Chained and Confused

Teacher Perceptions of Formulaic Writing

Authors

  • Amy A Lannin University of Missouri Author
  • Roy F Fox University of Missouri Author

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.1558/wap.v2i1.39

Keywords:

Research, writing instruction, online learning, English education, teacher education

Abstract

This study focuses on how teachers enrolled in a graduate level, online English Education course perceived formulaic or thesis-driven student writing, commonly associated with the traditional “five-paragraph essay.” One goal of this course, “Writing, Reading, and Teaching Creative Nonfiction,” was to engage teachers in reflecting about the uses of this “new” genre in their own classrooms. Living in several states, the participants included one science teacher, four Special Education teachers, and ten middle and secondary Language Arts teachers. We analyzed 12 separate prompts posted to the discussion board over a six-week period. Also, participants were required to post one “thread” into each discussion board, with follow-up comments to threads from at least two other participants. Approximately 75 out of a total of 800 coded comments dealt with formulaic writing. The following patterns of participants’ perceptions emerged from these comments: (1) student benefits of formulaic writing; (2) a hierarchical sequence for teaching writing; (3) obligations to teach formulaic writing; (4) resistance to formulaic writing; (5) the constraints of formulaic writing on students; and (6) the constraints of formulaic writing on teachers. Based on this study, we recommend that teachers engage in writing themselves which includes risk taking, modeling writing and significant revision for their students, and sharing models of writing; ensure that their students write in many forms and genres, including, but not limited to, the five-paragraph essay; develop realistic views of the expectations and obligations they face daily; and internalize effective writing practices. In the process of exploring the genre of creative nonfiction, teachers also had to grapple with old debates, as almost all of this study’s participants changed their views, discovering that the chains they had felt actually were not as tight as they had originally believed.

Author Biographies

  • Amy A Lannin, University of Missouri

    Amy A. Lannin earned her PhD in English Education from the University of Missouri. Lannin teaches English education courses for graduate and undergraduate students and serves as Associate Director for the Missouri Writing Project, a site of the National Writing Project. In addition, Lannin is involved in research studies that examine the effectiveness of professional development on teacher practice and student writing, the uses of freewriting, and the teaching of writing.

  • Roy F Fox, University of Missouri

    Roy F. Fox (PhD, University of Missouri) is Professor of English Education and Director of the Missouri Writing Project at the University of Missouri. Fox is former Chair of the Department of Learning, Teaching, and Curriculum. His research focuses on the teaching of writing, media literacy, and the connections between writing and wellness.

References

Brannon, L., Pooler Courtney, J., Urbanski, C., Woodward, S. V., Marklin Reynolds, J., Iannone, A. E., Haag, K. D., Mach, K., Arnold Manship, L., and Kendrick, M. (2008) The five-paragraph essay and the deficit model of education. English Journal 98: 16–21.

Glover, J. A., Bruning, R. H., and Filbeck, R. W. (1983) Educational Psychology: Principles and Applications. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.

Haswell, R. H. (1991) Bound forms in freewriting: The issue of organization. In P. Belanoff, P. Elbow, and S. Fontaine (eds.) Nothing Begins with N: New Investigations of Freewriting 32–68. Carbondale, Illinois: Southern Illinois University Press.

Hesse, D. D. (2002) Writing and learning to write: A modest bit of history and theory for writing students. In D. Roen, V. Pantoja, L. Yena, S. K. Miller, E. Waggoner (eds.) Strategies for Teaching First-Year Composition 38–44. Urbana, Illinois: National Council of Teachers of English.

Hillocks, G., Jr. (2002) The Testing Trap. New York: Teachers College Press.

Hillocks, G., Jr. (2005) At last: The focus on form vs. content in teaching writing. Research in the Teaching of English 40: 238–248.

Lutz, W. (1996) The New Doublespeak: Why No One Knows What Anyone’s Saying Anymore. New York: Harper Perennial.

Macrorie, K. (1984) Writing to be Read. Portsmouth, New Hampshire: Heinemann.

Ramage, J. D., Bean, J. C., and Johnson, J. (2003) The Allyn and Bacon Guide to Writing. New York: Longman.

Warriner, J. E. (1982) Warriner’s English Grammar and Composition. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

Published

2010-06-11

Issue

Section

Research Matters

How to Cite

Lannin, A. A., & Fox, R. F. (2010). Chained and Confused: Teacher Perceptions of Formulaic Writing. Writing and Pedagogy, 2(1), 39-64. https://doi.org/10.1558/wap.v2i1.39

Most read articles by the same author(s)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 > >>