Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
This article was downloaded by: [University of Arizona]On: 17 December 2014, At: 18:09Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street,London W1T 3JH, UK
Educational ReviewPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cedr20
Developing ReflectiveWriters in Primary Schools:Findings from partnershipresearchRoy CordenPublished online: 02 Jul 2010.
To cite this article: Roy Corden (2002) Developing Reflective Writers in PrimarySchools: Findings from partnership research, Educational Review, 54:3, 249-276,DOI: 10.1080/0013191022000016310
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0013191022000016310
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of allthe information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on ourplatform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensorsmake no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy,completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views ofthe authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis.The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should beindependently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor andFrancis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings,demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, inrelation to or arising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private studypurposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution,reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access
and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f A
rizo
na]
at 1
8:09
17
Dec
embe
r 20
14
Educational Review, Vol. 54, No. 3, 2002
Developing Re� ective Writers in PrimarySchools: � ndings from partnershipresearch
ROY CORDEN, Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham, UK
ABSTRACT Despite some reservations over the ef� cacy of practitioner research,there have been positive moves to engage teachers, as classroom researchers, inpartnership with Institutes of Higher Education. In England the Teacher TrainingAgency (1996) has provided bursaries for teachers to undertake small-scale researchand the Department for Education and Skills (2000/1) has encouraged the develop-ment of school-based inquiry through the Best Practice Scholarship scheme. Thisarticle describes work undertaken as part of a university-funded school partnershipprogramme initiated to encourage collaborative research between teachers andtutors. In the Teaching Reading and Writing Links project (TRAWL)14 teachers,working as research partners in seven primary schools, explored ways of developingchildren as re� ective writers. Some �ndings are illustrated and the impact of thepartnership on pupils and teachers is examined.
Introduction
Throughout the 1990s, the Of� ce for Standards in Education (OFSTED) hasidenti� ed writing as an area in need of improvement (Beard, 2000, pp. 11–12). In1997 an expectation that 80% of 11-year-olds in England would achieve level 4 bythe year 2002 was established. The Quali� cations and Curriculum Authority (QCA,1998) reported the need for action to be taken on a national scale if this target wasto be met. However, national test results for 1999 showed that although there hadbeen an improvement in children’s reading attainments, achievement in writingremained cause for concern, particularly with regard to boys, where only 49%achieved level 4. In its evaluation of the second year of the National LiteracyStrategy, OFSTED (2000, p. 9) con� rmed that ‘improving standards in writing hadproved to be challenging’ and that ‘too much time is spent on pupils practisingwriting rather than being taught how to improve it’. Research in Scotland (Duf� eld& Peacock, 1999) found that although teachers gave much attention to stimulatingwriting activity, less was done to support children as they wrote. Her Majesty’sInspector (HMI, 2000) emphasised the need for children to work on extended piecesof writing and for teachers to provide continuous feedback during the draftingprocess. Myhill (2001, p. 12) concurs and, after undertaking research for the QCA,argues that pupils would bene� t from being given more help in understanding ‘how’
ISSN 0013-1911 print; 1465-3397 online/02/030249-28 Ó 2002 Educational Review
DOI:10.1080/0013191022000016310
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f A
rizo
na]
at 1
8:09
17
Dec
embe
r 20
14
250 R. Corden
to improve their writing. The School Curriculum and Assessment Authority (SCAA,1997) found that a major difference in the quality of children’s writing was the wayit was structured. Children’s written work, which was not based on well-de� ned andfamiliar structures, was often unshaped and rambling. Further work by the BasicSkills Agency (Frater, 1997, 2000) indicated that writing was improved when variousgraphic aids to thinking and the structuring of ideas were systematically deployed.The overall research and inspection evidence therefore, suggests that, where childrenare familiar with writing structures and are supported throughout the compositionalprocess, they are more able to produce high quality texts.
Although narrative writing has tended to be the dominant genre in primaryschools, children’s stories are often characterised by poor narrative style and weaknarrative structure. This may be because, as Evans (2001, p. xvi) points out, ‘writingis a complex, multifaceted process requiring the ability to manipulate many subskillssimultaneously’. One able nine-year old child, in the Teaching Reading and WritingLinks project (TRAWL 2000–2) stated that when asked to write a story she was inagony. This was a sentiment shared by many pupils who felt anxious, uncertain andsimply not equipped to compose an extended written text. When someone aspro� cient as award-winning writer, David Almond (2001), confesses that ‘beingasked to write a story is terrifying’, it is hardly surprising to � nd primary childrenin need of support. The approach to writing embodied in the National LiteracyStrategy Grammar for Writing (NLS, 2000a) and Developing Early Writing (NLS,2001) is based on research, which shows that children’s writing can be enhanced byteachers modelling, demonstrating and using quality texts to highlight craft andartistry in writing. This relationship between children’s reading and writing has longbeen recognised (e.g. Kress, 1986; Harwayne, 1992; Fox, 1993). Lancia (1997,p. 471) shows how children ‘spontaneously borrow ideas temporarily as they developtheir own writing craft’. Others, such as Perera (1984) argue that through reading andlistening to stories, children learn about the language features and organisationalaspects of written texts. Explicit teaching during focused literacy sessions, coupledwith opportunities for children to work independently on sustained pieces of writing,was the approach used in the TRAWL project.
