action research on the teaching of writing

8/14/2019 Action Research on the Teaching of Writing

1/43

Action researchon the teachingo writing inprimary schools

Richard Ings


2/43

Findings

Wriing is PrimryAction research on the teaching o writing in primary schools

Richard Ings


3/43

Written by Richard Ings

[email protected]

Funded by The Esme Fairbairn Foundation

www.esmeeairbairn.org.uk

Registered charity number: 200051

Designed by Linda Byrne

www.alphabetical-order.co.uk

Printed by Jigsaw Colour

www.jigsawcolour.co.uk

Conns

Preace 4

Introduction 6

Summary 10

Glossary 13

1The rationale or Writing is Primary

The real object o the lesson 15Targeting pupil learning and achievement in writing

The bigger picture 24Teaching strategies in context

2The Writing is Primary programme

Programme development 31

The activities 35

Poetry, prose and playtime petitions 45

3Impact and implications

Feeling the eects 55Summarising the outcomes

Dispatches 68

Some conclusions and a recommendation 74

Appendix 78


4/43

Writing is Primary

This report rom the Writing is Primary project is timely. It comes at a criticalpoint when there is a common agreement developing between many academicsand agencies about what is needed to improve writing atta inment and teachercondence in the teaching o writing and, critically, what is needed to enhancechildrens enjoyment and engagement in developing their writing.

Over the past two years, the National Strategies have worked collaborativelywith academics and literacy agencies to develop continuing proessionaldevelopment (CPD) models that emphasise the importance o developingteacher condence in the teaching o writing. These models also ensurea ocus on collaborative, classroom-based CPD, where teachers in the sameschool engage in ongoing dialogue and reection on improving teachingthrough a lesson study model.

All primary schools in England have received unding and opportunities orCPD or head teachers and teachers to develop this approach. Understandingo the role o the leading teacher has increased; there is now signicantevidence o the impact o this orm o support rom a leading teacher nationalpilot where teacher condence has grown, the quality o teaching hasimproved and writing attainment has consequently increased by our timesthe national rate. The Every Child a Writer programme is being implementedin 69 local authority areas, with growing evidence o the benet o leadingteachers supporting both their own schools and others.

Priority has been given to Assessment or Learning (AL) nationally with the

introduction o Assessing Pupil Progress materials. These support teachersin their understanding o progression in writing and how to identiy the nextsteps. The joint work o academics and the Department or Children, Schoolsand Families (DCSF) is beginning to produce results, including Getting Going:generating, shaping and developing ideas in writing by Richard Andrews, theTeachers as Writers work developed at Winchester University, and the UKLiteracy Association (UKLA) research project, Teachers as Readers.

In terms o CPD materials rom the DCSF, teachers have universallywelcomed Talk or Writing as an engaging and creative way to develop theteaching o writing. Teachers condence in planning or creativity withinthe teaching o writing is growing.

Preace

This year has seen the publication o two signicant reports: English atthe crossroads: an evaluation o English in primary and secondary schoolpublished by Osted and the nal report o the independent review o theprimary curriculum, led by Sir Jim Rose. In both cases, the recommendationsrom these major reviews are closely aligned to the ndings o the EsmeFairbairn Foundation action research project, Writing is Primary. It is asynergy to be celebrated as we move orward over the next ve years.

There is convergence, too, in thinking about what steps to take next.Broadly these are:

the need to support teacher condence in the teaching o writing

the need to support teachers awareness and knowledge o quality texts

the role o collaborative, classroom CPD and lesson study, particularly

to develop practice head teachers leading learning, with a commitment to school-based CPD

the development o lead teachers or writing, supported by signicantgovernment unding.

I welcome this report and hope it will be shared widely with all primaryschools, with teachers and head teachers as part o the national CPDprogramme, as well as with Primary School Improvement Partners. Thecrucial audience, however, will be those teachers who work directly withchildren in classrooms and it is they who will most enjoy reading this reportand learning rom other colleagues who have shown their commitment to:

developing their own expertise and condence as teachers o writing

ensuring the best possible experience or children o learning to write

supporting children to become enthusiastic and eective writers whowill retain a lielong enjoyment o writing.

I believe passionately that this commitment could be the legacy o all o uswho are working to improve writing in primary schools. It is one that all o usworking together in primary literacy should be seeking to achieve. There areexciting opportunities ahead in developing the primary curriculum and thisreport supports the continued debate about the development o the teachingo writing.

Sally Rundell Former Senior Director Literacy, National Strategies Primary and member o

the Writing is Primary steering group

Prfc


5/43

Writing is Primary

Whether or not a teacher sees themselves as a writer, their pupils will seethem as a model o one though not, o course, always an inspiring or creativeone. As one child, commenting on her class teacher or a Writing is Primaryaudit, said:

I ont think she mins witin ut she ike to o ess of it, Im sue.

We a wou.

A pithier analysis o how children pick up on a teachers attitude and otenadopt it as their own would be hard to nd.

l

In its recent report, English at the crossroads: an evaluation o English inprimary and secondary school 200 5/08 (June 2009), Osted points out aproblem and one potential way o solving it:

In the pima shoos visite, stanas in witin wee onsiea

owe than in eain. Teahes who wee onent as wites themseves,

an who ou emonstate how witin is ompose, tauht it effetive.

(p.5)

In Getting going: generating, shaping and developing ideas in writing (DCSF,April 2008), Proessor Richard Andrews writes:

Fom a peaoia point of view, tehniques fo impovin witin

wi inue patie in witin the ve teahes who ae teahin

it. In othe wos, teahes wi nee to e accomplished writers inthemseves, not on of itea an tiona enes ut in infomationa

an aumentative enes too. The wi not on e ae to poue na

pouts in this ane of enes (Hees one I mae eaie) ut aso

to eet on an moe the poesses of witin in the assoom. (p.14)

This sounds right but it also sounds airly daunting, especially i you are aprimary school teacher expected to cover a wide number o subject areas.Assuming you accept the argument, how do you set about becoming anaccomplished writer? And i you dont accept the argument, are there otherways to model writing eectively in the classroom?

Introduction

What seems to be missing here is any notion o what practical strategies ateacher can take i she or he wants to improve their perormance as a teachero writing.

An action research project

What exactly is good writing? How do we dene improvement? How can werecognise it? Measure it? What part does a teachers own condence and skillin writing play in that improvement? What range o strategies is available?These were some o the questions that Writing is Primary set out to explore.

Writing is Primary was a 15-month long action research programme,instigated and unded by the Esme Fairbairn Foundation, and run ingroups o schools in Bury, Kent/Medway, and Worcester over the school year

2007/08. The programme was set up to support teachers o writing, workingwith pupils at Key Stages 1 and 2. The aim was to try to nd ways o helpingteachers to become more condent and skilled at inspiring their pupils towrite, whether in a literacy or history class, whether descriptive writing orcritical, imaginative or journalistic. To achieve this, teachers, too, would needto be inspired so that they could begin to develop leadership in writing.

The Foundations hope in setting up Writing is Primary was simply that,given the reedom and permission to work dierently with children, teachersmight discover new and eective teaching and learning strategies to benetpupils learning and achievement and go on to develop their own ideasor proessional development as a result. We wanted to ocus on helpingindividual teachers through collaborative and peer-supported approaches.

Our vision and that o the schools that participated in Writing is Primary wasone o achieving pleasure and condence as well as quality in writing and,or teachers, in the teaching o writing. We wanted to strike a better balancebetween standards and enjoyment, between writing as a set o principles

and rules and writing as a lie activity. We believe that writing has a genuinepurpose and is not simply a mechanical process, and that what we or ourchildren might write has at least a potential audience o voluntary readers,not just an examiner.

The year was an undoubted success, with teachers becoming not justmore reective about their practice, but keen to devise their own inormedapproaches to modelling and promoting writing. They elt more condent,having expanded their strategies, approaches and methods to developinggood writing. By providing a secure environment in which to take risks,teachers became more open to innovative practice and more resilient.

InroducionDeveloping a new attitude to writing (and to teaching it)


6/43

Writing is Primary

Everything that happened and that was tried during Writing is Primaryrelated in some way to this goal: giving teachers the skills and the condenceto take a lead in writing. In the primary phase, it is generally acknowledgedthat the interests and skills o the head teacher are crucial in shaping thatculture but each member o sta also contributes in some way and at somelevel to it. Stronger leadership rom teachers and head teachers wouldmean improved learning experiences or pupils and a sustainable writingimprovement strategy or the schools themselves.

What was learned

Writing is Primary had numerous outcomes; each school involved, perhapseven each teacher involved, was changed in some way. So it would be difcult,i not impossible, to disentangle all the threads woven over the year. I we take

a step back, however, the threads resolve themselves into a kind o tapestry inwhich we can discern the larger drama, with clearer meanings that others canshare and benet rom.

