Running Head: CONFERENCING DURING WRITING WORKSHOP

The Benefits of Conferencing During Writing Workshop

Jayne Sherman

George Mason University

CONFERENCING DURING WRITING WORKSHOP 2

The Benefits of Conferencing During Writing Workshop

Writing is one of the most important and essential skills that students must master in

order to function in society. However, despite the importance of writing, many students do

not become skilled writers by the end of high school (Graham et al., 2018). Considering

literacy development and acquisition includes the interdependent and reciprocal processes of

both reading and writing, research indicates there is a greater emphasis on reading during

literacy instruction while neglecting the fundamental skills of writing (Korth et al., 2017).

Concerns with the lack of writing skills of students coupled with the observations of little

instructional time spent on writing in schools has played a role in educational reform efforts.

(Graham et al., 2018).

Educational policy has long mandated instructional practices but, has had unintended

consequences also. The National Reading Panel Report (NICHD, 2000) summarized several

decades of scientific research on the five critical areas of reading instruction which led to one

of the biggest reform acts in modern education, the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB, 2001).

Unfortunately, this legislative policy placed little emphasis on writing. This was viewed as an

unfortunate oversight, as writing is critical to school success (Graham &Harris, 2005). With

NCLB (2001) a greater emphasis was placed on subjects such as math and reading which

were assessed using standardized measurements. Due to this emphasis on teacher

accountability and student performance writing took a back seat to other subjects (Shultz,

2009). When the National Commission on Writing for America’s Families, Schools, and

Colleges (NCWAFSC, 2003, 2005) published a report on the neglected R people noticed that

writing needed to be emphasized more. Even the 2008 the National Early Literacy Panel
CONFERENCING DURING WRITING WORKSHOP 3

(NELP) found a skills approach to reading was important, yet the emphasis on writing still

missing. We have research that says this is important, but we need empirical evidence to

support.

In 2003, The National Commission on Writing for America’s Families, Schools, and

Colleges (NCWAFSC, 2003, 2005) referred to writing as the “the neglected R” and

recommended that writing be placed as a priority in the curriculum (p. 3). In order to meet

these recommendations and shift policy to include effective writing instruction that meets the

needs of all learners, there must be scientifically based research on effective strategies and

resources to improve student writing in all grades. The Common Core State Standards

(CCSS; National Governors Association [NGA], & Council of Chief State School Officers

[CSSO], 2110) explicitly outline expectations for writing instruction and emphasize writing

for a variety of purposes and audiences.

The CCSS (2010) specifically mentions the need for students in third through twelfth

grade to develop and strengthen planning, revising, and editing, but does not explicitly focus

on planning for kindergarten through second grade (Lassonde & Richards, 2011). In fact,

despite the recommendation to increase writing, a national survey of teachers conducted in

grades first through third found many teachers feel ill-prepared to teach writing and

implement traditional skill instruction rather than a process approach in their instructional

practices (Cutler & Graham, 2008).

In the literature review I will describe the history of writing instruction, the needs of

students learning English as another language, and a promising technique to engage students

and facilitate their learning within writing instruction. This was guided by my two main

research questions:
CONFERENCING DURING WRITING WORKSHOP 4

1.What does the research say about writing instruction?

2.What does the research say works to address the needs of English learners?

Database Searches

I searched for current research in the field of writing to better understand the field. In

perusing the data bases such as ERIC, JSTOR, and PRO QUEST for research articles from

journals such as Written Communication, Education Researcher, Reading Research Quarterly,

Reading and Writing, Scientific Studies of Reading, and Teachers of English and Other

Languages (TESOL) along with other publications such as The Reading Teacher, three volumes

of the Handbook of Early Literacy, and the Handbook of Writing Research. Using keywords

such as: writing, writing workshop, process writing, writing with English language learners,

writing with second language learners, writing in primary grades, early writing, writing with

first graders, conferencing during writing, feedback during writing, I located over thousands of

articles. For example, in ProQuest alone there were over 1,500 dissertations on some form of the

writing process with every theme and focus, however few were with first graders and a limited

number focused on conferences, and even less with comparing monolinguals with ELLs. While I

realize I still have many more searches to conduct, I feel my investigation thus far supports the

need for further exploration in the area of conferencing during the writing workshop.

Background

In this section I will describe the research on writing instruction over the past 30 years.

Two theoretical perspectives on writing are key: the cognitive model and the socio-cultural

model.
CONFERENCING DURING WRITING WORKSHOP 5

Cognitive Model

Flower and Hayes (1982) introduced the cognitive theory in writing in an effort to lay the

groundwork of the mental processes involved in writing. They posited that writing is best

understood as a hierarchical process involving four key points:

1. The process of writing is best understood as a set of distinctive thinking processes

which writers orchestrate or organize during the act of composing.

2. These processes have a hierarchical, highly embedded organization in which any given

process can be embedded within any other.

3. The act of composing itself is a goal-directed thinking process, guided by the writer's

own growing network of goals.

4. Writers create their own goals in two key ways: by generating both high-level goals

and supporting sub-goals which embody the writer's developing sense of purpose, and

then, at times, by changing major goals or even establishing entirely new ones based on

what has been learned in the act of writing (p. 366).

This cognitive model provided a paradigm shift from the previous stage model of writing

in which writers went through linear stages to a focus on the mental processes involved in

generating ideas and composing. This theory of writing involves task environment, long term

memory of the writer, and the writing processes including planning, translating, and reviewing

(Flower & Haynes, 1982). With the cognitive model of writing, the act of composing itself and

the exploration of specific reasons why writers behaved in certain ways, including how goals

were formulated and revisions were made, became the focus of writing research (Flower, 1979,

Flower & Hayes, 1981, 1993; Freedman, Hull, Higgs, & Booten, 2016).
CONFERENCING DURING WRITING WORKSHOP 6

Hayes (1996) developed the skilled writing model which identified specific mental

moves and motivational resources writers utilize during the composing process. Such mental

processes are drawn upon as writers develop a plan for writing, think about the content of their

writing, and for what audiences. In addition, this skilled model approach to writing provided

information on the effects of long and short-term memory in composing, including linguistic,

morphological, and genre knowledge including schemas used during the composing task

(Graham & Harris 2013). Cognitive research in writing helped to demonstrate how skilled

writers navigated through the writing process and how they could be seen as strategic, motivated,

and knowledge about the craft of writing (Graham & Harris, 2013).

The cognitive approach to writing led to process writing, which is a cognitive process

theory and posits writing is a goal-directed thinking process, is recursive as opposed to linear, in

which the writer assumes an active role in planning, organizing, and revising texts (Flower &

Hayes, 1981). This approach to writing demonstrates the effects of long and short-term memory

in composing, including linguistic, morphological, and genre knowledge including schemas used

during the composing task (Graham & Harris 2013).

