Produce writing for a task, purpose and audience; revise what matters most; and publish and update shared writing with technology

Learning goal: Produce clear and coherent writing in which the development, organization and style are appropriate to task, purpose and audience. Develop and strengthen writing as needed by planning, revising, editing, rewriting or trying a new approach, focusing on what is most significant for a specific purpose and audience, and editing for conventions with command of the grades 9-10 Language standards. Use technology, including the Internet, to produce, publish and update individual or shared writing products, taking advantage of technology's capacity to link to other information and to display information flexibly and dynamically.

The scenario this unit uses. Linden Ridge High School is invented, and so is every number attached to it. The school, which enrolls 1,140 students, is deciding whether to require students to lock their phones in magnetic pouches during class periods, unlocking them at lunch and at the end of the day. The simulated sources are these. Cost sheet: 1,140 pouches at 25 dollars each (28,500 dollars) plus six unlocking stations at 450 dollars each (2,700 dollars), a total of 31,200 dollars, to be paid from a one-time fund of 35,000 dollars. Pilot log: two ninth-grade English sections, 58 students in all, used pouches for six weeks; their two teachers counted phone-related redirections and recorded an average of 9 per 50-minute period in the three weeks before the pilot and 2 per period during it. Pilot quizzes: unit-quiz averages were 74 percent before the pilot and 79 percent during it, on different units. Student survey: 640 of the 1,140 students responded; 384 opposed the policy, 192 supported it and 64 were unsure. Parent letter: 41 families signed a letter asking how they would reach their children in an emergency. Oakmere report: a neighboring district, also invented, replaced 90 of its 750 pouches in the first year because of damage or loss. None of this describes a real school, and the evidence supports more than one reasonable position.

Task, purpose and audience decide everything else. The task is what you have been asked to produce and its constraints: a one-page memo, a 300-word newsletter article, a text alert of one or two sentences. The purpose is what the writing must accomplish: to inform, to persuade, to instruct, to record. The audience is who will read it, what they already know and what they care about. Clear and coherent writing is writing whose development (how much detail and explanation), organization (the order and grouping of ideas) and style (word choice, sentence length, formality) fit those three. The same facts, written for different audiences, should produce different texts. A writer who sends the board a text-message summary, or sends families a memo full of terms like baseline and confounding variable without definitions, has produced something clear only to themselves.

One set of facts, three products. Here is the pilot result written three ways.

For the school board (memo, purpose: inform a decision). "Pilot results. In two ninth-grade English sections (58 students), teachers recorded an average of 9 phone-related redirections per 50-minute period during a three-week baseline and 2 per period during six weeks with pouches. The teachers who counted had volunteered, and the pilot covered 5 percent of enrollment; a year-long count by staff outside the pilot would test whether the result holds." Development is full; the organization is result then limitation then next step; the style is formal and uses the board's terms.

For the ninth-grade newsletter (article, purpose: explain what happened to students who were not in it). "For six weeks this fall, two English classes kept their phones in pouches. Their teachers kept count of how often they had to stop class to deal with a phone: about 9 times a period before, about 2 during. That is a big drop, but it was only two classes. Nothing has been decided yet, and counting again in more classes would show whether the drop holds." Development is lighter, sentences are shorter, and the one limitation that matters to students (only two classes; no decision yet) is kept.

For families (text alert, purpose: notify and direct). "Linden Ridge is reviewing a phone-pouch proposal. Pilot results and the draft emergency-contact plan are posted on the school website; comments are open until the board meeting." The task allows almost no development, so the text does one thing: it tells families where to find the development.

Check the arithmetic in the memo: 58 divided by 1,140 is about 0.051, so "5 percent of enrollment" is accurate.

Planning, revising, editing, rewriting, trying a new approach. These are different activities, and they happen in a sensible order. Planning decides task, purpose, audience and a structure before drafting. Revising changes content and organization: adding a missing limitation, cutting an irrelevant paragraph, moving the counterclaim. Editing corrects conventions: grammar, usage, punctuation, spelling, the matters in Language standards 1-3. Rewriting redrafts a section from scratch when patching it would take longer than starting again. Trying a new approach changes the form itself: turning a chronological report into questions and answers, or a list of findings into a single story of one class period.

Focus on what is most significant. The phrase in the standard that students most often skip is "focusing on addressing what is most significant for a specific purpose and audience." Revision time is limited, so spend it where it matters. For a board memo whose purpose is to inform a decision, the most significant problem is any missing or overstated evidence; a comma error matters less. For a family notice, the most significant problem is anything confusing or alarming. A useful order: first, does the text do its job for this reader? Second, is it organized so the reader can follow it? Third, are the sentences clear? Fourth, are the conventions correct? Editing a paragraph that should have been cut wastes the edit.

