learning intentions for creative writing

The Teaching Delusion

Companion website to 'The Teaching Delusion' book trilogy

A Five Minute Guide To… Learning Intentions & Success Criteria

Teachers across the country are tying themselves in knots with learning intentions and success criteria. Some are using them well; some are not. Some aren’t using them at all.

So why isn’t everyone using them and using them well? A significant factor it is because many teachers are unsure about what these should look like. This Five Minute Guide aims to address that.

Learning Intentions

Learning intentions are statements which summarise the purpose of a lesson in terms of learning . A useful acronym is WALT: ‘What we Are Learning Today’.

In writing them, it is usually useful to include the terms ‘ know ’, ‘ understand ’ or ‘ be able to ’, which helps communicate that the learning will relate to knowledge , understanding or skills , respectively.

An example might be:

We are learning about the structure of an atom, specifically to know about:

• The sub-atomic particles which make up atoms

Over the course of several lessons, the class will be learning about the structure of an atom. For that reason, this statement will appear as part of the learning intention in lessons which follow. In this particular lesson, the specific focus is on the sub-atomic particles which make up atoms. The learning intention for the next lesson two lessons might be:

We are learning about the structure of an atom, specifically to understand:

• Nuclide notation
• The electron arrangements of the first 20 elements

Because every lesson is about learning, every lesson should have a clear learning intention, whether this be for students to learn something new, to consolidate their learning (through practice or revision) or to demonstrate their learning. 

Learning intentions should make clear  what  students will be learning about, not  how  this learning will be achieved, that is, to the activities and tasks of the lesson. For example, ‘Complete all of the questions on page 45 of your textbook’ is not a learning intention – it is a statement about an  activity . Learning intentions should be about what is to be  learned.

Communicating learning intentions

It is important that learning intentions are clearly communicated with students. Good practice is to do this both verbally and visually. However, saying this is very different from saying that students need to  copy down  the learning intentions (and success criteria) for lessons. Some schools insist that teachers get students to do that, but students learn nothing from doing so and it just wastes valuable learning time. 

Revisiting learning intentions

It can be useful to revisit learning intentions during lessons, reminding students of the learning focus. By the end of the lesson, something should have changed: students should know something that they didn’t before, they should be able to do something that they couldn’t before, or they should have improved at something. Every lesson should impact on learning; every lesson should count. 

Success Criteria

Success criteria relate to the evidence you are looking for to determine if students have learned what you intended. A useful acronym is WILF: ‘What I am Looking For’.

Success criteria can take different forms, including:

‘I can…’ statements

Key features.

The principal purpose of success criteria is to support assessment and feedback. When assessing learning, it isn’t enough for a teacher to ask, ‘Have you learned this?’ and then just to accept ‘yes’ as an answer. There needs to be evidence of learning; students need to  prove it . Success criteria can make clear what that evidence should be. In this way, success criteria become tools to support teacher assessment, peer assessment and self-assessment. Without being clear about what you are looking for, meaningful assessment and feedback is not possible.

When success criteria are written as ‘ I can… ’ statements, they include  verbs  which make clear the evidence required to demonstrate learning. Rather than being about ‘knowing’, ‘understanding’ or ‘being able to’ – which is the language of learning intentions – they should be about  what you are looking for  in order for students to demonstrate that they have learned what was intended. 

If students can ‘state’, ‘write’, ‘describe’, ‘explain’ or ‘draw’, this can evidence learning. Saying that ‘I know’, ‘I understand’ or ‘I am able to’ doesn’t evidence learning. While it might be true, it isn’t evidence. Success criteria should make clear what  evidence  of learning needs to be produced. 

To appreciate this, consider the learning intention used earlier:

Possible success criteria are:

• I can   draw  a labelled diagram of an atom, showing the arrangement of the three sub-atomic particles which make it up
• I can  state  the charge of each of the sub-atomic particles
• I can  state  the mass of each of the sub-atomic particles

Occasionally, I hear people argue that success criteria shouldn’t be quantified. For example, if success criteria relate to being able to identify advantages and disadvantages of something, teachers shouldn’t specify  how many advantages and disadvantages. The rationale is that, by quantifying, you limit student learning. However, I would argue that, if success criteria are going to be used to assess learning and to guide feedback, they need to be as  specific  as possible. Sometimes, this will mean quantifying them. The way to get around any issue of ‘limiting learning’ is to include the phrase ‘at least’ in front of the quantity (for example, ‘I can identify  at least  two advantages and two disadvantages of…’)

Sometimes, rather than writing success criteria as ‘I can’ statements, they are better written as ‘ key features ’. This tends to be when they relate to ‘Be able to…’ learning intentions. For example, a learning intention might be:

• Be able to   present data in a table

Success criteria could be that:

• It has two columns 
• Each column has an appropriate heading 
• Each heading has correct units 
• The data has been entered correctly 
• It has been drawn with a ruler 

Confusing learning intentions and success criteria

A common mistake I see teachers make is that they confuse learning intentions and success criteria. Below is an example of a learning intention which does this:

• Be able to define and describe ‘deforestation’

I see this sort of learning intention quite often. In writing it, the teacher has confused the  learning  (which relates to deforestation) with the  evidence  students need to produce to demonstrate their learning. A far better learning intention would be:

• Understand what ‘deforestation’ is

This is focused on  learning .

Possible success criteria could be:

• I can  write  a definition for ‘deforestation’
• I can  describe  three causes of deforestation

These are focused on evidence of learning. In checking that students understand what deforestation is, the teacher would be looking to see evidence relating to each success criterion.

Taken from The Teaching Delusion: Why Teaching In Our Schools Isn’t Good Enough (And How We Can Make It Better) , published by John Catt Educational. Available at:

• Waterstones

Share this:

• Pingback: The @teacherhead Blog Amp #1 | teacherhead
• Pingback: A Five minute guide to Learning Intentions and Success Criteria – EHSTeaching: a professional learning resource

I had never thought about this before but, after reading your post and revisiting some original research by Vygotsky, I suspect there is no benefit to a younger child in separating the learning objective from the success criteria; indeed there may well be a strong advantage to our scaffolding function as teachers to combine them. Thank you, it made me think.

Like Liked by 1 person

• Pingback: My Musical Learning Journey | colinmcgill
• Pingback: Structuring Lessons: Beginnings (Part 2 – Orientation to Learning Intentions) – reflecting on learning and teaching

Leave a comment Cancel reply

• Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
• Subscribe Subscribed
• Copy shortlink
• Report this content
• View post in Reader
• Manage subscriptions
• Collapse this bar

• Our Mission

A Framework for Lesson Planning

Using learning intentions and success criteria can help teachers ensure that their activities align with what they want students to know.

As an instructional coach, I collaborate with nearly 65 teachers at an urban high school. My goal is to support teachers of many subjects in embedding literacy in their lessons without disrupting their classroom objectives.

I often work with our novice teachers and student teachers by reviewing their lesson plans and recommending literacy skills that reinforce their learning intentions and success criteria, which are defined by Douglas Fisher and Nancy Frey as “what you want students to know and be able to do by the end of one or more lessons.” Without learning intentions and success criteria, they write, “lessons wander and students become confused and frustrated.”

When I ask new teachers to tell me the purpose of their lessons, they often describe the activities they’ve created. For example, recently I was collaborating with a student teacher who was eager to teach the Bill of Rights to her freshmen. She began our conversation by explaining that she was going to read real-life scenarios with differing perspectives and ask students to move to the front of the classroom if they agreed with a particular scenario or to the back of the classroom if they disagreed. Afterward, she would ask students to explain their decisions.

Her excitement was palpable. She showed me the scenarios she had written, the “Agree” and “Disagree” signs she had created, and the worksheet she had designed so that students could brainstorm their own Bill of Rights.

When she finished, I commended her on the work she had done. Clearly, she had thought about the activity in detail. Next I asked her about the point of the lesson—what she wanted students to get out of it.

What she wanted—for her students to know what the Bill of Rights is, where to find it, why it’s important, and why we still need it today—was not actually conveyed by the activity. She hadn’t written a learning intention and the accompanying success criteria yet because she had been so excited to refine her activity. Without them, however, all she had was an activity—one that was not aligned with her goals for the day.

Learning Intentions and Success Criteria

Crafting a quality learning intention takes planning. Often, teachers will use an activity as their learning intention—but a learning intention goes beyond an activity. It focuses on the goal of the learning—the thing we want our students to know and do. The learning intention helps students stay focused and involved.

It’s important to create the learning intention first, and then determine the success criteria that students can use to assess their understanding—and then create the activity and some open-ended questions that help students learn.

When I was working with the teacher on her Bill of Rights lesson, we took a step back to develop the learning intention and its success criteria. The learning intention was this: “I can explain the Bill of Rights, its purpose, and its relevance to my life.” The success criteria were built around students’ ability to annotate and paraphrase the Bill of Rights, and to explain its importance, both in general and in their own lives. Annotating, paraphrasing, and analyzing are skills that are based on ACT College and Career Readiness Standards and Common Core State Standards, and they could be seamlessly incorporated into the lesson with minimal effort.

Learning intentions and success criteria are valuable across all subjects. In algebra, for example, a learning intention might be “I can understand the structure of a coordinate grid and relate the procedure of plotting points in quadrants to the structure of a coordinate grid.” The success criteria for this intention could be that students can talk and write about that procedure, using the correct vocabulary; that they can plot and label points in each quadrant on a coordinate grid; and that they can create a rule about coordinates for each quadrant.

In environmental science, if the learning intention is “I can recognize the history, interactions, and trends of climate change,” the success criteria could be that students are able to locate credible research about the history of climate change and share their research with their peers, that they can demonstrate the interactions of climate change and explain the value of those interactions, and that they can show the trends of climate change utilizing a graph and explain the value of the trends.

