Log jammed by standard assessment tests:how feedback can help writersWinifred Burke

Abstract

Standard assessment tests have been part of the literacypractice in English primary schools for many years.While educators point to the dangers of ‘teaching to thetest’, politicians continue to believe that the best way ofachieving accountability is by retaining league tables ofthese test results. Currently the curriculum is tooreadily restricted by what can be tested with little timeallowed to stimulate children’s imaginative thinking.This article looks critically at practice in an Englishjunior school that has been in the top 9 per cent ofperforming schools and the effect on two Level 5writers. The author offers a more complex approach forconsideration, with herself as the teacher assessorconcentrating on what is good in the writing as well aswhat is weak and offering interactive, followed byremedial, feedback to the writer.

Key words: Standard Assessment Tests (SATs), writ-ing, interactive feedback, remedial feedback

Introduction

The context for the two case studies reported in thisarticle is a mixed, junior school of 1001 pupils locatedwithin a rural area in south-west England. It is highlyregarded by the local community. The author is theschool’s link governor for literacy; the co-researcher isthe head teacher. The study began in 2007.

Compulsory schooling in England is divided into keystages with this school catering for Key Stage 2children (7–11 years of age). In the end of Key Stage 2Standard Assessment Tests (SATs) for writing, theschool did not achieve as well in 2007 as previously.Most children predicted to get Level 4 (the designatedlevel for their age) achieved as expected but fewerachieved Level 5. In an English primary school wherechildren are expected to progress through two Na-tional Curriculum levels in a key stage (value added),these discrepancies in results were of concern to thehead teacher and governors. Compulsory end of keystage test results (assessment of learning) not onlydetermine the school’s position in the local andnational league tables but also many parents’ choiceof school for their children. Voluntary interim tests areused, in this school, to check on progress and also to settargets for the children to improve their spelling,punctuation, sentence structure, etc. (assessment forlearning). Thus the same criteria are used for both

purposes. As an ex-teacher of English I was concernedby the limiting effect of judging complex phenomenasuch as writing by criteria focused largely on surfacefeatures at the expense of the quality of ideas.

In our pilot study (2007–2008) we found youngteachers, new to the profession, highly efficient atteaching and assessing the literacy curriculum withchildren well trained to cope with the language ofschooling: learning objectives, level criteria and targetsfor improvement. These teachers complained that theirpupils were too reliant upon them and had no ideas oftheir own when writing. They described the assess-ment of the development of ideas or meaning as a ‘greyarea’ where agreement is difficult. The Year 6 teacherworried that even if pupils had not made the progresspredicted in earlier years it was up to her to see that theschool adds the value expected: ‘‘that is the extrapressure that you have in Year 6 . . . more than others’’.She talked about some children achieving the levelexpected of them in end of Key Stage 2 tests but withlittle enjoyment for reading and writing.

Background

Researchers write that school literacies set limits onwhat can be defined as effective reading or writing butthat literacy practices outside school often requirepupils to use skills and strategies more complex thanthose required in school (Gregory and Williams, 2000).Our focus group of potentially higher achievingchildren showed that all enjoyed reading and writing.The amount of time devoted to these activities outsideschool varied considerably depending on home back-ground, personal interest and abilities.

Vygotsky (1987) highlights the role of language inlearning, not only that language is an essentiallycognitive tool but the social function of discourse.Crucial to appreciating the relevance of Vygotsky tothe development of an understanding of progressionin English is his concept of the ‘‘zone of proximaldevelopment’’. Corden writes: ‘‘Each new (writing)task will generate a different ZPD and key factors indetermining children’s learning potential will be thenature of the discourse and the quality of the teacherintervention’’ (Corden, 2000, p. 8). For Bruner (2008)talk and the development of a ‘community of learners’

Literacy Volume 45 Number 1 April 2011 19

Copyright r 2011 UKLA. Published by Blackwell Publishing, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.

Literacy

is central to the learning process. He maintains that it isby talking through misconceptions and through dis-cussion and experimenting with ideas that teachersbring about progression. Our aim, in this study, is toopen a dialogue about writing and provide time todiscuss the writers’ intentions.

