Theoretical Perspectives and Strategies For Teaching and Learning Writing

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/342845063
Theoretical perspectives and strategies for teaching and learning writing
Chapter · July 2020

DOI: 10.4324/9781003117834-2
CITATION READS
1 1,277
2 authors:
Tessa Daffern Noella Mackenzie

University of Wollongong Charles Sturt University
23 PUBLICATIONS 93 CITATIONS 40 PUBLICATIONS 951 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Daffern, T. (2017-2018). Predicting children’s digital text comprehension skills View project
CURRENT RESEARCH PROJECTS View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Tessa Daffern on 15 July 2020.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

The contents contained in this document are a
preprint version of the following publication:
Daffern, T., & Mackenzie, N. M. (2020). Theoretical perspectives and

strategies for teaching and learning writing. In T. Daffern, & N.M.
Mackenzie (Eds), Teaching writing: Effective approaches for the
middle years (pp. 15-34). Allen & Unwin Academic.
PREPRINT: Daffern, T., & Mackenzie, N. M. (2020). Theoretical perspectives and strategies for teaching and learning writing. In T. Daffern,
& N.M. Mackenzie (Eds), Teaching writing: Effective approaches for the middle years (pp. 15-34). Allen & Unwin Academic.
Chapter 2
Theoretical perspectives and strategies for teaching and learning
writing
Tessa Daffern & Noella Maree Mackenzie
Introduction
Approaches to the teaching of writing have changed over recent decades, reflecting shifts in
understanding of what writing entails and in the theoretical perspectives influencing the
teaching and learning of writing. This chapter begins with an overview of the main theories
of learning that have influenced the teaching of writing, particularly in Australian classrooms
in modern times. This is followed by an historical outline of the major approaches to the
teaching of writing that have been applied in Australian classrooms in the last seventy years.
The chapter concludes with a description of strategies that teachers can use to teach
writing.
Theories of how we learn to write
Although a number of learning theories help to explain how people learn and apply
increasingly complex writing processes and skills, what follows is an introduction to three
key perspectives on learning that have influenced the teaching of writing: behaviourist,
cognitive and socio-constructivist theories.
Behaviourist theories of learning were prevalent in the 1950s and 1960s and were
grounded in a belief that learning is dependent on responses to environmental stimuli
(Skinner, 1957). For example, if a student receives repeated positive reinforcement from a
teacher of writing about their error-free spelling and the neatness of their handwriting, the
student is likely to learn that the teacher values correct spelling and handwriting, possibly
over other aspects of writing. A potential consequence of this may be that the student
focuses all of their attention on avoiding spelling mistakes, learning to use correct spelling,
and producing ‘neat’ handwriting at the expense of attending to other aspects of writing.
From a behaviourist perspective, providing some kind of reward is used to strengthen a
particular, desirable behaviour. Behaviourism is still evident in many Australian classrooms,
as rewards are used to encourage particular forms of behaviour, although the kinds of
reward may have changed over time.
Overlapping behaviourist theories were cognitive developmental theories of learning
which came from the Piagetian notion that the learner constructs an understanding of the
world around them through increasingly elaborate mental representations (Barrouillet,
2015). Cognitive developmental theories propose that development occurs in distinct and
linear stages, with the student considered to be active in constructing their learning. This
theoretical perspective assumes that every child proceeds through the same stages of
development, albeit at their individually unique pace, and that development is shaped by
biological maturation and environmental interactions. From this perspective, becoming a
writer is a process of discovery, through ‘doing’ and active exploration. Learning to write is
student-centred and the role of the teacher is to facilitate learning. The linear notion
described by cognitive theorists has, however, been questioned and there are strong
arguments to suggest that learning to write is not a linear process and students may take
many different paths as they learn to write (Mackenzie, 2018a).
Socio-constructivist theories of learning are based on Vygotsky’s (1978) perspective
that learning occurs within social contexts. From this perspective, learners are assisted by
others who are more knowledgeable and have the capacity to provide scaffolds for new
learning to take place (Wood, Bruner, & Ross, 1976). Central to this tenet in learning to
write is the importance of interaction in the writing classroom. Students learn to write by
co-constructing texts and are gradually given opportunities to become increasingly
independent in their learning. Unlike behaviourist explanations of learning, culture and
language are considered frameworks for human cognitive structures, with development or
learning a “complex process of qualitative changes in human mental processes taking place
within sociocultural contexts, environments and interactions” (Mackenzie & Veresov, 2013
p. 23).
Behaviourist, cognitive and socio-constructivist theoretical perspectives of learning
have influenced the ways in which educators have approached the teaching of writing over
time. These approaches are described below.
Approaches to the teaching of writing
A ‘skills’ approach to writing
From the mid-1900s to the 1960s, writing was generally considered a discrete skill to be
learned and students were typically “required to compose complete sentences with correct
spelling, handwriting and grammar in one draft, on prescribed topics” (Cambourne & Turbill,
2007, p. 10). The pedagogical approach at this time reflected the behaviourist theory with
students expected to learn and practise individual skills (handwriting, spelling, phonics,
punctuation, grammar, and a list of sight words) before they were invited to compose (or
read) a written text (Cambourne & Turbill, 2007). Learning to write through a skills-driven
pedagogy focused on de-contextualised learning and highly prescriptive linguistic
conventions that were considered ‘correct’, ‘accurate’ and ‘proper’ (Ivanič, 2004, p. 228).
Informed by a behaviourist theory, teaching writing through a skills-driven approach
involves teaching elements of writing as discrete skills so that mastery of those particular
skills is achieved. While the teaching of discrete writing skills remains relevant in 21 st
