University of Missouri-St. Louis

Gateway Writing Project:
Composing, Computers and Contexts

Purpose of Project:

Since 1978, the Gateway Writing Project has sponsored intensive workshops for teachers of writing. It is one of 160 sites that constitute the National Writing Project, founded at the University of California-Berkeley to meet an increasing demand for highly skilled writing teachers. The effectiveness of its general approach of teachers teaching teachers about writing has already been established through extensive writing research.

By 1984, the availability and accessibility of microcomputers in the schools mandated a new kind of teacher training. Gateway's aim in this project was to help teachers use computers in writing instruction, not to focus on computer literacy or to test the efficacy of computers in writing.

In addition, this project retained the National Writing Project's stress on teachers teaching teachers. To reach these goals, Gateway embarked on a three-pronged program of:

• faculty/staff development, including presentation of current research on the composing process and writing and publication of papers by teacher participants;
• research on writing, using descriptive ethnography to generate research questions; and
• support for instructional change in writing, using writing improvement teams consisting of project-trained teachers and administrators.

Innovative Features:

Gateway's innovation was using school-based writing research to design a faculty/staff development program, blending training and research. At the project's inception, there was no model for Gateway's ideal of integrated training in teaching writing with computers.

Gateway's strategy was to bring back to the University of Missouri-St. Louis their strongest graduates from previous years' writing programs to a summer institute where they would write with computers and learn about new research on word processing and writing. During the next school year they would do classroom research on various ways to employ computers in teaching process-oriented writing. The experiences of the teacher/researchers would fine tune Gateway's model for future summer institutes.

The project staff suspected that strong computer-assisted writing programs require both systemic and instructional changes. Therefore, they provided seminars for school administrators to assist in the formation of "writing improvement teams" consisting of project-trained teachers and other resource people. They identified several pilot schools where they could work closely with these teams and learn more about the impact of computers on each school's approach to literacy. It is noteworthy that during each of the six years they have offered a summer institute in teaching writing with computers, a larger percentage of the material is drawn from the work of their own project graduates and from the experience of the local schools. Project staff believe this added greatly to the credibility of the training.

Evaluation:

Formative evaluation was the core of this project, looking most carefully at the work of teachers and students in classrooms during the school year.

First, project staff examined the individual writers, participating teachers as well as their students. Their data included holistic assessment of writing samples and several detailed case studies that included keystroke-replay of student composing sessions and cued retrospection interviews. (Prior to the introduction of computers, the project had already assessed its overall impact on students. A 1979 assessment of 2,816 test essays had showed greater gains in writing for students having Gateway teachers than in the comparison groups.)

Second, the staff widened the focus to look at the writing classroom and writing instruction. Small-scale qualitative research has been a rich source of program findings about writing. Here the data were fieldnotes from participant observation in the classroom of three different project-trained teachers who, despite their common approach to the writing process, were found to emphasize different aspects of that process. Three different revision emphases (fluency, word choice, and mechanics) were identified in the fieldnotes and then traced in student writings. Interestingly, computers promoted no single type of emphasis, but made revisions of all kinds easier.

Third, the focus was widened further to evaluate the impact of computers on the school building. Primarily, data were drawn from records of the writing improvement teams, including a written report from each pilot site.

The success of the project's implementation varied considerably from site to site. What was learned at each of these levels-the individual writer, the writing classroom, and the school building-was applied to revise and improve the training model.

Impact or Changes From Grant Activities:

During the past five years, Gateway has refined a model for using computers in the teaching of writing that has gained wide acceptance in the St. Louis area. As a direct result of its training programs, dozens of area secondary schools now have computer-equipped writing centers-most staffed by Gateway graduates. The project has achieved its goal of integrated staff development in that the computer is woven almost invisibly into writing: participants in Gateway's workshops learn word processing in the context of the writing process. Further, all four pilot school sites have active, computer-equipped writing labs and some classes that emphasize the writing process.

Many factors were found to affect a writing improvement team's impact on the school: the principal's commitment to district goals for writing, computers, or both; the leadership of a chair or language arts committee; the Gateway teachers' status in the building; and the cohesiveness of the writing staff.

Impact on Students: Between 1984 and 1989, 130 teachers from the primary grades through college completed the fourweek invitational Gateway graduate institute on teaching writing with computers. These teachers have gone on to apply what they learned to their own classroom teaching, to lead short workshops for other teachers, to conduct writing research and to publish their findings.

Impact on Administrators: Gateway's full day administrators' seminar has been offered annually since 1984 to audiences varying in size from 15 to 30. Administrative support in the pilot schools has been erratic and, at times, difficult to garner. Yet, several sites have administrators with backgrounds in teaching writing and with interest in computers. These leaders have been used to conduct seminars for other administrators. However, the project has not managed to develop supportive administrators from those lacking personal experience either as English teachers or as computer users.

Impact on Institutions: In 1984, Gateway had no official status Though recognized by the National Writing Project as a site, to its home university it was simply a summer school course and a source of minor consulting income during the year. Today it is featured in University catalogues, promotional literature, and speeches from the chancellor's office. It has strong ties to the English Department, the Extension Division and, to a lesser extent, the School of Education. When the project first began, there was real doubt in the English Department that a course in writing for teachers could justify graduate credit; today Gateway courses are known to be rigorous and their graduates are routinely approved to teach workshops off campus, some of them for graduate credit. These changes represent a dramatic rise in the project's institutional credibility.

