Written language research

Best Practice in Writing Instruction 1

Best Practice in Writing Instruction K-8

Genny R. Reigstad

A Capstone Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the RequirementsFor the Degree of

MASTER OF ARTS IN EDUCATION:DIFFERNENTIATED INSTRUCTION EMPHASIS

CONCORDIA UNIVERSITYSt. Paul, Minnesota, USA

May 2008


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Throughout this master’s program I was faced with several unexpected challenges. I wish

to thank my husband, Jared, for his time and patience. Thank you to Robin Sobczak for

being an angel on earth and caring for my newborn when I couldn’t. Finally, I wish to

thank Aubrey Belle for inspiring me daily. I love you to the moon and back.


Table of Contents

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION………………………...…………………………4

Definition of Terms…………….…………………..…………………………5

Summary…………………………………………..………………………….9

CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF LITERATURE………….……………………….......10

The Writing Process.…………………………………………………………11

Summary……….…………………………………….……………………….17

CHAPTER 3: DIFFERENTIATING WRITING INSTRUCTION…….………......18

Learning Styles.…………………………………………………………........18

Meeting Educational Needs…………………………………………………..20

Writing Across the Curriculum………………………………………………..23

Summary………………………………………..……………………………..23

CHAPTER 4: DISCUSSION OF RESULTS…………………..……………………24

Effective Teaching Strategies in Writing Instruction…………………………25

Other Factors Contributing to Effective Writing……………………………..28

Summary………………………………………………………………………31

CHAPTER 5: SUMMARY AND REFLECTION…………………………………..33

Summary of Research………………….………………………………………33

Personal Reflection…………………….………………………………………34

References……………………………..……….…………………………….………36

Appendices …………………………………….…………………………………….40

Appendix A ………………………………………………………. ………….40

Appendix B……………………………………………………………………44


CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

Every day we come into contact with the written word. We see writing

everywhere we go. Written language is one of the most important methods of

communicating, and it has been around since the beginning of documented time. We

acquire knowledge through reading the written word, and we express ourselves to others

through the use of the written word. We learn to write at a young age because of its

importance and usefulness in our lives. Whether it be journaling our innermost thoughts

as a means to release the stressors in our lives, or conveying the world's most intriguing

events through an article in the New York Times, writing is a useful tool for us all.

Writing is a means of expression. It allows us to be individuals while connecting

us to all other humans who are literate. It separates us from all other living creatures and

provides us countless avenues in which to communicate our needs, desires, feelings, and

knowledge. It has been herald as one of the famous "Three R's" - reading, writing, and

arithmetic- in education, even though it starts with a "w". We need written language skills

to be successful in today's world. “It is essential to school success and has increasingly

become a central component of daily life in industrialized societies” (Graham,

MacArthur, & Fitzgerald, 2007).

The United States Department of Education understands the importance of written

language and written language instruction. All public schools are required to teach

writing. Schools do not have the authority to pick and choose who will receive written

language instruction; it is to be provided for all students. Teachers must provide effective,


meaningful written language instruction to all students regardless of a myriad of

differences, including, but not limited to race, culture, linguistic differences, and ability

levels.

Purpose of the Study

There are many different ways of teaching writing. Some instructors choose to

carefully follow writing curriculum guides, while others experiment with their teaching

practices. The purpose of this research paper was to determine the most effective

practices for teaching all students written language skills, so they may effectively

communicate their thoughts through the use of writing.

Definition of Terms

Retrieved from: http://www.upei.ca/~xliu/measurement/glossary.htm

Analytic scoring: Method of scoring essay items in which separate scores are given for

specific aspects of the essay ( e.g., organization, factual accuracy, spelling). Retrieved

from: http://www.upei.ca/~xliu/measurement/glossary.htm

Application skills: The ability to use reading, mathematics, and other academic skills in

real-life situations. Retrieved from: http://www.upei.ca/~xliu/measurement/glossary.htm

Assistive technology: Computers and other technologies used to enhance the performance

of individuals with disabilities. Retrieved from:

http://www.upei.ca/~xliu/measurement/glossary.htm






Assessment: A related series of measures used to determine a complex attribute of an

individual or group of individuals. Generally has broader connotations than measurement.

Often used as a stylistic alternative to measurement. Retrieved from:


Curriculum: The skills, performances, attitudes, and values pupils are expected to learn

from schooling: includes statements of desired pupil outcomes, descriptions of materials,

and the planned sequence that will be used to help pupils attain the outcomes. Retrieved


Differentiated Instruction: efforts of teachers to respond to variance among learners in the

classroom...in order to create the best learning experience possible (Tomlinson, 2000).

Educational objective: A statement that describes a pupil's accomplishment that will

result from instruction; the statement describes the behavior the pupil will learn to

perform and the content on which it will be performed. Retrieved from:


English-language Learner: student whose first language is not English and who either

lacks proficiency in English or has beginning level proficiency in English. Retrieved


Expressive language: The production of language for com-munication; for example,

speaking and writing. Retrieved from:








First language: The language learned first by an individual; also called home language or

native language. Retrieved from: http://www.upei.ca/~xliu/measurement/glossary.htm

Hypermedia: An extension to hypertext that supports linking graphics, sound, and video

elements in addition to text elements. Retrieved from: http://www.webopedia.com

Individualized Education Program: (IEP) A written educational plan developed for each

school-aged student eligible for special education. Retrieved from:


Language proficiency: The degree to which an individual is skilled in a language; when

students speak languages other than English, proficiency is assessed to determine the

primary language. Retrieved from: http://www.upei.ca/~xliu/measurement/glossary.htm

Learning strategies: Methods used by individuals in their interactions with learning tasks.

Retrieved from: http://www.upei.ca/~xliu/measurement/glossary.htm

Least restrictive environment: According to PL 94-142, the educational placement for

students with disabilities that is as close to the regular classroom as feasible. Retrieved


Mainstreaming: Integration of students with disabilities physically, academically, and

socially with age peers. Retrieved from:







http://www.webopedia.com/

http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/h/hypertext.html



Mechanics: refers to spelling, capitalization, and punctuation. Retrieved from:


Nondiscriminatory assessment: Assessment that does not penalize students for their sex,

native language, race, culture, or disability. Retrieved from:


Portfolio assessment: The analysis of student work samples, self-evaluations, and other

materials assembled in portfolios to document student progress over time. Retrieved


Writing: Expressive written language; includes spelling, handwriting, usage, and

composition. Retrieved from: http://www.upei.ca/~xliu/measurement/glossary.htm

Special Education: Specially designed instruction to meet the unique needs of students

with disabilities. Retrieved from: http://www.upei.ca/~xliu/measurement/glossary.htm

Summary

Written language skills are a necessity in today's world. Students must learn how

to effectively communicate with others through the use of the written word. This paper

will review the current research in the area of written language instruction to determine

the most effective way to educate elementary through middle school students in this

important academic area.







CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Writing is a part of everyday life. It is a way to communicate, self-reflect, and keep

order in our lives. “One of the most important features of writing is that it lets us

communicate with others, allowing us to maintain personal links with family, friends and

colleagues who are removed by both distance and time” (Graham, McArthur, &

Fitzgerald 2007). It enhances our lives on a daily basis. Kajder (2005) believes that

writing is a tool for thinking. Writing allows us to receive information, process it, and

provide feedback. The purpose for reviewing literature on writing instruction is to further

our knowledge of effective practices that will ultimately improve the success of our

students. Teaching written language skills is therefore an essential part of the educational

experience as well as life experience.

Written language has been taught in school systems since the beginning of

formalized education. Today writing is a key ingredient in learning. Written language

assessment is included on state mandated tests of basic educational needs. Its importance

has been noted repeatedly as evidenced by the existence of libraries, computers, postal

systems, etc. How to deliver writing instruction in the most effective manner has been a

challenge and an arena for debate. This review of literature will examine administration

of writing instruction in mixed ability kindergarten through eighth grade classrooms to

determine the most effective method(s).


The Writing Process

There is a plethora of research on how to deliver written language instruction. The

two methods that appear over and over again in the research are the whole language

approach and the writing process approach. According to Harris and Graham (1996) both

strive to create a community of students who share and help each other, make personal

choices about what they read and write, take ownership and responsibility for their

learning, take risks in their reading and writing, and collaborate in evaluating their efforts

and progress.

Graham and Harris (1996) suggest the fundamental difference between whole

language teachers and those employing the writing process is that process teachers

emphasize ownership of written work and provide ample opportunities for students to

extend their writing experience by offering conferences, peer collaborations, and sharing

of final products.

The writing process has emerged over time. Writing assignments were once handed

out after a certain passage had been read to check for comprehension. Today written

language instruction in the classroom mirrors how a professional writer would do his/her

job. Most professional writers follow several steps before ending with a published piece

of work. These steps used by educators and are now known as the writing process. These

include:


1. planning or brainstorming

2. writing an initial or rough draft

3. revising

4. editing for conventions (mechanical aspects of writing)

5. producing and publishing of a final copy

Step One: Planning

Good writing takes time. It is a mental exercise. According to Young (1997), writing

requires a warm-up session, much like any other exercise. “Your mind needs to warm up

in order for you to write well” (Young, 1997). Other researchers agree. Graham,

MacArthur, and Fitzgerald (2007) suggest, “Effective classrooms always have some form

of planning.” Planning is less common, however, in the primary grades than in the middle

school and high school grades. Many students refer to planning as the brainstorming

stage. This is just another way of saying before writing begins, thoughts need to be put on

paper and organized. Many teachers use graphic organizers to assist students, especially

those with special needs, with planning their writing.

Step Two: Producing

This step consists of producing a written piece often referred to as a “sloppy copy.”

The idea is get ones organized thoughts onto paper. There is little to no regard for correct


mechanical application, spelling, or grammar. These copies are used to reflect on and

share with the teacher and classmate(s) who may offer suggestions for editing.

Step Three: Revising

Revising may also be called proofreading. This step involves making changes to the

placement of thoughts or structure of the writing piece. Here students may want to add or

delete information.

Step Four: Editing for Conventions

Conventions are the mechanics of writing. This step involves checking spelling,

punctuation, capitalization, grammar, and paragraphing. Conventions enhance the

readability of the paper. Spelling should be correct on all words. Punctuation should be

smooth and guide the reader through the paper. Capitalization should be used correctly.

Paragraphing should reinforce organization or flow of the paper/written piece.

Step Five: Production of the Final Copy and Publishing or Sharing Your Work

Once the student has written, revised, and edited their writing piece they can then

work on production of the final copy. Many teachers allow their students to use

computers to publish their written work. “Computers allow students to perfect their

writing thorough multiple revisions while also giving them the means to produce

impressive publications in different media” (Burke, 2003). No matter the media chosen,

Calkins (1994) suggests, “We cannot teach writing well unless we trust that there are real,


human reasons to write.” Writing is a communicating act; and therefore, should be

shared.

In addition to process writing, Graves (1994) defines seven key points or conditions

inherent for effective writing:

1. Room structure. Graves suggests making the classroom “predictable for

productive work.” This would include, but is not limited to ample work space,

available resources, such as sample writing pieces and literature on various subject

matter, as well as maintaining a quiet working environment to assist concentration

and minimize distraction.

2. Time. Teaching writing requires time. Writing should be taught daily with an

allotted amount of time dedicated to nothing but writing.

3. Choice. When students make their own choices about their written work, they

feel a sense of ownership which assists them in committing to producing good

work.

4. Demonstration. “The teacher is the most important factor in creating a learning

environment in the classroom….When you actually take your own text and put it

on the chalkboard, an overhead projector, or chart paper, and show your students

how to read it, they will receive the clearest demonstration of what writing is

about” (p. 109). Demonstration can also be thought of as the passion, curiosity,

and problem solving we as educators show our students throughout the day.


5. Response. “Students need to hear the responses of others to their writing, to

discover what they do or do not understand” (p. 108).

6. Expectation. It is important to maintain high and reasonable expectations for

your students. Graves asks, “What are you working at to be a better writer?”

(p. 110).

7. Evaluation. Evaluation should include the final written piece and also the big

picture of progressing as a writer.

“Graves (1994) derived these seven parts to clarify the enacting of the process

oriented writing curriculum in his Writing Workshop curriculum model” (Graves, as sited

in Mott & Klomes, 2001). Using these seven steps along with the writing process

approach will benefit teachers and assist students in achievement of grade-level writing

demands.

Mixed Ability Classrooms

With so much research available to assist teachers with creating an effective writing

curriculum, why is there a need for more? As stated previously, most research has been

conducted using whole language or process writing, with little focus on strategies that

may be used to reach all students of varying ability levels. Learning effective strategies to

use within writing lessons can prove to be quite beneficial for the teacher and student,

especially when working with students who have special needs.


Delivering of effective writing instruction to an entire class of mixed ability students

requires follow up teaching with small groups and/or individual students. Research

suggests the best method for reaching all students including bilingual students and those

with special needs is by proving a setting that is engaging. Graham, MacArthur, &

Fitzgerald (2007) found this to be the most salient characteristic found in educational

settings which produced the highest language arts achievement. Rather than focusing on

work book page after work book page, students should be actively involved with their

learning.

The second most effective characteristic is direct teaching. Teaching whole class

lessons followed by small group instruction and one on one support where necessary

produced the highest level of literacy achievement (Graham, MacArthur, & Fitzgerald,

2007). Finding a point where students understand their assignment well enough to work

as independently as possible is a common goal for educators. Teaching and re-teaching as

necessary allows those who understand the task to keep going and those who are

struggling to gain a clearer perspective. “Students with learning disabilities and English

language learners benefit from such an approach (the writing process approach) since

they often need a guiding hand and time to concentrate on one aspect of their writing at a

time” (Burke, 2003).

Strategies for Self-Regulation

Self-regulation is a set of four basic abilities (goal setting, self-monitoring, self-

reinforcement, and self-instruction) developed by researchers Graham and Harris (1996).