We discovered that schools need to ocus hard on three areas, as part owhole-school policy and practice:

teaching and learning strategies, i.e. improving learning, teaching,and assessment

leadership in writing, i.e. creating the structures and supports in schoolsthat enable all students to learn at high levels

continuing proessional development, i.e. engaging all sta in learningand purposeul collaboration (to create a community o learners)

These three areas are used as a ramework or this report, which tracks thejourney o Writing is Primar y rom setting aims to evaluating outcomes.

Section examines the rationale or the research programme, looking

rst at the real object o the lesson, which is improving pupil learning andachievement in writing and, then, at the bigger picture o subject leadershipin a wider context.

Section 2 briey reviews the activities undertaken and how they developedover a school year.

Section 3 presents a summary o the project ocusing on overall ndings romthe action research and identiying the broad areas o learning that we thinkwill be useul to the primary school sector, particularly but not exclusively orthe attention o head teachers and lead literacy teachers (or their equivalent),

Introduction

who were the key players in this action research and who, working togetherwith their peers, are in the best position to eect whole-school change.

This report has been written or schools like those that took part in Writingis Primary, with head teachers concerned enough to take action to improvethe teaching o writing across their school, with lead teachers eager to developtheir subject knowledge, and with teaching sta who would like to see theirpupils leave primary school with a deeper understanding and enjoyment owhat writing can be or them and what it can actually do in the world beyondthe classroom, as well as in it.

In the audit o childrens views on how writing was taught in their school,taken at the end o the Writing is Primary programme, the ollowing commentwas made:

M teahe ikes witin an oesnt et emaasse aout it. She

shaes he ieas with us an fees fee to et eveo hea he ieas.

This might be called: making good progress.

Richard Ings Researcher/Evaluator


7/43

Writing is Primary was a 15-month long action research programme,instigated and unded by the Esme Fairbairn Foundation, and run in clusterso schools in Bury, Kent/Medway, and Worcester over the school year 2007/08.The programme was set up to support teachers o writing, working with pupilsat Key Stages (KS) 1 and 2. The aim was to try to nd ways o helping teachersto become more condent and skilled at inspiring their pupils to write well.

The research ocused on three areas o whole-school policy and practice:

improving learning, teaching, and assessment, i.e. teaching and learningstrategies

creating the structures and supports in schools that enable all students tolearn at high levels, i.e. leadership in writing

engaging all sta in learning and purposeul collaboration, i.e. continuingproessional development

Two action research projects were commissioned. Project 1 was a proessionaldevelopment programme or a group o 18 lead literacy teachers in the countyo Kent and the unitary authority o Medway. This enabled them to developeective methods o supporting primary colleagues in the teaching o writingat KS1 and 2. They tested these methods in school and then rened the CPDmodel.

Project 2 involved head teachers o two clusters o primary schools in Bury

and Worcester developing whole-school approaches to achieving betterteaching and learning o writing. Having identied potential, whole-schoolapproaches to improvement, the head teachers took part in a small-scaleproessional development programme, coordinated by acilitators appointedby the Esme Fairbairn Foundation.

What Writing is Primary achieved

For teachers: more imaginative and eective approaches to teaching writingEncouraged to experiment, most teachers developed a more questioning and

creative approach to received ideas about the teaching o writing; in the bestcases, this challenged their own pedagogy. Findings showed teachers:

developing a deeper understanding o the writing process through their ownpractice and seeing the importance o this or application in the classroom

appreciating the benets o a structured, whole-school approach

creating a critical and personalised approach to teaching and learningstrategies

being exible in selecting the right strategies or the teaching situation andbeing innovative.

For pupils: a marked impact on pupil learning and achievementWriting is Primary seems to have created not just more sustained andcondent writing but also:

In terms o subject leadership, Writing is Primary demonstrated theimportance o:

leadership in improving the teaching o writing, whether giving a lead to pupilsin the classroom or in eecting whole-school strategies or improvement

the ull engagement o head teachers in the process o research and practiceimprovement

sharing leadership and networking.

In terms o continuing proessional development, Writing is Primarydemonstrated that:

CPD is vital in acilitating attitudinal change in teachers, building capacityand strengthening subject leadership in writing

peer-led, tailored programmes and participation in joint CPD sessions areboth eective approaches

teachers need a rst-hand understanding o the writing process in order tobe more condent teachers o writing; by developing their skills in writing,they can improve their leadership in writing

the writing workshops and the other orms o CPD provided through thisprogramme had a positive impact on classroom practice.

SummryWhat Writing is Primary was about

greater enjoyment improved understanding greater engagement

enhanced skills higher standards clearer purpose.

0 Writing is Primary Summary


8/43


9/43

Writing is Primary

The real object o the lesson

Targeting pupil learning and achievement in writing

As fa as the teahin of Enish is onene, I ike the insistene upon

the inaequa of the methos empoe in the teahin of omposition.

Thee is insufient oa isussion as pepaation fo what is, afte a, a

itea exeise. With the meae esuts of this pefunto metho weae famiia. The one o two iht hien in the ass poue essas

that ae at an ate uent an peasin summaies of thei nave ieas upon

the sujet set. The othes poue a few ines, pehaps, of a an ue

statement, an sit inative fo most of the time, unae, eause the have

neve een iven an hints as to the assemin an eveopment of ieas,

to omment upon the few simpe eevant thouhts that ae ommon

to most hien of thei ae. An it so happens that the hien who

most of a nee hep eap patia no enet fom these attempts at

omposition. Thei papes ae, no out, oete fo eos in amma

o spein, ut the make no avane in what shou e the ea ojet of

the esson, name, the expession of the faut of onsious iete

thouht an its expession in simpe an iet anuae.

Comments on a Departmental Committee report on English in On Leaving School and theChoice o a Career by Sir Charles Cheers Wakeeld, Bart. (Hodder & Stoughton, 1927)

These observations, made over 80 years ago, have a ami liar ring today.They remind us that writing has always presented challenges to most children

required to produce composition in class. In criticising teaching methods,Sir Charles Cheers Wakeeld seems to suggest that the eective teaching owriting has always been a challenge or most teachers too. He suspects that,while the average teacher (or examiner) will be happy to put them right onerrors in grammar or spelling, pupils will get little help with composition itsel.

Children struggling to write, in his view, need help with the assemblingand development o ideas. He thinks purposeul pupil talk would help. Hedoesnt seem to think that children have vast amounts o resh knowledge orsubject matter to pour out on to the page, but he does believe that, in orderto articulate those nave ideas common to their age group, children need to

Cpr 1The rationale or Writing is Primary


10/43

Writing is Primary

Most o these statistics come rom English at the crossroads: an evaluationo English in primary and secondary school, a report published in June 2009by Osted that draws on evidence rom inspections made between April 2005and March 2008 in 122 primary schools and 120 secondary schools. The mainpurpose o the report is not, however, to ocus on the numbers but to examinethe underlying issues, to highlight the main strengths and weaknesses in theteaching and learning o English and to suggest how they might be addressed.

Its observations and conclusions are not a million miles rom Sir Charlesin 1927, nor are they substantially dierent either rom the conclusions o thepreliminary research undertaken or Writing is Primary or rom observationsby teachers and pupils at the beginning o this action research programmein autumn 2007. In what they suggest about pedagogy the science oteaching they are also close to Richard Andrews analysis in Getting going:generating, shaping and developing ideas in writing (published by the DCSF

in April 2008 to help teachers develop practical classroom strategies).

The common themes o all these reports are: what makes a lesson ocusedon writing outstanding rather than merely satisactory? What is the properbalance between teaching the technical structures o writing and teachingthe assembly and development o ideas or, as Osted puts it, betweenimparting knowledge about writing and developing skills in writing?What skills, knowledge and attributes do teachers need to develop in orderto teach writing well? What do pupils need in order to engage ully andenthusiastically with the challenge o writing? Looking beyond the lessonitsel, how can subject leadership in the school be improved to make goodteaching o writing more widespread and consistent not just in literacy butacross the primary curriculum too? Looking urther aeld, what do schoolsneed to help them identiy, sustain and disseminate good practice in theteaching o writing?

These questions are being asked at every level: at the DCSF, theQualications and Curriculum Agency (QCA) and Osted; by national and

regional organisations promoting literacy and by writers-in-schools agencies;in university education departments and in school sta rooms. Writing isPrimary was just one o several independent initiatives researching possibleanswers to these questions. Others have included Everybody Writes, managedby Booktrust with the support o the QCA, and the Writers in SchoolsResearch Programme, run by the National Association o Writers in Education(NAWE) with the support o the Paul Hamlyn Foundation.

