chapter 19 1/4

Chapter 19The Process Approach to Writing Instruction            Examining Its EffectivenessRuie J.Pritchard and Ronald L. HoneycuttOur goal in this chapter is to reviewand research on the writing process,as research concerning the influence                                    theory                                      as                                      well                                        of thecorrelational, and case study. For the mostpart, ourhshed issources are research articles pub--llonaljour naIs; however, o, literslitersp"dagogingcalrum只pro-serrations andbooks. We haalso extends to dispublished in editedtoinclude an inforsuchand归︸cess. First,we provide a historicalof the writing process. Then, wOVerVle讥  critiquemation base d〕n diverse fields1几teFatUreresearchze soughtrawn frostudies that evaluate the writing proterms of its impact on K-12 students and oneducationlanguage learnersELL,We limit thehow writing is taughtreview of the researchThis is followed by aon theN仪P model forsearch to studiethat address kindergartenprofessionasubjects,evenDncomposlnglssuggestionsment Finally, we makeed res earch.students and a iulis  Our literaturethe arriclesandreview reveals that most ofreports on the writing pro-The understanding of what constitutes thecessare not rese arch reports. Many raisequestions that are not empirically answer-able. Moreover, numerous published worksaddress the writing process and dealwith empirically answerable questinot employ empirical methodologyswer the question(s). In this chapter.elude only research reports from thed11to a、、e Inprofeswritings process， instructional: model hasevolved since the 1970's, when it emerged asa pedagogical approach. In the early years, itwas regarded as a nondirectional model ofinstruction with very little teacher interven-tin. In his review of research on composi-tion from 1963 to 1982, Hillocks (1984)concluded that the teacher's role in the pro-,train!iterature that describe an attempt toempirical information about a specess model is to facilitate the writing prorather than to provide direct instruction;teachers were found "not to make specific1ltore, we report in th s chapter oinwhich the research processdescribed. The research desig nsonrelated to the v咒forments, not to help students learn tritestudiesclearly念建豁，;ruea止找黯渠 gelude experimental, quasi-experimentaln-udging writing,."d on specificices ba:providenot to structure acnv-objectives,...not toInmanipulating syntax,parison, pre- and postassessments, survey,activities that engage studentsprocesses of examining data"275276III INSTRUCTIONAL MODELS AND APPROACHES(p. 162; emphasis in original). It is not sur-prising that the research Hillocks summa-rizes showed minimal impact on the qualityof writing products as a result of this "natu-ral process mode."  In the formative years, the process ap-proach model was regarded as applyingmainly to stories, was linear and prescrip-tive, merged proofreading and editing as thesato thing, and usually did not involvedirect instruction-a sort of anything-goesmodel whereby the process was valued overthe product. In this early model, a simplisticpedagogy resulted: After their teacher de-scribes the four stages, students recall and re-hearse the steps, use the process to produce astory, and get into groups to share their sro-ties and gain feedback. In the literature inspecial education, such instruction to helpstudents plan, organize, and carry out a writ-ing task is called teaching "plans of action"(Gersten改Baker, 2001). Such plans com-prise only some of the procedural tasks ofthe current process model.  Today, most researchers of the processmodel recognize that it involves both pro-cedural knowledge and many other kindsof strategies that can be nurtured and di-rectly taught, including activating schematato access prior knowledge; teaching selfregulation strategies; helping students under-stand genre constraints; guiding students inre-visioning and in editing surface errors;providing structured feedback from teachersand peers; teaching the differences betweenreader- and writer-based prose; developingaudience awareness and effects of audienceon style, content, and tone; and dealing withemotional barriers, to name a few. In gen-era], those studies that view the processmodel as encompassing more teacher direc-tion in the process show positive effects onthe quality of students' writing, on their viewof themselves as writers, and on their under-standing of the writing process. For example,a meta-analysis of I3 studies with learningdisabled students (Gersten灰Baker, 2001)concluded that an effective comprehensivewriting program] n special education shouldentail explicit teaching of "(a) the steps ofthe writing process and (b) the critical di-mensions of different writing genres.