Pat d'Arcy
Two Contrasting Paradigms for the Teaching and Assessment of Writing
A critique of current approaches in the National Curriculum (NAAE/NAPE/NATE 2000)
In the UK 1989-1999, successive publications, first from the National Curriculum (NC), then from the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA) and most recently from the National Strategy (NS), had focused on writing predominantly from the point of view of its construction, concerned with what was regarded as conventionally 'correct'. This was a paradigm of 'writing as product'. Pat felt that elements of the contrasting paradigm of 'writing as process' were being neglected, and was particularly alarmed by the effects of the QCA's 'Technical Accuracy Project' (TAP) 1999. This project seemed to ignore writer's voice and meaningful choices of vocabulary/register (eg preferring 'dad' to 'father') in an attempt to make the assessment of writing 'objective', 'neutral' or 'conventional'. Pat saw the reductive effects of such projects and publications in UK classrooms. She wanted to speak up for writing as a 'creative process of mind'. She wanted to restore an inclusive approach to writing which started with individuals' journeys of thought, rather than an exclusive one which worked backwards from 'approved destinations'. Pat ends her critique by advocating for these paradigms to be seen as complementary - otherwise 'pupils will not fulfil their potential development as writers.' (p51)
Her pamphlet is in two parts:
Part 1 Tracing the increasing grip of a language-based approach to writing in the National Curriculum
Part 2 Paying more attention to a process-based, meaning-related paradigm for writing
In her introduction Pat emphasises the importance of seeing writing as a manifestation of thought rather than an exercise in obedience: 'Thinking activates language and written language renders thinking visible.' (p3)
She advocates an approach to assessment which looks 'through' words first, rather than 'at' them (p12). If writing is a process of discovery then this requires teachers to give time to the process and initiation of writing (as well as the reflection on writing SW). Meanings need to be taken into account as well as forms. The rush towards 'discernible progress' was reducing time for pupils to explore their own experiences in writing. (This is still echoed in 2014 where management mantras such as 'all work must be marked', and 'pupils must know their next steps for learning', discourage journalling, logging, reflection and experimentation which are essential for individual learning and creativity. SW)
On page 35, Pat cites James Britton (Language and Learning 1970) on 'the dynamic nature of language in relation to learning - and making sense of the world in which we find ourselves.' Before writing much thought, feeling, visualising and doing will have shaped a writer's 'inner speech'. The act of writing is seen by James Moffett ('Integrity in the Teaching of Writing' 1980) as 'revised inner speech' (p36) : 'formalism dominates the teaching of writing, by which I mean framing the language only without nearly sufficient concern for developing the thought.' On page 36, Pat also cites Frank Smith on the need to attend to 'deep structure' in writing, as well as to 'surface structure'.
Pat's work informs the NWP (UK). For the teaching of writing to be improved and engage all learners, teachers of writing need to be aware of the process as well as the product - and to act on that awareness. While it is true that constructions of thought are embedded in conventional language sequences and structures, so it is also true that there are many other ways of thinking about the world - as evidenced by constructions in other languages and in other modes of expressing meaning - musically, visually, in making and in doing - not to mention the value of silent meditation. Untimely focus on the rules of spelling, punctuation and grammar can inhibit the exploration and distort the expression of meaning.
Simon Wrigley 26.10.2014
A critique of current approaches in the National Curriculum (NAAE/NAPE/NATE 2000)
In the UK 1989-1999, successive publications, first from the National Curriculum (NC), then from the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA) and most recently from the National Strategy (NS), had focused on writing predominantly from the point of view of its construction, concerned with what was regarded as conventionally 'correct'. This was a paradigm of 'writing as product'. Pat felt that elements of the contrasting paradigm of 'writing as process' were being neglected, and was particularly alarmed by the effects of the QCA's 'Technical Accuracy Project' (TAP) 1999. This project seemed to ignore writer's voice and meaningful choices of vocabulary/register (eg preferring 'dad' to 'father') in an attempt to make the assessment of writing 'objective', 'neutral' or 'conventional'. Pat saw the reductive effects of such projects and publications in UK classrooms. She wanted to speak up for writing as a 'creative process of mind'. She wanted to restore an inclusive approach to writing which started with individuals' journeys of thought, rather than an exclusive one which worked backwards from 'approved destinations'. Pat ends her critique by advocating for these paradigms to be seen as complementary - otherwise 'pupils will not fulfil their potential development as writers.' (p51)
Her pamphlet is in two parts:
Part 1 Tracing the increasing grip of a language-based approach to writing in the National Curriculum
Part 2 Paying more attention to a process-based, meaning-related paradigm for writing
In her introduction Pat emphasises the importance of seeing writing as a manifestation of thought rather than an exercise in obedience: 'Thinking activates language and written language renders thinking visible.' (p3)
She advocates an approach to assessment which looks 'through' words first, rather than 'at' them (p12). If writing is a process of discovery then this requires teachers to give time to the process and initiation of writing (as well as the reflection on writing SW). Meanings need to be taken into account as well as forms. The rush towards 'discernible progress' was reducing time for pupils to explore their own experiences in writing. (This is still echoed in 2014 where management mantras such as 'all work must be marked', and 'pupils must know their next steps for learning', discourage journalling, logging, reflection and experimentation which are essential for individual learning and creativity. SW)
On page 35, Pat cites James Britton (Language and Learning 1970) on 'the dynamic nature of language in relation to learning - and making sense of the world in which we find ourselves.' Before writing much thought, feeling, visualising and doing will have shaped a writer's 'inner speech'. The act of writing is seen by James Moffett ('Integrity in the Teaching of Writing' 1980) as 'revised inner speech' (p36) : 'formalism dominates the teaching of writing, by which I mean framing the language only without nearly sufficient concern for developing the thought.' On page 36, Pat also cites Frank Smith on the need to attend to 'deep structure' in writing, as well as to 'surface structure'.
Pat's work informs the NWP (UK). For the teaching of writing to be improved and engage all learners, teachers of writing need to be aware of the process as well as the product - and to act on that awareness. While it is true that constructions of thought are embedded in conventional language sequences and structures, so it is also true that there are many other ways of thinking about the world - as evidenced by constructions in other languages and in other modes of expressing meaning - musically, visually, in making and in doing - not to mention the value of silent meditation. Untimely focus on the rules of spelling, punctuation and grammar can inhibit the exploration and distort the expression of meaning.
Simon Wrigley 26.10.2014