Skip to content
1981

The Write to Read Project: Research-Informed Pedagogies for Communities of Readers, Writers, and Thinkers

image of The Write to Read Project: Research-Informed Pedagogies for Communities of Readers, Writers, and Thinkers

Literacy is a tool for personal empowerment and key to discovering and reaching one's potential in life. Children's experiences of literacy in school are important factors in their literacy journey, as affordances of classrooms can constrain or propel their development forward. Teachers and schools play a key role in infusing classrooms with purpose and passion and engaging children as readers, writers and thinkers from the outset. This is more likely to occur when a rich conceptualisation of literacy is enacted which balances attention to the creative, emotional, and aesthetic dimensions of literacy as well as cognitive skills. This chapter draws on many lines of literacy scholarship and examples from the Write to Read research-practice partnership in low socio-economic schools to illuminate how the research can be brought to life to create conditions for literacy to thrive.

Keywords: Agency ; collaborative research ; Creativity ; Dialogic classroom ; Engagement ; Equity ; Motivation ; Professional development

Loading full text...

Full text loading...

The Write to Read Project: Research-Informed Pedagogies for Communities of Readers, Writers, and Thinkers
Intellect , 205 (2025); https://doi.org/10.1386/9781835951286_14
/content/books/9781835951286.c13
/content/books/9781835951286.c13
Loading

Data & Media loading...

References

  1. Bandura, Albert (1995), ‘Exercise of personal and collective efficacy in changing societies’, in A. Bandura (ed.), Self-Efficacy in Changing Societies, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–45.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Beck, Isabel, L. McKeown, Margaret G. and Kucan, L. (2008), Creating Robust Vocabulary: Frequently Asked Questions, New York: Guilford.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Cochran-Smith, Marilyn and Lytle, Susan L. (1999), ‘Relationships of knowledge and practice: Teacher learning in communities’, Review of Research in Education, 24, pp. 249–305.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Cochran-Smith, Marilyn and Lytle, Susan, L. (2009), Inquiry as Stance: Practitioner Research for a New Generation, New York: Teachers College Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Daffern, Tessa, Mackenzie, Noella M. and Hemmings, Brian (2017), ‘Predictors of writing success: How important are spelling, grammar and punctuation?’ Australian Journal of Education, 61:1, pp. 75–87, https://doi.org/10.1177/0004944116685319.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Dalton, Bridget (2014), ‘Level up with multimodal composition in social studies’, The Reading Teacher, 68:4, pp. 296–302.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Derewianka, Beverly N. (2015), ‘The contribution of genre theory to literacy education in Australia’, in J. Turbill, G. Barton and C. Brock (eds), Teaching Writing in Today's Classrooms: Looking Back to Looking Forward, Norwood: Australian Literary Educators' Association, pp. 69–86.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Eeds, Maryann and Wells, Deborah (1989), ‘Grand conversations: An exploration of meaning construction in literature study groups’, Research in the Teaching of English, 23, pp. 4–29.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Fielding, Linda G. and Pearson, P. David (1994), ‘Reading comprehension: What works’, Educational Leadership, 51:5, pp. 62–68.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Gadd, Murray and Parr, Judy M. (2017), ‘Practices of effective writing teachers’, Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 30:7, pp. 1551–74, https://doi.org/10.10,07/s11145-017-9737-1.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Gamble, Nikki (2019), Exploring Children's Literature: Reading for Knowledge, Understanding and Pleasure, 4th ed., London: Sage.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Graham, Steve, Bollinger, Alisha, Booth Olson, Carol, D'Aoust, Catherine, MacArthur, Charles, McCutchen, Deborah and Olinghouse, Natalie (2012/2018), Teaching Elementary School Students to Be Effective Writers: A Practice Guide (NCEE 2012-4058), Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Docs/PracticeGuide/WWC_Elem_Writing_PG_Dec182018.pdf. Accessed 21 September 2024.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Graham, Steve and Rijlaarsdam, Gert (2016), ‘Writing education around the globe’, Reading & Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 29, pp. 781–92.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Graham, Steve, Liu, Xinghua, Bartlett, Brendan, Ng, Clarence, Harris, Karen R., Aitken, Angelique, Barkel, Ashley, Kavanaugh, Colin and Talukdar, Joy (2018), ‘Reading for writing: A meta-analysis of the impact of reading interventions on writing’, Review of Educational Research, 88:2, 243–84, https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654317746927.224
