As we continue to develop and refine our new approach to teaching writing, the second phase of our pilot is now underway, marking an exciting shift in both scale and ambition. The initial feedback from teachers during the first half-term of the pilot has been positive, confirming that the approach, though not necessarily leading to an immediate increase in the length of student writing, is fostering a deeper, more intentional connection to their work. Students are increasingly able to produce writing that is not only more rooted in their individual authorial intent but also scaffolded by their growing understanding of sentence structure—thanks in large part to the codified, explicit teaching of syntax.
The success of this initial phase has prompted us to roll out the pilot on a whole-year group basis. This expansion aims to gauge the level of professional development required to support teachers in adapting to the new approach, which deliberately moves away from the “plug-and-play” model of standardised planning that has been more familiar in our school’s previous writing pedagogy. In a climate where teachers have often been given inconsistent guidance on what makes a "good writing teacher," the need for clear, research-informed support is becoming increasingly evident.
In the context of our school, we have a strong pedagogical foundation in reading and maths, with well-established strategies for instruction in both subjects. However, writing has been a weaker area, marked by uncertainty and variation in the methods applied by staff. Previous messages about what constitutes effective writing teaching have been inconsistent, leading to a fragmented and somewhat fragmented approach. This inconsistency is reflective of broader challenges in the education system, where the teaching of writing is often seen as less systematised than reading or maths. In response, we are aiming to build a cohesive, evidence-informed framework that fosters both teacher confidence and student success in writing.
One of the key realisations from the pilot so far has been the importance of focusing not just on the “what” of teaching writing but on the “how.” Effective teaching in writing requires a deep, explicit understanding of syntax, sentence structure, and authorial choices. It is not enough to simply offer students models of good writing or provide them with writing templates. We must ensure that teachers themselves have a robust understanding of these mechanics, and this requires a shift in pedagogical identity—a shift that, according to research, is often necessary for real improvement in instructional practices.
Teacher identity plays a crucial role in the evolution of pedagogical practices, as teachers' beliefs about their roles and their understanding of teaching are constantly influenced by their experiences, conversations and the broader school context (Beauchamp & Thomas, 2009). As we roll out this new writing approach, we are keenly aware that the teachers’ evolving sense of themselves as writing teachers will be central to the success of the initiative. Our approach is designed not just to shift instructional strategies but also to encourage teachers to think critically about the mechanics of writing instruction. This is why professional development will play such a significant role in the coming months.
Informed by the work of Timperley (2008), who emphasises the importance of professional learning that leads to changes in teaching practice, we recognise that effective CPD should focus on deepening teachers’ understanding of the cognitive and linguistic processes behind writing. It is this shift in thinking—this expansion of teachers' pedagogical schemas—that we hope to see emerge over the course of the year. By encouraging teachers to critically reflect on the “why” behind their writing instruction, we aim to foster a collective pedagogical knowledge base that is both consistent and deeply informed by research.
As we observe the new writing approach unfolding across three different year groups, an interesting dynamic is emerging. Each team’s response to the pilot is coloured by its unique dynamics, ranging from enthusiastic adoption to cautious adaptation. These varying levels of success present both an opportunity and a challenge: How can we ensure that teachers are given enough autonomy to adapt the approach to their own contexts, while still maintaining a high level of consistency in the thinking behind the instruction?
This is a question that many schools face when implementing new teaching practices: how to balance teacher autonomy with fidelity to a shared pedagogical vision (Hattie, 2009).
Research suggests that while teacher autonomy is a crucial element of effective practice (Sachs, 2003), it is also essential to provide a clear and cohesive framework for the teaching of writing that guides decision-making without stifling creativity. This is why our approach is grounded in key principles of sentence structure and authorial intent but flexible enough to allow teachers to adapt strategies according to the needs of their students.
The challenge, therefore, is not just about standardising instruction, but about developing a shared conceptual framework that allows for professional discretion while ensuring that key principles of teaching writing are upheld. This is where our coaching approach comes in—by providing teachers with the tools to reflect on their practice, discuss challenges and co-construct solutions, we hope to foster both individual growth and collective expertise.
As we continue to develop our new writing approach, we are acutely aware that professional development will need to be tailored to the individual needs of teachers. Some teachers may need more support in understanding the mechanics of sentence structure, while others may require coaching around how to foster a sense of authorial voice in students’ writing. The varied responses from different year groups underline the need for a flexible, responsive approach to CPD, one that acknowledges the differences in teacher experience and confidence.
Ultimately, our goal is not simply to improve writing outcomes but to build a shared, evidence-informed understanding of writing instruction across the school. By focusing on the deeper pedagogical knowledge that underpins effective writing instruction, we hope to shift teachers’ identities and practices in a way that will have a lasting impact on their teaching, their students and the school community as a whole.
References:
Beauchamp, C., & Thomas, L. (2009). Teacher identity: An analysis of the development of teacher identity in English language teachers in higher education. Journal of Education for Teaching, 35(1), 41-52.
Hattie, J. (2009). Visible Learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. Routledge.
Sachs, J. (2003). The Activist Teaching Profession. Open University Press.
Timperley, H. (2008). Teacher professional learning and development. Educational Practices Series-18, International Academy of Education.
Comentarios