End of Award Report: Children's Linguistic and Compositional Processes in Writing

Background

Understanding of children’s reading processes and pedagogical approaches are considerably more theorised and clearly articulated than a pedagogy for writing. This is, in part, because research in writing is a relatively young field of enquiry, but also because what research there is has been bounded by three disciplines: psychological investigations into cognitive processes in writing; linguistic analyses of writing development; or socio-cultural accounts of writing as social practice. It is the latter domain which has been most influential in shaping classroom practices in the teaching of writing. Yet both psychology and linguistics provide powerful lenses through which to consider the teaching of writing and this study has attempted to investigate writing through a multidisciplinary theoretical framework which combines the three perspectives.

In recent years, linguists have sought to explore how ‘the linguistic form contributes to and shapes the meaning intended by the speaker/writer' (Kress 1994). Perera’s seminal studies of primary children’s writing (1984; 1987) and later, Kress's (1994) work, aimed to provide a ‘linguistic account’ of learning to write, in contrast to prevailing psychological or literary perspectives. Beyond this, there is relatively little systematic exploration of the linguistic characteristics of children’s writing, especially at the secondary level: as Perera (1987) notes: 'knowledge about the later stages of acquisition is slight in comparison with the considerable amount of information that has been accumulated about the first three years’. Consequently, precise understanding of development in writing in this older age group is poorly theorised. Previous research by the Principal Applicant (QCA 1999, Myhill 1999) began to investigate linguistic differences between writers, and this study seeks to contribute to Collins and Gentner's (1980) call for the development of 'a linguistic theory of good structures for sentences, paragraphs, and texts’ which would have ‘direct implications for the teaching of writing’.

However, linguistic production is an outcome of both social and cognitive processes, and understanding composing processes as they occur in the classroom is central to a more fully conceptualised pedagogical theory of writing. The principal psychological models of writing (Hayes and Flowers 1980; Berninger and Swanson 1994) draw attention, with differing emphases, to the sequential, but recursive quality of the writing process. Common to all models is the framing of writing as involving planning, translating and revision stages and a recognition of writing as a problem-solving task involving 'the act of juggling a number of simultaneous constraints’ (Hayes and Flower 1980). These constraints can be external, such as the nature of the writing task, the intended audience, or internal, such as knowing what to say and how to say it (Sharples 1999). The recursive interaction of revision with planning and translating ideas into words on the page is identified by Berninger, Fuller and Whittaker (1996) as a feature of the writing process in skilled writers, but they note that ‘in beginning and developing writers, each of these processes is still developing and each process is on its own trajectory, developing at its own rate.’ Although Alamargot and Chanquoy (2001) include linguistic knowledge as one of the four knowledge domains utilised during the writing process, there is limited empirical enquiry into how that linguistic knowledge is deployed during writing in the secondary classroom.

Objectives

The specific objectives of the study were to:

• analyse linguistic characteristics of children’s writing at sentence and text level in more depth than existing research

• explore compositional processes in secondary age writers, which will illuminate the extent to which the use of linguistic features is conscious or automatic; and at what stages in the process writers are attending to shaping these features.

• articulate the linguistic differences in writing attributable to age, achievement, gender or task variables

• describe the composing process as it is manifest in the classroom.

Each of the objectives has been met and the findings are discussed later in this report.

Methods The methodological rationale and research design was deliberately constructed with the multidisciplinary perspectives shaping the theoretical framework of the study in mind. Kress (1994) critiques traditional linguistics research for not providing ‘the theoretical and methodological tools either for the analysis of writing … or for the analysis and understanding of the developmental processes and stages in the learning of writing'. Perera (1984), too, noted that there is no clearly defined theory of grammatical complexity and in her work on primary writers’ development, she looked at the sequence in which children acquired the ability to use different grammatical constructions in their writing. But there is no parallel linguistic account for older writers, and Hudson (2004) has argued that applied linguistics research has not always provided 'accessible descriptions of relevant language systems' for practitioners and policy-makers to use: it is the intention of this study is to redress this deficit. Linguistic processing in writing is a meaning-making activity, in which developing writers draw variously on their linguistic and cultural resources to communicate. Accordingly, the linguistic analysis in this study combines quantitative exploration of linguistic features with qualitative investigations of effect and meaning-making.