The school is rich in data gained from test results. Table1 provides data for the two children who are the focusof this paper.

There is, however, very little data about children’sinterests outside school or how ego-related perceptionsaffect attitudes and motivation to read and write. Thework of Dweck provides a means of considering thepossible effect of the highly pressured world of theclassroom on learning. Dweck (1989, pp. 88–89)identified two kinds of goals that affect learners:

� performance goals where individuals strive eitherto document or gain favourable judgements of theircompetency (externally driven);

� learning goals where individuals strive to increasetheir competency, to understand and master some-thing new (internally driven).

Where performance goals dominate learning, pupilsoften show what Dweck identified as ‘learned help-lessness’ when faced with challenges. They cease to berisk takers and creativity suffers. Anna (one of the focuschildren) had a tendency to ‘learned helplessness’(Dweck, 1986, p. 1040) over homework tasks if shethought her mother could help and had an over-relianceon ‘starter sentences’ provided by her teacher whenwriting in class. James on the other hand seemeddetermined to make the most of every opportunityavailable and devoted a lot of personal time to attendingweekend courses for gifted and talented writers.

The Lawseq questionnaire (Lawrence, 2006) provideda useful screening device for the whole class in locatingour group within their peers. It is designed to measureself-esteem before and after an intervention but weused it to provide contextual data before the actionresearch. It has been standardised on an English andAustralian population with a mean of 19 and astandard deviation of 4. The mean for this Year 6 classis 18.22 and the standard deviation 4.95. Anna scored20 and James 24 out of a maximum of 24.

Qualitative data, gained through the use of anotherquestionnaire (David and Charles, 1989) allowed us toopen a window on how important literacy practiceswere in the children’s lives:

1. What is it about reading that gives you mostpleasure?

Anna: ‘‘When I read I go into my own little world. It’s likeI’m actually in the story, and it makes me very happy. Iget all the emotions in the book, if it’s funny laugh, if it’ssad I’ll cry’’.James: ‘‘The in-depth description of settings and char-acters and descriptions of action, famous battles etc. Howthe author has created his/her own world with its peoples,customs, speech and way of writing (runes etc.)’’.

2. What is it about writing that gives you mostpleasure?

Anna: ‘‘That you can make whatever story you want. Youcan play with the reader’s emotion and try to make apicture into their head. I could write on and on and neverstop, if you give me an opening sentence I’ll be off’’.James: ‘‘Writing descriptions and settings and creating lotsof characters with their personalities and how they look’’.

Anna revealed an emotional response while Jamesoffered a more analytical view. She believes that every-one can enjoy books while James is aware that responseto reading and writing is a very personal matter. Bothread extensively outside school but only James regularlywrites at home. In trying to find out ‘‘who the learner isand might become’’ (Davison, 2008, p. 31) we discoveredthat Anna wanted to be a teacher while James had set hismind on being a professional writer. Building on thework of Saddler we drew next on Dylan Wiliam’s (1998)research. He suggested a mechanism by which teachersacquire the ability to make reliable qualitative judge-ments about pupils’ work. He describes this as‘construct referencing’. Neither norm (against otherpupils) nor criterion referencing (against subject knowl-edge, skills and understanding) it has elements of bothand something else besides. When assessing a piece ofwriting, for example, experienced teachers of Englishuse a construct of what they think that grade looks like,based on their previous encounters with work of asimilar standard. Wiliam argues that the teacher’sunderstanding of the construct is honed by consideringand discussing borderline cases. He argues that groupsof markers should meet for discussion in order to form a‘community of interpreters’. The pupils also need to beincluded in this ‘community’. This is not an easyundertaking, as Saddler (1989) himself admitted, be-cause the teachers must not only understand the qualitythemselves but also communicate this to their pupils. Asreported above the teachers in this school did not have aclear understanding of the construct.

