February 26, 2025 • 39 mins
In this episode of Science of Reading: The Podcast, Susan Lambert is joined by Judith Hochman, Ed.D., co-author of “The Writing Revolution.” Their conversation begins as Dr. Hochman recalls the early days of writing instruction and research, then delves into the connection between better writing and better reading. Dr. Hochman touches upon topics such as writing comprehension, her experience implementing writing instruction as a classroom teacher and as an administrator, and how the writing revolution came to be. She also answers a question from our listener mailbag, providing a detailed overview of the scope and sequence for transitioning student writing from sentence composition to paragraphs to whole texts.
Show notes:
- Resources
- Join our community Facebook group: www.facebook.com/groups/scienceofreading
- Connect with Susan Lambert: www.linkedin.com/in/susan-lambert-b1512761/
Quotes:
“I had an epiphany that our students really had to learn writing as a second language.” —Judith Hochman
“Having students write a lot is not teaching writing. It's just like if you put a lot of books in a classroom, students don't magically begin to read.” —Judith Hochman
“This is not learned by osmosis, and it's not learned by vague feedback like, ‘Make it better,’ or, ‘Add more details.’ You've got to be very granular. This is not a naturally occurring skill in human development for any of us.” —Judith Hochman
Episode timestamps*
03:00 Introduction: Who is Judith Hochman?
06:00 Time as an administrator
09:00 Judith’s early days of teaching writing
11:00 Classroom activities for teaching students to write
12:00 Atlantic article and NYC high school case
15:00 The writing revolution
16:00 How kids learn to write based on the research
20:00 Listener mailbag question
21:00 Writing and comprehension
27:00 Transitioning from writing sentences to writing paragraphs
34:00 Final thoughts
*Timestamps are approximate
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Judith Hochman (00:00):
Assigning writing is not teaching.
Writing and having studentswrite a lot is not teaching
writing. It's just like if youput a lot of books in a
classroom, students don'tmagically begin to read.
Susan Lambert (00:17):
This is Susan Lambert, and welcome to Science
of Reading (00:20):
The Podcast from Amplify. This is episode 11 in
our reading reboot, reexaminingand building on foundational
literacy concepts. If you'vebeen on this journey with us,
you know that we've beenbringing writing into this
season's conversations, aswe've talked about again and
again. It's so important tounderstand the
(00:42):
interconnectedness of readingand writing. And now, as we
head into this season's homestretch, we have some episodes
lined up that are specificallyfocused on the critical role of
writing. Today, we're fortunateto be joined by the perfect
person for this topic, Dr.
Judith Hochman, author andfounder of The Writing
(01:04):
Revolution. Dr. Hochman is alongtime educator whose
approach to writing instructionwas featured in an
award-winning 2012 article inThe Atlantic. From there, she
founded The Writing Revolution,a not-for-profit organization
that spreads evidence-basedstrategies for writing
instruction. Along with NatalieWexler, she authored "The
Writing Revolution (01:27):
A Guide to Advancing Thinking Through
Writing in All Subjects andGrades," which recently
released a second edition. Andon this episode, Dr. Hochman
talks about how and why writingis so critical to literacy
development. And she detailssome explicit writing
instruction methods. Also,we've gotten lots of great
(01:50):
listener mailbag questionsabout serving students in
middle and high schools. Dr.
Hochman lays out somestrategies that are effective
for students at all gradelevels. Here's the
conversation. Judith Hochman,we are so excited to have you
on today's episode. Thank youso much for joining us.
Judith Hochman (02:11):
And thank you for having me.
Susan Lambert (02:13):
Is it OK if I call you Judy?
Judith Hochman (02:15):
Of course.
Susan Lambert (02:16):
OK ,
that's great.
Judith Hochman (02:17):
Everybody else does.
Susan Lambert (02:18):
Perfect. Well, Judy, we would love for you to
introduce yourself to ourlisteners. And just tell us a
little bit about yourbackground.
Judith Hochman (02:27):
I'm with The Writing Revolution, a
not-for-profit organizationthat we founded 10 years ago in
response to a lot of interestabout the method, the approach,
we use to teach writing. Priorto that, as a classroom teacher
in general education classes,and later as special education
(02:51):
in a school for learning- andlanguage-disabled students, my
interest in writing became veryacute. For a variety of
reasons. As a possible toolthat could help kids express
themselves with more facility.
And I heard about a conferencegiven in Hoboken, New Jersey,
(03:12):
of all places . Thiswas in the 80s. They were
dealing with a very largeinflux of Spanish-speaking
students. And they werefocusing on writing. And I
decided to go. It was therethat I had an epiphany, that
our students really had tolearn writing as a second
(03:37):
language. Just like they aretoday, many times students
write the way they speak. And,I might add, not just students.
Susan Lambert (03:47):
Yes. We do that too, don't we?
Judith Hochman (03:49):
We certainly do, including me. You know,
using fragments, and run-ons,and pronouns with no reference.
So the notion of adding theprecision and the accuracy that
writing requires becamesomething that I really wanted
to focus on.
Susan Lambert (04:09):
Interesting. Can I step back just a little bit?
So you started as a classroomteacher.
Judith Hochman (04:15):
For many years.
Susan Lambert (04:16):
What brought you into education to begin with?
Judith Hochman (04:18):
Necessity.
Because the person I wasmarried to was in law school in
Ithaca. And I really wanted tobe a journalist, which is very
hard to do in Ithaca. So I wentto a school of education and
decided one of us had to beearning money while the other
(04:39):
one was in graduate school.
But, I have to say, the minuteI walked into my first sixth
grade classroom, that was itfor me. I knew I was where I
belonged.
Susan Lambert (04:52):
Were you also an administrator? Did I get that
right?
Judith Hochman (04:56):
Yes, I started to go over to the dark side, as
my colleagues reminded me. after some years of
teaching, I became a directorof curriculum. And then I
became the head of thisindependent school for
learning- and language-disabledstudents. And the 12 years that
I was there was when I had,let's say, the freedom to put
(05:20):
in place the kind of readingprograms that I felt were gonna
be most beneficial for them ,as well as the kind of writing
and math programs. And duringthat period was when I became
very focused on writing.
Susan Lambert (05:35):
And it's really interesting, I didn't know that
you were interested injournalism before you got into
education. And so there's awriting thread that goes
through there isn't there?
Judith Hochman (05:45):
There is a writing thread.
Susan Lambert (05:48):
Alright . So you go to this conference in
Hoboken, New Jersey to learnabout writing. What did you
learn there? And what did youbring back? And how did that
develop?
Judith Hochman (05:59):
Even when I was an administrator, I did not
leave the classroom. I made itmy business to keep teaching.
Because when you're standing infront of kids is really the
best way to learn, I thinkalways, what works and what
doesn't. I learned that eventhough I didn't know much about
(06:21):
working memory and cognitiveload at the time, that if we
broke writing, the mostdifficult skill to teach and to
learn, down into manageablesegments, the ability to
acquire what they needed tolearn would be easier for kids
and put less pressure on them.
(06:44):
And then, in the limited timethat we had to teach writing, I
decided that it might be bestnot to teach it as a separate
skill, but to embed it in thecontent that we were teaching.
If we were learning about thehistory of the early Central
American civilizations, weshould be writing about that.
(07:05):
And , I often had teachers comein and watch me, because their
feedback was very important tome. And through some trial and
error, we focused early on onthe sentences. The foundational
building block for all of this.
Susan Lambert (07:21):
And so, this approach that you sort of
outlined developed over time.
Then by trial and error, withstudents in the classroom, to
see what worked and what didn'twork.
