Tanya N. Baker, Column Editor
A Thousand Writers:
Voices of the NWP
Teaching Writers,
Not Writing
Mindi Vogel
Polaris K–­12 School
Anchorage, Alaska
www.mindivogel.com
transforming our classroom into a
community of writers.
More Time
In the spirit of National Writing Project, we sought to model
the writing process and take full
Joe Seitz
advantage of the opportunity to
Polaris K–­12 School
focus on writing—­
all day long.
Anchorage, Alaska
[email protected]
For 14 full school days in the
PWP, we noted that a reduced
induced pressure
During a recent co-­teaching expe- sense of school-­
rience modeled after the National allowed students and teachers to
Writing Project Summer Institute focus totally on writing. Much
(SI), we experienced the difference like an NWP Summer Institute,
between teaching “writing” and we dedicated extended time (60
minutes) to journal writing at the
teaching “writers.”
At Polaris K–­
12 School in start of every day (teachers particAnchorage, Alaska, we are for- ipated as well), and we established
tunate to have a schedule that writing groups that gathered after
involves intensives three times morning journaling. This created
a year. An intensive is a two-­to a culture of writing and sharing
three-­
week class that spans the among teachers and students.
The all-­day intensive structure,
entire school day, much like the
structure of the National Writ- coupled with a “no due dates”
ing Project Invitational Summer policy, created new opportuniInstitute. In the spring of 2014, ties for students to become writour co-­taught intensive took the ers. Eleventh grader Alex’s This I
form of a writing class for tenth-­ Believe essay (http://thisibelieve
and eleventh-­grade students that .org/about/) is a fine example of
we dubbed the “Polaris Writing the benefits of extended time.
the imporProject” (PWP). At the end of the His topic/key idea—­
intensive, it was clear to us that tance of thinking critically—­did
something special had happened, not change, but Alex needed the
and as National Writing Proj- first five drafts to think through
ect teacher-­
leaders we felt com- his topic to understand what he
pelled to share our experience of wanted to say and how to say it.
108
Draft six and draft five are radically different. He rewrote the
introduction, making it more personal and concrete. This change
led to an almost total rewrite of
the body and conclusion. It took
two more drafts for Alex to finish
his essay. During the process, Alex
experienced one conference with
each instructor, multiple reads followed by feedback from his peers,
and additional support at home.
Alex did not have the luxury of
being “rescued” by a due date,
and he had the necessary support
to “finish” this essay in a way that
was authentic and meaningful. At
the close of the intensive, Alex
wrote, “At first, it seemed like an
easy task, write down something
you believe in. However, when it
came to putting the graphite to
the page, it proved quite difficult.
I knew what I wanted to write
down in my head, but I couldn’t
articulate it into words.” Another
student, Dawson, after finishing a
draft, realized that his beliefs were
not as firm as he had thought, so
he scrapped two drafts. Extended
time allowed these two students to
find and hone their voices, as well
as what they wanted to express.
Revision Reconsidered
Our approach to teaching writing
values the writing process. Ini-
English Journal 105.4 (2016): 108–110
Copyright © 2016 by the National Council of Teachers of English. All rights reserved.
EJ_Mar_2016_C.indd 108
3/2/16 7:29 PM
A Thousand Writers: Voices of the NWP
tially, we imagined that the schedule might generate challenges to
prewriting, since students would
not have the luxury of taking
an idea home for the night. But
much to our surprise, the intensive structure offered more time to
engage in every phase of the process, including prewriting. Cally’s This I Believe essay was in the
prewriting stage for 75 percent
of the writing process because
she was grappling with an emotionally difficult topic. Once she
decided that she wanted to write
about her mother’s struggle with
alcoholism, she moved through
subsequent drafts fairly quickly,
but it took time for her to find the
courage to explore something real
and raw.
Much to our surprise, the
intensive structure offered
more time to engage in every
phase of the process, including
prewriting.
In our experience, revision is
the most challenging aspect of
writing instruction. Many young
writers don’t see the importance
or the potential impact of revision. In theory, students understand that through revision, the
writing can be made “better,”
but many students have never
engaged in substantial revision
(Gallagher). We use a variety of
methods to teach revision: writing
groups, peer-­to-­peer feedback, and
teacher-­to-­student feedback (in
various formats, including written
comments, audio comments, and
in-­
person conferences). We also
teach revision techniques for students to complete on their own.
In the PWP, we used many of
these same methods for revision,
but the results were different. The
main reason for the difference was
the nature of the feedback. Instead
of one teacher making a suggestion to the student’s composition (which was always tied to a
grade and a due date), two English
teachers and a professional writer,
Richard Emanuel, facilitated and
offered feedback during the course.
