This article was downloaded by: [University of Guelph]On: 10 May 2013, At: 11:00Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Language and EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rlae20
Drawing to support writingdevelopment in English languagelearnersMisty Adoniou aa Faculty of Education , University of Canberra , Canberra ,AustraliaPublished online: 07 Aug 2012.
To cite this article: Misty Adoniou (2013): Drawing to support writing development in Englishlanguage learners, Language and Education, 27:3, 261-277
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2012.704047
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representationthat the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of anyinstructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primarysources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
Language and Education, 2013Vol. 27, No. 3, 261–277, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2012.704047
Drawing to support writing development in English language learners
Misty Adoniou∗
Faculty of Education, University of Canberra, Canberra, Australia
(Received 27 December 2011; final version received 14 June 2012)
Writing is the dominant mode through which most learning and assessment is mediatedin schools. It is through writing that learners are most often asked to demonstrate theirunderstanding of learned concepts and share their understandings of these concepts.If English language learners are to succeed in English medium schools, they mustbecome proficient English language writers. In this article, drawing is presented as aneffective strategy for teaching writing based on the hypothesis that drawing and writingare comparable semiotic systems and learning is most powerful when these semioticsystems work together. It reports on a study involving children from a Year 3/4 class in agovernment Introductory English Centre situated in a primary school in Australia. TheIntroductory English Centres are for students who are newly arrived in the country witha language and cultural background other than English and who have limited Englishlanguage skills. The study found that drawing before writing improved the writing ofthe informational text types of procedures and explanations. A discussion is presentedfor why this may be so, along with recommendations for using drawing as a teachingstrategy when teaching English language learners.
Keywords: classroom literacy; curriculum; writing; elementary education; functionallinguistics; semiotic modes
Introduction
In Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States, classrooms have increasing num-bers of learners who are learning English as an additional language or dialect (EAL/D).Whilst their numbers grow in mainstream classrooms, the English literacy outcomes for asignificant proportion remain poor, with this cohort of learners over-represented in the lowerquartile in national literacy test results (de Jong and Harper 2005). Mainstream teachersare struggling to meet the specific needs of the English language learners they have in theirclasses (de Jong and Harper 2005; Cajkler and Hall 2009; MacBlain and Purdy 2011). AsMacBlain and Purdy (2011, 383) note: ‘teachers are now having to work differently andin ways which demand that they have a greater understanding of the complex needs of agrowing number of children’. Therefore, it is crucial for teachers to develop knowledgeand skills to meet EAL/D learner needs, and that researchers provide tools and strategieswhich are both effective and accessible to mainstream classroom teachers.
In this article, I report on a study that found drawing to be an effective tool to buildthe written English skills of EAL/D learners. I begin with a discussion of the role of bothwriting and drawing in schools, and then present a description of the relationship betweenthese two communication modes, before reporting on the study itself. The article concludeswith a discussion of why drawing works as an effective strategy for teaching writing, andpresents a series of recommendations for educators.
∗Email: [email protected]
C© 2013 Taylor & Francis
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f G
uelp
h] a
t 11:
00 1
0 M
ay 2
013
262 M. Adoniou
The role of writing in schools
Writing is the dominant mode through which most learning and assessment is mediatedin schools. Whilst there is considerable agreement that we live in a world where commu-nication occurs through multiple modes, including aural, visual and gestural (Cope andKalantzis 2000; Jewitt 2005), the written mode remains a key to success in schools (Millardand Marsh 2001; Wright 2003). National testing of written literacy standards in the UnitedStates, Australia and the United Kingdom (MCEETYA [Ministerial Council on Education,Employment, Training and Youth Affairs] 2008; US Department of Education 2012) en-sures that writing retains a privileged status in schools and curricula, and is likely to do sofor the foreseeable future. It is therefore important to identify ways to support learners tobe successful writers, even as we broaden our definitions of what constitutes literacy.
Learning to write in either a first or second language requires the learner to learn aboutthe language system and learn how to make meaning with the language in different socialand cultural contexts (Gass 2008). Text structure, grammar and vocabulary choices areall made according to the purpose and audience of the text and all learners must developskills that will enable them to make effective language choices, and construct the valuedtexts of school if they are to succeed in the education system. However, the challenge forEAL/D students is compounded, as they are required to learn about how English changesaccording to context, audience and purpose whilst simultaneously learning the language andlearning their school content through that new language (Gibbons 2004). For these learners,becoming proficient in the academic genres of schooling, part of what Cummins (1979)has defined as cognitive academic language proficiency (CALP), requires between five andseven years of informed and effective teaching (Cummins 1979; Collier and Thomas 1999;Demie 2012). Collier and Thomas (1999) estimate that for EAL/D learners to ‘catch up’ totheir mainstream classmates, they must achieve 15 months’ growth each school year for sixconsecutive years. Currently, results in national and international testing indicate that formany EAL/D learners, this is not happening, and in fact, the gap widens for a significantnumber of EAL/D learners (Thomson et al. 2009; Demie 2012). It is therefore important toinvestigate strategies which may aid EAL/D learners to develop skills in academic writingand contribute to the literature concerned with closing the achievement gap for Englishlanguage learners.
Writing for purpose and audience
The research reported in this article situates writing instruction within a social interactionistparadigm (O’Neill and Gish 2008) based on the work of Vygotsky and Bruner (Campbelland Green 2006). A social interactionist perspective on writing instruction recognises thatwriting is a socially mediated activity. It is particularly appealing for teachers workingin culturally diverse classrooms as it recognises the differences children bring with themto the classroom, as well as what will be challenging for them in written English. Fromthis perspective, learning to write requires the learner to make meaning with the languagein different social and cultural contexts (O’Neill and Gish 2008). When an EAL/D childenters school, a key skill is learning how the English language changes according to purpose(Gibbons 2004). It is possible, within any given culture, to identify accepted and predictableways in which language is organised to achieve a particular purpose. These socially mediatedpredictable text structures are known as genres (Rothery 1984; Derewianka 1990). Genresare organised differently across languages; thus, knowing how to organise writing for
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f G
uelp
h] a
t 11:
00 1
0 M
ay 2
013
Language and Education 263
purpose in one’s mother tongue may not necessarily support a learner when learning towrite in English.
