Theory summary for L P

Writing Revision Lesson #1:
2nd Grade level
Katherine Barney

Theory (still in progress as of 6-28-06)


Research:
Calkins, L., Bleichman, P., (2003), The Craft of Revision, Firsthand, Portsmouth, NH
Elbow, P. (1998). Writing without teachers (2nd ed.)Oxford University Press, Inc.
Lane, B. (1993). After the end, teaching and learning creative revision,. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Marchionda, D. (2004). Peer review times two. Quarterly 2004, 6-21-06 retrieved from http://www.writingproject.org/cs/nwpp/print/nwpn/4?x-t=resources.view



My burning question is: How can I motivate my students to revise more effectively?
The research I have reviewed up to this point emphasizes revision quality more than student attitude towards revisions. For motivation purposes I have found Lucy Calkins and Barry Lane to give several student friendly suggestions. This was most helpful to the development of my lesson, but did not include easily accessed quantitative data to support it. I will be delving more deeply into the research I have gathered for my literature review. I plan to use this information to support and/or adjust my revision lesson and future lessons with the information from the review.
I based the basic lesson format and approach on Bleichman’s (2003) example lesson and background knowledge. I started the lesson off referring to what will happen prior to the lesson, because as Elbow (1998) emphasizes, you can’t get started revising until you have written enough to work with. Even at a primary school level the student has to have several sentences to work with. This is where various amounts of scaffolding become necessary in order to get everyone to the point where they can participate in a revision lesson. For a specific revision technique I chose to modify and adapt the peer review strategy described by Marchionda (2004) because I liked the idea of copying the students original for their peers to write on. I think it would remove some of the fear of writing on someone else’s piece because the original would still be untouched. Also Marchionda’s research reflected positive results in attitude and quality of revisions. I feel confident that I am on the right track, yet I will continue to be open to new ideas and approaches that I may encounter in future research.


Graduate Coursework Info

Katherine Barney
MEd, MRT
IRA 1.1, 1.3, 2.2, 5.1, 5.2, 5.4
TExES 8, 9, 10, 13, 14


IRA /NCATE Program Standards for Reading Specialist

Standard 1 Foundational Knowledge 1.1, 1.3
I demonstrated knowledge of psychological, sociological, and linguistic foundations of writing processes through the application of research-based revision strategies used in my lesson.

Standard 2 Instructional Strategies & Curriculum Materials 2.2
I have demonstrated the use a wide range of instructional practices, strategies, approaches, methods, and curriculum materials to support writing instruction through my lesson development and presentation.

Standard 5 Professional Development 5.1, 5.2, 5.4
I have participated in professional development through posting responses to reading assignments, presentations, classroom discussions, and collaboration with group members regarding the latest research based writing instruction strategies displayed a positive disposition related to reading and the teaching of reading. As well as, participating in professional development programs through taking this graduate course.


TExES Reading Specialist Competencies

Competency 008 (Written Language) I demonstrated an understanding of written language and instructional methods to reinforce reading and writing through using literature to base research-based revision instruction in my lesson plan.

Competency 009 (Assessment) I applied knowledge of assessment instruments and procedures used to monitor and evaluate student progress in writing through evaluation and feedback section of my lesson.

Competency 010 (Instructional Methods and Resources) I applied knowledge of methods and resources for providing effective literacy instruction that addresses the varied learning needs of all students by scaffolding and meeting the needs of each student in individual or small group conferences,

Competency 013 (Theoretical Foundations and Research-Based
Curriculum) I applied knowledge of the theoretical foundations of literacy and of research-based literacy curriculum to the development and implementation of the lesson I developed..

Competency 014 (Collaboration, Communication, and Professional
Development) I applied Knowledge of procedures for collaborating and communicating with educational stakeholders and for designing, implementing, evaluating, and participating in professional development. Through posting responses to the BWP Blog and Discussion board. I have demonstrated collaboration with group members in evaluating the current teaching environment of literacy skills during class discussions and writing activities.

Revision Lesson Plan

Writing Revision Lesson #1:
2nd Grade level

Prior to this lesson students will have listened to the book The Plant That Ate Dirty Socks by Nancy McArthur (4th/5th grade reading level), watched a 1 minute film clip from Little Shop Of Horrors (emphasizing the plant puppet) and have a 1st draft writing response.
Recommended alternative book written at a 2nd grade level Elizabite, Adventures of a Carnivorous Plant, by H.A. Rey, 1942, 1969, Houghton Mifflin
Elizabite eats insects for appetizers and enjoys eating hotdogs, puppy tails, whatever gets near. The text rhymes and the look is very similar to Curious George (for obvious reasons!).


Instructional Objective:
The student will revise a draft for vivid images by responding to peers suggestions with 80% accuracy.
The student will respond constructively to others' writing by highlighting 2 sentences that would benefit from more detail with 100% accuracy.