A Way to Focus Lesson Planning

Although engaging students in their learning is certainly necessary, the student teacher I was working with became acutely aware of the value of the skills she was attempting to help students develop and why those skills—not the activity—should drive instruction.

During her next class, she posted the learning intention and success criteria where students could readily see them. Next, she asked her students to paraphrase the success criteria, making sure they understood what they were about to do. She referred to the learning intention and success criteria several times throughout the lesson so that students could determine their own level of understanding and, if necessary, decide which skills they understood and which ones still needed support. She followed up with an exit ticket, asking students what they had learned in the lesson, how they learned it, and why learning it was important.

No matter what subject you teach, as you plan your instruction, ask yourself these questions:

• What do you want your students to know? Why is that important?
• Can they learn this information another way? How?

Only once you’ve thought though your answers should you begin writing your learning intention and success criteria. Keep the activities you’ve created—but don’t make them the center of the lesson or the goal of the lesson. Spend your time designing a learning intention and success criteria that will support your students’ learning and skills that they can apply to all facets of their academic life.

How to Create Leveled Success Criteria

Three years ago Ross School set off on a mission to ensure every student (or as we call them learners) developed their assessment capabilities. Put simply, the school wanted all learners to independently answer three fundamental questions:

• Where am I going in my learning?
• Where am I now in my learning?, and
• What’s next to improve my learning?

These questions went to the heart of what learners were thinking about during class. Often learners were found focusing on tasks to complete, such as the number of problems they needed to do. Other times, learners were focused on the context of the unit. For example, learners were thinking about sea otters when they were really suppose to be thinking about the movement of energy in a food chain.

We knew that if learners were not focused on the actual learning they would be unable to develop long term memories of the core ideas, and wouldn’t be able to apply those ideas in different situations. The first step for us as a team was to ensure learners were clear on teacher expectations.

Teacher Clarity

Teacher clarity may be best defined as a learner’s ability to know the outcomes of learning (ie learning intention) and the expectations (i.e. success criteria) for meeting the outcomes of learning.

Teacher clarity as an influence has been found to be linked to almost two years’ growth in one year’s time (Hattie, 2009). Teacher clarity is actually a misnomer in that it’s not really about how clear teachers are on outcomes for learning, but that students are clear. Moreover, clarity of outcomes is an essential ingredient to other variables that have a powerful influence on student learning including:

• Assessment capabilities
• Scaffolding
• Seeking help from peers, and
• Classroom discussion

Numerous books have been written on the importance of learning intentions and success criteria for learners (Clarke, 2014). Often these books show success criteria as one set list for students to meet.

The challenge with this approach is that it assumes students can inherently recognize the complexity of each success criterion independently. More often than not, students are unfamiliar with the material to be learned and are therefore unable to decipher the right sequence of success criteria to be met over time.

Leveled Success Criteria

At Ross School, we use a simple taxonomy that articulates complexity for students. The taxonomy, a modified version of Biggs and Collins’s SOLO taxonomy , is based on three levels of learning and articulates a student’s ability to understand, relate, and apply ideas or skills. The taxonomy may be best represented in the following way:

• Surface: I know one or more ideas/skills but am unable to relate or apply them .
• Deep: I can connect ideas/skills together but am unable to apply them.
• Transfer: I can apply ideas/skills in different situations.

To assist students in understanding complexity of learning and to support them in tracking their own learning needs and progress over time, articulating reference for expectations across surface, deep, and transfer has been immensely helpful for our learners.

Leveled Success Criteria Development Process

The process for designing leveled success criteria is a simple six-step process:

Step 1 : Craft learning intentions in student-friendly language

Take the outcomes of your syllabus and convert them into “I will” statements for learners.  Ensure that the verb that is used after “I will” requires deep or transfer expectations (see the list below for potential verbs).

E.g.  I will apply multiplication of fractions.

Step 2 : Craft leveled success criteria at surface, deep, and transfer learning.

Once you established your learning intention you will need to create success criteria to ensure students know what to know and be able to do to meet your expectations. When writing out your expectations, you want to use verbs at each level of learning (ie surface, deep, and transfer).  The following table lists a series of verbs that may be helpful in this process.

Here is an example of success criteria in a 3rd grade math classroom:

Step 3 : Refine learning intentions by ensuring the verbs are aligned to deep or transfer and refine success criteria by removing tasks, activities, and contexts.

Once you have sketched your learning intentions and leveled success criteria it’s a good idea to review your work and ensure you have alignment of verbs and expectations at each level of the success criteria and that your learning intention is written at the highest level of learning you expect.

In addition, you will want to ensure that your success criteria doesn’t include assignments or products in the descriptors.  Assignments, products, and activities are all ways in which students demonstrate their learning but more often that not they are not a learning intention nor success criteria.  For example, if students are learning to write a balanced argument, then we want to include the criteria that is necessary in such an argument including forming an opinion in the closing, relating two opinions, backing up opinions by experts, and using high percentages.  We would not want to include in the success criteria “write a paper”.  The paper is a task in which students will demonstrate the success criteria.  The success criteria is what we want them to focus on during class and when writing a paper.

Step 4 : Create a driving question that presents students a rationale for meeting transfer expectations

This may be viewed as an optional step but is actual critical in presenting the learning intention as important for learning.  Driving questions positioning the learning intention as a question rather than a statement and often show students one or more contexts (or situations) in which they, the students, will engage in to meet the learning intention. Driving questions are usually presented to students at the beginning of a unit to drive the learning.

How do we apply multiplication of fractions [when converting units in chemistry to demonstrate the relationships between quantities]?

Step 5 : Receive feedback from peers to ensure alignment of learning intentions and success criteria.

Before building other parts of your unit (such as building tasks and activities for kids), ask colleagues to review your work and look for the following:

• Learning intentions: Does the learning intention require deep and transfer learning?
• Success criteria: Do the success criteria align to surface, deep, and transfer? Are the success criteria devoid of contexts and tasks?
• Driving Question: Does the driving question align to the learning intention? Does it require surface, deep, and transfer learning to answer?

Written by Michael McDowell, Ed.D.

Michael McDowell, Ed.D. is the Superintendent of the Ross School District. Most recently, he served as the Associate Superintendent of Instructional and Personnel Services at the Tamalpais Union High School District. During his tenure, the Tamalpais Union High School District was recognized by the Marzano Research Laboratories as one of the top highly reliable organizations in the United States, and schools within the district received recognitions by the US News and World Report, and honored with California Distinguished Schools accolades.

Prior to his role as a central office administrator, Dr. McDowell served as the Principal of North Tahoe High School, a California Distinguished School. Prior to administration, Dr. McDowell was a leadership and instructional coach for the New Tech Network supporting educators in designing, implementing, and enhancing innovative schools across the country. Before engaging in the nonprofit sector, Dr. McDowell created and implemented an environmental science and biology program at Napa New Technology High School, infusing 1:1 technology, innovative teaching and assessment, and leveraging student voice in the classroom. Additionally, Dr. McDowell, taught middle school math and science in Pacifica, CA. Dr.

McDowell is a national presenter, speaking on instruction, learning, leadership and innovation. He has provided professional development services to large school districts, State Departments of Education, and higher education. In addition, he was a former National Faculty member for the Buck Institute of Education and a key thought leader in the inception of their leadership work in scaling innovation in instructional methodologies. His expertise in design and implementation is complimented by his scholarly approach to leadership, learning, and instruction.

He holds a B.S. in Environmental Science and a M.A. in Curriculum and Instruction from the University of Redlands and an Ed.D. from the University of La Verne. He received departmental honors for his work in Environmental Science and was awarded the Tom Fine Creative Leadership Award for his doctoral work at the University of La Verne. He has also completed certification programs through Harvard University, the California Association of School Business Officials, the American Association of School Personnel Administrators, and Cognition Education. He holds both a California single subject teaching credential and an administrative credential.

Which VISIBLE LEARNING Book is Right for You?

The 7 steps to become an effective coach, no comments, leave a comment cancel reply.

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Related posts

Visible Learning and Teaching Multilingual Learners: 5 Considerations

‘TRUE’ Visible Learning: Evidence of Impact

Making Learning Visible in Early Childhood Through Play

It’s Not Only HOW You Use a Strategy – Its...

Bridging the Implementation Gap: From Inklings to Ideas to (Godzilla-like)...

Moving from Good to Great

• Professional development
• Understanding learners

Creative writing for language learners (and teachers)

Creative writing normally refers to the production of texts which have an aesthetic rather than a purely informative, instrumental or pragmatic purpose.

Most often, such texts take the form of poems or stories, though they are not confined to these genres. (Letters, journal entries, blogs, essays, travelogues, etc. can also be more or less creative.) In fact, the line between creative writing (CW) and expository writing (ER) is not carved in stone. In general, however CW texts draw more heavily on intuition, close observation, imagination, and personal memories than ER texts.  

One of the chief distinguishing characteristics of CW texts is a playful engagement with language, stretching and testing its rules to the limit in a guilt-free atmosphere, where risk is encouraged. Such writing combines cognitive with affective modes of thinking. As the poet, R.S. Thomas once wrote, ‘Poetry is that which arrives at the intellect by way of the heart.’ The playful element in CW should not, however be confused with a lax and unregulated use of language. On the contrary, CW requires a willing submission on the part of the writer to the ‘rules’ of the sub-genre being undertaken. If you want to write a Limerick, then you have to follow the rules governing limericks. If not, what you produce will be something other than a limerick: obvious, perhaps, but important too. The interesting thing is that the very constraints which the rules impose seem to foster rather than restrict the creativity of the writer. This apparent paradox is explained partly by the deeper processing of thought and language which the rules require.

What are the benefits of CW for learners?

