Investigating the process approach to writing instruction in urban middle schools

Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy

Volumn 47, Issue 6, 2004, Pages 462-477

  Patthey Chavez, G Genevieve ^a   Matsumura, Lindsay Clare ^b   Valdés, Rosa ^c  

^a University of California ^*  (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^c Los Angeles Unified School District   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 12944289599     PISSN: 10813004     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (46)

1. Angelou, M. (1994). The complete collected poems of Maya Angelou. New York: Random House.
2. Applebee, A.N. (1981). Writing in the secondary school: English and the content areas (NCTE Research Report No. 21). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
3. Applebee, A.N. (1984). Contexts for learning to write: Studies of secondary school instruction. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
4. Applebee, A. (1999). Building a foundation for effective teaching and learning of English: A personal perspective on thirty years of research. Research in the Teaching of English, 33, 352-366.
5. Beach, R. (1979). The effects of between-draft teacher evaluation versus student self-evaluation on high school students' revising of rough drafts. Research in the Teaching of English, 13, 197-222.
6. Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
7. Berninger, V.W., Fuller, F., & Whitaker, D. (1996). A process of writing development across life span. Educational Psychology Review, 3, 193-218.
8. Bridge, C.A., Compton-Hall, M., & Cantrell, S.C. (1997). Classroom writing practices revisited: The effects of statewide reform on writing instruction. The Elementary School Journal, 98, 151-170.
9. California State Board of Education. (1999). Reading/Language arts framework for California public schools, kindergarten through grade twelve. Developed by the California Development and Supplemental Materials Commission. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Education.
10. Cohen, D.K., & Ball, D.L. (1994). Relations between policy and practice: A commentary. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12, 249-256.
11. Cole, M. (1985). The zone of proximal development: Where culture and cognition create each other. In J.V. Wertsch (Ed.), Culture and communication. Vygotskian perspectives (pp. 146-161). New York: Cambridge University Press.
12. Dyson, A.H. (2000). On refraining children's words: The perils, promises, and pleasures of writing children. Research in the Teaching of English, 34, 352-367.
13. Ferris, D. (1997). The influence of teacher commentary on student revision. TESOL Quarterly, 31, 315-339.
14. Freedman, S.W., Greenleaf, C., & Sperling, M. (1987). Response to student writing (NCTE Research Report No. 23). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
15. Goldenberg C., & Gallimore, R. (1991). Changing teaching takes more than a one-shot workshop. Educational Leadership, 49(3), 69-72.
16. Haneda, M., & Wells, G. (2000). Writing in knowledge-building communities. Research in the Teaching of English, 34, 430-457.
17. Harris, P. (2003). Looking at writing from a college student's point of view. The Council Chronicle, 12(4), 6-7.
18. Higuchi, C. (1996). Improving student learning: High standards, standards-based curriculum, and standards-based assessment models. Los Angeles: Center for Research in Evaluation, Standards and Student Testing.
19. Hillocks, G. (1982). The interaction of instruction, teacher comments, and revision in teaching the composing process. Research in the Teaching of English, 16, 260-278.
20. Hillocks, G. (1986). Research on written composition. New directions for teaching. Urbana, IL: ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading and Communication Skills and the National Conference on Research in English.
21. Illinois State Board of Education. (1997). Illinois learning standards. English Language Arts. Springfield, IL: Author. Retrieved May 12, 2003, from http://www.isbe.state.il.us/ils.
22. Kamberelis, G. (1999). Genre development and learning: Children writing stories, science reports, and poems. Research in the Teaching of English, 33, 403-460.
23. Kentucky Department of Education. (2003). Program of studies. Middle level English Language Arts. Frankfort, KY: Author. Retrieved June 1, 2003, from http://www.kde.state.ky.us/KDE.
24. Keppner, C. (1991). An experiment in the relationship of types of written feedback to the development of secondlanguage writing skills. Modern Language Journal, 75, 305-313.
25. Los Angeles Unified School District. (1998). Los Angeles Unified School District student learning standards. Los Angeles, CA: Author.
26. Massachusetts Department of Education. (2001) Massachusetts English Language Arts curriculum frame-work Malden, MA: Author. Retrieved May 12, 2003, from http://www.doe.mass.edu/frameworks/ela/0601.pdf.
27. McNiff, J., & Leader, D. (1995, April). In-career teacher education in Ireland: A new perspective. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.
28. National Commission on Teaching and America's Future. (1996). What matters most: Report of the National Commission on Teaching and America's Future. Kutztown, PA: Author.
29. Olson, M.W., & Raffeld, P. (1987). The effects of written comments on the quality of student compositions and the learning of content. Reading Psychology, 4, 273-293.
30. Orellana, M.F. (1995). Literacy as a gendered social practice: Tasks, texts, talk, and take-up. Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 674-708.
31. Patthey-Chavez, G.G., & Clare, L. (1996). Task, talk, and text: The influence of instructional conversation on transitional bilingual writers. Written Communication, 13, 515-563.
32. Patthey-Chavez, G.G., & Ferris, D.R. (1997). Writing conferences and the weaving of multi-voiced texts in college composition. Research in the Teaching of English, 31, 51-90.
33. Phelps, L.W. (2000). Cyrano's nose: Variations on the theme of response. Assessing Writing, 7, 91-110.
34. Saunders, W., Goldenberg, C., & Hamann, J. (1992). Instructional conversations beget instructional conversations. Teaching and Teacher Education, 8, 199-218.
35. Spillane, J.P., & Zeuli, J.S. (1999). Reform and teaching Exploring patterns of practice in the context of national and state mathematics reforms. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 21, 1-27.
36. Straub, R. (2000). The student, the text, and the classroom context: A case study of teacher response. Assessing Writing, 7, 23-55.
37. Sternglass, M. (1998). Time to know them. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
38. Strickland, D.S., Bodino, A., Buchan, K., Jones, K.M., Nelson, A., & Rosen, M. (2001). Teaching writing in a time of reform. Elementary School Journal, 101, 385-397.
39. Tharp, R.G., & Gallimore, R. (1988). Rousing minds to life: Teaching, learning, and schooling in social context. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
40. Van Gelderen, A. (1997). Elementary students' skills in revising: Integrating quantitative and qualitative analysis. Written Communication, 14, 360-397.
41. Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society. The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
42. Vygotsky, L.S. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
43. Wollman-Bonilla, J.E. (2000). Teaching science writing to first graders: Genre learning and recontextualization. Research in the Teaching of English, 35, 35-65.
44. Yagelski, R.P. (1995). The role of classroom context in the revision strategies of student writers. Research in the Teaching of English, 29, 216-238.
45. Zamel, V. (1985). Responding to student writing. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 79-102.
46. Zellermayer, M. (1989). The study of teachers' written feedback to student writing: Changes in the theoretical considerations and the expansion of research contexts. Instructional Science, 18, 145-165.