Judith Hochman (07:34):
And you have to remember, Susan, at that time,
there's very little research onwriting. Particularly what
would be most applicable toclassroom function. Now, I was
focused on learning- andlanguage-disabled students, the
students that were in ourschool. But a couple of years
after I became the head of thatschool, we started a teacher
(07:58):
training institute. Because wefelt we were learning things
about both reading and writingthat we wanted to share. And as
time went on, what we noticedwas that more and more
mainstream teachers were cominginto these classes. Because the
mission of the school was toreturn students successfully to
(08:20):
the mainstream. And what theywere seeing, both in private
and public schools, was thatour kids were writing better.
And so, it was just word ofmouth, it got out, and the
classes became quitesuccessful. And then the
research started to come out,which validated a lot of what
(08:44):
we were doing, as well astaught us a lot about where our
empathies should be.
Susan Lambert (08:48):
What was happening. So if writing wasn't
being taught well, what washappening? Were teachers trying
to teach writing, or were theynot teaching writing? What did
that literacy block look like?
Judith Hochman (08:59):
They thought they were teaching writing,
just like I did when I startedassigning writing. And some of
their assignments werewonderful.
Susan Lambert (09:09):
Yeah.
Judith Hochman (09:09):
It's not teaching writing. And having
students write a lot is notteaching writing. It's just
like if you put a lot of booksin a classroom, students don't
magically begin to read.
Susan Lambert (09:23):
Right.
Judith Hochman (09:23):
And so, somehow I knew that intuitively,
because writing doesn't come soeasy to me. In spite of the
fact that I wanted to be ajournalist, you know, it took a
certain amount of focus. Sothey started to do very well,
and we moved from thefoundational piece of sentences
(09:46):
onward and upward.
Susan Lambert (09:48):
It's really interesting. I've been watching
a lot of kindergartenclassrooms. Kindergarten
teachers always ask questions,and say to students, "Can you
answer that in a completesentence? Can you answer that
in a complete sentence?" But weoften don't think about the
power of sentences. What kindof things did you do with the
(10:09):
students, as you were teachingthem to write sentences?
Judith Hochman (10:12):
Well, first of all, to expect a 5-year-old to
understand conceptually what acomplete sentence is, and I've
heard some very interestingdefinitions in the hundreds of
classrooms that I've been in ina very long teaching career.
It's a noun and a verb. Well,OK.
Susan Lambert (10:29):
Subject predicate, right.
Judith Hochman (10:31):
Right, subject predicate, exactly. In fact,
one of the courses that we giveat The Writing Revolution is a
K–2 course. And it's primarilypriming the pump for writing
through oral activities. So, wewould ask them to expand kernel
sentences. For example, herecomes my journalistic
(10:54):
background with who, what, whenwhere, and why. So, we would
give them a brief sentencelike, "They Fought." Then we
would ask them, "Who? When?
Where?" And if they were ableto do it, "Why?" And you would
get a complete sentence, asentence that tells the reader
(11:16):
everything they need to know,or the person who's listening
to you everything they need toknow. We would start at a very
fundamental level with youngchildren. He ran. Where ? To
the park. When did he run?
Yesterday he ran to the park.
Susan Lambert (11:34):
Nice.
Judith Hochman (11:35):
What does it start with? A capital. What
does it end with? A period. So,that's the beginning of it.
Susan Lambert (11:41):
So, I wanna talk a little bit about this
Atlantic article, 'cause Ithink it's really important.
You were seeing big gains withthe students that you were
serving, that were nottypically developing. But your
method then was being usedother places with students that
were?
Judith Hochman (11:59):
Absolutely. And I'll tell you how this
happened. The principal of a3,000 student high school in
Staten Island, New York wasvisiting art school for some
reason or another. We were verybig on displaying writing, and
(12:19):
so she was very impressed withit. And she asked a little bit
about the approach. And shesaid, "My students need this ."
This was a high school of 3000kids, speaking many languages,
that was actually a failinghigh school. The Atlantic
(12:41):
article traced the trajectoryof beginning this approach in a
high school, to it becoming ashowcase school in New York
City, to really raising everymetric you'd wanna see raised
at a high school. And althoughit was famous for athletics, it
also got famous for its mootcourt exercises . And panels of
(13:05):
kids used to answer questionsto tons of visitors, from all
over, who began to visit thishigh school. So that was
basically what the article wasabout, with several examples of
writing activities thatproduced this very nice
outcome.
Susan Lambert (13:24):
That must have been pretty gratifying for you
to think, "Wow, we developedthis in our school, and now it
has applicability acrossschools."
Judith Hochman (13:33):
Well, it really does. Right now I think it's in
almost every state in theUnited States. And even
internationally. We have bigfollowings in Australia. All
over.
Susan Lambert (13:46):
That's really amazing.
Judith Hochman (13:48):
It really is amazing.
Susan Lambert (13:50):
Did the article call it the Hochman Method, or
something like that? Was thatthe original method? I bet
everybody knows it by TheWriting Revolution, right?
Judith Hochman (13:57):
Yes, that's right. But originally they just
said, "All right , we're gonnado Hochman now after this
lesson." I never named itHochman , it really never had a
name, but the article wastitled, "The Writing
Revolution." So we named thisorganization The Writing
(14:18):
Revolution. We named our book"The Writing Revolution."
Susan Lambert (14:21):
That's amazing.
Judith Hochman (14:22):
We weren't very creative, Susan.
Susan Lambert (14:25):
It sounds pretty creative, because it really has
been a revolution. And now I amtalking to a very famous person
who put writing back in thehands of teachers and students,
to help them be more successfulin what they're doing.
Judith Hochman (14:38):
We really wanted to empower teachers. I
have three graduate degrees,from a well-known teaching
institution. I did learnnothing about writing for any
of my degrees. All of themcould have incorporated
something about writing. And,unfortunately, that's still
(15:01):
pretty much the case. And then,in the decades that followed
the 80s, there were othermethods that were not as
productive in teaching writing.
Because I always believed invery explicit, carefully
scaffolded instruction for thisvery difficult skill. The only
(15:22):
way we were gonna make iteasier was to segment it into
very granular pieces as wemoved along.
Susan Lambert (15:30):
Yeah. That's really important. And I think
you said earlier that at thetime you started doing this,
there wasn't a lot of researchon writing.
Judith Hochman (15:38):
No.
Susan Lambert (15:38):
So, there's two things that I wanna talk about
here. First of all, let's talkabout how when the research
started to emerge. I rememberin our pre-call you were
telling me it was veryaffirming, because the work
that you were doing with yourstudents actually was aligned
with what the research wassaying. Did I get that right?
Judith Hochman (16:02):
When the research began to come out?
Yes. And we learned a lot fromthe research that came in. Such
as Steve Graham's "WritingNext" and "Writing to Read."
And we also followed theresearch of some of the
language people, AnthonyBashir, Cheryl Scott . We
learned a lot about syntax. Welearned a lot about what
(16:26):
doesn't work. And we learned alot of that by standing in
front of the kids K–12 andreally field testing this five
days a week.
Susan Lambert (16:37):
Yeah. I often talk to teachers and remind
them that they can be their ownresearchers in their own
classrooms. To try somethingsmall, like you did. Watch to
see the impact that it has.
Make adjustments when needed.
And if it's working for thekids and you are actually
(16:59):
seeing outcomes ... but I don'tthink all teachers are
empowered or think that it's OKfor them to do things in quite
that way.
Judith Hochman (17:07):
You know, teachers are very wise, and the
fact is that they don't knowenough about writing
themselves. They weren't taughtit. It's never, never the
teacher's fault when the kidsdon't write well, if the
teacher doesn't have a goodgrasp of the material himself .