• CW aids language development at all levels: grammar, vocabulary, phonology and discourse. It requires learners to manipulate the language in interesting and demanding ways in attempting to express uniquely personal meanings. In doing so, they necessarily engage with the language at a deeper level of processing than with most expository texts. (Craik and Lockhart 1972) The gains in grammatical accuracy and range, in the appropriacy and originality of lexical choice, in sensitivity to rhyme, rhythm, stress and intonation, and in the way texts hang together are significant.
• As mentioned above, a key characteristic of CW is a willingness to play with the language. In recent years there has been a resurgence of interest in the role of play in language acquisition. (Carter 2004, Cook 2000, Crystal 1998) In some ways, the tsunami of the Communicative Approach has done a disservice to language teaching  by its insistence on the purely communicative functions of language. Proponents of ‘play’ point out, rightly, that in L1 acquisition, much of the language encountered by and used by children is in the form of rhythmical chants and rhymes, word games, jokes and the like. Furthermore, such playfulness survives into adulthood, so that many social encounters are characterized by language play (punning, spontaneous jokes, ‘funny voices’, metathesis, and a discourse which is shaped by quasi-poetic repetition (Tannen 1989)). These are precisely the kinds of things L2 learners are encouraged to do in CW activities. This playful element encourages them to play creatively with the language, and in so doing, to take the risks without which learning cannot take place in any profound sense.  As Crystal (1998) states, ‘Reading and writing do not have to be a prison house. Release is possible. And maybe language play can provide the key.’
• Much of the teaching we do tends to focus on the left side of the brain, where our logical faculties are said to reside. CW puts the emphasis on the right side of the brain, with a focus on feelings, physical sensations, intuition and musicality. This is a healthy restoration of the balance between logical and intuitive faculties. It also affords scope for learners whose hemisphere dominance or learning-style preferences may not be intellectual or left brain dominant, and who, in the normal process of teaching are therefore at a disadvantage.
• Perhaps most notable is the dramatic increase in self-confidence and self-esteem which CW tends to develop among learners. Learners also tend to discover things for themselves about the language… and about themselves too, thus promoting personal as well as linguistic growth. Inevitably, these gains are reflected in a corresponding growth in positive motivation. Among the conditions for promoting motivation, Dornyei (2001: 138-144) cites:  
• “5. Create a pleasant and supportive atmosphere.
•  6. Promote the development of group cohesiveness.
• 13. Increase the students’ expectation of success in particular tasks and in learning in general.
• 17. Make learning more stimulating and enjoyable by breaking the monotony of classroom events.
• 18. Make learning stimulating and enjoyable by increasing the attractiveness of tasks.
• 19. Make learning stimulating and enjoyable for learners by enlisting them as active task participants.
• 20. Present and administer tasks in a motivating way.
• 23. Provide students with regular experiences of success.
• 24. Build your learners’ confidence by providing regular encouragement.
• 28. Increase student motivation by promoting cooperation among the learners.
• 29. Increase student motivation by actively promoting learner autonomy.
• 33. Increase learner satisfaction.
• 34. Offer rewards in a motivational manner.”   
• All these conditions are met in a well-run CW class. The exponential increase in motivation is certainly supported by my own experience in teaching CW. Learners suddenly realize that they can write something in a foreign language that has never been written by anyone else before, and which others find interesting to read. (Hence the importance of ‘publishing’ students’ work in some form.)  And they experience not only a pride in their own products but also a joy in the ‘flow’ of the process. (Czsikszentmihaly 1997).  
• Finally, CW feeds into more creative reading. It is as if, by getting inside the process of creating the texts, learners come to understand intuitively how such texts function, and this makes similar texts easier to read.  Likewise, the development of aesthetic reading skills ( Kramsch  1993, Rosenblatt 1978), provides the learner with a better understanding of textual construction, and this feeds into their writing.

And teachers? I argued in the first article that teachers, as well as learners, should engage with extensive reading.  In the same spirit, I would argue that there are significant benefits to teachers if they participate in CW.

• There is little point in exhorting learners to engage in CW unless we do so too.  The power of the teacher as model, and as co-writer is inestimable.
• CW is one way of keeping teachers’ English fresh and vibrant.  For much of our professional lives we are in thrall to the controlled language of textbook English and the repeated low level error-laden English of our students.  As teachers of language, we surely have a responsibility to keep our primary resource alive and well.
• CW seems to have an effect on the writer’s level of energy in general.  This tends to make teachers who use CW more interesting to be around, and this inevitably impacts on their relationships with students.
• The experimental stance with regard to writing in general appears to fee back into the teaching of writing.  Teachers of CW tend also to be better teachers of writing in general                

My evidence for these assertions is largely anecdotal, backed by a survey of writing teachers I conducted in 2006.  One of the interesting facts to emerge was a widespread belief among teachers of writing that CW had a positive effect on students’ writing of Expository texts and helped them develop that much- desired but rarely-delivered ‘authentic voice’. Space does not allow me to expand on these findings, nor on some of the possible activities teachers might try.  I will attempt to make good these omissions in some of my blogs during the month of December. I will also make reference there to ways in which CW intersects with some of our major current concerns. Meantime, anyone interested could sample some of the books from the list below: Fry (2007), Koch (1990), Matthews (1994), Spiro (2004, 2007), Whitworth (2001) and Wright and Hill (2009)

• Carter, Ronald.  (2004)  Language and creativity: the art of common talk.  London: Routledge.
• Cszikszentmihalyi. M. ( 1997) Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention.  New York: Harper Perennial
• Cook, Guy (2000)  Language Play: Language Learning.  Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Craik, F.I.M  and R.S Lockhart   (1972)  ‘Levels of processing: a framework for memory research’  Journal of  Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour.  11.  671-685
• Crystal, David (1998) Language Play. London: Penguin
• Dornyei, Zoltan (2001)  Motivational Strategies in the Language Classroom.  Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Fry, Stephen (2007)  The Ode Less Travelled.  London: Arrow Books.
• Koch, Kenneth. (1990)  Rose, where did you get that red?  New York: Vintage Books.
• Kramsch, Claire (1993)  Context and Culture in Language Teaching.  Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Matthews, Paul (1994)  Sing Me the Creation.  Stroud: Hawthorne Press.
• Rosenblatt, Louise  (1978)  The Reader, the Text, the Poem. Carbondale, Illinois: Southern Illinois University Press.
• Spiro, Jane (2004)  Creative Poetry Writing.  Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Spiro, Jane (2007)  Storybuilding. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Tannen, Deborah. (1989)  Talking Voices: Repetition, dialogue, and imagery in conversational discourse.  Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Whitworth, John.  (2001)  Writing Poetry.  London: A and C Black.
• Wright, Andrew and David S.Hill.  (2009) Writing Stories.  Innsbruck: Helbling

By Alan Maley

Please note Alan's now finished writing on the site and will not be able to reply personally to your comments.

CW- not an easy task

• Log in or register to post comments

All about Creative writing

                         Thank you very much for your extremely useful and highly productive article On creative writing for learners and teachers. In fact I am looking for a great person of your stature who will guide me in my poetic and writing pursuits. I have already requested you to have a look at my poems and you have read them but not offered me suggestions or compliments. I hope you will read my other 2 poems The street children and the typical Indian railway journey and send your comments either to my e-mail or express them in your comments as response.

You have given a detailed information about creative writings and expository writings,how they are useful to the students and teachers,which books they should refer to and which activities they should attempt very clearly and lucidly. I hope you will talk more about in your ensuing blogs.

I believe in constructivism and so your articles appeal to my art. Language acquisition is the need of the hour in non native english speaking countries like India. Since I am text book writer for Andhrapradesh, I would like to interact with you further. I hope you will help me improve my poetic and creative writing skills.

With kind regards,

Yours sincerely,

JVL NARASIMHA RAO

Research and insight

Browse fascinating case studies, research papers, publications and books by researchers and ELT experts from around the world.

See our publications, research and insight

Teaching creative writing in primary schools: a systematic review of the literature through the lens of reflexivity

• Open access
• Published: 17 June 2023

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Georgina Barton   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-2703-238X 1 ,
• Maryam Khosronejad 2 ,
• Mary Ryan 2 ,
• Lisa Kervin 3 &
• Debra Myhill 4  

4526 Accesses

Explore all metrics

Teaching writing is complex and research related to approaches that support students’ understanding and outcomes in written assessment is prolific. Written aspects including text structure, purpose, and language conventions appear to be explicit elements teachers know how to teach. However, more qualitative and nuanced elements of writing such as authorial voice and creativity have received less attention. We conducted a systematic literature review on creativity and creative aspects of writing in primary classrooms by exploring research between 2011 and 2020. The review yielded 172 articles with 25 satisfying established criteria. Using Archer’s critical realist theory of reflexivity we report on personal, structural, and cultural emergent properties that surround the practice of creative writing. Implications and recommendations for improved practice are shared for school leaders, teachers, preservice teachers, students, and policy makers.

Similar content being viewed by others

Re-imagining narrative writing and assessment: a post-NAPLAN craft-based rubric for creative writing

Michael D. Carey, Shelley Davidow & Paul Williams

Radical rubrics: implementing the critical and creative thinking general capability through an ecological approach

Dan Harris, Kathryn Coleman & Peter J. Cook

Autofictionalizing Reflective Writing Pedagogies: Risks and Possibilities

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

Creative writing in schools is an important part of learning, assessment, and reporting, however, there is evidence globally to suggest that such writing is often stifled in preference to quick on-demand writing, usually featured in high-stakes testing (Au & Gourd, 2013 ; Gibson & Ewing, 2020 ). Research points to this negatively impacting particularly on students from diverse backgrounds (Mahmood et al., 2020 ). When teachers teach on-demand writing typical pedagogical traits are revealed, those that are often referred to as formulaic (Ryan & Barton, 2014 ). When thinking about creative writing, however, Wyse et al. ( 2013 ) noted that it involves the absence of structure and teaching creative writing requires an ‘open’ pedagogical approach for students to be given imaginative choice. By this, they mean that teachers need to consider less formulaic ways to teach writing so that students can experience different opportunities and ways to write creatively. They argued that if students are not given the flexibility to experiment through writing then their creativity might be stifled. Similarly, Barbot et al. ( 2012 ), who carried out a study with a panel of 15 experts of creative writing, posited that creative writing is when students draw on their imagination and other creative processes to create fictional narratives or writing that is ‘unusually original’. They also noted that creative writing is important for the development of students’ critical and creative thinking skills and ways in which they can approach life in creative ways.

