View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Mixing Pedagogies to Cultivate Joyful and Creative Young Writers in an Era of Standardised Writing Tests

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Mixing Pedagogies to Cultivate Joyful and Creative Young Writers in an Era of Standardised Writing Tests
Language: English
Authors: Deb Brosseuk (ORCID 0000-0002-3636-4661)
Source: Early Childhood Education Journal. 2025 53(6):1925-1937.
Availability: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 13
Publication Date: 2025
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Descriptors: Childrens Writing, Creative Writing, Standardized Tests, Writing Tests, High Stakes Tests, Foreign Countries, Writing Teachers, Writing Instruction, Preschool Children, Writing Skills, Imagination, Creativity
Geographic Terms: Australia
DOI: 10.1007/s10643-024-01726-5
ISSN: 1082-3301
1573-1707
Abstract: Global trends suggest that teaching writing focuses on a skills-based approach to preparing children for high-stakes standardised tests. In the early years, teachers are grappling with finding a better balance between preparing children for such tests and satisfying their sense of pedagogic responsibility to teach them to become joyful, creative writers. This paper explores an Australian Preparatory teacher's teaching of writing framed by the pedagogic framework LAUNCH. Using video and audio recordings, as well as children-made artefacts, the paper considers the impact of this framework on the writing experiences of fourteen five- and six-year-old children. Basil Bernstein's visible and invisible pedagogies provide the theoretical frame. Findings assert that a pedagogic mix allows early years teachers to teach children to be skilled and confident writers while nurturing their imaginations and creativity. This is significant given that current debates around children's writing experiences are often tied to high-stakes, standardised test-based writing.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2025
Accession Number: EJ1479603
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwFqDNID1dHOpAjvs7dZh_n_AAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDG_RRveN2pM2RPXs4wIBEICBm_lEwvAlb0vMXW9a_ksSyRasAIofTAmQKyfDAZhDZyt6DQBYwqbPgScPooG7LGJi5niyLABMC3VsbsoTHJOkDMFP394iQOh4YBmMqO4D-MBXO3LesFJiXRWT1YUSo1aPJAwLLM4uSy3xnTRK5gaJbiBoFwgjFLPY3Rl5Bo-vDTdJEyJyWPQAs7nmVTbu_7Wj6y5Kv1KwXRWnGl9y
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0187189962;5mx01aug.25;2025Aug11.03:06;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0187189962-1">Mixing Pedagogies to Cultivate Joyful and Creative Young Writers in an Era of Standardised Writing Tests </title> <p>Global trends suggest that teaching writing focuses on a skills-based approach to preparing children for high-stakes standardised tests. In the early years, teachers are grappling with finding a better balance between preparing children for such tests and satisfying their sense of pedagogic responsibility to teach them to become joyful, creative writers. This paper explores an Australian Preparatory teacher's teaching of writing framed by the pedagogic framework LAUNCH. Using video and audio recordings, as well as children-made artefacts, the paper considers the impact of this framework on the writing experiences of fourteen five- and six-year-old children. Basil Bernstein's visible and invisible pedagogies provide the theoretical frame. Findings assert that a pedagogic mix allows early years teachers to teach children to be skilled and confident writers while nurturing their imaginations and creativity. This is significant given that current debates around children's writing experiences are often tied to high-stakes, standardised test-based writing.</p> <p>Keywords: Writing; Teaching writing; Pedagogy; Early years; Bernstein</p> <hd id="AN0187189962-2">Introduction</hd> <p>Sitting in early years classrooms, observing, teaching, and researching alongside teachers is a delight. I am always amazed by teachers who care about every morning message, piece of modelled writing, haiku poem, label, and anchor chart they create to support the teaching of writing. I appreciate how thoughtful teachers are about showcasing children's written work in different stages of development – random squiggles on a piece of paper, strings of letters on a whiteboard, a label on a Lego creation with the invented spelling <emph>mi rd robt</emph> (my red robot). What's more, I am in awe of what children can show me about what it takes for them to be writers, drawers, and creators. As an early years teacher for over 20 years and now an academic researching young children's writing experiences, I understand the challenges in helping them become joyful, creative writers, especially in the current era of high-stakes standardised writing assessments.</p> <p>In an educational landscape typified by the standardisation of writing and high-stakes writing assessments, it is becoming commonplace for young children's writing to be reduced to a mere product delivered by teachers (Jay & Knaus, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref1">33</reflink>]). Writing is often "cookie-cutter" (p. 86) and "formulaic" (p. 87), often due to skills-based instruction with an emphasis on spelling knowledge and skills (McGaw et al., [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref2">43</reflink>]). However, this representation does not acknowledge early years classrooms as sites of social connection and activity, where children can choose their topics and time and space to write (Kuby et al., [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref3">36</reflink>]). Nor does it spotlight writing for authentic purposes and sharing writing with others (Graves, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref4">27</reflink>]; Rowe, [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref5">54</reflink>]). This raises the question then of how teachers can better balance preparing children for high-stakes writing tests while nurturing their will to write and be lovers of writing. This has implications for teachers' pedagogic practices and children's identities as skilled, confident, and creative writers (Rowe et al., [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref6">55</reflink>]).</p> <p>This paper contributes to explorations of pedagogic practices, with a distinct focus on the work of a teacher in an Australian Preparatory classroom. In Australia, children who start school in the Preparatory year are typically five years old (About Prep, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref7">1</reflink>]). The paper draws upon literature that calls for a return to essential practices for engaging children as writers (see Calkins & Ehrenworth, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref8">18</reflink>]; Bahlmann Bollinger & Myers, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref9">5</reflink>]; Kuby et al.,[<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref10">36</reflink>]), yet rarely reports on how to achieve this within the constraints of high-stakes standardised writing assessments. Thus, a qualitative study is presented, which investigates the impact of the teacher's mixing of teacher-led (explicit, skills-based) and child-led (active, agentic, collaborative, creative) pedagogic practices on fourteen five- and six-year-old children's writing experiences. The paper argues that a pedagogic mix can purposefully teach children foundational skills and knowledge necessary to perform well on high-stakes writing assessments, along with a sense that writing is meaningful and joyful.</p> <p>In the following sections, the paper first locates the study within the broader literature on teaching writing and assessment systems in Australia. Then, the paper introduces the LAUNCH, a pedagogic framework used to engage children in writing. Next, Basil Bernstein's ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref11">10</reflink>]) two types of pedagogic practice, visible and invisible pedagogy, are presented as the theoretical framework for the study. Then, core teacher-child interactions are offered in the form of mini-vignettes. Within these vignettes, the interplay between Bernstein's two types of pedagogies in the development of children's writing experiences is presented. Finally, attention is drawn to important reflections on the teacher's pedagogic practices, children's writing experiences, and their significance to future writing success.</p> <hd id="AN0187189962-3">Writing and the Teaching of Writing</hd> <p>The Future of Education and Skills 2030 report by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref12">46</reflink>]) outlines three core foundations that are essential for children's success during their school years and beyond. Literacy and writing knowledge and skills are of utmost importance among these foundations. It is, therefore, crucial to prioritise teaching children how to be skilled and confident writers so that they can "adapt to, thrive in, and shape whatever the future holds" (OECD, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref13">46</reflink>], p. 5). However, contemporary discourse surrounding writing and the teaching of writing in the early years of formal schooling in Australia tends to frame writing as skilled writing (McGraw et al., 2020; Wyatt-Smith et al., [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref14">60</reflink>]). This fails to recognise writing as a "social activity" (Graham, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref15">26</reflink>], p. 259) and overlooks the complexity of writing, such as the importance of essential practices related to time to write, choice of writing topics, and the need for an authentic audience (Calkins & Ehrenworth, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref16">18</reflink>]; Kuby et al., [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref17">36</reflink>]; Rowe et al., [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref18">55</reflink>]).