Beore nding out how Writing is Primary looked or its own answers, we needrst to look again, in a little more detail, at the questions and their implications.

understand how to communicate them through writing. This is the real objecto the lesson: the expression o the aculty o consciously directed thought andits expression in simple and direct language.

Underlying this argument is a denite sense that composition is hard,otherwise why, in his view, would so ew pupils be good at it and so ewteachers up to teaching it? There is also an assumption that pedagogy is theproblem, particularly when it avours the secretarial aspects o writing overits expression o thought, its content and style.

Unwittingly, then, Sir Charles, erstwhile Mayor o the City o London, hasprovided a very good introduction to some o the important themes exploredin this account o Writing is Primary, an action research project instigatedby the Esme Fairbairn Foundation to address contemporary concerns withstandards and achievements in writing in primary schools.

The need or improvement in writing at Key Stages 1 and 2

Since 1927, there have been many more Depar tmental Committees andreports o one kind or another to comment on, particularly since theintroduction o the National Curriculum or schools in England and Wales, bythe Education Reorm Act 1988. In terms o inuencing the way that writinghas been taught or the past decade, the most signicant event was t he launcho the National Literacy Strategy in 19 98. Whatever criticisms have been madeo its most well known innovation the literacy hour, which is now more orless deunct there is little doubt in most peoples minds that the strategy didlead to a signicant rise in standards o literacy. However, that rise peakedsome while ago and, when the original research was undertaken or theEsme Fairbairn Foundation into the teaching o writing in primary school,in 2004/05, there were growing concerns at this levelling o o progress.

Five years later and there is still, Osted reports, a high level o public

concern about standards o writing, especially in the light o poor resultsin the national tests, at the end o Key Stage 2.

In 2008, around 70% o Foundation Stage pupils achieved the expectedstandards in aspects o reading, but only 61% did so in wr iting the lowest in allthe assessment areas. Standards at the end o Key Stage 1 have not improved,with a slight decline in reading and writing. It seems that schools nd improvingreading standards signicantly easier to achieve than standards in writing:while 86% o eleven year olds in 2008 now achieve Level 4 , the expected nationallevel in reading, only 67% reached this level in writing. Coupled to this is acontinuing concern that boys underperorm compared to girls at every stage.

The rationale or Writing is Primary


11/43

Writing is Primary

world and b) giving writing a range o real purposes. Otherwise, writing willend up simply serving assessment requirements and the education system.Pupils will produce school writing rather than a orm o communication thatcan make a dierence in the world.

To ensure that this does not happen, Osted, amongst many others, calls ora reinvigoration o the teaching o writing. Improvement o pupils writinghinges on the way that they are taught. The individual teacher is where thebuck stops.

Leading on writing in the classroom

Whatever their role or status outside the classroom, when someone comesin to teach writing to a group o pupils, they are or that period eectively

the subject leader. What they bring with them in terms o subject knowledge,skills and attitude is critical, i they are to provide a positive, creative andinspiring model or writing.

Teachers should realise by now that they need to be acting as exemplars,providing a real purpose and a real audience or childrens writing. This hasbeen reiterated or years; interviewed during the initial research or Writingis Primary, the English specialist at Osted commented that there is a muchstronger need or teachers to do their own writing. Indeed, this message haslong been embedded in the governments own guidance to teachers, includingthose teaching reception classes, who should be role models who use writingexplicitly in the classroom and demonstrate to children what they are doing(National Literacy Strategy: Developing Early Writing 2001).

The problem identied then as now is that, or a whole variety o reasons, tooew teachers seem condent when it comes to teaching writing. One reasonor this may be the introduction o a prescriptive literacy curriculum a decadeago and the eeling this may have engendered especially amongst those

entering the proession that there were certain rules and regulations that youdisobeyed at your peril. Teachers usually ourish best when prescription romabove is tempered with reedom to adapt and personalise this well-intendedguidance in the classroom. Things have moved on a long way since then(including the introduction o the more exible Primary Framework in 2007),but the habits acquired in the past and the problem itsel have not gone away.

One head teacher involved in Writing is Primary noted, at the beginning othe programme, that one o the barriers to progress in developing writingin her school was the National Literacy Strategy, because o its use o unitplans, i.e. too prescriptive, too many text types, not enough time spent oneach genre, not enough time spent on extended writing. According to another

Moving beyond satisactory levels o teaching writing

Being an inspection agency, Osted ocuses mainly on evidence gathered romwatching and evaluating actual classroom practice. Its primary concern is tond out whether young people are being well served by schools. Classroompractice and pupil learning and enjoyment were also the bottom line orWriting is Primary: what, we asked, could help improve pupil learning andachievement in writing?

English at the crossroads includes the ollowing description o a typicalsatisactory lesson:

Supeia, evethin went we. The pupis wee we-ehave, keen to

o thei est an most onentate thouhout the esson. Howeve, thei

witin was at times isappointin an thei poess was not as oo

as it shou have een, ae eause the teahe was not ea aoutwhat she wante. In oe to impove the witin, the teahe neee

to emonstate what she wante witin with o fo the pupis. (p.18)

A very similar generic description is given by the Writing is Primary researchteam at Canterbury Christ Church University, drawing on its initial audit ochildrens experiences o being taught writing:

A thi of the hien peeive that thei teahes isike witin

an wee anxious aout witin in font of them. It was evient that the

patie of teahes sittin aonsie eanes omposin thei own piees

of wok was exteme ae. Some hien empathetia note thei

teahes ak of onene: Shes a it sa as often she oesnt know

whee to stat.

The audits carried out across the Writing is Primary programme bear outobservations made by Osted and many other agencies that one o the realobstacles to improved standards and achievements is the ailure to ndways o engaging pupils with writing as an authentic act. I they are given

writing tasks that have no real purpose to them and no real audience beyondthe classroom, all but the most committed pupils (those one or two brightchildren in the class) are likely to switch o. Most young people need to seesome link between what they are doing in class and what goes on in their livesbeyond the school gates.

Andrews argues that, to address the challenge o a writing curriculumbetween now and 2015 (the date set by the QCAs English 21 project in 2005or a ull-scale review o the English curriculum), educationalists will needto re-engage and motivate disaected or unengaged young people by a)bringing the genres o schooling closer to the genres o the wider social

The rationale or Writing is Primary


12/43

20 Writing is Primary

correct grammar and spelling, use adjectives, use complex sentences,

use a sharp pencilo hold the pencil properly, an use a thesaurus.

Thee wee no exampes of hien efein to witin as a meanin-

makin o ommuniative ativit o efein to pupose in an

meaninfu wa. (Kent/Mewa auit, Janua 2008)

How then does a teacher move beyond this limited vision o writing in orderto help their pupils do the same? How does the teacher model putting thingstogether?

Demonstrating what a writer is and what a writer does

The notion o modelling writing needs clarication. Is it simply aboutacilitating pupil writing? I it is, then all that teachers might have to do is to

provide the right kind o cues or writing and supply the right sort o supportmaterials to keep it on track. Their pupils will then, presumably, have thenecessary tools to develop their own writing skills, while the teacher is reeto intervene, to help and advise, rening the application o those skills.

There is another way o thinking about modelling that puts the teacher centrestage, not simply as a acilitator but as a writer, too. This kind o teachermodels writing by doing it themselves. When that happens, good teachingseems to happen, as Osted inspectors have discovered:

Teahes who wee onent as wites themseves, an who

ou emonstate how witin is ompose, tauht it effetive. (p.5)

Why should this be? One reason is that children may not, in the general runo things, have any idea o what writing is actually or or what you can dowith it. They cannot be assumed to know what a writer is or what a writerdoes unless they get the chance to meet one and see what they do. O course,reading will help pupils to see what writing can do but reading is a morereceptive activity than writing. Writing requires a lot more energy, a lot more

stamina and a lot more courage. It is about making meanings o your own;it is about claiming independence as much as communicating with others.

The scale o what he or she is expecting o pupils when setting them a writingtask can only be ully appreciated i the teacher accepts the same challengethey ace perhaps to write something on the spot over the nal 20 minuteso the lesson that will be marked and even (i this were a test) used to gradetheir ability to write as a whole.

