Teachers’ talk about young students’ writing of narrative and informational texts

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.1558/wap.21544

Keywords:

metalanguage, primary school teachers, young students' texts, narratives, informational texts, assessment

Abstract

Previous research has shown that teachers’ knowledge of a functional metalanguage plays a central role in supporting students’ writing development. However, only a few of these studies have focused on primary school teachers and their use of metalanguage in various text types. The aim of this study was to investigate how primary school teachers talk about young students’ (ages 7–9) narrative and informational texts before and after taking part in professional development workshops presenting different language resources and accompanying metalanguage. These resources represent a broader view of language than the more formal tradition offered to primary school teachers in Sweden.

The results showed that after participating in the workshops, the teachers had broadened their repertoires concerning what aspects they talk about and how they talk about them; that is, their talks became more text-specific and extensive, and they used a formal metalanguage to a greater extent. These results are discussed in relation to the tradition of writing instruction used in primary grades in Sweden and the teachers’ pathways to broadening their repertoire of metalanguage. Also discussed is the potential a broader language view in early grades may have in supporting students’ writing development throughout their school years.

References

af Geijerstam, Å. (2006). Att skriva i naturorienterande ämnen i skolan (PhD thesis). Uppsala University.

af Geijerstam, Å. (2014). Vem gör, vem är och vem upplever?: En analys av processer och deltagare i tidigt narrativt skolskrivande. In P. Andersson, P. Holmberg, A. Lyngfelt, A. Nordenstam & O. Widhe (Eds.), Mångfaldens möjligheter – litteratur- och språkdidaktik i Norden. Elfte nationella konferensen i svenska med didaktisk inriktning (pp. 99–114). Göteborg.

Andrews, R., Torgerson, C., Beverton, S., Freeman, A., Locke, T., Low, G., Robinson, A., & Zhu, D. (2006). The effect of grammar teaching on writing development. British Educational Research Journal, 32(1), 39–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/01411920500401997

Beck, I. L., & McKeown, M. G. (2007). Increasing young low-income children’s oral vocabulary repertoires through rich and focused instruction. The Elementary School Journal, 107(3), 251–271. https://doi.org/10.1086/511706

Berge, K. L., Skar, G. B., Matre, S., Solheim, R., Evensen, L. S., Otnes, H., & Thygesen, R. (2019). Introducing teachers to new semiotic tools for writing instruction and writing assessment: Consequences for students’ writing proficiency. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 26(1), 6–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2017.1330251

Chatman, S. (1978). Story and discourse. Cornell University Press.

Chen, H., & Jones, P. (2013). Understanding metalinguistic development in beginning writers: A functional perspective. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Professional Practice, 9(1), 81–104. https://dx.doi.org/10.1558/japl.v9i1.81

Chen, H., & Myhill, D. (2016). Children talking about writing: Investigating metalinguistic understanding. Linguistics and Education, 35, 100–108. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2016.07.004

Christie, F. (2012). Language education throughout the school years: A functional perspective [Language learning monograph series]. Language Learning 62 (Supplement 1).

Cope, B., & Kalantzis M. (Eds). (2000). Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of social futures. Routledge.

Ekvall, U. (2007). Berättarperspektiv i elevers skrivprocess. In K. Milles & A. Vogel (Eds.), Språkets roll och räckvidd. Festskrift till Staffan Hellberg de 18 januari 2007 (pp. 77–87). Stockholm Studies in Scandinavian Philology. New Series 42.

Evensen, L. S. (1992). Emerging peaks, turbulent surfaces: Advanced development in student writing. In A-M. Olsen & A. M. Simensen (Eds.), Om språk og utdanning: Festskrift til Eva Sivertsen (pp. 111–129). Universitetsforlaget.

Evensen, L. S. (1997). Å skrive seg stor: Utvikling av koherens og sosial identitet i tidlig skriving. In L. S. Evensen & T. Løkensgaard Hoel (Eds.), Skriveteorier og skolepraksis (pp. 155–178). LNU/Cappelan Akademisk Forlag.

Folkeryd, J. W. (2006). Writing with an attitude: Appraisal and student texts in the school subject of Swedish (PhD thesis). Uppsala University.

Folkeryd, J. W. (2014). Hjärtan, hjul och hävstänger – Innehåll i elevers sakprosatexter på lågstadiet. In P. Andersson, P. Holmberg, A. Lyngfelt, A. Nordenstam & O. Widhe (Eds.), Mångfaldens möjligheter – litteratur- och språkdidaktik i Norden. Elfte nationella konferensen i svenska med didaktisk inriktning (pp. 115–130). Göteborg.

Forsberg, C. (2021). Skrivandets –gränser. Normering genom skrivdiskurser i tidig skrivundervisning (PhD thesis). Linnaeus University Dissertations No 415/2021. Linnaeus University.

Gebhard, M., Chen, I-A., & Britton, L. (2014). Miss, nominalization is a nominalization: English language learners’ use of SFL metalanguage and their literacy practices. Linguistics and Education, 26, 106–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2014.01.003

Genette, G. (1982). Narrative discourse: An essay in method. Oxford University Press.

Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as social semiotic: The social interpretation of language and meaning. Edward Arnold.

Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (2004). An introduction to functional grammar (3rd edition). Edward Arnold.

Humphrey, S. (2017). Academic literacies in the middle years: A framework for enhancing teacher knowledge and student achievement. Routledge.

Humphrey, S. (2021). The role of teachers’ disciplinary semiotic knowledge in supporting young bi/multilingual learners’ academic and reflexive multiliteracies. Language and Education, 35(2), 140–159. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2020.1772282

Jesson, R., Fontich, X., & Myhill, D. (2016). Creating dialogic spaces: Talk as a mediational tool in becoming a writer. International Journal of Educational Research, 80, 155–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2016.08.002

Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 159–174. https://doi.org/10.2307/2529310

Langer, J. A. (1992). Reading, writing and genre development. In J. W. Irwin & M. A. Doyle (Eds.), Reading/writing connections: Learning from research (pp. 32–54). International Reading Association.

Larsen, A. S. (2008). Hvordan skriver femteklassinger fortellinger? Om narrative grepp i elevtekster. In R. Trøite Lorentzen & J. Smidt (Eds.), Å skrive i alle fag (pp. 259–268). Universitetsforlaget.

Liberg, C. (2014). Att tala om innehåll och ämnesstämmor i elevtexter i tidiga skolår. In R. Hvistendahl & A. Roe (Eds.), Alle tiders norskdidaktiker: Festskrift til Fröydis Hertzberg på 70-årsdagen (pp. 141–156). Novus Forlag.

Liberg, C., & Folkeryd, J. W. (2022). Lärares samarbete i textsamtal. Möjligheter till fördjupad förståelse av elevers skrivkompetens. In R. Solheim, H. Otnes & M. O. Riis-Johansen (Eds.) Samtale, samskrive, samhandle. Nye perspektiv på muntlighet og skriftlighet i samspill (pp. 141–161). Universitetsforlaget.

Liberg, C., Folkeryd, J. W., & af Geijerstam, A. (2012). Swedish – An updated school subject? Education Inquiry, 3(4), 477–493.

Love, K., & Sandiford, C. (2016). Teachers’ and students’ meta-reflections on writing choices: An Australian case study. International Journal of Educational Research, 80, 204–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2016.06.001

Macken-Horarik, M. (2008). A ‘good enough’ grammatics: Developing an effective metalanguage for school English in an era of multiliteracies. In C. Wu, C. Matthiessen & M. Herke (Eds.), Proceedings of the ISFC 35: Voices around the world (pp. 43–48). The 35th ISFC Organizing Committee.

Macken-Horarik, M., Love, K., Sandiford, C., & Unsworth, L. (2018). Functional grammatics: Re-conceptualizing knowledge about language and image for school English. Routledge.