Psychological research into writing processes has also been criticised for its lack of relevance and applicability to educational settings. Its concern for objectivity, replicability, and nomothetic explanation leads to a preference for experimental design models of research, in which the variables are sometimes so carefully controlled that ecological validity is severely impaired. In particular, much psychological research into writing processes is conducted outside the classroom in laboratory settings, and there is limited robust enquiry conducted in naturalistic settings. The adoption of think-aloud protocols as the principal means of eliciting data about writers’ composing processes is also problematic: as Kellogg notes (1994), think-aloud protocols may actually interfere with the processes they purport to capture. The need to articulate thinking, at the same time as thinking about what to write and translating those ideas into written form, places additional demand on the working memory and may create cognitive overload which disrupts or alters the natural writing process. Conversely, qualitative educational research into writing has sometimes lacked methodological rigour, relying instead on anecdotal description in which classroom observation is represented as research, as Smagorinsky (1987) has argued. Critiquing the work of Graves in particular, he notes that they 'focus on

certain students and observe them intensely, recording their behaviour in a narrative string of anecdotes’ and they do not look for ‘negative evidence of their hypotheses’. With these critiques in mind, this study deliberately examines writers in naturalistic settings, in the classroom, and investigated composing processes through focused observation of children writing, followed by post hoc stimulated recall interviews with the writers.

Nonetheless, neither the methods for linguistic analysis nor those for the enquiry into composing processes are unproblematic. Firstly, the linguistic analysis adopts predetermined categories of investigation, albeit based on previous research, which may obscure other significant patterns of linguistic deployment. Secondly, the naturalistic context for the observations and interviews creates greater variations in task and context than would an experimental design; and the presence of an observer may also have had an impact on the writing processes observed. Despite these limitations, however, the goal of this study was to conduct research which, as Lagemann (2002) argues, generates usable knowledge which is applicable, transmissible, embodied in professional practice, and which has the potential to make a difference.

Overview of the research design: The first stage of the study was a systematic desk analysis of writing samples for their linguistic characteristics at sentence and text level, building on existing methodology (QCA 1999). The second stage involved a sub-sample of these writers, with classroom observations of their patterns of behaviour during the writing process, and interviews with the same writers about their understanding of the choices they have made. The findings of the first stage informed the observations and interviews in the second stage.

The sample: The sample of 718 pieces of writing for stage 1 was drawn from six schools in order to secure the necessary stratification by year group, gender and writing achievement. The original intention had been to draw the sample from three schools, using mixed ability year 8 and year 10 groups, but different setting practices and gender arrangements made this impossible. The writing sample was taken from classes using written work which had been given a National Curriculum level in year 8 and a GCSE grade in Year 10. To make the writing samples as comparable as possible, within normal classroom constraints, clear parameters were given for the choice of writing to be used. One piece was narrative, based on personal experience; and the second piece was persuasive writing, expressing an opinion or making an argument. The sample was stratified by text type, gender, year group and the quality of the writing: in year 8, the sample comprised levels 4, 5 and 6; and in year 10 comprised grades A*/A, B/C, and D/E. The Project Director read each piece of writing to check the accuracy of levels/grades awarded.

The study involved the collaborative participation of English teachers in four South-West schools, drawing on a mix of rural/urban catchments. In each school, one teacher joined the research team, and was trained in the observation and interview techniques, and participated in the data collection in stage 2. This teacher also supported the process of gathering the writing samples in stage 1, and arranging observation access to classrooms in stage 2. In stage 2, a sub-sample of writers from Stage 1 in these four schools were selected for the case study observations and interviews. The observations were timed to coincide with normal classroom opportunities for writing, and the teachers involved were asked to select lessons for observation where writing was the teaching focus and where there would be at least 15 minutes of continuous writing. The intention was to observe and interview 24

pupils three times: however, it became evident that three observations/interviews might be susceptible to research wastage through absence or timetable alterations. So it was decided to increase the number of pupils in the sample and aim for at least two observations/interviews with each. In the event, this proved a wise decision as absence was a problem, particularly with the lower ability pupils. The final data set comprises 71 interviews with 34 children, 17 each from years 9 and 11. Most children were interviewed at least twice, and some were interviewed three times. Although appropriately stratified by gender and year group, the sample includes more high ability pupils, partly because of the greater tendency towards absence of the lower ability pupils and partly because of the setting arrangements of the particular classes involved.

The analysis of the writing samples: Each writing sample was word-processed for ease of analysis. The investigation into the linguistic features of writing at sentence level was conducted upon a sample of 100 words from each piece of writing, using a Sentence Level Coding Framework (Appendix A) which modified that used in a previous research study for the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA 1999). Examples of the linguistic features were collected as well as counts, and an open-ended response box allowed for qualitative comments. The Paragraph and Textual Organisation Coding Framework (Appendix B) was applied to the whole text and involved making coding judgments about paragraphing patterns, and analysing the topical organisation and division of paragraphs. A qualitative response sheet (Appendix C) was also completed. A final layer of analysis was undertaken using the Readability statistics facility in Microsoft Word, which allowed the retrieval of text output data.

