Community

As Blasingame and Bushman (2005) emphasized in the first three chapters of Teaching

Writing in Middle and Secondary Schools, writing at the secondary level is largely a

collaborative exercise and thus needs support by strong writing community. Dealing with “writer

apprehension” (p. 3), changing a teacher-centered classroom to a student-centered environment,

and finding an approach that is led by best practices such as the writers workshop and modeling

are merely three of the essential ingredients needed to make writing instruction effective in the

classroom.

As the year gets underway, students are pulled in various directions from pep rallies to

school pictures, computer distribution to pre-state assessments for data collection. Many of

teachers’ ideas are rushed because of the demands of a real school day. Despite these roadblocks,

English teachers must be able to create a classroom that fosters productivity and growth rather

than quantity and results. Blasingame and Bushman (2005) reminded me of this idea as they

emphasized that students do not naturally feel the draw and excitement of working through a

writing assignment; rather, many students bring with them an anxiety toward “past experience in

writing and the lack of a positive classroom climate” (p.3). Part of what Blasingame and

Bushman suggest is that teachers take a moment to understand the various attitudes toward

writing that students have (p. 5). It seems logical that to get students to start writing, have them

write about themselves, a tried and true method to elicit results, and have them address their

preconceptions about writing with the teacher and their peers. This is a great first step to alleviate

student anxiety toward writing and to diagnose student areas for growth and development.

Part of working through students’ comfort levels is ensuring that students are

collaborating and that the writing assignments are relevant, connecting to their lives. Simply

arranging the classroom to foster student-to-student relationships can positively affect students’

feeling of vulnerability in the classroom. If students feel safe, they may be more willing to

experiment with their writing and be more open to peer-collaboration. Failure to notice and use

these simple measures to build community often does not “encourage students to get to know

each other or to share ideas in meaningful ways” (Blasingame and Bushman, 2005, p.6). The

student-to-student bond is obviously important in creating a safe writing environment; however,

it seems equally as important to recognize the power of having a real audience-an environment

that exists outside of the classroom walls.

In terms of community, Janet Atkins (2011) is spot on in her analysis of a current

troubling paradox that prevails in today’s English classrooms. She begins by saying that today’s

“students do read and wire for their own purposes, and increasingly, this reading and writing

happens outside of school” (Atkins, 2011, p.12). What she means by this is that students are in

constant communication now more than ever because of the increase of technology. Students are

reading and writing in all sorts of informal ways. Students engage in meaningful conversations

via text message, chat functions in Google chat and on Facebook, have more impersonal

connections through twitter and Instagram; they read and write using all types of genres,

methods, and modes. But what this example demonstrates it that there are plenty of avenues into

which teachers can access authentic writing communities.

Audience

Designing a writing assignment with an authentic audience is very difficult when you

have 125 students confined to a classroom. However as the literature suggest, audience is

extremely important in eliciting strong writing from students. Blasingame and Bushman’s (2005)

suggestions for the publishing part of the writing process were particularly astute. They refer to

Janet Emig (1971) who argues that there are two major modes of writing, extensive and reflexive

(as cited in Blasingame and Bushman, 2005, p.25). The latter often evokes stronger writing,

more deliberation, and relies on authentic audiences: often their peers. This reminds me of a

student from my 11th grade AP Class. For several months these AP students had been writing,

analyzing, and defining aspects of persuasion and argumentation-often writing to released AP

prompts, responding to literature and visual texts. It was not until this particular student of mine,

Montae, decided to write a proposal for new student desks did I truly see a student actually go

through the steps of the writing process with a passion I’d been begging to see from the

beginning of the year. After hours of prewriting, collaborating with peers and me, Montae wrote

a persuasive letter to the principal using rhetoric to convince the administration that to ensure

student success, we needed new student desks to make students feel welcome and comfortable at

school. His letter was a success on so many levels. Not only was his letter extremely well

written, but he was also incredibly reflective about the process of writing it. He mentioned to me

that he had never spent more than a few hours on a multi-paragraph essay before, and here he

was writing a 4-paragraph letter, and it took him several days to be satisfied with it. He even

borrowed one of my “special teacher pens” to sign it. I could see that the writing process seems

more natural when the result of the assignment is real, authentic, and relevant to the student.

