thesisthoughts

The course at Z is going extremely well. I feel as though the 26 teachers participating are involved and eager to try to change things in their writing instruction and that many are thinking about their own learning and really taking ideas and thoughts back to their classrooms.

Last week we had a virtual session and the task I gave was to write a professional narrative connected to the teaching of writing and/or writing with students. Beforehand we discussed the rational of the task and I even brought an example from last year’s group. Many of the participants in this group are not too computer confident and I was worried that they wouldn’t manage finding the virtual campus, posting their stories and responding to others. All in all my worries were unwarranted and most of the teachers wrote and posted narratives. At the moment they are reading and responding to other stories.

The night before this week’s session, I was busy collecting the stories (for future use…) and responding. I respond to each and every narrative and try to be involved in the responses too. Many of my responses at this stage are questions which will help in the revision process to come.

One story made my heart race and brought tears to my eyes. I read it again and again before I wrote a detailed response. Immediately I wrote an email to the teacher author and asked her permission to bring her narrative to the group session. She readily agreed.

O wrote that at our last session she wasn’t able to concentrate – not in my lecture, not on the PowerPoint presentation that went with it and not on the workshop we did together. She said that concentrating on the writing process wasn’t possible for her. O told that that morning she had been on a hike with her class and that at one stage an eight year old boy fell off a cliff. He was extremely lucky that he wasn’t killed and that he was only injured fairly lightly. She told of her experience, of the phone call from the principal telling her that the incident was already reported on the Internet, of the terror, the helplessness and the frustration of not being able to protect her student.

O went home after our session and didn’t sleep all night. She was terrified of walking into the classroom the next morning and facing this reality. The injured child was in hospital and she had a whole classroom of traumatized children to deal with. After hours of deliberation, O remembered what we had been talking about in the course session and decided, at 4 am when she finally got out of bed, to devote the day to writing with her pupils. She decided to spend the day writing with her students to different audiences with different goals.

Lacking confidence, O entered the classroom and after a brief discussion, explained to the pupils what they could do. Some wrote to their injured friend in hospital, some wrote to the people responsible for the hiking trail, some wrote thank you letters to the parents who helped on the hike and helped deal with the complex situation and some wrote rules for behavior on trips outside school. During the writing time, O was free to move between the pupils and talk privately to each and every one of them. She could hear how they were coping and how they were feeling.

The pupils wrote and wrote. O was surprised that even her weakest students, those that usually refrain from writing, were creating important texts. She wrote that she sensed that the act of writing was helping these children process the experience and regain confidence and control. She admitted that the classroom interactions, the writing and the activity helped her regain her self confidence as a teacher. The pupils were so involved in this process that they asked to continue the next day, they had discovered that they enjoyed writing for real purposes and for real audiences. They had experienced writing as a means of sincere self expression.

A few days later O decided to tell this story as her narrative about writing. She told her story bravely and as a result received a lot of positive and supportive feedback from the other teachers. This event has changed the way O sees writing instruction and has changed the way many of her pupils view writing tasks.

One of the questions I asked O was whether she had told her principal about the way she decided to cope in the classroom. She replied that she hadn’t . I suggested she show the principal (if not all the other staff) her narrative – they can all learn from it as we did in the group.

Since reading  O’s story she is with me all the time. I am thinking about her terrifying experience, about her coming to my course after such a traumatic event and not telling anyone and about how she used writing to help her students recover.

Apart from receiving a lot of satisfaction that the materials we discuss in the course are making a real difference in the professional lives of teachers and their pupils, I was excited to see the process of writing itself encouraging the creation of new texts. O described how the writing done by her pupils encouraged her and stimulated her to write and I told her that her narrative had stimulated me to write a narrative of my own. I have no doubt that the writing of many teachers in the course will be enriched by the sharing of O’s story.

In a reflective discussion in her classroom, O told her pupils that she too had written a story after the traumatic event. Her pupils were very curious to hear that their teacher enjoyed the benefits of  writing too.

I still have a lot of thinking to do about the links between O’s story and the learning in our course and about professional narratives being links in a chain, a chain which strengthens and supports both writers and readers.