Instructional Materials and Resources:
Puppets- Craft supplies to make a plant puppet out of a paper plate: paper plates, construction paper, googly eyes, pipe cleaners
Teacher made revision puppet “Carnivella”
2 copies of each student’s 1st creative writing draft on carnivorous plant response (see below for an example prompt)
Highlighters or color pen for revising
The Plant That Ate Dirty Socks by Nancy McArthur
The Craft of Revision by Lucy Calkins and Pat Bleichman’s pages 1-10





Content:
Language Arts- writing 2nd grade (Writer’s Workshop)

TEKS 2nd Grade Language Arts:
(17) Writing/grammar/usage. The student composes meaningful texts applying knowledge of grammar and usage. The student is expected to:
(B) compose complete sentences in written texts and use the appropriate end punctuation (1-2);
(C) compose sentences with interesting, elaborated subjects (2-3); and
(18) Writing/writing processes. The student selects and uses writing processes for self-initiated and assigned writing. The student is expected to:
(A) generate ideas for writing by using prewriting techniques such as drawing and listing key thoughts (2-3);
(B) develop drafts (1-3);
(C) revise selected drafts for varied purposes, including to achieve a sense of audience, precise word choices, and vivid images (1-3);
(19) Writing/evaluation. The student evaluates his/her own writing and the writing of others. The student is expected to:
(A) identify the most effective features of a piece of writing using criteria generated by the teacher and class (1-3);
(B) respond constructively to others' writing (1-3);
(C) determine how his/her own writing achieves its purposes (1-3);
(D) use published pieces as models for writing (2-3); and



Accommodations and Modifications:
During Scribe’s Studio (Writer’s Workshop) students work independently and in small groups with teacher based on need. Teacher provides scaffolding and support based on individual need (example: story frames).

Instructional Procedures:
1. Sponge Activity (5 minutes)
Teacher uses plant puppet, Carnivella, to recall the story The Plant That Ate Dirty Socks and the 1st draft stories that they have completed.
Greetings scribes and writers, it’s time for Scribe’s Studio.
Carnivella is going to help us remember what we have read and written about so far in this unit. Carnivella asks students to tell her about the story and then what they were supposed to write about. At this time teacher/puppet reviews what a writer does with a piece of writing he/she wants to take to publishing phase.

2. Set induction (5 minutes)
Pass out paper plate puppets. Have students observe puppets. Is the finished? What would you like to add? What could you add to make the puppet look interesting? etc. Point out that adding or taking away from puppets is a form of revising. Compare the revising of their 1st drafts to the revising of their puppets. Instruct students to set puppets aside until later.

3. Large group instruction (10 minutes)
Teacher reads her/his writing response on flip chart or overhead transparency. Teacher models through thinking aloud a sentence that would paint a clearer picture by adding more description. Use a highlighter or different color ink to highlight areas that would benefit from revision. When teaching students this strategy be sure to describe the strategy with replicable descriptors. For example:
Sentence: The vine grew.
Strategy: Add more words so that the reader can picture what is happening.
Teacher says: “I can add the words, The vine grew so long that it went out of the door.” Use a different color pen to write the added words.
Ask students to point out sentences that would benefit from adding more information. Use the same terminology as before to add words to each sentence.
Explain to students that they will be finding two places on their partner’s paper that words could be added to. The peer editor can write a question right on the copy of the paper. Afterwards they will discuss their observations and ideas/questions. (Practice asking questions about the teacher’s writing.)
Examples of questions:
What happens next?
What was he doing?
Where did it take place?
What did it look like?

4. Independent work or group work (15 minutes)
Teacher assigns partners to read and highlight each other’s papers (5 minutes). Then partners meet to review the two sentences they have questions about. Students focus on one paper at a time discussing ideas and writing them down. (5 minutes for each student). Tomorrow students will do the same thing with another partner.

5. Feedback (2 minutes)
Gather as a whole group and discuss feelings and ideas that came from the peer editing.

6. Evaluation (10 minutes)
Ongoing assessment through observations and questions. Take note of students who need additional practice or instruction.

Summarize the strategies that students used to revise by writing on board.
(Based on Pat Bleichman’s Session 1 in the Craft of Revision.)

Writers revise by:
We reread and make plans.
We reread, make a movie in our minds, and add words.
We make changes to out drawing or puppet

How is revising a puppet similar/different to revising a story?
Ask students to give an example of a revision strategy they used today.

7. Closure (2 minutes)
Praise students for positive use of materials, time and strategies. Be sure to emphasize positive behavior and following directions.

Plan to give students time at the end of writing to revise their puppets. Some students may want to write a puppet show script!

Extension:
The peer editing techniques, using copies of the original to mark up, can be used several times by concentrating on one aspect of revising the story at a time.
Stories can be collected into an anthology.
Students could be encouraged to write ongoing adventures like the series The Plant That Ate Dirty Socks.
The topic of carnivorous plants could be written in an essay format in order to compare and contrast narrative and essay.
Some students may want to research carnivorous plants and how to care for them. Students of all ages are always interested in plants that eat meat! This naturally falls into characteristics of living things.
The puppet Carnivella could be used throughout the year as a revision specialist.
Using the literature and informative text creates a natural and strong reading/writing connection.
Students could be instructed to change the plant into something else (living or nonliving). How would that affect the story details? What a great way to rewrite the story with a different twist!



Future research involves comparing results of different revision instruction strategies and looking for patterns. For motivation purposes I have found Lucy Calkins and Barry Lane to give very student friendly suggestions.

Photo