Macken-Horarik, M., Sandiford, C., Love, K., & Unsworth, L. (2015). New ways of working ‘with grammar in mind’ in school English: Insights from systemic functional grammatics. Linguistics and Education, 31, 145–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2015.07.004

Magnusson, J. (2019). Läroboken och det diskursiva skrivandet: genrer, textaktiviteter och medierande redskap i läromedel för årskurs 1 till 3. Forskning om undervisning och lärande, 7(2), 67–94. https://forskul.se/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/ForskUL_vol_7_nr_2_s_67-94.pdf

Martin, J., & White, P. (2005). The language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. Palgrave Macmillan.

Matre, S., & Solheim, R. (2015). Writing education and assessment in Norway: Towards shared understanding, shared language and shared responsibility. In E. Krogh & S. Penne (Eds.), L1-Educational Studies in Language and Literature, 15, 1–33.

Myhill, D. (2021). Grammar re-imagined: Foregrounding understanding of language choice in writing. English in Education, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/04250494.2021.1885975

Myhill, D., & Newman, R. (2016). Metatalk: Enabling metalinguistic discussion about writing. International Journal of Educational Research, 80, 177–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2016.07.007

Myhill, D., & Watson, A. (2014). The role of grammar in the writing curriculum: A review of the literature. Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 30(1), 41–62. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0265659013514070

Myhill, D., Jones, S., & Lines, H. (2018). Supporting less proficient writers through linguistically aware teaching. Language and Education, 32(4), 333–349. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2018.1438468

Myhill, D., Jones, S., & Watson, A. (2013). Grammar matters: How teachers’ grammatical subject knowledge impacts on the teaching of writing. Teaching and Teacher Education, 36, 77–91. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2013.07.005

Myhill, D., Jones, S., & Wilson, A. (2016). Writing conversations: Fostering metalinguistic discussion about writing. Research Papers in Education, 31(1), 23–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2016.1106694

Nordlund, A. (2016). Berättarteknik i elevberättelser från tidiga skolår. Forskning om undervisning & lärande, 4(2), 46–67.

Olinghouse, N. G., & Leaird, J. T. (2009). The relationship between measures of vocabulary and narrative writing quality in second- and fourth-grade students. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 22(5), 545–565. https://doi-org.ezproxy.its.uu.se/10.1007/s11145-008-9124-z

Peterson, S. S., Parr, J., Lindgren, E., & Kaufman, D. (2018). Conceptualizations of writing in early years curricula and standards documents: International perspectives. The Curriculum Journal, 29(4), 499–521. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585176.2018.1500489

Ravid, D. (2006). Semantic development in textual contexts during the school years: Noun scale analyses. Journal of Child Language, 33(4), 791–821. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000906007586

Rimmon-Kenan, S. (1983). Narrative fiction: Contemporary poetics. Meuthen.

Schleppegrell, M. J. (2013). The role of metalanguage in supporting academic language development. Language Learning, 63, 153–170. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2012.00742.x

Skolverket (2011). Läroplan för grundskolan, förskoleklassen och fritidshemmet 2011. Fritzes.

Skoog, M. (2012). Skriftspråkande i förskoleklass och årskurs 1 (PhD thesis). Örebro University.

Westlund, E. (2013). Tio tecknarpositioner: En semiotisk analys av elevers tidiga multimodala textskapande. Final exam paper from teacher education at Uppsala University. Available from http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-198758

Westlund, E. (2018). Visual formation of science content in young students’ multimodal compositions. Seven content representations. Journal of Visual Literacy, 18(4), 294–316. https://doi.org/10.1080/1051144X.2018.1532761

Published

2022-07-02

How to Cite

Liberg, C., Wiksten Folkeryd, J., af Geijerstam, Åsa, & Nordlund, A. (2022). Teachers’ talk about young students’ writing of narrative and informational texts. Writing and Pedagogy, 13(1-3), 181–206. https://doi.org/10.1558/wap.21544

Issue

Section

Teachers’ Views on Students’ Writing