The coding was undertaken by the Project Director and two part-time linguists. The three coders undertook careful piloting and training prior to beginning the coding process to ensure coder reliability and a batch of 30 scripts were double-coded to allow a further check on coder reliability.

The classroom observations and interviews: The observations and interviews with case study pupils were conducted during timetabled English lessons. The observation data was collected using an annotated timeline which captured the time spent pausing or writing, and the writing behaviour which was observed, such as crossing out, fiddling with pen or looking around the room. The timeline also captured the relationship between the text being written and the time, allowing subsequent examination of the text in tandem with the timeline.

A semi-structured interview schedule (Appendix D) was used, in the form of a conversation focused upon the piece of writing produced by the pupil, and using the observation data as a prompt to draw out reflections on their composing processes and whether explicit linguistic choices had been made. The schedule sought to elicit choices made at sentence level, particularly about sentence shaping, and choices about paragraph organisation as the stage 1 analysis highlighted these as salient areas to explore.

Data analysis: A purpose-designed database was created for the coding data, and statistical analysis undertaken using SPSS. The collation of examples in the database, and the qualitative response sheets allowed further qualitative analysis of features and exemplification of the findings.

The annotated timelines were analysed by entering the pause times and writing times into an EXCEL spreadsheet and using this to investigate and compare patterns of

writing. Specific explorations were made of writing behaviour at the start of the writing task, the number of write-pause transitions per episode, and the distribution of writing and pausing through the writing period.

The interviews were analysed using NViVO, using an iterative process, involving the Project Director and Research Fellow jointly coding some interviews as a starting point, then coding separately, then returning to joint checking of the coding, and adjustment of the codes. When all the interviews had been coded, every code was re-checked by the Project Director and Research Fellow working together, and this stage included a final refining of the definition for each code.

Results The analysis of the writing samples highlighted that the most significant differences in linguistic features deployed were revealed when the quality of writing was the key variable – supporting the theory that, even in these older writers, it is possible to articulate a theory of writing development through a linguistic frame.

At sentence level, average and good writers demonstrated greater confidence in managing to generate and deploy longer sentences effectively though average writing was more prone to coherence lapses, possibly a consequence of ambition in writing not yet matched by control. The presence of both subordinate and co­ordinate clauses increases with decreasing quality, with the corresponding implication that good writing is characterised by the presence of more simple sentences, or by less chaining of clauses than less accomplished writing. The parallel finding that good writing is associated with lower use of finite verbs indicates that sentence structure in good writing is syntactically elaborated beyond simple subject-verb patterns, for example by greater use of adjectives, adverbs or non-finite clauses. Present participle non-finite clauses feature more widely in good writing. A further finding was that the type of subordinators used varied according to writing quality, with common temporal and causal subordinators (when, because, if) and the non-standard subordinator like being more frequent in weaker writing. Conversely, subordinators such as as, how; before; although; while; how much; and therefore were more common in good writing.

The syntactical structure of sentences also presented significant differences: the better the piece of writing, the less likely it is to use a subject opening to a sentence. The use of an adverbial sentence start was a feature of the best writing in year 8 and average writing in year 10. This appears to suggest that using an adverbial is a development feature: writers move from simple subject openings to varying the opening with the use of an adverbial, but more able writers have a greater repertoire of opening strategies and decrease their use of adverbials. The likelihood of a non-finite clause sentence start increased with the quality of writing. The pattern was evident in both year 8 and year 10 but it was only significant in year 10, suggesting that the non-finite clause might be one of the increased repertoire of sentence openings in good writing which accounts for the lower incidence of the adverbial in good writing in year 10. Altering the syntactical structure of the sentence through a subject-verb inversion was also a marker of good writing, as was the use of passive constructions.

At text level, good writing was longer than weaker writing, with more and longer paragraphs. Competence in paragraphing predictably increased with achievement, but the analysis provides more fine-grained understanding of development. Strong topical organization with a logical order to the paragraphing characterized good writing, but the use of topic sentences was equally strong in average and good writing. As paragraph length extends with the quality of writing, so the difficulty in

managing paragraphing increases and both average and good writing sometimes drifted off topic within paragraphs, and good writing sometimes presented paragraphs which required further subdivision. Because weak writing was often unparagraphed or poorly paragraphed with many short paragraphs, there was less opportunity to drift off topic or need to subdivide paragraphs further. Confidence in linkage between paragraphs increased with ability, but average writers were more reliant on temporal and place adverbials, and determiners than good writers, who accessed a wider repertoire of linking devices. Devising effective endings to a text appears to be more problematic for weak writers, as although quality increased with achievement, average writing used a range of ending techniques, which were also evident in good writing.

