Developmental Writing Program for Schools Produced by Lindsay Williams, Wordsmart Consulting
Introduction Recently, a number of schools have expressed an interest in learning how to lift the writing achievement of mid-‐range to high achieving students. On the following pages is a summary of key content for a school-‐wide writing program, as well as key approaches to teaching and, finally, an indicative implementation process to stage change in practice across the curriculum. While English Faculties will be critical in implementation, the success of the program will depend on adoption across all subject areas in which writing plays an important role in assessment and learning.
Further Explanation Section Title Pages Explanation Content • Social View of Language • Key Elemental Genres of Schooling
• Key Linguistic Resources for Moving Students from Small to Big Texts
• Related Literacy Activities
2-‐5 This section begins with an overarching scope and sequence for any school-‐wide writing program and is based on the social view of language that underpins the General Capability: Literacy. The final column of this table provides continua for moving students from more basic to more sophisticated understandings of language and how it works in texts. So, for example, as students progress through school, they first master the basic, elemental genres (see pp3-‐4) and then use these to create new texts in new contexts and that combine the elemental genres (i.e. ‘macrogenres’ and ‘mixed texts’) and, furthermore, allow them to produce increasing bigger, more sophisticated texts (see p5). In addition, writing development will be enhanced if students learn to ‘read like a writer’ and learn to manage the writing process effectively (see p5).
Pedagogy: How to Teach Writing
6 This summarises best practice in teaching writing. While the general pedagogy is explicit teaching, this section attempts to articulate the special features of an explicit approach to teaching writing in particular.
Troubleshooting 7 The questions on this page can be used as a starting point for examining the current approach to teaching writing in a school and diagnosing (in a general sense) where change, refinements and improvements are required. This table should be used in conjunction with the information on pages 2-‐6.
Indicative Implementation Process
8-‐9 Finally, the document offers a starting point for thinking about how improvements to school-‐wide writing might be staged. The suggested process starts with reviewing and refining task sheets as this is a clear point of accountability for teachers and students.
Content: Scope and Sequence for a Social View of Language Social View of Language Key Concepts Continua of Learning Context of Culture: Genre • Purposes and associated genres
Content: Some Key Linguistic Resources and Strategies for Moving Students from ‘Small’ Texts to ‘Big’ texts Story specific strategies Other strategies Adapted from Martin & Rose 2012:
• Extending with additional Complications and Resolutions • Expanding each stage with [content excluded from sample]
that engage us in characters’ problems, feelings, thoughts and relationships, or by describing people, things and places: [content excluded from sample]
• Quoting the speech of protagonists to reveal their character and build relationships.
• [content excluded from sample].
• Stitching genres together in relationships of: • elaboration, i.e. restating, specifying, exemplifying, commenting
• [content excluded from sample] • Strategically repeating stages and phases • Creating depth and complexity through:
• expanding noun groups; • elaborating clauses to restate, specify, exemplify and comment (in addition to extending and enhancing clauses)
• nominalisation
Content: Related Literacy Activities Reading like a Writer • Wide reading of quality texts
• Analysing and evaluating texts Knowing about genres and language Analysing contextual factors Building Field:
Pedagogy: How to Teach Writing Explicit teaching: A Minimal Approach
Implementation Steps Strategies Reading Writing
• Modelled practice, including explanation (e.g. via a thinkaloud)
• Guided practice • Teacher & students together • Collaborative student practice with scaffolding & teacher feedback
• Independent practice • Independent practice with scaffolding (and expert teacher feedback)
• Independent practice with little/no scaffolding (and expert teacher feedback)
• Independent practice with peer and self evaluation
• Orientation to the text • Reading the text • Working with the text • Reviewing reading
• Orientation to the text • Writing the text • Reviewing the writing • Publishing writing
Adapted and expanded from Unsworth 2001 Explicit Teaching: Going Further Teachers can draw strategically on approaches such as:
• Reading to Learn (Rose 2014) cycles for reading and writing, e.g Prepare-‐Task-‐Elaborate • Scaffolding Literacy (Axford et al 2009), including Writing (and Sentence) Plans • Spelling: see word analysis (Axford et al 2009) and word sorts (Words Their Way: Bear et al 2012) Complemented by:
• individual teacher-‐student Writing Conferences • peer and self evaluation supported by criteria-‐based checklists.
