A number of scholars contributed toward a growing conception of reading and writing relationships by focusing on students' engagement in the tasks, describing how from the early years, children use signs and symbols (both those in their environment and those they invent) to gain and convey meaning, even as they are first acquiring the conventionally accepted codes (Bissex, 1980; Clay, 1975; Read, 1971). Wittrock (1983) considered the generative nature of both domains; De Ford (1981) noted the supporting and interactive nature of the processes as they occur in primary classrooms; and Goodman and Goodman (1983) described relationships between the two based upon the pragmatic functions of each. Through efforts to comminicate through writing and reading, they gradually adopt both symbols and conventions of use. Eckhoff (1983) found that the second grade students she studied tended to imitate the style and structure of the basals used for reading instruction, which affected the organizational structures and linguistic complexity of the students' writing. Chall & Jacobs (1983) conducted a study of writing and reading development among poor children, based on NAEP-like test scores. Although reading and writing scores in grades 2 and 3 were good, they noted a deceleration in proficiency gains beginning in grades 4 and 5 and continuing through grade 7. Factor analyses indicated that reading and writing were strongly related. Together, this work suggested that the two domains do have an impact upon one another, with implications for enhancing learning. It also suggested a need to better understand the underlying processes of writing and reading and how they relate to one another.
Starting in fall of of 2009, the NNWP's iPods Across the Curriculum Course will be offered once annually, and although we won't have the funding to give away iPods any more, we are confident teachers will continue to take the course to learn how a simple piece of technology--the iPod--can bridge the gap between teachers and learners while inspiring students to write about issues and ideas that are important to them.
The multiple intelligences approach does not require a teacher to design a lesson in nine different ways to that all students can access the material...In ideal multiple intelligences instruction, rich experiences and collaboration provide a context for students to become aware of their own intelligence profiles, to develop self-regulation, and to participate more actively in their own learning. (p. 27)
Many students experience math anxiety. Much of this stems from a one style fits all approach to teaching. Traditionally, approaches to teaching mathematics have focused on linguistic and logical teaching methods, with a limited range of teaching strategies. Some students learn best, however, when surrounded by movement and sound, others need to work with their peers, some need demonstrations and applications that show connections of mathematics to other areas (e.g., music, sports, architecture, art), and others prefer to work alone, silently, while reading from a text. All of this is reflected in , which has found its way into schools (Moran, Kornhaber, & Gardner, 2006; Smith, 2002), along with the concept of learning styles.
Effective lessons incorporate best-practice. According to Daniels and Bizar (1998, as cited in Wilcox & Wojnar, 2000), there are six methods that matter in a " best practice classroom." These are integrative units, small group activities, representing to learn through multiple ways of investigating, remembering, and applying information; a classroom workshop teacher-apprentice approach, authentic experiences, and reflective assessment. Further, Mike Schmoker (2006) stated that "the most well-established elements of good instruction [include]: being clear and explicit about what is to be learned and assessed; using assessments to evaluate a lesson's effectiveness and making constructive adjustments on the basis of results; conducting a check for understanding at certain points in a lesson; having kids read for higher-order purposes and write regularly; and clearly explicating and carefully teaching the criteria by which student work will be scored or evaluated" (p. 25). In mathematics classrooms, teachers might tend to ignore writing about the discipline; however, to develop complex knowledge, "students need opportunities to read, reason, investigate, speak, and write about the overarching concepts within that discipline" (McConachie et al., 2006, p. 8).
Barbara became a Consultant in 2006. She is a Nationally Board Certified teacher who artfully helps reluctant middle school students become better readers and writers in Sparks, Nevada. Barbara keeps of her online lessons here at WritingFix, and she loves to enroll in other NNWP Consultants' classes.
Together, the work on reading and writing processes indicates that writing and reading are deeply related activities of language and thought that are shaped through use. The structures and strategies that writers and readers use to organize, remember, and present their ideas are generally the same in writing and reading. However, the structure of the message and the strategies used to formulate and organize it are driven by purpose and therefore different.
Researchers and scholars interested in writing and reading connections have also considered ways in which the two, conceptualized as related composing processes, might implicate various uses of language and thought, and affect students' learning. Specifically, research began to examine how the processes of reading and writing are related in actual practice. Researchers also looked at the ways in which students' knowledge of writing and reading processes can influence and support reading and writing respectively in the classroom. They also studied the kinds of classroom contexts and instructional activities that might foster reading and writing as mutually beneficial activities.
After a hiatus from teaching to raise two wonderful children, Amie returned to the classroom in 2007 and immediately became a Consultant for the . Amie also serves as Page Host for WritingFix's , and she Coordinates the NNWP's annual inservice class.
In the second photo essay below, a basic writing student again annotates a peer’s photo essay as a method of later developing his own text essay. As he unpacks each photograph, he realizes that the photo essay is using tension to build toward a larger conclusion. The photo essay, titled “The LGBT Community,” takes a less direct approach, which causes the peer reviewer some confusion as he annotates. While the student decides the stylistic approach is effective and satisfying at the end of the annotation, some questions remain unanswered. He guesses about the role of the narrator in some of the pictures, and demonstrates other areas of confusion that requires re-envisioning:
When reading and writing, students' dominant concern was found to be with the meanings they were developing. There are stable and consistent approaches to envisionment building that emerged, as evidenced in the students' focus on ideas, content, product, and refinement of meaning. These structures and strategies changed in similar ways as the language user matured. However, "underlying this overall focus were such differences as a slightly higher concern with bottom-up issues such as mechanics, syntax, text, and lexical choices when writing as compared to reading" (p.94). Also, when students wrote they were more aware of and concerned with the strategies they used to get at meaning. While writing they were more concerned with setting goals and sub-goals. When reading, on the other hand, they focused more on content and validation of the text-worlds they were developing.
The experience and knowledge that is shared between reading and writing can strengthen a writer's ability to read and a reader's ability to write (Blatt & Rosen, 1987; Butler & Turbil, 1984; Rubin & Hansen, 1986; Shanahan & Lomax, 1986). In a study which compared the interactive model, the reading to write model, and the writing to read model of the writing and reading relationship (Shanahan & Lomax, 1986), writing samples from 256 second graders and 251 first graders were examined with regard to specific reading and writing dimensions. Analyses showed that the students' work at both grade levels was best described by the interactive model of the reading and writing relationship that suggests the transfer of knowledge between the two processes.