Much work was done in the late 1980s, in Australia in particular, to clearly identifythe various written genres that are privileged in schools and, therefore, the ones whichstudents need to have control over if they are to perform well in schools (Collerson 1988;Macken et al. 1989; Derewianka 1990; Christie 1991). An early list of ‘school’ genresincluded recounts, instructions, narratives, information reports, explanations, discussionsand arguments (Derewianka 1990), but the list has expanded over the years to acknowledgea broader range of valued genres in the school curricula, most particularly by identifyingsubtypes within the previously identified genres (Unsworth 2001). These include biograph-ical recounts, historical narratives, poetry, newspaper reports, letters, advertisements anddescriptions (Wing 2008). In addition to differentiated schematic structures, each genremakes use of differing grammatical resources (Unsworth 2002). Language features thatdifferentiate genres can be accounted for across word level (vocabulary), sentence level(syntax) and text level (text organisation). The social purpose of the genre can be examinedthrough the register variables of field, tenor and mode (Halliday and Hasan 1985). Fieldrefers to the content of the text and its situational context – what is the text about? Tenorrefers to the relationship between the participants in a text, either those within the text orthose between the constructor and the receiver of the text. Mode refers to how the text isbeing communicated, for example whether it is spoken or written (Macken et al. 1989). Ex-amining and teaching written texts in this manner constitutes a ‘genre approach’ to writing,an approach that has come out of social interactionist theories of language development,and a systemic functional linguistic (SFL) approach to language analysis (Halliday 1985).It is this approach that underpins the writing instruction and assessment reported in thisresearch.
The role of drawing in schools
This study sought to examine the impact drawing could have on the quality of writingoutcomes in EAL/D learners. Drawing is not routinely used as an aid to writing in classroomsbeyond the early childhood years (Anning 1997; Coates 2002). Although many educationaltheorists (Grinnell and Burris 1983; Cambourne and Turbill 1987; Calkins 1994) havedescribed drawing as a useful support in the early stages of writing, once ‘early’ writing isestablished, drawing often falls into second place and is even discouraged. This is largelybecause ‘teachers largely regard the movement from pictures to words as one of intellectualprogression’ (Millard and Marsh 2001, 55). Wilks (2005) reports that many teachers seedrawing as a time filler and of less cognitive significance than other subjects. There isa perception amongst teachers that the disappearance of drawings from young children’swriting is a positive event, or conversely that the persistence of drawings at writing time isa negative event.
Vygotsky (1978) describes drawing as a pictorial language that allows children to findconcrete visual means of representing their thoughts. He writes: ‘Our analysis of children’sdrawings definitely shows that from the psychological point of view, we should regardsuch drawings as a particular kind of child speech’ (Vygotsky 1978, 112). Yet in primaryschool, teachers spend little time observing children drawing or talking to them about theirdrawings. This is in stark contrast to the practices of preschool teachers (Anning and Ring1999; Coates 2002), which may help to explain why children make such prolific use of theirvisual semiotic repertoire (drawings) in the preschool years (Dyson 1983).
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f G
uelp
h] a
t 11:
00 1
0 M
ay 2
013
264 M. Adoniou
Drawings are potentially an important mode of communication for children who arelearning English, particularly in their early stages where they have very limited controlof written English. Kress (1997) claims that by ignoring the communicative capacities ofdrawing, educators are failing to capitalise on an important learning resource:
The visual representations which children produce as a matter of course in the early years ofschooling, are not developed and built on as a means for future communication use. (Kress1997, 153)
However, some scholars have applied a Vygotskyian framework to describe drawingsas ‘holistic reflections of experiential and cognitive language grounded in a sociocultural,historical and political context’ (Brooks 2004, 42). This perspective of drawing as a socialand communicative activity, rather than purely a solitary and self-expressive one, allows asocial interactionist framework to be applied to children’s drawings, as well as their writing.Observed through this common framework, the ways in which the two communicationsystems work together, their intersemiosis (Kress and van Leeuwen 1996), becomes muchclearer.
Drawing for purpose
For many years in education, drawing has been described primarily as having self-expressivemotives (Lowenfeld and Brittain 1975; White 1994), which are ‘a reflection of the child’spersonality, intellectual maturity and emotional development’ (Walker 2007–2008, 96),reflecting a nativist perspective of learning. This perception of drawing as an expressiveactivity rather than a communicative one (Kress 1997) leads to teachers marginalisingdrawing as learners progress through to the later years of schooling. Drawing is increasinglyseen as a decorative, but not necessary, adjunct to writing and learners are instructed to ‘geton’ with the writing, and they are ‘allowed’ to do accompanying drawings if they finishtheir writing first.
A social interactionist perspective on drawing, which acknowledges that drawing isinfluenced by the social and cultural contexts within which children operate, allows usto see that drawings can serve purposes other than self-expression. As such, children’sdrawings may differ according to purpose, and this may directly support their writing fordifferent purposes. McFee and Degge (1980) were amongst the first to describe purposesfor children’s drawings beyond the creative and aesthetic. They describe drawing as ‘visualnote-taking’, a means of recording information, closely observing the world around us,recording what we observe and using that record of observation as the basis for furtherenquiry. Other studies have found ‘genre’ in children’s drawings, that is, children producedrawings which differ according to audience and purpose. Symington and Spurling (1990),in their review of a well-known study of children’s drawings of scientists, found that thechildren’s drawings differed when the instructions for drawing differed. They reported thatwhen the children were instructed to either ‘draw a scientist’ or ‘do a drawing which tellswhat you know about scientists’, the former produced more stereotypical drawings – visualdescriptions of scientists – whilst the latter instruction resulted in more detailed drawingsbeyond mere object representation. Wolf and Perry (1989) note the differences betweenseven-year-olds’ pictures of their houses and the maps they draw of their houses, with theformer containing details such as flowers and the surrounding environment, whilst the mapconcentrated on the size and position of rooms within the house. The drawings serveddifferent purposes, fulfilled differing intentions of the creator and were thus constructed
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f G
uelp
h] a
t 11:
00 1
0 M
ay 2
013
Language and Education 265
quite differently. The creator chose different drawing tools, just as a writer would choosedifferent language structures when writing a description of a house or directions for gettingaround the house.
