Paradigms and Pedagogy: revisiting D’Arcy’s critique of the teaching and the assessment of writing

Paradigms and Pedagogy:revisiting D’Arcy’s critique ofthe teaching and theassessment of writing

Paul Gardner1

Senior Lecturer, Department of Initial Teacher Training, University ofBedfordshire

AbstractThis paper draws on research funded by the Bedford Charity (Harpur Trust) inwhich the narrative writing of reluctant writers in 10 Lower Schools (pupilsaged 5–9) was levelled using, firstly, the Assessment of Pupil Progress (APP)criteria used in English primary and secondary schools and, secondly, criteriadevised by the researcher. The latter were specifically designed for theassessment of narrative writing, whereas the APP criteria are generic. Findingsresonate with the contrasting paradigms critiqued in D’Arcy’s paper on theteaching and assessment of writing (D’Arcy 1999). Evidence suggests that levelsassigned to individual texts can vary between one assessment criteria andanother. In many cases, pupils achieved higher levels against criteria designedto evaluate creativity and the ability to tell a story. Appropriate assessmentcriteria are critical not only to summative evaluations but also to the planningof future teaching and learning. However, it is suggested that the dominantassessment paradigm and concomitant approaches to the pedagogy of writingin England have been influenced by discourses over which teachers have hadlittle control. However, the future for the teaching and assessment of writingnecessitates a paradigmatic shift. A retrospective of D’Arcy’s paper may provideteachers and academics with the impetus for change.

Key Wordsassessment, writing, paradigm, pedagogy, assessment criteria

1Corresponding author: [email protected]

ª 2012 The Author. 135English in Education ª 2012 National Association for the Teaching of English.Published by Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.

English in Education Vol.46 No.2 2012 DOI: 10.1111/j.1754-8845.2012.01123.x

IntroductionNational assessment results in England show that at the ages of seven andeleven children’s achievements in writing trail behind reading (Barton 2007).Despite the teaching of writing being designated a national priority(Department for Children Schools and Families 2007), the 2011 assessmentresults show a persistent 9% difference in attainment levels between readingand writing, with boys’ achievement in writing falling short of that of girls. Inher discussion of contrasting assessment paradigms for writing, D’Arcy (1999)raises questions about the efficacy of what is still the dominant approach tothe teaching and assessment of writing. This approach privileges a skills-basedparadigm over a creative, process-based one. Drawing on empirical data froma three year research project on reluctant writers, funded by the BedfordCharity (Harpur Trust), this paper compares pupils’ narrative writing using twodifferent assessment criteria; one resembling a ‘skills’ based paradigm and thesecond a creative paradigm, modelled on the features of narrative text. Asocio-political perspective of literacy education is formulated as a means ofunderstanding where practitioners currently stand in their teaching andassessment of writing.

The inter-relationship of discourse, paradigm and pedagogy

In the course of this paper I refer to the terms discourse, paradigm andpedagogy and view them as having a ‘nested’ semantic. By that I mean eachterm shares with the other two nuances of meaning but differ in the degree towhich they imply social power. I see the term discourse as having the greatestpower with paradigm subsumed within it and pedagogy being subsumed withthat. The relationship of one to the other also conveys the proximity of theterm to its semantic action. That is, discourse acts to construct paradigm asparadigm, acts to construct pedagogy. Let me open up this discussion bygiving closer scrutiny to the semantic of each term. Alexander (2008: 92)suggests pedagogy is more than simply teaching technique. It is the culturalintervention in individual human development imbued with social values andthe historicity of the society and community in which it enacted. In this viewof pedagogy we can see how what teachers do in classrooms is informed bysocial constructs beyond the individual teacher. Hence, what appear to bepersonal professional choices on the part of the teacher are in fact socially andculturally situated actions influenced by normative ways of thinking. Thisnormative way of thinking is a paradigm, or ‘…an overriding viewpoint thatshapes ideas and actions within a particular field.’ (McArthur 1992: 747). Aparadigm then is situated within particular disciplinary parameters. In literacyeducation, therefore, a paradigm shapes the way literacy is taught andassessed. Below, I refer to two of Ivanic’s (2004: 220), six discourses of writing.Ivanic defines discourse as; ‘…values, beliefs and practices which lead toparticular forms of situated action..’ I take ‘action’ here to mean pedagogy andI associate Ivanic’s use of discourse with my use of the term paradigm.Paradigms establish meta-cognitive and meta-linguistic frames of reference for

English in Education Vol.46 No.2 2012 Paradigms and Pedagogy

136 ª 2012 The Author.English in Education ª 2012 National Association for the Teaching of English.

viewing and describing phenomenon, in this case, the teaching and assessmentof writing. As Gipps (1994:1) suggests an assessment paradigm ‘..determineswhat we look for, the way in which we construe what we observe, and howwe solve emerging problems.’ I reserve the term discourse for broader socio-political linguistic and cultural constructs in the sense meant by Gramsci whenhe refers to hegemony: that is the ability of a dominant group to persuadesubordinate groups to adhere to its normative view of society by means ofsystematic and coherent rhetoric. Gramsci suggests that hegemony is‘..protected by the armour of coercion.’(Gramsci 1971: 263). So, whilstpersuasive devices are used by the most powerful in society to maintain acollective idea of what is ‘normal’, counter discourses that threaten thesupremacy of the ‘norm’ and, therefore, the position of the most powerful, canbe dealt with by force. Fairclough (1989: 23) also notes how the termslanguage and society are often seen as separate entities but suggests the twoco-exist in symbiosis to the extent that social reality is constructed throughlanguage and language is constructed by social reality. It is this symbiosiswhich is what is meant here by the term discourse. However, as Gramscishows, discourse or discourses are not apolitical but are rather charged with‘common sense’ ways of ‘seeing’, ‘being’ and ‘saying’ that are influenced bygroups with vested interests. Both Gramsci and Fairclough demonstrate howdominant discourse is used by powerful elites to influence the thinking ofsubordinate groups. Hence a dominant discourse is the overarching languageimbued with the values, beliefs and perceptions of the powerful in order toconstruct normative ways of seeing and talking about the world. What I amsuggesting here then, as represented in Figure 1, is that dominant socio-political discourse on education informs educational paradigms which in turninform pedagogy.

There is, therefore, a distinct semantic thread running through all three termssituated around ways in which we, as teachers, observe, think and act, basedon common precepts. If we apply this idea to the teaching of writing, the

pedagogy

paradigm

discourse

Figure 1: The inter-relationship of discourse, paradigm and pedagogy.