</p> <p>It is widely accepted that to engage children as writes, they need opportunities to choose their own topics for meaningful purposes (Friddle & Ivey, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref19">23</reflink>]; Gerde et al., [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref20">25</reflink>]; Rowe, [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref21">54</reflink>]), receive explicit modelling and scaffolding (Bingham et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref22">13</reflink>]; Rowe et al., [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref23">55</reflink>]), and have time to write and talk about and share their writing (Bahlmann Bollinger & Myers, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref24">5</reflink>]; Calkins, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref25">17</reflink>]). These essential writing practices have not radically changed since the early research of Graves ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref26">27</reflink>]). However, Australian research reports the variability in using these practices in early years classrooms. Malpique et al.'s ([<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref27">40</reflink>]) study, which examined 24 Year 1 Western Australian classrooms across seven primary schools, found significant variation in teachers' writing instruction, with most of the time spent teaching spelling, grammar, and punctuation skills. In Malpique and colleagues ([<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref28">41</reflink>]) most recent study, significant variation in the amount, frequency, and type of writing instruction for 177 four-year-old Kindergarten children across 23 classrooms was reported. Children's time learning to, and about writing varied from 15 min to 7.5 h per week.</p> <p>The <emph>Australian Writing Survey</emph>, designed to inform research and practice, surveyed 2073 New South Wales primary teachers about writing instruction (Wyatt-Smith et al., [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref29">60</reflink>]). In Australia, primary teachers work with children aged 5 or 6 and up to 11. Similar to the previously mentioned studies, the survey found variation in writing instruction and the frequency of application. Furthermore, it reported that "insufficient time" was given to building children's understanding of the content, processes, and purposes of writing and that children "do not write frequently enough" (Wyatt-Smith et al., [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref30">60</reflink>], p. 21). Such variability in the amount, frequency, and use of writing practice is problematic, particularly when we know that learning how to write is a "challenging developmental process" (Malpique et al., [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref31">41</reflink>], p. 120) and one that "does not develop naturally" (McLean, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref32">44</reflink>], p. 11). Against the backdrop of these studies are concerns about a steady decline in Australian children's writing achievement (Australian Education Research Organisation, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref33">2</reflink>]).</p> <p>Like other nation-states, Australia has its policies and practices for assessing literacy and numeracy. Canada and England use government-mandated tests similar to Australia's (McGaw et al., [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref34">43</reflink>]). The Australian government keeps track of children's achievement in Years 3, 5, 7, and 9 via an annual standardised test, the <emph>National Assessment Plan – Literacy and Numeracy</emph> (NAPLAN) (Australian Curriculum, Assessment & Reporting Authority, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref35">3</reflink>]). Recent NAPLAN data from 2023 shows a dip in writing results in Years 3 and 5, and a modest increase in Year 7. It is well-documented that the writing test, which assesses text structure, spelling, grammar, and punctuation, has had unintended consequences on how writing is taught, even in the earliest years of schooling (Howie, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref36">31</reflink>]; Jay & Knaus, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref37">33</reflink>]; Roberts-Holmes & Bradbury, [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref38">52</reflink>]). For example, a study by reports that Year 1 and Year 2 teachers mainly focus on teaching skills such as punctuation, spelling, grammar, and sentence structure. While important, an overemphasis on such skills can unintentionally indicate to children that this is what is essential and valued in writing (Gannon & Dove, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref39">24</reflink>]). This concern is echoed in a recent government-commissioned review of NAPLAN, revealing that writing pedagogy was being reduced to skills to fit "the formula" to produce "cookie-cutter" writing (McGaw et al., [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref40">43</reflink>], p. 86).</p> <p>The literature widely reports that teachers spend considerable time preparing children to do well on NAPLAN writing tests. Most of the literature focuses on teachers who teach the years children sit NAPLAN tests (see Gannon & Dove, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref41">24</reflink>]; Gray & Seiki, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref42">29</reflink>]; Macqueen et al., [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref43">39</reflink>]). However, educators who teach in the earliest years also report spending considerable time (see Barblett et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref44">6</reflink>]; Jay & Knaus, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref45">33</reflink>]; Roberts et al., [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref46">51</reflink>]; Rogers et al., [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref47">53</reflink>]). In Jay and Knaus's ([<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref48">33</reflink>]) small-scale study, semi-structured interviews with Year 1 and Year 2 Western Australian teachers captured their ongoing concerns about "being held accountable" and feeling "very uncomfortable" (p. 121) if foundations for meeting future NAPLAN targets are not achieved. They reported a shift away from play-based learning toward "more teacher-directed and instructional" to teach "academic skills" (Jay & Knaus, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref49">33</reflink>], p. 115). They also mentioned the use of instructional practices to teach writing genres much earlier than they would have previously. During focus group interviews with 38 teachers from Kindergarten to Year 2, Rogers et al. ([<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref50">53</reflink>], p. 313) reported that teachers felt "stressed about being blamed for poor [NAPLAN] results" in later years. In both studies, teachers talked about self-imposed being attributed to their accountability for the children and the school to do well.</p> <p>This raises the question then of how teachers teach skill-based, meaningful, and language-rich writing within an era of high-stakes, standardised writing assessments, where there is heightened pressure to prepare children to perform well on tests in later years. This has implications for teachers' pedagogic practice and for developing children's identities as skilled, confident, and creative writers (Rowe et al., [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref51">55</reflink>]). Whilst this Australian study is small, it is necessary to share ways teachers can better balance preparing children for these tests, while satisfying their sense of pedagogic responsibility to teach them to become joyful, creative writers. In doing so, teachers, principals, and education policymakers can better see how to teach writing in a way that allows children to express themselves, connect with others, create new worlds, and learn, share, explore, record, and influence (Calkins & Ehrenworth, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref52">18</reflink>]; Graves, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref53">28</reflink>]). With this, the study addresses the following research questions: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref54">1</reflink>) How are teacher-led and child-led writing practices enacted? and (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref55">2</reflink>) How do these writing practices impact children's writing experiences?</p> <hd id="AN0187189962-4">Joyful and Meaningful Writing</hd> <p>LAUNCH is a pedagogic framework that provides the time, space, and organisational structure for children to engage in joyful and meaningful writing. Children can play with various writing materials to express their interests, personal experiences, and ideas both on paper and digitally. The idea of LAUNCH came from Mx Hunt, the Preparatory teacher in this study, who wanted to meet the demands of preparing Preparatory children to sit standardised literacy tests in later years while staying true to the writing practices backed by literacy experts such as Graves ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref56">27</reflink>]), Harwayne, ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref57">30</reflink>]), and Calkins ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref58">16</reflink>]). LAUNCH is an acronym for: (L) <bold>L</bold>atch onto an idea; (A) <bold><uline>A</uline></bold>sk questions and seek answers; (U) <bold><uline>U</uline></bold>se creativity; (N) <bold><uline>N</uline></bold>ever be afraid to fail; (C) <bold><uline>C</uline></bold>ooperate and collaborate; (H) <bold><uline>H</uline></bold>ave fun! Visual supports were created for LAUNCH's working ways (see Fig. 1).</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 1 LAUNCH Visuals</p> <p>LAUNCH's ways of working help children understand that writing and being a writer involves writing for real-world purposes and audiences and receiving real-world feedback. There may be failures along the way, but the classroom writing community always offers guidance and support. When writing is done like this, it takes on a social dynamic (Bahlmann Bollinger & Myers, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref59">5</reflink>]; Harwayne, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref60">30</reflink>]). To explicitly introduce LAUNCH's ways of working to the fourteen Preparatory children, Mx Hunt used picture books. For example, Mx Hunt used <emph>What Do You Do with a Problem?