See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/266564551
English in Education: The first fifty years
Article in English in Education · September 2014
DOI: 10.1111/eie.12048
CITATIONS
READS
2
600
2 authors, including:
John Hodgson
University of the West of England, Bristol
46 PUBLICATIONS 64 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Research into progressive English teaching View project
Writing into a Void: university students approach academic writing View project
All content following this page was uploaded by John Hodgson on 28 November 2018.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.
English in Education: the first fifty years: page 1 _____________________________ English in Education: the first fifty years Introduction: the changing world of research-­‐led teaching On a Saturday in May 2014, an educational research conference in a York (U.K.) secondary
school was attended by well over a hundred people, the great majority of whom were
practising teachers. The means of communication and debate that united most of the
delegates at the conference was neither membership of a professional association such as
NATE, nor an academic affiliation. Many had not met before, but knew each other virtually
through Twitter and shared blogs. Indeed, several delegates used their Twitter hashtag to
identify them on their name badge. Most importantly, they were united by a commitment to
learning how to become better teachers through educational research. Prompt questions
offered in the programme included: What is the evidence-base behind this speaker’s
presentation? Is their point of view contested? What further research do you need to
undertake to ensure you have a balanced picture?
In this era of virtual connection and debate by enthusiastic practitioners with a shared
commitment to the well-being of their students – a commitment that was made repeatedly by
various speakers – the English in Education archive offers a rich resource that could be
drawn upon by teachers across the English-speaking world to access the theoretically and
evidentially informed research of the past fifty years. Many issues that are currently
debated on education blogs and in other virtual spaces – talk and learning, improving
student writing, developing engagement in reading – are extensively discussed in the pages
of the journal with reference to quality research that retains its relevance. For this reason,
NATE has commissioned work to make the archive more readily accessible to members and
others. Like the delegates at the York conference, the teachers and researchers who have
written for English in Education over the last fifty years have shared a commitment to
education as a means of supporting, developing and enhancing the lives of their students. It
is this student-centred approach (a term that is currently disapproved in some official
discourses) that distinguishes the approach of the journal, whatever the topic under
discussion. What follows will demonstrate this in some detail.
This paper is the fruit of several months' work by two researchers. The first researcher
sampled the 50 volumes of English in Education (each containing three issues) by reading
and reporting in detail on approximately 10% of the archive: specifically Volume A1 (NATE
Bulletin) (1964); Volume 4 (1970); Volume 10 (1976); Volume 16 (1982); Volume 22 (1988);
English in Education: the first fifty years: page 2 _____________________________ Volume 28 (1994); Volume 34 (2000); Volume 40 (2006); and Volume 46 (2012). This
frequency was chosen primarily to make the task manageable, but the volumes chosen are
also relatively synchronous with significant political/educational events such as the Bullock
Report of 1975 and the introduction of the National Curriculum in 1988, The two researchers
consulted on analysis of these data and decided to conduct this chronologically (to show the
development of ideas and practices) and thematically in terms of language mode (speaking;
writing; reading, including new technologies). The second researcher then took each theme
and explored further volumes in order to extend and sharpen the analyses in relation to the
political, social and educational context. The paper has been written jointly with close
consultation at every stage. We have addressed each language mode separately in terms
of chronological development, under three headings: 1: Speaking our own Language; 2:
Writing: Creativity and Form; and 3: Reading: Text and Technology. These categories are,
of course, interrelated and interdependent, and the divisions are merely for convenience. A
concluding section summarises what can be gained from re-reading the journal at the
present time. Five time-line figures are inserted at points through the paper to offer a guide
to political and policy developments in the teaching of English in England that acted on the
writers. This is very much a formative and introductory work, and we hope that it will provide
an impetus for further exploration and debate of the purposes and practices of evidencebased education in English.
English in Education: the first fifty years: page 3 _____________________________ Figure 1: Political/educational developments in England, 1963-1972
1. Speaking our own language
1.1 Talk and learning The journal we know as English in Education began in 1964 as NATE Bulletin: it gained its
current title in 1967. From the earliest issues, it offered coherent and inclusive debate on
the key issues of language and education that were emerging in the early sixties. A broad
consensus in favour of educational reform led to the establishment in 1964 of the Schools
Council, a consultative body on which professionals were invited to make recommendations
for curriculum change. At the start of the journal in 1964, the Newsom Committee (1963)
had recently reported and the debates of the Plowden Committee (1967) were in the public
domain (Figure 1). Each report dealt with a different phase of childhood but both
emphasised the need to provide a more adequate education for those children who were not
regarded as academically able: those who were termed by the Newsom Report (1963) as
“half our future”. Newsom is summarised in the first NATE Bulletin (LATE 1964) by
members of the London Association for the Teaching of English (LATE), the organisation
English in Education: the first fifty years: page 4 _____________________________ which preceded NATE and continues today as a vigorous centre of NATE activity. Anthony
Clayton's (1964) summary of emerging findings by the Plowden Committee (in the same
volume) outlines many issues and arguments that chime with those of Newsom. These
include the importance of teachers' understanding how a child’s outlook on life is profoundly
influenced by their knowledge and use of language; it is their “chief means of contact with
reality”.
In Volume 4 of English in Education, Majorie Hourd (1970) explores this in terms of
continuity. In a review of relevant philosophical and psychological theory, she argues that
students arrive with their own linguistic resources and interpretations. As part of growing up,
they gain understanding of themselves as human beings as they read about fictional
characters. The challenge for the English teacher is not simply to impart knowledge, but to
unearth, and enable students to draw upon, knowledge they already possess but may find
difficult to access. Similarly, James Britton (1970) suggests that the learning between
teacher and student is multidirectional, since teachers can acquire a wealth of information
about the lives of the young people they teach and the daily pressures they face, all of which
could dramatically enhance their practice. To achieve this, Britton argues, a practitioner
should try to select language that engages with a student’s inner dialogue. According to
Rosenblatt’s (1969) transactional theory of reading and Piaget’s (1962) concept of
assimilation and accommodation, this will encourage them to align the new information they
learn and confirm or modify their existing expectations. Hence, the importance of a
teacher’s subject knowledge of English and education at every level (primary, secondary and
university) is foregrounded in these early issues of the journal.
This view of the importance of the student's language, and of the teacher's capacity to
mobilise effective classroom talk and learning, is a central theme of the journal throughout its
history. It is a view that is challenged at certain points: in earlier volumes, by certain
interpretations of Bernstein's theories of language codes; later, by official curricula, by new
theoretical constructions and indeed by emerging technologies that may (in certain contexts)
appear a dominant means of communication. The political matrix has changed markedly: in
2013, the UK Secretary of State for Education announced that speaking and listening
assessments would no longer count towards final grades in GCSE English and English
Language assessment (Ofqual 2013). But in 1964, the view that educational and social
progress depends on teachers' listening to, relating to and intervening constructively in the
language that children bring with them into school was not regarded as politically eccentric.
Sir Edward Boyle, then Minister of State for Education and Science, writes in the first volume
English in Education: the first fifty years: page 5 _____________________________ (one cannot imagine the current minister contributing in similar vein) to endorse the view that
students should be asked to talk and write about topics which really matter to them, in order
to spark their enjoyment, interest and curiosity in language (Boyle 1964). Additionally, a
report by members of the London Association for the Teaching of English suggests that an
understanding of children’s language development can aid in the teaching of all subjects,
and, in supportive acknowledgement of George Sampson’s (1922) (in)famous proposal that
“every teacher is a teacher of English”, recommends that the teaching and use of language
should be conceived as a whole school effort (LATE 1964). The writers argue that the
importance of talk in learning should not be underestimated, and propose that every
practitioner should be given training in the techniques of class discussion as a means of
developing reflective learning.
1.2 How to teach language From the earliest days of the journal, then, the emphasis on responding to the pupil's
language goes with a sense of the need for linguistic and cognitive development. In volume
4, L.E.W. Smith (1970) argues that the teacher's awareness of the child's language and
culture should not proscribe the need for intellectual challenge: it is beneficial to “start where
the child is” but destructive to remain there. Besides, as HMI Edward Wilkinson (1970) points
out, the concept of relevance, as initially foregrounded by the Newsom Report, is not without
its intrinsic contradictions. This is because it is by no means certain what might be
considered socially and personally important to a young person’s development: this may be
interpreted differently by teachers, students and parents. Additionally, as George Robertson
(1970) suggests, some students may not wish to take responsibility for authentic expression.
They may prefer the safety of the teacher’s choices, or not realise what is most useful to
their needs.
It is not surprising that this emphasis on language as a means of "contact with reality" and of
effective, personal learning goes with a critique of language teaching as commonly
constituted at the time. At this early stage in the development of the journal, the terms of
this critique are already forming within two broad parameters of argument. One questions
the effectiveness of much language teaching in contemporary British schools. The
"grammatical" component of the GCE Ordinary level English examination comes under
attack from Douglas Barnes (1964), who claims to speak on behalf of many teachers in
disapproving an out-dated assessment system that rewards "the ability to perform little
verbal tricks” in a repetitive and unengaging way. Barnes underlines the basis of this line of
critique when he questions the need to “make conscious and general that which is already
English in Education: the first fifty years: page 6 _____________________________ known in a way unconscious and particular”. Linguists such as Trudgill (1974) argued that
native speakers do not make grammatical errors, and that grammar was often confused with
social correctness in language use. This position holds that native speakers already have a
sophisticated unconscious knowledge of grammar; consequently, language development
should focus on elaborating students' range and depth of thought and expression. These
criticisms are developed by Andrew Wilkinson’s (1970) review of academic research
investigating the relationship between traditional grammar tuition and students’ attainment
and progress in writing (discussed below in Section 2, Writing: Creativity and Form). Overall,
Wilkinson calls for better collaboration and communication between researchers and
teachers to effectively guide future practice.
The other frame of argument emphasises the importance and value of explicit teaching of
language as an aspect of knowledge, but holds (in the words of Randolf Quirk [1964]) that
“the teaching of English Language in this country is seriously unsatisfactory”. Quirk's
proposal of a linguistics based A Level examination is unsurprisingly controversial. Other
writers propose that language teaching should emphasise what is useful to the student in
terms of intellectual development: thus the debate on language studies becomes a debate
on language and learning. Although there is general consensus that English as a subject
goes beyond the superficialities of "correct" language use, some contributors show concern
that a rejection of and growing stigma surrounding traditional approaches to grammar has
meant that students are lacking in their ability to communicate clearly and accurately. In his
vision of English teaching at post 16 (in issue 1 of Volume 4), F. D Flower (1970) argues that
there should be three key areas of focus: personal growth and development whereby
language is used to creatively mediate experience; social communication to facilitate
successful cooperation and collaboration with others; and “competence in handling the kind
of language… associated with the special vocational or academic fields of activity of each
student”. Here, language studies are seen as a positive element in developing students'
capacities: L.E.W Smith (1970) suggests that giving students the opportunity to learn about
different dialects and registers can help to extend their linguistic repertoire and relate
effectively with others, socially and in the workplace.
