That's not a narrative; this is a narrative: NAPLAN and pedagogies of storytelling.

Caldwell, David ; White, Peter R.R.

Background

Stories are central genres in all cultures, in some form in almost every imaginable situation and stage of life. They are intimately woven into the minutiae of everyday life, whenever we come together. They are told in all social groupings to interpret life's chaos and rhythms, to evaluate each other's behaviour, and to educate and entertain our children.

(Martin & Rose, 2008, p. 49)

Few would question Martin and Rose's (2008) view of stories and storytelling. It is through stories that family, community and national histories are transmitted, religious and ethical values are formulated and disseminated, and we generally make sense of our everyday experiences. It is not surprising then that stories hold an important place in language and literacy education.

In Australia, story writing takes on a particular importance for students, teachers and caregivers in Years 3, 5, 7, and 9. Each year, these students engage in the writing test of the National Assessment Program - Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN), with a one-in-two chance they will be tasked with producing a short text written in the 'narrative' genre (alternatively they may be required to produce a 'persuasive' genre). On the basis of their written text production, students, schools and caregivers are provided with a measure of each student's written literacy development. At the same time, on the basis of aggregated scores, every school in Australia is provided with a measure of the literacy development achievements of its students, relative to what is termed a 'national minimum standard'. As a result, a great deal of time and effort is devoted to preparing students to produce a narrative (or persuasive) genre.

It is against this backdrop that we turn our attention to what we consider to be some serious anomalies in the way in which story is conceptualised in the NAPLAN writing test support documentation (ACARA, 2010, 2013), in the guidance this provides to teachers and caregivers as to what constitutes 'good' or 'well-constructed' story writing, and the implications for how the narrative texts are graded. In this way it may seem that we are aligning with the many scholarly criticisms of NAPLAN, where, for example, it is argued that this form of high-stakes testing is damaging of student, teacher and community wellbeing, that there is a harmful narrowing of the curriculum as a result of NAPLAN preparation, that the test is diagnostically flawed, and that the results are unreliable (see, for example Gable & Lingard, 2013; Thompson & Cook, 2012; Thompson & Harbaugh, 2013). While we share many of these scholars' anxieties about NAPLAN, our focus is on the potential consequences flowing from the way in which the very notion of storytelling and narrative seems to have been conceptualised. This of course has implications for how storytelling is taught, the potential misdirection of students as to what constitutes a 'good' story, including directing students away from entirely effective forms of storytelling. There are also cultural issues at stake here, since the sub-type of storytelling prescribed for the NAPLAN writing test may not have the same pre-eminence it enjoys in Western culture as it does in other cultural settings. For example, as argued by Martin and Rose (2011), even while narratives of the type required for the NAPLAN test do operate in Indigenous Australian storytelling, they are not necessarily central to the storytelling practices of that culture.

In what follows, we begin by providing a review of the literature on storytelling, paying particular attention to research which has established the 'Complication-Resolution' narrative as one type of storytelling. We then provide an account of how story and narrative are typically characterised and defined in the official NAPLAN documentation (e.g. ACARA, 2010, 2013). In the final section of the paper we turn to our key claim: that serious negative consequences may potentially flow from storytelling being defined in this limited way. To do this, we closely analyse student writing samples and the related comments and gradings in the NAPLAN narrative marking guide (ACARA, 2010). We will argue that various inconsistencies and points of apparent confusion in these comments and gradings can be taken as evidence that other sub-types of storytelling are being inappropriately devalued, and that ultimately, there is a lack of understanding in the nature of storytelling.

Notions of storytelling and narrative

There is no one single type of storytelling. In fact, it is widely recognised in the literature that there are multiple types of storytelling across cultures and languages (see for example, Plum, 1988; Jordens, 2002; Martin & Rose, 2008, 2011; White & Makki, in press). One of these sub-types has been given the label 'narrative', firstly in the socio-linguistics work of Labov and Waletzky (1967), and subsequently in the Sydney genre school (see Martin & Rose, 2008, for an overview of the Systemic Functional Linguistic tradition that informs the Sydney genre school). This narrative sub-type is distinguished from other subtypes of story on the basis that it includes not only what is termed a 'Complication'1 (some challenging, disruptive, threatening or otherwise problematic development), but also a 'Resolution' (the solving or overcoming of the challenge, disruption or threat, typically via the determined, courageous or wise action of some 'heroic' protagonist). While these other types of story do typically include some problematic development (a Complication), this 'problem' is typically not solved or overcome, that is, these stories are not concerned with presenting a Resolution. Put another way, they may not supply a 'happy ending'. Thus, stories with both a Complication and Resolution are but one type of story among many story types circulating in the culture.

Table 1 lists the five main story types identified in Plum's (1988) work. These were then taken up in later Sydney genre school literature, including their respective genre stages, and the types of attitude (Martin & White, 2005)--positive and negative assessments and responses--typically associated with each sub-type of story.

