Process Writing

This article presents an overview of Process Writing and delineates its many components as well as how it is used in the writing classroom. Process writing is a cognitive process model of writing instruction whereby students follow a developmental process of stages in preparing any written work. This pedagogy is a useful teaching methodology for those students who need support in their writing skills. Unlike traditional models of writing, process writing de-emphasizes error correction. Student writers who incorporate process writing in their literacy development follow the universal stages of successful writers in developing a topic through pre-writing and planning, drafting a paper, conferencing with their peers and the teacher, revising the paper, editing for surface-level errors, and publishing the work. Key elements of process writing include asking student to write often, receive frequent feedback, and write multiple revisions. Recent research has supported the use of process writing for special education students, as a way to enhance literacy skills and self-esteem of writers who possess learning disabilities.

Keywords Authentic Assessment; Conferencing; Drafting; Editing; Journaling; Mini-Lessons; Publishing; Pre-Writing; Revising; Writing Workshop

Teaching Methods > Process Writing

Overview

Process writing is a cognitive process model of writing instruction whereby students follow a developmental process of stages in preparing any written work in the classroom. Process writing is a useful teaching methodology for those students who need support in their writing skills. Unlike traditional models of writing, process writing de-emphasizes error correction. In a process approach, of course the product and accuracy and grammar are important-they are just not the first and only thing that is important (Diliduzgun, 2013). This methodology can be introduced as early as kindergarten, even before students learn the formal aspects of language and correct spelling (Stahl & Pagnucco, 1996). Research reveals that those students who are taught writing through a process approach are able to write sooner than other students and produce a greater number of words than those who follow traditional programs of writing instruction (Clarke, 1998).

Student writers who incorporate process writing in their literacy development follow the universal stages of successful writers in developing a topic through pre-writing and planning, drafting a paper, conferencing with their peers and the teacher, revising the paper, editing for surface-level errors, and publishing the work. These stages are universal in that every writer (student or professional) engages in these stages to some degree at one time during their own writing process (Williams, 2003). Teachers who support a writing process approach to instruction have an understanding of the developmental process of writing and what they can expect from writers at different stages in their cognitive understanding (Stringer, Morton, & Bonikowski, 1999). Teachers may support a writing workshop environment in their classrooms. Their goal is to engage students in the writing process as they model the recursive characteristics of mature authors. The process helps students adopt and practice the steps that writers go through, while giving them opportunities to discover their own individual processes so they can learn what works best for them in their own endeavors (Williams, 2003). During a writing workshop, the classroom curriculum is set up to support regular writing times and a structure to the process, as students write with some control over what they want to write about and how they want to write. Teachers facilitate learning of specific skills by presenting mini-lessons, short periods of explicit instruction that conveys information about writing strategies and skills to the whole class or small groups (Calkins, 1994). Student writers are involved in regular conferences with their peers and the teacher (Graves, 1983; Calkins, 1994).

History & Research

This methodology for enhancing writing in students from kindergarten through college has been incorporated in classrooms for the last 20 years as a way to change traditional writing instruction in the schools. While Janet Emig (1971) was credited with originating process writing pedagogy, what she phrases as "process philosophy," the process approach really gained momentum in the 1980's and 1990's in the regular education classroom, supported by such researchers in writing instruction as Donald Graves (1983), Lucy Calkins (1986) and Jane Hansen (1987). Flower and Hayes (1981) wrote of the interactive conceptual nature of the various components of the writing process. Research during the early 1980's noted the general characteristics of classes that supported a process approach: the authentic writing, known audiences, daily writing, and common procedures and terminology. Process writing is considered a student-centered instructional method. There are key elements to improving student writing through process theory:

• Asking students to write often, in meaningful contexts,

• Providing frequent feedback on work in progress, and

• Requiring numerous revisions based on that feedback (Williams, 2003, p. 100).

