Back to basics? Discourses of writing in Facebook groups for teachers

Discourses of writing

A framework developed to analyse teachers’ literacy practice and beliefs about writing education is Ivanič’s discourses of writing and learning to write from 2004. In 2017 Ivanič expanded her framework with a new discourse, a discourse for thinking and learning (see Appendix 1). Ivanič defines discourses of writing as constellations of beliefs about writing; beliefs about learning to write/curriculum subjects; approaches to the teaching of writing/curriculum subjects; assessment criteria; and identity of the writer. In the following section the seven discourses are introduced. The order of the discourses follows Ivanič’s framework, where different layers are focused in different discourses, beginning with the text and ending with the sociocultural and political context.

A skills discourse has the text in the centre. Writing as a generic, context-free activity is the focus. Of importance is correctness rather than content. Further, writing and reading are mainly treated as separate skills in teaching practice, opposed to a creativity discourse, where reading and writing are intimately related activities. Writing is about creativity, imagination and about becoming an author. Content and style are in focus and narrative texts common. In a discourse for thinking and learning, writing is used to clarify thoughts and learn school subjects. Pupils write to think, as opposed to a process discourse, where the cognitive process focuses on thinking and organising thoughts to write. It has developed into a methodology with mind maps, drafts, feedback, and revisions. In a genre discourse, conventional patterns for writing are identified. Teaching focuses on learning pupils to write different text-types, which are “linguistically appropriate to the purpose it is serving” (Ivanič, 2004, p. 233). In a social practices discourse, real-life contexts and the purpose of the communication are focused on. Pupils write to create meaning and to interact with a reader. In a socio-political discourse, the focus is on identity and power, and how to make one’s voice heard in a democratic society. This discourse is closely connected to critical literacy (Clark & Ivanič, 1999).

Discourses of writing in school practice

Earlier studies have used Ivanič’s framework of discourses of writing and learning to write as an analytical tool to investigate school practice. In the following studies of teachers’ perspectives and practice, studies of curricula, and studies of teaching materials are presented.

In studies of teaching practice, a skills discourse is prevalent (Lambirth, 2016; McCarthey, Woodard, & Kang, 2014), together with a genre and a process discourse in compulsory school (Blikstad-Balas, 2018; Blikstad-Balas, Roe, & Klette, 2018; Sturk & Lindgren, 2019). Further, the lack of a socio-political discourse is emphasised. Earlier studies have also identified a negotiation of discourses in teachers’ talk about practice and that teachers position themselves in a combination of discourses (McCarthey et al., 2014; Sturk & Lindgren, 2019). This negotiation and positioning can be regarded as possibilities for agency, for both teachers and pupils (Holmberg & Wirdenäs, 2010; Randahl, 2012). Randahl (2012) identifies a strong relationship between teachers’ beliefs about writing education reported in interviews and their writing instructions observed in practice.

Studies of curricula reveal a predominance of a skills, a process and a genre discourse, but little evidence for a socio-political discourse (Peterson, 2012; Peterson, Parr, Lindgren, & Kaufman, 2018). Magnusson (2019) describes a change in the view of writing education in policy documents in the lower grades, from a focus on narrative competence towards discursive writing. The current Swedish curricula focuses a genre approach stronger (c.f. Liberg, Wiksten Folkeryd, & af Geijerstam, 2012), while earlier curricula have been skills and process oriented.

Writing in school is considered to be predominantly controlled by writing exercises: either teachers’ own or exercises from teaching materials (Holten Kvistad & Smemo, 2015). Magnusson (2019) suggests that school books can reflect how policy is implemented among teachers and in practice, since school books often are written by teachers. In a study of writing exercises in Norwegian school books from three decades, Veum (2015) uses Ivanič’s framework. The results show a relatively small alteration over the years. However, a genre discourse and a social practices discourse are more visible in contemporary materials, whereas a creativity discourse is less visible in newer materials. A socio-political discourse is rare in the whole material. A conclusion is that writing exercises in school books need renewal, by for example using all Ivanič’s discourses of writing for different aspects of writing (Veum, 2015). In a Swedish context Magnusson (2018) analysed 19 school books for grades 1–3 using Ivanič’s framework, revealing that the process and genre discourses are common, and that there is a lack of social practices and socio-political discourses. In a study of teaching materials shared on an online forum, lektion.se, Gustafsson (2013) identified a domination of a skills discourse.