The major objectives of the self-regulated strategy development approach are as follows:

To assist students in mastering the higher level cognitive processes involved in the

planning, production, revising, and editing of written language, to help students further

develop the capacity to monitor and manage their own writing, and to aid students in the

development of positive attitudes about writing and themselves as writers.

Teaching self-regulation strategies has been shown to help students with special

needs, ELL students, and general education students alike. By increasing positive

attitudes, students are more excited about their learning. “The self-confidence they

developed from their writing spread to other areas of the curriculum, enabling them to be

become more fully involved in class activities” (Five, 1992). When students learn to

monitor and manage their own writing, teachers can place themselves in the role of

facilitator allowing students to feel an increased sense of ownership of their written work.

Summary

According to the research available, the most effective method for delivering written

language instruction in the elementary and middle school classroom is by using the

writing process. Lessons in grammar, conventions, and various genres should precede

independent work. There should be a set time, preferably daily, for students to focus on

their writing. Students should not call it quits after submitting a first draft, but rather

revisit their written work time and again to expand their thinking and understanding. Mott

& Klomes (2001) agree, and add that written language should be experimental in nature.

Students should be given several unique ways to learn and test their abilities. Therefore,


differentiated instruction methods in writing should be examined for effectiveness and

implemented in written language lessons.

In addition to employing the writing process, teachers should follow the seven

steps suggested by Graves (1994) to assure the environment is conducive to learning.

Instructor demonstration and modeling is key to setting the stage for the learner.

Modeling such strategies as self-regulation will help support students attempts. Self-

regulation strategies (goal setting, self-monitoring, self-reinforcement and self-

instructions) have been shown to assist the writer in working toward the goal of

producing a quality written language piece. Teaching these strategies can be a useful tool

for students of all ability levels. Maybe the most useful of these is an increase self-

confidence which arises from finding success with their writing.


CHAPTER THREE: DIFFERENTIATING WRITING INSTRUCTION

Overview

This chapter will focus on differentiating instruction in the area of written language. Having

competence in written language skills is necessary to become a competitive student/member of

society who is able to achieve higher levels of education and furthermore, secure a position in an

affluent career. Written language is a part of everyday life, and therefore deserves the attention of

researchers and educators in an effort to better the way instruction is delivered (Burke, 2003;

Culham, 2003; Culkins, 1986). Pinnell (1999) says it best when she writes, “Effective literacy

programs involve a wide range of reading and writing activities.” The process used to write this

paper was to read and synthesize several research articles relating to writing instruction in an attempt

to gain more knowledge and expertise to further enhance this researcher's teaching ability and to

inform the best practice of this researcher in making a positive difference in the student's writing

ability.

The following pages examine different methods of delivering writing instruction in an attempt

to supply the best educational experience possible in writing for all students. Successful strategies

will be examined and reported. Challenges faced by the instructor and students will also be

examined and reported.

Learning Styles

Tomlinson (2000) defines the differentiated instruction method of teaching as “…efforts of


teachers to respond to variance among learners in the classroom...in order to create the best learning

experience possible.” To accomplish this, a teacher must first get to know each student as an

individual, having among other characteristics, their own interests, learning styles, talents, and self-

concepts. Tomlinson (2000) suggests that students are more successful when teachers teach to their

interests, learning profiles, and readiness levels.

Members of the Center for Comprehensive School Reform and Improvement, Learning Point

Associates (2007) view successful teaching/learning in a similar light. It is commonly believed that

students should be taught with instructional methods and materials based on their own learning

styles. This articles took the material on differentiated instruction found in Tomlinson (2000) one

step further to add that teachers must become thoroughly knowledgeable in all content areas being

taught and design ways to assess students’ understanding of the material introduced to them. Keck

and Kinney (2005) would agree that readiness levels, interests, talents, etc. should be known by the

teacher before adequate planning and implementation of any curriculum can be done.

Once a teacher has become familiar with each student’s unique learning style and readiness

level, they can offer a variety of options for acquiring knowledge and assessment. Offering different

ways to express student ideas in written form such as through the use of poetry or composition are

just a couple of methods for differentiating instruction. Students can also cooperatively engage in

their education in small groups based on writing skill level within the classroom. This allows

students to work at their own level without interfering with the learning of peers who may be at

another writing level. When a teacher provides the same instruction to all students and offers specific

ways to express acquired knowledge they are limiting their students’ abilities to show what they

know. Education becomes dull and boring for the students and the teacher when everyone is


expected to produce the same material in the same fashion (Pinell, 1999).

Meeting Educational Needs

There are several ways to provide students with written language instruction that meet their

educational needs. Initially, planning may take longer due to formulating what each student knows

and has yet to learn. Once this is established, educators can set up a dozen plus scenarios for

teaching written language instruction. Writing centers are a wonderful way to engage students in

their education (Ray, 2001). They can focus on different aspects of writing such as mechanical

application (spelling, punctuation, and capitalization), subject/verb agreement, poetry writing, letter

writing, etc. just to name a few. However important, Salmani-Nodoushan (2007) would suggest

students should focus on the communicative aspect of writing more so than the structure of writing.

Writer’s workshops can help students focus on learning both the structure of writing as well as the

communicative aspects by incorporating the use of technology. Computers, projectors, and

electronic white boards to name a few cab further stimulate the learning process (Kajder, 2005).

Salmani-Nodoushan (2007) suggests, “The aim of a cognitive approach is to develop an insight

in the learner, enabling him to make his own selections and interpretations of the existing situation.”

Creating this type of atmosphere allows the teacher to act as a facilitator of the students learning,

thus empowering their students. Using different methods to teach writing such as technology to

assist in teaching helps the instructors to able to expand, elaborate, and clarify students writing

(Carpenter, 2000). The role of teacher turns from a traditional approach to an approach that

empowers students to be more involved with exploring education.

Keck and Kinney (2005) suggest using technology (multi-media) to assist in teaching. The

Scholastic Reading Inventory (SRI), a computer based program, can assist teachers with assessment


of reading levels and documents student progress. Thus allowing the teacher to use his/her time

focusing on other areas of instruction. Computers may also be used to develop writing skills, express

acquired knowledge through power point presentations and conduct research. Technology has

changed the way people look at and interact in the world today. Not incorporating it into the

education of youth would seem a disservice, according to Kajder (2005). Kajder (2005) also suggests

using computers as a teaching tool when she writes of an increasing number of states are using

computers as instruments to assess student’s knowledge. In addition to developing effective writing

skill, becoming familiar with technology would also help students perform better on computer based

assessments throughout the educational experience.

Using technology can be frustrating to someone who has little experience with it. Teachers

understand that learning about technology and how to effectively use it as a teaching tool takes time

and money. Kuriloff (2004) understands that technology requires both time and money. There is

value in teaching with technology, but it comes with an expense. Kuriloff’s (2004) research found

that although electronic writing groups were not more cost-effective, they did improve student’s

knowledge better than traditional writing groups.

Carpenter, Brown, & Hickman (2004) found that using computers in written language

instruction yielded a more positive attitude toward the use of technology as a way to differentiate

instruction. However, using technology alone to teach written language skills as opposed to face to

face instruction had less of an impact on student outcomes (Carpenter, Brown, & Hickman, 2004).