Creative writing is defined in various ways in literature. Wang ( 2019 ) defined creative writing as a form of original expression involving an author’s imagination to engage a reader. Other definitions of creative writing involve the notion of children’s imagination, choice, and originality and much research has explored the concept of creativity within and through the writing process.

While creative writing is defined in various ways, and the many ways that it is treated in literacy education, this article is not concerned with the nature of the term per se. Rather, it focusses on research about creative writing and creativity in writing to understand how research unpacks the personal and contextual characteristics that surround creative writing practices. To this aim, we adopt a broad definition of creative writing as a form of original writing involving an author’s imagination and self-expression to engage a reader (Wang, 2019 ). Creative writing is important for children’s development (Grainger et al., 2005 ), allowing them to use their imagination and broaden their ability to problem-solve and think deeply. Creativity in writing refers to specific aspects within a writing product that can be deemed creative. Some examples include the use of senses and how a writer might engage a reader (Deutsch, 2014 ; Smith, 2020 ).

International research on teaching writing has indicated a loss in innovative or creative pedagogical practices due to the pressure on teachers to teach prescribed writing skills that are assessed in high-stakes tests (Göçen, 2019 ; Stock & Molloy, 2020 ), often resulting in specific trends including teaching a genre approach to writing (Polesel et al., 2012 ; Ryan & Barton, 2014 ). A comprehensive meta-analysis by Graham et al ( 2012 ), designed to identify writing practices with evidence of effectiveness in primary classrooms, found that explicitly teaching imagery and creativity was an effective teaching practice in writing. In addition, a review of methods related to teaching writing conducted by Slavin et al. ( 2019 ) included studies that statistically reported causal relationships between teacher practice and student outcomes. Common themes in Slavin et al’s ( 2019 ) quest for improving writing included comprehensive teacher professional development, student engagement and enjoyment, and explicit teaching of grammar, punctuation, and usage. While they did not specifically cite creativity, motivating environments and cooperative learning were important characteristics of writing programs.

This systematic literature review aims to share empirical international research in the context of elementary/primary schools by exploring creativity in writing and the conditions that influence its emergence. It specifically aims to answer the question: What influences the teaching of creative writing in primary education? And how can reflexivity theorise these influences? The review shares scholarly work that attempts to define personal aspects of creative writing including imagination, and creative thinking; discusses creative approaches to teaching writing, and shows how these methods might support students’ creative writing or creative aspects of writing.

Writing is a complex process that involves students making decisions about word choice, sentence, and text structure, and ways in which to engage readers. Such decisions require a certain amount of reflection or at times deeper reflexive judgments by both teachers and students. Consequently, we draw on Archer’s ( 2012 ) critical realist theory of reflexivity to guide our review as research shows that reflexive thinking in practice can improve writing outcomes (Ryan et al., 2021 ). Archer ( 2007 ) highlights how reflexivity is an everyday activity involving mental processes whereby we think about ourselves in relation to our immediate personal, social, and cultural contexts. She suggests we make decisions through negotiating the connected emergences of personal properties (PEPs) related to the individual, structural properties (SEPs) related to the contextual happenings and cultural properties (CEPs) related to ideologies, each of which is influenced by the other developments. These decisions influence, and are influenced by, our subsequent actions. In applying reflexivity theory to writing (see Ryan, 2014 ), we cannot simply focus on the writing product, but should also interrogate the process of writing, that is, the influences on decision-making and design which are enabled or constrained through pedagogical practices in the classroom. Writing practices and outputs are formed through the interplay of personal, structural, and cultural conditions. Student decisions and actions about writing ensue through the mediation of personal (e.g. beliefs, motivations, interests, experiences), structural (e.g. curriculum, programs, testing regimes, teaching strategies, resources), and cultural (e.g. norms, expectations, ideologies, values) conditions. Therefore, teachers play an important role in facilitating the interplay of these conditions for their students and recontextualising curricula and policy (Ryan et al., 2021 ). For example, by enabling students’ agency and creating an authentic purpose for writing, teachers can balance the personal conditions of students (such as their motivation and interest) against the structural effects of the curriculum requirements. Using a reflexive approach to investigating the literature on creative writing we aim to reveal the personal, structural, and cultural conditions surrounding the study and the practice of creative writing. We argue that it is through the understanding of these conditions that we can theorise how a. students might make their writing more creative and b. how teachers might establish classroom conditions conducive to creativity.

The approach taken for this paper was guided by the PRISMA method (Moher et al., 2009 ) for conducting systematic literature reviews (see Table 1 ).

Our electronic search involved several databases: researchers’ library online catalogue, EBSCO host ultimate, ProQuest, Eric, Web of Science, Informit, and ScienceDirect. Using the following search terms: creativ* AND (‘teaching methods’ OR pedagog*) AND writing AND (elementary OR primary) to search titles and abstracts as well as limiting the search to peer-reviewed articles written in English within a 10-year timeframe (2011–2020), we initially retrieved 172 articles. Information about all 172 articles was input into a data spreadsheet including author, article title, journal title, volume and issue number, and abstract. Once completed, these articles were divided into two equal groups and two researchers were assigned to review the articles for relevancy against the following inclusion criteria:

Studies were peer-reviewed empirical research published in English;

Participants were primary students and/or teachers;

Students were not specifically English as a Second or Additional Language/Dialect learners (samples of culturally and linguistically diverse students in primary classrooms were included);

Studies were not carried out in curriculum areas other than English; and

Studies did not have a specific focus on digital technologies in the classroom.

For this systematic review, we were interested in the ways in which teachers thought about, understood, and taught the ‘creative’ aspect of writing.

The 25 studies that met the inclusion criteria were synthesised to review what influences the improvement of creative writing in primary education. We analysed the papers for how creative writing and/or creative aspects in writing were viewed as well as how teachers might best support students to develop reflexive capacities to improve the creative aspects of writing. We also identified any personal, structural, and/or cultural emergences that might impact on the effectiveness of students’ creative writing. Two of the authors read the entire articles and identified four main categories of research which were (1) understanding creative writing; (2) creative thinking and its contribution to writing; (3) creative pedagogy; and (4) what students can do to be more creative in their writing. These were cross-checked by the entire research team. Some of the papers fit more than one of these themes. In the next section, each theme is introduced and defined and then the articles that fall within the theme are reviewed.

Overall a total number of 25 articles had overlapping themes that included various personal and contextual aspects. Figure  1 shows what we have identified as the key themes under each category. In the next sections, we represent papers based on their main theme.

The personal, structural, and cultural conditions surrounding creative writing

Personal emergent properties

A total number of 13 articles were about what students can do to be more creative in their writing (Mendelowitz, 2014 ; Steele, 2016 ) and how teachers’ and students’ personal characteristics relate to the development of creative writing. These articles were mainly focussed on the personal emergent aspects of writing (Alhusaini & Maker, 2015 ; Barbot et al., 2012 ; Cremin et al., 2020 ; DeFauw, 2018 ; Dobson, 2015 ; Dobson & Stephenson, 2017 , 2020 ; Edwards-Groves, 2011 ; Healey, 2019 ; Lee & Enciso, 2017 ; Macken-Horarik, 2012 ; Ryan, 2014 ). The personal aspects identified in our review were (1) personal views about creative writing, (2) creative thinking, (3) writer identity, (4) learner motivation and engagement, and (5) knowledge and capabilities.

Personal views about creative writing

From our systematic review, we identified three articles exploring views about what creative writing is, and more specifically the role that it plays and the elements that make creative writing, in primary classrooms. One of these studies was focussed on the views and experiences of experts in writing (Barbot et al., 2012 ), whereas the other two investigated students’ perspectives and experiences (Alhusaini & Maker, 2015 ; Healey, 2019 ). Barbot et al’s ( 2012 ) work, for example, recognised that creative writing involves both cognitive and metacognitive abilities. This was determined by the expert panel of people whose work related to writing including teachers, linguists, psychologists, professional writers, and art educators. The panel were asked to complete an online survey that rated the relative importance of 28 identified skills needed to creatively write. Six broad categories were identified as a result of the responses and the rank given to each factor by the expert groups (See Table 2 ). They acknowledged that these features cross over various age groups from children to professional writers.

Findings suggested that each independent rater weighted different key components of creative writing as being more or less important for children. Overall, the findings showed.

a global ‘consensus’ across the expert groups indicated that creative writing skills are primarily supported by factors such as observation, generation of description, imagination, intrinsic motivation and perseverance, while the contributions of all of the other relevant factors seemed negligible (e.g. intelligence, working memory, extrinsic motivation and penmanship). (p. 218)

One factor that was ranked as critical by most respondents, but underemphasised by teachers, was imagination. Teachers’ work in classrooms around creative writing is complex due to the difficulty in defining imagination (Brill, 2004 ). Teachers also under-rated other aspects related to creative cognition.