Technology to produce, publish and update, individually or together. A shared online document lets several writers work on one product. Its tools serve the revision process directly: comments attach a question or suggestion to a specific sentence without changing it; suggestion or tracking modes show proposed changes that the author can accept or reject; version history lets a group see who changed what and recover an earlier draft. Shared writing also needs agreements that the technology does not supply: who owns which section, who has the final decision on a disputed change, and a short style sheet (for example, "numerals for all counts and percentages; 'redirection', not 'interruption', throughout").

Linking and displaying information flexibly and dynamically. Online writing can link to other information: the memo can link the phrase "pilot log" directly to the full log, so readers who want detail can get it and readers who do not are not slowed down. It can display information flexibly: a frequently-asked-questions page with expandable answers, a table readers can sort, a chart that updates when new data arrive. Use these features when they serve the reader. A link should go to the source it names, and the link text should say where it goes ("the six-week pilot log", not "click here").

Publishing and updating. Publishing online makes updating possible, and updating carries a responsibility. When a published text changes in a way that affects what a reader would conclude, add a dated note saying what changed ("Updated October 14: the cost figure has been corrected from 31,500 to 31,200 dollars"). Silent changes to published facts undermine trust.

A worked revision log. A student group drafted the family FAQ page in a shared document. Their log shows the process. Planning: purpose, reassure and inform families; audience, parents with no knowledge of the pilot; form, five questions and answers. First draft: a single long paragraph copied from the board memo. Revision (most significant first): the draft began with the pilot's method, but the 41 families' letter shows their main concern is emergencies, so the group moved "How will I reach my child in an emergency?" to the first question. Trying a new approach: the long paragraph became five expandable questions, each linking to the relevant document. Editing: a comment flagged "the pouches is locked", corrected to "the pouches are locked". Publishing: the page went live with a line at the top, "Last updated", and a date. Updating: when the board changed the proposed unlocking time, the group edited the answer and added a dated note rather than silently replacing the old time.

Worked diagnosis of audience mismatch: A student sent this to the ninth-grade newsletter: "Baseline data (n = 58) indicate a reduction in redirection frequency from 9.0 to 2.0 per period; however, confounding variables preclude causal inference." Every fact is correct, but the style suits a research report, not ninth graders. The purpose (explain to students who were not in the pilot) requires plain words, a concrete image of what a redirection is and the one limit students care about. Revision: "In the two pilot classes, teachers had to stop class for a phone about 9 times a period before the pouches and about 2 times during. That's a big drop, but it was only two classes, so a longer count in more classes would help the school decide." Development, organization and style now fit task, purpose and audience.

Worked priority in revision: A peer returned a board memo with twelve comments: eight on commas and word choice, three on sentence length and one saying "You never mention that the counters volunteered." The most significant for a board deciding on evidence is the missing limitation, because without it the memo overstates the pilot. The writer revises that first, adding one sentence, then reorganizes the paragraph so the limitation follows the result, and only then edits the eight convention comments.

Worked new approach: The group's first family page was chronological: the pilot, the survey, the cost, the letter, the proposal. Readers had to reach paragraph five to learn what was proposed. One workable revision would keep the chronology and add an opening summary of the proposal. The group judged that this would still leave each family searching the history for its own concern, so it tried a new approach that suits these readers particularly well: a question-and-answer format led by the families' own questions. The same facts now appear in the order families need them.

Worked update note: The page first said pouches unlock "at 11:30." The board moved lunch unlocking to 11:45. Weak update: silently change the time. Strong update: change the time and add "Updated November 3: lunch unlocking moved from 11:30 to 11:45 by board vote." (The date is simulated.) Readers who saw the first version can see what changed and why.

Representation task: Take one paragraph you have already written this year. Make a three-row table: task and constraints, purpose, audience and what they know. Then rewrite the paragraph for a different audience in the same table format, and underline one change each in development, organization and style.

Independent performance (shared product): In groups of three or four, produce and publish a family information page about a school decision (real or the simulated Linden Ridge proposal). Success criteria: a written plan naming task, purpose and audience; development, organization and style suited to families; a revision log showing at least one change made because it was the most significant problem for this audience, one edit for conventions, and either a rewrite or a new approach; use of shared-document comments and version history, with each member's contribution visible; at least three links whose text names their destination; at least one flexible display element (expandable answers, a sortable table or a chart) that the page explains (if your writing tool cannot make one, a linked spreadsheet chart or a free web-page builder can, with your teacher's approval); and one dated update note after a change to a fact. Each member writes a 150-word reflection on what the group decided was most significant and why.