</emph> by Yamada and Besom ([<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref61">61</reflink>]) to introduce children to philosophical questions such as 'What is an idea?' and 'How can we grow ideas?'. Beaty and Robert's book, <emph>Rosie Revere</emph>,<emph> Engineer</emph> ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref62">9</reflink>]), showed children how to search for answers by asking questions. To cultivate imagination and creativity, Mx Hunt read Peter Reynolds's books, <emph>The Dot</emph> ([<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref63">48</reflink>]), <emph>Ish</emph> ([<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref64">49</reflink>]), and <emph>Sky Color</emph> ([<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref65">50</reflink>]) and talked about how to be creative by exploring, experimenting, documenting, and trying out new things. To help children feel okay with the uncomfortable feeling of failure, Mx Hunt read Ashley Spires's <emph>The Most Magnificent Thing</emph> ([<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref66">57</reflink>]) and Corinna Luyken's <emph>The Book of Mistakes</emph> ([<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref67">38</reflink>]). Mx Hunt read <emph>Beautiful Hands</emph> by Kathryn Otoshi and Bret Baumgarten ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref68">8</reflink>]) to enhance children's awareness of collaborating and cooperating with others. Tony Wilson's <emph>The Cow Tripped Over the Moon</emph> ([<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref69">59</reflink>]) reminded children to have a blast and celebrate their writing achievements!</p> <p>LAUNCH ran three or four mornings per week, across a total of four weeks, in a Preparatory classroom. In Week One, Mx Hunt asked the fourteen children to think about an idea with a social, moral, or humanitarian dynamic and give it some attention, just like the little boy had in Yamada and Besom's ([<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref70">61</reflink>]) picture book <emph>What Do You Do with a Problem?</emph> Connor was worried about his safety while standing on the train platform (see Brosseuk, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref71">14</reflink>]). "You know, I could trip and fall onto the track," he said. Jonah thought Pokémon "was cool" but wanted a new character with extraordinary supernatural powers. Jim, Max, Sam, and Finn wanted "more fun" additions to the playground. From Week Two onwards, children had the time and space to meaningfully engage with their ideas and embrace independence and agency to write, draw, and create. Each LAUNCH session capitalised on the preceding day's writing. Some children chose to work individually, whereas others preferred to work collaboratively in a small group. LAUNCH typically lasted between 60 and 90 min, but it often went longer due to children's motivation to engage in meaningful writing experiences.</p> <hd id="AN0187189962-5">Theoretical Framework</hd> <p>Basil Bernstein's ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref72">10</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref73">12</reflink>]) two types of pedagogic practice, visible and invisible pedagogy, provide the theoretical framework for this study. These pedagogies bring different elements of the study's data on children's writing experiences into an analytic relationship. This is significant because there is limited global research using Bernstein's two types of pedagogic practice to investigate teachers' writing pedagogies within an era of standardised writing assessments in the early years of formal schooling.</p> <hd id="AN0187189962-6">Visible and Invisible Pedagogy</hd> <p>A teacher-led pedagogy indicates <emph>visible</emph> pedagogy. Instruction is explicit and visible, and the teacher has complete control over what is taught. The teacher acts as the "author of the practice and even the authority" by making explicit to children what knowledge and skills are to be taught (Bernstein, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref74">11</reflink>], p. 10). In other words, the teacher makes the choices, tells, and instructs while the children watch, wait, and listen (Bernstein, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref75">10</reflink>]). Children have little, if any, control over what is learned. A visible pedagogy emphasises the reproduction of textual materials, their evaluation and the achievement of outcomes. This contrasts with implicit instruction, where children have control over their learning. A child-led pedagogy indicates <emph>invisible</emph> pedagogy. Children choose, instruct, and tell, while the teacher watches, waits, and listens (Bernstein, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref76">10</reflink>]). Invisible pedagogy emphasises the active role of children in learning, giving preference to their individual interests, strengths, and learning needs and acknowledging the role of prior knowledge. This study uses Bernstein's theoretical concepts of visible and invisible to investigate the pedagogic practices of Mx Hunt, the Preparatory teacher under study.</p> <p>Bernstein utilises the theoretical notion of <emph>framing</emph> to differentiate between visible and invisible pedagogies. The concept of control over the transmission of knowledge in the pedagogic setting characterises framing. Framing concerns "who controls what" in the pedagogic relationship (Bernstein, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref77">11</reflink>], p. 12). Bernstein theorises that framing can be strong (explicit, intentional, and visible) or weak (implicit and invisible). Bernsteinian researchers use relative indicators of framing strength to signify the degree of control: F– (very weak), F- (weak), F+ (strong), and F++ (very strong) (see Brosseuk, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref78">14</reflink>]; Kervin et al., [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref79">34</reflink>]; Morais & Neves, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref80">42</reflink>]; Sanders-Smith, [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref81">56</reflink>]). Using framing to distinguish visible and invisible pedagogies enables careful consideration of teachers' pedagogic practices, providing a means of looking at, theorising about, and researching classroom-based pedagogy (Bernstein, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref82">10</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref83">11</reflink>]).</p> <p>Although framing acts as an analytic lens to support an exploration of visible and invisible pedagogies as distinct forms, framing can also show "a pedagogic palette where mixes can take place" (Bernstein, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref84">11</reflink>], p. 56). That's to say, mixing teacher-led and child-led pedagogies can occur (Brosseuk et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref85">15</reflink>]; Kervin et al., [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref86">34</reflink>]). Australian researchers have coined different terms to describe pedagogic mixing, such as "shifting pedagogies" (Doyle, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref87">20</reflink>]), "weaving" (Exley & Richard-Bossez, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref88">22</reflink>]), and "crossing the pedagogic midline" (Brosseuk, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref89">14</reflink>]). While mixing pedagogies is not new, its significance lies within the context of children's writing experiences increasingly being tied to performing well on high-stakes, standardised test-based writing. Therefore, mixing weakly framed and invisible practices with strongly framed and visible practices can be a useful way for early years teachers to conceptualise how to meet the demands of high-stakes writing assessments while cultivating children's confidence to write and be lovers of writing.</p> <hd id="AN0187189962-7">Methodology</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0187189962-8">Research Context</hd> <p>The study was enacted in a Preparatory classroom at a metropolitan all-boys Preparatory to Year 12 school in Queensland, Australia. In the Australian context, children commencing Preparatory are five years of age in the year they enrol. The research school site was chosen due to the school being an advocate of two Australian early years framing documents: (a) Age-appropriate Pedagogies (Queensland Government, [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref90">47</reflink>]) and (b) The Early Years Learning Framework (Australian Government Department of Education, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref91">4</reflink>]). Both documents report valuing a pedagogic mix of teacher-led (explicit and intentional) and child-led (active, agentic, collaborative, creative, and playful) practices in daily teaching.</p> <hd id="AN0187189962-9">Participants and Ethical Considerations</hd> <p>The study involved fourteen five- and six-year-old children and their teacher, Mx Hunt. Mx Hunt has fifteen years of teaching experience in Australian and international classrooms. At the time of the study, Mx Hunt had been working as a Preparatory teacher for three years. I obtained informed written consent from Mx Hunt, the school principal, the school board of governors, and the parents/caregivers of the fourteen children. The picture book <emph>What Do You Do With A Problem</emph> (Yamada & Besom, [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref92">62</reflink>]) was used as an age-appropriate resource to help children understand the study's purpose and their role in the research. All fourteen children expressed their willingness to participate. To ensure ongoing assent, questions such as "Would you like to tell me about what you've done?", "Is it okay if you show me?" and "I'm not sure why, can you explain?" were posed. This is important as children can voice their thoughts and opinions, raise questions, and be listened to regarding things involving them (United Nations, [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref93">58</reflink>]). All ethical requirements were met and approved by the Research Ethics Committee of [redacted] University (Approval number 2017/341).