Table 1: Level results for Case Study Learners

Focus children KS1 SAT Year 3 Voluntary SAT Year 4 Voluntary SAT Year 5 Voluntary SATAnna 3 N/A 3B 4AJames 3 4 4C 5

20 Log jammed by SATs

Copyright r 2011 UKLA

The literature on feedback indicates that the key toensuring progression appears to lie in the nature of thetasks and the quality of the intervention (Black andWiliam, 1998). Our teachers assess the writing of a Level4 writer, for example for sentence structure, by tickingoff the criteria covered successfully by the writer.

� the correct use of complex sentences to extendmeaning;

� the well-chosen use of adverbial phrases; and� consistent use of pronouns and tenses.

If all criteria are evident in the writing the teacheroffers feedback intended to help fill the gap betweenLevels 4 and 5, for example ‘‘to use a mixture of simpleand complex sentences by making use of a variety ofconnectives’’.

Perrenoud’s critique of the Black and Wiliam (1998)review of formative assessment, however, argued thatthe notion of feedback itself is insufficient to under-stand its place in developing learning. He called for theneed for feedback to be set in the broader conceptualframework of the regulation of learning. Crucial to hisnotion of what this means is the idea that ‘‘regulationdoes not include setting up activities suggested to, orimposed on, the pupils but their adjustment once theyhave been initiated’’ (Perrenoud, 1998, p. 88). If wewere to test Perrenoud’s ideas we recognised the needto move from ‘‘a sage on the stage role’’ to one of ‘guideon the side’ and to remember that it is the pupil whodoes the learning (Blatchford, 2003, p. 164).

Design of study

As the chief instruments, the head teacher and I chosecase study because ‘‘it is possible to preserve a moreopen approach to data collection, until the researcherhas begun to get the feel of the situation’’ (Nisbet andWatt, 1982, p. 8). I had previously introduced newliteracy projects in the school. The head teacher sharesthe teaching of Year 4 children as well as takingresponsibility for leading and managing the school.Her time was limited so I kept a diary; a reflectivemirror for our thoughts and to record changes madeduring the study. The participants were a sample ofhigher achieving Year 6 writers (two boys and twogirls), their parents and the Year 6 teacher. All nameswere changed to maintain anonymity.

The question raised was:

‘‘What literacy practices motivate high attainingchildren at home and school and what are theparents’ perceptions of the next steps (for their ownchildren) in writing?’’

The strength of case study is that the results are moreeasily understood by teachers and governors: thetarget audience. Its weakness is that the results arenot easy to generalise, except by ‘‘an intuitive judge-

ment that this case is similar to that case’’ (Nisbet andWatt, 1982, p. 7).

Stage 1 (to understand children’s, parents’ and theteacher’s perceptions of Year 6 literacy)

Interviews were carried out and qualitative data weregathered, using previously prepared semi-structuredinterview schedules. The questions focused on homeand school reading and writing practices. Quantitativedata were obtained from school records and byadministering the Lawseq self-esteem questionnaire(Lawrence, 2006) to all Year 6 pupils. All speech wasrecorded electronically and transcribed in full withquestionnaire data analysed following Lawrence’sinstructions.

Stage 2 (analysis, sharing, reflection)

Transcripts and self-esteem analysis were shared withthe Year 6 teacher and a dialogue opened about theway the action part of the study would be conducted.This entailed planning extension activities for thesample children, focusing on the writer’s own ideasand intentions and their sense of audience/reader(Bearne, 2002). We agreed that we wanted to help thechildren find their voice and become writers ratherthan just play ‘‘the school game called writing’’(Grainger et al., 2003, p. 2).

Stage 3 (action research)

Towards the end of the Spring Term 2009 I workedwith four children, outside the classroom, for an hourper week over a 4-week period. I drew on what I knewof the children and used field notes to record how fareach was capable of ‘‘looking, imagining and takingrisks’’ as writers (Cross, 2009, p. 33). Including thepupils in self- and peer assessment provided oppor-tunities for positive peer and teacher feedback aimedat helping individuals recover what they had beentrying to achieve and then reflecting on how far thishad been accomplished (interactive feedback). Reme-dial feedback about what is wrong with the text wouldbe discussed once minds had been engaged.

