In this article, we address implications of constructivism for teaching writing to students with special needs. Specifically, whole language and process approaches to writing instruction, the two most popular composition programs based on the principles of constructivism, are examined. Benefits of these two programs include frequent and meaningful writing, creation of environmental conditions that support self-regulated learning, and emphasis on the integrative nature of learning in literacy development. These benefits may be weakened, however, by an overreliance on incidental learning and by a lack of emphasis on the mechanics of writing. Recommendations for whole language and process writing as well as traditional writing instruction are offered.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Adams, M. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
2.
Allen, J. (1988). Literacy development in whole language kindergartens (Tech. Rep. No. 436). Urbana: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Center for the Study of Reading. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 300 780)
3.
Applebee, A. (1989, November). National study of the teaching of literature in the secondary school. Paper presented at the National Reading Conference, Austin, TX.
4.
Atwell, N. (1987). In the middle: Reading, writing, and learning from adolescents. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
5.
Ball, E., & Blachman, B. (1991). Does phoneme awareness training in kindergarten make a difference in early word recognition and developmental spelling?Reading Research Quarterly, 26, 49–66.
6.
Bereiter, C. (1980). Development in writing. In T. Gregg & E. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing (pp. 73–93). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
7.
Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1984). Learning about writing from reading. Written Communication, 1, 163–188.
8.
Bergeron, B. S. (1990). What does the term whole language mean? Constructing a definition from the literature. Journal of Reading Behavior, 22, 301–329.
9.
Boljonis, A., & Hinchman, K. (1988). First graders' perceptions of reading and writing. In J. E. Readence & R. S. Baldwin (Eds.), Dialogues in literacy research (pp. 107–114). Chicago: National Reading Conference.
10.
Bridge, C., & Hiebert, E. (1985). A comparison of classroom writing practices, teachers' perceptions of their writing instruction, and textbook recommendations on writing practices. Elementary School Journal, 86, 155–172.
11.
Brown, A., & Campione, J. (1990). Interactive learning environments and the teaching of science and mathematics. In M. Gardner, J. Green, F. Reif, A. Schoenfield, A. di Sessa & E. Stage (Eds.), Toward a scientific practice of science education (pp. 112–139). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
12.
Calkins, L. (1981). Case study of a nine year old writer. In D. Graves (Ed.), A case study observing the development of primary children's composing, spelling, and motor behavior during the writing process (pp. 239–262). Durham: University of New Hampshire Press.
13.
Callaway, B., McDaniel, H., & Mason, G. (1972). Five methods of teaching language arts: A comparison. Elementary English, 49, 1240–1245.
14.
Christenson, S., Thurlow, M., Ysseldyke, J., & McVicar, R. (1989). Written language instruction for students with mild handicaps: Is there enough quantity to ensure quality?Learning Disability Quarterly, 12, 219–229.
15.
Corno, L. (1992). Encouraging students to take responsibility for learning and performance. Elementary School Journal, 93, 69–83.
16.
Danoff, B., Harris, K. R., & Graham, S. (1993). Incorporating strategy instruction within the writing process in the regular classroom: Effects on normally achieving and learning disabled students' writing. Journal of Reading Behavior, 25, 295–322.
17.
Dahl, K., & Freppon, P. (1991). Literacy learning in whole-language classrooms: An analysis of low socioeconomic urban children learning to read and write in kindergarten. In J. Zutell & S. McCormick (Eds.), Learner factors/teacher factors: Issues in literacy research and instruction (pp. 149–158). Chicago: National Reading Conference.
18.
DeGroff, L. (1992). Process-writing teachers' responses to fourth-grade writers' first drafts. Elementary School Journal, 93, 131–144.
19.
Delpit, L. (1988). The silenced dialogue: Power and pedagogy in educating other people's children. Harvard Educational Review, 58, 280–298.
20.
Englert, C. (1992). Writing instruction from a sociocultural perspective: The holistic, dialogic, and social enterprise of writing. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25, 153–172.
21.
Fisher, C., & Hiebert, E. (1990). Characteristics of tasks in two approaches to literacy instruction. Elementary School Journal, 91, 3–18.
22.
Fitzgerald, J., & Stamm, C. (1990). Effects of group conferences on first graders' revision in writing. Written Communication, 7, 96–135.
23.
Goodman, K. (1992). I didn't found whole language. The Reading Teacher, 46, 188–199.
24.
Graham, S. (1990). The role of production factors in learning disabled students' compositions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 781–791.
25.
Graham, S. (1992). Issues in handwriting instruction. Focus on Exceptional Children, 25, 1–14.
26.
Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (1988). Instructional recommendations for teaching writing to exceptional students. Exceptional Children, 54, 506–512.
27.
Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (in press). The effects of whole language on children's writing: A review of literature. Educational Psychologist.
28.
Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (1994). The role of self-regulation in the writing process. In D. Schunk & B. Zimmerman (Eds.), Self-regulation of learning and performance: Issues and educational applications (pp. 203–228). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
29.
Graham, S., Harris, K. R., & Loynachan, C. (1993). The Basic Spelling Vocabulary list. Journal of Educational Research, 86, 363–368.
30.