(17:28):
So it's great to build acommunity of teachers, and they
share ideas. But if the sharedideas are based on evidence and
on some knowledge of workingmemory and cognitive load,
you're really going to getthese very developmentally
inappropriate assignments ofasking very young children to
(17:51):
do things that they're simplynot ready to do. And that's why
a lot of kids hate to write.
Susan Lambert (18:00):
Yeah. You know, I love that you said that,
because I feel like when I wasa teacher, I didn't teach
writing either. I didn't knowhow to do it, and I just
assumed that all the writingactivities I was providing my
students were, you know, thatwas instruction. And so even
(18:20):
though my kids were writing alot, again, I was just giving
them activities rather thanhelping them to understand,
what you called, those buildingblocks. Starting with
sentences, understandingsentences, and building up from
there. So I can really relateto that.
Judith Hochman (18:35):
And although we have a sequence that we teach
the strategies in and theactivities within each
strategy, it's a recursiveapproach. You keep going back
to the sentences. So when youmove from sentences to
outlining for paragraphs, andwriting the paragraphs
(18:56):
themselves to compositions, andthe outlines that they must
write before they writecompositions, and along the way
we teach them how to summarize,and we teach them how to take
notes, and how to revise. Thisis not learned by osmosis. And
it's not learned by vaguefeedback, like, make it better
(19:18):
or add more details. You've gotto be very granular. This is
not a naturally occurring skillin human development, for any
of us.
Susan Lambert (19:29):
For sure. That is a really great segue. We had
a question from our listenermailbag, and it comes from
Chantel Little. She's aprofessional development lead
in Brownsville area schooldistrict in Pennsylvania. And
she wondered what a goodscope-and-sequence is for
(19:49):
elementary students to go fromlike sentence composition to
paragraph and then whole text.
Can you give a couple ofexamples that might be in that
scope-and-sequence that youtalked about? Like what does
sentence composition look likebefore we move to paragraph
writing?
Judith Hochman (20:07):
I wanna say something before I respond to
that, which is a very goodquestion. What's good for the
elementary school is good forthe high school and beyond,
because the principles ofteaching someone how to write
coherently and with claritydon't change. Let me give you
(20:28):
an example of a couple ofsentence strategies that we
would teach children inelementary school.
Susan Lambert (20:33):
OK, great.
Judith Hochman (20:34):
The big fan favorite are the basic
conjunctions of because, but,so. Everybody seems to know
about them. But that's made avery big change in teacher
practice, for a lot of goodreasons. When you give a
student a sentence stem like,Abraham Lincoln was a great
(20:56):
president, instead of asking,why was Abraham Lincoln a great
president, and leaving thatopen-ended. If you give them
the stem ending with AbrahamLincoln was a great president
because, Abraham Lincoln was agreat president but, and so on,
(21:17):
you're going to get a level ofthinking about what they're
being asked that you will notget with an open-ended
question. You're targeting thethinking in a way that you're
also doing a very interestingcomprehension check. Because
this can look very elementary,like the birds flew south
(21:38):
because, but, so, if we'rereading a book to them. Or it
can be very complex. If you'redoing a research paper about
Isaac Newton and what he'sdiscovered. So the rigor of
each of the activities isreally driven by the content. I
(21:58):
see writing as a very powerfullearning tool . So, if you give
them the colonel they fought.
Well, who? Union andConfederate soldiers. When? In
1863. Where? At Gettysburg. OK.
You can teach them to beginwith when, which is a structure
(22:19):
seen very often in writing,beginning sentences with when.
In 1863, the union ... and youget a sentence, which is giving
a reader much more informationthan the complete sentence they
fought. By getting them tounderstand what fragments are,
(22:39):
by repairing fragments, whatrun-ons are by repairing
run-ons, you're moving themfrom writing the way they speak
to the written structures ofEnglish. In third grade and
beyond, we teach them a usethat you almost never hear in
spoken language, but you seevery frequently in written
(23:01):
language. That's a grammaticalterm, the appositive. So, Susan
Lambert, an excellentinterviewer, meeting with Judy
Hochman today. Instantly thesophistication of the sentence
is ratcheted up a bit. But alsothe reader knows more about the
(23:22):
topic. So, these are the typesof strategies that we're doing
with kids. One more strategy atthe sentence level. We have a
few more, but I wanna add onemore. It's the subordinating
conjunction. Even with littlekids, teaching them to begin
sentences with, before I wentto school, after I go to
(23:47):
school, if I go to school.
They're putting a dependentclause in front of that
sentence. There is researchthat suggests that students who
write complex sentences aremuch better able to process
complex sentences when theyhear or read them. This is
(24:07):
critically important as far ascomprehension. It's also
important as far ascomprehension checks. I don't
like the analogy killing a lotof birds with one stone, but I
think you get what I'm sayinghere.
Susan Lambert (24:22):
I do. Yeah, yeah.
Judith Hochman (24:23):
So those are certain strategies. And as we
move along in thisscope-and-sequence, we're
circling back to them. Why?
Because they're gonna form thebackbone of revision. And
they're gonna form the backboneof the feedback we give
students in revision. If wesay, "Make the topic sentence
(24:45):
better," well, that's nottelling them anything. If we
say, "Why not add an appositiveto the topic sentence," that's
being very targeted in yourfeedback. Why not start your
thesis statement with asubordinating conjunction, such
as, although?
Susan Lambert (25:05):
That's brilliant. Brilliant. Shoutout
to Chantel for this greatquestion, because it unpacked a
whole lot of things. And what Ihear you saying is there is a
really strong relationshipbetween understanding written
composition and readingcomprehension. And getting at
students' literacy skillsthrough written composition
(25:27):
will help their readingcomprehension.
Judith Hochman (25:31):
No question.
You said it much better than Idid . Absolutely,
absolutely. And please notethat grammatical terms, like
conjunction, subordinatingconjunction, appositive, they
are taught these terms, but inthe context of teaching the
(25:51):
writing itself. If you areasked to brainstorm with the
class about good, met positivesfor Nelson, and be little kids
know what appositives mean atthe end of third, beginning of
fourth grade. They know itbecause it serves the purpose
of the writing they're doing.
Susan Lambert (26:10):
That makes so much sense.
Judith Hochman (26:11):
So, moving on from sentences, Chantel
, we go into outlining forparagraphs. And planning what
you're going to write relievescognitive load. If you put a
linear outline in front of achild with a beginning, a
(26:33):
middle, and an end, thebeginning is a topic sentence,
the middle is words and phraseswritten in note form — we teach
note-taking — and a concludingsentence, they have in front of
them something that they canreplicate on their own. Quickly
and easily. And somethingthat's far easier for them to
(26:58):
fluidly go into a writtendraft, t han say, for example,
a concept map or a Venndiagram, which is great for
teaching vocabulary concepts,but not moving to paragraphs.
And for the Harvard outline,you know, roman numeral I, A,
(27:20):
that requires a very high orderof classification and
categorization skills, which alot of kids are not terribly
adept at that. And thatshouldn't stop them from
becoming competent writers. Sothis very simple format, of
what we call an SPO, not toocreative, Single Paragraph
(27:44):
Outline. We're just notthat creative. Is where we go
from there. And we don't waituntil we're finished with
sentences, by the way. This isnot a c heck o ff, c heck.
RECURSIVE. We're g onna keepgoing back. And we're g onna
teach these single paragraphsin various t ext structures. So
(28:04):
it could be cause-and-effect,it could be problem-solution,
it could be narrative. And aswe're doing this, we're
teaching the transitions,first, next, finally, and tons
of other transitions thatchildren need to make the w
riting flow when they get tothe next step, which is
compositions. So, as you movealong, you're laying the
(28:28):
groundwork for what's comingnext.