As mentioned above, each of these story types has subtle but significant variations in terms of their 'point'. They therefore involve distinctive stages and foreground different types of attitude (Martin & White, 2005). The following summary of the five story genres is a gloss from Martin & Rose (2008, pp. 51-52). The social purpose of the recount is to share experiences as a Record of events. The social purpose of the anecdote is to share experiences that are in some way remarkable, and then to share a Reaction (typically affectual) to those Remarkable Events. The social purpose of the exemplum is to share experiences that also involve disruptions, and then to present an Interpretation (typically a judgemental assessment by reference to norms of social acceptability/unacceptability) of the character or behaviour of those involved in the Incident. The social purpose of the observation is to share experiences, and then to respond to or Comment on (typically appreciation) those Event Descriptions. And finally, following Labov and Waletzky (1967), the social purpose of the narrative is to share disruptive experiences as a Complication, to respond to or Evaluate the Complication, and to present a Resolution to that Complication.

As far as we can determine, the official NAPLAN narrative writing documentation (e.g. ACARA, 2010, 2013) makes minimal reference to this diversity of storytelling sub-types. It fails to acknowledge that the Complication-Resolution narrative sub-type is but one of a range possible types of storytelling. It provides no explanation as to why the narrative has been chosen over any of the others story sub-types. Nor does it outline how this 'required' sub-type of storytelling relates to the other types. As a result, this potentially leads to the erroneous conclusion that the Complication-Resolution narrative is the only type of storytelling, or the only sub-type of storytelling which is viewed as effective, valuable or as useful for literacy development. As indicated above, such a conclusion has serious consequences for pedagogy, for students' writing development, and more broadly for students' conception of the nature of storytelling, and its significant cultural implications.

The NAPLAN writing test and supporting documentation

We mentioned above some general criticisms of the NAPLAN testing regime. More specific critiques have also been directed at the writing test itself. This work is emerging and eclectic, informed by a range of literacy traditions and methodologies, and with wide-ranging implications for pedagogy, assessment, curriculum and policy. In most cases, this research has a social justice agenda, focusing on the impact of the NAPLAN writing test on marginalised student communities (e.g. Angelo, 2013; Exley & Mills, 2015; Love & Humphrey, 2012; Ryan & Barton, 2013; White, Mammone & Caldwell, 2015). This literature also includes close linguistic analyses of students' NAPLAN writing; findings that are 'tightly tied to details of linguistic structure' (Gee, 2005, p. 114). A number of scholars have closely examined student language in work submitted when the designated genre for NAPLAN was 'persuasive' (e.g. Mills & Dooley, 2014; O'Neil, 2012; Thomas, Thomas & Moltow, under review). Others have analysed student language when the designated genre was 'narrative' (Angelo, 2011; Exley, 2010; White, Mammone & Caldwell, 2015).

Our specific focus is slightly different than those studies above in that we develop conclusions based on a linguistic analysis of the student writing examples and the commentaries applied to these in the official NAPLAN narrative marking guide (ACARA, 2010). This guide includes a range of annotated example student texts, selected for inclusion on the basis that they exemplify a range of writing from lowest to highest ranked. Before turning to this analysis, we provide an account of storytelling and narrative as it operates in the NAPLAN supporting documentation.

In providing guidance as to what is required of narrative writing in the NAPLAN test, the website of the National Assessment Program (NAP) presents the following introduction:

Narrative writing tells a story. Narrative text types include, for example, short stories, fairy-tales, fables and myths. They can take a variety of styles including adventure stories or mysteries. Stories can be realistic or imaginative. Many story writers base their stories on real life events. The main purpose of a narrative is to entertain a reader, but stories can also contain a universal theme or moral, or teach the reader a lesson. (ACARA, 2013)

This definition offers a broad and flexible characterisation of narratives, a characterisation that allows for diversity and variability in terms of what is expected of the student writer and what will be valued when text is assessed. It would appear to be entirely compatible with the Sydney genre school's notion of a 'family' of story genres, compatible with the notion that effective stories may employ a range of different text structures.

However, in the next paragraph, the definition takes a different turn:

A NAPLAN narrative writing test requires students to write a complete story that has an orientation, a complication and a resolution. These are sometimes called the beginning, middle and ending. Each of these structural components serve [sic] a function. (ACARA, 2013)

Even though not explicitly stated, the assumption seems to be that all the narrative text types mentioned in the previous page (e.g. short stories, fairy-tales, fables, myths, adventure stories, mysteries) always include a Complication and a Resolution, even when they may employ a variety of styles, and serve a range of different purposes. Has the decision that the writing test 'require students to write a . story that has a . complication and a resolution' (ACARA, 2013) been based on a determination that this type of story is in some way superior, more important, more central culturally, or more suitable given the current testing purposes, than other types of story? The only allowance for variability in the text structure of such stories is presented later on the page: 'the structure of a narrative can be very flexible ... some very experienced story writers may choose to begin with the resolution or ending and then tell the reader how this ending was arrived at by building the complication' (ACARA, 2013). However, this only recognises possible variation within Complication-Resolution narratives, failing to consider storytelling that does not necessarily include both these elements.