Paul Gardner English in Education Vol.46 No.2 2012

ª 2012 The Author. 137English in Education ª 2012 National Association for the Teaching of English.

construction of pupil identities, as writers, is in alignment with the dominantconstruction of what constitutes writing and the teaching of writing. I wouldsuggest that skills-based discourses disempower writers because they negatethe individual’s voice. An alternative perspective can be found in the theory ofcritical literacy, which offers the possibility for readers and writers todeconstruct powerful discourses. (Freebody and Luke 2003). However, such isthe persuasive power of the current dominant discourse that critical literacy isa subordinated perspective in the official English curriculum.

D’Arcy’s Contrasting ParadigmsAt the time of writing her 1999 paper, Pat D’Arcy had been a member of NATEfor 35 years, including its Chair in the late 1970s. During her career D’Arcy hadacquired considerable experience both as a practitioner and then as a LocalAuthority English Adviser. She had witnessed significant changes in theteaching and assessment of writing from ‘process approaches’ (Graves 1983,Calkins 1983) to what she termed ‘narrowly mechanistic’ approaches to writing(D’Arcy 1999), initiated by the National Curriculum (DES 1989). This largelyskills-based discourse (Ivanic 2004) locates teaching and learning aroundtechnical accuracy at word, sentence and text level with scant attention givento the writer’s articulation of meaning by means of the creative use oflanguage. The publication of D’Arcy’s paper appeared after a decade in whichthe teaching and assessment of writing had been influenced by the NationalCurriculum and was on the cusp of the National Literacy Strategy (DfEE 1998).With the imminence of the Coalition’s new National Curriculum in England, itis opportune to revisit D’Arcy’s discussion of dichotomised paradigms. This ispertinent given that the current government appears to favour an atomisedview of literacy, as is evidenced in the implementation of ‘phonics screeningtests’ for six year olds in England and impending grammar tests under the newNational Curriculum. In contradistinction, there is a small but vibrant body ofresearch evidence which suggests, as Graves did, that teachers who are ‘inside’the writing process, because they write themselves, are better equipped toassist pupils in their writing through their focus on compositional processes(Cremin and Myhill 2012). This is an uneven dialectic, given the powersbestowed on the Secretary of State for Education by successive statutes, andsuggests teachers will continue to be caught in the middle of these competingparadigms. It is imperative, therefore, for creative teachers to keep alive acritical discourse on the teaching and assessment of writing.

Whilst not dismissive of the importance of technical accuracy, D’Arcy wascritical of the demise of creative and process-based discourses (Ivanic 2004)that were characteristic of writing pedagogy in the 1980s. This was a paradigmin which the thoughts and feelings, values and concerns of the writer werecentral to the generation of written expression (D’Arcy 1999: 3). Though notmutually exclusive, D’Arcy perceived that, in practice, the two paradigms hadbecome dichotomised, although she does not actually use that word. Sheasserts that the dominance of one paradigm over the other in writing



pedagogy influences pupils’ self perceptions as writers (D’Arcy 1999:4). In askills-based writing paradigm, the writer is a scribe concerned mainly withwhat Smith (1982) identified as ‘surface’ or secretarial features of writing. In acreative and process-based paradigm the writer’s attention is given tocompositional aspects of writing (Smith 1982) and the construction ofmeanings. The emphasis on compositional or processes of writing rather thanwriting as a product is strongly advocated by educationalists who haveacquired empirical evidence of effective classroom-based pedagogy (Hillocks2007, Graves 1983, Calkins 1983).

It may be argued that the dominance of the skills-based paradigm wasreinforced by SATs assessment criteria and the National Literacy Strategy (DEE1998). Both required the evaluation of textual structure, grammar andpunctuation rather than a consideration of content, or the writer’s ability toexpress thought or feeling (D’Arcy 1999: 10). In addition, by applyingcontrasting evaluations of pupils’ writing D’Arcy demonstrates how, in askills-based paradigm teachers are positioned as technical assessors, ratherthan as real readers, free to evaluate the affective, creative or literary quality ofthe writing (D’Arcy 1999:15). D’Arcy’s perspective on writing and thepositioning of teachers and pupils in relation to the contrasting paradigms andconcomitant pedagogies has been captured in Figure 2 below.

Towards the end of her paper D’Arcy discusses the influences that shaped herthinking around a process-based paradigm, culminating in what she called a‘multiple helix’, combining the ability to ‘generate language’ with the mentalprocesses of ‘thinking, feeling, visualising and doing’ (D’Arcy 1999: 36). Shecites as her mentors James Britton (1970) who advocated that language is asymbolic representation of the world and that through language we developunderstanding of the world. For Britton, writing is one means of shapingthinking; of making thought visible, which then offers possibilities forreflection. A second influence was James Moffett who, like Britton, posited thatwriting begins with ‘inner speech,’ which is shaped and crafted in the

Pedagogy

Writer’sSelf view

Assessmentparadigm

Technical assessor

or

Authentic reader ?

Technical instruction

Or

Authentic writing ?

Figure 2: Assessment of writing: paradigm, pedagogy and the writer.



compositional process, the point at which thought is made material. From thisperspective, writing pedagogy involves helping the writer to clarify the wordchoices, forms of syntax, and textual structures that elucidate their pre-textualthinking (Moffet 1979). Bertoff (1982) acknowledges that inner thought relieson an implicit knowledge of language and that this is evident in the writingprocess. From this D’Arcy observes that children already possess the linguisticmeans to express thought and do not need to be taught features of languageseparate from their thoughts as writers (D’Arcy 1999:38). In this paradigm,writing is not simply a product of thought but a process of making visiblemeanings and feelings; and of learning about ourselves, our world and howwe relate to that world. Reflecting on this point, D’Arcy refers to Murray, whoasserts the primary audience for the writer is the writer her or himself. (D’Arcy:40). In the process of writing, Murray suggests we engage in an internaldialogic as the both the producer and evaluator of the emerging text (Murray1982:165).

Murray’s view of the writer’s role accords with the cognitive process model ofcomposition posited by Flower and Hayes (1981) In this model, the writerengages in a continual cycle of generating, translating and reviewing the textduring the compositional process. Unfortunately, the Flower and Hayes modelhas often been misinterpreted in current pedagogy of writing and appears asthree separate stages in which pupils are encouraged to plan first, then writeand then review their writing. Several small-scale studies in the UnitedKingdom suggest that when teachers undertake Continuing ProfessionalDevelopment in which they are positioned as writers, they acquire a deeperunderstanding of the compositional process with a consequent effect on theirteaching of writing (Cremin 2006, Goouch et al. 2009). These studies suggestteachers undergo a paradigmatic shift toward a more process orientedpedagogy.

