currriculum/pedagogy/literacy/w… · web viewword and sentence level. all teaching should be...

Introduction

This document seeks to set out a clear pedagogy for the teaching of writing within the school. It is based on a six phase model and seeks to pull together all the main research and educational thinking related to the teaching of writing published in recent years.

The document is in two sections. The first seeks to set out a pedagogical framework for the six phases; these are based around a series of core principles each of which forms a central plank in the thinking behind the phases of writing. The second part of the document focuses on the phases themselves and gives a brief overview of how they might be outworked in the classroom.

Contents

Section 1: Commentary on the phases of writing

What is writing? p2

The five Core Principles1. Context and Audience p42. Contextualised learning and the Emergent Approach p63. Assessment and the Personalisation of Learning p94. The Role of Success Criteria and Personal Targets p115. The Publishing of Work p13

Section 2: The Six Phases of Writing

The six phases of writing (Textual) p14The six phases of writing (Diagrammatic) p18

1

Section 1: Commentary on the Phases of Writing

What is the purpose of Writing?Whereas the purpose of reading is to assimilate the thoughts and feelings of others, the purpose of writing, along with Speaking and Listening, is to communicate our inner thoughts to an external audience. Unlike Speaking and Listening which is usually undertaken in proxy with all the richness of facial expressions, intonation and context surrounding it, writing is more two dimensional. The challenge for the writer therefore lies in communicating the same feelings and emotions simply through words on a page. The written word requires a greater degree of precision than the spoken word as the reader cannot seek clarification from the writer. The advantage of the written form is that it allows for a more measured and reasoned response. Similarly its permanence means that it often stands the test of time more than its spoken counterpart.

There is a danger that in the current rush to “raise standards” we lose sight of the fact that the primary reason to write is to communicate with a given audience. The Literacy Strategy is right in seeking to develop children’s awareness of writing conventions, correct grammar, accurate spelling and a breadth of vocabulary but this should not be allowed to overshadow writing’s key purpose. These elements are there to support the central function of effective communication not to become ends in themselves.

Whilst this is not the place for such a debate, the phrase “c u tmz @ 7.30” would divide opinion as to its merits as a written piece of text. Many would consider the message’s divergence from “Standard English” as something to be lamented. To others, the mobile phone has brought a new genre into 21st century writing, that is seen as efficient, effective and powerful (at least to those of us well versed in the language of text messaging!) Whatever your standpoint with regard to this particular issue it only seeks to illustrate the point that the core purpose of writing is for communication.

In similar vein there was much debate prior to the inception of the National Curriculum as to whether it should centre on the use of “Standard English” or acknowledge the richness of dialects which exist on our small island. The debate was never truly about the rights and wrongs of language but based upon the fact that language can carry with it a social identity. When my Scottish friend informs me that the task is “nae bother” he is not only informing me of the fact that it is “no problem” (literal translation) but he is also communicating a little of his heritage and his social roots of which he is rightfully proud. This is because “language embodies social and cultural values and also carries meanings related to each other’s unique identity” (LINC Materials. Introduction, 1992) Similarly many feel that the debate about the need for “Proper English” is rooted in a form of social status and a class based value system which some feel compelled to resist on philosophical grounds.

Whilst this document does not seek to address these weighty issues it simply seeks to confirm that writing (along with Speaking and Listening) is the chosen form of communication between the human race. There is a need to acknowledge that writing

2

is much more than just words on a page, it is a very powerful communication tool with a deep social and cultural backdrop. Those who are tasked with the teaching of writing need to be well versed and fully conversant with the breadth of these issues.

In light of this pedagogy the best persuasive text may not be that which is “well written” (whatever that may mean). Correct grammar and glorious syntax may not in and of itself persuade the reader. Newspaper headlines often break all the rules of Standard English, and yet they have proven power to engage readers and sell newspapers. If writing is for meaning then maybe we need to re-frame what we have traditionally called a “good piece of writing” from a child.

