PRE-WRITING

MODULE
1:
DEVELOPING
BASIC
SENTENCE
CONSTRUCTION SKILL AMONG WEAKER UPPER-PRIMARY PUPILS
(This article appears in the 22nd MELTA Conference Proceeding, 28th 30th May 2013)
Cynthia C. James
SK Kunak 2, P.O. Box 12, 91207 Kunak, Sabah
089-851352, 0165875174
cindyjbj79@yahoo.com

Cynthia C. James graduated with a diploma in teaching from Kent Teachers Training
College, Sabah. She is a trainer for English language teachers in Sabah and is actively
involved in professional learning communities for teachers. She is an administrator for
the Sabah English Language Teachers Facebook Group, a moderator for Sabah Teachers
Enhancement Programme (STEP) portal, and the Community Manager for the Engaging
Malaysian Schools in English (EMSE) website. She is currently reading for a Bachelors
degree in TESL at Universiti Malaysia Sabah (UMS). Her main interest is in exploring
the best approaches to teaching slow learners.

PRE-WRITING
MODULE
1:
DEVELOPING
BASIC
SENTENCE
CONSTRUCTION SKILL AMONG WEAKER UPPER-PRIMARY PUPILS

ABSTRACT
The Pre-Writing Module 1 is a guide to help weaker upper-primary pupils acquire the
basic skills of sentence construction through scaffolded writing strategy. It focuses on
sentences in Present Continuous Tense and sentences with the There is/There are
structure. Using this module, pupils learn each part separately and combine these separate
parts to form correct sentences. To support the teaching of sentence construction, the
teacher uses ICT + Visualisations, a video project and a song. Pupils writing samples
were collected to show progress in terms of the quality of the sentences. In the diagnostic
test, most sentences written by the pupils were meaningless and unstructured. After two
months of using the Pre-Writing Module 1, meaningful and grammatically-correct
sentences began to emerge. After six months, pupils vocabulary had expanded and their
understanding of sentence constructions had progressed in leaps and bounds. The pilot
study was conducted in SK Kunak 2 for 7 months, and the findings show that the module
had succeeded in improving the basic sentence construction skills among the pupils in the
focus group.
Keywords: Scaffolded writing, guided writing, sentence construction, slow learners,
primary level

Introduction
The Pre-Writing Module 1 aims at helping upper primary pupils acquire the basic skills
of sentence constructions through the scaffolded writing strategy. The purpose is to
prepare them for more advanced writing. The focus of the module is descriptive writing,
i.e. writing sentences based on a visual stimulus. It also focuses on sentences in Present
Continuous Tense and sentences with There is/There are structure. Besides the
scaffolded writing strategy, it also employs the modular approach, where pupils are
exposed to vocabulary and grammar items necessary for sentence constructions in a partby-part manner first, before proceeding to writing a complete sentence. It guides pupils
through a step-by-step approach; from simple to advanced, from controlled to
independent writing. Using this module, pupils learn each part separately and combine
these separate parts to form correct sentences.
Problem Statement
The teachers focus while in Level 1
Prior to compiling the Pre-Writing Module 1, I conducted informal interviews with the
Level 1 English teachers who had taught this group of students before. Based on the
feedback given by the teachers, I found that 4 out of 5 teachers prefer to focus more on
helping the pupils to master the basic skills of reading and writing when they are dealing
with pupils in the remedial group.
In my first few lessons on sentence constructions, I tried to introduce the pupils to the
basic structure of a sentence in English. I noticed that 70% of the pupils were able to
understand that a basic sentence usually consists of a subject and a predicate. The
problem began when they attempted to string words together to form a sentence. The
pupils did not know what or which words to use as the subject, the verb or the object
because they had very limited English vocabulary. More diagnostic tests revealed that
these pupils were not only lacking in vocabulary, but also in knowledge about grammar
and basic sentence structures.
Pupils in the remedial group usually struggle with the mechanics of reading such as
spelling, identifying sounds and words when they were in Level 1. According to the
Level 1 teachers in my school, a lot of energy is being channelled towards helping these
pupils to master those skills. Writing lessons would also be limited to helping the
students to master basic penmanship, such as how to hold the pencil properly and how to
form letters of the alphabet.
When these happen, more advanced skills such as vocabulary, grammar and sentence
structure would not be given the highest priority. Due to this, pupils from this group
would have to progress to Level 2 with very limited ability to write grammatically correct
and meaningful sentences.