</p> <hd id="AN0187189962-10">Data Collection and Analysis</hd> <p>Pedagogic documentation was used to record and capture children's writing experiences during LAUNCH. Drawing on the Reggio Emilia philosophy of education, this type of documentation is helpful in "making pedagogical work visible and subject to dialogue, interpretation, contestation, and transformation" (Edwards et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref94">21</reflink>], p. 225). There are two ways in which pedagogic documentation was created. Firstly, I used four iPads mounted on tripods, each with microphones designed for professional video and television productions and approximately 64 h of recorded data chronicled Mx Hunt and the fourteen children talking, listening, reading, writing, drawing, questioning, designing, sketching, labelling, and building. I transcribed audio data from the video recordings. To protect the children's identities, pseudonyms were assigned. Secondly, I collected children's artefacts, including but not limited to design sketches, emails, letters, invitations, 3D models, labels, interview scripts, video-recorded announcements, and thank-you cards. Across the fourteen children, approximately 70 artefacts were collected.</p> <p>Both methods of pedagogic documentation netted the complexity of Mx Hunt's pedagogic practices and the children's writing experiences.</p> <p>The data analysis process was done using a methodical, step-by-step approach. As Lochmiller ([<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref95">37</reflink>]) suggests, time was invested in preparing the data for analysis. First, the data transcripts were compared to the original recordings. Photographic data in screenshots were added to transcripts to describe Mx Hunt's pedagogy practices. Next, deductive coding was used to analyse the data transcripts for Bernstein's visible and invisible pedagogy ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref96">10</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref97">12</reflink>]). Theoretical descriptions were developed, drawing on the early work of Morias ([<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref98">45</reflink>]) and the more recent work of Kervin et al. ([<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref99">34</reflink>]), Koustourakis et al. ([<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref100">35</reflink>]) and Sanders-Smith ([<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref101">56</reflink>]), to help analyse the data (see Table 1). The question "Who controls the pedagogic relationship?" was asked of the data transcripts. This helped show both visible and invisible pedagogies employed by Mx Hunt. Then, Post-it notes were used to mark sentences and chunks of sentences to record and identify these pedagogies.</p> <p>Finally, indicators of framing strength were added to help the interpretive stage of the analysis. Data from 120 Post-it notes were used to create vignettes of Mx Hunt's pedagogic practices and the writing experiences of the fourteen Preparatory children. Whilst these vignettes represent the data, the study does not aim to generalise to broader early years educational contexts. Rather, its purpose is to shed "empirical light" (Yin, [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref102">63</reflink>], p. 40) to better understand Mx Hunt's mixing of teacher-led (explicit, skills-based) and child-led (active, agentic, collaborative, creative) practices.</p> <p>Table 1 Theoretical descriptions of Bernstein's pedagogic types: visible and invisible</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left"><p>Type of pedagogic practices</p></th><th align="left"><p>Indicators of framing control</p></th><th align="left"><p>Preparatory teacher</p></th><th align="left"><p>Preparatory children</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left" rowspan="4"><p>Pedagogic</p><p>Relationship</p></td><td align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Visible Pedagogy</p></td><td align="left"><p>F ++</p></td><td align="left"><p>Mx Hunt has <bold>very strong</bold> control. Mx Hunt chooses, decides, tell, directs, and instructs.</p></td><td align="left"><p>Children have <bold>very weak</bold> control. They watch, listen and wait.</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>F +</p></td><td align="left"><p>Mx Hunt has <bold>strong</bold> control. Mx Hunt guides, scaffold, offers, shows, provides, and supports.</p></td><td align="left"><p>Children have <bold>weak</bold> control. They mostly watch, listen, and wait.</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Invisible Pedagogy</p></td><td align="left"><p>F -</p></td><td align="left"><p>Mx Hunt has <bold>weak</bold> control. Mx Hunt asks questions, makes suggestions, and puts forward ideas.</p></td><td align="left"><p>Children have <bold>strong</bold> control. They guide, scaffold, offer, show, provide, and support.</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>F - -</p></td><td align="left"><p>Mx Hunt has <bold>very weak</bold> control. Mx Hunt watches, listens, and waits.</p></td><td align="left"><p>Children have <bold>very strong</bold> control. They choose, decide, tell, direct, and instruct.</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0187189962-11">Findings</hd> <p>As presented in Table 2, the pedagogic writing framework LAUNCH permitted children the time and space to work individually or collaboratively on ideas with a social, moral, or humanitarian base. Over four weeks, children engaged in varied writing forms, which embodied people, different communication modes, and physical and digital materials. Examples included creating a set of new Pokémon character cards, a video interview, an updated three-dimensional Star Wars Millennium Falcon model complete with descriptive labels, a persuasive video about rubbish, design sketches, digital invitations, and paper-based thank you cards. Children's artefacts captured writing in its broadest form (Baroutsis, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref103">7</reflink>]; Kuby et al., [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref104">36</reflink>]).</p> <p>Table 2 Children's ideas and writing</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Child</p></th><th align="left"><p>LAUNCH Idea</p></th><th align="left"><p>Action</p></th><th align="left"><p>Children's Artefacts</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Hamish</p></td><td align="left"><p>How can the defence system of the <italic>Millennium Falcon</italic> be improved?</p></td><td align="left"><p>Redesign of the Millennium Falcon's defence system</p></td><td align="left"><p>Research jottings</p><p>Design sketch with labels</p><p>Materials list</p><p>3D model with labels</p><p>Photographs</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Jonah</p></td><td align="left"><p>What might a three-type Pokémon look like?</p></td><td align="left"><p>Creation of new Pokémon character cards</p></td><td align="left"><p>Research jottings</p><p>Design sketch with labels</p><p>Pokémon cards</p><p>Photographs</p><p>Collectors book</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Bailey</p><p>Luca</p></td><td align="left"><p>Could a team sport be played underwater?</p></td><td align="left"><p>Development of a new underwater soccer game</p></td><td align="left"><p>Research jottings</p><p>Design sketch with labels</p><p>Materials list</p><p>Playing instructions</p><p>Video explanation</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Braiden</p><p>Jesse</p><p>Jack</p><p>Floyd</p></td><td align="left"><p>What was it like playing for Manchester United?</p></td><td align="left"><p>Interview with Mr Swords</p></td><td align="left"><p>Questions list</p><p>Email invitation</p><p>Thankyou card</p><p>Video interview</p><p>Photographs</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Connor</p></td><td align="left"><p>What will keep me from falling onto the train track?</p></td><td align="left"><p>3D designed solution of a kids-safe train platform</p></td><td align="left"><p>Research jottings</p><p>Design sketch with labels</p><p>3D model with labels</p><p>Photographs</p><p>Video explanation</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Jim</p><p>Max</p><p>Sam</p><p>Finn</p></td><td align="left"><p>Where is the flying fox?</p></td><td align="left"><p>Request for a flying fox in the Preparatory playground</p></td><td align="left"><p>Letter</p><p>Materials list</p><p>3D model with labels</p><p>Photographs</p><p>Video argument</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Flynn</p></td><td align="left"><p>How big is big?</p></td><td align="left"><p>Investigation into the height of three dinosaurs</p></td><td align="left"><p>Research jottings</p><p>Design sketch with labels</p><p>Drone recording</p><p>Thankyou card</p><p>Analytic image</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Kaelan</p></td><td align="left"><p>How do we keep the ibis birds away from the food?</p></td><td align="left"><p>Video recorded school announcement about picking up rubbish.</p></td><td align="left"><p>Research jottings</p><p>Persuasive poster</p><p>Recorded video</p><p>Design sketch with labels</p><p>3D model with labels</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p> <emph>Note</emph> Adapted from Brosseuk, ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref105">14</reflink>])</p> <hd id="AN0187189962-12">Vignette 1: Writers Need Time and Space to Latch onto an Idea</hd> <p>When Mx Hunt read the picture book <emph>What do you do with an idea?</emph> there was a flurry of conversation around "What is an idea?" and "How do you make an idea grow into something meaningful?". Mx Hunt knew that if children were given time and space to talk and wonder, they would latch onto a meaningful idea. Moreover, most children did. Jim, Max, Sam, and Finn were bothered by the school playground's lack of "fun" equipment. "It's so boring," Finn sighed. Jonah was "so over" dull Pokémon characters. Moreover, Kaelan was frustrated by ibis birds constantly "hanging around" the outdoor eating area. Invisible pedagogy, or very weak framing (F - -), saw Mx Hunt watch, listen, and wait while children talked about their ideas. Here, Mx Hunt had very weak control over the pedagogic relationship. When Mx Hunt sensed that children were ready to formalise their ideas by writing, sketching, and drawing, Mx Hunt asked questions and made suggestions for possible next steps. Framing control strengthened from very weak (F - -) to weak (F -).