able to perform both an aesthetic evaluation and an historical analysis of imaginative literature (O'Malley, 1999). These literary analysis standards do not require or even invite students to make a personal connection to the texts, and neither do the newly adopted Common Core State Standards (CCSS, 2010[MG1] ). For students who do not enjoy reading, evaluating, or analyzing literature, there is little opportunity for enthusiasm, engagement, or making meaning from the writing tasks that may be assigned to measure proficiency on these standards. Perhaps that is why it is so common for students to not complete (or even begin) these types of writing assignments. If teachers are not thoughtful and creative in developing writing prompts, there is no opportunity for students to respond on a more personal, and therefore meaningful, level. Furthermore, when curriculum is tightly focused on these literary analysis standards, and students either do not or only superficially respond, we have lost an opportunity to develop the writing skills we know our students will need in order to be successful in their future educational, professional, and personal endeavors. The ability to articulate one’s thoughts and opinions successfully in writing requires practice and deep engagement, which in turn has the capacity to help us not only communicate with others more effectively, but also helps us more fully understand ourselves and the world in which we live.
Ensuring that students are able to have a personal connection to their writing tasks, however, is only a starting place. If we want our students to feel and be successful, we must take into account the ways and places they are already using writing to communicate and express themselves. The results of my study suggest that taking advantage of “low risk” social networking environments, as well as tools that allow students to incorporate various elements of multimedia, has the potential for building student enthusiasm, confidence, and resiliency when faced with academic writing tasks.