Cognitive research in writing with its focus on writing as a process with the mental tasks

of planning and problem solving led to a new social perspective on writing and began yet another

shift in the thinking of writing as a process. Researchers taking the social perspective of writing

believed that a connection to social context and the relationship between thought and language

was missing (Nystrand, 2006). Vygotsky’s socio-cultural theory of writing served as a bridge

from the cognitive theory to that of writing as a social/cultural process involving the interactions

of others (Freedman, et, al., 2016). Vygotsky believed the cognitive processes of writing were

indeed important, however, these cognitive strategies should be used in tandem and
CONFERENCING DURING WRITING WORKSHOP 7

accompanying linguistic, social cultural, and historical processes (Aram & Levin, 2011;

Freedman, et al., 2016).

Socio-cultural Model

Vygotsky’s theory of cultural development describes how children learn higher mental

functions though interactions with others (Aram & Levin, 2011; Bodrova & Leong, 2006;

Freedman, et, al., 2016; Vygotsky, 1961, 1972, 1978). For example, Vygotsky wrote, “mental

development in children results from a complex “interlacing” of two processes: their natural

development and their cultural development” (Vygotsky, 1997, p. 223). Included in Vygotsky’s

socio-cultural theory is that in order for children to learn, instruction must be within their Zone

of Proximal Development (ZPD) (Dyson, 2001; Gort, 2016; Ranker, 2009; Vygotsky, 1978).

Vygotsky (1978) argued that one could not fully understand children’s developmental level

without also determining that development’s upper boundary, which was determined by the kind

of tasks that children could do with someone else’s assistance.

In other words, according to Vygotsky (1961, 1972, 1978) two children might exhibit the

same IQ score, which could indicate they were at the same level of developmental readiness for a

specific task. However, they do not perform exactly the same on the task. One student may be

able to perform a more challenging task with help and guidance than the other could with the

same assistance. Scaffolding is an example of teaching in the Zone of Proximal Development

and allows for teachers to instruct and support writers as they move through the writing process

(Calkins, 1986, 1994; Dyson, 2001; 1991; Freedman, et, al., 2016; Graves, 2003; Routman,

2005).
CONFERENCING DURING WRITING WORKSHOP 8

Language Experience and Writing Workshop

Prior to the 1970’s very little attention was given to writing research (Pritchard &

Honeycutt, 2006). Many of the research studies occurring at this time were reports of

experimental interventions that focused on product rather than the process of writing (Graves,

1978, 1980). The Language Experience Approach (LEA) to teaching in the late 1970’s gave rise

to a more naturalistic and child centered view of integrating reading and writing (Goodman,

1989; Holdaway, 1979; Pearson, 2004; Stauffer, 1971). This approach was a part of the

constructivist movement of the 1960s (Goodman, 1989; Goodman, 1989).

During this period of language immersion writing was taught as a language experience

where teachers and students wrote together using the child’s own language as the teacher served

as the scribe. The principle of LEA involved using the student’s own vocabulary, language

patterns, and background of experiences to create reading texts, making reading an especially

meaningful and enjoyable process (Stauffer, 1971). Using this method of instruction educators

would teach reading and writing using student narratives and thus demonstrating the reciprocal

nature of the two processes. There is significant research indicating that reading and writing are

interconnected processes; therefore, what children learn in one process is related to the other

(Clay, 1976; Goodman, K., 1989; Goodman, Y., 1989; Holdaway 1979; Fountas & Pinnell,

1996; Routman, 2005, 2014).

Clay’s research of literacy development and language acquisition helped form the basis

for practices of emergent writing (1977, 1982). Her research demonstrated how writing and

reading influenced one another. She believed literacy instruction theories paid little attention to

the fact that when a child is learning to write words, messages and stories they are also learning

to read at the same time (1977, 1982). Clay suggested both literacy development and language
CONFERENCING DURING WRITING WORKSHOP 9

acquisition helped form the basis for practices in emergent writing. Her work led to what she

called a “literacy processing theory” upon which Reading Recovery is based (Clay, 1977). Clay

studied beginning writers in her native New Zealand. In working with Samoan school children,

she discovered that children construct theories about print from very different experiences. Clay

noted that the Samoan children had no story books in their own language, yet they developed an

awareness of language through various types of print such as environmental print, drawings or

marks on paper, receiving notes, cards, magazines, letters, lists, and other forms of print. These

and other children could learn to read from their own writings (1977, 1982, 1993).

Emergence of Writing Workshop

The Language Experience Approach (LEA) paved the way for process writing during

writing workshop. Its beginnings were rooted in the whole language movement that arose during

the 1980’s (Pearson, 2004). During this paradigm shift teaching went from a more traditional

teacher centered instruction to a more child centered instruction with integrated curriculum

(Goodman, 1982; Pearson, 2004). Writing workshop was at the forefront of this movement with

its new nontraditional model and process approach (Graves, 1983). Both Calkins (1986, 1994,

2003) and Graves (1980, 1991, 2003) presented their seminal research through ethnographic

studies on how writing, when purposeful and meaningful, could provide opportunities for

literacy development. Honeycutt and Pritchard (2002) followed the work of Calkins and Graves

in researching the impact of the process-based model of writing on writing development.

Other researchers such as Bissex (1980) and Dyson (2001) conducted their ethnographies

exploring the writing process to promote language and culture. What is known from research is

how the writing process allows for all learners to engage in opportunities for literacy acquisition

as well as provide opportunities for the sharing of lived experiences.

CONFERENCING DURING WRITING WORKSHOP 10

With this constructivist approach to writing, the focus was on the process instead of just

the product. Writing went from little teacher interaction to a process approach to writing which

included mini lessons, direct modeling, and writing conferencing (Calkins, 1994; Graves, 1991).

Further research in writing development focused on direct strategy instruction with guided

practice. What was once viewed as a pedagogical approach which existed as a non-directional

model of instruction with little teacher intervention became a more structured process with

explicit teacher modeling and writing demonstrations (Calkins, 1994; Graves 1991; Pritchard &

Honeycutt, 2006). Writing was no longer viewed as a linear process but rather a recursive one.

In fact, the writing process approach was validated in 1992 by the National Council of Teachers

of English (NCTE) and the International Reading Association, currently known as the

International Literacy Association (ILA) (Pritchard & Honeycutt, 2006).

Writing was seen as an interactive, student centered activity with a focus on process and

not product. This process approach, first developed by Graves in 1983, focused on instruction,

which allowed teachers to help students brainstorm ideas, solicit feedback, revise their work,

then edit and proofread the final product before publishing. Calkins (1986) extended the concept

of writing workshop to include a more student-centered approach in the classroom by

implementing peer conferencing to assist in the organization and practice of writing. Calkins’

Writing Workshop included extensive modeling by the teacher during whole group mini-lessons,

time for children to work on their own writings, constructive feedback in the context of teacher

and peer conferences and sharing and celebrating through various forms of publishing including

the author’s chair.

The process approach to writing involves various stages such as pre-writing, composing,

revising, editing, sharing and publishing (Calkins 2003; Graves 2003; Murray, 1972; Allington
CONFERENCING DURING WRITING WORKSHOP 11

& Cunningham, 1999; Routman, 2005). This approach involves cycling back and forth between

different sub processes as children read, re-read, talk with peers and conference with a teacher.

Both Calkins and Graves in their case studies and ethnographies were instrumental in their

research on the writing process and contributing to theory from a practitioner’s perspective.

Empirical Research Connections to Practice

Previous research concerning the process approach to writing has not been without

controversy. Graham & Harris (1994) described concerns voiced by quantitative researchers in

the 1980s regarding the qualitative ethnographies of both Calkins and Graves, noting the

research was not reliable given researcher bias, random sampling was not possible to determine

actual casual effects, and the idea that the researchers did not report on any negative effects,

therefore the results did not provide enough evidence to support their hypothesis (Graham &

Harris, 1994).

Current policy recommendations for more writing to occur in schools have led to

numerous educational publications on writing including scripted writing programs that reduce

writing to a series of steps to be followed (Freedman et al., 2016). There are multiple books and

publications on the writing process, at every age and grade level, but these tend to be based upon

testimonials and are not empirical research reports (Pritchard & Honeycutt, 2006). Therefore,

while there are some scholarly articles and educational publications, there remains great need for

empirical studies on writing, and an even greater need for research on effective writing

instruction for ELLs (August & Shanahan, 2006; Cutler & Graham, 2008; Graham 2006;

Samway, 2006).

Graham and Harris (2013) conducted a meta-analysis testing specific instruction writing

methods used by exceptional writing teachers that can be used to create effective writing
CONFERENCING DURING WRITING WORKSHOP 12

programs (Graham & Harris, 2003; Graham, 2006; Graham & Perrin, 2017). Several meta-

analyses of primary-grade teachers’ writing practices indicated there were a number of

instructional activities that were common during writing programs including mini-lessons and

focus on skills and strategies such as planning, drafting, revising, editing, and conferencing

(Harris & Graham, 2002; Graham & Harris, 2005; Graham 2006; Graham & Cutler, 2008).

In sum, although there have been studies conducted on effective strategies used by

exemplary teachers, further studies are needed to demonstrate the effects of such teaching on

student writing outcomes. In order to assist both current and future teachers in implementing

writing within their classrooms, further research in writing workshop could prove beneficial in

enhancing instruction and increasing the amount of writing currently in schools

English Learners Have Unique Needs

The National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES, 2017) indicates there are 9.4

million English language learners attending US public schools, an increase from the 9.1 million

in 2004. ELLs are not a homogenous group of people, but vary in region, language, culture, and

heritage (Cumming, 2016). The Common Core Curriculum and Standards in English Language

Arts (CCSS-ELA, 2010) states that English Language Learners (ELLs) are expected to master

high-level literacy skills, including writing. This may prove challenging for ELLs considering

the cultural and linguistic differences among these learners. The Report of the National

Assessment of Educational Progress National Center for Educational Statistics (NAEP, 2003)

indicates the difficulty ELLs face in mastering writing skills.

English language learners not only face the same writing constraints as their monolingual

peers as in the cognitive tasks of planning and composing, but ELLs may find it difficult to

translate complex thoughts into writing as they deal with the demands of a new language (Olson,
CONFERENCING DURING WRITING WORKSHOP 13

Scarcella, & Matuchniak, 2013). It is important that ELLs are provided safe spaces in which to

write and are supported by their teachers in their writing efforts. ELLs bring rich and varied

cultural knowledge to the task of writing. When teachers value and appreciate their students

culture they can connect and motivate them during writing (Gonza´ lez, Moll, & Amanti, 2005).

Unfortunately, beyond a few individual accounts and classroom demographics, very little

information is available about the contexts in which teachers implement writing workshop with

students learning English and the constraints they face (Peyton, Jones, Vincent, Greenblatt

(1994).

Funds of Knowledge

Furthermore, writing workshop provides opportunities for oral language development in

ELLs as they utilize their cultural and linguistic funds of knowledge in collaborating and sharing

ideas during writing (Calderon, Slavin & Sanchez, 2011; Moll, 1992; Ranker, 2009). Moll,

Amanti, Neff, Gonzalez (1992) demonstrated how funds of knowledge help to bridge the gap

between school and home. Moll and associates described how educators often saw non-English-

speaking children as having deficits as they struggle to understand a new language and cultural

norms. Research such as this helped teachers understand how to utilize their students’ funds of

knowledge in their teaching and understand better the wealth of knowledge and lived

experiences represented from the children’s lives and cultural practices (Moll, 1992; Moll,

Amanti, Neff, & Gonzalez, 1992; Calderon, el al., 2011).

Moreover, Esteban-Guitart & Moll (2014) explained how funds of identity are used as

resources for learning and seeing schools as a context that must also be linked to other practices

and activities in which people are involved. According to Esteban-Guitart (2014) children are

active subjects who create specific funds of knowledge and identity for themselves through their
CONFERENCING DURING WRITING WORKSHOP 14

social actions and transactions. Therefore, in regard to constructing meaning, contextualization

involves connecting school, both teaching and curriculum, to students’ lived experiences.

In this respect, the culture-based teaching approach utilizes funds of knowledge and skills

as a foundation for new knowledge (Esteban-Guitart, 2014; Moll, 1992; Moll, Amanti, Neff, &

Gonzalez, 1992). Therefore, an ELL may draw upon their funds of knowledge and funds of

identity in their journal writing and produce narratives similar or perhaps very different from

their monolingual peers.

Gee (1999) explains that identities are both multiple and situated and that people present

various ways of being that correspond to particular social situations. Gee posits that children use

many various ways of thinking, feeling, believing, and valuing as they identify themselves as

members of a socially meaningful group as in the classroom. During journal writing stories of

ELLs may include various roles or identities such as sibling, friend, son or daughter, super hero,

etc., depending upon the context. Research on the role of identity in literacy practices, such as

writing, demonstrate how cultural identities recruit, inhibit, and/or impact a sense of oneself as a

writer (Freedman et al., 2016).

Writing Research and ELLs

With regards to ELLs and writing, Krashen’s (1983) theory of second language

acquisition coincides rather nicely with Vygotsky’s ZPD. For example, Krashen discusses

comprehensible input as information that is provided by a significant or more capable other such

as the teacher or English-speaking peer which serves to lower the affective filter of the ELL.

This enables the ELL to feel comfortable and less stressed during times of instruction. Krashen

suggests that certain affective variables such as low self-esteem, nervousness, and/ or boredom

can block the processing part of incoming information. Conferencing during writing workshop
CONFERENCING DURING WRITING WORKSHOP 15

allows for one to one interaction between teacher and student which lowers the affective filter, so

learning can occur (Anderson, 2011; Calkins, 2003; Calderon, Slavin, & Sanchez, 2011;

Krashen, 1983, 2009; Samway, 2006).

Therefore, within a sociocultural framework writing is a tool in negotiating meaning with

society and culture. According to Vygotsky’s socio-cultural framework as it applies in

education, the idea of the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) has been widely written about

with regards to how children appropriate information from a more knowledgeable or significant

other. A key concept of the ZPD, along with Krashen’s theory of comprehensible input, is the

idea that children learn best when learning is scaffolded and new understandings to be learned

and internalized are under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers (Bodova &

Leong, 2006; Krashen, 1983, 2009; Yilmaz, 2008; Hung, Lim, & Jamaludin, 2011; Vygotsky,

1978). Therefore, teacher led conferencing could be considered a necessary scaffold during

writing workshop in helping children compose their written narratives.