century teaching practices, it can occur alongside other approaches to teaching writing.
A ‘creative’ approach to writing
Towards the end of the 1960s and into the 1970s, a pedagogical shift in writing instruction
emerged to recognise that language learning involves the integration of reading, writing,
speaking and listening (Ivanič, 2004). There was recognition that students in the early years
of schooling were capable of creating and sharing their own literary texts even if they had
not yet demonstrated mastery of discrete linguistic conventions. Teachers were encouraged
to provide students with numerous opportunities to write, and teachers often acted as
scribe for emerging young writers. Underpinning this pedagogy was developmental theory;
that “learning to write involves writing as much as possible”, and central to this approach
was “meaning” and valuing an author’s “creative act” (Ivanič, 2004, p. 229). Much of the
writing produced by school students during this period included narratives, or descriptions
and recounts of personally significant events, places or people, or opinions on topics that
were of particular interest to the students. There was considerable focus on the child as a
learner and teachers encouraged their students to express their authorial voice (Cambourne
& Turbill, 2007; Ivanič, 2004). However, this pedagogical approach has been contested, with
concerns from some teachers that students cannot learn to write without first mastering
discrete and conventional subskills such as phonics, and that the assessment of student
writing was too subjective and non-specific.
A ‘process’ approach to writing
In the 1980s, the notion that reading and writing are inextricably linked was evidenced in
the ways in which writing was taught: educators considered that meaning-making involved
‘reading like a writer’ (Smith, 1982) and that crafting meaning (writing) involved reading
(Cambourne & Turbill, 2007). During this era, the seminal work of Donald Graves (1983,
1994) highlighted the important role of the teacher as writer, suggesting that the teacher
and students should collaboratively craft their writing within a supportive and
nonthreatening environment (Lipscombe, Kervin, & Mantei, 2015). A process approach to
teaching writing is influenced by socio-constructivist theories of learning, which see
students jointly constructing texts and applying skills and strategies with increasing
independence.
Simultaneously, however, cognitive psychologists, Flower and Hayes (1980) proposed
a model of the cognitive processes involved in writing, illustrating how the processes of
planning, translating and reviewing interact with a writer’s long-term memory and the task
environment. In more recent years, this model of the cognitive processes involved in writing
has been expanded (Hayes & Berninger, 2014), as is discussed in some detail in Chapter
Four. There are a number of underlying principles that characterise a process approach to
teaching writing and these align with the processes of writing described by cognitive
scientists: students participate in “cycles of planning (setting goals, generating ideas,
organising ideas), translating (putting a writing plan into action), and reviewing (evaluating,
editing, revising)” (Graham & Sandmel, 2011, p. 396). These key processes are considered
equally important and recursive. Through a process approach, ample focus on all aspects of
the writing process is considered necessary, and students are afforded opportunities to
write for real purposes and audiences, possibly over an extended period of time. In adopting
this instructional approach, students’ ownership of their writing is valued, along with self-
reflection and evaluation. A process approach may also be evidenced where a teacher
supports students’ writing processes during “mini-lessons, writing conferences, and
teachable moments” (Graham & Sandmel, 2011, p. 397).
Research has demonstrated that a process approach to writing instruction can
improve the overall quality of student writing (Graham & Sandmel, 2011). Processes
involved in writing such as planning, drafting and revising have been found to account for
almost 80% of the variance in writing produced by adolescent students (Rijlaarsdam & Van
den Bergh, 2006). However, Graham and Sandmel (2011) also argue that ‘at-risk writers’
may require greater instructional attention and intensity in skills such as spelling and
sentence construction in addition to processes such as planning and revising (Graham &
Sandmel, 2011). At-risk writers may be those students who are learning English as an
additional language or dialect (EAL/D), or those students with a particular language difficulty
or cognitive disability (Graham & Sandmel, 2011).
A ‘genre’ approach to writing
Stemming from concerns that some students were not making sufficient progress in writing
(and reading), a genre-based writing pedagogy emerged in the late 1980s and became
popular in many classrooms during the 1990s. A genre approach to teaching writing was
informed largely by Halliday’s (1985) proposition that the functions of language are
dependent on social contexts (Derewianka, 2015). Extending on Halliday’s functional
language model, Martin (2009) considered how language could be used to achieve
particular communicative goals (e.g., to explain, to describe, to summarise, to argue, to
review, to recount, to story-tell). As a consequence, the 1990s saw a shift from process-
driven pedagogies to genre-oriented discourses of writing and teaching approaches that
valued forms and expressions of specific genres (sometimes referred to as text types). The
genre approach included a focus on how the purpose and audience of a text influences the
choices that can be made regarding schematic structure (including mode) and language
features (including tenor) (Mackenzie & Scull, 2015).
In a genre approach to teaching writing, students are encouraged to begin their
writing by identifying the purpose of a text (e.g., to argue, or to explain) and then how the
text may unfold in a particular way to achieve its intended communicative goal. Students
are explicitly shown how to manipulate language according to specific sociocultural
contexts, and the teacher uses technical language to describe how language functions
(metalanguage) are used. For example, the teacher may begin by using an exemplar or
mentor text to demonstrate how the particular text type is structured and how language
can be used to achieve its purpose. This text deconstruction is explicitly articulated by the
teacher through the use of metalanguage. Following deconstruction of an exemplar text,
students may be involved in joint construction whereby the teacher crafts a new text and
invites students to contribute ideas. Here, the teacher can take the lead in creating the text,
