As a literacy consultant for 20 some years, I’d heard this question often. Many teachers fail to understand the value of individual, developmental guidance during the process of writing, especially in the first 18 months of learning to read, as evidenced in research by Marie Clay. While most teachers today agree that writing (encoding) is crucial to decoding, there is much disagreement about how to teach writing.

Changing my mindset

Prior to becoming a literacy consultant, I was a teacher for more than 20 years, but I didn’t understand how conventional writing could help teach beginning reading—I didn’t understand the developmental process of writing. Neither did the kindergarten teacher on my team in the early ‘90s as we tried to develop the best kindergarten literacy program possible. We both truly believed all children learned to read just from being read to, and reading “any way” they could, within a program of immersion and exposure to meaningful print, and we developed such a program. We did include some writing—journal writing, and a story starter every week in centers, but there was no individual, developmental guidance during the process of writing. (We hadn’t heard of Cambourne’s Conditions).

A kindergarten test worth doing

To be sure our program was the “best,” we decided we needed to test the children at the beginning of our program, and again at the end. We used Clay’s Dictation, because along with testing phonemic awareness, it also tests the alphabetic principle which signifies the beginning of reading. At the end of the year we were shocked by what we saw! Our highest score was 22 out of 37, and the lowest was a zero (with four other scores only slightly above)! My fellow teacher and I were heartsick. We had failed five children by not teaching them the alphabetic principle and it was they, not us, who would bear the burden of not being able to read or write. I decided to give writing a “hard look” and I began to read everything I could find on the subject which led me to a wealth of research.

Experts taught me that writing is of major importance to early reading progress. Furthermore, a writing workshop is the best structure to use for writing, because it is based on and promotes Cambourne’s Seven Conditions of Learning: immersion, demonstration, approximation, time, responsibility, feedback, and expectation. This structure and these conditions provide for developmental learning and individual guidance during the process of writing which is important for all children, but absolutely critical to the child who is falling behind, as many scholars know.  

I began implementing writing workshops in kindergartens. In the past 20 some years, every student in every classrooms where I’ve served as a consultant has passed Clay’s Dictation with flying colors. The lowest score recorded in any of these classrooms was a 22 out of 37, the next lowest a 28, and all the rest were over 30 with many children having perfect scores 37/37. (Today they also pass the PALS Test). All these children can read and write.

Writing Workshop allows for all the right conditions of learning literacy

The appropriate transformations that enable children to understand message at the early reading stage take place only in the presence of print, and when the child is engaged and actively seeking to discover how his/her oral and written language are related, according to Clay. Writing prevents learners from overlooking many things they need to know about print, and reveals things that the teacher needs to know. All children can be introduced to a writing program at some level with which he or she can engage, and then go forward with the teacher providing some individual, developmentally appropriate strategies at points of need within a writing workshop, as seen and described in my video and book, Helping Children Become Readers Through Writing. (Note: we will refer to videos produced to support Helping Children Become Readers Through Writing. The time will refer to particular sections of the video, but will be hyperlinked to the entire video.)

Unfortunately, for kindergartners and preservice teachers, all schools do not provide writing workshops based on Cambourne’s Conditions, and this was the dilemma facing Dr. Cindy Cate and myself as we tried to plan a “hands-on” program for her preservice teachers who would work with younger children.

What is considered learning? 80% or 100%?

My testing matched Clay’s observations. Indeed 80% of kindergartners and first graders do learn to read and write on their own regardless of the teacher’s methodology; these children are flexible and able to re-orient their previous learning to the teacher’s demands.  However, with observant, supportive teachers guiding them during their process of writing, this 80% would learn to think through their reading and writing more “closely,” often generating further learning or inquiry as seen with Ryan (36:47-37:22).

