Exploring the Role Children’s Literature Plays in Preservice Teachers’ Curriculum-Making Capabilities: Designing Meaningful Lesson Sequences to Teach Writing

Abstract

This study, conducted at a large metropolitan university in NSW, Australia, explores how children’s literature supports fourth-year preservice teachers’ (PSTs) curriculum-making capabilities in designing meaningful writing instruction. At a classroom level, curriculum-making involves the translation of curriculum into meaningful lesson sequences and is grounded in the interactions between the teacher, students, and content. Declining student engagement in writing and an increased emphasis on the teaching of isolated, mechanical skills are prevalent among English curricula in many countries. Thus, it is crucial to foster preservice teachers’ abilities to create and design engaging and purposeful writing experiences that motivate and inspire their students as writers. Through a qualitative data analysis of four PSTs’ reflections on completing a lesson sequencing assessment task, our findings reveal that children’s literature serves as a central driver supporting an interplay between their teacher choices, their understanding of student experience, and their awareness of the educational significance of the content and skills being taught. Using mentor texts, PSTs demonstrated strategic and fit-for-purpose pedagogical decisions that were aligned with students’ writing needs and saw consideration given to less segmented and decontextualised forms of writing instruction. This engagement enhanced PST’s understanding of and confidence in working as curriculum-makers who strive for more holistic approaches to writing instruction in their future classrooms.

1. Introduction

The challenges surrounding writing instruction in the current Australian landscape are complex, including a notable decline in students’ engagement in writing (Barratt-Pugh et al., 2021). Students’ engagement in writing is strongly influenced by their beliefs about themselves as writers, with their motivations to write linked to having a sense of agency over their writing (Magnusson et al., 2022; Rohloff et al., 2022). However, shifts in English curricula in countries like Australia and England see specific types of writing instruction being prioritised, namely, the transmission of procedural knowledge and skills, rather than more creative aspects of writing (Quinn et al., 2022). This narrow focus limits students’ understanding of the authentic purposes of writing, reducing opportunities for expression and creativity. Consequently, this shift has likely contributed to the decline in writing outcomes. An analysis of recent Australian NAPLAN data reveals that one in three students are not meeting literacy benchmarks, highlighting a significant portion of the student population struggling with their writing skills (Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority [ACARA], 2024). This decline is also taking place at the same time initial teacher education (ITE) is under greater scrutiny regarding preservice teachers’ learning of explicit teaching methods in reading and writing throughout their programmes (Commonwealth Department of Education, 2023). While explicit instruction is a central component of writing instruction, it is important that preservice teachers are building a wide repertoire of teaching strategies that create learning environments fostering students’ enjoyment of writing. In building these capabilities, preservice teachers require opportunities to think and act as curriculum-makers, who make careful and balanced decisions (Lambert & Morgan, 2010) regarding their pedagogical choices in relation to students’ needs and the educational significance of writing content and skills.

In this paper, we explore the curriculum-making experiences of four Australian preservice teachers in the final year of their Bachelor of Education (Primary) programme in NSW, Australia. In their final English unit of study, these preservice teachers completed an assessment task focussed on the design and justification of a short lesson sequence focussed on writing. Through these preservice teachers’ reflections, we consider what role children’s literature plays in supporting their curriculum-making capabilities in designing meaningful lesson sequences concentrated on the teaching of writing. Curriculum-making is a dynamic process and has been conceptualised as involving three zones of influence namely, teacher choices, student experience, and the subject (Lambert & Morgan, 2010). Our findings highlight the significance engagement with children’s literature has in supporting preservice teachers to actively consider the interplay between their teacher choices, their knowledge of students’ experience, and their understanding of the subject. In so doing, children’s literature acts as a driver in promoting the creative ‘boundary work’ (Lambert & Morgan, 2010) necessary in devising less fragmented and decontextualised forms of writing instruction.

We argue that preservice teachers’ engagement in such curriculum work supports the development of capabilities necessary for meaningful writing instruction in their future classrooms. Building these capabilities will help sustain these preservice teachers’ sense of professionalism as curriculum-makers, not deliverers, in educational landscapes prioritising centralised curriculum materials (see Hunter et al., 2022). Furthermore, we suggest this will ensure the critical use of children’s literature not as optional or an add-on but something that is foundational in promoting curriculum experiences that develop young students as confident and motivated writers. In this paper, we begin with a theoretical exploration of theoretical conceptualisations of curriculum-making, before exploring the opportunities for curriculum-making currently present within initial teacher education and the policy context where this study is situated. This is followed by a description of both Australian and global perspectives on writing instruction and children’s literature, before an outline is provided of the data collection and analysis methods used in this study. We follow this with an exploration of key findings from our analysis of these preservice teachers’ reflections and a discussion on the implications of these findings for initial teacher education.

2. Curriculum-Making

Curriculum-making is a complex social practice that occurs across distinct levels of curricula, namely, the institutional, programmatic, and classroom levels (Doyle, 1992; Priestley & Philippou, 2019). As a social practice, it is shaped by processes of “interpretation, mediation, negotiation, and translation” across different contexts and by interactions between different social actors, like school leaders, teachers, and students (Priestley et al., 2021, p. 1). In this paper, we focus on the level of classroom curriculum-making, where content outlined in formal curriculum documentation is transformed into meaningful and relevant educative experiences (Deng, 2020). It is a social practice that is underpinned by teachers’ professional judgement and agency. Conceptualising classroom curriculum-making in this way reflects a curriculum as process ideology (Kelly, 2009), where curriculum is not viewed as a static product, but rather something that is tested within specific contexts (Stenhouse, 1975). Within their classrooms, teachers engage in deliberative processes “of interpretation, judgement and responsibility” (Doyle, 1992, p. 69), with content selected, organised, and transformed for educative purposes deemed socially significant or useful (Deng, 2020).

Varied theoretical models exist that conceptualise curriculum-making as a social practice and highlight the significant role teachers’ agency plays in this decision-making process. Lambert and Morgan (2010) argue for curriculum-making as a ‘deliberative’ activity that is underpinned by teachers’ consideration of educational purpose, student engagement, and the inherent educational value of the content being explored in lessons. They conceptualise curriculum-making as ‘in-between’ work and not as individual lesson planning. Here, teachers interpret longer-term curriculum planning into lesson sequences with longer-term goals in mind, and in relation to ongoing teacher–student interactions (Lambert & Morgan, 2010). This model rejects generic approaches to curriculum implementation or the idea of prescribed or scripted lesson materials. Rather, it foregrounds how a curriculum is enacted through day-to-day interactions between teacher decision-making, student interests and needs, and the educational value of the content being explored (Lambert & Morgan, 2010). Other theoretical models recognise the centrality of teachers’ agency in curriculum, including Rata’s (2019) Curriculum Coherence Design model as an example. This conceptualisation draws attention to the interdependency between concepts, content, and knowledge and skills and attends to commonly reported curriculum design issues like the over-fragmentation of content and the overt separation of content and skills (Rata, 2019). It illustrates the complexity of teachers’ classroom curriculum-making, where decisions move from the selection and sequencing of concepts to making connections between concepts and content. This is followed by teacher judgement on the skills related to the content being explored and the assessment and evaluation processes needed to monitor students’ progress (Rata, 2019). As such, curriculum-making is a process of creating coherence between concepts, content, and skills, “with each making its own essential contribution to student learning” (Rata, 2019, p. 695).

While theoretical models like Lambert and Morgan’s (2010) and Rata’s (2019) offer insight into curriculum as a dynamic process, it is important to recognise that these perspectives sit in tension within an educational landscape that positions curriculum solely as a product. As such, curriculum is being approached more as something developed externally to schools and something that requires delivery with ‘fidelity’ by teachers as faithful technicians (Mitchell & Lambert, 2015). In countries like Australia, England, and the United States, international benchmarking and high-stakes national assessments have seen teachers reporting pressures to focus on content ‘coverage’ rather than the development of learning experiences that are fit-for-purpose (Lambert, 2015; Sinnema et al., 2020). These pressures have been accompanied by a rise in the educational marketplace of pre-prepared teaching materials to deliver (Parker & Leat, 2021). In Australia, these materials have been espoused as necessary in ending “the lesson lottery” (Hunter et al., 2022, p. 3) across schools and ensuring greater consistency of teaching and learning. Similar observations have been made in England, with Parker and Leat (2021) noting the increase in standardised teaching materials that attempt to “teacher-proof” the curriculum (p. 121). While existing research highlights the constraints on teachers’ curriculum-making experiences in schools, there are also observations of the implications this is having within initial teacher education and preservice teachers’ development as future curriculum-makers.

3. Preservice Teachers and Learning to Be Curriculum-Makers

Preservice teachers’ curricular beliefs and capabilities are shaped by their interactions with curriculum during their initial teacher education. Dempsey and O’Shea (2020) draw attention to the how preservice teachers’ experiences with task design, resourcing, and lesson planning have long-lasting implications for “their willingness to engage meaningfully with curriculum” in their future classrooms (p. 450). These experiences not only expose future teachers to the essential elements of curriculum ‘content’ (Menter, 2016) but also help them recognise the impact their decision-making has on students’ engagement and connection with the curriculum (Rosiek & Clandinin, 2016). Furthermore, professional experience placements, where preservice teachers undertake supervised teaching experiences in classrooms, exist as significant sites of learning about curriculum work. These practical experiences shape preservice teachers’ beliefs regarding teaching and curriculum, along with their own sense of agency and self-efficacy (Groundwater-Smith et al., 2015; Izadinia, 2015). However, ongoing reviews and reforms within initial teacher education in many countries have seen significant shifts in both how teaching is positioned and how curriculum work is valued within preservice teachers’ development. In Australia, the recent Teacher Education Expert Panel of Initial Teacher Education (Commonwealth Department of Education, 2023) and, in England, the English Initial Teacher Training market review (Department for Education, 2021) are built on assumptions that teacher underperformance can be addressed through the stipulation of core content to be learned through teacher education programmes. In Australia, this core content focusses on four key areas: the brain and learning, effective pedagogical practices, classroom management, and responsive teaching (Commonwealth Department of Education, 2023). Within the area of effective pedagogical practices, emphasis is placed on content that explores literacy practices, including early reading and phonics, and explicit reading and writing instruction tailored to discipline-specific content.

Initial teacher education programmes across countries are experiencing pressures to promote teaching more as a ‘technicist craft-based occupation that relies on the application of clinical skills’ (Gale & Parker, 2017, p. 522). This orientation has been driven by requirements within initial teacher education programmes to focus on the acquisition of technical skills associated with classroom management and ‘proven’ literacy and numeracy pedagogical strategies (Bourke & Ryan, 2023). These technicist orientations have constrained opportunities for preservice teachers to develop capacities to “do more than just deliver a prescribed curriculum” (Poulton & Golledge, 2024, p. 657). As such, there are limited opportunities for many preservice teachers to engage meaningfully in curriculum design and with concepts like curriculum continuity, differentiation, and coherency (Lynch et al., 2017; Menter, 2016). It is important to note, however, that while ITE in countries like Australia and England face ongoing stipulation of ‘core content’ (see Commonwealth Department of Education, 2023; Department for Education, 2019), teacher educators are finding spaces to continue promoting the significance of teachers’ curriculum-making expertise within their courses (Simpson, 2016). Significantly, however, preservice teachers are also facing professional experience placements within schools that focus predominately on the ‘delivery’ of prescribed or scripted lesson plans, rather than having opportunities to design and implement lesson sequences co-designed with their supervising teachers (Poulton & Golledge, 2024). These schools are situated within policy contexts that define the scope of curricula and teachers’ curriculum work. This broader shift toward standardisation of curriculum and the emphasis on technical skill acquisition in initial teacher education is further exemplified in the recent curriculum reforms in New South Wales, which are actively shaping the scope and structure of classroom practice. In the next section, we outline the policy context underpinning schools within New South Wales, the context of this study.

4. Reforming the New South Wales Curriculum

In May 2018, Rob Stokes, the NSW Minister for Education, initiated a major review of the state’s curriculum to equip students with the skills necessary for future job opportunities. The aim was not just to revise existing content but to address the changing needs of students in a rapidly evolving global and technological landscape, ensuring that the curriculum remains relevant to the future workforce. Recommendations from this review included the need to focus on content and skill depth and the importance of strengthening foundational literacy and numeracy, oral language, and emotional engagement in the early years of schooling to provide a solid base for lifelong learning. The phased rollout includes the full implementation of English and Mathematics by 2024, with all other syllabuses to follow by 2027. Early Stage 1 and Stage 1 English materials were introduced in Term 1, 2023, and Stage 2 and 3 followed in 2024, focussing on foundational literacy and numeracy through explicit, research-based teaching instruction (NSW Government, 2024). Sample English Kindergarten to Year 6 units support teachers through this transition to ensure successful implementation (NSW Government, 2025b).

The English Kindergarten to Year 2 (K-2) sample units from the NSW Department of Education provide teachers with materials to support English instruction. The units are designed to assist teachers in understanding the intent of the English syllabus. Each sample unit includes a lesson-by-lesson overview and instructions for use, outlining outcomes and content, suggested duration, and explicit teaching focus, and provides printable resources (NSW Government, 2025a). While these units present one structured approach to teaching English, they represent “one way of designing teaching and learning experiences” to be adaptable to suit the specific needs of students (NSW Government, 2025a). These units use quality children’s literature to promote phonics, phonemic awareness, language conventions, vocabulary development, text structure, and comprehension. These units also include a selection of mentor texts that align with the NSW Education Standards Authority’s (NESA) text requirements for English K-2. According to NESA (2025b), a mentor text is a text analysed as an example to demonstrate how specific textual features are developed. It serves as a model for students to emulate when creating their own writing. Preservice teachers undertaking their professional experience placements in NSW public schools are exposed to this policy climate and will engage with these detailed units of work. This highlights the significance of these early career teachers in developing strong curriculum-maker identities that help them effectively critique how children’s literature included in such centralised materials is being used as part of a teaching sequence.

5. Writing Instruction Using Children’s Literature

Children’s literature, including picture books, novels, poetry, and digital texts, plays a vital role in the teaching of writing. Laminack (2017) describes teachers’ use of children’s literature to teach writing as the bridge between authors’ work and young writers’ daily work learning how to write. By encountering and reencountering authors’ work, young writers can see how authors execute their craft to impact readers and help them make meaning from or deepen their experience with the text (Calkins, 2020). Through these experiences, students learn to recognise how writers structure texts and understand certain decisions behind their writing choices. As they reflect on these choices, young writers not only develop technical skills but also cultivate a passion for storytelling and written communication (Laminack, 2017).

The use of children’s literature to teach writing is not new. The pioneering work of Graves and Murray in the 1970s and 1980s emphasises the importance of teaching young writers to write as “real writers” do. By studying children’s literature closely, teachers provide opportunities to explore and learn from authors’ work. This foundational approach continues to shape the day-to-day pedagogic practices of teachers, who use children’s literature to model writing knowledge and technical skills and inspire young writers to view themselves as capable and confident writers (Byrnes-Cloet & Hill, 2022). An abundance of research has investigated how teachers use children’s literature as mentor texts to teach various aspects of writing. For instance, Ward et al. (2021) explore how one teacher used children’s literature as mentor texts to teach second-grade students grammatical conventions, including adjectives, adverbs, collective nouns, pronouns, past tense, and sentence types. Similarly, Tondreau (2024) highlights the role of narrative texts in helping students grasp story structure, character development, and the use of literary devices such as foreshadowing and symbolism. Moses et al. (2016) examined how multimodal informational texts, which combine visual and verbal elements, enhanced the understanding of genre conventions and fostered creativity in Kindergarten students (ages 5 and 6) as they created their picture books. Brosseuk et al. (2020) also explored how picture books can be used to develop strategies that support students’ writing. The integration of phonics and spelling instruction (Sipe, 2001) further supports the foundational writing skills necessary for young writers, helping them make connections between letters, sounds, and word construction. In addition, Nelson and Opatz (2023) argue for the use of critical mentor texts to support preservice teachers in fostering students’ identities as writers. These studies highlight the importance of using children’s literature as a pedagogic resource for developing specific writing competencies and cultivating writer identities.

Many countries worldwide recognise the fundamental role of children’s literature in developing writing knowledge and skills, as well as supporting broader literacy development. For instance, the Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts in the United States, created by a coalition of educators, state leaders, and experts, significantly emphasise the use of children’s literature. These standards provide clear guidelines to encourage students to read stories and literature. Similarly, the National Curriculum in England’s English programmes of study also prioritise children’s literature, stating that students should develop pleasure in reading, listening to, and discussing a wide range of poems, stories, and non-fiction. Australia has a national framework that guides teachers’ classroom practice. Children’s literature is fundamental in teaching writing and fostering broader literacy development. As outlined in national frameworks like the Australian Curriculum, the Australian education system explicitly advocates using children’s literature to support students’ growth in talking, viewing, listening, writing, responding, and creating. Likewise, the NSW Education Standards Authority (NESA) recognises children’s literature as a critical resource, particularly in the early years, to lay a strong foundation for literacy growth (NSW Government, 2025c). NESA’s stance on using children’s literature has long been embedded within the New South Wales curriculum; however, following recent curriculum reforms, its role has become an even more prominent feature in the English curriculum, with children’s literature being crucial to the centralised curriculum materials provided for teacher use in schools.

6. Preservice Teachers’ Learning About Children’s Literature in Initial Teacher Education

Research consistently shows that children’s literature plays a vital role in helping preservice teachers understand key learning areas (Kruger & Enriquez, 2023; Schrodt et al., 2021; Ward et al., 2021). Recent literature has explored preservice teachers’ engagement with children’s literature in the teaching of reading (Price & Simpson, 2024) and across curriculum learning areas like mathematics (Can et al., 2020; Prendergast et al., 2018) and Science (Akerson et al., 2019). Comparative studies of ITE programmes in Australia, the United Kingdom, and Scotland found there is a limited amount of time allocated specifically to enhancing preservice teachers’ knowledge and understanding of children’s literature (Simpson, 2016). This is particularly concerning, as both the Australian Curriculum and the NSW English syllabus reinforce that children’s literature is a key driver in developing literacy knowledge and skills and fostering broader cognitive, social, and emotional development across the curriculum.

Without sufficient focus on children’s literature in ITE, preservice teachers may struggle to effectively integrate these texts into their teaching, potentially limiting students’ engagement and growth. At the site of this research study, teacher educators integrate children’s literature into English units across their entire ITE, modelling to preservice teachers how to use it as a foundational driver in developing language, literacy and literature knowledge and skills and, most importantly, developing literate identities. While existing research has explored the prevalence and use of children’s literature broadly within initial teacher education, there are limited perspectives available that explore its use specifically with preservice teachers’ curriculum-making experiences and capabilities. Furthermore, perspectives exploring preservice teachers’ curriculum-making practices in literacy focus on the planning and enactment of reading instruction (Valencia et al., 2006) or secondary school teachers’ use of literacy-based curriculum materials (Grossman & Thompson, 2008). As such, there is scope for insight into how preservice teachers are learning about and practising curriculum-making when planning for the teaching of writing. In this study, we address this gap by offering a nuanced perspective concerning the use of children’s literature within preservice teachers’ curriculum-making experiences. We are guided by the following inquiry question: What role does children’s literature play in supporting preservice teachers’ curriculum-making capabilities in designing writing lesson sequences?

7. Conceptual Framework

In this paper, we adopt Lambert and Morgan’s (2010) curriculum-making model as a useful conceptual framework in exploring the role children’s literature has in supporting preservice teachers’ curriculum-making capabilities in designing meaningful lesson sequences focussed on writing. Lambert and Morgan (2010) offer three zones of influence that underpin the types of curricular thinking and decision-making of teachers. These three interrelated zones include teacher choices, student experience, and the subject. Teacher choices refer to teachers’ knowledge and skills, including their understanding and selection of pedagogical techniques within their lessons (Lambert & Biddulph, 2015). Student experience refers to teachers’ understanding and responsivity to students’ individual interests, needs, and existing knowledges. It involves teacher decision-making that recognises the distinction between students’ everyday knowledge and disciplinary knowledge. The subject refers to teachers’ knowledge and use of content as a valuable resource in the decision-making process (Lambert & Morgan, 2010). Teachers’ attention to the subject includes an awareness of the educational potential inherent within the content and why it is educationally significant for students’ development. As curriculum-makers, teachers are required to delicately balance these three zones of influence together in their decision-making. This interplay ensures that teachers maintain a clear sense of the purpose of their teaching sequence, rather than fixating on addressing isolated or overly fragmented content and generic skills (Lambert, 2009). In balancing these zones of influence, questions regarding knowledge and pedagogy are addressed equally (Bustin et al., 2017).

In this study, these three zones of influence act as analytical lenses in helping explore preservice teachers’ reflection on their own curriculum thinking and curriculum-making capabilities. We conceptualise preservice teachers’ teacher choices as the emerging forms of pedagogical knowledge, skills, and reasoning these teachers employ when designing a lesson sequence. We understand student experience as the way preservice teachers come together to talk about, interpret, and moderate information from their ‘buddy letters’ to identify students’ needs and interests. We conceptualise preservice teachers’ knowledge and use of the subject as related to their understanding of the content outlined in Australian and NSW curriculum documentation, along with their own beliefs as to the educational significance of this content for students.

8. Research Design

This study adopts a single, embedded case study methodology, exploring the experiences of four preservice teachers completing a curriculum-making focussed assessment task as part of their final English unit of study in an Australian university. Single, embedded case studies involve more than one unit of analysis (Yin, 2009). As such, this study explores a single case of a final-year English unit of study in a Bachelor of Education (Primary) programme. It places attention on the reflections and experiences of four individual preservice teachers within this unit of study. This approach is necessary as it allows for a rich, thick description of the participants’ experiences and reflections (Merriam, 2009) and provides valuable insights into how preservice teachers engage with curriculum-making in the context of children’s literature and writing instruction.

The site of data collection was a final-year English unit of study in the Bachelor of Education (Primary) programme at a large metropolitan university in NSW, Australia. Preservice teachers in this ITE programme progressively develop their language, literacy, and literature knowledge and skills across four English-focussed units (see

Table 1. Progression of text types across the Bachelor of Education (Primary) site in this study.

Year 1	Year 2	Year 3	Year 4
Literary Texts (narrative, literary recount)	Literary Texts (narrative)	Factual Texts (inform, instruct, persuade)	Literary Texts (narrative, plays, poems)
The first English unit introduces language and literacy development for young children. It aims to deepen understanding and appreciation of quality children’s picture books, using them as resources to support narrative language knowledge and skills.	The second English unit introduces reading and writing strategies while building pedagogical and metalinguistic knowledge. It incorporates cross-curricular, multimodal, digital, and media texts.	The third English unit identifies the language and literacy demands of factual and multimodal texts. It provides opportunities to design high-quality lessons with explicit, staged teaching using the Gradual Release of Responsibility model.	The final English unit explores literary texts, including picture books, novels, plays, poetry, and popular culture, to teach the English curriculum. The focus is on developing children’s critical understanding and imaginative writing through strategies that encourage creative responses.

). Across these English-focussed units of study and in other learning areas, preservice teachers engaged with a continuum of lesson planning experiences across the four years of their programme, moving from the planning of individual tasks or resources to short lesson planning, and concluding with the development of larger schemes or units of work. In each of the English-focussed units of study, preservice teachers completed a range of lesson planning activities that built on their understanding in these key areas. This final-year unit of study centred on incorporating literary texts into classroom teaching and models how to use a wide range of texts—such as novels, graphic novels, plays, poetry, and materials from popular culture—to teach English to children in Stages 2 and 3 (ages 7–12, Years 3–6). A signature component of this unit was the opportunity for preservice teachers to engage with letters written by primary-school-aged children. In these letters, the children shared their reading preferences, descriptions of their favourite books, and reasons why their preservice teacher ‘buddy’ should read their favourite book. These ‘buddy letters’ formed the basis of preservice teachers’ discussions and acted as valuable stimulus in the design of lesson sequences that would promote critical reading and writing-in-role opportunities for these students (Simpson, 2021).

Four female preservice teachers who had completed their final-year English unit of study volunteered to participate in this study. Emma, Andrea, Alice, and Nina (pseudonyms used) were all from the same tutorial class and had completed three prior professional experience placements across a variety of primary schools in NSW, Australia. Through a one-hour semi-structured interview each, these preservice teachers were asked to reflect on the recent completion of a lesson sequencing assessment task in this final unit of study. Questions asked during the interview aimed to explore several key topics, including their use of children’s literature, an evaluation of their lesson sequence design, reflection on their initial teacher education programme, and aspirations for their future writing instruction practice.

The assessment task these preservice teachers reflected on required them to work in small collaborative groups to design a short lesson sequence (between four and five lessons) that addressed the writing needs of their primary school buddies and relevant writing outcomes in the NSW K-6 English syllabus (NESA, 2025a). Together, they engaged in a short moderation session of letters that had been composed by their buddies outlining their reading preferences. From this moderation, they identified areas of need related to sentence-level grammar and word-level language. Common areas of need identified in this moderation process related to the use of modal verbs to convey different levels of certainty, variance in complex sentence structures, and use of topic-specific vocabulary. In designing a lesson sequence that addressed this need, the preservice teachers were required to draw on Australian children’s literature suitable for Stage 2 and/or Stage 3 primary students. They were asked to select a novel that would serve as a mentor text and be aligned with the reading preferences of their primary school buddies. Throughout their lesson sequence, they were asked to show connections to this mentor text as they engaged students in high-quality forms of writing instruction and include a small range of drama-based strategies. For example, the use of the Gradual Release of Responsibility model (Fisher & Frey, 2021) and interactive drama activities like ‘Hot Seat’ and ‘Conscience Alley’, where students either take on roles and respond to questions to explore different perspectives from a text.

9. Data Analysis

Qualitative data analysis processes (Miles et al., 2014) were adopted in this study, helping to analyse textual data drawn from the semi-structured interviews. This textual data was initially segmented using deductive categories drawn from the conceptual framework (Lambert & Morgan, 2010), namely, teacher choices, student experience, and the subject. These large text segments were then analysed using both inductive and deductive forms of coding. Deductive codes were drawn from key concepts related to curriculum-making, including curriculum as process, pedagogical reasoning, and content knowledge (Kelly, 2009; Lambert & Morgan, 2010), and inductive codes were descriptive and process-based (Saldana, 2021). Descriptive coding included the assignment of a word or short phrase summarising the meaning of a smaller text segment, while process coding used gerund subjects or phrases to identify observable and conceptual thought processes of the participants (Saldana, 2021). Example inductive codes included value of mentor texts, children’s literature aspirations, and perceptions of curriculum capabilities. These inductive codes were collated together to form key category headings within an analytical matrix. These category headings were then aligned with the three zones of influence (Lambert & Morgan, 2010) underpinning this study’s conceptual framework. This matrix supported cross-participation comparison against these key category headings (see

Table 2. Example segment from comparative analytical matrix.

Category	Teacher Choices	Student Experience	The Subject
Scope of content and pedagogical choices	We’ve got role play, there’s drama strategies, there’s a little bit of written work but it’s normally paired with something creative, which was hoping to act as bit of a scaffold (Andrea)	One of our strengths [in the lesson] were the drama elements. I think that they really would have enhanced the engagement for the students (Emma)	We looked at some model sentences from The Glim, and analysed how Emily Rodda had constructed those sentences and their impact on the reader, and then did some practice writing sentences, following her models (Alice)
Responsivity to student need and engagement	We wanted something that they would enjoy as well as be good for the specific needs (Nina)	We analysed our student work first in just kind of understanding what the needs were…. specifically figuring out that all students needed support in like modal language (Andrea)	We were still using examples from the text and linking it back to students’ knowledge of the content (Alice)

, for example). From this matrix, key ideas were drawn out, illustrating the types of experiences and capabilities developed through the interplay between the three zones of influence.

10. Findings and Discussion

This study explores the role children’s literature plays in supporting preservice teachers’ curriculum-making capabilities in designing writing lesson sequences. Our analysis suggests that preservice teachers’ engagement with children’s literature through curriculum-making tasks promotes a form of curriculum thinking centred on the ‘interplay’ between teacher choices, student experience, and the subject. By practising this form of curriculum thinking, preservice teachers build perceptions of the educational significance of mentor texts within quality form of writing instruction. In this section, we explore these key findings from our analysis. These include the important role children’s literature plays in supporting preservice teachers to consider the interplay between teacher choice, student experience, and the subject and the value of curriculum-making focussed assessment tasks in building preservice teachers’ awareness of the educational significance of mentor texts. We follow the exploration of findings with a brief discussion on the implications of these for initial teacher education.

10.1. Children’s Literature: Focussing on the Interplay Between Teacher Choices, Student Experience, and the Subject

These preservice teachers’ reflections highlight the important role the use of children’s literature had in promoting a form of curriculum thinking that balanced concerns for teacher choices, student experience, and the subject in their lesson sequence design. Rather than engaging with children’s literature as a stand-alone resource, having opportunities to relate their choice of mentor text to students’ reading preferences and writing needs saw strong relational thinking between teacher choices and student experience. One preservice teacher, Andrea, commented:

It was very strategic in choosing The Bad Guys [mentor text]. We, when looking, when thinking about creating a sequence of learning, we analysed our student work first in just kind of understanding what the needs were, like specifically figuring out that all students needed support in modal language use and what kind of text would engage them and show them examples of that too.

Her comment demonstrates careful consideration to the relationship between a selection of a text, the promotion of student engagement, and the design of a learning sequence. Here, emphasis is not placed on selecting a ‘known’ or ‘ready-made’ text, but rather on exercising strategic judgement towards a resource that would most align with students’ interests and specific writing needs. Lambert and Morgan (2010) draw attention to the challenges that arise when teachers fixate primarily on teacher choices, without consideration of student experience. They argue that, by thinking about such choices in isolation, attention is placed on teachers’ performance, rather than student learning, with the learning experiences risking being “emptied of meaning” and driven by “skill” development alone (Lambert & Morgan, 2010, p. 51). For Andrea and her peers, the process of selecting appropriate forms of children’s literature in relation to notions of student experience saw them actively reflecting on the meaning of their resourcing decisions, rather than choosing something ‘at random’ that would potentially disengage students throughout their writing sequence.

By drawing on children’s literature as a central component of their lesson sequence, these preservice teachers were prompted to consider the interplay and alignment between student experience and the subject. For one preservice teacher, Alice, the use of a mentor text helped her make closer connections between the content being explored and her students’ writing needs. She commented:

We wanted to match the language used, or the sort of writing style used in The Glim with what we identified as the students’ biggest needs, so that throughout the unit of work, we could use them to model how they might improve, so for example, help them focus on sentence structure.

Her comment draws attention to the role children’s literature had in supporting preservice teachers to both ‘contextualise’ the content and writing skill in relation to its authentic use within a mentor text, but also in relation to developing students as confident writers. Another preservice, Nina, shared a similar reflection. She noted:

We wanted to find something that they would enjoy as well as be good for the specific content needs…so in our mentor text across the whole sequence, we were able to go ‘this is what high modality looks like, this is how it’s used in the text, and this is how you can use this sort of language too’.

For these preservice teachers, an opportunity to engage with children’s literature through the design of their intended lesson sequence provided them insight into the importance of students’ prolonged, rather than casual, exposures to mentor texts (Laminack, 2017). Here, they were able to consider how the interplay between the subject and student experience was materialised by using a reoccurring resource, like a novel, that would help students understand the ‘why’ behind their writing choices and in relation to their specific learning needs (Laminack, 2017). This also meant that the ‘why’ could be linked to students’ specific writing needs. Practising this kind of balance work ensured that their intended learning experiences were not underpinned by “inert contents” (Lambert & Biddulph, 2015, p. 251), but rather by productive relationships (Lambert & Morgan, 2010) between content, the mentor text, and students’ needs.

Analysis also suggests the role children’s literature played in prompting these preservice teachers to focus on the interplay between the subject and their teacher choices. For these participants, the subject related to their knowledge of the NSW English syllabus content outcomes, particularly those aligned with their understanding of their ‘buddy’ students’ writing needs. When asked to reflect on the role their mentor text had in shaping their lesson sequence design, one preservice teacher, Alice, commented:

I think the main strength was helping probably with the overall flow of the lesson sequence, then also thinking about the use of drawing and drama strategies to facilitate some kind of collaboration. I think that gave like a chance for the grammar focus to be a bit more embodied and give a bit more meaning to it before we really went into analysing sentence structure and practising that.

