An investigation of a key issue in the school setting in relation to developing a critical understanding
of professional values and practices. A written enquiry focusing on whole school development of
literacy skills (reading, writing and communication)
Abstract
Literacy is always under the spotlight, and the revised National Curriculum for key stages 3 and 4 places
reading and writing at the fore. This assignment takes stock of the importance of literacy in the
secondary phase, before framing it in the specific cross-curricular provisions of a large academy school.
Attention is paid to the setting and marking of homework, and the focus shifts to how this is addressed
in the school’s Computer Science lessons. While there is considerable pedagogical strength in the
school’s Home Learning policy and its provision of writing frames, it is argued that more could be done
to offer students greater ownership of their writing. As digital natives raised in a world of ubiquitous
always-on, globally connected technologies, students prefer to access schoolwork in a manner which
they find culturally relevant. So, while conclusive answers remain to be found, a case of argued for the
use of social networking to help engage students and foster greater freedom in their work.
Introduction
There can be no doubt that the government’s spotlight will be firmly on literacy in the wake of the
inaugural monthly commentary by Ofsted’s Chief Inspector Sir Michael Wilshaw, published earlier this
month. In it, Wilshaw (2015) describes how much of the work done in primary schools on understanding
and using correct spelling, punctuation and grammar is “lost when pupils enter the secondary phase”.
With emotive terms such as ‘damaging’ and ‘tragedy’, Sir Wilshaw’s words are likely to cause
shockwaves in the months to come.
Every teacher is a teacher of literacy, irrespective of subject specialism (Sommers, 2008). Certainly, as
Witt (2012) suggests, every subject has specialised texts and materials where knowledge is presented
in subject-specific language. In my chosen specialism of Computer Science, there is technical
vocabulary and scientific reasoning which require discrete skill in what Kane (2011) calls ‘content area
literacy’. But there is also a rich wealth of literature which can open up the subject and greatly enhance
one’s appreciation and understanding, providing the student has the core literacy skills to access it. As
such, every teacher needs to teach the fundamental literacy skills which will act as scaffolding for the
content area literacy Kane describes.
Like every discipline, there is room within Computer Science to set meaningful homework, and it is not
too much of a stretch of invention that such work could involve writing. From defining terminology to
, researching prominent figures or key events in the subject’s modest history, there is definite scope to
support a whole-school commitment to improving literacy. In this assignment I will make a case for the
importance of providing a meaningful response to written work. I am interested in how such feedback
can be used not only to improve literacy, but also to encourage the reluctant writer.
Prior to the change in the National Curriculum in 2014, the Department for Education (DfE, 2013)
stated that the curriculum should offer opportunities for pupils to “redraft their own work in the light of
feedback” (p.4). Such redrafting should be purposeful, and feedback would ideally be student-led, to
include self-evaluation and even peer assessment. One repercussion from Sir Wilshaw’s recent
commentary (2015, ibid) may take the shape of year 7 SATs resits, as alluded to in his closing remarks.
However, one may well question the lasting educational value of such a move, particularly when the
SATs themselves provide “no pragmatically or pedagogically useful feedback other than a score”
(Anson, 2008, p.119). The value of meaningful feedback lies at the heart of this assignment. As I
continue to plan and deliver lessons, I am keen to see how literacy can be embedded in my subject
specifically through the setting, marking and student-teacher review of homework.
Literature Review
As with all skills, reading and writing improve with practice, and improvement is commensurate with
the enjoyment derived from it. Habitual readers and writers enjoy the acts of reading and writing in a
way that children who struggle with literacy do not (Meek, 1991; Inglis and Aers, 2008). Daly and
Miller (1975b) coined the term “writing apprehension” to describe an avoidance of tasks which might
involve the act of writing, or the receiving of feedback for writing. In a later paper, Daly (1979) suggests
that teachers may respond more positively to students who are seen to respond readily to written work.
Apprehensive writers will generally write less than those who are more confident (Daly, 1979), the
content of their writing will be evaluated as low quality, and they will fear feedback because they think
they will be rated negatively (Daly and Miller, 1975a).
Self-efficacy is a term used to refer to a student’s belief about their ability to learn using self-regulatory
processes such as “goal setting, self-monitoring, strategy use, self-evaluation, and self-reactions”
(Zimmerman and Kitsantas, 2005, p.398). According to Martinez et al. (2011), students with high levels
of writing anxiety have lower levels of writing self-efficacy. Their study was based on students self-
reporting their own anxiety, which may not render the results entirely reliable, but the authors highlight
the potential positive impact of teachers giving detailed feedback on written work. Bandura’s social
cognitive theory contends that goals are known to increase a person’s cognitive reactions to
performance because they offer a view of what success looks like (Zimmerman, Bandura & Martinez-
Pons, 1992, p.664). Pursuing success requires motivation, and this lies at the heart of self-regulatory
processes.