Investigating writing in school practice, policy documents and teaching materials using Ivanič’s framework for discourses of writing has shown a strong focus on the text-focused writing discourses (a skills and a genre discourse), and a limited focus on context-focused writing (a social practices and a socio-political discourse).

Social media as setting

Social media has become an important part of teachers’ professional lives. In particular, Facebook groups created and maintained by teachers themselves have proven to offer teachers an extended staffroom, where teaching material is shared and questions about practice are answered (Kelly & Antonio, 2016; Randahl, Olin-Scheller, van Bommel, & Liljekvist, 2017; Randahl, 2018). Studies of interactional patterns in Facebook groups reveal that more than 85% of the posts get response. The most common response to an offer (e.g. of teaching material, lesson plans) is a “like”. Participating teachers emphasise how such groups support their professional development (Duncan‐Howell, 2010). Due to the focus on mutual or collective development, teacher Facebook groups can be regarded as professional learning communities (PLCs). Previous studies on online networks have affirmed key features of PLCs identified by Stoll et al. (2006). For example, a collective responsibility to share ideas for teaching (Ranieri, Manca, & Fini, 2012), an inclusive membership with low barriers for participation, mutual trust and respect, where teachers dare to take risks and ask questions they “should” know (Lantz-Andersson et al., 2017).

Studying this new arena allows researchers to be the fly on the wall, able to attend to what is said in this huge staffroom. Though, the setting requires specific ethical considerations, first and foremost regarding anonymity. To protect the teachers’ identity, there are no quotations from posts published. Since excerpts from data have been slightly reformulated and translated from Swedish to English, they are no longer directly searchable. Neither are the names of the three teacher Facebook groups revealed. Instead they are labelled Swe1, Swe2, and Swe3. The study was approved by the Regional Ethical Review, without any demands on consent from participating members. Due to the size of the groups, the members arguably would consider the group as a public space, and act in accordance with that (Roberts, 2015). However, we informed the administrators about our data collection. Finally, it should be noticed that interaction in this kind of data is in a constant flux; links can be removed and web pages and platforms closed.

The Facebook material

The material consists of interactions, so-called threads, between teachers in three large open Facebook groups, including from 2,500 members to 10,000 members.

The data used is based on a stratified random sample of approximately 100 posts and comments per group. In social media, liking is a common means to make a comment. Therefore, liking is included in the sample. The platform as such enables the user to attach different resources, such as documents and pictures. There is also a possibility to link to other web pages. This type of material is captured too. The result of the stratification process is compiled in Table 1.

Method

In this study we regard teachers’ utterances as influenced by different factors. On an institutional level subject traditions, school books, and policy documents might guide the teachers’ views about writing education. Further, teachers’ views are influenced by school culture, colleagues, pupils, and organisation of practice (c.f. Smidt, 2010). To investigate what discourses of writing education are made relevant in teachers’ interactions in the extended staffroom, the material was analysed in four steps: identifying threads about writing education, analysing discourses visible in the interactions, analysing school books and apps, and analysing blogs. The two last steps are data-driven, emanating from previous steps. The analyses were conducted by two researchers.

In a first step an analysis was undertaken on a macro level to identify threads concerning writing education. In total 118 threads (40%) were identified, where writing education, either partly or completely dominated the threads. Out of these, 14 threads focused only on upper secondary teaching, and were therefore considered irrelevant in this study, resulting in 104 threads. In a Swedish context, the subject area of Swedish is divided in two: Swedish as L1 and Swedish as L2. To enable a comparison between discourses of writing education in the subject areas of Swedish as L1 and L2, threads concerning Swedish as L2 were marked. Finally, the material was categorised in relation to school form, regardless of Facebook group, resulting in following categories: grades 1–3, grades 4–6, grades 7–9, and all grades.