The NAPLAN narrative marking guide (ACARA, 2010) offers something very similar. It defines narratives as follows:

A narrative is a time-ordered text that is used to narrate events and to create, entertain and emotionally move an audience. Other social purposes of narrative writing may be to inform, to persuade and to socialise. The main structural components of a narrative are the orientation, the complication and the resolution. (ACARA, 2010, p. 4)

Again, narrative is at first broadly defined: as serving a number of purposes. However, it is then limited to those texts which include a Complication and Resolution, thus excluding other culturally significant forms of storytelling. As with the other examples above, there is no explanation as to why this particular sub-type of story is required for the writing test, nor any discussion of how this relates to other modes of storytelling.

It is interesting to note that there appears to be no mention of the Evaluation stage of the narrative genre. According to Labov and Waletzky (1967) and the Sydney genre school literature, this is a key feature of narratives, as it functions to enhance the 'tellability' of the story by indicating the seriousness of the threat, hardship or challenge posed by the Complication. It is curious, given the attention paid to this element in the relevant literature that it is not included in any of these definitions of narrative, nor is it included in any of the criteria by which texts produced for the NAPLAN writing test are assessed. It would be unfortunate if this absence led to this key element being overlooked in the classroom.

The unexplained focus on just one sub-type of story the Complication-Resolution narrative--is repeated in the assessment rubrics for the writing test and the comments attached to the examples of student writing provided in the NAPLAN narrative marking guide (ACARA, 2010). Student texts are assessed by reference to ten criteria including, Audience, Ideas, Cohesion, Spelling and Vocabulary. The criteria of Text Structure relates directly to the overall organisation of the text and whether it is to be assessed as identifiably and effectively a narrative. The rubric specifies that for a text to be assessed as having an optimal Text Structure it must include 'narrative features including orientation, complication and resolution' (ACARA, 2010, p. 4). Table 2 outlines the grading scale of 0 to 4 for the criteria of Text Structure. Of particular note is the respective descriptor for each of these grades, where the notion that a narrative must include a Complication and a Resolution is explicitly clear.

The requirement that texts include a Complication and Resolution is reinforced in the final section of the marking guide (ACARA, 2010, p. 72), where an example of student writing is presented as 'deviant' because it lacks these elements:

While Fier brething dragen is a description, which is a feature of narrative writing, this text does not include the organisational narrative features of orientation, complication and resolution. For this reason, for the category of Text Structure it is Score 1. (ACARA, 2010, p. 72)

Clearly then, these materials indicate a requirement that students include a Resolution, along with the associated structural elements of Orientation and Complication, if their stories are to be assessed as optimal and hence receive the highest grade for the criterion of Text Structure.

Potential consequences

One obvious potential consequence of the above is that NAPLAN writing texts will be marked down, even when they are appropriately structured as stories, simply because they are not instances of the Complication-Resolution narrative. Another concern is the possibility that these requirements and definitions may lead to misunderstandings among teachers as to the nature of storytelling, which may in turn lead to misdirection in the teaching and learning of story writing. As it turns out, our analysis of the examples of student writing and the attached grades in the NAPLAN writing guide (ACARA, 2010), strongly support this proposition.

Firstly, we found a number of student texts in the writing guide which were effectively structured instances of other sub-types of story but which had been marked down with respect to the Text Structure criterion on account of, for example, lacking a Resolution. In some cases, the supplied comments suggested that the examiner, in looking for a Complication-Resolution narrative, overlooked the merits of the text as a different sub-type of story. Secondly, and perhaps paradoxically, we found a number of texts which scored highly with respect to the Text Structure criterion (4/4 or 3/4), even though they were not instances of the Complication-Resolution narrative sub-type. We argue below that these were effective instances of other story sub-types, and that presumably the examiners were responding to this effectiveness, and ignoring their non-conformity with the staging of Complication and Resolution. This appears to us at least to be indicative of a lack of clarity around the nature of storytelling, and a failure to acknowledge text structural variability across the various members of the narrative family of genres.

Before examining the NAPLAN marking guide (2010), we note that our concern is not with the overall 'quality' of the student text and the total score it received. Obviously a text may have an appropriate Text Structure but receive a lower score on account of issues relating to other criteria, for example, to the range of the vocabulary used, or problems with cohesion between sentences, or spelling. Likewise, a text might not be an effective story of any type on account of problems with its Text Structure but nevertheless still receive a high score overall on account of, for example, being cohesive and free of spelling errors. Our concern is only with the score and comments relating to the Text Structure criterion, and what these signal as to understandings of the nature of storytelling.

Non Complication-Resolution stories penalised for Text Structure

Wooden Box

We begin by considering Wooden Box, a text which scored in the lower range for Text Structure--2/4. We argue that the attached examiner's comments essentially misunderstand its workings as a particular sub-type of story, namely an anecdote, and that this is probably what resulted in this lower score for Text Structure. The text is set out in Table 3, along with an analysis of how it is staged generically.

