Making Progress in Writing

Eve Bearne

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2003
• ISBN:
  9781134512362
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education General

Children's achievements in writing lag behind their achievements in reading, speaking and listening. National tests are beginning to expose this gap and inevitably, it is raising concerns. The issue is not without controversy but regardless of the politics of the situation, national progress in children's writing is both needed and possible.
This new book from Eve Bearne makes a valuable contribution towards helping teachers close this gap. Uniquely, it follows the structure of the National Literacy Strategy, whilst examining key areas such as bridging KS2 and KS3 writing, and writing skills beyond the Literacy Hour. Such a structure makes the book incredibly practical and easy to use, providing essential information for both practitioners and academics.

Chapter 1

Writing now: current trends

A writer is not only a creative thinker and problem solver but also a designer.

(Sharples 1999: 10)

The ‘traditional’ approach sees classroom writing as complete, one-off writing, existing as ‘evidence’ either of the content of learning or as a proof of technical competence. It would be done to satisfy external demands, be produced in a set time, on a given topic, and seen as a finished product, marked and assessed to prove that something has been done or simply to check up on children’s abilities. Another view, more in evidence in the late 1980s and the 1990s sees writing as a verb – an activity – something in the process of construction which should be read for the meaning it conveys, and be seen as an indicator of the writer’s ideas and personal intention to convince, entertain, explain. According to this view, the process of putting a text together is seen as central to creating meaning and so the word ‘writing’ is seen much more as a series of activities than a single piece of evidence. Of course, the verb leads towards a noun – writing results in writing – and this very phrase ‘writing results in writing’ captures some of the problems in sorting out different views. When we engage in professional discussion about ‘writing’ we can’t always be sure that we are all talking about the same thing.

This chapter outlines some current issues about writing, including:

• Writing – noun or verb?
• From texts to teaching
• Writing in schools and classrooms
• Making meaning: the early years
• Young children’s writing
• Writing at home and school
• Voice in writing
• Creativity and culture
• Ideas and interactions: Halliday’s model

Writing – noun or verb?

The different approaches to writing used to be referred to as a ‘product’ view and a ‘process’ model. More recently, George Hillocks has used the term ‘presentational’ to characterise the product approach. This seems a useful way of describing it, since much writing outside schools results in a product; the notion of presentation suggests greater emphasis on the performative aspects of writing than on the formative. The work of Donald Graves, particularly, who promoted the process approach, had a profound impact on ‘formative’ classroom writing in the U.K. Largely as a result of his work and the way it was explored and adapted by teachers, The National Curriculum for English requires that young writers must be experienced in the process of planning, drafting, revising, proofreading and presenting their work.

The notion of ‘product’ was reinvigorated during the late 1980s first of all by attention to the work of Australian genre theorists. Their views of writing were based on dissatisfaction with the way writing was being taught in Australia at that time; there was too much ‘recount’ writing [do-it-then-write-about-it] and not enough attention to the different forms and functions that writing takes both in and out of the classroom. The genre theorists signal a return to looking at written texts as products whilst also considering the processes through which the writer has to go. This led to renewed attention to deliberate teaching of writing, ‘developing skill at a genre’ (Martin and Rothery in Couture 1986: 116).

Critics of genre theory argue that children’s learning consists not of putting together different ‘skills’ but of a gradual consolidation of experiences which are visited and revisited throughout their schooling. (see, for example, Barrs 1991 and Wyse and Jones 2001: 126–129). Indeed, as far as writing is concerned, it is questionable, and open to argument, whether any adult writer can ever claim to have got to grips with all the ‘skills’ necessary for writing in a wide range of genres. Since writing changes with time, even mature writers continue to learn and develop their expertise. Also, according to this view, writing is seen not so much as expressing ideas and exploring meaning but as constructing texts. In terms of seeing writing as noun or verb, a product or a process, the emphasis has shifted towards a view of ‘a process of production’ which highlights the functions and structures of texts.

Another problem associated with the notion of teaching generic forms is to do with just what can be defined as a genre. To suggest that there is a catalogue of genres which can be introduced, practised and perfected, leads to the worst kind of checklist approach to teaching writing. As Bruner pointed out, it is probably more helpful to understand genre ‘as a way of both organizing the structure of events and organizing the telling of them’ (Bruner 1986: 6). This allows for a more flexible view of genre, bearing in mind his reminder that ‘genre naming or grouping is both necessary and loose’.

From texts to teaching

The National Literacy Strategy has been the greatest single influence on teaching writing over the past few years. However, the underlying view of writing in the Strategy is structural, seeing the development of writing as a staged and purposeful move towards competence in a range of forms. This is all very well, but there is more to becoming a writer than getting to grips with the technical and organisational features of texts. Another significant shift developed in the introduction of the Literacy Strategy Framework, the primary headteachers’ materials about targets for writing and the Strategy training sessions and materials, is an explicit view of the teaching methods which should be adopted. Taking the idea of teacher intervention as central, the Literacy Strategy sets out clear procedures for Shared and Guided teaching approaches (see Grammar for Writing DfEE 2000 pp. 13–18 and Shared Writing on School Placement DfEE 2001 pp. 115–118). However, there are different interpretations of ‘intervention’ and the assumptions inherent in any materials presented for widespread training deserve scrutiny. There are also problems about implementation of the approach at school and classroom level which need to be considered, particularly, perhaps, at Key Stage 3.

At the same time as introducing Grammar for Writing, the NLS organised national briefings for primary headteachers. In response to the gap between Key Stage 2 Reading and Writing SAT scores, a new set of targets for writing were introduced (National Literacy Strategy Autumn 2000). Headteachers are urged to take structured and deliberate steps to raise standards of writing. These are organised in sections describing progressive targets at word, sentence and text level, but sub-divided into:

• Spelling
• Handwriting
• Style: language effects
• Style: sentence construction
• Punctuation
• Purpose and organisation
• Process.

Headteachers should ‘demonstrate strong leadership in the implementation of the school literacy strategy’ and to set ‘achievable, measurable literacy targets’ which can be translated into curricular targets and be ‘monitored’. This begins to look rather like ‘fast capitalism’ in the desire to raise scores rather than improve the ways in which young people learn to become writers. In Writing the Future, Gunther Kress describes fast capitalism as:

Shallow notions of accountability, effectiveness, efficiencies; the unchecked effects of the market; and the spread of its baleful practices into cultural and intellectual life.

(Kress 1995: 4)

It is linked to government statements that low literacy levels will affect the nation’s economic performance. The concerns expressed are not to do with developing people, but of educating a workforce. In the classroom, this commercial model of teaching and learning puts pressure on teachers, particularly when it is presented on top of a prescribed programme of objectives in the NLS. Alongside these categories and teaching objectives run the equally demanding, but differently described, QCA requirements for writing SATs – not just at the ends of Key Stages 1 and 2 but now also represented by tests at the end of Years 3, 4, and 5 in the primary sector and also in Key Stage 3. The level descriptors used for assessing these writing tests are not explicitly related to the NLS targets for writing nor to the writing objectives in the Framework. It is a fragmented picture. Not only is writing separated from reading and, importantly, speaking and listening, but also the different agencies which direct teachers and teaching provide different sets of categories to describe what is to be taught and how it should be assessed.

Writing in schools and classrooms

In a recent study on the National Literacy Strategy, Graham Frater describes some of the difficulties associated with implementing the Strategy. His work is based on surveys of 32 primary schools. Some of the schools had confidently taken on the NLS and were promoting positive practices about writing. Others had more problems in implementing the Strategy. These schools were not ‘failing’ in Ofsted’s terms. Frater emphasises that:

Literacy hour lessons were orderly affairs, good relationships were widespread and lesson planning in the long, medium and short term was thorough and conscientious.

(Frater 2000: 109)

Rather, the problems arose from ‘anxiety and literalism’. Headteachers reported ‘losses of professional self-confidence, even among seasoned staff, and of the spread of low morale’ (ibid.: 109). The very conscientiousness mentioned above seemed to be problematic. Frater explains that anxiety about covering the termly content of the Framework led to a literal interpretation of what should be emphasised in teaching writing. This, in turn, led to ‘a fragmented approach to the planning and teaching of English’. Frater is at pains to point out that he is not blaming the teachers involved:

It was as if teachers felt drained of the professional selfconfidence that was so clearly merited by the skilled classroom management which many had achieved so consistently.