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Grainger, Teresa, Goouch, Kathy and Lambirth, Andrew (2005), Creativity and Writing. Developing Voice and Verve in the Classroom, Abingdon: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Graves, Donald (1994), A Fresh Look at Writing, Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Graves, Donald and Hansen, Jane (1983), ‘The author's chair’, Language Arts, 60:2, pp. 176–83.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Graves, Michael and Watts-Taffe, Susan (2002), ‘The place of word consciousness in a research-based vocabulary programme’, in A. E. Farstrup and S. J. Samuels (eds), What the Research Has to Say about Reading Instruction, 3rd ed., Newark, DE: International Reading Association, pp. 140–65.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Guthrie, John and Anderson, Emily (1999), ‘Engagement in reading: Processes of motivated, strategic, knowledgeable, social readers’, in J. T. Guthrie and D. E. Alvermann (eds), Engaged Reading: Processes, Practices, and Policy Implications, New York: Teachers College Press, pp. 17–45.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Guthrie, John and Humenick, Nicole M. (2004), ‘Motivating students to read: Evidence for classroom practices that increase reading motivation and achievement’, in P. McCardle and V. Chhabra (eds), The Voice of Evidence in Reading Research, Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co., pp. 329–54.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Guthrie, John, Lutz Klauda, Susan and Ho, Amy (2013), ‘Modeling the relationships among reading instruction, motivation, engagement and achievement for adolescents’, Reading Research Quarterly, 48:1, pp. 9–26, https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.035.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Guthrie, John, Wigfield, Alan, Metsala, Jamie L. and Cox, Kathleen E. (1999), ‘Motivational and cognitive predictors of text comprehension and reading amount’, Scientific Studies of Reading, 3:3, pp. 231–56, https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532799xssr0303_3.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. International Literacy Association (2017), Position Statement and Literacy Leadership Brief: Characteristics of Culturally Sustaining and Academically Rigorous Classrooms, Newark: International Literacy Association.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Ivey, Gay (2014), ‘The social side of engaged reading for young adolescents’, The Reading Teacher, 68:3, pp. 165–71, https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1268.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Johnston, Peter (2012), Opening Minds: Using Language to Change Lives, Grandview Heights, OH: Stenhouse.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Johnston, Peter (2019), ‘Talking children into literacy: Once more, with feeling’, Literacy Research: Theory, Method, and Practice, 68, pp. 64–85, https://doi.org/10.1177/2381336919877854.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Kavanagh, Lauren, Shiel, Gerry, Gilleece, Lorraine and Kiniry, Joanne (2015), The 2014 National Assessments of English Reading and Mathematics, Volume 11: Context Report, Dublin: Educational Research Centre.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Kavanagh, Lauren, Weir, Susan and Moran, Eva (2017), The Evaluation of DEIS: Monitoring Achievement and Attitudes among Urban Primary School Pupils from 2007 to 2016, Dublin: Educational Research Centre.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Kennedy, Eithne (2010), ‘Narrowing the achievement gap: Motivation, engagement, and self-efficacy matter’, Journal of Education, 190:3, pp. 1–11, Boston, MA: University of Boston.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Kennedy, Eithne (2014), Raising Literacy Achievement in High-Poverty Schools: An Evidence-Based Approach, Research in Education series, New York: Routledge.225
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Kennedy, Eithne (2018), ‘Engaging children as readers and writers in high-poverty contexts’, Journal of Research in Reading, 41:4, pp. 716–31, https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9817.12261.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Kennedy, Eithne and Shiel, Gerry (2010), ‘Raising literacy levels with collaborative on-site professional development in an urban disadvantaged school’, The Reading Teacher, Special Issue on urban education, 63:5, pp. 373–83.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Kennedy, Eithne and Shiel, Gerry (2019), Writing Pedagogy in the Senior Primary Classes: Knowledge Skills and Processes, Report commissioned to support the primary language curriculum, Dublin: National Council of Curriculum and Assessment (NCCA).