I am waiting to read the responses on the online forum, to see O’s text revised and to see the influence of O’s story on other narratives being created by teachers in the group.

The location of the hike.

Picture: http://tiyulim.blogspot.com/2007/10/blog-post_19.html

I have just finished reading one of the second hand books I bought from Better World Books.

15 minutes free writing:

I was surprised to find this book in the catalogue and even more surprised when I began reading it. This narrative was written ten years ago but very much reflects the type of work I am doing and the type of texts I am producing. 

Miller Power works (worked?) with students learning to be teachers and writing teachers and taught them methodology through writing. Her course was based on the students reflecting and writing narratives and on the author responding at length to the stories which appeared in journals and assignments.

I quickly connected to Miller Power’s style and chose to read this book without pencil in hand, something I rarely do. There was something about the name of the book and the opening texts which signalled to me that this short book would be read and reread by me.

There are a variety of texts in the book, many written by students.

Some of the important messages for me at this stage are:

• Somebody else wrote of her experiences teaching writing teachers to write. There are many more texts out there waiting for me to discover them.
• It is extremely interesting to read narratives of someone else’s work, somewhere else in a different context. Many details are different but many of the dilemmas, difficulties and triumphs are similar.
• Jumping to conclusions about students or teachers is a terrible mistake. listening is the only real way to avoid it. (It relates to my conclusion that I must spend much more time and effort getting to know the teachers and for them to gain trust in each other, early on in the course).
• Very often personal narratives which seem unrelated at first glance, turn out to be very relevant to teaching writing.
• The view that writing is a born trait is more common than I thought it was.
• A short course, CAN make a difference, though not always.
• Our own experiences can and should be utilized in our teaching.

I promise there will be more…

Miller Power, B. (1997). Long roads, short distances: Teaching writing and writing teachers.Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Freewriting 4 -

Well, it is already Tuesday morning and I am up early ready to reflect on my last meeting at K.

As soon as I arrived, two teachers waited for me and extremely politely apologised for their rude behaviour last time. They admitted that although the materials are interesting, they allowed themselves to disconnect and to make lots of noise. The remarked that they were aware of my frustration towards the end of the lesson. Of course I thanked them but told them that I had already decided to make the lessons far more practical and more active. I explained that I am well aware of the difficulty in coming to a four hour lesson, straight after an exhausting day at school.

Before I began, another of their colleagues from school asked to have a few words with all of the participants. From her look I could see that it wasn’t going to be pleasant. In the end we had the discussion she was waiting for before the break and didn’t open the meeting with it.

The first hour or so of the meeting I did differently – I involved the teachers more and lowered my expectations for the material we would cover. There was a friendly, interested atmposphere in the room. Another thing I did was to tell them my expectations more explicitly: “I expect you to take this rubric as an example and go back to school with it. Find a group of teachers and experience building something similar, for your own students, according to your own needs…”

The discussion that teacher wanted to lead was that the course is boring, that she (and all the others, of course) is interested in practical easy solutions to the problems that she faces in the everyday classroom. Theory doesn’t interest her, she wants to learn very simply and quickly what to do in class that will change her students’ attitude and achievement levels in writing.

Of course there are no simple answers and recipes in teaching writing. Writing, in itself, is a complex process. She spoke the whole time in “the royal we” and I was happy that at least a few others took the opportunity to tell her that they see it differently.

“I haven’t received anything I can take back to my classroom in all the meetings we’ve had” she remarked. Others talked about the value of the course, what they have learned, what they HAVE done in their classrooms and the following results.

I explained that maybe I should have given a “try this in your classroom this week” list at the end of each session. I gave several examples of practices which could (and should) already have been tried in the classroom). I understand that my underlying understanding that the teachers are intelligent and motivated and will certainly sift through the experiences, simulations, models and activities, in order to decide what is suitable for their own classrooms. In reality, at least one of the participants was waiting all this time for me to hand out a recipe book or maybe a hand-full of worksheets. I don’t work that way…

Another issue that needs thinking here is what happens when a teacher holds such narrow understandings of learning?