explicitly demonstrating language choices and structural features, and possibly
incorporating some insights from the exemplar text. When students are familiar with the
text type that has been taught, they may then independently construct a similar text,
possibly with a slight modification to the subject-matter (field). Regularly cycling through
such teaching and learning practices may offer a productive context for learning to write
(Derewianka, 2015; Derewianka & Jones, 2016).
During the 1990s, the implementation of a genre approach to teaching writing varied
among educators. While some teachers capitalised on the opportunity to focus on making
the relationships between context, purpose, audience and linguistic choices explicit when
teaching writing, other teachers either constrained their pedagogy to teaching students to
write using formulaic, prescriptive and discrete text type structures and language features,
or they developed a hybrid instructional approach whereby genre teaching was integrated
with pre-existing practices that were either skills driven or process driven (Cambourne &
Turbill, 2007).
A ‘critical literacies’ approach to writing
A critical literacies approach to teaching writing emerged in the late 1990s, as writing was
widely considered a complex, socio-culturally situated, literacy practice. A critical literacy
stance acknowledges that the types of writing traditionally associated with education or
other formal contexts should not be privileged over other situated communicative practices
(Cope & Kalantzis, 2009). Complementary to a socio-constructivist view of learning, a critical
perspective of writing acknowledges that multiple meanings, beliefs and practices exist
(Mackenzie & Scull, 2015). Thus, writing is not necessarily a monomodal form of expression.
Nor should it be valued in didactive (right or wrong) ways. To teach writing through a critical
literacies perspective requires an understanding of writing as transdisciplinary, involving
“students as actors” and encouraging them to raise “questions of local or personal concern,
or of wide and pressing human concern” (Kalantzis, Cope, Chan, & Dalley-Trim, 2016, p.
180). Through such opportunities, students can “use writing to address power relationships
and social inequities” (Mackenzie & Scull, 2015, p. 406). Furthermore, while writing in the
21st century has rapidly evolved to include multiple semiotic systems across pluralities of
constantly emerging technological innovations (Mackenzie & Scull, 2015), proponents of
multiliteracies advocate the need for teachers of writing to also become familiar with
pedagogies of information communication technology (ICT) literacy (Cope & Kalantzis, 2009;
Edwards-Groves, 2012). Indeed, adopting a critical literacies approach may challenge the
writing teacher to carefully consider what constitutes ‘writing’ (Ivanič, 2004).
A ‘multimodal’ approach to writing
A multimodal approach to writing is not new. Any text that is created using more
than one mode may be described as multimodal. A picture book, for example, has
both written text (words) and visual text (pictures) and can therefore be described
as multimodal. Multimodality has in many instances been linked to technology
when in fact that is not necessary, although texts have in recent times morphed in
ways “that neither have a standard format nor are bound to genre as we have
thought of it in the past (Healy, 2008, p. 5). Rather, “it is understanding provenance
that gives texts their meanings - new times mean new texts” (Healy, 2008, p. 5).
Texts “reflect the interests of the designer as much as those for whom they are
designed. Child, youth, and adult culture, presented to and by us, assumes
multimodality and its configurations at every digital interface” (Healy, 2008, p. 5).
Evidence suggests that young children begin their writing journey by creating
multimodal texts that are created through play and drawing (Anning, 2002; Genishi &
Dyson, 2009; Mackenzie, 2011; 2018b) long before they begin to learn about letters and
words. A strong relationship is also reported between drawing and early writing (see, for
example, Genishi & Dyson, 2009; Kress & Bezemer, 2009; Mackenzie, 2011, 2018a, 2018b
2019; Mills, 2011) but multimodal text creation is not confined to the early years.
Approaches to writing instruction that encourage children to create multimodal texts are
more consistent with writing in the 21st century, as people are increasingly exposed to
communication tools and situations that are multimodal rather than exclusively linguistic or
print based (Hill & Nichols, 2009). In addition, multimodal text creation allows students to
produce texts that are more sophisticated than those they can produce with any one single
mode (Mackenzie & Veresov, 2013). Multimodal approaches to writing are also consistent
with the increasingly multimodal texts that students are reading. While some of these texts
may be digital, others are not. As mentioned above, even the humble picture book has two
modes of communication – or semiotic systems. To be truly literate in the current era, we
must be able to create and interpret “oral, visual, audio, gestural, tactile and spatial
patterns of meaning” (Kalantzis et al., 2016, p. 2).
Pause, Ponder and Take Action
▪ What can you remember about being taught to write at school? Describe how your
recollection of teaching practices align with a particular approach to teaching writing
described above.
▪ Identify classroom practices that are unique to each theoretical perspective described in
this chapter. Are there any overlaps? Is it possible to combine elements of more than
one theoretical perspective to teach writing?
▪ Reflecting on the perspectives discussed in this chapter, which perspective/s currently
resonate/s with you, as an educator or future educator, and why?
Strategies for teaching writing
Learning to write is complex and as a consequence, teaching students to write is equally if
not more complex. There is no one right way to teach students to write although in this
section we provide some approaches that you may find useful. Students will need explicit
instruction in many instances but will also need to see writing processes modelled and will
at times need guidance. These shifting levels of support draw from a genre approach to
teaching writing (Macken et al., 1989; Gibbons, 2002) and provide a framework for varied
instruction. A number of diagrams have been used to demonstrate the gradual release
model. Table 2.1 provides guidance for the amount of scaffolding that may be needed by
students if a particular form of text is new to them (e.g., a science report), or if they have
struggled with this form of writing in the past.
Table 2.1 Adjusting the scaffold in writing instruction

