8.4 The Writing Process, Discourse Genres, & Writing Rubrics

Theoretical Frameworks of Writing Instruction

Quick Answer: Just as the Simple View of Reading frames reading, two intertwined cognitive models frame the Praxis 5205's approach to writing: the Simple View of Writing (Berninger and colleagues, early 2000s) and the Not So Simple View of Writing (Berninger & Winn, 2006). Both assert that skilled composition depends on transcription skills (handwriting/keyboard fluency and spelling), text generation (translating ideas into sentences and connected discourse), and executive functions (planning, monitoring, and revising)—all operating inside strictly limited working memory. The direct instructional consequences are to automatize transcription through explicit handwriting, keyboarding, and spelling instruction, and to teach planning and revision strategies explicitly rather than assuming students will discover them.

The Simple View of Writing

Adapted from Gough and Tunmer's model for reading, the Simple View of Writing holds that composition depends on three coordinated capacities:

1. Transcription Skills: The mechanical production of written language—handwriting/keyboard fluency (letter formation and typing automaticity) and spelling (encoding spoken phonemes into conventionally correct graphemes). When transcription is slow and effortful, almost all working memory is consumed by putting legible text on the page, leaving no cognitive capacity for ideas.
2. Text Generation: Translating ideas and language into actual written words, phrases, sentences, and connected discourse (paragraphs, narratives, explanations).
3. Executive Functions: Conscious regulatory processes—maintaining the reader's point of view and the writer's goals in mind, planning, monitoring output, and reviewing and revising the draft.

If a student cannot yet form letters automatically or spell common words accurately, instruction must first automate transcription (e.g., explicit letter formation practice, phoneme-grapheme encoding routines) before expecting fluent essay composition—exactly the same logic LaBerge and Samuels' Automaticity Theory applies to reading.

The Not So Simple View of Writing (Berninger & Winn, 2006)

Virginia Berninger and William Winn deepened the model into the Not So Simple View of Writing, emphasizing that the three components do not simply add together; they interact dynamically within and compete for limited working memory, and each component has its own developmental trajectory:

• Transcription: Letter formation, keyboarding fluency, and spelling must become automatic so that working memory is freed for composing.
• Text Generation: Students learn in layered sequences—first words, then sentences, then connected discourse—so sentence-level mastery (Section 8.3) precedes paragraph-level composition (Section 8.4).
• Executive Functions: Conscious attention to the writing task, planning, reviewing, revising, self-regulation, and strategic control of the whole process. These are taught explicitly through frameworks such as self-regulated strategy development (teaching students to set goals, self-monitor, and self-reinforce).

The Not So Simple View also places writing inside a social and environmental context: working memory, the writing materials and tools provided (pencil, paper, keyboard, word processor), classroom instruction, and the student's developing language all shape outcomes. A student is never a "bad writer"—instead, one or more of these components is underdeveloped and requires targeted, explicit instruction.

---

The Recursive Nature of the Writing Process

Early pedagogical models in the mid-twentieth century mistakenly treated writing as a rigid, step-by-step assembly line where students planned on Monday, drafted on Tuesday, edited on Wednesday, and published on Friday. Modern cognitive writing research—grounded in the foundational work of Donald Graves (Process Writing) and John Hayes and Linda Flower (Cognitive Process Theory of Writing)—reveals that proficient writing is fundamentally recursive.

A recursive writing process means that writers move fluidly back and forth between stages as their ideas develop. A writer who is drafting may pause to conduct additional prewriting research; a writer engaged in revision may discover a structural gap that requires redrafting an entire paragraph; and editing occurs throughout as sentence clarity is refined.

---

The Five Recursive Stages of the Writing Process

                         THE RECURSIVE WRITING CYCLE
                         
              ┌──────────────────────────────────────────────┐
              ▼                                              │
     [ 1. PREWRITING ] ◄───► [ 2. DRAFTING ] ◄───► [ 3. REVISING (ARMS) ]
              ▲                    ▲                         │
              │                    │                         ▼
              │                    └─────────────► [ 4. EDITING (CUPS) ]
              │                                              │
              └──────────────────────────────────────────────┴──► [ 5. PUBLISHING ]

1. Prewriting / Planning

The generative foundation of writing. Writers select topics, analyze the writing prompt, determine their audience and purpose, gather information, and organize their thoughts using visual scaffolds.

• Strategies & Tools: Brainstorming lists, quick-writes, semantic webs, Venn diagrams (for compare/contrast), chronological timelines, and structured graphic organizers (e.g., Hamburger paragraph organizer, OREO opinion organizer).
• Key Principle: Writers should generate a clear organizational plan before putting pencil to paper, reducing cognitive load during drafting.

2. Drafting

The process of translating conceptual ideas into continuous written prose (transcription).

• Pedagogical Priority: Fluency of ideas over mechanical perfection. Teachers must encourage students to get their thoughts down on paper without allowing fear of spelling or punctuation errors to inhibit cognitive expression.
• Scaffolding: Providing sentence stems, word banks of transition words, and designated drafting formats (skipping lines to leave space for subsequent revision).