Susan Lambert (28:31):
Yeah. And I can see that process, now that you
said it, it doesn't matter whatgrade level.
Judith Hochman (28:36):
No.
Susan Lambert (28:37):
I could see how that could work with content
you're teaching in third grade.
I can see how that would workwith content you're teaching in
middle school. And I could seethat work with content you're
teaching in high school. So youcan continue to come back, and
put the content in front, butuse that content as a way then
to develop more and more skillin writing.
Judith Hochman (28:57):
Before I went to this very large high school
in New York City, in StatenIsland, I was superintendent of
schools after leaving theschool.
Susan Lambert (29:09):
The language school, yeah.
Judith Hochman (29:10):
Yes. For a special act district in New
York, which is schools that arein K–12 school districts that
serve students who really can'tbe served in their population,
either because they haveemotional problems that can't
be handled or they've brokenthe law. And coming to these
(29:30):
residential treatment centersis an alternative to being in
prison. And that was atremendous learning experience
for me in seeing what works,because I took what I learned
from the special ed school tothis district, and it made a
(29:52):
significant impact on thestudents writing at the high
school level. And they hadmissed a lot of school . I mean
this was challenging.
Susan Lambert (30:01):
Yeah.
Judith Hochman (30:01):
Because not only did they have their
problems, but they missed a lotof school. And, you know, they
wanna learn. Kids really dowanna learn. Assuming that
you're giving them somethingthat they're able to do.
Susan Lambert (30:15):
So you took all of this work ... I could talk
to you for hours about this.
We'll maybe have to haveanother conversation.
Judith Hochman (30:22):
My favorite subject.
Susan Lambert (30:23):
Yeah.
But you took all of this, andit turned into "The Writing
Revolution," that youco-authored with our mutual
friend, Natalie Wexler, whohappens to be a journalist. How
in the world did the two of youget together? And how did this
book come out?
Judith Hochman (30:39):
That's such a great story. Natalie is
the best. She's amazing! Shereally is the best. A wonderful
person, a wonderful journalist,and a wonderful writer.
Susan Lambert (30:50):
Yes.
Judith Hochman (30:50):
Far better than me, I might add . So, we were
invited to go down toWashington by a pretty high
administrator in Washington DC,who had visited the school for
learning and language kids. Andthey heard about this approach,
saw the product, this approach,and they invited us to come
down and introduce it to theadministrators of most of the
(31:15):
schools, K–12, in DC . So threeof us go down, me and three
teachers from this high school,who had a lot of experience. We
talked about it. We presentedit. And, to our shock, the
chancellor at the timeintroduced us as what she was
(31:37):
bringing in as the writingprogram. We thought this was an
audition, or at least gainingsome knowledge about what we
saw, what worked. We didn'texpect to be working in
Washington.
Susan Lambert (31:50):
Oh, wow.
Judith Hochman (31:50):
So, as I stood sort of stunned at the
elevator, there was Natalie,who was invited to be at this
presentation. So she said, "Iheard you mention that you're
forming a not-for-profit." Wewere still in the process of
forming this. And she said ,"When you need a board of
(32:10):
trustees," she said, "I'd bevery interested in being on the
board." And the rest ishistory. I don't know what I
would've done without Natalie.
The organization formed. Thebook was written. We just put
out the second edition, whichis I think the new and improved
second edition, which in thefirst one surprised us, because
(32:34):
we didn't know the demand forteaching writing was as
widespread and intense as itis.
Susan Lambert (32:42):
Yeah. And I will say something about that first
book, "The Writing Revolution."I think, just from hearing
people across the country talkabout it, the power of it is
the way that it can beimplemented into whatever
you're doing. How you sort ofsupport this idea of content
development in kids learningcontent. And just the successes
(33:04):
people are seeing. Both withstudents writing composition,
but also as bettercomprehenders.
Judith Hochman (33:10):
Better comprehenders. And guess what
they're seeing? In England —and Natalie recently wrote
about this, and showed me someresearch about this — they're
seeing improvement in spokenlanguage. And we saw this some
time ago at that high school.
Instead , they had a moot courtpresentation, and there were
(33:30):
kids using therefore , and as aresult, and in conclusion. And
we were stunned. I mean, it wasso exciting. And when I
mentioned this to the teachers,they all said, "Oh yeah, we see
this in the classroom!"
Susan Lambert (33:45):
That's amazing!
Judith Hochman (33:46):
This is ripe for a doctoral dissertation
here.
Susan Lambert (33:50):
Well, there you go. All those folks out there
that are thinking about doing adissertation, think about doing
some writing. Any finalthoughts for our listeners?
Judith Hochman (34:00):
You know, the gift of writing is really
tremendous. Because, youteachers know, it's much more
than the product on a piece ofpaper. It's helping students
think more analytically, andcritically. It's helping them
read with more understanding.
It's a powerful learning tool.
(34:22):
You are judged by how youcommunicate. All of us are. And
it's not as heavy a lift as youthink it is, because once you
break it down into itscomponent pieces, it's gonna
work for you.
Susan Lambert (34:37):
That's amazing.
And so listeners, if you don'thave "The Writing Revolution,"
go out and get the secondedition. Practice with it, just
like Judy Hochman did in herown classroom. And it has been
such an honor to have you ontoday. Judy, thanks for your
passion for writing. And thanksfor all that you do. We
appreciate you.
Judith Hochman (34:56):
And thanks for having me. It's an honor to be
with you, Susan.
Susan Lambert (35:00):
Thank you. That was Dr. Judith Hochman. She's
former head of The WindwardSchool in White Plains, New
York, former superintendent ofthe Greenburgh Graham Union
Free School District inHastings-on-Hudson, New York.
Founder of the Windward TeacherTraining Institute. And founder
of The Writing Revolution.
(35:21):
She's also author of "BasicWriting Skills, A Manual for
Teachers," and along withNatalie Wexler, "The Writing
Revolution (35:29):
A Guide to Advancing Thinking Through
Writing in All Subjects andGrades." After we hung up, Judy
sent us a note saying shewished she'd talk more about
the importance of planning andrevision. First of all, Judy,
we will gladly have you backany time to talk in more detail
about all of that. I also wantto remind listeners that she
(35:52):
did have wonderful things tosay about circling back to
sentence strategies as thebackbone of the feedback we
give students in revision. Youmight remember she gave those
great specific examples ofoffering feedback along the
lines of add in a positive tothe topic sentence, or start a
thesis statement with asubordinating conjunction. And
(36:13):
when it comes to outlining,don't forget her great advice
on Single Paragraph Outlines(SPOs). Coming up in our Season
10 reading reboot, we'll havemore episodes explicitly
focused on writing, including awonderful conversation with Dr.
Young-Suk Grace Kim fromUniversity of California,
(36:34):
Irvine, who's done fabulousresearch in this area. And next
time, we have an interestingconversation, with Michigan
State University's Dr . AdreaTruckenmiller , about writing,
writing, assessment, andbuilding academic language.
Adrea Truckenmiller (36:49):
Instead of bucketing off words, sentences,
and discourse or text levelinto three distinct buckets, I
don't think it's a distinctbucket. I think it's rather a
continuum from word to sentenceto text.
Susan Lambert (37:05):
That's next time. And don't forget to
listen to the most recentepisode of Beyond My Years,
which features Kareem Weaver.
In this conversation, with hostAna Torres , Kareem details
some of the pivotal moments inhis journey as a literacy
champion.
Kareem Weaver (37:21):
Matter of fact, I had a kid, a young man who
asked me, 'cause he wassupposed to be released, he's
like, "Weaver, can I extend forlike just a few more months?
I'm learning to read. I justneed a little more time." I was
like, "Man, I can't really.