Alice’s comment highlights how a mentor text prompted her peers to think about the ‘fit-for-purpose’ nature of their pedagogical choices within the writing lesson sequence. This notion of ‘fit-for-purpose’ relates to teacher choices regarding instructional approaches and resources that best align with students’ interests and needs and the content being explored (Mitchell & Lambert, 2015). For Alice, the lesson sequence included a wide range of writing strategies and resources that helped to contextualise the content and its meaning for students. Graham (2019) draws attention to the significance of adopting a wide variety of instructional approaches or tasks that promote students’ success and confidence in writing. This variation presents opportunities for students to write for different purposes and to experiment with different strategies through their planning and revising of written work (Graham, 2019; Graham et al., 2012). For these preservice teachers, the use of a mentor text appeared to help promote greater questioning towards their pedagogical decision-making in terms of ‘are these fit-for-purpose?’ (Lambert, 2015). This helped guide them to reflect more on the purpose of the pedagogical approaches adopted in their lesson sequence and how these would support students’ engagement (Mitchell & Lambert, 2015). Another preservice teacher, Andrea, remarked:

Without it [the mentor text], it would lack consistency, like it would lack a unifying element for the content and skills we were looking at…like, it absolutely supports their learning, even just the fact of having some sort of consistency in the way they are learning new concepts.

For Andrea, using a mentor text to drive attention to the relationship between teacher choices and the subject saw greater consideration given to the coherency underpinning the teaching and practising of writing skills within their lesson sequence. Opportunities for such consideration are important, helping to mitigate preservice teachers’ focus on teaching isolated, discrete writing skills, and instead promote attention to the need to adopt a wide range of consistent instructional approaches that address multiple writing skills and their application within context (Kim et al., 2021).

10.2. Building Strong Perceptions of the Educational Significance of Mentor Texts

The reflections of these preservice teachers highlight the significant role mentor texts play in their approach to teaching writing. Over four years of English-focussed study, they have honed their ability to select, analyse, appraise, and use mentor texts for planning individual tasks, short lesson sequences, and integrated units. These texts are used to ‘show, not tell’ (Calkins, 2003) students how to write well and serve as crucial models to show that writing has a specific purpose and intended audience, along with specific content, organisation, style, and language conventions. One preservice teacher, Alice, described using a mentor text to ‘show’ as akin to providing ‘evidence’, reinforcing the educational significance of mentor texts. She explained:

I think, using a mentor text is like evidence for students that what they are learning about is purposeful and useful. Without that example, I don’t know where the meaning is coming from for them.

Alice’s comment highlights her understanding that her chosen mentor text, The Glim (Rodda, 2020), served as a model for what she expected her students to produce. Alice planned to use the mentor text to teach sentence structure, focussing on writing compound and complex sentences. By offering The Glim as ‘evidence’, she provided students with a concrete example of how different sentences are structured for variation and readability (NESA, 2023). Similarly, Emma underscored the value of using the same mentor text throughout a lesson sequence. She compared this approach to giving students extended time to immerse themselves in the story and its characters, as well as its words, pictures, and message (Tondreau, 2024). Emma commented:

If…I am using a mentor text consistently, and they know they have an understanding of the characters, they have an understanding of the way the story is written, they’d be more confident in approaching the content that you want to teach them.

This consistent exposure allowed students to build familiarity with the mentor text, making it easier for them to focus on analysing the writing and structures within it. Emma’s insight demonstrated her understanding that only once students are familiar with the text can they return to it and examine it through the eyes of the writer (Calkins, 2003; Laminack, 2017). Alice and Emma understood how to use mentor texts to teach various aspects of writing, grasping both the ‘what’ and ‘how’ of the NSW English syllabus content to teach knowledge and skills. For these preservice teachers, using mentor texts mirrored the practice of more experienced in-service teachers (see Moses et al., 2016; Tondreau, 2024; Ward et al., 2021).

Additionally, in planning their lesson sequences, preservice teachers recognised the significant educational value of mentor texts, acknowledging that their impact extends far beyond teaching grammar and sentence structure. These texts became essential drivers for fostering reading and writing-in-role opportunities that directly responded to the unique preferences and interests expressed by the students in their buddy letters. By thoughtfully considering students’ favourite authors and their personal reading preferences, the preservice teachers curated mentor texts that not only addressed specific writing needs but also sparked genuine engagement (Magnusson et al., 2022; Rohloff et al., 2022). Reflecting on the prospect of planning a lesson sequence without a mentor text, Alice remarked:

I think that [the sequence] would be quite dry…just the explicit grammar focus…and I don’t think that would be meaningful to students.

Here, Alice was able to think beyond merely teaching grammar and considered how to engage students in learning it in a more meaningful way. This shift allowed the ‘what’ of the curriculum—isolated, decontextualised knowledge and skills—to be connected to students’ interests, making the learning process more relevant, focussed, and engaging. Nina further emphasised this link between meaningful learning and student engagement, stating, “it makes it more meaningful because it gives them a book they are enjoying”, demonstrating how mentor texts create an authentic link between lessons and student interests. Emma’s reflection reinforced this perspective, asserting, “If you were not using a mentor text, then I don’t think it would engage them”. Together, the insights of Alice, Nina, and Emma highlight how mentor texts not only enhance the relevance of their lesson designs but also foster a deeper, more motivating connection to the learning process.