The recognition of purpose and social communication in children’s drawings is fun-damental to the underlying hypothesis of this research that suggests that learners possessskills in working with the visual semiotic system (drawing), which they can bring to thetask of developing skills in writing.
The relationship between drawing and writing
The study reported upon in this article sought to investigate the interrelationship betweendrawing and writing. The investigation is based on the hypothesis that drawing and writingare comparable semiotic systems and learning is most powerful when these systems worktogether, achieving intersemiosis (Kress and van Leeuwen 1996).
The verbal symbol system encompasses listening, speaking, reading and writing. How-ever, in order for reading and writing to occur, the verbal symbol system must have agraphic, or visual, representation in what Goodman, in Dyson (1991), describes as an‘approximate notation system’, which is arbitrary yet defined. In English, at least, thesegraphic representations of verbal symbols (alphabet, words and sentences) are more ab-stract than the graphic representations of visual symbols (drawings). They are pictures ofsounds rather than pictures of concepts (Kress 1997). Vygotsky (1978) calls the visualrepresentation of the verbal system (alphabetic notation) a ‘second-order’ symbol system –it serves as a handmaiden to both the ‘first-order’ visual and the verbal symbol systems ofdrawing and speaking, respectively. In order to construct this second-order symbol system,children need to grasp the tenuous alphabetic link between written graphics and the spokenword. Explaining what is meant by second-order symbolism, Vygotsky (1978, 106) writes:
Written language consists of a system of signs that designate the sounds and words of spokenlanguage, which are in turn, signs for real entities and relations.
He describes the important developmental link between the concrete representations ofdrawings and the more abstract ones of writing – from drawing ‘things’ to drawing ‘disem-bedded language’.
Kane (1982, 296) concurs and observes:
The fact that verbal symbols are more abstract than graphic symbols suggests a developmentalprogression in which drawing should precede writing, particularly where children are bilingual.
Similarly, Platt (1977) claims that drawing is the most logical of all the symbolicbehaviours to support writing, describing it as a support to the acquisition of literacy skillsbecause drawings are ‘tangible and recognisable’ to others apart from the child who createdthem. This mutually comprehensible visual communication between learner and teacherbecomes a scaffold to the development of writing skills.
The study
The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of drawing before writing on the qualityof children’s writing in the information genres of explanations and procedures. Proceduresare texts that instruct someone to make or do things; sequential explanations are texts thatexplain how processes occur in our social and physical worlds, sequencing the process
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f G
uelp
h] a
t 11:
00 1
0 M
ay 2
013
266 M. Adoniou
chronologically (DECS [Department of Education and Children’s Services] 2006). Thesewere chosen as two specific types of informational writing that belong to the valued canonof school genres in Australian schools. There is an expectation in the nationally mandatedAustralian Curriculum that learners will be introduced to these informational genres fromYear 1 (ACARA [Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority] 2011).Procedures and explanations are very challenging for primary school learners, as theyrequire the production of quite technical texts for a general but unknown reader (Derewianka1990). The time, social and physical distance between the reader and the writer makes thelinguistic challenge of writing these genres more difficult, particularly for younger learners.This investigation thus sought to give insight into instructional methods that may improvelearning outcomes in these informational genres for English language learners.
The study involved children from a Year 3/4 class in a government Introductory EnglishCentre situated in a primary school in the Australian Capital Territory (ACT). The ACTis one of eight government jurisdictions that make up the federal states and territoriesof Australia. The Introductory English Centres are for students who are newly arrivedin the ACT, and who have a language and cultural background other than English andhave limited English language proficiency. The Centre’s function is to provide intensiveEnglish instruction for students to gain sufficient proficiency in English to graduate fromthe Introductory English Centre to their mainstream school of choice.
Selection of students
The researcher’s own class was selected for this study. At the time of the study, the classconsisted of 10 children, aged eight or nine years old. They were all newly arrived toAustralia from a variety of cultural and linguistic backgrounds, predominantly from SouthEast Asia. Two of the children were very newly arrived and had no written English skills;thus, these children were not involved in the study. The remaining eight children had varyinglevels of basic written and aural English language skills, as measured by a commonly usednational English Language Proficiency document, the ESL Bandscales (McKay 2007).They were divided into Group A, the control group, and Group B, the treatment group. Thegroups were formed using group-matching principles (Sarantakos 1998) where pairs ofsimilar characteristics were split between the groups. These characteristics were length oftime in the Introductory English Centre, gender, cultural background and English languageproficiency as measured by the ESL Bandscales.
Procedure
Both groups were presented with the same shared experience related to two writing tasks:procedure writing and explanation writing. The method for each lesson is described next.
Lesson 1: procedural text – making pikelets (small pancakes)
The experience for the writing of the procedural text was the making of pikelets prior towriting a procedure for making pikelets. In the teaching session before the first schoolrecess, both groups of children were given two large mixing bowls, two sets of utensils andtwo frying pans. They randomly organised themselves around a mixing bowl and were notdivided according to the research groups. The researcher explained that they were going tomake pikelets, and after the recess break, they would be writing a recipe for the pikeletsto instruct others how to make pikelets. The purpose of the writing was emphasised to
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f G
uelp
h] a
t 11:
00 1
0 M
ay 2
013
Language and Education 267
the children so that they would all be encouraged to write as accurately as possible whengiven the procedural writing task. The researcher gave the instructions for making thepikelets orally and in a careful sequential manner, ensuring that both groups were followingdirections correctly and that all children had a turn at adding ingredients, mixing, pouringand flipping pikelets. The pikelets were cooked and eaten at recess.
