Writing at Master’s Level

Approaching your Master’s

What does writing at master’s level look like and how is it different from the honours level writing in which will have become expert during your first degree?It may also be that you already have a master’s degree in English: this might have been a taught master’s or a research-based master’s. So, how is a teaching master’s different?

The master’s degree which you can earn through your PGCE and further work in school (or exclusively through your work in school once qualified) is a professional, practice-based qualification, with a focus on work-based learning. It is about how you develop your practice in the classroom by undertaking original research, in the light of recent and relevant academic thinking.

If the idea of undertaking ‘original’ research (whether you are in the middle of a PGCE course or are a qualified teacher with a packed timetable) with its attendant workload concerns you, fear not. Any practice-based work is likely to be original, because even if you set out to focus on a well-researched area (how best to support lower achievers, how to approach assessment of Speaking and Listening, how to challenge the more able), no one will have explored the area with your particular class before. Your findings are likely to have a strong impact on your own practice and may go on to influence the practice of others.

The criteria

Master’s degrees are awarded to those who demonstrate:

  • “a systematic understanding of knowledge, and a critical awareness of current problems and/or new insights, much of which is at, or informed by, the forefront of their academic discipline, field of study or area of professional practice
  • a comprehensive understanding of techniques applicable to their own research or advanced scholarship
  • originality in the application of knowledge, together with a practical understanding of how established techniques of research and enquiry are used to create and interpret knowledge in the discipline
  • conceptual understanding that enables the student:
  • to evaluate critically current research and advanced scholarship in the discipline
  • to evaluate methodologies and develop critiques of them and, where appropriate
  • to propose new hypotheses.”[1]

At Bath Spa University, this is translated into two key descriptors:

1: Can critically analyse and reflect on professional practice using an identified framework and/or general theory.

2: Can use published research and other literature in a critical way to evaluate findings of an original enquiry or other professional activity

The key word is ‘critical’: to earn a master’s award you need to read analytically and judiciously, synthesise ideas, make connections, probe and question. You then need to apply the same criticality to practice (your own, or other professionals’), exploring that practice and seeking to answer the questions you’ve posed in the light of the literature.

The award

The MTL (Master’s in Teaching and Learning) is now no longer centrally funded, but the government is still hoping that teaching will become a master’s profession. The name of the degree will be dependent on the ITE institution with which you study.

Reading maketh a full man; conference a ready man; and writing an exact man.
Francis Bacon

Master’s courses may be structured differently at different institutions, but most have been developed to ensure that there is a supported introduction to writing at this level. It’s a bit like planning a GCSE course: you would not expect those at the start of Year 10 to write with the confidence and sophistication of those nearing the exams in Year 11 (or what is the point of the course?); in the same way, a novice master’s student will not be expected to write a dissertation straight off. The early part of the course (either the master’s credits you earn as part of a PGCE, or preliminary modules of an employment-based master’s route) will familiarise you with what master’s writing looks like and how to approach it.

For example…

The following is an edited excerpt from a 7,500 entry-level master’s submission to Bath Spa University in 2008. This extract explores the available literature on the contribution of ICT to English teaching.

Given that the Labour Government pumped so many millions of pounds into providing both hardware and software for schools, it is not surprising that the Government-sponsored organisation, Becta, is strongly in favour of ICT in schools. Torgerson and Zhu note that five reports published between 1998 and 2002 assert that Government investment in ICT in schools was justified in terms of pupil improvement (Andrews R, 2004) and the trend continues: a more recent report trumpets that findings show ‘evidence of positive effects of specific uses of ICT on pupils' attainment in almost all National Curriculum subjects, with the most substantial evidence of these effects in the core subjects of English, mathematics and science’ (Becta, 2003). The fact that no English lesson features amongst other subjects in the curriculum (Geography, Mathematics, Music, PE, Art and Design) in the ‘Use of ICT in Subjects’ section of their DVD designed to promote the use of ICT (DfES, 2006), however, indicates that perhaps English is rather the poor relation when it comes to ICT in schools, and an Ofsted report (2004/05) tellingly notes: ‘The use of ICT in other subjects is growing at a steady but slow rate. Typically, secondary schools have on average between two and six departments making some effective use of ICT, with little happening in the rest. The active subjects vary from school to school.' (cited in DfES, 2006).

Furthermore, critics might point out that Becta’s claims above appear not to hold up quite so strongly if the detail is explored. Whilst one study suggests ‘It is possible… to estimate that high ICT use at Key Stage 2 in English can help to raise performance by 0.16 of a National Curriculum level’ (Becta, 2002), no such claim can be made at either KS3 or KS 4. This is turn raises the question of whether the ICT per se is at fault, or the lack of training of teachers, or other reasons such as availability of appropriate software and other technical matters.