Collaborative Research Approach
Despite some criticism (Hillage et al., 1998; Tooley & Darby, 1998) teacher trainingand professional development courses have increasingly been developed throughsome form of partnership (Furlong et al., 2000). Bassey (1999) shows how evidencefrom individual studies can be combined to elicit tentative or fuzzy generalisations.Our partnership project dealt with singularities (contexts in seven different schools)but addressed a corporate concern shared by a community (the research group). Thework could be described as ‘theory seeking’ in that we were attempting to understandthe importance of literary models on children’s writing, and ‘theory testing’ in thatwe wanted to see whether children’s metacognitive awareness could be enhanced byteacher intervention during the writing process. As re� ective individuals, the conceptof collaborative problem-solving was appealing to the teachers, who liked the ideaof being both the subjects and objects of their own research. They felt that, throughresearch partnership, they would promote their own engagement in critical thinking,restructure their existing understandings and develop as effective practitioners.Educational researchers often face the dilemma of adopting a distant research
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f A
rizo
na]
at 1
8:09
17
Dec
embe
r 20
14
251Developing Re� ective Writers
approach with an emphasis on objectivity and reliability, or a grass roots positionwith a concern for validity and practical application. An initial methodologicalconcern was whether to occupy what Cordingley (1999) describes as ‘the highground’ or be immersed in what she terms ‘the swamp’. An underlying premise wasthat, through collectively analysing individual experiences and interpretations, in-sights might be gained which could be shared with colleagues. In searching for anappropriate partnership research model, we were in� uenced by the work of Saez andCarretero (1996) and Alvermann and Young (1996). They conducted what Stenhouse(1988) describes as an action research case study by synthesising the case studies ofa number of teachers and developing descriptive narrative events into a collectiveanalysis. Other researchers have also undertaken collaborative research projects,which involved groups of school practitioners working alongside external researchers(e.g. Aspland et al., 1996). We therefore adopted the cooperative problem-solvingapproach de� ned by King and Lonnquist (1994) as collaborative action research. Werecognised that fuzzy rather than � rm generalisations would be drawn from ourinductive inquiry. However, we hoped that patterns and principles could be identi� edfrom which tentative hypotheses might be formulated to stimulate further deductiveresearch. The DfES (2000/2001) has encouraged school–university partnerships,designed to undertake evidence-based research, where the ef� cacy of teachingpractices can be demonstrated and shared with colleagues. We certainly hoped thatour � ndings would have this kind of ‘pragmatic validity’ (Miles & Huberman, 1994).
Initiating and Organising the Project
Information about the TRAWL project was sent to schools, and Key Stage 2 teachersinterested in collaborating as research partners were invited to apply. Because oflimited funding, a random selection was made from a large number of applications(58 teachers in 29 schools). Fourteen teachers, covering the Key Stage 2 age range(7–11), were chosen to work as research partners in seven schools. Throughout twoschool terms they observed and recorded each other during focused literacy sessionsand writing workshops. The teachers attended preparatory and developmental meet-ings and, as a research group, met on a regular basis to discuss progress and evaluatedata. The aims of the project were to investigate ways of developing:
(i) the quality of children’s independent writing;(ii) metacognition, with children making conscious and deliberate decisions based
on reason; and(iii) children’s self-esteem and con� dence as young writers.
The Literacy Hour and Writing Workshops
Although one hour each day was dedicated to literacy, the division of time, as shownin the NLS 1998 framework, was not strictly adhered to and the term ‘focusedliteracy sessions’ was used. Teachers found that responding contingently to the needsof children and focusing, initially, on text-level objectives was more effective thanritualistically adhering to the NLS breakdown of the hour. In this respect ourexperience con� rmed the conclusion, drawn by The Basic Skills Agency, thatsuccessful schools discard the clock and give priority to text-level work (Frater,2001). Teachers began focused literacy sessions by reading and discussing the
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f A
rizo
na]
at 1
8:09
17
Dec
embe
r 20
14
252 R. Corden
impact of texts at an affective level and children investigated how authors had usedlanguage to achieve particular effects. Word-level work was undertaken separately,either at the beginning or end of the session, using Progression in Phonics (NLS,2000b) or other commercially produced materials. The process of shared writingwas therefore, an important element of literacy sessions and each week a balanceof reading and writing activity occurred. It was necessary to provide childrenwith opportunities to work on sustained pieces of writing where they couldapply new knowledge and skills in the context of what Cairney and Langbien (1989)call ‘a writing community’. We considered writing workshops to be absolutelyessential because they allow children to engage in authorial activity and experiencewriters’ perspectives and readers’ demands. We also wanted to develop a reciprocalscenario, where knowledge gained during focused literacy sessions fed into writingworkshops and work produced in workshops looped back into literacy sessions. Ouraim during focused literacy sessions was to examine texts written by ‘expert’ authorsbut also to discuss texts being produced by children themselves in writing work-shops. During writing workshops children were given an opportunity to engage insustained independent writing where they could gain continual feedback fromresponse partners and teachers. The importance of linking the teaching of speci� cskills with opportunities to use them in genuine writing contexts is emphasised bythe NLS (2000a, p. 19), which states that sentence level teaching ‘can only improvechildren’s writing if it genuinely and continually connects with real purposefulwriting’. In its summary of the effective practice of writing at Key Stage 2, TheBasic Skills Agency (Frater, 2001, p. 13) stresses how successful schools ‘ensuredthat extended time for extended writing was frequently and regularly available’ andthat at ‘least an extra hour a week was found for writing in English’. We therefore,trialled a timetable arrangement where one-hour focused literacy sessions occurredeach day and writing workshops took place on Tuesday and Thursday afternoons(Figure 1).
Database and Analysis
Each teacher maintained a research portfolio, which provided baseline informationabout the school and children and included data collected over the research period(December 2000 to July 2001). The data collection matrix (Figure 2) summarises thedata contained in portfolios and indicates which sources have been selected anddiscussed in relation to the project’s aims.
Baseline Information
Baseline data were gathered from each school to provide information on academicachievement and contextual conditions. Three schools were located in urban areas,two in the city and two in suburbia. They varied in size from 168 to 524 pupils onroll and contained a variety of pupils from a wide range of socio-economic andcultural backgrounds. The teachers also varied considerably, with teaching experi-ences ranging from one to 32 years. Four of the teachers were language co-ordinatorsin their schools.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f A
rizo
na]
at 1
8:09
17
Dec
embe
r 20
14
253Developing Re� ective Writers
FIG. 1. Timetable for focused literacy sessions and writing workshops.
Record of Teaching and Learning Activities
Teachers’ portfolios contained details of medium-term plans and weekly and dailylesson plans for the research period. Work was planned with reference to theNational Literacy Strategy framework (NLS, 1998) and English in the NationalCurriculum (DfEE, 1999). A one-hour literacy session took place every day and awriting workshop occurred for two 30-minute periods on Tuesday and Thursdayafternoons (see Fig. 1).