Prior to this period, a more traditional approach to writing was common in the classroom. Typically, teachers assigned essays and students wrote one draft and submitted the papers for grading. The traditional approach is criticized by advocates of process writing for focusing on the final product and ignoring the process that takes place in the writer's thinking. Traditional writing pedagogy is rooted in form and end product. As a means of improving student writing, it applies rigid rules about the way a paper should be structured, studying grammar or composition topics and focuses on reading works of literature (Williams, 2003). Traditional writing is said to lack the sensitivity and appreciation for children's abilities as language users and learners (Hoffman, 1998). This product approach neglects a sense of ownership and a sense of purpose and audience. Basically, the product approach has ignored the more expressive or personal pieces that enhance writing skills (Murray, 1980; Fulwiler, 1987) and focuses too heavily on error correction.

The writing process methodology was supported through teacher pre-service and in-service programs, as well as through professional journals and conferences. In the mid to late 1980's, state curriculum was revised to include the writing process through planning, drafting, revising, editing, proofing and publishing as essential elements in a writer's process. In the early 1990's, Texas textbooks adopted the writing process approach as a basic model of instruction (Hoffman, 1998). In 1992, the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), a federally financed program that provides a review of student achievement in the United States, revealed several findings that illustrated the success of the process writing approach:

• Students who spend more time writing in and out of school outperform those in traditional writing programs.

• Those students who use a larger number of process writing strategies write better.

• Those students who were asked by their teachers to write papers longer than one page and at least once or twice a month wrote better papers (NAEP, 1992).

The 1998 NAEP report suggested that process writing curriculum had become an institutionalized practice, with 80 per cent of students in the United States regularly engaging in process writing activity. The study stated that compared to other approaches to writing, process writing offered the best chance for improving students' skills.

Process Writing for Special Education

In the early stages of process writing implementation, special education students were not as exposed to the strategies promoted in process writing, as writing instruction for special education students tended to emphasize the low-level mechanical skills instead of the higher-level cognitive processes and strategies that were a common part of the process writing curriculum (Berninger & Hooper, 1993). However, more recent studies in special education instruction have shown that strategy instruction in the process of writing can be used productively with this group of students. Kamii (1985) states that incorporating the writing process in special education classes enhances student autonomy, encouraging these students to think and make good choices in writing for themselves.

Current Approaches

Currently, the process approach to writing is supported by state and national standards across the nation. Researchers have advocated what accomplished writers often engage in -- a process that includes: planning and organizing ideas; translating ideas into papers; and reviewing and revising those papers (Flower & Hayes, 1981). Researchers and teachers understand that the process of writing is not just a linear process of stages but a recursive process, whereby writers can revisit any of the stages during the course of writing. This process is top-down in nature, as writers focus first on what they want to say, not on how they want to say it. The focus is on producing elements of what will eventually be a final product. Writers monitor their own writing process and, at any moment during this process, may re-plan, re-draft, or revise as they metacognitively improve their writing. As Atwell (1990) states, the process of writing becomes a tool for thought, unearthing a writers' own understandings and feelings in their communications.

Teachers act as writing facilitators in this student-centered approach to writing. While they develop mini-lessons, or direct instruction lesson plans in a skill or strategy, based on the information they glean from student writing or journals, the real focus of the class is on the student writers. Williams (2003) suggests that teacher talk should not exceed 15 minutes in a 50-minute period.

Peers act as co-authors, editors or responders in the writing process. Peers become co-authors as they work together to plan, write and publish a particular writing task. Student writers also respond to their peers' work and offer comments and corrections in both content and mechanics.

Authentic assessment is used to evaluate the different elements of process writing. Tompkins (2000) states that "process assessment is designed to probe how children write, the decisions they make as they write and the strategies they use rather than the quality of their finished products" (p. 143). There are basically three components to assessment: self-assessment questionnaires, portfolios and teachers' written comments through observations. Self-assessment questionnaires include lists of questions that aid student writers in reflecting upon or evaluating their own writing. Hard data can be collected from these questionnaires that can enlighten teachers as to student writer understandings. Portfolios are used to collect evidence that documents what a student writer has worked on and produced and how she/he has grown as a writer (Atwell, 1987). Student writers can choose their best papers for each grading period, demonstrating their development.

Authentic assessment can occur through teachers' written comments through observation, as well. As teachers observe student writers through their process, they note through written comments on checklists how student writers write and participate in writing process activities. Checklists can be adjusted to reflect the various activities in which student writers may be involved (Tompkins, 2000).

