“English has a pre-eminent place in education and in...

8583194

Analyse and evaluate the national priorities in English. Consider this alongside research evidence and discuss how both are enacted in schools. (Part A)

Use your reading, research and classroom based experience to suggest a model of effective language and literacy development across the curriculum. (Part B)

Part A

English has a pre-eminent place in education and in society. It is a subject in its own right and the medium for teaching; for pupils, understanding language provides access to the whole curriculum. (DfE, 2013: 13)

Given its centrality to the curriculum and permeation of every aspect of the school day, it is little wonder

the teaching of language and literacy, with its success essential to attainment in school and to fulfilling

potential opportunities throughout life, is continuously scrutinized with regard to effectiveness and raising

standards. This is particularly pertinent when faced with evidence that “Too many children in England do

not read or write well enough by the time they leave primary school” (Ofsted, 2010:1) and that

international comparisons show English literacy is “standing still while others race past. In the most

recent OECD PISA survey we fell from…7th to 17th in literacy” (DfE, 2010: 3). Thus answers must be

sought to the ongoing question how can achievement be raised in order to move English forward?

Such evidence dictates national priorities and it is in the first part of this assignment that I want to explore

further the current policy for teaching primary English and how this structure has evolved through recent

policy debate, government directives and key academic and pedagogical reports in its attempt to answer

this question. Two weeks were spent in School X to provide context for analysing and evaluating current

policy and pedagogy through recording lesson observations and interviewing staff and children on the

development of language and literacy in English lessons and across the whole curriculum. One way of

understanding the teaching approaches observed is to be aware of the way in which, historically, primary

teaching methods for English have developed as changing values in the wider world of education shape

what happens in school and affects what we see in the classroom.

At School X, an Ofsted rated ‘outstanding’ school, there was no more obvious insight into the current

national priorities for English than examination of the timetables (Appendix 1). They indicate the current

education drivers including early reading and phonics, handwriting and spelling, punctuation and

grammar (SPaG). From lesson observations and an interview with the Literacy Co-ordinator, (Appendix

2) priorities for this school also include reading for pleasure and developing literacy across the

curriculum.

of 17

8583194

These priorities reflect a great deal of what Secretary of State, Michael Gove, wrote in his letter to the

chair of the Expert Panel reviewing the curriculum, Tim Oates:

…in English, the new Programme of Study will ensure high standards of literacy. Pupils will be taught to read fluently and develop a strong command of the written and spoken word. We will strengthen the focus on the fundamentals of phonics, grammar and spelling. There will also be a much stronger emphasis on reading widely for pleasure. (Gove, 2012).

From analysis of the draft National Curriculum I acknowledge that there are further priorities for English,

however not all can be addressed within the limitations of this assignment. Thus I shall examine those

priorities that I have been able to analyse and evaluate in context.

In recent years the teaching of reading has been high on the UK political and policy agenda and

understandably given the quotes in the opening paragraph. It is this purported fall in children’s reading

ability that gave rise to the most influential review on reading in recent times. With compelling research

emerging on the enhancing effect of synthetic phonics on reading standards, The Independent Review of

the Teaching of Early Reading (2006), was commissioned by the Labour Government. Sir Jim Rose was

set the task of how best to implement phonics based on research that the government had already decided

would inform their new strategy for reading. The most influential work was that of Johnston and Watson

(2005) and their seven year study of the effects of synthetic phonics on attainment. Their findings did not

go unchallenged: Wyse and Styles (2007) contend that “action taken by the UK government to change the

National Curriculum in line with the Rose Report’s (2006) recommendations represents a change in

pedagogy not justified by research.”(p.35) and Rose himself accepted there were “uncertainties” (2006:4).

Nonetheless the recommendations of the review and the Letters and Sounds teaching model used in most

schools rest heavily on the findings of their study (Brien 2012).