Step 1 Teacher and students deconstruct an example of the chosen De-constructed text is
text form. The teacher is the guide and takes the lead. labelled and displayed
(The text used may be considered a mentor or exemplar text)
Step 2 Modelled Writing Teacher’s text is
Teacher models the process of constructing the new text displayed
form. It may be partly constructed before the teacher starts
the lesson, but key elements will be modelled with the
teacher thinking aloud and identifying key decision making
along the way (e.g., why to use a particular word). Teacher
takes the lead.
Step 3 Shared Construction Text is displayed
Teacher and students co-construct an example of the new
text form. Teacher shares the lead but provides scaffolds as
needed.
Step 4 Co-construction Students invited to
Pairs of students co-constructing the chosen text form. The share text with other
teacher is available for consultation. Responsibility shared students.
by the two students.
OR
Guided Writing
The teacher will start the process off and be there to
scaffold students’ needs (pairs or small groups).
Step 5 Independent Writing
Individual text construction is crafted. The student should
have the opportunity to work on the text on a number of
occasions and to seek advice during construction from the
teacher and other students.
Once students are familiar with a particular text form, a teacher might combine steps
1-3 in order to revise what is needed. Step 4 may be eliminated if students are confident
writers or it may be adapted to a rehearsal process where two students might do some
brainstorming or create mind-maps together to support getting started. In the next section
we elaborate on some common approaches to instruction that have also been included in
the table above.
Using exemplar or mentor texts
Mentor or exemplar texts can come from a variety of places, depending upon the type of
text that students are learning to write. Deconstructing mentor texts can help students to
understand how texts are constructed. Students are encouraged to read like writers
(Newman, 2012), noticing how a writer has crafted a text, used vocabulary, used particular
language features, etc. Be careful that this doesn’t become overwhelming, the text under
examination has been written by a published author, and may have taken many drafts over
an extended period of time, with advice from editors.
Modelled writing
Modelled writing occurs when a teacher creates a text in front of a group of students while
explaining the decisions they are making (Bean, 2010); thinking aloud. This strategy can be
applied in a whole-class setting or with a small group of students who present with similar
needs. It can focus on demonstrating a specific aspect of writing or on a range of writing
elements such as text structure, vocabulary or punctuation. In adopting this approach, the
teacher is responsible for creating or sharing a text while the students observe the process
so as to give insight into a proficient writer’s mind (Mackenzie & Scull, 2015). Modelling by
the teacher can promote skills in writing by making specific design choices overt and visible
to the students. These choices could include: word choices; structural choices; when to start
a new paragraph; how to shorten a text that is too long; how to expand a section to include
evidence or references; how to use third person, etc.
Modelled writing episodes need to be carefully planned ahead of time, and the
students should be clear as to the purpose of the modelled writing lesson. The students
observe and listen while the teacher explicitly demonstrates and verbalises their thoughts
and actions while writing. The modelled text is recorded by the teacher on large sheets of
paper or on a white (or electronic) board, and the duration of the lesson should not be too
long (for example, 5-10 minutes). The text that is produced by the teacher may be a
particular section of a text (e.g., the introduction of a report). An entire text may be
produced over a series of modelled lessons. This text should be displayed in its draft form
(with visible changes) and final form, so that it can serve as an exemplar for students to
refer to as they construct their own text (Mohr, 2017).
Shared writing
Shared writing is a teaching strategy which requires the students and teacher to collaborate
in order to produce a single text. Shared writing may involve the whole class in the co-
construction of a text or small groups of students. The role of the students is to contribute
ideas and to offer suggestions while the teacher is responsible for considering and
negotiating those ideas with the students and recording the writing for the students. The
composing process is made visible by the teacher (Fisher & Frey, 2013), who guides the
conversation to ensure that choices (for example, the selection of words or organisation of
content) are appropriate and meaningful for an intended audience (Nicolazzo & Mackenzie,
2018). In shared writing, the teacher takes responsibility for most of the secretarial skills to
allow for a focus on authorial skills (text structure, sentence structure and vocabulary
choices), although the teacher may use this opportunity to explicitly teach a necessary
secretarial skill (such as how to use a particular form of punctuation – e.g., colons and semi-
colons).
Guided writing
Guided writing enables the students to take on greater responsibility for the writing. This
strategy allows for the co-construction of text. In adopting this strategy, a small group of
students work together to craft a text while the teacher encourages the students to focus
on a particular aspect of writing. For example, the focus may be on writing the orientation in
a narrative, or it may involve refining a previously drafted text by evaluating and revising the
vocabulary or some other element of design. During guided writing, the students engage in
the task of collaboratively writing.
Interactive writing
Interactive writing is a specific type of shared or co-construction writing strategy, grounded
in cognitive and sociocultural theories of learning (Williams, 2018). This powerful teaching
approach is known to facilitate students’ thinking about disciplinary content while helping
them to build their compositional skills (Fisher & Frey, 2013). Interactive writing can be
effective when decisions made by the teacher are strategic and “related to the unique
strengths and needs of students at a particular moment in time” (Roth & Dabrowski, 2014,
p. 41). This strategy follows a specific sequence, beginning by collectively brainstorming
ideas or developing field knowledge through to the co-production of an error-free text that
can ultimately be shared as a published exemplar in the writing classroom (Mackenzie,