The pupils learning styles

When the pupils progressed from Year 3 to Year 4 and then Year 5, they had a lot of
trouble catching up with other non-remedial pupils who were able to perform at grade
level. This was made more challenging for them when teachers opted to teach using
methods and approaches that mostly only work for good students. With the help of the
schools counsellor, I had run a few semi-formal aptitude tests on the group of pupils that
I wanted to focus on. Out of 21 pupils, 11 scored high on visual-spatial intelligence; 9
had the same high score for musical and visual-spatial; and one pupil scored the most on
kinaesthetic intelligence.
Harmer (2001) suggests that students learn more quickly if the teaching methods used
match their preferred learning styles. In the good classes, more emphases are usually
given on verbal-linguistic, mathematical as well as interpersonal intelligence. The pupils
in the focus group scored relatively low in these areas of aptitudes, and this had resulted
in them lagging further and further behind in their studies. By the time they reached Year
6, only a small number had succeeded in acquiring the ability to construct simple
sentences in English.
Emphases on examination-oriented skills
Prior to conducting the pilot study using the Pre-Writing Module 1, I tried to examine
how Level 2 teachers in my school perceive the teaching of writing in their classes. I
interviewed two Level 2 teachers who teach Year 4 and Year 5 respectively. Based on
their responses, I concluded that the teachers perceived the teaching of writing as
preparing the pupils for the examination. I had conducted lesson observations on these
teachers, and I discovered that the activities for writing lessons were mostly centred on
examination drills, and teaching materials would be limited to using worksheets and pastyear examination questions. The backwash effects of the national examination are evident
in the way they affect the teachers teaching approaches in the classroom.
While the backwash effect may help pupils who were able to perform at grade level to
acquire the basic language skills that they need to learn, the remedial pupils suffered due
to their inability to catch up. The examination questions have a standard that is way too
high for this group of pupils to achieve.
Focus Group
The pilot study was conducted on 21 Year 6 pupils of SK Kunak 2, with low level of
proficiency. Most of the pupils struggled with basic sentence construction in English, and
the highest grade obtained for assessment based on the national examination format is C.
Literature Review
Slow/ Remedial Learners
Rhodes and Dudley-Marling (1996) refer to remedial learners as readers and writers
with a difference. Healy (2010) defines learning problems as any innate or acquired
characteristic that consistently interferes with one or more aspects of learning. AlHashmi (2009) cites Shaw, Grimes & Bulman (2005: 11) in defining slow learners as

children who are doing poorly in school, yet are not eligible for special education.
According to Shaw (2010),
Children and adolescents with borderline intelligence rarely meet
eligibility criteria for special education services, although they have
remarkably high failure rates in the general education setting. Changing
models of special education, including response to intervention
approaches, are improving access to academic supports, but most slow
learners fall into the gulf between special and general education.
(Shaw, 2010, p.12)
In the context of the target school (SK Kunak 2), remedial or slow learners refer to pupils
who are not in the special education class but are still struggling with learning and
academic performance. Basically, remedial pupils in SK Kunak 2 are pupils who struggle
with basic reading, writing and arithmetic skills. They are normal children not
children who need special education yet, they still need special attention in some
aspects to support their learning. The teaching approaches that should be employed by
teachers in teaching this class should be slightly different than that of the non-remedial
classes.
Scaffolded Writing and the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD)
The strategies that I employed were based on the zone of proximal development (ZPD)
and the concept of scaffolded learning introduced by Vygotsky (1978). ZPD is described
as the distance between the actual development level as determined by independent
problem solving and the level of potential development as determined through problem
solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers (p. 86). Feden
and Vogel (2006) refer to scaffolding as a six-step approach to assisting learning and
development of individuals within their zone of proximal development. Knowledge,
skills and prior experiences, which come from an individual's general knowledge, create
the foundation of scaffolding for potential development. At this stage, students interact
with adults and/or peers to accomplish a task which could possibly not be completed
independently. The use of language and shared experience is essential to successfully
implement scaffolding as a learning tool (pp. 187 190). According to Clabaugh (2010):
The implications of Vygotsky's theories and observations for educators are
several and significant. In Vygotsky's view, the teacher has the
collaborative "task of guiding and directing the child's activity." Children
can then solve novel problems "on the basis of a model he [sic] has been
shown in class." In other words, children learn by solving problems with
the help of the teacher, who models processes for them and his or her
peers, in a classroom environment that is directed by the teacher. In
essence, "the child imitates the teacher through a process of re-creating
previous classroom collaboration." It is important to note that the teacher
does not control the class with rule and structure; rather, the teacher
collaborates with the students and provides support and direction.
Assignments and activities that can be accurately completed by a student