After the recess break, Group A followed the standard classroom routine of silentreading in their own classroom under the supervision of the other teacher in the twoclassroom units. Group B was taken by the researcher into another classroom and asked todraw their experience of making pikelets. Each student was given a pack of 16 fine-pointmarker pens, HB pencils and an eraser. They were asked to remember what they had donebefore recess and to now draw ‘how to make pikelets’. All students had finished theirdrawings within 15 minutes, the usual time assigned to silent reading after the morningrecess break. Once they had finished their drawings, both groups were brought togetherfor their standard classroom ‘writing’ time, which was a regular timetabled activity. Theresearcher reminded them of the pikelet making experience and how they had been toldthat they would be writing instructions for other people or themselves so that they couldalso make pikelets any time they wished. They were given their usual writing books andasked do their writing. Group B had their drawings next to them as they wrote.
Lesson 2: explanatory text – how is honey made?
The experience for the writing of the explanatory text was a video on how honey is made.The researcher showed both groups, as a class, a video titled ‘Honey’ from an educationalTV series. Although this was not a routine classroom practice, the class had previouslyseen educational TV shows from the same series. The researcher introduced the video byshowing a jar of honey and asking the children to respond if they knew how honey wasmade. Most children identified that it came from bees, but no child was able to explain howit came from bees or how it arrived in jars. The researcher then explained that they wouldsee a video that explains how bees make honey and how honey reaches the jars we buy inthe shops. She told the children that they would be asked to do some writing to explain theprocess to other people who do not know how honey is made. The researcher emphasisedthe purpose of the writing to the children to encourage them to write for that purposewhen they were given the writing task. The children viewed the video prior to the recessbreak.
After the recess break, the control group (Group A) followed the standard class routineof silent reading, whilst the treatment group (Group B) was taken by the researcher into adifferent area of the unit and asked to draw ‘how honey is made’. Each student was givena pack of 16 fine-point marker pens, HB pencils and an eraser, and was asked to ‘drawhow honey is made’. When Group B had finished their drawing, both groups were broughttogether for their standard writing time. The researcher reminded them of the honey videoand how they had been told they would be explaining to other people how honey is made.They were given their writing books and asked to write their instructions. Group B hadtheir drawings next to them as they wrote.
Data analysis
A combination of analytic and trait-based scoring methods was used to assess the writingthe children produced (Hyland 2003). Analytic scoring allows for writing characteristics tobe separated and graded against explicit and comprehensive criteria defined as important
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f G
uelp
h] a
t 11:
00 1
0 M
ay 2
013
268 M. Adoniou
to good writing. Trait-based scoring methods recognise context in writing and demanddifferent criteria according to the context and purpose of the writing. As genre and purposewere key components of the writing tasks in this study, trait-based scoring methods wereincorporated into the selected scoring scheme. It was important to develop a markingscheme that would adequately detail the writing’s effectiveness in achieving purpose. Toachieve this, the marking criteria were organised around the SFLs descriptors of genre,field, tenor and mode (Halliday and Hasan 1985). These four dimensions of written textsprovide ‘a matrix by which texts can be both understood and evaluated’ (Macken and Slade1993, 213).
The writing was assessed by only one rater, the researcher, and this potentially reducesthe reliability of the scoring (Hyland 2003). To counter this, the assessment strategiesused were criterion referenced, with well-described and comprehensive criteria, to increasethe validity of the scoring. Genre-specific marking grids were produced for each genre –explanations and procedures – across the register variables of field, tenor and mode. Addingtext-, sentence- and word-level indicators of achievement across each of the register vari-ables further extended the assessment criteria of field, tenor and mode. The marking gridsare reproduced in Figures 1 and 2. Each criterion at text, sentence and word levels carrieda maximum of three points, on a scale of 0–3, dependent upon the extent to which eachcriterion was met. The scaling allowed the marker to take into account that the learners weredeveloping their English language skills and identify what each learner had done success-fully in their information writing within their general English language development levels.For example, although in these genres there is an expectation of the use of ‘simple presenttense’, it would be expected that these learners may not always have correct subject/verbagreement in their execution of the simple present tense. Figure 3 gives an example ofone student’s writing and accompanying drawing, and Figure 4 illustrates how the student’swriting was scored using the marking grid.
Results
The results of the study clearly showed that drawing before writing had a positive impactupon children’s procedure and explanation writing. In both genres, the treatment group wrotemore (length) and of a higher quality when marked across the multi-traits of tenor, field andmode at text, sentence and word levels. The results are summarised in Figure 5. The resultsshow that the treatment group achieved higher in both genres and across all nine categories,except one – tenor in explanations – where no difference was recorded. This providesstrong evidence to support the hypothesis that drawing before writing improves children’snon-narrative writing in the procedure and explanation genres. A closer analysis of thedata reveals that the writing produced by the treatment group (Group B) was significantlybetter at text and sentence levels, and marginally better at word level. This was true acrossboth genres. This suggests that drawings are useful planning tools in allowing the childrento work through the entire structure of the text, as well as to attend to essential details,and to then apply this in their writing. Notably, at sentence level, the written texts of thetreatment group were substantially better, suggesting that drawings are useful supports tothe construction of syntactically appropriate and expanded sentences. Although the word-level results were also better for the treatment group, the difference was far less pronouncedin both the explanatory and the procedural writing. This may be a reflection of a lessercapacity of drawings to reflect the grammatical specificities of written language evident atword level.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f G
uelp
h] a
t 11:
00 1
0 M
ay 2
013
Language and Education 269
Genre Text level Sentence level Word level Procedure: recipe. Purpose: to instruct how to cook pikelets. Field: cooking. Enough ingredients
for reader to complete task
Enough steps for reader to complete task 6 points
Sentences which guide actions to complete task
Use of circumstantial information appropriate to completion of task 6 points
Noun groups appropriate to field
Enough quantifiers for reader to complete task
Vocabulary specific to cooking task
Accurate verbs to describe actions 12 points
Tenor: objective and imperative.