I heard about this new report, Writing in the 21st Century, by Kathleen Blake Yancey,  from Yankel on his blog and am very grateful for the link. The paper traces perceptions of writing and theories of teaching writing (Yancey uses the term ‘composition’) through  the 20th century and into the 21st century.

One of the main points she raises is that writing has never been respected or emphasized in society (and education) like reading. An interesting reason for this is presented. Yancey suggests that this is connected to the use of reading to convey messages (social, religious, political…). Reading is associated with control, writing can be used for self control.

Another interesting point is the place reserved for reading in the family and the community. Reading is associated with warm memories of story reading, church gatherings etc and memories of writing are more likely to be associated with difficulty or loneliness. The historical connection between writing and the labour of text production is also discussed.

The place of writing in testing  and the role of testing in the teaching of writing are explored.

I like the way each part of the report concludes with a remark about writing outside school. Despite what happened (or didn’t happen) in writing classrooms, people continued to compose. The same is true today. One of the challenges facing us  as teachers is to learn from our students what they are doing with writing outside the classroom in social contexts a) in order to learn from them about what interests them and motivates them to write and b) to force us to search for writing projects which are based in social contexts and are relevant and exciting.

New models of teaching writing must see writing as an intellectual activity done in social contexts. If we use the technologies available to us and believe in ourselves as teachers and our pupils as developing writers, the sky is the limit. The author uses a term coined by Deborah Brandt, “self-sponsored writing”. I wonder how we can give this writing more attention in the classroom in order to encourage it, applaud it and allow it to motivate our students in their “school sponsored writing”.

As I experiment with blogging in the classroom, I am convinced that that has the potential to form part of a new curriculum which takes into account that writing has changed, is changing and that many of our students are actually writers.

After the last course at N, one of the teachers tried the peer revision strategies we explored, in her grade 2 classroom. She remarked that she could never (and would never) have tried the activity with her pupils if we had not really modelled and experienced it in the course.

I was happy to receive feedback on classroom developments coming out of the course and to hear that the time we are spending in personally experiencing strategies and reflecting on them is worthwhile.

The session at K was also fruitful. After a lecture (shortish) on revision practices and teaching revision, the teachers worked in groups to write a list of specific criteria for evaluating teacher narratives. They worked well and we had the opportunity to feel the difference between specific and general criteria.

Afterwards, the teachers worked in pairs – one as a writer and the other as an editor to work on the revision of their first narratives. They stayed close to the process I suggested for use in the classroom and they worked busily for almost an hour. Now I am waiting to see the revised narratives and to read the upcoming reflective pieces on the process.

At our last session at N we discussed revision, one of the more problematic stages of the writing process for primary school pupils and their teachers. Research says that most pupils at this age don’t do global revision, struggling writers do even less. The main questions were:

• Why is revision so important?
• What teaching methods are most effective? 
• How can we convince students to adopt revision strategies taught? 

In order to emphasize the importance of peer revision practices, I decided to model what the teachers can do in class. I handed each teacher her teaching narrative which she posted on the electronic discussion board a few weeks ago, together with all the comments she had received from me or from other participants. I asked her to read her story to a partner and together to go through the whole process we had discussed earlier. One teacher functioned as the writer, the other as the editor and then they changed roles. The notes the writer took during the discussion will help her to edit her narrative, the next task for the course portfolio. I will also ask for reflective comments about the peer revision process.

The participants reacted well to the lecture and the activity despite the fact that they are all exhausted by the time they get to the teachers’ centre. Now I have to see how it will work tomorrow in K. The group is much bigger there and it will be harder to manage.

Yesterday, an hour before I left to teach my PL course at N., I had a phone call from the head of the centre where the course is held. She had bad news. There are not enough teachers enrolled in the course and the Head of PL in the area has decided to close down the course. Of course she explained that it has nothing to do with the content or the quality of the course, it is a purely financial decision.

My immediate reaction was anger. Why now? Where had they been for the past two months? Why didn’t they tell me before I sat all weekend preparing my lecture? And what about the teachers? They have attended four sessions and they won’t be recognised.

