Teaching an Embodied Thinking Process for Narrative Writing ‘With Grammar in Mind’: An Analysis of Writing Conferences and Teacher Talk

References

• Alfalagg, R. (2020). Impact of teacher-student writing conferences on frequency and accuracy of using cohesive devices in EFL students’ writing. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education, 5(21). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40862-020-00104-z
   Google Scholar
• Anderson, C. (2000). How’s it going?: A practical guide to conferring with student writers. Heinemann.
   Google Scholar
• Anderson, C. (2018). A teacher’s guide to writing conferences. Heinemann.
   Google Scholar
• Anderson, C. (2022). A teacher’s guide to mentor texts. Heinemann.
   Google Scholar
• Armour, K., Quennerstedt, M., Chambers, F., & Makopoulou, K. (2017). What is ‘effective’ CPD for contemporary physical education teachers? A deweyan framework. Sport, Education and Society, 22(7), 799–811. https://doi.org/10.1080/13573322.2015.1083000
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bayraktar, A. (2013). Nature of interactions during teacher-student writing conferences: Revisiting the potential effects of self-efficacy beliefs. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 50, 63–86. https://doi.org/10.2307/30044673
   Google Scholar
• Bergen, B. (2012). Louder than words: The new science of how the mind makes meaning. Basic Books.
   Google Scholar
• Calkins, L. (1986). The art of teaching writing. Heinemann.
   Google Scholar
• Calkins, L. (2013). A guide to the writing workshop. Heinemann.
   Google Scholar
• Calkins, L., Hartman, A., & White, Z. (2005). One to one: The art of conferring with young writers. Heinemann.
   Google Scholar
• Charmaz, K. (2003). Grounded theory: Objectivist and constructivist methods. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Strategies for qualitative inquiry (2 ed. pp. 249–291). Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Chen, H., & Myhill, D. (2016). Children talking about writing: Investigating metalinguistic understanding. Linguistics & Education, 35, 100–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2016.07.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clark, U., & Zyngier, S. (2003). Towards a pedagogical stylistics. Language and Literature, 12(4), 339–351. https://doi.org/10.1177/09639470030124003
   Google Scholar
• Corden, R. (2007). Developing reading-writing connections: The impact of explicit instruction of literary devices on the quality of children’s narrative writing. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 21(3), 269–289. https://doi.org/10.1080/02568540709594594
   Google Scholar
• Cordingly, P., Higgins, S., Greany, T., Buckler, N., Coles-Jordan, D., Crisp, B., & Coe, R. (2015). Developing great teaching: Lessons from the international reviews into effective professional development. Teacher Development Trust.
   Google Scholar
• Cushing, I. (2022). A text-world pedagogy for young stylisticians. In S. Zyngier & G. Watson (Eds.), Pedagogical stylistics in the 21st Century (pp. 159–181). Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Cutler, L., & Graham, S. (2008). Primary grade writing instruction: A national survey. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(4), 907–919. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012656
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dolmage, J. (2012). Writing against normal: Navigating a corporeal turn. In K. Arola & A. Wysocki (Eds.), Composing (media) = composing (embodiment): Bodies, technologies, writing, the teaching of writing (pp. 110–126). Utah State University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fleckenstein, K. (2003). Embodied literacies: Imageworld and a poetics of teaching. Southern Illinois University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Galbraith, J. (1995). Deictic shift theory and the poetics of involvement in narrative. In J. Duchan, G. Bruder, & L. Hewitt (Eds.), Deixis in narrative: A cognitive science perspective (pp. 19–59). Lawrence Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Gallagher, S. (2005). Phenomenological contributions to a theory of social cognition. Husserl Studies, 21(2), 95–110. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10743-005-6402-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gavins, J. (2007). Text world theory: An introduction. Edinburgh University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Giovanelli, M. (2014). Teaching grammar structure and meaning: Exploring theory and practice for post-16 English language teachers. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Giovanelli, M., & Harrison, C. (2018). Cognitive grammar in stylistics: A practical guide. Bloomsbury Academic.
   Google Scholar
• Giovanelli, M., & Harrison, C. (2022). Cognitive grammar in the classroom: A case study. In S. Zyngier & G. Watson (Eds.), Pedagogical Stylistics in the 21st Century (pp. 131–158). Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Glasswell, K., & Parr, J. (2009). Teachable moments: Linking assessment and teaching in talk around writing. Language Arts, 86(5), 352–361. https://doi.org/10.58680/la20097098
   Google Scholar
• Glasswell, K., Parr, J., & McNaughton, N. (2003). Four ways to work against yourself when conferencing with struggling writers. Language Arts, 80(4), 291–298. https://doi.org/10.58680/la2003315
   Google Scholar
• Glenberg, A. (2011). How reading comprehension is embodied and why that matters. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 4(1), 5–18.