Of concern to writing process educators is the shift to a lock-step nature of the process approach seen in many textbooks about writing. Hoffman (1998) states that once publishers began including the writing process in textbooks, the spontaneity and child-centered nature of the process shifted to a more procedural approach, with the entire class of student writers moving along in unison. However, those teachers fully versed on the process writing model will understand the recursive nature of the writing process and provide a classroom that implements sound pedagogy on process writing.

Applications

Author's Chair

The author's chair is an opportunity for student writers to solicit responses from their peers for feedback on a particular element of their writing. Generally, the author's chair is a chair that is placed at the front of a group of students. Student writers sit in the chair and read parts or all of their work. These presentation sessions are also called publication celebrations; at regular intervals, writers celebrate their finished work. By reading in the author's chair, they are essentially publishing their work, as the term implies in process writing (Calkins, 1994).

Journaling

Student writers involve journals in the pre-writing process. Through journaling, student writers write entries that are spontaneous as they filter and process their thinking (Williams, 2003). Scholarly literature generally finds journaling in the academic setting useful for helping students construct meaning from course materials, connect course materials with everyday life, pay attention to details, ask questions, and investigate answers (Arnold, 2012). There are several types of journals that are used for a variety of purposes. Tompkins (2000) presents six types:

• Personal Journals: Students write about events in their lives and other topics of special interest in personal journals.

• Dialogue Journals: Dialogue journals are written and shared and responded to through written response.

• Reading Logs: Student writers respond to stories, poems, and informational books they are reading.

• Learning Logs: Students write in response to their understanding of content course material.

• Double-Entry Journals: Students divide each page of their journals into two columns and write different types of information for each column.

• Simulated Journals: Students assume the role of a book character or a historic personality and write journal entries from that character's viewpoint (Tompkins, 2000, p. 172).

Mini-Lessons

Mini-lessons encompass direct instruction of a writing skill or strategy. While this strategy is most like conventional teaching, the purpose of the mini-lesson is to provide a forum for the teacher to make suggestions to the whole class, introduce a new topic, explore an issue, model a technique, or reinforce a strategy. Just some of the topics a mini-lesson can take on include: pictures and storytelling, writing around the room, using labels, kid writing, using detail in writing, sequencing, using titles, building sentences, using direct speech, expressing feelings, retelling, writing poems, writing non-fiction and other genres (Junyk, 2012). Mini-lessons are generally no more than 15 or 20 minutes long and are focused on issues that are important to the whole class, although mini-lessons can be presented to smaller groups who have a like need for explicit instruction (Calkins, 1994).

Stages of the Writing Process

Pre-writing

Tompkins (1990) calls the pre-writing stage in process writing the "getting-ready-to-write" stage. During this stage, student writers decide on a topic and gather and organize ideas. Depending on the age of the student, this stage can encompass discussions, outlining, free-writing, journal writing, talk-write or drawings, as student writers sort out their thoughts prior to writing a draft. Murray (1982) states that 70% or more of writing time in the classroom should be spent in pre-writing. Planning is also included in the writing process and originates from pre-planning. Student writers use pre-writing to develop a plan for the paper that includes decisions about rhetorical stance, purpose, principal aim, and plotting out a structure (Williams, 2003).

Teachers can support pre-writing and planning by structuring and monitoring writing activities to ensure that student writers stay on task and complete their thinking process. According to Williams (2003), they often do this by advocating a series of questions to the students:

• Who is your audience for this paper?

• What is your position with respect to the audience?

• What is the aim of your paper? What is it supposed to do?

• What is the purpose of the paper? Why are you writing it?

• How are you going to organize this paper?

• What writing conventions are you going to use?

• Does this paper require research? If so, how much and what kind? (Williams, 2003, p. 114)

Drafting

In this stage, student writers actually begin writing and refining their paragraphs or compositions. The writer's focus should be on getting his/her words and ideas down on paper. Student writers are actually producing words that come out of the initial planning. Their thoughts flow freely onto the paper. Elbow (1973) states that the physical act of writing loosens up student writers' thoughts and lets them flow out more easily. Calkins (1986) says that student writers have to make writing messy to make it clear. Punctuation, capitalization and sentence structure are not stressed in this stage of the process. Correct spelling should not be of concern to writers, even in the younger years. Invented spelling is common in this drafting stage.

