Conferring with Young Second-Language Writers: Keys to Success

by Antony Smith

 

Ms. Lewis: Alright. Let's brainstorm, let's talk about the golden watch. How did your mom know about the watch?

Kiri: My dad drove her to the store and she looked in the window and she really liked that watch.

Ms. Lewis: Ah, so your dad showed it to her. Do you remember the name of the store?

Kiri: I can't remember.

Ms. Lewis: OK.

Kiri: I know it's a Chinese store.

Ms. Lewis: It's a Chinese store?

Kiri: Mm hmm.

Ms. Lewis: Where could we put that? Where would it make sense to put it?

Kiri: In the beginning.

Ms. Lewis: In the beginning, OK, where should we say that, "The watch is in…"

Kiri: A Chinese store.

Ms. Lewis: Do you remember what she said?

Kiri: No, she just looked really shocked.

Ms. Lewis: She looked shocked. Why do you think she looked shocked?

Kiri: Probably because she likes it.

Ms. Lewis: Probably because she likes it. Do you think she thought she was going to get it?

Kiri: Yah.

Ms. Lewis: Yah, OK.

Kiri is an English Language Learner (ELL) in the second grade, and Ms. Lewis is her mainstream classroom teacher. They, along with three other second grade students (one ELL, two native English speakers), were participants in a case study I conducted to explore how writing is discussed in teacher-student conferences and the what connections could be made between conference discussions and changes students make to their written drafts.

Teacher-student writing conferences are brief discussions of students' writing at any stage in the writing process, from prewriting to publishing. Widely considered to be powerful teaching opportunities (Ray, 1999; Thomason, 1998), and even the heart of the writing process (Calkins, 1994), conferences may focus on generating ideas, revising and expanding text, editing, or exploring what it is like to be a writer. These conferences hold promise as a way to deliver meaningful instruction (Graves, 1983; Black, 1998) and to foster student discussion of writing (McIver & Wolf, 1999).

Despite these promises, I had questions about how young ELL students experience writing conferences, which often take place in a process-writing context. Process writing, of which the writing conference is an integral component, was developed with the native English speaker in mind; these native speakers bring a highly-developed English language proficiency to the classroom, while ELLs do not (Hinkel, 2002). As I began scheduling observations with Ms. Lewis, I wondered what the writing conference experience would be like for the ELLs in her class. Writing is a difficult task, especially in a second (or third) language, and to have to talk about one's writing with the teacher seems potentially terrifying. With Ms. Lewis' help, I selected two ELLs to participate in my study: Kiri and Mai, both English-proficient students who had exited the school's English as a Second Language (ESL) program the previous year.

To observe writing conferences in action, I made regular visits to Ms. Lewis' classroom over a period of three months, talking with her and her students about their writing, videotaping teacher-student conferences, and collecting samples of students' written drafts. During this time each student participated in a book-writing project, developing a piece of writing from initial prewriting to a typed, illustrated, and laminated book, which would be shared with the class and taken home to read to family members. The experiences of all four students provided valuable insights into how writing conferences can function in a primary classroom, but of particular interest were the experiences of Kiri and Mai, who were not only learning to write, but learning to do so in a second language.

Overall, the book-writing project was a positive experience for Ms. Lewis and her students. As Hudelson (1989) observed, the writing ELLs produce looks similar to what is produced by native English speakers. Further, Kiri and Mai appeared comfortable with process writing as a way to explore language and ideas in English without the pressures of performance or immediate feedback (Watts-Taffe & Truscott, 2000). But the project could just as easily have been a failure. Creating a process-writing environment and conducting lots of conferences does not ensure successful teaching or learning. Ms. Lewis, in this case, used five powerful approaches that helped facilitate writing conferences and scaffold the book-writing project for her students. While I will discuss these key approaches in relation to the experiences of Kiri and Mai, they have instructional utility for teachers conferring with a wide range of students working on a variety of projects.

Focus on the student's funds of knowledge
Kiri and Mai chose to write about life experiences outside of school, enabling them to draw upon their unique funds of knowledge (Moll, 1994). Their familiarity with these writing topics enabled Kiri and Mai to actively participate in conference conversations with Ms. Lewis. Kiri, for example, talked about going to a special store with her family to look at golden watches. This was part of the story she was developing about deciding what kind of birthday present to buy her mother (and how to pay for it). Mai wrote about playing with, and being annoyed by, her little sister. She talked at length with Ms. Lewis about many of her sibling-related joys and frustrations.