Another study that explored students’ creativity in writing was conducted by Alhusaini and Maker ( 2015 ) in the south-west of the United States. Participants included 139 students with mixed ethnicities including White, Mexican American, and Navajo. This study involved six elementary/primary school teachers judging students’ writing samples of open-ended stories. To assess the work a Written Linguistic Assessment tool, which was based on the Consensual Assessment Technique [CAT] (Amabile, 1982 ) was implemented. According to Baer and McKool ( 2009 ), The CAT involves experts rating written artefacts or artistic objects by using their ‘sense of what is creative in the domain in question to rate the creativity of the products in relation to one another’ (p. 4). Interestingly, Alhusaini and Maker ( 2015 ) found the CAT to be effective in relation to interrater reliability. The authors do not share what the Judge’s Guidelines to Assess Students’ Stories entail. They mention the difference between technical quality and creativity and note that assessors were able to distinguish the differences between the two, but the reader is not made aware of the aspects of each quality. Overall, the study revealed that one of the most challenging problems in the field of creativity and writing is trying to measure creativity across cultures by using standardised tests. Such studies could have implications for other students from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds as teachers become more aware of cultural nuances in constituting ‘creative’ in creative writing.

The final study we identified in this category was by Healey ( 2019 ). Healey employed an Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) and explored how eight children (11–12 Years of age) experienced creative writing in the classroom. He shared how children’s writing experiences were based on ‘the affect, embodiment, and materiality of their immediate engagement with activities in the classroom’ (p. 184). Results from student interviews showed three themes related to the experience of writing: the writing world (watching, ideas from elsewhere, flowing); the self (concealing and revealing, agency, adequacy); and schooled writing (standards, satisfying task requirements, rules of good writing). The author stated that children’s consciousness shifts between their imagination (The Writing World) and set assessment tasks (Schooled Writing). Both of these worlds affect the way children experience themselves as writers. Further findings from this work argued that originality of ideas and use of richer vocabulary improved students’ creative writing. Vocabulary improvement included diversity of word meanings, appropriate usage of words, words being in line with the purpose of the text; while originality of ideas featured creative and unusual (original) ideas—which in many ways is difficult to define.

Overall, when concerned with personal views and attitudes in creative writing, the two studies by Healey ( 2019 ) and Barbot et al. ( 2012 ) show contrasting findings about ‘imagination’ captured through the view of students and teachers, respectively. While Healey’s ( 2019 ) study suggests that children shift between their imagination and set assessment tasks in creative writing, Barbot et al. ( 2012 ) highlight the lack of attention to imagination among their participated teachers. Although these results cannot be generalised, they highlight the significance of understanding personal emergent properties that both students and teachers bring to the classroom and the way that they interact to affect the experience of creative writing for learners. From this theme, we suggest the importance of educators acknowledging students’ imagination through their definition of creative writing as well as providing quality time for students to choose what they write through imaginative thought. We now turn to creative thinking and related pedagogical approaches to teaching creative writing from the research literature.

Creative thinking

We identified two articles that were focussed on creative thinking and its contribution to writing (Copping, 2018 ; Cress & Holm, 2016 ). Copping ( 2018 ) explored writing pedagogy and the connections between children’s creative thinking, or a ‘new way of looking at something’ (p. 309), and their writing achievement. The study involved two primary schools in Lancashire, one in an affluent area and one in an underprivileged area. Approximately 28 children from each school were involved in two, 2-day writing workshops based on a murder mystery the children had to solve. Findings from this study revealed that to improve students’ writing achievement (1) a thinking environment needs to be created and maintained, (2) production processes should have value, (3) motivation and achievement increase when there is a tangible purpose, and (4) high expectations lead to higher attainment.

Cress and Holm’s ( 2016 ) study described a curricular approach implemented by a first-grade teacher and their class comprised 13 girls and 11 boys. The project known as the Creative Endeavours project aimed to develop creative thinking by (1) creating an environment of respect with a positive classroom climate. (2) offering new and challenging experiences, and (3) encouraging new ideas rather than praise. The authors argued that through peer collaboration and the flexibility to choose their own projects, children can become more authentically engaged in the writing process. The children wrote about their experiences and their choices, and reflected upon the projects undertaken. In this study, it was revealed that the children showed diversity in their writing assignments including presentation through sewing, photography, and drama. While there were only two papers in this particular theme, their findings are supported by systematic reviews (Graham et al., 2012 ; Slavin et al., 2019 ) that emphasise not only new ways of exploring a range of concepts for learning but also the creation of motivating environments for improving writing (Copping, 2018 ). In addition to the significance of positive and encouraging learning environments, these two studies suggest that setting ‘high expectations’ or ‘challenging experiences’ are conducive to creative thinking however, teachers would need to set appropriate, reflexive conditions for this to occur.

Writer identity

Studies in this category revolve around choice and learner writer identity. The study carried out by Dobson and Stephenson ( 2017 ) focussed on developing a community of writers involving 25 primary school pupils from low socio-economic backgrounds. The project was offered over 2 weeks and featured a number of creative writing workshops. The authors applied the theoretical frameworks of practitioner enquiry and discourse analysis to explore the children’s creative writing outputs. They argued that the workshops, which promoted intertextuality and freedom for the children as writers, enabled a shifting of their ‘writer’ identities (Holland et al., 1998). Dobson and Stephenson ( 2017 ) showed that allowing students to make decisions and choices in regard to authentic writing purposes supported a more flexible approach. They recommend stronger partnerships between schools and universities in relation to research on creative writing, however, it would be important for these relationships to be sustainable.

The second paper on this theme is by Ryan ( 2014 ) who noted that writing is a complex activity that requires appropriate thinking in relation to the purpose, audience, and medium of a variety of texts. Writers always make decisions about how they will present subject matter and/or feelings through all of the modes. Ryan ( 2014 ) suggested that writing is like a performance ‘whereby writers shape and represent their identities as they mediate social structures and personal considerations’ (p. 130). The study analysed writing samples of culturally and linguistically diverse Australian primary students to uncover the types of identities students shared. It found that three different types of writers existed—the school writers who followed teacher instructions or formulas to produce a product; the constrained writers who also followed instructions and formulas but were able to add in some authorical voice; and the reflexive writers who could show a definite command of writing and showed creative potential. Ryan ( 2014 ) argued that teachers’ practices in the classroom directly influence the ways in which students express these identities. She stated that when students are provided choices in writing, they are more able to shape and develop their voices. Such choices would need to include quality time and support to be reflexive in the decisions being made by the students.

The Teachers as Writers project (2015–2017) was conducted by Cremin, Myhill, Eyres, Nash, Wilson, and Oliver. In a recent paper ( 2020 ), the team reported on a collaborative partnership between two universities and a creative writing foundation. Professional writers were invited to engage with teachers in the writing process and the impact of these interactions on classroom teaching practices was determined. Data sets included observations, interviews, audio-capture (of workshops, tutorials and co-mentoring reflections), and audio-diaries from 16 teachers; and a randomised controlled trial (RCT) involving 32 primary and secondary classes. An intervention was carried out involving teachers writing in a week long residence with professional writers, one-on-one tutorials, and extra time and space to write. They also continued learning through two Continuing Professional Development (CPD) days. Results showed that teachers’ identities as writers shifted greatly due to their engagement with professional authors. The students responded positively in terms of their motivation, confidence, sense of ownership, and skills as writers. The professional authors also commented on positive impacts including their own contributions to schools. Conversely, these changes in practice did not improve the students’ final assessment results in any significant way. The authors noted that assuming a causal relationship between teachers’ engagement with writing workshops and students’ writing outcomes was spurious. They, therefore, developed further research building on this learning.

Knowledge and capabilities

The role of knowledge and capability is central to the articles in this category. In Australia, Macken-Horarik ( 2012 ) reported on the introduction of a national curriculum for English. This article drew on Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) by investigating the potential of Halliday’s notion of grammatics for understanding students’ writing as acts of creative meaning in context. Macken-Horarik ( 2012 ) argued that students needed to know deeply about language so that they could make creative decisions with their writing. She outlined that a ‘good enough’ grammatics would assist teachers in becoming comfortable with ‘playful developments in students’ texts and to foster their control of literate discourse’ (p. 179).

A project carried out by Edwards-Groves in 2011 highlights the role of knowledge about digital technologies in writing practices. 17 teachers in primary classrooms in Australia were asked to use particular digital technologies with their students when constructing classroom texts. Findings showed that an extended perspective on what counts as writing including the writing process was needed. Results revealed that collaborative methods when constructing diverse texts required teachers to rethink pedagogies towards writing instruction and what they consider as writing. It was argued that technology can be used to enhance creative possibilities for students in the form of new and dynamic texts. In particular, it was noted that teachers and students should be aware that digital technologies can both constrain and/or enable text creation in the classroom depending on a number of variables including knowledge and understanding, locating resources and logistical issues such as connectivity and reliability.

In addition, Mendelowitz’s ( 2014 ) study argued that nurturing teachers’ own creativity assisted their ability to teach writing more generally. She noted several ‘interrelated variables and relationships that still need to be given attention in order to gain a more holistic understanding of the challenges of teaching creative writing’ (p. 164). According to Mendelowitz ( 2014 ), elements that impacted on these challenges include teachers’ school writing histories, conceptualisations of imagination, classroom discourses, and pedagogy. Documenting teachers’ work through interviews and classroom observations by the researcher, the study found that teachers need to be able to define imagination and imaginative writing and know what strategies work best with their students. She noted that the teacher’s approaches to teaching writing ‘powerfully shaped by the interactions between their conceptualisations and enactments of imaginative writing pedagogy’ (p. 181) and that these may either limit or create a space for students to be more creative with their writing.

Such Personal Emergent Properties show that individual attributes of both teachers and students are important in learning creative writing. The next section of the paper explores the articles that shared various structural and cultural properties.

Structural emergent properties

In the subset of structural emergent properties, we mainly identified pedagogical approaches for creative writing that explored primary school learning and teaching (Christianakis, 2011a ; Christianakis, 2011b ; Coles, 2017 ; DeFauw, 2018 ; Hall & Grisham-Brown, 2011 ; Portier et al., 2019 ; Rumney et al., 2016 ; Sears, 2012 ; Steele, 2016 ; Southern et al., 2020 ; Yoo & Carter, 2017 ). These pedagogical approaches were aimed at addressing issues related to personal emergent properties such as motivation and engagement, and confidence in writing. The two categories of writing pedagogies were those that engaged professional authors and artists in teaching about creative writing, and the approaches that involved play(ful) activities, and use of visual arts, and drama.

Engaging professional authors and artists

Interestingly, many of the studies used literary forms and/or professional creative authors to spike interest and motivation in the students. Coles’ ( 2017 ) study, for example, used a garden-themed poetry writing project to support 9–10-year-old children’s creative writing in a London primary school. The 5-week project partnered with a professional creative writing organisation that facilitated the Ministry for Stories (MoS) writing centres across the USA. The study found that the social relationships created through this partnership allowed for a more inclusive and socially generative model of creativity. This meant that teachers should not just include creative aspects in assessment rubrics but rather recognise that creativity is encouraged through imagination and working with others. The researchers found improvements in the children’s participation in classroom writing activities as well as diversity in the ways they expressed their writing. The approach valued ‘rich means of expression rather than a set of rules to be learnt’ (p. 396). They also acknowledged issues associated with school–community partnerships including the sustainability of the practice.

Similarly, Rumney et al. ( 2016 ) found that using creative multimodal activities increased students’ confidence and motivation for writing. The study implemented the Write Here project with over 900 children in 12 primary and secondary schools. The study involved the children visiting local art galleries to work with professional authors and artists. Case studies were presented about pre-writing activities, the actual gallery work and post-gallery follow-up sessions. It aimed to improve students’ social development and literacy outcomes through diverse learning activities such as visual art and play in different contexts such as art galleries and classrooms. Like Coles’ ( 2017 ) study, this project showed that creative activities (e.g. talking about and acting out pictures; using story maps; backwards writing and planning) engaged students more than just teaching skills.

In addition, DeFauw’s ( 2018 ) study had student-centred learning and leadership at the core when working with a children’s book author for one year. The collaboration involved three face-to-face sessions with the author as well as online communication through blog posts. Data included recorded interactions, readings and pre and post interviews with teachers ( n  = 9), students ( n  = 36), and the author. The partnership showed that students’ interest was activated and sustained due to the situational context as well as the extended time given to students to interact with the author. The project improved students’ interest in and motivation to write as a result of engaging with authors and hearing about their own experience and writing strategies. It also found that teachers gained more confidence to support students’ exploration of writing in more creative ways. The creative pedagogies were also used in addressing issues related to creative writing outcomes for students, including teachers’ lack of confidence about pedagogies (Southern et al., 2020 ). Through a creative social enterprise approach, the authors facilitated professional development and learning involving artist-led activities for students. The program called Zip Zap had been implemented in schools in Wales and England, and data were collected through focus groups with teachers, students, and parents/carers. Observations of some of the professional development workshops were also video recorded. Third space theory was used to describe the collaborative practice between educators and artists that supported students’ creative writing outcomes. It was noteworthy that involving ‘creative’ practitioners largely focussed on the specific strategies that could be used in classrooms, to which our next section now turns.

Play(ful) activities, visual arts, and drama

Much research explores how to best support students who find writing difficult. Sears’ research ( 2012 ) is a case in point. The author shared how visual arts may be an effective way to improve struggling students with writing. They argued that the visual arts can provide ways of ‘accessing and expressing [student] ideas and ultimately opening a world of creative possibilities’ (p. 17). In the study, six third-grade students engaged with drawing and painting as pre-writing strategies, leading to the creation of poems based on the artworks. The students’ final poems were assessed and showed improved knowledge of all 6 technical categories in writing: ideas, organisation, fluency, voice, word choice, and conventions. The author also argued that students’ motivation to write increased as a result of the visual art activities.

A study by Portier et al. ( 2019 ) investigated approaches to teaching writing that were motiving and engaging for students. Involving 10 northern rural communities in Canada, the project implemented collaborative, play(ful) learning activities alongside sixteen teachers and their students. Interestingly, the study, like many others in our review, found a disconnect ‘between the achievement of curricular objectives and the implementation of play(ful) learning activities’ (p. 20); an approach valued in early childhood education. The students were supported through action research projects in creating texts with different purposes. Students’ motivation as well as samples of work were analysed and showed that student interest areas and collaborative approaches benefited both teachers and students. Further research on how reflexive thinking might have influenced these benefits is recommended.

Similarly, Lee and Enciso ( 2017 ) highlighted the importance of motivation and engagement in their study. In a collaboration with Austin Theatre Alliance, Lee and Enciso ( 2017 ) investigated how dramatic approaches to teaching, such as through expanded imagination and improvisation, can improve students’ story writing. They argued that the students’ motivation to write was also increased. The study was carried out through a controlled quasi-experimental study over 8 weeks of story-writing and drama-based programs. 29 third-grade classrooms in various schools, located in an urban district of Texas, were involved. The study also pre- and post-tested the students’ writing self-efficacy through story building. The study found that students were more able to use their cultural knowledge such as ‘culturally formed repertoires of language and experience to explore and express new understandings of the world and themselves…’ (p. 160) for creative writing purposes but needed more quality resources to support opportunities such as the Literacy for Life program. A most important finding was that for children who experience poverty, drama-based activities developed and led by teaching artists were extremely powerful and allowed the students to express themselves in entertaining ways. We do note that ‘entertainment’ and or engagement might mean different things for different students so reflexive approaches to deciding what these are would be necessary.

Steele’s ( 2016 ) study also looked at supporting teachers’ work in the classroom. Involving 6 out of 20 teacher workshop participants in Hawaii, this exploratory case study utilised observations, interview, and portfolio analyses of teacher and student work. Findings from the study showed that some teachers relished moving away from everyday ‘typical’ practice and increased student voice and choice. Other teachers, however, found it difficult to take risks and hence respond to student needs and ideas.

Dobson and Stephenson’s ( 2020 ) study focussed on the professional development of primary school teachers using drama to develop creative writing across the curriculum. The project was sponsored by the United Kingdom Literacy Association and ran for two terms in a school year. Researchers based the research on a collaborative approach involving academics and four teachers working with theatre educators to use process drama. Data sets included lesson observations, notes taken during learning conversations, and interviews with the teachers. The findings showed that three of the four teachers resisted some of the methods used such as performance; resulting in a lack of child-centred learning. The remaining teacher could take on board innovative practice, which the researchers attributed to his disposition. The study argued that these teachers, while a small participant group, needed more support in feeling confident in implementing new and creative approaches to teaching writing.

The final study, identified as addressing creative pedagogies for creative writing, was carried out by Yoo and Carter ( 2017 ) as professional development for teachers. Data included teacher survey responses and field notes taken by the researchers at each workshop (note: number of workshops and participants is unknown). The program aimed to investigate how emotions play a role in teachers’ work when teaching creative writing. The researchers found that intuitive joint construction of meaning was important to meet the needs of both primary and secondary teachers. A community of practice was established to support teachers’ identities as writers (see also Cremin et al., 2020 ). Findings showed that teachers who already identified as writers engaged more positively in the workshop.

These studies presented some approaches for teachers to consider how to teach creative writing. For example, the need to value unique spaces for students to write, including authentic connections with people and places outside of school environments was shared. Further, the need for quality stimuli and time for writing was acknowledged. Several other studies identified that blended teaching approaches to support student learning outcomes in the area of creative writing is important for schools and teachers to consider. We do acknowledge there may be other methods available to support students in creative writing, however, understanding what types of SEPs are impacting on teaching creative writing is an important step in determining improvements in schools.

Cultural emergent properties

Christianakis ( 2011a , 2011b ) wrote two papers about children’s creative text development with an emphasis on the cultural aspects. The first was an ethnographic study across 8 months with a year five class in East San Francisco Bay. The study included audio recording the students’ conversations and analysing over 900 samples of work. In the classroom, students were involved in a range of meaning-making practices including those that were arts-based and multimodal. The conversations with the students involved the researcher asking questions such: tell me more about this drawing, how did you come up with the idea? or why did you make this choice? The study found that there was a need for schools to reconceptualise the teaching of writing ‘to include not only orthographic symbols, but also the wide array of communicative tools that children bring to writing’ (p. 22). The author argued that unless corresponding institutional practices and ideologies were interrogated then improved practice was unlikely.

Christianakis’ ( 2011b ) second article, from the same project, explored more specifically the creation of hybrid rap poems by the children. She explicated how educators needed to negotiate and challenge dominant practices in primary classroom literacy learning. Like many studies before, a strong recommendation was to be more inclusive of youth popular cultures and culturally relevant literacies for students to be more engaged in creative writing practices. For Christianakis, culturally relevant literacies meant practices that embraced diversity in class and race and accounted for, and challenged, the dominant hegemonic curriculum that ‘privileges a traditional canon’ (p. 1140).

In summary, we found several themes under PEPs that could be considered for further research including those outlined in Table 3 below.

Discussion and implications for classroom practice

From this systematic literature review, several positions were exposed about the personal, structural, and cultural influences (Archer, 2012 ; Ryan, 2014 ) on teaching creative writing. These include limited teacher and student knowledge of what constitutes creative writing (Personal Emergent Properties [PEPs]), and no shared understanding or expectation in relation to creative writing pedagogy in their context (Cultural Emergent Properties [CEPs]). The negative impact of standardised testing and trending approaches on how teachers teach writing (CEP; Structural Emergent Properties [SEPs]) could also be considered (see AUTHORS 1 and 3, 2014 for example). In addition, teachers’ poor self-efficacy in terms of teaching creative writing (PEP); a paucity of quality professional development about teaching and assessing creative writing (SEP); and issues related to the sustainability of creative approaches to teach writing (SEP; CEP) need to be considered by leaders and teachers in schools. Our literature review advances knowledge about creative writing by revealing two interconnected areas that affect creative writing practices. Findings suggest that a parallel focus on personal conditions and contextual conditions—including structural and cultural—has the potential to improve creative writing in general. Below, we share some implications and recommendations for improved practice by focussing on both (1) personal views about creative writing and (2) the structural and cultural aspects that affect creative writing practices at schools.