Revising

The main focus of revising is on the content of a written piece. Student writers refine and polish their papers; reorganize their text, perhaps by cutting and pasting their materials; look at their word choices; review their sentence structure; and add or delete ideas (Poindexter, 1998/1999). Williams (2003) calls this "re-seeing" the draft for the sake of making large-scale changes to content (p. 101). Revising can lead to further rehearsal and further drafts.

Editing

In the editing process, student writers review and correct sentence-level errors, the mechanics of their writing, their spelling and punctuation. The goal of editing is to give a paper a professional appearance that leads to publishing.

Conferencing

Like any of these recursive elements of the writing process, conferencing can occur at any stage of the process. There are two types of conferences, the individual and the group conference. In the individual conference, the teacher and one student confer on writing; in the group conference, the teacher meets with a small group of students who have a common purpose for discussion. At times, teachers are involved in informal conferencing techniques, as they rotate through a classroom, troubleshooting any writing problems on the spot that students might have. They will ask student writers questions about their writing and ask open-ended questions that promote thinking about writing. The formal conference is prearranged and focuses on a particular topic for discussion.

There are four types of conferencing agendas: content (focusing on the subject of the writing, not the process); design (looking at the structure or sequencing of writing); process (looking at the strategies); and, evaluation (assessing the level of writing) (Calkins, 1994).

Student writers can connect with other student writers and conference about any number of topics throughout the writing process. Time is permitted for this form of peer conferencing; sign-up sheets can be provided to formalize the process (Nathan, Temple, Juntunen, and Temple, 1989). Student writers form response groups of up to four or five members and talk about their work in progress. They also include themselves in share sessions, where student writers share and support work in progress (Calkins, 1994).

Publishing

In the final stage of the writing process, student writers share and celebrate their finished products. Tompkins (1990) sees this stage as an important stage in developing sensitivity to an audience and building confidence as authors.

Portfolios

Portfolios are forms of assessing the writing process. They are used as public demonstrations of a student writer's development as a literate person. Johnston (1992) suggests that student writers compile a portfolio two or four times a year, as they illustrate their best work for assessment. Johnston's possible portfolio entries include:

• Pieces that students consider as their best work of the semester or quarter.

• A piece taken from draft through final form.

• A sample taken at some earlier date and a later sample to show development.

• Some examples of diverse genres attempted.

• A list (perhaps annotated) of books read with dates completed or abandoned.

• A section from a literature log.

• A copy of a letter written to an author.

• A character extension.

• A critical review of a book.

• A parody of a book.

• Biographical background on an author (Johnston, 1992, p. 133).

Talk-Write

Talk-write is a pre-writing activity whereby a student writer explains a concept or an operation to a peer. Through this talk, student writers construct oral mental plans of their writing, providing minimal reliance on writing. Classmates provide suggestions and comments that are designed to help their peer improve their thinking process (Williams, 2003).

Writing Workshop

The writing workshop is a pedagogical shift in the organization of the classroom so that student writers can focus on the business of writing. In the traditional approach to writing class, the students take on a passive role, with a focus on the rules, skills, and strategies as presented by the teacher. In the writing process class, the teacher is setting aside predictable time for writing. Calkins (1994) states that if students are going to become deeply invested in their writing, they need sustained time to write and develop the craft of writing. During the writer's workshop, student writers write or confer. The teacher keeps track of what each student writer plans to do at the beginning of the writer's workshop by reporting the "status of the class," a report that describes what each student writer is going to focus on during the course of the class.

In the writing workshop, student writers are involved in effective small group activities. The focus of these small groups is to act as collaborative teams that help one another succeed. The small groups get students talking, thinking and writing about the writing process. Group activity "provides students with the means to assume a more active role in the learning and writing process" (Williams, 2003, p. 104).

Viewpoints: Differences for Business Writing

Bracher (1987) suggests that teaching student writers that there is always a process involved in writing and that a writer always engages in a process is a pedagogical strategy that does not prepare students for the business world. He states that business writing does not follow either a product or process model, but a mix of the two. In the real world of business, "writers are geared to products" and that "business writing is often formulaic and more linear in its solution" (p. 48). To Bracher, process writing lacks the focus, relevance and social context of business writing.

