Briannon Horne

17787840
Second professional portfolio task
Curriculum 1A: English

Contents:

Motivating reluctant writers 2

Programming best practise 7

References 9

1
Motivating reluctant writers

Teachers are often faced with students reluctant or un-willing to participate in writing

exercises during class; when faced with these students, teachers may occasionally confront

them with the harsh realities of resistance to adhere to instructions. However, some

literature suggests that students can be motivated to perform the tasks set, so long as a

number of environmental, intellectual, and emotional criteria are met. The literature

demonstrates a number of concepts that aim to positively encourage and motivate

students, these include: the development of positive learning environments, the

incorporation of multimodal activities/technologies, as well as, the understanding of

student learning difficulties. Combined, these authors usefully highlight the need for

student wellbeing, acceptance, and interest in the classroom as they provide solutions to

maintaining student engagement and motivation through supportive teacher pedagogies.

Authors such as Atwell (2015); Haren (2016); Galbraith (2009); Boscolo (2009): suggest that

student reluctance or lack of motivation stems from the absence of meaningful tasks,

relative to the students’ life experiences; whereas, Julien (2017); Cowles (2015): Yost, Liang,

& Vogel (2011): claim that students are simply not being educated in effective learning

environments, that motivation and engagement are directly linked to the environmental

factors students are exposed to, not so much to the ability of the student. Dockrell (2009);

Kell (2016); Par, Jesson, & McNaughton (2009); as well as, Darrington and Dousay (2015)

empathise with previous authors stances on meaningful tasks and positive learning

environments; but suggest that student inability to perform the task as one of the primary

causes of reluctance and disengagement.

In the effective implementation of the concept, positive learning environments, themes of

belonging, authentic audience, and student voice/autonomy were evident throughout the

2
literature. Many of the aforementioned authors stated that students will resist activities,

such as writing tasks, even guided activities that “could exacerbate their feelings of failure”

(Kell, 2016, p. 152) as they are often acutely aware of the ways in which “they do not meet

community standards” (Kell, 2009, p. 152). With this in mind, Yost et al (2014) states that

students must experience a safe and secure space, that promotes belonging; and even going

further to suggest that “belonging [as well as] inclusion, support and care, student

contribution and responsibility, and democratic problem solving” (Yost et al, 2014, p.72) are

attributes of this positive and supportive learning environment. Authors such as Atwell

(2015), and Darrington and Dousay (2015) tackle the purpose of positive audience

interactions in the classroom, as Kell (2016) goes on to describe that adolescents are

“acutely aware” (p.152) of their shortcomings, it is important that teachers help students

“break through [their] paralysing self-conscious” (Atwell, 2015, p. 217) in an effort to

maintain positivity towards their writing. Students have been described as wanting to be

accepted and reassured (Atwell, 2015) of their approaches to writing, it is from this need

that students have formed an understanding of the social expectations and have developed

the awareness that, as they share their work they will entertain and be judged by their

peers (Atwell, 2015). Atwell (2015) encourages teachers to model the appropriate

responses of students in discussing peer writing, in an effort to let students “unfurl their

wings” (Atwell, 2015, p. 217) in taking risks within a safe space in building their courage and

confidence in their own skills.

Darrington and Dousay (2015) agree with Atwell on the importance of respectful audiences

and safe learning environments, but attempt to take this concept further into the modern

technological world students participate in every day. Darrington and Dousay (2015)

ascertain that student’s reluctance and motivation is linked not only with their learning

3
environments, but also in the participation of meaningful tasks relevant to their personal

worlds. Using texts “that engage [the] verbal, visual, written, and other modes of meaning

making” (Darrington and Dousay, 2015, p. 29) highlight the social networking and modern

technological skills students experience outside school hours (Darrington and Dousay,

2015). Relying again on Atwell’s description of adolescents as wanting to ‘be accepted and

want[ing] reassurance […as] they are aware of [the] audience[‘s] and other’s opinion[s]”

(2015, p. 217), it is unsurprising that in the use of modern networking platforms and social

media, students can be afforded more autonomy and opportunity to deliver their material

to a wider, more authentic audience (Darrington and Dousay, 2015). In providing students

with a wider audience to entertain, they [students] have the opportunity to meet higher

expectations more enthusiastically; this is where Darrington and Dousay discuss the concept

of classroom “flow” as being the “balance between being challenging and [the] knowledge

that we have the skills to be able to meet those challenges” (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990, as cited

in Darrington and Dousay, 2015, p.32).