Associated Research Evidence “Particularly in a language education perspective, we need to take a dynamic view of language in all three dimensions of its variation: dialectical (regional/social), diatypic (functional) and diachronic (historical). To put this in less technical terms; for any theory of language in education, it should be seen as the norm not the exception that the community of learners use a variety of codes (languages and/or dialects), that they use a variety of language functions (or registers), and that none of these ever stands still”

“Language Topics” Michael Halliday, 1987

Halliday’s theory of language development illustrates the following main features of functional theory:

The making of meaning is the reason for the invention, existence and development of language

All meanings exist within the context of culture. Cultural values and beliefs determine the purposes, audiences, settings and topics of language

Texts, spoken and written, are created and interpreted by making appropriate choices from the language system according to specific purposes, audiences, settings and topics

Taken from “Knowledge about Language” R Carter, 1987

“The making of meaning is the reason for invention, existence and development of language. All meanings exist in the context of culture. Cultural values and beliefs determine the purposes, audiences, settings and topics of language”

LINC Materials. Introduction, 1992

3

1. Context and Audience

All writing should have (wherever possible) a real life context and a meaningful audience. This allows children to focus on issues other than the secretarial skills of the task in the early phases of the writing process, thereby making the initial task inclusive for all children.

(i) Context is the only true arena for Language LearningWriting without purpose relegates writing to a series of grammatical principles and syntax constructs. The “central theme of the English National Curriculum is how the forms of language vary according to the purpose, audience and topic” (“Looking into Language” R Bain et.al, 1992). It is therefore impossible to fully engage with language in the fullest sense when writing is taught without a secure contextual basis. The principle of “The Vehicle” so well embedded in the Wyche Curriculum provides a wealth of opportunity for children to engage with writing in its richest sense. Wherever possible, the teaching of writing should have clear purpose as this engages the children. It should have a clear sense of audience as this will determine its style and a clear sense of topic as this drives the genre. Writing outside of these parameters often reduces the activity to a sterile form of text manipulation within a given set of grammatical rules taught to the children by the teacher.

(ii) The context prevents children seeing Literacy as purely technicalWhere true context is removed and the teacher becomes over-reliant on the technical aspects of writing, children tend to imbibe a hidden inference that Literacy is something to get right or wrong rather than a form of creative communication. There should instead be a freedom to debate the range of arguments for a persuasive text, or in deciding “How the giant will rescue the princess?” without worrying about the best adjective that goes with the word “castle”. That is not to say that these features are not important, they are crucial, but they should not be allowed to detract, or cloud the central purpose of writing which is to communicate the excitement and intensity of a child’s thoughts. The technical aspects of the written language should be added at a later stage after the child has had the opportunity to draft their ideas with a sense of freedom from the constraints of grammar and spelling.

(ii) The context creates an inclusive environment The other benefit of this approach is that it allows all children to engage with the writing process from the outset allowing the activity to become inclusive for all children. The dyslexic child may have reasoning skills beyond those of his peers in developing a coherent argument (indeed, research would tend to suggest they have an advantage over their peers - “The gift of dyslexia” R Davies, 1984). Similarly, some of the most creative children are those who struggle to record their ideas in written form. The initial focus on the context allows them to fully participate and enjoy the creativity of the pre-writing task. Just as the goal for the teaching of reading should be to engender a love of books, so the teaching of writing should focus, in the first instance, on the child’s excitement at having ideas to communicate to others. Without this writing becomes dry, dusty,

4

academic activity based on fulfilling a series of grammatical requirements set by the teacher.

“Of course the technical aspects of reading and writing need to be learnt. But they need to be learnt without children getting the idea that tey are the most important things about reading and writing. To ensure this, setting their teaching into whole meaningful contexts should be more effective than teaching them as discrete elements”

Awareness and Literacy (David Wray 1991)

In conclusion language taught without a context tends naturally to focus on the technicalities of the writing process with introductions based on the use of adjectives, correct punctuation etc. These can have the potential of disenfranchising children who are challenged by the writing process.