I pupils see that their teacher is willing to do what they are being asked todo, it will surely seem a lot more reasonable to them to make the same eort

head, the time constraints engendered by the Strategy had resulted in anapproach where extended writing rarely happens:

The feein aout ou witin was that teahes enea appoah the

teahin of witin in a fai ii an funtiona wa this enea

poues oo esuts in tems of witin eves but

Several heads agreed that most writing opportunities remained prescriptiveand linked to planned work, with ew opportunities to explore style andapproach more reely. One other unintended consequence o the Strategy,according to Andrews, was that it placed an undue emphasis on orm:

the emphasis nees to move fom a fous on the en-pouts the

fames (peaoi saffos, enes, text tpes, foms) an shapes

that anuae uses an that nee to e eant to the at of famin

an shapin that is at the heat of omposition (itea, puttin thins

toethe). (p.12)

This is reminiscent o what many have observed about what less condentteachers tend to teach when they teach writing. It is easier and certainly saerto try to teach pupils correct spelling and grammar than to risk launchingthem into the complexities o extended composition. One o the commonweaknesses identied by Osted and others is an over-emphasis on technicalmatters, such as punctuation or complex sentences, at the expense o helpingpupils to develop and structure their ideas.

I writing is understood by a teacher as a largely mechanical process gettingspelling and punctuation right, ensuring that so many time words areused, explaining ellipsis and so on then pupils will understand that thisis what writing is and no more. It was ound, through talking to pupils romKent/Medway involved in Writing is Primary, that the purposes o writingbeing implicitly modelled by teachers related mainly to the assessment opupils work, instructional text and behaviour management. This tendencyis borne out by parallel audits o teachers, which showed that a) many lacked

condence in teaching writing and b) many existing strategies or improvingwriting were based on ocused marking and associated teacher eedback,on (as one head teacher commented) checklist criteria rather than purpose,creativity and enjoyment. That this aects pupils own denition o whatwriting is about is made all too clear in these same audits (mirrored by thosecarried out in Bury and Worcester):

The themes the hien fous on when offein avie to othe wites

emonstate ea what thei own onens ae an what the peeive

as saient to witin. The vast majoit offee tehnia avie to othe

hien, fequent eommenin fo exampe, that the make sue of

capital letters and full stops, write neatly, join up, sound out, use



13/43


In one Worcester school, the head noted our reasons his teachers gave or notwriting or pleasure: not enough time; a preerence or reading; other intereststo spend their leisure time on; and not having a purpose or writing. By theend o the year o Writing is Primary, this school had established, with theheads enthusiastic encouragement and personal participation, a sta writingworkshop that met most Fridays ater lessons. Somehow, during that yeara purpose had been ound or teachers writing themselves not just or thepleasure o it but, as their classroom practice revealed, or the impact it washaving on their teaching o writing.

This was a particularly successul outcome rom a relatively short intervention a year is not a long time in the lie o a school and not all schools in theprogramme necessarily bought into the notion o teachers as writers. Someound other ways to address improving the teaching o writing, ways that

respected the lack o condence many teachers eel at the thought o writingin ront o their classes, o being writers themselves.

Ater all, writing is not easy to do, never mind to teach. Andrews states thatwriting is the most difcult, i not the most complex, o the our language skills.It requires solitary, creative, thoughtul, accurate and ocussed compositionalenergy, plus a higher degree o reective thinking and (usually) personalengagement. I that is the real object o the lesson, we need to nd whateverways we can to deliver it.

We need, individually and as a sector, to look at our current teaching andlearning strategies critically to make sure that they are delivering the bestpossible results or pupil learning, achievement and enjoyment in writing. Ithey are not, we need to look or alternatives. That was the core research aimo Writing is Primary.

themselves. I the teacher is really good at the process, able to show the kindo decisions he or she is having to make on the hoo about content, pace, style,vocabulary and so on, then pupils will begin to develop an insight into thatprocess and to understand that writing rarely appears ully ormed but needsteasing out, editing and redrating. The teacher will be learning, too, o course,adding to her or his subject knowledge through actual practice.

English at the crossroads concludes:

One of the most positive eveopments ove eent eas has een the

ineasin tenen fo teahes to emonstate witin fo thei pupis. At

its est, this invoves teahes in witin with pupis, expainin thei hoies

of wos an phases, an amenin thei wok as the poue it. Eviene

fom the USA, whee thee is a on-estaishe Nationa Witin Pojet fo

teahes, suests that pupis wok impoves when thei teahes ea

themseves as wites. Howeve, man of the teahes in the suve akethe onene to o this. As a esut, thei pupis wee not ae to see how

ieas an anuae ae eate, shape, eviewe an evise. (p.48)

The other disadvantage o weak practice is that, even i pupils know themechanics o writing, they may not realise why they should write or or whomor even how to start the process o gathering and discussing ideas that canlead to writing.

Acknowledging the challenges o writing

One o the barriers to successul writing is the lack o condence amongsta and pupils; there has been some progress in tackling this but morework is needed. The initial audits that head teachers carried out in Bury andWorcester and that the research team carried out in Kent/Medway, to geta snapshot o writing in their schools, provide overwhelming evidence thatteacher condence or rather the lack o it is one o the main barriers

to progress. Their ndings can be summarised as ollows: modelling is more oten undertaken through use o a text that has been

prepared ahead o the lesson. Children do not oten see adults writing inschool; adults do not write at the same time as children.

pupils do witness teachers writing but not in a creative context; it will beeither a teacher completing a task at their desk or within the classroomalongside the pupils working on their own task, which may be dierent.

teacher condence should lead to pupil condence in writing [but there is]little evidence that teachers see themselves as writers writing tends onlyto be or proessional purposes.



14/43


The bigger picture

Teaching strategies in context

Looking at teaching and learning strategies to see what changes might bemade to develop pupils enthusiasm, skill and achievement in writing meanslooking, too, at the wider context or those strategies and how they are tobe developed, supported, sustained and, i appropriate, disseminated. Anykind o teaching is a kind o strategy, even i only by deault. For a strategyto be widely useul, however, there has to be a link between practice in theclassroom and practice elsewhere. There are other actors at work beyondthe individual teachers work with his or her pupils.

The diagram opposite suggests that there are three overlapping andinteracting actors that inuence such strategies: school and subject

leadership; whole-school policy and practice; and continuing proessionaldevelopment (CPD). Each o these areas needs to be thought about inplanning any kind o strategic innovation in teaching or learning whetherthat is the notion o teachers developing their own writing skills, or the ideao introducing philosophy to develop thinking and talking skills that canthen generate purposeul writing.

The outermost ring o the diagram is a reminder o the wider context orthe immediate eco-system o the school, provided by the standard-settingramework o the National Curriculum; the Primary National Strategy, whichinuences and disseminates good practice in schools; and the external social-cultural ormation, also known as the real world. Hopeully, the educationsystem shits in response to what happens in the world outside its borders;indeed, those borders should be porous in all directions. One o the key issuesraised in the previous section o this report was the need or pupils to seea link between the classroom and the world outside.

In an ideal system, an innovation developed in a single literacy class could

percolate through the rings and their segments perhaps giving a boostinitially to subject leadership, then spreading across the whole sta andorming part o the school plan or the improvement o writing, consolidatedby CPD developed by that innovative teacher. This high quality training anddevelopment package would then be picked up and more widely disseminatedby those directing the Primary National Strategy. When the curriculum isnext reviewed, it might shit in response to the pedagogic implications o thisexample o innovative classroom practice. Meanwhile, the pupils rom thatinitial trial would be out in the world, equipped with the skills and condenceit had given them to put their ideas into writing.

ExTErNAlSOcIAl-c

UlTU

rA

lF

OrM

ATION

THEP

rIM

Ar

yN

ATIO

NAlS

TrATEgy

TEA

cH

INg

ANd

lEArNINgSTrATE

gIES

ScHOOlANdSUbJEcTlEAdErSH

IP

WHO

lE

-ScHOOl

POlIcy

ANd

PrA

cTIc

EcONTINUIN

gPr

OFESS

IONAld

EvElOPMENT

(cPd)

NATIONAl

cUrrIcUlUM

pupil learning



15/43


The best subject leaders are reective, analytical and sel-critical qualitiesexemplied by good practice in their own teaching. Skilled subject leadersare also enthusiastic, personable and skilul enough to provide a strong leadand support across the school. They can also help to build a communityo learners, where teachers can learn rom or with each other and developproessional conversations about their practice. The Foundation decided thatan intervention in subject leadership would be worth exploring and set up whatbecame Writing is Primary: Project 1. The idea was to prime a group o literacylead teachers to return to their schools armed with g reater subject knowledgeand greater condence to lead on writing across the sta team, modelling newapproaches, leading conversations about change and spreading the word .

This description o a subject leader applies equally well to a head teacher.Osted has highlighted how important it is or head teachers to value writing:

In oth the pima an seona shoos visite, outstanin eaeship

an manaement of Enish esute fom hih effetive hea teahes

who unestoo the sujets impotane an pae it at the ente

of thei ive fo impovement. The i not ompete eeate

esponsiiit fo the uiuum to othe senio eaes ut took a onstant

inteest in its eveopment, ose monitoin the impat of teahin.

The povie oo suppot fo sujet eaes, without intefein

(p.33)

This tribute retrospectively validates the Foundations decision to oer headteachers the opportunity or experimentation in and reection on the teachingo writing as part o Writing is Primary this was to become a distinguishingeature o Project 2. The administrative workload o running a primary schoolis considerable. In primary schools particularly, it is the head who sets thepace and the tone; in Writing is Primary, the head was able to intervene inclassroom practice. As a research leader, she or he could spend time thinkingabout and trialling new ideas about teaching and the curriculum, incollaboration with her or his lead literacy teachers and with each other.

Through a ocus on either subject leaders or head teachers, Writing isPrimary assumed the importance o taking a whole-school approach, to givecoherence to emerging plans, values and priorities. Both projects had theirown strengths. Where the head was at the helm, resources could be targetedmore eectively. Where the lead teacher/subject leader was inuential was inembodying how proessional development could be redened as an ongoing,rather than an episodic, process. In either case, teachers would be helped todevelop skills and condence and encouraged to reect more deeply (andcollaboratively) on strategies or teaching and learning, thus moving roma situation where isolated practitioners create their own piecemeal individualapproaches to a new, whole-school, reective model.

This scenario might be anciul but planning or Writing is Primary had totake into account some o this wider context i the intervention in teachingand learning strategies in writing was going to have any lasting impact.Leaving the possibility o any inuence on the outer ring or history tosort out, we ocus in this section on the relationship between the researchprogramme and whole-school policy, subject leadership and CPD, arguingrst that improving school and subject leadership is essential to whole-schoolchange around the teaching o writing.

The importance o leadership

In considering what kind o intervention would be most eective andappropriate, the Esme Fairbairn Foundation was well aware that improvingthe teaching o writing in primary schools could not be achieved at a stroke.

The discovery o simple ormulae that could be universally applied wasunlikely. A scoping study had recommended that the core aim o an actionresearch programme should be to support teachers to experiment with wayso teaching writing they had not tried beore and perhaps, in the process,to raise their game. I genuinely sustainable, teacher-led approaches toimprovement in the teaching and learning o writing could be ound andpopularised, subject leadership would be greatly enhanced.

In English at the crossroads, Osted notes that, where provision was weaker,subject leaders did not have a clear understanding o where improvementswere needed or how they might be achieved. Writing is Primary couldpotentially make a real dierence here, perhaps helping to shit the role osubject leader rom that o resource manager to something more dynamic and riskier.

Her Majestys Inspectorate o Education has identied the broaderresponsibilities or monitoring, evaluation and development o teaching asparticular weaknesses in subject leadership. Primary teachers, usually trained

to be generalists, ace a real challenge in being required to be subject experts.

Most, i not all, primary school teachers will have had some ormal trainingin the teaching o writing. They may have had some urther proessionaldevelopment, arranged by the local education authority or their school,perhaps linked to the dissemination o a new strategy or literacy. Othersmay have been on a proessional development course run by an independenteducational or literacy consultancy. Teachers bring with them a personalhistory o reading and writing just how rich a history will also have abearing on how eectively and easily they can lead on writing (or, indeed,model it in the classroom).



16/43

2 Writing is Primary 2Findings

The importance o networks

That sense o making connections between teachers ploughing their lonelyurrows through strong subject leadership within a school could be expandedto the level o schools themselves. In Whole school change: A review o theliterature, a report or Creative Partnerships (Arts Council England, 2007)Pat Thomson explains how:

One answe to the onunum of isans of innovation, an the ouate

ifuties of sain up euationa efoms effete in one shoo,

is to n was in whih eain shoos an wok with othes without

eimatin thei own apaities. This miht e a netwok. (p. 48)

This was the nal element in the Writing is Primary matrix: supportingnetworks to support school change. More than simple ora to share

inormation, the networks that emerged in Bury, Worcester and Kent/Medwaybecame active in developing the research programme in a way that a singleschool could not achieve by itsel.

I have realised there are other approaches to

writing out there that can be benefcial i we

have the time and inclination to explore them.


17/43


Programme development

Timeline

The ollowing summarises the common path that the research clusterstook towards the overall aims o Writing is Primary, rom shaping the bid

to completing the nal report.

Spring term 200 Invited to apply or Writing is Primary

Summer term 200 Reviewed current school policy and practice and set aims and objectives Wrote project proposal identiying desired outcomes

Autumn term 200 Ater grant awarded, carried out audit o teacher and pupil attitudes

to (teaching o) writing Writing is Primary action plan, setting targets based partly on audit Delivered, monitored and adapted programme

Spring term 200 Delivered, monitored and adapted programme

End March 200 Attended conerence in Coventry, with other Writing is Primary research

clusters to share practice

Summer term 200 Delivered, monitored and adapted programme

Autumn term 200 Submitted nal report, evaluating outcomes

Cpr 2The Writing is Primary programme

3


18/43


The set-up

Project

Two 15-month action research projects were commissioned. Project 1 was toprovide a proessional development programme or a group o 18 lead literacyteachers, currently working in nine primary schools in Kent/Medway. Theocus on lead literacy teachers was due to their expertise in, and responsibilityor, inuencing practice in schools (advanced skills teachers and literacycoordinators with a similar remit could also participate). They would take partin a proessional development programme, designed by Canterbury ChristChurch University, which would enable them to develop eective methods osupporting primary colleagues in the teaching o writing at Key Stages 1 and2. They would test these methods in school and then come back together, with

CCCU, to rene the model.

Project 2

Project 2 was to involve the head teachers o two clusters o primary schoolsin developing whole-school approaches to achieving better teaching andlearning o writing. Supported by a acilitator with a background in educationand writing, the head teachers would each complete an audit o currentpractice in the teaching and learning o writing in their schools and identiywhole-school approaches that might be taken to improve that practice. Whilethese approaches were being tested in their schools, the head teachers wouldtake part in a small-scale proessional development programme, led by theacilitator and involving colleagues rom the cluster.


Preparing the ground

Audits

Audits helped schools to set realistic goals or the year ahead.

Although some inormation was already available, e.g. statistics compiled romSATs and other ormal assessments, all schools car ried out a comprehensiveinvestigation o attitudes to writing. This included a written questionnaire orpupils, oten supplemented by interviews with a representative sample. Auditsrun in Kent/Medway also asked or pupils perceptions about their teachersown attitudes to writing a crucial issue given the importance o teachers aspotential modellers o writing.

Overall, the results provided a useul insight into the strengths andweaknesses o current teaching practice and helped schools to set a baselineor hoped-or improvements: they drew a clear beore picture that could bereerred to, once the programme had ormally ended. Schools were able todevelop an inormed and strategic response to the underlying issues that hademerged rather than rush or immediate solutions to apparent problems.

Action plans

Action plans provided schools with a ramework that would guide activityand set targets, whilst allowing opportunities to review and amend theirprogrammes.

Although each cluster took its own route towards ullling the actionresearch brie, the underlying aim was the same attitudinal change. Oneproject steering group meeting envisioned a healthy culture or writingwithin classrooms, schools and the network as a whole, where pupils woulddemonstrate raised interest levels, condence and engagement with writing;

have all the tools they need to become good writers; rene their writing skillsand accelerate their rate o progress; understand the purpose o writing andchoose to write autonomously; and achieve higher standards.


19/43


Taking stock

Formative evaluation

Formative evaluation and teacher reection were required throughout theyear to ensure that the programme continued to meet individual school needswhilst making progress towards the overall action research aims.

Meetings within schools and clusters (with or without the acilitator) gaugedimprovement in, or example, teachers condence in teaching writingand in their eectiveness as change agents. In Kent/Medway this wasdone methodically through ormal interviews, ocus group reections andcomments rom a sample group o pupils; in Bury and Worcester, it was donemore inormally.

Each school collected relevant hard data and recorded testimony over theyear, including evidence o childrens engagement in and attitude to writingover the year, teachers reections, CPD evaluations, presentations andinormal eedback. Several schools made a concerted eort to collect data indierent ormats so that they could evaluate impact. Chapeleld Primary inBury, or example, drew on pupils work, teachers views, lesson observations,observations o pupils (including photographs), pupil views, thinking journals(or Philosophy or Children) and assessments. Other schools conducted end-o-year audits with pupils and, occasionally, teachers.

The Coventry conerence

The Coventry conerence was the rst opportunity or a programme-widereview. It was attended by all the participating schools in Bury, Worcester,Kent/Medway and their acilitators as well as Foundation sta and memberso the Writing is Primary steering group.