All this would lend weight to the arguments of those for whom there remains at best a healthy scepticism on the subject of the value of ICT in education (and at worst, Luddite tendencies). 'The international community is currently placing enormous faith on the basis of rather little evidence so far in the potential of ICTs to revolutionise basic education and the teaching of literacy’ (Sir John Daniel, Assistant Director-General for Education, UNESCO, cited in the blurb of Andrews, R, 2004). Some successful teaching practitioners are not at all convinced about the value of ICT in the classroom: Brenda Despontin of the Independent Schools Council states that there is a need for serious debate about value of this technology, claiming: ‘There is a pervading belief at large that ICT will solve all classroom ills, will "personalise" learning, and will lead to higher standards of literacy and numeracy, in ways no human ever could. It is difficult to argue with such powerful aims’ and goes on to ask: ‘Where is the evidence, for example, that proves a machine will teach literature any better than my English department?’ (Despontin, B, 2006)

My response to this question is that although the computer could not possibly be ‘better’ than a group of enthusiastic and erudite teachers, that same group of teachers may be able to teach better if they harnessed the potential of their machines. This is borne out by a number of educationalists I have read whose arguments support Becta’s positive findings and Kress’s theories. For instance, it is suggested (Abbott, 2005) that engaging in the practices of word processing ‘alters the thinking process involved with writing, so that the person involved thinks in blocks of meaning rather than in individual words or ideas.’ (cited in Dowson and Davidson, 2003). In other words, ICT is developing children as writers in new ways. A core text book for English trainees emphasises the range of ways in which ICT can be used to good effect. Among examples listed are the ways in which ICT opens up opportunities for pupils to write for real audiences (through the use of email & publishing packages); the ability of multimedia packages to integrate speaking, listening, reading, writing; the emphasis on writing process through drafting; and how ICT can highlight the ways in which meaning is constructed in use (Fleming and Stevens, 2004).

Kress’s work also emphasises that, rather than focus on individual texts – an approach which he sees as ‘oriented to the past’ (Kress, 2003: p. 169) – the multimodal ‘future-orientated’ (ibid) approach begins with the designer rather than simply the writer, since the look of the screen, the balance of the images and blocks of text, and the interactive elements are all central to the meaning. His argument is that literacy teaching will become more creative, since writers will be free to organise their ideas in any way they wish, and so ‘it allows teachers to move beyond more formalistic approaches to literacy instruction’ (Morris, P, 2004). I feel that while this is somewhat exaggerated - since those blocks of text still need to be effectively worded and constructed in order to convey meaning, and so the importance of teaching traditional skills cannot be overlooked – there is a point to be made. Teachers need to be ICT-literate in order to teach multimodal literacy.

It is also important to note that ICT supports different kinds of learners in ways that traditional classroom practice is unable to do: ‘The holistic approach to e-learning places the need of the learner… at the centre’ (Harrison, S, 2007). The three main learning styles of Visual, Auditory and Kinesthetic, as identified by Howard Gardner through his work on Multiple Intelligences, are well catered for through effective harnessing of ICT (DfES, 2004b).

Another area of interest is the impact of ICT on learners of different abilities. Although Andrews found that ‘Gains in reading comprehension are negligible; most of the advances are at basic skills levels – in general, ICT is good for basic skills but not for higher-order literacy capabilities’ (Andrews R, 2003), I would contend that the use of ICT can benefit the learning of all, from those with Special Educational Needs to the Gifted and Talented.

References (from this excerpt):

  • Andrews, R (2003) Where next in research on ICT and literacies? English in Education, Vol. 37, Autumn (3), pp. 28-41
  • Becta (2002) ImpaCT2: The Impact of Information and Communication Technologies on Pupil Learning and Attainment, Becta
  • Becta (2003) ICT and attainment. Available from: (accessed 10.07.07)
  • DfES (2004a) Key Stage 3 National Strategy - ICT across the curriculum London: Department for Education and Skills
  • Despontin, B (2006) Independent schools council. Available from: (accessed 10.07.07)
  • Dowson, J & Davison, J (2003) Learning to teach English in the Secondary school London: Routledge
  • Fleming, M & Stevens, D (2004) English teaching in the Secondary School London: David Fulton Publishers Ltd
  • Kress, G (2003) Literacy in the New Media Age London: Routledge
  • Morris, P (2004) Book Review: Literacy in the New Media Age. Available from: (accessed 09.03.08)

DVD: Strengthening Pedagogy with ICT (2006) DVD Norwich: DfES

This resource was downloaded from – The Training GroundPage 1 of 4

[1]Taken from The Framework for Higher Education Qualifications in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, 2008