Indeed, this volume deals with many aspects of the role of talk and language in learning that
have subsequently become familiar in educational debate. The approaches discussed
above in terms of “starting where the child is” to stimulate curiosity in language play are
complemented by a growing recognition of the value of group discussion and dramatic
techniques such as role-play in the English classroom. In the third issue of volume 4, these
English in Education: the first fifty years: page 7 _____________________________ techniques are drawn upon as a strategy for effective working with disadvantaged students.
Here, Paul Widlake (1970), Michael Duane (1970) and Fred Flower (1970a) argue that the
language used when working with disadvantaged children should aim to teach about the
dialect of the host society but avoid alienating the students under instruction.
Figure 2: Political/educational developments in England, 1973-1982
1.3 Restricted or elaborated code? In the journal’s second decade, Bernstein’s (1971) theory of restricted and elaborated codes
becomes a key point of debate. Volume 10, for example, begins with a focus on research
and classroom experience of working with young children of around pre-school age. Many of
the contributors argue that, if planned carefully, meaningful intervention can be implemented
at this stage to help develop a child’s language use and production. One of the key themes
which emerges from these discussions is a desire to break down stereotypes associated
with what it is to be linguistically deprived and how we judge a child to be part of this social
category. Much of this debate arises in response to the Bullock Report A Language for Life
(1975), published a year before this volume (Figure 2), and to comments made by the
English in Education: the first fifty years: page 8 _____________________________ Plowden Committee (1967). In particular, several of the contributors raise concerns over the
inaccurate and unhelpful assumptions contained in the Bullock Report about working class
parents and their ability to provide their children with wide ranging language opportunities.
For example, in his discussion of home visiting, John Nicholls (1976) points out that a home
can still be considered a “learning environment” even if teachers may not necessarily
approve of it. Thus, we should be wary of such oversimplified manifestations of Bernstein’s
theory of restricted and elaborated codes, which serve to hinder rather than help our
understanding of the different social backgrounds that our students come from. Here,
contributions to the journal may be seen to draw on some of the objections to Bernstein's
theory made by Harold Rosen in such publications as Language and Class (1972). Mary
Waterson (1976) offers a similar line of argument in her article on traveller children and how
teachers can best support such students and their families. Likewise, Barbara Tizard (1976)
presents a compelling case that the differences in language opportunity among working
class and middle class families are very small and that, in fact, the notion that (nursery)
teachers by definition offer better provision for language practice and development than
parents should be questioned. This is because conversations at home are often more
frequent and in depth in contrast to the low adult-to-child ratio in the pre-school classroom,
and they usually “refer to matters of real concern to the child” (Tizard 1976). In these ways,
writers in English in Education were contributing a progressive viewpoint to the debate on
comprehensive education that had been started by Cox and Dyson’s (1969) anti-progressive
first Black Paper Fight for Education (Figure 1) and articulated as a government concern by
UK Prime Minister James Callaghan’s (1976) Ruskin College speech (Figure 2).
Many of the articles foreground the importance of “joint activity” whereby children can
discuss a topic or work through an issue with their peers or an adult, and should be given as
much opportunity to ask questions as adults. This was a lesson that Hillary Minns (1976)
quickly realised in her work with a young boy who she initially thought was socially distanced
and delayed in his language use. She found that, by asking too many questions and not
responding to cues offered by the child in question, she could not get the boy to talk freely
about his needs and interests. There are three threads to this finding that correlate with
many of the other writers’ arguments in this volume. Firstly, teachers need to carefully
consider the way in which they use questions with students (if at all) so that they are able to
express themselves, their knowledge and interests in a way that reveals the maximum of
their ability. Secondly, they should "listen to their students and their performance” (Dormer
1976); a sentiment that has parallels with the concept of the “reflective practitioner” proposed
English in Education: the first fifty years: page 9 _____________________________ by Donald Schön (1987). Thirdly, educationalists should avoid making hasty assumptions
about children’s limitations and indeed the efficacy of parental support when their own
information and measure is inadequate. In many instances, Minns argues, researchers are
still learning about the area of child development under examination and so should be
cautious about making or accepting value judgements on the behaviour of others (Minns
1976).
This concern for reflective, professional self-awareness is a characteristic theme of Volume
16. It is argued that practitioners should be aware of their relationship to students and their
individual communication skills (both oral and written), but should also take note of their own
language choices, unconscious biases, and the sub-textual meanings of the books they
select to teach. Such reflexivity should be modelled to students, who, it is argued, can begin
to understand the linguistic choices of others only when they have realised the strengths and
limitations of their own. Grierson and Richardson (1982) and Mavrogenes (1982) suggest
that students should be taught about some of the processes by which they first acquired
language and learnt to read and write, and how their ancestors influenced the language that
they use today. The writers argue that this socio-historical knowledge will offer students a
greater understanding of their roots; of the way in which language is as much socially
shaped as it is guided by technical rules; and of the importance of language within the
context of their own lives.
Many writers in this volume reiterate the values of small group discussion, of drawing upon
children’s literature, and of using the student’s voice to guide planning. Moreover, Wade
(1985) sows the seeds of “personalised learning” when he argues in Volume 19 that “reading
schemes and policies require adaptation to the needs of individual readers” (p.28).
Teachers' reflective practice, then as now, is influenced (or should be influenced) by
research into the relation of language and learning. In his review of recent linguistic insights,
Harold Rosen (1982) evaluates the intricate social and pedagogical dilemma faced by
English teachers when working with students who possess dialects that diverge significantly
from the language of learning. He explains that teachers must try to strike a balance with
the language that they use, promote and accept from students. This is because, in the
context of working class pupils, to dismiss their language forms would be to “sever them
from their own meaning system”, but to entirely move away from the language school offers
would lock them in their present situation, narrow the range of texts they can understand and
strip away any opportunities for upward social mobility (Rosen 1982: 18). Moreover, Rosen
English in Education: the first fifty years: page 10 _____________________________ attempts to dispel prominent myths associated with class and educational attainment. In
support of Goodman (1973), he stresses the influential power of the teacher to mediate
between student, parent and whole school expectations and preconceptions. Lastly, he
suggests that it may be beneficial to devote part of the time once filled with traditional
grammar teaching to a collaborative exploration of the language use of working class
students and the diversity of views and myths that surrounds this area.
Figure 3: Political/educational developments in England, 1983-1992
1.4 Assessing language performance With the introduction of the National Curriculum in 1988 (Figure 3), issues of assessment,
never far below the surface in debate, become strikingly foregrounded even in discussion of
the importance of listening to the child’s voice and using the knowledge gained to inform
planning and practice. In Volume 22, contributors such as Hamilton (1988) and Shaw
(1988) not only urge teachers to share their assessment criteria with students but also
encourage them to invite pupils to be part of the process of establishing a final mark. This is
particularly the case with the oracy unit, which is viewed by many as a problematic
English in Education: the first fifty years: page 11 _____________________________ component of the new National Curriculum (introduced in the year of this volume). Shaw
raises the difficulties of “assessing [students] at the same time as teaching during class
discussion, and the problem of maintaining the naturalness of a conversation which is being
assessed”. Shaw advocates that students should be included in this process by asking them
to discuss and/or write down their experiences of oral examination tasks. This may help to
reveal their “sensitivity to other speakers” (e.g. to their moods and attitudes), their use of
greetings, evidence of comprehension and response, and recognition of tone. Students’
self-reflection is considered a powerful tool to allow practitioners to talk confidently about oral
achievement (Shaw 1988).
It is clear that Hamilton and Shaw's interventions attempt to ameliorate the effects of a new
official construction of oral English as performance rather than as what Maybin (1988)
termed “language practice [which] increases students’ critical understanding and action in
the world". Maybin’s review of the oracy surveys conducted by the Assessment of
Performance Unit (APU) in 1982 (Figure 2) criticises the unit for constructing a version of
oracy that does not follow this conception. Instead, the APU base their assessment of
students mostly on their individual merits rather than on collaborative activity and apply
misaligned conventions of essay-writing to talk. Maybin also attacks the methods used by
the assessors. She criticises their overreliance on recordings of the students speaking
rather than on face-to-face experience, and suggests that dialect, accent and gender bias
may cloud their judgement. This growing distance between NATE's conception of classroom
talk and government policy is in stark contrast to the apparent consensus between NATE
and the political and educational establishment of the day that is traceable in the first
bulletins published in 1964.
Another area of research into oracy that is discussed at length in this volume is children’s
culture: their talk, playground culture (rhymes and songs, role play, storytelling etc.), their
family histories which serve to shape them (see, for example, “Writing Biographies” in Issue
2), and their increasing curiosity about the world around them. Smidt (1988) proposes that
children talk about real world issues more often and with greater seriousness than many
people would believe, as they try to understand seemingly senseless events. For this
reason, Burgess and Gulliver (1988) suggest that talk in primary classrooms should
encourage children to “ask questions about the world which matter to them” including those
that may take the class on largely “unpredictable paths”. This will help to satisfy their
curiosity and simultaneously harvest their growth as young people. This embrace of a
“questioning” approach to learning is also advocated by Blanchard (1988). Blanchard
English in Education: the first fifty years: page 12 _____________________________ suggests that a meaningful way to consolidate a seemingly conflicting vision of education
(i.e. dynamic and flexible teaching vs a need to standardise assessment) is by using the
National Curriculum as a general guide over what content to cover but more importantly, a
catalyst to fuel collaborative discussions with students over which particular questions,
experiments and challenges would be most worthwhile to explore in greater detail.
Every contributor to this volume, then, while continuing to argue the value and importance of
process rather than product, reflects the influence of the National Curriculum's drive towards
foregrounding measured performance as the prime educational goal. It is not only
governmental edict, however, that changes the journal's mode of discourse quite strikingly
as English in Education enters the 1990s. In Volume 28, Tomlinson (1994) examines some
of the research that had been drawn upon repeatedly to support previous arguments against
the explicit teaching of grammar. He argues that this research was poorly designed and
relied upon a definition of grammar teaching that did not taken into account grammatical
instruction that avoided formal terminology. One teacher of a class that was allegedly not
given grammatical instruction explained to a pupil what was wrong with “Jim and me was
going into the cave” without using the terms subject and object pronoun. This contribution
sets the scene for a reconsideration of "knowledge about language" in the curriculum that
persists through succeeding years.