That's above my pay grade . Idon't determine how long." And
then he said this, "What Igotta do to extend for a few
more months?"
Ana Torres (37:41):
Wow.
Kareem Weaver (37:41):
What he was really saying was, "Don't make
me have to knock somebodyupside the head to stay in here
longer. I'm learning to read.
Don't mess this up." That'sreally what he was saying.
Ana Torres (37:48):
Wow, in so many words.
Kareem Weaver (37:49):
Yeah. So I was like, "Listen. No , no , no.
Don't go there. Let me work onit for you." But that's how
desperate he was, trying tostay in jail.
Susan Lambert (37:56):
That's available now in the Beyond My Years
podcast feed. Remember tosubscribe to Science of
Reading (38:02):
The Podcast on the podcast app of your choice, and
share it with your friends andcolleagues. Science of Reading:
The Podcast is brought to youby Amplify. I'm Susan Lambert.
Thank you so much forlistening.
Assigning writing is not teaching.
Writing and having studentswrite a lot is not teaching
writing. It's just like if youput a lot of books in a
classroom, students don'tmagically begin to read.
Susan Lambert (00:17):
This is Susan Lambert, and welcome to Science
of Reading (00:20):
The Podcast from Amplify. This is episode 11 in
our reading reboot, reexaminingand building on foundational
literacy concepts. If you'vebeen on this journey with us,
you know that we've beenbringing writing into this
season's conversations, aswe've talked about again and
again. It's so important tounderstand the
(00:42):
interconnectedness of readingand writing. And now, as we
head into this season's homestretch, we have some episodes
lined up that are specificallyfocused on the critical role of
writing. Today, we're fortunateto be joined by the perfect
person for this topic, Dr.
Judith Hochman, author andfounder of The Writing
(01:04):
Revolution. Dr. Hochman is alongtime educator whose
approach to writing instructionwas featured in an
award-winning 2012 article inThe Atlantic. From there, she
founded The Writing Revolution,a not-for-profit organization
that spreads evidence-basedstrategies for writing
instruction. Along with NatalieWexler, she authored "The
Writing Revolution (01:27):
A Guide to Advancing Thinking Through
Writing in All Subjects andGrades," which recently
released a second edition. Andon this episode, Dr. Hochman
talks about how and why writingis so critical to literacy
development. And she detailssome explicit writing
instruction methods. Also,we've gotten lots of great
(01:50):
listener mailbag questionsabout serving students in
middle and high schools. Dr.
Hochman lays out somestrategies that are effective
for students at all gradelevels. Here's the
conversation. Judith Hochman,we are so excited to have you
on today's episode. Thank youso much for joining us.
Judith Hochman (02:11):
And thank you for having me.
Susan Lambert (02:13):
Is it OK if I call you Judy?
Judith Hochman (02:15):
Of course.
Susan Lambert (02:16):
OK
Judith Hochman (02:17):
Everybody else does
Susan Lambert (02:18):
Perfect. Well, Judy, we would love for you to
introduce yourself to ourlisteners. And just tell us a
little bit about yourbackground.
Judith Hochman (02:27):
I'm with The Writing Revolution, a
not-for-profit organizationthat we founded 10 years ago in
response to a lot of interestabout the method, the approach,
we use to teach writing. Priorto that, as a classroom teacher
in general education classes,and later as special education
(02:51):
in a school for learning- andlanguage-disabled students, my
interest in writing became veryacute. For a variety of
reasons. As a possible toolthat could help kids express
themselves with more facility.
And I heard about a conferencegiven in Hoboken, New Jersey,
(03:12):
of all places
dealing with a very largeinflux of Spanish-speaking
students. And they werefocusing on writing. And I
decided to go. It was therethat I had an epiphany, that
our students really had tolearn writing as a second
(03:37):
language. Just like they aretoday, many times students
write the way they speak. And,I might add, not just students.
Susan Lambert (03:47):
Yes. We do that too, don't we?
Judith Hochman (03:49):
We certainly do, including me. You know,
using fragments, and run-ons,and pronouns with no reference.
So the notion of adding theprecision and the accuracy that
writing requires becamesomething that I really wanted
to focus on.
Susan Lambert (04:09):
Interesting. Can I step back just a little bit?
So you started as a classroomteacher.
Judith Hochman (04:15):
For many years.
Susan Lambert (04:16):
What brought you into education to begin with?
Judith Hochman (04:18):
Necessity.
Because the person I wasmarried to was in law school in
Ithaca. And I really wanted tobe a journalist, which is very
hard to do in Ithaca. So I wentto a school of education and
decided one of us had to beearning money while the other
(04:39):
one was in graduate school.
But, I have to say, the minuteI walked into my first sixth
grade classroom, that was itfor me. I knew I was where I
belonged.
Susan Lambert (04:52):
Were you also an administrator? Did I get that
right?
Judith Hochman (04:56):
Yes, I started to go over to the dark side, as
my colleagues reminded me
teaching, I became a directorof curriculum. And then I
became the head of thisindependent school for
learning- and language-disabledstudents. And the 12 years that
I was there was when I had,let's say, the freedom to put
(05:20):
in place the kind of readingprograms that I felt were gonna
be most beneficial for them ,as well as the kind of writing
and math programs. And duringthat period was when I became
very focused on writing.
Susan Lambert (05:35):
And it's really interesting, I didn't know that
you were interested injournalism before you got into
education. And so there's awriting thread that goes
through there isn't there?
Judith Hochman (05:45):
There is a writing thread.
Susan Lambert (05:48):
Alright . So you go to this conference in
Hoboken, New Jersey to learnabout writing. What did you
learn there? And what did youbring back? And how did that
develop?
Judith Hochman (05:59):
Even when I was an administrator, I did not
leave the classroom. I made itmy business to keep teaching.
Because when you're standing infront of kids is really the
best way to learn, I thinkalways, what works and what
doesn't. I learned that eventhough I didn't know much about
(06:21):
working memory and cognitiveload at the time, that if we
broke writing, the mostdifficult skill to teach and to
learn, down into manageablesegments, the ability to
acquire what they needed tolearn would be easier for kids
and put less pressure on them.
(06:44):
And then, in the limited timethat we had to teach writing, I
decided that it might be bestnot to teach it as a separate
skill, but to embed it in thecontent that we were teaching.
If we were learning about thehistory of the early Central
American civilizations, weshould be writing about that.
(07:05):
And , I often had teachers comein and watch me, because their
feedback was very important tome. And through some trial and
error, we focused early on onthe sentences. The foundational
building block for all of this.
Susan Lambert (07:21):
And so, this approach that you sort of
outlined developed over time.
Then by trial and error, withstudents in the classroom, to
see what worked and what didn'twork.
Judith Hochman (07:34):
And you have to remember, Susan, at that time,
there's very little research onwriting. Particularly what
would be most applicable toclassroom function. Now, I was
focused on learning- andlanguage-disabled students, the
students that were in ourschool. But a couple of years
after I became the head of thatschool, we started a teacher
(07:58):
training institute. Because wefelt we were learning things
about both reading and writingthat we wanted to share. And as
time went on, what we noticedwas that more and more
mainstream teachers were cominginto these classes. Because the
mission of the school was toreturn students successfully to
(08:20):
the mainstream. And what theywere seeing, both in private
and public schools, was thatour kids were writing better.
And so, it was just word ofmouth, it got out, and the
classes became quitesuccessful. And then the
research started to come out,which validated a lot of what
(08:44):
we were doing, as well astaught us a lot about where our
empathies should be.
Susan Lambert (08:48):
What was happening. So if writing wasn't
being taught well, what washappening? Were teachers trying
to teach writing, or were theynot teaching writing? What did
that literacy block look like?
