English and Literacy in Primary School - Essay Example

English and Literacy in Primary School: Discourses of Writing (Student’s Name) (Institution) (Course) (Instructor) (Date) English and Literacy in Primary School: Discourses of Writing Introduction Discourses of writing are a collection of principles regarding writing, learning about writing and the strategies of teaching and evaluation that are rooted to these principles (Gee, 2003). People who are identified with the specific teaching methods have a common approach to teaching, speaking and writing and they do so in ways that attach them to the same discourse. However, the occurrences of such discourses do not conform to a consistent pattern as human influence progressively morphs the existing discourse related characteristics to suit their individual usage requirements (Gannon, 2007). As a result, the practical deployment of the discourse often draws from multiple distinct discourses as opposed to sourcing from a harmonized instance. This essay is going to describe the six discourses and analyse their presence or absence in the curriculum, outlining the reasons for each. Analysis and Discussion The proper application of knowledge related to the construction of sentences following basic rules of linguistics and application of pattern and symbol recognition make up the practice of writing (Christie, 2005). This description on its own is misleading in that it creates the perception that writing is principally independent of context and the same universal procedures apply regardless of the text nature. Based on this understanding, the accuracy of writing is gauged against the backdrop of letter, word, and sentence and text construction, context notwithstanding (Ivanic, 2004). A more radical interpretation of this description implies that writing is merely a collection of symbols that can be combined to develop a cohesive set of text and structures to develop paragraphs. The modern times have however brought about the appreciation of text dissimilarities in terms of the patterns and symbol arrangements (Ivanic, 2004). The skills discourse is present across all stages of the NSW Board of Studies English K-10 syllabus. Most notably in the Early Stage 1 as demonstrated by the objectives of the teaching at this particular stage as seen in outcome ENe-5B where the student “recognises some different purposes of writing and that their own texts differ in various ways” Emphasis is placed on appreciating the difference types of writing and that individual texts are dissimilar in a number of ways. According to Ivanic (2004), most curricula build on the perception that learning to write entails the need to acquire linguistic skills. This concept leads to teaching approaches that focus on the appropriateness of handwriting, spelling and sentence structure. The Early stage one of the English K-10 syllabus explicitly outlines the need for learners to identify the place and function of capital letters, full stops, question marks and exclamation marks. To further cement the importance of the skills discourse, its appearance in Stage 3, outcome EN3-4B where the learner is advised to understand how ideas can be expanded and sharpened through carefull choice of verbs, elaborate tenses and a range of adverb gropus or phrases demonstartes its relation to the creativity discourse of writing (Dixon, 1967). The dominance of this particular discourse in the Early Stage 1 of the curriculum is attributed to the importance of acquisition of the skill is before delving into the other discourses of writing (Winch, 2010). The creativity discourse of writing places more emphasis on the writer’s content and style as opposed to its grammatical presentation. Outcome EN1-5B of the NWS Board of Studies English K-10 syllabus dictates that the student identifies how language use in their own writing differs according to purpose, audience and subject matter. As part of the learning the student is able to identify the audience of informative, imaginative and persuasive texts. Ivanic, (2004) asserts that writing is regarded as the creative presentation of writer whose principal purpose is entertaining the reader. As a consequence the writer is more driven by the desire to capture the reader’s attention and sustain their interest in the work. The writing is thus classified as being good based on the nature of the content presented as well as the style of writing with minimal concerns for the linguistic correctness (Cope, 2000). These views on creativity support the idea of writing being learnt through practice and experience. A higher frequency of writing naturally prompts the writer to explore a greater variety of topics that generate interest and offer inspiration in appreciable quantities (Ivanic, 2004). Not only is the relevance of the content guaranteed, the material offers the motivation for other learners to improve their writing. The creativity discourse of writing is dominant in the curriculum across stages 1 to 3, learning outcome EN1-5B especially so as to place the learners in a position to create material that is relevant to specific topics while maintaining a commendable length of writing (Ivanic, 2004). Most of the writing achieved by these methods is generally personal narratives, learner’s descriptions about their experiences and coverage of topics within the learner’s scope of familiarity. The next logical step after acquisition of the basic skills is their application in the writing of captivating texts (Ivanic, 2004). The objectives of the stage demonstrate the presence of this particular discourse in that they recommend that the learner be able to identify how their language use in writing differs according to purpose, audience and content (Knapp, 2005). As a benefit from this outlook the learners are able to present imaginative and creative texts that capture the audience’s attention (Ivanic, 2004). Writing involves