Overall the message of the review was that “high quality phonic work should be taught as the prime

approach in learning to decode (to read) and encode (to write/spell) print” (2006: 70) and phonics,

combined with language comprehension, informed ‘the simple view of reading’. It would appear that the

words ‘prime’ and ‘simple’ and have caused the most controversy and misinterpretation of Rose’s

meaning. In the All Party Parliamentary Group 2011 report, Overcoming the barriers to literacy, concerns

were expressed over the seeming imbalance in reading approaches since the Rose Review. Concerns

included: “phonics and ‘reading’ are being used interchangeably by policy makers, when they are not the

same thing at all: reading isolated words is not reading for meaning” (p.15); in too many settings phonics

is seen as a ‘one size fits all’ approach and that “phonic-only programmes limit children's exposure to

excellent quality language and limit the strategies the children employ in their fledgling reading attempts”

(p.15).

of 17

8583194

I argue that School X’s interpretation of Rose’s meaning is more accurate. They implement phonics from

Early Years to Year 2 through the use of the Letters and Sounds programme and offer support to targeted

children in Year 3. Like Rose (2006), the schools philosophy is that “phonic work is an essential part, but

not the whole picture, of what it takes to become a fluent reader and skilled writer” (p.17). For School X

phonics is an access point to reading; the rigour of early phonics teaching is providing what the children

need to grasp the essential skills. Once they have these, they build on them to learn more. This is achieved

by delivering phonic work “securely embedded within a broad and language-rich curriculum: that is to

say, a curriculum that generates purposeful discussion, interest, application, enjoyment and high

achievement across all the areas of learning and experience” (p.16). Children are provided opportunities

to gain confidence in reading by using phonic decodable books but “using such books as part of the

phonic programme does not preclude other reading” (p.27) Through the library, story time, guided and

shared reading, children explore a diverse range of quality texts that spark their interests and expose them

to words outside their decoding abilities in a bid to build positive reading habits based on an

understanding of the joy reading brings. Engagement in reading is further promoted through drama, role

play, songs, and fun, interactive ICT as well as enhancing the teaching of reading by its application across

other subjects.

Highlighted above is the need to use a variety of strategies for teaching reading. Encouraging children to

read for enjoyment as part of a whole-school reading strategy has an impact on achievement at School X

and there is further empirical evidence to support this. Twist et al (2007) examined the attitudes to

reading in nine and eleven year olds in 4477 primary schools. It built on the same survey completed in

2003 in response to the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study which documented that in

comparison with their international peers, pupils in England recorded worryingly low levels of reading for

pleasure. The study found that children who were encouraged and intrinsically motivated to read usually

read more often and more widely which expanded their reading experience and positively impacted on

comprehension and achievement. Ofsted have also found this to be the case in its 2011 report, Excellence

in English, stating “Schools that take the business of reading for pleasure seriously are more likely to

succeed with their pupils’ reading” (p.7). Furthermore, in its guidance for inspectors, Ofsted is explicit in

its view that “One of the key aspects of effective reading in primary schools is the determination of staff

to promote a culture which encourages pupils to enjoy reading” (2011: 25).

Thus reading for pleasure is a prominent feature in the draft curriculum as an activity to be enjoyed in its

own right as it “feeds pupils’ imagination and opens up treasure-house of wonder and joy for curious

young minds.” (DfE, 2013: 14) but also to combat the UK’s supposed fall down the literacy league tables.

This rationale underpins School X’s policy on reading and the school’s commitment to this can be seen

of 17

8583194

through its philosophy on the library, the provision made available (Appendix 3) and in its timetabling of

story time and Golden assembly which includes a section for celebrating good reading behaviour.

In its endeavour to give children a ‘strong command of the written word’, the draft curriculum places

transcription (spelling and handwriting) and punctuation and grammar amongst its top priorities.