Terms & Concepts

Authentic Writing: Authentic writing is writing tasks that have a meaningful purpose and closely resemble actual reading and writing situations that appear in the real world.

Autonomy: According to Kamii (1985), autonomy is the ability for a person to govern oneself while considering others' viewpoints. The nature of process writing curriculum lessons the teacher's power of holder of correct answers and encourages students to think for themselves in making choices about their own writing.

Free-Writing: Free-writing is a method for discovering things to say about a topic or developing ideas. Student writers write nonstop for 5, 10, or 15 minutes, generating words or ideas as a way to begin producing thoughts on paper. They then do an activity called looping, wherein student writers stop free-writing, then review what they have written, looking for good ideas in this writing. They then free-write with this newly recognized topic. In free-writing, student writers are not concerned about audience, aims, organization, structure or grammar (Elbow, 1973).

Global-Level Errors: Global-level errors are considered issues that involve content of a paper. During the revising process, student writers make adjustments to or delete content that is not adding to the understanding of the message being conveyed.

Invented Spelling: Invented spelling is the non-conventional spelling of a word by an early writer. As children learn letter sounds, they begin to use this knowledge to determine what they perceive to be the spelling of a word.

Metacognition: Metacognition is a term that describes the way in which one thinks about his or her thinking. Metacognition involves having knowledge about one's own learning process, how he or she can control his or her own thinking process.

Sentence-Level Errors: Sentence-level errors concern those errors that involve grammar and mechanics.

Tradebooks: Trade books are books that are meant for the general public. They are published literature and non-fiction that appeal to a wide range of readers.

Bibliography

Arnold, G. (2012). Enhancing college students’ environmental sensibilities through online nature journaling. Environmental Education Research, 18, 133-150. Retrieved December 19, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Source Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=70248524&site=ehost-live

Atwell, N. (1987). In the middle: Writing, reading, and learning with adolescents. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Berninger, A., & Hooper, S. (1993). Preventing and remediating writing disabilities: Interdisciplinary frameworks for assessment, consultation, and intervention. School Psychology Review, 22 , 590-595. Retrieved July 1, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=9410212334&site=ehost-live

Bracher, P. (1987). Process, pedagogy, and business writing. Journal of Business Communication, 24 , 43-50. Retrieved July 1, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=5761617&site=ehost-live

Calkins, L. (1994). The art of teaching writing. (2nd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Clarke, L. (1989). Encouraging invented spelling in first graders' writing: Effects on learning to spell and read. Research in the Teaching of English, 22, 281-309.

Diliduzgun, S. (2013). The effect of process writing activities on the writing skills of prospective Turkish teachers. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research (EJER), , 189-210. Retrieved December 19, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Source Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=90449485&site=ehost-live

Elbow, P. (1973). Writing without teachers. London: Oxford University Press.

Emig, J. (1971). The composing processes of twelfth graders. Champaign, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.

Flower, L., & Hayes, J. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication, 32, 365-387.

Fulwiler, T. (1987). Teaching with writing. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Graves, D. (1983). Writing: Teachers and children at work. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Hansen, J. (1987). When writers read. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Hoffman, J. (1998). When bad things happen to good ideas in literacy education: Professional dilemmas, personal decisions, and political traps. Reading Teacher, 52 , 102-113. Retrieved June 29, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=1134514&site=ehost-live

Johnston, P. (1992). Constructive evaluation of literate activity. NY: Longman.

Junyk, M. (2012). What's next for this beginning writer? Mini-lessons that take writing from scribbles to script (revised ed.). Resource Links, 18, 43. Retrieved December 19, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Source Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=82752021&site=ehost-live

Kamii, C. (1985). Young children reinvent arithmetic: Implications of Piaget's theory. NY: Teachers College Press.

Murray, D. (1980). Writing as process: How writing finds its own meaning. In T.R. Donovan and B. McClelland (Eds.), Eight approaches to teaching composition (pp. 3-20). Urbana, IL: Boynton/Cook.