(ibid.: 109)

This is troubling, particularly since it reflects the kind of disquiet which is voiced in staffrooms throughout England. The evaluation of the Strategy echoes some of these concerns:

Teachers and headteachers . . . tend to receive a constant stream of messages and directives . . . It is not surprising that they see fragmentation where people close to the centre (of the Strategy) see coherence

(Earl et al. 2001:75)

This concern about overload is expressed here by a Literary Consultant:

From the early days of NLS, primary teachers have been, and continue to be, saturated with new resources and pedagogical methodologies. The ‘cascade’ approach to training carries all the images of an unstoppable, torrential flood. Our teachers have been digesting and implementing this educational initiative whilst teaching and working within a political timescale to raise standards of literacy and numeracy. However, for effective professional development, teachers need ‘time and space to reflect in a structured way upon their own approaches to literacy teaching’ (Medwell with Wray et al. 1998). Research tells us that the most effective training is not that which concentrates on subject knowledge but that which deals with subject knowledge in terms of how it is taught to children. The most effective training is that which gives teachers a reasonable amount of time to use new ideas and practical activities and to see how they fit in with their existing armoury of teaching strategies.

We must give credit to some of the exciting ideas which have emerged from the strategy. Maureen Lewis and David Wray’s EXEL project has been an invaluable resource for teachers, introducing many of us to new ways of thinking about English and empowering techniques to support children and scaffold their learning. The genre theorists have opened new pathways for future development. Attention has re-focused on exciting and thought-provoking issues – not least Vygotsky’s work on the relationship between thought and language. We increasingly return to the value of talk when we discuss writing. The concept of shared reading and shared writing has undoubtedly allowed us to maximise teacher expertise. We would not be debating these issues on such a scale without the experiences of the NLS.

Yet, as Margaret Meek tells us ‘difference is at the heart of what it is to be literate’.We learn in different ways; we write in different ways; as teachers we look for different ways of teaching and we adapt our teaching to suit the children and the task. The pedagogical model presented in Grammar for Writing does not allow for difference. It is intrusive, both to children and teachers and it is, once again, too prescriptive. One of the difficulties with this model is the assumption that development of writing manifests itself in a simple linear fashion. This view is just not tenable; patterns of development are shaped by individual differences and experiences which are constantly revisited and revised in the light of new experience.

We should at least debate the issues I am raising here, and I know my colleagues in schools have many more:

• The ‘cascade’ approach to training should be replaced by proper professional development programmes which give teachers time to develop their beliefs.
• We should re-establish the links between literacy and the arts curriculum.
• We must re-establish the place of the child in the Framework of ‘teaching objectives’ and give emphasis to ‘learning’.

(Mary Hyde Gibbons)

As this Literacy Consultant, the teachers in Graham Frater’s study and other teachers indicate, the introduction of the NLS has not always resulted in greater understanding of how to make sense of texts. Recent advice from the Strategy indicates a wider view stressing that the NLS document is a framework not a plan and that schools are encouraged to be flexible in their interpretation of the Literacy Hour. Important priorities now are: setting targets, raising expectations and clarifying objectives. Teachers need to keep ownership of their planning and not let it be totally dominated by slavish adherence to NLS framework (Askew 2001). Guidance for narrative writing encourages planning for developing writing over a period of a few weeks (Improving Writing – Writing Flier 1, DfES 2001).

Whilst these might be encouraging signs, transforming teachers’ anxious literalness to assured flexibility is likely to take some time.

Making meaning: the early years

Debates about methods of teaching writing tend to take attention away from the developing writer. One of the key areas of understanding writing development over recent years is the value given to children’s home knowledge of language and literacy. Very rarely these days does a teacher suggest that ‘these children have no language’ when they come to school. Research into the language of home and school carried out in the 1980s seems to have had its properly deserved impact. It is now also recognised that spoken language, gesture, construction of all kinds – clothes, food, furniture – influence the ways in which children develop literacy. It is not just that homes and communities contain print or pictorial objects which offer models of possible future text-making, nor is it solely to do with the important links between early experience of the shapes of spoken texts like conversation, song, story, explanation and the later ability to write such texts. It is because making meaning is central to writing and, as Gunther Kress argues, ‘Children make meaning in an absolute plethora of ways, with an absolute plethora of means, in two, three and four dimensions.’ He explains:

Different ways of making meaning involve different kinds of bodily engagement with the world – that is, not just sight as with writing, or hearing as with speech, but touch, smell, taste, feel.

(Kress 1997: xvii)

Kress goes on to suggest that our ability to translate from one medium to another is the basis of all metaphor, and of much of our most significant innovation. This wider view of meaning making and its relevance to the development of writing can be seen in the different kinds of images we use to explain things: the analogies which help us make sense of new id...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Figures
• Acknowledgements
• Making Progress in Writing: Introduction
• Chapter 1
• Chapter 2
• Chapter 3
• Chapter 4
• Chapter 5
• Chapter 6
• Chapter 7
• Chapter 8
• Chapter 9
• References