Good writers write about what they know, and for children, this often means school and home experiences. Writing about these topics presents a valuable opportunity for ELLs who are developing English and writing skills at the same time (Peregoy & Boyle, 2001). Both Kiri and Mai knew much more about their topics than was written in their brief first drafts; this gave Ms. Lewis the opportunity to explore and discuss ideas during the conferences, leading to substantial changes and additions to her students' written drafts.

Ground discussion in the student's written draft
Focusing on the student's writing helped establish a clear sense of purpose for both the conferences and the overall project. Ms. Lewis began each conference by reading her student's draft, or by having the student read the draft aloud. Later in the conference, as ideas were being discussed, she drew connections back to the draft. At the conclusion of the conference, Ms. Lewis made sure her student had a clear sense of what part of the draft to work on next. These three parts of the conference kept the discussion focused on the purpose Ms. Lewis had chosen for the conferences—to expand ideas and improve the draft. Kiri and Mai benefited from this clear focus. Mai, for example, was able to share a large number of activities, games, and arguments she had experienced with her sometimes-bossy little sister; Kiri expanded details about her birthday present ordeal that were mentioned in her draft but not explained. By staying grounded in her students' writing, Ms. Lewis helped keep conference discussions practical, comfortable, and focused.

Prompt students to expand their ideas
Both Kiri and Mai knew a great deal about their topics, but struggled to capture many details in writing. Ms. Lewis used the writing conference discussions to push her students to expand ideas and develop writing skills. She accomplished this by using a combination of open-ended prompts and detail-related questions during the writing conferences. For example, after beginning a conference with Mai and reviewing her draft, she prompted Mai with, "Tell me some other things that you and your sister do together." This led to a discussion of many different activities, including riding a scooter and having to share it. Ms. Lewis followed this lead with the question, "How do you feel about that sharing business?" Mai answered, "Not that good. She says, 'it's my turn it's my turn,' and I only got to ride around like two times." By prompting Mai and following up with a few carefully-chosen detail questions, Ms. Lewis was able to facilitate discussion in the conference; this discussion led to changes in Mai's written drafts and ultimately to a finished version high in interest and rich in detail.

Scaffold the conference using note taking
Taking notes during writing conferences helps bridge the gap between discussing a draft and making written changes to it. Ms. Lewis used several approaches to note taking when conferring with her students. At times she simply wrote on the student's draft as she talked (after asking permission,) while on other occasions the student took notes on the draft during the conference.

The preferred approach to taking notes was to use Post-Its. Ms. Lewis and her students loved writing on these little yellow squares and sticking them here and there on the drafts. Ms. Lewis found them handy for writing short lists of details for Mai or Kiri to include in their drafts; her students had fun jotting down words to remember and sticking the notes on the page. Kiri had, at one point, five Post-Its attached to the working draft of her story. When I talked to her about her writing and how it was going, she said, "I felt like I was already done, but I'm going to have to make a few changes." The yellow Post-It squares arranged in rows across her draft were a visual reminder of work needing to be done—but this did not appear to be discouraging. After the next writing conference, two weeks later, I asked her again for her thoughts about her draft, and she said, "I think it's good. I've been working on it for almost two weeks. I've added a lot to my writing." Using Post-Its sparingly and making sure the ideas on them are soon incorporated into the next draft appear to be key factors in connecting conference discussions to changes in writing.

Schedule several short conferences to keep the process moving
Ms. Lewis met with each of her students four times during the book-writing project; conferences lasted an average of twelve minutes. Keeping the conferences short and to the point maintained the pace and flow of the project and preserved student enthusiasm. The brevity of the conferences also enabled Ms. Lewis to meet with two or three students during each writing session while also monitoring the rest of her students as they worked independently.

By scheduling a series of conferences, Ms. Lewis was also able to seize teachable moments and focus on the unique needs of her young writers. She helped Kiri establish a sequence of events for her story about her mother's birthday presents—a sequence that had been confusing in earlier drafts. Ms. Lewis helped Mai focus her writing on the fun yet frustrating relationship she had with her little sister. Both girls added details to expand their stories, deleted extra or unrelated information, and moved sentences and ideas around to improve the quality of their writing. Ms. Lewis was able to monitor her students' progress at each conference, prompt them about additional ideas to explore, and provide scaffolding and instruction. Writing is a messy endeavor, but with frequent and focused conferences, Ms. Lewis was able to provide enough scaffolding to allow her students to work through the process and arrive at a finished piece.