Held over two days, roughly two terms into the project, the conerenceallowedheads and teachers rom each o the clusters to meet each other inormallyand air tentative ndings as well as take part in an exchange o practicalworkshops and contribute to plenary discussions. New approaches and ideasemerged, rejuvenating participants as they approached the nal term.


The activities

Although a modest programme in some ways only 19 schools involvedover a single year Writing is Primary was decidedly ambitious. The actionresearch was ocused on three main areas within a whole-school approach:teaching and learning strategies, school and subject leadership and CPD.The table below oers a ew examples o the activity generated by Writing isPrimary under each o these headings: in schools, in clusters o schools andin the wider education sector.

The ambition o Writing is Primary and its non-prescriptive ramework allowed or a variety o approaches, inputs and outputs, and outcomes.

Although taking dierent perspectives, both projects would be equallycommitted to the central task o creating teaching and learning strategiesto help improve pupil learning and achievement in writing.

Teahes appinthei own eanin

aout witin; use of

muti-moa an muti-

sensua appoahes

deveopin eativeeanin envionments;

estaishin witin

was

contiutinto pofessiona

exhane on

oo patie

Tch stts

ScHOOl clUSTEr EdUcATION SEcTOr

Sujet eaes

ientifin pioities;

emonstation essons

Hea teahes fomin

ation eseah team

dissemination of

oo patie via

puiation;

ientifin shoo

suppot nees

Faiitato suppot;

pee osevation;

eview of cPd nees

coaoative cPd;

teahe exhane

litea cPd

povie oa

authoit; tiain

off-the pe taininpakaes

ldsh

Cot ofsso dvomt


20/43


Project 1 activities

Kent/Medway Cluster

Proessional development programmecomprising our strands: teachers as writers,as pedagogues, as action researchers, andas change agents.

Termly group sta meetings in schoolsled by the project team and the teachersinvolved.

End o year conerence, hosted by CCCU,to disseminate learning.

Three proessional development sessionseach term, at CCCU, based around the ourstrands o the programme.

Each term, head teachers were invitedto take part in one o the proessionaldevelopment sessions.

Also each term, CCCU visited everyparticipating school, to meet the headand the teachers taking part in the project.

Two visiting proessional writers contributedto the proessional development sessions.

Each school agreed a Writing is Primaryaction plan, which was used by the twoparticipating teachers to try to eectcurriculum development.

To help teachers to develop their condenceand competence as writers; support themin developing childrens condence andcompetence as writers; encourage themto develop their ability to reect criticallyon their own writing; and give them the

means to develop childrens ability to reectcritically on theirs.

To contribute to a sustainable, teacher-centred proessional developmentprogramme that might be replicatedelsewhere.

The experience in Kent/Medway was thatteachers who become more condent writersthemselves are more likely to be able toinspire children with the desire to write andto create purposeul contexts or writing.The researchers ound among teachers

a powerul new picture o positive attitudestowards writing, the increase o choice,newly motivated writers, critical writers,constructive responses to writing togetherwith a strong personal engagement inwriting and publishing writing.

Teachers gradually moved away rompreparing demonstration writingbeorehand to demonstrating and modellingwriting spontaneously and engaging injoint interactive composition as a moreeective pedagogical approach.

Rapid growth in teachers choosing to wr itealongside pupils generating, drating,editing and completing work they had setor the class. Only one teacher had tried thisapproach to any great extent beore.


SchoolsBenenden County PrimaryDitton JuniorEastborough County PrimaryElaine County PrimaryKingsher County PrimaryMinterne JuniorSaxon Way County PrimarySt Katherines Knockholt County Primary SchoolSt William o Perth RCP

The core members o the team running the Kent/Medway research cluster were KathyGoouch, Senior Lecturer,Canterbury Christ Church University (CCCU), Andrew Lambirth,Principal Lecturer (CCCU) andTeresa Cremin, Proessor o Education (Literacy),The Open University. They had already worked closely together or over ten years on a rangeo proessional development programmes or primary teachers in Kent/Medway. In addition,individually and jointly, they had undertaken a considerable amount o literacy consultancy,nationally and internationally; Teresa Cremin had been involved in the Primary NationalStrategy/UKLA Raising Boys Achievements in Writing Project (2004/5).

The team worked in collaboration with nine primary schools and two local authorityliteracy consultants. A Project Focus Group was established, including two teachers romeach school. An end-o-year conerence was held to disseminate the good practice andthe ndings rom the years research to other primary teaching sta rom Kent/Medway,including head teachers.

What they did How they did it Why they did it What happened as a result


21/43



Bury Cluster


Created an action research community,composed o head teachers and their leadliterary teachers (or writing champions).Head teachers took a hands-on lead asresearchers collecting data and analysingand disseminating ndings.

Although ew o the six participatingschools had ormally worked togetherbeore, a collegiate approach developed,rom their joint bid to take part in Writingis Primary to regular review and planningmeetings.

Organised joint CPD sessions alongsideschools own tailored programmes

A good example o Burys approach was thespeed dating event when all six schoolspitched to each other the approaches theywould be ocusing on. Later in the term,teachers signed up or workshops that theyelt would be most useul in improvingtheir teaching. The cluster also organiseda moderate level o inter-school observation.

Participated in a three-strand programmetrialling or rening existing literacylearning packages with the option oadding a ourth strand: a schools owndevised solutions.

The head teacher o Greenhill Primary,who co-ordinated the group o six headteachers and their lead teachers, stated

that a holistic view o the developmento writing would have a greater impactthan developing approaches piecemeal.

Teachers incorporated new approaches intotheir classroom practice, supported by headand lead teachers.

Reviewed progress regularly and adaptedapproaches to suit the context; workscrutiny, lesson observation and peermentoring.

To develop head teachers own leadershipin this area o the curriculum, bothindividually and across the cluster.

Head teachers gained a greater under-standing o the impact o a whole-schoolapproach and its potential to changeclassroom practice or sta and pupils.As one head teacher put it: Sharing goodpractice, learning rom one another (and

together) has been a real strength whichI eel will carr y us through in years to come.

To build teacher condence and developsubject leadership.

Bringing schools and lead teachers togetherin collaborative and peer-to-peer researchled to new approaches to developing subjectleadership in writing and literacy. Teacherand school networking grew as the yearprogressed.

To help teachers to improve pedagogy andto develop leadership in writing, as part oa whole-school approach to improvement.

The main conclusion was that teachersneed concrete strategies to improve writingand that packages like Big Writing canprovide practical support. One head teacherrom Bury noted that: Pupils are generallybetter equipped to write with a greater arrayo tools, both technical a nd imaginative;they have developed the approaches theyneed to be good writers. They are able to

rene the use o writing skills to matchtask, purpose and audience with some adultguidance. This has resulted in improvedprogress rates.


The Bury research cluster was acilitated by Sally Manser, a ormer teacher and LEAadviser and now reelance school improvement proessional with extensive experienceo supporting strategic partnerships between groups o schools.

SchoolsChapeleld PrimaryChrist Church CE PrimaryGreenhill PrimarySt. Michaels RC PrimaryUnsworth PrimaryWoodbank Primary


22/43


Bury Clusterresearch strands

Strand Action Findings Learning

Ros Wilsons Big Writing Sta attended a training course (or visitedschools where sta had been using theapproach or some time) to learn more abouthow Big Writing might be applied in theirclassrooms. They then added aspects o itto their teaching repertoire.

Multi-sensory approaches Picture the MusicMost schools used Picture the Music todevelop the minds eye and help pupilscreate description and narrative in context.

Write DanceOne school (Chapeleld) used Write Danceto help Early Years pupils to make marks,take control o the act o writing and writewith more condence and enthusiasm.

Use o flmOne school (Unsworth) used lm tostimulate childrens imagination and helpthem to write narratives

All schools used this approach to someextent (two schools had begun using theapproach beore the project), with largelypositive results. In one, roughly 90% opupils said they had enjoyed Big Writingand 95% said that it had helped raise

achievement in writing.

The main risk with Big Writing, as withany other prescribed approach to pedagogy,is treating it as a ormula rather than asguidance or inspiration.

Picture the Music was helpul in stimulatingwriting. In one school, it had an immediateimpact upon pupils motivation and thecontent o their written work, but was lesseective i over used.

Teachers at Chapeleld observed anincrease in reluctant writers spontaneousmark making during the sel-directedactivity in Write Dance.

Unsworth ound that using lms wasthe most productive approach it tried.For example, it helped pupils to see thedevelopment between dierent par tso the story, rather than using the tricko a connective.

By stimulating emotions and imagination,these approaches gave pupils a reason towrite, motivating them to plan, plot andsequence, work on and improve a piece owriting through several drats.