FIG. 2. Data collection matrix: sections in project teachers’ research portfolios .
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f A
rizo
na]
at 1
8:09
17
Dec
embe
r 20
14
254 R. Corden
Record of Observations, Re� ections and Evaluations
Once a week, throughout the research period, teachers were observed teaching aliteracy session and a writing workshop. During literacy sessions the focus was onhow teachers:
· linked work to children’s existing knowledge and reading and writing experiences,· drew attention to signi� cant textual features;· developed interactive discourse and encouraged critical appraisal of text;· demonstrated the writing process;· modelled the thinking process, illustrating how writers move in and out of
reader–writer positions during composition;· consolidated and made links with children’s writing by discussing and evaluating
their texts.
During writing workshops the focus was on how teachers:
· helped children make links with work done during literacy hours;· focused children’s attention on literary devices which had been discussed during
literacy hours;· intervened to support children’s learning during composition;· encouraged re� ective activity through teacher–pupil conferences and peer re-
sponse partners.
Throughout the research period teachers also kept logs. Entries were made each weekand contained re� ections about the effectiveness of the teaching and learning.
Extracts from Pupils’ Journals
Throughout the research period all pupils maintained a personal journal. Each weekthey were encouraged to record their thoughts about the learning experience and theirfeelings about themselves as writers. An important aspect of personal journals is thatownership remains with pupils. However, the children were aware of their involve-ment in the research project and no child refused to participate or refused teachersaccess to their journals. The concept of pupils keeping personal journals waspopularised by the National Writing Project (1989) and is a familiar feature in manyprimary schools. Pupils were able to refer to journals at the end of the researchperiod, when they made summative evaluations of how they felt the TRAWL projecthad in� uenced them as young writers.
Record of Group Discussions
Discussions during group reading were audio-recorded and examined to see if pupilswere able to recognise the use of textual features by authors. Discussions were alsoexamined for evidence of links between the metalinguistic awareness displayed bychildren during group reading and their own independent writing, i.e. to see whetherpupils used textual features discussed during group reading sessions when writingindependently.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f A
rizo
na]
at 1
8:09
17
Dec
embe
r 20
14
255Developing Re� ective Writers
Transcripts of Teacher–Pupil Conferences
Pupils’ ability to discuss their work and justify the use of textual features was acrucial factor, since this distinguished between Bereiter and Scardamalia’s (1987)notion of knowledge telling and knowledge transformation. Conferences were audio-recorded. These allowed teachers to gain evidence of metacognitive development,i.e. when pupils were aware of potential readers and had made conscious anddeliberate choices during composition.
Pupils’ Perspectives Drawn from Questionnaires
Pupils completed questionnaires at the beginning and end of the research period. Thequestionnaires were designed to elicit information about how children felt aboutthemselves as writers and to determine levels of con� dence and self-esteem.
Evaluation of Pupils’ Written Work
A comparison was made between children’s independent written work immediatelybefore and after the research period. They were asked to plan and write a story, oftheir choice, over two writing workshop sessions. To evaluate the work of thecase-study children a framework for analysing narrative writing was developed. Indevising this we were in� uenced by the work of Paramour and Wilkinson (1985)who distinguish between chronicle, which is characterised by mundanity and pre-dictability, to well-developed story, characterised by unpredictability and the disrup-tion of probability. Major categories of structure, style and process were adoptedfrom the National Literacy Strategy Targets for Writing (NLS, 2000c). Althoughdevised fundamentally as a research tool, the framework broadly equates to NationalCurriculum Attainment Target 3 level descriptions 2 to 6 (Fig. 3).
Aim 1: the quality of children’s independent writing
Each teacher randomly selected six case-study children. Samples of independentwriting were collected from each child at the beginning, midway through and at theend of the research period. Because of logistical problems, only 10 of the 14 teacherswere able to provide six samples of writing for each child. At the end of the researchperiod, data from all schools was collated and collectively analysed by the projectco-ordinator. Using the framework for analysis (Fig. 3) a comparison was madebetween children’s unaided independent writing at the beginning and end of theresearch period. A total of 180 writing samples from 60 case-study children (36 girlsand 24 boys) were evaluated. Pupil’s texts were marked � rst by the teachers and thenseparately by the project co-ordinator. At the beginning of the research period(December 2000) pupils were producing narrative texts at levels 1 and 2 on theframework. At the end of the research period (July 2001) pupils were functioning atlevels 2 and 3 (Figs. 4 and 5).
The most signi� cant development could be detected in the writing process, wherechildren demonstrated an increased ability to critically evaluate and redraft theirwork (Fig. 6).
At the beginning and end of the research period writing samples from all pupilswere collected and analysed, using QCA (2001) test criteria to identify patterns of
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f A
rizo
na]
at 1
8:09
17
Dec
embe
r 20
14
256 R. Corden
FIG
.3.
Fra
mew
ork
for
anal
ysin
gna
rrat
ive
wri
ting
.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f A
rizo
na]
at 1
8:09
17
Dec
embe
r 20
14
257Developing Re� ective Writers
FIG
.3.—
Con
tinu
ed
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f A
rizo
na]
at 1
8:09
17
Dec
embe
r 20
14
258 R. Corden
FIG. 4. Structural developmen t in the writing of 60 case study pupils.
achievement in relation to National Curriculum levels of attainment. The nationalexpectation in England (DfEE, 1999) is that primary pupils will progress at a rate ofone level every two years. From a total of 338 children in the TRAWL project, 16children made no movement, 322 advanced at least one level over two school terms,128 children advanced two levels and six leapt three levels. In England, Key Stage2 pupils undertake Standard Assessment Tests (SATs) at the end of Year 6. Theresearch group contained three Year 6 classes: a top attainment set, a special needsset and a mixed ability class. The SAT results for writing in these classes are shownin Figs. 7a–c.
The examples of children’s work (Figs. 8–13) are representative of the totalsample and exemplify the three levels of development which occurred during theresearch period.