二as well as (c) structures for giving exten-sive feedback to students on the quality oftheir writing from either teachers or peers"(p. 251). Our review of the literature revealsthat these elements also characterize effectivewriting instruction within regular educationclassroom settings  Furthermore, current researchers recog-nize that as a writer matures and internalizesthe overall procedures and strategies for pro-during texts in various genres, these becomeautomatized. They occur more efficientlythroughout the writing process, and not insequential steps, as noted in the change in theprofessional literature in referring to thewriting process as "recursive." Furthermore,the emphasis today on state academic stan-Bards is influencing how the process model isimplemented and tested. In his argumentthat assessment creates artificial conditionsfor applying the writing process, Schuster(2004) sarcastically says that state writingrests should really be labeled "state draftingtests" (p. 378). As a result of new theories,new research, and the changing status ofwriting in the curriculum, the process modelhas evolved. Teaching the process modelnow demands careful scaffolding and creat-ing lessons that traverse the entire process;researching the process model in all its inclu-5 Iveness .samultilayered process demandingsivenessavariety of research methodologies. As welearn more about what is entailed in teachingand learning the writing process, the defini-tion and the pedagogy of the process modelare likely to change.Historical Overview of the Writing ProcessThe key ideas and foundational practices ofthe writing process can be traced back toearly Greek and Roman models of teach-ing rhetoric (Bloodgood, 2002; Winterowd改Blum, 1994). The professional literaturedoes nor mention the writing process untilDay's (1947) discussion of the seven steps ofthe writing process. Mills (1953) argued that"the basic failure in our teaching centers, inmy judgment, is our un willingness or inca-pacity to think of writing in terms of pro-cess" (p. 19). Later, a description of a four-stage writing process garnered from inter-v iewswith 16 published writers appeared inthe introduction to a book edited by Cowley(1958).  Many of these published writers spoke ofmeeting regularly with other writers to share 投The Process Approach Is Writing instiuchos277their works in progress, though this was arare practice in the schools until the 1970s.The idea of planning instruction along thelines of how real writers write is frequentlyattributed to the seminal contributions of Pe-ter Elbow, Janet Emig, Donald Graves, Don-ald Murray, and Mina Shaughnessy (Jensen,2002; Smith, 2000a, 2000b). In the 1970s, agroup of teachers in the San Francisco BayArea began to share their own writing. Theycompared the model for how professionalwriters compose with how writing was com-monly taught in the schools, labeling theirnontraditional instructional model "the pro-cess approach" (Gray, 2000; Wilson, 1994).These early proponents of the process modelemphasized a balance in instruction betweenwriting processes and products. Since the1980s, the process approach to teachingwriting has emerged as the primary para-digm, so much so that many state and localschool systems have mandated it as the goldstandard for instruction in K-12 classroomsIPatthey-Chavez, Matsumura, & Valdes,20041. Textbooks often translate the processinto a prescriptive, linear formula for pro-ducing a paper, which is not truly representa-tive of the stop-and-start, recursive processused by professional writers, who are alsowriting for authentic audiences and nor forclassroom teachers.  Over the past 30 years, the definition andelements of the writing process have beenreinterpreted. Initially, most rese archersproposed a three-stage writing process.Rohman's (1965) model of prewrite, write,and rewrite is the most widely referenced ex-placation of the writing process. However, inhis dissertation about the composing processof four high school honor students, Brozick(1976) concluded that the writing process ismuch more dynamic and is contingent uponnumerousvariables and influences such aspurpose， audience, type of writing, and thewriter's personality type. Larsen (1983) at-gued in her dissertation documenting the his-tory of the writing process that by the mid-20th century, writers were encouraged tocompose recursively. However, it was not on-til the work of cognitive researchers, suchas Flower and Hayes (1980, 1981), andBereiter and Scardamalia (1987), that mostresearchers and practitioners questioned thelinear-prescriptive view of the composingprocess and embraced one山at is recursiveand more complex. Numerous other writingexperts have noted that the writing processindividualized and does not occur in anyfixed order (de Beaugrande, 1984; Bridwell,1980;Witte, 1987). Chapter 2 of this volnine is devoted to cognitive theories of writ-ing development.  Researchers who subscribe to this paradigm regard the writing process as mainly aseries of problem-solving tasks (Braaksma,Rijlaarsdam, van den Bergh, & van Hout-Wolters, 2004; Bereiter & Scardamalia,1987(. Goldstein and Cart (1996), authorsof the summary report of National Assess-tent of Educational Progress (NAEP), de-scribe a process in which writers make multi-ple decisions:"Process writing" refers to a broad range ofstategics that include pre-wr icing acsuch as defining audience, using a variety of re-sources, planning the writing, as well as draft-ing and revising. These acrwities, collectivelyreferred to as "prate，s -orle nted inapproach writing as problem-solving. (p. 1)Most educators today hold this view thatproducing a written text is a mental recursiveprocess coupled with procedural strategiesfor completing writing tasks. Consequently,the instructional strategies associated withthe process model have changed. Now theycommonly include explicit instruction inself-regulation, searching prior knowledge,goal setting, and other strategies not in-cluded when the process instructional ap-proach wasintroduced.  