The experience of the past five years has confirmed the importance of Gateway's teacher-centered, school-centered plan, and that the computer is not a treatment or a quick-fix for the nation's writing problems. The complexity of planning computer-enriched writing programs proved even greater than anticipated-solving such issues as space, time, access, and equity. An individual classroom teacher is much more autonomous when teaching writing with pen and paper_tools available anywhere-than when teaching with the myriad constraints of software, lab schedules, and after-school access to writing tools. Thus, future programs of computers and writing should continue to stress the classroom context and the total school learning environment.

What Activities Worked Unexpectedly?

In some ways, introducing computers into writing instruction turned out to be easier than expected, in part because computers proliferated so rapidly in the schools during the grant period. Anticipated problems, such as children's lack of keyboarding skills and teachers' computer anxiety, were actually of minimal importance.

The computer had unexpected advantages in teaching the writing process. Far from detracting from the focus on writing, the computer enhanced it. Since most schoolchildren and teachers did not have computers at home, most writing had to take place during class time. Process theorists have long urged that the writing classroom should look like an art or physical education class, not like a lecture hall. Computers almost inevitably bring about this transformation, as the writing process becomes more public, the central event of each day's class, and visible on the monitors and in pages of marked and revised printout.

Working with the Extension Division turned out to be unexpectedly effective. In the past, the few Gateway workshops run by Extension had seemed overpriced and administratively awkward. Since all of its programs must pay for themselves, the Extension staff was suspicious that Gateway was more a service operation than a money maker.

Having the FIPSE grant changed that image. Extension eventually hired a Gateway trained teacher to coordinate inservice workshops, handle contracts and budgets, and consult with schools. They also printed catalogues and brochures. The arrangement still relies on some financial support from the grants and the University, but the result has been a huge increase in training and far greater visibility for Gateway.

What Activities Didn't Work?

The writing improvement teams at the pilot schools were sometimes marred by staff transfers and erratic administrative support. An unexpected difficulty was that some schools asked to be pilots, then sent mediocre teachers to the invitational summer institutes. These teachers were not able to become strong leaders for program development in their buildings.

When a strong, writing and computer-oriented administrator already existed, and talented, dedicated writing teachers were trained, teachers easily learned to use computers in writing. But Gateway did not succeed in developing this talent where it did not already exist. Staff thought their considerable experience working with the schools would prepare them to build writing improvement teams, but they found they needed to learn still more about guided change in the public schools. They also found that when computers enter writing programs, administrative leadership becomes absolutely necessary. Teachers cannot normally purchase software, set up labs, or schedule classes without such support.

In addition, project staff found they were mistaken in assuming that the University would soon purchase more microcomputers, especially Apples, which would then be available for Gateway workshops on campus. The University lab facilities are far behind those of public secondary schools in the area.

What Do You Have To Send Others And How Do They get It?

Published materials are available in professional journals and through the Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC). A complete list of published and in-press articles, unpublished materials, conference presentations, media software, and videotapes can be obtained from the project director at the address below.
Jane Zeni
The Gateway Writing Project
English Department
University of Missouri-St. Louis
St. Louis, MO 63121
314-553-5541

Cost Efficiencies:

Most of the project's activities have been institutionalized, either as regular University credit courses, as extension programs, as faculty consulting, or as activities funded by Missouri incentive grants to individual Gateway teachers. To the degree that Gateway has been able to "piggyback" on already-funded programs, costs have been saved. For example, it has co-sponsored conferences and publications with the Greater St. Louis English Teachers' Association, and projecttrained teachers have been hired to lead off-campus workshops through UM-St. Louis Extension.

What Has Happened To The Program Since The Grant Ended?

The Gateway Writing Project's role within the University is now reasonably secure. Funding and staff have been budgeted by the Extension Division and by the College of Arts and Sciences, with additional support from the English Department and the School of Education. Two Gateway courses are listed in the college catalogues and the project has influenced the undergraduate composition and preservice English education courses.

Beginning in 1986, Extension hired a Gateway teacher as a program specialist to promote and arrange inservice workshops. This position has grown to 60% FTE and programs have doubled in three years. Secretarial support is provided by Extension and by the English Department. Gateway has been written into the Five-Year Plan by both Extension and English at a proposed budget of $50,000 per year. A small matching grant from the National Writing Project has funded a partnership with Harris-Stowe State College, an historically black teachers' college which is now sponsoring Gateway workshops in St. Louis. HSSC now has its own Gateway codirector and board, shares the cost of a joint brochure, and hopes to institutionalize the project as Missouri has done.

The program itself has been shared with educators across Missouri and in two foreign countries. Three pioneering labs founded by Gateway staff have been named Centers of Excellence by the National Council of Teachers of English. Staff took part in a computer teleconference on writing, producing an article between co-authors separated by 1,000 miles. The program's latest undertaking is organizing six state sites as the Missouri Writing Projects Network to influence w writing curriculum statewide.

[University of Missouri - Columbia] [Table of Contents] [University of Oregon]