Section 3: Justification

The unit created focuses on developing writing skills and oracy and has been designed to
cater for the differing needs and mixed abilities of students and their literacy learning. A
diverse range of teaching strategies and techniques have been adopted throughout the unit,
providing ample opportunity for oral and written language features of Information Narratives
to be explored.
The unit utilises t he gradual release of responsibility model. This states that the cognitive
work should transfer gradually from teacher modelling to shared responsibility to complete
self-sufficient practice and application by the learner (Fisher & Frey, 2010). Having this
model in place provides students with the foundation for effective writing skills that are
initially demonstrated by the teacher and eventually passed down to become consistent
writing practices for students independently.
The diversity of cultures in schools today can present additional challenges for teachers as
they can become justifiably bewildered as to effective means to meet students specific needs
with suitable oral language activities for those EAL students as well as children with English
as their primary language (Kirkland & Patterson, 2005). This planner addresses this need,
with activities that can be readily modified to enable or extend students, differentiating for
various needs. It is important to note that the classroom environment hugely affects the
success of oral language activities, especially for EAL students. Oral language development
is best facilitated through a thoughtfully planned environment that supports genuine,
thoughtful and supportive opportunities for students to engage in conversations (Kirkland &
Patterson, 2005). It is imperative that all efforts made by ESL students to express themselves
verbally are acknowledged and appreciated, as this assists students in building their
confidence and furthermore, their intrinsic motivation to continue to work on their oral

Amy Freeman

S00126190

language (Pang, 2014). Throughout the unit, focused teaching groups are conducted with
EAL students, which provides them with not only more one-on-one time, but also with more
time to allow them to produce their answers as this can take some EAL students longer
(Hertzberg & Freeman, 2012). Further explanation of the task at hand and back-tracking to
assumed content knowledge provides EAL students with an opportunity to grasp the skills
that form the basis for the successful completion of the activity.
Throughout this planner, a strong emphasis is placed on oracy. Hertzerg & Freeman (2012)
identify that oracy denotes both the productive (talking) and the receptive (listening) aspect
of language (p.48). Often, oracy is an under-used element in many classrooms, with teachers
ineffectively facilitating authentic conversations (Arnott, 2014). Although reading, writing
and number are frequently referred to as the curriculum basics, talk is essentially the true
basis for learning, transferable to all content areas (Arnott, 2014). It is with this in mind that
the fourteen-session unit builds on students speaking and listening skills through the use of
selected tasks. It is important to note that educators cannot emphasise all skills and abilities at
one time, so the specific language goal should be addressed one at a time (Kopp, 1967). This
is made explicit in the planner with lessons broken down to focus on one language feature at
a time with a clear literacy learning intention.
The collaborative nature of the tasks throughout the unit means that students engage in
discussion that is vital to their learning and oral language development which is fundamental
to the writing process. Co-operative learning provides students with an opportunity to talk
about information and put into practice skills originally demonstrated by the teacher (Slain,
2010). Many of the tasks throughout the planner require students to work with peers in pairs
or small groups, which often encourages students to take more risks as they feel comfortable
with their peers (Hertzberg & Freeman, 2012). Communicative activities such as
communicative crosswords are utilised throughout the planner also, based on the premise that
Amy Freeman