The answers I received were that the teachers will be able to join another course, even though they are also well into the syllabus. Is that taking the learning of the teachers seriously? Do they think these teachers are only studying to show that they are doing the compulsory 60 hours to get their salary rise?

I immediately wanted them to cancel the session, to call the teachers and tell them not to come. When I cooled down a little, I decided that that wasn’t fair and that I wanted to meet them face-to-face. I knew the teachers would be both disappointed and angry and that is how they reacted. They were angry that the learning process we have begun could be cut short. They sat down to write an email to those in charge saying that they are extremely involved in the learning process and that their students are also undergoing changes in their learning and writing as a result of the course.

I don’t know where things stand today, in the next few days I will speak to some of my peers and will try to find some more participants. Ironically, we had a new teacher join us yesterday. She remarked that she was surprised to find the group members talking in a common language and she explained that she could feel that the group had undergone significant learning together.

In spite of everything going on, we held the session. I dared doing something I haven’t done before. I asked the participants to do the writing task from last years national Meitzav literacy examination for 7-8 year olds (grade 2). Surprisingly nobody objected and the discussion afterwards was fascinating. We looked at the process each teacher underwent as she attempted the task. We discussed the differences between the texts produced and explored the teaching necessary to bring young pupils to success in similar situations.

This morning one of the teachers commented that the experience and the following discussion were very important and gave her a lot to think about. I’m happy I didn’t cancel.

As far as the future goes… who knows?

Free image: http://www.everystockphoto.com/photo.php?imageId=694082

• Introduction
• The course  – content, structure and demands
• An introductory activity based around a personal ending to a sentence beginning “Writing is…”. I was very disappointed that I couldn’t show the photo story presentation I had prepared on writing. Technical problems are so annoying! I couldn’t find communication between my laptop and the projector. What a shame! If I can, I will show it next time.  
• Group work with the report from the National Meitzav Examinations. The aim was to see what we can learn about the teaching and evaluation of writing from the report and to investigate what the present achievement levels are in Israeli schools.
• A presentation of the four principles of teaching writing by Graham, MacArthur and Fitzgerald, 2007. It was important that I brought up to date material to the first session, I didn’t want them to start with “we’ve heard this before” comments. I explained that all the participants have come to the course with a wealth of personal and professional knowledge and that the course will blend and extend that knowledge with up to date research.
• A discussion on the principles in which each teacher contributed an example from her classroom.

A lot of the material I had prepared we didn’t have time for. I prefer to over prepare and of course I will use the materials and the activities next time.

All in all the teachers appeared interested and engaged. Many made positive comments at the end of the meeting. We will meet again in two weeks. Until then I have to get the virtual campus up and running.

Royalty free image from: http://images.com/

I just realized that I haven’t used this article, one of the first I found when I started getting into the teacher-writer question.

The authors did a study of 7 Australian secondary teachers, “four of whom write with their students and three of whom don’t. The aim was to see if there were differences in the way they teach writing.

The authors define teacher writers as teachers who write outside of school hours, regardless of the purpose or the audience of the writing done.

Assumptions formulated by the authors before the study were:

1. Teacher -writers possess a “stronger knowledge base “than non writers
2. Teachers who write are better able to understand difficulties faced by pupils and respond from personal experience
3. Teacher-writers can better motivate students to write as a result of their own passion for writing

All teachers in the study were known as successful writing teachers.

Study:

• teachers observed teaching
• 2 interviews
• questionnaire on beliefs and practice

The study only researched the teaching of personal and imaginative writing.

The 4 teacher-writers held different views on the influence of their own writing experience on their teaching.

No clear correlation between the degree of teacher intervention with individual students, the stages in the writing process at which teachers intervened, and the writing background of the teachers”

“…no clear pattern” in the amount of explicit instruction

There were marked differences in the field of feedback to students but theses did not reflect the writer/non-writer background of the teachers.

Not one of the participating teachers believed that teacher writing improves writing instruction.