Although she does not mention him, there are strong parallels betweenD’Arcy’s argument and the work of George Hillocks (1995), who advocatedthat writers acquire the technical skills of writing through ‘gateway activities’created by the teacher, in which pupils work through stimulating writingactivities that generate discussion and considerations of textual features byexploring their own writing. However, if, as D’Arcy contends, the assessmentof writing is reduced to the quantification of word classes, types ofpunctuation used, and varied use of syntactic structures, then the true purposeof writing as a creative means of generating meanings and reflecting on thosemeanings is lost and writing becomes the task-driven pursuit of technicalaccuracy. The corollary is that children and young people, even thoseachieving academic success, are in danger of adopting negative or indifferentattitudes to writing as a purposeful and pleasurable activity. My own workwith First Year undergraduate student teachers reveals that some of them carryinto adulthood a poor self-image as a writer due to negative feedback on theirsecretarial skills as primary aged pupils (Gardner, unpublished).



Comparison of Assessment of Pupil Progress and Assessment ofNarrative WritingWhilst D’Arcy presented a theoretical discussion, in this paper it has beenpossible to draw on data from a three year research project funded by theBedford Charity (Harpur Trust) that investigated the impact of mind mappingon the writing of reluctant writers in ten Lower Schools in Bedfordshire. Theproject ran from 2007–2009. Purposive sampling was used to identify six pupilsin each school who exhibited characteristic behaviours of reluctant writers. Achecklist of characteristic behaviours was devised early in the project by meansof paired semi-structured interviews with teachers and head teachers of the tenschools. The checklist was then used across all schools to identify the sample.Each teacher was ‘positioned’ as a participant research assistant who observedpupils and gathered evidence, reporting by means of a reflective journal andsymposia held at half-termly intervals with the lead researcher.

During the course of a single year, four samples of narrative writing werecollected. The subject matter of the narratives was influenced by the literacytopic in each school but the common feature of work across schools was theuse of mind maps as a tool for generating and organising ideas. Each scriptwas levelled by an experienced, independent assessor, using two sets ofassessment criteria. The Assessment of Pupil Progress (APP) criteria for writingtraces its lineage back to the National Curriculum criteria for StandardAssessment Tests (SATs), which were the subject of D’Arcy’s critique. The APPcriteria are designed to give a ‘…detailed, analytic view of pupils’ attainmentacross all the key stages and in all types of writing’(National Strategies online).Given that the criteria are to be used for the assessment of all genres, they areunderstandably generic. The AAP criteria are spread across eight assessmentfoci (AFs) as follows;

l AF1 Write imaginative, interesting and thoughtful textsl AF2 Produce texts that are appropriate to task, reader and purposel AF3 Organise and present whole texts effectively, sequencing and structuring

information, ideas and eventsl AF4 Construct paragraphs and use cohesion within and between paragraphsl AF5 Vary sentences for clarity, purpose and effectl AF6 Write with technical accuracy of syntax and punctuation in phrases,

clauses and sentencesl AF7 Select appropriate and effective vocabularyl AF8 Use correct spelling

(The National Strategies Primary Literacy archive)

The first two assessment foci require holistic views of writing and allow forevaluations of the writer’s creativity, depth of thought and affect on the reader.At first glance this appears to be an advance on previous National Curriculumassessment criteria. However, the remaining foci locate the assessment firmly



in a linguistic paradigm, concerned with structures at word, sentence and textlevel.

In order to level writing teachers are advised that for pupils to attain Level 1the criteria must be evident in some writing, usually with support, whereas forLevel 2 this must be achieved without support. For Level 3 the criteria mustappear in most writing and in Level 4 and above they must appear across arange of writing. However, the guidance notes for assessment clearly show thecriteria to be unevenly weighted. Assessors are informed that progression ‘…isshown by differences in the criteria..’ and that the AFs ‘..are presented in aparticular order for assessment purposes..’ with AFs 5 and 6 first, followed byAFs 3 and 4, then AFs 1 and 2 and finally AFs 7 and 8. The position of AFs 7and 8 would suggest these are of least importance in the assessment process.However, further guidance demonstrates this not to be the case. In makingjudgements at level 2 and above teachers are told;

‘..the criteria for AF7 and AF8 are considered as a way ofconfirming or modifying the assessments made on evidence forthe majority of the other AFs’ (The National Strategies PrimaryLiteracy archive).

Final decisions about the overall quality of a piece of writing then may rest onthe fulcrum of word level competence in terms of word choices andorthography, rather than the writer’s ability to demonstrate flair andimagination and to affect the reader. There is a national expectation that pupilswill progress by one level every two years. The norms for years 2,6 and 9 arelevel 2, level 4 and level 5/6, respectively.

In her analysis of pupils’ writing, D’Arcy (1999:27) demonstrated how thecultural positioning of the assessor in relation to the writer can cause incorrectjudgments of the writer’s word choices and register. The emphasis on wordlevel judgments could then lead to the ‘down-grading’ of texts. These criteria,therefore, belong to a teaching and assessment paradigm concerned withsurface or linguistic features of writing.

A second set of criteria, the Assessment of Narrative Writing (ANW) criteria,were devised specifically for the research project in order to provide themeans for comparative analysis of children’s writing. The ANW criteria alsohave eight assessment focuses. Unlike the APP criteria, the focuses in the ANWcriteria are evenly weighted. Although there is word, sentence and text levelanalysis this does not include spelling and the assessor’s attention is drawn tothe affect and effect of word choices in relation both to narration and thereader. The criteria are also closely allied to the elements of narrative andreflect the work of Genette (1972); Barthes (1975) and Rosenblatt (1969).Genette makes the distinction between narrative and narration; what is in thestory and the manner of its telling. Barthes, amongst other things, draws



attention to elements of the text that push the story forward (nuclei) andothers that embellish it (catalysers). Rosenblatt’s ‘Reader ResponseTheory’reminds us of the dyadic relationship of the writer and reader. Bothwriting and reading involve the use of language to construct meanings situatedin the socio-cultural world inhabited both by the writer and the reader. Inaddition to these influences, the criteria are located in a socio-cognitive theoryof writing, which posits that the construction of texts involves the interactionof the writer’s cognitive processes; social conventions and cultural influences.(Nystrand, Greene and Wiemelt 1993).

By way of illustration of the ANW criteria the descriptors for Level Two arecited here:

Plot – There are clear causal links between events, which are toldin chronological order. The narrative has a plausibleopening, development and conclusion. Characters are theagents of events.

