Br M

Dr. Ralph Wahlstrom

 

English 309W

 

6 May 2004

 

 

I-Search Paper

 

Strategies for Teaching Writing in Middle School Social Studies

 

 

                                                                                                                                                                           Beginnings                                                                                                                                                       

 

I was finally beginning to warm up following the fifth annual “Holiday Snow Bowl” football game, played just a few days before Christmas 2003.  I’d shed my simultaneously soggy and frozen game clothes, and happily jumped into dry replacements.  Now I was basking in the warmth of the fireplace at my brother-in-laws’ house in Honeoye Falls, just outside of Rochester, New York.  Once again, the “guys” team had been able to outscore the “gals” team, yet we had managed to keep it close.  Still, keeping it close wasn’t as easy as it used to be.  My eleven year old, highly competitive nephew Patrick was old enough now to be more than a little suspicious of my unconvincing “failed” attempts at holding onto the ball, or my terrible pass attempts that somehow went right into a defender’s hands.  He was even more suspicious of my inability to stop an opposing runner who fell over right in front of me.  By next year we’d better reconfigure our team selection process, or things could start to get ugly.

Considering that there were two public school teachers by the fire, as well as yours truly, an aspiring teacher, it should come as no surprise that the conversation gravitated in the direction of education.  My brother-in-law John, who teaches high school art, mentioned that Patrick had just finished another round of “high-stakes” testing at his middle school, including some social studies assessments, and that the boy was very glad to be rid of the pressure for awhile.  Knowing that Patrick would have been faced with DBQ’s (document based questions), the recent dominant trend in social studies “on-demand” writing evaluation, I asked John if he had heard anything from Patrick on the topic.  John suggested I ask Patrick directly, and I could tell from John’s expression that I would have no trouble in gaining a reply.

It wasn’t long before Patrick joined the rest of us at the fire, and after the obligatory recounting of his numerous game-time heroics, touchdown runs, and his defensive prowess, I found my chance to ask him about DBQ’s.  His response was immediate and more than a little animated.  DBQ’s?  DBQ’s?  If I hear anyone say DBQ even one more time, I’ll scream!”  At this point he launched into a scathing review of the test preparation he had endured, the seemingly endless repetitions and practices of DBQ essay responses, and his disdain for the whole concept.  As far as he was concerned, they had beaten DBQ’s into him to the point that he was eating, sleeping, and dreaming DBQ’s, and if he never heard another word about DBQ’s it would be just fine.

As genuinely humorous as my personal recollection of Patrick’s reaction to DBQ’s remains, underlying his outburst lay a serious issue.  It seems evident that the tiresome, product oriented social studies writing instruction of the past, which focused on the trinity of essays, reports, and research papers, has simply been replaced by an equally tiresome, product oriented social studies writing instruction of the present, focusing on DBQ’s, Web Quests, and research papers.  I had already become well schooled in creating lesson plans that incorporated writing tasks using DBQ’s, Web Quests, and research papers, and I had been given a cursory overview of how to incorporate the writing process into my instructional approaches.  But I sincerely did not feel that I knew enough about how to successfully center writing instruction on the writing process.  Most of my involvement with writing pedagogy was, unfortunately, product focused.  Perhaps we have only paid lip service to the pre-eminence of the process of writing in the social studies, given the hard focus on successfully preparing students for “on-demand” writing product production in high stakes evaluations.  In the end, this focus could well result in the brand of animosity that Patrick displayed, not only limited to DBQ’s, but extending to writing in general.

It wasn’t much later, early in this semester, that my memory of Patrick’s DBQ angst crossed paths with my course work.  I found myself in two classes (Teaching and Evaluating Writing, and Methods and Materials in Teaching Middle School Social Studies) which provided a springboard to my investigation of approaches to writing instruction in middle school social studies.  I decided I wanted to uncover ways of teaching writing in the middle school social studies classroom that could avoid undermining developing writers in these crucial grades.  I knew that in order to do so, I would have to gain a greater understanding not just of writing instruction, but also of middle schools and middle school students.  In short, I wanted to know what I could do, in a practical sense, to directly implement social studies writing lessons that could move middle school students, with their unique needs and characteristics, in a positive direction as writers.

