Graves (1983) derived these six parts to clarify the enacting of the process-oriented writing curriculum in his Writing Workshop curriculum model. Graves defined six key points inherent to the curriculum: (1) organize the classroom for writing by conducting group meetings (2) inundate children with literature (3) take the time to write while the children write in order to set the tone for a positive writing atmosphere (4) conduct conferences with children at various stages of the writing process to empower the learner with skills to revise for meaning and edit for mechanics (5) keep the mechanics of writing (usage, punctuation, and handwriting) separate from the construction of the content of writing and (6) observe, assess, and record how your students develop as writers, through journaling and creation of record-keeping portfolios (collections of students' works). Writing Workshop was first developed by Graves (1983) and structured the teaching of writing into five categories: (1) brainstorming, (2) drafting, (3) revising, (4) editing, and (5) publishing. The writing program that we designed integrated the Writing Workshop approach (Graves, 1983 Calkins, 1983) ( ) and hypermedia-authoring 1 using HyperStudio 3.0 (Wagner, 1998) software ( ). The field notes included observations, interviews, and examinations of narrative samples. The role of the authors of this study was to direct, teach, and evaluate the writing instruction of the camp by collecting data via field notes responding to students interacting with hypermedia software. The current case study was conducted in a public school summer camp titled "Summer Art Integration: Reading and Writing through the Arts." The summer school was funded by a Goals 2000 grant to meet the needs of the children in grades 1-4 who were identified by their classroom teachers as performing poorly in literacy areas of the curriculum. Results indicate the need for early childhood educators to evaluate the curriculum, instruction, and assessment process for writing with hypermedia. In general, all participants exhibited high motivation and intense focus in all aspects of the program, particularly for their work on the computers. Older children overwhelmingly preferred to draft on the computer in HyperStudio. Additionally, younger children were less comfortable drafting on the computer, choosing instead to use concrete materials (paper, crayons, scissors, watercolors, and markers). Younger children preferred to create linear hypermedia stories (beginning, middle, and end), whereas older children preferred nonlinear programming. Field notes were analyzed using pattern matching and revealed differences and similarities between the younger (6-7) and older (8-9) children. Hypermedia-authoring took place through the use of HyperStudio 3.0 hypermedia presentation software that supported text, audio, video, and graphics tools. Process writing consisted of children engaging in writing using five discrete stages: (1) brainstorming, (2) drafting, (3) revising, (4) editing, and (5) publishing. Children experienced an 8-week process writing/hypermedia curriculum that required each learner to create a "hypermedia story" using HyperStudio 3.0. Reactive-participant data collection methods were used to enable the teachers to react to the needs of the children while collecting data on their experiences. The program, funded through a Goals 2000 grant, took place in a public school summer camp for children ( n=160) ages 6-9 in a public school in rural northeast Mississippi. The Synthesis of Writing Workshop and Hypermedia-Authoring:Ī process writing and hypermedia literacy program was designed, taught, and evaluated by early childhood teachers.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |