Personalised Writing in Centralised Curriculum: Critical Gaps in New South Wales Stage 1 English Units

Abstract

Curriculum reform in New South Wales (NSW), Australia, emphasises the need for change, arguing that current educational arrangements must better meet children’s future needs. A key recommendation advocates for greater flexibility in teaching and learning to support personalisation, addressing the wide variation in children’s learning needs. This qualitative study critically examines four Stage 1 narrative writing units, focusing on whether personalised writing practices—such as opportunities for scaffolding and feedback, choice in writing topics, and flexibility in pacing—are embedded in these centralised curriculum materials. Drawing on Bernstein’s theoretical concept of framing, we analyse the extent to which these practices are integrated into the units. Our analysis reveals a predominance of strong framing, characterised by tightly controlled writing organisation, limited topic choices, and rigid pacing. These constraints offer few opportunities for personalisation. This study highlights critical gaps in the Stage 1 narrative writing units, suggesting that without critical adaptation by teachers, these units risk perpetuating ineffective writing instruction and hindering children’s writing development. This study calls for further research into the impact of centralised curriculum materials on teachers’ writing instruction and the development of children’s writing knowledge and skills, with a particular focus on how personalisation can be integrated within these units to improve writing outcomes for all children.

1. Introduction

What would an early years classroom look like that teaches writing knowledge and skills while providing time and space for children to flourish through personalised learning? Is it a classroom where children have choices in writing topics, opportunities for spontaneous writing, and the flexibility to progress at their own pace? Answering this question is challenging and necessary, especially within the current context of centralised curriculum materials that dominate many education systems. In countries like Australia, Singapore, England, and the United States of America, centralised curriculum materials are designed by higher authorities with specific outcomes intended to improve quality and equity in early childhood literacy education (Polikoff, 2020; Toh et al., 2016). These outcomes are often measured using standardised national and international tests, which can shape perceptions of children’s abilities and determine the success or failure of both teachers and the broader education system (Penn, 2023; Sellar & Lingard, 2014). Given this, it is crucial to consider where and how writing experiences that recognise each child’s uniqueness can fit within these centralised curriculum materials to meet the needs and interests of children in dynamic learning environments. This ensures that all children, regardless of their background, location, abilities, or interests, can engage with the curriculum in meaningful ways.

In New South Wales, Australia, centralised curriculum materials play a significant role in shaping curriculum, teaching practices, and children’s learning outcomes. Li and Harfitt (2017) describe materials like these as “artefacts and tools” that “enable, extend or constrain” teacher practice (p. 464). This dynamic interplay between teachers, children, and curriculum materials aligns with the participatory perspective of Remillard (2005), which emphasises the reciprocal influence of these elements in shaping the educational experience. Whilst centralised curriculum materials are often presented as one way of teaching and learning, we must be mindful of the “powerful imprint” (Grossman & Thompson, 2008, p. 2025) they have on teachers’ content knowledge and pedagogic practices and children’s motivation to learn to write (Barratt-Pugh et al., 2020). Factors such as performativity cultures, curriculum policy, and school-based beliefs and practices can limit teachers’ independence and freedom to shape their pedagogy and practice (Lau et al., 2022). This raises the question of whether centralised curriculum materials offer enough flexibility for personalised writing experiences that cater to each child’s learning needs, inherent strengths, and interests. This is important because, as writing experts remind us, writing should be a joyful, meaningful mode of expression, not merely a skill to be taught and assessed (Calkins & Ehrenworth, 2016; Graves, 1983; Rowe et al., 2021).

While research exists exploring teachers’ use of curriculum materials, these perspectives tend to focus on American contexts and be in relation to teaching resources in mathematics and science education (see Davis et al., 2016; Drake et al., 2014; Remillard, 2018). Limited perspectives exist exploring other education systems, like Australia or England, and teachers’ use of curriculum materials in literacy. This paper addresses this gap, drawing on our thirty-five years of combined experience as classroom teachers and our current role as researchers in English and literacy, examining whether writing experiences personalised to meet the unique needs of children fit into centralised English units in New South Wales primary schools. Understanding this issue is significant, as writing is critical for school success during the school years and beyond. It enables us to communicate, learn, share, and connect (McLean, 2022). We begin the paper by reviewing the literature on writing principles and practices, drawing on research in Australia and internationally, and exploring how personalised approaches to writing can enhance both the teaching of writing and children’s development as writers who love to write. Following this, we introduce the kindergarten to Year 2 English units designed as part of the New South Wales government’s curriculum support for early years teachers. Our analysis focuses on four Stage 1 narrative units, with a focus on personalised writing experiences, particularly in terms of opportunities for scaffolding and feedback, choice in writing topics, and flexibility in the pacing of writing knowledge and skills. We then outline the study’s data collection and analysis processes before presenting key findings. Finally, we discuss the implications of how centralised curriculum materials may influence early years teachers’ understanding, knowledge, and practice in personalising writing to meet children’s needs, interests, and aspirations.

2. Writing in the Early Years: Principles and Practices

The global literature emphasises the need for foundational writing principles and practices to develop skilled and knowledgeable writers who enjoy writing. Early years teachers understand that these principles and practices support children’s writing development. Children need to write often, write freely, and have the opportunity to explore and expand their capacities in writing (Carey et al., 2022; Graves, 1983; Quinn et al., 2022). To facilitate this, they need blocks of time to make marks on a page, scribble, write strings of letters, and experiment with letter–sound relationships (Calkins, 2020; Graves, 1983). Children also need exposure to good writing. Picture books, in particular, serve as valuable mentor texts that showcase strong writing and illustrate the possibilities of language, structure, perspective, and storytelling (Tondreau, 2024). Alongside this, explicit instruction in writing knowledge and skills, combined with regular practice, is essential (de Abreu Malpique et al., 2022). To motivate children to write, teachers should encourage personal choice over writing topics, allowing them to reflect on their loves, concerns, interests, fads, and experiences (Barratt-Pugh et al., 2020; Calkins & Ehrenworth, 2016; Graves, 1983). This autonomy should be extended to both audience and purpose, empowering children to take ownership of their writing (Graves, 1994). Furthermore, scaffolding and feedback are key to supporting children’s growth as writers (Rowe et al., 2021). Teachers should create experiences that balance structured and spontaneous writing opportunities (Brosseuk, 2024; Quinn et al., 2022). These principles and practices of writing instruction are well established and have been extensively researched for decades.

Early years teachers recognise that these principles and practices support children’s writing development, understanding that writing is a complex social and cultural activity (O’Grady et al., 2022). In this context, there is a strong interplay between children’s desire to write and be confident, competent writers and the pedagogic practices employed by teachers (Barratt-Pugh et al., 2020). Personalisation is key to tailoring writing instruction to each child’s needs, abilities and interests, ensuring that all children can access high-quality, inclusive writing experiences (Magnusson et al., 2022). A systematic review of personalisation by Bernacki et al. (2021) found that it is complex, with varying definitions across educational contexts. While terms like personalisation, inclusiveness, differentiation, and individualisation are often used interchangeably, the literature agrees that personalised learning is fundamentally a child-centred approach (Abawi, 2015; Solari et al., 2022). Teachers expertly draw on professional knowledge to respond to each child’s characteristics and circumstances, creating engaging and meaningful learning. This aligns with the Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL), which underscores the importance of personalised learning in achieving excellence in the teaching profession (Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership [AITSL], 2018).

Personalisation is increasingly recognised as a key component in education policy and practice. The Alice Springs (Mpartwe) Education Declaration, endorsed by all Education Ministers, highlights the importance of ensuring that every young Australian becomes a successful learner (Australian Government Department of Education, 2020). Achieving this requires teachers to personalise learning based on children’s interests, strengths, and capabilities. Schools must also be responsive to the diverse needs of children from varying linguistic, cultural, religious, and socioeconomic backgrounds. While the NSW Department of Education acknowledges the importance of personalised learning for children, publicly available documentation often focuses on children with additional learning and support needs, such as those with disabilities, refugee children, and Aboriginal children (New South Wales Government, 2023a, 2023b, 2024). This narrow view seemingly limits personalisation to specific groups rather than embracing it as a fundamental principle for all children. As Abawi (2015) argues, personalisation should be universal, for everyone “from the [school] gate in” (p. 47), catering to the learning needs of every child, regardless of their background or circumstances.

3. Personalising Writing Instruction

Research highlights key principles underpinning personalised writing instruction, such as opportunities for scaffolding and feedback, choice in writing topics, and flexibility in pacing. This approach is supported by the document Nurturing Wonder and Igniting Passion: Designs for a New School Curriculum, a report produced as part of the NSW Curriculum Review. This report outlines proposals and recommendations for redesigning the curriculum in New South Wales (NSW) schools and serves as a strong rationale for personalised writing instruction. It supports the idea that every child learns differently and that fostering a love of learning requires an approach that values support, choice, flexibility, and personal relevance. Similarly, the NSW Writing Guide K-2 advocates for personalised instruction by offering specific, developmentally appropriate strategies for tailoring writing tasks “appropriate to the interests and needs of students” through tasks that are “thoughtful, authentic, and purposeful” (New South Wales Department of Education, 2024, p. 8). To support the NSW Department of Education’s explicit call for personalised writing instruction, it is essential to consider key aspects that tailor the writing experience to children’s needs and interests.

3.1. Organisation of Writing

The way writing is organised plays a key role in personalising writing instruction. In many contemporary curricula, writing knowledge and skills are organised and sequenced in a linear fashion, moving from more straightforward concepts to more complex tasks. While this structure helps build foundational writing knowledge and skills and ensures that basics are learned before moving on, it can also limit flexibility for children who develop writing skills at different rates (Graham et al., 2019). This rigid structure often prioritises a one-size-fits-all progression, hindering children from exploring topic, structure, and voice—elements that may not fit neatly into a linear progression (Calkins & Ehrenworth, 2016; Harmey, 2020). Moreover, it can restrict children’s freedom to make decisions and express their choices about both the topics children write about and the way they show their writing knowledge and skills (Rohloff et al., 2022). Additionally, a rigid structure may limit opportunities for teachers to provide timely, “in-the-moment” feedback (Quinn et al., 2022, p. 1452) or engage in meaningful “to and fro conversations” (Harmey, 2020, p. 414), limiting the immediate responsive support that personalises writing (Calkins & Ehrenworth, 2016; Helsel et al., 2021). To address this, the New South Wales Department of Education (2024) emphasises that writing instruction should be “high challenge, high support,” encouraging children to develop their writing knowledge and skills while providing the feedback and scaffolding necessary for success.

3.2. Selection in Writing

A fundamental aspect of personalised writing is choice. Research by Graves (1983), Harmey (2020), Rowe et al. (2021), and Barratt-Pugh et al. (2020) emphasise the importance of allowing children to select their writing topics. They must choose topics that hold personal significance and matter to them. This child-centred approach allows children to choose personally meaningful topics, whether based on their likes and dislikes, curiosities, hobbies, or lived experiences and promotes a sense of decision-making and ownership in their writing. Research by Barratt-Pugh et al. (2020) involving 109 young children aged five to six concluded that choosing a topic is integral to interest, enjoyment, and writing motivation. This finding is consistent with previous studies with pre-kindergarten children (Kissel & Miller, 2015), preparatory children (Brosseuk, 2024), 2-to-6-year-olds (Rowe et al., 2021), and Year 3 children (Helsel et al., 2021). Taken together, these studies highlight the importance of giving children control and ownership in choosing the topics they write about and how they demonstrate their writing knowledge and skills. This approach also extends to using picture books as mentor texts, ideally engaging children with stories and characters that resonate with their lived experiences (Bishop, 1990). When children can connect personally with the texts they read, they are more likely to feel empowered to make their own writing choices. Children who cannot connect with the texts or writing tasks may struggle to engage with the content and may lack the motivation to write about topics that do not feel personally relevant (Barratt-Pugh et al., 2020). In his two-year study of mostly 6-year-old children in New Hampshire over 40 years ago, writing pioneer Donald Graves highlighted the crucial role of choice in writing. This insight remains just as relevant today (Calkins & Ehrenworth, 2016).

3.3. Pacing of Writing

In addition to organising and selecting writing, pacing is a key aspect of personalised writing. Adjusting pacing to children’s abilities allows each child to progress at a rate that suits their needs (Bahlmann Bollinger & Myers, 2019; Graham et al., 2019). Research shows that children develop writing knowledge and skills at different speeds (Graham et al., 2019; Helsel et al., 2021), and rigid pacing of instruction can lead to frustration and disengagement (Barratt-Pugh et al., 2020). Flexible pacing, on the other hand, helps teachers address the diverse needs of their children (Rowe et al., 2021). For example, some children may benefit from additional time to talk about and organise their ideas with teachers and classmates or use Post-it notes (Stockman, 2020) or drawing (Mackenzie, 2024) before writing. These strategies allow children to tinker with their ideas, experiment with spelling choices, and play with formatting. These evidence-based practices recognise writing as a social connection and activity occasion where children have ample time to write. In contrast, other children may be ready to move ahead more quickly. A flexible approach to pacing thus supports responsive teaching. In their study of 95 teachers’ perceptions of supporting writing, Magnusson et al. (2022) found that teachers’ responsiveness, time and patience, and avoidance of unnecessary pressure to progress were crucial in fostering children’s writing development. The NSW School Excellence Framework, which supports schools in achieving quality teaching practices, encourages flexibility, allowing children to learn knowledge and skills implicitly and explicitly at a pace that best supports children’s writing interests and needs (New South Wales Department of Education, 2023).

4. Curriculum Implementation in Australia

In Australia, states and territories have been responsible for implementing and enacting the Australian Curriculum since its initial release in 2010. The Australian Curriculum is a national framework outlining the foundational knowledge, skills, and understandings that all young Australians should possess (Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority, 2024). It is a three-dimensional curriculum, bringing together eight disciplinary-based learning areas (English, Mathematics, Science, Health and Physical Education, Humanities and Social Sciences, The Arts, Technologies, and Languages), seven general capabilities (critical and creative thinking, digital literacy, ethical understanding, intercultural understanding, literacy, numeracy, and personal and social capability), and three cross-curriculum priorities (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander histories and cultures, Asia and Australia’s engagement with Asia, and sustainability) (Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority, n.d.). In New South Wales, the New South Wales Education Standards Authority (NESA) oversees the NSW Curriculum, ensuring that content from the Australian Curriculum is embedded in syllabus materials across the primary and secondary stages of schooling. A state government-initiated review of the NSW Curriculum in April 2020 saw ten key recommendations proposed, including introducing new syllabus documents, stronger emphasis on literacy and numeracy teaching and learning in the early years, and more supportive working conditions for teachers (New South Wales Government, 2020).

To address these recommendations, NESA developed and released K-2 English lesson plans, mentor texts, and resource materials to support the new English syllabus and ease teacher workloads. The then-New South Wales Minister for Education and Early Learning, Sarah Mitchell, stated that “high-quality, sequenced curriculum resources” would eliminate teachers’ need to reinvent lesson plans (New South Wales Government, 2022b). Mitchell described these centralised units as a “game changer” for teachers in New South Wales (New South Wales Government, 2022b). This strategy was informed by a report from the Gratton Institute, which highlighted lesson planning as a significant demand on teacher time (Hunter & Sonnemann, 2022). However, as Bedford and Barnes (2022) argue, the challenge for teachers lies not in lesson planning per se but in the time required to do so well. Rather than advocating for the time teachers need to craft responsive and personalised lessons to meet the children’s learning needs, emphasis has been placed on standardising teachers’ curriculum materials and planning under the guise of decreasing teacher workload pressures (Hunter & Sonnemann, 2022; Mockler & Stacey, 2024).

As many New South Wales teachers implement the K-2 English units, NESA can draw valuable lessons from the experiences of other state jurisdictions, particularly Queensland. To support the initial implementation of the Australian Curriculum, Queensland’s education government developed a suite of curriculum materials called Curriculum into the Classroom (C2C) across eight learning areas. Launched in 2012, C2C included unit plans, lesson and topic outlines, and teacher and student support materials. While initially well received by some teachers and schools (Lippet, 2013), the resource materials later faced criticism for their impact on teaching and learning. Teachers struggled to cover all the content, and the highly prescriptive nature of the materials left little room for personalising the pacing of instruction (Barton et al., 2014). In 2016, the then Queensland Education Minister Kate Jones acknowledged that C2C had become burdensome, as teachers sought greater flexibility to allow for more time for revision, refinement, and deeper learning (Queensland Government, 2016). Today, modified C2C materials in Queensland are viewed only as a “starting point” for school curriculum and are available via Scootle, Australia’s digital learning repository managed by Education Services Australia (Queensland Government, 2024).

A body of research exists exploring the impact of curriculum materials on teacher practice and students’ learning experiences. However, this tends to focus predominantly on mathematics and science education in the United States. For example, in mathematics education, such materials have been found to shape teachers’ mathematical content knowledge, interpretive skills, and the quality of mathematics instruction in classrooms (Hill & Charalambous, 2012; Remillard, 2018). In science education, curriculum materials can significantly impact teachers’ learning of content and appropriate pedagogical strategies and influence children’s scientific thinking (Arias et al., 2016; Davis et al., 2016). Research perspectives also exist exploring the impact of curriculum materials on preservice teachers’ knowledge development (Forbes & Davis, 2010). However, these tend to focus again on science and mathematics. Research exploring literacy-focused curriculum materials is limited, focusing more on reading instruction (see Valencia et al., 2006) or the language arts curriculum area in secondary schooling contexts (see Grossman & Thompson, 2008). Limited perspectives focus on the impact of centralised curriculum materials on writing instruction in an Australian context. The New South Wales syllabus reform context offers a valuable opportunity to extend discussion on the impact of curriculum materials on teacher practice.

In this paper, we examine whether personalised writing practices are present within the K-2 English centralised curriculum units. We focus on four Stage 1 narrative writing units of work developed by the NSW Department of Education. We chose narrative units as they are deeply embedded in social and cultural practices, enabling children to draw on their experiences, emotions, ideas, and interests. Additionally, narratives often require more nuanced feedback on complex writing structures such as plot development, character creation, and descriptive language use. In the following section, we describe the selected units for analysis, followed by an outline of the content data analysis processes used to identify critical gaps within these units.

5. Data Collection

In response to the NSW Curriculum Review, the NSW Department of Education developed 60 downloadable English units for Early Stage 1 (kindergarten) and Stage 1 (Year 1 and 2) (New South Wales Government, 2022a). These two-week units, each consisting of 10 suggested lessons, are defined as a flexible working document that outlines literacy skills like phonics, spelling, handwriting, reading fluency, comprehension, oral language, vocabulary, and writing. For this study, we explored four Stage 1 units focused on the narrative writing genre. Our decision to focus on narrative writing units stems from the consistent presence of this text type across the four school terms. This consistency allowed us to look at how narrative writing instruction was sequenced and implemented throughout the school year. The four Stage 1 narrative units selected for analysis are designed to be taught sequentially, one per term: Unit 2 (Term 1), Unit 8 (Term 2), Unit 14 (Term 3) and Unit 17 (Term 4). These units are publicly available on the NSW Education Department website and can be downloaded for easy access by teachers and schools. In each unit, teachers are reminded to adapt the suggested teaching and learning sequence to best meet individual children’s needs (New South Wales Government, 2022a).

6. Analytic Framework

We draw on Bernstein’s (1973) concepts of classification and frame, recognising their usefulness in exploring both the structural and organisational elements of the curriculum. In particular, we draw closely on his notion of framing, a theoretical concept that enables exploration of the pedagogical control afforded to teachers within the teaching–learning relationship. This theoretical concept offers a starting point for exploring the pedagogical relationship represented within curriculum materials (Bernstein, 1973). We use this notion of framing to explore the pedagogical choices represented within the Stage 1 units and consider the impact of these suggested approaches for personalised writing opportunities for students. Bernstein (1973) refers to frame as “the degree of control teacher and pupil possess over the selection, organisation, and pacing of the knowledge transmitted and received in the pedagogical relationship” (p. 366). He argues that this degree of control “defines what counts as valid transmission of knowledge” (Bernstein, 1971, p. 48). In relation to curriculum materials or resources, frame relates to the range of options available in a programme of study or unit of work to both the teacher and their students in the selection of content, how this is organised and presented, and its overall pacing (Scott, 2007). Bernstein (1973) notes that when framing is strong, there is a clear boundary between “what may and what may not be transmitted” (p. 366), with reduced options for both teacher and student in the ‘what’ and ‘how’. In contrast, when framing is weak, the boundary is blurred, entailing a broader range of options for both teacher and student (Bernstein, 1975).

We use the concepts of ‘selection’, ‘organisation’, and ‘pacing’ from Bernstein’s definition of frame as key analytical terms and examine these in relation to the existing literature on personalised and responsive writing practices (Bahlmann Bollinger & Myers, 2019; Calkins & Ehrenworth, 2016; Graham et al., 2019). In this study, we conceptualise ‘selection’ as the range of choices available to children regarding choosing their own writing topics and ‘organisation’ as the scope of instructional scaffolding made available to children, along with opportunities for timely feedback between teacher-to-student and student-to-student relationships. We understand ‘pacing’ as the degree to which teachers and children can choose to engage in writing at a flexible pace, suited to their needs.

7. Data Analysis

The data were analysed using content analysis (CA) to describe and interpret the meaning and valid inference of the textual data systematically (Krippendorff, 2019). We drew on Krippendorff’s (2019) conceptual framework of content analysis to support our inference-making, namely his components of (a) body of text, (b) research question, (c) context, (d) analytical construct, and (e) inference-making. We commenced by locating and retrieving the Stage 1 curriculum units as a body of text consisting of 153 pages and formulated a research question to guide our analysis work. This question was as follows: How do the NSW Department of Education Stage 1 narrative units incorporate opportunities for scaffolding and feedback, choice in writing topics, and flexibility in pacing to support personalised writing instruction for children? We then positioned our analysis within the context of the policy environment surrounding the development of these units of work and in relation to the existing research literature focused on responsive and personalised writing practices. Engagement with this literature was then brought into conversation with our chosen theoretical lens of ‘framing’ (Bernstein, 1975) as our ‘analytical construct’ (Krippendorff, 2019). We focused on three key elements of personalised writing instruction, namely (1) organisation, (2) selection, and (3) pacing. In partnership, we developed definitions for these three elements together, positioned on a conceptual matrix between ‘weak’ and ‘strong’ notions of framing (Bernstein, 1973) (see

Table 1. Conceptual matrix underpinning deductive analysis process.

Personalisation of Writing	Framing	Teachers	Children
Organisation of Writing	Strong Framing (F+)	Teachers have strong control over how content is organised.	Children have limited control over how content is organised.
	Weak Framing (F-)	Teachers have limited control over how content is organised.	Children have strong control over how content is organised.
Selection of Writing	Strong Framing (F+)	Teachers have strong control over what children select to write about.	Children have limited control over what they select to write about.
	Weak Framing (F-)	Teachers have limited control over what children select to write about.	Children have strong control over what they select to write about.
Pacing of Writing	Strong Framing (F+)	Teachers have strong control over the pacing and time frames.	Children have limited control over the pacing and time frames.
	Weak Framing (F-)	Teachers have limited control over the pacing and time frames.	Teachers have strong control over the pacing and time frames.

).

We then independently reviewed the ten lessons within each of the Stage 1 narrative units as part of our inference-making. We drew on the conceptual definitions noted in Table 1 to ensure consistency in our deductive coding of textual data within these lessons. This supported the segmentation of key terms and phrases in relation to the elements of selection, organisation, and pacing. The segmented textual material was organised in an analytical matrix (Miles et al., 2014) to help visualise the data and support a collaborative, critical discussion to compare insights (see

Table 2. Example section from analytical matrix.

Unit 2 Lesson 2: Sequencing Narrative Journeys
Notes	Commentary
Organisation of Writing: Step 4 …share their retell (p. 15) Step 6 …draw a story map… (p. 15) Step 7 …write 3 to 4 events... (p. 15) Step 8 …share their completed map… (p. 15)	Children are guided to create a story map and sentences based on the mentor text, A Bag and a Bird, with the writing topic predetermined, leaving no opportunity for children to choose their own topic. The organisation and sequencing of the lesson are strongly framed. It follows a fixed sequence—share > draw > write > share. Pacing is also strongly framed. Children have a limited degree of autonomy to adjust the time to engage with, or if necessary, revisit and revise, any of the steps within the sequence. The ‘Too easy’ section personalises writing by scaffolding an oral retelling and drawing, but does not provide writing scaffolding. In contrast, the ‘Too hard’ section personalises writing by asking children to increase the volume of writing, such as “write 4 to 6 sentences” p. 15).
Selection of Writing Topic: Step 7 Students write 3 or 4 events in sequence…on their map (p. 15) Too easy? Students write 4 to 6 sentences to retell the sequence of events (p. 15)
Pacing of Writing: Pace is fixed and not flexible.
Unit 2 Lesson 3: Prepositional Phrases
Notes	Commentary
Organisation of Writing: Step 7 …creates a sentence with prepositional phrase… (p. 18) Step 9 …write a sentence with a prepositional phrase…add an illustration… (p. 18)	Children are guided to write a sentence containing a prepositional phrase using a preprepared worksheet. The worksheet (Resource 1) provides predetermined images for selecting a subject (e.g., dog, car) and verb (e.g., jump, run), which children use to write a prepositional phrase. The organisation and sequencing of the lesson are strongly framed. It guides teachers to first model how to write a prepositional phrase, followed by children writing their own phrase. Pacing is fixed, with strict time frames for completing both Resource 1 and Resource 2 worksheets by the end of the lesson. The ‘Too hard’ section personalises writing through guided writing groups, while the ‘Too easy’ section does so by having children write a sentence “without the resource scaffold” (p. 18).
Selection of Writing Topic: Step 7 Give each group a copy of Resource 1: Talking strip (p. 18) Step 9 Using Resource 2: Writing strip, students write a sentence with a prepositional phrase… (p. 18)
Pacing of Writing: Pace is fixed and not flexible.
Unit 2 Lesson 4: Planning a Narrative Journey
Notes	Commentary
Organisation of Writing: Step 5 …draw 3 events and the places on their journey…use arrows or number boxes…write an appropriate title (p. 19) Step 7…add sentences to 3 events	This lesson guides teachers to create a narrative about their journey to or around the school, using Resource 3, which provides the structure for the story. Writing choice is weakly framed. Children can choose the events, main characters, problem, and title for their story map. The lesson’s organisation and sequencing, however, is rigidly structured. It progresses from modelling how to plan a narrative journey to children creating their own. Pacing is fixed, with strict time limits set for completing the Resource 3 worksheet by the end of the lesson. The ‘Too hard’ section personalises writing through scaffolded joint construction. The ‘Too Easy’ section aims to personalise writing by having children “draw more than 3 events and write sentences with prepositional phrases to support their illustrations” (p. 19). However, this approach appears to frame personalisation as increasing the volume of writing, rather than addressing the individual writing needs of children.
Selection of Writing Topic: Step 5 …draw 3 events and the places on their journey…use arrows or number boxes…write an appropriate title (p. 19) Step 7…add sentences to 3 events on their copy of Resource 3: Story map (p. 19)
Pacing of Writing: Pace is fixed and not flexible.

). Inferential notes were also included within this analytical matrix to support a final collective analysis of the segmented data in relation to the guiding research question.

8. Findings and Discussions

This study provides valuable insight into how personalised writing experience, specifically opportunities for scaffolding and feedback, the selection of writing topics, and flexibility in pacing, are incorporated into four Stage 1 narrative units. Through content analysis (Krippendorff, 2019), we identified that the units feature strong framing in organisation, topic selection, and pacing. The lessons follow a tightly controlled structure that limits opportunities for personalised scaffolding and feedback, reduces children’s autonomy and ownership of writing topics, and enforces rigid pacing. These findings contrast well-established research and reports on writing instruction, which advocates for greater flexibility and personalisation in teaching writing. Consequently, teachers, school leaders, and school communities committed to providing evidence-based writing instruction should engage in critical discussions about whether the New South Wales centralised units support or hinder children’s writing needs, interests, and aspirations.

8.1. Restricted Access: Scaffolding and Feedback in Writing Tasks

In our analysis, we draw on organisation as the element referring to the forms of instructional scaffolding and feedback evident within the suggested lessons. Weakly framed organisation is characterised by the sequencing and organisation of content and pedagogical approaches that enable instructional scaffolding, namely opportunities for children to receive timely individual and/or group support. This also includes opportunities for timely and responsive feedback between teachers and children and the children themselves. In contrast, a strongly framed organisation is characterised by constrained opportunities for instructional scaffolding and limited instances that enable timely and responsive feedback provision. Analysis of the Stage 1 narrative units highlights the dominance of strongly framed organisation of content and instruction across the lessons. Content is tightly bound, clearly defined and highly segmented, focusing on specific, but often isolated writing skills. For example, the suggested lesson sequence in Unit 8 moves from asking children to write in past tense, “write the fox’s story using past tense” (Lesson 2, p. 14), to writing a compound sentence, “write a compound sentence about something they noticed” (Lesson 3, p. 16), and then to learning about exclamation marks, “students write their sentences including an exclamation mark” (Lesson 4, p. 16). Across these lessons, strong boundaries were maintained (Bernstein, 1973), with the writing skills kept in isolation from each other and limited suggestions offered to teachers on how to contextualise these together for children. This decontextualisation of writing strategy or skills contradicts existing research, highlighting the importance of supporting children in understanding what strategy is being used, when and how confident writers use this, and why it is effective (Pratt & Hodges, 2024).

Our analysis also reveals a narrow scope of instructional scaffolding suggested within the provided lesson sequences. Opportunities for teachers to provide a context of support (Gibson, 2008) are limited, where little suggestion is made within the main body of each lesson on where teachers should be checking for understanding and offering more targeted guidance to individual or small groups of children (Fisher & Frey, 2021). Instead, suggestions for scaffolding are only provided as a point of differentiation, with explicit guidance offered predominately in the ‘Too Hard?’ sections of a lesson. For example, in Unit 14, teachers are asked to provide an ‘anchor chart’ (Lesson 2, p. 16) as a way of supporting children experiencing difficulty using adjectives, while in another lesson, a brief suggestion centres on the “use of text-to-speech technology or audio or video recording to produce [a] text” (Lesson 9, p. 30). While we recognise that teachers will exercise their judgement regarding how support is offered, it is important to critically reflect on how scaffolding is positioned within these units. Rather than being embedded within the teaching and learning sequence itself, it is presented as an ‘option’, rather than something that would support all children’s confidence in carrying out writing tasks more independently (Graham et al., 2012). To better support children, the lesson sequences could benefit from incorporating a more structured approach to scaffolding, such as the Gradual Release of Responsibility (Fisher & Frey, 2021). This would involve a clear, structured progression that systematically shifts responsibility from teacher-led instruction to guided practice with scaffolding and feedback, and finally to independent practice.

Limited opportunities for scaffolding and feedback have significant implications for both teachers and children. For teachers, limited structured scaffolding restricts their ability to adapt lessons to meet the needs of children, leaving little room for responsive adjustments or timely support. This can lead to frustration, as teachers may struggle to identify learning gaps and provide targeted feedback when necessary. For children, the lack of scaffolding and feedback can decrease engagement and motivation (Barratt-Pugh et al., 2020), as they may not see the relevance of isolated writing tasks or feel confident in applying writing skills independently (Helsel et al., 2021; Rowe et al., 2021). Without explicit scaffolding and timely, ongoing feedback, children are less likely to improve, refine their writing skills, or gain a deeper understanding of the purpose behind the writing task (Helsel et al., 2021; Pratt & Hodges, 2024).

8.2. Lost Autonomy: Tightly Defined Writing Topics

In our analysis, we draw on Bernstein’s theoretical concept of selection as it pertains to writing instruction, specifically in terms of the autonomy children have over selecting their writing topics. A strongly framed selection of writing topics is tightly defined, leaving little room for children to choose topics based on their interests or experiences. In this context, writing becomes a more mechanistic process (Carey et al., 2022). In contrast, a weakly framed selection allows children greater freedom to choose topics based on their needs, interests, and abilities. This flexibility promotes a sense of ownership over their writing, encouraging more authentic and meaningful engagement with the task (Harmey, 2020). These different forms of framing—strong and weak—are mediated through children’s level of motivation and enjoyment, which, in turn, affect how writing instruction is experienced (Barratt-Pugh et al., 2020). Our analysis of the four Stage 1 narrative units reveals that they are mostly strongly framed, providing clear guidance for teachers in making decisions about what children should write about. For example, children are asked to write a story “about an animal using some sort of transport to go on a journey” (Unit 2, Lesson 10, p. 33), “based on a minor character from The Wall in the Middle of the Book” (Unit 8, Lesson 8, p. 25), or featuring “one of the main characters from Oliver Jeffers: the boy, or the penguin” (Unit 17, Lesson 7, p. 23). Such prescribed tasks limit children’s freedom to explore their own interests, reducing ownership and engagement in the writing process (Calkins & Ehrenworth, 2016).

In addition to the strongly framed selection of writing topics, our analysis reveals that the manner in which children are expected to demonstrate their writing knowledge and skills is also strongly framed. The writing task often emphasises mechanical aspects of writing, such as grammatical conventions, sentence construction, and language features, without integrating these elements into broader, meaningful contexts. For example, in Unit 8, teachers are guided to have children practice prepositional phrases by rewriting a section of Rosie’s Walk (Hutchins, 1998) “using past tense, a logical order to sequence the extract, and prepositional phrases” (Unit 8, Lesson 2, p. 14). Similarly, in Lessons 3 and 4, children practice compound sentences (e.g., “write a compound sentence” p. 16) and punctuation (e.g., “write their sentences including an exclamation mark” (p. 17). By repeatedly isolating these skills, the units seemingly prioritise practising writing knowledge in a decontextualised way, rather than encouraging children to apply their skills in more authentic, meaningful contexts. As a result, children may become more focused on following rules than on expressing ideas, emotions, or stories through writing. The approach conflicts with decades of research showing that when children have more control and choice over their writing, they are more engaged and perform better (Barratt-Pugh et al., 2020; Harmey, 2020; Magnusson et al., 2022). It is necessary, then, for teachers engaging with these units to consider where opportunities could exist within each lesson sequence for children to select their writing topics and how the mechanical aspects of writing being explored could be contextualised within these topics. For example, a teacher may identify a weekly lesson that encourages children to engage in a creative writing activity that draws on their personal experience and enables them to experiment with different language features, grammatical conventions, and sentence structures.

Across the four Stage 1 narrative units, the strongly framed use of mentor texts for teachers—specifically picture books—serves as the foundation for writing tasks. Each unit uses one, two, or three picture books as models to demonstrate how writing knowledge and skills, such as prepositional phrases, adverbs, noun groups, and sentence types, work together to develop character, setting, and plot. However, this prescribed use of picture books may not reflect the broad range of children’s cultural, social, and emotional experiences. The limited selection of picture books could potentially exclude texts that resonate more deeply with some children’s lived realities, particularly those from different cultural and linguistic backgrounds (Ascenzi-Moreno & Quiñones, 2022), those with learning disabilities (Tiisler & Wolff, 2024), children facing social–emotional challenges (Gunn et al., 2022), and those from different familial backgrounds (Kokkola & Österlund, 2014). As Bishop (1990) emphasises, it is crucial for children to see themselves reflected in the texts they engage with to feel a sense of connection, representation, and motivation. Without this representation, some children may struggle to relate to the writing tasks, reducing their motivation to engage in writing. In Unit 14, for example, while Tilly (Godwin, 2019) and Wilfrid Gordon McDonald Partridge (Fox & Vivas, 2017) share emotional themes of memory and personal development, their cultural relevance may not be broad enough to fully engage all children. As such, it is vital that teachers exercise their professional judgement, with support from experienced colleagues, curriculum leaders, and school librarians, to consider adapting the suggested lesson sequence in the unit with a mentor text that best represents the cultural and linguistic background of their classroom context.