Text Structure: Goal Materials Steps 3 points
Imperative sentence types 3 points
Imperative verbs
Absence of pronouns 6 points
Mode: written for a general and absent audience
Appropriate delineation between sections of the text 3 points
Placement of verbs in the theme position
Use of simple timeless present tense. 6 points
Words to mark sequence: 1. linking
conjunctions; 2. sequential
conjunctions. Use of numbers or other means to mark sequence. 6 points
Figure 1. Writing analysis grid for procedures.
Discussion
Although the sample size in the study was small, the results were significant enough toinvite discussion as to why drawing was supportive of the writing of these EAL/D learners.A closer observation of the drawings themselves showed that the participants had usedvisual tools in the construction of their drawings (see Figure 3), which have parallels inthe verbal tools the learners must use to successfully construct the written genres. Thesesimilarities are discussed below:
(1) The drawings were topologically accurate (Kress and van Leeuwen 1996). Thismeans all the components of the drawing were logically represented and all thecomponents and their relationship are accurately represented. This feature in thedrawings correlates with the high scores in the field category, across text andsentence levels in both written genres. The field variable requires all the steps to beaccurately included.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f G
uelp
h] a
t 11:
00 1
0 M
ay 2
013
270 M. Adoniou
Genre Text level Sentence level Word level Explanations: Purpose: to explain a process Field: honeymaking
Field is easilyidentifiable with adequate steps in the process
Sequence of the process is accurate 6 points
Noun groups identify participants accurately
Sentences explain the process 6 points
Vocabularyspecific to the topic with some vocabulary beyond the everyday
Action verbs specifically related to the process 6 points
Tenor: objective and explanatory
Structural components of explanations used: Phenomenon Sequential explanation 3 points
Explanatory voice e.g. passive voice 3 points
Generalised non-human participants
Absence of personal pronouns
Absence of informal commentary 9 points
Mode: written for a general and absent audience
Appropriate delineation of the structural components 3 points
Sequence markers
Timeless present tense
Process is thematised 9 points
Appropriate use of articles (e.g. definite article ‘the’ for generalised participant, or no article ‘bees’
Cause and effect conjunctions
Sequence conjunctions 9 points
Figure 2. Writing analysis grid for explanations.
(2) The clear representation of all the noun groups and the processes in the drawingscorrelates to the high scores at word level within the field category in both writtengenres, where it is important – all ingredients or processes are included.
(3) In the procedural texts, all participants in the treatment group used the specialistterm ‘buttermilk’, whilst the control group used the term ‘milk’. The drawings eachshow the buttermilk represented by a small carton (which is how buttermilk is soldin the children’s community – as opposed to a large plastic milk bottle). It may bethat the drawing reminded the treatment group of the specialist vocabulary.
(4) Each of the drawings across both genres represented actions successfully, thema-tising them, an important syntactic feature of written procedures and explanations.The representation of actions in the drawings were matched by a mention of thesein the writing, e.g. put, mix, cook, eat.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f G
uelp
h] a
t 11:
00 1
0 M
ay 2
013
Language and Education 271
Figure 3. Student A procedural writing and accompanying drawing – treatment group.
(5) The absence of ‘actors’ in the drawings reflected the children’s success in achiev-ing the impersonal tenor of the written genre which correspondingly required anabsence of personal pronouns.
(6) The procedural drawings differentiated clearly between the ingredients and themethod, and this was reflected in their writing. The treatment group was morelikely to use the generic structural organisation of ingredients and method in theirwriting as was evidenced by the high scores across the mode category. None of thecontrol group written texts used the text structure of ingredients and method.
(7) The placement of the ingredients in the procedural drawings reflected the wordorder of the noun phrase required in the written text, e.g. four spoons of sugar wererepresented by drawings of four spoons linked to the drawing of the sugar bowl.
