Discussion Prompt: What do you think of the two different approaches (Tompkins, et al.

and Schleppegrell)
to analyzing patterns in students’ writing? Did you find one more helpful than the other? Why?

When analyzing student work samples, I chose to use the approach that Tompkins, et al. outlined. I really liked
that Gentry’s stages for spelling followed a developmental progression. As a preschool special education
teacher, I use developmental progressions of skills when determining my student’s present levels of
performance. When accompanied by specific criteria and concrete examples, it helps to determine if students
are functioning within their chronological age range and what gaps they have in their development. I did find
that it was hard for me to use Gentry’s stages because they only included spelling development. It was difficult
for me to look at writing samples and only focus on the spelling, when it is only one part of writing. The
approach in Schleppegrell’s article looked at the grammatical aspects of writing. I think both approaches are
useful, depending on the analytical focus of the writing.
Even though I chose the approach from the article by Tompkins et al., Schleppegrell’s idea that “functional
linguistics sees language not as a set of rules but as a set of resources for making meaning” is very powerful.
When we help students “see language as a set of choices,” we can empower them rather than point out their
errors.