The Search

With this goal in mind, my active search began.  In addition to the potential sources of information that lay directly in front of me (the required texts I had obtained for these two education courses, access to the course instructors, and my upcoming fieldwork at Lowry Middle School), I decided that a good place to start would be to become familiar with some of the applicable literature.  Luckily, a “bibliography for teaching writing in middle schools” was available as a link from the on-line syllabus for my Teaching and Evaluating Writing course.  The bibliography resided at the Internet site of Texas Tech University’s Writing Center.  Doing some reading in my topic area seemed a likely starting place, so I printed a copy and reviewed the comments and titles of some thirty books about teaching middle school writing that had been suggested by Dr. Robert Boehm of Loma Linda University in California.  Tops on his list were books by Nancie Atwell (In the Middle: Writing, Reading, and Learning with Adolescents) and Gail Tompkins (Teaching Writing: Balancing Process and Product).  I thought that these two books, both recommended as excellent sources by Dr. Boehm, should be required reading.  My luck continued to hold when I was able to borrow a copy of the Atwell book from my methods professor, Dr. Fusco.  It stayed strong when I found that my wife, Mary, owned a copy of the Tompkins book.  The search had barely begun and I had already bagged two trophies!

Before too long, I had amassed a functional stable of worthy reference sources on both writing instruction and the middle school, including books, journal articles, and reputable Internet sources.  This did not happen without some trial and error, and I read a good deal from all of these realms that would prove either off target, counterproductive, off base, over my head, or simply impractical.  I also did my best to speak to as many people who should be knowledgeable in the topic area as possible.  In some instances, my inquiries were welcomed, while in other instances they were avoided or ignored.  Some of the toughest individuals to arrange an interview with were (to my surprise) professors at Buffalo State, but I was persistent and in the end captured a few good interviews.  I also was able to discuss my interests with real live English and social studies teachers working at Lowry Middle School, and their perspectives informed and influenced all of my research and conclusions.

Disappointments and Successes

Perhaps my biggest disappointment during the hunt fell on my hopes to interview actual middle school students.  For reasons that I should have probably anticipated, when I asked my cooperating teachers and my methods professor how I could go about getting input regarding my search from the students I was working with at Lowry, I was advised not to do so.  This, coupled with Patrick’s warning of what would happen if I pushed him any further on the DBQ front, forced me to concede that in this instance my somewhat gray status (as a pre-teaching student) in the educational universe limited my ability to gain the “first-person” insights I desired.  The students at Lowry were officially off limits, and in Patrick’s case, he might be small, but he’s relentless.

            From this setback, I determined that I should learn more about the middle school philosophy, if not from the students, then perhaps from the opposite end of the spectrum.  For a better overall perspective on the nature of the social studies in the middle school model, I turned to the Internet site of the National Council for the Social Studies.  There I found information that addressed the views of the council, to which I belong, regarding middle school social studies.  According to the Council’s Internet site, in 1989, the publication of Turning Points: Preparing American Youth for the 21st Century invigorated the middle school reform movement in the United States.  Prepared by the Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development, this report marked a renewed focus within the educational community on how to best meet the challenge raised by the unique developmental needs of young adolescents.  Though Donald Eichhorn’s respected work The Middle School had appeared almost twenty-five years earlier, leading to the emergence of a new middle school model, substantial changes remained to be made in most districts throughout New York and across the nation at the time of Turning Points’ release.  The elementary, junior high school, senior high school configuration adopted in the early part of the century continued to hold sway.

Two years later, the Council approved a report prepared by its Task Force on Social Studies in the Middle School.  In light of subsequent developments, this 1991 report, entitled Social Studies in the Middle School, which I read in full on-line, seems to have anticipated both common mistakes made by some attempting to emulate the middle school model, and typical criticisms leveled by detractors of middle schools.  This is achieved through the report’s core recommendations regarding the adaptation of a rigorous and coherent curriculum, in the form of scope and sequence options employed within an interdisciplinary approach, with what it refers to as four “unifying motifs.”  These motifs, which allow for the unique nature of middle level learners to function as a “driving force” in program design, provide for the measured and appropriate consideration of the physical, social, emotional, and intellectual developmental characteristics of these learners within the context of the social studies curriculum and its instructional approaches.

I found this overarching concept substantially supplemented by the report’s detailed presentation of guidelines for the “planning, implementation, and evaluation” of social studies programs against the backdrop of the four primary motifs, interrelated with instructional strategies and anticipated student outcomes.  When properly coupled with the three scope and sequence options recommended by the report, both across lessons and instructional units, I think this approach is well suited to meeting the challenge of high stakes standardized testing without abandoning an underlying commitment to, and the values of, the middle school philosophy.

            The report also delineates in some detail the instructional strategies that the task force found appropriate for consideration, which are included in what may be seen as “best practices” recommendations.  These instructional strategies include experimental learning, interdisciplinary instruction, cooperative learning, heterogeneous grouping, the addressing of controversial issues, and performance-based assessment.  Conspicuous in its absence from this section of the report is active learning, a topic I was hearing quite a bit about in my methods course.