Narration – The beginnings of a narrational voice are evident in the waythe writer addresses the reader. The writer narrates the storywith some minor embellishment of events. The narrationand plot remain similar.

Characterisation – Several characters are introduced and brief physicaldescriptions are given. Basic emotional and or psychologicaldepth is suggested.

Setting – A sense of place and/or time is denoted by means of briefdescription.

Words andGrammar – The writer uses descriptive language to depict time and

place. Language is used to create cohesion and coherence.TextualOrganisation – Ideas are well organised showing evidence of demarcation

by means of clear sentence boundaries.ExperienceAnd meaning – The writer uses their own heuristic experiences with slight

adaptation and embellishment as the basis for the story. Thismay include some allusions to other texts the writer hasread or seen.

Affective Readerresponse – The writing begins to engage the reader with some

emotional response at particular stages of the story.

The remaining strands and level descriptors can be found in Table 1 below:

Clearly, there are aspects of these criteria that are more subjective than theAPP criteria. The final Assessment Focus allows the reader to evaluate theextent to which the writing engages them affectively, thereby positioning the



Tab

le1:

Ass

essm

ent

Cri

teri

a–

na

rra

tive

wri

tin

g

Plo

tN

arr

ati

on

Ch

ara

cteri

sati

on

Sett

ing

Wo

rds

an

dg

ram

mar

Text

ual

org

an

isati

on

Exp

eri

en

cean

dM

ean

ing

Aff

ect

ive/r

ead

er

resp

on

se

L5Th

ep

lot

isw

ell

deve

lop

ed

an

din

clu

des

an

ap

ert

ure

,in

citi

ng

mo

men

t,d

eve

lop

men

tan

dcl

imax,

lead

ing

toa

pla

usi

ble

en

din

g.

Ch

ara

cters

are

bo

thth

eag

en

tso

feve

nts

an

dth

eca

use

.Eve

nts

vary

betw

een

tho

sew

hic

hp

rop

el

the

narr

ati

vefo

rward

an

do

nes

wh

ich

pro

vid

ed

eta

il.

Th

ew

rite

ru

ses

narr

ati

on

al

voic

es

that

are

beli

eva

ble

,cr

eati

ng

ton

e,

mo

od

an

datm

osp

here

.Th

est

ory

un

fold

sat

ava

ryin

gp

ace

an

den

gag

es

the

read

er

by

shif

tin

gatt

en

tio

nb

etw

een

nu

clei

that

pro

pel

the

narr

ati

vefo

rward

an

dca

taly

sers

that

em

bell

ish

the

narr

ati

ve.

Th

ew

rite

ru

ses

sim

ple

fore

shad

ow

ing

an

dfl

ash

back

as

narr

ati

ved

evi

ces.

Ch

ara

cters

have

em

oti

on

al

an

dp

sych

olo

gic

al

dep

th.

Th

eir

act

ion

s,th

ou

gh

tsan

dla

ng

uag

eare

pla

usi

ble

an

dth

ere

isa

sym

bio

tic

rela

tio

nsh

ipb

etw

een

chara

cters

’act

ion

san

dth

ep

lot.

Th

eu

seo

fse

ttin

gs

con

vey

atm

osp

here

an

dcr

eate

em

oti

on

al

cad

en

cein

asu

stain

ed

way

thro

ug

ho

ut

the

sto

ry.

Lan

gu

ag

eis

use

dto

pro

vid

ein

-dep

thd

esc

rip

tio

ns

of

chara

cters

an

dse

ttin

gs.

Lan

gu

ag

eis

use

dto

evo

ke

aff

ect

ive

resp

on

ses

inth

ere

ad

er.

Dia

log

ue

help

sto

reve

al

the

tho

ug

hts

an

dfe

eli

ng

so

fch

ara

cters

an

din

form

sth

ere

ad

er

of

the

natu

reo

fre

lati

on

ship

s.Text

ual

con

nect

ors

are

use

dto

create

coh

esi

on

an

dco

here

nce

.

Rela

ted

ideas

are

seq

uen

ced

an

dd

eve

lop

ed

sho

win

gcl

ear

cau

sal

lin

ks.

Dis

cou

rse

con

nect

ors

are

use

dto

en

sure

smo

oth

tran

siti

on

betw

een

part

so

fth

est

ory

.

Th

ew

rite

ru

ses

their

kn

ow

led

ge

of

the

wo

rld

an

do

ther

visu

al

an

d/o

rp

rin

tte

xts

imag

inati

vely

toen

han

cem

ean

ing

.

Th

est

ory

isa

beli

eva

ble

an

dau

then

tic

‘vir

tual

reali

ty’

into

wh

ich

the

read

er

isd

raw

n.

Th

ere

ad

er

isab

leto

pic

ture

scen

es,

chara

cters

an

deve

nts

vivi

dly

an

dis

aff

ect

ed

by

the

wri

tin

g.



Tab

le1:

Con

tin

ued

Plo

tN

arr

ati

on

Ch

ara

cteri

sati

on

Sett

ing

Wo

rds

an

dg

ram

mar

Text

ual

org

an

isati

on

Exp

eri

en

cean

dM

ean

ing

Aff

ect

ive/r

ead

er

resp

on

se

L4Th

ere

are

stro

ng

cau

sal

lin

ks

betw

een

eve

nts

.In

ad

dit

ion

toa

defi

nit

eb

eg

inn

ing

an

den

din

g,

the

plo

tin

clu

des:

the

deve

lop

men

to

fa

pro

ble

mle

ad

ing

toa

sin

gle

con

flic

tan

dre

solu

tio

n.

Th

ew

rite

rexp

eri

men

tsw

ith

dif

fere

nt

narr

ati

on

al

voic

es

an

den

gag

es

the

read

er

by

orc

hest

rati

ng

key

eve

nts

.Th

isin

flu

en

ces

the

pace

at

wh

ich

the

narr

ati

veu

nfo

lds

thro

ug

hth

eju

xtap

osi

on

of

eve

nts

that

pro

pel

the

narr

ati

vefo

rward

an

do

nes

that

em

bell

ish

asp

ect

so

fn

arr

ati

ve.

Eve

nts

are

pre

sen

ted

no

n-

chro

no

log

icall

y.

Ch

ara

cters

speak

an

dth

ink

wit

hau

then

tic

voic

es

makin

gth

em

an

dth

eir

rela

tio

nsh

ips

beli

eva

ble

.M

ain

chara

cters

cau

seeve

nts

toh

ap

pen

.

Sett

ing

sare

vivi

dly

desc

rib

ed

creati

ng

atm

osp

here

.