Associated Research Evidence

“James Britton’s work clearly demonstrated the centrality of context, purpose and audience in language use and showed how important an understanding of this was for children’s learning”

LINC Materials. Introduction, 1992

“The most successful contexts for developing children’s awareness of various aspects of language will be ones in which children have a real involvement”

“Magic Words” Alison Sealey, 1990

“English teaching and language development should be placed firmly within the context of purposeful and varied uses of language across the curriculum”

“Looking into Language” R. Bain, 1989

“Competence is made apparent in real communicative contexts… case studies also suggest that it is not enough to teach knowledge about language on a single occasion”


“Nobody speaks or writes in the same way on all occasions. We alter our language according to what we are writing about whether it is for social, transactional or literacy purposes”

Cox Report 6.1, HMSO 1989

“Teaching should be set firmly into whole meaningful contexts (rather) than teaching discrete elements and expecting the children to bolt together these elements into holistic acts of Literacy”

Awareness and Literacy (David Wray 1991)

“It is evident that a child may be a poor speller, but write well-structured and interesting stories, or be a good speller, but write badly structured, boring stories”

English 5-16 HMSO 1989

5

2. Contextualised Learning and the Emergent Approach

Text LevelAll learning about “Understanding Language” will be “emergent” in its style of delivery meaning, children will deconstruct texts themselves to illicit the key features of quality literature. Their own textual analysis will then allow them to integrate these elements into their own written work.

Word and Sentence LevelAll teaching should be grounded in the context of the child’s own writing. De-contextualised exercises are at best neutral and at worse detrimental to children’s learning. The teaching will therefore often occur in the latter part of the writing process not at the beginning.

(i) Text LevelThere has been a tendency in recent years (especially since the introduction of the Literacy Framework in the late 1990’s) to see that Literacy as a collection of skills that need to be taught. To be fair the objectives in the early documents were often phrased in terms of “chunks of learning” to be attained. To those not versed in secure pedagogy it appeared that the framework was advocating a teaching style based around a series of lessons, each seeking to “teach” a new skill to the children in relative isolation. However the framework was rooted in a child-centric philosophy and a holistic view of literature and this caricature of the Literacy hour could not have been further from the author’s minds.

It is my contention that nationally and indeed within our own school we have fallen foul of the feeling that we should “teach” the children literacy. To be fair a more careful reading of the Literacy Framework demonstrates quite clearly, that for those who have pedagogical eyes to see, it has always advocated a clear child centric and emergent approach to learning. For example the present framework states that at Year 5 the children should:

Explore aspects of an author's style by comparing themes, settings and characters in different stories. Focus on characterisation and make inferences about the author's perspective on a particular character. Review conventions of dialogue: what it reveals about plot or character. Write a new scene for a story in the style of the author. (Year 5 Narrative Unit 1 Literacy Framework)

The key phrases in the text are “explore”, “review” and “focus”. The wording is quite clear that it is the children who are undertaking these activities rather than being didactically taught. The teacher has provided a range of quality texts for the children that demonstrate the full range of styles and features of effective text. The children then use these to elucidate key features of the writing such as 2A sentences, show not tell and many of the other aspects thinkers on this subject such as Alan Peat has articulated so well, but it is the children that are “exploring”, “focusing”, and “making inferences”. The learning is child centric and comes (or “emerges”) from the child, they are drawing out the key features and will then… write a new scene for a story in the style of the author.

6

(ii) Sentence and Word Level WorkJust as the text level work needs to be rooted firmly in the context of real texts which children can explore and engage with fully, so to the sentence and word level work needs to be grounded in the context of the child’s own work. There has been a tendency in recent years to going back to “teaching” aspects of grammar away from the children’s own writing but research clearly shows (and has for many years) that this is fundamentally flawed as a learning philosophy.