The problem with audience is that the classroom is not up to speed these days with what

is going on in the 21st century in terms of writing. Atkins (2011) stresses to reader that students

are able to access bigger and real audiences because of the advent of social media. She claims

“these days, for our students, audience and purpose are an integral part of using social media that

is second nature to them; only in school are they likely to encounter—or be required to address

hypothetical audiences” (p12). Atkins (2011) is thus arguing that teachers need to be cognizant

of providing ways for our students to engage in formal writing with actual audiences.

Atkins (2011) highlights solution to this conundrum. She offers several online groups

designed to promote student writing, to publish in an academic setting. I think using some of her

ideas and that of Putz will make the writing in the English classroom (and hopefully in other

disciplines as well) more innovative, promoting blending genres, and resulting in more

meaningful products of communication—especially in light of the fact that teenagers are

contributing members of the language arts community simply because of the access they have to

amateur publishing venues (re: social media).

Process

The writing process versus testing centered writing is an ongoing debate. What writing is

more organic? More useful? The literature suggests that the true writing process MUST be a

priority in the classroom, but failing to train students to write on-demand is also doing them a

disservice. In Chapter 2, Gardner (2008) suggested that for a curriculum to be more student-

centered, writing assignments must be more than simply designing a prompt and allowing them

to answer. She says that this often evoked vague and over-generalized responses and furthers the

gap in reaching the assignment’s objective (p.11). I’ve experienced this first hand. When the

new SOL direct writing prompts were released, I used them in my classroom. After a few terrible

papers, I realized that students elicited similar results to those of Gardner using this particular

approach (handing out a prompt and letting them get to it). The scaffolding methods Gardner

supports in this chapter give teachers a way to work with students through the entire writing

process, requiring teachers to set objectives for each part of the process, not merely the finished

product. As Gardner (2008) defines in her introduction, designing a writing assignment is writing

itself and is thus recursive (p. xi). As teachers, we expect students to make connections between

their lives, the world, and the text, and therefore, when designing a writing assignment, “it’s

important [to] make connections between the assignment sheet and the grading criteria”, and also

between the prompt and supplementary texts and modeling guides in order for our students to

understand the objectives we’ve set for them (p.40).

In terms of process, the literature suggests that revision is predominately the most

important part of the process. Putz emphasizes the importance of peer-reviewing and guided

revision. She believes that “students do learn from each other” and admits to having “struggled

for many years to make peer conferencing as successful as possible” (Putz, 2006, p.102).

Because of her struggle, she includes various methods with which to instruct students to become

effective peer reviewers. I especially like her conference sheet (Putz, 2006, p.106). By allowing

multiple students to review while being guided by the writer’s initial self-assessment, the peer

review positively allows for students to be self-reflective and allows weaker students to feel

more confident in reviewing another student’s writing. Finally, how do we as teachers teach

process in the face of on-demand writing expectations?

Like “thinking backward,” using a writer’s notebook for reflection doesn’t at first seem

like test preparation practice at all. However, Gere, Christenbury & Sassi (2005) believe that it is

an essential component in writing practice of all genres, it allows students to draw, jot words

down, write freely, and write more often, thus establishing student comfort zones with writing in

general as something not to fear, but to embrace in many ways. After introducing this model on

page 17, they incorporate sample writer’s notebook exercises throughout the book. For example,

in a later chapter the writer’s notebook assignment asks students to reflect on a previously

written writing assignment and asks them to remember specific details about the process and

about their feelings toward the assignment. Then it asks them to reconsider the assignment as an

on-demand essay with only 30 minutes to write it. They are asked to imagine how they would

change their approach and what strategies they might use to accomplish such a goal (Gere,

Christenbury & Sassi, 2005, p.49). This is best practice at work—reflection to improve

metacognition of the student as a writer; concurrently, the task also asks them to compare and

prepare the same task for on-demand writing itself; this is test prep without being “test prep.”

These short exercises Gere, Christenbury & Sassi (2005) recommend for the classroom make it

especially convenient for the teacher to implement without changing much of what they

currently practice, while simultaneously addressing in a positive way, the demands for the exam

essay genre.