While some obvious difficulties with spelling, punctuation and basic sentence grammar are indicated here, the student has nonetheless produced what we contend is a quite an effective story of a particular sub-type, at least in terms of what might be thought of as its overall conceptualisation. Informally we might recognise this as a somewhat formulaic rendition of the 'it was all just a dream' story. Technically it is a version of what the Sydney genre school classifies as an 'anecdote' sharing an emotional reaction to a remarkable incident. As is often the case with anecdotes (see Martin & Rose, p. 51), the emotional reaction (e.g. the relief, amazement, uplift or amusement) is not overtly stated but rather suggested or implied. In this case, relief is invoked through the clause: '... it was just a dream'.

The examiner has not dealt with the text in these terms, instead viewing it as a poorly executed Complication-Resolution narrative: 'A complete narrative with a complication and a weak conclusion, I woke up and it was just a dream' (ACARA, 2010, p. 27). This is perhaps a reasonable enough estimation in terms of what is expected of a Complication-Resolution narrative. The protagonist finding her/himself inexplicably locked in a small box might be treated as a Complication, and the discovery that it was all just a dream might be treated as a rather weak Resolution. In this regard, we note that the NAPLAN prompt provided to students undertaking the writing test does appear to typically include some reference to problems and solutions: 'think about the characters and where they are, the complication or problem to be solved and how the story will end' (ACARA, 2013). In these terms, the 'it was all just a dream' ending may seem something of a 'cop out'; a way of bailing out of stories for those who struggle with Resolving a Complication in effective ways. But this does not acknowledge the anecdote on its own terms. The situation of the protagonist suddenly finding him/herself locked in a box and strangely immune to pain and cured of her/his claustrophobia is surely better viewed as a 'remarkable Incident' (i.e. the central element of an anecdote) than as a problem to be solved (i.e. one of the central elements of Complication-Resolution narrative). If our concern is with effective storytelling, it is more appropriate to treat and assess this, not as narrative in the narrow sense of the term, but as an anecdote.

Space Tour

We now turn to a student text which scored even lower for Text Structure--1/4. In this case the lower score was presumably based on the examiner's perception that the student had produced the 'wrong' type of story; a recount rather than the Complication-Resolution narrative prescribed for the NAPLAN writing test. Thus the comments for the Text Structure rubric state: 'Recount with no complication ...' (ACARA, 2013, p. 39). In this regard, we note that the recount genre appears to be the only other member of the family of story genres, alongside Complication-Resolution narrative, which is recognised in the NAPLAN documentation. Moreover, it is typically associated with the early years of literacy development and may therefore be regarded by some as an essentially 'elementary textual form'; a precursor to more mature writing. It is perhaps on this basis that those formulating the NAPLAN writing test have chosen to essentially preclude the recount, requiring, as they do, that students produce Complication-Resolution narratives. In our view, this is questionable. Recounts are a key form of storytelling in our culture which can involve sophisticated, highly skilled modes of expression when, for example, they fully exploit the resources of evaluative meaning making, noun group complexification, nominalisation, and so on. They are therefore capable of demonstrating various levels of literacy development from early stage through to highly advanced. There is no obvious reason why they are not allowed for in the writing test, as one legitimate form of storytelling.

With respect to Space Tour, further issues are at stake. We contend below that this text is best analysed, not as a recount, but as another member of the story family--the observation--a text where some noteworthy incident or situation is presented so that its social value or impact on those involved can be assessed. A slightly abbreviated version of Space Tour is provided in Table 4, again accompanied by an analysis of its genre staging.

We agree that this is not a Complication-Resolution narrative. As the writing guide states: 'Recount with no complication. The black hole at first appears to be a problem but turns out to be only the method by which the bus travels' (ACARA, 2010, p. 39). In these terms, the text does have some features in common with the recount, a story type often associated with reports of school excursions, of which this is an imaginative, fantastical instance. It is our view, however, that this story does more than simply present a record of events. It also provides the reader with a sense of the writer's evaluation of those events, an account of those events impact on the author, and hence an estimation of the value of those events. The valuation is conveyed not only in the concluding comments stage ('a great experience', 'love to do it again') but also in the frequent attitudinal assessments and responses distributed through the text, e.g. '8a was waiting anxiously', 'a massive RV', 'bright shing [shining] stars swirled in dark thickness', 'The RV (bus) was sucked into a BLACKHOLE!' and so on. We propose that this story is better assessed as a well formulated observation, and not in terms of the degree to which it deploys the Complication-Resolution narrative structure.

Zip

The next student text we consider, Zip, also received a low score for Text Structure--1/4. Again, the examiner comments were negative: 'Orientation introduces the character. No complication--recounts and describes events' (ACARA, 2010, p. 35). The text is presented in full in Table 5 below, accompanied by an analysis of its genre staging.

This is a reasonably straightforward text in terms of genre staging and hence the type of story. As the examiner observes in the attached comments, the text doesn't feature a Complication (or Resolution) and offers a fairly straightforward description of a sequence of (imagined) events. This time, we concur with the examiner's comments as to story genre--a recount. Interestingly, the author seems to present it as such in the final sentence: 'So that is a accurate recount of my two days with Zip'. Our concern, then, is not with how the text has been classified. What we take issue with is that the definitions and stipulations outlined in the writing guide require recounts like this to be marked down in terms of their textual structure and hence in terms of their functionality as stories. We contend that this is in fact an engaging and well-told story, when it is dealt with on its own terms and especially when its evaluative and attitudinal aspects are given due consideration. We note here that a central theme tying the different part of the story together is the way in which the alien Zip is superior to his human counterparts, in terms of his material goods, his failure to be impressed by the 'state of the art' kitchen of the protagonist's mother, and so on. This is carried through amusingly to the story's final episode where Zip, though his own efforts, is able to supply answers to questions which elude the story teller. Our ultimate concern here is that such scores and comments might lead to the undervaluing of nuanced and effective storytelling of this type.