   Google Scholar
• Graham, S. (2018). Instructional feedback in writing. In A. Lipnevich & J. Smith (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of instructional feedback (pp. 145–168). Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Graham, S., & Sandmel, K. (2011). The process writing approach: A meta-analysis. The Journal of Educational Research, 104(6), 396–407. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2010.488703
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Graves, D. (1983). Writing: Teachers & children at work. Heinemann.
   Google Scholar
• Graves, D. (1994). A fresh look at writing. Heinemann.
   Google Scholar
• Gutierrez, X. (2008). What does metalinguistic activity in learners’ interaction during a collaborative L2 writing task look like? The Modern Language Journal, 92(4), 519–537. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2008.00785.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hall, G. (2014). Pedagogical stylistics. In M. Burke (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of stylistics (pp. 237–267). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Halliday, M. A. K. (2002). On grammar and grammatics. In J. Webster (Ed.), The collected works of MAK halliday (Vol. 3, pp. 384–417). Continuum.
   Google Scholar
• Hawkins, L. (2016). The power of purposeful talk in the primary-grade writing conference. Language Arts, 94(1), 8–21. https://doi.org/10.58680/la201628712
   Google Scholar
• Hawkins, L. (2019). Writing conference purpose and how it positions primary-grade children as authoritative agents or passive observers. Reading Horizons: A Journal of Literacy and Language Arts, 58(1), 22–47.
   Google Scholar
• Healey, B. (2024). Crafting scenes: Improving narrative writing through imaginative embodiment and linguistic choices. Writing and Pedagogy, 15(3). https://doi.org/10.1558/wap.26816
   Google Scholar
• Healey, B., & Gardner, P. (2021). Writing, grammar and the body: A cognitive stylistics framework for teaching upper primary narrative writing. Literacy, 55(2), 125–135. https://doi.org/10.1111/lit.12242
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Healey, B., & Gardner, P. (2022). Writer agency, choice-making and embodied grammar. English in Australia, 57(1), 39–52. https://doi.org/10.3316/informit.775330898995617
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Healey, B., & Gardner, P. (2023). Explicit embodiment of narrative worlds: A case study of student-teacher concept-led grammar conferencing for writing. Language Awareness, 32(2), 342–362. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2022.2092122
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Helsel, L., Kelly, K., & Wong, K. (2021). Responsive teaching in the writer’s workshop. The Reading Teacher, 75(5), 583–592. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.2074
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Herman, D. (2009). Basic elements of narrative. John Wiley & Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Johnston, P. (2004). Choice words: How our language affects children. Stenhouse Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Jones, S. (2023). The value of knowing: Conscious and unconscious writing choices. Language and Education, 37(1), 71–87. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2022.2109421
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jones, P., & Chen, H. (2012). Teachers’ knowledge about language: Issues of pedagogy and expertise. Australian Journal of Language & Literacy, 35(2), 147–168. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03651880
   Google Scholar
• Karsbaek, B. (2011). Writer’s workshop: Does it improve the skills of young writers? Illinois Reading Council Journal, 39(2), 3–11.
   Google Scholar
• Kaufman, D. (2000). Conferences & conversations: Listening to the literate classroom. Heinemann.
   Google Scholar
• Kissel, B. (2017). When writers drive the workshop: Honoring young voices and bold choices. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Kissel, B., Miller, E., & Hansen, J. (2013). Writers’ workshop: Using retro ideas to reenvision student-led agendas. IRA E-Ssentials, 1–3. https://doi.org/10.1598/e-ssentials.8038
   Google Scholar
• Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Langacker, R. (2008). Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• McKeaney, E. (2009). Teacher–Student writing conferencing in an era of measurement-driven reform: Are we developing a generation of voiceless authors? [ Doctoral dissertation], University of Pennsylvania]. University of Pennsylvania ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• McLaughlin, M., & Talbert, J. (2006). Building school-based teacher learning communities: Professional strategies to improve student achievement. Teachers College Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mercer, N., Wegerif, R., & Major, L. (2019). International handbook of research on dialogic education. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Murray, D. (1979). The listening eye: Reflections on the writing conference. Findings on Stakeholder Engagement, 41(1), 13–18. https://doi.org/10.58680/ce197916015
   Google Scholar
• Murray, D. (1985). A writer teaches writing. Houghton Mifflin Company.
   Google Scholar
• Myhill, D. (2005). Ways of knowing: Writing with grammar in mind. English Teaching: Practice & Critique, 4(3), 77–96.