Ros one of the participating teachers argued:

“Teachers who were highly attached to their identity as writers might be too prone to have fairly narrow, self-confirming notions of good writing in ways that might be counter-productive for some students” (p. 47).

Small sample

No clear findings in practice which separate teacher writers from non-writers.

“All participant teachers perceived writing oneself and teaching writing as quite separate skills demanding quite different techniques” (p. 48).

Teacher writing is one way of acquiring a knowledge base for the teaching of writing. It may help to understand the task of writing but teachers need far wider knowledge than that.

“No necessary link between becoming a writer and teaching writing better” (p. 48).

Gleeson, A., & Prain, V. (1996). Should teachers of writing write themselves?: An Australian contribution to the debate. The English Journal, 85(6), 42-49. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org

While writing this thesis I was running a professional development program for teachers of grades two to six. The name of the twenty eight hour course was “Improving Literacy in a Heterogeneous Class”. The teachers voluntarily signed up.  I began the course by asking the fourteen teachers participating to fill in a questionnaire about themselves, their teaching experience and their expectations of the course. I included a list of possible topics and asked them to mark those most relevant and important to them. I was not surprised to find that the most pressing topic for all of the participants was the teaching of writing and supporting struggling writers.  I opened the third meeting by asking the teachers to write for ten minutes in silence, the topic being an experience they have had teaching writing. I told them that we would be discussing those pieces after the writing period was over.  One teacher immediately left the room, a toilet or coffee break I assumed. Another took out her cell phone and began clicking furiously. Others doodled quietly in their notebooks, began listing points or began to fill lines with Hebrew script.  I sat and watched them, uncomfortable with the squirming that was going on in several of the seats. Each minute that went past was like five, my watch didn’t seem to move. I forced myself to wait ten minutes, resisting my urge to cut the time down to seven or eight minutes.  Silence was kept in the room for most of the time, although occasionally there were embarrassed giggles or a whisper.  When the time was up, some of the teachers were still busily writing their narratives and were sorry to stop. Others looked relieved and were waiting to get on with the seminar.  In the discussion that followed I was interested in hearing what had happened to the participants in those ten minutes, what they had felt and what they had experienced and done in that time.  Many of the teachers commented that they are unused to writing on demand and that they felt uncomfortable. Some confessed that they are not used to writing at all. Several remarked that the time limit and the expectation of sharing their writing pressured them. At least two of the teachers didn’t write at all in the ten minute period. Only two or three confided that they enjoyed the writing experience.  We looked in detail at what had been done in that time and saw how the writing process is different for different people. Afterwards we discussed the implications for these differences in our classrooms. One of the teachers who didn’t write anything, an experienced grade six teacher, explained to the group that she isn’t a writer. “People are either born writers or they aren’t, I’m not” she said. The group discussed this statement. Is it true? If it is, what does it mean for the teaching of writing? I added that this is one of the major misconceptions held by struggling writers in our classes.  I asked the teachers if anyone was willing to share their text with us. Two of the first volunteers started to tell their story without looking at the page. I stopped them and reassured them that it is clear to everyone that this is the roughest of rough draft but that we want to hear what is on the paper.  Two of the pieces we heard were well structured, interesting stories. We were amazed by the writers’ style and clarity. At the end of the session I explained that our next meeting would not be face to face, that we would be meeting on the virtual campus. Each teacher was required to do three things, firstly to revise her story about the teaching of writing (or write another story) and to post it on the assigned private discussion board. The second task was to reflect on the teaching story and on the experience of writing one, I supplied possible directions for this. The third task was to read stories from other group members and respond.  It took ages and lots of encouragement for the first teacher to post a story. She wrote about a poetry anthology she had successfully produced at her school. The poems were all connected to Israel’s sixtieth birthday. This teacher told how she had created a poetry unit suitable for each different age group, chosen appropriate poetry to teach, and encouraged the children to write. Every child in the school had writing published in the festive booklet. She told her story modestly but proudly and expressed her personal excitement and satisfaction with the project. A few days after this story appeared, comments began to appear, most of them congratulating the teacher on her success in the project but also on being the first to contribute a story. Questions also appeared. Gradually a few other stories appeared on the site and the discussion was lively.  