Reviews for Teaching writing that works

The average rating for Teaching writing that works based on 2 reviews is 3 stars.

Review # 1 was written on 2019-12-27 00:00:00 Jonathan Crummett This review of Teaching Writing as a Reflective Practice will mention Jacques Derrida. Someone give me a research grant! Just kidding. However, I will admit that it took me a moment to figure out why George Hillocks Jr. was spending so much time explaining how "difference" relates to research into (not to mention the practice of) the teaching of composition. I couldn't help noting that during his attempt to reconcile quantitative and qualitative research that Hillocks admits that "these differences are, I suspect, exacerbated by the political needs of researchers in newer fields, such as the study of writing, to legitimatize both their objects of study and their methodologies" (my emphasis). It's 1995, research into teaching writing is still new, so why not mention Derrida at will? After a few chapters, it became clear that Hillocks is actually just a meticulous academic who argues that practice should be driven by theory. I will admit that at times I felt his calls for context did not require so much ... context. Consequently, I couldn't help wondering whether Hillocks' adherence to academic writing hindered his goals, assuming that they are to improve the instruction of writing. The burden of proof he takes on here suggests that his goal is to defend his strategies against rival academics, as opposed to disseminating his theories to a population of teachers. Again, however, this may be because he is now considered a trailblazer in the field. And to be fair, it is clear that he is willing to put his ideas into practice, though I was amused to read that he goes into the classroom with a staff of university students to assist him. Although the thorough explanations backing Hillocks' ideas on how to teach writing will gain him few fans, it is difficult to deny the authority these details lend him. Perhaps that was the true goal. I'm curious how revolutionary Hillocks' ideas about writing were when he was doing his research, but many of them have taken hold and are taught to teachers-in-training as standard approaches, or prototypes of what are now considered standard strategies. Hillocks' outline for sequencing lessons, for example, has been refined and in my opinion, improved upon by Wiggins and McTighe. Hillocks suggests that teachers use "gateway activities" to gauge and increase student interest. In my province, this strategy had been adopted as standard by the time I was training for teaching, though we referred to them as "activating activities." (I recall one professor explaining that other provinces used activating activities, but had invented their own jargon to increase ownership.) As for "reflective" teaching, this is very much in vogue, though it has been taken advantage of by supporters of standardized testing. Reflection here might best be understood as evaluating how effective activities and strategies are to helping students to reach curriculum goals. Relying on a standardized test, which will be externally scored and returned months after students complete their work is not as effective in guiding pedagogy as reflecting on the day or week of instruction. Hillocks relies on his team of university students to evaluate their teaching strategies, and although few teachers today have access to similar resources, it is very common to form "professional learning networks" online to evaluate strategies. Some of Hillocks' other suggestions were less familiar to me. For example, he disputes Warriner's four modes of writing (persuasive, expository, narrative, and descriptive), and suggests that writing curricula be organized around 1) personal narrative, 2) argument, and -- surprisingly -- 3) satire. Of the these three categories, I appreciated his advice on teaching argument and personal narrative the most. Sadly, satire is taught, but does not enjoy the same level of prestige. Ultimately, Teaching Writing as Reflective Practice is a book that I would recommend, though rarely. Many of the ideas described here have been adopted -- by which I mean that they were very familiar to me. Further, this is not a book that a teacher could pick up to find some interesting or effective activities for a future unit. However, it is a book that teachers can rely on to plan how their course should teach writing. It also provides a strong model for how to argue in support of specific approaches to teaching writing. And don't forget to reference Derrida during your argument!

Review # 2 was written on 2012-10-02 00:00:00 Christine Pierce Hillocks, the grand-daddy of research on teaching writing, challenges teachers to think about writing instruction as instruction that includes inquiry about something. In other words, students need to write about something they've investigated. This work is by no means an easy read. Not is it a page-turner. Rather it's demanding and difficult, a book to be reckoned with for those who teach writing.