FIG. 5. Stylistic development in the writing of 60 case study pupils.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f A
rizo
na]
at 1
8:09
17
Dec
embe
r 20
14
259Developing Re� ective Writers
FIG. 6. Development in the writing process of 60 case study pupils.
Commentaries
Fig. 8. Pupil A (Year 3) December 2000: assessed as level 1 on the TRAWLframework. There is no recognisable narrative opening and the story follows a linearpattern. It lacks any real structure and is a simple chain of loosely connected events.There is no character development and no clear motivation for actions. There is noattempt to interact with the reader. Simple vocabulary is used and there is no evidentstory language. Few adjectives or adverbs are used and there is no variation in the
FIG. 7a. SAT results in one Year 6 top attainment class.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f A
rizo
na]
at 1
8:09
17
Dec
embe
r 20
14
260 R. Corden
FIG. 7b. SAT results in one Year 6 mixed attainment class.
FIG. 7c. SAT results in one Year 6 special needs class.
SVO sentence pattern. There are no paragraphs. During composition there was nore� ection or self-appraisal and little reader awareness shown.
Fig. 9. Pupil A (Year 3) July 2001: assessed as level 2 on the TRAWL framework.Although the story was not completed in the allocated time, it is well structured. Theopening captures readers’ interest and the setting is carefully crafted to create a
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f A
rizo
na]
at 1
8:09
17
Dec
embe
r 20
14
261Developing Re� ective Writers
FIG. 8. Pupil A (Year 3) December 2000: assessed as level 1 on the TRAWL framework.
FIG. 9. Pupil A (Year 3) July 2001: assessed as level 2 on the TRAWL framework.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f A
rizo
na]
at 1
8:09
17
Dec
embe
r 20
14
262 R. Corden
FIG. 10. Pupil B (Year 4) December 2000: assessed as level 1 on the TRAWL framework.
sombre mood. Suspense is created by the second sentence, which delays the action.Characters’ feelings are described. Connectives and commas are used to extendsentences. Paragraphs are used to denote changes in ideas or events. The story wascarefully planned and, during composition, the pupil re� ected, self-appraised andmade structural and stylistic changes.
Fig. 10. Pupil B (Year 4) December 2000: assessed as level 1 on the TRAWLframework. The story opens with dialogue but then follows a linear chain of eventswhich do not really constitute even a simple plot of beginning, middle and end.There is no character development. A setting is not satisfactorily established andthere is an assumption that readers will be aware of Arthur and the Round Table.Simple sentence structures are used. Neither adjectives or adverbs are used to extendsentences. No � gurative language is used to create imagery or mood and no literarydevices help to develop suspense or hook the reader. During composition there waslittle evidence of re� ection, self-appraisal, reader awareness or a desire to improveor extend the text.
Fig. 11. Pupil B (Year 4) July 2001: assessed as level 3 on the TRAWL framework.Extracts from the beginning, middle and end of the story are shown. The story openswith dialogue that captures readers’ interest by implicitly addressing them and takingthem inside a character’s mind. Details of characters create interest and humour.Paragraphs are used to demarcate ideas or isolate incidents and there is a build-up oftension and con� ict culminating in a cliffhanger ending. There is interaction withreaders and idiosyncratic language is used for effect. Adjectives, verbs and adverbsare used to give variety. Figurative language is used. Sentences are extended byphrases and clauses. Various connectives are used and non-right branching sentencesalso add variety. During composition there was evidence of re� ection, self-appraisaland reader awareness. Signi� cant changes were made to structural and stylisticfeatures.
Fig. 12. Pupil C (Year 6) December 2000: assessed as level 1 on the TRAWLframework. The story has a basic narrative structure, which follows a linear chronicleof events. There is no character development and the motivation for characters’
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f A
rizo
na]
at 1
8:09
17
Dec
embe
r 20
14
263Developing Re� ective Writers
FIG
.11
.Pu
pil
B(Y
ear
4)Ju
ly20
01:
asse
ssed
asle
vel
3on
the
TR
AW
Lfr
amew
ork.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f A
rizo
na]
at 1
8:09
17
Dec
embe
r 20
14
R. Corden264
FIG. 12. Pupil C (Year 6) December 2000: assessed as level 1 on the TRAWL framework.
actions is not always clear. Vocabulary is simple and lacks variety. Figurativelanguage is not used to develop imagery, create mood or develop suspense. The textis written in simple and compound sentences and simple noun phrases are used.Sentences are demarcated but the text has no paragraphs and, although speech marksare in place, dialogue is not appropriately organised. A simple mindscape was madeas a plan and minimal reference was made to it during composition. Little rereadingof the text occurred during composition and no changes were made to style, contentor structure. There is little sense of reader awareness.
Fig. 13. Pupil C (Year 6) July 2001: assessed as level 4 on the TRAWLframework. The story is allegorical, concerned with issues of fear, evil, family ties,love and religious belief. There is intertextuality with reference to a psalm of David.Insights into characters are provided through various techniques, including thoughts,actions, mental state verbs and abstract nouns. Paragraphs are used to denote changesof scene or mood and readers’ attention is sustained through the use of narrativehooks. The narrative style is suitable for audience and purpose and a reader–writerrelationship is established. Adjectives and verbs are chosen carefully for effect. Thetext is rich in � gurative language and there is conscious use of speci� c literarydevices for effect. There is variety in sentence length and type, and adverbials areused to begin sentences. Phrases and clauses are used to extend sentences. Punctu-
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f A
rizo
na]
at 1
8:09
17
Dec
embe
r 20
14
Developing Re� ective Writers 265
FIG
.13
.Pu
pil
C(Y
ear
6)Ju
ly20
01:
asse
ssed
asle
vel
4on
the
TR
AW
Lfr
amew
ork.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f A
rizo
na]
at 1
8:09
17
Dec
embe
r 20
14
266 R. Corden
ation is used for impact and grammatical conventions are broken for effect. Knowl-edge of different texts is drawn on and an appropriate style is chosen. The text isbased on careful planning. Re� ection and self-appraisal occurred during compositionand signi� cant changes were made to content, style and structure.