In sum, there are two main theories of writing, the cognitive theory and the socio-

cultural theory. Cognitive research in writing focuses on writing as a process with the mental

tasks of planning and problem solving consisting of recursive processes as opposed to

developing through liner stages. The socio-cultural theory of writing involves both the cognitive

process of writing together with the cultural tools that are shaped by an individual’s lived

experiences. Simply put, the cognitive model of writing involves cognition and affective

processes while the socio-cultural model involves the social context of writing through

interactions with others.

CONFERENCING DURING WRITING WORKSHOP 16

Writing Instruction with English Language Learners

Research indicates that the same strategies used for monolingual children at the emergent

writing stage can also be used for ELLs (Calderon, Slavin & Sanchez, 2011; Samway, 2006).

For example, studies examining writing and literacy acquisition and such skills as phonological

processing and concepts of print that predict later literacy development in language minority

students are consistent with those identified in studies conducted with English monolingual

children (August & Shanahan, 2006). Other research suggests children’s writing displays similar

features of form common to almost any language such as linearity, spacing, directionality, and

distinguishable units (Bissex, 1980; Clay, 1982; Goodman, 1982).

Research demonstrates the benefits of writing with ELLs to increase concepts of print,

grammar, and vocabulary (Calkins, 2003; Dennis & Votteler, 2013; Leavitt, 2013; Meire, 2013;

Routman, 2005; Williams & Pilonieta 2012; Samway, 2006). In addition, research examining

literacy development with language minority students demonstrates how instruction for ELLs

should focus on code related skills such as alphabetic principle and phonological knowledge to

increase both reading and writing (Daniel, 2007; Dennis & Vottler, 2013; Gyovai, Cartledge,

Kourea, Yurick, & Gibson, 2009; Lesaux and Geva 2006; Schulz, 2009).

Learning the way speech is represented in writing requires both the capacity to analyze

spoken language into smaller units and learning the rules for representing those units with

graphemes. This is especially challenging for ELLs (Lesaux & Geva 2006). Writing with its

explicit teaching of grapheme-phonemic relationships can support ELLs in this area. Writing

workshop can promote fluency and comprehension as well as scaffolding other skills such a

phonemic awareness and phonics (Herrell & Jordan, 2008; Helman, 2012). Research in writing
CONFERENCING DURING WRITING WORKSHOP 17

also demonstrates that ELLs use their home language to support their learning of a second

language (Cummins,1981; Edelsky, 1982; Leavit, 2011). When ELLs are able to write in their

own language first, it helps to build confidence and develop positive attitudes towards writing. In

addition, when ELLs are proficient in their own language the transition to English is much easier.

Drawing attention to cognates during the writing process allows ELLs to see similarities between

their native language and English (Williams & Pilonieta, 2012).

Research indicates that what a young ELL knows about writing in their first language

forms the basis of learning a new language instead of interfering with it (Cummins, 1981;

Edelsky, 1982). In her research, Gort (2006) found in emergent bilingual writers’ patterns of

codeswitching, positive literacy transfer, and interliteracy occurred in the bilingual writing

development for English-dominant and Spanish-dominant children. She noted that writing in

one’s first language did not interfere with writing in a second language.

Writing workshop with its explicit modeling of such skills can provide opportunities for

learning concepts of print, phonemic awareness, spelling and reading for ELLs in addition to

promoting a sense of self and identity (Calkins, 2003; Graves, 2003; Herrell & Jordan, 2008;

Routman, 2005, 2014; Williams & Pilonieta, 2012). Moreover, writing workshop builds a sense

of community that enables ELLs to participate in a setting that could reduce anxiety and promote

a low affective filter which is necessary for learning to occur (Echevarria, Vogt, & Short, 2010;

Krashen, 1983; Routman, 2005; Samway, 2006).

Solving the Problem: Writing Workshop

One way to promote writing in schools is to implement writing workshop. Writing

workshop serves to provide spaces for all students to share their lived experiences, explore their

culture and identity, and provide opportunities for an appreciation of diversity. With its student-
CONFERENCING DURING WRITING WORKSHOP 18

centeredness, writing workshop allows students to express themselves in a risk-free environment,

is motivational, and provides spaces for all students, especially ELLs, to utilize funds of

knowledge as they navigate through their personal narratives (Calkins,1994, 2003; Graves, 1980,

1991, 2003; Moll, 1992; Moll, Amanti, Neff, & Gonzalez, 1992). Writing workshop provides

authentic opportunities to write, emphasizes the communicative purposes of writing by creating a

social context for writing in which children write for real purposes and audiences. (Graves,

1980). During writing workshop children are given extended opportunities for writing about

topics they chose, take responsibility for their writing, all in a risk free and supportive

environment (Calkins, 1986; Graves, 1980, 2003).

Writing workshop involves children interacting with one another, sharing ideas, and

conversing during authoring (Calkins, 1991; Dyson, 2001; Fountas & Pinnell, 2001; Graves,

2003; Leavitt, 2013; Ranker, 2009; Routman, 2005, 2014). It is through social interactions along

with the help and scaffolding of a more knowledgeable other that children can progress in their

writing (Steward, 2009; Vygotsky, 1978). These social interactions and opportunities for oral

language are especially important for ELLs (Cutler & Graham, 2008).

Conferencing During Writing Workshop

My search did reveal several journal articles on conferencing with older students based

upon teacher as practitioner and observer within the classroom. For example, I read several

journal articles on the writing process with middle and high school students including such topics

as strategies for sharing, peer interaction, writing motivation and engagement, and writing and

peer response to name a few. Each of the numerous articles I read was based upon teacher

testimonials and suggestions, however only a few were based upon sound scientific evidence.
CONFERENCING DURING WRITING WORKSHOP 19

As I searched for studies on conferencing with younger students, I found several articles

based upon teacher practices and observations but a limited amount of current studies involving

actual scientific methodology. What follows are examples of studies using qualitative methods

focusing on some form of conferencing during writing with younger students. I begin with

studies from an earlier time to more recent studies. I end with more current studies which include

a focus on conferencing with ELLs.

Conferencing as a Component of Writer’s Workshop

Conferencing with specific feedback has been shown to be an integral part of the writing

process and can have positive effects for both revising and editing, especially with students in

high school and college (Graham & Perrin, 2017). Much of what is currently written on

conferencing as part of the writing process comes from professional books instead of empirical

research (Anderson, 2011; Calkins, 2003; Kissel, 2017; Routman, 2005). Additional research in

conferencing may provide further insight into how this type of interaction during the writing

process may support student narratives in ways other than revising and editing (Graham, Harris,

& Hebert, 2011). For example, empirical research may shed light on teacher led conferencing as

a way to support young children’s narratives showcasing one’s culture and identity as well as

provide examples of similarities and/or differences in the narratives between monolinguals and

ELLs. Therefore, additional research in the specific skills of conferencing could provide

information for improving pedagogical practices in the teaching of writing for all students.