</p> <p>However, not all children quickly latched onto an idea, which Mx Hunt had not expected. The main problem these children faced was that their ideas were too big and too broad. When Mx Hunt asked Flynn to share his idea, he replied, "Umm, dinosaurs". Luca said, "I like jet skis." Other ideas from some of Flynn's and Luca's classmates were just as broad: Star Wars, soccer, games, and the Millennium Falcon. Floyd shrugged and simply said, "I don't know." It was clear that these children needed guidance. Here, the pedagogic relationship strengthened from very weak control (F - -) to strong control (F +). For example, Mx Hunt provided information books about the Millennium Falcon for Hamish and showed its features, such as quad laser turrets, smuggling compartments, and retractable repeating blasters. While Mx Hunt talked about these features, Hamish mostly watched and listened. Framing control of the pedagogic relationship was then relinquished back to Hamish by asking, "What do you think?" (F -), allowing him the freedom to express his thoughts and ideas. It further weakened (F - -) when Mx Hunt allowed Hamish to decide and choose, "I'm doing the blasters...make them better...and bigger!".</p> <hd id="AN0187189962-13">Vignette 2: Writers Know What They Need</hd> <p>When Flynn wanted to know, "How big is big?" he knew what he needed. Using an iPad to Google, he researched the heights of three dinosaurs: a Brachiosaurus, a Nothosaurus, and a Tyrannosaurus Rex. He wanted to share this information via a drone, capturing a to-scale representation of a Brachiosaurus, a Nothosaurus, and a Tyrannosaurus Rex (see Fig. 2). When Mx Hunt asked, "How will you know how big 26 meters is?", Flynn knew he needed help. Mx Hunt listened and waited as Flynn shared his ideas about how to represent 26 m. Here, Mx Hunt had very weak control (F - -) of the pedagogic relationship. It was Flynn who chose and decided to use 26 m rulers. However, when Flynn struggled to put this idea into practice, the pedagogic relationship strengthened from very weak (F - -) to weak framing (F -). "What about our buddies? Could they help"? suggested Mx Hunt.</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 2 Representation of a Brachiosaurus, a Nothosaurus, and a Tyrannosaurus Rex</p> <p>The pedagogic relationship strengthened even further once it was decided to write a letter to the Year Four buddies, asking them to act as a human measuring stick. Mx Hunt took control by deciding what needed to be explicitly taught. Visible pedagogy, or very strongly framed control (F ++), allowed Mx Hunt to tell and instruct while Flynn watched and listened. Mx Hunt taught the vital knowledge and skills of writing a letter. This included mandated English curriculum knowledge related to phonics and word knowledge (AC9EFLY10; AC9EFLY13), expressing and developing ideas (AC9EFLA05; AC9EFLA09), and text structure and organisation (AC9EFLA04). Framing weakened from very strong (F++) to very weak (F - -) when Mx Hunt gave Flynn time and space to practice the knowledge and skills explicitly taught. This was indicated by comments such as, "OK, let me know if you need me." and "I'll check back in with you later."</p> <p>Next, Flynn decided he needed the deputy principal's megaphone "to tell them where to go". This would require another letter (see Fig. 3). Flynn knew he needed support with focused phonics knowledge and skills. So, Mx Hunt used visible pedagogy, or strong framing (F +), to help guide and scaffold Flynn in segmenting and blending sounds in the word 'megaphone'.</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 3 Flynn's letter to the deputy principal reads: Dear Mister X, Can we borrow the megaphone? From Flynn</p> <p>Mx Hunt: Okay...let's segment the sounds together. Get your fingers ready [Mx Hunt and Flynn hold up their hand with a closed fist].</p> <p>Flynn: Yep.</p> <p>Mx Hunt: /m/ [holds up one finger]...what letter makes the sound /m/?</p> <p>Flynn: M.</p> <p>Mx Hunt: Great. Good job. Let's write that down [Mx Hunt writes the letter M on a mini whiteboard]. Let's do the next one together.</p> <p>Like Flynn, other children knew what they needed. For example, Kaelan decided, "I want to use Explain Everything," he said, "to draw." Mx Hunt knew this app had helped Kaelan feel safe and supported in writing, drawing, and creating. "Of course!" Mx Hunt replied. As Mx Hunt watched and waited, Kaelan explored invented spelling to create the label digitally "Please pick up your rubbish." However, when Kaelan grappled with the long vowel sound /ë/, the pedagogic relationship strengthened from very weak (F - -) to very strong framing (F++). "Let me show you the spelling choices," Mx Hunt said. Mx Hunt used an Elkonin box template to segment the word "please" into phonemes carefully and explained that the digraph /ea/ makes the long vowel sound /ë/. This left Kaelan with little control over what phonics and word knowledge (AC9EFLY13) was learned. He watched, listened, and waited while Mx Hunt directed and instructed.</p> <hd id="AN0187189962-14">Vignette 3: Writers like to Cooperate and Collaborate</hd> <p>Invisible pedagogy, or very weak framing (F - -), permitted Jim, Max, Sam, and Finn to choose to work in the whole-class meeting area on their flying fox design. Mx Hunt watched and listened. At the same time, Connor decided to sketch his design solution for a kids-safe train platform at a nearby group table. Again, Mx Hunt watched and listened. As the children sketched and wrote labels, they conversed and checked on each other. They sometimes came together and asked each other questions about their sketches to understand the 'what', 'why', and 'how' of their designs. When Hamish called out a flaw in the design of the flying fox, Jim, Max, Sam, and Finn are stunned. "Yeah, but how do you stop," Hamish asked, "won't you keep going...and crash?" This time of togetherness helped Jim, Max, Sam, and Finn see that their design needed work.</p> <p>Mx Hunt used visible pedagogy, or very strong framing (F++), to teach knowledge and skills of writing a list of materials to fix their design flaw. This included mandated English curriculum knowledge of text structure and organisation (AC9EFLA03) and phonics and word knowledge (AC9EFLY13). Framing weakened from very strong (F++) to very weak (F - -) when Mx Hunt gave Jim, Max, Sam, and Finn time and space to practice the knowledge and skills explicitly taught. Upon realising the need for guidance and support, Mx Hunt took more control of the pedagogic relationship (F+). Together, Mx Hunt and Jim, Max, Sam, and Finn segmented and blended words such as 'sponge' and 'foam.' It weakened (F --) when Mx Hunt said, "Okay, I'll leave you boys to keep working on your list". Jim, Max, Sam, and Finn reworked their flawed design, added labels "sponge stopper" and "soft landing", and shared them with Hamish for feedback. During LAUNCH, there were numerous instances of invisible pedagogy, or very weak framing (F - -) to allow children to cooperate and collaborate. The following sample comments are illustrative.</p> <p>"How do you spell wool. What's makes the /oo/?" ~ Max.</p> <p>"I don't know what to write....do I need something here?" ~ Finn.</p> <p>"It's on the wall....there." [points to the sight word 'put'] ~ Braiden.</p> <p>"Is it e or double e?" ~ Bailey.</p> <p>"Where? Show me?" ~ Bailey.</p> <p>"You can't put it there. It's too small. You can't see it" [digital label] ~ Jesse.</p> <p>"Where's the delete....the button...to delete" ~ Luca.</p> <p>"It looks like a chicken! Not a T-Rex! [Laughs] You need to put arms there! ~ Jesse.</p> <hd id="AN0187189962-15">Vignette 4: Writers Adore a Real Audience</hd> <p>On June 14th, children invited parents/caregivers to a LAUNCH Exhibition to celebrate their writing, drawings, and creations. Visible pedagogy, or strong framing (F+), permitted the fourteen children to collaborate with Mx Hunt to create the invitation (see Fig. 4). At times, framing strengthened to very strong (F++) when children needed explicit teaching of the vital knowledge and skills of writing an invitation (ACEFLA03) and using knowledge of letters and sounds to write words like 'June' and 'Exhibition' (AC9EFLY13). The pedagogic relationship weakened to very weak (F- -) when children took control of choosing the spelling of high-frequency words and other familiar words such as 'Prep' and 'Wednesday.' The LAUNCH Exhibition allowed children to share their work with a real-life audience for a real-world reason. Jonah eagerly told his Dad the power of his brand-new Pokémon character, while Kaelan proudly showed his persuasive poster to the visiting Year Six class. The principal was impressed by Hamish's improved defence system of the Millennium Falcon. Children's artifacts were displayed for all to read, view, listen to, and respond to. Of course, the bonus of accessing a real-world audience was that the children were proud of their skilled, creative writing, as well as their social collaboration and engagement in joyful writing.</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 4 The LAUNCH Exhibition invitation reads: You are invited to attend our LAUNCH exhibition! Wednesday 14 June in the Preparatory rooms</p> <hd id="AN0187189962-16">Discussion and Reflection</hd> <p>Children's writing experiences are discussed by drawing attention to their Preparatory teacher, Mx Hunt,'s pedagogic practices. This discussion highlights the mixing of Bernstein's two types of pedagogies, visible and invisible. As previously mentioned, mixing pedagogies is not new; however, its value lies in supporting early years teachers to better balance preparing children to perform well on high-stakes writing assessments in later years while nurturing their confidence to write and be lovers of writing.