“The National Curriculum emphasises strongly that learning should take places in real contexts, rather than through exercises”

“Looking into Language” R. Bain, p16

Evidence clearly demonstrates that literacy taught out of the context of a child’s writing is not only ineffective but leads children to view literacy as a process of skills acquisition. Whilst these skills are crucial elements in the development of writing they need to be drawn from the children’s work and experience rather than being imposed by the teacher in an external and de-contextualised manner.

This may have a profound implication on how we structure units of written work (see Assessment and Personalised Learning below)


“Research evidence suggests that formal teaching of grammar had a negligible, or even a harmful effect on the development of original writing. We do not recommend a return to that kind of teaching.”

“The Kingman Report para 27” HMSO, 1988

“There has been research into the effectiveness of formal teaching, largely concluding that it was more likely to have an impairing than an enhancing effect on children’s spoken and written language”

“Awareness and Literacy p 13”David Wray, 1991

“There can be no return to formalist, decontextualised analysis of language, nor to the deficiency pedagogies on which this teaching was founded”

“Knowledge about Language” R Carter, p4

“Despite constant calls for a return to traditional grammar teaching all professional opinion and empirical evidence indicate that such an approach is not appropriate”

“Awareness and Literacy p 11” David Wray, 1991

“Most professional responses to the document (HMI English 5-16) raise fears that it might herald a return to discredited methods involving formal exercises”


7

“We have been impressed by the evidence that this (decontextualised exercises) gave an inadequate account of the English language by construction a rigid prescriptive code rather than a dynamic description of language in use”

“Kingman Report” chapter 1, 1988

All planning is based on the conviction that pupils know a lot about language and on the expectation that some of the most stimulating language study will continue to arise from pupils’ chance comments or questions


“Language should start from what children can do, from their positive achievements with language and from the remarkable resources of implicit knowledge about language which all children possess”

“Knowledge about Language” R Carter, p4

“Teaching methodologies should promote experiential, exploratory and reflective encounters with language; transmissive methods are usually inappropriate for the study of language in schools”

Knowledge about Languag” R Carter, p5

“Exercises illustrate the central role of drilling “correct” forms of learning grammar by heart as if it were a set of unchanging facts about English. The exercises are furthermore constructed on deficiency pedagogy. It is likely that this information would be quickly forgotten… no matter how intensive the drilling exercises or the transmissive the teaching strategies”

“The New Grammar Teaching” R. Carter, p105

“There can be no return to decontextualised exercises or gap fillings or to the deficiency pedagogies in which such procedures are grounded”


“Grammar teaching has been shown to be pedagogically and methodologically arid and conceptually ill founded”


“Extending pupil’s knowledge about language should start from what children should do: from their positive achievements in language and from the remarkable resources of implicit knowledge about language which all children possess”

LINC Training Materials Introduction, 1992

“The teacher’s role is as the major collaborator, helping pupils to be aware of the available resources and encouraging them to be active and independent in the processes of decision making, experimentation and reflection”

The Writing Process LINC, 1992

8

3. Assessment and Personalisation of Learning

The school holds to the principle that “Assessment is Learning” and therefore the one should not be divorced from the other. The assessment process, whether that be self assessment, peer to peer or feedback from the teacher allows the learning to be personalised, both to the child and the child’s individual piece of writing. This aspect of learning is the main driver for learning to ensue at a secure pace.

If therefore the key driver for learning derives from the child’s own work it therefore leads us to conclude that children must write before we can teach. In the light of this the learning becomes intertwined with the assessment process in the sense that the learning should be drawn out of the child’s own first draft.

This will have a profound impact on the structure of our Literacy lessons. There will be less (if any) front loading of skills at the beginning of the lesson, where the focus will remain on the content and genre. The child will then have complete freedom to explore their own thoughts and ideas in written form. There will then need to be a process of assessment and feedback where they are engaged with teaching strategies appropriate for their own work. This will inevitably lead to the personalisation of learning as each child receives personal feedback from the teacher or the teaching assistant on their own work. Where areas of learning coalesce it may be expedient for the teacher to draw the class, or a group of children together.