With regards to writing and ELLs, there is some existing research which indicates

conferencing with teacher and peers can promote cultural identity and self-determination among

older ELLs, however more research is needed with younger students (Ball, 2006; Gay, 2010;

Gee, 2000; Leavitt, 2011; Samway, 2006), perhaps also integrating Moll’s (1992) “funds of
CONFERENCING DURING WRITING WORKSHOP 20

knowledge (Moll, 1992; Moll, Amanti, Neff, & Gonzalez; 1992). Nieto (2002) suggests that

connecting writing to students' lives is important for English Language Learners and

recommends that teachers use personal narratives and journals to provide opportunities for

students to explore their cultural and linguistic identities. In this respect, writing workshop,

particularly conferencing, may serve to support the narratives of ELLs and dispel the deficit

myth (Gonzalez, Moll, & Amanti, 2005; Fife, 2011; Moll, 1992; Shultz, 2009).

Conferencing with Monolinguals and ELLs During Writing Workshop

In the early 1980’s Lucy Calkins lead the National Writing Project along with members

of the Teachers College Reading and Writing Project and was instrumental in demonstrating how

writing conferences played an essential role in the writing process. During the writing process

there are several types of conferencing that occur. For example, there are conferences focusing

on revision, editing, and content (Calkins, 2003; Graves, 2003; Kissel, 2017; Routman, 2005;

Samway, 2006) A content conference led by the teacher is one that encourages careful

scaffolding in which the teacher asks the student to read their writing and listens closely. During

this time the teacher asks questions to elicit conversation, clarify information, or simply to ask

the student to elaborate on their topic.

According to the numerous educational publications on conferencing and the writing

process, the goal of conferencing is to help students become better writers and should consist of

a predictable structure, include predictable roles for teacher and student, teach specific skills, and

differentiate instruction for individual writers (Anderson, 2011; Calkins, 2003; Kissel, 2017;

Routman, 2005; Samway, 2006). Calkins (2003) explains conferencing as a time to listen

carefully and to encourage the writer to talk in detail about their subject. The conference piece

serves to promote the writer’s thinking, articulation of thoughts and sense of self. Writing
CONFERENCING DURING WRITING WORKSHOP 21

conferences and peer support along with teacher demonstrations and interactions may serve to

help students progress as writers as well as promote self-efficacy and self-determination while

providing valuable feedback in perfecting the craft of writing (Ball et al., 2006).

Conferencing during writing workshop can provide safe spaces for ELLs to write about

lived experiences as well as share information about culture, customs, and traditions (Dyson,

2001; Ghiso, 2011; Fife, 2011; Leavitt, 2011). Conferencing can support ELLs in learning

English and build confidence in their abilities as writers. Moreover, a teacher led conference can

build upon an ELLs cultural capital and prior knowledge particularly with regards to students'

identity concepts and their engagement with literacy instruction (Gonzalez, Moll, & Amanti,

2005; Moll, 1992).

The act of conferencing during writing workshop can also help challenge the deficit

views of ELLs by demonstrating that ELLs have rich prior knowledge and experiential resources

that they can and do use for classroom-based writing (Ball, 2006; Fife, 2011; Moll, 1992).

Teacher led conferencing may serve to facilitate stories that demonstrate an appreciation and

value for one’s culture and identity for all students (Ball, 2006, Calderon, Slavin, & Sanchez,

2011; Gonzalez, Moll, & Amanti, 2005; Moll, 1992, 1996). In addition, the conferencing piece

during writing workshop can help to lower the affective filter of ELLs in providing for one to

one interaction and instruction (Krashen,1983).

Ball (2006) in her research on writing with ELLs suggests writing conferences be

recognized as a valuable tool and source of communication between students and teachers. There

is also evidence that conferencing is an especially valuable strategy for ELLs as it provides a low

affective filter for translating (Ball, 2006; Calkins, 2003; Calderone, Gonzalez, Moll & Amanti,

2005; Porcelli & Tyler, 2008). Still, as support for conferencing during writing workshop
CONFERENCING DURING WRITING WORKSHOP 22

demonstrates its benefits in providing opportunities for student/teacher interactions and

necessary feedback to enhance and improve student narratives, what is not yet demonstrated by

research is exactly how this happens and if in fact conferencing influences the narratives of both

monolinguals and ELLs.

My search did reveal several journal articles on conferencing with older students based

upon teacher as practitioner and observer within the classroom. For example, I read several

journal articles on the writing process with middle and high school students including such topics

as strategies for sharing, peer interaction, writing motivation and engagement, and writing and

peer response to name a few. Each of the numerous articles I read was based upon teacher

testimonials and suggestions, however only a few were based upon sound scientific evidence.

As I searched for studies on conferencing with younger students, I found several articles

based upon teacher practices and observations but a limited amount of studies involving actual

scientific methodology. Studies ranging from previous decades to recent years have used case

study methodology to explore conferencing as feedback for revision purposes. Participants

include primary aged students ranging from first through fourth grade. Data collection consists of

observations, interviews, audiotaping, anecdotal notes, and student writing samples from writing

workshop. Triangulation of data was completed to validate results and remove bias as teachers

served as researcher participants. Limitations to these studies included small sample size,

demographics, since these studies occur in predominately middle-class suburban schools and the

short duration of the studies (DeGroff, 1987; Fitzgerald & Stamm, 1990; Gibson, 2009;

Hawkins, 2015, 2016; Sinchak; 2015).

Current studies specific to first grade students including ELLs have been conducted to

explore teacher discourse during conferencing. Researchers acting as participant observers have
CONFERENCING DURING WRITING WORKSHOP 23

identified specific strategies and scaffolds that are beneficial to ELLs. Using case study

methodology, data was collected from various methods including, observations, field notes,

audio recordings, interviews, reflective vignettes, and student samples. Triangulation of data was

used to ensure validity. Findings indicate the positive effect of conferencing during writing with

ELLs when educators know how to scaffold instruction, prompt ELLs through questioning, and

the importance of talk during conferencing to elicit detailed student narratives. Implications for

studies like these can shed light on how conferencing can be used to promote, not only literacy

skills, but language and culture. By providing conferencing protocols educators can have a

specific scaffold that may help when conferencing with ELLs and provide safe spaces for risk

taking. Still, as these studies provide some empirical evidence into the act of conferencing and

writing, more studies such as these are needed to examine the similarities and differences

between the written narratives of monolinguals and ELLs regarding identity, culture, and

language (Fife 2011; Ghiso, 2011; Montgomery, 2010; Ranker, 2009).

In sum, while there exists some knowledge of conferencing at the younger grades, based

upon practitioner books, journal articles, and limited empirical research, more scientific studies

need to be conducted and with both monolingual and ELLs. Moreover, Harris, Graham & Mason

(2006) in their study of self-regulation and motivation during writing workshop make the case

for additional research to determine the overall effectiveness of process approaches such as

writers' workshop to examine how such approaches can be made more effective for students who

struggle with writing. This applies to all students, in particular ELLs.

What needs to be addressed is in what ways conferencing as part of writing workshop

might support the written narratives of both monolinguals and ELLs, and if such interactions

between teacher and student influence stories of one’s culture and identity. Therefore, there is a
CONFERENCING DURING WRITING WORKSHOP 24

need for studies on conferencing with young students, particularly the strategies implemented by

teachers, and how such feedback is appropriated by young writers (Beach & Friedman, 2006;

Graham & Perrin, 2017).