Comparisons at sentence level indicated few differences between boys’ and girls’ writing. Girls tended to have shorter sentences than boys and to make greater use of finite verbs, whilst boys’ writing presented more coherence lapses than girls’ writing, possibly because of the use of longer sentences. There were more gender differences evident at text level. Boys’ paragraphing was more competent than girls, and was more likely to have good topical organization and use a topic sentence. Their paragraphs were also longer than girls, which probably accounts for their greater propensity to drift off topic within a paragraph or to need further sub-division. There were differences in linking strategies between paragraphs, with boys making greater use of manner adverbials, and links through verbal repetition, synonyms or hyponomy. Likewise, boys’ endings made greater use of thematic links with the opening and with previous paragraphs, of verbal repetition and of codas. Their endings were more likely to be judged good or weak, with girls being more likely to write satisfactory endings. Curiously, given the concern for boys’ underachievement, many of the patterns of difference in boys’ writing mirror the patterns of good writing. Overall, however, the principal outcome of gender comparisons is that linguistic performance does not appear to be strongly influenced by gender, particularly at sentence level.

Comparisons by year group highlight contrasting trajectories of development for sentence and text level. In broad terms, the differences in sentence level characteristics between years 8 and 10 mirror the weakàgood writing patterns: it appears that children’s sentence control continues to develop between year 8 and year 10, and some of the features of good writing in year 8 are features of average writing in year 10. In terms of paragraphing and textual organization, however, the analysis discloses a more complex picture. There were few differences, suggesting that there is little further development in paragraphing at this age. However, year 10 writing was significantly different in being characteristically longer texts with longer sentences, which may mean that the level of difficulty in managing paragraphing and textual organization over a more extended piece of writing may account for the apparent lack of development. It may also point to less pedagogical confidence in supporting increased accomplishment in paragraphing and text organization once basic paragraphing control has been attained.

The interviews revealed that these children did indeed have explicit understanding of their own composing processes and could articulate thinking about the writing process with discernment. The prompt interview questions were very open-ended, but the table of codes (Appendix E) indicates the rich variety of categories which emerged, and the breadth of collective understanding it represents. However, able and average writers were better able to describe their own writing processes than weak writers who, in some cases, struggled with the level of metacognitive understanding required, and who in general were less expansive than their more able peers.

Their descriptions of how they generated ideas for writing indicate a diversity of processes. Whilst some children were aware of explicit strategies they used to generate ideas, such as visualising (14%), imagining (16%), using their own experience (20% ) or prior knowledge of that kind of writing (25%), others were conscious that ideas just seemed to come unbidden, as an inspiration (27%): as one writer put it, ‘an idea suddenly comes into my head… It must just be a thinking process'. A further 23% of interviewees referred to using writing to generate ideas, almost as a strategy for seeking inspiration: ‘I just decided, start and see if I got any ideas when I started writing'. Whilst approximately a third of interviewees made no reference to planning at all, the remaining young writers were divided between those who used written plans (38%) to support the process and those who spoke of mental planning (31%), an advance organisation of ideas in their head. Over half of all interviewed commented on their sense of textual overview: 31% know where their text is going from the start, whilst 23% write without a clear view of the whole.

Responses which referred to translating ideas into text indicate strongly that these writers are more concerned with local coherence during the process of writing than with global coherence. 58% of children were aware that they focused on the next idea during pauses in writing, whilst only 4% thought about the whole text. Some writers described periods of flow (28%), where they wrote fluently, and others described their thinking during pauses. For some, the pauses were forward-thinking, focused on generating the next idea, but for many the pauses were about shaping the writing appropriately (which will be discussed in more detail below). It was evident that, although 31% of interviewees were conscious of deliberate postponement of revision until the writing was complete, many of the writers were employing revision processes during the period of writing. A number of the interviewees explicitly referred to re-reading their texts as a general revision strategy (17%); and further comments were made about re-reading to proof-read (20%) or to check the meaning of what they had written (23%). Changes made during writing were prompted by feelings of dissatisfaction with what had been written (18%) and a desire to make the text better (20%), or to sound better (24%).

Insight into children’s knowledge of explicit linguistic choices made in writing was derived both from the questions about composing processes, and the specific questions focused on the text produced. There was considerable evidence that children were making explicit choices and could articulate the problems they were attempting to resolve, though it was less common for these choices to be expressed in precise linguistic terms, and less confidence describing linguistic choices than composing processes. Children described making changes to the evolving text during writing through adding description (15%) or adding additional text (21%), or to avoid repetition (20%). 34% of all interviewees showed awareness of design choices, the need to try to shape text for effect, or as one girl wryly expressed it: ‘when I’m pausing between sentences, unless I’m thinking about the weekend, I’m sort of thinking about how to phrase it’. These design choice comments include those children who were aware they were struggling to make appropriate choices: ‘sometimes I know exactly what I want to say, but I just can’t think of a good way to phrase it'. For a small number, this desire to find the right way to express an idea was evident in their oral rehearsal of phrases and sentences in their head, before writing them down.

When considering the texts produced during the lesson, many children were able to describe the choices they had made without using linguistic terminology. Sometimes this involved specific choices made about vocabulary for a purpose. Indeed, the data indicates that choices made at word level appear to be the most conscious choices

made, with 65% of interviewees referring to vocabulary decisions. Pauses during writing were frequently a search for the ‘right word’ and revision during writing most often involved changing a word. In some cases, this was increasing formality by altering a word (‘Instead of using ‘happened’, I used ‘occurred.’) or choosing descriptions for particular effects:

'Here it says, ‘he crunched the pebbles together on his beautiful polished leather shoes,’ and I was trying to also link polished leather shoes with the inspector because they always like to look right…they kind of want to look posh and make a good appearance.'

However, some of these writers were also able to describe explicit linguistic choices, sometimes with appropriate metalanguage, such as beginning with a rhetorical question to ‘draw the reader in so if they read that then the parents don’t want their child to suffer from stress so they’ll read on', or ‘using short sentences’ to mimic the style of a young child writing. At sentence level, some writers were making deliberate syntactical alterations such as ‘moving clauses around, because I tend to get my sentences the wrong way around’ or being aware of repetitive sentence structures: ‘the sentences, they all seem to follow the same pattern so I need to change it around to make it more interesting'. There was a direct relationship in these incidences of explicit linguistic knowledge between the understanding expressed and having been taught this by a teacher, which suggests that well-focused and purposeful teaching of linguistic characteristics can reap benefits. In some cases, the teacher’s input in the lesson observed was referred to: ‘I kind of used our teacher’s idea for the second piece - to begin with a short snappy opening'. At other times, it was a recollection of previous teaching, as evident in the boy was thinking about ‘sentence structure … because I remember I did one about descriptive writing, trying to build up tension.’ However, it was also evident that teaching linguistic terminology also led to some children using explicit terminology without corresponding understanding. One writer argued that he had used complex sentences to make his writing better, but when probed to articulate why this made his writing better, admitted: ‘I know, like, that you get a better grade, but I don’t actually know, like, why they’re better’.

The interviewees’ responses make clear that for many of them the linguistic decision-making, be it explicitly phrased in linguistic terms or not, occurs simultaneously with text production. They are thinking about how to frame their texts as they write, combining production and revision, as the writer below expresses:

'Yeah, I sort of wrote the ‘slid the key into the hole, I slowly turned it’ and then I thought I could like, I paused and I thought I could put something in … and then I put ‘so slowly you couldn’t hear.’

But for some writers, including the 15% who said they made no choices during writing, the text produced is an outcome of unconscious rather than conscious processes. For these writers, writing ‘mostly just happens’, ‘it just kind of comes as it comes', and the writer’s ‘brain sort of…automatically frames how the sentence is going to work'. For this latter writer, this appears to involve explicit linguistic knowledge which has become internalised: ‘I just subconsciously know that if you put the verb here then it makes it seem more angry or more colloquial or whatever than if you put it in the normal place'.

The study’s detailed analysis of linguistic characteristics provides substance for Collins and Gentner’s (1980) belief that it is possible to provide a linguistic theory of good structures at sentence and text level. From the data, it has been possible to

devise a Model of Linguistic Development (Appendix F) for secondary-aged writers, which has implications for linguistic theory and for policy. Accepted views of progression in the National Strategy, for example, assume writers need to become more adept with complex sentences, whereas as understanding the role of simple sentences might be more appropriate. The development model also has pedagogical implications, providing a more theoretically-justified account of what might be taught when. The observations and interviews illustrate children’s considerable metacognitive awareness of their composing processes and reveals that substantial shaping of ideas occurs during the writing process, rather than post hoc. Explicit linguistic knowledge is expressed with less confidence: though there are those who do so with precision, there are more who can articulate the choices made without use of linguistic terminology. Gombert (1992) has argued that epilinguistic awareness, where knowledge is evident but metalanguage not acquired, precedes metalinguistic awareness, suggesting that these children are on metalinguistic developmental trajectories. Certainly, the evidence of a strong relationship between appropriate metalinguistic awareness of choices made and taught input challenges the argument that there is no value in teaching grammar to improve writing.