three distinct processes which include planning, translating and reviewing. These three make up the process discourse of writing and are majorly concerned with the writer’s memory and the writing experiences (Clark, Consciousness-raising about the writing process, 1991). Methods of teaching writing have been focussed on the processes of planning, drafting and translating while effectively ignoring the contents of the final product (Ivanic, 2004). In addition to this, learning to write is viewed as an undertaking that requires the need to grasp the processes that pertain to developing and constructing texts. These processes contain elements that must be learnt directly in relation to a given writing context as well as elements that apply irrespective of the nature of the writing (Flower, 1980). The process discourse of writing is tackled in stage 3 of the curriculum alongside the creative discourse of writing. Learning outcome EN3-3B of the English K-10 syllabus dictates that the student discusses how language is used in their own writing to achieve a wide range of purposes, audiences and context. The curriculum recommends that the learners be able to discuss how their texts have been structured to achieve their purpose. References to the creative discourse are made in the requirement that learners develop ways to imaginatively compose texts in ways that will appeal to the audience (Ivanic, 2004). The fourth discourse of writing is based on the nature of writing as an end result; however it adds the additional aspect of the prevailing factors and events surrounding the writing. The genre discourse writing takes into consideration the various social contexts that serve to build the text and the text variation in accordance to the purpose of the writing (Ivanic, 2004). In light of this, the type of writing requires the learners to familiarise themselves with different linguistic attributes in order to accurately integrate them in the appropriate (Ivanic, 2004). This condition dictates that the learner pursue the understanding of related linguistics. From the acquired knowledge, the learner is in a position to cater to the demands of varied contexts (Anstey, 2004). Learning genres is has been theorised as a fundamental principal in the learning of the primary language (Knapp, 2005).It builds and improves the ability to conceptualize the structure of communication and as a consequence promote the functional linguistic development (Knapp, 2005). Language learning is principally through interaction with natives within the limits of common experiences. Teaching methods are in such cases centred on imparting genres that are relevant in the given setting. With the progress of learning, the learner is tasked with the responsibility of acquiring relevant grasp of the genre in an incremental manner. Genre discourse of teaching should be applied with caution regarding their potential sensitivity to the contemporary methods of learning and teaching of writing (Ivanic, 2004). An in-depth investigation of the learning context weighing heavily on the historical records, native culture and learning environment should be conducted before the genre discourse of writing is adopted as a teaching strategy (Cope, 2000). As an outcome of these theories it can be seen that the curriculum incorporates the genre discourse of writing in learning outcome EN3-3B. The students are encouraged to discuss conventions of a range of complex texts for example act and stage directions in plays and literacy devices in poems and stories. The dominance of the genre discourse of writing in the English K-10 syllabus is linked to the view that the nature of writing stems from the need for learners to familiarise themselves with the different characteristics of individual text-types and thus be able to apply them appropriately in the relevant contexts (Ivanic, 2004). There is particular emphasis on the teaching of genres considered to be powerful genres or alternatively those that are linked to success in academic contexts. The text-types rely heavily on the use of phrases carrying relevant meanings to convey information (Ivanic, 2004), enabling leaners to benefit from this approach’s logical and systematic nature when used as a teaching method. The social practices discourse of writing outline the entrenchment of the text in the particular event of writing implying that the content is tightly linked to the social motivation of writing (Ivanic, 2004). Social attributes including participation, gender distribution and support serve a purpose in the writing as a social avenue for communication in the given context (Ivanic, 2004). Writing is considered to be an in important part of the social literacy measures, demonstrating its influence in the linguistic development and improvement of people and entire communities in general (Christie, 2005). The social practices discourse is evident in the English K-10 Curriculum across all three stages. Stage three learning outcome EN3-4B compels the learner to be able to create meaning in accordance to purpose, audience and context. An inference to the social aspect of this particular section of the syllabus points out the importance of its incorporation in the teaching methods. Theories have been developed through the study of literacy in people’s interactions as opposed to educational based research. The perception of writing as a social practice is an important theory having far reaching effects compared to the other discourses of writing. The social practices discourse outlines the possibilities of learning through means that incorporate the general interaction at socially driven writing sessions involving the achievement of personal objectives. This expands the level of learning to include aspects regarding speed, source, purposes among others supported the writing (Ivanic, 2004). The use of complex punctuation to engage the reader as outlined in Stage 