style="font-size:15px;"> Another principal purpose for teaching the CCSS ELA is to improve student writing. There are ten Writing anchor standards, each specifying an aspect of writing competence. In addition, Language standards one and two (L.1 and L. 2) address the traditional concerns of usage and mechanics in writing or speaking. Language standard three (L.2.3) expects second-grade writers to know the difference between formal and informal language. It also expects them to make effective and precise word choices. Language standards four and six (L.4 and L.6) address meaning vocabulary knowledge, which is crucial for academic writing. Language standard five (L.5) addresses figurative language, which is helpful to writers as well. Additionally, Speaking and Listening standards four and six (SL.4 and SL.6) support improvements in student writing, and Reading standards seven through nine (R.7, R.8, and R.9) focus on reading comprehension required for writing about texts and other sources.
Table I.3 presents the number of standards that focus on improving writing.
Table I.3: K–5 CCSS ELA for Improving Writing
Improving students’ writing is a goal of 120 of the 250 English language arts standards—almost half of them!
Since writing is a goal of so many of the standards, it is important to understand what the CCSS mean by writing. Notably, the Writing standards include the overall objective of writing instruction: that students will be able to write well for their grade (Writing standard four; W.4). Equally important, the Writing standards tell us how students are expected to achieve that objective: by writing a variety of types and lengths of texts routinely across the school day and week (Writing standard ten; W.10) and by using the writing process to develop and strengthen some of what they write (Writing standard five; W.5). The Common Core specifies three general types of writing (opinion pieces, informational pieces, and narratives) that students are expected to learn how to do well (Writing standards one through three; W.1–3). Students are also required to learn how to use technology to write and publish (Writing standard six; W.6). In addition, students are expected to both write about what they read (Writing standard nine; W.9) and do research (Writing standards seven and eight; W.7 and W.8). Language standards one and two (L.1 and L.2) require students to write with correct language usage and writing mechanics (spelling, capitalization, and punctuation) as well. The level of writing instruction the CCSS call for is the most comprehensive and powerful we have ever seen.
Reading and Writing Independence
There are two essential literacy activities that students must be willing to do independently before they leave kindergarten: (1) recreational reading and (2) first-draft writing. At every grade level, teachers have the challenge of making sure they have books available that all their students can and will want to read independently. They also have the challenge of establishing an atmosphere in which all students are willing to take the risk of writing independently, even though they know they can’t yet spell every word correctly or abide by every grade-appropriate usage, capitalization, or punctuation convention. It does students no favors to allow them to resist independent reading or writing. Students’ willingness to engage in these two activities is foundational for literacy growth.
Once students are willing to read and write independently, teachers can use a variety of instructional tasks to help them improve. In reading, many of these are complex comprehension tasks. In writing, many of these are complex revision and editing tasks. A dilemma that all teachers face is how much support to give in order to help students improve their reading comprehension and writing.
Gradual Release of Responsibility Model of Instruction
Many educators suggest that instruction should follow a gradual release of responsibility model (Pearson & Gallagher, 1983; Wilhelm, 2001). Where appropriate, teachers begin by assuming all the responsibility, modeling and thinking aloud about what they want students to do. This step can be most easily understood as “I do, and you watch.” Next, teachers invite students to join them in deciding how to perform the task. This step can be thought of as “I do, and you help.” In the third step, students assume much of the responsibility by working together in small groups, and the teacher becomes the coach, providing guidance and redirection as needed. This stage can be thought of as “You do it together, and I help.” During this stage, the teacher observes the interaction among the students and formatively assesses how individuals are progressing and what kind of further instruction they need. Finally, when the teacher sees that students understand the task, students complete a task on their own that shows they have moved from teacher dependence to independent application. This final stage is the point at which summative assessment eventually takes place and can be thought of as “You do, and I watch.”
Essentially, the gradual release of responsibility model requires lots of teacher and peer modeling and support for the first several lessons. During subsequent lessons, however, you remove some of that support until students are ready to work through the lesson framework on their own. At that point, you’ll be able to use a summative assessment to document whether each student has moved from teacher dependence to independence. This way of thinking about instruction is intuitively appealing because it describes the way many of us learned most of the complex routines we perform. How did you learn to bake? To play tennis? To master all the technology you need in a modern classroom? Chances are, you watched someone, helped, tried it out with some friends or your mentor nearby, and eventually could orchestrate this complex task on your own without even thinking about it.
Thus, within most of the lesson frameworks that make up this book, we employ the gradual release of responsibility model to help you teach your students how to perform the complex tasks of thinking deeply about texts as they read and conveying ideas clearly and convincingly as they write. The two lesson frameworks designed primarily to build fluency, Poetry Aloud and Plays Aloud, do not follow this model because they are intended primarily for developing oral reading skills.
Twenty Lesson Frameworks to Teach the Standards
Since 2010, when the standards first appeared, we have been working with teachers to develop, adapt, and tweak their lesson plans so they are working on multiple standards simultaneously. This book is a result of that collaboration. Each of the twenty chapters presents a lesson framework you can adapt to your students, curriculum, and grade level. Some of these include graphic organizers and anticipation guides you may already use. Others (like What’s Your Opinion?) will provide a fresh approach to meeting the standards. Our hope is that by using a variety of these lesson frameworks, you can provide multifaceted learning opportunities in which your students talk, listen, read, and write to become more competent and confident English language users. As your students develop these critical communication skills, they will also be learning the knowledge and strategies necessary to achieve the worthy objectives delineated in the CCSS ELA.
Because improving reading comprehension and writing are two umbrella goals of the CCSS ELA, many of the twenty lesson frameworks teach at least one of the Reading standards or one of the Writing standards. In turn, helping students achieve these two goals serves the third goal of enabling them to read and write independently. Of course, as promised, every lesson framework also teaches more than one standard.
Think of these lesson frameworks as recipes. We both like to cook, and we generally follow recipes when we do. We have a friend who is both an excellent and a creative cook—she can just look in her cupboard and refrigerator, see what’s there, and prepare something delicious that uses what she has. She doesn’t usually measure and claims she rarely makes the exact dish twice. Why don’t we cook like Sharon? Because if we did, the quality of our culinary life would noticeably decline! Whatever ability she has to create a new recipe on her feet and have it turn out well is a talent both of us lack. However, we are reasonably