Judith Hochman (08:59):
They thought they were teaching writing,
just like I did when I startedassigning writing. And some of
their assignments werewonderful.
Susan Lambert (09:09):
Yeah.
Judith Hochman (09:09):
It's not teaching writing. And having
students write a lot is notteaching writing. It's just
like if you put a lot of booksin a classroom, students don't
magically begin to read.
Susan Lambert (09:23):
Right.
Judith Hochman (09:23):
And so, somehow I knew that intuitively,
because writing doesn't come soeasy to me. In spite of the
fact that I wanted to be ajournalist, you know, it took a
certain amount of focus. Sothey started to do very well,
and we moved from thefoundational piece of sentences
(09:46):
onward and upward.
Susan Lambert (09:48):
It's really interesting. I've been watching
a lot of kindergartenclassrooms. Kindergarten
teachers always ask questions,and say to students, "Can you
answer that in a completesentence? Can you answer that
in a complete sentence?" But weoften don't think about the
power of sentences. What kindof things did you do with the
(10:09):
students, as you were teachingthem to write sentences?
Judith Hochman (10:12):
Well, first of all, to expect a 5-year-old to
understand conceptually what acomplete sentence is, and I've
heard some very interestingdefinitions in the hundreds of
classrooms that I've been in ina very long teaching career.
It's a noun and a verb. Well,OK.
Susan Lambert (10:29):
Subject predicate, right
Judith Hochman (10:31):
Right, subject predicate, exactly. In fact,
one of the courses that we giveat The Writing Revolution is a
K–2 course. And it's primarilypriming the pump for writing
through oral activities. So, wewould ask them to expand kernel
sentences. For example, herecomes my journalistic
(10:54):
background with who, what, whenwhere, and why. So, we would
give them a brief sentencelike, "They Fought." Then we
would ask them, "Who? When?
Where?" And if they were ableto do it, "Why?" And you would
get a complete sentence, asentence that tells the reader
(11:16):
everything they need to know,or the person who's listening
to you everything they need toknow. We would start at a very
fundamental level with youngchildren. He ran. Where ? To
the park. When did he run?
Yesterday he ran to the park.
Susan Lambert (11:34):
Nice.
Judith Hochman (11:35):
What does it start with? A capital. What
does it end with? A period. So,that's the beginning of it.
Susan Lambert (11:41):
So, I wanna talk a little bit about this
Atlantic article, 'cause Ithink it's really important.
You were seeing big gains withthe students that you were
serving, that were nottypically developing. But your
method then was being usedother places with students that
were?
Judith Hochman (11:59):
Absolutely. And I'll tell you how this
happened. The principal of a3,000 student high school in
Staten Island, New York wasvisiting art school for some
reason or another. We were verybig on displaying writing, and
(12:19):
so she was very impressed withit. And she asked a little bit
about the approach. And shesaid, "My students need this ."
This was a high school of 3000kids, speaking many languages,
that was actually a failinghigh school. The Atlantic
(12:41):
article traced the trajectoryof beginning this approach in a
high school, to it becoming ashowcase school in New York
City, to really raising everymetric you'd wanna see raised
at a high school. And althoughit was famous for athletics, it
also got famous for its mootcourt exercises . And panels of
(13:05):
kids used to answer questionsto tons of visitors, from all
over, who began to visit thishigh school. So that was
basically what the article wasabout, with several examples of
writing activities thatproduced this very nice
outcome.
Susan Lambert (13:24):
That must have been pretty gratifying for you
to think, "Wow, we developedthis in our school, and now it
has applicability acrossschools."
Judith Hochman (13:33):
Well, it really does. Right now I think it's in
almost every state in theUnited States. And even
internationally. We have bigfollowings in Australia. All
over.
Susan Lambert (13:46):
That's really amazing.
Judith Hochman (13:48):
It really is amazing.
Susan Lambert (13:50):
Did the article call it the Hochman Method, or
something like that? Was thatthe original method? I bet
everybody knows it by TheWriting Revolution, right?
Judith Hochman (13:57):
Yes, that's right. But originally they just
said, "All right , we're gonnado Hochman now after this
lesson." I never named itHochman , it really never had a
name, but the article wastitled, "The Writing
Revolution." So we named thisorganization The Writing
(14:18):
Revolution. We named our book"The Writing Revolution."
Susan Lambert (14:21):
That's amazing.
Judith Hochman (14:22):
We weren't very creative, Susan.
Susan Lambert (14:25):
It sounds pretty creative, because it really has
been a revolution. And now I amtalking to a very famous person
who put writing back in thehands of teachers and students,
to help them be more successfulin what they're doing.
Judith Hochman (14:38):
We really wanted to empower teachers. I
have three graduate degrees,from a well-known teaching
institution. I did learnnothing about writing for any
of my degrees. All of themcould have incorporated
something about writing. And,unfortunately, that's still
(15:01):
pretty much the case. And then,in the decades that followed
the 80s, there were othermethods that were not as
productive in teaching writing.
Because I always believed invery explicit, carefully
scaffolded instruction for thisvery difficult skill. The only
(15:22):
way we were gonna make iteasier was to segment it into
very granular pieces as wemoved along.
Susan Lambert (15:30):
Yeah. That's really important. And I think
you said earlier that at thetime you started doing this,
there wasn't a lot of researchon writing.
Judith Hochman (15:38):
No.
Susan Lambert (15:38):
So, there's two things that I wanna talk about
here. First of all, let's talkabout how when the research
started to emerge. I rememberin our pre-call you were
telling me it was veryaffirming, because the work
that you were doing with yourstudents actually was aligned
with what the research wassaying. Did I get that right?
Judith Hochman (16:02):
When the research began to come out?
Yes. And we learned a lot fromthe research that came in. Such
as Steve Graham's "WritingNext" and "Writing to Read."
And we also followed theresearch of some of the
language people, AnthonyBashir, Cheryl Scott . We
learned a lot about syntax. Welearned a lot about what
(16:26):
doesn't work. And we learned alot of that by standing in
front of the kids K–12 andreally field testing this five
days a week.
Susan Lambert (16:37):
Yeah. I often talk to teachers and remind
them that they can be their ownresearchers in their own
classrooms. To try somethingsmall, like you did. Watch to
see the impact that it has.
Make adjustments when needed.
And if it's working for thekids and you are actually
(16:59):
seeing outcomes ... but I don'tthink all teachers are
empowered or think that it's OKfor them to do things in quite
that way.
Judith Hochman (17:07):
You know, teachers are very wise, and the
fact is that they don't knowenough about writing
themselves. They weren't taughtit. It's never, never the
teacher's fault when the kidsdon't write well, if the
teacher doesn't have a goodgrasp of the material himself .
(17:28):
So it's great to build acommunity of teachers, and they
share ideas. But if the sharedideas are based on evidence and
on some knowledge of workingmemory and cognitive load,
you're really going to getthese very developmentally
inappropriate assignments ofasking very young children to
(17:51):
do things that they're simplynot ready to do. And that's why
a lot of kids hate to write.
Susan Lambert (18:00):
Yeah. You know, I love that you said that,
because I feel like when I wasa teacher, I didn't teach
writing either. I didn't knowhow to do it, and I just
assumed that all the writingactivities I was providing my
students were, you know, thatwas instruction. And so even
(18:20):
though my kids were writing alot, again, I was just giving
them activities rather thanhelping them to understand,
what you called, those buildingblocks. Starting with
sentences, understandingsentences, and building up from
there. So I can really relateto that.