In terms of research, examining a student'sdeclarative knowledge of steps makes for aclean study; however, it does not account forall the facets of the recursive process modeland its accompanying pedagogy that werecognize today. Furthermore, as Lipson,Mosenthal, Daniels, and Woodsidejiron(2000) discovered in their research, eventhose who subscribe to a definition of thewriting process as recursive vary in how theyimplement the writing process in their class-rooms. This variation further complicates in-terpreting the effects of using the process ap-proach in rese arch studies or generalizingacross studies.  Jensen (1993) quotes Colette Daiute assaying "The major contribution to under-standing writing in the past 30 years has278一【NSTRHCTIONAL MODELS AND APPROACHESbeen the realizarionIng，15 a co11that writing, like read-process, influenced bymany自ctorspie(p.292)approach was validatedThe writing processin 1992 by the Na-tional Council of Teachers of English andthe International Reading Association, whenthey defined Content Standard 5 for the English Language Arts, K-12: Students are ex-peered to use writing process elements strate-gically (De La Paz, 1999).Early Studies of the Writing ProcessThe most well-known and cited study on thewriting process is Janet Emig's (1971) disser-tation on the composing processes of 12th-grade writers. Emig employed case study1methodology to interview eight students todelineate the processes they went throughwhen completing writing assignments. Addi-tionally, on three separate occasions, Emigasked the subjects to complete a writing assignment, composing aloud while she re-corded each subject. Emig concluded thatwriters engage in two distinctive modes ofcomposmg-extensive, to convey ames sage;and reflexive, to explore one's feelings. Eachentailed its characteristic process.  Over a 5-month period, Donald Graves(1973) gathered data during five distinctphases of his research. First, he examined thewriting folders of 94 students, looking attheir thematic choices, the frequency of theirwriting, and the types of writing. In the sec-and phase of his study, he observed 14 di卜Ferent children while they were composing. During the third phase of the research,Graves interviewed 9 boys and 8 girls abouttheir views of their own writing and the concept of a good writer. Finally, he conducted acase study on 6 boys and 2 girls who werepurported to be representative of 7-year-oldchildren. In his study, and similar to the laterfindings of nuJllerous researchers (e名，Brozick, 1976; Gundlach, 1977), Gravesconcluded that multiple variables, frequentlyunknown to the writer, influence the writingpro  Based on his personal experiences of writ-ing in college, Peter Elbow (1973) challengedthe emerging concept of the writing processthat basically viewed writing as a linear, two-step process of writing and editing. He 2r-gued for a flexible prewriting stage, notingthat it was counterproductive to have a clearpicture in one's mind of a finalized versionbefore one began writing. Elbow viewedthe writing process as a series of problem-solving steps one goes through in order todiscover what he or she knows and feelsabout a subject. The writer is thereby freedfrom having to know all of his or her mean-ing before writing any of it. Elbow has had apowerful influence on practices, even thoughhis study was a reflection on his own experi-ences as a struggling writer and, like Graves'sstudy (1973), did not employ experimentaldesign.  One criticism during this era of researchon the writing process was that the model isbased on the processes山at professionalwriters use. Smagorinsky (1987) noted thatthe definition of "professional writers" wasnarrow，including mainly literary figures.Because the theory behind the promodel relied on the genre of narratives aboutpersonal experiences, Australian researcherschallenged the implicit assumption in theAmerican model that children have an innateunderstanding of genre structures (Cope改Kalantzis, 1993; Hicks, 1997). Other criti-cisms issued from educators who argued thatit is a major pedagogical leap to assume thatimmature writers, who are at a different de-velopmental stage, as well as writing primar-ily for classroom audiences, are able to applyprinciples of process writing at the same levelas adult writers. Over time, the understand-ing of the process model, and thus the re-search, grew to encompass more genres andbroader based pedagogy.Research Studies on the Effectivenessof the Writing P阳cessCommenting on the 1992 NAEP assessment,officials asserted that "teaching the clusterof writing techniques known collectively as‘writing process' is5 associated with haverage writing proficiency among stud, nts'(Goldstein & Carr, 1996, p. 1). Their analysis is based on the sel卜reports of 29,500 students in 1,500 schools, which indicate thatstudents whose teachers implement writingproce ss techniques "almost every day" con-sistently obtain the highest average writingscores on the NAEP writing assessment. The1998 NAEP writing assessment of 17,286