3, learning outcome EN3-4B is an outcrop of the social practces discourse of writing. Learning is best achieved through interactions. The inclusion of learners in events and activities that serve to promote literacy and linguistics predisposes them to a state of taking up identities that relate them to the practices. Acquisition of writing skills is seen to be best achieved through meaningful participation, not through direct teaching (Ivanic, 2004). Outcome EN2-6B promotes the use of figurative language while composing texts to link with and ultimately engage the audience. Even though it contains elements of social practices discourse of writing, it does not do so in a manner that lowers the dominance of the discourse in the curriculum. Ivanic, (2004) stresses on the importance of the social practices discourse of writing, arguing that learners need to be in a position to relate with foreign or otherwise new contexts in their writing. In spite of the inherent benefits of this approach, its inclusion in the English K-10 syllabus is deemed unfit due to the extremely complex and impractical nature of integrating the participatory aspect of learning in a curriculum that seeks to train young children. Age is a limiting factor in the appreciation of the social make-up and as such the method should be incorporated in the syllabus for learners who have considerable social understanding and experience. The socio-political discourse in writing emphasizes on the inclusion of political as well as social factors in the learning (Clark, The Politics of Writing, 1997). In line with this view, writing draws upon socially predetermined attributes representing the expected (Ivanic, 2004). Adopting learning strategies modelled from this discourse requires thorough consideration of the political factors that influenced the discourse as well as historical effects. In line with this, writing primarily involves linking with socially developed constructs which portray the world in specific ways (Ivanic, 2004). These constructs are independently available to writers but themselves are inherently socio-politically structured in such ways as to demand the selection of one over the other depending on the context. Social groups that wield immense power naturally govern the course of the selection and limit the resources that the writer can utilise (Ivanic, 2004). The discourse has strong ties with politics, influence, society and other factors related to social norms. Stage 3 of the English K-10 syllabus under learning outcome EN3-4B discloses the socio-political discourse by asserting the learners to investigate how vocabulary choices including evaluating language can express shades of meaning, feeling and opinion. From the inherent make-up of the discourse, it is preferred learners with a socially inclined perception of literacy and an appreciable amount of concern towards politics. Constrained use of this discourse from the curriculum can be attributed to its ideological backdrop and as an extension its irrelevance in the teaching of writing following the English K-10 syllabus (Anstey, 2004). The targeted learners are in most cases not familiar with the socio-political discourse of writing as a consequence cannot productively engage in writing material carrying political themes. Such writing is best suited for audiences and writers with keen interest and understanding of political. The English K-10 syllabus hardly caters for this category of learners. Conclusion The different discourses of writing have been clearly distinguished and their relevance in the specific sections of the curriculum analysed. The skills discourse of writing is the basic approach that is considered when teaching writing. The learners acquire are able to acquire the relevant skills needed to engage in linguistically correct writing (Ivanic, 2004). Creative discourse of writing imparts the necessary knowledge to enable the learner actively compose captivating and interesting texts while at the same time maintaining the correctness of grammar. The social discourse of learning takes on a more hands-on approach with the participation of the teachers being completely ruled out as outlined by Ivanic, (2004. The socio-political discourse of writing is principally targeted at learners with considerable interest and understanding of politics. Due to the nature of the discourse, its dominance in the English K-10syllabus is overshadowed by the other discourses. Generally all six discourses play an important part in the progress and success of the learning. References Anstey, M. &. (2004). The Literacy Labyrinth (2nd ed.). Sydney: Pearson. Christie, F. (2005). Using the functional grammar to understand children"s written texts. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, Series S(19), 9-22. Clark, R. a. (1991). Consciousness-raising about the writing process. London: Longman. Clark, R. a. (1997). The Politics of Writing. London: Routledge. Cope, B. a. (2000). Multiliteracies: Literacy Learning and the Design of Social Futures. London: Routledge. Dixon, J. (1967). Growth through English. London: Oxford University Press. Flower, L. a. (1980). Identifying the organization of writing processe. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Gannon, S. a. (2007). Whole language and Moral Panic in Australia. International Journal of Progressive Education, 30-51. Gee, J. (2003). Literacy and social minds. In G. Bull & M. Anstey (Eds). Sydney: Prentice Hall. Ivanic, R. (2004). Discourses of Writing and Learning to Write. Literacy Research Centre, Department of Linguistics and Modern English. Knapp, P. a. (2005). Genre, Text, Grammar: Technologies for Teaching and Assessing. UNSW, Sydney: UNSW Press. Richardson, P. (1998). Literacy, Learning and Teaching. Educational Review, 115-134. Winch, G. R. (2010). Literacy: Reading, writing and children's literature (4th ed.). Melbourne: Oxford University Press. Read More