Judith Hochman (18:35):
And although we have a sequence that we teach
the strategies in and theactivities within each
strategy, it's a recursiveapproach. You keep going back
to the sentences. So when youmove from sentences to
outlining for paragraphs, andwriting the paragraphs
(18:56):
themselves to compositions, andthe outlines that they must
write before they writecompositions, and along the way
we teach them how to summarize,and we teach them how to take
notes, and how to revise. Thisis not learned by osmosis. And
it's not learned by vaguefeedback, like, make it better
(19:18):
or add more details. You've gotto be very granular. This is
not a naturally occurring skillin human development, for any
of us.
Susan Lambert (19:29):
For sure. That is a really great segue. We had
a question from our listenermailbag, and it comes from
Chantel Little. She's aprofessional development lead
in Brownsville area schooldistrict in Pennsylvania. And
she wondered what a goodscope-and-sequence is for
(19:49):
elementary students to go fromlike sentence composition to
paragraph and then whole text.
Can you give a couple ofexamples that might be in that
scope-and-sequence that youtalked about? Like what does
sentence composition look likebefore we move to paragraph
writing?
Judith Hochman (20:07):
I wanna say something before I respond to
that, which is a very goodquestion. What's good for the
elementary school is good forthe high school and beyond,
because the principles ofteaching someone how to write
coherently and with claritydon't change. Let me give you
(20:28):
an example of a couple ofsentence strategies that we
would teach children inelementary school.
Susan Lambert (20:33):
OK, great.
Judith Hochman (20:34):
The big fan favorite are the basic
conjunctions of because, but,so. Everybody seems to know
about them. But that's made avery big change in teacher
practice, for a lot of goodreasons. When you give a
student a sentence stem like,Abraham Lincoln was a great
(20:56):
president, instead of asking,why was Abraham Lincoln a great
president, and leaving thatopen-ended. If you give them
the stem ending with AbrahamLincoln was a great president
because, Abraham Lincoln was agreat president but, and so on,
(21:17):
you're going to get a level ofthinking about what they're
being asked that you will notget with an open-ended
question. You're targeting thethinking in a way that you're
also doing a very interestingcomprehension check. Because
this can look very elementary,like the birds flew south
(21:38):
because, but, so, if we'rereading a book to them. Or it
can be very complex. If you'redoing a research paper about
Isaac Newton and what he'sdiscovered. So the rigor of
each of the activities isreally driven by the content. I
(21:58):
see writing as a very powerfullearning tool . So, if you give
them the colonel they fought.
Well, who? Union andConfederate soldiers. When? In
1863. Where? At Gettysburg. OK.
You can teach them to beginwith when, which is a structure
(22:19):
seen very often in writing,beginning sentences with when.
In 1863, the union ... and youget a sentence, which is giving
a reader much more informationthan the complete sentence they
fought. By getting them tounderstand what fragments are,
(22:39):
by repairing fragments, whatrun-ons are by repairing
run-ons, you're moving themfrom writing the way they speak
to the written structures ofEnglish. In third grade and
beyond, we teach them a usethat you almost never hear in
spoken language, but you seevery frequently in written
(23:01):
language. That's a grammaticalterm, the appositive. So, Susan
Lambert, an excellentinterviewer, meeting with Judy
Hochman today. Instantly thesophistication of the sentence
is ratcheted up a bit. But alsothe reader knows more about the
(23:22):
topic. So, these are the typesof strategies that we're doing
with kids. One more strategy atthe sentence level. We have a
few more, but I wanna add onemore. It's the subordinating
conjunction. Even with littlekids, teaching them to begin
sentences with, before I wentto school, after I go to
(23:47):
school, if I go to school.
They're putting a dependentclause in front of that
sentence. There is researchthat suggests that students who
write complex sentences aremuch better able to process
complex sentences when theyhear or read them. This is
(24:07):
critically important as far ascomprehension. It's also
important as far ascomprehension checks. I don't
like the analogy killing a lotof birds with one stone, but I
think you get what I'm sayinghere.
Susan Lambert (24:22):
I do. Yeah, yeah.
Judith Hochman (24:23):
So those are certain strategies. And as we
move along in thisscope-and-sequence, we're
circling back to them. Why?
Because they're gonna form thebackbone of revision. And
they're gonna form the backboneof the feedback we give
students in revision. If wesay, "Make the topic sentence
(24:45):
better," well, that's nottelling them anything. If we
say, "Why not add an appositiveto the topic sentence," that's
being very targeted in yourfeedback. Why not start your
thesis statement with asubordinating conjunction, such
as, although?
Susan Lambert (25:05):
That's brilliant. Brilliant. Shoutout
to Chantel for this greatquestion, because it unpacked a
whole lot of things. And what Ihear you saying is there is a
really strong relationshipbetween understanding written
composition and readingcomprehension. And getting at
students' literacy skillsthrough written composition
(25:27):
will help their readingcomprehension.
Judith Hochman (25:31):
No question.
You said it much better than Idid
absolutely. And please notethat grammatical terms, like
conjunction, subordinatingconjunction, appositive, they
are taught these terms, but inthe context of teaching the
(25:51):
writing itself. If you areasked to brainstorm with the
class about good, met positivesfor Nelson, and be little kids
know what appositives mean atthe end of third, beginning of
fourth grade. They know itbecause it serves the purpose
of the writing they're doing.
Susan Lambert (26:10):
That makes so much sense.
Judith Hochman (26:11):
So, moving on from sentences, Chantel
, we go into outlining forparagraphs. And planning what
you're going to write relievescognitive load. If you put a
linear outline in front of achild with a beginning, a
(26:33):
middle, and an end, thebeginning is a topic sentence,
the middle is words and phraseswritten in note form — we teach
note-taking — and a concludingsentence, they have in front of
them something that they canreplicate on their own. Quickly
and easily. And somethingthat's far easier for them to
(26:58):
fluidly go into a writtendraft, t han say, for example,
a concept map or a Venndiagram, which is great for
teaching vocabulary concepts,but not moving to paragraphs.
And for the Harvard outline,you know, roman numeral I, A,
(27:20):
that requires a very high orderof classification and
categorization skills, which alot of kids are not terribly
adept at that. And thatshouldn't stop them from
becoming competent writers. Sothis very simple format, of
what we call an SPO, not toocreative, Single Paragraph
(27:44):
Outline
from there. And we don't waituntil we're finished with
sentences, by the way. This isnot a c heck o ff, c heck.
RECURSIVE. We're g onna keepgoing back. And we're g onna
teach these single paragraphsin various t ext structures. So
(28:04):
it could be cause-and-effect,it could be problem-solution,
it could be narrative. And aswe're doing this, we're
teaching the transitions,first, next, finally, and tons
of other transitions thatchildren need to make the w
riting flow when they get tothe next step, which is
compositions. So, as you movealong, you're laying the
(28:28):
groundwork for what's comingnext.
Susan Lambert (28:31):
Yeah. And I can see that process, now that you
said it, it doesn't matter whatgrade level.
Judith Hochman (28:36):
No.
Susan Lambert (28:37):
I could see how that could work with content
you're teaching in third grade.
I can see how that would workwith content you're teaching in
middle school. And I could seethat work with content you're
teaching in high school. So youcan continue to come back, and
put the content in front, butuse that content as a way then
to develop more and more skillin writing.
Judith Hochman (28:57):
Before I went to this very large high school
in New York City, in StatenIsland, I was superintendent of
schools after leaving theschool.
Susan Lambert (29:09):
The language school, yeah.
Judith Hochman (29:10):
Yes. For a special act district in New
York, which is schools that arein K–12 school districts that
serve students who really can'tbe served in their population,
either because they haveemotional problems that can't
be handled or they've brokenthe law. And coming to these
(29:30):
residential treatment centersis an alternative to being in
prison. And that was atremendous learning experience
for me in seeing what works,because I took what I learned
from the special ed school tothis district, and it made a
(29:52):
significant impact on thestudents writing at the high
school level. And they hadmissed a lot of school . I mean
this was challenging.