2015; Wall, 2008). Spanning several short ‘how-to’ oriented sessions (around 15 minutes
each) over multiple days, interactive writing usually involves the whole class, but it can also
be conducted with small groups of students.
For each session, the teacher may use a white (or interactive electronic) board, or
chart paper and coloured pens/markers. Each student can have a mini-white board or a
note book, and a marker such as a pen or pencil. To construct the text, the teacher and
students ‘share the pen’; however, the teacher takes the lead by contributing to the writing
at moments when the students are not yet ready to contribute to an aspect of the text.
During the process, the teacher strategically invites particular students to record their
contributions to the text where they are able to do so (Nicolazzo & Mackenzie, 2018). While
one student is invited to add to the text (such as a word, a punctuation mark, or a whole
sentence), the other students can use their own mini-white boards or note pads to practise
writing a particular word or sentence as directed by the teacher. The effectiveness of this
strategy is reliant on the teacher’s understanding of the writing ability of each student in the
group. Each session moves at a quick pace with the teacher ‘thinking aloud’, explicitly
modelling the process of crafting a sentence, or choosing a word, spelling a complex word,
adding punctuation, and/or editing as needed (Mackenzie, 2015). Through this strategy,
writing is socially constructed by the teacher and the students. The teacher mediates
students’ understanding of what it means to write; builds on current skills; proposes
vocabulary by using and encouraging precise language; helps to advance ideas forward;
suggests how sentences might be structured; and recasts language when translating spoken
ideas to written form.
To illustrate interactive writing, the steps in co-constructing a narrative text in a Year 5
class are described below:
Step 1 (Day 1): The teacher provides a stimulus for writing (for example, the teacher may
display an image or allow the students to view a video documentary or listen to a song). The
students are then invited to contribute their thoughts or questions in response to the
stimulus while the teacher records these onto a white board or chart paper (Figure 2.1).
Figure 2.1 Step 1 (building field knowledge and establishing a purpose for writing).
Step 2 (Day 2): The lesson begins by re-visiting yesterday’s work. The teacher leads step two
by helping students to decide what kind of text to write and to develop an initial plan for the
text. The students are invited to contribute ideas and to ‘share the pen’ with the teacher
when developing content or ideas such as a character profile for a narrative (Figure 2.2a) or
when planning a potential sequence of events (Figure 2.2b). To record the ideas, the teacher
uses a coloured marker (e.g., black) while the students are given a different coloured
marker. The teacher ‘thinks aloud’, asking questions and answering them while the students
listen and propose ideas (e.g., What does my character look like? At the start of this story,
what sounds can be heard?). Graphic organisers can be used to show students how to plan
their writing.
2.2a 2.2b
Figures 2.2a and 2.2b Step 2 (co-constructing a plan for a text).
Step 3 (Days 3+): For the remaining lessons, the teacher leads the co-construction of the
text, drawing on the ideas that were recorded in the previous lesson/s. The teacher
strategically invites students to ‘share the pen’, tapping into the individual writing strengths
of the students, correcting any errors and guiding the writing to ensure students can
demonstrate what they know while also build new skills. At regular intervals (e.g., after a
sentence has been written), the teacher asks the students to read aloud what has been
written so far. Regular reading of the text helps students to decide what to write next. Step
3 continues over several lessons. For example, the first lesson may focus on the orientation
of a narrative text (Figure 2.3), while the next lesson focuses on the complication, and each
subsequent lesson continues to build on the text until it is complete. Figure 12.3 shows two
sentences that have been co-constructed for the orientation of a narrative. In this example,
a hypothetical dialogue follows:
Teacher: Let’s start by painting an image of the setting. I am a pirate on a ship but I
will not tell the reader that I am on a ship … not until a little later … So where is my
ship?
Student A: In rough seas and heavy rain.
Teacher: Okay … Despite rough seas and heavy rain, I [the teacher records the first
clause and then thinks aloud] … Okay, now I want the reader to know what I am
doing out in the rough sea. So, what can the next part of the sentence be?
Student B: You hurry and write your message in the bottle [the teacher invites the
student to record the second clause and reminds the student to write in first
person].
Teacher: Is there a better word for ‘hurry’? We want the reader to feel that there is a
sense of urgency because the ship is about to sink. … What about … ‘I scramble to
write my message’ [the teacher crosses out ‘hurry and’ then replaces these words
with ‘scramble to’. Note that, in this instance, the teacher could choose to
completely erase the words before writing a revised version]. … Let’s read the first
sentence aloud so that we can then work out what to write next.
Figure 2.3 Step 3 (co-constructing the text)
As the text is created, the teacher may ask the other students to record the text in
their own note books, or to practise writing certain words, clauses or phrases from the text.
The students are also afforded many opportunities to read the text aloud as it is being
written. Utilising an interactive writing strategy to co-produce the first draft of a text in an
upper primary school classroom may take short, daily lessons over two to three weeks. Be
careful to not drag it out too long.
Conclusion
Writing is a critical literacy skill in the 21st century (Brandt, 2015) and learning to write in
English is complex and usually requires explicit instruction and a great deal of practise.
There is no one right way to approach the teaching of writing and while we have provided
short descriptions of some approaches, our list is not exhaustive. It is up to teachers to
identify and apply those approaches that will best help them meet the changing needs of
the students within their classroom.
References
Anning, A. (2002). Conversations around young children's drawing: The impact of the beliefs
of significant others at home and school. Journal of Art and Design Education, 21(3),
197-208.
Barrouillet, P. (2015). Theories of cognitive development: From Piaget to today.