Conclusion

Current Recommendations for Writing

Besides the recommendation that writing be placed squarely at the center of the

curriculum, another recommendation of the National Commission on Writing for America’s

Families, Schools, and Colleges (NCWAFSC, 2003, 2005) was that teachers need to be better

prepared to teach writing. Thus, this supports the need for additional research that applies

observational techniques to the study of the writing practices of primary grade teachers (Graham

& Cutler, 2006, 2008; Pritchard & Honeycutt, 2006). According to the National Council of

Teachers of English (NCTE, 2004) writing based pedagogy must be a vital part of teacher

education (Freedman et al, 2016). Although ELLs are the fastest growing student populations in

the United States, teachers are faced with the challenge of teaching writing to students who are

linguistically and culturally different from themselves without adequate pre-service and/or in-

service support (Cutler & Graham, 2008; Freedman, et, al, 2016).

If we are to prepare all of our students to live and work in today’s global economy, it is

important that students know how to write and for various purposes. Writing workshop can

provide opportunities for writing development for both monolinguals and ELLs. Existing

research indicates how conferencing can provide feedback in improving writers craft and

especially with older students. What is needed is empirical research on conferencing within

writing workshop with young children and how this interaction may serve to influence student

narratives showcasing one’s culture and identity. Furthermore, research on conferencing with
CONFERENCING DURING WRITING WORKSHOP 25

ELLs can add to the existing knowledge of Culturally Responsive Teaching (CRT) by supporting

ELLs and acquiring a better understanding of the instructional needs of culturally and

linguistically diverse populations. Future research on conferencing may provide insight into how

conferences are conducted, and what protocols are used.

Empirical evidence in conferencing can provide knowledge for teacher educators

regarding effective pedagogical practices to support and enhance the written narratives of young

children and provide helpful insights into the kinds of learning experiences that both pre-service

and in-service teachers need to become effective writing teachers. Also, current research on

conferencing during writing workshop within a first-grade setting, can provide insight into how

young children conceptualize cultural, linguistic, and social tools in their writing as well as

provide opportunities to compare narratives of monolinguals and ELLs regarding culture and

identity.

In sum, writing in today’s schools should be made a priority in order to meet the

recommendations made by the National Commission on Writing for America’s Families,

Schools, and Colleges (NCWAFSC, 2003, 2005). Additional research indicates there is a need

for more empirical studies on writing with young students as well as writing pedagogy in order

to meet these recommendations and those of the Common Core State Standards (CSS) (2011).

What must also be addressed is the specific needs of ELLs concerning writing and current

recommendations. In order to fill the existing gap in writing research, particularly with

conferencing as feedback, I suggest a case study to provide information on conferencing

comparing the narratives of both ELLs and monolingual students within a first-grade setting.

A Comparative Case Study

CONFERENCING DURING WRITING WORKSHOP 26

A comparative case study can provide insight for educators as to what ways conferencing might

support the narratives of young children regarding stories of culture and identity. In addition,

research can serve to fill the gap that currently exist between practitioner articles and actual

empirical research. To this end I am interested in exploring the following research questions:

1. How can teacher led conferences during writing workshop within a first-grade setting,

support the journal narratives of English language learners (ELLs) and monolinguals?

2. In what ways can conferencing facilitate the narratives of ELLs and monolinguals with

regards to culture and identity?

3. Can conferencing lead to narratives that are different or similar based upon gender?

Considering the several meta analyses conducted which provided evidence for

scientifically based strategies for improving writing instruction, the challenge continues to be the

implementation of such strategies with teachers across the country (Cutler & Graham, 2008;

Graham, 2006; Harris & Graham, 2009) In addition, what remains to be seen is if such

implementation of strategies will answer the recommendations put forth by the National

Commission on Writing for America’s Families, Schools, and Colleges (NCWAFSC, 2003,

2005) and the CCSS (2011), given the current focus on standardized testing.

As the literature points to the benefits of writing workshop in promoting literacy for both

monolinguals and ELLs, it also suggests the need for more scientifically based research as much

of what is currently published is provided in the form of practitioner journal articles and

professional publications. In addition, as the purpose of a literature review is to present

information on what has been researched and what needs further review, after perusing through

numerus data bases and journals I have been hard pressed to find empirical evidence for writing

with monolinguals and ELLs within a first-grade setting.

CONFERENCING DURING WRITING WORKSHOP 27

Since little is known concerning conferencing within the writing workshop, except for

providing feedback in the form of revising and editing, there is a gap in the research in this area.

What needs further attention is in what ways might teacher led conferencing be implemented

with both English speakers and ELLs, how may conferencing influence the narratives of both

students regarding one’s culture and identity, and are there differences between these two groups

of students and/or between genders? Although I realize even as I write this essay there may be

new research concerning writing and particularly conferencing, and so my quest continues.

Therefore, I will continue to peruse data bases in the hopes of finding new information to add to

my literature review.

Finally, it is my intention that by conducting my research I can answer the call for

providing scientific based evidence for the power of conferencing in supporting the narratives of

both monolinguals and ELLs concerning stories in which both culture and identity may be

compared, contrasted, and showcased. Furthermore, understanding how teacher led conferencing

is implemented with both groups of students may provide additional knowledge on writing

pedagogy, including teaching in culturally responsive ways. Also, conferencing may support the

narratives of ELLs and help to dispel the deficit view that can sometimes be held by educators.

Regarding writing and ELLs, Shultz (2009) states, “If a teacher expects English Language

Learners to be at the same point as their age-equivalent peers, he or she is setting these students

up for failure. Teachers who have such unrealistic student expectations are viewing students

through a deficit model, which does not capture what students are capable of doing, merely what

they cannot do” (p. 60).

A case study on teacher led conferencing can provide actual scientific evidence and fill

the gap that currently exists in educational publications based upon practitioner knowledge and
CONFERENCING DURING WRITING WORKSHOP 28

provide implications for teacher education in both practice and policy. In working within a social

constructivist paradigm and my own ontological and epistemological framework, I draw upon

Vygotsky’s socio-cultural framework to base my future study. My conceptual framework of the

writing process includes my perspective that writing is socially mediated and involves shared

experiences and interactions with others. In addition, writing is a social activity in which

language and culture cannot be separated (Aram & Levin, 2011; Bodova & Leong, 2006;

Vygotsky. 1978).

Constructivists believe that thinking takes place in communication, and that when

learners’ home cultures are honored and validated, a dialogue will open up fixed boundaries so

that students can freely examine different types of knowledge in a democratic classroom where

they can freely examine their perspectives and moral commitments (Moll, 1992). It is within the

constructivist paradigm along with my conceptual framework that writing is a social process

involving interactions with others, that I position myself as a researcher. A constructivist stance

helps me to further my understanding of the importance of culture, language, and context with

regards to these learners. It is therefore through this socio-cultural lens that I position my

research in understanding the relationship between conferencing during writing workshop and

the appropriation of such conferencing as it applies to shaping identity and cultural appreciation

among ELLs.
CONFERENCING DURING WRITING WORKSHOP 29

References

Aram & Levin (2006). Home support of Children in the writing process: Contributions to early

literacy: In S. B. Neuman, & D. K. Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook of Early Literacy

Research (pp189-199). New York, NY: The Guildford Press.

