Category Archives: Writing

Suspenseful with a pencil

This short post is the writers’ toolkit that’s been developed for a unit of work on writing suspensefully. The intended effect of this type of writing is to make the reader think that something terrible is going to happen. The aspects of the toolkit are the ways in which other writers have achieved that effect, and these were found by children using different texts, but rephrased by me:

20140118-194922.jpg

In order for children to write suspensefully, one of the strategies I’ll use is to get them to internalise this knowledge by practising recalling what it is that effective writers do. I selected sentences from the texts that they analysed to use as cues:

20140118-195309.jpg

Frequent, spaced out practice of recalling this writerly knowledge will prime them to make deliberate decisions when they write. They have also saved and innovated ideas from other texts so that at the point of writing, they have much to draw upon.

Related posts:
Knowledge, memory and writing
Tweaking Talk4Writing text maps
Writers’ toolkit – discussion

Leave a comment

Filed under Writing

Memory and Writerly Knowledge

Good writers draw on a bank of ideas about how to create a certain effect. Teaching children about what it is that writers do is an important part of the imitation stage of talk for writing. This post explains in more detail some ideas about constructing a writers’ toolkit with children so that they understand what a writer has done. The issue is, though, that if children are to internalise a writers’ toolkit, they will need to practise remembering it.

20131122-094307.jpg

When a writers’ toolkit like the one pictured above is created and displayed on a working wall, children may well be able to look at it and use it. But this gives only the illusion that the toolkit is internalised. Re-reading and looking up information is not the most effective way of strengthening the encoding of information into memory or the retrieval process. Children remember what they think about, and like any learning, practice makes permanent. Children need to practise remembering items on a writers’ toolkit in order internalise it. Low stakes testing is one way of practising retrieving information. Effective retrieval, however, requires a good cue. This cue needs to be similar to whatever the cue may be when you want children to remember the information. It would be great if children could remember items on the writers’ toolkit at the point of writing so that they can make good decisions about their composition. Just before they write, the teacher will show children how to do it so it makes sense that the cue should be snippets of writing.

20131122-112502.jpg

In the toolkit above, the beginning of the wording for each item is still visible. This cue is further strengthened by having a sentence or a sentence fragment which exemplifies the item that it is partially obscuring. You can zoom in on the photos to see specific examples.

Do children remember how to persuade from this retrieval practice? Yes, to varying degrees. But it will take time, spacing and further practice for children to securely internalise what it is that good writers do.

Related posts:
Tweaking Talk for Writing Text Maps
Knowledge, Memory and Writing
Knowledge, Memory and Reading
I don’t know what to write!
Writers’ Toolkit – Discussion

6 Comments

Filed under Reading, Writing

Tweaking Talk for Writing Text Maps

One of the staples of Talk for Writing is to help children internalise texts and the language patterns within them in order for them to be able to write effectively. One way of doing this is to get children to use a text map to help them retell a text. In the past, they have looked like this:

20131019-154813.jpg

For many children, this worked. Some children, though, were still unable to internalise a text and indeed had difficulty writing one. In order to help these children, a few changes were made to the way that we used text maps. First, we arranged the text into a flow map where each box contained one sentence.

20131019-151121.jpg

Children who do not yet have a secure understanding of sentence demarcation can be shown the beginnings and ends of sentences much more clearly when the text map is set out in this way. Also, the punctuation is included in the text map. Second, we split the text up to show a paragraph per page of flipchart paper, for similar reasons as splitting up sentences. Third, we wrote a simplified, shorter text for children working at earlier stages of English.

20131019-154214.jpg

These children learned this version, but also used the longer version for work on reading comprehension and language development. A final tweak to text mapping has been using the app Explain Everything to create videos of teachers retelling texts.

Children cannot take working walls home with them to practise for homework, but they can watch the video, pause it at different points and retell the text. Children have also been using the text to practise writing accurately. They watch, pause and then write the text. They can then listen again the sentence they were working on to check the accuracy of their writing.

When children move up year groups, these videos can be looked at again, further embedding children’s banks of internalised texts that they can draw upon to write effectively.

