WRITING WORKSHOP

LITERARY CRITICISM
Curriculum Constructs and Assessment: English/Language Arts
Cynthia Gallagher
 Introduct
ion
Consider your journal, group discussions, and the two basic
genres of literature as you select a topic and structure a thesis,
supportive thesis, and conclusion:
 Nonfiction  Fiction (Creative Forms)
 Prose  Prose
 Essays  Short story
 Journalism (Informational)  The Novel
 Historic books  The Play
 Research papers  The Screenplay
 Textbooks  Experimental Forms
 Other Instructional books
 Letters
 Poetry
 Nonfictional genre are based on:
 Free-form
 Length and purpose  Metrical Form
 Basic persuasion  Figurative Qualities
 Dialectic persuasion
 Analytical qualities
 Narrative qualities
 Degree of Improvisation
 Method for Selection of a
Topic
 Student Determination (Smagorinsky,
2003)--Refer to current interests noted in
ongoing journals
 Consider the subject matter
 Is it fiction or nonfiction?
 Brainstorm in respect to ongoing decisions
shaped by notes, discussions, reviews

 Consider your subject matter

 Consider the topic, thesis, conclusion, figurative
speech, and analogies (Crews, 1987) that you
would like to develop
 Consider all hypotheses and conclusions that
your thesis will support; develop an outline
 Structure of the
Workshop Plan
Two Weeks (10 days) devoted to the Writing Workshop
Proper as identified by the references and accumulative
elaborations of the Milners
Day # Writing Structural Purpose
Strategy
1 Teacher/Student Expand, elucidate upon original premise; decide
Conferences on general, specific genres to develop;
brainstorm
2 Teacher/Student Relay and substantiate topic to fellow students;
Conferences each student has an opportunity to reflect upon
specific concerns of the main subject, writing
process
3 Status of the Class Reveal structural disorders, awkward
Conference coordination

4 Mini Lesson Share and develop the writing process, confer

programs, share potential new topics, subtopics,
theses, transitions
5 Mini Lesson Share further concerns about rhetorical and
figurative functions, thesis, style, voice,
conclusion, writing process
6 Teacher/Student Report on development, revisions, transformations,
 Instructional Strategy for
Writing
Skill Development
 Because “writing is an extended process that includes
prewriting, writing, and rewriting (revising and
editing),” “all modes of written discourse take only
one shape” --both fiction and nonfiction are
developed through prewriting, free-writing,
organization tools, and mind-mapping (Milner, 2002,
p. 299)
 The Writing-Process Instructional Strategy is a holistic
process—from the focus or topic, the thesis or
substance branches into a transition and conclusion
or climax and denouement or resolution.
 Instructional Strategy for Writing
Skill Development—Extended
Writing Process
 Prewriting  First Draft
 Journal Entries  Question Responses
 Generated Ideas
 Structural Tasks
 Brainstorm
 Complete original
 Discussion
content
 Structuring Ideas
 Discussion
 Outline thesis to
conclusion
 Mind-mapping
 Free-writing
 Instructional Strategy for Writing
Skill Development—Extended
Writing Process
 Revise and Edit  Publish, Group Share
 Proofread
 Polish syntactic,
 Read aloud
paragraph, sequential  Post for viewing
construction  Compile into a bound
 Revise syntax,
volume and
grammar, punctuation accumulative portfolio
 Reconsider and revise
 Share by web page
logical rationale
 Revise introduction,  Share at local

body, conclusion, bookstore and library

analogies to align with author reviews
coherent rationale,
cogency
Purpose
of the Writing
Task
 Component of Collaboration
or Sharing of Student Work
 Post to online sources such as:
 http://www.scribd.com
 Acquire a class web or individual webs through
internet providers or through a independent
server
 Submit to the school newspaper (most include
hardcopy and softcopy editions)
 Submit to community and academic news, both
online and brick-and-mortar editions
 Note the teacher’s online web for potential submission
 Method for Tracking
and Evaluating Student
Work
 The student workshop enables students and teachers to refer regularly to
the student’s writing portfolio, thus, the method for tracking and evaluating
student work:
 This method permits evaluation and writing by osmosis, allowing students
to develop writing through a gradual process.
 Teacher guidance augments the overall process, as the mentor or teacher
evaluating student work regularly.
 The method of tracking and evaluating student work enables permits
learning and evaluating a language by osmosis--regular exposure and
application of that language leads the language learner and writer to
fluency.
 The student requires the attention that the teacher conveys through the
process of absorption or diffusion.
 The portfolio model is beneficial to the mentor or teacher who seeks to
effectively track and evaluate student work toward the student’s grasp of
effective writing skills, a process that reaches a state of effortlessness as
the communicative or writing processes are assimilated by the student
writer.
 Performance-Standards Based
Two-Tiered Rubric
 The two-tiered portfolio rubric of
C.B. Burch developed by
students divided the rubric into
two sections (Burch, 1997):
 (1) The quantity of the contents of
the portfolio, which comprises 60
percent of the awarded credit—
writing, meta-writing/reflection,
peer writing, and writer’s choice;
 (2) The quality of the portfolio
which comprises 40 points for
voice, organization, reflection,
development, mechanics/usage.
 Rubric
Name Volume of Content Added to Portfolio Quality Added to Portfolio through
through workshop (60% of grade) workshop (40% of grade)

Topic Thesis Peer- Conclusio Revisio Voice Structur Meta- Develop- Mechanics
Evaluations n n e cognitive ment
style
 Referenc
es
 Brainerd, L., Lee, R. and Roebuck Reed, C. (2006). California subject matter for
teachers, 2nd Edition. New York: Kaplan Publishing Company.
 Burch, C.B. (1997). Creating a two-tiered portfolio rubric. English Journal,
86(1), 55-58.
 California State Board of Education (2008, August). Language arts content
standards for public schools. Retrieved December 3, 2008, from
http://www.cde.gov/be/st/ss/
 Crews, Frederick, University of California, Berkeley (1987). The Random House
 
handbook, 5th Edition. New York: Random House.
 Milner, Joseph and Lucy (2003). Bridging English, 3rd Edition. New Jersey and
Ohio: Merrill Prentice-Hall and Pearson Education.
 Smagorinsky, Peter (2002). Teaching English through principled practice. New
York: Merrill Prentice-Hall and Pearson Education, Inc.