</p> <p>Mx Hunt's practices enacting the pedagogic framework LAUNCH mixed visible and invisible pedagogies. At times, pedagogies were weakly or very weakly framed and invisible (active, agentic, collaborative, creative, playful), as well as practices that were strongly or very strongly framed and visible (explicit, instructional, intentional). This pedagogic mix is characteristic of a continuum of control, ranging from what Bernstein ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref106">12</reflink>]) refers to as progressive pedagogies (invisible) to conservative/traditional pedagogies (visible). From a progressive perspective, invisible pedagogies saw Mx Hunt's sense of pedagogic responsibility shaped by children's joyful and creative writing experiences. Mx Hunt actively involved children in learning about writing and creating, acknowledging their inherent strengths, interests, and abilities. In contrast, traditional pedagogies saw Mx Hunt prioritising children's achievement in assessable writing skills. Mx Hunt used highly structured, explicit teaching to teach mandated writing knowledge and skills. Children adopted a more passive role during this time, quietly absorbing knowledge and skills. This mix demonstrates Mx Hunt's thinking centred on balancing considerations across the zones of pedagogy, children's writing experiences, and writing curriculum expectations. Careful attention was paid to the interrelatedness of pedagogy and government-mandated assessment systems, through the apparent purposefulness in picking pedagogic types – visible or invisible.</p> <p>However, tensions and challenges are inherent in implementing Bernstein's two types of pedagogic practice. Within an educational landscape typified by the preparation of children for high-stakes writing assessments, weakly framed and invisible pedagogy often remains a last choice or add-on for early years teachers (Barblett et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref107">6</reflink>]; Jay & Knaus, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref108">33</reflink>]; Roberts et al., [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref109">51</reflink>]; Rogers et al., [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref110">53</reflink>]). For some, time and space to think deeply about, and practically explore pedagogic mixing may be limited (Bernstein, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref111">11</reflink>]). Whilst teachers' sense of pedagogic responsibility towards agentic, collaborative, and creative teaching may be apparent, a political pursuit of public accountability and transparency has inevitably led to a focus on high-stakes, assessable writing products (Jay & Knaus, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref112">33</reflink>]). This becomes worrying when more conservative/traditional, visible pedagogic practices become the default pedagogy (Dar, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref113">19</reflink>]). Teachers are, therefore, forced to handle such tensions at a very personal level in their daily teaching experiences.</p> <p>This raises the question, then, can a pedagogic framework like LAUNCH be a useful way to meet the demands of preparing Preparatory children to sit high-stakes, standardised writing tests in later years while staying true to the essential writing practices backed by literacy experts such as Graves ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref114">27</reflink>]), Harwayne ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref115">30</reflink>]), and Calkins ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref116">16</reflink>])? Mx Hunt's mixing of pedagogic practices is one example of reaching a better balance. Teachers, principals, and education policymakers must see such practical examples to illuminate a close study of practice. In doing so, it provides moments of reflection on what may be possible while highlighting potential pitfalls of a binary type of thinking, that is, visible pedagogy on the one hand or invisible pedagogy on the other. An unintended consequence of adopting an either/or position is that children may miss out on writing experiences that are explicit and structured or implicit and less structured. There was no need to reach a compromise between the two types of pedagogies or try to devalue one over the other (see Fig. 5).</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 5 A pedagogic mix</p> <p>The study's findings also contribute to an understanding that mixed pedagogies can act as a lever for children to write in different ways and forms. This was evident in children's artefacts presented in Table 2. Mx Hunt's mixing of visible and invisible pedagogies allowed children time, space, and freedom to show what they could do as storytellers, writers, drawers, and creators (Graves, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref117">27</reflink>]; Harwayne, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref118">30</reflink>]; Calkins ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref119">16</reflink>]). Mx Hunt did not expect writing to be linguistic, nor was it known which materials to use. Mx Hunt was open to talking and negotiating within each child's LAUNCH idea, using space, writing tools and materials, and formats to meet children's chosen 2D or 3D paper-based, digital, and live writing experiences. Simply put, children were not restricted to producing a paper-based linguistic act. Instead, children could actively think about, record, and communicate experiences, ideas, and information that involves "other people, modes, space, language, and bodies" (Kuby et al., [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref120">36</reflink>], p. 398). Therefore, children's writing experiences were not "restrictive and formulaic" (McGaw et al., [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref121">43</reflink>], p. 99).</p> <p>As a result, children understood that writing involved much more than learning a writing genre with its assessable skills and producing it. On the contrary, writing is a means of creating, jotting, drawing, labelling, noting, and researching. The implication of this for children is that they have authentic, meaningful chances to show <emph>both</emph> known and unknown writing competencies and capabilities. For example, when Flynn created an analytic image of a Tyrannosaurus Rex, it was not known to Mx Hunt that he had knowledge of the digraph /aw/ when writing the word 'claw'. Also, it was unknown to Mx Hunt that Connor knew how some high-frequency words and other subject-specific words like 'train', 'fall', and 'safe.' This English knowledge may not have been evident in preparations for a standardised writing test. This resonates with the early advice of Harwayne ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref122">30</reflink>]) and, more recently, Calkins ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref123">17</reflink>]), who assert that offering children choices of topic, writing materials, time, and space can reveal unknowns, cultivating the.</p> <p>expansion of their identities as writers.</p> <p>Findings of this small-scale Australian study have to be viewed in light of some limitations. The first relates to the small sample of Mx Hunt and the fourteen Preparatory children. This paper does not aim to generalise findings to other Preparatory classroom contexts in Australia or beyond. The second limitation is the pedagogic framework LAUNCH. It is a singular pedagogic framework with particular ways of working. Consideration is needed of the impact of these ways of working on other classroom structures within other contexts or schooling systems. However, this prompts recommendations for further research on similar or new ways of working across more varied early years schooling contexts.</p> <hd id="AN0187189962-17">Final Thoughts</hd> <p>This Australian study introduces the potential of the pedagogic framework LAUNCH. Pedagogic documentation captured fourteen Preparatory children's writing experiences to see the possibilities of a pedagogic mix of visible pedagogy (teacher-led, explicit) and invisible pedagogy (child-led, implicit). However, the chance to mix pedagogies appears to raise some tensions among early years teachers, given the increase in assessment-focused writing experiences in Australia (Barblett et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref124">6</reflink>]; Jay & Knaus, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref125">33</reflink>]; Roberts et al., [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref126">51</reflink>]; Rogers et al., [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref127">53</reflink>]). There is a risk of defaulting to a more visible pedagogy. Therefore, it is critical to share examples of how early years teachers can prepare children to do well on high-stakes standardised writing tests in later years, with pedagogies that are weakly framed and invisible (active, agentic, collaborative, creative, playful), as well as practices that were strongly framed and visible (explicit, instructional, intentional). In doing so, the door is opened for reflective and collegial conversation between teachers and principals, school administrators, and education policymakers. This is important if we want to flourish the ontological possibilities of children as skilled, capable, confident writers and, most importantly, as lovers of writing.</p> <hd id="AN0187189962-18">Acknowledgements</hd> <p>The author is responsible for the correctness of the statements provided in the manuscript.</p> <hd id="AN0187189962-19">Funding</hd> <p>No funding, grants, or other support was received for conducting this study or for preparing the manuscript.</p> <p>Open Access funding enabled and organized by CAUL and its Member Institutions</p> <hd id="AN0187189962-20">Data Availability</hd> <p>The author has no affiliations with or involvement in any organisation or entity with any financial interest or non-financial interest in the subject matter or materials discussed in this manuscript.</p> <hd id="AN0187189962-21">Publisher's Note</hd> <p>Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.