Aim 2: developing pupils’ metacognition
Although test results and the general increase in attainment are pleasing, our mainconcern was with developing children’s metacognition, which we felt was essentialfor knowledge transfer and long-term success. Bereiter and Scardamalia (1987)differentiate between knowledge telling where little planning, drafting, re� ection orrevision occurs, and knowledge transformation, which refers to a more dynamicprocess of writing where drafting and revision takes place and the writer is constantlyre� ecting on content, coherence, form and style. Bereiter and Scardamalia suggestthat such writers critically examine and revise writing decisions, make judgementsbetween competing ideas, and are aware of their readers. Research (Fitzgerald, 1987)indicates that this kind of re� ective activity is uncharacteristic of most primary-agechildren, who do not explore options and possibilities, rarely place themselves in thereader’s position and limit revisions to surface features. Our early experiencesupported this view. We found that a major obstacle to re� ective thinking andredrafting was children’s inability to assume reader–writer perspectives. Children,initially, were either unable to perceive problems with their texts or, if they didperceive problems, were loath to make changes beyond surface features. However,Bereiter (1986) suggests that, in interacting with children, teachers can modelessential thinking processes. Making pupils aware of the thinking process whichwriters engage in during composition was modelled by the TRAWL teachers duringliteracy sessions and writing workshops.
Examples of metacognition: making reading–writing connections
Barrs and Cork (2001) show how young writers echo the styles and rhythms of textsthat have been read aloud and explored through discussion and drama. We alsogained evidence of children echoing the stylistic features of texts and using literarydevices that had been drawn to their attention during focused literacy sessions andwriting workshops. Conscious of Bereiter and Scardamalia’s distinction betweenknowledge telling and knowledge transformation, we looked for evidence of wherechildren had made deliberate choices and could justify their decisions. The followingextracts are transcribed from audio recordings and exemplify what we believe areexamples of knowledge transformation.
After reading Sam’s Duck by Michael Morpurgo, Rhiane (aged 8) has written herown story, which involves a child going away from home for a while. Her subtle useof language and awareness of what she has done and why is clear when the teacherasks:
T How did you want the reader to feel about your characters?P I wanted them to think that Harry was nervous and Grandma was gentle to him
and wanted to make him feel better.T As a writer how did you decide to do this?P (reading her text) She gently wiped his face with a tissue.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f A
rizo
na]
at 1
8:09
17
Dec
embe
r 20
14
267Developing Re� ective Writers
FIG. 14. Hannah (Year 3) December 2000.
Jane (aged 8) has used Michael Morpurgo’s method of changing environments buthas developed it with personi� cation.
The rain covered motorway twisted and turned as it made itself into achurning road, the churning road changed itself into a weed covered lane,the weed covered lane wove itself into a misty � eld track.
The teacher asks:
T Why did you choose to do this?P I wanted to kind of … make it like it was … er … alive with personi� cation. It
turned itself and then wove itself.
Having authorial authority means exerting the right not to use a device and in thefollowing example Emma (aged 8) does just that. Rather than merely echoingMorpurgo’s technique, she has decided to use dialogue to mark a time shift.
Rhiane gazed out of the coach window while sadness ran up and downinside, where it hurt most. “HERE WE ARE CHILDREN” shouted MrsKingsly.
The teacher asks the child about her writing and she replies:
P I didn’t really want to go on and on like Michael Morpurgo and I just wanted toget her there so I put the teacher shouting.
The next extract shows a teacher and children discussing one child’s work during aguided reading and writing session.
P1 What a brilliant sentence … because it’s short. It’s a short sentence and it’s� zzling in your head and it’s asking why is everyone waiting.
T Great word � zzling … why is it � zzling?P1 Yes he’s put that to make it really exciting. You want to read on as he hasn’t told
you the answer.P2 It’s like silence. If you are waiting that’s what it’s like. It’s like in The Iron
Man … a short sentence.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f A
rizo
na]
at 1
8:09
17
Dec
embe
r 20
14
268 R. Corden
FIG. 15. Hannah (Year 3) July 2001.
P1 Yes I’ve used one of those. They are coming to a new world and I want to geta taste across so I use Mmmm! Also I wanted to get straight to the problem andput THEN in capital letters and with an exclamation mark. If I’d put it normalthey might think just usual things are coming up. This way it’s more powerful.It has more impact from the sentence before, which is a complex sentence.
Over the research period most children made signi� cant progress in the structure andstyle of their writing. This progress is exempli� ed in the work of Hannah (aged 8).The following extract is taken from Hannah’s unaided piece of writing done inDecember 2000. The structure of the story is linear and written entirely in the thirdperson.
By July 2001 Hannah’s story structures resembled more than mere ‘chains ofevents’. However, the most signi� cant development can be seen in her level of readerawareness. The following extract is taken from her unaided piece of writing at theend of the research period.
After a period of calm Hannah again begins to build up suspense.In her story Hannah depicts a character’s thoughts and uncertainty by taking the
reader inside the character’s mind.Hannah explains her writing to the teacher during a writing conference.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f A
rizo
na]
at 1
8:09
17
Dec
embe
r 20
14
269Developing Re� ective Writers
FIG. 16. Hannah (Year 3) July 2001.
Hannah I’ve used streams of consciousness here. I’ve used ellipsis. I’ve got herthinking. I know characters aren’t perfect. They have to think of things � rst.If you go inside a real person’s head they don’t go … I will do this … I willdo that.
The teacher asks Hannah what else she thinks she has done to make her writinginteresting for the reader.
Hannah These short sentences are like The Iron Man. Ted Hughes says and then.Silence. I’ve made up my own things. Footsteps. A voice. Silence.They … the readers don’t know whether it is a good thing or a bad thingcoming.
Teacher Yes are there any other devices you’ve used to get an impact?
Hannah (Reading from her text) Little did she know something strange was goingto happen. Tonight at that very campsite. To her. Even before they � nish that
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f A
rizo
na]
at 1
8:09
17
Dec
embe
r 20
14
270 R. Corden
FIG. 17. Hannah (Year 3) July 2001.
sentence they think, who to … to what? Is there something going to hurther? I’ve not actually told them what is going to happen … but then I putTo her and they think uh-oh.