Even more striking is the influence of new technologies on the characteristic concerns of the
journal. McLuhan could not have asked for a clearer exemplification of his theory of
technological determinism (McLuhan 1964). As will be discussed further below in Section 3
(Reading: text and technology), a considerable number of articles in Volume 28 focus on the
different types of literacies young people are expected to master as they now grow up in a
multimedia environment whereby watching television, using digital devices (cameras, mobile
phones, etc.) and entering virtual worlds in computer games is a commonplace part of their
daily life. Traditional notions of literacy can no longer suffice because, as Mackey (1994)
explains: “The cry of “Back to Basics” ignores the realities of being five today.” None of this
undermines the journal's long-standing view of the importance of connecting with young
people's language and experience; but the modes in which such language and experience
are conveyed and expressed are now multiple, various and technologically mediated.
In this world of multiple, technology-led literacies, a vocationally-oriented approach to talk
may, Peter Medway (1994) argues, offer students a meaningful context for language use.
English in Education: the first fifty years: page 13 _____________________________ Medway provides a persuasive account, based on his observations of architects in
operation, of how young people can be taught to communicate effectively. According to
Medway, successful communication is not simply about being able to use the correct terms
but how to behave appropriately in varying situations and to use language in a way where
the speaker learns something in the process. Thus, students should be given the opportunity
to talk through problems in a setting whereby they feel able to share their uncertainty
surrounding an issue, since this is the first step in the pathway towards clarity and
competence. He also stresses the value in leading group tasks which are “sufficiently
complex to require some division of responsibilities within the group and some involvement
of disparate other parties outside the group” (Medway 1994).
In Volume 34, published in 2000, the argument for a collaborative culture in the classroom,
which has been a feature of the journal since its beginning, continues; but Baxter (2000)
questions progressive notions of “oracy”, proposing that an overemphasis on the
collaborative has led to a situation whereby “the complementary and potentially lifeenhancing skills” associated with public speaking to a large group have become
undervalued. She recommends that students should be made accustomed to lessons where
they all are expected to speak, and sometimes in competitive contexts requiring a sustained,
individual and persuasive contribution; small group and pair work can be drawn upon to
allow practice and planning time for this.
1.5 Different modes of communication Performance, then, is no longer necessarily opposed to collaborative exploration of
language and ideas. As the role of new technologies within English and education more
generally becomes increasingly apparent, the journal's discourse takes on the new language
of performativity. Following Gunther Kress’ influential work on multimodality (2003), many of
the contributors in Volume 40 offer powerful accounts of how some children can move
effectively between different modes of communication (spoken, visual, written, performative)
and harness the affordances of multiple technologies (email, creative software, discussion
forums, digital photography) to achieve various outcomes. In some instances, this dynamic
process can help young people explore and consolidate their linguistic-cultural identities, as
in the case of the Asian and Welsh students observed in Pahl’s (2006) study of bilingualism.
In other cases, it is a means by which students can present their interests and personas to
external (online) audiences (Merchant et al 2006). Following her research on informal
discussions between primary students, Taylor (2006) concludes: “Children’s communicative
practices outside of formal teacher-pupil interaction are naturally more multimodal than
English in Education: the first fifty years: page 14 _____________________________ adults… using the full range of body contact, gesture, posture, facial expression and pictorial
mode to communicate with each other” (p 79, Issue 3). Likewise, Dowdall (2006) notes that
children’s literacy practices are shaped by numerous factors, social (e.g. family habitus,
interactive composition with friends), technological (computer games, films etc.) and
agentive (e.g. territory marking, determination). Some pupils, like “Ben” in Dowdall’s study,
are able to amalgamate this knowledge and create multi-layered narratives drawing upon
coding systems such as colour to add extra detail. In their fascinating conversations with
primary school pupils about the future of English lessons, Foster and Lewis (2006) reveal the
many modes of communication used by the children to lead their everyday interactions with
others (e.g. texting, MSN Messenger, email, video-conferencing and talking). In light of this
finding, the authors recommend that “it may be necessary to consider teaching children
explicitly how to use these different modes appropriately and safely” (p. 65, Issue 3): the
beginning of many ongoing discussions on e-safety and learning.
However, the rich and multifaceted learning ecology described above is contrasted with the
“school-sanctioned literacy curriculum” (Millard 2003:5 in Dowdall 2006) which is rooted in
“constrained, reductionist views of literacy, linked to standardised assessment regimes” and
manageable learning objectives (Green 2006:7). Under such policies, children’s literacy
practices outside the classroom are treated as unconventional and “other”: devoid of
attainment value. In his historical account of changes in the Australian National Curriculum,
Green calls for a post-critical pedagogy that is informed by educational research rather than
governmental disconnectedness (or “official literacy” as he calls it). He proposes a modified
form of rhetoric teaching called “compos(1T)ing”, which carefully combines close, critical
textual study (including cultural sensitivity) with a level of playful creativity in text production,
drawing upon literature’s basis in the arts (Green 2006).
Lastly, as technology continues to advance and starts to become ubiquitous for some
children, many of the contributors (e.g. Chandrasegaran 2006) seek to find ways to include
ICT in the classroom, and consolidate the ever-expanding identity of English as a subject.
Franks et al (2006) encourage teachers of English, Drama and Media to realise the growing
overlaps between their specialisms (e.g. how dramatic representations are mediated through
screen technologies). According to the authors, a dominant linguistic model is no longer
sufficient; instead, a synergy between the three is required. Though this may be difficult to
achieve at first, students’ analyses of meaning need to move between the images created in
literature to stage to game to film and beyond in a form of multimodal semiotics as
suggested by Kress (2003). Franks, Durran and Burn suggest that this process will “involve
English in Education: the first fifty years: page 15 _____________________________ the intellectual effort to grow the theory, the practical imagination to build on the kind of
border-raiding we have illustrated here, and the political will to level the playing field in future
mandatory curricula” (p.78, Issue 1). This represents further confirmation that, for real and
meaningful educational change to take place within schools, a dynamic and multidirectional
relationship is required between policymakers, teachers and researchers. Unfortunately, as
the new century unfolds, it becomes increasingly apparent that such a relationship will exist
only as a memory of the journal's opening years.
2. Writing: creativity and form 2.1 Writing from experience The teaching of writing and how to strike a meaningful balance between apparently opposed
aims and purposes – “creativity” and “accuracy” - has been a source of fruitful debate
throughout English in Education. In adopting a historical lens, it is possible to identify a
cyclic course to this discussion. This is characterised by an initial rejection of approaches to
the teaching of writing that focus on formal correctness in favour of methods which connect
with students’ experiences and encourage personally engaged writing; a prolonged period of
discussion during which an emphasis on personal growth and creativity is complicated by
consideration of the social and cultural context of written communication and a period of
pedagogical reservation and paralysis as a result of increased government regulation. A
revived interest in creativity can be dated from the publication of the report of the National
Advisory Committee on Creative and Cultural Education (NACCCE 1999) which was later
embedded in the curriculum (House of Commons 2007) and set the scene for the more
recent abandonment of the National Strategies and a renewed interest not only in student
writing but also in teachers as writers (NWP 2009).
NATE Bulletin began in 1964 with a commitment to value the language of those students
who had been described in the title of the Newsom Report, published the previous year, as
"Half our Future" – those who attended secondary modern or technical schools and would
leave at 15 without having achieved any formal educational qualifications. Writing that
related to their experience was not to be found in the traditional textbooks that gave models
of belles-lettres and set exercises in sentence-completion that required an ear for élite
standards of formal correctness. NATE writers at this time were not alone in their ambition
to recognise the young person's voice: politicians as well as educationists wrote for the new
journal to express similar views. In the first NATE Bulletin, Sir Edward Boyle, then Minister
for Education in the Conservative government, advises that students should be asked to
English in Education: the first fifty years: page 16 _____________________________ write about topics which really matter to them, to spark their enjoyment, their interest and,
most importantly, their curiosity in language (Boyle 1964). Andrew Wilkinson (1964) cites
research to argue that an over reliance on teaching correct grammatical forms can, in some
cases, hinder students’ progress by way of demotivating them and paralysing their free
expression. He suggests that the teaching of “grammar” (in the sense of the linguistic
rationale for “correct” forms of Standard English) remains in the syllabus to give teachers a
sense of security rather than because of a proven efficacy in supporting students' written
expression. A. B. Clegg, then Director of Education for Yorkshire, recommends that children
should be given frequent opportunities to write, with time to finish and discuss their work; this
will liberate them, he argues, from the anxiety of maintaining absolute accuracy and respect
for the reader (Clegg 1964:5). Likewise, in Volume 4, Richard Corbin (1970) argues that
“good writing happens when a person feels intensely enough about someone or something
to try to recapture and record the experience in what really is to us all a foreign tongue written English”. Here, Corbin comments both on the difficulty of writing and on the one key
source of motivation for students to partake in such a challenging pursuit: a task that seeks
to genuinely engage with their encounters beyond the classroom. It is only in these
conditions, away from the constraints of formalised writing curricula, that a student can
develop confidence, independence and creative ability as both a writer and learner.
2.2 Context and audience Strong as these voices were in advocating writing that captured individual, authentic
experience, without excessive concern for formal accuracy, there were equally as strong
cases made for appropriate attention to the form of students' writing. L.E.W. Smith (1970)
recommends that there should be a framework for writing whereby, in line with Vygotsky’s
(1978) learning and development theory, “there are a series of consequential steps” as inner
speech leads to written speech and then to more differentiated forms of writing. Teachers
can build upon these and, with suitable extension, students can reach their highest stages.
Similarly, Patrick Creber (1970) proposes an “Imaginative/Critical Model” for secondary
schools whereby there are ample opportunities for both personal writing and working with
academic ideas. After all, he argues, the latter can be just as stimulating as emotionally rich
texts. Moreover, F. D. Flower (1970) states that, although it is easy to criticise the concept of
formal grammar teaching and the way it has been presented in the past, students’ concern
for the vocational credit of their studies (i.e. how will this course lead to a good job?),
requires teachers to recognise the importance of students’ being able to control the forms of
language associated with their chosen field of future employment. Thus, a curriculum aimed
English in Education: the first fifty years: page 17 _____________________________ at post-16 students should aim to include “grammar teaching”, although not at the expense
of other key areas of language study.