Stories with high scores for Text Structure which are not Complication-Resolution narratives

We turn now to student texts which received high scores for Text Structure (4/4 or 3/4) even while, perhaps paradoxically, they are not actually instances of the 'required' Complication-Resolution narrative. In these cases we typically concur with the examiner in the scores awarded. However, we are concerned with the apparent lack of awareness of the actual type of story, as evidenced through the scores and comments, and the potential confusion regarding the nature of storytelling.

The Water Tower

The Water Tower is one of the highest performing exemplars in the NAPLAN narrative marking guide (ACARA, 2010), not only in terms of Text Structure (4/4), but across all criteria. In total, it received a score of 45/47. We provide an abbreviated version of the text (for the full version see ACARA, 2010, pp. 56-58) in Table 6, along with an analysis of its genre staging.

It might be possible to treat this as an instance of a Complication-Resolution narrative--with the protagonist initially being too frightened to climb the tower being treated as Complication and his/her overcoming this fear treated as Resolution. We contend, however, that such a characterisation fails to capture exactly what makes this such a compelling, effective story. We hold that it is much better viewed as an exemplum, a story sub-type with the primary purpose of perpetuating social norms and moral/ethic values by foregrounding assessments of human behaviour as good or bad, praiseworthy or blameworthy, laudable or depreciable. Hence the author's Interpretation as a kind of self-assessment; her praising of her behaviour as an instance of 'stepping ... outside my comfort zone'. In this regard we note that moral judgements permeate every stage of this text. Even the Orientation begins with a self-reflection, signalling to the reader that the 'point' of this story is to interpret a character's behaviour with respect to an Incident. Thus it is not the actual, incidental problem (being afraid to climb the tower) and its solution (climbing the tower) which are of greatest import, but rather the general moral point being made: that we must overcome our fears so as to 'expand [our] horizons'.

This text was awarded high scores and assessed as highly effective storytelling. However, by not recognising the text as an instance of the exemplum subtype, an opportunity has been missed for the writing guide to develop understandings of the nature of storytelling and to provide pointers as to exactly what is likely to be valued in student writing.

Lovely purple boots

According to the marking guide for Lovely purple boots, the text scored a reasonably high 3/4 for Text Structure, and was annotated with the following comment: 'Story does not conclude but introduces a new complication.' (ACARA, 2010, p. 55). Of course this immediately invites the question: if this text does not have a Resolution, then why is it graded as 3/4, and not penalised more heavily like many of the other 'deviant' Text Structures presented in the guide? We suspect that perhaps part of the answer to this question is that this text is a complete, effective story genre; not a Complication-Resolution narrative, but rather an anecdote.

In order to deal with this story on its own terms, we perhaps need to firstly come to terms with its underlying psychology--the protagonist is relieved to discover that she is dead, since this will enable her to be reunited with her beloved grandmother. Once we deal with this, the story is revealed to be an anecdote and not, as the examiner's comment suggest, an incomplete Complication-Resolution narrative. As defined in the Sydney genre school literature, anecdotes 'involve some remarkable disruption to usuality, which is not resolved, but simply reacted to' (Martin & Rose, 2008, p. 51). In this case there is an obvious remarkable disruption of usuality--the protagonist having been whisked away to the land of the dead. This might, of course, have turned out to be a Complication which was then resolved as the protagonist manages to escape and return to her normal everyday life, through some concerted, possibly heroic action. But here the storytelling is arguably more original and innovative than this. This is not a story with a predictable happy ending. The point of the story is not for a disruption of usuality to be resolved (Complication leading to Resolution) but rather for the protagonist to react emotionally to the disruption--to be relieved that now she can now be reunited with her grandmother: 'it all made sense now! 'I want my Grandma back'.

We would contend, therefore, that this is another instance of the misidentification of the storytelling sub-type; an anecdote wrongly classified as structurally flawed Complication-Resolution narrative. Again this suggests confusion about the nature of storytelling and a missed opportunity to enhance understandings of what makes of a successful story.

October 16, 1981

The following student writing example--October 16, 1981--also scored a reasonably high 3/4 for Text Structure. It was assessed as comprising a complete narrative structure, albeit without much complexity: 'A complete story with some detail. Simple complication and resolution' (ACARA, 2010, p. 33). Table 8 below presents our genre staging analysis. This is another case of genre type misidentification--an exemplum mistakenly views as Complication-Resolution narrative.