Metacognition during Group Discussions
As the children developed as writers they also displayed linguistic awareness as theydiscussed texts. In the following extract a group of Year 6 children are evaluatingLeon Gar� eld’s crafting of the book Fair’s Fair.
Jasmine I think he’s used this simile because he wants us to get a visual image ofthe character. It makes the eyes stand out against the black fur … they glowbrightly.
Ian It gives you more description of the dog and it shows the style LeonGar� eld writes in. He’s used personi� cation to describe the dog’s bodylanguage and ‘froze’ … he makes the dog speak the same kind of streetlanguage … as the boy … Jackson.
Jasmine It’s the same … how they’re introduced (referring to Jackson and Growler)Sian He uses similesIan I like the bit … snow� akes fried on his nose … the heat of the dog’s nose
made it seem like the snow� akes friedSian Jaws like an oven door … you don’t want to put your hand inside an oven
door so you wouldn’t want to put your hand inside the dog’s mouthDarren The verbs glared, snarled, prowled … it shows it’s a mean dogIan Down the street it padded … he’s thought about it and thought that it
sounds better (using the word padded)
Children’s awareness of what Hardman and Beverton (1993) call ‘metadiscoursalskills’ became apparent in pupils’ ability to evaluate the quality of their discussions.This is exempli� ed in the following extract.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f A
rizo
na]
at 1
8:09
17
Dec
embe
r 20
14
271Developing Re� ective Writers
Teacher I like how you’re looking so closely to see how Leon Gar� eld’s craftedFair’s Fair
Sian Well it’s like … we know what to look forIan Like similes and thatDarren And yeah … whether we like words he’s used like prowledIan Yeah and snarled … padded … like he has … Growler padded awaySian And we know … we can talk about it … before we couldn’t we could only
say like … I like this bit orJasmine This is a good story … this is a not so good story … now I can say what I
think is good … which bits I likeSian Yeah which bits we like but as well … like … which bits are cleverIan And it’s good … knowing the proper words …’cos it helps us talk about it
Aim 3: developing pupils’ con� dence and self-esteem as writers
One aim was to develop children’s con� dence and raise their self-esteem as youngwriters. A disturbing feature to emerge from initial questionnaires and interviewswith children was the high level of uncertainty that existed. However, by the end ofthe year, anxiety and confusion had largely been replaced by increased con� denceand enhanced self-esteem. The completion of questionnaires by pupils across the7–11 age phase proved problematic and many pupils found them dif� cult tocomplete. However, when asked to indicate on a � ve-point scale how they felt whenasked to write a story, 94% of the 178 pupils who completed questionnaires showeda marked change, from being really unhappy and anxious to very happy andcon� dent.
Pupils’ personal journals provided a far richer source of information than question-naires because they allowed pupils to express their thoughts in their own ways. Thefollowing comments recorded in journals illustrate the general feelings of projectpupils at the end of the year.
I have learnt that I can make my stories come alive in my mind and thatI should write with a readerly eye. When I say write with a readerly eyeit means that as I am writing I am also reading.
I am a lot more con� dent about my stories. I know about literary devicesand what they do and why they are used.
I know a lot more about literary devices now such as repetition, per-soni� cation, alliteration and that. I probably used to use them but didn’tknow. I didn’t know when to use literary devices but now I do and my textsare much better.
I am much better at talking about texts. I found it very dif� cult to talk abouttexts because I didn’t know what to say. Now I � nd it easier to talk abouttexts and know what to say. I can spot literary devices. I know what thingslike personi� cation, repetition, metaphors, similes are and I can use them.
Billie, aged 10, had previously confessed that when asked to write a story she wasin agony because she found it so dif� cult and did not feel suitably equipped. Giventhis self-perception at the beginning of the research it is worth evaluating one smallextract, taken from an unaided piece of writing, composed near the end of theresearch period.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f A
rizo
na]
at 1
8:09
17
Dec
embe
r 20
14
272 R. Corden
FIG
.18
.B
illie
(Yea
r6)
July
2001
.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f A
rizo
na]
at 1
8:09
17
Dec
embe
r 20
14
273Developing Re� ective Writers
In this extract Billie demonstrates that she is able to manipulate language veryeffectively indeed. In� uenced by reading, amongst other texts, Fair’s Fair by LeonGar� eld, Billie draws attention to the ritualistic nature of the man’s life by repeatingthe word particular in three prepositional phrases within the opening sentence. Thispositions the man very clearly and establishes the emptiness of his existence in thereader’s mind. In the second sentence parenthesis is used as an analeptic device todescribe how the man used to look. This acts as a narrative hook, by raising thequestion of what has happened to change the man’s appearance. The sense ofcomplete despondency and depth of despair is foregrounded by a simile, which doesnot merely equate the man to rubbish but to a piece of rubbish lying at the bottomof a waste basket. Ellipsis is then used, as an aside, to develop narrational intimacywith the reader. Three phrases are again used to extend a sentence and emphasise theemptiness of the man’s existence, and a poetic feel is given to the passage by arepetition of the opening sentence. There is a notable change of tense, with the wordsitting suggesting a continuous and endless process. However, Billie suddenly hooksthe reader again, this time by using a proleptic reference and suggesting that thingsare going to be very different in the future. This is a very sophisticated piece ofwriting, which illustrates how Billie’s reading has in� uenced her writing, developedher strategic repertoire and enabled her to make conscious and deliberate choices. Inher journal Billie comments:
Before the TRAWL project I didn’t really know many literary devices. I hadno idea just how much they could improve a text or why they are used andwhat they can do. I hadn’t looked for links between the beginning and endof my story before and I never knew where my stories were leading to. Ithought it was wrong to borrow, copy or adapt ideas to make my storybetter. Now I know a lot about literary devices and what they do. I realisejust how much they can improve my writing. I now know that adaptingideas off another person is alright and that lots of people do it.