Challenging students requires teachers to be acutely aware of student ability; specifically,

how the student’s behavioural, cognitive, and social engagement effect their motivation to

complete tasks (Yost et al, 2014). Yost et al (2014) suggest that the most effective learning

comes as students are engaged cognitively and emotionally, and that behaviour

engagement follows only when the latter (cognitive and emotional) are satisfied (p.72);

Harem agrees that “teachers who focus on the challenging and engaged learning, did not

have to focus on behaviour management” (2016, p. 42). In setting meaningful tasks teachers

are satisfying student’s cognitive engagement, as they are giving students a platform on

which they can access prior-knowledge (Kell, 2016); whilst also sating student’s social needs

in providing them the opportunity to showcase their knowledge to peers.

4
Prior knowledge celebrates the diversity of knowledge, identity, language, and belonging of

students (Haren, 2016); and as Haren states that “students learn best when studying topics

that are challenging and of deep interest to them” (2016, p. 41), it is clear why many of the

authors claim that prior knowledge and relating the task to personal experience is key to

student engagement (Haren, 2016; Atwell, 2015; Kell, 2016; Galbraith, 2009; Boscolo, 2009;

and Darrington and Dousay, 2015).

This concept of prior knowledge is linked closely with student voice or autonomy; for in

choosing the topic on which to write, students are taking ownerships/responsibility of the

task (Yost et al, 2014). Haren claims that in allowing students choice of topic, allows

students to move from “passive receivers of knowledge, [to] active knowledge makers”

(2016, p. 43); essentially, student choice leads to the expansion of knowledge in individual

areas, which requires students to collaborate and share ideas/concepts building the

“group’s collective intelligence” (Haren, 2016, p. 44) which leads in turn to increased

student motivation in completing the set task (Haren, 2016).

Galbraith (2009) suggests that although many students find writing tasks easier to

accomplish when linked to personal experience, many students continue to struggle to

comply with the “operations of writing” (Galbraith, 2019, p. 54). Specifically, those

operations that rely on “sequencing and organising ideas […] expression of ideas […and]

complying with spelling and grammatical conventions (Galbraith, 2019, p. 54). Dockrell

highlights the inability of students with learning difficulties in stating that “students who

experience […] difficulties [do not have] the ability to accurately and effectively convey their

understanding and develop their ideas through writing” (Dockrell, 2009, p. 492). This

inability stems not only from a student’s lack of understanding of the codes and conventions

of writing, but can also stem from the physical labour behind writing sentences or words.

5
Dockrell reveals that for some students the act of hand writing, i.e. the “high level of motor

coordination [or] high precision force regulation” (2009, p. 492) required, is physically

impossible. Many of the other authors mentioned, touched of the intellectual inability to

“generate ideas […] solve problems [or] acquire, organise, retain or understand the

information presented” (Dockrell, 2009, p. 429) as potential causes for the lack of student

motivation during lessons. Dockrell addresses both the intellectual and physical causes of

student disengagement during writing tasks; proposing the concept of oral translation of

ideas for students struggling with the physicality of handwritten tasks.

The concept of orally transmitting student ideas is also suggested by Parr et al (2009) as

they highlight that all writing finds its start in verbal communication (p. 246). Parr et al,

suggest that classrooms should be like “floating on a sea of talk” (Britton 1970, as cited in

Parr et al, 2009, p. 246) as it showcases how children develop their verbal, and subsequently

written skills, in actively participating in social activities. Specifically, in the socialisation

between teacher and student, this is where Julien’s concept of strong social bonds and

“emotional support” (2017, p. 660) result in the increase of student motivation to

participate in classroom activities, is where students develop their “understanding of writing

and social/literary ques” (Parr et al, 2009, p. 248).

Authors such as Dockrell (2009); Kell (2016); Par, Jesson, & McNaughton (2009); as well as,

Darrington and Dousay (2015), seem to have a well-rounded understanding of the

motivations or lack thereof in students’ writing, it is clear that through a combination of

approaches toward: developing positive/supportive learning environments, understanding

student ability and disability, as well as, developing meaningful writing tasks, is an aim that

many of the authors will agree on in motivating reluctant writers.

6
Programming of best practice:

In considering best pedagogical practices around motivating reluctant writers, it is clear

from the literature that students require: a positive and supportive learning environment,

opportunities to display prior knowledge within meaningful tasks; and finally, to have

teachers understand that there may be underlying cognitive, physical, or emotional barriers,

over which students will have to navigate before attempting the task set. These three key

practices all share the underlying element in modelling appropriate social interactions

through teacher demonstration or example; this is done to communicate not only

appropriate behaviour, but also the range of expectations set by the teacher in regards to

classroom activities such as: discussion, presentation, group collaboration, and motivation

to complete set tasks.

