Week 6

This week’s readings introduced us to many models for writing instruction in the content areas. After learning about these models it has become clear to me that there are benefits to each, and the utilization of a variety of these models will best serve our students.

              Kathleen Yancey, Kathleen Ramos, and Erin Washburn each introduce writing models that benefit students in unique ways. Yancey claims that we need to “move beyond the pyramid model where literature in print comes first, digital literacy comes second, and networked literacy strategies come in third (Yancey, 6). This model benefits contemporary students because it acknowledges the fact that digital and networked literacy are more relevant to their everyday lives than print literacy. It also prevents the learning that comes from these methods to go unappreciated. Ramos describes a writing model called, Reading to Learn. Reading to Learn is a process in which teachers “make visible the language resources that function to create meanings in school valued genres” (Ramos, 656). This method benefits students because it encourages them to build textual, interpersonal, and global meanings from academic text genres. Finally, Washburn explains a writing model called Pong Cycles. Pong Cycles are “designed to help teachers with implementation by facilitating the conceptualization of benchmarks throughout the inquiry lesson” (Washburn, 4). I plan on trying this method in my classroom because the cycles are rigid enough to give teachers and students structure for their learning, but flexible enough to modify by adding or removing cycles. This repeated nature helps students anticipate tasks and can easily incorporate writing activities such as KWL charts, quick writes, think – pair – shares, and jigsaws.

              The differences in the ways that these models benefit students brings light to the fact that there is a dichotomy in writing. Writing in terms of purpose vs. writing in terms of practice. Applebee explains in the conclusion of her study that students rarely engage with “composing as a way to think through issues to show depth or breadth of their knowledge or going beyond what they know in making connections and raising issues” (Applebee, 16). To me, this is describing what it means to write in terms of process. This is what I need to do more of in my own classroom. Looking through Applebee’s charts and graphs it became clear to me that I fall into many of the pitfalls that other science teachers succumb to. Primarily, I rarely ask my students to write outside of short response answers with a prescribed structure. What I’m doing is relying too heavily on writing in terms of purpose. Writing in terms of purpose is writing to imitate a text. It requires less creativity and focuses more on the end-product. The organization of ideas trumps the ideas themselves. An example of a text that writes for purpose would be a textbook. Textbook are designed to inventory huge amounts of information that can be looked up when needed (Daniels & Zemelman, 54). The information needs to be accurate, but not interesting. The ease at which information can be located is what is most important.

    • Gerald Ardito
      Gerald Ardito

      Abby,

      I really enjoyed reading your response to these readings. 
      This, especially, stuck out to me:

      The differences in the ways that these models benefit students brings light to the fact that there is a dichotomy in writing. Writing in terms of purpose vs. writing in terms of practice.

      It will be interesting to see how you resolved this dichotomy within your own teaching practice.

    Group A

    Here is the online home for you sub group this semester.
    Sub-Group of ED 656 - Fall 2018

    Latest comments