  34. Kennedy, Eithne and Shiel, Gerry (2022), ‘Writing assessment for communities of writers: Validation of a scale to support teaching and assessment of writing in Pre-K to Grade 2’, Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 29:5, pp. 1–23, https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2022.2047608.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Kennedy, Eithne and Shiel, Gerry (2024), ‘The teaching of writing in the write to read literacy framework in low-SES primary schools in Ireland’, Reading & Writing, Special Issue: Teaching Writing, 37, pp. 1575–1603, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-023-10510-7.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. King, Fiona, French, Geraldine and Halligan, Clare (2022), ‘Professional learning and/or development (PL): Principles and practices, a review of the literature’, Dublin: Department of Education, Government of Ireland, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7250425. Accessed 30 September 2024.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Knapp, Michael (ed.) (1995), Teaching for Meaning in High-Poverty Classrooms, New York: Teachers College Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Lortie, Dan C. (1975), School Teacher: A Sociological Study, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Lutz, Susan L., Guthrie, John T. and Davis, Marcia H. (2006), ‘Scaffolding for engagement in learning: An observational study of elementary school reading instruction’, Journal of Educational Research, 100:1, pp. 3–20, https://doi-org.dcu.idm.oclc.org/10.3200/JOER.100.1.3-20.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. McCarrier, Andrea, Pinnell, Gay S. and Fountas, Irene (2000). Interactive Writing: How Language and Literacy Come Together in K-2, Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. McGillicuddy, Deirdre and Devine, Dympna (2018), ‘“Turned off” or “ready to fly” – Ability grouping as an act of symbolic violence in primary school’, Teaching and Teacher Education, 70, pp. 88–99.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Mercer, Neil (1995), The Guided Construction of Knowledge: Talk amongst Teachers and Learners, Philadelphia, PA: Multilingual Matters.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Miller, Sam, Metzger, Salem R. Fitts, Amber, Stallings, Sarah and Massey, Dixie (2021), ‘If you don't know where you're going, you might end up where you're headed! Teachers’ visions transforming praxis through agency’, Peabody Journal of Education, 96:2, pp. 1–16, https://doi.org/10.1080/0161956X.2021.1965410
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Mills, Kathy A. and Exley, Beryl (2014), ‘Time, space, and text in the elementary school digital writing classroom’, Written Communication, 31:4, pp. 434–69, https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088314542757.226
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Murphy, Karen P., Wilkinson, Ian A. G., Soter, Anna O., Hennessey, Maeghan N. and Alexander, John F. (2009), ‘Examining the effects of classroom discussion on students’ comprehension of text: A meta-analysis’, Journal of Educational Psychology, 101:3, pp. 740–64, American Psychological Association.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Myhill, Debra (2011), ‘Grammar for designers: How grammar supports the development of writing’, in S. Ellis, E. McCartney and J. Bourne (eds), Insight and Impact: Applied Linguistics and the Primary School, London: Cambridge University Press, pp. 81–92.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. National Council for Curriculum and Assessment (NCCA) (2005), ‘Primary curriculum review: Phase 1 (English, Visual Arts, Mathematics)’, https://ncca.ie/media/1497/primary_curriculum_review_phase_1_final_report_with_recommendations_8.pdf. Accessed 21 September 2024.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. National Council for Curriculum and Assessment (NCCA) (2023), ‘The primary curriculum framework for primary and special schools’, https://curriculumonline.ie/getmedia/84747851-0581-431b-b4d7-dc6ee850883e/2023-Primary-Framework-ENG-screen.pdf. Accessed 21 September 2024.
  49. National Council for Curriculum and Assessment (NCCA)/Department of Education and Science (DES) (1999), English Curriculum: Content Objectives and Teacher Guidelines, Dublin: Stationery Office.
     [Google Scholar]
  50. National Council for Curriculum and Assessment (NCCA)/Department of Education and Science (DES) (2019), Primary Language Curriculum, Dublin: Stationery Office.
     [Google Scholar]
  51. National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE) (2016), Professional Knowledge of the Teaching of Writing, Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English, https://ncte.org/statement/teaching-writing/. Accessed 21 September 2024.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHHD) (2000), Report of the National Reading Panel. Teaching Children to Read: An Evidence-Based Assessment of the Scientific Research Literature on Reading and Its Implications for Reading Instruction. Reports of the Subgroups (NICHHD Publication No. 00-4769), Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Naumann, April, Stirling, Terry and Borthwick, Arlene (2011), ‘What makes writing good? An essential question for teachers’, The Reading Teacher, 64:5, pp. 318–28.
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Ng, Clarence and Graham Steve (2018), ‘Improving literacy engagement: Enablers, challenges and catering for students from disadvantaged backgrounds’, Journal of Research in Reading, 41:4, pp. 615–24.
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Nystrand, Martin (2006), ‘Research on the role of classroom discourse as it affects reading comprehension’, Research in the Teaching of English, 40:4, pp. 392–412, Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE).
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Paris, Scott (2005), ‘Reinterpreting the development of reading skills’, Reading Research Quarterly, 40:2, pp. 184–202.
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Patrick, Helen, Ryan, Allison and Pintrich, Patrick (1999), ‘The differential impact of extrinsic and mastery goal orientations on males' and females' self-regulated learning’, 227Learning and Individual Differences, 11:2, pp. 153–71, https://doi.org/10.1016/S1041-6080(00)80003-5.
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Pearson, David P. (2009), ‘Rich talk about text’, http://www.pdavidpearson.org/2018/05/21/rich-talk-about-text-pearson-p-d-2010/. Accessed 21 September 2024.
  59. Philappakos, Zoey and MacArthur, Charles (2016), ‘The effects of giving feedback on the persuasive writing of fourth- and fifth-grade students’, Reading Research Quarterly, 51:4, pp. 419–33, Delaware, International Literacy Association.