Unfortunately only five of the participants took part in the discussion. At our next meeting, I devoted time to the oral reading of those stories posted on the campus and gave those teachers time to share their experiences with the group. I was sure that my enthusiasm, together with showing the participants that it is possible to complete the task, would motivate the others to write and share their stories. A few weeks later, I am still waiting… Although I know that time is a central factor in any work I do with teachers, here I know that the type of task assigned was significant in the low rate of participation.  I am continually aware that these teachers have not been asked to write anything of this nature for a very long time, some of them since they were at school. Another factor is that in a twenty eight hour course many of the teachers do not know each other and may feel vulnerable as a result.  I have tasted this kind of work with teachers and find it far more meaningful than choosing a topic, planning a lecture or a workshop, giving them my knowledge or experience and going home.  When I read the stories written, I was greatly aware of what I have been learning, that every teacher has something to say, that each teacher possesses professional knowledge which can be a wonderful starting point for collaborative learning. S, a second year teacher, had been very quiet and reserved in the first two sessions. We discussed writing in the third meeting and I brought examples of authors talking about the writing process and about how laborious composition is. Suddenly, S shyly told the group that she keeps a personal diary and that because she lives alone she comes home and pours her day into writing. She confessed that writing is an important part of her day. The narrative S wrote and posted was written in very simple language but told a very powerful story of her battle to get her second grade pupils to write. She told us how she used to spend each Sunday morning hearing stories from her class about what they had done on the weekend. She was frustrated that it was always the same children who related experiences and that many remained silent. She told that it was difficult for many to choose just one experience to share.  One day, S gave her pupils special notebooks and told them that they were going to write what they wanted to share from their weekend and that afterwards those that want to can tell their story. She was shocked by the result. Firstly, everybody wrote, including those who usually don’t share and her struggling writers. Secondly, many more children were willing to tell their stories. S, excited by this lesson, decided to continue.  In the weeks that followed, S asked her pupils to write every Sunday morning and was happy that the children wrote willingly and that the texts produced were more and more complex. More and more pupils asked to share their work. As a result of the reflection S did when writing her narrative for our group, she started asking the class to write on other occasions, after recess for example. Another addition was that she herself started writing while her class was busy with their heads down. She used the time for reflective writing on teaching issues. In the weeks that followed, writing became an accepted mode of communication in S’s class. When children were involved in an argument or had a problem, she asked them to first organize their thoughts by writing them in the notebook and that afterwards she would be happy to listen to them. It worked. When S got to school after her day off, she would find a pile of notes waiting for her on her desk. Subject teachers who taught the class were surprised when they began to receive written communication from the young children.  S received positive feedback on her work from the members of our group and also heard ideas for continuing and expanding her work. I found it very satisfying that through this activity she realized that she has something significant to share with a group of experienced teachers. Many of the veteran teachers certainly had something to learn from this shy and nervous early career teacher. I realized that S was similar to her shyer pupils, those that only dared to share a story when they had it firmly on paper.  There is no tradition of composing teacher narratives and collaborating on them in this part of Israel. There are presently no formal options for professional learning through dialogic writing and discussion. Despite the fact that this small scale experience was only partly successful, I am optimistic that significant learning frameworks can be established for Israeli teachers in this direction.  In order to succeed, I believe teachers need to know ahead of time that this will be the framework of the seminar and that they know they will be committed to experience the writing and discussing of teacher narratives. A mix of experienced and early career teachers is likely to be preferable – building on the enthusiasm and burning need for collaboration amongst newer teachers and the experience and knowledge of veteran educators.  I have already taken the first few steps. I have surprisingly managed to convince the coordinator of language and literacy in the northern area of Israel, that this is the way we should be going in our PD for next year. Most of the courses we will be offering will deal with the teaching of writing and they will all be structured around teacher collaboration and the writing and sharing of narratives.  If we begin with a respect for the knowledge the teachers bring with them and their honest desire to raise the achievement levels of their pupils in writing, I hope they will sign up and then be open, flexible and active participants.