We have deliberately included this example in our discussion because we recognise that this text is on the borderline between exemplum and narrative. The text does evoke a sense of tension and Complication relating to Zac's surfing expedition and subsequent injury, indicative of a Complication-Resolution narrative. And this is followed by a very basic Resolution: 'but all was good', 'Zac is know [now] recovering from the injury'. However, we would argue that the main point of this text is not to resolve a Complication, but to evaluate the character of Zac, and for the author to ultimately moralise on the topic of safety at the beach.

So in narrative terms, yes, this text does comprise a basic Complication and Resolution stage. But if the text is read as an exemplum genre, then it is far from 'simple' in structure. It is an understated, subtle exemplum, perhaps best exemplified by the author's use of the term 'windy' in the Orientation and Incident stages, and 'safe' in the Interpretation.

Conclusion

While we have directed our discussion at these six student writing samples, we note in conclusion that similar issues relating to Text Structure arose in connection with at least four other student texts included in the NAPLAN writing guide (2010) (Gambat, In the Distance, Axe, The Deep Blue Nothing). In total, this presents a significant figure of 10 out of the 19 student texts that were in some way misunderstood in the NAPLAN marking guide through their allocated grade and commentary.

Through this paper we have hoped to have demonstrated strong support for the proposition that the NAPLAN writing test support documentation is both evidence of, and a potential contributor to, confusion about the nature of storytelling and ultimately, what makes for a good story. As we have shown, the definitions, grades and comments intended to guide teachers as they prepare students for the test often indicate a lack of awareness of the diversity of storytelling sub-types. In some cases this results in an example text being inappropriately marked down, while in other cases it results in misleading comments being provided as to workings of a text, as well as the features by which it will be regarded as engaging, compelling and hence successful.

In cases where teachers, teacher educators and teacher support materials take their lead from these materials (and we acknowledge that may not necessarily be the case), then there is real potential for negative outcomes. The controversy surrounding NAPLAN and other 'high-stakes' testing has been well publicised (see, for example the petition from the Literacy Educator's Association, 2015: Say No to NAPLAN, and the aforementioned scholarly research). Our findings add another element to this debate. At its most extreme, we see these restrictions to, and misunderstandings of storytelling in the NAPLAN narrative writing test as detrimental to students' literary creativity, and in turn, adversely affecting not only their well-being and self-esteem with respect to what is a highly personal practice of storytelling, but with specific respect to their literacy development more generally. It is imperative that young people express themselves freely through story in order to develop both their oral and written linguistic competencies. What then are the consequences of limiting students to one type of story only, coupled with the high-pressure environment that is the NAPLAN writing test, and documentation that is potentially misleading? And what are the implications for literacy pedagogy, not only in the classroom, but for well-intentioned parents and caregivers seeking to support and teach young people about the world of story-telling?

Notes

(1) Following Martin and Rose (2008) we use a capital letter to signify genre stages.

References

Angelo, D. (2011). Sad stories: a preliminary study of NAPLAN practice texts analysing students' second language linguistic resources and the effects of these on their written narratives. Proceedings of the 42nd Australian Linguistic Society Conference. Canberra Angelo, D. (2013). NAPLAN implementation: implications for classroom learning and teaching, with recommendations for improvement. TESOL in Context, 23 (1/2), 53-73.

Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA) (2010). National Assessment Program Literacy and Numeracy 2010: Writing narrative marking guide. Retrieved from http://www.nap.edu.au/verve/_ resources/2010_Marking_Guide.pdf Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA) (2013). NAP: Writing. Retrieved from http:// www.nap.edu.au/naplan/writing/writing.html Exley, B. (2010). Narratives for novices: is there a place for edgy texts in edgy NAPLAN communities? Practically Primary, 15 (3), 4-7.

Exley, B. & Mills, K. (2015). Interrogating policy contradictions in literacy reforms about persuasive texts. Paper presented at AERA 2015 Annual Meeting: Toward Justice: Culture, Language, and Heritage in Education Research and Praxis, Chicago, Illinois, 16-20 April 2015.

Gable, A. & Lingard, B. (2013). NAPLAN and the performance regime in Australian schooling: A review of the policy context. St Lucia, QLD, Australia: The University of Queensland, School of Social Work and Human Services, Social Policy Unit.

Gee, J.P. (2005). An introduction to discourse analysis. London: Routledge.

Jordens, C.F.C, (2002). Reading spoken stories for values: A discursive study of cancer survivors and their professional carers. Unpublished PhD thesis. University of Sydney.

Literacy Educators Coalition (2015). Literacy Educators Coalition: Say no to NAPLAN. Retrieved from http:// www.literacyeducators.com.au/naplan/naplan-articles/

Labov, W. & Waletzky, J. (1967). Narrative analysis: Oral versions of personal experience. In J. Helm (Ed.), Essays on the Verbal and Visual Arts (pp. 12-44). Seattle: University of Washington Press.

Literacy Educators Coalition (2015). Literacy Educators Coalition: Say no to NAPLAN. Retrieved from http:// www.literacyeducators.com.au/naplan/naplan-articles/

Love, K. & Humphrey, S. (2012). A multi-level language toolkit for the Australian Curriculum: English. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 35 (1), 169-191.