     [Google Scholar]
  60. Pressley, Michael, Allington, Richard, Warton-McDonald, Ruth, Collins Block, Cathy and Mandel Morrow, Lesley (2001), Learning to Read: Lessons from Exemplary First-Grade Classrooms, New York: Guildford.
     [Google Scholar]
  61. Pressley, Michael, El-Dinary, Pamela B., Gaskins, Irene, Schuder, Ted, Bergman, Janet L., Almasi, Janet and Brown, Rachel (1992), ‘Beyond direct explanation: Transactional instruction of reading comprehension strategies’, The Elementary School Journal, 92:5, 513–55.
     [Google Scholar]
  62. Pytash, Kristin and Morgan, Denise (2014), ‘Using mentor texts to teach writing in science and social studies’, The Reading Teacher, pp. 68, 93–102, https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1276.
     [Google Scholar]
  63. Quinn, John (2002), ‘Keynote address’, Reading Association of Ireland Annual Conference, Church of Ireland College of Education, Rathmines, Dublin, n.d..
  64. Reeve, John Marshall (2012), ‘A self-determination perspective theory on student engagement’, in S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly and C. Wylie (eds), Handbook of Research on Student Engagement, New York: Springer, pp. 149–72, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_7149.
     [Google Scholar]
  65. Rogoff, R. (1990), Apprenticeship in Thinking: Cognitive Development in Social Context, New York: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  66. Rosenblatt, Louise M. (1978). The Reader, the Text, the Poem: The Transactional Theory of Literary Work, Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  67. Rosenblatt, Louise M. (2004), ‘The transactional theory of reading and writing’, in R. Ruddell and N. Unrau (eds), Theoretical Models and Processes of Reading, 5th ed., Newark, DE: International Reading Association, pp. 1363–98.
     [Google Scholar]
  68. Rumelhart, David E. (1994), ‘Toward an interactive model of reading’, in R. B. Ruddell, M. R. Ruddell and H. Singer (eds), Theoretical Models and Processes of Reading, 4th ed., Newark, DE: International Reading Association, pp. 864–94.
     [Google Scholar]
  69. Ryan, Richard M. and Deci, Edward L. (2000), ‘Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being’, American Psychologist, 55, pp. 68–78.
     [Google Scholar]
  70. Scull, Janet, Mackenzie, Noelle M. and Bowles, Terence (2020), ‘Assessing early writing: A six-factor model to inform assessment and teaching’, Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 19:2, pp. 239–59, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10671-020-09257-7.
     [Google Scholar]
  71. Shanahan, Cynthia and Shanahan, Timothy (2014), ‘Does disciplinary literacy have a place in elementary school?’ The Reading Teacher, 67:8, pp. 636–39, https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1257.228
     [Google Scholar]
  72. Shanahan, Timothy (2019), Disciplinary Literacy in the Primary School, Dublin: National Council for Curriculum and Assessment.
     [Google Scholar]
  73. Shulman, Lee S. (1987), ‘Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform’, Harvard Educational Review, 57:1, pp. 1–22.
     [Google Scholar]
  74. Skinner, Ellen A. and Pitzer, Jennifer, R. (2012), ‘Developmental dynamics of student engagement, coping and everyday resilience’, in S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly and C. Wylie (eds), Handbook of Research on Student Engagement, New York: Springer, pp. 21–44.
     [Google Scholar]
  75. Smyth, Eemer, McCoy, Selina and Kingston, Gillian (2015), Learning from the Evaluation of DEIS, Dublin: Economic and Social Research Institute.
     [Google Scholar]
  76. Stanovich, Keith E. (1986), ‘Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy’, Reading Research Quarterly, 21:4, pp. 360–407.
     [Google Scholar]
  77. Teale, William T., Paciga, Kathleen A. and Hoffman, Jessica (2010), ‘What it takes in early schooling to have adolescents who are skilled and eager readers and writers’, in K. Hall, U. Goswami, C. Harrison, S. Ellis and J. Soler (eds), Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Learning to Read: Culture, Cognition and Pedagogy, London and New York: Routledge, pp. 151–63.
     [Google Scholar]
  78. Vygotsky, Lev S. (1978), Mind and Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  79. Warschauer, Mark (1997), ‘A sociocultural approach to literacy and its significance for CALL’, in K. Murphy-Judy and R. Sanders (eds), Nexus: The Convergence of Research and Teaching through New Information Technologies, Durham, NC: University of North Carolina, pp. 88–97.
     [Google Scholar]
  80. Wigfield, Allan and Guthrie, John T. (1997), ‘Relations of children's motivation for reading to the amount and breadth of their reading’, Journal of Educational Psychology, 89:3, pp. 420–32.