It is clear that “grammar teaching” as used in this context is shorthand for the teaching of
forms of language that are appropriate for formal communication such as that used in
specific situations such as professional employment. Attention thus shifts from the personal,
affective needs of the writer to the context and audience of the communication. In Volume
10, Nancy Cox (1976) points out that, because of the ever-expanding scope of English as a
subject, the power of writing as a unique, irreplaceable form of communication can be
missed. Therefore, children should be taught writing in situations whereby speech and even
pictures would be inefficient. To promote such free and confident written expression,
practitioners should also try to vary the audience whom children write for (Cox suggests that
the class teacher can be a daunting readership for those with little writing experience), and
they should be presented with as many different models as possible so that they can quickly
become familiar with the codes and conventions of a range of text types (Martin 1976).
The work of Cox and Martin marks a shift towards a sustained attention to context, audience
and genre. The aim of liberating the student linguistically both in terms of personally
significant writing and of providing ample opportunity for work with diverse models, registers
and audiences becomes increasingly evident within the journal over time. However, this
exploratory emphasis is stifled somewhat by the advent of the National Curriculum (Figure 3)
and the associated policy documentation. In his article in Volume 22, John Blanchard (1988)
highlights the frustrating contradiction between recommended progressive approaches
which suggest that teaching should be dynamic, involve the pupil and allow them to
showcase what they can do, and the creation of a curriculum that is predetermined and
measured against absolute criteria. Similarly, an article by members of a symposium on the
Kingman Report (Jones et al 1988) criticises this document for trying to remove the
controversy from the English curriculum: they argue that it presents language as a neutral
vehicle for individual purposes. The approach to language implicit in the report is likely to
produce a generation of conformists who respond “appropriately” to contextual cues rather
than question what they see and command a creative right over the language they use. A
general consensus among the symposium is that there is too much emphasis on teaching
and testing in terms of age-related targets - an inappropriate approach when a child’s
language development is an individualised and “organic phenomenon” (Jones et al 1988).
English in Education: the first fifty years: page 18 _____________________________ 2.3 Genre and technology In Volume 26, Leslie Stratta and John Dixon (1992) consider how far the National Curriculum
recognises advances in the teaching of writing in school over the preceding ten to fifteen
years. They highlight the way that teachers in the later 1970s “opened up the fourth wall of
the classroom” by pioneering a new range of writing designed for people outside the
classroom: writing to inform, advise, guide and so on. Teachers have also learned better
how to suggest ways in which students can improve their writing: drafting has become a
valuable practice. Stemming from earlier work on the “sense of audience”, a new practice of
dialogic journals allows groups working together (with the teacher) to share, comment on,
advise, encourage and develop on what they have each been thinking. And work in socioand psycho-linguistics has taught teachers to look at writing “as part of social interaction,
shot through with ideological and cultural assumptions” (Stratta and Dixon 1992:16).
Stratta and Dixon show that the National Curriculum goes some way to encourage writing for
different purposes and audiences, and allows for reciprocity in speech; but reading, they
suggest, is still seen primarily as a process of reception rather than of interaction. Their
main concern, however, is to consider what the “newly fledged [genre] theory of writing from
Australia” may have to offer emerging practices in the teaching of English. The tone of their
question indicates reservation, and it is clear from their discussion that Stratta and Dixon are
concerned that a genre approach might lead to formulaic writing rather than to responsive
interaction between language users to achieve a common purpose. Rather than invent new
definitions of “factual” genres, they suggest, it seems more sensible to accept Kress's (1987)
case for “blends”. “It's then possible,” they write, “to talk about classifying, describing
appearance, describing behaviour, and so on as structural elements in certain blends, rather
than to argue that a discrete ‘genre’, with a restricted definition, is a prerequisite for genuine
scientific enquiry.”
In Volume 28, the affordances of new technology for the process of writing are given some
sustained attention. Turner (1994) reviews recent research that suggests that computers
can be particularly useful in aiding the composition and drafting process (editing using
cutting and pasting tools, etc.); promoting collaborative work; and enhancing the confidence
of a student who previously struggled with presentation. He is quick to add, however, that
none of this is possible unless there is effective teaching in place; a computer is by no
means a substitute for a well-organised and experienced practitioner.
English in Education: the first fifty years: page 19 _____________________________ A further advance in practice is signalled by Moore’s (1994) proposal in the same volume
that, in light of recent technological advancements and changes, the definition of a “text”
should be expanded semiotically to include “words, numbers, images and sounds - anything,
in fact, which is created to convey meaning”. The way in which these elements interact and
affect the users’ experience and navigation needs to be accounted for. The concept of
authorship, as it was once known, is challenged since it is usual for groups of people (rather
than one individual) to collaborate in producing a text. Thus, he suggests that one of the
most effective ways to teach students about the nuances involved in multi-media texts is to
encourage them to create their own. Similarly, Fox, Martin and Evershed (1994) suggest that
students should be given the opportunity to manipulate and play with different genres to
create their own fictions and narratives (including what they term “anti-genres”). This can be
both a liberating and insightful activity for children as they learn to critically deconstruct
genres and reveal the power relationships that inhabit them.
The merits and problems of a genre approach to writing continue to be discussed during the
1990s, and in Volume 31 Claire Wyatt-Smith (1997) outlines the progress of the argument
between “genre” and “whole-language” approaches in subject English. The debate focuses
on whether or not genres need to be explicitly taught to school students. According to Martin
and Rothery (1980-81), an almost exclusive focus on personal response writing in the
(Australian) primary school fails to prepare students adequately for the range of text types
they are required to deal with in secondary level study and with the forms of writing required
within adult life. In the view of Christie and Rothery (1990), policies concerned with “growth”
and “process” in language leave teachers unconfident in “recognising the kinds of genres in
which the various school subjects are built up or realized”.
In response to these concerns, separate groups of researchers worked on producing a
metalanguage for teachers based upon the systemic functional model of language that had
been developed by Michael Halliday (1985) and elaborated by a number of his colleagues at
the University of Sydney. These focused on genre and on Halliday's three aspects of
register (field, tenor and mode). Strikingly, these are presented as assessment rather than
teaching frameworks, but Wyatt-Smith (1997) asserts that the tools of systemic-functional
linguistics should be used to direct students' efforts at rigorously and systematically
examining texts, both in the context of culture (via genre), and the context of situation (via
register). From this vantage point, she concludes, literacy teachers' responsibility includes
“explicitly teaching the various kinds of text types that students need to both write and read
in the subjects studied at school”.
English in Education: the first fifty years: page 20 _____________________________ Figure 4: Political/educational developments in England, 1993-2002
2.4 Prescriptive or personal? The continuing debate into the new century demonstrates an increasing acceptance of the
importance of the determining social contexts of language use, but not of the reification of
the subject that follows the institution of reductive methods in formal criteria. The National
Literacy Strategy was introduced in 1998 (Figure 4), and, in volume 40, Jones (2006)
comments that over the years policy has become increasingly regulatory, reducing the
possibility of teacher autonomy: “it has devised a new system of knowledge production, in
which knowledge about teaching is, as it were, externalised: the strategies, frameworks,
curricula, and programmes of teacher training…[it is] designed to be, to a considerable
extent, immune to teacher influence” (p.86, Issue 1). Domaille and Edwards (2006) note a
similar negative feeling among participants at their curriculum workshop on creative writing.
Comments included: “Teaching is prescriptive in order to meet course work criteria” and “the
word ‘framework’ inhibits and stifles creativity, suggesting constraint” (p.74, Issue 2).
Additionally, this presents signs of the “teaching to the test” culture that John Britton and
English in Education: the first fifty years: page 21 _____________________________ Nancy Martin (1988) were so concerned would emerge, as discussed in their evocative
review of changes in the teaching profession in Volume 22.
However, by volume 46, when the UK coalition government has just come to power and
frameworks for Ofsted inspections and the QCA’s Personal, Learning and Thinking Skills
have been revised, a renewed sense of anticipation for the future of teaching writing (and
English) emerges. Fitzgerald et al. (2012) suggest that such policy developments mark a
revival and celebration in teacher and pupil creativity. They refer to influential works such as
Kress (1995) and Robinson (2006), and advise that trainee teachers should nurture their
students’ creative writing abilities in a multisensory, collaborative environment whereby risk
taking is actively encouraged and supported. This will help prepare young people for the
increasingly competitive knowledge economy they will enter upon leaving school. They also
acknowledge the need to make links to students’ informal learning outside the classroom,
and to give teachers a creative space to conduct their own personal writing. Likewise, in their
sensitive account of leading writing workshops with teachers, Smith and Wrigley (2012)
advocate that educators need more than simply knowledge of the craft but “also of its
complex and uncertain personal processes” (p. 80, Issue 1). This will give teachers a
meaningful insight into some of the difficulties students face when writing in lessons (e.g.
exposing the affective parts of themselves when sharing personal experiences) and the
hardship involved in moving between what Vygotsky (1978) termed oral speech to inner
speech and, ultimately, written speech (Thompson 2012).
In general, many of the contributors in the later volumes foreground the importance of giving
students an authentic context for their writing, and refer to the problems that can occur when
this sentiment is ignored. Hodgson and Harris (2012) highlight how anonymous marking at
university removes students’ identities as authors of texts; “consequently, feedback lacked
holistic developmental focus and appropriate specificity” (p 13, Issue 1). Gardner (2012), in
support of D’Arcy’s (1999) process-based paradigm, suggests that frameworks for assessing
writing should reward the authorial voice and affective quality of writing over the mere
demonstration of technical skills. This is conducive to the creation of “authentic texts and
authentically positions the assessor as a reader” (Gardner 2012: 152), who can genuinely
respond and engage with a student’s narrative and message.
Gilbert (2012) advocates the benefits of sharing personal autobiographical accounts with
students to encourage them to write their own in an act of reciprocal pedagogy (Oakley,
1986). Besides the clear advantages of strengthening teacher-student relations and
English in Education: the first fifty years: page 22 _____________________________ encouraging the class to write about what they know well (i.e. their lived experiences),
educators can learn more about particularly problematic individuals and their past
encounters, which underpin their current behaviour. In a similar thread, Hallman (2012)
spent some time observing students at a specialist school for teen mothers in America.
During her research she noted that the students harnessed their written assessments to
examine and challenge existing discourses on teen pregnancy and motherhood, decide
upon their own opinions and project their current and future selves. The students gained
considerably from this exercise of self-discovery. For this reason, she suggests, teachers
should consider “the ways all students respond to more than just the formal, dictated
curriculum” (p. 50, Issue 1).
Strikingly, many of the authors conceptualise a practice of writing that moves away from a
reductive approach that focuses on standardised attainment targets. Instead they favour
one that returns to the affective processes of using language and literature to offer
something of one's self and one's world, in exchange for learning about those of others.