Talk-led approaches Schools took a variety o approachesto generating talk. Chapeleld usedPhilosophy or Children; Greenhill employeddrama techniques; Unsworth explored theimpact o Learning Conversations between

adults and children on writing.

Chapeleld reported that Philosophy orChildren was the most popular o the ourapproaches it tried. Although the impact onSATs results was negligible, the head arguedthat, in the longer term, this approach would

raise pupils measurable achievement.At Unsworth, the research into learningconversations led to sta meetings on thetopic and ongoing reection amongst sta.

Greenhill continues to ensure sta use dramain their repertoire o teaching strategies.

These approaches showed the impact andimportance o developing talk and thinkingskills as preparation and material orimproving meaningul and communicativewriting.

Sel-organised li teracy development This strand was or individual schools toshape, and mainly involved nding time outo class or a particularly procient literacyspecialist to work a longside colleagues,team teach and plan collaboratively.

Outcomes included the continuationo internal support roles, because o theirimpact on sta eectiveness as literacyteachers and the promotion o one othem to the role o deputy head.

Giving teachers the opportunity tocollaborate with colleagues on newapproaches demonstrated the value oreeing up eective teachers o writingto provide more peer-to-peer support.

Each school chose at least three o theour research strands to pursue with oneor more o their year groups.

The success o all research strandswas judged by their impact on pupiland teacher attitudes and on pupilachievements, both qualitatively and interms o accelerated progress throughNational Curriculum literacy sub-levels.

Teacher discrimination in where andhow to use, combine and separatedierent approaches, was undoubtedlythe most signifcant learning point.These approaches are only as goodas the teacher makes them.

The Writing is Primary programme


23/43

2 Writing is Primary 3The Writing is Primary programme


Worcester Cluster


Facilitator set up a CPD programmemodelled on the writing workshop todevelop teachers as writers.

Two schools Cherry Orchard and NunneryWood made this approach central to theirresearch and commissioned supplementarywriting CPD sessions.

Initial residential writing course or headsand lead literacy teachers at Lake Vyrnwyin Powys, ollowed by urther proessionaldevelopment sessions, run during theyear, or whole sta groups (in two casesincluding teaching assistants).

Sessions were oten themed andoccasionally resulted in illustratedpublications o the teachers own writing.

Developed practical strategies or whole-school approaches to writing.

One good example was the adoptiono working or writing walls, initially atNunnery Wood and then adopted by othersin the cluster.

Another was the establishment o writingspaces in school grounds, in collaborationwith visual artists.

Another was the publication o themed workby pupils and adults within the schools.

To identiy how teachers own potential aspractitioners and modellers o writing couldbest be realised and developed.

To determine how and whether teachersdeveloping greater skill as writers mightimprove classroom pedagogy.

For the two schools which embraced thisapproach, it demonstrated that teachingsta who enjoy writing, who understand theskills o writing, who have condence intheir own abilities as writers and who canshare all this with their pupils are able to

teach writing more eectively.By participating in this writing process,head teachers learned to spot qualitativeaspects o good practice t hat would improvethe teaching and learning o writing intheir schools.

To provide learning environments tostimulate writing.

All the schools ound ways to embed theunderstanding and process o writing intheir own school culture.

SchoolsCherry Orchard PrimaryNunnery Wood PrimaryRed Hill PrimaryWarndon Primary

The Worcester research cluster was acilitated by Sue Harries, a ormer teacher, head oeducation at Welsh National Opera, director o education at the Arts Council o GreatBritain and now reelance adviser and consultant. Literacy consultant, ormer head teacherand writer, Nikki Siegen-Smith provided a tailored CPD programme or head teachers andtheir sta.


24/43

Pory, pros& plyim piions

The children were able see that thewords dont just come straight tome and that I have silent momentswhen I need to think. This really

helped them to see me as a writer.


25/43

rhwo Hk

gy wts yod

rstf wt bow th tbt fs;

My boots st hs wod

Snowops

The sta ea snowops

Fa ent to the white snow apet

Fom whee the hope an happiness state

ud th s yo c s bck d wht k wh.

Yo c s k sottd jysh bm to y

doh. Yo c s y d bck shk swmm

sd to sd d bt hs tth

pt eth hs ot th F

Panet Eath has ot the u

Is thee a oto who knows what to o?

Its sneezin wate upon the an

cushin uiins into san.Its tempeatue is isin, its unin up

An no ie pak is o enouh.

How i it ath this via infetion?

It nees some pis o an injetion

To estoe its hamon an weath

Of eaut, aane an natua heath.

Hien Man of the Foest

lauhin, sinin, whistin,

Hien amounst the eaves.

Potetin, savin, ain,

benin into the ak.

Stain, ekonin, smiin,

Who is hee an thee?

Who is the auhte of the eaves?

Who is astin a spe on winte?

It is the kin of the foest,

Its the een man.


26/43

The Eveastin Wone

Thee is sai to e an isan whih hos the wos soows. Amist its steamin junes

an msteious wates is a tempe hoin a eat seet neve to e foun out. Its name,

Panoas box. Man have tie to eah this woneous item, ut have faie misea.

but one a a itte i foun hesef aout to hane this.

The ast thin Maia ha ememee was imin into e an fain aseep uthin a

eautifu nekae he anmothe ha iven he the a efoe she ie. litte i Maia

know what toues an unwante aventues this nekae wou ause.

The st one ha just eun. Maia woke up in on a eah as ouh as a hinos toenai.

As she ot up she notie he nekae. It ha hane. Instea of just one itte pink ea

on its ossame thea, thee wee two, one pink an one eautifu ue.

How? sai Maia quiet, amost a whispe.

I an answe, epie a voie as am as the oean on a sunn a. bewiee Maia

ooke up. Thee was no-one thee at a st ane, ut as she ooke hae a famiia fae

appeae.

ganmothe! sai Maia exite, Pease hep me!

He host ue uttee eve-so ose.

you have een hosen to ompete the quest of Panoas box, ou jo is to esto the

wethe thin sun-own. She ae, The eas wi potets ou, ou ant fai an

with that she isappeae.

So with that Maia set off unknowin what anes awaite he...

The re Tee

lauh an the wo auhs with ou, weep an ou weep aone. Whee oes this ine

fom Ea Wheee Wioxs poem t in with hiens iteatue an how oes one ook

ak open the seemin shamefu nut of epession in just a few paes? Shaun Tan

has poue a ook The Red Tree that ies eneations, ass an utua aies

aonsie utivatin a eautifu, et tene tanspaent pitue ook.

At the time of witin I have a twent-ea o son suffein fom epession an the ook

eas oth ike a ioaph an a seies of stis fom a ea-ife movie. It is pake with

imae fom the sma e eaf that appeas on eve pae to the famente wos thatae sattee ike the sti sma voie in in the wieness. c.S. lewis, autho of the

Nania chonies sai that pain is gos meaphone to the wo an I was emine

of this quote in the openin pae of this amazin ook. I tentative aske m son whih

imaes he ientie with an he ommente on the eep-sea ive an the sh that

oome ike a siniste, ak shaow ove the sma ue that wake the steets; hea

own, ees vitua ose.

The Red Tree wi appea to a visua eanes espeia those who ae suffein in siene;

unae to speak, o hea o fee. Fom time to time wos ae inaequate an at iuminates

ones of ou mins that ae othewise miste up in eness just ike the insie paes

of the ook. bein ast aift on that ims pape oat even fo a shot peio of time an

e a teifin expeiene an even thouh the e eaf is oatin iht in font of ou it

is awas at east one minute awa fom the timeess pesent tense that ou ae ivin in.

Most of the time it is in ane of sippin own the utte o ettin onfuse in a seies of

isjointe imaes that ae painfu two-imensiona, akin in oou an invaia out of

eah. yet it is thee nevetheess, aessin eah pae with a simpe mumu of expetation.

Unti ou eah the ast pae whee the sma e eaf has hane into an amazin tee

an has own so muh that it ifts ou ees upwas, azzin ou with its oou. The

est thin aout the ook is the wa that it aws its wa fom the akness to iht an

fom saness to hope in a seies of emotiona messe up imaes appeain to oth

hien an auts aike.

Not on wi I use it in m assoom ut eve now an aain, when I n msef waist eep

in faen eaves, I wi open its paes in m eoon an eet on its quiet messae of hope.


27/43

Dear Mr Harwood,We are writing to you to question the importance o playtimes

with our school, in particular in year 6. Children at primary school do notneed a playtime and, i anything, it is detrimental to childrens educationand saety

We hope that in this letter we have made it perectly clear why webelieve that playtimes should be banned in school. The act is that havinghappier children, happier teachers, and more lesson time can only havea positive impact on children, and these things put together can onlyenhance childrens learning and as a result, our SATs results. We thank you

in anticipation, or taking the time to read this letter, and look orward tohearing your response to these thoughts.