Activities

2004. EARLI Writing SIG, Geneva: Linguistic Maturation in the Development of the Sentence’

2005. EARLI Biennial Conference, Nicosia: ‘Metacognitive Awareness of Writing Processes’

2005 BERA Annual Conference, Glamorgan: ‘Sentenced to Death'

2006 Outputs

• Maun, I and Myhill, D (2005) Text as Design, Writers as Designer. English in Education

• Myhill, D (2005) Ways of Knowing: Writing with Language in Mind English Teaching: Practice and Critique (forthcoming)

• 2003/4 ESRC Research Seminar: Reconceptualising Writing (joint co­ordinator)

Impacts We anticipate the principal impacts to be forthcoming (see Section 2 of EoA Form), but the Principal Applicant’s work on this study and its grammatical/linguistic focus has led to regular invitations to speak about grammar or the critical aspects of English teaching, including two national events organised by QCA for English 21, looking at the future of English teaching, and numerous INSET courses with teachers.

Future Research Priorities Further investigations of:

1. teaching contexts which support the development of metalinguistic design choices in writing;

2. whether developing metalinguistic and metacognitive awareness about composition has an impact upon progression and development in writing;

3. the impact of purposeful grammar teaching on pupils’ writing.

REFERENCES

Alamargot, D and Chanquoy, L 2001 Through the Models of Writing Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers

Berninger, V W and Swanson, H L. 1994 Modification of the Hayes and Flower model to explain beginning and developing writing in E Butterfield (ed) Advances in Cognition and Educational Practice Vol 2 Children’s writing: towards a process theory of development of skilled writing Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Berninger, V W, Fuller, F and Whittaker, D 1996 A Process model of Writing Development across the Lifespan Educational Psychology Review 8 (3) 193-217

Collins, A and Gentner, D 1980 A Framework for a Cognitive Theory of Writing in Gregg, L.W. and Steinberg, E. R Cognitive Processes in Writing New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale.

Gombert, J. E. (1992). Metalinguistic development. Hemel Hempstead, UK: Harvester-Wheatsheaf.

Hayes, J. R. and Flower, L.S. 1980 Identifying the Organisation of Writing Processes in Gregg, L.W. and Steinberg, E. R. Cognitive Processes in Writing NewJersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale.

Hudson, R 2004 Why Education needs Linguistics. Journal of Linguistics 40 (1) 105-130

Kellogg, R 1994 The Psychology of Writing Oxford University Press

Kress, Gunter, 1994 Learning to Write London: Routledge

Lagemann E C 2002 An Elusive Science: The Troubling History of Education Research Chicago: University of Chicago Press

Perera, K 1987 Understanding Language London: NAAE

Perera, K 1984 Children’s Reading and Writing Oxford: Blackwell.

QCA 1999 Improving Writing London: QCA

Sharples, M 1999 How We Write: Writing as Creative Design London: Routledge

Smagorinsky, P 1987 Graves Revisited: A look at the methods and conclusions of the New Hampshire study. Written Communication 14 (4) 331-342

CODING FRAME FOR 100 WORD SAMPLE: SENTENCE ANALYSIS IDENTIFIER YEAR GENDER GRADE TEXT TYPE

Feature No. Examples Number of sentences

Number of words in shortest sentence Number of words in longest sentence Minor sentences Clauses Number of finite verbs Number of finite subordinate clauses List the subordinators Number of coordinate clauses List the co-ordinators Non-finite clause:

o Infinitive

• Present participle

• Past participle

Sentence Openings Subject Adverbial Non-finite clause Finite subordinate clause Fronting Cleft sentence Syntactical structures Subject Verb inversions Subject clauses Noun phrases:

• length of longest noun phrase

Lexical density: number of lexical items Coherence lapse è coding problem Other comments: (problems; interesting features etc)

CODING FRAME FOR PARAGRAPHING AND TEXT ORGANISATION IDENTIFIER YEAR GENDER GRADE TEXT TYPE

Feature No. Examples Paragraphing (Tick one box only) No paragraphs

Partially paragraphed (unsustained) Inconsistent/inappropriate paragraphing One sentence per paragraph Generally appropriate paragraphing Appropriate paragraphing Is dialogue or quotation used? YES/NO Topical organisation Indicate number of paragraphs showing this

feature Organised by topic Use of topic sentence Topical but tendency to drift off topic Topical but tendency to need further subdivision Logical order to the paragraphs YES/NO Linking devices between paragraphs

Give number and list all examples

Temporal adverbials Ordinal adverbials Place adverbials Manner adverbials Additive adverbials Adversative adverbials Causal adverbials

Indicate number of occurrences Thematic link Thematic shift Repetition of a word or phrase Repetition of a proper noun Synonym Hyponym/hypernym Pronoun (anaphoric) Determiner Ending Tick all boxes that are appropriate Thematic link with previous paragraphs o Thematic links with opening o Verbal repetition or synonyms of opening

o

Repetition of a proper noun in opening o Summary, conclusion or resolution o Deliberate ambiguity o Coda or comment on theme o Quality of the ending WEAK o SATISFACTORY

o STRONG o

QUALITATIVE COMMENTS ON WHOLE TEXT IDENTIFIER YEAR GENDER GRADE TEXT TYPE

Genre Appropriacy

Reader-writer relationship

Text Organisation

Other comments

COMPOSING PROCESS Comments which relate to the process of writing Generating ideas

Comments which refer to how children get their ideas, either before they start writing; or during writing.