Despite the children’s varying cultural backgrounds, and their varying visual repre-sentations, it was possible to identify common conventions in their drawings that achieve
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f G
uelp
h] a
t 11:
00 1
0 M
ay 2
013
272 M. Adoniou
Genre - Procedure Text level
Less than Satisfactory (1 mark per criterion)
Satisfactory (2 marks per criterion)
More than satisfactory (3 marks per criterion)
Field - Cooking Some of the ingredients required for reader to complete task
Some of the steps required for reader to complete task
Most of the ingredients required for reader to complete task
Most of the steps required for reader to complete task
All the ingredients required for reader to complete task
All the steps required for reader to complete task 6/6
Tenor Some structural components of procedural text used: Goal Ingredients Method
Most structural components of procedural text used: Goal Ingredients Method 2/3
All structural components of procedural text used: Goal Ingredients Method
Mode Structural components of the text not delineated
Structural components of the text mostly delineated
Structural components of the text well-delineated 3/3
Genre - Procedure Sentence level
Less than satisfactory Satisfactory More than satisfactory
Field - Cooking Some use of circumstantial information appropriate to completion of task
Where appropriate some sentences guide actions to complete task
At least one example of circumstantial information appropriate to completion of task
Where appropriate most sentences guide actions to complete task
Use of circumstantial information appropriate to completion of task
Where appropriate all sentences guide actions to complete task 6/6
Tenor Imperative sentence types are not used
Imperative sentence types are sometimes used
Imperative sentence types are always used 3/3
Mode Placement of verbs in the theme position not usually appropriate
Simple timeless present tense not usually used appropriately
Placement of verbs in the theme position mostly when appropriate
Simple timeless present tense sometimes used appropriately
Placement of verbs in the theme position always when appropriate
Simple timeless present tense always used appropriately 6/6
Genre - Procedure Word level
Less than satisfactory Satisfactory More than satisfactory
Field - Cooking 1. Not enough quantifiers for reader to complete task 2. Not enough ‘participants’ to complete task 3. Noun groups not appropriate to field 4. Vocabulary not usually specific to cooking task 5. Verbs do not usually accurately describe actions
1. Most of the quantifiers for reader to complete task 2. Most required participants 3. Noun groups mostly appropriate to field 4. Vocabulary mostly specific to cooking task 5. Verbs mostly accurately describe actions
1. All required quantifiers for reader to complete task 2. All required participants 3. Noun groups all appropriate to field 4. Vocabulary always specific to cooking task 5. Verbs always accurately describe actions 12/15
Tenor 1. Pronouns used consistently 2. Imperative verbs not used appropriately
1. Pronouns mostly absent 2. Imperative verbs used mostly appropriately
1. Pronouns absent 2. Imperative verbs used appropriately 6/6
Mode 1. Little use of numbers or other means to mark sequence nil 2. Little use of linking words are used accurately to mark sequence
1. Some use of numbers or other means to mark sequence 2. Some use of linking word is used to mark sequence
1. Use of numbers or other means to mark sequence 2. Linking words are used accurately to mark sequence 3/6
Figure 4. Student A procedural writing marking rubric.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f G
uelp
h] a
t 11:
00 1
0 M
ay 2
013
Language and Education 273
snoitanalpxEserudecorP
Control Group Treatment Group Control Group Treatment Group
Text level Mean: 6.3
Text level Mean: 10.6
Text level Mean: 5.25
Text level Mean: 8.5
Sentence level Mean: 6.6
Sentence level Mean: 10
Sentence level Mean: 8.75
Sentence level Mean: 12.75
Word level Mean: 17.6
Word level Mean: 19.6
Word level Mean: 16
Word level Mean: 17.25
FieldMean: 17.6
FieldMean: 20.3
Field Mean: 9.25
Field Mean: 13
Tenor Mean: 7.3
Tenor Mean: 10.6
Tenor Mean: 12
Tenor Mean: 12
Mode Mean: 5.6
Mode Mean: 11.6
Mode Mean: 9.25
Mode Mean: 13.5
Word count Mean: 19 words
Word count Mean: 25 words
Word count Mean: 29 words
Word count Mean: 46 words
Figure 5. Comparison of writing results.
purpose, e.g. numerals in the drawings, careful quantifying of materials, arrows to explainsequence and careful schematic representations of objects salient to the image’s purpose.These visual tools were directly supportive of language tools they were required to use intheir writing. It may also be that the experience of drawing helped the learners to classifyand create structure in their thinking as claimed by Cox (2005), which in turn is an importantrehearsal for writing. Similarly, Levin and Bus (2003) describe drawing as a holistic andopen system that easily allows for the inclusion of new information in a way that the morelinear and rule-governed verbal symbol system of writing does not. Additions and deletionscan be easily made as the drawing is constructed. Thus, drawing allows for ‘testing out,evaluation, revision, and integration of ideas before writing begins’ (Caldwell and Moore1991, 216).
Artist David Hockney (in Anning 1997, 223) said that ‘in learning to draw you learn tolook’, and it did appear that one benefit of drawing before writing is its capacity to focusthe learners’ attention on the subject at hand. In this study, the treatment group’s writinggenerally contained more detail, with a more complete account of all the participants,quantifiers and processes and a more likely inclusion of specialist language. This is furtherevidence for Brooks’s (2005, 89) observation that drawings can show ‘a quantity and qualityof information and ideas’ which makes them very compatible with information text writing.In this study, the detail in the drawings correlated directly with the detail the participantswere then able to produce in their writing. It seems likely that the drawings were effectivememory prompts (Wright 2007) and results support the contention that drawing can cementan image, process or even a concept in the brain’s memory (Lansing 1981; Sheridan 2002).
Recommendations
Although a small study, it sits within a larger field of research that suggests that drawingbefore writing is beneficial. Neu and Berglund (1991) provide a useful review of theliterature that concludes that drawing has a multi-faceted role in literacy development. Insummary, they suggest that drawings allow children to represent thoughts and ideas, and
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f G
uelp
h] a
t 11:
00 1
0 M
ay 2
013
274 M. Adoniou
so allow for a discussion of these ideas, which in turn reinforces and clarifies concepts aswell as allowing plenty of opportunities for talk with others. Drawings also allow childrento explore meaning via more concrete representations which become a reference point towhich children can turn when writing (Neu and Berglund 1991).
The study reported in this article confirms these assertions and finds that drawingbefore writing is beneficial for English language learners. Specifically, the study found thatdrawing can be an effective preparation for writing the informational genres of explanationsand procedures. The results of this study support the proposition that drawing be includedroutinely in English language learning classes throughout primary school, and perhapsbeyond. To achieve this, drawing must be reconceptualised in schools as an importantlearning tool, not simply a decorative adjunct that learners can turn to only when theyhave completed their writing tasks. The status of drawing and writing as meaning-makingsystems in any given community is defined by the community rather than by the inherentcapacity of the symbol system to communicate meaning. The privileging of writing inschools is a man-made construct rather than a natural phenomenon, and the repositioningof the visual in schools is foremost a matter of will. If the curriculum allows space forthe deliberate use of drawing, we ‘permit’ children to make use of the visual symbolsystem to understand concepts and communicate understandings and to transform theseunderstandings into other contexts.