without assistance, indicate that the student has previously mastered the
necessary prior knowledge. In the majority of classrooms this would be
the conclusion of a unit; however, this is Vygotsky's entry point.
(Clabaugh, 2010, p. 5)
Other studies pertaining to the use of the ZPD in the teaching of writing reveal positive
results. One example is a study conducted by Bodrova and Leong (1998) on Scaffolding
Emergent Writing in the Zone of Proximal Development. Based on the study, it was
concluded that Scaffolded Writing method
holds promise as a new instructional technique that may be used by
classroom teachers. It allows teachers to provide appropriate individual
support while at the same time to work with a small group of children.
Scaffolded Writing facilitates the transition to independent writing. It
supports the child's message production, thus preserving the critical link
between meaning and writing. It helps the child to distinguish the word
within the flow of that message and stabilizes the link between meaning,
oral speech, and the written word. It adds to our repertoire of appropriate
types of support in the area of emergent literacyexpanding the tactics to
include materialization and private speech.
(Bodrova and Leong, 1998, p. 15)
Guided Writing and Modelling
Another strategy that I employed throughout the intervention is guided writing and
modelling. Oczkus (2007), who has set out to build on scaffolded learning research and
find a way to make guided writing an effective component in her writing program,
concludes that as a result of these guided writing experiences student writing and
motivation improved dramatically. According to Oczkus,
Guided writing is an essential tool in a balanced writing curriculum,
providing an additional supported step towards independent writing.
Through guided writing, students are supported during the different stages
of the writing process. The aim is to provide support that is going to help
students to improve their writing and to work with increasing
independence.
(Oczkus, 2007, p.3)
The key, according to Oczkus, is the element of fun. In her own words,
When I began teaching, I didnt want to inflict the boring writing
environment I had experienced as a child on my students. I couldnt wait
to make writing instruction meaningful and fun. My goal has always been
to motivate students to write well and to feel like writers.
(p. ix)

Guided writing and scaffolded learning should help pupils to improve their writing skills,
and bring to them the joy of learning how to write. This is especially important for
weaker and struggling pupils who desperately need more learning motivations.
Pupils were given the guidance needed during the early stages, where the learning
process was fully controlled by me as a teacher. As they progressed, control was
gradually diminished. I viewed the intervention strategies as successful when they
managed to bring the pupils to a level where they were able to write independently, with
little or no guidance at all from the teacher. Based on the theory of scaffolded learning,
the technique of guided writing and the concept of ZPD, I set out to use the Pre-Writing
Module 1 as the core of my intervention strategies to develop the basic sentence
construction skill among my weaker Year 6 pupils.
Intervention Strategies
The Pre-Writing Module 1
The Pre-Writing Module 1 is divided into three main parts. Part 1 deals with providing
the pupils with the vocabulary and grammar items that they need in order to enable them
to use the TiTa and S-V-W Formulas effectively in constructing simple sentences. It
starts with building the pupils vocabulary for the subject and object/complement of
sentences, i.e. People, Animals, Plants, Objects and Places / Events. It also provides
practices for grammar items such as singular-plural, action verbs, verb to be, verb + ing
and Present Continuous Tense. To help pupils associate the vocabulary and grammar
items to sentence constructions, Part 1 provides three Pre-Writing exercises. Part 2 adds
more grammar items like Conjunctions, Adjectives and Adverbs. This part provides the
pupils with easy guides on how to use the grammar items to construct compound and
complex sentences. Part 3 is added as a support for Part 1 and Part 2. It contains exercises
and practices to enrich and reinforce pupils vocabulary and grammar. The module uses
pictures, visual stimulus and grammar exercises from actual national examination papers,
national textbooks (Year 4, 5 and 6) as well resources from several popular reference
books and workbooks, other teaching modules and the Internet. All the outside resources
used in the Pre-Writing Module are cited and acknowledged.
The Writing Formulas
The Pre-Writing Module 1 is built around the two writing formulas, i.e. the TiTa Formula
and the S-V-W Formula.
a. TiTa Formula
TiTa Formula is used to help pupils construct sentences using the There is/There
are structure. Ti stands for There is while Ta stands for There are The
formula goes like this:
There + Be + How many? + Noun + Place

