"Help! I don't know how to teach writing!" (Part 1)

Why a writing-based English class is like a running-based cross country team.

I gave the following presentation at the 2023 IGNITE Lafayette conference.  I’ve split the talk into three posts for this blog.  My ultimate goal is helping teachers get over common anxieties for teaching writing.  This talk should serve as the starting point for future hands-on strategies.

Introduction and Small Talk

“Before we start, is everyone enjoying the conference so far?  This is my first teaching conference I’ve presented at.  I’ve always joked that if I presented at a conference, I would invent utterly absurd jargon terms for everyone to bring back to their schools.  You know, to sound fancy.

“In fact, when I publish a book someday, I’d like to include a chapter for purchasing this book at a conference. When you co-workers ask what you learned, you’ll flip to a special page and start speaking utter nonsense.  It’ll be great.   Because if there’s one thing I’ve learned in teaching, it’s that the more nonsense you speak, the faster you rise.

“Remember ten years ago when flipped classrooms were a thing?  When they rebranded homework as learning the content at home so kids could do homework at school?  And then remember when homework became taboo, but we’re just supposed to forget the contradiction?

“Anyways, my name is Adam, and this session is ‘Help! I don’t know how to teach writing!’ I’m not here to change the world, maybe not even change your mind, but I’d like to present six common myths and misconceptions about teaching writing.  They are by no means exhaustive, but represent why many perfectly capable teachers are paralyzed by anxiety towards teaching writing.  Each myth will be followed by a mantra, explaining the right mindset.  It’s from that mindset that the methods flow.

“Writing should not be that one extra thing, but the thing, the tool to streamline instruction, blending reading, writing, speaking, and listening.  As a preview, when students discuss what they write about literature, all standards are covered in context.  When students revise their own sentences, grammar becomes not only differentiated, but individualized.  And lastly, if you are concerned about collecting data, l’ll have suggestions for generating quantitive numbers from written activities.

Myths and Misconceptions

"Myth 1: I can't teach writing. I don't know all the terms.

“Who here believes you need a perfect knowledge of writing terminology to teach it?  Be honest.  Here’s a follow up question: When’s the last time a student thanked you for overwhelming them with a technical term?  I’m serious.  When’s the last time a student thanked you for saying, ‘Fix the comma splice’?  Does anyone have the data on student thank you notes regarding subject-verb agreement?

"Here's an analogy: Teaching writing is not like playing orchestra music where everyone has a set, expected part.  Instead, teaching writing is like improvising jazz music in front of a crowd.  There are mistakes and squeaks.  Notes that mismatch harmonies.  But it's live.  Teaching writing is messy, but worth the work and worth the mistakes.  What if, contrary to compulsive grading, we learned through mistakes?

"Let's try another analogy.  Do you need a perfect knowledge of chemistry to understand baking? Do you need a perfect knowledge of physics to understand screwdrivers?  The answer, of course, is no.  But it helps.  We can learn a lot about the abstract by working upwards from the concrete.  What if we learned the technical terms through application?  

"This brings me to Mantra One: A writing-based English class is like a running-based cross country team.  This may sound obvious: How else can you do cross country?  Can you do it without running?  Of course not!  But we need the same mindset for teaching English: How else do texts appear?  Did they spontaneously appear?  Of course not.  Instead, they were written by other people.

"Writing is not a disconnected task: It is the task. Writing is thinking.  Writing is communication.  Writing is discussion.  When we separate writing from reading or reading from writing, we get both disconnection and distortion.  We will explore disconnection later when we address academic standards, but distortion means improper emphasis.  We see illusions, not reality.

"Mantra Two: Students should discuss what they wrote about literature.  As teachers we should strive to teach content in context.  When students write about literature, they externalize thinking about literature.  That discussion is between student and author.  When we discuss what we wrote about literature, that discussion is between student and student or student teacher.  The thinking-about-literature becomes the discussion.

"Standards change, but remember that a noun is still a noun, a verb is still a verb, and a book is still a book.  When you integrate reading, writing, speaking, and listening across a task, you cover any potential standard in context.

"Writing is a means, not an end.  Write as a means of learning--a means of exploring content.  Do not write without purpose.  Skills are important, but if they have no purpose, students see right through this. Yes, we want to write to avoid comma splices, but we also write to address essential questions not just of literature, but living.  It just so happens that you might want to move that comma there as we talk about the Greek tragedy "Antigone" and whether we should serve gods or man.  That's all.

"Myth 2: I don't have the time to teach writing, I have to teach X...

"Many worry about teaching writing because of the time commitment.  When do I have the time to teach writing?  I have literature.  When do I have the time to teach writing?  I have to teach proper spelling.  When do I have the time to teaching writing?  I have to teach proper grammar.  And the list goes on and on.  When writing becomes an item to know, an item on the to-do list rather than a means of exploring other items, when would you have the time?  At least when you print off someone else's worksheet, someone else's reading comprehension questions, you know that you are addressing content.

"The reality here, my mantra is this: Time not spent writing is time not spent writing.  Let me flip the script: How would you talk about literature?  By just circling A, B, C, or D?  When do you need proper spelling?  When do you need proper grammar?  Is spelling an end?  Is grammar an end?  How do you use those skills?

"Let's address a core and uncomfortable issue: Academic standards isolate content from context.  They disconnect and distort.  I don't fault teachers for addressing them.  But English is not Math.  English is not History.  Math, for example, might have consistent scope and sequence.  The facts and processes are linear.  History revolves around understanding chronological facts and motivations.

"English standards revolve around unchanging, dynamic processes.  Context clues are context clues.  Finding text evidence—and expressing them through quotations—is finding text evidence.  English standards are connected, but not static facts or linear processes.  Thus, you can cover reading standards by reading a newspaper or a novel.  The structures are different, but decoding words does not change.

"Be careful using standards to reduce the subject to less than the sum of its parts.  Standards are a recent, historical devolution.  Not the unchanging norm.  (Then again, policy means they will change so we can sell new textbooks.)  English is not fifty-nine precise skills and sub-skills.  That's a lie.  English-as-such is a recent historical development.  In the classic Liberal Arts, now-subjects like English and History and Politics were the result of language acquisition.  Of learning Latin.   By-products.  When we pride ourselves on disconnected facts, we become disconnected people.

"How many have ever witnessed a kid dramatically improve their reading skills to tackle Harry Potter?  Lexile levels do not account for character or content matter.  If we judged reading by vocabulary alone, how would we rate teaching conferences where our words rename concepts every few years?  How would we rate words that rise and fall like the mullet?  How would we rate garbled jargon which has filled so many bingo cards?  Ask a kid the meaning of life or justice: Those words are simple; their ideas are not.  Lexile levels may quantify to some extent, but do more harm than good.

"All this said, the predicable downfalls of standards could be their own talk.

"So to recap, When do we teach spelling? Whenever we write.  When do we teach grammar? Whenever we write. When do we teach main ideas or theme?  Whenever we write.  When do we teach text evidence?  Whenever we write.  Give students a focus to start, but there's nothing wrong with rereading and isolating after the fact.  At least then you hit multiple standards at once.

To be continued in Part 2.