Troubleshooting: Some Key Factors in Ensuring Success Sometimes, it might appear that good teaching is happening, but evidence reveals that student achievement in writing is not improving. In this case, the following questions might be helpful for diagnosing potential problems. Diagnostic Questions Elaboration and Comments 1. Is there a long-‐term plan to gradually develop the students’ writing ability?
Backward mapping should be undertaken to ensure: • alignment between unit assessment and teaching/learning activities • continuity and development from Year 7 to Year 12.
2. Are the exemplar texts appropriate, valid texts that extend students’ ability?
• Appropriate means the text is [content excluded from sample]. • Valid here means that the text actually does model what it is being used to model, in terms of the genre, field, type of tenor and mode/medium, i.e. while the teacher won’t model the exact task students must undertake, it will be similar. Amongst other things, this assumes knowledge of genre categories on the part of teachers.
3. Have there been multiple close readings of the types of texts to be written?
It is good practice to provide students with an annotated model, but it is not enough. In addition, many/most students need to actively read a number of models. At least some of these should be ‘basic’ models that assist them to ‘pass’ and other, more sophisticated models should be provided that extend more competent and confident students.
4. Are students being encouraged to ‘read like a writer’? Teachers should help make visible the workings of the text (e.g. how it achieves objectivity, makes the reader laugh or cry, argues a point of view cogently and compellingly etc) and show students how to do this more independently. The ability to do so presumes a shared metalanguage for talking about text, e.g. aspects of the social view of language and critical language features.
5. [Content excluded from sample] [Content excluded from sample] 6. Is there evidence of systematic, explicit teaching tailored to student needs?
Teachers should take care not to skip from modelling to independent practice – all strategies in between (especially guided practice) are important to student success. Furthermore, some students may need repetition of some strategies, e.g. multiple episodes of guided practice.
What How Who When texts work – language in context • Use of key contacts in the
English faculty areas
Element 5: Macrogenres and mixed texts: Responding creatively to context
• See Element 3 • Use of key contacts in the English faculty
• Teachers across learning areas
Element 6: Assessing writing and providing effective feedback
Element 7: Multimodal text production
Element 8: Sustaining writing program
Note: ‘Reading like a writer’ and ‘The writing process’ can be integrated into various elements above, especially when developing teaching/learning activities.
References Axford, B., Harders, P. and Wise, F. 2009, Scaffolding Literacy: An Integrated and Sequential Approach to Teaching Reading, Spelling and
Writing, ACER Press, Camberwell Victoria. Bear, D., Invernizzi, M., Templeton, S. and Johnston, F. 2012, Words Their Way: Word Study for Phonics, Vocabulary, and Spelling
Instruction, Pearson, Sydney. Christie, F. 1999, ‘The pedagogic device and the teaching of English’, in Pedagogy and the Shaping of Consciousness: Linguistic and Social
Processes, F. Christie (ed), Cassell, London, pp. 156-‐184. Christie, F. and Macken-‐Horarik, M. 2011, ‘Disciplinarity and school subject English’ in Disciplinarity: Functional Linguistic and
Sociological Perspectives, F. Christie and K. Maton (eds), Continuum, London, pp. 175-‐196. Don, A. 2011, ‘Legitimating tenor relationships: Affiliation and alignment in written interaction’, Linguistics and the Human Sciences, Vol.
3, No. 3, pp.303-‐327. Frow, J. 2006, Genre, Routledge, London. Gregory, M. 1995, ‘Generic expectations and discoursal surprises: John Donne’s The Good Morrow’, in Discourse in Society: Systemic
Functional Perspectives Meaning and Choice in Language: Studies for Michael Halliday, P. Fries & M. Gregory (eds), Ablex Publishing Corporation, Norwood New Jersey, pp. 67-‐84.