Some students found that
they liked to work with all three
of the instructors, and other students decided to work mainly
with one. In either case, the time
set aside for conversations about
writing was plentiful. With the
opportunity to get feedback and
then revise immediately, then get
additional feedback, students felt
empowered and found ownership
during revision.
This dynamic collegiality in
the classroom created a sense of
richness and authenticity about
writing, which also helped to
demystify revision for students.
For example, in response to their
writing, students might hear
one suggestion from Joe and a
different recommendation from
Richard or Mindi. This allowed
us to have genuine conversations
about decisions that writers make.
Exposure to differing opinions
generated conversations about
ambiguity and flexibility in articulating a thought. Students witnessed conflicting ideas among
the teachers and engaged in the
conversations as well. Through
these activities, students spent
time on revision and multiple
drafts for the purpose of developing the piece. Our writers recognized that the feedback from
instructors was part of an ongoing conversation and a tool for
progress.
Reimagined Assessment
Part of the purpose of the intensive courses was to enable faculty
and students to experiment with
content, instruction, and assessment. To take advantage of this
flexibility, we decided to incorporate only one due date (the course
portfolio was due on the last day)
and one grade (a final letter grade
based on the portfolio). All the
formal assessment occurred in the
form of student and teacher reflection. Each assignment was associated with specific goals (developed
from the Common Core); additionally, there were course goals
(connected to our school’s mission
statement) that both students and
teachers reflected on four times
during the PWP.
Despite some initial
discomfort, both students and
teachers appreciated the
freedom to resist assigning
grades and embrace the role
of coach.
Earnest reflection without
grades was not unflawed. The
absence of grades was unsettling for a number of students.
Some wanted to know whether
they had done enough to earn an
A, and others wanted to be sure
they were passing. Despite some
initial discomfort, both students
and teachers appreciated the freedom to resist assigning grades
and embrace the role of coach.
Teacher/student interactions were
not overshadowed by consideration of grades; conversations
revolved around improving writing. Not assigning grades did not
mean that as instructors we were
not critical, but we were not in
English Journal
EJ_Mar_2016_C.indd 109
109
3/2/16 7:29 PM
Teaching Writers, Not Writing
the role of judging—­in the context of grading—­our students.
With no grades, students and
teachers became fellow writers
exploring the dynamism of the
written word. Because papers
were not getting grades, all voices
were equal to the teachers. Finally,
since our feedback wasn’t tied to
grades, the authority in the room
shifted from a single person to
a sense of shared responsibility
among our community. These
results are consistent with the
experiences of many educators,
including Joe Bower, who writes,
“Grades can only ever gain short-­
term compliance from students
when what we really desire is their
authentic engagement” (4). In this
intensive we experienced student
and teacher engagement around
writing, growth, and discovery in
a new way.
Final Thoughts
Three full weeks of an all-­
day
writing class was not something
all our students looked forward
to. To be honest, we were a bit
concerned ourselves. Our fears
were alleviated quickly as we
discovered that expansive work
times, flexible due dates, intentional peer and teacher feedback,
and alternative assessments made
for an extraordinary experience.
We witnessed the emergence of
empowered and confident writers
cultivating their voices.
Rethinking the use of time, the
role of grades, and the formalities
of who gives and receives feedback
afforded us a new perspective on
how the National Writing Project’s vision can manifest in the
high school writing classroom.
By engaging in writing in this
focused way, we were not teaching
writing; we were teaching students to see themselves as writers.
We observed many transformations throughout the intensive.
Students delved deeply and most
found they had much to say. With
the pressure to perform on high-­
stakes testing, it is sometimes easy
to lose sight of our role as English
teachers. Our goal should not
be to teach writing but to teach
writers. Works Cited
“A Public Dialogue about Belief—­One
Essay at a Time. (2005). Web. 8
Aug. 2015.
Bower, Joe. “Reduced to Numbers: From
Concealing to Revealing Learning.”
De-­
Testing and De-­
Grading Schools:
Authentic Alternatives to Accountability
and Standardization. Ed. Joe Bower
and P. L. Thomas. New York: Peter
Lang, 2013. 154–68. Print.
Gallagher, Kelly. Teaching Adolescent
Writers. Portland: Stenhouse, 2006.
Print.
Mindi Vogel (Alaska Writing Project SI Fellow, 2013; AWP Asst. Dir. Professional Development) and Joe Seitz (Southern
Arizona Writing Project SI 1999; AWP Leadership Liaison) teach middle school and high school English at Polaris K–­12 School
in Anchorage, Alaska.
110
March 2016
EJ_Mar_2016_C.indd 110
3/2/16 7:29 PM