Authors Writing Badly and Inviting Us to do the Same (Part 3)

Marci Glaus, English language arts consultant at the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction, contributed this post.

In the video trailer for Wisconsin Writes, you will hear Nickolas Butler say “you can’t be a good writer unless you’re a reader.” Through the author interviews and in review of the footage, I noticed a trend developing among most of the authors who participated in the project saying the same thing. The basis for such agreement is simply the idea that we can learn how to write by reading great writing. But it is so much more than just reading.

How many times have your read something and just let the story wash over you with little thought to the structure, word choice, or what the writer was doing to help you get lost in the text? I do it all the time. I found that I really have to step into a text much more purposefully when I am reading with a writer’s craft in mind if I am going to learn anything about writing. If I want to make my own writing better, I need to understand and be able to name what other writers have done so that I can try it out for myself if I find it useful. Even then, my writing can come in fits and starts while I try to tackle what the pros have done in a way that fits with what I am trying to do. It takes practice, but it is possible. Take, for example, speaker and writer Tasha Schuh and company. She talks about trying to start her first book several times, but growing frustrated each time before figuring out how to plan and put her ideas together. She states that while she loves to read, she had to find examples of books that she could use as models for her own. They helped her get started in her writing process which ended with her first book and landed her here, in this video series, working on her second.

Linda Godfrey advises students not only to “write, write write, and write some more,” but to “read, read read, and read some more.” She says this based on her own experience as a writer who ended up writing about things she never thought she would. Through extensive reading and writing experiences, she was able to step into different genres with success. This holds true with other writers who participated in Wisconsin Writes.

Stay tuned for the end of this school year when Nickolas Butler is featured, writing in a genre very few people (including himself) would expect to find him. 

Authors Writing Badly and Inviting Us to do the Same (Part 2)

Marci Glaus, English language arts consultant at Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction, contributed this post.

I love perusing the “What are you Reading” Literacy Booth blog posts for several reasons, but mostly because I like to see the diverse genre and topic choices. I have made more of an effort not only to track what I am reading, but to purposefully break out of what has become my established reading norm which is usually fiction, preferably with a strong female lead. The Wisconsin Writes project was an excellent method to help me branch out. By making it a point to read something from each writer before meeting with them, I not only experienced new and different genres/topics, but found a heightened sense of appreciation for the excellent work produced in the state of Wisconsin.

The biggest reading stretch for me was Patrick Rothfuss because he writes fantasy which is a genre in which I tend not to partake. Once I did my research, I very quickly found out how big of a deal he and his beard are and I ordered his first book. I (somewhat grudgingly) started it, but 722 pages later decided that I really was a geek (in the best way possible—watch his writing process video), and declared myself a fan. When I bought his second book, I geeked out with the cashier at Barnes and Noble for as long as it takes for people waiting in line to become annoyed.

A second reading stretch for me came through the works of two Wisconsin authors who (among other things) write for the Wisconsin Historical Society Press Badger Biography Series. Both Karyn Saemann and Stuart Stotts have published in the series. At first I was leery because again, here are texts that are not catering to my established genre and character needs, but I ended up learning so much about Wisconsin’s first public school teacher, Electa Quinney, and activist Father Groppi through texts that are written for younger readers. Coming in to these books with very little background knowledge, I appreciated the writing style for the series and the assumed audience.

Beyond the texts above, I viewed the Wisconsin Writes project as a method for taking stock of how many Wisconsin authors I have actually read. I obviously loved to meet some of the writers from our state in person, but I also loved meeting them in their writing. 

Authors Writing Badly and Inviting Us to do the Same

Marci Glaus, English language arts consultant at Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction, contributed this post.

When I sat down to talk with Wisconsin author and investigator Linda Godfrey about the hardest part about writing, I felt as if I had struck gold. She delivered the biggest, most valuable nugget when she said that the best thing she can do for herself as a writer is “giving myself permission to write horrible things badly.” Here, a professional writer admits that she has to get out of her own way and just write—no matter how awful it might come out the first time. Linda is not the only professional writer to say this. Wisconsin Poet Laureate Kimberly Blaeser admits “I think it’s that need to do it perfectly instead of messily… and I still struggle with that because I want to sit down and I want to keep at it until I get it how I want it to be, and a lot of times you simply can’t do that.”

Although there were several, one of the happiest discoveries through the Wisconsin Writes project was that of writers showing how messy, recursive, and hard writing can be. They help unlock part of the mystery of writing, showing us, in the words of writer and educator Molly Magestro, “you don’t just sit down and spit something out and it’s golden.” The icing on this literary cake is that when each Wisconsin writer shows part of his/her writing process in the videos, they share an established assumption that they will go back during and after their writing process to make their writing better. Stuart Stotts agrees. He shares part of his process while editing two books that are almost done. He admits that all of his books have taken at least four or five drafts to complete, and states “I don’t know anybody who just sits down and writes and ‘here it is, my book it’s done.”