Yours sincerely,

Miss Williams, Mr Fenner & Mr McCarthy (Year 6 Teachers)

Dear Miss Williams, Mr Fenner & Mr McCarthy,It would appear that Year 6 have put together some very persuasive

arguments or retaining their break times. Although our intention was tomaximize opportunities or pupil learning, the measure could have had quitethe opposite eect and been quite detrimental

One o the most interesting points o view, which came overstrongly, was that break times are opportunities or children to internalisetheir learning. Many correspondents noted that there are limits to how muchyou can cram children with knowledge. Without well spaced breaks youngminds become overloaded and learning gains are lost

It is reassuring to me to discover that the eloquent and thoughtulpupils o our school value the same things as we do. The case or keepingbreak times is well made and I think that we need to rescind the decision tocancel them.

Yours sincerely

J. Harwood (Head Teacher)

extcts fom th Chy Ochd pytms tts ojct

Children need to burn o some energy and withoutplaytime they might overload with knowledge.

Socialising is as important asliteracy and numeracy, its a lie skill.

I strongly believe that we must have playtimeat least twice a day, because every child trulydeserves a un and healthy break or an excellenteducation.

Do you care about pupils health? Well i theydidnt have playtimes the the children wouldbecome obese. A healthy body equals a healthybrain, and a healthy brain produces excellent work.

I children dont learn to socialise,how will they cope at high schooland in later lie?

Do you want your teachers to be grumpy everyday?Because i you steal the right or children to have playtimes,the pupils will be chatty and the teachers will be cross.

I hope that in this letter I have made it perectly clear why Ibelieve playtimes should not be banned. I you recall last yearsSATs results, ours were one o the best in the city surely youdont want to jeopordise that?

Obesity rates will increase dramaticallywithout a playtime, I assure you.


28/43

3Findings

I used to eel nervous about sharing mywritten work with others yet writing alongsidethe children I have had to gain in confdenceto share. I now eel confdent to discuss stages

in the writing process with the children especially the tricky bits.

Words rom pupils and teaching sta involved in Writing is Primary Photos by Nikki Siegen-Smith


29/43

Writing is Primary

Feeling the eects

Summarising the outcomes

A eent initiative to inue auts as wites aonsie hien

has een patiua effetive in aisin ahievement. (Ofste epot,

Nunne Woo Pima Shoo, Woeste, Noveme 2008)

l

The most encouraging outcome o Writing is Primary was that it producedmeasurable increases in how enthusiastically schools, teaching sta andpupils engaged with the whole creative business o writing. Although, intrying to meet similar aims, each research cluster ollowed its own path andactivities varied rom school to school and teacher to teacher, the value oteachers (including head teachers) developing their skills as writers, as actionresearchers and as leaders in writing was amply demonstrated.

Both projects investigated to some degree a range o strategies to encouragebetter writing by pupils, rom guided writing to modelling writing, romproviding a stimulating or relaxing alternative to the ordinary classroom toinventing mnemonic slogans. Much o this research was carried out in theclassroom, in trying new things out with dierent age and ability groups.The inquiry also threw up unexpected practical solutions to problems aroundwriting the institution o writing (or working) walls to oreground the

importance o drating and redrating writing, or example, or designatinga new writing space in the school grounds to inspire pupils.

This section draws together a broad summary o outcomes in terms o pupillearning and achievement, teaching and learning strategies, leadership inwriting and proessional development.

Cpr 3Impacts and implications


30/43

Writing is Primary

o a more creative approach to teaching writing had contributed to raisedstandards o attainment and achievement. As a result o its ocus onimproving teaching strategies through nurturing teachers own writing skills,the research team at CCCU concluded that:

The impove expeienes the hien have, the inease in onstutive

itiism of thei wok, hihe eves of motivation towas witin, the

eviene that the moe invove the ae in the ontent an the eaeship

of thei witin, the moe the want to atten to tehnia aspets of

witin a ontiute to the inease ikeihoo of impove test esuts.

Clearer purpose

Teaching and learning strategies were also used to show pupils that writingcould have an impact on an audience. The example o a school in Bury usinglm as a way into writing had very encouraging results, particularly in the

way that viewing stimulated childrens imagination and emotions and helpedthem in writing narratives; it made descriptions, settings, characterisation andstory structure easier to teach. It helped them to see the development betweendierent parts o the story, rather than using the trick o a connective. Aboveall, perhaps, it gave pupils a reason to write, motivating them to plan, plot andsequence, work on and improve a piece o writing through several drats. Forthis reason, it proved the most supportive and inuential intervention in thatparticular school during the year o Writing is Primary.

More enjoyment

From writing letters o complaint to a head teacher threatening to curtailplaytime, to the novelty value (and calming eect) o candles and Mozartin the classroom, rom slogans and WOW words (vivid vocabulary) tosetting up a writers blogsite, the approaches taken during Writing is Primar yseem to have created not just more sustained and condent writing but greaterenjoyment, too. Such strategies as opening up multi-sensory experiences orgiving a greater purpose to writing than ullling a rote task or engaging witha real audience were successul in, as one teacher put it, reeing up the children

to let their ideas ow, without worrying about everything being correct.

Observing one approach in action, with a group o Year 3 and 4 pupils with thelowest attainment in literacy, one head teacher saw a proound change in thechildren:

The ae now fu enae with eanin, onentate fo an extene

peio an ea enjo the expeiene of witin an n it to e

ewain a istint ontast to the einnin of the aaemi ea.

The impact on pupil learning and achievement

Improved understanding

Many schools had identied a lacklustre response towards writing butound by the end o the year that pupils enjoyment and motivation hadgrown, whatever routes had been taken to improving teaching and learningstrategies. Simply making writing a school priority released energy andresources and ocused everyone - pupils as well as teachers - on making areal dierence over the year o action research. According to end-o-yearaudits and schools nal reports, pupils had developed a clear understandingthat improvement in writing meant rather more than better handwriting, asmany had believed at the beginning o the year. Writing now seemed morepurposeul and enjoyable.

Greater engagement

Schools observed considerable improvements in pupil engagement inwriting. A ew tried to quantiy this rom responses given in pupil audits andinterviews beore and ater the programme. One school that had ocusedon developing teachers own writing skills identied increased numbers ochildren who now perceived themselves as being good at writing (up bymore than ten per cent); o children who claimed to write or pleasure outsideschool (up by 24 per cent, a statistic backed up by comments rom parents);and o children who say that they enjoy writing (up by 22 per cent), especiallywhen they are given an element o choice in either what they write about, orwhich genre they can write in.

Pupils had more opportunity to think and talk, more access to real worldexperiences and more time to write, all o which increased their engagement.

Enhanced skills

A head teacher rom Bury was not alone in noting the improvement in pupils

writing skills as a result o the years work:Pupis ae enea ette equippe to wite with a eate aa of toos,

oth tehnia an imainative; the have eveope the appoahes the

nee to e oo wites. The ae ae to ene the use of witin skis to

math task, pupose an auiene with some aut uiane. This has esute

in impove poess ates. (Shoos na evauation epot, Api 2009)

Higher standards

Although Writing is Primary was not aimed at improving test results andalthough none o the schools judged the success o their activities on thatbasis, it seemed to many, by the end o the programme, that its encouragement

Impacts and implications


31/43

Writing is Primary

Whatever the particular local successes o implementing dierent strategies,the most signicant actor was not the strategy itsel but the way in which theindividual teacher used his or her judgement to decide where and how to usethat strategy. Such material is only as good as the teacher makes (and adapts)it a point reiterated throughout the sel-evaluations o teachers involved inWriting is Primary.

In the case o a school using lm to stimulate writing, or example, discerningselection o which material to use was critical and how it was used and thepurpose or using it needed careul thought, according to the head teacher.These approaches are, arguably, training wheels, to be removed when teacherscan cycle unaided. That some could already pedal independently is indicatedby a striking example o a teacher who helped children rom Years 5 and6 to use Picture the Music but withoutthe picture and withoutthe music.By personalising a teaching strategy and adapting to pupils needs, pupils

beneted in terms o enjoyment and achievement (children are oten goodat telling when a teacher is simply going through the motions, particularlysomebody elses).

Whatever works

With teachers and whole schools at dierent stages o condence and skill inwriting, Writing is Primary had to be a big church, welcoming all. Eclecticismwas a given: part o the whole point o this action research was to try all kindso things, and to see i one or maybe two actual

action research on the teaching of writing

Documents