Allington, R., & Cunningham, P. (1999). Classrooms that work: They can all read and write

(2nded.). New York: Addison Wesley Longman, Inc.

Anderson, C. (2000). How’s it going? A practical guide to conferring with student writers.

Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

August, D., & Shanahan, T (2006). Developing literacy in second language learners: Report of

the national literacy panel on language minority children and youth {Executive

Summary}. Mahwah, NJ: Laurence Erlbaun Associates.

Ball, A. (2006). Teaching writing in culturally diverse classrooms. In C.A. MacArthur, S.

Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of Writing Research (pp. 293-310). New

York, NY: The Guilford Press.

Beach, R. & Friedman, T. (2006). Response to Writing. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J.

Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of Writing Research (pp. 223-234). New York, NY: The

Guilford Press.

Bissex, G. (1980). GNYS AT WORK: A child learns to write and read. Cambridge, MA:

Harvard Press.

Bodrova, E., & Leong, D. J. (2006). Vygotskian perspectives on teaching and learning early

literacy. In (Ed.), Handbook of Early Literacy Research (2nd ed., pp. 243-256). New

York, NY: The Guilford Press.

Calderon, M., Slavin, R., & Sanchez, M. (2011). Effective instruction for English language
CONFERENCING DURING WRITING WORKSHOP 30

learners. The Future of Children, 21, 105-127. doi: 10.1353/foc2011.0007

Calkins, L. (1986). The art of teaching writing. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann

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

Calkins, L. (2003). The nuts and bolts of writer’s workshop: The conferring handbook.

Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann

Clay, M. (1977). What did I write? Auckland, New Zealand: Heinemann

Clay, M. (1982). Research update: Learning and teaching writing: A developmental

perspective. Language Arts, 59 (1), 65-70. Retrieved from: jstor.org/stable/4274426

Clay, M. (1982). What did I write: Beginning writing behavior. Exeter, NH: Heinemann.

Cumming, A. (2016). Writing development and instruction for English language

Learners. In C.A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of Writing

Research (pp. 364-376). New York: Guilford Press.

Cummins, J. (1981). Bilingualism and minority language children. Toronto, Canada: Ontario

Institute for Studies in Education.

Daniel, M.C., (2007). Authentic literacy practices for English language learners: A balanced

curriculum design. Journal of Reading Education, 32, 18-25. Retrieved from:

http://www.ed.uno.edu/Faculty/rspeaker/OTER/Journal.html

De Groff, L.J. (1987). The Influence of Prior Knowledge on Writing, Conferencing, and

Revising. The Elementary School Journal, 88 (2). 105-118. The University of Chicago

Press Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1002036

Dennis, L.R., & Votteler, N.K. (2013). Preschool teachers and children’s emergent writing:

Supporting diverse learners. Early Childhood Education Journal, 41, 439-446. doi:

10.10007/s10643-012-0563-4
CONFERENCING DURING WRITING WORKSHOP 31

Dyson, A. (2001). Writing and children’s symbolic repertoires: Development Unhinged. In S. B.

Neuman, & D. K. Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook of Early Literacy Research (pp 126-141).

New York, NY: The Guildford Press.

Echevarria, J., Vogt, M., & Short, D. J. (2010). Making content comprehensible for elementary

English learners. Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.

Edelsky, C. (1982). Writing in a bilingual program: The relation of L 1 and L 2 texts. TESOL, 2,

211-228. doi: 10.2307/3586793

Esteban-Guitart, M. (2014). Technologies of self/subjectivity. In T. Teo (Ed.), The encyclopedia

of critical psychology. New York, NY: Springer.

Esteban-Guitart, M., Moll, L. C. (2014). Lived experience, funds of identity and education.

Culture & Psychology, 20(1), 70–81 doi: 10.1177/1354067X13515940

Fife, M. (2011). English Language learners’ writing in a first-grade classroom. Retrieved from

ProQuest. (3455396)

Fitzgerald, J. & Stam, C. (1990). Effects of group conferencing on first graders revisions in

writing. Written Communication 7(1), 96-145. Retrieved from:

9135.ile:///C:/Users/user/Desktop/Effects%20of%20conferencing.pdf

Flower, L. (1979). Writer based prose. A cognitive basis for problems in writing. College

English, 41(1), 19-37. doi:

Flower, L., Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive theory of writing. College Composition and

Communication. 32(4), 365-387. Retrieved from: http://www/jstor.org/stable/356600

Fountas & Pinnell, 2001Fountas, I. C., & Pinnell, G. S. (2009). When readers struggle: teaching

that works. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Freedman, S. W., G. A., Hull, J.M. Higgs, K.P., Booten (2016). Teaching writing in a digital and
CONFERENCING DURING WRITING WORKSHOP 32

global age: Toward access, learning, and development for all. In D. H. Gitomer & C. A.

Bell (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Teaching (pp 1389-1431). Washington, DC: AERA

Publishers.

Gay, G. (2010). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice (2nd ed.). New

York: NY: Teachers College Press.

Gee, J. P. (2000). Identity as in analytic lens for research in education. Review of Research in

Education, 25, 99-125. doi: 10.2307/1167322

Ghiso, M. P. (2011). “Writing That Matters”: Collaborative Inquiry and Authoring Practices in a

First-Grade Class. Language Arts. 88 (5), 346-355. Retrieved from:

http://www.jstor.org/stable/41804287

Gibson, S.A. (2008). An Effective Framework for Primary-Grade Guided Writing Instruction.

The Reading Teacher, 62(4), 324-334 Retrieved from:

http://www.jstor.org/stable/27699696

Goodman, Y. M. (1989). Roots of the whole-language movement. The Elementary School

Journal, 90, 113 127. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1002024

Goodman, K. (1989). Whole language research: Foundations and development. The Elementary

School Journal, 90, 207-221. doi: 10.1086/461613

Gonza´ lez, N., Moll, L., & Amanti, C. (2005). Funds of knowledge. Theorizing practices in

households, communities and classrooms. Mahwah, Bergen: Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates.

Gort, M. (2006). Strategic codeswitching, interliteracy, and other phenomena of emergent

bilingual writing: lessons from first grade dual language classrooms. Journal of Early

Childhood Literacy. 6(3), 323–354. doi: 10.1177/1468798406069796

CONFERENCING DURING WRITING WORKSHOP 33

Graham, S. (2006). Strategy instruction and the teaching of writing: A meta-analysis. In C.A.

MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of Writing Research (pp. 187-

207). New York: Guilford Press

Graham, S., Harris, K. R., & Hebert, M. (2011). Informing writing: the benefits of formal

assessment. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.

Graham, S., Liu, X., Ng, C., Harris, K., Aitken, A., Barkel, A, & Kaven, C. (2018). A Meta-

Analysis of the Impact of Reading Interventions on Writing. Review of Educational

Research, 88(2). Pg. 243-284. doi.org/10.3102/0034654317746927

Graham, S., & Perrin. (2013). Designing an effective writing program. In S. Graham,

C. MacArthur, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Best practices in writing instruction. (pp. 3-25). New

York, NY: The Guilford Press.