Conclusions
Research has suggested that primary-age children are able to borrow ideas and plotsfrom literature, but are less likely to transfer more subtle stylistic elements into theirown writing (Cairney, 1990). However, evidence from the TRAWL project indicatesthat a critical evaluation of literature and an examination of literary devices can helpchildren become more re� ective writers. With direction from teachers—providingmodels, demonstrating and drawing attention to the features of texts, and throughfocused group discussion—children can begin to develop their awareness of howtexts are constructed. One of the most striking features to emerge from our work wasthe way children gradually developed a metalanguage and were able to use iteffectively when discussing their own texts. The use of speci� c literary terms helpedchildren to clarify their thoughts, identify issues and engage in lucid, informeddiscussion. Through quality discourse with teachers and peers, children analysedtexts pro� ciently and according to relevant criteria. They were then able to integratethe stylistic and organisational features of these texts into their personal repertoiresand use them successfully in their own writing. As one child put it, ‘I never knewI was this good’.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f A
rizo
na]
at 1
8:09
17
Dec
embe
r 20
14
274 R. Corden
Implications for Wider Practice: issues and concerns
The leap in attainment by most pupils over a short period of time raises questionsabout general application and sustainability. Because pragmatic validity was animportant methodological concern, the study took place in natural whole-classsettings and followed a common, reasonable timetable (see Frater, 2001, p. 14). Theproject involved a variety of teachers working in different contexts. Although ratesof attainment varied, progress made by most pupils exceeded the national expec-tation. Some classes experienced substantial improvements and the possible reasonsfor this is something the project will focus on during its second phase (2001–2).Some schools were located in economic and socially depressed areas with exception-ally high rates of crime and it may be that in these schools class management wasmore of a challenge. However, the structured support approach, involving explicitteaching during literacy sessions along with the careful scaffolding of pupils’learning during writing workshops, did appear to have bene� cial affects on mostpupils, especially boys, who responded positively to clear, attainable learning goalsand continual support throughout the writing process. A common comment found inboys’ journals was that they valued teachers intervening to offer guidance andfeedback as they drafted and redrafted work. Moreover, the quality and commitmentof the research teachers seemed, to a degree, to compensate for contextualdif� culties. For example, one of the Year 6 classes, for which we have SAT results,shows that half the pupils, in a special needs class of an inner city school, met thegovernment’s target of level 4. Nevertheless, it seems unlikely that the rate ofprogress in attainment demonstrated over the research period is sustainable. Oneconclusion for the signi� cant increase may be that, without the structured support ofteachers and the opportunity to work on extended pieces of work during writingworkshops, most pupils were dramatically underachieving. Subsequent experience,as the project moves into a second phase, indicates that unless the approach is usedconsistently by teachers, throughout a school, gains are signi� cantly eroded. A wholeschool policy and consistent teaching approach appear to be crucial in maintainingand developing gains in attainment. This clearly points to the importance of incisivemanagement and continual professional development in schools.
Some concern has been raised over the explicit teaching of literary technique.There are fears that it will result in formulaic writing, where individuality andcreativity are sti� ed and children lack any sense of ownership. For example, Graham(1998, p. 117) describes teachers using ‘counter-productive, mechanical tasks’,whilst Gibbons (2001, p. 16) advises against ‘grafting technique on to none-too-will-ing children’. Hilton (2001, p. 8) is critical of the ‘mechanical objectives-ledapproach’ of the National Literacy Strategy (1998) and argues that the rigidity of theliteracy hour ‘does not lend itself to sustained independent writing’. Teachers in theTRAWL project found, as did Lewis (1999), little evidence of children’s creativitybeing sti� ed. On the contrary, pupils wrote creatively and with authority, drawingeffectively on their strategic repertoires to orchestrate their writing. However,supporting young writers is a skilful business, which requires knowledgeable sensi-tive teachers. Care needs to be taken to ensure that scaffolding, rather than resultingin dependence, leads to independence and the creation of con� dent creative authors.Teachers need to assume a variety of teaching roles beyond that of ‘expert’ andsubsequently, respond contingently to the needs of children as they discuss, plan,draft and redraft written work (see Corden, 1992, 2001). Children need to experiencewhat it is like to be an author; wrestling with problems, drawing on knowledge and
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f A
rizo
na]
at 1
8:09
17
Dec
embe
r 20
14
275Developing Re� ective Writers
experiences, seeking advice and responding to critical comments. Imaginative andresourceful teachers can create what Wells (1990) calls a community of literaturethinking and what Cole (1995) refers to as a community of enquiry, where interactivediscourse is central to the learning process. TRAWL teachers will continue to offerstructured support during the second year of the project (2001–2002). They will alsobe looking more closely at the role of drama and visualisation as ways of enrichingchildren’s learning experiences and developing their love of literature.
Acknowledgement
The TRAWL project is funded by The Nottingham Trent University and supportedby a United Kingdom Reading Association research grant.
Correspondence : Roy Corden, The Nottingham Trent University, Faculty of Edu-cation, Ada Byron King Building, Clifton Lane, Nottingham NG 11 8NS, UK;E-mail: [email protected]
REFERENCES
ALMOND, D. (2001) TTA Literacy Conference , London, 12 September.ALVERMANN, D. & YOUNG, J. (1996) Middle and high school pupils’ perception s of how they experience
text-based discussions : a multicase study, Reading Research Quarterly, 31, pp. 244–67.ASPLAND, T., MACPHERSON, I., PROUDFOOT, C. & WHITMORE, L. (1996) Critical collaborativ e action
research as a means of curriculum inquiry and empowerment, Educational Action Research, 4,pp. 93–104.