Developmental Review, 38, 1-12. doi:10.1016/j.dr.2015.07.004
Bean, W. (2010). What happens when you decide on authentic, purposeful writing?
Practically Primary, 15(1), 4-7.
Brandt, D. (2015). The rise of writing: Redefining mass literacy. Cambridge, UK: University
Printing House.
Cambourne, B., & Turbill, J. (2007). Looking back to look forward: Understanding the
present by revisiting the past: An Australian perspective. International Journal of
Progressive Education, 3(2), 8-29.
Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (2009). “Multiliteracies”: New literacies, new learning. Pedagogies:
An International Journal, 4(3), 164-195. doi:10.1080/15544800903076044
Derewianka, B. (2015). The contribution of genre theory to literacy education in Australia. In

J. Turbill, G. Barton, & C. Brock (Eds.), Teaching writing in today's classrooms:
Looking back to look forward (pp. 69-86). Norwood, SA: Australian Literacy
Educators' Association Ltd.
Derewianka, B., & Jones, P. (2016). Teaching Language in Context (2nd ed.). South
Melbourne, Victoria: Oxford University Press.
Dyson, A. H. (2001). Writing and children's symbolic repertoires: Development unhinged. In

B. Neuman & D. K. Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook of Early Literacy Research (Vol. 1, pp.
126-141). New York: The Guildord Press.
Edwards-Groves, C. (2012). Interactive creative technologies: Changing learning practices