The teacher is key in a reconceptualisation of drawing as a tool for rehearsal, thinking,reflection and preparation for writing. Teachers’ attitudes to drawing transfer to the childrenin the class. In Millard and Marsh’s (2001) study, children’s attitudes to drawing weredirectly reflective of their teachers’ attitudes. If the teacher encouraged drawing duringwriting lessons, they viewed drawing as a positive activity. If the teacher discourageddrawing during writing lessons, the children saw it as a tiring or distracting activity. Afocus on process and purpose in drawing rather than product is key to effecting a changeof thinking about drawing in the classroom. Brooks (2004, 49) recommends: ‘The focus ofthe discussion around drawing should be about the meaning and information it contains,rather than on drawings skills and aesthetics.’
This study found that making use of a student’s personal semiotic repertoire throughdrawing can help them access the written genres of explanations and procedures. Futurestudies could investigate the impact of drawing to support writing in other text types withinthe school’s valued semiosis of information genres, for example reports, expositions anddiscursive texts.
Drawings can provide an important bridge between the literacies (in any language) thatstudents bring to school with them and the literacies necessary for success in academicwork. Teachers should deliberately orchestrate classroom learning, carefully constructingepisodes that will give the children shared experiences from which to take meaning, andwhich will make productive use of their drawings. When we use children’s drawings inthese multiple ways, they assume a different role in the curriculum. Rather than a decorativeproduct, the children’s drawings represent a demonstration of understandings and are notnecessarily the end point of learning but a part of the continuation of a social constructionof knowledge (Bryant and Gallen 2003).
Conclusion
Drawing is a supportive strategy in writing classrooms. Parallels between the writing anddrawing processes make drawings potentially potent sources of mediation in languageclasses. The study reported in this article found that drawing before writing improves the
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f G
uelp
h] a
t 11:
00 1
0 M
ay 2
013
Language and Education 275
writing in the non-narrative genres of explanations and procedures. The motivation forthe investigation was simple; all children in schools must master the valued school gen-res, of which explanations and procedures are two, if they are to achieve well in schools.English language learners are statistically over-represented in the numbers of those whounder achieve in national literacy testing in the United States, the United Kingdom andAustralia. The study reported in this article sought to see whether drawing was one pathwayinto achieving these improved writing outcomes. In doing so, it described drawings as so-cial constructs with communicative purposes that are the product of children’s intentionalpractices. Such a description requires a shift in thinking for many classroom practitioners.In an increasingly narrowing curriculum, we are in danger of cutting off diverse path-ways into learning in general, and literacy learning specifically, when we ignore the fullcommunicative repertoire of children, including their drawings.
ReferencesACARA (Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority). 2011. The Australian Cur-
riculum. http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au (accessed December 27, 2011).Anning, A. 1997. Drawing out ideas: Graphicacy and young children. International Journal of
Technology and Design Education 7, no. 3: 219–39.Anning, A., and K. Ring. 1999. The influence of the socio-cultural context on young children’s mean-
ing making. Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association Annual Conference.Brooks, M. 2004. Drawing: The social construction of knowledge. Australian Journal of Early
Childhood 29, no. 2: 41–9.Brooks, M. 2005. Drawing as a unique mental development tool for young children: Interpersonal
and intrapersonal dialogues. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood 6, no. 1: 80–91.Bryant, L., and S. Gallen. 2003. Pedagogical documentation in the arts. In Children, meaning-making
and the arts, ed. S. Wright, 193–215. Frenchs Forest: Pearson.Cajkler, W., and B. Hall. 2009. ‘When they first come in what do you do?’ English as an additional
language and newly qualified teachers. Language and Education 23, no. 2: 153–70.Caldwell, H., and B. Moore. 1991. The art of writing: Drawing as preparation for narrative writing in
the primary grades. Studies in Art Education 32, no. 4: 207–19.Calkins, L.M. 1994. The art of teaching writing. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Cambourne, B., and J. Turbill. 1987. Coping with chaos. Rozelle: Primary English Teaching Associ-
ation.Campbell, R., and D. Green, eds. 2006. Literacies and learners: Current perspectives. 3rd ed. Frenchs
Forest: Pearson Education Australia.Christie, F., ed. 1991. Literacy for a changing world. Melbourne: ACER.Coates, E. 2002. ‘I forgot the sky!’ Children’s stories contained within their drawings. International
Journal of Early Years Education 10, no. 1: 21–35.Collerson, J., ed. 1988. Writing for life. Sydney: Primary English Teaching Association.Collier, V.P., and W.P. Thomas. 1999. Making U.S. schools effective for English language learners,
Part 1. TESOL Matters 9, no. 4: 1–6.Cope, B., and M. Kalantzis, eds. 2000. Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of social
futures. London: Routledge.Cox, S. 2005. Intention and meaning in young children’s drawing. International Journal of Art and
Design Education 24, no. 2: 115–25.Cummins, J. 1979. Linguistic interdependence and the educational development of bilingual children.
Review of Educational Research 49, no. 2: 222–51.DECS (Department of Education and Children’s Services). 2006. South Australian Curriculum,
Standards and Accountability Framework: Primary years band English as a second language.Adelaide: SADECS.
de Jong, E.J., and C.A. Harper. 2005. Preparing mainstream teachers for English language learners:Is being a good teacher good enough? Teacher Education Quarterly 32, no. 2: 101–24.
Demie, F. 2012. English as an additional language pupils: How long does it take to acquire Englishfluency? Language and Education 26, no. 4: 1–11.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f G
uelp
h] a
t 11:
00 1
0 M
ay 2
013
276 M. Adoniou
Derewianka, B. 1990. Exploring how texts work. Sydney: Primary English Teaching Association.Dyson, A.H. 1983. The emergence of visible language: Interrelationships between drawing and early
writing. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association,Montreal, QC.
Dyson, A.H. 1991. Viewpoints: The word and the world – Reconceptualising written languagedevelopment or do rainbows mean a lot to little girls? Research in the Teaching of English 25,no. 1: 97–121.