Similarly, School X states in its policy:

Children learn to write in order to be able to communicate meaning in to a wide range of audiences. They need to be able to structure their writing so that it is coherent and they must understand that correct spelling, punctuation and grammar help to make the meaning of their writing clear to the reader…[it] therefore needs to be accurate, legible and set out in an appropriate way. (2012)

In Moving English Forward (2012), Ofsted asserted that “The close link between handwriting and

spelling has been well established. In particular, it is clear that pupils with a fluent cursive script are more

likely to become good spellers.” (p.26) However, inspectors observed “relatively little formal teaching of

spelling” (p.26) and declared in its Inspection Framework report that:

It is not clear how pupils will improve their spelling skills and understanding of grammar andpunctuation without explicit teaching….In light of the expectation in the new Teaching Standards that all teachers will promote high standards of literacy and the correct use of standard English, inspectors might expect to see a more formal approach…”(2011a: 33)

Formal handwriting and spelling sessions are a part of each school day at School X and are taught in

short-burst, daily sessions as laid down in school policy. The words the children practise are spellings

related to topics of work that are new to them or which assessment has highlighted needs to be

consolidated. Perusal of the children’s handwriting books showed steady progression in handwriting

(Appendix 4) and interviews with teachers revealed they found the practice to greatly benefit the

children’s spelling; it was voiced several times that they felt the hands have ‘memory’ and recall the

structure of words.

Unlike previous curriculums, in which the focus of grammar has been upon spoken language and

Standard English, the draft curriculum acknowledges grammar as a ‘mean-making’ tool for writing.

Reports going back fifty years (eg Braddock et al 1963; Elley et al 1975; Hillocks 1986; Andrews et al

2006) all contend that teaching grammar offers nothing beneficial to developing writing skills. However

Myhill (2011) sees a difficulty with these findings:

The studies repeatedly investigate whether various forms of isolated grammar teaching improves writing. You might reasonably ask why anyone would think that being able to

of 17

8583194

identify nouns or subject clauses in a sentence on Monday might improve a child’s writing on Friday! (p.2)

Myhill et al’s Grammar for Writing? A three year study of the effectiveness of contextualised grammar

teaching (2008-2010) did find “a positive benefit of teaching grammar when the grammar is contextualised”

(Myhill et al, 2010: 2. Original emphasis). The children in the study who were taught with a focus that went

beyond just identifying terms and categories and promoted a love for experimenting with language and

grammar made a 20% improvement in their writing in one year. Their work was found to be accurate as

well as more creative due to sophisticated grammar manipulation (Myhill et al, 2011). However, my

concern is that the dry and decontextualised format of the newly introduced ‘SPaG’ test may prevent some teachers

from embracing this approach given the pressures for children to perform in high stake tests.

School X does use a discrete weekly grammar lesson that follows the Keys workbook scheme to

consolidate work done in English lessons but as Figure 1 indicates, this process in combination with its

approach to language and literacy overall, works well for their pupils.

Key Stage 2 SATs 2011

(28 children: 2 SEN ch – 1 SA; 1SA+)

2012

(31 children: 3 SEN ch - 2 SA; 1SA+)

Reading at level 4 or above 100% 100%

Reading at level 5 96% 71%

Writing at level 4 or above 96% 94%

Writing at level 5 57% 65%

English level 4 or above 96% 97%

English level 5 86% 68%

Figure 1.

However the school is always open to complementary approaches and has made extra provision in the

timetable for teaching spelling, punctuation and grammar in this way, particularly in year six as

handwriting sessions make way for SPaG activities as mental starters for work to be covered in the

English sessions and in preparation for the ‘SPaG’ test. Work is taught using interactive games that allow

for playing with words and punctuation as individuals and group to infer different meaning, often to

humorous effect.

One of Ofsted’s major findings in its Moving English Forward report (2012) is that not enough schools

have effective programmes for developing literacy skills across the curriculum. As a result, Ofsted’s new

inspection framework for literacy places an increased emphasis on cross curricular literacy as “Although

of 17

8583194

it is right that key literacy skills in reading, writing, speaking and listening should be taught primarily in

English lessons, there is a clear intention in recent government statements of policy for these skills to be

reinforced and applied with accuracy across other subjects.” (2011a:36) Such policy statements include

“The National Curriculum for English reflects the importance of spoken language an pupils’ development

across the whole curriculum – cognitively, socially and linguistically” (DfE, 2013:13) and “By the end of

Year 6, pupils’ reading and writing should be sufficiently fluent and effortless for them to manage the

general demands of the curriculum in Year 7, across subjects and not just in English” ((DfE, 2013: 40).