3. Reading: text and technology 3.1 The act of reading The characteristic emphasis of English in Education on the student as language learner is
particularly evident in the approach to reading developed over the fifty volumes of the
journal. In Volume 22, Sarland (1988) writes on James Herbert’s The Fog. He addresses
two questions: How does the book work? and why does it have such appeal for adolescent
readers? Thus, rather than giving an authoritative interpretation of a literary text, Sarland
attempts to unravel the nature of the act of comprehension: what it means to understand and
enjoy a popular text.
A concern to clarify the nature of reading comprehension becomes apparent in the early
volumes of English in Education. In Volume 10, the question “What happens when we
read?” invites lively debate. Gordon Wells (1976) discusses this in the context of being an
effective participant in a conversation whilst Margaret Spencer (1976) and Mike Torbe
(1976) concentrate on the internal processes involved in comprehension (issues 1 and 3
respectively). All three agree that reading is a complex, interactive process between a
speaker’s/writer’s message and a reader’s/listener’s personal expectations which can be
influenced by their purpose, motive and previous experiences (not to mention social status).
English in Education: the first fifty years: page 23 _____________________________ More specifically, Torbe argues that reading is a meaning-making activity and that
“intellectual and emotional energy” is required to make sense of a text. This process is
intimate and presents no observable outcome since it occurs entirely in the reader’s head;
speaking and writing about what has been read does not substitute as it draws upon a
different sub-set of skills. Thus, comprehension is highly difficult to assess and traditional
methods focused on a student’s ability to decode segments of writing removed from their
context miss the above-mentioned underlying processes (Wells 1976). The only
recommendation given at this stage is that there should be a space for children’s literature in
the classroom. Spencer explains that, as young children use reading as a source of
imagined experience, using forms of literature that are already familiar to the child will help
naturally build upon their existing literary practices.
3.2 Text choice The emphasis on the student as reader foregrounds the criteria used by teachers when
choosing a text for study. This is carefully explored in Volume 16 by Sue Horner (1976), who
suggests that the English classroom can be an appropriate and useful arena to examine
issues of difference such as race and disability. Studying social class relations can also
form part of this and indeed this represents the focus of the second issue of Volume 16.
Harrison, Klemm & Cloueh (1982) discuss a layered and multimedia approach to studying
the representation of social class which they piloted with a small group of working class
students. They conclude that the working class students were highly perceptive to the class
prejudices they have and may face in their lives. However, their written narratives were too
frequently constrained by stereotypical descriptions of class. Thus, the authors argue, it is
vital to expose students to a wide range of texts that seek to challenge unhelpful stereotypes
surrounding different sectors of society and offer refreshing perspectives. The NATE
Working Party on Social Class and English Teaching (1982) provides a list of recommended
titles to explore with students in respect of this movement in addition to a checklist designed
to help teachers detect class bias in literature and find more diverse and open-minded
alternatives. Though this is not explicitly stated, this breadth of choice may also prevent the
development of “reading rickets” as coined by Barrie Wade (1985): a situation which occurs
when a child is not given suitably challenging or engaging reading material to stimulate their
potential literary appetite.
The approach to reading and to textual choice implicit in this study may (like most traditional
approaches to reading comprehension) appear to give power to the text rather than to the
reader; and indeed in Volume 26, reviewing the theoretical adequacy of the new national
English in Education: the first fifty years: page 24 _____________________________ curriculum, Stratta and Dixon (1992) point out that reading, unlike speech and writing, is not
described within the official document as a dialogic process. They lament that the
international context gives no help in progressing the theory and practice of reading: in the
USA, they assert, reading and writing are often taught by different instructors. Dixon and
Stratta examine the emerging Australian attention to genre in terms of writing practice, but
do not at this stage elaborate what this development might mean for the process of textual
interpretation.
In volume 28, the teaching of reading is given sustained attention from a number of
viewpoints. This volume highlights the challenges practitioners have to manage and address
under the increasingly watchful eye of external stakeholders (such as parents and policy
makers). These include a need to respond to the evolving digital technologies that shape
many young people’s daily experience (both in terms of communication and the texts they
consume), and a need to recognise the diverse, multicultural cohorts of students that make
up British schools. In relation to the first of these issues, Reid (1994) argues that there can
be unprecedented challenges in teaching students about multimedia texts, namely that
many students find them “too user-friendly to start comfortably defamiliarising them”. This
can be attributed in part to the fact that they are not generically organised in a way
analogous to the literary canon. In relation to the second, Naidoo (1994) explores the
problems and limitations associated with polarising literature according to the cultural
origin(s) of a writer and adopting constraining categories such as “our” vs. “other”. She
considers the intricate complexities of this in relation to her own personal heritage (a South
African living much of her life in Britain) and concludes that pigeonholing texts is neither
helpful nor respectful to the nuances of an individual’s cultural background. Instead, she
recommends that teachers facilitate cross-cultural readings in the classroom as these “have
the capacity to extend our imaginative experience and help us reflect on ourselves”.
3.3 Reading as a social act In the same volume, Dixon (1994) argues that, if the National Curriculum is to respond
effectively to social and technological change, it needs to move away from the archaic
epistemological categories of the 1950s. In terms of teaching reading, policy makers need
to avoid endorsing an apprentice-style approach based on the way they were taught at
school. He advocates a performance model of teaching reading where students learn how
to use their bodies and voices; reading becomes a social act and not confined to the
isolation of silent interpretation. It should include the study of signs that indicate “the way
thoughts, feelings, moods, attitudes, stances, dispositions and so on arise, in reaction and in
English in Education: the first fifty years: page 25 _____________________________ response”. For this reason, he argues that media and drama should be given a respected
and central place in English teaching and not marginalised to the periphery. This is a
sentiment Thomas (1994) would be likely to confirm, to judge from his passionate case for
making students practically aware of theatrical artistry within dramatic texts and exploiting
the potential for experiential learning in the classroom. In these ways, it can be seen that
writers in English in Education are feeling their way towards a more interactive
conceptualisation of reading.
Also in Volume 28, Mitchell (1994) examines some of the difficulties sixth form students face
in the adjustment process between writing essays at A Level and at undergraduate level.
These include managing the transition between performing a close and critical reading of a
text and discussing from a more distant perspective the modes and methods employed by
an author. In response, she suggests that the key literary practices, as suggested by
Scholes (1985) - reading (“text within text”), interpretation (“text upon text”) and criticism
(“text against text”) - should be treated “as a circle of recurrently refined and developing skills
rather than as a hierarchy”: that way, the leap between sixth form and university study will be
less steep. Likewise, she advocates that an engagement with literature should be
conceptualised and promoted as dialogic whereby the student moves between the text, their
viewpoint as the reader and their awareness of social and generic convention; meaning is
perceived as both “generated and exchanged”. Mitchell’s suggested cycle brings together
the sentiments of many of the previous writers. Effective reading is conceptualised as a
dynamic process whereby a text talks to a student who will respond in return; memorable
reading is thought to engage with a student’s existing social schema directly or expose them
to new and interesting models of communication. Most importantly, students should be
made to feel some ownership over their reading, whether this means involving them in the
process of text selection or allowing their interpretation to guide subsequent lesson design.
The National Curriculum’s move towards institutionalised attainment targets will go only so
far in progressing student reading; there needs to be motivation (“will” as well as “skill”) on
the student’s part to drive them to work hard and address the necessary challenges in the
pursuit of achieving these targets.
In Volume 31, Street (1997) explores fundamental arguments about the process of reading,
pointing out that contemporary educational discourse tends to favour an appropriately
“balanced” approach between decoding grapheme/phoneme correspondences (often seen
as a fundamental technique for successful decoding of language) and the “whole-language
and child-centred view”, which is generally believed to have held sway for too long. In a
English in Education: the first fifty years: page 26 _____________________________ statement that could equally be written today, Street argues that this discourse frequently
claims a phonics approach to be more effective and blames alleged falling standards of
literacy on the strength of the whole-language, meaning-based movement of the 1970s and
1980s.
Street explains that New Literacy Studies treat language and literacy as social practices
rather than technical skills to be learned in formal education. Street’s “ideological” model of
literacy argues that literacy varies with social context and with cultural norms and discourses
regarding, for instance, identity, gender and belief, and that its uses and meanings are
always embedded in relations of power. He cites Bahktin (1981) to argue that language,
even when employed silently by single individuals, is always part of a social interaction,
whether with imagined others or with the meanings and uses of words that others have
employed at other times and places. He quotes Gee (1991) to elaborate a view of language
as dialogic:
Language is always something that is actively constructed in a context, physically present
or imagined, by both speaker/writer and hearer/reader through a complex process of
inferencing that is guided by, but never fully determined by, the structural properties of the
language. (Gee 1991)
This view embraces all aspects of language use, but its construction of reading and
interpretation offers readers of English in and Education a reframing of ideas that had
already influenced the university teaching of English largely as an effect of the cultural turn in
university English studies. It is therefore ironic that Street’s apparent implication that any
form of literacy is as good as any other was contested in the next issue of the journal by a
university teacher, Colin McCabe (1998), on the grounds that Standard English has a social
and economic value that students should not be denied: “As well-paid manual jobs become
rarer than leaves in November, literacy becomes more and more of fundamental economic
asset, never mind its other virtues.” This objection, which apparently echoes debate in early
issues of NATE Bulletin, had been anticipated by Street, who emphasises in his paper the
significance of appropriate language use and the importance of revealing to students the
interrelation of language and power.
3.4 Dialogic reading As the journal matures, approaches to reading increasingly explore the dialogic and
interactive nature of the process. Writing in Volume 34 on fostering enthusiasm for poetry
among teenage boys, Pike (2000) promotes the value of adopting “responsive teaching”
English in Education: the first fifty years: page 27 _____________________________ techniques - a strategy which not only invites students to ask questions about texts but uses
their questions to distinctly mould the structure of the subsequent lesson. The students’
thoughts and ideas are the starting point for the session, not the teacher’s notes. This
represents a strong recognition of the value of harnessing the student’s voice in planning
and practice - a movement that also manifested in parallel discussions on teaching writing.
Pike argues that too often poetry is used as a basis for lacklustre comprehension activities. If
used as a stimulus for discussion, he suggests, students (in particular boys) can bypass the
empathic route of interpretation (which deters many) and more easily enter the process of
personal meaning-making, using prior experience(s) as a springboard.