Inspiration Comments which refer to ideas coming unbidden and unprompted; popping into your head.

Mental planning Comments which refer to thinking about what to write before writing; either as a mental pre-writing plan; or as an oral rehearsal of the next sequence of ideas.

Re-reading Comments which refer to re-reading text in order to generate new

ideas; distinguish from re-reading in Revision which is a revision process; and from re-reading to sustain which is a flow process.

Prior knowledge Comments which refer to prior knowledge of the genre or a particular teaching focus.

Writing to generate Comments which refer to writing in order to discover what to say; just writing

Written planning Comments which refer to planning on paper before writing, either partially or fully; not the same as mental planning.

Knowing where you are going

Comments which refer to having a sense of where the text is going; an overview; a sense of the whole.

Not knowing where you are going

Comments which refer to having no sense of the whole text, or where the text is leading.

Using own experience Comments which refer to using own experience as a stimulus for what to write.

Imagining Comments which refer to imagining, the imagination, empathy, or getting yourself into a role in order to generate ideas.

Visualising Comments which refer to visualising a scene or situation, to seeing pictures in order to generate ideas.

Translating This sub-category covers all comments relating to the act of capturing ideas on the page; the translating stage

Getting stuck All comments referring to getting stuck Experience Comments which describe the experience of being stuck Strategies Comments which describe strategies for getting unstuck

Getting started

Comments which relate to the process of getting started

Task rep­resentation

Comments which show the writer represents the task to him/herself before or during writing: thinking about content and form; audience and purpose

Strategy Comments which refer to strategies for getting started Content knowledge

Comments which refer to the impact of knowing or not knowing the content or topic on flow

Next idea Comments which show writers pausing to think about what to write next; the next sentence or paragraph, not the whole text

Whole text Comments which show writers pausing to think about the whole text Stop start Comments which refer to stopping and starting patterns in writing

(shorter than getting stuck) Oral rehearsal Comments which refer to practising, thinking through or saying aloud

a sentence or several sentences in your head before writing Continuation

Comments which refer to the ease or difficulty of continuing writing in class after a break in lessons.

Flow Comments which refer to flow ‘just writing’ Drifting Comments which refer to drifting off task Time Comments which refer to impact of time allowed on writing flow Design Choices

Comments which refer to pausing in order to make design choices; thinking about how to do something.

Spelling Comments which refer to pausing during writing to think about spelling Revision All comments which refer to judging and making changes to the text,

either during writing flow, or afterwards Reading All comments which refer to reading in order to revise text

Revision strategy

Comments which refer to reading back over the text as a revision strategy

Proof reading

Comments which refer to reading for missed words, accuracy, and punctuation

Reading for meaning

Comments which refer to revising to check that what is written makes sense, has an appropriate impact.

Repetition Comments which refer to revising text to avoid repetition; or to repeat for effect.

Adding descrip-tion

Comments which refer to revising text to add in more description

Write first think later

Comments which refer to the habit of writing, then revising afterwards not as you go along.

Crossing out Comments which answer questions about crossing out; references to crossing out decisions made.

Sounding better

Comments which refer to revising text to make it sound better; emphasis on sound.

Making it better

Comments which refer to revising text to make it better; get it right

Dissatisfaction Comments which refer to not liking what has been written; unhappy with work; it ‘not being right’ – but distinct from sounding right.

Adding text Comments which refer to adding things to a text, e.g. to add detail Redrafting Comments on redrafting processes; distinct from revision as you write.

LINGUISTIC UNDERSTANDING

This category refers to all examples of comments which demonstrate implicit or explicit understanding of linguistic choices or features; and any misunderstandings.

Senten ce

Comments on sentence level choices.

Evaluating effectiveness

Comments which show writers thinking about how a sentence is phrased for impact; may not be articulated as an explicit decision.

Complex sentences Comments about complex, compound or simple sentences. Formulaic phrases Comments which show awareness of formulaic phrases eg ‘I look forward to

hearing from you’; or formulaic argument phrases ‘on the other hand’ etc. Explicit choices Comments which show an explicit choice being made about a sentence eg use

of rhetorical questions; putting a word at the front for emphasis; starting with an adverb; using a short sentence for effect etc

Not making choices Comments which suggest that choices at sentence level are not being explicitly made.