Ennis (1997) conducted research that focused around writing and hypermedia, which is defined by

www.webopedia.com as an extension to hypertext that supports linking graphics, sound, and video

elements in addition to text elements. Ennis (2007) research concluded that children were more

motivated to express themselves when there was an integration of text and hypermedia in teaching

http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/h/hypertext.html

http://www.webopedia.com/


writing skills. This suggests that using technology can be a very helpful teaching tool, but it should

not be done without face to face instruction as well.

Perhaps the best way to provide students an opportunity to individualize their writing

instruction is by using Writer’s Workshop (the writing process). This is a way of providing written

language instruction through mini-lessons and allowing students’ ample time creating, writing,

editing, and sharing written work. Students learn to view writing as a “craft” requiring hard work

and predictable, concentrated amounts of time each school day (Calkins, 1994; Graves, 1990).

Writing Across the Curriculum

Lessons in written language are typically thought of in terms of a class or a certain amount of

time that is dedicated to writing structure and communication. However, writing instruction can be

taught across the curriculum. Rowen (2005) suggests that students can better make connections in

learning when they are required to write about their content areas. Allowing students to view each

other’s written work can help to provide different ways to look at the same material. Rowen (2005)

further adds that when students know someone other than their teacher will see their writing, it

becomes easy to help them with process and mechanics. “They take pride in their work, and they

make it look good” (Rowen, 2005). Peterson (2007) would agree, but added teaching across the

curriculum allows students to begin to understand that reading and writing are not just for English

class. “Students have space to explore the content knowledge that they are learning and connect it to

their experiences, observations, and understandings of the world in ways that make sense to them”

(Peterson, 2007). Possessing reading and writing skills is imperative to fully participate in daily life

(Rowen, 2005). Teaching writing across the curriculum can help students make connections in their

learning throughout all subject areas and beyond the school day.


Summary

In summary, based on the research of Mott & Klomes, (2001) it is true that what might be right

for some, may not be right for all. This is why written language instruction must be differentiated

(Lewis & Batts, 2005). Planning for all students means adapting the curriculum to meet the needs of

every member of the class. Providing different methods for learning skills and expressing the skills

learned gives students the confidence to take chances and experiment with their knowledge (Rowen,

2005). Time and time again research suggests that children are more motivated to participate in their

learning when they are offered choices and given a multitude of opportunities (Rowen, 2005;

Peterson, 2007). Using technology to assist in educating students on writing skills is one method that

has proven successful (Ennis, 2007). Writing across the curriculum allows students to make

connections they may not otherwise have made (Kuriloff, 2004).


CHAPTER FOUR: DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS

Overview

The essential question driving this research paper is, “what are the best methods for teaching

writing instruction to students in K-8 inclusive settings?” After reviewing an abundance of research

available on written language instruction and acquisition (Burke, 2003; Carpenter, 2000; Culham,

2003; Calkins, 1986; Fleischman & Unger, 2004; Graham & Harris, 2005; Graves, 1994; Mott &

Klomes, 2001; Newell, 2006; Peterson, S., 2007), the essential question has been satisfactorily

answered. Although there are many methods used to instruct students in writing, there have been few

that have been successfully documented time and again in research, with the exceptions of the

writing process and the whole language approach (Pinell, 1999; Rhodes & Dudley-Marling, 2006).

In this chapter, the following discussion will focus on the research findings on best practices

for writing instruction as well as differentiating methods of delivering curriculum and assessing

acquired knowledge. The classrooms of today consist of more ethnically, racially, and culturally

diverse students than ever before (Carbo, 1995). This diverse student population presents significant

challenges to teachers, requiring them to adapt to their new "clientele" by becoming knowledgeable

about the cultural backgrounds of their students and recognizing the abilities and skills of students

who speak a language other than English (Carbo, 1995). Diverse learning styles and ability levels

vary widely from student to student. Teachers must be prepared to implement instructional practices

that accommodate the learning styles of their diverse students while effectively meeting educational

objectives and standards (Graham, MacArthur, & Fitzgerald, 2007; Keck & Kinney, 2005; Pinell,


(1999).

Effective Teaching Strategies in Writing Instruction

The majority of research on effective writing instruction found by this researcher suggested

the writing process that is the most effective writing instruction strategy for students of varying

ability levels and cultural backgrounds in grades K-8 (Allison & Rehm, 2007; Burke, 2003;

Carpenter, 2000; Culham, 2003; Fleischman & Unger, 2004; Graham & Harris, 2005; Graham,

MacArthur, & Fitzgerald, 2007; Graves, 1983 & 1984; MacArthur, Graham, & Fitzgerald, 2006;

Mott & Klomes, 2001; Pinell, 1999; Ray, 2001). Effective teaching interventions improve students

writing development (Graham, 1999, 2006; Graham & Harris, 2003).

“These interventions include teaching students to be more strategic

when planning, drafting, or revising; constructing a supportive writing

environment in which such processes are valued; developing

instructional arrangements where students work together to support

their writing efforts; setting clear and specific goals for writing tasks;

using word processing and supporting software; teaching increasingly

sophisticated sentence construction via sentence combining; involving

students in inquiry activities centered on the process of writing; using

good models of writing to enhance students’ knowledge; and teaching

basic text transcription skills such as handwriting and spelling”

(Graham, MacArthur, & Fitzgerald, 2007).

“The goal is for students to become proficient learners and to use the strategies in reading and


writing to develop understanding and make meaning (Kendall & Khuon, 2006). In their book,

Kendall & Khuon (2006) report the first step in working with students on written language is to

analyze their written work. Analyzing student work means looking at their writing samples and

making a list of strengths and weaknesses as writers (Kendall & Khuon, 2006). Once it is understand

what students know, what needs to be taught can be determined. Teachers should then use the needs

of their student writers to develop writing lessons for the class (Kendall & Khuon, 2006).

Many researchers suggest giving written language “mini-lessons” to the whole class prior to

starting the writing process (Burke, 2003; Calkins, 1994; Harris & Graham, 1996). Mini-lessons

provide specific instructions to the students. Atwell (1998) identifies four categories of mini-lessons:

procedural or the rules and routines of the workshop, literacy craft or what the author considers

when they create literature, written conventions or what writers and readers need to know about

writing and language, and strategies or what readers and writers do to successfully communicate.

Atwell (1998) further suggests teachers use index cards to “jot down mini-lesson ideas” as they

observe their students work throughout the writing process. Mini-lessons can also be given to small

groups or individual students on an as needed basis (Burke, 2003). Burke (2003) provides a list of

commonly used mini-lessons. They are as follows: writing effective introductions or conclusions,

paragraph organization, sentence patterns, concrete nouns, active verbs, writing about a fictional

character, grammar, punctuation, using details, opinion vs. fact, tone, and voice (Burke, 2003). This

allows for students who are proficient in one area to keep working on their writing while others

receive direct instruction.