Assessment

Much of the assessment chapter in Blasingame and Bushman’s (2005) Teaching Writing

in Middle and Secondary Schools is supported by research done between 1990-1999. It is sad

that in 23 years school reform has not only remained stagnant in its effort to hold teachers and

schools accountable for student achievement but has seemed to become even more high-stakes

than ever. I’m currently at a school that received a federal grant (teacher ‘incentive’ funds) that

awards money to teachers who can accurately predict student growth based on 1 or 2 measures

(both of which are summative high-stakes tests). While I have a hunch that that part of the reason

for obtaining the grant was in a sense, a pre-emptive strike to go against a future state-mandated

performance measure requiring that teachers keep their jobs based on student performance, here I

am at the end of the year making up mathematical formulas based on retail analysis (my former

life) to predict student performance with absolutely no support found on the ability to predict

outcomes based on previous SOL scores. Despite my efforts to find any correlation between

student performance and predicted performance, I found that I was actually really accurate and

predicted my student outcomes within 1%. This perfectly illustrates my relationship with

assessment, conflicted and complicated.

Blasingame and Bushman (2005) mention that “true curriculum reform and the

development of students’ higher-level thinking skills will require the public to stop worshiping

standardized test scores” (p. 108) and to fundamentally change the way the public wants

assessment to be: neat and tidy. The reality of it is-the acquisition of knowledge is not neat and

tidy- we must collaborate, we must work privately, we must practice, we must fail, we must

reflect, we must teach, we must listen, and we must speak to learn anything. So like the research

shows, standardized and summative tests should not be the “definitive measure of student

knowledge,” but it “can be useful” as one method to diagnose progress and inform instruction

(Blasingame and Bushman, 2005, p.96). The other measure seems to be the product of what is

left over after standardized tests fail: the portfolio, a highly student-centered and labor intensive

piece that reflects a student’s growth over time. Blasingame and Bushman (2005) support the

portfolio assessment because it shows a multiplicity and complexity unlike traditional tests. It

demonstrates a student’s master of thinking while highlighting a student’s ability to reflect and

grow. In theory, the portfolio sounds like an excellent tool to measure authentic learning. I’m not

sure we’ll ever see it reach state-level as it would be quite a beast to tackle, not even mentioning

how costly. Though I was particularly surprised by the results if portfolio assessment indicated

on page 103 (Blasingame and Bushman, 2005).

The results of the study by Stetcher and Herman (1997) show that there was a huge

discrepancy between state and national assessors’ scores and those of the school district.

Similarly, in Kentucky, there was a “lack of inter-rater reliability” which made determining

teacher effectiveness inconclusive (as cited in Blasingame and Bushman, 2005, p.103). Despite

these “disheartening” results, there was conclusive evidence supporting that the portfolio

assessment related highly to more standardized scores in READING while weakly correlated to

performance on the multiple choice and on-demand assessments in WRITING. While

Blasingame and Bushman (2005) do not continue this particular discussion, I’d like to. If process

and revision-based writing assessment does not correlate with on-demand writing performance

should we, as writing teachers, try to move away from on-demand writing (as it’s seen as

inauthentic?) I don’t think so. I just had a conversation with a friend about how poorly his co-

workers write emails. He mentioned that he’s often praised and called “teacher” for the care and

time he takes communicating with others in email. This shouldn’t be an anomaly, should it? So

responding to emails is in a way on-demand writing. Often you must craft it and send in within a

30 minute period. However, the more a person practices writing effectively and meaningfully,

the easier it is to do so quickly. So in essence, if people were taught the value of good writing in

through practicing process writing, on-demand writing should be an easy extension of that

practice, but the research suggests otherwise. Therefore, because in our world today, on demand

writing is actually more prevalent than process writing when you think about the ways in which

people communicate virtually, it may be that on-demand writing does have a significant place in

the writing classroom- but certainly, it shouldn’t be the only measure to determine the writing

proficiency of the learner.

Both Dawson (2009) and Wilson (2007) make the argument that since writing is a

personal and individualized endeavor, authentic feedback and evaluation should therefore be

personal, specific, and part of a conversation about the individual’s journey and cannot be

supported by rubrics designed for standardization. This was certainly my fear as we implemented

an electronic writing and grading program this year for my 10th graders. The system, Write to

Learn, uses the 6+1 rubric and determined by algorithms and science. In the long run, however,

the program which grades like a machine (because it is one), was really useful and intuitive, and

I’m sorry we can’t afford the licenses for this next year. That being said, there are two

observations I had about the program: the 6 traits feedback was only useful if the students were

previously familiar with the traits as separate entities, and to use this program requires that you

spend a considerable amount of time with the terminology. Secondly, as students submitted

writing for feedback, as long as they wrote with a traditional structure, word choice was on grade

level, grammar was competent; the student’s writing was scored very high. I submitted an essay

on a completely off topic and earned a very high score. Why then, do I like it? My students really

wrote better with it—they revised, re-ordered, asked others to read their essays before

submitting, resubmitted several times to get new feedback, and did all this without structuring

the class to do so. What I learned from this is that no rubric, or machine, will ever work to

achieve the writing I am hoping to get from students unless I make a point to adapt it to our

learning and to hold students accountable for the content learned within our class. Would I still

use the program- absolutely, but I’d make it work within the context of my classroom and our

unique objectives. Because true objectivity is impossible and otherwise an undesirable trait to

have in evaluation, subjectivity with basic standardized guidance is always going to be a good

method to use when evaluating students because too much subjectivity is ungrounded and too

much structure leaves writing base and flat.