            But the report did address some of my concerns regarding the emphasis placed on writing product over process vis-à-vis high stakes testing.  I found that the report’s recommendations to meet this high stakes challenge did not contradict the necessary focus on appropriate, formative writing instruction.  This could well be the Task Force’s greatest contribution to the contemporary middle school movement.  Too often critics of middle schools will point to what they believe to be a lack of focus on curriculum and core content, which they blame for any shortcomings in standardized test results.  What these critics fail to recognize is that when properly integrated into the overall approach and philosophy of middle school education, rigorous and coherent curriculum, including process focused writing instruction, is better received and retained by middle level learners.  This of course directly translates not only into better performance on evaluation instruments, but it also better meets the goals set out in the report of “advancing social studies education and responsible citizenship among young people.”

            For these reasons, I found it clear that the responsibility rests with middle school educators to avoid failing to meet higher standard’s requirements because of poor program design and lack of attention to detailed curriculum and instructional planning (including writing instruction), both within grade levels and across districts.  The recommendations found in Social Studies in the Middle School provide a valuable template to apply in such planning.  They should, perhaps, be more often consulted, for if I aspire to become a committed middle school educator, I cannot endanger the middle school concept simply because I have fallen short in my implementation practices.

            With this in mind, and remembering Patrick’s reaction to his experience with social studies writing instruction in the form of DBQ’s, I reviewed a book which had been recommended to me as a potential replacement for my “not-to-be” interviews with Lowry Middle School students.  In her 1997 book 2000 Voices: Young Adolescents’ Perceptions & Curriculum Implications, author Cynthia S. Mee shares the results of her survey of more than 2000 middle school students.  Mee investigates young adolescents and their social realities, details their responses to various questions in a summary format, provides an interpretation of their “voices,” and makes extensive observations regarding curriculum implications.  In the summary section, two questions and their summarized responses caught my attention.

            The first asked students to identify their favorite subject.  Mee reports that “although almost all subjects were mentioned, the absolute most common responses by all grade levels were math and science” (36).  Regarding their least favorite subject, students stated “language arts, social studies, English, and literature” (36).  Although Mee observes that “young adolescents who are somewhere between the concrete and abstract cognitive levels of development find language arts, English, and social studies as less clearly defined and concrete” (36), I could not help but also make one additional connection.   These least favorite subjects share the common thread of an emphasis on writing and writing instruction.

            At this point, I needed to find positive examples of social studies instruction in the middle school that incorporated writing.  I also wanted to find examples that were more than just anecdotal.  I checked with another professor I had previously had for a methods class, Dr. Mitchell, to see if he could recommend any journal sources that might give me some research based resources to investigate.  He told me that there was one respected peer reviewed journal in the social studies that I should take a look at, Theory and Research in Social Education.

            It took quite a few false starts before I found articles in this journal that included aspects of writing instruction, but eventually I found two.  The first was an article entitled

“Scary Thing, Being an Eighth Grader”: Exploring Gender and Sexuality in a Middle School U.S. History Unit” published in the Spring, 2002 issue of Theory and Research in Social Education.  At the time this study was conducted, one of the authors, Jeanette Groth, was teaching middle school social studies at the School for the Arts (SOTA) in Lexington, Kentucky.  Her co-author, Linda Levstik, was a Professor in the College of Education at Lexington’s University of Kentucky.  Their positions were very relevant to the study itself, for they provided the authors with the ability to structure and control their investigation into how eighth graders at SOTA conceptualize gender within the context of an authentic unit of social studies instruction, a unit that used journal keeping as a key element of the learning experience (233-225).

Other important background information regarding the study includes the nature of the students involved, their relationship with their teacher, and the nature of the school itself.  SOTA, a fourth through eighth grade magnet school with about 250 students at the time, was predominately attended by female students.  The students were generally very high achievers, both academically and within the arts.  Much of the outgoing personality that marked them as performers carried over into the classroom and into their study participation.  Of the fifty eighth graders who participated in the study, forty-one were female, and most had excellent relationships with Ms. Groth, who had been their social studies teacher throughout middle school.  In addition, given the high level of academic performance of her students, Ms. Groth enjoyed considerable latitude in her social studies program design (234-237).

The study was centered on a social studies unit that focused on women’s perspectives as the heart of studying the antebellum period in U.S. history.  The researchers organized instruction so that multiple avenues were present to obtain data on the impact of this “shift in gender perspective” away from what they and the students recognized as traditional male centered histories.  Students “kept journals, gave regular status reports on their work, developed exhibits…” (which would later be displayed at the College of Education), “recorded their planning and research sessions, and participated in follow-up interviews” (237).  Students worked with a wide range of primary sources, and became enthusiastic in their exploration of the individual women’s histories that illuminated this period in America.