As stated above, the focus of this article is on Anna andJames, during Stage 3 of the study.

Anna and James as active readers

We began our first session by filling in a questionnaireabout what gives us most pleasure when reading andwriting and sharing our perceptions with one another(David and Charles, 1989). This was a useful icebreakerand allowed time for reflection. Aworksheet on the useof connectives in writing offered a link with classroomactivities as we read an extract from a text on Australiaintended for adults (Bryson, 2000). A non-fiction text

Literacy Volume 45 Number 1 April 2011 21

Copyright r 2011 UKLA

was chosen because one of the group had expressed aninterest in science. All children took turns to read thetext aloud before consulting worksheets on connec-tives and discussing those Bryson had used in hisaccount of the finding of a prehistoric colony of ants inthe Australian desert. We followed this by exploring afiction extract from one of David Almond’s (2005)books. James was tenacious in his interrogation of theBryson text: ‘‘he uses a lot of simple sentences for hisadult audience . . . and they both use few connectives’’.Anna was more hesitant about analysing the construc-tion of text and looked at the others before underlyingconnectives in Bryson’s writing. Next I challengedthem to build on what they had read by thinking of anunusual event that had occurred in their own lives andwriting about it at home. James started writing almostimmediately but Anna missed a ‘starter sentence’ andprotested that she had nothing in her life of interest toothers. We discussed various possibilities before Irecalled being frightened by a bat in my bedroom. Thisprompted Anna to recall a similar experience and thisacted as her cue to write.

Anna and James as writers

Both children completed their writing at home usingword processors. We began this session by sharingwhat had been written.

‘‘An unusual Event in My LifeExtract from Batman by Anna‘Anna, go get me a pen will you please’, my Mum said tome.So I ran upstairs to my bedroom to get my Mum a pen, asshe asked. I went straight up to my desk, not noticinganything unusual in my bedroom, and got a pen. I noticedsomething black on the floor . . . that’s odd, I looked at itfor a minute questioning what it was, I thought ofDaddy’s old sock, Fergus (my dog) might have a new toy Ididn’t know about etc. Then suddenly out of know where atint foot came out and moved . . .‘AAGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!’ I screamed.My mum came racing up the stairs and came into myroom. I didn’t know what to tell her; ‘There’s a . . . maybeit’s a . . . I don’t know . . . but it moved!’ I tried to explain.My Mum said it was a living creature, the first thing thatpopped into my head was a frog. I don’t know why but ittotally freaked me out.‘Um . . . Darren come look at this . . .’ my Mum struggledto say.My Dad came up the stairs, he said it might be a bat, buthe didn’t know for sure . . .’’

I knew, from interview, that Anna liked positivefeedback and was easily distracted by targets forimprovement. As a group we listened to her account ofher feelings when faced with a strange creature in herbedroom. I commented positively on how she hadused speech well to build tension and express her own

and her mum’s emotions. As a group we discussed theproblem facing a writer in communicating a charac-ter’s feelings including the different ways this might beresolved. Targets for improvement are necessary buttiming is crucial when offering remedial feedback.When Anna seemed ready to face what was wrongwith her writing we turned to the overuse of the word‘pen’ in the first lines as well as sentences such as ‘‘Um. . . Darren come and look at this . . ., struggled mymum to say’’. We considered what alternatives mightbe used and she appeared happy to make the necessarychanges.

‘‘My Strange Experience by James‘Come on James, get your pyjamas on, we’ve got a big dayin the morning’.A few years ago, we (my family and I) were getting readyto go out to the Isle of man to meet our relatives. We hadeverything planned out; we would pack in the morning,drive to Liverpool by 1pm and catch the Seacat to the Isleof Man.I was getting ready for bed when I heard a shrill shriekfrom downstairs.‘Ben (my dad) get the suitcase and pack. NOW!’My mum had found out that the time we had to arrive bywasn’t 1pm tomorrow, but 1am in the morning. Thatmeant we had less than 5 hours to pack and get toLiverpool. We only just made it, though, because we werestuck in a 20 minute queue. (By the way, we had a lovelytime on the Isle of Man!)’’