BARRS, M. & CORK, V. (2001) The Reader in the Writer (London, CLPE).BASSEY, M. (1999) Case Study Research in Educational Settings (Buckingham , Open University Press).BEARD, R. (2000) Developing Writing 3–13 (London, Hodder & Stoughton) .BEREITER, C. (1986) The reading comprehensio n lesson: a commentary on Heap’s ethnomethodologica l
analysis, Curriculum Inquiry, 16, pp. 66–72.BEREITER, C. & SCARDAMALIA, M. (1987) The Psychology of Written Composition (Hillsdale, NJ,
Lawrence Erlbaum).CAIRNEY, T. (1990) Intertextuality : infectious echoes from the past, The Reading Teacher, 43, pp. 478–
484.CAIRNEY, T. & LANGBIEN, S. (1989) Building communities of readers and writers, The Reading Teacher,
April, pp. 560–567.COLE, M. (1995) Critical thinking, talk and a community of enquiry in the primary school, Language and
Education , 9(3), pp. 161–177.CORDEN, R. (1992) The role of the teacher, in: K. NORMAN (Ed.) Thinking Voices: the work of The
National Oracy Project (London, Hodder & Stoughton) .CORDEN, R. (2001) Language and Literacy Through Talk (Buckingham, Open University Press).CORDINGLEY, P. (1999) Constructing and critiquing re� ective practice, Educational Action Research, 7,
pp. 183–90.DfEE (1999) The National Curriculum for English in England (London, DfEE/QCA).DfES (2000/2001) Best Practice Scholarships (London, DfEE/S).DUFFIELD, J. & PEACOCK, C. (1999) Teaching Writing, � nal report of writing audit to Falkirk Council
Education Services, Research and Evaluation Service, Institute of Education, University of Sterling.EVANS, J. (2001) The Writing Classroom (London, Fulton).FITZGERALD, J. (1987) Research on revision in writing, Review of Educational Research, 57(4) pp. 481–
506.FOX, C. (1993) At the Very Edge of the Forest: The In� uence of Literature on Storytelling by Children
(London, Cassell).FRATER, G. (1997) Improving Boys’ Literacy (London, The Basic Skills Agency).
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f A
rizo
na]
at 1
8:09
17
Dec
embe
r 20
14
276 R. Corden
FRATER, G. (2000) Securing Boys’ Literacy (London, The Basic Skills Agency).FRATER, G. (2001) Effective Practice in Writing at Key Stage 2 (London, The Basic Skills Agency).FURLONG, J., BARTON, L., MILES, S., WHITING, C. & WHITTY, G. (2000) Teacher Education in Transition
(Buckingham, Open University Press).GARFIELD, L. (2001) Fair’s Fair (London, Hodder Headline).GIBBONS, A. (2001) Boy trouble, The Teacher, November, pp. 16–17.GRAHAM, J. (1998) Teaching, learning and the National Literacy Strategy, Changing English, 5(2)
pp. 115–121.HARDMAN, F. & BEVERTON, S. (1993) Cooperative group work and the development of metadiscoursa l
skills, Support for Learning, 8, pp. 146–150.HARWAYNE, S. (1992) Lasting Impressions (Portsmouth, NH, Heinemann).HILLAGE, J., PEARSON, R., ANDERSON, A. & TAMKIN, P. (1998) Excellence in Research on Schools
(Sudbury, DfEE).HILTON, M. (2001) Writing process and progress: where do we go from here?, English in Education,
35(1), pp. 4–11.HMI (2000) Writing: could do better, HMI discussion paper (London, DfEE).KING, J. & LONNQUIST, M. (1994) The future of collaborative research, qualitative action research:
premises, problems and prospects , Paper delivered at the University of Minnesota College ofEducation.
KRESS, G. (1986) Interrelationship s of reading and writing, in: A. WILKINSON (Ed.) The Writing ofWriting (Milton Keynes, Open University Press).
LANCIA, P. (1997) Literary borrowing: the effects of literature on children’s writing, The ReadingTeacher, 50(6), pp. 470–475.
LEWIS, M. (1999) Developing children’s narrative writing using story structures , in: P. GOODWIN, TheLiterate Classroom (London, Fulton).
MILES, M. & HUBERMAN, A. (1994) Qualitative Data Analysis: an expanded sourcebook (London, Sage).MORPURGO, M. Sam’s Duck (London, Collins).MYHILL, D. (2001) Better Writers (Suffolk, Courseware) .NATIONAL LITERACY STRATEGY (1998) Framework for Teaching (Sudbury, DfEE).NATIONAL LITERACY STRATEGY (2000a) Grammar for Writing (London, National Literacy Strategy/DfEE
Publications).NATIONAL LITERACY STRATEGY (2000b Progression in Phonics (London, DfEE).NATIONAL LITERACY STRATEGY (2000c) Targets for Writing (London, National Literacy Strategy/DfEE
Publications).NATIONAL LITERACY STRATEGY (2001) Developing Early Writing (London, National Literacy Strategy/
DfEE Publications) .NATIONAL WRITING PROJECT (1989) Responding to Written Work (London, Nelson).OFSTED (2000) The National Literacy Strategy: the second year (London, OFSTED).PARAMOUR, S. & WILKINSON, A. (1985) The description of the probable : an aspect of narrative writing
3–13, Language Arts, 62(4), pp. 91–403.PERERA, K. (1984) Children’s Writing and Reading (Oxford, Blackwell).QCA (1998) Standards at Key Stage 2: English, Mathematics and Science. Report of the 1998 National
Curriculum Assessments for 11-year-old s (London, Quali� cations and Curriculum Authority) .QCA (2001) English Tests Mark Schemes (London, Quali� cations and Curriculum Authority) .SAEZ, M. & CARRETERO, A. (1996) From action research to the classroom case-study : the history of
ANTEC, Action Research, 4, pp. 29–48.SCAA (1997) Standards at KS2. English, Mathematics and Science, Report on the 1996 National
Curriculum Assessments for 11-year-olds (London, DfEE).STENHOUSE, L. (1988) Case study methods, in: J. Keeves (Ed.) Educational Research Methodology and
Measurement: an internationa l handbook, 2nd edn (Oxford, Pergamon).TEACHER TRAINING AGENCY (1996) Teacher Research Grant Scheme Pilot (London, TTA).TEACHING READING AND WRITING LINKS (TRAWL) (2000–2) Partnership research project funded by
Nottingham Trent University and sponsored by the United Kingdom Reading Association.TOOLEY, J. & DARBY, D. (1998) Educational Research: an Ofsted critique (London, OFSTED).WELLS, G. (1990) Creating the conditions to encourage literature thinking, Educational Leadership,
47(6), pp. 13–17.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f A
rizo
na]
at 1
8:09
17
Dec
embe
r 20
14