There is power in showing students that even the best writers in the room have to stop, think, try on, delete, and get over the idea that polished, good writing will just flow every time they sit down. Whether it is an author, an educator, or a peer, students learn valuable lessons each time they experience someone else’s thinking. Sharing our thinking as we write is a great strategy to explicitly teach students different parts of a writing process, whether they are working on brainstorming, putting a writing plan into action, or revising.

Seventh grade teacher and writer Pernille Ripp provides some important advice for us, and especially for students in Wisconsin: “Just get that horrible first whatever it is out of us…you can go back and change it.” She encourages us to just write, no matter what level or how awful because revision is such an important part of a writing process. 

Success in Postsecondary Writing: Flexibility

Marci Glaus, DPI's English language arts consultant, contributed today's thinking.

Recently, the UW System hosted a webinar on college readiness focusing on senior year English. Four English professors/instructors from different postsecondary institutions in Wisconsin shared their views regarding expectations for college writing. I took part in the webinar for obvious reasons, but I also wanted to compare their message with the writing resources we have available through the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction. While I appreciated the overall vision of the webinar, especially because it was based heavily on the Framework for Success in Postsecondary Writing, it is difficult to encapsulate college readiness for anything in one hour or less.

I perked up toward the end of the webinar when educators were allowed time to ask questions. There were not many, but one question in particular caught my attention because of the way the professor responded. A teacher asked what kinds of writing they expect students to be able to do in different college courses. In response, the professor talked about the idea that students should really be able to write for a wide variety of audiences, and to do this, they actually have to write for different authentic audiences. I threw a fist pump in the air and thought about all of the writers I have worked with over the last several months and their focus on audience.

Most of you have heard me gush (probably more than once) about Wisconsin Writes, a project that provides a glimpse into various Wisconsin writers’ processes as they plan, put a writing plan into action, revise, or edit—not in that order, and never in a linear fashion. Each writer is completely aware of audience for his/her writing whether or not they are published. Audience is a built assumption related to a writing process and drives so much of what they do. For example, while revising a poem, Wisconsin’s poet laureate Kimberly Blaeser, talks about having to do research to make sure her writing is historically accurate. She works at length on just one line of a poem she created to ensure its accuracy for readers.

Molly Magestro’s process includes thinking through whether or not her writing makes sense to readers. As she works on the sixth draft of her novel, she has to keep character details straight. She describes how changing a minor detail about one character, created repercussions in other parts of the book that she wasn’t expecting. She had to go back and revise so that her audience would not be confused.

Silvia Acevedo talks about gathering feedback related to different audiences. One audience can provide feedback on accuracy of the mythology she leans on in her story. Her main audience is kids, so when possible, she has them read her work for feedback to make sure they understand it and find it entertaining. Another audience is a writers group she is a part of for a different kind of critique. They offer feedback for revision purposes. She keeps all of these people in mind as she writes.

Authentic audience can change so much for students when they write. From our youngest students to those getting ready to move into college and/or careers, there are myriad audiences they can access for their writing in almost any genre or subgenre. Revisiting writing tasks in classrooms with an emphasis on audience can do several things. First, it provides a built-in purpose for writing. Second focusing on audience broadens the mode and media students might use to write: in most cases, the same task does not have to be done the same way. For example, a book review can be written with pencil and paper and turned in for a grade, but it can also be published inside library book covers for other people to access when choosing books. Students can write book reviews through a Goodreads account, or Amazon. They could even write and produce a podcast or other type of recording freely available for other people to access in the future in a space to collect the recordings. Each method accomplishes the writing goal for students, but establishes different audiences as well.

If our ultimate goal for students is to adjust the way that they communicate through writing based on different audiences or contexts, then they have to practice recognizing and writing in different contexts. Fortunately, we have a growing collection of author stories building on the Wisconsin Writes website offering windows into different writing contexts for students to see. Our next Wisconsin author, Patrick Rothfuss will be the first in the project to share his context for writing persuasively and the myriad audiences he has to keep in mind to reach his goal. His beard is also a reason for tuning in, along with his ancient keyboard that requires two adapters just to plug into his laptop. And goats. Lots about goats. Intrigued? Well, I know my audience.

Characteristics of Effective Writing Instruction

Marci Glaus, English language arts consultant at the Wisconsin Department of Public instruction, contributed today's post.

The second part of the new professional learning on writing from the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction focuses on research related to 21st century expectations, characteristics of effective writing instruction, the writing process, and balanced assessment. It includes different resources in support of research and practice including example writing processes, videos, and handouts. 

It is important to note that writing is represented as composing, working through a process, as opposed to something like filling in a worksheet. This professional learning begins with the assumption that we require that all students write. Lessons and units are based on big ideas, and there is an emphasis on educators sharing their own writing process/es to explicitly teach strategies for writing, highlighting the recursive nature of a writing process. Discussion and inquiry are a major focus for teaching a variety of writing tasks as well. There is a video that works through some of the research and an example writing process if you prefer to use it for that portion of the presentation. You can find the presentation in PowerPoint and Google slides formats, along with the video and handouts through the following link: http://ela.dpi.wi.gov/ela_writing

This professional learning begins and ends with English language arts educators’ beliefs about the teaching of writing. The importance of first identifying beliefs so that we can build upon them with support from research and experiences is paramount in improving teaching and learning. The materials on the website include the presentation in PowerPoint and Google Slides formats, a brief facilitator’s guide, and a resources tab which includes all of the handouts.