Conclusion
Writing conferences hold promise as an effective instructional tool for ELLs in mainstream classrooms. In this case study, both Kiri and Mai experienced success both in participating in writing conferences with their teacher and in completing the book-writing project. They talked with Ms. Lewis about story ideas and possible changes to their drafts. Whether responding to Ms. Lewis' prompts, answering detail questions about their writing, or volunteering ideas for how to change their stories, Kiri and Mai were active participants in the conference discussions. Additionally, the writing samples I collected over the course of the project indicated Kiri and Mai made a large number of changes to their drafts, finishing the project with detailed and organized stories.

Cummins (2000) identifies four organizational aspects of schooling that have a direct impact on the empowerment (or disempowerment) of culturally diverse students. Fitting particularly well with the experiences of these two ELLs is the third aspect of schooling: "The extent to which instruction promotes intrinsic motivation on the part of students to use language actively in order to generate their own knowledge, create literature and art, and act on social realities that affect their lives" (p. 47).

The success of the book-writing project was due in part to its utilization of students' knowledge and experiences and its emphasis on writing for authentic purposes and real audiences, highlighting the importance of curricular and instructional choices teachers make—choices that can either encourage and motivate students or alienate them through the use of unfamiliar or uninteresting assignments. As Bruner (1977) aptly noted, "The best way to create interest in a subject is to render it worth knowing" (p. 31).

For Kiri and Mai, the conference approach seemed to work: They talked about changes to text, and they made them. Their success may be largely attributed to the five key instructional approaches chosen by their teacher: focus on students' funds of knowledge; ground discussion in the student's written draft; prompt students to expand their ideas; scaffold the conference using note-taking; schedule several short conferences to keep the process moving.

Finally, the conferences, and the book-writing project overall, were made possible by the nurturing classroom context in which they occurred. This context was comprised of a number of factors, including: a caring environment, time to write, choice of topics, and projects that were both authentic and motivating. These contextual factors are essential, especially for ELLs, but with high-stakes testing, pull-out programs, and other stressful forces, classroom teachers struggle to create such contexts for young writers. Schedules become fragmented, rubrics become dominant goals, and students end up writing about set topics to prepare for upcoming tests. Yet it's worth remembering that writing is a valuable and lifelong endeavor, and that tests do not make children good writers. Ms. Lewis and her students showed me the benefits of dedicating significant amounts of time and energy to a worthwhile writing project. They also showed me that motivated writers work hard, good writing takes time, and first drafts are almost always messy. Their experiences suggest that writing conferences are indeed the heart of the writing process, and with this in mind, the potential of the teacher-student writing conference becomes clear.

---

References

Black, L. J. (1998). Between talk and teaching: Reconsidering the writing conference. Logan, UT: Utah State University Press.

Bruner, J. S. (1977). The process of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Calkins, L. (1994). The art of teaching writing (2nd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Cummins, J. (2000). Language, power, and pedagogy: Bilingual children in the crossfire. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.

Graves, D. (1983). Writing: Teachers and children at work. Exeter, NH: Heinemann.

Hinkel, E. (2002). Second language writers' text: Linguistic and rhetorical features. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Hudelson, S. (1989). Write on: Children writing in ESL. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Regents.

McIver, M. C., & Wolf, S. A. (1999). "The power of the conference is the power of suggestion." Language Arts, 77, 54-61.

Moll, L. C. & Gonzalez, N. (1994). "Lessons from research with language-minority children." Journal of Reading Behavior, 26, 439-56.

Peregoy, S., & Boyle, O. (2001). Reading, writing, & learning in ESL: A resource book for K-12 teachers. New York: Longman.

Ray, K. (1999). Wondrous words: Writers and writing in the elementary classroom. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.

Thomason, T. (1998). Writer to writer: How to conference with young authors. Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon.

Watts-Taffe, S., & Truscott, D. (2000). "Using what we know about language and literacy development for ESL students in the mainstream classroom." Language Arts, 77, 258-264.

---

About the author

Antony Smith is currently a PhD candidate in Education at the University of Washington. He is an experienced classroom teacher, having worked with diverse groups of students at the elementary, high school, and college level. His primary research interests are literacy development in curriculum and instruction, teacher education, and professional development for classroom teachers. He may be reached via email at smithant@u.washington.edu

Antony Smith
University of Washington
College of Education
Box 353600
Seattle, WA 98185
(206) 543-6636

---

©March 2005 New Horizons for Learning
http://www.newhorizons.org
info@newhorizons.org

For permission to redistribute, please go to:
New Horizons for Learning Copyright and Permission Information