Th

ew

rite

ru

ses

vari

ed

lan

gu

ag

eto

evo

ke

vivd

imag

es

that

make

for

con

vin

cin

gch

ara

cters

,se

ttin

gs,

an

dre

lati

on

ship

s.D

ialo

gu

eis

beli

eva

ble

.Th

eu

seo

fla

ng

uag

ead

ds

toth

eem

oti

on

al

cad

en

ceo

fth

en

arr

ati

ve.

Ideas

are

seq

uen

ced

log

icall

yw

ith

incl

ear

text

ual

bo

un

dari

es/

para

gra

gh

s.A

lim

ited

ran

ge

of

dis

cou

rse

con

nect

ors

are

use

dto

pro

du

cete

xtu

al

coh

esi

on

.

Th

ew

rite

rd

raw

su

po

nth

eir

ow

nexp

eri

en

cean

dth

at

of

oth

ers

tocr

eate

beli

eva

ble

sett

ing

sch

ara

cters

an

deve

nts

.

Th

ere

ad

er

isco

mp

ell

ing

lyin

volv

ed

wit

hth

eu

nfo

ldin

gn

arr

ati

veb

eca

use

the

wri

ter

en

gag

es

them

insh

ifti

ng

em

oti

on

s.



Tab

le1:

Con

tin

ued

Plo

tN

arr

ati

on

Ch

ara

cteri

sati

on

Sett

ing

Wo

rds

an

dg

ram

mar

Text

ual

org

an

isati

on

Exp

eri

en

cean

dM

ean

ing

Aff

ect

ive/r

ead

er

resp

on

se

L3C

au

sal

lin

ks

betw

een

eve

nts

are

pla

usi

ble

.Th

ep

lot

has

asi

mp

lest

ruct

ure

,in

clu

din

ga

clear

beg

inn

ing

an

den

din

g.

Th

ere

isso

me

inte

ract

ion

of

chara

cter

an

dp

lot

lead

ing

tote

nsi

on

an

dco

nfl

ict.

Th

ew

rite

ren

gag

es

the

read

er’

sin

tere

stb

yalt

eri

ng

the

seq

uen

ceo

feve

nts

.Th

ism

ain

lyin

volv

es

flash

back

s(a

nale

psi

s).

Pace

isva

ried

ap

pro

pri

ate

lyb

etw

een

eve

nts

that

pro

pel

the

narr

ati

vean

do

nes

that

au

then

tica

teth

est

ory

thro

ug

hd

esc

rip

tio

nan

datm

osp

here

.

Ch

ara

cters

inte

ract

inau

then

tic

ways

,d

em

on

stra

tin

gu

nd

ers

tan

din

gan

dfe

eli

ng

.

Seve

ral

loca

tio

ns

are

refe

rred

toas

eve

nts

deve

lop

.Each

isd

ep

icte

db

riefl

y.

Lan

gu

ag

eis

use

dto

evo

ke

sett

ing

an

dch

ara

cter

vivi

dly

.W

ord

cho

ices

help

tocr

eate

atm

osp

here

an

dn

arr

ati

on

al

ton

e.

Narr

ati

ved

isco

urs

eco

nn

ect

ors

are

use

dad

ep

tly,

incl

ud

ing

con

join

ing

eve

nts

acr

oss

tim

ean

dp

lace

.D

ialo

gu

eis

use

dto

deve

lop

chara

cter

an

dre

lati

on

ship

s.

Ideas

are

seq

uen

ced

ina

log

ical

way.

Sen

ten

ces

are

dem

arc

ate

db

ut

incl

ud

ete

xtu

al

coh

esi

on

.Id

eas

are

gro

up

ed

.

Th

ew

rite

rad

ap

tseve

ryd

ay

exp

eri

en

cean

do

rin

tert

ext

ual

kn

ow

led

ge

tocr

eate

mean

ing

.

Th

ew

rite

rsu

stain

sth

ein

tere

sto

fth

ere

ad

er

thro

ug

h-o

ut

the

sto

ryb

ym

akin

gth

em

em

oti

on

all

yin

volv

ed

.



Tab

le1:

Con

tin

ued

Plo

tN

arr

ati

on

Ch

ara

cteri

sati

on

Sett

ing

Wo

rds

an

dg

ram

mar

Text

ual

org

an

isati

on

Exp

eri

en

cean

dM

ean

ing

Aff

ect

ive/r

ead

er

resp

on

se

L2 Th

ere

are

clear

cau

sal

lin

ks

betw

een

eve

nts

,w

hic

hare

told

inch

ron

olo

gic

al

ord

er.

Th

en

arr

ati

veh

as

ap

lau

sib

leo

pen

ing

,d

eve

lop

men

tan

dco

ncl

usi

on

.C

hara

cters

are

the

ag

en

tso

feve

nts

.

Th

eb

eg

inn

ing

so

fa

narr

ati

on

al

voic

eare

evi

den

tin

the

way

the

wri

ter

ad

dre

sses

the

read

er.

Th

ew

rite

rn

arr

ate

sth

est

ory

wit

hso

me

min

or

em

bell

ish

men

to

feve

nts

.Th

en

arr

ati

on

an

dp

lot

rem

ain

sim

ilar.

Seve

ral

chara

cters

are

intr

od

uce

dan

db

rief

ph

ysic

al

desc

rip

tio

ns

are

giv

en

.B

asi

cem

oti

on

al

an

do

rp

sych

olo

gic

al

dep

this

sug

gest

ed

.

Ase

nse

of

pla

cean

d/o

rti

me

isd

en

ote

db

ym

ean

so

fb

rief

desc

rip

tio

n.

Th

ew

rite

ru

ses

desc

rip

tive

lan

gu

ag

eto

dep

ict

tim

ean

dp

lace

.La

ng

uag

eis

use

dto

create

coh

esi

on

an

dco

here

nce

.

Ideas

are

well

org

an

ised

sho

win

gevi

den

ceo

fd

em

arc

ati

on

by

mean

so

fcl

ear

sen

ten

ceb

ou

nd

ari

es.

Th

ew

rite

ru

ses

their

ow

nh

eu

rist

icexp

eri

en

ces

wit

hsl

igh

tad

ap

tati

on

an

dem

bell

ish

men

tas

the

basi

sfo

rth

est

ory

.Th

ism

ay

incl

ud

eso

me

all

usi

on

sto

oth

er

text

sth

ew

rite

rh

as

read

or

seen

.