Once a teacher has delivered their written language lesson or mini-lesson, it is suggested that

they start the writing process with their class (Calkins, 1994). The first step in this process is

prewriting. Prewriting activities should, “Encourage kids to draw on their prior knowledge and


schema by making connections between what they already know and what they are learning helps

them develop as proficient writers” (Kendall & Khuon, 2006). Prewriting can be done in a myriad of

ways drawing on the concept of differentiated instruction. Suggestions include, but are not limited to

graphic organizers, student journals, allowing students to work cooperatively with others to build

ideas, and offer ideas that inspire creative thinking (Dodge, 2005).

The second phase of the writing process is drafting. This is the time students are encouraged to

get their thoughts down on paper typically in sentence form. Drafting can be differentiated by using

different types of paper (notebooks or individual sheets), a variety of writing instruments (markers,

crayons, pens, and pencils), and employing a word processor or computer (Kendall & Khuon, 2006).

Following drafting, students are encouraged to revise their writing. “As writers, we need to see

what is almost there in a draft; we need to be able to see possibilities” (Calkins, 1994). The revising

process generally involves rereading work aloud to a partner, often the teacher or another student

(Calkins, 1994; Graham, MacArthur, & Fitzgerald, 2007). Once the student has reread their writing

piece, their partners then read their “work in progress” aloud to the writer. This allows a student to

hear their work in two different ways. A discussion of the writing piece follows with asking

clarifying questions and offering suggestions. Offering revising checklists, modeling ways for

students to respond, and allowing small response groups of four or five students are a few methods

of differentiating the revising process (Dodge, 2005). After the revising conference takes place,

students move on to editing their writing.

Editing is simply making corrections to a writing piece. Kendall and Khuon (2006) made

several valid suggestions to helping students through this process: check grammar; use red and green

underlining in Microsoft Word; edit with the teacher, with a partner, or in a group; using editing

checklists; and using the Five Finger Rule for Editing (each finger on one hand represents a different


editing skill: spelling, capitalization, punctuation, grammar and usage, and sentences structure. This

can be made into a visual and posted on the classroom wall to serve as a reminder.

Publishing is the final step in the writing process. Publishing allowed students to bring their

work into the world. It allowed it to be enjoyed by an audience. There were several ways to motivate

students to publish their writing piece(s). Kendall and Khuon (2006) suggested having teachers make

literary magazines where students work was put together and placed on display for others to enjoy.

Calkins (1994) proposed inviting parents and grandparents into the classroom to view written work

published by the students. Not all writing pieces were published. Students were allowed to choose

the pieces they wished to share, while their other works remained in a student work folder (Kendall

and Khuon, 2006).

Other Factors Contributing to Effective Writing

In addition to the writing process and differentiating instruction to assist all learners in

meeting the demands of the written language curriculum, other contributing factors surfaced in the

research. Kendall & Khuon (2006) suggested successful written language achievement in elementary

school age children was directly related to the amount of predictable time dedicated to writing. In

their book, the authors recommended 40 plus minutes of language arts instruction be dedicated to

writing on a daily basis. Graham, MacArthur, and Fitgerlad (2007) agreed with a set amount of daily

writing time and added the most important factor in producing high language arts achievement was

having students actively engaged in academics 90% of the time. This meant having students doing

something academic that involved thoughtfulness, such as drafting a well structured story (Graham,

MacArthur, and Fitgerlad (2007). “The best workshop teachers value structure and organization”


(Graves, 1994).

Setting the scene for successful writing was very important, according to Graham, MacArthur,

& Fitzgerald (2007). This involved instruction delivered by teachers who were passionate about

writing and who wrote themselves (Graham, MacArthur, & Fitzgerald, 2007). Modeling made a

difference (Harris & Graham, 1996). In addition to modeling writing, teachers should surround

themselves and their students with all types of print to assist in developing knowledge of different

genres (Graham, MacArthur, and Fitzgerald, 2007).

Allison & Rehm (2007) found strategies employed by teachers in diverse classrooms included

four practices rated highly effective: use of visuals, peer tutoring, cooperative learning, and using

alternative methods of assessment to evaluate students.

Visuals can be used to assist in teaching concepts in any subject area. Furthermore, hands-on

materials and visuals that students can manipulate engaged a variety of senses and helped make

learning more meaningful, especially for diverse students who tended to be tactile, kinesthetic

learners (Allison & Rehm, 2007). Researchers indicated there are a myriad of ways school teachers

could incorporate visuals into their writing lessons. Teachers have developed their own visuals such

as bulletin boards, graphic organizers, flash cards, games, and handouts that include pictures and

symbols that correlate with specific lessons (Allison & Rehm, 2007). “Pictures, cartoons, maps,

graphs, charts, diagrams, videos, and other multimedia resources enhance learning because they

engage different senses, accommodate visual learners, and help reinforce key ideas by presenting

information in alternative formats” (Carrier, 2005).

A second strategy teachers from Allison & Rehm (2007) rated as highly effective with

students from racially, ethnically, and culturally diverse backgrounds was peer tutoring. This

strategy, which paired two students of differing abilities and backgrounds, has been found to be


extremely effective in classrooms having students with diverse needs (Allison & Rehm, 2007).

Students became teachers and resources for each other. Peer tutoring promoted communication,

motivates students, and helps learners attain higher levels of achievement (Allison & Rehm, 2007).

The academic and social benefits of peer tutoring, for both the tutor and tutee, have been recognized

by researchers to offer opportunities to work one-to-one with a peer who was performing at a

different level of achievement, which facilitated a new appreciation and understanding of others who

might be different (Webb, 1988).

Cooperative learning involved teachers who connected a classroom of diverse student

population to computers, a projector, a document camera, or an electronic whiteboard allowing the

whole class to view samples of students’ writing (Allison & Rehm, 2007). “This serves as an

inquiry-driven whole class discussion of the projected text helping to clarify, extend, and enrich the

composition, while encouraging writers to think about their own writing” (Kajder 2005). Setting up

heterogeneous groups and allowing them to collaborate and cooperate with each other on activities

and problem-solving tasks was found to promote inter-ethnic friendships, develop cross-cultural

understandings, and build teamwork while also enhancing literacy and language acquisition among

diverse students (Allison & Rehm, 2007).

The use of alternative modes of assessment was noted as a universally sound teaching

practice, according to Allison and Rehm (2007) that was particularly appropriate for diverse learners

(Allsion & Rehm, 2007). Differentiating methods of assessing written language skills need to vary

according to ability levels of the students (Lewis & Batts, 2005). These methods of assessment may

include, but not be limited to scoring rubrics, demonstrating understanding of concepts/genres in a

multitude of ways, Scoring rubrics given to students prior to the starting the writing process on a

given genre, proved to be helpful guides for students (Graham, MacArthur, & Fitzgerald, 2007).


“Researchers have strongly asserted that assessment techniques must be compatible with and

relevant to the cultural backgrounds, learning styles, and life experiences of all students (Allison &

Rehm, 2007).