Word Comments about word level choices made. Formal vocabulary Comments about the use of formal language. Word choice Comments about word choices made; or comments which show that a word

level choice was made. Text Comments about textual rganizedon; text type; the whole text.

Endings Comments in response to the question about endings; comments about endings in general.

Paragraph shifts Comments about when to change paragraphs; or about how paragraphs are rganized.

Evaluating Comments which are evaluative about the whole text; often in response to the question about what would you improve or what don’t you like.

Form focus

Comments which reflect on the form of a text; genre features; linguistic features, its impact and effects; HOW to write it.

Content focus

Comments which focus on what the text is about, the ideas, WHAT to say.

Awareness of effect Comments which show awareness of how different choices can create an effect. Opening Comments about openings; and comments in response to the question about

openings. Task awareness Comments which show awareness of the task demand; often in response to a

question about ‘How would you explain this?’ Metalanguage Comments which use explicit linguistic or literary terminology; and comments

which explain what they mean.

ATTITUDES TO WRITING

Description

Writing dislikes

Comments about different kinds of writing they dislike

Story Narrative; fiction; news reports; recounts Argument Argument; persuasion; literary critical essay Poetry Poetry; song lyrics Description Specific reference to descriptive writing; non-specific genre; also include any

'creative' writing; highly visual writing Factual Specific reference to factual writing; also include any non-fiction text other than

argument eg letters Writing likes Comments on types of writing liked

Categories as for Dislikes

Control A catch all heading to capture comments relating to what makes writing easy, difficult, or enjoyable; and their perception of their own writing ability. In the sub­categories responses may be negative or positive.

Constraint Comments about restrictions or imposed requirements on a writing task Writing at home Comments about home literacy practices Self-perception Comments which express view of self as a good or bad writer Freedom Comments about freedom to write what you want; open-ended tasks; broad

choice of task or topic. Enjoyment Comments about enjoyment or lack of it, often expanding on stated genre

likes/dislikes; includes impact of topic choice. Ease Comments which refer to ease or difficulty in writing.

OTHER Audience examiner Comments which refer to an awareness of the examiner as the audience Audience prompted Comments which are in direct response to a question about audience/reader: include

the question Audience unprompted Comments which refer to the audience or reader but which were not directly solicited. Benefit of talking Comments about the process of talking ABOUT writing; metacognitive thinking.

Response to the final question. Teacher effect Comments which refer to teaching points made, to personal targets objectives, to

exams, or to task objectives.

A MODEL OF LINGUISTIC DEVELOPMENT IN SECONDARY PUPILS WEAK AVERAGE GOOD

SENTENCE LEVEL

Length and control

shorter words

shorter sentences

some coherence lapses

longer words

longer sentences

fewer coherence lapses Clauses greater use of multiply-claused

sentences

more compound sentences than complex

use of common temporal and causal subordinators (when; because; if)

use of non-standard ‘like'

similar nos. of compound and complex sentences

some simple sentences

fewer compound than complex sentences;

use of wider repertoire of subordinators (eg as; how; before; although; while; therefore)

no use of non-standard ‘like'

Sentence expansion

heavy use of finite verbs fewer finite verbs

more present participle clauses

greater elaboration around the finite verb Syntactical variety

reliance on subject to open sentence

few subject-verb inversions

few passive constructions

greater use of adverbials to open sentences, as well as subject

greater use of non-finite clauses and adverbials to open sentences

more subject-verb inversions

greater use of passive constructions

TEXT LEVEL

Length shorter texts

fewer paragraphs

shorter paragraphs

longer paragraphs

longer texts

more paragraphs

Paragraphing

Competence

no paragraphing; or partial; inconsistent or one sentence paragraphing

generally appropriate paragraphing

appropriate paragraphing

Topical organization

weaker topical organization

limited use of topic sentence greater use of topic sentence

some paragraphs drift off topic

stronger topical organization

some paragraphs need further subdivision

greater logical ordering of paragraphs

Linking devices

limited use of linking devices between paragraphs

greater use of temporal and place adverbials; and determiners

greater range of linking devices used including ordinal, manner, additive, adversative, and causal adverbials; repetition; synonyms; and hyponomy.

Endings lower quality endings

less use of summary, conclusion or resolution

less use of verbal repetition

less use of codas or comment on theme

least use of summary, conclusion or resolution but beginning to use deliberate ambiguity

greater use of verbal repetition

greater use of codas or comment on theme

higher quality endings

greater use of summary, conclusion or resolution or deliberate ambiguity