11. Implications for Initial Teacher Education

These preservice teachers’ reflections highlight the importance of curriculum-making opportunities using children’s literature within initial teacher education programmes. While practising teachers continue to develop their knowledge and skills in teaching writing through ongoing classroom experiences and professional learning opportunities, it is essential that the groundwork for this expertise is laid during initial teacher education. As Graham (2019) argues, effective writing instruction does not begin in the classroom alone but is built upon a foundational understanding developed through exposure to evidence-based pedagogies, curriculum-making, and engagement with mentor texts during preservice teacher education. In this study, an assessment task that prompted preservice teachers to design a lesson sequence in reference to real-life ‘buddy letters’ provided space for them to engage in balanced forms of curriculum thinking. Opportunities to engage in such curriculum design through children’s literature act as significant learning experiences, building preservice teachers’ confidence to engage in ‘curriculum thinking’ as they design purposeful writing sequences. These findings point to the important of lesson sequencing opportunities within initial teacher education. Presenting curriculum-making as an isolated teacher skill or only including this as part of theoretical discussions within initial teacher education programmes is not enough. Rather, it is vital that curriculum-making is presented as a contextualised process of teacher decision-making and something that is central to what it means to be an effective teacher. Preservice teachers require embedded opportunities across all learning areas to continually engage in lesson sequencing experiences that build their confidence in responding to ‘real-life’ students’ needs, through access to work samples and regular opportunities to critically reflect on their content and pedagogical choices. Here, having the space to practice curriculum thinking early on in their careers is paramount, particularly as these teachers are entering school contexts characterised by increased use of standardised and scripted writing instruction in schools such as commercial writing programmes with predetermined lesson plans, formulaic narrative structures, and worksheet-oriented resources. This type of instruction is often criticised for being one-size-fits-all, overlooking the complex and varied nature of writing (McGaw et al., 2020).

While standardised or centralised materials are useful starting points for teachers, limitations are noted in the quality of writing instruction methods often promoted within these materials (see Brosseuk & Poulton, 2024), along with limited opportunities for personalised writing experiences and quality use of mentor texts (see Brosseuk & Poulton, 2025). It is important that preservice teachers are provided with opportunities to build capabilities in critically engaging with such materials in their future classrooms. This includes building confidence in knowing “when to offload, adapt, and improvise” (Land & Drake, 2014, p. 16). This criticality can be developed through curriculum-making opportunities with children’s literature that helps preservice teachers make the relationship between teacher choices, student experience, and the subject (Lambert & Morgan, 2010) in their curriculum thinking more explicit within their lesson design. Armed with this criticality, these preservice teachers are motivated and better prepared in critiquing and adapting centralised forms of curriculum in their future classrooms (Dempsey & O’Shea, 2020). Additionally, the findings from this study draw attention to the importance of lesson sequencing opportunities throughout initial teacher education. Rather than being presented as an isolated teacher ‘skill’, preservice teachers need consistent opportunities to contextualise curriculum content in relation to ‘real-life’ student data or work examples.

We acknowledge, however, the challenge of sustaining and practising this form of critical curriculum thinking within an Australian initial teacher education context underpinned by mandated core content. In their programmes, preservice teachers are required to learn and practise explicit forms of reading and writing instruction (Commonwealth Department of Education, 2023). We also recognise that these challenges are faced by teacher educators in other countries like England (Department for Education, 2019). While explicit instruction is a necessary and valuable component of writing instruction (Graham, 2019), teacher educators should be cautious of over-prioritising this as part of preservice teachers’ developing repertoire of teacher choices. Such prioritisation may promote a fixation on teacher choices alone in preservice teachers’ curriculum thinking regarding writing instruction, resulting in a potential imbalance with student experience and the subject. Without balanced consideration across these zones of influence, writing instruction risks being perceived by preservice teachers merely as the transmission of isolated skills, with questions of purpose, audience, and significance largely silent. As such, teacher educators should continue to promote curriculum-making experiences with children’s literature in ways that encourage preservice teachers to be responsive to students’ writing needs and interests and think about the variety of instructional approaches necessary in building students’ writing confidence and enjoyment. Existing research highlights the characteristics of quality writing instruction that is underpinned by teachers’ knowledge of content, students’ diversity, and writing-specific and general pedagogical approaches (Graham, 2019). Here, ongoing and purposeful uses of mentor texts within literacy courses is paramount, acting as valuable drivers in grounding preservice teachers’ curriculum thinking through the contextualisation of required writing content and skills (the subject) and in promoting the use of varied pedagogical approaches (teacher choices).

12. Limitations

We acknowledge that this is a small-scale study exploring the reflections of only four preservice teachers enrolled in one undergraduate teacher education programme. However, in focussing on this small sample, we offer a thick description, rather than broad generalisations (Merriam, 2009), to promote critical reflection on the potential of children’s literature in promoting distinct forms of curriculum thinking for our preservice teachers. In supporting ongoing critical discussions regarding this, further research is required, including the need to capture a diverse range of preservice teachers’ curriculum-making experiences using children’s literature from different initial teacher education programmes and different educational contexts. Further research would also benefit from exploring preservice teachers’ aspirations for and use of children’s literature in cross-curricular curriculum-making experiences to strengthen understanding towards the role mentor texts could play in interdisciplinary contexts.

13. Conclusions

In countries like Australia and England, initial teacher education programmes continue to face scrutiny and ongoing monitoring of preservice teachers’ induction into specific forms of reading and writing instruction. In this paper, we have adopted a nuanced perspective on the significance of children’s literature acting as a valuable driver in promoting preservice teachers’ development as curriculum-makers focussed on meaningful forms of writing instruction. We explored the role a curriculum-making focussed assessment task played in strengthening preservice teachers’ confidence to engage in a form of curriculum thinking that helped them actively consider the complex interplay between their students’ writing needs and the use of fit-for-purpose pedagogical approaches. Opportunities for preservice teachers to engage in such curriculum thinking would be useful across initial teacher education contexts, providing spaces for these teachers to move beyond ideas of overly segmented forms of writing instruction and use children’s literature as a curriculum-making driver that ensures coherent and contextualised writing experiences. Building this confidence is vital in supporting a generation of teachers in retaining their expertise as curriculum-makers in literacy contexts focussed on standardised forms of reading and writing instruction currently evident in Australia and England. With teachers who are prepared to engage as critical curriculum-makers, students will be best supported in building their own confidence and love of writing well into the future.