In a second step, a discourse analysis of the 104 threads was carried out, aiming at finding different positions made visible in the interactions. In this analysis, each instance was counted. Typically a post or comment embraced one discourse, in few cases more discourses were visible. Further, additional means in the interactions were included in the analysis. In the 104 threads, there are 4 documents, 5 pictures, and 41 links analysed. Supportive actions such as “liking” are not included in the discourse analysis, but commented upon due to the findings. The analysis was cross-checked discourse by discourse, resulting in 9 changes. These changes were spread over discourses and over the material.

To illustrate the analytic process, one thread is presented (see Table 2). Four teachers participate in this interaction. In the first post, 1277 raises a question. This question is followed by six comments. In the third column additional means are captured, in this interaction represented by likes and links. One link was removed and could not be analysed. In the fourth column the analysis of the discourses of writing visible in the post and comments is noted. The post and one comment are interpreted as visualising a genre discourse: the first asks for a model text for blogs, the other describes how these model texts have helped the pupils to write. The three comments concerning blogs, where pupils write in real-life contexts for real purposes, are interpreted as visualising a social practices discourse.

In a third step, all school books and apps that the teachers recommend for writing instruction, were analysed. In total 23 school books (see Appendix 2), and 16 apps. The decision to include this analysis in the study is two-fold. First, interactions where teachers ask for advice regarding teaching material are the most common topic in the overall dataset. Second, to be able to reveal prominent discourses in these interactions, it was necessary to analyse the material recommended. Moreover, teaching material like school books and apps can reflect how policy is implemented (Magnusson, 2019). To analyse school books, the researchers constructed a scale, to evaluate to what extent different discourses are more or less prominent (see Appendix 3). The units for analysis were exercises including writing in the entire books, also, teacher instructions material was analysed on a word level. Two researchers analysed and coded 18 school books, first separately, then discussed and agreed upon. Thereafter one researcher coded the remaining 5. The apps were analysed by one researcher, then discussed and agreed upon. To illustrate the analytic process, examples of discourses visible in school books’ exercises are presented (see Table 3). A skills discourse is exemplified by a grammar exercise, while a creativity discourse, in which reading and writing are closely connected (Ivanič, 2004), is exemplified by an exercise inviting the pupils to use their imagination to write. A discourse for thinking and learning has two examples of exercises: one for writing to think, and one for writing to learn. A process discourse is exemplified by a mind map exercise, and a genre discourse is exemplified by writing a special text-type. A social practices discourse is exemplified by a writing exercise with the classroom as social setting affording opportunity for purposeful communication (Ivanič, 2004). Finally, a socio-political discourse is exemplified by a normative exercise about gender.

In teacher Facebook groups like these studied here, there are key persons contributing more often with posts and comments (Prestridge, 2019). Among this group of key persons, there are bloggers, linking to their own blogs or recommending others’. In the analysis of posts and comments a total of 32 blog posts from 14 bloggers concerning writing education, were identified. These blogs were sorted out and analysed separately in a fourth step.

Distribution of discourses of writing

In the data, all seven discourses are made visible, though, some discourses are visible to a limited extent whilst other discourses are dominating the interactions. To summarise (see Table 4), the most prominent discourses in the interactions are a skills discourse (78 posts) and a genre discourse (53 posts), followed by a creativity discourse (42 posts), a discourse for thinking and learning (31 posts), a process discourse (19 posts) and a social practices discourse (19 posts). There is a lack of a socio-political discourse in the interactions – only two instances were found in grades 7–9. Most interactions concern writing in grades 7–9/all (85/84 posts), and grades 1–3 (65 posts), whereas interactions concerning writing in grades 4–6 are rare (10 posts).

The table also shows the distribution of discourses visible in interactions concerning Swedish as L2, revealing that the dominating discourse is a skills discourse (23 posts), followed by a creativity discourse (17 posts), a discourse for thinking and learning and a genre discourse (16 posts each). Further, there is a lack of a social practices and a total lack of a socio-political discourse. This finding follows the overall pattern, but in interactions concerning Swedish as L2, a creativity discourse is present to a higher extent. However, all instances are found in three threads, while other discourses are distributed over more threads.

The analysis of school books (see Figure 1) reveals that discourses of writing education are unequally privileged in the material. A skills discourse is the dominating discourse in 15 school books, followed by a process and a genre discourse (4 times each), and a creativity discourse (3 times). There are no school books dominated by a thinking and learning, social practices or socio-political discourse.