Nathan, R., Temple, F., Juntunen, K., and Temple, C. (1989). Classroom strategies that work. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

National Assessment of Educational Progress. (1992). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Retrieved July 1, 2007, from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/

National Assessment of Educational Progress. (1996). Retrieved July 1, 2007, from Washington, DC: Government Printing Office http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/

Poindexter, C., & Oliver, I. (1998/1999). Navigating the writing process: Strategies for young children. Reading Teacher, 52 , 420-424. Retrieved July 1, 2007 from EBSCO Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=1355411&site=ehost-live

Stahl, S., & Pagnucco, J. (1996). First graders' reading and writing instruction in traditional and process-oriented classes. Journal of Educational Research, 89 , 131-145. Retrieved July 1, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=9609043033&site=ehost-live

Stringer, S., Morton, R., & Bonikowski, M. (1999). Learning disabled students: Using process writing to build autonomy and self-esteem. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 26 , 1-7. Retrieved July 2, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=2283960&site=ehost-live

Tierney, R., Carter, M., & Desai, L. (1991). Portfolio assessment in the reading writing process. Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordan.

Tompkins, G. (1990). Teaching writing: Balancing process and product. NY: Macmillan.

Troia, G., & Graham, S. (2002). The effectiveness of a highly explicit, teacher-directed strategy instruction routine. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35, 290-306. Retrieved June 28, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=6970138&site=ehost-live

Unger, J. (2004). Is process writing the "write stuff"? Educational Leadership, 62 , 90-91. Retrieved July 1, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=14635606&site=ehost-live

Williams, J. (2003). Preparing to teach writing, 3rd ed. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Suggested Reading

Atkinson, D. (2003, February). L-2 writing in the post-process era: Introduction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12 , 3-16. Retrieved July 1, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=9343833&site=ehost-live

Bateman, T., and Mandell, P. (2004). Writing for children. School Library Journal, 50 , 70. Retrieved July 1, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=14407952&site=ehost-live

Bruton, A. (2005). Process writing and communicative-task-based instruction: Many common features, but more common limitations? TESL-EJ, 9 , 1-33.

Retrieved July 2, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=20218186&site=ehost-live

Carney, B. (1996). Process writing and the secondary school reality: A compromise. English Journal, 85 , 28-36. Retrieved July 2, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=9702231439&site=ehost-live

Cassidy, J., & Wenrich, J. (1998/1999). Literacy research and practice: What's hot, what's not, and why. Reading Teacher, 52 , 402. Retrieved June 30, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=1355406&site=ehost-live

DeGroff, L. (1992). Process-writing teachers' responses to fourth-grade writers' first drafts. Elementary School Journal, 93 , 131-145. Retrieved July 1, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=9302210933&site=ehost-live

Gordon, T. (1996). Teaching writing in the 1990's. English Journal, 85 , 37-412. Retrieved July 1, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=9702231441&site=ehost-live

Hillocks, G. (1986). Research on written composition: New directions for teaching. NY: National Conference on Research in English.

Hyland, K. (2003). Genre-based pedagogies: A social response to process. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12 , 17-30. Retrieved July 2, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=9343827&site=ehost-live

James, L., Abbott, M., & Greenwood, C. (2001 /2002). How Adam became a writer. Teaching Exceptional Children, 33 , 30-35. Retrieved June 29, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=4022659&site=ehost-live

Lipson, N. & Mosenthal, J. (2000). Process writing in the classrooms of 11 5th grade teachers in different orientations to teaching and learning. Elementary School Journal, 101 , 209-232. Retrieved July 1, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=3892556&site=ehost-live

Manning, M. (1997). Writing demonstrations. Teaching PreK-8, 28 , 85-86. Retrieved June 29, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=9711061958&site=ehost-live

Murray, F., & Stotko, E. (2004). The student teacher as an agent of instructional reform: Effects of student teachers on supervising teachers. Action in Teacher Education, 26 , 73-79. Retrieved July 1, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=16361622&site=ehost-live

Palmer, B., Hafner, M., & Sharp, M. (1994). Developing cultural literacy. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Remler, N. (2002). The more active the better: Engaging college English students with active learning strategies.Teaching English in the Two-Year College, 30 , 76-81. Retrieved July 1, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=19170529&site=ehost-live

Sinor, J., & Huston, M. (2004). The role of ethnography in the post-process writing classroom. Teaching English in the Two-Year College, 31 , 369-382. Retrieved July 1, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=21624642&site=ehost-live

Smuin, S. (1993). More than metaphors: Strategies for teaching process writing. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.