During our conversation with Carl Anderson, co-author of How to Become a Better Writing Teacher, he noted a frustration with literacy resources being replaced.
From Minute 27:
“There's part of me that says we should separate reading and writing curriculums. Every time we change a reading curriculum, now the writing curriculum changes. I know that there's all sorts of connections between reading and writing, but if changing the reading curriculum based on the prevailing winds is going to change the writing curriculum and the kids just completely get a brand new experience…”
What are your thoughts: do you share Carl’s frustration? Would separating reading and writing be a viable way to shelter our writers from the political winds of reading instruction?
This is a tough question. Ideally I don't think they need to be separated. I think the connections and conversations are richer when they are connected. Sometimes I think it's good to front load the writing a bit with the reading. I think reading tends to have shorter cycles of learning and sometimes writing gets dragged out quite a bit. I've lived that world myself. I've recently been doing shorter writing cycles, publishing more, and getting back to a cycle of pure choice and the stamina and quality of writing has soared. The world of reading is uncertain where I teach and writing is starting to get dragged in to it too. I am hopefully there is a connection because one popular book is very direct and a formula and that form of teaching writing is not research based or honors living a writing life. There are some tiny things to take away from it as will be with any curriculum we are asked to do.
I recently had a conversation with our currlculum director about our new math curriculum. He said and I'm paraphrasing. Fidelity gets tossed around with all curriculum adoptions and fidelity is really about knowing the resource so well you can go beyond and be responsive. We need to stay focused on being responsive to children.
Thanks Mandy for commenting. That quote from your director is memorable: "fidelity is really about knowing the resource so well you can go beyond and be responsive".
My initial response is, no, I don't think we should separate the two, although I empathize with what Carl sees. It's a real problem. Teachers invest years into their writing practice and resources, only to see it upended by recommended programs that too often lack relevance for kids or a strong evidence-base.
Maybe a way to approach this challenge is to ask, how do we build our capacity to effectively teach readers and writers, regardless of whatever curriculum program is presented in front of us?
I’ve long been uneasy with the issue of separating reading and writing conceptually. The behaviors are so intertwined in many significant ways they are identical. How does one separate them?
Instructionally, however, I have a different take. Reading activities are very different from writing activities in terms of strategies and techniques as well as pragmatic thinking. I compare it to teaching guitar vs piano. Conceptually, they are very similar; they involve pretty much the same sort of cognition. But instructionally the separation is necessary.
So…I think both should be explicitly taught and practiced across the curriculum. But reading is dominant in the culture of literacy instruction in the elementary grades. Historically, writing has been the step-sibling. If I were making the decision, I would set aside sacred time for writing and have it not be about writing tied to reading. Schools generally do a better job of teaching reading than they do writing. I’m not sure writing itself gets much attention as a guitar vs a piano until high school
While reading informs writing, reading responses do not always need to be written. A lot can be gained through conversations with students to assess their understanding of text. Equally, writing activities do not need to be in response to something a student has read. Responses to text can be the basis of some of the writing activities, but equally writing for other purposes is important and helpful to student development. We need to be assessing progress in writing and determine if students' writing skills match their oral abilities. Ideas, purpose, audience, structure, grammar, word choice, spelling, sentence structure are some of the multiple strands of the "writing rope".
This is a tough question. Ideally I don't think they need to be separated. I think the connections and conversations are richer when they are connected. Sometimes I think it's good to front load the writing a bit with the reading. I think reading tends to have shorter cycles of learning and sometimes writing gets dragged out quite a bit. I've lived that world myself. I've recently been doing shorter writing cycles, publishing more, and getting back to a cycle of pure choice and the stamina and quality of writing has soared. The world of reading is uncertain where I teach and writing is starting to get dragged in to it too. I am hopefully there is a connection because one popular book is very direct and a formula and that form of teaching writing is not research based or honors living a writing life. There are some tiny things to take away from it as will be with any curriculum we are asked to do.
I recently had a conversation with our currlculum director about our new math curriculum. He said and I'm paraphrasing. Fidelity gets tossed around with all curriculum adoptions and fidelity is really about knowing the resource so well you can go beyond and be responsive. We need to stay focused on being responsive to children.
Thanks Mandy for commenting. That quote from your director is memorable: "fidelity is really about knowing the resource so well you can go beyond and be responsive".
My initial response is, no, I don't think we should separate the two, although I empathize with what Carl sees. It's a real problem. Teachers invest years into their writing practice and resources, only to see it upended by recommended programs that too often lack relevance for kids or a strong evidence-base.
Maybe a way to approach this challenge is to ask, how do we build our capacity to effectively teach readers and writers, regardless of whatever curriculum program is presented in front of us?
I’ve long been uneasy with the issue of separating reading and writing conceptually. The behaviors are so intertwined in many significant ways they are identical. How does one separate them?
Instructionally, however, I have a different take. Reading activities are very different from writing activities in terms of strategies and techniques as well as pragmatic thinking. I compare it to teaching guitar vs piano. Conceptually, they are very similar; they involve pretty much the same sort of cognition. But instructionally the separation is necessary.
So…I think both should be explicitly taught and practiced across the curriculum. But reading is dominant in the culture of literacy instruction in the elementary grades. Historically, writing has been the step-sibling. If I were making the decision, I would set aside sacred time for writing and have it not be about writing tied to reading. Schools generally do a better job of teaching reading than they do writing. I’m not sure writing itself gets much attention as a guitar vs a piano until high school
I appreciate this comment, especially the last paragraph, Terry. Writing deserves more time and attention.
While reading informs writing, reading responses do not always need to be written. A lot can be gained through conversations with students to assess their understanding of text. Equally, writing activities do not need to be in response to something a student has read. Responses to text can be the basis of some of the writing activities, but equally writing for other purposes is important and helpful to student development. We need to be assessing progress in writing and determine if students' writing skills match their oral abilities. Ideas, purpose, audience, structure, grammar, word choice, spelling, sentence structure are some of the multiple strands of the "writing rope".
Thanks for commenting Tracey. I am not familiar with the "writing rope".
If there is a reading rope, then there should be a writing rope. The same complexity applies.
It's good to articulate our working theories on how kids learn to read and write.
Here is something I developed, after reading Peter Afflerbach's most recent book: https://www.evernote.com/shard/s55/sh/dc119e2e-570e-008f-f0b7-b8cb5e45e161/8Y9bgwgmOXs3KcNyo4EMEjUKgXt_pkvQc9wvWhdCFCTZs5E6Zi-dT8KtOQ