</p> <ref id="AN0187189962-22"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref7" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> About Prep (2022).). Queensland Government Education. https://education.qld.gov.au/schools-educators/ecec/about-prep</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref33" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Australian Education Research Organisation (2022). Writing development: What does a decade of NAPLAN data reveal? Retrieved from https://<ulink href="http://www.edresearch.edu.au/sites/default/files/2022-10/writing-development-summary-aa.pdf">www.edresearch.edu.au/sites/default/files/2022-10/writing-development-summary-aa.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref35" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority. (2016). NAP - NAPLAN. NAP National Assessment Program. https://<ulink href="http://www.nap.edu.au/naplan">www.nap.edu.au/naplan</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref91" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Australian Government Department of Education (2022). Belonging, being and becoming: The early years learning framework for Australia (V2.0). Australian Government Department of Education for the Ministerial Council. https://<ulink href="http://www.acecqa.gov.au/sites/default/files/2023-01/EYLF-2022-V2.0.pdf">www.acecqa.gov.au/sites/default/files/2023-01/EYLF-2022-V2.0.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref9" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Bahlmann Bollinger, C. M, & Myers, J. K. (2019). Young Children's writing in play-based classrooms. Early Childhood Education Journal, 48(2). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-019-00990-0</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref44" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Barblett, L, Knaus, M, & Barratt-Pugh, C. (2016). The pushes and pulls of pedagogy in the early years: Competing knowledges and the erosion of play-based learning. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 41(4), https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A485989389/AONE?u=anon~9da37047&sid=bookmark-AONE&xid=da3cca37</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref103" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Baroutsis A, Kervin L, Woods A, Comber B. Understanding children's perspectives of classroom writing practices through drawings. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood. 2017; 20; 2: 177-193. 10.1177/1463949117741743</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref68" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Baumgarten, B. & Otoshi, K. (2015). Beautiful Hands. Blue Dot Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref62" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Beaty, A, & Roberts, D. (2017). Rosie Revere, engineer. Abrams Books For Young Readers.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bernstein B. Class and pedagogies: Visible and invisible. Educational Studies. 1975; 1; 1: 23-41. 10.1080/0305569750010105</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bernstein, B. (2000). Pedagogy, symbolic control, and identity: Theory, research, critique. Rowman & Littlefield Books.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bernstein, B. (2003). Class, codes and control volume 3: Theoretical studies towards a sociology of language. Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bingham GE, Gerde HK. Early childhood teachers' writing beliefs and practices. Frontiers in Psychology. 2023. 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1236652</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Brosseuk, D. (2021). Mixing performance and competence pedagogic orientations to assessment of writing and text production in the early years. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 25(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/14639491221098775</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Brosseuk, D, Exley, B, & Neumann, M. (2019). You Know, I Could Trip and Fall Onto the Track!: Inspiring Text Production. The Reading Teacher, 73(4). https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1865</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Calkins, L. (1994). The art of teaching writing. Heinemann.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Calkins, L. (2020). Teaching writing. Heinemann.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Calkins L, Ehrenworth M. Growing extraordinary writers: Leadership decisions to raise the Level of Writing across a School and a District. The Reading Teacher. 2016; 70; 1: 7-18. 10.1002/trtr.1499</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dar WA. Pedagogy for its own sake: Teacher's beliefs about activity-based learning in rural government schools of Kashmir. Quality Assurance in Education. 2021; 29; 2/3: 311-327. 10.1108/qae-01-2021-0013</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Doyle, K. M. (2011). Mapping the language of science and science teaching practicesPhD thesis, Queensland University of Technology.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Edwards, C. P, Gandini, L, & Forman, G. (1998). The hundred languages of children: the Reggio Emilia approach–advanced reflections. In Ablex Pub. Corp. eBooks. <ulink href="http://ci.nii.ac.jp/ncid/BA37453108">http://ci.nii.ac.jp/ncid/BA37453108</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Exley B, Richard-Bossez A. The ABCs of Teaching Alphabet Knowledge: Affordances and challenges of 'Weaving' visible and invisible pedagogies. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood. 2013; 14; 4: 345-356. 10.2304/ciec.2013.14.4.345</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Friddle, K, & Ivey, G. (2023). Motivate and engage our Youngest writers. The Reading Teacher, 77(3). https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.2251</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gannon S, Dove J. Artefacts, practices and pedagogies: Teaching writing in English in the NAPLAN era. The Australian Educational Researcher. 2021; 48; 4: 657-679. 10.1007/s13384-020-00416-6</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gerde, H. K, Seymour, T, Bingham, G. E, & Quinn, M. F. (2024). Promoting Early Writing Across the School Day. The Reading Teacher. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.2277</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Graham, S. (2018). A Revised Writer(s)-Within-Community Model of Writing. Educational Psychologist, 53(4), 258–279. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2018.1481406</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Graves, D. (1983). Writing: Teachers & children at Work. Heinemann.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Graves, D. H. (1994). A fresh look at writing. Heinemann.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gray, P. L, & Seiki, S. (2020). Institutional Performativity Pressure and First-Year. Teachers Frontiers in Education, 5, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2020.00071</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Harwayne, S. (2000). Lifetime Guarantees. Heinemann Educational Books.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Howie M. Problematizing the problem of writing in the NSW curriculum: A call for a (re)turn to practice. Curriculum Perspectives. 2023. 10.1007/s41297-023-00221-y</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> https://<ulink href="http://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/convention-rights-child">www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/convention-rights-child</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jay J, Knaus M. Embedding play-based learning into Junior Primary (Year 1 and 2) curriculum in WA. Australian Journal of Teacher Education. 2018; 43; 1: 112-126. 10.14221/ajte.2018v43n1.7</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kervin, L, Turbill, J, & Harden-Thew, K. (2017). Invisible to visible: Mapping the Continuum of Literacy Learning Experiences in an Early Years Setting. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 17(4), 465–484 https://doi.org/10.1177/1468798416638139</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Koustourakis G, Zacharos K, Papadimitriou K. Teaching pre-school Mathematics and influences by the Kindergarten school social context: A preliminary study. Review of Science Mathematics and ICT Education. 2014; 8; 1: 81-99</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kuby CR, Rucker TG, Kirchhofer JM. Go be a writer': Intra-activity with materials, time and space in literacy learning. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy. 2015; 15; 3: 394-419. 10.1177/1468798414566702</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lochmiller C. Conducting thematic analysis with qualitative data. The Qualitative Report. 2021; 26; 6: 2029-2044. 10.46743/2160-3715/2021.5008</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Luyken, C. (2017). The book of mistakes. Dial Books For Young Readers.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Macqueen S, Knoch U, Wigglesworth G, Nordlinger R, Singer R, McNamara T, Brickle R. The impact of national standardized literacy and numeracy testing on children and teaching staff in remote Australian indigenous communities. Language Testing. 2018; 36; 2: 265-287. 10.1177/0265532218775758</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Malpique A, Pino-Pasternak D, Roberto MS. Writing and reading performance in Year 1 Australian classrooms: Associations with handwriting automaticity and writing instruction. Reading and Writing. 2020; 33; 3: 783-805. 10.1007/s11145-019-09994-z</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Malpique A, Valcan D, Pino-Pasternak D, Ledger S. Teaching writing in primary education (grades 1–6) in Australia: A national survey. Reading and Writing. 2022; 36; 1: 119-145. 10.1007/s11145-022-10294-2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mantei J, Kervin L. Examining literacy demands children during teacher-led episodes of reading aloud across the transition from Preschool to Kindergarten. The Australian Journal of Language and Literacy. 2018; 41; 2: 82</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McGaw, B, Louden, W, & Wyatt-Smith, C. (2020). NAPLAN Review Final Report. https://naplanreview.com.au/pdfs/2020_NAPLAN_review_final_report.