Gass, S. 2008. Second language acquisition: An introductory reader. New York: Routledge.Gibbons, P. 2004. Changing the rules, changing the game: A sociocultural perspective on second
language learning in the classroom. In The development of language, ed. G. Williams and A.Lukin, 196–216. London: Continuum.
Grinnell, P., and N. Burris. 1983. Drawing and writing: The emerging graphic communication process.Topics in Learning and Learning Disabilities 3: 21–31.
Halliday, M. 1985. Spoken and written Language. Geelong: Deakin University Press.Halliday, M., and R. Hasan. 1985. Language, context and text: Aspects of language in a social-semiotic
perspective. Geelong: Deakin University Press.Hyland, K. 2003. Second language writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Jewitt, C. 2005. Multimodality, ‘reading’, and ‘writing’ for the 21st century. Discourse: Studies in
the Cultural Politics of Education 26, no. 3: 315–31.Kane, F. 1982. Thinking, drawing – Writing, reading. Childhood Education 58, no. 5: 292–7.Kress, G. 1997. Before writing: Rethinking the paths to literacy. London: Routledge.Kress, G., and T. van Leeuwen. 1996. Reading images: The grammar of visual design. London:
Routledge.Lansing, K. 1981. The effect of drawing in the development of mental representations. Studies in Art
Education 22, no. 3: 15–23.Levin, I., and A. Bus. 2003. How is emergent writing based on drawing? Analyses of children’s
products and their sorting by children and mothers. Developmental Psychology 30, no. 5:891–905.
Lowenfeld, V., and W.L. Brittain. 1975. Creative and mental growth. New York: Macmillan.MacBlain, S., and N. Purdy. 2011. Confidence or confusion: How well are today’s newly qualified
teachers in England prepared to meet the additional needs of children in schools? TeacherDevelopment 15, no. 3: 381–94.
Macken, M., J. Martin, G. Kress, M. Kalantzis, J. Rothery, and B. Cope. 1989. A genre basedapproach to teaching writing years 3–6. Sydney: Literacy and Education Research Network,NSW Department of Education.
Macken, M., and D. Slade. 1993. A foundation for effective learning in the school context. In A genreapproach to teaching writing, ed. B. Cope and M. Kalantzis, 203–30. London: Falmer Press.
MCEETYA (Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs). 2008.National Assessment Program Literacy and Numeracy. http://www.naplan.edu.au (accessedDecember 27, 2011).
McFee, J.K., and R.M. Degge. 1980. Art, culture, and environment: A catalyst for teaching. Dubuque,IA: Kendall/Hunt.
McKay, P., ed. 2007. Assessing, monitoring and understanding English as a second language inschools: The NLLIA ESL Bandscales Version 2. Brisbane: Queensland University of Technologyand Independent Schools Queensland.
Millard, E., and J. Marsh. 2001. Words with pictures: The role of visual literacy in writing and itsimplication for schooling. Reading Literacy and Language 35, no. 2: 54–61.
Neu, G., and R. Berglund. 1991. The disappearance of drawings in children’s writing: A naturaldevelopment or a natural disaster? DeKalb: Northern Illinois University.
O’Neill, S., and A. Gish. 2008. Teaching English as a second language. South Melbourne: OxfordUniversity Press.
Platt, P. 1977. Grapho-linguistics: Children’s drawings in relation to reading and writing skills. TheReading Teacher 31, no. 3: 262–8.
Rothery, J. 1984. Teaching writing in the primary school: A genre based approach to the developmentof writing abilities (Working Papers in Linguistics 4). Sydney: University of Sydney.
Sarantakos, S. 1998. Social research. South Melbourne: Macmillan Education.Sheridan, S. 2002. The neurological significance of children’s drawing: The Scribble Hypothesis.
http://www.drawingwriting.com/scribble.html (accessed December 27, 2011).
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f G
uelp
h] a
t 11:
00 1
0 M
ay 2
013
Language and Education 277
Symington, D., and H. Spurling. 1990. The ‘Draw a scientist test’: Interpreting the data. Research inScience and Technological Education 8, no. 1: 75–8.
Thomson, S., L. De Bortoli, M. Nicholas, K. Hillman, and S. Buckley. 2009. Challenges for Australianeducation: Results from PISA 2009. Melbourne: ACER.
Unsworth, L. 2001. Teaching multiliteracies across the curriculum: Changing contexts of text andimage in classroom practice. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Unsworth, L. 2002. Changing dimensions of school literacies. Australian Journal of Language andLiteracy 25, no. 1: 62–77.
US Department of Education. 2012. Elementary and Secondary Education Act. http://www.ed.gov/esea (accessed June 8, 2012).
Vygotsky, L. 1978. Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Walker, K. 2007–2008. Children and their purple crayons: Understanding their worlds through their
drawings. Childhood Education Winter: 96–101.White, P. 1994. Art talk: Developing art and language in the primary classroom. Melbourne: Oxford
University Press.Wilks, S. 2005. Only good for the art class . . . I don’t think so! Australian Art Education 28,
nos. 1–2: 68–81.Wing Jan, L. 2008. Write ways. Sydney: Open University Press.Wolf, D.P., and M.D. Perry. 1989. From endpoints to repertoires: Some new conclusions about drawing
development. In Art, mind and education: Research from Project Zero, ed. H. Gardner and D.N.Perkins, 17–34. Chicago: University of Illinois Press.
Wright, S., ed. 2003. Children, meaning-making and the arts. Frenchs Forest: Pearson EducationAustralia.
Wright, S. 2007. Young children’s meaning-making through drawing and ‘telling’: Analogies to filmictextual features. Australian Journal of Early Childhood 32, no. 4: 37–48.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f G
uelp
h] a
t 11:
00 1
0 M
ay 2
013
Recommended