Th

ew

riti

ng

beg

ins

toen

gag

eth

ere

ad

er

wit

hso

me

em

oti

on

al

resp

on

seat

part

icu

lar

stag

es

of

the

sto

ry.

L1Th

en

arr

ati

veh

as

acl

ear

beg

inn

ing

.Th

ere

isa

seq

uen

ceo

feve

nts

wit

hso

me

cau

sal

lin

ks.

En

din

gs

may

be

sud

den

an

dh

ave

ten

uo

us

lin

ks

top

revi

ou

seve

nts

.Plo

tli

ne

isli

near.

Th

ere

litt

led

iffe

ren

ceb

etw

een

plo

tan

dn

arr

ati

vei.

eth

est

ory

isto

ldas

ase

to

fch

ron

olo

gic

al

eve

nts

.Eve

nts

ten

dto

be

narr

ate

dq

uic

kly

.Th

ere

isa

sin

gle

narr

ati

on

al

voic

e.

Am

ain

chara

cter

isn

am

ed

an

db

asi

cin

form

ati

on

isg

iven

ab

ou

tth

ech

ara

cter.

e.g

.ag

e,

basi

cp

hys

ical

desc

rip

tio

nsu

chas

heig

ht,

colo

ur

of

hair

.

Pla

ces

are

nam

ed

usi

ng

eit

her

pro

per

or

com

mo

nn

ou

ns.

e.g

.th

ep

ark

,B

ed

ford

.

Wo

rdch

oic

es

may

be

rep

eti

tive

an

dm

ean

ing

isco

nve

yed

thro

ug

hth

eu

seo

fsi

mp

lese

nte

nce

sli

nked

main

lyto

the

narr

ati

on

of

eve

nts

.

Ideas

are

pre

sen

ted

seq

uen

tiall

ysh

ow

ing

som

eevi

den

ceo

fse

nte

nce

-lik

ed

em

arc

ati

on

Th

ew

rite

rh

as

dra

wn

on

eve

ryd

ay

exp

eri

en

ceas

ab

asi

sfo

rth

ep

lot

lin

e.

Ideas

are

com

mu

nic

ate

deff

ect

ively

bu

tsi

mp

ly.

Th

ew

riti

ng

con

veys

ali

ttle

em

oti

on

al

dep

th.



assessor as a ‘real reader’. There may appear to be an element of serendipityabout this; what appeals to one reader may not appeal to another. However, asophisticated reader would detect the writer’s intention, even though it maynot have a significant affect on them personally. The penultimate criterionenables the reader to give credit for the way in which the writer has drawn onpersonal experience and intertextuality, where appropriate. This requires thereader/assessor to have knowledge of the writer’s socio-cultural background,hobbies and interests. Such awareness can only be acquired if the teacher hasa secure knowledge of the children in their class. This not only frames teachersas pedagogic ethnographers, it also requires an inclusive pedagogy, one inwhich learning occurs by means of the negotiation of knowledge betweenteachers and pupils in classrooms with fluid boundaries between school, homeand community. This is what Bernstein (1974) refers to as ‘invisible teaching’in a ‘loosely framed’ curriculum. It is in just such a curriculum that the ‘culturalcapital’ (Bourdieu and Passeron 1977), or ‘funds of knowledge’ (Gonzalezet al. 2005) of the learner is valued as a resource for learning and theconstruction of knowledge. The strong symbiotic relationship of assessmentcriteria, curriculum, teaching and learning, and the prevailing concept of thelearner’s position in the world, is evident from this discussion. This discussionalso suggests that for the assessment of writing to be effective it should beundertaken by the class teacher, as was recommended in the NationalCurriculum: Task Group on Assessment and Testing (1987; 1988) reports,which accompanied the drafting of English in the National Curriculum (DES1990) and preceded the implementation of SATs.

In the next section we consider the judgements made of pupils’ writing usingthe two different assessment criteria used in this study.

Comparison of outcomes APP versus ANWA comparison of data derived from the dual assessments was made. Findingsshow that in most cases pupils’ scores are either the same or higher on theANW criteria than the APP criteria. A comparison of 69 scripts in the baselinesample show that 62% (N = 43) of pupils scored the same level on bothcriteria. Some pupils achieved a higher level on the APP criteria with 10.1%(N = 7) being a third of a level better and 1.5% (N = 1) one and a third levelsbetter. However, more pupils scored higher grades on the ANW criteria thanon the APP criteria; 18.8% (N = 13) of pupils were a third of a level better;5.8%(N = 4) were two thirds of a level better and 1.5% (N = 1) one wholelevel better. On the baseline sample then 26.4% (N = 18) of pupils achieved ahigher level on the ANW criteria than the APP criteria, whereas 11.6% (N = 8)of pupils attained a higher level on the APP criteria than they did on the ANWcriteria.

The second and third samples show pupils made even greater improvementon the ANW criteria. In a sample of 42 scripts, the second assessment showsthat those pupils achieving the same level on both criteria had fallen to 36%



(N = 15). There was little difference in those pupils scoring a higher level onthe APP criteria than on the ANW criteria between the first and secondassessments. In the second assessment this amounted to 11.7%, which was just0.1% higher than on the first assessment. However, 52.3% (N = 22) of pupilsachieved higher levels on the ANW criteria than the levels they achieved onthe APP criteria. Fifteen pupils, or 36%, were a third of a level higher; 14%(N = 6) were two thirds of a level higher and 2.3% (N = 1) achieved a grade awhole level higher.

In the final assessment 37 scripts were marked. In 45.9% (N = 17) of casesthere was no difference in the level assigned to scripts using either criteria. Sixpupils (16.3%) achieved a third of a level higher on the APP criteria than theANW criteria. Although this is higher for this category than on the two earlierassessments, the actual number of pupils represented is not significantlydifferent in terms of the overall number scoring more highly on the APPcriteria. In the first sample it was 8 pupils and in the second it was 5 pupils.So, irrespective of the size of the sample a similar number of pupils are‘favoured’ by the APP criteria. However, the third assessment confirmed thetrend of the first two by showing that once again more pupils achieved ahigher grade on the ANW criteria than they did on the APP criteria: 16.3%(N = 6) were a third of a level better and 21.6% (N = 8) were two thirds of alevel better. Overall then 37.9% (N = 14) achieved a higher level on thiscriteria than they did on the APP criteria.

A second comparative indicator is the rate of progress pupils made againsteach set of criteria across the three samples. Although the majority of pupils(55%) made the same rate of progress when assessed against both sets ofcriteria, more pupils (28%) made greater progress when their writing wasmarked using the ANW criteria compared to 17% whose progress was greaterwhen marked against the APP criteria.