James used few words, in this piece, and in hispostscript assured the reader that the visit was asuccess. Anna asked him ‘‘why did you use so littledescription?’’ He replied: ‘‘I didn’t think it wasnecessary. I wanted the reader to be involved in thestory and supply the details themselves’’. This re-sponse to Anna’s question allowed me to probe James’understanding of the reader/writer relationship. Headmitted that the reader he had in mind was ‘‘someoneof my own age and interest level’’. I fed back myappreciation of how he used direct speech to locate usin the situation and cleverly mixed past and present ina fast moving account of the events. He suggestedtensions but did not dwell on them. He resolved thesituation with a happy ending. Saddler warned thatthe choices facing a writer starting with a blank pageare too variable to be judged by criteria. He offered themetaphor of writers such as these two, followingdifferent pathways and heading towards a horizon.The challenge, for the teacher, is how to support thatprocess.

We next skimmed a selection of David Almond’sbooks. James had read one previously but Anna hadnot. I asked them to choose a book to read at home andto write a review that would encourage more reluctantreaders in Year 6 to read the book. Both were familiarwith this genre. Anna chose to review Skellig and JamesThe Fire Eaters. When we reconvened for the third

22 Log jammed by SATs

Copyright r 2011 UKLA

session Anna’s reaction to her book was particularlypositive and is reflected in her writing.

‘‘Skellig by David Almond (Book review by Anna)This is a beautiful, magical book that can take your breathaway. It is about a young boy who does an angel a goodturn and who then gets his reward. The book begins withMichael and his family moving into a new house with acrumbling garage. His father warns him not to goanywhere near the garage due to the risk he could puthimself in. But Michael takes no notice of his Dad’s wordsand decides to go and investigate. He digs his waythrough, clutching his torch lightly, guiding his pathway.His torch goes over a part man, bird or angel. He and hisfriend Mina help him to get better by giving him Chinesetake-aways, aspirin and cod liver oil.However, Michael’s baby sister becomes ill and could die.She needs an operation on her heart. Somehow, Skellig isable to help the baby and brings joy to the family.The book will stay with you in your memory forever. Iguarantee that once you pick it up, you won’t be able toput it down. You will be in the presence of somethingextraordinary . . .’’

Anna writes with feeling. Her message carries convic-tion. She ends with an enticement to find out moreabout the book.

‘‘(Extract from James’ review) The Fire Eaters By DavidAlmondThe Fire Eaters is about a 13 year-old boy – Robert Burns(Bobby for short) – who lives in a sleepy Scottish villagecalled Keeley Bay. He has a great life; he has friends, a 16year boy called Joseph Connor, (He loves wrestling;furthermore he practices his moves on Bobby!) and a seacoaler’s daughter Ailsa Spink (who can heal fauns with herdreams). He also has a great family who looks after him andloves him. But that was before he met Mc Nulty. WhenBobby and his Mum go on a trip to Newcastle, they meetthe fire eater, escapologist and sheik Mc Nulty. Mc Nultytakes a shine to the boy, and therefore invites him onto thestage. After their trip, Bobby’s dad says he knows McNultya soldier who suffered brain damage in the war’’.

James’ review is much longer than Anna’s. His is aretelling of the key features in the story whereas she hasmanaged to give just enough information to interest herreader. I challenged James over the complexity of thesecond sentence and his overuse of brackets. Wediscussed how he might resolve this problem.

Anna’s enthusiasm for this book is infectious. I fedback why Anna’s writing fulfilled the brief more thanJames’. It was the Year 6 children’s feedback that mayhave had the most effect on regulating James’ learning.After reading Anna’s review, even usually reluctantreaders wanted to read Skellig.