All this suggests a move to literacy being viewed as a ‘whole day’ lesson with exposure to reading and

discussion not confined to English and a move away from the constraints of the literacy hour and the

narrow focus on mechanics. The Literacy Strategy was introduced in 1998 and underpinned by the

rationale to raise standards. It came with a very prescriptive three part lesson structure, specified

knowledge for teaching and testing and demanded ‘whole class’ pedagogical practice that placed content

and ‘teacher-talk’ above opportunities for extended writing and reading for pleasure in a bid to cover the

curriculum. In Excellence and enjoyment: learning and teaching in the primary years (2003), schools

were encouraged to be more flexible in their implementation of the literacy hour which was reinforced by

the renewed Framework for Teaching (2006) which placed greater emphasis on teaching literacy skills

across other subjects to ensure the needs of the children were met. (Cremin 2009) Also, “Influenced by

the changing nature of twenty first century communication, the new framework and the Rose review

(2009) recognise the emerging creativity agenda and explicitly encourages creative literacy teaching.”

(Cremin, 2009:2)

Over decades, some educationalists have warned that an overemphasis on the basics is in fact

counterproductive and that a broader curriculum offering results in meaningful context for children to use

and apply the very skills that are so valued. For example,

…there is no evidence in the survey to suggest that a narrower curriculum enabled children to do better in the basic skills or led to the work being more aptly chosen to suit the capacities of the children. (HMI, 1978, p.114, para 8.28)

Twenty years later, in its report, Ofsted (2002) acknowledged that there are many schools able to achieve

a balance between high standards in the basics and providing children with a rich and varied experience in

school:

The schools in this survey achieve what many others claim is not possible. They have high standards in English, mathematics and science, while also giving a strong emphasis to the humanities, physical education and the arts. (p.7)

of 17

8583194

The trend continued with the Rose Review (2009) explicitly drawing attention to the merit of cross

curricular teaching. He found a way to retain both subjects and cross-curricular work which maintained

the centrality of the ‘3Rs’ while facilitating breadth. Key findings in the Cambridge Primary Review

(2009) were that inadequacies in the primary curriculum stem from “policy-led belief that curriculum

breadth is incompatible with the pursuit of standards in ‘the basics’…” (2009: 22)

However, cross curricular work in primary schools has seen its esteem come and go. In what came to be

known as the ‘report of the three wise men’, it was asserted that “much topic work has led to fragmentary and

superficial teaching and learning” (Alexander et al., 1992, para 3.4) Making tenuous links to a theme and

forcing subjects fit where they do not undermines the merits of cross curricular teaching and gives critics

cause to argue there is a lack of academic rigour and progression in this approach. Nevertheless, positive

recommendations seemed to have encouraged a growing tendency towards cross curricular work with Ofsted

observing “it is common to see good primary schools using opportunities for pupils to develop and apply their

reading or writing skills in tasks located in ‘thematic’ units or in other subjects.” (2011:10) This is the case

for School X, and its most recent Ofsted inspection which noted “The curriculum is balanced, carefully-

structured and includes many rich, first-hand experiences… Pupils have good opportunities to practise and

improve their literacy, numeracy and ICT skills in other subjects” (2010a:6)

Even so, within a year of the Rose Report, the newly elected coalition government proclaimed they would not

be going forward with the Rose’s new curriculum with much rhetoric being the government felt a curriculum

organised around discrete subject disciplines would raise standards. These ‘pendulum swings’ between

successive governments are unconstructive; differing curriculum approaches should be considered

complementary as opposed to mutually exclusive and with the talk of the government prescribing the ‘what’

on the curriculum, not mandating the ‘how’, schools should have the flexibility to combine both worlds and

teachers need to use their professional judgement as to when they feel a particular approach is fitting.