Most of the school books analysed (19/23) represent more than one discourse. Generally, one discourse is dominant and the others are supportive, implicit or single represented. Four school books only represent one dominating discourse, a skills discourse, without any supportive, implicit or single discourses. In some books, pedagogy emanating from different discourses seem to negotiate or merge. This is visualised in figure 2, taken from the same chapter in a school book (Stensson, 2016a, p. 83; 2016b, p. 73). On the first page, a text is modelled and words and linguistics patterns for the genre are displayed – implying a genre discourse. On the second page, the model text remains, scaffolded by a mind map, and in further exercises, the pupils are asked to write a text using a mind map for planning, following a process discourse of writing instruction.

Like the school books analysed, the apps that teachers give suggestions on are dominated by a skills discourse (see Figure 3). Though it is a limited selection, the apps discussed in the forum do not meet a comprehensive writing education – only three discourses were identified.

The analysis of the 32 blogs reveals a slightly different pattern, where the distribution of dominating discourses is a bit wider. A skills, a genre, a social practices, and a creativity discourse are equally common, whilst there is a lack of a discourse for thinking and learning and a socio-political discourse in the blogs (see Figure 4).

Blogs are often commented upon via “likes”. Actually, half of the interactions with most “likes” concern blogs, indicating that bloggers’ beliefs about writing education are supported by other members in the groups.

Looked upon from the context of the subject area of Swedish as L1, the results indicate a return to a dominating skills discourse. So, are we back to what Bergöö (2005) describes as teaching basic skills?

Examples of discourses of writing

In the following section, the discourses identified in the material are visualised by examples. It is sectioned in order with the most predominant discourse of writing first.

A skills discourse is prevalent in interactions about assessment and National Tests, or when teachers talk about spelling and grammar (Ex. 1).

Documents, pictures and links visualising this discourse include grammar instructions and exercises, jokes about grammar (30 ♥️), and essays. School books focusing writing as a skill, contain exercises about forming letters, handwriting, spelling and grammar.

Though a skills discourse is predominant in the Facebook groups overall, there is a tendency that the importance of the discourse decreases in higher grades.

A genre discourse is visible in teachers’ explicit references to genre pedagogy (Ex. 2 and 3). It can also be seen in posts, where teachers explain how they work with e.g. a special text-type (Ex. 4).

Documents and links contain for example an attached booklet about genres (72♥️), an instructional YouTube film on comparative analysis (21♥️). Blogs concerning Swedish as L2 often take a position related to a genre discourse.

In teaching material, a genre discourse is most visible in materials for higher ages, preferably in Swedish as L2. Examples are found in school books building on a genre approach and the circle model to support pupils in learning to write different text-types. Concerning writing and learning to write within a genre discourse Ivanič (2004) writes: “The ‘target’ text-types are modelled, linguistic terminology is taught” (Ivanič, 2004, p. 232). Still, in L1 teaching material with an L1 norm there is seldom focus on the written language in the different genres, and modelling of text-types quite uncommon.

A creativity discourse is for example visible in teachers’ talk about the pupils creating books (Ex. 5), and writing for creativity (Ex. 6).

A creativity discourse is visible in pictures, shared and recommended as writing inspiration to the pupils. One teacher writes to the picture posted that it stimulates pupils’ fantasy (Ex. 7):

Approaches to the teaching of writing within a creativity discourse involve “treating learner writers as ‘authors’” (Ivanič, 2004, p. 229). One app analysed as a creativity discourse concerns creating books online. In school books, pupils are positioned as future authors, e.g.: “Dramaturgy opens the door to storytelling, existing in every human being, to the talent waiting to be released” (Grönte, 2013, p. 11). Grönte also expresses the need for the teachers to be writing models for their pupils. However, in most school books this kind of writing mainly exists as extra exercises.

A discourse for thinking and learning is visible in teachers’ interactions about when the pupils write to learn, e.g. in weekly diaries, writing logs, taking notes (Ex. 8). Learning Swedish as a subject, first and foremost emphasises learning to read literature in a specific manner (Ex. 9). Learning Swedish as L2 puts language development at the centre. Giving pupils opportunity to use all their languages, often described as translanguaging, is seen as an important means to promote linguistic competence (Ex. 10). Further, exercises to expand the pupil’s vocabulary are common (Ex. 11).

