The teaching of writing across the curriculum in school years 4-6 in Sweden

This study explored disciplinary writing in grades 4-6 and the potential of writing to learn and learning to write across the curriculum to prepare the pupils for their future writing. Using Ivanič’s discourses of writing as an analytical framework, observation protocols from 104 observers in 374 lessons in 76 Swedish schools were analyzed exploring school writing in the different curriculum subjects. Analysis of the data reveals that in most lessons the teachers required their pupils to write with a single focus on reinforcing learning, enacting three of Ivanič’s seven discourses of writing: thinking and learning discourse, skills discourse, and social practices discourse. Much less frequently overall but commonly in language lessons, teachers required their pupils to write with a dual focus, developing writing proficiency while reinforcing learning. In these cases, all of Ivanič’s discourses were enacted. The results suggest potential for a dual focus on writing to learn and learning to write to further develop the pupils’ writing across the curriculum

Developing a model for exploring the teaching of writing in theory and practice : A collaborative study with reciprocal benefits and challenges

For many student teachers it is a challenge to link theory and practice (Darling-Hammond, 2014). Tomeet this challenge, a model for Reflective Observation of School writing (ROS) was developed through a collaborative approach together with teacher educators and students with the goal to explore the nature of discourses of writing enacted in Swedish school years F–3 and 4–6 (ages 6–12). The aim of this study is to investigate benefits and challenges for researchers, student teachers and Teacher Education in collaborative research on the teaching of writing. The study is underpinned by Ivanič’s (2004, 2017) theoretical and analytical framework for discourses of writing: skills, creativity, process, genre, social practice, socio-political discourses, and discourse of thinking and learning. Based on our ROS-model the student teachers used Ivanic’s framework to reflect on the teaching of writing in school practice. Student teachers for school years 4–6 (n 104) at 5 universities observed writing in school practice. Further, using artefacts of school practice (Ball & Cohen, 1999) student teachers for school years F–3 (n 38) at 1 university, and 4–6 (n 24) at 2 universities studied schoolbooks. The data in this presentation consist of observation protocols, researcher’s notes from reflective seminars, and two questionnaires and were content analysed taking a holistic perspective. Preliminary findings reveal benefits for both the researcher and the student teachers. First, results indicate that all seven discourses proposed by Ivanič were evident to different extent. Second, the students could appropriate the analytical tools presented in the ROS- model gaining insights in howto reflect upon practices from a theoretical framework. Challenges on validity and reliability will be discussed. The study makes an important contribution to the field of the teaching of writing, by linking research theory and methodology with educational practice in teacher education

Developing a model for exploring the teaching of writing in theory and practice : A collaborative study with reciprocal benefits and challenges

For many student teachers it is a challenge to link theory and practice (Darling-Hammond, 2014). Tomeet this challenge, a model for Reflective Observation of School writing (ROS) was developed through a collaborative approach together with teacher educators and students with the goal to explore the nature of discourses of writing enacted in Swedish school years F–3 and 4–6 (ages 6–12). The aim of this study is to investigate benefits and challenges for researchers, student teachers and Teacher Education in collaborative research on the teaching of writing. The study is underpinned by Ivanič’s (2004, 2017) theoretical and analytical framework for discourses of writing: skills, creativity, process, genre, social practice, socio-political discourses, and discourse of thinking and learning. Based on our ROS-model the student teachers used Ivanic’s framework to reflect on the teaching of writing in school practice. Student teachers for school years 4–6 (n 104) at 5 universities observed writing in school practice. Further, using artefacts of school practice (Ball & Cohen, 1999) student teachers for school years F–3 (n 38) at 1 university, and 4–6 (n 24) at 2 universities studied schoolbooks. The data in this presentation consist of observation protocols, researcher’s notes from reflective seminars, and two questionnaires and were content analysed taking a holistic perspective. Preliminary findings reveal benefits for both the researcher and the student teachers. First, results indicate that all seven discourses proposed by Ivanič were evident to different extent. Second, the students could appropriate the analytical tools presented in the ROS- model gaining insights in howto reflect upon practices from a theoretical framework. Challenges on validity and reliability will be discussed. The study makes an important contribution to the field of the teaching of writing, by linking research theory and methodology with educational practice in teacher education