Martin, J.R. & Rose, D. (2008). Genre relations: Mapping culture. London: Equinox.

Martin, J.R & Rose, D. (2011). Encounters with genre: Apprehending cultural frontiers. In B. Baker, I. Mushin, M. Harvey & R. Gardner (Eds.), Indigenous Language and Social Identity: Papers in Honour of Michael Walsh (pp. 333-346). Canberra, ACT: Pacific Linguistics.

Martin, J.R & White, PRR. (2005). The language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.

Mills, K. & Dooley, K. (2014). Teaching persuasive texts: building a language of evaluation through hedging and moderated intensification. Literacy Learning: the Middle Years, 22 (3), 33-41.

O'Neil, S. (2012). Teaching and assessment of persuasive writing: juggling the language features and grasping the metalanguage. International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning, 7 (1), 84-98.

Plum, G. (1988). Text and contextual conditioning in spoken English: A genre-based approach. Unpublished PhD thesis. University of Sydney.

Ryan, M.E. & Barton, G. (2013). Working towards a 'thirdspace' in the teaching of writing to middle years students. Literacy Learning: The Middle Years, 21 (3), 71-81.

Thomas, D., Thomas, A. & Moltow, D.T. (under review). Evaluative stance in high achieving year 3 persuasive texts. Linguistics and Education.

Thompson, G. & Cook, I. (2012). Manipulating the data: teaching and NAPLAN in the control society. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 35 (1), 129-142.

Thompson, G. & Harbaugh, A.G. (2013). A preliminary analysis of teacher perceptions of the effects of NAPLAN on pedagogy and curriculum. Australian Educational Researcher, 40 (3), 299-314.

White, P.R.R. & Makki, M., in press, Crime reporting as storytelling in Persian/Farsi news journalism--perspectives on the narrative function. Journal of World Languages.

White, P.R.R., Mammone, G. & Caldwell, D. (2015). Linguistically based inequality, multilingual education and a genre-based literacy development pedagogy: insights from the Australian experience. Language and Education, 29 (3), 256-271.

David Caldwell

University of South Australia

Peter R.R. White

University of New South Wales

David Caldwell is a Lecturer in English Language and Literacy in the School of Education at the University of South Australia. David is interested in the application of Systemic Functional Linguistics to challenging, provocative, and often uncharted language contexts. He is currently examining genre pedagogy in a range of South Australian schools, the role of Asia Literacy in the Australian Curriculum, English wordings on printed t-shirts, and the on-field language practices of athletes.

