Cambridge Journal of Education

EDITORIAL

Teaching English, language and literacy

Note: This is a pre-publication version that may contain errors. Please cite as follows:
Wyse, D. (2009). Editorial. Teaching English, Language and Literacy. Special edition of
The Cambridge Journal of Education. 39(3), 287-290.

The learning and teaching of English, language and literacy is the main priority for the education
systems of many of the world’s nations. The role of language as fundamental to learning in all
other areas; the high priority given to literacy teaching; the argument that nations’ economic
futures are closely aligned with literacy skills; the emphasis on reading, and the renewed interest
in the evidence base for educational policy and practice are ideas that many nations are
addressing. In order to benefit from the wealth of international research of relevance to the
teaching of English there is a constant need for expert synthesis and interpretation so that
teaching can be informed by these insights.

The words English, language, and literacy carry with them many possible interpretations. For the
purposes of this special edition the word ‘English’ does not mean the English language per se,
rather, the principal focus is on English as taught in schools and other educational settings,
largely where English is a first or first-choice language. As far as ‘language’ is concerned, the
emphasis here is on the reading and writing processes that pupils and teachers engage in as they
seek to understand and create texts. For some the definition of ‘literacy’ entails a focus mainly on
the important technical capacity to read and write words, but the contributors remind us that
literacy (or literacies) is a socially embedded semantic system, and part of a multimodal
framework that considers writing, reading, talk and listening alongside other modes of
communication.

In the last 20 years there have been important advancements in our understanding of the teaching
and learning of English, language and literacy. But this research effort has not been an entirely
even one. For example, the teaching of reading has attracted much more attention than the
teaching for writing. But there are signs that this historical balance may be shifting with a
resurgence of interest in writing. Richard Andrews, Carole Torgerson, Graham Low and Nick
McGuinn’s systematic review of evidence focuses on the writing of argument but also makes a
contribution to the debates about teaching writing more broadly. Of particular interest is their
finding that effective teaching of writing includes the condition of ‘a writing process model in
which students are encouraged to plan, draft, edit and revise their writing’ (Andrews et al., p.
insert page number once proofs available). In the 1980s great interest was aroused in process
models of writing, particularly the process approach inspired by Graves’ (1983) work in New
Zealand. But criticisms emerged, for example, from those who argued that the teaching of
writing too often consisted of a limited number of genres, particularly story-writing in primary
schools, although empirical evidence to support this claim was limited. The case was also made

1
that more explicit teaching of the formal structures of different forms of writing, particularly
non-narrative forms, was required. Andrews et al.’s (op cit.) conclusions are that effective
teaching of writing is characterised by pedagogy that locates explicit teaching of strategies
within broader conditions for learning that include pupil self-motivation and peer collaboration, a
position that is attracting interest internationally (Graham, in press).

At the heart of any approach to the teaching of writing is the need to encourage pupils to
compose. Sarah Beck’s interest in writing composition includes attention to what is effective, and
extends from secondary education to post-secondary education. Her article explores the teaching
of writing from cognitive, textual and social perspectives in order to formulate an inter-
disciplinary understanding of writing composition. Like Andrews et al., Beck finds that effective
teaching of writing requires the location of explicit teaching within broader conditions. She
advocates the teaching of writing conventions as social artefacts rather than as formal norms. The
importance of a process approach is perhaps evident in Beck’s call for the induction of students
into the ways that practitioners in the relevant disciplines approach the task of writing including
the forms of thinking that give rise to different genres. With this goal in mind she sees the need
for a convergence of cognitive, textual and social dimensions.

Handwriting has been something of a ‘Cinderella’ of research and of the school curriculum. At
first glance, handwriting, which is the topic of Jane Medwell, Steve Strand and David Wray’s
paper, may not seem to be related to the compositional aspects that feature in the first two papers.
And yet the findings from Medwell et al.’s research reveal that a high proportion of the variance,
for the pupils in their study, between the scores on the writing composition task of the national
statutory tests in England (commonly known as SATs) was related to their handwriting. It has
been theorised that the reason that handwriting is linked to composition is because if letter
formation is not automatic more demands are made on working memory, resulting in less
available for higher-level tasks such as composing. Medwell et al.’s research provides another
important example of the links between different facets of the writing process.