In summary, these findings suggest a significant number of pupils demonstratehigher standards of writing when assessed against the ANW criteria thanagainst the APP criteria. Although these findings are derived from a relativelysmall sample of pupils, the analysis suggests that across a larger population,such as a national sample in the case of Key Stage Two SATs, an assessmentparadigm that values pupils’ creativity rather than one that privileges technicalaccuracy could yield a different set of results from the current data thatsuggests pupils’ achievements in writing lag behind those for reading.

Textual analysisWhilst statistical comparisons are useful to demonstrate global outcomes inrelation to broad assessment criteria, closer textual analysis is required to fullyappreciate the qualitative aspects of specific texts. The following exampleshows it is possible for a pupil to achieve a higher level on the APP criteriathan the ANW criteria, even though the writing lacks coherence.



Once upon a time it was a misrbell night but what was thatboing in the distence it sounds like its in the tube train entrence.Lets Go! ‘‘Look who is that’’ ‘‘ I am layla I am 13 years old but Iam very loney, but not with my mice. I am brave with my micebut I am not without.

The tube station is realey drak lots of people were in there to keepshelter. Layla whent to sleep on her bed but just then the bedstarted to rumbell. ‘‘ I beleve I can fly in the deep blue sky’’then she landed and started to cry because there was a sandstorm.

The independent assessor of this piece gave the writing a 2c against the APPcriteria, using the logic of the ‘best fit’ descriptor. The sub-level ‘c’ indicatesthat the writing met some of the criteria for that grade boundary; whereas sub-level ‘b’would suggest a more secure coverage of the criteria. The highest sub-level ‘a’ would be for writing that met all or most of the criteria. In thisinstance, the writing generally meets the level 2 descriptors across allassessment foci. However, aspects of level 3 are also evident in some foci. Theuse of speech marks is first referred to in AF6 at level 3 and the use ofparagraphs is a feature of AF4 level 3. On the basis of these judgements, thisYear One pupil is more than meeting the assessment benchmark for her age.However, when the writing was assessed against the ANW criteria none of thelevel 2 foci were met and the piece was given a 1b. In her comments on thewriting the assessor concluded, ‘…shows good understanding of the principlesof writing, i.e. use of punctuation, story opening; use of adjectives, but it makesno sense!!’

Whilst it is possible to discern in this somewhat surreal piece the potential ofthe pupil to write imaginatively, as is evident in the use of the descriptivenoun phrase, ‘..the deep blue sky..’ and the adjective ‘miserable’, as well heruse of the adverbial ‘very lonely’, the text lacks narrative coherence. There arealso elements of the beginnings, quite literally, of narrative structure assuggested in the traditional fairy tale aperture, ‘Once upon a time...’ and thepossibility that the noise, ‘ boing’, which prompts further investigation, is aninciting moment. The writer also introduces a character, Layla, and tells us herage, but beyond these things the writing reads like a formless stream ofconsciousness.

It might be suggested the pupil’s writing is influenced by learning objectivesthat privilege technical features of texts over narrative composition.Interestingly, in the final symposium, the teacher of this pupil said the researchproject had made her realise how she had previously emphasised with thechildren the need for correctness of secretarial skills and that in future clarityof ideas would be her main learning objective.



This second example, by another pupil, was awarded a 2b by the independentassessor when using the APP criteria but a level 2a was awarded against theANW criteria.

One sunny morning there lived a boy called harry he had blackhair and school clors on. He lived in a old black cussorl (castle)with his frend rone. Harry was upset with rone he said i’’woching my iys on you’’. It was home time. Harry makedt hismedicine he makes rone feel sick. Rone faots (faints) he fils disseyas he turns into mareo. He is harry new best frend harry washappy and he is frens with mareo in the old black cassel (castle).

The lower grade (2b) was given because the writing contains simple sentences,demarcated by full stops and capitals.(AF 2) The language is described as‘speech like’ with some evidence of speech marks and apt word choices. Thereis also some evidence of genre and phonetically plausible spellings. At Level 2in the APP criteria there is little opportunity to give the writer credit for the useof characterisation, narrative structure - beyond the opening and conclusion-and dramatic tension. However, when using the ANW criteria, the assessor wasable to assess much more closely the writer’s ability to manipulate features ofnarrative. Hence, this writer’s use of relationship between characters and theinclusion of tension, leading to a change in the relationship was recognised, aswas the use of intertextuality, with reference to the Harry Potter novels. Both ofthese features are Level 3 characteristics but the remaining aspects of the piecewere Level 2 features. The assessor was also able to discern an emergentnarrative voice and simple narrative structure.

In their research feedback, the two independent assessors both reported thatthe ANW criteria enabled them to pinpoint, for the writer, clear progressiontargets in relation to compositional content, whereas the APP provided onlygeneric targets in relation to the secretarial skills of the writer.

It would appear then that these findings provide modest empirical support forD’Arcy’s argument that a more creative paradigm would enhance pupils’writing. However, until there are changes to the teaching and assessmentparadigm which frame writing pedagogy, both teachers and pupils are reducedto being compliant agents of hegemonic policy discourses (Kuzich 2011: 155).Furthermore, as Hillocks (2002) demonstrates in his authoritative study acrossfive states in the USA, that whilst current assessments of writing may serve‘political’ purposes they can be deleterious to the teaching of writing, leadingto low level thinking, formulaic and mediocre composition. In the UK, wherecomparisons of the outcomes of assessment through the publication of schoolleague tables are the norm, teachers and pupils are implicitly pressured tomeet age-related bench-marks. Dweck (1986: 88–89) noted that in learningenvironments where externally instigated ‘performance goals’ influenceteaching and learning, creativity and risk-taking are subordinate to the



acquisition of ‘learned helplessness’ (Dweck 1986: 1040) on the part of pupilsas they strive to meet specific competencies.

This discussion raises questions about teachers’ efficacy to improve levels ofliteracy when constrained by ‘skills based’ teaching and assessment paradigms.It suggests, given the symbiotic nature of assessment criteria and pedagogy,that writing assessment criteria which synthesises compositional and secretarialskills are likely to produce a more balanced pedagogy, leading to qualitativelybetter standards of writing in our schools. Teachers recognise this need forbalance just as they know that assessment criteria often privilege theacquisition of skills over creativity and that targets are often met at the expenseof pupils’ enjoyment of writing (Burke 2011). It is perhaps the case thatpolitical goals, located around narrow definitions of standards, havemarginalised teachers’ professional judgements for far too long and that thetime has come for academics and practitioners to strengthen their professionalalliance in order to re-assert a collective judgement about what writing is, andwhat the teaching and assessment of writing entails. To this end, aretrospective of D’Arcy’s paper may be the inciting moment to kick-start amore creative paradigm for the teaching and assessment of writing.