Peter R.R. White teaches linguistics at the University of New South Wales in Sydney Australia. He is one of the architects of the Appraisal framework, an approach to the analysis of evaluative language. He has been involved in educational linguistic research since the early 1990s. Over the last decade he has worked as a consultant for the South Australian Department of Education and Child Development advising and supporting language and literacy teachers. Table 1 staging: experience response experience recount Record [prosodic] -- anecdote Remarkable Event Reaction -- exemplum Incident Interpretation -- observation Event Description Comment -- narrative Complication Evaluation Resolution staging: attitude recount variable anecdote affect exemplum judgement observation appreciation narrative variable Table 2 Category Discriptor Additional information 0 -no evidence of any structural -symbols or drawings components of a time- inappropriate genre, eg a sequenced text recipe 1 - minimal evidence of -note that not all recounts narrative structure, eg a are factual story beginning only or a'middle' with no orientation -a recount of events with no complication 2 - contains a beginning and a -A complication presents a complication problem to be solved, introduces tension, and - where a resolution is requires a response. It drives present it is weak, contrived the story forward and leads to of 'tacked on' (e.g. I woke a series of events or up, I died, They lived happily responses ever after) -Complications should always be read in context. -may also be a complete story where all parts of the story are weaker minimal (The story has a problem to be solved but it does not add to the tension or excitement.) 3 - contains orientation, complication and resolution -detailed longer text may resolve one complication and lead into a new complication or layer a new complication onto an existing one rather than conclude 4 -coherent, controlled and Sophisticated structures or complete narrative, employing plot devices include: effective plot devices in an appropriate structure, and -foreshadowing/flashback including an effective ending -red herring/cliffhanger - coda/twist -evaluation/reflection -circular/parallel plots Table 3 Genre Slaves Text Orientation One night I was laying down in bed and I fell asleep Remarkable Event When I woke up I was not in my bed any more I wasn't even in my room anymore. I was in a little wooden box. It was so small I could move around a little bit but I couldn't stand up I looked around for a gap or a door but couldn't find on [one]. Their was nailes sticking out of the bottom so I had to be carful were I steped [stepped|. I ramed [rammedl the side trying to get it open but it did not work. I stop for a wile and notised something weird I am costrafobic bit didn't feel six [sick] then I sat down on a nail and it didn't hurt. Reaction trigger I woke up and it was just a dream Table 4 Genre Stages Text Orientation T'was the day of Wednesday and all of 8a was waiting anxiously at the space bus station. Mrs Hoverdoff had planned an excursion for 8a to go to outer space to have an understanding of space. [...] ... Event Description 8a wondered what type of bus would they be taking when then a massive RV pulled up. The class got Onto the "Bus", excited but nervous at the same time. The bus took off and the class and I started seeing bright shing [shining] stars swirled in dark thickness. All of a sudden I felt a rumble? The RV (bus) was sucked into a BLACKHOLE! ... The next second we landed with a thump. I and the rest of the class piled off the bus and found ourselves looking at ROBOT CITY! The sights were weird but wonderful. It looked just like I imagined the future to look like. Next thing Mrs Hoverdofff was letting us in pairs to look at the strang[e] land. As soon as we turned the corner we found ourselves being whirled into an exotic place! The galaxy spot. All around us was large telescopes. Mrs Hoverdoff shipped us all away from the telescopes and into a transporter. Next moment we found ourselves in the classroom Comment Going on this excursion was a great experience and I would love to do it again sometime. Table 5 Genre Stages Text Orientation Zip is th new kid at my school. He's a Zordian from Zord. He even has his own spaceship parked on the oval! It's huge. Me and Zip are best friends because we both like swimming and soccer Record of Events Zip invited me to his spaceship. It's sooo cool. He has a PS2000 and a TV that's about 50 times bigger than my one and a food system that you say bacon into and bacon comes out. After that I invited Zip to my house (it must look ancient to him) but he wasn't impressed by TV that's 50 times smaller than his, my PS3 and Mum's state of the an kitchen. So I decided we both like swimming so we went down to the lake. He asked, "how deep is it?". I didn't know so I said, "I don't know" he dived down to the bottom. I timed him. He was down there for 30 minutes! When he surfaced he said, "It's 40 kilometres deep! Coda So that is an accurate recount of my two days with Zip. Table 6 Genre Stages Text Orientation Careful is my middle name. I like to think things through. I'm always cautious. However, I can think of a few times when I've surprised myself, and I haven't been careful at all. One of the times that comes to mind is of climbing the lower to the water tank at the farm. Incident "Come on, Charlotte!" I remember my cousin Campbell crying. "Let's climb it! Let's climb the water tower!" ... Frantically, I flung my other hand out and grabbed the ladder. I was shaking as I held on. At that moment I nearly went back down, but looking up at the platform above where the water tank was, I realised that that would mean it was all for nothing. I pulled myself through. We stood on that platform and looked out over the farm house and to the sun setting behind the mountains beyond. Interpretation I was surprised at myself. I would never have believed that I could do that. I decided it was all worth it, and I realised that through stepping (or climbing) outside my comfort zone, I could expand my horizons. Table 7 Genre Stages Text Orientation I've always wondered when I would get the boots. I didn't expect my Grandma to die though. I always imagined her smiling face giving me those lovely purple boots. Oh well, I though to myself, at least I've got them now. Remarkable Event I woke up slowly, and found I was alone." Where am I?" I asked myself. "In the land of the dead" a voice replied. I jumped, "Who are you? ? I'm not dead am I?" "I'm Jack," and out came a little boy, hiding from the a nearby rock. He was tiny! Like knee-hight. "Oh Hello," I replied, "I'm Sarah. So what's this about me being in the land of the dead/" Argh! Jack yelled, wide-eyed. His little beard frizzed up. "What?" He said nothing, just stared at my boots, His fingers came to point at the bootss. "Oh my God ..." The little bells glowed dark blue colour, but that wasn't all, they floated as if the wind was blowing them a direction which they wouldn't stop facing. "Oh my God," I said again. "Quick!" shouted Jack. He was in a slight panic Fallow me." ... I eventually caught yup to him. He had taken me lo a house, old and tattered. I went inside. Another little man stared at me. "Where did you get those." ... "My Grandmother died and they got passed to me," I said "I made those," the man said. "Hear, listen closely. This is the land of the land of the dead, right? And everyone hear [here] is dead." "Am I?" I was scared. What was I doing hear [here]? "Hush! I made those boots and what they do is, the bells, they point to what you want most. The brighter the colour, the closer you are." "I looked at the bells, all pointe the same way, all glowing a light blue. I must be close. "What do you want? he said excitedly. "I want ... I want," Reaction I hesitated, but it all made sense now! I was in the land of the dead because what I want is here, "I want my Grandma back." Table 8 Genre Stages Text Orientation On October the 16th 1981 there was a boy named Zac, he went out to the beach on a windy day to have a surf. ... Incident The wave knocked him off his surf board and Zac had lost his surf board. The waves drifted him out further and further till there was no more. 3 hours later he heard a motor boat getting close. He was to [too] tierd [tired] to keep his self up and wave to them. About 3 mins later the life guards found him floating above the water he had fainted. ... When the life gaurds got back to shore they revived him and they asked him what his name was, were [where] he came from and what was he doing out surfing on a day like this, (a windy day). Zac could not remember why he went surfing, he couldn't remember were [where] he came from ... When they got to the doctor he had an X-ray his head. The results came up that he knocked his head and fractured his head. Interpretation Zac had a bit of Damiage [damage] to his head for a white but all was good. Zac got bac to his family and only went to the beach on safe days. PS: Zac is know [now] recovering from the injury.