From the literature it is stated that in developing positive and supportive learning

environments it is required that the teacher become a model of appropriate

behaviour/responses; that in time after much modelling, students will begin to appropriate

teacher response and incorporate these movements and reactions as their own. Much of

Julien’s (2017) text highlights this need to model appropriate social ques with students, that

it is the teacher’s responsibility to develop and maintain safe and caring spaces within which

students will develop their social and literary skills.

In the development of supportive learning environments, the literature suggests that

allowing students to engage their prior knowledge during class time, allows for cognitive

and social engagement with peers. I aim to incorporate the idea of multimodal writing

activities suggested by Darrington and Dousay (2015); in an effort to engage student’s prior

knowledge of social technologies, in create an effort to create opportunities for student

7
autonomy, allowing students the occasion to showcase their knowledge on a platform

familiar to them. I find the “Active knowledge making” concept explained by Haren (2016),

where in students expand their knowledge through individual research (along their line of

interest) and the return to the class/small group (as a whole) sharing what was found, to be

a highly engaging activity that illustrates the aims of much of the literature presented.

Finally, as all students require a supportive learning space, it therefore goes without

question that teachers must also understand the individual’s needs and/or range of abilities.

Teachers are encouraged to develop relationships with students that demonstrate the

appropriate behaviour and attitude towards school and their classmates; these relationships

should remain professional, but should also allow teachers to develop an understanding of

the capabilities and concerns of the students within their class. In understanding individual

student needs, it allows teachers to differentiate classroom activities whilst maintaining a

high level of cognitive challenge as explained in Darrington and Dousay’s classroom “flow”

(2015, p. 32).

Although these activities have been developed with the aim of motivating reluctant writers,

application of these techniques can be used across many different activities or

learning/teaching areas; these authors provide interesting and informed insights into

effective pedagogical practice. Most interesting is the application and attempted

incorporation of modern technology as motivation of student interest and engagement with

writing tasks; and in considering that students will have (sometimes extremely) varied

interests, suggests that there must be great flexibility in the tasks set and ‘freedom’ given by

the teacher.

8
References:

Atwell, N. (1987). In the middle: Writing, reading, and learning with adolescents (pp. 171-

181, 216-219). Heinemann Educational Books, 316 Hanover St., Portsmouth.

Boscolo, P. (2009). Engaging and motivating children to write. (Ed.), The SAGE handbook of

writing development (pp. 300-312). London, England: SAGE publications Ltd.

Cowles, S. (2015). My absolutely crummy first draft: The trials and triumphs of motivating

the adolescent writer. Voices from the Middle, 23(2), 74. Retrieved from:

http://www.ncte.org/library/NCTEFiles/Resources/Journals/VM/0232-

dec2015/VM0232Absolutely.pdf

Darrington, B., & Dousay, T. (2015). Using multimodal writing to motivate struggling

students to write. TechTrends, 59(6), 29-34. Retrieved from:

https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs11528-015-0901-7.pdf

Dockrell, J. (2009). Causes of delays and difficulties in the production of written text. (Ed.),

The SAGE handbook of writing development (pp. 489-505). London, England: SAGE

publications Ltd.

Galbraith, D. (2009). Writing about what we know: Generating ideas in writing. (Ed.), The

SAGE handbook of writing development (pp. 48-65). London, England: SAGE

publications Ltd.

Haren, R. (2016). Learner engagement (Ed.), The Artful English Teacher (pp 40-60).

Kensington Gardens, South Australia: The Australian Association for Teaching

English.

Julien, K. (2018). Loving care and funky pens: Motivating young writers. The Reading

Teacher, 71(6), 659-668. Retrieved from:

https://ila.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/trtr.1670

9
Kell, M. (2016). Learning difficulties in literacy: Overcoming a construct of the literate

student (Ed.), Charged with Meaning re-viewing English: Third Edition (pp. 151-159).

Putney, Australia: Phoenix Education Pty Ltd.

Parr, J., Jesson, R., & McNaughton, S. (2009). Agency and platform: The relationships

between talk and writing. (Ed.). The SAGE handbook of writing development (pp.

246-259). London, England: SAGE publications Ltd.

Yost, D. S., Liang, L. L., & Vogel, R. (2014). Engaging young adolescents in school-based

writing. Middle Grades Research Journal, 9(1), 71. Retrieved from:

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Deborah_Yost/publication/271703241_Engag

ing_Adolescents_in_School-Based_Writing/links/54cfa4080cf29ca810ffa085.pdf

10