In the same volume, Bazalgette (2000) argues that the intricacies of teaching with moving
image texts are not often fully realised since staff training programmes cannot maintain
stride with such changes in technology. In particular, she stresses that moving image texts
are time-based rather than static, and that the editing process, comparable to drafting in
writing, is central to their creation. There are several strands of meaning that dynamically
interact in a sequence and all are subject to careful on-going consideration. Thus, teaching
methods which involve storyboarding sheets (with time allowed for making decisions over
sound) do not replicate the real processes that filmmakers encounter.
It is clear in this instance that Bazalgette does not intend to undermine teachers’ efforts but
rather to shed light on the shortcomings of a system where policy moves more quickly than
the speed at which schools can implement and resource change. Additionally, she
comments that an all-inclusive curriculum, which seeks to expose students to multiple text
types without any form of taxonomy for teachers, gives the misguided impression that all
texts can be analysed in the same way. In an attempt to find the answer to this problem, she
looks towards upcoming digital (editing) software which she hopes may give students the
opportunity to “select, sequence, manipulate and re-form texts… to co-ordinate different
layers of meaning” in an experiential learning process. She calls upon teachers to request
these resources for their schools, and advises that useful results will follow if they help
inform software designers of their classroom needs: “working with rather than against such
technology”. The merits of using ICT in the classroom are discussed further in by McGuinn
(2000) in relation to motivating boys, and then by Andrews (2000). In all accounts,
computers are positioned as a tool to enhance and promote multi-sensory learning
experiences (often with mention of Howard Gardner’s [1984] work on multiple intelligences)
rather than as an advanced storage system for information.
English in Education: the first fifty years: page 28 _____________________________ Several contributors to this volume highlight the increasing demands on teachers presented
by evolving notions of literacy. For example, Cliff-Hodges Moss and Shreeve et al. (2000)
suggest that students need to be able to manipulate and move effectively between
performative, written, visual and spoken texts from both local and global contexts. Young
people need to be critical of the language used within texts and to be aware of ideological
relationships across texts (e.g. social-political contexts), so that they can confidently
challenge such discourses. They should also be encouraged to perform various
communicative functions both independently and collaboratively. To facilitate this, teachers
should possess a wide “breadth and depth of knowledge and understanding of the subject”
and a “flexible attitude towards the ever-changing types of text and languages that it will
necessarily incorporate”.
Figure 5: Political/educational developments in England, 2003-2012
English in Education: the first fifty years: page 29 _____________________________ 3.5 Prescription and pleasure By Volume 40, concerns emerge over the growing disparity between prescriptive reading
lists in policy documentation and the reality of students’ reading choices outside of the
classroom. Many of the contributors warn of the short and long term impact of compounding
this social-behavioural distance in practice and refer to the striking findings of the Progress
in International Reading Literacy study (OECD, 2003). This report (Figure 5) notably
suggested that, although English children were third in the world in reading skills, many did
not enjoy reading as an activity; they would not necessarily choose to read for reading’s
sake. Hopper (2006) suggests that what is needed is a comprehensive exploration of the
ways in which teachers, students and parents define quality fiction. She argues that, in
order to develop enthusiastic, discriminating and responsive readers, educators, as
sympathetic gatekeepers of reading development, “need not only to know what is available
but also have criteria to support and challenge the young readers' experience at both a
personal and curriculum level” (p.69, Issue 2).
A feeling of frustration towards the negative impact of a standards fuelled curriculum, which
prioritises student attainment over engagement, can be sensed again in Volume 46. For
example, Lockwood (2012) conducted a series of surveys into students’ attitudes towards
reading for study and leisure. He found that pupils with positive views of reading came from
schools “where they were given the opportunity to collaborate with others, and exercise
choice and preference in the reading-related activities they were involved in” (p 239, issue
3). A teacher’s enthusiasm for reading, their knowledge of children’s literature and how to
engage pupils with it in the classroom were also found to be fundamental factors. Thus, he
stresses the importance of “developing the ‘will’ to read alongside efforts to improve the
‘skill’, since the evidence increasingly shows that each feeds into the other” (p. 241).
Lockwood recommends that, in order to effectively foster positive attitudes towards reading,
there should be multiple opportunities for students to engage in the activity within their
everyday lives. It is necessary, he argues, “fully [to involve] parents and other adults in the
local community in supporting reading within the school and at home for all age groups” (p.
238, Issue 3). Likewise, in alignment with Rosenblatt (1938), Goodwyn (2012) argues that
the teaching of literature in schools should be centred on personal engagement and
response. This can be achieved by giving students frequent opportunities to experience and
work with an extensive texts rather than using “extracts of literature as a vehicle for
mechanistic outcomes [as promoted in the Framework for English]” (p. 234, Issue 3). Thus,
the discussion of reading in the later volumes of English in Education returns to the need for
English in Education: the first fifty years: page 30 _____________________________ personal engagement; but the conceptual treatment of the practice of reading has advanced
markedly from the unease about “comprehension” that marked the early volumes.
Conclusion: What can we learn from the English in Education archive? English in Education began at a time of remarkable consultation and collaboration between
policy makers, researchers and practitioners. Politicians and educators alike wrote of the
need to centre subject English on the needs of students and to encourage their voice.
There was, of course, an economic impulse behind this humane ambition: it was generally
agreed that students in secondary modern and technical schools were a resource that
should no longer be dismissed as uneducable. But, whatever the reason for this universally
agreed progressive stance, the difference between the relationship between policy makers
and practitioners then and now is striking.
Discussing in Volume 46 (issue 3) the 2007 National Curriculum Orders for Secondary
English in England and Wales (QCA 2007), Brown (2012) criticises previous educational
policy on secondary English teaching for its lack of references to prior policy, academic
research and consultation with teachers. This gives the unhelpful impression of “selfsufficient singleness and authority”. Furthermore, this unfavourable paradigm reduces issues
that would benefit from joint discussion and collective decision-making to one narrow way of
thinking and working. He concludes with the particularly poignant observation:
Teachers themselves have become objects of perpetual training and informationgathering, which threaten to replace proper professional self-determination, dialogue and
judgement. In many ways they are on the receiving end of the kind of education they have
to struggle inventively and subversively not to pass on to their pupils (p 258, Issue 3).
To some contributors such as Gardner (2012), this unequal situation compels teachers to
work together with their peers to show resistance. He suggests: “The time has come for
academics and practitioners to strengthen their professional alliance in order to re-assert a
collective judgement about what writing is, and what the teaching and assessment of writing
entails” (p.152, Issue 2).
A systematic and sustainable way of restoring a productive relationship between policymakers, researchers and practitioners has yet to be documented or put into action. Recent
developments such as the on-line collaboration and related real-world conferencing
described in the introduction to this paper offer encouraging tasters of how a meaningfully
English in Education: the first fifty years: page 31 _____________________________ collaborative relationship might be fostered, but there is much work to be done. Without the
consolidation of this triad of knowledge, productive insight into education becomes lost:
disconnected from the experience of the classroom, effectively absent from educational
theory and an unused resource in the formation of social policy and progression. Each party
is unnecessarily pursuing separate paths which may cross and precipitate opposition, as can
be noted from Gardner’s (2012) call for action on the teaching of writing. Yet, on the surface,
these groups appear to want the same outcome: an education that fosters engaged and
responsible young people who are eager to contribute to society and maximise their
potential.
As we head towards the fiftieth anniversary of English in Education, we gain the benefit of
being able to learn from the journal’s history. We can trace the way in which key concepts
and practices have evolved and the wide-ranging implications of key decisions and policy
changes. A fuller analysis of the archive would further demonstrate the ways in which
theoretical positions develop as a response to observed phenomena and are inflected,
contested and reframed as new evidence and conceptual orientations render previous
conceptions inadequate. As has been shown above, this can be seen in the journal’s
approach to the teaching of many aspects of English, including talk, writing and reading. The
English in Education archive can facilitate links between the school, research and policy
communities by offering a history of evidentially informed research that could resolve the
disparities in the opinions and visions of each sector. It represents a platform for sharing
experience, good practice and professional opinion among those with diverse roles. The
journal archive sheds light on the educational past that can effectively inform the educational
present and help to set agenda for the future.
References Andrews, R. (2000) Learning, Literacy and ICT: What's the Connection? English in
Education 34 (3): 3–18. DOI: 10.1111/j.1754-8845.2000.tb00580.x
Bakhtin, M. (1981) The Dialogic Imagination. Trans.: M. Holquist and C. Emerson. Austin:
University of Texas Press.
Barnes, D. R. (1964) What Language do our Pupils Need? English in Education A1 (1): 12–
13. DOI: 10.1111/j.1754-8845.1964.tb01204.x
Baxter, J. (2000) Going Public: Teaching Students to Speak Out in Public Contexts. English
in Education 34 (2): 26–34. DOI: 10.1111/j.1754-8845.2000.tb00575.x
English in Education: the first fifty years: page 32 _____________________________ Bazalgette, C. (2000) A Stitch in Time: Skills for the New Literacy. English in Education 34:
42–49. DOI: 10.1111/j.1754-8845.2000.tb00569.x
Bernstein, B. (1971) Class, Codes and Control: Theoretical Studies Towards a Sociology of
Language. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Blanchard, J. (1988) “Glaciation, Symmetry, Etc;” Finding an Insider Curriculum. English in
Education 22 (1): 31–33. DOI: 10.1111/j.1754-8845.1988.tb00255.x
Boyle, E. (1964) Message from Sir Edward Boyle. English in Education A1 (2): 2–3.
DOI: 10.1111/j.1754-8845.1964.tb01263.x
Britton, J. (1970) Their Language and Our Teaching. English in Education 4 (2): 5–13.
DOI: 10.1111/j.1754-8845.1970.tb01012.x
Britton, J. and Martin, N. (1988) English Teaching—Is it a Profession? English in Education
22 (2): 1–8. DOI: 10.1111/j.1754-8845.1988.tb00268.x
Brown, J. (2012) Managing Difference: Secondary English in the National Curriculum.
English in Education 46 (3): 247–260 DOI: 10.1111/j.1754-8845.2012.01130.x
Bullock, A. (1975) A language for life: Report of the Committee of Enquiry appointed by the
Secretary of State for Education and Science under the Chairmanship of Sir Alan Bullock
FBA. London: HMSO.
Burgess, A. & Gulliver, J. (1988) Only Chatter? Children Talking and Learning in Primary
Schools. English in Education 22 (1): 79–92. DOI: 10.1111/j.1754-8845.1988.tb00262.x
Callaghan, J. (1976) The Great Debate. Speech given at Ruskin College, Oxford, 18
October 1976. http://www.educationengland.org.uk/documents/speeches/1976ruskin.html
(accessed 30 June 2014)
Chandrasegaran, A. (2006) Secondary School Students' Stance-support Strategies in Online
Discussion: Implications for the Composition Classroom. English in Education 40 (2): 22–39.