If writing has been at times the Cinderella of research, then reading has been the Prince. Interest
in reading is not just reflected in research; its frequent coverage in the media reveals some of the
significance to wider society. Recent debate, which is arguably part of a long tradition of
disagreement about the teaching of reading, has focused on the moves by governments to impose
teaching methods and the extent to which these initiatives reflect the evidence base. Debates
about reading standards at national level have been given an explicit international context
through comparisons of nation states’ education systems. Gerry Shiel and Eemer Eivers examine
the international comparisons of reading compared in the PIRLS (Progress in International
Reading Literacy Study) and the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA)
evaluations. Shiel and Eivers address some of the criticisms that have emerged of such
comparative measures, but they also show that underneath the headlines there are data which can
lead to more sophisticated understandings. For example, attempts have been made to measure
engagement in reading and to consider how this relates to student achievements. This is
potentially a very important consideration because many argue that students who are engaged
and motivated by their teaching are more likely to make progress. Another example of more

2
sophisticated understanding is reflected in the way that the implications for individual countries
have been enriched by multi-level statistical models. A study of data for England found that the
number of books in a student’s home was strongly associated with achievement and engagement.

One important but sometimes undervalued part of reading pedagogy is the way that texts are
used, selected and promoted, something that once again has been central to many fundamental
debates about language in society. In primary education one of the debates about decisions over
texts has centred on what are deemed to be the most appropriate books for supporting the
teaching of reading: ‘real’ books versus reading-scheme books/trade books versus basal readers.
Although much debated I am not aware of a great deal of empirical work that has sought to
address this issue. Rachel Levy’s research was innovative for this reason, but also because of the
way she worked with children aged three to five. Activities with the children were designed to
elicit their perceptions of reading schemes and other books in relation to their role in the teaching
of reading. One of the findings concerns the way that book selection, and use of books by the
educational setting, can discourage or encourage reading. Of concern to Levy was the idea for
some children that the reading of trade books was not ‘real reading’ because that could only
happen with reading-scheme books. Levy calls for more attention to be paid to text selection, and
more caution over reading-scheme books.

The significance of the choice of texts and their use by teachers is revealed in relation to older
pupils in the paper by Janet Sturgess and Terry Locke. It is perhaps in this paper that Cinderella
and the Prince are seen together! The history of traditional tales and their recent incarnation in
the feature film Shrek are part of a case study where conceptions of teaching literature in
multicultural classrooms were investigated. It is perhaps the meeting of practical knowledge with
the socio-cultural theory of the academy that is of particular interest in the paper. The socio-
cultural context is evident in the backgrounds of the students and the links that the authors make
with the history of oral story-telling traditions, and in the use of a critical approach to
comparative literature that is advocated. The merit of this combination is premised on the work
of a teacher and the motivation of her pupils generated through engaging texts and engaging
teaching.

Paradoxically, in view of the separation between reading and writing reflected in the order of
papers, it is the themes that cross this modal divide that are interesting. For example, locating
explicit forms of teaching within broader conditions of learning which themselves exist in socio-
cultural frameworks is common to several of the papers. The importance of texts; not just their
linguistic utility and their variety, but also the specific ways that choice of texts is at the heart of
English teaching, is also something that resonates through many of the views expressed in the
papers. The place of language as the medium of teaching is ever present; a medium that reveals
the importance of the processes of reading and writing, not just the end products. Research often
pursues one mode, yet the English teacher must be expert in all. There is perhaps a new research
agenda here that seeks to better understand the links between reading, writing and language
while at the same time recognising their clear differences. The goal of writers to communicate
meaning versus the goal of readers to understand meaning provides one example of difference,

3
yet the necessity for the writer to read, in order to hone their intended meaning, provides a
related example that foregrounds the links between the modes.

I am most grateful to the authors for their contribution to this special edition, most of whom also
address the separations and combinations that are part of this new agenda in the forthcoming
Routledge International Handbook on English, Language and Literacy Teaching edited by
Dominic Wyse, Richard Andrews and Jim Hoffman, which also takes an international research
perspective in its aim to explore implications for policy and practice.

Dominic Wyse

University of Cambridge, UK

References
Graves, D.H. (1983). Writing: Teachers and children at work. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann Educational.
Graham, S. (in press). Facilitating writing development. In D. Wyse, R. Andrews & J. Hoffman (Eds.),
The Routledge International Handbook of English, Language and Literacy Teaching. London:
Routledge.