Susan Lambert (30:01):
Yeah.
Judith Hochman (30:01):
Because not only did they have their
problems, but they missed a lotof school. And, you know, they
wanna learn. Kids really dowanna learn. Assuming that
you're giving them somethingthat they're able to do.
Susan Lambert (30:15):
So you took all of this work ... I could talk
to you for hours about this.
We'll maybe have to haveanother conversation.
Judith Hochman (30:22):
My favorite subject.
Susan Lambert (30:23):
Yeah
But you took all of this, andit turned into "The Writing
Revolution," that youco-authored with our mutual
friend, Natalie Wexler, whohappens to be a journalist. How
in the world did the two of youget together? And how did this
book come out?
Judith Hochman (30:39):
That's such a great story
the best. She's amazing! Shereally is the best. A wonderful
person, a wonderful journalist,and a wonderful writer.
Susan Lambert (30:50):
Yes.
Judith Hochman (30:50):
Far better than me, I might add . So, we were
invited to go down toWashington by a pretty high
administrator in Washington DC,who had visited the school for
learning and language kids. Andthey heard about this approach,
saw the product, this approach,and they invited us to come
down and introduce it to theadministrators of most of the
(31:15):
schools, K–12, in DC . So threeof us go down, me and three
teachers from this high school,who had a lot of experience. We
talked about it. We presentedit. And, to our shock, the
chancellor at the timeintroduced us as what she was
(31:37):
bringing in as the writingprogram. We thought this was an
audition, or at least gainingsome knowledge about what we
saw, what worked. We didn'texpect to be working in
Washington.
Susan Lambert (31:50):
Oh, wow.
Judith Hochman (31:50):
So, as I stood sort of stunned at the
elevator, there was Natalie,who was invited to be at this
presentation. So she said, "Iheard you mention that you're
forming a not-for-profit." Wewere still in the process of
forming this. And she said ,"When you need a board of
(32:10):
trustees," she said, "I'd bevery interested in being on the
board." And the rest ishistory. I don't know what I
would've done without Natalie.
The organization formed. Thebook was written. We just put
out the second edition, whichis I think the new and improved
second edition, which in thefirst one surprised us, because
(32:34):
we didn't know the demand forteaching writing was as
widespread and intense as itis.
Susan Lambert (32:42):
Yeah. And I will say something about that first
book, "The Writing Revolution."I think, just from hearing
people across the country talkabout it, the power of it is
the way that it can beimplemented into whatever
you're doing. How you sort ofsupport this idea of content
development in kids learningcontent. And just the successes
(33:04):
people are seeing. Both withstudents writing composition,
but also as bettercomprehenders.
Judith Hochman (33:10):
Better comprehenders. And guess what
they're seeing? In England —and Natalie recently wrote
about this, and showed me someresearch about this — they're
seeing improvement in spokenlanguage. And we saw this some
time ago at that high school.
Instead , they had a moot courtpresentation, and there were
(33:30):
kids using therefore , and as aresult, and in conclusion. And
we were stunned. I mean, it wasso exciting. And when I
mentioned this to the teachers,they all said, "Oh yeah, we see
this in the classroom!"
Susan Lambert (33:45):
That's amazing!
Judith Hochman (33:46):
This is ripe for a doctoral dissertation
here.
Susan Lambert (33:50):
Well, there you go. All those folks out there
that are thinking about doing adissertation, think about doing
some writing. Any finalthoughts for our listeners?
Judith Hochman (34:00):
You know, the gift of writing is really
tremendous. Because, youteachers know, it's much more
than the product on a piece ofpaper. It's helping students
think more analytically, andcritically. It's helping them
read with more understanding.
It's a powerful learning tool.
(34:22):
You are judged by how youcommunicate. All of us are. And
it's not as heavy a lift as youthink it is, because once you
break it down into itscomponent pieces, it's gonna
work for you.
Susan Lambert (34:37):
That's amazing.
And so listeners, if you don'thave "The Writing Revolution,"
go out and get the secondedition. Practice with it, just
like Judy Hochman did in herown classroom. And it has been
such an honor to have you ontoday. Judy, thanks for your
passion for writing. And thanksfor all that you do. We
appreciate you.
Judith Hochman (34:56):
And thanks for having me. It's an honor to be
with you, Susan.
Susan Lambert (35:00):
Thank you. That was Dr. Judith Hochman. She's
former head of The WindwardSchool in White Plains, New
York, former superintendent ofthe Greenburgh Graham Union
Free School District inHastings-on-Hudson, New York.
Founder of the Windward TeacherTraining Institute. And founder
of The Writing Revolution.
(35:21):
She's also author of "BasicWriting Skills, A Manual for
Teachers," and along withNatalie Wexler, "The Writing
Revolution (35:29):
A Guide to Advancing Thinking Through
Writing in All Subjects andGrades." After we hung up, Judy
sent us a note saying shewished she'd talk more about
the importance of planning andrevision. First of all, Judy,
we will gladly have you backany time to talk in more detail
about all of that. I also wantto remind listeners that she
(35:52):
did have wonderful things tosay about circling back to
sentence strategies as thebackbone of the feedback we
give students in revision. Youmight remember she gave those
great specific examples ofoffering feedback along the
lines of add in a positive tothe topic sentence, or start a
thesis statement with asubordinating conjunction. And
(36:13):
when it comes to outlining,don't forget her great advice
on Single Paragraph Outlines(SPOs). Coming up in our Season
10 reading reboot, we'll havemore episodes explicitly
focused on writing, including awonderful conversation with Dr.
Young-Suk Grace Kim fromUniversity of California,
(36:34):
Irvine, who's done fabulousresearch in this area. And next
time, we have an interestingconversation, with Michigan
State University's Dr . AdreaTruckenmiller , about writing,
writing, assessment, andbuilding academic language.
Adrea Truckenmiller (36:49):
Instead of bucketing off words, sentences,
and discourse or text levelinto three distinct buckets, I
don't think it's a distinctbucket. I think it's rather a
continuum from word to sentenceto text.
Susan Lambert (37:05):
That's next time. And don't forget to
listen to the most recentepisode of Beyond My Years,
which features Kareem Weaver.
In this conversation, with hostAna Torres , Kareem details
some of the pivotal moments inhis journey as a literacy
champion.
Kareem Weaver (37:21):
Matter of fact, I had a kid, a young man who
asked me, 'cause he wassupposed to be released, he's
like, "Weaver, can I extend forlike just a few more months?
I'm learning to read. I justneed a little more time." I was
like, "Man, I can't really.
That's above my pay grade . Idon't determine how long." And
then he said this, "What Igotta do to extend for a few
more months?"
Ana Torres (37:41):
Wow.
Kareem Weaver (37:41):
What he was really saying was, "Don't make
me have to knock somebodyupside the head to stay in here
longer. I'm learning to read.
Don't mess this up." That'sreally what he was saying.
Ana Torres (37:48):
Wow, in so many words.
Kareem Weaver (37:49):
Yeah. So I was like, "Listen. No , no , no.
Don't go there. Let me work onit for you." But that's how
desperate he was, trying tostay in jail.
Susan Lambert (37:56):
That's available now in the Beyond My Years
podcast feed. Remember tosubscribe to Science of
Reading (38:02):
The Podcast on the podcast app of your choice, and
share it with your friends andcolleagues. Science of Reading:
The Podcast is brought to youby Amplify. I'm Susan Lambert.
Thank you so much forlistening.
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com