DOI: 10.1111/j.1754-8845.2006.tb00789.x
Christie, J. and Rothery, J. (1990) Literacy in the curriculum: planning and assessment. In:
Christie, F. (Ed.) Literacy for a Changing World. Hawthorn, Victoria: The Australian Council
for Educational Research.
Clayton, A. (1964) The Plowden Committee and English in the Primary School. English in
Education A1 (1): 4–6. DOI: 10.1111/j.1754-8845.1964.tb01201.x
Clegg, A. B. (1964) Continuity in the Teaching of English. English in Education A1 (2) Pp. 3–
6. DOI: 10.1111/j.1754-8845.1964.tb01264.x
Cliff-Hodges, G., Moss, J. and Shreeve, A. (2000) The Future of English. English in
Education 34 (1): 1–11. DOI: 10.1111/j.1754-8845.2000.tb00566.x
Corbin, R. (1970) Formalized Writing Curriculums? No! English in Education 4 (3): 74–77.
DOI: 10.1111/j.1754-8845.1970.tb00342.x
Cox, N. (1976) Mrs Cox Eats Minced Morsels. English in Education 10 (3): 1–7.
DOI: 10.1111/j.1754-8845.1976.tb01042.x
English in Education: the first fifty years: page 33 _____________________________ Cox, C.B. and Dyson, A.E. (1969) Fight for Education: A Black Paper. London: Critical
Quarterly Society
Creber, P. (1970) An Imaginative/Critical Model for Secondary Schools. English in Education
4 (2): 26–34. DOI: 10.1111/j.1754-8845.1970.tb01014.x
D’Arcy, P (1999) Two Contrasting Paradigms for the teaching and the Assessment of
Writing: A critique of current approaches in the National Curriculum. London:
NAAE/NAPE/NATE.
Dixon, J. & Stratta, L. (1982) Argument: What Does It Mean to Teachers of English? English
in Education 16 (1): 41–54. DOI: 10.1111/j.1754-8845.1982.tb00880.x
Dixon, J. (1994) Categories to Frame an English Curriculum? English in Education 28 (1): 3–
8. DOI: 10.1111/j.1754-8845.1994.tb00696.x
Domaille, K. and Edwards, J. (2006), Partnerships for learning: extending knowledge and
understanding of creative writing processes in the ITT year. English in Education 40 (2): 71–
84. DOI: 10.1111/j.1754-8845.2006.tb00792.x
Dormer, P. (1976) Form and Content in Discussion. English in Education 10 (3): 12–21.
DOI: 10.1111/j.1754-8845.1976.tb01044.x
Dowdall, C. (2006) Ben and his Army Scenes: A Consideration of One Child's Out-of-school
Text Production. English in Education 40 (3): 39–54. DOI: 10.1111/j.17548845.2006.tb00799.x
Duane, M. (1970), Speech and Reading. English in Education 4 (3): 63–73. DOI:
10.1111/j.1754-8845.1970.tb00341.x
House of Commons (2007) Creative Partnerships and the Curriculum. London: The
Staitionery Office Ltd.
Fitzgerald, B., Smith, L. & Monk, J. (2012) Celebrating Creativity Collaboratively: Inspiring
PGCE English Trainees to Teach Creative Writing. English in Education 46 (1): 56–69. DOI:
10.1111/j.1754-8845.2011.01115.x
Flower, F. D. (1970) English in Further Education. English in Education 4 (1): 10–24.
DOI: 10.1111/j.1754-8845.1970.tb01173.x
Flower, F. D. (1970a) The Language of Failure. English in Education 4 (3): 1–29. DOI:
10.1111/j.1754-8845.1970.tb00335.x
Foster, H. & Lewis, C. (2006) Robots, Jetpacks and Time Machines: Children's Ideas of
English in the Future. English in Education 40 (3): 55–65. DOI: 10.1111/j.17548845.2006.tb00800.x
Fox, C., Martin, W. & Evershed, J. (1994) Genres, Anti-genres, and the Art of Subversion in
Children's Stories and Play. English in Education 28 (2): 15–22. DOI: 10.1111/j.17548845.1994.tb01116.x
Franks, A., Durran, J. & Burn, A. (2006) Stories of the Three-legged Stool: English, Media,
Drama, from Critique to Production. English in Education 40 (1): 64–79. DOI:
10.1111/j.1754-8845.2006.tb00783.x
English in Education: the first fifty years: page 34 _____________________________ Freire, P. (1968) Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Trans.: Myra Bergman Ramos.
Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Gardner, H. (1984) Frames of Mind: the Theory of Multiple Intelligences. London:
Heinemann.
Gardner, P. (2012) Paradigms and Pedagogy: Revisiting D”Arcy”s Critique of the Teaching
and the Assessment of Writing. English in Education 46 (2): 135–154 DOI: 10.1111/j.17548845.2012.01123.x
Gee, J. (1991) The narrativization of experience in the oral style. In: Mitchell, C. and Weiler,
K. (eds) Rewriting Literacy: Culture and the Discourse of the Other. New York: Bergin and
Garvey.
Gilbert, F. (2012) “But Sir, I lied” – The Value of Autobiographical Discourse in the
Classroom. English in Education 46 (3): 198–211. DOI: 10.1111/j.1754-8845.2012.01131.x
Goodman, K. (1973). Miscues: "Windows on the reading process." In F. Gollasch (Ed.)
Language and literacy: The selected writings of Kenneth Goodman (pp. 93–102). Vol. I.
Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Goodwyn, A. (2012) The Status of Literature: English Teaching and the Condition of
Literature Teaching in Schools. English in Education 46 (3): 212–227. DOI: 10.1111/j.17548845.2012.01121.x
Green, B. (2006) English, Literacy, Rhetoric: Changing the Project? English in Education 40
(1): 7–19. DOI: 10.1111/j.1754-8845.2006.tb00779.x
Grierson, P. & Richardson, C. (1982) Introducing Language Studies. English in Education
16 (2): 12–16. DOI: 10.1111/j.1754-8845.1982.tb00448.x
Hallman, H. L. (2012) Rhetoric of the Future: Writing and Identity at a School for Pregnant
and Parenting Teens. English in Education 46 (1) 38–55. DOI: 10.1111/j.17548845.2011.01114.x
Halliday, M.A.K. (1985) Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold.
Hamilton, J. M. (1988) Oral Communication: The Assessment Circus (Or: On a Scale of
Nought to Nine). English in Education 22 (1): 19–24. DOI: 10.1111/j.17548845.1988.tb00252.x
Harrison, B., Klemm, D. & Cloueh, P. (1982) Backbone and Consciousness?—Some Uses
of Text, Film and Tape in Studying Class Issues. English in Education 16 (2): 38–47
DOI: 10.1111/j.1754-8845.1982.tb00452.x
Hodgson, J. & Harris, A. (2012) Improving Student Writing at HE: Putting Literacy Studies to
Work. English in Education 46 (1): 8–21. DOI: 10.1111/j.1754-8845.2011.01112.x
Hopper, R. (2006) The Good, the Bad and the Ugly: Teachers' Perception of Quality in
Fiction for Adolescent Readers. English in Education 40 (2): 55–70. DOI: 10.1111/j.17548845.2006.tb00791.x
Horner, S. (1982) A Key to The Cay? English in Education 16 (1): 37–40.
DOI: 10.1111/j.1754-8845.1982.tb00879.x
English in Education: the first fifty years: page 35 _____________________________ Hourd, M. (1970) English and Continuity. English in Education 4 (2): 14–25.
DOI: 10.1111/j.1754-8845.1970.tb01013.x
Jones, K. (2006) Part of the Main: A Project for English. English in Education 40 (1): 80–91.
DOI: 10.1111/j.1754-8845.2006.tb00784.x
Jones, P., Ogle, R., Slee, P., Barnes, D., Brown, R., Boyle, D., Scott, P., Fox, G., Brumfitt,
C., Kippux, S. ( (1988) Responses To Kingman: A Symposium. English in Education 22 (3):
4–12. DOI: 10.1111/j.1754-8845.1988.tb00281.x
Jones, S. (2006) One Body and Two Heads: Girls Exploring their Bicultural Identities through
Text. English in Education 40 (2): 5–21. DOI: 10.1111/j.1754-8845.2006.tb00788.x
Kingman, J. (1988) Report of the committee of enquiry into the teaching of the English
Language. London: HMSO.
Kress, G.R. (1987) Genre in a Social Theory of Language. In: I. Reid (ed.) The Place of
Genre in Learning. Centre for Studies in Literary Education. Melbourne: Deakin University.
Kress, G.R. (1995) Writing the Future: English and the making of a culture of innovation.
Sheffield: National Association for the Teaching of English.
Kress, G.R. (2003). Literacy in the new media age. London: RoutledgeFalmer.
LATE (1964) The Newsom Report and the Teaching of English. English in Education A1 (1):
6–7. DOI: 10.1111/j.1754-8845.1964.tb01202.
Lockwood, M. (2012) Attitudes to Reading in English Primary Schools. English in Education
46 (3): 228–246. DOI: 10.1111/j.1754-8845.2012.01132.x
MacCabe, C. (1998), A Response to Brian Street. English in Education 32 (1): 26–28.
DOI: 10.1111/j.1754-8845.1998.tb00139.x
Mackey, M. (1994) The New Basics: Learning to Read in a Multi-media World. English in
Education 28 (1): 9–19. DOI: 10.1111/j.1754-8845.1994.tb00697.x
Martin, N. (1976) Encounters with “Models”. English in Education 10 (1): 9–15.
DOI: 10.1111/j.1754-8845.1976.tb00221.x
Martin, J. R. and Rothery. J. (1980-81) Writing project report 1& 2. Working Papers in
Linguistics 1&2. Sydney: University of Sydney Linguistics Department.
Maybin, J. (1988) A Critical Review of the DES Assessment of Performance Unit's Oracy
Surveys. English in Education 22 (1): 3–18. DOI: 10.1111/j.1754-8845.1988.tb00251.x
Mavrogenes, N. A. (1982) Our Ultimate Roots: The Proto-Indo-European Homeland.
English in Education 16 (1): 56–60. DOI: 10.1111/j.1754-8845.1982.tb00881.x
McGuinn, N. (2000) Electronic Communication and Under-achieving Boys: Some Issues.
English in Education 34 (1) 50–57. DOI: 10.1111/j.1754-8845.2000.tb00570.x
McLuhan, Marshall (1964) Understanding Media. New York: Signet Books.