This discourse is two-fold: a discourse for thinking and for learning. In school books, when thinking is focused, pupils are using writing as a tool for self-reflections, common in exercises where the pupils write logs, “Where am I, where am I going?”, and write reflections about what they have learnt relative to these goals. When learning is focused, the content of the subject is foregrounded. Exercises on reading comprehension, concerning how to approach and analyse films and books are frequent, including questions like “Have you understood the text you read?”

A process discourse is visible, for example in interactions about how to organise formative responses. In example 12 pair assessment is discussed.

In school books this discourse is manifested through the writing process approach. The pupils are encouraged to plan their texts with mind maps, to write drafts and to ask classmates to read and revise their texts.

A social practices discourse is common in teachers’ talk about how they arrange writing exercises, where the pupils write for readers outside school (Ex. 13, 14, 15, and 16). Further, analysed as a social practices discourse are posts from teachers creating a community in their classroom (Ex. 17).

A social practices discourse is visible in links, such as school blogs, and a picture showing a map over a city where the teacher is looking for pen friends for her pupils. In a former example penfriends and letter writing was analysed as a genre discourse, since the teacher’s core focus was on learning to master the genre, not to get readers. In blogs a social practices discourse is visualised through the bloggers’ attempt to offer the pupils a context, for example a school blog, with a purpose for writing.

In school books there is mostly a lack of the social practices discourse, but it can be found in exercises organising exhibitions, or writing weekly letter home. There is also an online material recommended (49 ♥️), where the pupils can publish their texts online on the website. In one exercise pupils are encouraged to write on “Fakebook”, as a character.

There are only two examples of a socio-political discourse in the teachers’ interactions (Ex. 18 and 19). In example 18 an analysis of media’s way of reporting precedes the writing, indicating an intention to awake critical language awareness (Ivanič, 2004). Example 19 concerns reflections on norms and identity.

In the school books in all grades a socio-political discourse is visible in single exercises, mostly after reading texts where dilemmas are raised (Ex. 20 and 21) or pupils are promoted to reflect on questions concerning identity (Ex. 22). In one school book for grades 7–9, for Swedish as L2, Swedish becomes a subject for democracy, underlining why democracy and equality are important, and what channels citizens have to express their opinions.

Negotiating discourses of writing education in social media

The results show that some discourses are dominant and some are rare in teachers’ beliefs about writing education. This pattern is shaped through interaction. How discourses are negotiated, is focused in this section.

A negotiation might indicate tensions between different discourses in the interactions. However, the common pattern is that the teachers take the same position, rather than arguing about different views of writing. In example 23 the teachers position themselves in a genre discourse. The teacher starting up the thread also adds a resource, a help pamphlet about text-types.

This thread includes a lot of exalted exclamations, such as “Wonderful! Now I’m inspired”, “Marvellous!”, “Really good!”, “Impressive! Plain and simple!”, “Fantastic! Thank you!”, “Wow”, and in addition 72 “likes” ♥️. This kind of minimum response is common in interactions where teachers offer something. In the context of social media a like is equivalent to a comment (Randahl, 2018). In our understanding, therefore such responses strengthen the position of the discourse.

There are also interactions, where teachers take different positions. In example 24, four different discourses are identified: a genre discourse (genre pedagogy), a process discourse (the process approach), a social practices discourse (recipes) and a creativity discourse (writing to pictures). However, no tensions between different positionings are visible. Instead, different discourses appear side by side.

What differentiates this interaction from the previous one, is the introduction of the thread. In our data, a question more often opens up for different positionings, whereas a distinct positioning in the introduction of a thread is likely to be reinforced in following comments.

To summarise, there are few examples where discourses are negotiated. Teachers seem not to question a position taken by colleagues. In our data there are only two examples of this, both related to assessment where a skills discourse is questioned. In one of these interactions, concerning the word limit on the National Tests, a teacher questions the assessment criteria: “A pupil with a well-written text does not pass the test because he has surpassed the maximum number of words … What view does the pupil get of writing?” However, our data consists of interactions within large Facebook groups for teachers – interactional patterns might be different within smaller groups. Such studies would complement the picture of negotiation.