Both Dawson (2009) and Wilson (2007) reject rubrics in their teaching because they

assume writing cannot be standardized. Based on their views, Wilson and Dawson then are able

to maintain honesty in their feedback, refrain from overlooking a trait they might be

uncomfortable with, remain unbiased, and avoid setting the bar too low or too high for their

students—I believe this is all unlikely. They seem to have a very romantic relationship with

writing, something that is ethereal and special, and while I may be jaded by their tone against my

own practice, I am assuming that they were never struggling writers themselves. It also seems

that their classrooms are filled with already good writers who have already mastered the basics.

One of the issues they have in common is that they see writing in the classroom as not an

authentic real world experience and that rubrics only encourage that fallacy. Dawson (2009) says

in response to observing a writing workshop guided with teacher-driven questions, “Did these

interactions resemble those of ‘real world’ writers?” (p.66). Well why would they? Students love

a bit of structure to help guide them through new experience. Sure I’d love to dance in a ballet,

but if I don’t have someone show me the pat de chat prior to trying it myself, why would

someone expect this to look like the real-world equivalent? While Dawson’s ideas about

restructuring the peer conferencing to exclude a checklist and draw out more complex

conversations about writing are really intuitive and practical, I don’t think it should

systematically replace all peer conferencing methods--sometimes a checklist may be appropriate

for the assignment. Wilson (2006) is a lot less forgiving of the rubric and like Dawson (2009)

wants feedback to resemble the real world as well. She retells a story about “Maria,” who after

talking with Wilson about her reflective writing piece was able to make it even better than before

—something a rubric could never do (p.64). I can’t quite figure out if Maria was a student, a

colleague, a friend, or relative of Wilson, but I do know that her draft of the assignment is

excellent in terms of writing standards already, that improvements to her writing through a ‘real-

world’ context did help her, but it seems that Maria had already mastered the basic standards of

writing. It makes total sense that Wilson then wouldn’t see the traditional generic rubric as

helpful. At this level, Wilson would either need to have individualized conferences with students

(which are recommended at the AP level) or adapt the rubric so that it includes space for

inventiveness and making personal connections, or something more appropriate for a writer at

that level. Regardless, students should know that they are still meeting some standard—whether

that is the teacher’s or the state’s. Rubrics are useful, especially for emerging and struggling

writers, I don’t think they should be mandated by administration or used in isolation, but a lot of

teachers, like their students, need structure and systems in place to make an abstract exercise

manageable. I don’t think we need to fear writing becoming too mathematical or scientific-nor

do I think writing remediation by SOL strand will ever be possible despite anyone’s effort to

make it so; therefore, as professionals it is our obligation to be flexible to new ideas, conflate

them with our own systems, and be willing to adapt to new best practices in order to remain

effective teachers.

Genre

It is my personal philosophy that to be a great teacher, a person must not only be a reflective

practitioner, but also someone who is willing to change, adapt to, and renew lesson plans yearly.

Furthermore, I’ve yet to do something exactly the same from class to class, let alone from year to

year. While the crux of the lesson can remain still relatively intact, a class community has its

own unique characteristics and needs, and therefore, needs flexibility in terms of the lesson being

taught. Gardner (2008) provides some excellent resources for teachers of writing specifically for

a changing classroom. I am particularly fond of both the St. Martin’s Guide as well as the

Rhetoric for Writing Teachers (Gardner, 2008, p.75). In addition to some excellent literary and

internet resources, Gardner (2008) provides some concrete lessons for teachers to use in their

writing classrooms. Some of these ideas are really innovative while some feel pedestrian and

overused.

One of the ideas Gardner (2008) suggests to teach writing literary analysis was the

“Breaking News” prompt (p.86). I really liked this idea because it asks students to consider genre

evolution, asking what conventions to this genre have or have not changed over time. Likewise it

combines both fiction and non-fiction as a way of discussing the text, which I find more

authentic to the demands required by the state and of the real world. This particular project has a

lot to offer in terms of both genre study and literature study in addition to simply practicing

writing.