     [Google Scholar]
  81. Wolf, Mikung Kim, Crosson, Amy C. and Resnick, Lauren (2006), Accountable Talk in Reading Comprehension Discussion, CSE Technical Report, 670, Los Angeles, CA: Learning and Research Development Centre, University of Pittsburgh.
     [Google Scholar]
  82. Zygouris-Coe, Vicky (2012), What Is Disciplinary Literacy and Why Aren't We Talking More about It? 18 March, https://vocablog-plc.blogspot.com/2012/03/what-is-disciplinary-literacy-and-why.html. Accessed 21 September 2024.

References

  1. Bandura, Albert (1995), ‘Exercise of personal and collective efficacy in changing societies’, in A. Bandura (ed.), Self-Efficacy in Changing Societies, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–45.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Beck, Isabel, L. McKeown, Margaret G. and Kucan, L. (2008), Creating Robust Vocabulary: Frequently Asked Questions, New York: Guilford.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Cochran-Smith, Marilyn and Lytle, Susan L. (1999), ‘Relationships of knowledge and practice: Teacher learning in communities’, Review of Research in Education, 24, pp. 249–305.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Cochran-Smith, Marilyn and Lytle, Susan, L. (2009), Inquiry as Stance: Practitioner Research for a New Generation, New York: Teachers College Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Daffern, Tessa, Mackenzie, Noella M. and Hemmings, Brian (2017), ‘Predictors of writing success: How important are spelling, grammar and punctuation?’ Australian Journal of Education, 61:1, pp. 75–87, https://doi.org/10.1177/0004944116685319.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Dalton, Bridget (2014), ‘Level up with multimodal composition in social studies’, The Reading Teacher, 68:4, pp. 296–302.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Derewianka, Beverly N. (2015), ‘The contribution of genre theory to literacy education in Australia’, in J. Turbill, G. Barton and C. Brock (eds), Teaching Writing in Today's Classrooms: Looking Back to Looking Forward, Norwood: Australian Literary Educators' Association, pp. 69–86.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Eeds, Maryann and Wells, Deborah (1989), ‘Grand conversations: An exploration of meaning construction in literature study groups’, Research in the Teaching of English, 23, pp. 4–29.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Fielding, Linda G. and Pearson, P. David (1994), ‘Reading comprehension: What works’, Educational Leadership, 51:5, pp. 62–68.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Gadd, Murray and Parr, Judy M. (2017), ‘Practices of effective writing teachers’, Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 30:7, pp. 1551–74, https://doi.org/10.10,07/s11145-017-9737-1.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Gamble, Nikki (2019), Exploring Children's Literature: Reading for Knowledge, Understanding and Pleasure, 4th ed., London: Sage.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Graham, Steve, Bollinger, Alisha, Booth Olson, Carol, D'Aoust, Catherine, MacArthur, Charles, McCutchen, Deborah and Olinghouse, Natalie (2012/2018), Teaching Elementary School Students to Be Effective Writers: A Practice Guide (NCEE 2012-4058), Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Docs/PracticeGuide/WWC_Elem_Writing_PG_Dec182018.pdf. Accessed 21 September 2024.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Graham, Steve and Rijlaarsdam, Gert (2016), ‘Writing education around the globe’, Reading & Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 29, pp. 781–92.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Graham, Steve, Liu, Xinghua, Bartlett, Brendan, Ng, Clarence, Harris, Karen R., Aitken, Angelique, Barkel, Ashley, Kavanaugh, Colin and Talukdar, Joy (2018), ‘Reading for writing: A meta-analysis of the impact of reading interventions on writing’, Review of Educational Research, 88:2, 243–84, https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654317746927.224
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Grainger, Teresa, Goouch, Kathy and Lambirth, Andrew (2005), Creativity and Writing. Developing Voice and Verve in the Classroom, Abingdon: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Graves, Donald (1994), A Fresh Look at Writing, Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Graves, Donald and Hansen, Jane (1983), ‘The author's chair’, Language Arts, 60:2, pp. 176–83.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Graves, Michael and Watts-Taffe, Susan (2002), ‘The place of word consciousness in a research-based vocabulary programme’, in A. E. Farstrup and S. J. Samuels (eds), What the Research Has to Say about Reading Instruction, 3rd ed., Newark, DE: International Reading Association, pp. 140–65.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Guthrie, John and Anderson, Emily (1999), ‘Engagement in reading: Processes of motivated, strategic, knowledgeable, social readers’, in J. T. Guthrie and D. E. Alvermann (eds), Engaged Reading: Processes, Practices, and Policy Implications, New York: Teachers College Press, pp. 17–45.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Guthrie, John and Humenick, Nicole M. (2004), ‘Motivating students to read: Evidence for classroom practices that increase reading motivation and achievement’, in P. McCardle and V. Chhabra (eds), The Voice of Evidence in Reading Research, Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co., pp. 329–54.