Graham, S., & Miller, L. (1979). Spelling research and practice: A unified approach. Focus on Exceptional Children, 12, 1–16.
31.
Graham, S., Schwartz, S., & MacArthur, C. (1993). Knowledge of writing and the composing process, attitude toward writing, and self-efficacy for students with and without learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 26, 237–249.
32.
Graves, D. (1979). What children show us about revision. Language Arts, 56, 312–319.
33.
Graves, D. (1983). Writing: Teachers and children at work. Exeter, NH: Heinemann.
34.
Hammill, D., Larson, S., & McNutt, G. (1977). The effects of spelling instruction: A preliminary study. Elementary School Journal, 78, 67–72.
35.
Harris, K., & Graham, S. (1992). Self-regulated strategy development: A part of the writing process. In M. Pressley, K. Harris & J. Guthrie (Eds.), Promoting academic competence and literacy in school (pp. 277–309). San Diego: Academic Press.
36.
Harris, K., & Graham, S. (1993). Cognitive strategy instruction and whole language: A case study. Remedial and Special Education, 14(4), 30–34.
37.
Harris, K. R., Graham, S., Zutell, J., & Gentry, R. (1994). Spell It—Write. Columbus, OH: Zaner-Bloser.
38.
Harris, K. R., & Pressley, M. (1991). The nature of cognitive strategy instruction: Interactive strategy instruction. Exceptional Children, 57, 392–404.
39.
Hillocks, G. (1984). What works in teaching composition: A meta-analysis of experimental studies. American Journal of Education, 93, 133–170.
40.
Juel, C. (1988). Learning to read and write: A longitudinal study of 54 children from first through fourth grade. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 437–447.
41.
Kerchner, L., & Kistinger, B. (1984). Language processing/word processing: Written expression, computers and learning disabled students. Learning Disability Quarterly, 7, 329–335.
42.
Liberman, I., & Liberman, A. (1991). Whole language vs. code emphasis: Underlying assumptions and their implications for reading instruction. In M. Studdert-Kennedy (Ed.), Haskins Laboratories status report on speech research (pp. 181–202). New Haven, CT: Haskins Laboratories.
43.
MacArthur, C., Schwartz, S., & Graham, S. (1991a). A model for writing instruction: Integrating word processing and strategy instruction into a process approach to writing. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 6, 230–236.
44.
MacArthur, C., Schwartz, S., & Graham, S. (1991b). Effects of a reciprocal peer revision strategy in special education classrooms. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 6, 201–210.
45.
Mather, N. (1992). Whole language reading instruction for students with learning disabilities: Caught in the cross fire. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 7, 89–95.
46.
McCutchen, D. (1988). “Functional automaticity” in children's writing. Written Communication, 5, 306–324.
47.
Moshman, D. (1982). Exogeneous, endogeneous, and dialectical constructivism. Developmental Review, 2, 371–384.
48.
Ormrod, J. (1986). Learning to spell while reading: A follow-up study. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 63, 652–654.
49.
Palincsar, A., & Klenk, L. (1992). Fostering literacy learning in supportive contexts. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25, 211–225.
50.
Petitto, A. (1985). Division of labor: Procedural learning in teacher-led small groups. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 117–175.
51.
Pfiaum, S., Walberg, H., Karegianes, M., & Rasher, S. (1980). Reading instruction: A quantitative analysis. Educational Researcher, 10, 12–18.
52.
Pressley, M., Harris, K. R., & Marks, M. (1992). But good strategy instructors are constructivists!Educational Psychology Review, 4, 3–31.
53.
Pritchard, R. (1987). Effects on student writing of teacher training in the National Writing Project Model. Written Communication, 4, 51–67.
54.
Resnick, L. (1987). Constructing knowledge in school. In L. Liben (Ed.), Development and learning: Conflict or congruence? (pp. 19–50). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
55.
Reyes, M. (1991). A process approach to literacy using dialogue journals and literature logs with second language learners. Research in the Teaching of English, 25, 291–313.
56.
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1986). Written composition. In M. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 778–803). New York: Macmillan.
57.
Slaughter, H. (1988). Indirect and direct teaching in a whole language program. The Reading Teacher, 42, 30–34.
58.
Smagorinsky, P. (1987). Graves revisited. Written Communication, 4, 331–342.
59.
Spiegel, D. (1992). Blending whole language and systematic direct instruction. The Reading Teacher, 46, 38–44.
60.
Tharp, R., & Gallimore, R. (1988). Rousing minds to life: Teaching, learning, and schooling in social contexts. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
61.
Vacca, R., & Rasinski, T. (1992). Case studies in whole language. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich.
62.
Wansart, W. (1988). The student with learning disabilities in a writing process classroom: A case study. Reading, Writing, and Learning Disabilities, 4, 311–319.
63.
Westby, C., & Costlow, L. (1991). Implementing a whole language program in a special education class. Topics in Language Disorders, 11, 69–84.
64.
Wilde, S. (1990). Spelling textbooks: A critical review. Linguistics and Education, 2, 259–280.
65.
Zaragoza, N., & Vaughn, S. (1992). The effects of process writing instruction on three second-grade students with different achievement profiles. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 7, 184–193.