Part A has examined national priorities and how they are implemented in schools. In exploring how these

policies and pedagogies have come in to being within the context of School X and considering research

evidence, it has been shown that in the teaching of language and literacy a balance will always need to be

sought between the prescriptive elements laid down by government and the flexible elements, the pedagogical

approaches which influence work in the classroom. The new curriculum may be prescriptive in its own way

yet it allows teachers the space to choose the context in which to teach it. Thus, how the curriculum provides

the entitlement to a broad and balanced experience will be down to the leaders and teachers who interpret it.

Drawing on the above, a suggested model for effective language and literacy development will be the focus of

Part B.

of 17

8583194

Part B

Different models for approaching teaching and learning are aligned with distinctive ways of looking at

children and education: “What teachers know and how they think shapes, for better or worse, how they

teach – and how their pupils learn.” (Alexander, 2009: 28) Understanding the way children develop gives

teachers an appreciation of the situations, resources and strategies that allow for progression in learning.

Whilst reading would appear to have an unrivalled place in the draft curriculum for driving standards in

most areas, (it is mentioned five times in the ten line purpose of study for English) I propose that national

priorities can be addressed by a model for effective language and literacy development that has speaking

and listening as its foundation. Within this vast area my specific focus will be on ‘dialogic teaching’ and

how this develops speaking, listening, reading and writing skills. In doing so, I build on an extensive

body of research as well as contextualised first hand experience and observation. To be clear, the

definition of dialogic teaching being worked to is that “it reflects a view that knowledge and

understanding come from testing evidence, analysing ideas and exploring values, rather than accepting

someone else’s certainties” (Alexander, 2008: 32). In dialogic classrooms ‘talk’ is spoken language used

purposefully and collaboratively for teaching and learning. The users of this talk are teachers in their

interactions with children and children in their interactions with each other which are planned for. I will

examine the nature of dialogic teaching and its effectiveness for developing language and literacy through

four main categories for talk most often witnessed in the classroom. These are: teacher modelling;

guided instruction; collaborative working and independent work.

The value of talk in our development is well documented. As children are exposed to an increasing

amount of language and are supported in their production, their proficiency with language grows.

Children are innately curious, cognitive beings and so their language development is also associated with

their exploration and growing knowledge of their environment. This understanding underpins the

imitation and cognitive models of language acquisition (Brown, 2009). Brien (2012) suggests that

elements of both models can be taken to account for language development which could be expressed as

“humans are predisposed to learn language but environmental factors impact on language development.”

(p.10) This understanding has given rise to an increased awareness of the cultural capital children bring to

school, emphasised by findings that “children’s ability to communicate on entry to school has declined in

recent years” (Ofsted 2012: 48). Knowing that children are predisposed to learn language, and that people

and the environment affects development, dictates that the curriculum needs to be delivered within a

language rich environment with the teacher very much an agent in its construction by way of the

of 17

8583194

interactions initiated. As Alexander (2009) states, children flourish best through “interacting with each

other and stimulating adults” (p.16). The priority for teachers is to get children talking and to model

effective talk themselves.

Appendix 5 is a transcript of the whole-class instruction I recorded whilst observing a Year 3 class

working on a poetry unit and there are two elements of teacher-children talk I wish to explore through

this. The first is the teacher as a model of speaking and listening. If part of language learning involves

imitation, it is clear to see why Teacher Standards demand teachers “demonstrate an understanding of and

take responsibility for promoting high standards of literacy, articulacy and the correct use of standard

English, whatever the teacher’s specialist subject” (DfE, 2012:7). In this short interaction it can be seen

that the teacher offers a model which warrants imitation. Through the use of talk partners, the teacher

gives all the children the opportunity to speak and listen which helps to embed the etiquette, such as

allowing others to speak uninterrupted and active listening, and shows an appreciation for all their

thoughts. When taking feedback the teacher also actively listens to the contributions of each child and

links them together coherently to move the discussion forward. Breadth of vocabulary is included when

she confidently introduces the term ‘conducting’; she uses body language as non-verbal feedback; she

calmly corrects non Standard English and unwanted behaviours and she is activating the children’s

background knowledge on poetry and consolidating it by continuously modelling the use of academic

language she expects. Testament to this exchange is, when questioning the children as part of my

observations, the children responded using the vocabulary modelled by the teacher showing they had

reflected on it and absorbed it.