This will be the point in the process where the teacher may engage groups of children in Guided Writing. There is little value in undertaking this prior to this point as any teaching will be, by definition, de-contextualised and devoid of the rich context of the children’s own work.

Increasingly children should be drawn into the assessment process themselves and undertake both self and peer assessment. To facilitate this each lesson should have clear success criteria, and the children should be well versed in their understanding of what it takes to fulfil their own targets, and for peer assessment, the targets of others. This is a crucial element as it changes not just the learning but also has the power to change the culture away from seeing the first draft as “finished” and moving on to viewing all writing as a work in progress. This in turn will have a profound impact on each child’s ability to see themselves as “Learning Orientated” as opposed to “Performance Orientated” (Carol Dweck; Mindset - The new psychology of success; 2001) leading to an enrichment of the child’s self esteem.


“It should be that such knowledge of grammatical forms should form an incremental part of writing development and be mainly discussed with pupils in the context of their own use of language.”


9

“In redrafting their work they should be encouraged to think of the first draft as tentative so they are prepared to rethink their approach in the light of their own critical appraisal or of discussions with their peers or teacher”

Process and Collaboration in Practice LINC Materials, 1992

“The learning of skills, specific rules and conventions of English are more effectively taught when based on the child’s own language”

“Primary Education in England” DES, 1978

“Grammar cannot be seen in isolation; grammar needs to be located in use and in its creation of contextual meanings”


“A study of grammar should always be rooted in children’s positive achievements, that is in what children can already do with grammar”


“Redrafting is a prime source of knowledge about language”Language Study at KS3” George Keith, p94

In reflecting upon language in use, pupils will be identifying and investigating the kinds of patterning which typifies rich varieties of language. This is grammar teaching but it links structure and pattern firmly to their uses and functions within “real life” settings”


“An examination of grammar in texts means that grammatical form is not an exclusive focus, for grammar needs to be seen only as part of a more complex social and textual environment and realising specific functions in a purposeful context. A study of grammar in texts is a study of grammar in use”


“The programmes of study for Writing at Key Stage 1 requires teachers to teach – grammatical terms such as “pronoun” admittedly “in the context of their own writing” by the age of seven”

“What do we mean by KAL” John Richmond, 1989

10

4. The Role of Success Criteria and Personal Targets

At the inception of the National Curriculum for English there was much discussion about the “Knowledge of Language”. There was an understanding that many children brought much implicit knowledge to their writing, the debate then hinged around how, or when teachers should make this learning explicit. The HMI report English from 5 to 16 (1984) stated that teachers should;“…teach pupils about language, so that they achieve a working knowledge of its structure… so they have a vocabulary for discussing it, so that they can use it with greater awareness”

This element is crucial especially in the light of more recent moves towards a tighter form of assessment both by teachers and the children themselves. There needs to be a common framework within the school where language can be discussed. Much of this may well come from the work of Alan Peat and the school’s own scheme of work, but the end goal should be to produce a common framework in which children can discuss language amongst themselves. They cannot assess each other’s work unless they are talking the same “assessment language”.

For this reason every lesson should have two clear and distinct assessment criteria operating on two levels; success criteria and the child’s own targets.

Success Criteria Each lesson should have success criteria that clearly relate to the lesson’s learning objective. These may be at a text level e.g. “correct structure for a newspaper” or at a sentence/word level e.g. the use of 2A sentences. By definition most of these will be class based targets but may be differentiated into groups on occasions. The criteria should be clear and precise and will become the framework through which children are able to discuss and critique their own work, and the work of their peers, at the end of the lesson. The teacher should also feedback to the children using these criteria as benchmarks.

