Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Jayne Sherman
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.
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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
2. These processes have a hierarchical, highly embedded organization in which any given
3. The act of composing itself is a goal-directed thinking process, guided by the writer's
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
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
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;
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
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
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
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
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,
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).
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
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
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
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
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 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.
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-
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
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)
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
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,
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
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
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
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;
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
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
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
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
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
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;
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
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
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
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).
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
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).
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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;
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
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
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;
Conclusion
Besides the recommendation that writing be placed squarely at the center of the
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
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
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
comparing the narratives of both ELLs and monolingual students within a first-grade setting.
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
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
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
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
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
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
Allington, R., & Cunningham, P. (1999). Classrooms that work: They can all read and write
Anderson, C. (2000). How’s it going? A practical guide to conferring with student writers.
August, D., & Shanahan, T (2006). Developing literacy in second language learners: Report of
the national literacy panel on language minority children and youth {Executive
Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of Writing Research (pp. 293-310). New
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
Calderon, M., Slavin, R., & Sanchez, M. (2011). Effective instruction for English language
CONFERENCING DURING WRITING WORKSHOP 30
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.
Clay, M. (1982). What did I write: Beginning writing behavior. Exeter, NH: Heinemann.
Cummins, J. (1981). Bilingualism and minority language children. Toronto, Canada: Ontario
Daniel, M.C., (2007). Authentic literacy practices for English language learners: A balanced
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
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
Neuman, & D. K. Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook of Early Literacy Research (pp 126-141).
Echevarria, J., Vogt, M., & Short, D. J. (2010). Making content comprehensible for elementary
Edelsky, C. (1982). Writing in a bilingual program: The relation of L 1 and L 2 texts. TESOL, 2,
Esteban-Guitart, M., Moll, L. C. (2014). Lived experience, funds of identity and education.
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
9135.ile:///C:/Users/user/Desktop/Effects%20of%20conferencing.pdf
Flower, L. (1979). Writer based prose. A cognitive basis for problems in writing. College
Flower, L., Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive theory of writing. College Composition and
Fountas & Pinnell, 2001Fountas, I. C., & Pinnell, G. S. (2009). When readers struggle: teaching
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
Gee, J. P. (2000). Identity as in analytic lens for research in education. Review of Research in
Ghiso, M. P. (2011). “Writing That Matters”: Collaborative Inquiry and Authoring Practices in a
http://www.jstor.org/stable/41804287
Gibson, S.A. (2008). An Effective Framework for Primary-Grade Guided Writing Instruction.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/27699696
Goodman, K. (1989). Whole language research: Foundations and development. The Elementary
Gonza´ lez, N., Moll, L., & Amanti, C. (2005). Funds of knowledge. Theorizing practices in
Associates.
bilingual writing: lessons from first grade dual language classrooms. Journal of Early
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-
Graham, S., Harris, K. R., & Hebert, M. (2011). Informing writing: the benefits of formal
Graham, S., Liu, X., Ng, C., Harris, K., Aitken, A., Barkel, A, & Kaven, C. (2018). A Meta-
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
Graves, D. (1980). A new look at writing research. Language Arts 57(8), 913-919.
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
Harris, K. R., Graham, S., Mason, L. (2006) Improving the Writing, Knowledge, and Motivation
without Peer Support. American Educational Research Journal, Vol. 43(2), 295-340.
Hawkins, L. k. (2016). The Power of Purposeful Talk in the Primary-Grade Writing Conference.
and how they shape teacher-student interactions in primary grade classrooms. Retrieved
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
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
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
Learning Point Associates (2004). A closer look at the five essential components of effective
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.
Leavitt, A. (2013). Teaching English language learners in the mainstream classroom: The
http://www.nrmera.org/PDF/Researcher/Researcherv25n1Leavitt.pdf
students [National Literacy panel on Language Minority Children and Youth]. Mahwah,
Meier, D. (2013). Integrating content and mechanics in new language learner’s writing in the
Moll, L. (1992). Bilingual classroom studies and community analysis: Some recent trends.
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
National Assessment of Educational Statistics (2003). The nation’s report card, writing
Educational Sciences.
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
Nieto, S. (2002). Language, culture, and teaching: Critical perspectives for a new century.
Nystand, M. (1997). Opening dialogue: Understanding the dynamics of language and learning
Olson, C. B., Scaracella, R., Matuchniak, T. (2013). Best practices in teaching writing to English
MacArthur, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Best practices in writing instruction. (pp. 381-427).
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-
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.
Routman, R. (2014). Read, write, lead: Breakthrough strategies for schoolwide literacy success
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
http://digitalcommons.brockport.edu/ehd_theses/556
Stauffer, R. (1971). Integrating the language arts. Elementary English, 48, 22-26.
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
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.
Rieber, (Ed)., The collected works of L.S. Vygotsky (M J Hall, Trans., Vol. 4). NY:
CONFERENCING DURING WRITING WORKSHOP 38
Plenum Press.