For further research of language modelling I asked years 3 and 5 to create a class word cloud of the

terminology they associated with English based on what they heard their teacher say (Appendix 6). As

you will note it is difficult to decide which year group created which word cloud. The inclusion of words

‘inference’, ‘comprehension’ and ‘personification’ are the only clues that the blue word cloud belongs to

Year 5. This is because of “Teachers' high expectations and deep subject knowledge…” and as such “Pupils

have become talented writers, eager to use powerful language that engages the reader's attention, for example

in using similes and metaphors to enhance their poems and biographical accounts.” (Ofsted, 2010a: 5) Both

these analyses encapsulate the point made by the new curriculum: “The quality and variety of language that

pupils hear and speak are vital for developing their vocabulary, grammar and their understanding for reading

and writing.” (DfE, 2013:13)

of 17

8583194

The second aspect I wish to look at is the nature of the teacher-class interaction. The teacher uses open

questions to explore the children’s understanding, known as formative assessment, not just look for

technical terms. The cognitive basis of this teacher talk encourages the children to respond in full

sentences by drawing on linguistic skills and vocabulary to communicate effectively what they mean and

indicate their conceptual understanding so they can all construct the knowledge together, a very good skill

to develop if they are to be “competent in the arts of speaking and listening, making formal presentations,

demonstrating to others and participating in debate.” (DfE 2013: 13) In English at the crossroads (2009),

Ofsted highlighted a “need to combat pupils’ one word answers” and that their observations showed this

was achieved through teachers’ “rich questioning” (p.28). The consistent approach of this Year 3 teacher

has created an environment were children feel safe to contribute as they have come to learn that talk is

used to formulate, extend and consolidate our ideas. In doing so they felt confident to go up to the

whiteboard and put that talk in to writing to create a class rap to model their own work on (Appendix 7).

This type of whole class teaching looks markedly different from its resurgence in 1998 with the National

Literacy Strategy (NLS) and the bid to raise standards by returning to values of the past, often associated

with didactic, teacher-centred approaches.(Myhill, 2006). The NLS was introduced despite an abundance

of research (Galton, 1980, Alexander 1992) that showed this structure promoted the dominance of teacher

–talk. Nevertheless, “the National Literacy Strategy (NLS) encouraged a major pedagogic shift in primary

education from cross-curricular topic work frequently carried out in groups to a more subject-based

curriculum with focused and whole class teaching” (Myhill, 2006: 20). Yet this shift did not live up to the

aspirations of high quality oral work and an expectation that teachers would facilitate high-order

interactions with children to engage them in critical thinking. Myhill’s two-and-a-half-year study,

commencing in 1999 found these aspirations had succumbed to the pressure of pace and the need for

curriculum coverage:

…much whole class teaching involved relatively little interaction which supported and scaffolded children in their learning…Teacher orchestration of classroom talk and interaction patterns which preserve the teacher’s control of talk scenarios was the dominant pattern. (2006:24)

As evident on School X’s timetable, much use is made of guided reading as a strategy for developing

comprehension. Children learn most when they are actively involved. In guided reading sessions at

School X, the teacher steps back from the normal role of story teller to allow the children to take on the

mantle with the teacher now the listener and the questioner. This “‘Book-talk’ is the extended opportunity

to use talk to explore children’s personal and collective responses to a text as readers. It is categorically

not a barrage of closed ‘comprehension’ questions but rather an open-ended eliciting and development of

of 17

8583194

response.” (DCSF, 2008:9) and although teacher led, the children still talk productively. They use talk to

ask questions, of the teacher, of others and of themselves as well as to clarify understanding, provide

feedback to a partner, and reflect once more on their learning. Given the characteristics of this interaction,

it could be deemed ‘dialogic reading’.

It is also for the teacher to facilitate talk between children by way of collaborative learning. Ofsted have

previously expressed concerns about pupils’ independence as learners and found “The most effective

schools use speaking and listening activities successfully to help pupils think for themselves.” (2009:5).

Mercer and Dawes (2008) build on the work of Douglas Barnes who describes the kind of talk between

pupils working collaboratively as ‘exploratory talk’. This type of talk allows the speaker to put ideas ‘out

there’, see how they sound, how they are reacted to and reshape them. It is a vehicle for ordering thought.

Mercer and Dawes have extended the concept to include the benefits for the speaker and those who are

working as part of the group. They are influenced by the work of Vygotsky (1978) and his idea that

language is a cultural device which allows people to think together as well as a psychological device for

individuals to formulate ideas: “In exploratory talk, listeners gain the benefit of hearing a speaker’s

tentative thoughts. Feedback from listeners may require a speaker to elaborate their point of view, perhaps

cast it in a clearer, more persuasive form – or even change their mind.” (Mercer and Dawes, 2008: 11).

This thinking has found its way in to School X’s English policy in which it states:

Purposeful talk is one of the major means through which children construct and refine their understanding of language...Both within the Literacy Lesson and across the curriculum we aim to provide opportunities for discussion; negotiation; group interaction; reflective responses to own and others’ contributions; reading and retelling; story telling; role play; drama; questioning and enquiring. We aim to create an environment which promotes active listening and learning and productive talking…” (School X, 2012)

Key words here are ‘purposeful’ and ‘productive’ and children need ground rules and guidance from the

teacher so the value of collaborative learning is not lost. Talking partners and Kagan structures have

broadened the repertoire for classroom talk. Returning to the Year 3 lesson on poetry, I video recorded

two children working together on their rap poems. From their talk (Appendix 8), what is apparent is how

the boy values the partner work, he feels safe to perform to his partner, values and uses her feedback and

reflects on the work she shares with him; being able to talk aloud is enabling him to develop a rhythm for

his poem and it is helping him edit his writing. As Myhill and Jones (2009) found, “there is evidence that

creating classrooms where children can talk about and collaborate in the process of writing supports the

development of individual students’ writing.” (p.4) Although not a priority for School X, boys writing

standards has been on the national agenda for some time. Just as in this observation, Ofsted’s (2003)

report, Yes he can: School where boys write well, highlighted that “All pupils are helped as writers by

of 17

8583194

opportunities to rehearse ideas orally, in whole-class discussion or in groups and pairs. This was a very

common aspect of the teaching seen, with discussion taking place at any point in the writing process,

from initial brainstorming of ideas to discussing editorial changes to redrafted work. Boys clearly valued

this...” (p.24)

From using structures such as talk partners, ‘Think, Pair, Share’ etc in my own practice, I have seen how

they also create a positive and inclusive learning environment as well as develop a range of other social

skills. These include taking the perspective of others, leadership, problem solving, conflict resolution and

helping. Developing these skills will ensure children become well rounded adults. By incorporating a

range of cooperative structures, teachers can engage and develop both dominant and non-dominant

intelligences allowing children to celebrate their strengths, identify areas for improvement and appreciate

the gifts of others. Thus speaking and listening is not just a medium for learning, but a skill in its own

right.

Finally, talk plays a vital role in independent work. When interviewing groups of Year 5 on what they

thought the difference was between their English lessons in KS1 and KS2, one boy commented that in

KS1 “they talk more than we’re allowed to” and informed they me they use talk partners less now they

are older. When asked if they ever talked to themselves instead, all children answered yes and examples

included saying sentences in ‘their heads’ before writing them down and reading maths problems aloud.

They all agreed that self-talk, whether in the mind or vocalised helped them to make sense of complex

wording and order their work in all subjects. Clearly, the opportunities to use exploratory forms of talk to

think together in earlier years has become an internalised strategy and so the slow withdrawal of this type

of support coincides with their move towards independent learners with a skill for life.