Although I only worked with them for a short time Irecognise how different these children are in their

experiences outside school as well as their interestsand expectations for themselves. James is less depen-dent on the teacher than Anna but she has tremendouspotential as a writer providing she is well supported atall stages in the process. I also understood whatPerrenoud meant by the regulation of learning beingbest undertaken with selected individuals during aparticular activity through face-to-face exchange:

� Positive feedback based on qualitative interpreta-tions of the work is a good way of gaining thelearner’s attention and setting in motion the writer’smetacognitive processes (thinking about thinking).

� The task chosen is crucial to creating an environ-ment in which the intervention is most meaningfulfor the child and in which the effects of theintervention will be maximised.

� Success or failure depends on such factors as howfeedback is communicated and the significance oftiming.

Even the mood or receptivity of the pupil will have abearing on whether the feedback is internalised andthe pupil learns (Perrenoud, 1998, p. 86).

This interactive model prepares the way for remedialfeedback.

The action research culminated with an invitation toanswer David Almond’s question (posted on hiswebsite) ‘What is Skellig?’ Although SATs weredrawing near both children agreed to answer thechallenge but only James produced the writing. Anna’smother excused her daughter as ‘‘worn out by SATs’’.By contrast James revealed more of his true capability.

‘‘Skellig by James (Extract)‘Give money to the poor. Give money to the poor’. Thedull monotone echoed out through the dusty streets ofYork. ‘Please give money to those unfortunates who areless well-off than your good selves’.Skellig sighed. Not for the first time today, the rich snobignored him and continued on his way along the putridalley that was, for him, home. Skellig was a tramp. He hadno mother or father, no siblings, just the faded cap that hecollected money in and the mouldering cardboard box thathe slept in. Today he had collected just under twentypence; his worst in weeks. He was slowly starving, for itwas just the kindness of strangers that kept him alive. Hewas just 13 years old.Then came the day. The day when everything changed.The day when he met Stanley. Sitting with his back to thegraffiti-stained wall, his cap drawn firmly over his fairhair and piercing blue eyes, he heard a strange sound’’.

Drawing on his knowledge and understanding ofAlmond’s style and the reader’s needs James hascrafted an effective prequel to the text. In this extract hedemonstrates his ability to exercise aesthetic choices.He maximises the impact on the reader by varying thesentence length, selecting words to convey meaning

Literacy Volume 45 Number 1 April 2011 23

Copyright r 2011 UKLA

and ensuring internal cohesion in the text as a whole.James appears to be paying heed to such elements asprosody – the rhythms and cadences of prose (Paulin,1998). Note his repetition of ‘day’. His command overthe written word caught my imagination and made mewant to read on. I recognised that what Anna had donewith her review he had accomplished with his prequelto the Skellig story. The feedback did appear tohave had an effect on regulating his learning; goneis the overuse of brackets and in their place a well-constructed text.

Conclusion

In 2009 Anna and James both reached Level 5 in alltheir SATs. The school achieved 72 per cent Level 5 forwriting and was placed second in the county leaguetables. The head teacher, governors and parents werepleased. There is nothing wrong with testing childrenso long as SATs do not distort the curriculum and limitimaginative thinking.

In our study, Anna’s thinking was limited by hergrowing dependency on ‘starter sentences’. She wasoccasionally unsure of herself in the work reportedabove and on one occasion gave up. Her mind seemedfully engaged, however, when she asked James why hehad used so little description in his writing. She said ofthe action research: ‘‘I liked working with a group ofmy own ability’’. She loves reading and communicatedthat joy to others in her Skellig review. By contrast shefound the SATs’ experience tiring and after it was overadmitted ‘‘I am pleased to forget it’’. Asking her towrite a prequel to Skellig might have been outside herZPD whereas James had already had experience ofwriting a prequel to the Lord of the Rings.