Personal TargetsThese run alongside and are targets that the teacher (or the child) has articulated. These will often be longer term and will be generic relating to a broad genre of writing e.g. the correct use of full stops. As with the success criteria the children should understand the framework in which they are to assess their work. They should be able to articulate errors clearly and know precisely how to correct them in a way that enhances the writing. It may be possible for them to undertake peer assessments, but again this can only occur where there is a secure common language for the assessment to be made and received by both children.


“Language performance is helped by systematic discussion of language in use” Cox Report 5:1, HMSO 1988

11

“Giving children opportunities to reflect on the language they are using is to develop their learning about language”


“The most important kind of knowledge about language is implicit knowledge. Language is such a complex network of meanings and symbols that the learning brain necessarily operates mainly using the powerful levers of unconscious learning. It could only be that way for life is not long enough for the conscious acquisition of language to the degree that humans require and employ it. The most important job for the adults is to help the child’s implicit knowledge develop”

“What do we mean by KAL” John Richmond, 1989

12

5. The Publishing of Work

The publishing of work will increasingly be a key factor in any unit of work as teachers seek to develop “real life” contexts in which the children can write. However there is a danger with the “published work” scenario that it takes the importance away from the learning process and puts a greater emphasis on the finished product. Whilst there is a balance to be gained here, the teacher needs to draw a clear distinction between the need for the final work to be one of quality, (especially where it is to have a wider audience) without fostering a classroom culture where the “learning orientation” is dismantled and a “performance orientation” is allowed to prevail. (Carol Dweck; Mindset - The new psychology of success; 2001)

Where writing has an audience and a purpose the publishing of work is a natural end goal. However the publishing process should be used sparingly (if at all) where it develops into the practice of “copying up”. Teachers need to acknowledge that “copying” is of minimal, if any, educational value and will therefore need to find creative ways around this aspect of the “publishing dilemma”

The use of ICT could be a key driver in this area. Word processing allows for children to draft, re-draft and correct and yet still end up with a product that is of the highest quality for publication. It is a powerful assessment and re-drafting tool, especially where the “track changes” feature is used in Microsoft Word. The children should never use the computer to undertake “copy typing”. Where the final work is to be printed rather than hand written then it should be produced on the computer using its full potential as a powerful editing tool.

13

Section 2: The Six Phases of Writing

With the obvious caveat that no one single model can assimilate all that is needed to teach a subject as complex as the acquisition of language the following model is offered in response to the research and pedagogy outlined above. Whilst presented as a linear construct it is recognised that not all the writing tasks will follow through all the phases either in order or indeed in their entirety. Having said that, the basic construct provides a clear rationale for the teaching of writing and where teachers stay close to the framework and its underpinning philosophy there should be a marked rise in the standard of children’s written work.

Phase 1: Introduction The key feature in this phase will be the teacher’s ability to create an enthusiasm for the writing project. The quickest, and by far the most effective way, to engender this is to create a “real” audience for the children. The school’s curriculum lends itself to this and wherever possible the writing task should be set in the context of the “vehicle” developed within each topic. Where no meaningful context can be found then the teacher needs to rely on top quality stimuli to engage the children.

The emphasis at this stage should not be on the writing skills required but instead it should have a heavy focus on the purpose of the task, the audience and the context. At this juncture discussion should gravitate around the content of the piece and the creativity of ideas needed for its fulfilment. In a non-fiction terms this may mean stressing the need for a quality of narrative, characterisation and a secure storyline. In persuasive writing there may be a rigorous debate about the subject up for debate. To this end the child should be freed from the constraints and limitations of their writing ability and the emphasis should be wholly on the creativity of the initial thinking process.

If there is an over emphasis on textual knowledge at this point there is a danger that children come to view writing as a grammatical rather than a creative challenge. There is little pleasure in being presented with a set of hurdles to jump over prior to any task, so whilst we all recognise that the children will have to engage with grammar at some point in the writing process, now is not the time for these to come to the fore. The key is to get the child into a place where they are “excited and enthusiastic” about putting their ideas into written form for others to read.