Table 1: The TiTa Table

There

Be

There
There

is
are

How
many?
a
two

Noun

Place

boy
cats

at the canteen.
under the table.

b. S-V-W Formula
The S-V-W Formula is a formula used to guide pupils in writing sentences in the
Present Continuous Tense. S stands for Subject, V stands for Verb and W
stands for Wh-questions. The formula is as follows:
How many? + Subject + Be + Verb+ing + What / Where / Who
Table 2: The S-V-W Table
How
many?
A
Several

Subject

Be

Verb+ing

What / Where / Who

girl
people

is
are

eating
watching

a sandwich.
the football game.

c. Materials
To produce the Pre-Writing Module 1, I used past-year national examination papers,
national textbooks, published materials, state education office-approved teaching
modules and resources from the Internet. I also used Windows applications such as
Word, Power Point and Paint. The TiTa video was recorded using my video camera
and the video was edited using Windows Movie Maker. The S-V-W song was
composed using a guitar.
d. Methods
Below are some of the methods that I have employed in using the module with my
pupils:
i. Pre-Writing Module

I made photocopies of the module and gave my pupils one each to be used
as a reference and guide.
For slower pupils, I prefer to cover the module with them page by page.
For the quicker ones, I skipped the first few sections and asked the pupils
to do the exercises as homework.
I also used the module to conduct study-groups (pupils study together in
small groups) and peer coaching (quicker pupils help the slower ones).

I used the module as a supplementary material during school-hour lessons

and also during extra classes at night.

ii. Visual Aids / Power Point Slides (TiTa Train and Mr Correct)

Since the slides for TiTa Train and Mr Correct were also divided into
small parts called module, I maintained my modular approach (contents /
skills are taught in smaller parts that are eventually combined together to
form the complete picture, concept or idea).
Besides the modular approach, I also used the scaffolded writing strategy
(teacher gives full guidance at the first stages of writing, and as pupils gain
mastery, teacher reduces the guidance gradually. This approach is also
known as the principle of diminishing control).
The first few parts of the slides are used for Shared Writing activity where
writing was very guided and controlled.
As the pupils become better, I proceeded to the next part where the
scaffolding was lifted a little and control was reduced.
Guidance and control were reduced gradually and bit by bit until pupils
were able to write independently and freely.

iii. Other Supporting Materials / Activities

The S-V-W song: I played the guitar and the pupils sang the song with me.
I used the song whenever I wanted to revise the sentence structures with
the pupils. Sometimes, I played the song for the pupils upon request.
Besides being a teaching tool, the song had been a source of enjoyment
and motivation for the pupils to learn writing and English.
The TiTa Video: After the recording was completed, I used the video clip
to revise the sentence structure with the pupils. The pupils loved it. I also
used the same video to teach my Year 4 and Year 5 pupils and the impacts
were the same. The video did help the pupils to understand sentence
constructions using the TiTa Formula better.