What I have endeavoured to demonstrate with my model is that purposeful talk is the key underlying

factor in the development of literacy. Conversation orders the concepts which are encoded in writing and

decoded in reading. Thus, as we examine why children are not progressing from our teaching, we must

evaluate what priority we give to talk in our classrooms. Speaking and listening has a history of being the

poor relation of reading and writing, ever since the coining of the ‘3Rs’. As a result, “written work is still

regarded as the only ‘real work’” (Alexander, 2012:5). So how can affording talk a prime spot in the

classroom be justified? I would argue, in the face of the above, how can it not? As shown with whole

class teaching, ‘transmitting’ what you want children to know does not develop pliable knowledge and

skills. Engaging children in language rich environments that stimulate thought is time well spent if high

levels of language and literacy is the reward.

of 17

8583194

Appendix 4: Handwriting progression.

of 17

8583194

Appendix 5

Teacher: Our learning challenge today is to use what we have learnt about rhyme and rhythm to write our own

raps. With your talk partner, have a think about what we have been learning and why rhyme and

rhythm would help your rap. Write your thoughts on your whiteboard so you can join in discussion

in a few minutes.

Expectations are set. The children break off and burst in to lively debate. After 3-4 minutes, whole

class discussion resumes.

Teacher: So, what are your thoughts? Most hands go up.

Lucy: Well, me and Jack talked about that raps are songs and most songs rhyme.

Teacher: That’s interesting, what does anyone else think about that?

Elijah: It’s true, loads of songs rhyme, nursery rhymes rhyme. I can remember loads from Year 1.

Teacher: Wow…Year 1 was two years ago. Who else remembers nursery rhymes? All hands go up. Which

ones do you remember? We have a rendition of Humpty Dumpty and Row, row, row your boat.

Teacher: Why do you think you all remember the nursery rhymes?

Annabelle: Because…well, when things rhyme they stay in your mind more because they’re in a pattern.

Liam: Yeah, like Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall, Humpty Dumpty had a great fall, you say all the lines in

the same way, they just come out.

Teacher: I noticed you did something then Liam to help you keep the pattern of how to say the rhyme.

Say those lines again and everybody watch what Liam does…What did you notice?

Luke: He used his hands like Mrs C does in choir.

Joe: Yeah, she does it so you keep in time.

Teacher: Yes, we call that ‘conducting’. It means guiding you, showing you how to keep in time. But guiding

you to keep in time with what?

Amy: With the music yeah, well cos if you got out of time its sounds wrong.

Teacher: Let’s use our Year 3 words please, Yes and because…

Because if you are out of time, it sounds wrong. Hmm, (waits several seconds with hand on chin to

show she is thinking.)

But there isn’t any music with a nursery rhyme or poem so how do you keep in time?

Ella: When you say it, you can clap to the beat like this (demonstrates to Humpty Dumpty)

Teacher: Good thinking Ella, poems have a beat, I like how you are using words from our music lessons. How

did you know that was the right beat to make it sound right?

Ella: Because…, well the rhymes help me.

Annabelle: Oh, me, me (waving hand madly) I know Miss, the rhymes make the rhythm!

Teacher: There’s no need for silly noises and shouting out, we all get to share. Tell me again Annabelle

please. (teacher voice calm, answer repeated).

Teacher: See what happens when we put all our heads together? We have learnt that some poems use rhyme

create a rhythm and that helps them to flow, to sound right and makes them easy to remember.

of 17

8583194Appendix 6

of 17

8583194Appendix 7

Whole class teaching with dialogic talk.

Talk Partners

Learning Objectives/challenges:

of 17

8583194

Appendix 8 Short excerpt from talk partner work

Jack: So shall I read it to you? “He took the pan and said I can cook” (taps out a beat with pen)…does that sound right?

Ellie: Yeah, next one

Jack: “Put the chicken in the microwave” Does that sound right? I don’t think so

Ellie: You’re not saying it the same way as your other one, it’s not long enough.

Jack: Says it quietly to himself several times, tapping pen.Ok, what about “Put the chicken in the microwave with the duck” Children laugh

Ellie: I like that (still giggling)

Jack: I think it’s long enough now - “He took the pan and said I can cook, put the chicken in the microwave with the duck!”…yeah, it’s better now, do you?..Miss, come and listen to mine!... Lets do yours next…

of 17

“English has a pre-eminent place in education and in...

Documents

Transcript of “English has a pre-eminent place in education and in...