In addition to investigating the academic impact of this shift in gender perspective, the researchers gained insight into the realm of current adolescent gender and sexuality perspectives in the classroom, the school, and in the broader adolescent social context.  In light of the contiguous homophobia that tempered male student roles at SOTA, student responses garnered regarding both the instructional approach and the adolescent social setting gained increased value.

Based on their study, the authors conclude a number of points that are important to consider in the implementation of any middle school social studies program, including instructional elements that involve writing.  As a limiting factor, they point out that although teachers can make a substantial difference by providing classroom cultures which support students in developing “open-minded, globally minded, and humane” perspectives, each day students live in a social system comprised of peers that may in practice often reject these same perspectives.  Developing appropriate and broader gender perspectives in the social studies classroom is important, but does not necessarily translate into the social context of adolescents developing their own individual sexual orientations.  This indicates that the active role of community in the middle school, which is one of the foundational elements of a sound middle school program, should be emphasized along with instructional program design.  The associated ability to increase the communal value of writing is essential to the success of developing life-long writers as a goal of middle school social studies education (249-254).

Additionally, the authors were encouraged to find that “teaching really does matter” (252).  In this I saw that as a social studies teacher, by constructing a social studies unit from a female centered perspective (or other non-traditional perspectives), substantial improvement can be made both in students’ factual knowledge as well as their ability to critically discriminate on issues such as gender. (This is not to say that teachers will not confront some natural student resistance to re-centered instructional approaches.)  For students, these procedural skills can be applied both historically and in the contemporary setting. Additionally, by examining individuals in the role of social historian, students are able to gain a greater understanding of the diversity of individual experience across gender, ethnicity, class, region, and time, and gain an authentic purpose for their writing tasks (252-254).

Although I respect the authors’ caveat regarding the atypical nature of the student group studied and the important role of circumstance in supporting what some might consider an atypical instructional approach, I am not overly discouraged from consideration of the educational potentials this study exposes.  It seems that “considering how important it is to have a relatively safe place where adolescents can discuss and debate” and write is one consideration that should be at the core of a middle school social studies classroom.  To that end, it should also be a core consideration in how I design and implement a middle school social studies program and my instructional approaches to writing.

As I continued to browse the article titles in various issues of Theory and Research in Social Education, I finally found what I had been hoping for – an article dealing with Web Quests.  In addition to DBQ’s, Web Quests have rapidly become a instructional format of choice that typically includes a substantial writing element within the context of social studies instruction.  There, in the Summer 2002 issue of the journal, was an article entitled “The Internet and Inquiry Learning: Integrating Medium and Method in a Sixth Grade Social Studies Classroom.”  What could I learn from this piece that could further inform my search?

Andrew Milson, primary researcher and author of this study, introduces his research article with background information on the use of the Internet as an instructional tool.  According to Milson, the Internet as a component of computer assisted instruction has become increasingly popular and evident as an element of teaching in middle schools.  The Internet’s wealth of informational resources can, when properly implemented, support social studies education specifically in data collection and analysis, as a research resource to support the composition of historical reports and analysis.  Milson contends that even though the Internet is being employed widely, research on the use of the Internet in the classroom is insufficient.  Given the importance of inquiry based writing instruction and exploration in middle school social studies’ classrooms, and the apparent value of the Internet in supporting this style of writing instruction, Milson holds that further research is warranted.  This study, conducted to add to the small base of existing research, is an investigation of Web Quest instruction within a sixth grade social studies classroom (330-332).

Milson defines inquiry learning as learning that is based on posing meaningful questions, researching those questions, and evaluating possible answers.  Research already supports inquiry learning as an effective way for students to learn history.  Web Quest is a specific technique to involve students in the inquiry method.  In this approach, students gather information from the Internet.  The teacher creates a web page as a guided and structured form to support the students’ inquiry and as a resource to support the associated writing task.  This web page should include the five critical attributes of a Web Quest: introduction, task, process, evaluation, and conclusion (332-335).

Milson’s study took place in a sixth grade classroom in what he characterized as a working class neighborhood school of a medium size Mid-western city.  Twelve boys and eleven girls made up the class.  These students were mostly Caucasian and included two African American students and one Hispanic student.  Their teacher was a fifteen-year veteran at the elementary level.  Students worked in heterogeneous cooperative groups on an Ancient Egypt Web Quest project, which included both Internet based inquiry and traditional print resources.  Students worked in teams to research and record their inquiries/information in a “Time Travelers Guidebook” writing composition task(336-338). 