6 Comments

Filed under Writing

Knowledge, Memory and Writing

Having considered how retrieval of knowledge that has been encoded to memory plays contributes to the teaching of reading, it seems logical to explore the role of knowledge and memory in the teaching of writing.  In this post, I refer to stages of the Talk for Writing process, which my school has developed extensively over the last few years.  I have not included the whole teaching sequence which makes up the Talk for Writing process, but you can find more information here.  To focus my thinking, I also at times had to refer to specific examples.  For this I have selected a unit of work on narrative, in particular work on warning tales.

Imitation Stage

Assessing Prior Knowledge / Skills

Before the unit of work, children would be set a short writing task so that the teacher could find out what it is that the children know and don’t yet know, and what they can do and can’t yet do. There’s a balance to be struck here: don’t give the children enough of a prompt and what they write could well be of a lower standard than they’re capable of. Similarly, give them too much of a prompt and what they write may not be a true reflection of their current stage of development. Any information garnered might well be pretty inaccurate, providing a false starting point. So, in an attempt to get that balance right, I’d suggest clarifying the intended effect of the writing. For example, the whole point of the writing is to make the reader think that something terrible will happen. Then, using image and discussion around what children already know, give them enough to write about. Doing this well before lesson one of the unit gives the teacher time to analyse the writing and plan accordingly, and it provides a bit of spacing which is known to be a desirable condition for learning.

Providing a Model Text

Once the teacher knows the needs of the children, a main text for the unit of work is selected. Most likely, this will need to be edited by the teacher to ensure children are shown excellence in the areas of writing that they need to develop. For example, the teacher may have noticed that children were not using complex sentences in their writing, or that they used them grammatically inaccurately. The teacher would edit in these features.

Children will memorise this text, so that they can retell it by heart. One reason for this is that effective writers have a wealth of language patterns to daw upon when choosing how to encode their thoughts on paper. Children who are read to regularly, read lots themselves and have quality conversations with adults will develop these language patterns. Unfortunately, there are a lot of children who don’t experience these things. As well as providing these experiences at school, memorising a model text can help children to encode the language patterns into memory. This is why it is important to edit in language patterns that you know children haven’t fully grasped.  They immediately begin work on correcting misconceptions as they repeatedly talk an accurate text.  Another reason for committing a text to memory is to aid the writing process (described in more detail later). One way of helping children to memorise a text is through repeated, structured retelling. To start with, the teacher talks the text. At each retelling, the children join in more and more and the teacher gradually says less and less until children can retell the story on their own. This is supported with a text map like the one below.

20130814-143842.jpg

This is one paragraph from the warning tale text. Each sentence is in a box to help children who still haven’t mastered sentence demarcation, and each paragraph is on a separate sheet of flip chart paper for a similar reason. The text map plays the role of the retrieval cue – it’s used to prompt the retelling of the text. Its role as a retrieval cue also becomes important when children come to write their own versions of the text type (more on that later).

It goes without saying that some children will memorise texts quicker and more effectively than others. With this in mind, something I’m trialling from September is to make short videos which children can use to practise retelling, either at home or at school, like this:

So over the course of a week or two, children will have practised retelling the text many times, using the text map as a retrieval cue, to the point where they can retell it by heart. A quick point here about accuracy – I don’t think that they need to retell it word for word. There are many ways to put a message across and as long as it makes sense and is consistent with the original intended effect of the writing, I think that’s fine.

Reading as a reader

Children will have managed to commit the text to memory alongside various other activities and alongside reading more examples of the focus text type.  I have already written about the teaching of reading here. The brevity of this paragraph does not reflect the importance of the content – the link between good reading and effective writing is obvious. Retelling from memory and reading comprehension, in my experience, are complementary.

Reading as a writer

This is essentially analysing writing to figure out what it is that the writer did in order to achieve the intended effect on the reader. These two posts go into more detail. Firstly, the teacher would develop a writer’s toolkit with the children.  In the past, I have shown children how to analyse a text, collate the ideas and display the toolkit on the working wall. I’d refer to it when the children write and encourage them to do so to help them know what they could do to achieve the intended effect.