For a while now, Henrico County gives the state writing test in 10th grade instead of 11th

grade. With the changing SOLs, I’m wondering if that might need to be re-evaluated once again.

Regardless of when the students take the exam, we still have a lot to cover over short amount of

time. Time is one of the reservations that Putz (2006) meets with regards to teaching

implementing a multi-genre research project. That being said, I think she articulates perfectly

some of the advantages students have being able to develop their skills during the multi-genre

research project. Putz (2006) states that the multi-genre research project can “facilitate reading

comprehension through the elaboration activities. It creates a supportive literacy community

within the classroom” (p.156). By doing these things, students are getting important writing

instruction while all the while preparing them to face more advanced literary challenges for the

following year. She continues to argue that this type of project helps students connect form with

meaning (Putz, 2006, p.156). Thus helping students understand that the state writing exam is

itself a particular genre and isn’t necessarily the end of their writing exploration. Finally one of

the biggest benefits that students get out of this project is something that will definitely help

them on their state exams. A colleague of mine and I talk much about how students lack

experience and knowledge of current events, philosophies, and problems. We feel that this

deficiency prevents them from making important connections between their reading and writing.

Likewise it restricts the amount of content they can use to write to the state writing exam.

However, Putz (2006) argues that the multi-genre research project helps students make “relevant

connections among themselves, their interests, and their world” making this gap between student

interest and student worldly knowledge much smaller (p.159). If students can make these big

connections not only will their writing become more meaningful, but so will their experiences

with texts and academics.

Write to Learn

Zimmet begins her article with an acknowledgement that teachers often work alone, that

we prefer to most times. However, she feels as though this isolation could have a potentially

negative effect on our student engagement and progress. Zimmet (2002) reports that her

experience with WAC brought a deeper appreciation for community and for work done

collaboratively for both faculty and her students. After reading her article, it clear that she

approaches things with a refreshing air of practicality that help teachers meet theory and practice.

Her engagement with WAC seems grounded in reality and she seriously considers the benefits of

working collaboratively as the only way to move forward in best writing instructional practices.

After reading so many theoretical ideas and carefully constructed projects about WAC, it

was refreshing to read the voice of a practical teacher, one who values time, energy, and

efficiency (are there those who don’t?). One of the ways she and her team of interdisciplinary

teachers came up with the idea that all of their lessons must be within each individual course but

tie into another’s content and must all use a write to learn methodology. All work was designed

together and contextually speaking, deals with the same content but different skills, but to

maximize time, each unit is designed and maintained with the classroom. To demonstrate this

practicality with a write to learn philosophy, Zimmet (2000) cites a chemistry lesson:

“After two days of class discussion, we asked our students to think

about Levi’s statement, ‘every element says something to someone

(something different to each)’ (225, as cited in Zimmet, 2000, p104)

and to write one page about an element that said something to them.

We did ask them to include chemistry information about the element,

but we left the form up to them so they could develop a structure that

worked well for their ideas. They could choose to write a memoir, a letter,

a dialogue, an essay, a poem—whatever worked best for them (p.104)

This is just one of several practical applications of the write to learn model used in a writing

across the curriculum model. Additionally, Zimmet cites that this model is much more conducive

to collaborative learning as well.

Collaboration may not have been Zimmet’s goal in engaging students with cross-

curricular writing, but it seems to have a played a large role in its success. The high school

faculty not only collaborated with each other, but with college professors as well; this seemed to

keep the assignments student-centered and teacher conscious. For example Zimmet (2000) cites

that “[o]nce again, links with the university resulted in new techniques for our students. [Faculty]

suggested we have our students write notes to other students in class, asking for help with

aspects of their papers that most concerned them. The readers who received those notes would

then respond to the specific requests of writers” (p. 105). This gives rise to the student-centered

and teacher conscious practicality Zimmet prefers. Students are engaged in writing to learn and

learning to write while the teachers’ roles are removed from the center of the classroom. In terms

of student collaboration, Zimmet (2000) cites similar benefits; she writes, “ Their working

together to make sense of Levi’s writings and to help one another with first drafts made them see

new possibilities for their own writing about chemistry in general and about the elements in

particular (p105-106). She adds that her students, after making collaborative work a regular

thing, they started to realize that there are multiple right answers to a solution—even in

chemistry (p. 106). Finally Zimmet concludes that student collaboration wouldn’t have been as

organic if they had not practiced the methods themselves.