S00126190

students acquire language when they understand the content and language is used in authentic
contexts (Hertzberg & Freeman, 2012). Tasks such as developing word walls, text
reconstruction and note taking are also utilised, providing genuine needs for authentic
communication (Gibbons, 2002).
Storytelling is hugely about developing the skills of speaking and listening and thus has been
used in Session 6 to consolidate students understanding of the use of descriptive language in
written texts as a language also building on oracy (Moss, 2007). Ruurs (2011) states that it is
important that students are aware that descriptive writing is essential in keeping their
audience engaged, so having students orally present their story to a partner can allow for this
internal reflection as the activity takes place. Oral storytelling generally has a less defined
place in the middle years than the first few years of schooling as there is the temptation to
reduce oral narrative as children become increasingly proficient, however the practice holds
many benefits for students in terms of oracy (Kirkby, Faulkner & Perrin, 2014). Oral
storytelling provides an opportunity for students to appropriate more stylized narrative
language, in this case with a focus on descriptive language (Kirkby, Faulkner & Perrin,
2014). The practice can also assist students in developing story structure, role and character
development as well as verbal expression, movement and gesture, which are all important
components for students creating their Information Narratives (Moss, 2007).
Session 7 works towards students understanding and utilising dialogue within their writing.
To assist in developing these skills, Readers Theatre is conducted. Readers Theatre is defined
as the oral presentation of drama, prose or poetry by two or more readers (Wolf, 1993). The
dialogue used in Readers Theatre as a collaborative task will expose children to an extended
range of vocabulary. This vocabulary can then be transferred to the students writing. Rather
than memorising lines, performers read from the script, enabling children to practice their
oral language skills throughout the activity (Hertzberg, 2000). Readers Theatre provides a
Amy Freeman

S00126190

platform to share, a time to imaginatively interact with others and use personal interpretation
(Fredericks, 2011). It assists students focus on the combination of all the language arts of
reading, writing, speaking and listening (Fredericks, 2011). Through investigating dialogue in
Readers Theatre, students can see the value of dialogue and adapt this to their writing.
Teaching students to write is a complex process. It requires diversity in teaching, acquisition
of thoughts and mindfulness in words, as well as a flexible mindset. Gauging effective
learning outcomes requires a move from teacher modelled work to carefully scaffolded
student work, reliant on independent thinking and personal judgment. Additionally,
increasing dialogue among students acts as a catalyst for enhanced writing through a wider
vocabulary, developing greater language skills in a broader context. The importance of
storytelling and its role in engaging students and furthering oral language is also stressed
whereby knowledge is shared and demonstrated through enhanced writing samples. These
ideas are reflected throughout the unit and aim to produce highly proficient writers.

Word Count: 1140

Amy Freeman

S00126190

References
Arnott, N. (2014). Substantive conversations-the importance of oracy in the classroom.
Practically Primary, 19(1), 13.
Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2010). Defining quality instruction: a necessary component of school
improvement. The Australian Educational Leader, 32(1), 9-12.
Fredericks, A. (2011). Building literacy bridges with readers theatre. School Library Monthly,
27(4), 42-44.
Gibbons, P. (2002). Scaffolding language, scaffolding learning: teaching second language
learners in the mainstream classroom, Heinemann, Portsmouth, N.H.
Hertzberg, M. (2000). So we can learn something as well as doing something fun: learning
about reading through readers theatre. The Australian Journal of Language and
Literacy, 23(1), 21-36.
Hertzberg, M., & Freeman, J. (2012). Teaching English language learners in mainstream
classes. Primary English Teaching Association Australia.
Kirkby, J., Faulkner, J., & Perrin, J. (2014). 'Once there was a...': Reclaiming storytelling in
the middle years. Literacy Learning: The Middle Years, 22(2), i.
Kirkland, L. D., & Patterson, J. (2005). Developing oral language in primary classrooms.
Early Childhood Education Journal, 32(6), 391-395.
Kopp, O. W. (1967). The evaluation of oral language activities: Teaching and learning.
Elementary English, 114-123.
Moss, L. (2007). Learning literacy with lively drama engagement. Practically Primary, 12(2),
13-15.
Pang, S. (2014). Supporting the oral literacy development of young ESL children. Practically
Primary, 19(1), 42-45.
Ruurs, M. (2011). Descriptive writing. Reading Today, 28(4), 26.
Slavin, R. (2010). Co-operative learning: what makes group-work work? The Nature of
Learning: Using Research to Inspire Practice, OECD Publishing.
Wolf, S. A. (1993). What's in a name? Labels and literacy in readers theatre. The Reading
Teacher, 540-545.

Amy Freeman

S00126190