But I think I missed a trick here. The ideas gathered in a writers’ toolkit are what effective writers have stored away in memory. If children could encode these ideas into their long term memory, then when a suitable retrieval cue is presented they would practise retrieving this essential writers’ knowledge.  This would be great if they could learn to recall it at the point of writing, so the retrieval cue that I use with children needs to be something that is natural in the writing process.  For example, the teacher could model the writer’s thought process: “How could I make the reader think that something terrible will happen?” If at this point, children have practised recalling aspects of the writers’ toolkit, as well as some language patterns for specific ways of doing it, they would have taken a huge leap towards producing effective writing.

The question is, then, how do we get children to encode the information in a writers’ toolkit so that it can be accurately recalled at the point of writing? What follows are some ideas that I haven’t tried with my class but will do so in September.

Taking for granted the modelling explained in this previous post, I’ll focus more on what I’ll get children to do. One option is to get children to reconstruct the toolkit information in a different way. For example, if I model the thinking about generating a toolkit by annotating a text, I could get them to reconstruct that information in a thinking map. I’d remove the annotated model that I showed them, give them the plain texts and get them to practise retrieving the information.  That still won’t be enough for them to commit the toolkit to memory though. They’d need repeated, spaced practice for that. So I’d leave it a day or two, then drop in some multiple choice questions. I’d think carefully about the question because it has to be a good retrieval cue and one that I’ll use with children when they come to write. Something like:

To make the reader think that something terrible will happen, you could:
A. Make the setting dark
B. Make the main character do something relaxing
C. Reveal only part of the threat
D. Make the setting deserted

There is some playing around to do with the content of the options. It has been reported that ‘negative suggestion effect’ can be avoided through the use of explicit feedback. I think I’d also follow this retrieval practice with further study of the text type, perhaps by looking at a different text and finding either further ways to achieve the intended effect, or different language patterns for parts of the toolkit that children have already seen.

It may also be worth doing something similar with the language patterns for certain parts of the toolkit. For example:

Ways of making the setting sound deserted:
A. The place was empty.
B. Not a soul could be seen or heard.
C. Darkness hung in the corridor.

One way of providing feedback would be confirming options A and B as ways of making the setting sound deserted because it is clear that there is nobody else around, but that option C was more about making the setting sound dark.

Alternatively to the multiple choice model of retrieval practice, low stakes testing seems to be effective. A simple: “Write down as many ideas as you can… To make the reader think that something bad will happen, you could…” would work. Children could be encouraged to reconstruct the information in another different format, this time, say, a list.

Now, if children are going to encode a toolkit to memory and deliberately practise retrieving it, spaced over time, there are implications.  Previously, units of work would follow this pattern over a few weeks:

Assess prior knowledge

Work on vocabulary and required knowledge

Learning the text to retell by heart

Reading comprehension

Reading other texts

Revision of previous text types using the content of the current text

Reading as a writer (developing toolkits, planning an adaptation of the main text to write independently)

Writing own version of the main text

Writing text type in a different context

Following this model, there is very little time between generating the toolkit and children writing.  Certainly not enough time for encoding to memory and some spaced, deliberate practice of retrieving the toolkit.  So, one solution is to develop the toolkit cumulatively over the course of the imitation stage rather than have the work massed at the end of the stage.

Innovation and Invention Stages

When the teacher is confident that children know enough to write well, we move into the stage where children will write an adapted version of the text that they have memorised.  This is where the text map’s role as a retrieval cue becomes important.  If the children can look at the text map and recall the model text, it can easily be tweaked to support them to write an adaptation.  For example, if the children have learned the warning tale, which is set at a canal, the setting could be changed to, say, an abandoned warehouse.  Part of the planning process at the end of the imitation stage would be to amend the text map to support this.  Every time there is a reference to the canal, I’d cover it with a post it note and draw a quick symbol for its warehouse equivalent that children will need when they write.  When children see the text map at the point of writing, they’ll be recalling the general pattern of the text, the key language patterns, and also changing it to a different context.