Challenges of linking theory and practice in distance teaching

It is a challenge for student teachers to link theory and practice (Darling-Hammond, 2014), and therefore we have developed a model for Reflective Observation of School writing, the ROS-model, including lectures, seminars and classroom observations in school practice for student teachers for school years F–3 and 4–6 in Sweden (Sturk, Hipkiss, Randahl & Edlund, forthcoming). Due to the pandemic, the lectures and seminars turned digital, which worked well. Though, due to further restrictions, observations of writing in school practice were impossible.  In this presentation I will describe how the ROS-model was transformed to meet the challenges of distance teaching and yet fulfil the aim of enhancing students ability to link theory and practice. Based on our ROS-model, the student teachers used a theoretical framework for school writing (Ivanič, 2004, 2017) to analyse and reflect on writing education in school books. The new distance teaching and learning model included: reading Ivanič’s (2004); scaffolding of Ivanič’s article; practising the theoretical framework and modelling of a school book analysis; analysis of on-line school books; a seminar with follow up of the analyses.  After the seminar a questionnaire about the understanding of the theoretical framework for writing education and the distance teaching model was distributed. 55 students participated. Preliminary findings indicate that the students have achieved a strategy for connecting theory and practice; gained an awareness of writing education in school books; learnt most from performing an analysis and from the reflective discussions during the seminars.  These results indicate that the students, despite the adaptions, could appropriate the analytical tool presented in the ROS-model. The most challenging limitations were that the students were directed to on-line school books since the restrictions also included the library. This conclusion opens up for new ways of using Ivanič’s framework in teacher education also in post-pandemic time.  References : Darling-Hammond, L. (2014). Strengthening Clinical Preparation. The Holy Grail of Teacher Education. Peabody Journal of Education 89(4), 547–561.  Ivanič, R. (2004). Discourses of Writing and Learning to Write. Language and Education, 18(3), 220–245. doi:10.1080/09500780408666877  Ivanič, R. (2017). Round table on discourses of writing, and writer identity. Paper presented at the LITUM Symposium, Umeå, Sweden.  Sturk, E., Hipkiss, A-M., Randahl, A-C., Edlund, A-C. (in press). Writing in all school subjects – observation as method in teacher education. In Norlund-Schaswar, A., Areljung, S., Lindgren, E., Hermansson, C. (red.). Research based school writing.

Writing across the Curriculum in Compulsory School in Sweden

We live in a mass writing society (Brandt, 2015) with high demands on the citizens’ abilities to write for full participation, and effective teaching of writing  is important. This thesis explores how writing is taught in Swedish compulsory school across the curriculum, investigating both how teachers talk about and teach writing. The aim of the doctoral project is to explore how writing is taught across the curriculum in Swedish compulsory school. Two main questions are raised: What discourses of writing can be identified among teachers across the curriculum? How do teachers use writing for pedagogical purposes across the curriculum? These questions are investigated in three studies based on different empirical data. In the first, 60 teachers in Swedish as L1 in school years 1–9 described their teaching of writing in a questionnaire. In the second study, teachers’ interactions about the teaching of writing were explored in an extended staffroom on Facebook for teachers in both Swedish as L1 and as L2 in school years 1–9. In the third study, the teaching of writing in school practice across the curriculum was observed in school years 4–6. Ivanič’s (2004, 2017) framework for discourses of writing and learning to write was employed as an analytical tool. This framework builds on theories of language use in layers, accomplishing a comprehensive understanding of the teaching of writing. The framework consists of seven discourses of writing: a skills discourse, a creativity discourse, a discourse for thinking and learning, a process discourse, a genre discourse, a social practices discourse, and a sociopolitical discourse. The findings reveal that writing across the curriculum was undertaught but writing as a tool for learning – enacted in a discourse for thinking and learning – had a strong position. In language subjects, text-focused writing discourses dominated (a skills and a genre discourse) and a creativity and a process discourse were identified, often combined with a genre discourse. Contextfocused writing (a social practices and a socio-political discourse) was rare, as has been shown by other studies (cf. McCarthey et al., 2014). Language teachers seemed responsible for the teaching of writing, and models for writing were common, e.g., a practical process model and a model for genre writing. The pupils wrote for learning outcomes, and for their teacher, and there was a lack of participatory writing or a critical view on writing. Finally, a comprehensive teaching of writing is argued to develop pupils’ writing proficiency. How such teaching can be achieved is discussed in relation to teachers’ beliefs, the curriculum, subject conventions, school material (cf. Smidt, 2010), and colleagues and key persons on social media – and in relation to what literacy skills that are necessary in the 21st century