and pedagogies in the writing classroom. Australian Journal of Language & Literacy,
35(1), 99-114.
Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2013). A range of writing across the content areas. The Reading
Teacher, 67(2), 96-101. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/TRTR.1200
Flower, L., & Hayes, J. (1980). Identifying the organization of writing processes. In L. Gregg &
E. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive Processes in Writing (pp. 3-30). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Genishi, C., & Dyson, A. H. (2009). Children, language and literacy: Diverse learners in diverse
times. New York and London: Teachers College Press.
Gibbons, P. (2002). Scaffolding Language, Scaffolding Learning. Portsmouth, UK:

Heinemann.
Graham, S., & Sandmel, K. (2011). The process writing approach: A meta-analysis. The
Journal of Educational Research, 104(6), 396-407.
Graves, D. (1983). Writing: Teachers and children at work. Exeter, NH: Heinemann
Educational Books.
Graves, D. (1994). A fresh look at writing. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Halliday, M. A. (1985). An introduction to functional grammar. London: Edward: Arnold.
Hayes, J., & Berninger, V. (2014). Cognitive processes in writing: A framework. In B. Arfe, J.
Dockrell, & V. Berninger (Eds.), Writing development in children with hearing loss,
dyslexia, or oral language problems: Implications for assessment and instruction (pp.
3-15). London: Oxford University Press.
Healy, A. (2008). Multiliteracies and diversity in education: New pedagogies for expanding
landscapes. South Melbourne, Vic: Oxford University Press.
Hill, S., & Nichols, S. (2009). Multiple pathways between home and school literacies. In M.
Fleer, A. J. E. Anning, & J. Cullens (Eds.), Early Childhood Education (2nd ed., pp. 169-
184). London: Sage.
Ivanič, R. (2004). Discourses of writing and learning to write. Language and Education, 18(3),
220-245. doi:10.1080/09500780408666877
Kalantzis, M., Cope, B., Chan, E., & Dalley-Trim, L. (2016). Literacies (2nd ed.). Port
Melbourne: Cambridge University Press.
Kress, G., & Bezemer, J. (2009). Writing in a multimodal world of representation. In R. Beard,
D. Myhill, J. Riley, & M. Nystrand (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of writing development
(pp. 167-181). Los Angeles: SAGE.
Lipscombe, K., Kervin, L., & Mantei, J. (2015). Examining the writing process for digital
literary text construction. In J. Turbill, G. Barton, & C. Brock (Eds.), Teaching writing
in today's classrooms: Looking back to look forward (pp. 281-300). Norwood, SA:
Australian Literacy Educators' Association Ltd.
Macken, M., Kalantzis, M., Kress, G., Martin, J. R., Cope, B., & Rothery, J. (1989). A Genre-
Based Approach to Teaching Writing, Years 3–6, Book 1: Introduction. Sydney:
Directorate of Studies, NSW Department of Education in association with Literacy
and Education Research Network.
Mackenzie, N. M. (2011). From drawing to writing: What happens when you shift teaching
priorities in the first six months of school? Australian Journal of Language & Literacy,
34(3), 322–340.
Mackenzie, N. M. (2015). Interactive writing: A powerful teaching strategy. Practical

Literacy, 20(3), 36-38.
Mackenzie, N. M. (2018a). The drawing and writing journey: progressions in children's
learning. In N. M. Mackenzie & J. Scull (Eds.), Understanding and supporting young
writers from birth to 8 (pp. 9-29). Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
Mackenzie, N. M. (2018b). Transitions and learning to write. In N. M. Mackenzie & J. A. Scull

(Eds), Understanding and supporting young writers from birth to 8 (pp. 71-88).
Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
Mackenzie, N. M. (2019, in press). Writing in the early years. In A. Woods & B. Exley (Eds.),
Literacies in Early Childhood: Foundations for Equity and Quality. Melbourne, Vic:
Oxford University Press.
Mackenzie, N. M., & Scull, J. (2015). Writing. In S. McLeod & J. McCormack (Eds.),
Introduction to speech, language and literacy (pp. 396-444). South Melbourne:
Oxford University Press.
Mackenzie, N. M., & Veresov, N. (2013). How drawing can support writing acquisition: Text
construction in early writing from a Vygotskian perspective. Australasian Journal of
Early Childhood, 38(4), 22-29.
Martin, J. R. (2009). Genre and language learning: A social semiotic perspective. Linguistics
and Education, 20(1), 10-21.
Mills, K. (2011). 'I'm making it different to the book': Transmediation in young children's
multimodal and digital texts. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 36(3), 56-65.
Mohr, K. A. J. (2017). Using modeled writing to support English-only and English-learner