The data for this study was obtained through field observations, interviews with students, and a journal written by the classroom teacher.  Milson presented his findings and interpretations of the data in terms of three generalizations: 

o       Finding One: Students have differing perceptions of the value of Internet sources and print sources, but many find print sources preferable to Internet sources (342).

o       Finding Two: Students’ strategies for gathering and organizing information are initially characterized by a quest for the path-of-least-resistance, but the teacher can successfully guide students to more productive approaches (343-344).

o       Finding Three: Students of varying academic ability levels can conduct inquiry-oriented investigations, but they approach and perceive the value of such investigations differently (346-347).

 

Milson asserts that his findings support both inquiry learning and cooperative learning.  He concludes that Web Quests have value as an instructional approach associated with writing tasks for middle school social studies by encouraging inquiry and exploration through both print and Internet based resources (347-349).

I think that an implementation of instructional practice that takes into consideration Milson’s findings, if carefully planned, would prove effective for the teacher of a middle school social studies class, and help improve students’ engagement with writing tasks.  I also believe that applying Milson’s findings would be beneficial within the interdisciplinary context in which middle school social studies resides.  It appears particularly important to note that in this study, the class conducted the Ancient Egypt Web Quest in conjunction with print materials about the same topic and acted in cooperative groups.  This provided for both varied learning styles and social learning experiences, important elements to remember in planning middle school writing instruction.  Milson’s finding that a majority of students preferred print sources over Internet sources highlights the necessity of varied instructional materials.  This is perhaps especially important to remember given the fact that all of the students who struggled academically in the class preferred the print sources, reported the Internet was too fast, and became distracted and impatient with irrelevant information offered on the Internet (349).  The middle school social studies teacher providing diverse sources to students will more effectively address the learning styles of all students and support their successful engagement with the writing process.

Another finding in the study that I think should be incorporated into middle school social studies Web Quest format writing instruction pointed to the need for greater teacher involvement in guiding students’ Internet experience.  Students were often observed using a search engine rather than relying on links included in the teacher created Web Quest page.  Milson referred to this as a path-of-least-resistance strategy.  He states that “…most students at all levels naturally engage in a search for a quick, efficient, and easy solution to academic tasks” (344).  These student quick-fix strategies often prove more time consuming and less productive than the teacher guided approach.  Middle school social studies teachers need to model and reinforce both meta cognitive and problem solving writing strategies for students engaged in inquiry learning, as this age group is actively refining and integrating these higher order thinking processes.  It is important for teachers to realize that they should not assume students’ familiarity and experience with the Internet indicates their mastery of the thinking modes necessary to successfully navigate and utilize the Internet as an inquiry tool.

Perhaps the most important finding to implement within the heterogeneous middle school social studies classroom lies in Milson’s observations regarding how the Web Quest writing process empowered special needs students.  All of the special needs students involved in the study reported that they enjoyed finding online answers for their classmates.  These students enjoyed the experience of becoming sources of information for their peers.  Unfortunately, special needs students are often taught with a narrow emphasis on direct instruction, while here we see that an inquiry approach enhanced their learning, their engagement with the writing process, as well as their self-esteem.  This highlights not only the importance of implementing similar approaches for heterogeneous group writing instruction, but further supports the needs for variety and differentiation across the spectrum of middle school social studies instructional practices (346-349).

At this point in my search, I had also gained an opportunity to interview Professor Doreen Dell, a member of the History and Social Studies Education Department at Buffalo State.  Professor Dell (she teaches social studies methods and observes student teachers in our field programs) helped me clarify some of the conclusions I was beginning to approach as I continued to search for information, read about, and discuss my topic.  As Professor Dell indicated, foremost among these conclusions is that the “typical” social studies essay or report format for writing assignments is one of the worst approaches a social studies teacher can use with middle school students.  Such “traditional” assignments simply lack the direct authenticity needed to maintain interest among middle school students.  She believes that middle school social studies writing instruction should focus on short, clearly defined products that make the process of writing the paramount element in the learning experience, and I certainly agree.  Dell pointed out that all middle school social studies writing instruction needs to “make it (i.e. history, civics, etc.) real” for the students, and in my reading I had uncovered a number of strategies that I thought could do that.  Equal in importance, according to Professor Dell, is the premise that the teacher must model the writing process repeatedly, and create instructional approaches where this modeling is centered on student’s engagement with the writing process, not the end product.  To do so, social studies teachers in the middle school can focus on writing instruction that is centered on writing strategies.

I now understood that students who possess multiple writing strategies use those strategies to problem solve as they write.  As a reflective social studies educator, especially in the middle school, I share the task of developing student writers in concert with my teaching colleagues.  Therefore, anticipating my role as a middle school social studies teacher, I’ve concluded that I must be able to select and implement from the broad range of available writing strategies those specific, practical strategies that best meet the needs of young adolescents.  Such writing strategies, when compatible with the social studies standards and the developmental needs of adolescents, would become an important part of any social studies teacher’s instructional practices in the middle school setting.

So just what exactly do I mean by writing strategies?  My search had taught me that Collins and Collins define writing strategies as “cognitive strategies writers use to guide their work during the act of writing” (1).  These strategies are active ways for writers to thoughtfully and consciously solve problems as they write.  According to Tompkins, strategies are different from skills, which are information processing techniques that writers use automatically and unconsciously (69-98).  As students learn, practice, and apply a writing strategy, they build independence as writers.  This independence supports students’ developing self-identity, and provides needed opportunities for success during their middle school years.   

Tompkins cites research that supports the tenet that strategic writers are capable writers (70-73).  When writers possess strategies that they can use as their own, they are able to navigate the writing process with more control than novice writers.  Capable writers can monitor their ability to communicate to their audience and can self-assess their writing.    

Tompkins states that among the strategies that writers use are tapping prior knowledge, organizing, visualizing, summarizing, making connections, revising meaning, monitoring, playing with language, generalizing and evaluating (93).  Middle school teachers in all content areas can develop lessons that allow students to practice and apply these strategies.  Strategies are often taught during mini lessons - brief direct instruction lessons that provide the teacher the opportunity to present and model the strategy.  Within the mini lesson, the teacher introduces the strategy, demonstrates the strategy, provides guided practice to the students as they try out the strategy, then helps the students review the strategy and supports the students as they apply the strategy (93).

I believe that developing active writers is an important part of meeting the overall objectives of middle school social studies instruction.  This instruction should support the five New York State Learning Standards for Social Studies, as well as the ten thematic strands that form the basis of the National Council for the Social Studies standards.  Additionally, instructional approaches must lead to student outcomes in the form of relevant performance indicators/expectations both in the social studies and in writing.

I also believe that underlying all of this must be a consideration of the unique developmental needs of middle school students.  As outlined by the New York State Education Department, two basic goals that must be incorporated in the education of middle school students are “the intellectual development and academic achievement of all students, and the personal and social development of each student.”

Lucy Calkins notes that adolescence has been characterized as “the best of times and the worst of times” (101).  During this period, students exhibit a unique set of physical, intellectual, psychological, social and moral characteristics.  These needs must be addressed in the design of a middle school writing program, which should be interdisciplinary and include the social studies. 

            Calkins discusses two characteristics of adolescence that strongly impact

writing.  First, she stresses that middle school is a place where “…concern about error

can overshadow everything, like a heavy grey cloud” (107).  Fear of making mistakes must be minimized so that students can grow as writers.  Secondarily, Calkins points out that peer interactions are paramount with this age group.  The social tendency for adolescents to bond with peers and rebel against adults should be factored in as writing strategies are considered (108).

            Much of educational research tells us that all learning is tied to motivation.  Students’ motivation to write is influenced by opportunities for self-expression, choice, and peer sharing (Tompkins 80-81).  Because all three of these factors are also specific developmental needs of adolescents, their importance is highlighted in selecting middle school writing strategies.      

Conclusions

            As an interim conclusion to my search, I selected the following four writing strategies to present as methods that support the middle school social studies standards and themes yet also address key characteristics of the adolescent.  I selected these strategies because I think they increase opportunities for social relationships, self expression, and choice, and decrease the risk for error, all while meeting the general framework for social studies writing instruction in the middle school that I have previously discussed.

The first of my recommended strategies is known as summarizing through “Learning Logs,” or the “Write to Learn Strategy,” as detailed by Hanson, Schwartz, Silver, and Strong.  “Learning Logs” allow students to explore ideas in the content areas by putting pen to paper.  “Learning Logs” are on-going tools that help students process new information and integrate that information into previous knowledge.  “Through writing, students make visible the inner conversations which they use to discover what they know” (227).  Writing in “Learning Logs” can take many forms, including quick writes, summaries, lists and notes.  Using this strategy, students focus on a key question to shape their response.  They write in their logs to address this question.  Then students share their responses with others. Goals of the Write to Learn Strategy include empowering students to write as a means of learning, problem solving, and reflection, as

well as a means of creating a framework for disciplined discussion of content (227-230).

            “Learning Logs” have an advantage over class discussions in middle school social

studies classrooms.  All students can be actively involved in the topic when they are

writing in their journals (Tompkins 180).  The written response helps students to express themselves without the fear of a class discussion “wrong answer.”  Regardless of the form of each log entry, the log is far from the “fill-in-the-blank” writing that denies students a sense of choice.  Furthermore, “Learning Logs” offer the opportunity for personal perspectives and reflection.  This introspection can fulfill the adolescent need to explore knowledge as well as personal identity.  Finally, the third step of the Write to Learn Strategy, sharing with a peer, supports the strong adolescent need for social relations.