21st Century Writing Expectations: Examining Task, Audience, and Purpose

Marci Glaus, English language arts consultant at the Wisconsin Department of Public instruction, contributed today's post.

As many of you know, the Literacy and Mathematics team at the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction provides professional learning materials on various topics based upon perceived needs from the field. Many of these resources are produced in a train-the-trainer format, allowing for a broader audience. Based on information we gathered from across the state through survey data and conversations with educators, it was apparent that there is a demand for professional learning on writing. We found that the biggest needs were around the following topics:

•      Teaching students how to use the writing process and technology to produce and distribute writing appropriate to task, purpose, and audience.

•      Develop a balance of explanatory informative, argumentative, and narrative texts for different purposes and audiences.

As the Wisconsin DPI English Language Arts Consultant, I have built resources surrounding these topics and solicited feedback from some of the best English language arts educators in the state. I am thrilled to debut the finalized version of this professional learning today.

The first part of the professional learning, and the part that I write about today, focuses on 21^st century expectations, how these relate to the teaching of writing, and the examination of task, purpose, and audience with digital and print mentor texts. All of this begins and ends with educators’ beliefs about the teaching of writing to recognize and build upon their knowledge and experiences. This interactive professional learning provides the time and space for analyzing texts written for different purposes and audiences and discussion of current writing tasks from your school/classroom context.  While there is time for exploration of different technology tools for writing, the major focus of this portion of the professional learning is to first recognize the purpose for writing, the context for writing, and then the exploration of the various modes in which writing could live. You can find this part of the professional learning through the following link:

http://ela.dpi.wi.gov/ela_writing

The materials on the website include the presentation in PowerPoint and Google Slides formats, a brief facilitator’s guide, and a resources tab which includes all of the handouts. There are short videos that a facilitator may choose to play that cover the research portions of the professional learning as well. Finally, while there are mentor text examples already built into this presentation, facilitators are encouraged to replace them with texts appropriate to their context as needed. 

Later this week, I will provide an overview of the second part of the professional learning on writing. 

A Research Conundrum

Marci Glaus, English language arts consultant, at WI DPI, contributed today's post.

There are several places we go as educators to find research in support of teaching practices. One tool educators use to support their practice is professional books. While many of these professional books are not entire volumes on research the author/s conducted, there is value in learning from them as leaders in the field, along with the research that they cite in support of the purpose of the book. The focus for this blog post stems from an interesting experience I had with a professional book while searching for appropriate research for a project I have been working on about teaching writing.

I have been gathering information specifically related to characteristics of effective writing instruction and I became excited when I was reading a chapter in Routman’s (2014) Read, Write, Lead: Breakthrough Strategies for Schoolwide Literacy Success, because of the following statement and citation: “Not only that, but thinking out loud and writing in front of our students is the number one strategy for improving students’ writing57” (p. 112). This statement was like a gift especially wrapped for me, because I assumed it meant that someone else did the work for me when it came to gathering the research related to writing in front of students, and all I had to do was cross-reference the endnote from the book to get it. I flipped to the endnotes section and quickly found out that she was citing another favorite in the field, Kelly Gallagher. I wasn’t expecting this, but located his book Write Like This (2011) from my shelf and turned to the page cited in Routman’s endnotes. What I found was a conundrum.  

Like I said, based on Routman’s broad statement about a particular strategy being the number one strategy to improve student writing, I assumed that I would be led a meta-analysis on several research studies, or a large-scale research study. Instead, I was led to the following statement from Gallagher’s book: “This bears repeating: of all the strategies I have learned in my twenty-five years of teaching, no strategy improves my students’ writing more than having my students watch and listen to me as I write and think aloud” (p. 15) (emphasis original). While I admire and respect Kelly Gallagher as an authority in the field and a great writing teacher based on his experiences with the National Writing Project and as a leader, I was not convinced that all of this fit with Routman’s blanket statement. One person’s professional observations and evidence from classroom experience did not align with what I thought I would find as support for such a broad proclamation. Even though I agree with him, and even though I have experienced the same results myself as an English teacher after writing in front of my students as a teaching tool, I wondered, is this enough? Can I re-state that the number one strategy for improving students’ writing is to write in front of your students in this context?

After having this uncomfortable conversation with myself, I decided that it would not be responsible to promote the same statement in the work that I am doing. However, I am not abandoning the idea that writing and talking about it in front of students is a great strategy. So, I moved back into the digging that we just have to do in order to locate the research support that is needed in the field. Stay tuned!

References

Gallagher, K. (2011). Write like this: Teaching real-world writing through modeling mentor texts. Portland, ME: Stenhouse.

Routman, R. (2014). Read, write, lead: Breakthrough strategies for schoolwide literacy success. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.