Focussing on personal views about creative writing

School leaders and teachers must clearly define what creative writing is, what key skills constitute creative writing.

From our search it was apparent that schools and their educators often do not have a clear idea or indeed a shared idea as to what constitutes creative writing in relation to their own context. Without a well-defined focus for creative writing students may find it difficult to know what is required in classroom tasks and assessment. In addition, when planning for creative writing in school programs, teachers should consider flexible learning opportunities and choice for their students when developing their creative writing skills. Such flexibility should also involve choice of topic, ways of working (e.g. peer collaboration, individual activities etc.), and open discussions led by students in the classroom as shown throughout this paper. It would also be important for leaders and teachers to interrogate current approaches to teaching writing which we argued in the introduction to be formulaic and genre based.

Improve teacher self-efficacy, confidence, and content knowledge in teaching writing

Many of our studies showed that teachers who lacked confidence about writing themselves had less knowledge and skills to teach writing than those that may have participated in projects encouraging ‘teachers as writers’. Further, improved knowledge of grammar (as highlighted in Macken-Horarik’s, 2012 work); talk about writing in the classroom and other spaces (Cremin et al., 2020 ) and the writing process (see Ryan, 2014 ) could assist teachers in becoming more confident to take risks in the classroom with their students. Above all being playful about writing through extended conversations and practices is required.

Focussing on the structural and cultural resources

Improve training and further professional development and learning about teaching and assessing creative writing.

In order for the above personal attributes to be improved, further professional development and learning are required. Many of the papers presented throughout this review demonstrated the powerful impact of immersive professional learning for teachers. Working alongside professional authors, researchers, drama practitioners, visual artists, poets, for example, provided positive opportunities for teachers to learn about writing but also to feel more confident to teach it without imposing strict boundaries on students. We argue for professional development to be both formal and informal including such approaches as coaching and mentoring in the classroom. Demonstrated practice alongside the teacher is also recommended. This, in turn, would address the ongoing issue of creative writing being stifled for students in the classroom context.

Consider sustainability of creative pedagogic approaches and spaces for creative writing in curriculum planning

Many of the studies throughout this paper shared creative approaches to teaching writing but there were concerns that some of these methods may not be sustainable. It is important for school leaders to support the work of teachers in relation to teaching creative writing. We acknowledge that there is increasing uncertainty and scrutiny surrounding teachers’ everyday work (Knight, 2020 ), however, continued engagement in learning about and participating in creative pedagogy for writing is highly recommended. In addition, the studies suggested the provision of appropriate and authentic spaces in which students could creatively write and these often included spaces outside of the normal classroom environment and arts-based approaches implemented in such spaces. Teachers should be encouraged to collaborate and take risks rather than follow predetermined strategies for every lesson. A whole of school practice can be developed with important conversations about the ideologies that inform the school’s approach to writing.

Schools should not stifle creativity in the classroom due to the infiltration of standardised and/or trending approaches to teaching and assessing writing

It is evident that pedagogical approaches to teaching writing have been stifled by more formulaic methods aiming to meet expectations of standardised tests despite other evidence showing the benefits of more productive, engaging, and creative approaches to teaching writing as highlighted above. This can be particularly the case for students from non-dominant backgrounds where writing about cultural and life experiences through innovative practices has been proven to empower their voices (Johnson, 2021 ). The research shows that when students are offered rigid structures of texts, no choice of genres, and indeed word lists, their own decisions about writing are diminished (Ryan & Barton, 2013 ). It has been proven that students’ engagement and motivation to write can increase when they are able to write directly from their own experience or in social groups. It is therefore recommended that school leaders and teachers reconsider their ideologies about writing and explicitly indicate the importance of real-world purposes for writing—not just formulised, quick writing as usually included in external tests—but also those that encourage students’ growth in imagination, creativity, and innovative thought.

This systematic review used a lens of reflexivity to situate writing as a process of active and creative design whereby students make conscious decisions about their writing, with guidance from their teachers. As explained, we see creative writing as writing that engages a reader and, therefore, requires knowledge of authorial voice and appropriate word choice. This involves reflexive decisions relating to personal, structural, and cultural emergent properties. Predominant in the literature was the striking influence of CEPs or the values and expectations ascribed to writing, which in turn influence the strategies and resources (SEPs) and the experiences and motivations of students and teachers in the classroom (PEPs). Writing is about more than a series of perfectly formed sentences in a recognisable structure, which dominates conceptions of writing through high-stakes testing globally. It is about engagement with the expressive self, emergent identities, and relationships to places and people and above all communicating to and/or entertaining a reader. Without quality education in creative writing, society is at risk of losing an art form that is important for cultural practice and expression (Watson, 2016 ).

We do foresee several limitations with such a review, largely related to the positive nature of the studies in relation to creative approaches to teaching writing as well as the relatively small numbers of participants in some of the studies. Most of the studies reported favourably on the approaches taken by teachers to influence student motivation towards writing with limited comments about adverse effects. In terms of contributions, the notion that students need to draw on creative thought and ideas when writing means that teachers and leaders must think about diverse ways to teach writing. We argue, on the basis of the findings, that inquiry-based and reflexive professional learning projects about creativity are crucial for primary classrooms: what creativity means in different contexts and for different writers; how it is enabled; and the decisions and actions that emerge when creative and reflexive design guide our approach to classroom writing. Without quality knowledge and understanding of what creative writing is and how it is taught, we would be at risk of diminishing students’ self-expression and ability to communicate meaning to others in literary forms.

Alhusaini, A. A., & Maker, C. J. (2015). Creativity in students’ writing of open-ended stories across ethnic, gender, and grade groups: An extension study from third to fifth grades. Gifted and Talented International, 30 (1–2), 25–38.

Article   Google Scholar  

Amabile, T. M. (1982). Children's artistic creativity: Detrimental effects of competition in a field setting. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 8 (3), 573–578.

Archer, M. (2007). Making our way through the world: Human reflexivity and social mobility . Cambridge University Press.

Book   Google Scholar  

Archer, M. (2012). The reflexive imperative in late modernity . Cambridge University Press.

Au, W., & Gourd, K. (2013). Asinine assessment: Why high-stakes testing is bad for everyone, including English teachers.  English Journal , 14–19.

Baer, J., & McKool, S. (2009). Assessing creativity using the consensual assessment technique . IGI Global.

Barbot, B., Tan, M., Randi, J., Santa-Donato, G., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2012). Essential skills for creative writing: Integrating multiple domain-specific perspectives. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 7 (3), 209–223.

Brill, F. (2004). Thinking outside the box: Imagination and empathy beyond story writing. Literacy, 38 (2), 83–89.

Christianakis, M. (2011a). Children’s text development: Drawing, pictures, and writing. Research in the Teaching of English, 46 (1), 22–54.

Google Scholar  

Christianakis, M. (2011b). Hybrid texts: Fifth graders, rap music, and writing. Urban Education, 46 (5), 1131–1168.

Coles, J. (2017). Planting poetry: Sowing seeds of creativity in a year 5 class changing english. Studies in Culture and Education, 24 (4), 386–398.

Copping, A. (2018). Exploring connections between creative thinking and higher attaining writing. Education, 46 (3), 307–316.

Cremin, T., Myhill, D., Eyres, I., Nash, T., Wilson, A., & Oliver, L. (2020). Teachers as writers: Learning together with others. Literacy, 54 (2), 49–59.

Cress, S. W., & Holm, D. T. (2016). Creative endeavors: Inspiring creativity in a first-grade classroom. Early Childhood Education Journal, 44 (3), 235–243.

DeFauw, D. L. (2018). One school’s yearlong collaboration with a children’s book author. Reading Teacher., 72 (30), 355–367.

Deutsch, L. (2014). Writing from the senses: 59 exercises to ignite creativity and revitalize your writing . Shambhala Publications.

Dobson, T. (2015). Developing a theoretical framework for response: Creative writing as response in the Year 6 primary classroom. English in Education, 49 (3), 252–265.

Dobson, T., & Stephenson, L. (2017). Primary pupils’ creative writing: Enacting identities in a Community of Writers. Literacy, 51 (3), 162–168.

Dobson, T., & Stephenson, L. (2020). Challenging boundaries to cross: Primary teachers exploring drama pedagogy for creative writing with theatre educators in the landscape of performativity. Professional Development in Education, 46 (2), 245–255.

Edwards-Groves, C. (2011). The multimodal writing process: Changing practices in contemporary classrooms. Language and Education, 25 (1), 49–64.

Gibson, R., & Ewing, R. (2020). Transforming the curriculum through the arts . Springer.

Göçen, G. (2019). The effect of creative writing activities on elementary school students’ creative writing achievement, writing attitude and motivation. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 15 (3), 1032–1044.

Graham, S., McKeown, D., Kiuhara, S., & Harris, K. R. (2012). A meta-analysis of writing instruction for students in the elementary grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104 (4), 879.

Grainger, T., Goouch, K., & Lambirth, A. (2005). Creativity and writing: Developing voice and verve in the classroom . Routledge.

Hall, A. H., & Grisham-Brown, J. (2011). Writing development over time: Examining preservice teachers' attitudes and beliefs about writing. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 32 (2), 148–158.

Healey, B. (2019). How children experience creative writing in the classroom. The Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 42 (3), 184–194.

Johnson, T. (2021). Identity placement in social justice issues through a creative writing curriculum . Unpublished Masters thesis. Hamline University.

Knight, R. (2020). The tensions of innovation: Experiences of teachers during a whole school pedagogical shift. Research Papers in Education, 35 (2), 205–227.

Lee, B. K., & Enciso, P. (2017). The big glamorous monster (or Lady Gaga’s adventures at sea): Improving student writing through dramatic approaches in schools. Journal of Literacy Research, 49 (2), 157–180.

Macken-Horarik, M. (2012). Why school English needs a ‘good enough’ grammatics (and not more grammar). Changing English: Studies in Culture and Education, 19 (2), 179–194.

Mahmood, M. I., Mobeen, M., & Abbas, S. (2020). Effect of high-stakes exams on creative writing skills of ESL learners in Pakistan. Research Journal of Social Sciences and Economics Review, 1 (3), 169–179.

Mendelowitz, B. (2014). Permission to fly: Creating classroom environments of imaginative (im)possibilities. English in Education, 48 (2), 164–183.

Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., The PRISMA Group. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Medicine, 6 (7), e1000097.

Polesel, J., Dulfer, N., & Turnbull, M. (2012). The experience of education: The impacts of high stakes testing on school students and their families . The Whitlam Institute.

Portier, C., Friedrich, N., & Stagg Peterson, S. (2019). Play(ful) pedagogical practices for creative collaborative literacy. Reading Teacher, 73 (1), 17–27.

Rumney, P., Buttress, J., & Kuksa, I. (2016). Seeing, doing, writing: The write here project. SAGE Open, 6 (1).

Ryan, M. (2014). Writers as performers: Developing reflexive and creative writing identities. English Teaching: Practice & Critique, 13 (3), 130–148.

Ryan, M., & Barton, G. M. (2013). Working towards a ’’thirdspace' in the teaching of writing to middle years students. Literacy Learning: The Middle Years , 21 (3), 71–81.

Ryan, M., & Barton, G. (2014). The spatialized practices of teaching writing in Australian elementary schools: Diverse students shaping discoursal selves.  Research in the Teaching of English , 303–329.

Ryan, M., & Daffern, T. (2020). Assessing writing: Teacher-led approaches. Teaching Writing: Effective approaches for the middle years.

Ryan, M., Khosronejad, M., Barton, G., Kervin, L. & Myhill, D. (2021). A reflexive approach to teaching writing: Enablements and constraints in primary school classrooms. Written Communication.

Sears, E. (2012). Painting and poetry: Third graders’ free-form poems inspired by their paintings. Journal of Inquiry and Action in Education, 5 (1), 17–40.

Slavin, E. R., Lake, C., Inns, A., Baye, A., Dachet, D., & Haslam, J. (2019). A quantitative synthesis of research on writing approaches in years 3 to 13 . Education Endowment Foundation.

Smith, H. (2020). The writing experiment: Strategies for innovative creative writing . Routledge.

Southern, A., Elliott, J., & Morley, C. (2020). Third space creative pedagogies: Developing a model of shared CPDL for teachers and artists to support reading and writing in the primary curricula of England and Wales. International Journal of Education and Literacy Studies, 8 (1), 24–31.

Steele, J. (2016). Becoming creative practitioners: Elementary teachers tackle artful approaches to writing instruction. Teaching Education, 27 (1), 1037829. https://doi.org/10.1080/10476210.2015.1037829

Stock, C., & Molloy, K. (2020). Where are the students?: Creative writing in a high-stakes world. Idiom, 56 (3), 19.

Wang, L. (2019). Rethinking the significance of creative writing: A neglected art form behind the language learning curriculum. Cambridge Open-Review Educational Research, 6 , 110–122.

Watson, V. M. (2016). Literacy is a civil write: The art, science, and soul of transformative classrooms.  Social Justice Instruction: Empowerment on the Chalkboard , 307–323.

Wyse, D., Jones, R., Bradford, H., & Wolpert, M. A. (2013). Teaching English, language and literacy . Routledge.

Yoo, J., & Carter, D. (2017). Teacher emotion and learning as praxis: Professional development that matters. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 42 (3), 38–52.

Download references

Open Access funding enabled and organized by CAUL and its Member Institutions. The project that informed this systematic review was on the teaching of writing and funded by the Australian Research Council. The views expressed here are in no way reflective of the ARC.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Education, University of Southern Queensland, Springfield, QLD, Australia

Georgina Barton

Australian Catholic University, Sydney, NSW, Australia

Maryam Khosronejad & Mary Ryan

Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW, Australia

Lisa Kervin

Centre for Research in Writing, The University of Exeter, Exeter, UK

Debra Myhill

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Georgina Barton .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

There are no conflicts of interest regarding this paper.

Etical approval

Not applicable.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Barton, G., Khosronejad, M., Ryan, M. et al. Teaching creative writing in primary schools: a systematic review of the literature through the lens of reflexivity. Aust. Educ. Res. (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-023-00641-9

Download citation

Received : 19 July 2022

Accepted : 26 May 2023

Published : 17 June 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-023-00641-9

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Creative writing
• Primary classrooms
• Teaching writing
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

The English Classroom

A GUIDE FOR PRESERVICE AND GRADUATE TEACHERS

Learning Intentions

The situation.

Students need to understand the overall purpose of learning.

The Solution

Students al ways need to understand why the learning is important.

Learning Intention

A learning intention is a statement that summarises what a student should know , understand or be able to do at the end of a lesson or series of lessons. The purpose of a learning intention is to ensure that students understand the direction and purpose of the lesson. These statements are presented at the start of a lesson (Something we call ‘visible learning’) and should be discussed with students throughout the lesson, or when necessary. They are used to summarise the learning; that is, we return to the learning intentions to evaluate whether students understand what they explored.

As mentioned, learning intentions are written with the stem: know , understand or be able to . For example:

• Know the definition of a metaphor.
• Understand how metaphors are used to create imagery in a text.
• Be able to identify three metaphors in a short poem.

As you can see, the stems a associated with levels of thinking . When sequencing your lessons, consider whether the skills students are learning are low order, such as know a definition, or higher-order, such as applying this knowledge to a text.

How to Present Learning Intention

The learning intentions should be presented on the whiteboard and/or powerpoint, depending on the context of your classroom. Unpack the language in the statement. If a word is unfamiliar to a student, tell them why. For example, know the definition of a metaphor. This might be the first time students have come across the word metaphor. That is okay. Reinforce that you will be looking at this new vocabulary at the beginning of the lesson and they can practice understand the term later.

The language needs to be clear and direct, much like a SMART goal. Furthermore, it needs to be something that they can achieve based on their current skill level. The skill itself cannot be so complicated that they cannot obtain a rudimentary understanding from their prior knowledge.

When introducing the learning intention, quiz students on what they know. You will be surprised at what information that they may come across or even how accurate their guesses can be. Use this prior knowledge to help guide their understanding of what they will learn.

Stop and reflect

After each activity, stop and pauses. Ask students whether they feel they’re working towards the learning intention successfully. This will help you understand whether they are on the right track or you need to adjust your teaching.

Share this:

Published by The English Classroom

View all posts by The English Classroom

3 thoughts on “ Learning Intentions ”

• Pingback: Success Criteria | Cosmik Egg
• Pingback: Designing Learning Programs | The English Classroom
• Pingback: Teaching…Propaganda | The English Classroom

Leave a comment Cancel reply

• Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
• Subscribe Subscribed
• Copy shortlink
• Report this content
• View post in Reader
• Manage subscriptions
• Collapse this bar

poetry learning intentions and success criteria writing

All Formats

Resource types, all resource types.

• Rating Count
• Price (Ascending)
• Price (Descending)
• Most Recent

Poetry learning intentions and success criteria writing

Poetry Escape Room

Stage Two (Yr 3 & 4) Structured Poetry Unit - Haiku and I am Poems

Writing : Shape Poem Lesson

Titanic - Poetry Writing Full Lesson

Poetry Definitions

Poetry Booklet

Ultimate Poetry Bundle (10%off) - Simile/Limerick/Haiku/Colour/Diamante/Cinquain

Editable Grade/Year 1 and 2 Poetry Program - Word Doc

• Word Document File

Colour Poems - EDITABLE PowerPoint | Poetry Lesson Ready to Teach

Editable Grade/Year 3 and 4 Poetry Program - Google Doc

• Google Docs™

Diamante Poems - EDITABLE PowerPoint | Poetry Lesson Ready to Teach

Limerick Poems - EDITABLE PowerPoint | Poetry Lesson Ready to Teach

Cinquain Poems - GOOGLE SLIDES | Poetry Lesson Ready to Teach

• Google Slides™

Colour Poems - Printable PDF | Poetry Lesson Ready to Teach

Haiku Poems - EDITABLE PowerPoint | Poetry Lesson Ready to Teach

Grade/Year 5 and 6 Poetry Program - Editable Word Doc

PDF Grade/Year 1 and 2 Poetry Program

Diamante Poems - GOOGLE SLIDES | Poetry Lesson Ready to Teach

Cinquain Poems - Printable PDF | Poetry Lesson Ready to Teach

Haiku Poems - Printable PDF | Poetry Lesson Ready to Teach

Simile Poems - Printable PDF | Poetry Lesson Ready to Teach

Diamante Poems - Printable PDF | Poetry Lesson Ready to Teach

Simile Poems - EDITABLE PowerPoint | Poetry Lesson Ready to Teach

Cinquain Poems - EDITABLE PowerPoint | Poetry Lesson Ready to Teach

• We're hiring
• Help & FAQ
• Privacy policy
• Student privacy
• Terms of service
• Tell us what you think