ConclusionAssessment criteria are predicated on conceptualisations of knowledge.Different assessment criteria for writing require the marker to look for differentcharacteristics of written composition. In this paper it has been argued thatwhen the focus is on compositional features of narrative writing and thepupil’s ability to narrate a story in such a way that it has an affect on thereader, the tendency is for assessors to award a significant number of pupils ahigher score than on criteria that assess the pupil’s technical skill alone. Thefindings of this study then suggest that a process-based paradigm, such as thatsuggested by D’Arcy (1999) values and rewards authorial voice and theaffective quality of writing. Such an assessment paradigm not only makes for‘authentic’ writing, it also positions the reader authentically. By that I mean thewriter engages with content that has significance to them and allows thereader to respond as a reader and not just as an assessor of technical accuracy.It is not the case that a process-based paradigm negates the assessment oftechnical accuracy, it is just that it is not privileged above compositionalfeatures of writing. Indeed, D’Arcy advocated assessment criteria thatsynthesised technical accuracy and compositional features. In addition, thisstudy suggests that the use of generic writing assessment criteria, such as theAPP, may not be appropriate to all genre because it fails to allow assessors togive credit for pupils’ use of features of composition that are specific to thegenre being assessed. This appears to be the case with narrative writing.

The findings of this research support D’Arcy’s assertion that a paradigmaticchange is required in the teaching and assessment of writing. However, currentsocio-political discourses on literacy education in England constrain the



necessary paradigmatic shift. D’Arcy’s critique of contrasting teaching andassessment paradigms remains as relevant today despite the passage of thirteenyears since the publication of her original paper.

ReferencesAlexander, R. (2008) Essays on Pedagogy. Abingdon: Routledge.Barthes, R. (1975) The Pleasure of Text. New York: Hill and WayBarton, G. (2007) ‘Rejuvenating writing’, NATE Classroom Issue 02 Available

at: http://www.nate.org.uk/uploads/classroom/00003-geoff_barton.pdf(accessed 4.1.08)

Bernstein, B. (1974) Class, Codes and Control. Vol. 1. 2nd edn. London:Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Bertoff, A. (1982) Forming, Thinking, Writing: the composing imagination.Portsmouth NH: Heinemann.

Bourdieu, P. and Passeron, J.C. (1977) Reproduction in Education, Society andCulture. London: Sage.

Britton, J. (1970) Language and Learning. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Burke, W. (2011) ‘Log jammed by standard assessment tests: how feedback can

help writers’, Literacy, 45 (1) 19–24.Calkins, L. M. (1983) Lessons From A Child: On the Teaching and Learning of

Writing. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann Educational Books.Cremin, T. and Myhill, D. (2012) Writing Voices: Creating Communities of

Writers. Abingdon: Routledge.Cremin, T. (2006) Creativity, uncertainty and discomfort: Teachers as writers.

Cambridge Journal of Education, 36(3), 415–33.D’Arcy, P (1999) Two Contrasting Paradigms for the teaching and the

Assessment of Writing: A critique of current approaches in the NationalCurriculum. NAAE/NAPE/NATE.

Department for Children Schools and Families (2007) Improving Writing with aFocus on Guided Writing: Leading Improvement Using the PrimaryFramework. London: DCSF.

Department for Education and Employment (1998) The National LiteracyStrategy: Framework for teaching. London: DEE.

DES (1990) English in the National Curriculum. London: HMSO.Dweck, C.S. (1986) Motivational processes affecting learning, American

Psychologist, 41, 1040–1048.Fairclough, N. (1989) Language and Power. Harlow: Longman.Flower, L. and Hayes, J.R. (1981) A cognitive theory process of writing, College

Composition and Communication, 32 (4), 365–387.Gardner, P. (unpublished) Student Teachers as Writers: impact on perceptions

of the self as a writer and the process of composition. Bedford: University ofBedfordshire.

Gipps, C. (1994) Beyond Testing: Towards a Theory of Educational Assessment.London: Falmer Press.

Genette, (1972) The Narrative Discourse. Oxford: Blackwell.



Gonzalez, N., Moll, L. and Amanti, C. (2005). Funds of Knowledge: TheorizingPractices in Households, Communities, and Classrooms. New Jersey:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Goouch, K.; Cremin, T. and Lambirth, A. (2009) Writing is Primary. Finalresearch report. London. Esmee Fairbairn Foundation.

Gramsci, A. (1971) Selections from the Prison Notebooks (ed. and trans. byHoare, Q. and Nowell Smith, G.) London: Lawrence and Wishart.

Graves, D. (1983) Writing: Teachers and Children at Work. Portsmouth, NH:Heinemann Educational Books.

Hillocks, G. (2007). Narrative writing: Learning a new model for teaching.Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Hillocks, G. (2002). The testing trap: How state writing assessments controllearning. New York: Teachers College Press.

Hillocks, G. (1995) Teaching Writing as Reflective Practice. New York:Teachers College Press.

Ivanic, R. (2004) Discourses of Writing and Learning to Write. Language andEducation, 18(3), 220–245.

Kuzich, S. (2011) Education for Sustainability: Implications for Curriculum andPedagogy. 7th International Conference on Education. ConferenceProceedings Volume B. Athens: National and Kapodistrian University ofAthens.

McArthur, T. (ed.) (1992) The Oxford Companion to the English Language.Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Moffett, J. (1979) Integrity in the Teaching of Writing. The Phi Delta Kapan,61(4).

Murray, D. (1982) Learning by Teaching. Portsmouth NH: Heinemann.National Curriculum: Task Group on Assessment and Testing. (1987) A Report.

London: Department of Education.National Curriculum: Task Group on Assessment and Testing. (1987) Three

Supplementary Reports. London: Department of Education.The National Strategies Primary Literacy archive http://

webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110809101133/http://www.nsonline.org.uk/node/18050?uc=force_uj (accessed 28. 2. 12)

Nystrand, M., Greene, S. and Wiemelt, J. (1993) Where does compositionstudies come from? An Intellectual History, Written Communication, 10(3),267–333.

Rosenblatt, L. (1969) Towards a transactional theory of reading, Journal ofReading Behaviour, 1(1), 31–51.

Smith, F. (1982) Writing and the Writer. New York: Holt, Rinehart andWinston.



Documents

Paradigms and Pedagogy: revisiting D’Arcy’s critique of the teaching and the assessment of writing