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Guthrie, John, Lutz Klauda, Susan and Ho, Amy (2013), ‘Modeling the relationships among reading instruction, motivation, engagement and achievement for adolescents’, Reading Research Quarterly, 48:1, pp. 9–26, https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.035.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Guthrie, John, Wigfield, Alan, Metsala, Jamie L. and Cox, Kathleen E. (1999), ‘Motivational and cognitive predictors of text comprehension and reading amount’, Scientific Studies of Reading, 3:3, pp. 231–56, https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532799xssr0303_3.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. International Literacy Association (2017), Position Statement and Literacy Leadership Brief: Characteristics of Culturally Sustaining and Academically Rigorous Classrooms, Newark: International Literacy Association.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Ivey, Gay (2014), ‘The social side of engaged reading for young adolescents’, The Reading Teacher, 68:3, pp. 165–71, https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1268.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Johnston, Peter (2012), Opening Minds: Using Language to Change Lives, Grandview Heights, OH: Stenhouse.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Johnston, Peter (2019), ‘Talking children into literacy: Once more, with feeling’, Literacy Research: Theory, Method, and Practice, 68, pp. 64–85, https://doi.org/10.1177/2381336919877854.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Kavanagh, Lauren, Shiel, Gerry, Gilleece, Lorraine and Kiniry, Joanne (2015), The 2014 National Assessments of English Reading and Mathematics, Volume 11: Context Report, Dublin: Educational Research Centre.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Kavanagh, Lauren, Weir, Susan and Moran, Eva (2017), The Evaluation of DEIS: Monitoring Achievement and Attitudes among Urban Primary School Pupils from 2007 to 2016, Dublin: Educational Research Centre.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Kennedy, Eithne (2010), ‘Narrowing the achievement gap: Motivation, engagement, and self-efficacy matter’, Journal of Education, 190:3, pp. 1–11, Boston, MA: University of Boston.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Kennedy, Eithne (2014), Raising Literacy Achievement in High-Poverty Schools: An Evidence-Based Approach, Research in Education series, New York: Routledge.225
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Kennedy, Eithne (2018), ‘Engaging children as readers and writers in high-poverty contexts’, Journal of Research in Reading, 41:4, pp. 716–31, https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9817.12261.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Kennedy, Eithne and Shiel, Gerry (2010), ‘Raising literacy levels with collaborative on-site professional development in an urban disadvantaged school’, The Reading Teacher, Special Issue on urban education, 63:5, pp. 373–83.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Kennedy, Eithne and Shiel, Gerry (2019), Writing Pedagogy in the Senior Primary Classes: Knowledge Skills and Processes, Report commissioned to support the primary language curriculum, Dublin: National Council of Curriculum and Assessment (NCCA).
  34. Kennedy, Eithne and Shiel, Gerry (2022), ‘Writing assessment for communities of writers: Validation of a scale to support teaching and assessment of writing in Pre-K to Grade 2’, Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 29:5, pp. 1–23, https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2022.2047608.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Kennedy, Eithne and Shiel, Gerry (2024), ‘The teaching of writing in the write to read literacy framework in low-SES primary schools in Ireland’, Reading & Writing, Special Issue: Teaching Writing, 37, pp. 1575–1603, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-023-10510-7.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. King, Fiona, French, Geraldine and Halligan, Clare (2022), ‘Professional learning and/or development (PL): Principles and practices, a review of the literature’, Dublin: Department of Education, Government of Ireland, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7250425. Accessed 30 September 2024.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Knapp, Michael (ed.) (1995), Teaching for Meaning in High-Poverty Classrooms, New York: Teachers College Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Lortie, Dan C. (1975), School Teacher: A Sociological Study, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Lutz, Susan L., Guthrie, John T. and Davis, Marcia H. (2006), ‘Scaffolding for engagement in learning: An observational study of elementary school reading instruction’, Journal of Educational Research, 100:1, pp. 3–20, https://doi-org.dcu.idm.oclc.org/10.3200/JOER.100.1.3-20.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. McCarrier, Andrea, Pinnell, Gay S. and Fountas, Irene (2000). Interactive Writing: How Language and Literacy Come Together in K-2, Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. McGillicuddy, Deirdre and Devine, Dympna (2018), ‘“Turned off” or “ready to fly” – Ability grouping as an act of symbolic violence in primary school’, Teaching and Teacher Education, 70, pp. 88–99.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Mercer, Neil (1995), The Guided Construction of Knowledge: Talk amongst Teachers and Learners, Philadelphia, PA: Multilingual Matters.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Miller, Sam, Metzger, Salem R. Fitts, Amber, Stallings, Sarah and Massey, Dixie (2021), ‘If you don't know where you're going, you might end up where you're headed! Teachers’ visions transforming praxis through agency’, Peabody Journal of Education, 96:2, pp. 1–16, https://doi.org/10.1080/0161956X.2021.1965410