second-grade students. The Journal of Educational Research, 110(6), 619-615.
doi:10.1080/00220671.2016.1169391
Newman, B. M. (2012). Mentor texts and funds of knowledge: Situating writing within our
students’ worlds. Voices from the Middle, 20(1), September 2012.
Nicolazzo, M., & Mackenzie, N. M. (2018). Teaching writing strategies. In N. M. Mackenzie &
J. Scull (Eds.), Understanding and supporting young writers from birth to 8 (pp. 189-
211). Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
Piaget, J. (1957). Construction of Reality in the Child. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Rijlaarsdam, G., & Van den Bergh, H. (2006). Writing process theory: A functional dynamic
approach. In C. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing
research (pp. 41-53). New York, NY: Guilford.
Roth, K., & Dabrowski, J. (2014). Extending interactive writing into grades 2-5. The Reading
Teacher, 68(1), 33-44. doi:10.1002/trtr.1270
Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal behaviour. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Smith, F. (1982). Writing and the writer. London: Heinemann Educational Books.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Wall, H. (2008). Interactive writing beyond the primary grades. The Reading Teacher, 62(2),
149-152. doi:10.1598/RT.62.2.6
Williams, C. (2018). Learning to write with interactive writing instruction. The Reading
Teacher, 71(5), 523-532. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1643
Wood, D., Bruner, J. C., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of
Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17(2), 80-100.
View publication stats

Theoretical Perspectives and Strategies For Teaching and Learning Writing

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Theoretical Perspectives and Strategies For Teaching and Learning Writing

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Theoretical Perspectives and Strategies For Teaching and Learning Writing

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Theoretical perspectives and strategies for teaching and learning writing

Chapter · July 2020

Tessa Daffern Noella Mackenzie

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

CURRENT RESEARCH PROJECTS View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Daffern, T., & Mackenzie, N. M. (2020). Theoretical perspectives and

Theoretical perspectives and strategies for teaching and learning

Tessa Daffern & Noella Maree Mackenzie

Theories of how we learn to write

cognitive and socio-constructivist theories.

grounded in a belief that learning is dependent on responses to environmental stimuli

From a behaviourist perspective, providing some kind of reward is used to strengthen a

particular, desirable behaviour. Behaviourism is still evident in many Australian classrooms,

reward may have changed over time.

Overlapping behaviourist theories were cognitive developmental theories of learning

world around them through increasingly elaborate mental representations (Barrouillet,

biological maturation and environmental interactions. From this perspective, becoming a

many different paths as they learn to write (Mackenzie, 2018a).

co-constructing texts and are gradually given opportunities to become increasingly

independent in their learning. Unlike behaviourist explanations of learning, culture and

Behaviourist, cognitive and socio-constructivist theoretical perspectives of learning

time. These approaches are described below.

Approaches to the teaching of writing

A ‘skills’ approach to writing

Informed by a behaviourist theory, teaching writing through a skills-driven approach

A ‘creative’ approach to writing

writing was too subjective and non-specific.

A ‘process’ approach to writing

nonthreatening environment (Lipscombe, Kervin, & Mantei, 2015). A process approach to

teaching writing is influenced by socio-constructivist theories of learning, which see

Simultaneously, however, cognitive psychologists, Flower and Hayes (1980) proposed

scientists: students participate in “cycles of planning (setting goals, generating ideas,

supports students’ writing processes during “mini-lessons, writing conferences, and

teachable moments” (Graham & Sandmel, 2011, p. 397).

Research has demonstrated that a process approach to writing instruction can

or cognitive disability (Graham & Sandmel, 2011).

A ‘genre’ approach to writing

dependent on social contexts (Derewianka, 2015). Extending on Halliday’s functional

particular communicative goals (e.g., to explain, to describe, to summarise, to argue, to

driven pedagogies to genre-oriented discourses of writing and teaching approaches that

features (including tenor) (Mackenzie & Scull, 2015).

In a genre approach to teaching writing, students are encouraged to begin their

are explicitly shown how to manipulate language according to specific sociocultural

teacher through the use of metalanguage. Following deconstruction of an exemplar text,

explicitly demonstrating language choices and structural features, and possibly

(Derewianka, 2015; Derewianka & Jones, 2016).

A ‘critical literacies’ approach to writing

widely considered a complex, socio-culturally situated, literacy practice. A critical literacy

(Cope & Kalantzis, 2009). Complementary to a socio-constructivist view of learning, a critical

literacies perspective requires an understanding of writing as transdisciplinary, involving

constantly emerging technological innovations (Mackenzie & Scull, 2015), proponents of

writing teacher to carefully consider what constitutes ‘writing’ (Ivanič, 2004).

A ‘multimodal’ approach to writing

as multimodal. Multimodality has in many instances been linked to technology

modes of communication – or semiotic systems. To be truly literate in the current era, we