The next of my recommended writing strategies, which I think is a pre-writing strategy of great value for middle school social studies students, is known as organizing through “Critical Squares.”  This strategy, also described by Collins and Collins, is used to promote elaboration on a topic.  The student asks questions about a topic and then responds to these questions, concentrating on content over mechanics.  The writing elicited from the “Critical Squares” strategy contains improved focus and detail.  The steps in the strategy are: the student divides a sheet of paper into four quadrants; the student writes one self-selected question about the topic in each quadrant; the student answers the questions using key words in each box; finally the student writes a response passage by converting each section into a fully- developed paragraph (7-12).

            “Critical Squares” is a strategy that enhances students’ active, self-directed

learning.  In the social studies, student writers may produce disorganized, brief responses on a topic when they don’t possess a method for determining what they want the reader to

know about their topic or a tool for organizing their thoughts.  I propose that “Critical Squares” hands over ownership for the writing process to the student by allowing the student to generate the questions that she is capable of responding to.      

My third recommendation is actually a combination of writing strategies for tapping prior knowledge through “Mailbags” and “Miscellany,” which I discovered in a book entitled Practical Ideas for Teaching Writing as a Process at the Elementary and Middle School Level, edited by Carol Booth Olsen.  These strategies key on the concept that adolescents are motivated by the need to communicate what they know in a unique way.  “Mailbags” and “Miscellany” are two closely related strategies that build students’ ability to tap their prior knowledge and express it in a new way.  “Mailbags” offers students the opportunity to “show off” what they know about a particular time and place through letter writing. During a unit on a historical period and setting, students create a mailbag for that community.  Each student chooses a person/role and writes a letter as if they were that character, writing to another member of the community.  This strategy supports students in producing creative narratives that reflect their knowledge of previously learned subject matter.  Similarly, “Miscellany” encourages students to “create the debris of an important historical event.”  This “debris” may include letters, speeches, agendas and diary entries based on thorough research (148-153).

            Middle school social studies students should find both of these strategies highly

motivating.  Once students see one of these strategies carefully modeled, and have an

opportunity to practice it over a number of units, in the future they will have an experience to aid in recall of what they learned during a historical unit of study.  Also,

both of these strategies are characterized by the kind of choice that makes them attractive

to adolescents.  Finally, I think that the letters sent and received by peers in “Mailbags” would serve as vehicles for building community in the middle school social studies classroom.     

The fourth writing strategy that I would recommend comes from noted teacher and author Nancy Atwell, which she calls “Revising Meaning through Peer Conferencing.”  Revising meaning through peer conferencing is a strategy that allows writers to “try out” their social studies writing tasks with a classmate.  Atwell suggests that during a peer conference, one student meets with another and reads his work-in-progress.  The listener offers suggestions to the author through active dialogue.  Students verify meaning, question meaning, encourage each other, and compliment their peer’s efforts. These conferences can include note taking by the author, or be combined with a checklist for use in future revision (10, 42, 98).

Both participants in a peer conference can profit from this strategy.  The author

receives immediate feedback and the listener becomes more conscious of another author

and style.  Perhaps the greatest value and risk associated with peer conferencing is a

product of the way middle school students so closely identify with their peers.  A piece of

writing praised by a classmate can elicit increased feelings of self esteem in the author. 

Conversely, writing that has been panned by a peer can generate feelings of failure, with

an associated negative impact on the adolescent student’s often fragile self esteem.

Therefore, peer conferencing is a strategy that requires heavy teacher modeling on the

front end.  Atwell advises “peer conferences won’t work unless writers can trust that their

peers won’t shoot them down, so I show my kids how to confer, talking to them just as

I’d like them to talk with each other” (42).

Having determined to recommend these strategies, I had arranged one final step in my search.  I scheduled an appointment for 10:00 am on Monday, May 3rd, with Dr. Susan M. Leist, of the Buffalo State English Department faculty, in hopes that she would review my investigation’s conclusions and recommendations.  When I visited her the preceding week to arrange our meeting, a colleague of Dr. List, who shares her office, had overheard our conversation and the topic I was interested in pursuing, and had commented something to the effect that I had found the right person to meet with.  She said that when it came to writing instruction in the middle school, Dr. Leist was something of a “guru.”