What about the remaining 20%? Programs that do not allow for some individual, developmentally appropriate guidance during the process of writing or “lock-step” programs that demand a young child’s first steps into literacy be predetermined, such as teaching letters, words, and skills in isolation first while downplaying the need to work at understanding message, may be an insurmountable barrier which turns these children off into a side-road of failure. This 20% needs frequent opportunities to write and test the rules of literacy they are discovering as they actively seek to discover how their oral and written language are related, as reported by Clay. They need guidance that focuses on constructing meaning while learning strategies to aid them during the process of writing such as the Letter Name Strategy (25:02-25:33). This guidance must be individual and developmentally appropriate, or these children will struggle with literacy all their lives.

Passing the pen to Dr. Cindy Cate

My reading methods course is packed with 100 preservice teachers divided into 4 sections. We meet two times a week for an hour and 15 minutes. Luckily we have a hands-on place to practice literacy planning, instruction, and assessment. Classes are held in a literacy lab within a kindergarten-second grade elementary school, and there is also a 15-hour practicum.

I welcome the idea of setting up practicums for each preservice teacher, and I try to place them in classrooms that mirror my curriculum. In these practicums, preservice teachers document their student’s literacy behaviors, strengths and needs which guides their instruction. This documentation is supported by class discussions and required course readings.

In the beginning of the semester, the first three chapters of Arlene’s bookare required reading, because they focus on guiding the emergent writer-reader. Additionally, we view her instructional video and read Chapter five in conjunction with the video.  The preservice teachers were eager to apply the lessons in the classroom.

Once they were well into their practicums, I was approached with confusions and disappointment from those working with kindergarten students who did not have a writing workshop. These students didn’t know why their practicum experiences should be so different from what they were learning. They wondered how they would be able to foster their students’ literacy growth stage from emergent to early writer-readers.

Unfortunately, it is a fact many kindergarten classrooms do not implement a writing workshop that embraces immersing children “in the process of meaningful writing where the proper conditions of learning language are valued,” as recommended by Schulze. These conditions, based on Cambourne’s research, are discussed during the first week of classes with my preservice teachers for good reason. Similar to what Schulze cites, I, too believe that teaching preservice teachers “how” to teach reading and writing in a workshop, literacy lab environment is the only structure or approach to use.

I rely on Cambourne’s Seven Conditions, the consistent referencing of these conditions support the activities and assigned tasks in my reading methods course. Cambourne informs us that the same conditions that support children as they develop oral language can be used as a developmental model for all literacy learning—basically, using strengths to teach weaknesses (Routman).  Preservice teachers easily latched on to these conditions, especially when they read sections of Arlene’s book and were able to connect them to what they know they are learning.

When my preservice teachers share their documentations of their students’ behaviors, strengths and needs, we discuss the methods they used and weigh their usefulness against Cambourne’s Conditions as to being developmentally appropriate. For example, one of the preservice teachers reported his kindergartner’s assignment was to copy the letter “M” repeatedly on a worksheet, however, the kindergartner did not understand how to communicate his oral language into written language yet. The class decided because the kindergartner had not been “immersed” in the process of writing, and did not yet understand the alphabetic principle, he did not have the “responsibility” to derive any learning from this assignment. For letter knowledge to transfer to conventional writing, letters are learned best in the “process of writing” as can be seen with Trent (32:13-33:51).

This is how we resolved our problem of “haves” and “have nots.” Even though all my students couldn’t have a hands-on practicum experience in a writing workshop based on Cambourne’s Conditions, we were able to provide a positive experience through class discussion utilizing Cambourne’s Conditions.

Arlene C. Schulze is a longtime reading teacher-specialist, consultant and author, and she remains active as a literacy coach and speaker in Wisconsin promoting writing's value to reading, especially  on the emergent reading level and author of Helping Children Become Readers Through Writing. Cindy Cate, a graduate of UWSP, worked as  a Title I reading teacher and specialist in the Appleton Area School District of WI.  Currently she is an assistant professor of reading for UWSP .  Her doctoral study focused on preservice teacher's perceptions of planning reading instruction, and currently she chairs the preservice teacher committee of the Wisconsin State Reading Association.