3. Revising: The Craft of Meaning (ARMS)

Revising literally means 're-seeing' the piece. It is an intellectual, content-driven stage focused on improving clarity, organization, paragraph structure, voice, and elaboration. It deals with global composition.

4. Editing: Polishing Conventions (CUPS)

Editing is the stage where the writer cleans up the surface features and mechanics of the text. Editing should occur after major content revisions are complete to avoid wasting time polishing sentences that may later be removed.

5. Publishing / Sharing

The final stage where the piece is prepared for presentation to an authentic audience. Publishing validates the student's effort as a legitimate author.

• Formats: Author's chair oral reading, illustrated class anthologies, classroom bulletin boards, digital classroom blogs, online class magazines, or mailing letters to authentic community recipients.

Digital Tools for Writing, Communication, and Publishing

Modern writing instruction integrates digital tools at every stage of the recursive process, especially for students whose transcription deficits block text generation:

• Word processing with spelling/grammar support: Drafting in a word processor reduces the motor and orthographic load of handwriting and provides immediate visual feedback on surface conventions, letting students invest working memory in ideas and revision.
• Speech-to-text dictation: Students with dyslexia or dysgraphia dictate first drafts conversationally and then revise the transcript, separating text generation from transcription (see Section 9.3 accommodations).
• Text-to-speech for revision: Hearing software read a draft aloud exposes missing words, fused sentences, and awkward phrasing that silent rereading masks—an effective self-monitoring tool during CUPS editing.
• Collaborative online documents: Shared documents and commenting features support real-time teacher conferencing and structured peer feedback (praise–question–suggestion) as writing is being produced.
• Digital publishing and portfolios: Classroom blogs, slideshows, and digital book-making apps give writing an authentic audience and build a cumulative portfolio the teacher can use for progress review.

---

The Three Major Elementary Discourse Genres

Elementary state standards and the Praxis 5205 require mastery of three distinct writing genres. Each genre serves a unique rhetorical purpose and possesses distinct structural and organizational conventions.

---

Assessing Written Expression: Holistic vs. Analytic Scoring Rubrics

Writing assessment serves two distinct purposes in the elementary classroom: summative benchmarking and formative instructional guidance. The design of the scoring rubric determines its pedagogical utility.

                      RUBRIC COMPARISON MATRIX
                      
   HOLISTIC SCORING RUBRIC                   ANALYTIC SCORING RUBRIC
  ┌─────────────────────────┐               ┌─────────────────────────┐
  │ Single Composite Score  │               │ Trait 1: Ideas & Content│
  │ (e.g., Level 3 Overall) │               │ Trait 2: Organization   │
  │                         │               │ Trait 3: Voice          │
  │ Fast & Efficient for    │               │ Trait 4: Word Choice    │
  │ Large-Scale Summative   │               │ Trait 5: Sentence Flow  │
  │ Evaluations             │               │ Trait 6: Conventions    │
  └─────────────────────────┘               └─────────────────────────┘
     (Lacks diagnostic data)                   (Rich diagnostic data)

Holistic Rubrics

• Definition: Evaluates the writing sample as a single, unified whole, assigning one overall score (e.g., 1 through 4 or 1 through 6) based on predetermined general performance criteria.
• Advantages: Fast, highly reliable for large-scale standardized state testing, and effective for end-of-year summative benchmarking.
• Disadvantages: Provides no granular diagnostic feedback. A student receiving a '2' cannot tell whether their score stemmed from poor organizational structure, weak supporting details, or mechanical spelling errors.

Analytic Rubrics

• Definition: Evaluates the writing sample across multiple distinct, independent criteria or traits (e.g., the widely used 6+1 Trait Writing Model: Ideas, Organization, Voice, Word Choice, Sentence Fluency, Conventions, and Presentation).
• Advantages: Provides rich, formative diagnostic information that pinpoints specific student strengths and instructional gaps. Enables teachers to design targeted small-group mini-lessons and empowers students to set personal revision goals.
• Disadvantages: Scoring is significantly more time-consuming for the classroom teacher.

---

Formative Scaffolding: Conferences & Self-Monitoring

1. Teacher-Student Writing Conferences

Effective writing conferences are brief (3–5 minutes), focused conversations designed to teach one transferable writing skill:

• Structure: (1) Research: Ask the student what they are working on as a writer; (2) Compliment: Praise one specific successful craft or structural choice; (3) Teach: Model one clear, actionable revision strategy; (4) Link: Have the student immediately apply the strategy before leaving.

2. Structured Peer Conferencing Protocols

Unstructured peer editing often devolves into unhelpful remarks ("I liked it, it's good") or erroneous mechanical corrections. Structured peer conferencing relies on explicit sentence starters and targeted roles:

• Praise: "I really liked how you used the detail ______ because it helped me picture the scene."
• Question: "I got confused in the second paragraph when you moved from ______ to ______."
• Suggestion: "Could you add a transition word here to show why the character was upset?"

3. Student Self-Monitoring Checklists

Before submitting drafts for grading, students use formative self-assessment checklists aligned with analytic rubric criteria (e.g., verifying that every paragraph has a clear topic sentence, checking transitions, and auditing for CUPS mechanics).