Chronological Account of Intervention Activities

January
Diagnostic test was conducted to identify pupils level of writing and their current skills
in constructing sentences. The result of the test revealed that all of the pupils in the focus
group were still struggling with basic sentence constructions. Much of the problem may
be attributed to the pupils lack of vocabulary and mastery in grammar. By mid-January, I
began the process of compiling materials and putting together the Pre-Writing Module
1. While the writing was in progress, I exposed the pupils to the two writing formulas,
i.e. the TiTa Formula and the S-V-W Formula. Pupils are taught how to construct simple
sentences using basic vocabulary and the two formulas as their guide.

February
I realised that even with the help of the formulas, the pupils still had trouble organising
their words in the correct order in forming sentences. I tried to identify the root of the
problem and discovered that a lot of them had difficulty memorising the formulas. To
address this problem, I came up with the TiTa Table and the S-V-W Table. The strategy
worked. However, I had to face another problem. The pupils became too dependent on
the tables and I noticed that most of them could not construct proper sentences without
the tables. I knew that I had to find a way on how to help my pupils remember the
formulas and use them correctly and meaningfully in sentence constructions.
March
Since most pupils found the TiTa Formula to be easier, I decided that I should start with
it so that the pupils may be motivated. To enable the pupils to remember the TiTa
Formula better, I got a few pupils to work on a video project. In the video project, several
pupils with proficiency levels ranging from low to average explained how to use the TiTa
Formula to construct simple sentences based on a visual stimulus. After the recording
was completed, I played the video in the class. The pupils interests in the TiTa Formula
soared, and I noticed some improvements in most of the pupils sentence construction
skills. Most of them were now able to construct There is/There are sentences
without depending too much on the TiTa Table.
April
I also noticed that a large number of the pupils are visual learners. They learned better
and quicker when there are visual aids present. Therefore, I decided to bring the TiTa
Formula to the next level. I created a visualisation using MS Power Point to represent the
basic structure of the sentence. The visualisation was called the TiTa Train. I tried to
utilise the animation feature or the MS Power Point presentation by creating a train that
goes from one place (word category) to another collecting passengers (words) and
dropping them at the correct stations (the word order). The result was very encouraging.
The pupils were able to remember the TiTa Formula, understand the concept and apply it
in their writing in a more meaningful way.
May
The pupils were making such encouraging progress in the TiTa Formula. Therefore, for
the month of May, I decided to focus on the S-V-W Formula. After the success of the
TiTa Train, I tried to extend the visualisation technique and created the One-Eye
Monster to help my pupils remember the S-V-W sentence structure. It did not quite work
for sentence construction. I came up with another visualisation called Mr Correct. Mr.
Correct worked better than One-Eye Monster, yet not quite as successful as the TiTa
Train. I knew that I had to find another technique to help my pupils remember the
structure of the S-V-W sentences.
June
I had known for long my pupils love for music and songs. Therefore, I composed a
simple song to help my pupils remember the S-V-W Formula, or the structure of
sentences in Present Continuous Tense. I taught the pupils how to sing the song in the

class. I brought my little guitar to attract their attentions. The pupils loved the song, and
they were able to memorise the words of the song in no time. With the combination of
MS Power Point slides with interactive animations and visualisations, the pupils
improved tremendously in their skills of constructing sentences in the Present Continuous
Tense.
July
By this time, most of my pupils were already able to master simple sentence
constructions, both using the TiTa as well as the S-V-W Formula. I extended the lesson
to Part 2 of the Pre-Writing Module 1, where I exposed the pupils to compound and
complex sentences. Before this, some of my quicker pupils had already been exposed to
compound and complex sentences, once they were able to master the simple sentence
construction. Record of pupils monthly assessments showed improvements from month
to month in pupils test scores on the sentence construction part. Analysis of pupils
sample writings also showed that the pupils writing skills had improved significantly in
comparison to their writing in the January diagnostic test.
Implications
The Effectiveness
After using the Pre-Writing Module 1 for seven months, these are my findings:
a. Pupils scores in monthly test showed steady improvements (see Appendix 1).
b. Pupils writing quality and sentence construction skills were getting better
(Appendix 2).
c. The Pre-Writing Module 1 received positive reviews from other teachers (based
on downloaders comments on Slideshare, where I uploaded the Pre-Writing
Module).
The Modules Potential to be Shared and Spread
I have shared the module with my fellow teachers in Kunak, and had received quite
positive feedbacks from those who used it. Besides Kunak, the module is also used by
fellow teachers in Tawau, Semporna, Kota Kinabalu, Kota Belud and other districts in
Sabah. I have also uploaded the Pre-Writing Module 1 on Slideshare on 17th February
2012
(http://www.slideshare.net/cindyjbj79/upsr-prewriting-module-1-sentenceconstruction). To date, it has over 20, 000 views and over 2, 000 downloads. The
download record shows that the users of the module are not limited to teachers in Sabah
only. I received feedbacks from teachers in Melaka, Johor, Selangor and Kuala Lumpur. I
believe the potential for sharing and spreading is quite vast, since the module and the
supporting materials (video and Power Point presentations) can be shared both physically
and electronically.
Conclusion
The Pre-Writing Module 1 is not a magic tool that can instantly make pupils write
perfect and flawless sentences. Instead, it is a useful and effective tool to support pupils
learning processes. It guides pupils through a step-by-step approach, from simple to