Halliday, M. 1978, ‘The sociosemantic nature of discourse’ in M. Halliday, Language as Social Semiotic: The Social Interpretation of
Language and Meaning, Edward Arnold, London, pp. 128-‐151. Halliday, M. & Mathhiessen, C. 2014, Halliday’s Introduction to Functional Grammar. Routledge, London. Halliday, M. and Greaves, W. 2008, Intonation in the Grammar of English, Equinox, London. Halliday M. and Webster, J. (ed.) 2009, The Essential Halliday, Continuum, London.
Hasan, R. 1985/1989, ‘The structure of text’, in Language, Context and Text: Aspects of Language in a Social Semiotic Perspective, M. Halliday & R. Hasan (eds), Deakin University & OUP, Geelong Victoria, pp. 52-‐69.
Hasan, R. 1995, ‘The conception of context in text’, in Discourse in Society: Systemic Functional Perspectives Meaning and Choice in
Language: Studies for Michael Halliday, P. Fries & M. Gregory (eds), Ablex Publishing Corporation, Norwood New Jersey, pp. 183-‐283.
Hasan, R. 1997, ‘Text in the systemic functional model’, in Current Trends in Textlinguistics, W. Dressler (ed), Walter de Gruyter, Berlin,
pp. 228-‐246. Hood, S. 2011, ‘Body language in face-‐to-‐face teaching: A focus on textual and interpersonal meaning’, in Semiotic Margins: Meaning in
Multimodalities, eds S. Dreyfus, S. Hood & M. Stenglin, Continuum, London. Knight, N. 2010, ‘Wrinkling complexity: Concepts of identity and affiliation in humour’, in M. Bednarek and J. M. Martin (Eds.), New
discourse on language: Functional perspectives on multimodality, identity, and affiliation (pp. 35-‐58). London: Continuum. Macken-‐Horarik, M. 2008, ‘Literacy learning across the curriculum: towards a model of register for secondary school teachers’.
[Incomplete – need to find rest of the details] Malcolm, K. 2010, Phasal Analysis: Analysing Discourse Through Communication Linguistics, Continuum, London. Martin, J. R. 1999, ‘Modelling context: The crooked path of progress in contextual linguistics’, in Text and Context in Functional
Linguistics, M. Ghadessy, Pinter Publishers, London, pp. 25-‐61. Martin, J. R. 1999, ‘Mentoring semogenesis: Genre based literacy pedagogy’, in Pedagogy and the Shaping of Consciousness: Linguistic and
Social Processes, F. Christie (ed), Cassell, London, pp. ??. Martin, J. R. 2001, ‘A context for genre: Modelling social processes in functional linguistics’, in Communication in Linguistics, M. Gregory,
R. Stainton & J. De Villiers (eds), Editions du Gref, Toronto, pp. 287-‐328. Martin, J. R. 2006, ‘Modelling big texts: a systemic functional approach to multi-‐genericity’, Department of Linguistics, University of
Sydney. Martin, J. R. 2013, Interviews with M. A. K. Halliday, London, Bloomsbury.
Martin, J. R. and Rose, D. 2008, Genre Relations: Mapping Culture, Equinox, London. Martin, J. R. and Rose, D. 2012, ‘Genre and texts: living in the real world’, in Indonesian Journal of Systemic Functional Linguistics, Vol. 1,
No. 1, pp. 1-‐21. Martin, J. R. & White, P. R. R. 2005, The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English, Palgrave MacMillan, Houndsmills, Basingstoke,
Hampshire. Martin, J. R., Zappavigna, M., Dwyer, P. and Cleirigh, C. 2013, ‘Users in uses of language: Embodied identity in youth justice conferencing’,
Text and Talk, Vol. 33, No. 4-‐5, pp. 467-‐496. Rose, D. 2014, Reading to Learn: Accelerating Learning and Closing the Gap, www.readingtolearn.com.au, Sydney. Stenglin, M. 2004, Packaging curiosities: Towards a grammar of three-dimensional space. Doctoral thesis. Sydney: University of Sydney. Unsworth, L. 2001, Teaching Multiliteracies Across the Curriculum: Changing Contexts of Text and Image in Classroom Practice, Open
University Press, Buckingham. Ventola, E. (1984). The dynamics of genre. In Nottingham Linguistics Circular, 13, 103-‐123.