When I model the writing, I’ll also be referring to the writers’ toolkit that we developed and the accompanying possibilities for writing a particular idea.  This bit is very important, because the next time the children write, I’d want to remove a layer of structure to teach independence – I’d remove the text map so that the children are left with the writers’ toolkit as well as any images or saved ideas that relate to the further change of context.

When the unit of work comes to a natural end, I’d plan in some revision sessions as part of the next units of work which give children more, yet further spaced practice of recalling both the text (Remember we learned this warning tale?  Let’s see if we can still tell the story…) and the writers’ toolkit (Remember we learned how to make the reader think that something terrible will happen?  Work with your partner to write down as many ways as you can that could have this effect…).  But they would also be given chances to apply this.  For example, at some point within the warning tale unit of work, we could revise some persuasive writing.  After practising recalling the persuasion toolkit, children could then write in role – What would you say to the main character to persuade him to heed his mother’s warning?

Memorisation and retrieval practice could be effective in children’s development of writing, particularly when it comes to learning texts and internalising what it is that writers could do to achieve a certain effect.  After all, knowing a range of texts and language patterns, plus having a secure idea of what could be written are two domains of knowledge that effective writers benefit from having.

2 Comments

Filed under Reading, Writing

Writers’ Toolkit – Discussion

These are photos of our writers’ toolkit for discussion writing. Note that the intention goes beyond “provide a balanced argument”. There are different intentions for different parts of the text. See this post for more on creating writers’ toolkits.

20130318-074944.jpg

20130318-075155.jpg

20130318-075113.jpg

20130318-075204.jpg

20130318-075220.jpg

20130318-075228.jpg

20130318-075213.jpg

20130318-075251.jpg

20130318-075236.jpg

20130318-075244.jpg

20130318-075259.jpg

20130318-075308.jpg

20130318-075332.jpg

20130318-075324.jpg

20130318-075316.jpg

4 Comments

Filed under CPD, Reading, Writing

I don’t know what to write!

You’ve set your class off writing. Most are happily writing away. Some are still using whatever there is in your classroom to borrow or develop an idea. But what about the child who still doesn’t know what to write? Clearly there could be many reasons for this but we’ll stick to something we can control – the child doesn’t know what to write so perhaps that bit where you teach them how to write wasn’t done as well as it could have been.

I’m very wary of those ‘off the peg’ fads that some schools buy into and get all their teachers to do because the course was great or the resources looked nice. What has worked well for me over the last year is to make sure that we have a writers’ toolkit for the type of writing being studied. Shirley Clarke, author of Effective Learning Through Formative Assessment and an authority on this kind of thing would call the writers’ toolkit ‘success criteria’. Here’s how it has worked for me:

  • Reading. The requirement that children read before writing does not need elaboration. Importantly, I select extracts of the same genre, some well written, others not, that all do the same job, just differently.
  • Analysing. The key prompt is ‘What did the writer do there?’ In the following extract the writer ‘says what the animal eats’: Lions are carnivorous mammals that feed on impala.
  • Creating the writers’ toolkit. As children say ‘what the writer did’, they’re written on flipchart paper ready for later. The key throughout this is to help children to see that the writers’ toolkit is not a ticklist. none of the extracts that they are given will have every point. They choose. The heading of this particular writers’ toolkit would be: To inform the reader about an animal, you could…
  • Gathering ideas. Having examined a selection of extracts, it would be missing a trick to ignore the great ideas that would be in them. Whatever your system, be it a ‘Save it’ box on a flipchart; word walls; or self help logs, this is the point at which to collect examples. Record them somewhere so children caccess them easily.
  • Modeling writing behaviour. Everything so far has been laying foundations. Here, you show them what to do. When you model writing, make it explicit that you are looking at the writers’ toolkit so that you know what you COULD write. Make it clear that you are looking at the ideas from when you read the extracts. If you do it, they’ll do it.

It takes time to get most children to the stage where they know what to write. It’s time worth investing though as the resultant writing from the children will be of a greater quality.

3 Comments

Filed under Writing