Summary

Prior to teaching written language skills, researchers suggest work samples of written work be

collected and analyzed (Kendall & Khuon, 2006). This allowed teachers a starting point for

instruction. Researchers also suggest instruction be limited to mini-lessons, which can be given to

the whole class, small group, or individual students (Burke, 2003; Calkins, 1994; Harris & Graham,

1996). The use of the writing process was documented with suggested differentiated techniques

offered throughout each step of the writing process.

The first step in the writing process, following mini-lessons, was prewriting or brainstorming.

Suggestions included, but were not limited to graphic organizers, student journals, allowing students

to work cooperatively with others to build ideas, and offer ideas that inspire creative thinking

(Dodge, 2005). The second step was drafting. Drafting can be differentiated by using different types

of paper (notebooks or individual sheets), a variety of writing instruments (markers, crayons, pens,

and pencils), and employing a word processor or computer (Kendall & Khuon, 2006). This step was

followed by revising. Offering revising checklists, modeling ways for students to respond, and

allowing small response groups of four or five students are a few methods of differentiating the

revising process (Dodge, 2005). Editing followed revising. One differentiated instruction technique

was the Five Finger Rule. Each finger on one hand represented a different editing skill: spelling,

capitalization, punctuation, grammar and usage, and sentences structure. Finally, students published

their writing pieces. Not all writing pieces were published. Students were allowed to choose the


pieces they wished to share, while their other works remained in a student work folder (Kendall and

Khuon, 2006).

Setting the scene for productive writing included students viewing the teacher as a writer.

Modeling made a difference in student writing by providing a visual (Harris & Graham, 1996). In

addition to modeling writing, teachers should surround themselves and their students with all types

of print to assist in developing knowledge of different genres (Graham, MacArthur, and Fitzgerald,

2007). Peer tutoring promoted communication, motivates students, and helps learners attain higher

levels of achievement (Allison & Rehm, 2007). Lastly, the use of alternative modes of assessment

was noted as a universally sound teaching practice, according to Allison and Rehm (2007) that was

particularly appropriate for diverse learners (Allsion & Rehm, 2007).


CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY & PERSONAL REFLECTION

Overview

The final chapter of this paper will include a summary of the research examined on

written language instruction. A personal reflection of key concepts learned will be followed by a

sample language arts unit including a writing assignment using differentiated instruction

designed by this researcher for a middle school inclusive setting.

Summary of Research

“The power of writing resides in the many ways in which it can be used. It is essential to

school success and has increasingly become a central component of daily life in industrialized

societies (Graham, MacArthur, & Fitzgerald, 2007).” According to the research available, the

most effective method for delivering written language instruction in elementary and middle

school classrooms is by using the writing process (Burke, 2003; Carpenter, 2000; Calkins, 1986;

Fleischman & Unger, 2004; Graham & Harris, 2005; Graham, MacArthur, & Fitzgerald, 2007;

Graves, 1983; Kendall & Khuon, 2006; Mott & Klomes, 2001; Ray, 2001).

Lessons in grammar, conventions, and various genres should be given by the instructor on a

regular basis prior to independent work (Burke, 2003; Calkins, 1994; Harris & Graham, 1996).

Burke (2003) provides a list of commonly used “mini-lessons”. They are as follows: writing


effective introductions or conclusions, paragraph organization, sentence patterns, concrete nouns,

active verbs, writing about a fictional character, grammar, punctuation, using details, opinion vs.

fact, tone, and voice (Burke, 2003). Mini-lessons can be given to whole class, small group, or

individuals on an as needed basis.

A set time should be allotted, preferably daily, for students to focus on their writing

(Graham, MacArthur, & Fitzgerald, 2007). During this writing time, students should be

encouraged to revisit their written work time and again to expand their thinking and

understanding. Mott & Klomes (2001) agree, and add that written language should be

experimental in nature. Differentiating instruction methods in writing should be implemented in

diverse classrooms (Kendall & Khuon, 2006). Students should be given several unique

opportunities to learn and test their abilities. Using technology to assist in educating students on

writing skills is one method that has proven successful (Edyburn, 2004). Another is writing

across the curriculum, which allows students to make connections they may not otherwise have

made (Peterson, 2007).

In addition to employing differentiated instruction with the writing process, teachers

should follow the seven steps suggested by Graves (1994) to assure the environment is

conducive to learning. Instructor demonstration and modeling is key to setting the stage for the

learner. Modeling such strategies as self-regulation will help support students attempts. Self-

regulation strategies (goal setting, self-monitoring, self-reinforcement and self-instructions) have

been shown to assist the writer in working toward the goal of producing a quality written

language piece (Culham, 2003). Teaching these strategies can be a useful tool for students of all

ability levels. Maybe the most useful of these is an increase self confidence which arises from


finding success with their writing.

Personal Reflection

There is a common saying in our society that, “Variety is the spice of life.” Another

popular cliché is “different strokes for different folks.” Both sayings are true; people like

options. They want to be offered choices. Students are no different. They have opinions and

preferences. This researcher believes offering different options in the classroom will only assist

the instructor in meeting the educational needs of their students more effectively than teaching

one method to the entire class of typically 20-30 children.

Today’s world is full of opportunities. These opportunities usually involve making

decision that will impact us as individuals in some capacity. It is crucial that we as educators

instill a sense of confidence in our youth who will be faced with a surplus of challenges

throughout their lives. Offering students options throughout their educational experience will

help them become familiar with different situations and outcomes to assist in preparing them to

be thoughtful, contributing members of society.

Planning for all students means adapting the curriculum to meet the needs of every

member of the class. Providing different methods for learning skills and expressing the skills

learned gives students the confidence to take chances and experiment with their knowledge. The

research clearly suggests that children are more motivated to participate in their learning when

they are offered choices and given a multitude of opportunities.

Need for Future Research

Ongoing research helps educators be more effective, efficient teachers. As the use of

technology increases in our society and schools, the need for research focused on acquiring


written language skills through the use of or partial use of technological assistance will need to

be examined.

References

Allison, B. N. & Rehm, M. L. (2007, November). Effective teaching strategies for

middle school learners in multicultural, multilingual classrooms. Middle School

Journal, 39, 12-18.

Burke, J. (2003). Writing Reminders: Tools, tips, and techniques. Portsmouth,

NH: Heinemann.

Carbo, M. (1995). Educating everybody’s children. In R. W. Cole (Ed.), Educating

everybody’s children: Diverse teaching strategies for diverse learners (pp. 1-7).

Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Carpenter, K. (2000, July). “Kid writing” author Isabell Cardonick with kid writing

help. Teachers.net Gazette, 1(4).

Carpenter, T. G., Brown, W. L., & Hickman, R. C. (2004, Fall). Influences of

online delivery on developmental writing outcomes. Journal of Developmental

Education, 28(1), 14-16, 18, 35.

Culham, R. (2003). 6 + 1 traits of writing. New York: Scholastic.

Calkins, L. M. (1986). The art of teaching writing. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.


Calkins, L. M., & Harwayne, S. (1991). Living between the lines. Portsmouth,

NH: Heinemann.

Edyburn, D., (2004). Technology supports for differentiated instruction. Journal of

Special Education Technology, (19)2, 60-62.