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McLean, E. (2022). Writing and writing instruction: An overview of the literature. Australian Education Research Organisation. https://<ulink href="http://www.edresearch.edu.au/sites/default/files/2022-02/writing-instruction-literature-review.pdf">www.edresearch.edu.au/sites/default/files/2022-02/writing-instruction-literature-review.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Morais AM. Basil Bernstein at the Micro Level of the Classroom. British Journal of Sociology of Education. 2002; 23; 4: 559-569. 10.1080/0142569022000038413</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development [OECD] Future of Education and Skills 2030 (2019). OECD. https://<ulink href="http://www.oecd.org/education/2030-project/teaching-and-learning/learning/learning-compass-2030/OECD%5fLearning%5fCompass%5f2030%5fConcept%5fNote%5fSeries.pdf">www.oecd.org/education/2030-project/teaching-and-learning/learning/learning-compass-2030/OECD%5fLearning%5fCompass%5f2030%5fConcept%5fNote%5fSeries.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Queensland Government (2018). Age-appropriate pedagogies. Early Childhood Education and Care. https://earlychildhood.qld.gov.au/early-years/age-appropriate-pedagogies</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reynolds, P. H. (2003). The dot. Library Ideas.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reynolds, P. H. (2019a). Ish. Library Ideas.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reynolds, P. H. (2019b). Sky color. Library Ideas.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Roberts P, Barblett L, Robinson K. Early years teachers' perspectives on the effects of NAPLAN on stakeholder wellbeing and the impact on early years pedagogy and curriculum. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood. 2019; 44; 3: 309-320. 10.1177/1836939119855562</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Roberts-Holmes G, Bradbury A. The datafication of early years education and its impact upon pedagogy. Improving Schools. 2016; 19; 2: 119-128. 10.1177/1365480216651519</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rogers SL, Barblett L, Robinson K. Parent and teacher perceptions of NAPLAN in a sample of independent schools in Western Australia. The Australian Educational Researcher. 2018; 45; 4: 493-513. 10.1007/s13384-018-0270-2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rowe, D. (2018). The Unrealized Promise of Emergent writing. Reimagining the Way Forward for Early Writing Instruction. Language Arts, 95(4), 229–241.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rowe, D. W, Shimizu, A. Y, & Davis, Z. G. (2021).Essential Practices for Engaging Young Children as Writers Lessons from Expert Early writing teachers. The Reading Teacher, 75(4). https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.2066</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sanders-Smith, S. (2015). Class and pedagogy: A case study of two Chicago preschools. International Studies In Sociology of Education, 25(4), 314–332. https://doi.org/10.1080/09620214.2015.1083406</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Spires, A. (2017). The most magnificent thing. Kids Can Press Ltd.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> United Nations. (1989). Convention on the rights of the child. OHCHR; United Nations.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wilson, T. (2015). The cow tripped over the Moon. Scholastic.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wyatt-Smith, C, Jackson, C, Borooah, V, & Whalley, K. (2018). Teaching Writing Report of the Thematic Review of Writing. NSW Education Standards Authority. https://<ulink href="http://www.nsw.gov.au/sites/default/files/2022-11/NESA-report-teaching-writing-thematic-review.pdf">www.nsw.gov.au/sites/default/files/2022-11/NESA-report-teaching-writing-thematic-review.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yamada, K, & Besom, M. (2014). What do you do with an idea? Compendium Kids.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yamada, K, & Besom, M. (2016). What do you do with a problem? Compendium Kids.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yin, R. K. (2018). Case Study Research and Applications: Design and Methods (6th ed.). Sage Publications.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Deb Brosseuk</p> <p>Reported by Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref64"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref66"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref69"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref71"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref73"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref74"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref79"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref80"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref81"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref85"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref87"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref88"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref90"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref92"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref93"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref94"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref95"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref98"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref100"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref102"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref113"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1479603
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Mixing Pedagogies to Cultivate Joyful and Creative Young Writers in an Era of Standardised Writing Tests
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Deb+Brosseuk%22">Deb Brosseuk</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3636-4661">0000-0002-3636-4661</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Early+Childhood+Education+Journal%22"><i>Early Childhood Education Journal</i></searchLink>. 2025 53(6):1925-1937.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 13
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Childrens+Writing%22">Childrens Writing</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Creative+Writing%22">Creative Writing</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Standardized+Tests%22">Standardized Tests</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Writing+Tests%22">Writing Tests</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22High+Stakes+Tests%22">High Stakes Tests</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Writing+Teachers%22">Writing Teachers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Writing+Instruction%22">Writing Instruction</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Preschool+Children%22">Preschool Children</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Writing+Skills%22">Writing Skills</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Imagination%22">Imagination</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Creativity%22">Creativity</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Australia%22">Australia</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1007/s10643-024-01726-5
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1082-3301<br />1573-1707
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Global trends suggest that teaching writing focuses on a skills-based approach to preparing children for high-stakes standardised tests. In the early years, teachers are grappling with finding a better balance between preparing children for such tests and satisfying their sense of pedagogic responsibility to teach them to become joyful, creative writers. This paper explores an Australian Preparatory teacher's teaching of writing framed by the pedagogic framework LAUNCH. Using video and audio recordings, as well as children-made artefacts, the paper considers the impact of this framework on the writing experiences of fourteen five- and six-year-old children. Basil Bernstein's visible and invisible pedagogies provide the theoretical frame. Findings assert that a pedagogic mix allows early years teachers to teach children to be skilled and confident writers while nurturing their imaginations and creativity. This is significant given that current debates around children's writing experiences are often tied to high-stakes, standardised test-based writing.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1479603
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1479603
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1007/s10643-024-01726-5
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 13
        StartPage: 1925
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Childrens Writing
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Creative Writing
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Standardized Tests
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Writing Tests
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: High Stakes Tests
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Writing Teachers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Writing Instruction
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Preschool Children
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Writing Skills
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Imagination
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Creativity
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Australia
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Mixing Pedagogies to Cultivate Joyful and Creative Young Writers in an Era of Standardised Writing Tests
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Deb Brosseuk
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 08
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1082-3301
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1573-1707
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 53
            – Type: issue
              Value: 6
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Early Childhood Education Journal
              Type: main
ResultId 1