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Mills, Kathy A. and Exley, Beryl (2014), ‘Time, space, and text in the elementary school digital writing classroom’, Written Communication, 31:4, pp. 434–69, https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088314542757.226
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Murphy, Karen P., Wilkinson, Ian A. G., Soter, Anna O., Hennessey, Maeghan N. and Alexander, John F. (2009), ‘Examining the effects of classroom discussion on students’ comprehension of text: A meta-analysis’, Journal of Educational Psychology, 101:3, pp. 740–64, American Psychological Association.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Myhill, Debra (2011), ‘Grammar for designers: How grammar supports the development of writing’, in S. Ellis, E. McCartney and J. Bourne (eds), Insight and Impact: Applied Linguistics and the Primary School, London: Cambridge University Press, pp. 81–92.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. National Council for Curriculum and Assessment (NCCA) (2005), ‘Primary curriculum review: Phase 1 (English, Visual Arts, Mathematics)’, https://ncca.ie/media/1497/primary_curriculum_review_phase_1_final_report_with_recommendations_8.pdf. Accessed 21 September 2024.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. National Council for Curriculum and Assessment (NCCA) (2023), ‘The primary curriculum framework for primary and special schools’, https://curriculumonline.ie/getmedia/84747851-0581-431b-b4d7-dc6ee850883e/2023-Primary-Framework-ENG-screen.pdf. Accessed 21 September 2024.
  49. National Council for Curriculum and Assessment (NCCA)/Department of Education and Science (DES) (1999), English Curriculum: Content Objectives and Teacher Guidelines, Dublin: Stationery Office.
     [Google Scholar]
  50. National Council for Curriculum and Assessment (NCCA)/Department of Education and Science (DES) (2019), Primary Language Curriculum, Dublin: Stationery Office.
     [Google Scholar]
  51. National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE) (2016), Professional Knowledge of the Teaching of Writing, Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English, https://ncte.org/statement/teaching-writing/. Accessed 21 September 2024.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHHD) (2000), Report of the National Reading Panel. Teaching Children to Read: An Evidence-Based Assessment of the Scientific Research Literature on Reading and Its Implications for Reading Instruction. Reports of the Subgroups (NICHHD Publication No. 00-4769), Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Naumann, April, Stirling, Terry and Borthwick, Arlene (2011), ‘What makes writing good? An essential question for teachers’, The Reading Teacher, 64:5, pp. 318–28.
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Ng, Clarence and Graham Steve (2018), ‘Improving literacy engagement: Enablers, challenges and catering for students from disadvantaged backgrounds’, Journal of Research in Reading, 41:4, pp. 615–24.
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Nystrand, Martin (2006), ‘Research on the role of classroom discourse as it affects reading comprehension’, Research in the Teaching of English, 40:4, pp. 392–412, Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE).
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Paris, Scott (2005), ‘Reinterpreting the development of reading skills’, Reading Research Quarterly, 40:2, pp. 184–202.
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Patrick, Helen, Ryan, Allison and Pintrich, Patrick (1999), ‘The differential impact of extrinsic and mastery goal orientations on males' and females' self-regulated learning’, 227Learning and Individual Differences, 11:2, pp. 153–71, https://doi.org/10.1016/S1041-6080(00)80003-5.
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Pearson, David P. (2009), ‘Rich talk about text’, http://www.pdavidpearson.org/2018/05/21/rich-talk-about-text-pearson-p-d-2010/. Accessed 21 September 2024.
  59. Philappakos, Zoey and MacArthur, Charles (2016), ‘The effects of giving feedback on the persuasive writing of fourth- and fifth-grade students’, Reading Research Quarterly, 51:4, pp. 419–33, Delaware, International Literacy Association.
     [Google Scholar]
  60. Pressley, Michael, Allington, Richard, Warton-McDonald, Ruth, Collins Block, Cathy and Mandel Morrow, Lesley (2001), Learning to Read: Lessons from Exemplary First-Grade Classrooms, New York: Guildford.
     [Google Scholar]
  61. Pressley, Michael, El-Dinary, Pamela B., Gaskins, Irene, Schuder, Ted, Bergman, Janet L., Almasi, Janet and Brown, Rachel (1992), ‘Beyond direct explanation: Transactional instruction of reading comprehension strategies’, The Elementary School Journal, 92:5, 513–55.
     [Google Scholar]
  62. Pytash, Kristin and Morgan, Denise (2014), ‘Using mentor texts to teach writing in science and social studies’, The Reading Teacher, pp. 68, 93–102, https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1276.