Ennis, M. (1997). Televison, dialogue journals, and feedback in the EFL

classroom. Journal of TESOL France. 4, 30-43.

Five, C. L. (1992). Special voices. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann

Fleischman, S. & Unger, J. (2004). Is process writing the “write stuff”?,

Educational Leadership, 62, 90-91.

Graham, S. & Harris, K. R. (2005). Improving the writing performance of young

struggling writers. The Journal of Special Education, 39(1), 19-33.

Graham, S. & Harris, K. R. (1996). Making the Writing Process Work: Strategies

for composition and self-regulation. Brookline, MA: Brookline Books.

Graham, S., MacArthur, C. A., & Fitzgerald, J. (2007). Best Practices in Writing

Instruction. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

Graves, D. H. (1990). Writing: Teachers and children at work. Portsmouth, NH:

Heinemann.

Graves, D. (1994). A fresh look at writing. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Kajder, S. (2005, May). Whole class inquiry: language arts. Learning and

Leading with Technology 32(8), 53-55.

Kendall, J. & Khuon, O. (2006). Writing Sense: Integrated reading and writing strategies

for English language learners K-8. Portland, ME: Stenhouse Publishers.


Keck, S. & Kinney, S. C. (2005, September). Creating a differentiated classroom.

Learning and Leading with Technology. 33(1), 12-15.

Kuriloff, P. C. (2004, Fall). Rescuing writing instruction: how to save time &

money with technology. Liberal Education, 90(4), 36-41.

Learning Point Associates. (2007, January). A teacher’s guide to differentiating

instruction. The Center for Comprehensive School Reform an Improvement.

Lewis, S., & Batts, K., (2005). How to implement differentiated instruction?

Adjust, adjust, adjust. Journal of Staff Development, (26)4, 26-31.

MacArthur, C. A., Graham, S., & Fitzgerald, J. (2006). Handbook of Writing

Research. The Guilford Press: New York, NY.

Moon, T. (2005). The role of assessment in differentiation. Theory into Practice,

44(3), 226-234.

Mott, M. S. & Klomes, J. M. (2001). The synthesis of writing workshop and

hypermedia authoring: grades 1-4. Early Childhood Research & Practice,

3(2).

Newell, G. E. (2006). Writing to learn: How alternative theories of school writing

account for student performance. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, &

J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 235–247). New York:

Guilford Press.

Peterson, J. (2007, April). Teaching literacy across the curriculum. National

Middle School Association (NJ1), Middle Ground. 10(4), 12-14.


Peterson, S. S. (2007, November). Teaching content with the help of writing

across the curriculum. Middle School Journal, 39, 26-33.

Pinell, G. S. (1999). Effective literacy programs. Classroom connections. Council

Connections. 9-11.

Ray, K. W. (2001). The writing workshop: Working through the hard parts (and

they're all hard parts). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.

Rhodes, L. K. & Dudley-Marling, C. (1996). Readers and Writers with a

Difference: A holistic approach to teaching struggling readers and writers

(2nd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinmann.

Rowen, D. (2005, February). The write motivation using the internet to engage

students In writing across the curriculum. Learning connections—language

arts. Learning and Leading with Technology. 32(5), 22-23, 43.

Salmani-Nodoushan, M.A. (2007, May). Thinking on the write path. Online

submission, Training Journal, 37-40.

Tomlinson, C. A. (2000, August). Differentiation of instruction in the elementary

grades. ERIC Digest. Champaign, IL: ERIC Clearinghouse on Elementary

and Early Childhood Education.

Tomlinson, C. (2001). How to differentiate instruction in mixed-ability classrooms.

Alexandria, VA: ASCD Publications.

Young, S., (1997). Scholastic guide to writing with style. Scholastic, Inc.


Appendix A: Sample Writing Unit using Differentiated Instruction

What’s the “Big Idea?”

Students must learn about historical events in order to understand why things happen, have

happened, and how they might change the future. They also need to learn to read literature for

meaning, develop and answer “thick” questions, research methods (books, computers, etc), write

essays (using the writing process), construct bibliographies, and express knowledge acquired.

Differentiated Instruction Methods:

This unit will be taught using several differentiated instruction methods. The following is a list of

examples used during this unit.

-choice of topic to be studied (out of three)

-choice of partner(s)

-method of completion of essay (written form or typed)

-choice of journal entry type (from list provided)

-choice of book(s) to read on topic (fiction books must be approved by teacher)


-choice of style of presentation

-opportunity to grade themselves and group members (teacher gives the final

grade for each student) as well as provide rationale for grading.

Pre-Assessment: Historical Fiction and Non-Fiction (Planning or Brainstorming)

-KWL (Know, Want to Know, What we have learned)

-Review with the students “thick questions” (questions that have a lengthier

response than yes or no and require extended thinking).

-Start a chart of “What we know” and “What we want to know” about the three

options for the historical era (The Holocaust, WWI, or The Great Depression).

Start a “Graffiti Wall” Have each student pick one question they have about the era they are most

interested in out of the following options: Nazi Germany…The Holocaust, World War I, or The

Great Depression. They will each chose a colored sharpie and write their question on the “graffiti

wall.” We will then read the questions aloud highlighting essential questions or themes we

notice.

Activities to be completed during the unit:

On-going journaling:

Students will be given a list of writing prompts to choose from. The will read with a partner or in

a small group (no more than three). They will each use their own journal and respond to a

writing prompt independently. They must complete at least four journal entries.

Sample journal writing prompts:

-Sketch a scene and write a paragraph about the scene

-choose a character in the story and explain their thoughts, feelings, actions

-Choose a “golden line” from the chapter and explain why it is a “golden line.”


-Imagine you lived during this time. How would your life be different? How

would it be the same?

-Choose three words from the reading that you didn’t know or weren’t sure of.

Writing the three words, the sentence they are in, and their definitions (use the

dictionary!).

Research and Writing of First Draft:

Students will learn about how to cite sources, how not to plagiarize, and how to writing an essay

that captures the most important facts of the era. They will be working in small groups of 2-3.

They will be given opportunities to use the library and the computer lab to conduct their

research. Students must locate and review at least three resources of fact and at least one on

fiction. Fictional sources must be preapproved by me (the teacher). Essays must be at least two

pages typed (double space) or three pages written. They cannot be longer than four pages typed

(double spaced) or five pages written. Written essays must be done in blue or black ink. A

sample source citation form and sample bibliography will be given to each group. Essays from

previous classes may be used as examples.

Revising and Editing:

Students will meet with at least three different peers and exchange their writing. They will

each complete a revising checklist and an editing checklist. Students must sign off on the check

lists after it has been completed. Compliments and suggestions for improvement must be

included. After three peers have reviewed the writing piece a final draft should be written.

Presentations: (Publishing)

Here comes the fun part! Students can choose the style of presentation they would like to do. The

presentations must be centered on a book they have read relating to their historical fiction project


or an event that took place during their chosen era. Students will decide individually or as a small

group how to present. Choices may include, but are not limited to the following:

Selecting a presentation not provided on this list must be approved by me (the teacher).