8.3. Stifling Spontaneity: Tightly Paced Lessons

Bernstein (1973) uses pacing to describe the structure and pacing of content delivery. Strongly framed pacing refers to a tightly structured lesson with clear timing expectations, leaving little room for deviation or spontaneity. On the other hand, weakly framed pacing is more flexible and open, with less control over the pacing of content delivery. Our analysis of the four Stage 1 narrative units shows a predominately strongly framed pacing, where teachers are guided to deliver content through a step-by-step, prescribed approach to teaching writing knowledge and skills. Each unit is designed with focused lesson outcomes, explicit learning intentions, and success criteria, reinforcing uniformity in both content and timing. As a result, children are expected to produce the same outcome within the same time frame, with minimal room to slow down or speed up according to individual learning needs. This rigid approach to pacing limits opportunities for sustained stretches of time, and deeper engagement and reflection, which research on effective writing instruction (de Abreu Malpique et al., 2019, 2022; McLean, 2022; Wyatt-Smith et al., 2018) identifies as essential for meaningful writing.

Across the 40 lessons analysed, teachers are instructed to follow a step-by-step, linear progression, such as brainstorming, planning, and writing, within strict time constraints. For instance, in Unit 2, Lesson 5, this begins with thinking and brainstorming, moves to narrative planning, and culminates in writing the narrative. Children are expected to complete these steps within the lesson time frame. While this progression ensures that children are working toward the same goal, it also restricts teachers’ ability to personalise writing instruction to the diverse needs of children. Though the units provide the ‘Too easy’ and ‘Too hard’ sections that suggest minimal personalisation, such as increasing the writing volume (e.g., Unit 2, p. 15 “write 4 to 6 sentences”; p. 20 “draw more than 3 events and write sentences”) (see Table 2), these modifications fall short of providing meaningful personalisation. Children who need more time to grasp writing knowledge and skills may feel rushed, while those who learn more quickly may remain unchallenged and disengaged. This limited personalisation is in contrast with national recommendations, which advocate for a more flexible and personalised approach to writing instruction (Barratt-Pugh et al., 2020). The inflexible pacing ultimately makes it difficult to offer personalised teaching that would better meet the diverse writing needs of children. Critical awareness of the tightly bounded pace of these suggested lesson sequences is required. Teachers using these materials in their classrooms should be supported by school leadership to embrace an ‘adapt’, rather than ‘adopt’ approach when working through the suggested lesson activities. By drawing on informal modes of formative assessment, teachers should feel confident in adjusting the pacing and length of these activities to ensure that children’s needs are being appropriately addressed, rather than feeling pressured to ensure ‘fidelity’ with the provided materials. This confidence may be supported through greater opportunities for these teachers to reflect collaboratively with other peers and share their ongoing adjustments to the units to promote the importance of flexible pacing in their writing lessons.

9. Limitations

Several limitations related to this study must be acknowledged. First, our study focused on only four Stage 1 English units, which represent a small sample of the total 40 available units. It is possible that other units may offer more evidence of personalised writing experiences, particularly in the areas of topic selection and flexible pacing. Future research should analyse a broader selection of units to better understand where personalised learning fits within centralised English units. Additionally, this study primarily adopts a theoretical approach, drawing on the research literature and our experiences as primary teachers and initial teacher educators. We recognise that teachers may adapt the prescribed unit to better accommodate their children’s needs. To gain deeper insights into how these adaptations are made, future studies should include interviews or discussions with teachers to understand how this is being achieved, and what enables and challenges them to do this well. Further research could also explore how variations in the school context (e.g., teaching experience and school geographical location) influence the implementation of these centralised units.

10. Contributions

This study offers several points for local and international audiences to consider. First, it draws attention to the potential limitations of centralised curriculum materials currently being implemented in New South Wales public primary schools. This study offers novel insights into these recently developed materials, providing impetus for school leaders and teachers to adopt a critical stance and adapt, rather than adopt, these materials in their classrooms. Our findings offer these key stakeholders some direction as to where they could focus their adjustments of the units to ensure that more personalised writing instruction is promoted. Second, this study contributes to broader international conversations regarding the design and use of centralised curriculum materials, particularly those associated with literacy. Existing research highlights the participatory relationship between curriculum materials and teacher knowledge and practice (Remillard, 2018). In acknowledging this dynamic relationship, our findings offer further evidence for policymakers, curriculum developers, and teachers to critically engage with the forms of instruction promoted within centralised curriculum materials. We offer key arguments regarding the necessary scaffolding, pacing, and space for teacher autonomy that is required within the design of literacy-based curriculum materials if personalised writing instruction is to be reinforced.

11. Concluding Thoughts

The NSW Department of Education Stage 1 narrative units provide a structured framework for writing instruction but offer limited opportunities for personalised learning. Strongly framed pacing restricts flexibility, hindering timely scaffolding and feedback. The tightly defined writing topics leave little room for choice, reducing engagement and ownership. While some differentiation is suggested, it remains minimal and does not adequately address individual writing needs. To better support personalised writing instruction, these units would benefit from more flexible pacing, broader topic choices, and increased opportunities for responsive scaffolding, aligning with research advocating for more personalised approaches to writing. Without adaptation, centralised units may fail to fully address the writing needs of children, limiting their growth as writers. This is particularly important because personalisation is increasingly recognised as a key component in education policy and practice. As outlined in the Alice Springs (Mpartwe) Education Declaration (Australian Government Department of Education, 2020), ensuring every young Australian becomes a successful learner requires education authorities to consider how personalisation fits within centralised English units to improve writing outcomes for all children.