Writing across the Curriculum in Compulsory School in Sweden

We live in a mass writing society (Brandt, 2015) with high demands on the citizens’ abilities to write for full participation, and effective teaching of writing  is important. This thesis explores how writing is taught in Swedish compulsory school across the curriculum, investigating both how teachers talk about and teach writing. The aim of the doctoral project is to explore how writing is taught across the curriculum in Swedish compulsory school. Two main questions are raised: What discourses of writing can be identified among teachers across the curriculum? How do teachers use writing for pedagogical purposes across the curriculum? These questions are investigated in three studies based on different empirical data. In the first, 60 teachers in Swedish as L1 in school years 1–9 described their teaching of writing in a questionnaire. In the second study, teachers’ interactions about the teaching of writing were explored in an extended staffroom on Facebook for teachers in both Swedish as L1 and as L2 in school years 1–9. In the third study, the teaching of writing in school practice across the curriculum was observed in school years 4–6. Ivanič’s (2004, 2017) framework for discourses of writing and learning to write was employed as an analytical tool. This framework builds on theories of language use in layers, accomplishing a comprehensive understanding of the teaching of writing. The framework consists of seven discourses of writing: a skills discourse, a creativity discourse, a discourse for thinking and learning, a process discourse, a genre discourse, a social practices discourse, and a sociopolitical discourse. The findings reveal that writing across the curriculum was undertaught but writing as a tool for learning – enacted in a discourse for thinking and learning – had a strong position. In language subjects, text-focused writing discourses dominated (a skills and a genre discourse) and a creativity and a process discourse were identified, often combined with a genre discourse. Contextfocused writing (a social practices and a socio-political discourse) was rare, as has been shown by other studies (cf. McCarthey et al., 2014). Language teachers seemed responsible for the teaching of writing, and models for writing were common, e.g., a practical process model and a model for genre writing. The pupils wrote for learning outcomes, and for their teacher, and there was a lack of participatory writing or a critical view on writing. Finally, a comprehensive teaching of writing is argued to develop pupils’ writing proficiency. How such teaching can be achieved is discussed in relation to teachers’ beliefs, the curriculum, subject conventions, school material (cf. Smidt, 2010), and colleagues and key persons on social media – and in relation to what literacy skills that are necessary in the 21st century

The challenge of implementing policy aims in practice

Writing has been put forward as a central skill for citizens in order to enact freedom of speech and to participate in society; therefore, the teaching of writing is crucial. The questions posed in this presentation concern how the teaching of writing in Swedish compulsory school years 4–6 relate to educational policy and to theories of the teaching of writing. In order to investigate these relations, we have compiled results from our studies on teachers’ beliefs about writing and the teaching of writing in practice (Sturk & Lindgren, 2019; Sturk, forthcoming) and analysed them in relation withthe Swedish national curriculum. Underpinning the analysis is Ivanič’s (2004, 2017) framework for discourses of writing in which writing education is perceived of as holistic and embedded in layers ofcognition and social structures. Results indicate that the teachers in our studies predominantly visualise skills, genre, process and creativity discourse, whereas discourse for thinking and learning and social practices and socio-political discourse are rare. The curriculum, on the other hand, is contradictory. On an overall 'aim-level', the aims present a more holistic view on writing as compared with the core content and the knowledge requirements. Furthermore, the aims include social- practises and socio-political discourses while the knowledge requirements do not. Rather, they focus on skills, genres and processes, which are also the discourses enacted by teachers. This tension between the aims of the curriculum on the one hand, and the knowledge requirements and teachers’ beliefs on the other, will be discussed in relation with a current school culture of measurement

En klassrumsintervention om deltagande skrivande

Språket kan vara ett redskap för demokrati, och att skriva är ett sätt att nyttja sin yttrandefrihet. För att alla elever ska kunna, vilja och våga skriva för att delta bör skrivundervisning vara allsidig och riktad mot deltagande skrivande. Hur kan en sådan skrivundervisning se ut? Denna presentation beskriver och diskuterar preliminära resultat från en klassrumsintervention som syftar till att öka mellanstadieelevers förmåga att använda skrivandet som ett verktyg för att skapa och uttrycka sin röst i klassrummet såväl som i samhället. Genom en medskapande cyklisk design utvecklade lärare, elever och forskare tillsammans en intervention där den dagliga skrivundervisningen i en mellanstadieklass fokuserar olika aspekter av deltagande skrivande under en tre-veckorsperiod. Interventionen grundas i teorier om hur attityder och värderingar uttrycks i text, hur röster från människor och andra texter samspelar i en text (Bachtin, 1997; Martin &amp; White, 2005) samt teorier om inflytande och delaktighet (Arnstein, 1969). Fokus var att skapa möjligheter för elever att utveckla sin förmåga att hitta och formulera budskap i texter; att utveckla sin språkliga repertoar för att beskriva saker, personer och händelser; samt för att utveckla förmågan att argumentera i skrift genom att stödja sina argument med andras röster. Interventionen följdes genom observationer, intervjuer, fältanteckningar och insamling av elevtexter. En första analys av materialet indikerar dels att eleverna upplever sig ha fått fler ord för att uttrycka sig och gradera sina tankar och åsikter, dels att olika medier och modaliteter stimulerade elevernas motivation till att delta genom skrivande. Referenser:  Arnstein, S. (1969) A Ladder Of Citizen Participation, Journal of the American Planning Association, 35(4):216-224. Bachtin, M. (1997). Det dialogiska ordet. Gråbo: Bokförlaget Anthropos AB. Martin, J., &amp; White, P. (2005). The language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. Palgrave Macmillan.Symposium: (W)rights! Skrivande som näring för demokratin</p