-power point presentation

-act out a scene that you have created using an “extra chapter” from the book

-make a story blanket/quilt

-make a collage

-write a poem about your era and recite it to the class

-make a diorama depicting a scene from your historical event

Post-Assessment

Student’s written work and presentation will be assessed by rubric. The rubrics are given to and

discussed with the students prior to starting this unit.

Revisit KWL and Graffiti Board

Can we answer the initial questions?

Students Fill out Participation Forms and Select Grade Earned (done individually)


Appendix B: Bibliography

Allison, B. N. & Rehm, M. L. (2007, November). Effective teaching strategies for

middle school learners in multicultural, multilingual classrooms. Middle School

Journal, 39, 12-18.

Bender, W. (2002). Differentiating instruction for students with learning disabilities.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Burke, J. (2003). Writing Reminders: Tools, tips, and techniques. Portsmouth,

NH: Heinemann.

Burns, M. (2006). Improving student writing through E-Mail mentoring. Learning

and Leading with Technology, 33, 38-47.

Carbo, M. (1995). Educating everybody’s children. In R. W. Cole (Ed.), Educating

everybody’s children: Diverse teaching strategies for diverse learners (pp. 1-7).


Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Carpenter, K. (2000, July). “Kid writing” author Isabell Cardonick with kid writing

help. Teachers.net Gazette, 1(4).

Carpenter, T. G., Brown, W. L., & Hickman, R. C. (2004, Fall). Influences of

online delivery on developmental writing outcomes. Journal of Developmental

Education, 28(1), 14-16, 18, 35.

Cook Moats, L. (2000). Speech to Print: Language Essentials for Teachers.

Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing.

Culham, R. (2003). 6 + 1 traits of writing. New York: Scholastic.

Calkins, L. M. (1986). The art of teaching writing. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Calkins, L. M., & Harwayne, S. (1991). Living between the lines. Portsmouth,

NH: Heinemann.

Edyburn, D., (2004). Technology supports for differentiated instruction. Journal of

Special Education Technology, (19)2, 60-62.

Ennis, M. (1997). Televison, dialogue journals, and feedback in the EFL

classroom. Journal of TESOL France. 4, 30-43.

Five, C. L. (1992). Special voices. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann

Fleischman, S. & Unger, J. (2004). Is process writing the “write stuff”?,

Educational Leadership, 62, 90-91.

George, P. (2005). A rationale for differentiating instruction in the regular

classroom. Theory into Practice, 44(3), 185-193.


Graham, S. & Harris, K. R. (2005). Improving the writing performance of young

struggling writers. The Journal of Special Education, 39(1), 19-33.

Graham, S. & Harris, K. R. (1996). Making the Writing Process Work: Strategies

for composition and self-regulation. Brookline, MA: Brookline Books.

Graham, S., MacArthur, C. A., & Fitzgerald, J. (2007). Best Practices in Writing

Instruction. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

Graves, D. H. (1983). Writing: Teachers and children at work. Portsmouth, NH:

Heinemann.

Graves, D. (1994). A fresh look at writing. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Kajder, S. (2005, May). Whole class inquiry: language arts. Learning and

Leading with Technology 32(8), 53-55.

Kaye, P. (1995). Games for writing: Playful ways to help your child learn to write.

New York: Farrar, Straus, & Giroux.

Kendall, J. & Khuon, O. (2006). Writing Sense: Integrated reading and writing strategies

for English language learners K-8. Portland, ME: Stenhouse Publishers.

Keck, S. & Kinney, S. C. (2005, September). Creating a differentiated classroom.

Learning and Leading with Technology. 33(1), 12-15.

Kuriloff, P. C. (2004, Fall). Rescuing writing instruction: how to save time &

money with technology. Liberal Education, 90(4), 36-41.

Ladders to Literacy for Kindergarten Students. (2007, August 13). What Works

Clearinghouse Intervention Report, p. 1-30.


Layton, C., & Lock, R. (2008). Assessing students with special needs to produce

quality outcomes. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.

Learning Point Associates. (2007, January). A teacher’s guide to differentiating

instruction. The Center for Comprehensive School Reform an Improvement.

Lewis, S., & Batts, K., (2005). How to implement differentiated instruction?

Adjust, adjust, adjust. Journal of Staff Development, (26)4, 26-31.

MacArthur, C. A., Graham, S., & Fitzgerald, J. (2006). Handbook of Writing

Research. The Guilford Press: New York, NY.

Moon, T. (2005). The role of assessment in differentiation. Theory Into Practice,

44(3), 226-234.

Mott, M. S. & Klomes, J. M. (2001). The synthesis of writing workshop and

hypermedia authoring: grades 1-4. Early Childhood Research & Practice,

3(2).

Newell, G. E. (2006). Writing to learn: How alternative theories of school writing

account for student performance. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, &

J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 235–247). New York:

Guilford Press.

Olson, J. L., & Platt, J. M. (2000). Teaching Children and Adolscents with Special

Needs (3rd ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill.

Peck, A., & Scarpati, S., (2005). Instruction and assessment. Teaching

Exceptional Children, 37(4), 7.

Peterson, J. (2007, April). Teaching literacy across the curriculum. National


Middle School Association (NJ1), Middle Ground. 10(4), 12-14.

Peterson, S. S. (2007, November). Teaching content with the help of writing

across the curriculum. Middle School Journal, 39, 26-33.

Peterson, S. S. (2005). Writing across the curriculum: Because we all teach

writing. Winnipeg, MB: Portage & Main Press.

Pinell, G. S. (1999). Effective literacy programs. Classroom connections. Council

Connections. 9-11.

Ray, K. W. (2001). The writing workshop: Working through the hard parts (and

they're all hard parts). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.


Difference: A holistic approach to teaching struggling readers and writers

(2nd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinmann.


Difference: A holistic approach to teaching learning disabled and remedial

students. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Rossell, C. (2004). Teaching English through English. Educational Leadership,

62, 32-36.

Rowen, D. (2005, February). The write motivation using the internet to engage

students In writing across the curriculum. Learning connections—language

arts. Learning and Leading with Technology. 32(5), 22-23, 43.

Salmani-Nodoushan, M.A. (2007, May). Thinking on the write path. Online

submission, Training Journal, 37-40.


Sobel, D. & Taylor, S. (2006). Blueprint for the responsive classroom. Teaching

Exceptional Children, 38(5), 28-36.

Tomlinson, C. A. (2000, August). Differentiation of instruction in the elementary

grades. ERIC Digest. Champaign, IL: ERIC Clearinghouse on Elementary

and Early Childhood Education.

Tomlinson, C. (2001). How to differentiate instruction in mixed-ability classrooms.

Alexandria, VA: ASCD Publications.

Tomlinson, C., & McTighe, J. (2006). Integrating differentiated instruction and

understanding by design. Alexandria, VA: ASCD Publications.

Vallecorsa, A. L., deBettencourt, L. U., & Zigmond, N. (2000). Students with Mild

Disabilities in General Education Settings. Columbus, OH: Merrill.

Young, S., (1997). Scholastic guide to writing with style. Scholastic, Inc.