   Google Scholar
• Myhill, D., Jones, S., Lines, H., & Watson, A. (2012). Re-thinking grammar: The impact of embedded grammar teaching on students’ writing and students’ metalinguistic understanding. Research Papers in Education, 72(2), 139–166. https://doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2011.637640
   Google Scholar
• Myhill, D., Jones, S., & Watson, A. (2013). Grammar matters: How teachers’ grammatical knowledge impacts on the teaching of writing. Teaching and Teacher Education, 36, 77–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2013.07.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Myhill, D. Jones, S. & Wilson, A.(2016). Writing conversations: Fostering metalinguistic discussion about writing. Research Papers in Education, 31(1), 23–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2016.1106694
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Myhill, D., Lines, H., & Watson, A. (2012). Making meaning with grammar: A repertoire of possibilities. English in Australia, 47(3), 29–38. https://doi.org/10.3316/aeipt.189232
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Myhill, D., & Newman, R. (2016). Metatalk: Enabling metalinguistic discussion about writing. International Journal of Educational Research, 80, 177–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2016.07.007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Myhill, D., Newman, R., & Watson, A. (2020). Going meta: Dialogic talk in the writing classroom. Australian Journal of Language & Literacy, 43(1), 5–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03652040
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Qureshi, Z. (2013). Teacher-student talk in the one to one writing conference: Who talks more and why? UCLan Journal of Pedagogic Research, 3, 27–33. https://doi.org/10.5420/ujpr.3
   Google Scholar
• Ricks, P., Morrison, T., Wilcox, B., & Cutri, R. (2017). Effective writing content conferences in a sixth grade classroom: A cross-case analysis. Literacy Research and Instruction, 56(2), 114–131. https://doi.org/10.1080/19388071.2016.1275069
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rijlaarsdam, G., & Van den Bergh, H. (2006). Writing process theory: A functional dynamic approach. In C. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 41–53). Guildford.
   Google Scholar
• Roser, N., Hoffman, J., Wetzel, M., Price-Dennis, D., Peterson, K., & Chamberlain, K. (2014). Pull up a chair and listen to them write: Preservice teachers learn from beginning writers. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 53(2), 150–167. https://doi.org/10.1080/10901027.2014.905807
   Google Scholar
• Ruday, S., & Haddock, K. (2023). The early elementary grammar toolkit: Using mentor texts to teach grammar and writing in grades K-2. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Rule, H. (2017). Sensing the sentence: An embodied simulation approach to rhetorical grammar. Composition Studies, 45(1), 19–38.
   Google Scholar
• Salinger, T., & Weinberg, E. (2021). Teachers college reading and writing project study. https://www.air.org/sites/default/files/Teachers-College-Reading-and-Writing-Project-Jan-2021.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Schuldt, L. (2019). Feedback in action: Examining teachers’ oral feedback to elementary writers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 83, 64–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2019.03.020
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scott, J. (2018). Cognitive poetics and creative practice: Beginning the conversation. New Writing, 15(1), 83–88. https://doi.org/10.1080/14790726.2017.1376800
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Semino, E., & Culpeper, J. (2002). Cognitive stylistics: Language and cognition in text analysis. John Benjamins Publishing Company.
   Google Scholar
• Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.57.1.j463w79r56455411
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shvidko, E. (2018). Writing conference feedback as moment-to-moment affiliative relationship building. Journal of Pragmatics, 127, 20–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2018.01.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stockwell, P. (2020). Cognitive poetics: An introduction (2 ed.). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Taylor, L. (2021). Discursive stance as a pedagogical tool: Negotiating literate identities in writing conferences. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 21(2), 208–229. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468798419838596
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Urmi, Y. (2010). The effect of content revision logs and student-teacher conferences on ESL student writing [ Master’s thesis]. Brigham Young University.
   Google Scholar
• van Lier, L. (1998). The relationship between consciousness, interaction and language learning. Language Awareness, 7(2), 128–145. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658419808667105
   Google Scholar
• Vries, S., Jansen, E., & van der Grift, W. (2013). Profiling teachers’ continuing professional development and the relation with their beliefs about learning and teaching. Teaching & Teacher Education, 33, 78–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2013.02.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Watson, A., Newman, R., & Morgan, S. (2021). Metatalk and metalinguistic knowledge the interplay of procedural and declarative knowledge in the classroom discourse of first language grammar teaching. Language Awareness, 30(3), 257–275. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2021.1905655
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wegerif, R. (2013). Dialogic: Education for the internet age. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Werth, P. (1999). Text worlds: Representing conceptual space in discourse. Longman.
   Google Scholar
• Wexler, N. (2023). To improve students’ writing, teach them to construct sentences and outline paragraphs. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/nataliewexler/2023/01/04/to-improve-students-writing-teach-them-to-construct-sentences-and-outline-paragraphs/?sh=22e967f57e70
   Google Scholar
• Wilcox, B. (1997). Two roles of a teacher during a writing conference. The Reading Teacher, 50(6), 508–510.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wyse, D. (2006). Pupils’ word choices and the teaching of grammar. Cambridge Journal of Education, 36(1), 31–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057640500490965
   Google Scholar
• Yang, L. (2022). Focus and interaction in writing conferences for EFL writers. SAGE Open, 12(1), 215824402110582. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440211058
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar