ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS RESOURCES

WRITING ACROSS THE CURRICULUM AND WRITING TO LEARN

Gere (1985) distinguishes between the terms "writing across the curriculum" and "writing to learn" by the primary purpose of each. She says that the main goal of writing across the curriculum is to improve the quality of writing while the main goal of writing to learn is to use writing as a tool for thinking and learning. Scarborough (2001) explains that writing to learn is "subsumed under the larger umbrella of writing across the curriculum" (p. 3). She notes that it is of interest to secondary teachers with whom she has worked because it doesn't have to be graded, doesn't have to result in a finished product, can be used as a stepping-stone to more formal writing, and gives students a chance to interact with content material in order to gain understanding.

Another aspect of writing across the curriculum, writing within disciplines refers to instruction that focuses on the need for students to understand and practice the forms of communication used within the field of study. For example, in a biology classes, students would be expected to write lab reports and deliver presentations on causes and effects of human interaction within the natural world, typical activities of scientists. On the other hand, in marketing, students might write advertising proposals, and in theatre arts, students would review dramatic productions.

Farrell-Childers, Gere, and Young (1994) trace the history of writing across curriculum programs and identify four premises that writing across the curriculum programs share: a concern with student literacy, the use of writing as a tool for learning, the belief that writing should not be taught in a vacuum as skill out of the context of the disciplines, and the belief that writing is social action (meaning that students write to change their perspective of the world and affect the perspectives of others). Although writing is typically most associated with the English Language Arts curriculum, opportunities exist in all content areas for teachers to use writing to help students not only develop literacy but also deepen their understanding of course content.

A SHIFT IN UNDERSTANDING

In the 1980s, researchers and theorists identified a shift in understanding about the way writers write and how writing is learned (Hairston, 1982). However, this shift had been set into motion decades earlier. For much of the twentieth century, writing instruction in the United States had focused on writing as simply a product to be evaluated which was produced following one correct procedure which could be taught incrementally, produced quickly in a logical order, and was pursued as a primarily solitary activity (Zemelman & Daniels, 1988). What is now referred to as the process model of writing, however, challenged these notions. By 1966 with the Anglo-American Conference on the Teaching of English held at Dartmouth College, the process model was beginning to emerge. The British emphasis on a "personal growth model" for English instruction had a deep impact on U.S. conference attendees who began to think about how writing could be used for self-development as well as self-discovery (Dornan, Rosen, & Wilson, 2003). Researchers and theorists such as Murray (1968), Macrorie (1968, 1970), Elbow (1973), Emig (1971), and Graves (1975) wrote texts which challenged prevailing ideas about how writing was learned and how it should be taught (Dornan, Rosen, & Wilson, 2003). Over the next thirty years researchers and teachers continued to apply these new understandings and a body of research developed. In line with these new understandings of how writers learn to write, Dornan, Rosen, & Wilson (2003) advocate a holistic approach to literacy development rather than a fragmented skills approach, and they recommend bringing together the pedagogies of three instructional approaches to the teaching of writing: emphasis on personal connection; rhetorical traditions which focus on issues of structure, purpose and audience; and the tradition of using writing as a tool for social action. Their blending of these instructional approaches work well within the context of a writing across the curriculum program, and their seven assumptions about the teaching of writing provide a valuable framework for planning instruction. In particular, they articulate the following beliefs:

1. Writing is thinking.

2. Writing is a language process.

3. We learn to write by writing.

4. Development of our own writing can be facilitated by being more conscious of our writing processes.

5. Writing is a socially constructed process.

6. We not only learn to write, but we write to learn.

7. The young writer benefits from some direct instruction. (pp. 3-8)

By recognizing the complex nature of writing, teachers can construct a classroom environment that engages and supports students yet challenges them to stretch as learners.

<< Back | Table of Contents | Next >>