Phase 2: ModellingMuch of the work done at this stage will be at a macro scale in terms of the story. For non-fiction writing the emphasis may be on looking at how the written text can be structured. For fiction this may focus on the use of story beginnings or the use of media res within a text. The children need to access these through exemplars found in quality texts.

The key in this phase is that the teacher is seen as the facilitator for the children to explore these areas through real texts. There has been an increasing tendency recently for teachers to “teach” children literacy strategies and this is pedagogically flawed. The language of the framework makes it clear that the children should be pro-active in

14

“exploring” texts and developing their own opinions as to what constitutes the principles of good quality writing. There may be the temptation on the teacher’s part to “short cut” the process and “teach” the children but this should be resisted. Apart from the fact that “telling” is fundamentally an engagement with the short term memory, the real reason, when related to Literacy, is that the understanding of textual principles needs to be set within the context of a real text. To de-contextualise written forms will, in many cases, make the principle meaningless e.g. to learn about adjectives to describe the wicked witch is more powerful when studied within the context of a real story. The Literacy strategy made major steps forward in seeking to engage children with “whole texts” and we should not move away from this key element.

The Literacy strategy, for obvious reasons, encouraged teachers to use a range of quality texts from known authors. Whilst it cannot be denied that these works are aspirational, there is a growing feeling that using the work of past children is not only aspirational but also more accessible to the children themselves. Authors, of course, provide excellent exemplars but there is always the concern that children see them as being out of their league. Using children’s work, especially where a first draft is used alongside a finished piece is considered by many to be equally as powerful.

If the children have articulated for themselves the strategies that make a given piece of writing effective then the next logical and natural process would be to convert these into success criteria. They can then use these in the assessment of their own writing. Wherever possible the children should be encouraged to construct their own success criteria. This has two benefits, the first is a sense of ownership but the second is that it acts as an assessment task for the textual analysis. If children cannot articulate cogent success criteria then they are unlikely to have fully understood the principles within the text itself.

This phase also allows for the introduction of Shared Writing. The National Writing Project observed that children had very little experience of watching adults engaged in writing. Whilst the project proposed that adults write alongside children, the principle of Shared Writing allows the same principles to be demonstrated in a more explicit teaching environment. The key is not just to produce a quality of text but to clearly model for children the processes of writing, especially the idea that the first draft is highly unlikely to be the final version.

Phase 3: Generating IdeasThe key feature here (as with phase 1) is to reduce the “writing stress” many children feel and to focus on the creativity of ideas and thoughts that will create the essence of the story. The teacher may wish to use a structure to facilitate this such as “Playing card planning”, Boxing Clever, “When Suddenly” stories etc. However the structure should be “invisible” to the child, in the sense that whilst it may well provide a successful structure for their final writing the focus within the child’s mind should always be upon the free flow of creative ideas.

Phase 4: Initial DraftThe initial draft should be just that; an “initial” draft. For a good many reasons we need to move away from the rather simplistic model of “I teach… you write… I tell

15

you how well you have done” This is very shallow and will never allow children to fully engage with the richness of language required to construct an effective piece of writing. The danger with this approach is that the child will place undue emphasis on the aspects the teacher has focused on in the initial teaching. Whilst this is not all bad it is one dimensional and good writing has little to do with following a simple set of rules and constructs. It also emphasises the need for children to “do it right” and again writing is not about “right or wrong” it is about communicating effectively. However, more than this it will ultimately build a “performance orientation” in the classroom where children fail to see learning as an on-going process but as a task to be achieved. The creation of this culture is hard to break once established and this in turn has a hugely damaging effect on children’s self esteem and their consequent ability to learn.

Children should understand that writing is a refining process and the initial draft, in one sense, only serves to put down a set of ideas within a given framework which can then be honed at a sentence and word level within a later draft.

The teacher’s role at this point will vary dependent on the class. The majority of the class may well write independently and the teacher should therefore determine how their time is best used. Whilst an obvious option might be to offer support to a group of weaker writers it may well be that they choose to work alongside other children, whatever they decide a key principle should be to maximise time spent “teaching” as opposed to time spent “managing” the class and checking they are on task.