James enjoyed a challenge and said of the actionresearch: ‘‘it was more like my gifted and talentedweekends’’. He did not feel he ‘‘had been challenged(previously) in school’’ and achieving Level 5 was not atrue indicator of his ability as a writer. James wasaware of the change in atmosphere in his classroomafter the SATs were over: ‘‘We had fun everyday for therest of term’’. If I had been continuing as James’ teacherI would have tried to get him to empathise with andwrite for a wider audience. Case studies, such as these,help those involved in schools to look outside the boxand reflect on what has been lost in school. The headteacher said: ‘‘it’s good to talk to children after years ofsetting targets’’. Teachers do recognise that there is aneed for a better balance between the teaching oftranscription skills and composition. They know thatSATs pressures favour one over the other and thatmany children achieve the expected level but do notenjoy reading and writing. At a time when UK societyplaces so much value on high standards, as evident intest results, it has been hard to change mindsets andpersuade teachers, in the school, that they can movebeyond compliance with national strategies. Encoura-

gingly Anna’s review and James’ writing about Skelligprompted other children to read the book. SATs willstill be with us in 2011 but some of the logs thatprevented teachers taking risks, in the school, havebeen loosened, if not dislodged.

Acknowledgement

The study is supported by UKLA (United KingdomLiteracy Association).

References

ALMOND, D. (2005) Clay. London: Hodder Children’s Books.BEARNE, E. (2002) Making Progress in Writing. London: Routledge

Falmer.BLACK, P. and WILIAM, D. (1998) Beyond the Black Box. Cambridge:

University of Cambridge School of Education.BLATCHFORD, P. (2003) The Class Size Debate is Small Better?

Buckingham: Open University Press.BRUNER, J. (2008) Culture and mind: their fruitful incommensur-

ability. ETHOS, Journal of the Society for Psychology Anthropology,36.1, pp. 29–46.

BRYSON, B. (2000) Down Under. London: Black Swan.CORDEN, R. (2000) Literacy and Learning through Talk: Strategies for the

Primary Classroom. Buckingham: Open University Press.CROSS, H. (2009) Save pupils from the purple prose monster. The

Times Education Supplement, 24 May, p. 33.DAVID AND CHARLES (1989) Writers College. Vol. 1. Devon: David

and Charles Publishers.DAVISON, J. (2008) What makes a good teacher? Available at http://

www.canterbury.ac.uk/events/publiclectures (accessed 14 March2008).

DWECK, C.S. (1986) Motivational processes affecting learning.American Psychologist, 41, pp. 1040–1048.

DWECK, C.S. (1989) ‘Motivation’, in A. Lesgold and R. Glaser (Eds.)Foundations for a Psychology of Education. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum,pp. 88–89.

GRAINGER, T., GOOCH, K. and LAMBIRTH, A. (2003) Playing thegame called writing, children’s voice and view. English inEducation, 37.2, pp. 4–15.

GREGORY, E. and WILLIAMS, A. (2000) City Literacies: Learning toRead across Generations and Cultures. London: Routledge.

LAWRENCE, D. (2006) Enhancing Self-Esteem in the Classroom, 3rdedn. London: Paul Chapman Publishing.

NISBET, J. and WATT, J. (1982) ‘Case study as research methodology’,in M.B. Youngman (Ed.) Rediguide 26 Case Study. NottinghamUniversity of Education, pp. 7–8.

PAULIN, T. (1998) The Day Star of Liberty. London: Faber and Faber.PERRENOUD, P. (1998) From formative assessment to a controlled

regulation of learning processes, towards a wider conceptual field.Assessment in Education, 5.1, pp. 85–102.

SADDLER, R. (1989) Formative assessment and the design ofinstructional systems. Instructional Science, 18.2, pp. 119–144.

VYGOTSKY, L.S. (1987) The Collected Works of L.S. Vygotsky. Vol. 1.New York: Plenum.

WILIAM, D. (1998) The validity of Teacher’s Assessments. Paperpresented at the 22nd Annual Conference of the InternationalGroup for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Stellenbosch,South Africa.

CONTACT THE AUTHORWinifred Burke, Churchpath Cottage, Over Stratton,South Petherton, Somerset TA13 SLN, UK.e-mail: wyn.burke@btopenworld.com

24 Log jammed by SATs

Copyright r 2011 UKLA