Medway, P. (1988) The Student's World and The World of English. English in Education 22
(2): 26–35 DOI: 10.1111/j.1754-8845.1988.tb00271.x
English in Education: the first fifty years: page 36 _____________________________ Medway, P. (1994) Language, Learning and “Communication” in an Architects' Office.
English in Education 28 (2): 3–14. DOI: 10.1111/j.1754-8845.1994.tb01115.x
Merchant, G., Dickinson, P., Burnett, C. & Myers, J. (2006) Do you Like Dogs or Writing?
Identity Performance in Childen's Digital Message Exchange. English in Education 40 (3):
21–38 DOI: 10.1111/j.1754-8845.2006.tb00798.x
Millard, E. (2003) Transformative Pedagogy: Towards a Literacy of Fusion. Reading,
Literacy and Language (37) 1: 3-9.
Minns, H. (1976) Children Talking—Teacher Learning. English in Education, 10 (1): 3–8.
DOI: 10.1111/j.1754-8845.1976.tb00220.x
Mitchell, S. (1994) A level and Beyond: A Case Study. English in Education 28 (2): 36–47.
DOI: 10.1111/j.1754-8845.1994.tb01119.x
Moore, P. (1994) Authoring. English in Education 28 (3): 11–15. DOI: 10.1111/j.17548845.1994.tb01123.x
NACCCE (1999) All Our Futures: Creativity, Culture and the Curriculum. London: National
Advisory Committee on Creative and Cultural Education.
NATE Working Party on Social Class and English Teaching (1982) Check List for Class Bias
and Some Recommended Books. English in Education 16 (2): 34–37. DOI: 10.1111/j.17548845.1982.tb00451.x
Naidoo, B. (1994) The Territory of Literature: Defining the Coastline. English in Education 28
(1): 39–44. DOI: 10.1111/j.1754-8845.1994.tb00701.x
Newsom, J. (1963) Half Our Future: a Report of the Central Advisory Council for Education
(England). London: HMSO.
http://www.educationengland.org.uk/documents/newsom/newsom1963.html (accessed 26
May 2014)
Nicholls, J. (1976) Home Visiting: A Note of Caution. English in Education 10: 24–28.
DOI: 10.1111/j.1754-8845.1976.tb00223.x
NWP (2009). The National Writing Project. http://www.nwp.org.uk/ (accessed 30 June 2014)
OECD (2003) Student Engagement at School: A Sense of Belonging and Participation:
Results from PISA 2000. PISA, OECD Publishing. DOI:10.1787/9789264018938-en
Ofqual (2013) Changes to GCSE English and English Language.
http://ofqual.gov.uk/news/changes-to-gcse-english-and-english-language/# (accessed 30
June 2014)
Pahl, K. (2006) Birds, Frogs, Blue Skies and Sheep: An Investigation into the Cultural Notion
of Affordance in Children's Meaning Making. English in Education 40 (1): 20–35 DOI:
10.1111/j.1754-8845.2006.tb00780.x
Piaget, J. (1962) The Language and Thought of the Child. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Pike, M. A. (2000) Boys, Poetry and the Individual Talent. English in Education 34 (3): 41–
55. DOI: 10.1111/j.1754-8845.2000.tb00583.x
English in Education: the first fifty years: page 37 _____________________________ Plowden, B. (1967) Children and Their Primary Schools: A Report of the Control Advisory
Council for Education (England). London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office.
QCA (2007) The National Curriculum 2007. London: Qualifications and Curriculum Authority.
Quirk, P. R. (1964) The English Language Problem. English in Education A1 (1): 7–12.
DOI: 10.1111/j.1754-8845.1964.tb01203.x
Reid, M. (1994) Bridging the Gaps: From Reading to Critique in Teaching the Media. English
in Education 28 (3): 3–10 DOI: 10.1111/j.1754-8845.1994.tb01122.x
Jones, P., Ogle, R., Slee, P., Barnes, D., Brown, R., Boyle, D., Scott, P., Fox, G., Brumfitt,
C., Kippux, S. (1988) Responses to Kingman: A Symposium. English in Education 22 (3): 4–
12. DOI: 10.1111/j.1754-8845.1988.tb00281.x
Robertson, G. (1970) Looking for Continuity. English in Education 4 (2): 49–57.
DOI: 10.1111/j.1754-8845.1970.tb01016.x
Robinson, K. (2006) How Schools Kill Creativity. TED Talk:
http://www.ted.com/talks/ken_robinson_says_schools_kill_creativity (Accessed 26 May
2014)
Rosen, H. (1970) The Professional Education of the Teacher of English. English in
Education 4 (2): 58–72. DOI: 10.1111/j.1754-8845.1970.tb01017.x
Rosen, H., & Ruskin College History Workshop (1972) Language and class: a critical look at
the theories of Basil Bernstein. Bristol: Falling Wall Press.
Rosen, H. (1982) Language in the Education of the Working Class. English in Education 16
(2): 17–25. DOI: 10.1111/j.1754-8845.1982.tb00449.x
Rosenblatt, L.M. (1938) Literature as Exploration. New York: Appleton Century Crofts.
Rosenblatt, L.M. (1969) Towards a Transactional Theory of Reading. Journal of Literacy
Research 1969 1: 31. DOI: 10.1080/10862969609546838
Sampson, G. (1922) English for the English: a Chapter on National Education. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Sarland, C. (1988) Re-reading Pulp: Seeing the Response through The Fog. English in
Education 22 (2): 42–53. DOI: 10.1111/j.1754-8845.1988.tb00273.x
Scholes, R. (1985). Textual power: Literary theory and the teaching of English. New Haven:
Yale University Press.
Schön, D. (1987) Educating the Reflective Practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Shaw, C. (1988) Writing about Talking—Oral Assessment and Learning. English in
Education 22 (1): 25–29. DOI: 10.1111/j.1754-8845.1988.tb00253.x
Smidt, S. (1988), Making Links: Children Talking About Reality. English in Education 22 (1):
34–37. DOI: 10.1111/j.1754-8845.1988.tb00256.x
Smith, L. E. W. (1970) Creative Writing and Language Awareness. English in Education 4
(1): 4–9. DOI: 10.1111/j.1754-8845.1970.tb01172.x
English in Education: the first fifty years: page 38 _____________________________ Smith, J. & Wrigley, S. (2012) What has Writing Ever Done for Us? The Power of Teachers’
Writing Groups. English in Education 46 (1): 70–84 DOI: 10.1111/j.1754-8845.2011.01116.x
Spencer, M. (1976) Stories are for Telling. English in Education 10 (1): 16–23.
DOI: 10.1111/j.1754-8845.1976.tb00222.x
Stratta, L. and Dixon, J. (1992) The National Curriculum in English: does genre theory have
anything to offer? English in Education 26 (2): 16–27. DOI: 10.1111/j.17548845.1992.tb01062.x
Street, B. (1997) The Implications of the “New Literacy Studies” for Literacy Education.
English in Education 31 (3): 45–59. DOI: 10.1111/j.1754-8845.1997.tb00133.x
Taylor, R. (2006) Actions Speak as Loud as Words: A Multimodal Analysis of Boys' Talk in
the Classroom. English in Education 40 (3): 66–82. DOI: 10.1111/j.17548845.2006.tb00801.x
Thomas, R. (1976) The True Involvement. English in Education, 10 (3): 8–11.
DOI: 10.1111/j.1754-8845.1976.tb01043.x
Thomas, P. (1988) Shakespeare - Page to Stage: an A level approach to Antony &
Cleopatra. English in Education 22 (3): 48–62. DOI: 10.1111/j.1754-8845.1988.tb00289.x
Thomas, P. (1994) Shakespeare Page to Stage: An Active Approach to Othello. English in
Education 28 (1): 45–52. DOI: 10.1111/j.1754-8845.1994.tb00702.x
Thompson, I. (2012) Stimulating Reluctant Writers: A Vygotskian Approach to Teaching
Writing in Secondary Schools. English in Education 46 (1): 85–100. DOI: 10.1111/j.17548845.2011.01117.x
Tizard, B. (1976) Staff and Parent Talk to Young Children. English in Education 10 (1): 29–
36. DOI: 10.1111/j.1754-8845.1976.tb00224.x
Tomlinson, D. (1994) Errors in the Research into the Effectiveness of Grammar Teaching.
English in Education 28 (1): 20–26. DOI: 10.1111/j.1754-8845.1994.tb00698.x
Torbe, M. (1976) What Reading Does to Readers. English in Education 10: 22–34.
DOI: 10.1111/j.1754-8845.1976.tb01045.x
Trudgill, P. (1974) Sociolinguistics: an introduction to language and society.
Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin.
Turner, C. (1994) Computers and Literacy: Evidence Ignored. English in Education 28 (1):
27–32 DOI: 10.1111/j.1754-8845.1994.tb00699.x
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978) Mind in Society. Trans. Michael Cole. Harvard, Mass.: Harvard
University Press.
Wade, B. (1985) Reading Rickets and the Uses of Story. English in Education 19 (1): 28–37.
DOI: 10.1111/j.1754-8845.1985.tb00506.x
Waterson, M. (1976) The Traveller's Child. English in Education 10 (2): 1–10.
DOI: 10.1111/j.1754-8845.1976.tb00227.x
English in Education: the first fifty years: page 39 _____________________________ Wells, G. (1976) Comprehension: What it Means to Understand. English in Education 10
(2): 24–36. DOI: 10.1111/j.1754-8845.1976.tb00229.x
Widlake, P. (1970), Not all Dull alike—the Question of Terminology. English in Education 4
(3): 35–45. DOI: 10.1111/j.1754-8845.1970.tb00337.x
Wilkinson, A. (1964), Research in English. English in Education A1 (1): 18. DOI:
10.1111/j.1754-8845.1964.tb01207.x
Wilkinson, A. (1970) Andrew Wilkinson and “English in Education”. English in Education 4
(2): 4. DOI: 10.1111/j.1754-8845.1970.tb01011.x
Wilkinson, E. (1970) Coherence in Practice: a look at the field. English in Education 4 (2)
Pp. 35–48. DOI: 10.1111/j.1754-8845.1970.tb01015.x
Wright, E. (1985) “He” or “She” in Use: assumptions about writing. English in Education 19
(1): 25–27. DOI: 10.1111/j.1754-8845.1985.tb00505.x
Wyatt-Smith, C. (1997), Teaching and Assessing Writing: an Australian Perspective. English
in Education 31 (3): 8–22. DOI: 10.1111/j.1754-8845.1997.tb00129.x
View publication stats