I find Zimmet’s (2000) account and conclusions of the WAC/Collaborative process

engaging and practical. It’s clear to me that this method, if given the resources and teacher

incentive, would work particularly well though it depends on autonomy, willingness, and true

collaboration.

Modeling

A lot of the literature surrounding writing instruction claims that good writing is found

only when revision is made available; teachers make use of model and master texts, when

writing assignments account for individual needs and interests, and when writing assignments

give ample time for stages of the writing process. Gere, Christenbury & Sassi, (2005) believe

that preparing students for on-demand writing with best practices in writing are not mutually

exclusive tasks. They believe in the following assumptions that guide the content of this book:

“1. Good writing and writing on demand are not contradictory; 2. Assessment is an integral part

of effective writing instruction, 3. writing prompts can be approached rhetorically, 4. Close

reading fosters good writing, and 5. Criteria for evaluation belong in the classroom” (p.5-6).

From close reading exercises to decoding prompts, Gere, Christenbury & Sassi (2005)

effectively integrate best writing practices into accessible writing activities that cover large group

discussions to free writing to timed writing environments. The first method Gere, Christenbury

& Sassi (2005) suggest to begin this process is called “thinking backward” (p.9). This method

involves students engaging in rhetorically significant conversations about writing. Working with

good writing and deconstructing the elements which makes it so should help students see how

even fiction can be fit into an exam essay response. For example, Gere, Christenbury & Sassi

(2005) begin with a model text, in this case, the chapter, “My Name” from Sandra Cisneros’s

House on Mango Street. They suggest that after students read this passage there should be three

steps to look at it from a writer’s perspective. The first step is to “read and discuss in general

terms the models of writing—how do you react to the piece of writing, what makes this writing

effective? Less than effective?” (p.12). The second step is to “access in more specific terms the

qualities of that writing” (p12): what is its structure, sentence rhythm, organization? The third

step involves speculating “on the impetus for this model of writing and what is it trying to

accomplish? (p12). Essentially, this last step asks that teachers and students come up with a

prompt from which this model would have been generated (p.12). After articulating the steps,

Writing on Demand models the process including but not limited to sample model texts, sample

student prompt responses, and culminates in an activity for students to reflect on that process at

the end of the chapter. This manifests in a writers notebook- a method grounded in best practices

to which I’ll discuss next. Before that, however, I want to acknowledge that from the impetus of

this book, the structure and form of each chapter make teaching on-demand accessible—

discussing theory, linking to online support, then modeling the theory with samples; the book

reinforces that teaching the process with authentic close readings, those they would have done in

class already, can be easily tied into preparing students for on-demand writing as well.

Relevance is undoubtedly one of the most important aspects of teaching students,

regardless of the content. Though to find relevance they must also be actively engaging in

newness, and to grow as humans, students need to read, respond to, and model master texts.

Blasingame and Bushman (2005) assert that reading is directly related to writing. They argue

that “as students [begin] to see the choices that authors [make], they become better writers”

(p.13). This idea is not new. As seen in Jeff Anderson’s (2005) Mechanically Inclined the use of

master texts is a way to teach writing and more specifically syntax so that students hear rhythm,

see new vocabulary, and as the Creative Writing Institute developed by NWREL suggests,

“create common connections to ideas” (as cited in Blasingame and Bushman, 2005, p.13).

References

Atkins, J. (2011). Reading and writing with purpose: In and out of school. English Journal, 101(2), 12-13.

Blasingame, J., & Bushman, J. H. (2005). Teaching writing in middle and secondary schools. Upper Saddle, NJ: Pearson Education,Inc.

Gardner, T. (2008). Designing writing assignments. Illinois: NCTE.

Gere, A. R., Christenbury, L., & Sassi, K. (2005). Writing on demand: Best practices and strategies for success. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Putz, M. (2006). A teacher's guide to the multigenre research project: Everything you need to get started. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Wilson, M. (2007). Why I won't be using rubrics to respond to students' writing. English Journal, 96(4), 62-66.

Zimmet, N. (2000). Engaging the disaffected: Collaborative writing across the curriculum projects. English Journal, September, 102-107.Dawson, C. (2009). Beyond checklists and rubrics: Engaging students in authentic conversations about their writing. English Journal, 98(5), 66-71.