     [Google Scholar]
  63. Quinn, John (2002), ‘Keynote address’, Reading Association of Ireland Annual Conference, Church of Ireland College of Education, Rathmines, Dublin, n.d..
  64. Reeve, John Marshall (2012), ‘A self-determination perspective theory on student engagement’, in S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly and C. Wylie (eds), Handbook of Research on Student Engagement, New York: Springer, pp. 149–72, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_7149.
     [Google Scholar]
  65. Rogoff, R. (1990), Apprenticeship in Thinking: Cognitive Development in Social Context, New York: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  66. Rosenblatt, Louise M. (1978). The Reader, the Text, the Poem: The Transactional Theory of Literary Work, Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  67. Rosenblatt, Louise M. (2004), ‘The transactional theory of reading and writing’, in R. Ruddell and N. Unrau (eds), Theoretical Models and Processes of Reading, 5th ed., Newark, DE: International Reading Association, pp. 1363–98.
     [Google Scholar]
  68. Rumelhart, David E. (1994), ‘Toward an interactive model of reading’, in R. B. Ruddell, M. R. Ruddell and H. Singer (eds), Theoretical Models and Processes of Reading, 4th ed., Newark, DE: International Reading Association, pp. 864–94.
     [Google Scholar]
  69. Ryan, Richard M. and Deci, Edward L. (2000), ‘Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being’, American Psychologist, 55, pp. 68–78.
     [Google Scholar]
  70. Scull, Janet, Mackenzie, Noelle M. and Bowles, Terence (2020), ‘Assessing early writing: A six-factor model to inform assessment and teaching’, Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 19:2, pp. 239–59, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10671-020-09257-7.
     [Google Scholar]
  71. Shanahan, Cynthia and Shanahan, Timothy (2014), ‘Does disciplinary literacy have a place in elementary school?’ The Reading Teacher, 67:8, pp. 636–39, https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1257.228
     [Google Scholar]
  72. Shanahan, Timothy (2019), Disciplinary Literacy in the Primary School, Dublin: National Council for Curriculum and Assessment.
     [Google Scholar]
  73. Shulman, Lee S. (1987), ‘Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform’, Harvard Educational Review, 57:1, pp. 1–22.
     [Google Scholar]
  74. Skinner, Ellen A. and Pitzer, Jennifer, R. (2012), ‘Developmental dynamics of student engagement, coping and everyday resilience’, in S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly and C. Wylie (eds), Handbook of Research on Student Engagement, New York: Springer, pp. 21–44.
     [Google Scholar]
  75. Smyth, Eemer, McCoy, Selina and Kingston, Gillian (2015), Learning from the Evaluation of DEIS, Dublin: Economic and Social Research Institute.
     [Google Scholar]
  76. Stanovich, Keith E. (1986), ‘Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy’, Reading Research Quarterly, 21:4, pp. 360–407.
     [Google Scholar]
  77. Teale, William T., Paciga, Kathleen A. and Hoffman, Jessica (2010), ‘What it takes in early schooling to have adolescents who are skilled and eager readers and writers’, in K. Hall, U. Goswami, C. Harrison, S. Ellis and J. Soler (eds), Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Learning to Read: Culture, Cognition and Pedagogy, London and New York: Routledge, pp. 151–63.
     [Google Scholar]
  78. Vygotsky, Lev S. (1978), Mind and Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  79. Warschauer, Mark (1997), ‘A sociocultural approach to literacy and its significance for CALL’, in K. Murphy-Judy and R. Sanders (eds), Nexus: The Convergence of Research and Teaching through New Information Technologies, Durham, NC: University of North Carolina, pp. 88–97.
     [Google Scholar]
  80. Wigfield, Allan and Guthrie, John T. (1997), ‘Relations of children's motivation for reading to the amount and breadth of their reading’, Journal of Educational Psychology, 89:3, pp. 420–32.
     [Google Scholar]
  81. Wolf, Mikung Kim, Crosson, Amy C. and Resnick, Lauren (2006), Accountable Talk in Reading Comprehension Discussion, CSE Technical Report, 670, Los Angeles, CA: Learning and Research Development Centre, University of Pittsburgh.
     [Google Scholar]
  82. Zygouris-Coe, Vicky (2012), What Is Disciplinary Literacy and Why Aren't We Talking More about It? 18 March, https://vocablog-plc.blogspot.com/2012/03/what-is-disciplinary-literacy-and-why.html. Accessed 21 September 2024.

  • From This Site

    /content/books/9781835951286.c13
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
/content/books/9781835951286.c13
dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
-contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
10
5
Chapter
content/books/9781835951286
Book
false
en
Loading
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a success
Invalid data
An error occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error
Please enter a valid_number test