Unfortunately, when I arrived outside Dr. Leist’s office door a few minutes before the appointed hour, with my virtually completed I-search paper in hand, I found the door locked and the office itself vacant.  I waited until I had to leave for my class at 11:00 am, and was certainly disappointed that I was unable able to speak with Dr. Leist regarding my search, my conclusions, and the related writing strategy recommendations.  I know her input could strengthen my closing comments regarding the success of my search, but these things do happen, and I hope she had not encountered any difficulties which detained her.

My summary conclusion, therefore, lacks the informed expert opinion and review that I hoped for.  Even so, I am confident that I not only have arrived at a valid point in my search, but that the process I undertook will prove valuable in my future practice as a social studies teacher.  I take with me the understanding that students who possess multiple writing strategies use those strategies during the writing process and to meet performance indicators and/or expectations in support of the social studies standards.  I know  that in order to select writing strategies that work well for middle school students, I need to keep in mind the unique developmental needs and characteristics of middle school learners.

If I assist students’ exploration of content ideas through the Write to Learn Strategy (Learning Logs), their organization of information through “Critical Squares,” their revising of meaning through peer conferencing, and their tapping of prior knowledge through “Mailbags” and “Miscellany,” I will have implemented four practical writing strategies with high value for middle school social studies students. These four strategies increase students’ opportunities for social relationships, self expression, and choice, and decrease their risk for error.  They focus on the process of writing more so than on writing’s product.  I have found that these are important attributes of writing instruction for social studies teachers working with young adolescents to consider in meeting the challenges of developing all students intellectually and academically, and each student personally and socially.

What’s Next?

Where do I go from here?  If my luck should hold, many, many avenues of experience and exploration await me.  I hope that I will have an opportunity to meet with Dr. Leist, and gain further insight into teaching writing in social studies, both in the middle school and perhaps in the high school.  I need to continue to review the available literature, seeking out new ideas and strategies that I can implement in my instruction.  I have to continue to seek out the advice and experience of other educators, and remain a willing participant in professional development programs and staff training.  I must be eager to try numerous ways of incorporating the process of writing into my social studies instruction, and be ready to both monitor its effectiveness and alter my approaches as necessary.  I still need to find out about many other writing strategies that I could employ, and be sure to ask the same questions about writing instruction in the future that I have raised in this search.

With my student teaching ahead of me, as well as my first full time teaching assignment and my master’s work, the future holds many chances for me to continue to refine my understanding of writing instruction in the middle school social studies.  Also, along with the many other goals I have as a teacher, I know of one particular goal that will remain clearly in my mind.

That goal can be simply stated.  I want to help my students, the future Patrick’s of my classes, to become not just life long learners, but also life long writers.     


 

Works Cited

 

Atwell, Nancie. In the Middle: Writing, Reading and Learning with Adolescents.

Portsmouth, N.H.: Boynton/Cook Publishers, 1987.

 

Boehm, Robert. Bibliography for Teaching Writing in Middle Schools. 12 Feb. 2004.

            <http://www.ttu.edu/wcenter/9805/msg00242.html>.

 

Calkins, Lucy McCormick. The Art of Teaching Writing. Portsmouth, N.H.: Heinemann

Educational Books, Inc., 1986.

           

Collins, James L., and Kathleen M. Collins, eds. Handbook of Strategic Writing Lessons.

Buffalo, N.Y.: Graduate School of Education Publications, SUNY at Buffalo,

1997.

 

Dell, Doreen. Personal Interview. 7 Apr. 2004.

 

Hanson, J. R., et al. Teaching Styles and Strategies: Interventions to Enrich Instructional

Decision-Making, 3rd ed. Trenton, N.J.: Thoughtful Education Press, 1996.

 

Levstik, Linda S., and Jeanette Groth. “Scary Thing, Being An Eighth Grader: Exploring

Gender and Sexuality in a Middle School U.S. History Unit.” Theory and Research in Social Education 30.2 (Spring 2002): 233 – 254.

 

Mee, Cynthia S. 2000 Voices: Young Adolescents’ Perceptions & Curriculum

Implications. Westerville, Ohio: National Middle School Association, 1997.

 

Milson, Andrew J. “The Internet and Inquiry Learning: Integrating Medium and Method

in a Sixth Grade Social Studies Classroom.” Theory and Research in Social Education 30.3 (Summer 2002): 330 – 353.

 

Olson, Carol Booth, ed. Practical Ideas for Teaching Writing as a Process at the

Elementary and Middle School Levels. Sacramento, Ca.: California Department of

Education, 1996.

 

Task Force on Social Studies in the Middle School. Social Studies in the Middle School.

            5 Feb. 2004. <http://www.nmsa.org>.

 

Tompkins, Gail E. Teaching Writing: Balancing Process and Product. Upper

Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 2000.