advanced, from controlled to independent writing. We could see from the pupils writing
samples that they really did progress in terms of the quality of the sentences. In the
diagnostic test, most sentences written by the pupils were meaningless and unstructured.
After two months of using the Pre-Writing Module, we were beginning to see
meaningful, grammatically-correct sentences. By the month of June, pupils vocabulary
had expanded tremendously, and their understanding of sentence constructions had
progressed in leaps and bounds. Most pupils had mastered the basics of simple sentence
constructions, and were also able to expand their writing ability to constructing
compound and complex sentences. I am not denying that in the month of June most
pupils still committed some minor grammar and spelling mistakes. However, in relative
comparison to the level from which they started (as can be seen in the January diagnostic
test), the progress that they had made was really encouraging. The sentences they
constructed were more meaningful and grammatical, and written in higher level
structures. Future studies may focus on expanding the potential of guided and scaffolded
writing strategies in helping weaker pupils to write in paragraph level or higher.

References
Al-Hashmi, Y. S. (2009). Slow Learners: How are they Identified and Supported? The
Charter Schools Resource Journal, 166-172.
Bodrova, E., & Leong, D. J. (1998). Scaffolding Emergent Writing in the Zone of
Proximal Development. Literacy Teaching and Learning, 1-18.
Clabaugh, G. K. (2010). The Educational Theory of Lev Vygotsky: A Multi-Dimensional
Analysis. New Foundations, pp. 1-18.
Dudley-Marling, C., & Rhodes, L. (1996). Readers and Writers with a Difference.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann Educational Books, Inc.
Feden, P., & Vogel, R. (2006). Education. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Harmer, J. (2001). The Practice of English Language Teaching (3rd ed.). London:
Longman.
Healy, J. M. (2010). Different Learners: Identifying, Preventing and Treating Your
Child's Learning Problems. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Leong, D. J., & Bodrova, E. (2001). Pioneers in Our Field: Lev Vygotsky - Playing to
Learn. Retrieved April 2013, from Scholastic Early Childhood Today:
http://content.scholastic.com/browse/article.jsp?id=3549
Oczkus, L. D. (2007). Guided Writing: Practical Lessons, Powerful Results. Portsmouth:
Heinemann.
Shaw, S. R. (2010, February). Rescuing Students from the Slow Learner Trap. Principal
Leadership, pp. 12-16.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in Society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Appendix 1: Year 6 Pupils Score in National Examination-Format Monthly Test

Paper 2, Question 1 (Section A Sentence Construction)
Pupil

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

Test 1
(Diagnostic)
/10
1
1
0
1
2
2
1
0
1
2
1
1
1
1
0
0
2
1
2
2
2

Test 2
(March)
/10
3
3
2
3
4
4
3
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
2
4
3
4
5
4

Test 3
(June)
/10
6
6
5
6
7
7
5
4
5
6
6
8
6
7
6
5
8
7
8
8
7

Average score

1.14

3.38

6.33

Appendix 2: Pupils Writing Samples for January, March and June 2012
January Diagnostic Test

March

June