Graves, D. (1980). A new look at writing research. Language Arts 57(8), 913-919.

Graves, D. H. (1991). Build a literate classroom. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Graves, D. H. (2003). Writing: Teachers and children at work. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Gyovai, L., Cartledge, G., Kourea, L., Yurick, A., & Gibson, L. (2009). Early reading

intervention: Responding to the learning needs of young at-risk English language

learners. Learning Disability Quarterly, 32, 143-160. doi: 10.2307/27740365

Harris, K. R., Graham, S., Mason, L. (2006) Improving the Writing, Knowledge, and Motivation

of Struggling Young Writers: Effects of Self-Regulated Strategy Development with and

without Peer Support. American Educational Research Journal, Vol. 43(2), 295-340.

retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3699421

Hawkins, L. k. (2016). The Power of Purposeful Talk in the Primary-Grade Writing Conference.

Language Arts, 94 (1),8-21. Retrieved from: http/www.researchgate.net/.../307466182

CONFERENCING DURING WRITING WORKSHOP 34

Hawkins, L. K. B (2015) Purposeful talk: Conceptualizing narrative writing conference genres

and how they shape teacher-student interactions in primary grade classrooms. Retrieved

from ProQuest. (3719066)

Hayes. J. (1996) A new framework for understanding cognition and affect in writing. In M. Levy

& S. Randall (ed) The science of writing theories, methods, individual differences, and

applications (pp. 1-27). Mahwah, NJ: Erbaum

Helman, L. (2012). Literacy instruction in multilingual classrooms. New York, NY: Teachers

College Press.

Herrell & Jordan (2008). Fifty strategies for teaching English language learners. Upper Saddle

River, NJ: Pearson.

Holdaway, D. (1979). Foundations of literacy. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Jaramillo, James A. (1996). Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory and contributions to the

development of constructivist curricula. Education/Mobile 117 (1), 133-140.

Korth, B., Wimmer, J.J., Wilcox, B., Morrison, T. G., Harward, S. Peterson, N., Simmerman, S.,

& Pierce, L. (2016). Practices and challenges of writing instruction in K-2 classrooms:

A case study of five primary grade teachers. Early Childhood Education 45, 237-249.

doi: 10.1007/s10643-016-0774-1

Krashen, S. (1983). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon

Krashen, S. (2009). The comprehension hypothesis extended. In T. Piske & M. Young-Scholten

(Eds.), Input Matters (pp. 81-94). Bristol: Multilingual Matters

Learning Point Associates (2004). A closer look at the five essential components of effective

reading instruction: A review of scientifically based reading research for teachers.

Retrieved from www.learningpt.org

CONFERENCING DURING WRITING WORKSHOP 35

Lassonde, C., & Richards, J.C. (2013). Best practices in teaching planning for writing. In S.

Graham, C. MacArthur, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Best practices in writing instruction. (pp.

193-214). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

Leavitt, A. (2013). Teaching English language learners in the mainstream classroom: The

methods teachers use. The Researcher, 25, 79-93. Retrieved from

http://www.nrmera.org/PDF/Researcher/Researcherv25n1Leavitt.pdf

Lesaux, N., & Geva, E. (2006). Synthesis: Development of literacy in language-minority

students [National Literacy panel on Language Minority Children and Youth]. Mahwah,

NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Meier, D. (2013). Integrating content and mechanics in new language learner’s writing in the

primary classroom. Young Children, 16-21. doi: 10.1111/j.1754-8845. 1988.tb00272.x

Moll, L. (1992). Bilingual classroom studies and community analysis: Some recent trends.

Educational Researcher, 21 (2), 20-24. Special issue on Bilingual education. American

educational research Association. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1176576

Moll, L.C., Amanti, D., Neff, D., Gonzalez, N. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a

qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory into Practice. 132-141.

doi.org/10.1080/00405849209543534

Montgomery, M. (2010). Functions of English language learners’ talk during writing. Retrieved

From ProQuest. (3446368)

National Assessment of Educational Statistics (2003). The nation’s report card, writing

highlights 2002. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of

Educational Sciences.

National Commission on Writing in America’s Schools and Colleges. (2003, 2005).

CONFERENCING DURING WRITING WORKSHOP 36

The neglected “R”: The need for a writing revolution. Washington, DC: College Board.

National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State

School Offices. (2010). Common Core State Standards for English language arts and

literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects. Washington, DC:

Authors. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2016/2016144.pdf

Nieto, S. (2002). Language, culture, and teaching: Critical perspectives for a new century.

Mawah: NJ: Erlbaum

Nystand, M. (1997). Opening dialogue: Understanding the dynamics of language and learning

in the English classroom. New York: teachers College Press.

Olson, C. B., Scaracella, R., Matuchniak, T. (2013). Best practices in teaching writing to English

learners; reducing constraints to facilitate writing development. In S. Graham, C.

MacArthur, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Best practices in writing instruction. (pp. 381-427).

New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

Pearson, D. (2004). The reading wars. Educational Policy, 18, 216-252. doi:

10.1177/0895904803260041

Pritchard, R. J., & Honeycutt, R. L. (2006). The process approach to writing instruction. In C. A.

MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of Writing Research (pp. 278-

290). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

Ranker, J. (2009). Student appropriation of writing lessons through hybrid composing practices:

Direct, diffuse, and indirect use of teacher-offered writing tools in an ESL classroom.

Journal of Literacy Research, 41, 393–431. doi: 1080/10862960903340124

Routman, R. (2005). Writing essentials. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

CONFERENCING DURING WRITING WORKSHOP 37

Routman, R. (2014). Read, write, lead: Breakthrough strategies for schoolwide literacy success

Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Samway, K.D., (2006). When English language learners write. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Schulz, M. M. (2009). Effective writing assessment and instruction for young English language

Sinchak, M. (2015). Using Writing Conferences to Scaffold First Grade Students' Narrative

Writing. Education and Human Development Retrieved from

http://digitalcommons.brockport.edu/ehd_theses/556

Stauffer, R. (1971). Integrating the language arts. Elementary English, 48, 22-26.

Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/41386836

learners. Early Childhood Education, 37, 57-62. dio: 10.1007/s10643-009-0317-0

Steward, E.P. (2009). Beginning writers in the zone of proximal development. New York, NY:

Routledge.

US Department of Education, National Center for Educational Statistics. (2017). The condition

of education 2017 (2017-144). English language learners in public schools. Retrieved

from: https://nced.ed.gov/programs/core/oindicator_edg.asp

Williams, C., & Pilonieta, P. (2012). Using interactive writing instruction with kindergarten and

first- grade English language learners. Early Childhood Education, 40, 145-150. doi:

10007/s10643-012-0508-y

Vygotsky, L.S. (1962). Thought and Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Vygotsky, L. (1997). The history of the development of higher mental functions. In R. W.

Rieber, (Ed)., The collected works of L.S. Vygotsky (M J Hall, Trans., Vol. 4). NY:
CONFERENCING DURING WRITING WORKSHOP 38

Plenum Press.