At the conclusion of the initial draft children should assess their work at text level alongside the success criteria they established at phase 2. Where criteria have been developed as a class or as a group, then there should be a common assessment language which will therefore enable children to undertake rigorous evaluation of each other’s work.

This initial draft should then be marked by the teacher who will use the assessments formatively to develop the teaching elements in the next phase of editing as well as picking up on the personal targets of each child.

Phase 5: EditingThis is an instrumental aspect of the writing process; it not only builds a “learning culture” into the classroom but its true power comes from the fact that it teaches language in the meaningful context of the child’s own writing. In this sense they are not trying to make sense of another’s writing but are seeking to bring a greater depth of meaning and clarity to their own. To this end George Keith is right when he states “Redrafting is a prime source of knowledge about language” and therefore re-drafting should be the main arena for the teaching of language.

All teaching at this juncture should springs from the formative assessment the teacher undertakes through the initial marking of the work. The success criteria developed within the lesson should be marked against and children engaged in class or group based teaching. Alongside this the child should receive feedback related to their ongoing personalised targets; any ensuing follow up work should undertaken within the next lesson. There should be as short a time frame as possible between the initial

16

draft and any follow up work as all research suggests that the impact of feedback reduces over time.

Where the teacher feels it is appropriate she may engage groups of children in guided writing. Again this will be borne out of the teacher’s own analysis of needs undertaken through the marking of the children’s work.

The process of re-drafting sends powerful cultural messages to the children around the issue of learning as it takes the focus away from “product” to “process” based learning. This will enable a learning culture to develop within the classroom with its obvious impact on self esteem.

Phase 6: Final copyThis can be the trickiest of all the phases. There is a need for children to present work and this will increase as teachers become more adept at setting writing tasks within “real life” contexts. However, the process of “copying out” (or its ICT equivalent of “Copy typing”) has little or no educational merit. The use of computers for word processing provides an obvious solution but where work is hand written teachers will have to explore creative ways to avoid children undertaking the meaningless and low level task of copying work out again.

17

Phases of Writing Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3

Focus General Text/Sentence/Word Level General

Key Feature Introduction Modelling Generating Ideas

Pedagogy

The task at this juncture should have little reference to the actual written task thereby making the lesson inclusive for all children

The children should identify, deduce, explore and analyse texts

to illicit the key features of high-quality writing

The emphasis should be on creativity

Teaching: Role of the teacher

Create meaningful purpose preferably in a real life context

orUse of quality stimuli as a

precursor to the writing

Shared Writing

Textual Analysis

The teacher should provide effective scaffolding for this

process e.g. playing card planning

Learning: Role of the Child

The child needs a sense of freedom to explore ideas related

to the task away from the constraints of writing

The child should elicit clear success criteria from the textual

analysis

The focus is on creativity and the drafting of ideas and thoughts

prior to writing

18

Phases of Writing Phase 4 Phase 5 Phase 6

Focus Text Level Sentence/Word Level Publishing

Key Feature Initial Draft Editing Final Copy

Pedagogy Children write in text structure

Children use their initial draft to explore sentence and word level features of writing. This allows for learning to be contextualised

in the child’s own writing

Published work (if appropriate)

The “Copying up of work” has no benefit in learning terms and

should be avoided

Teaching: Role of the teacher

The role of the teacher in supporting writers will be

determined by the needs of the children in the class

Guided Writing

Personalised Feedback

There may be a requirement for publication for an external

audience but this should not remove the focus of the on-going

learning for the child

Learning: Role of the Child Work evaluated against success criteria

Self, Peer to peer andTeacher assessment

Individual writing targets reviewed

Where publication is necessary ICT use is virtually essentialChildren should not “type up stories” from a draft version

19

currriculum/pedagogy/literacy/w… · web viewword and sentence level. all teaching should be...

Documents