The rise of ‘elaborate dictation’ and ‘writing-related simulations’ in English schools: Unethical writing teaching

In recent years, a growing concern has emerged among teachers, parents, and researchers in England: The increasing use of what could be called ‘elaborate dictation’ in classrooms. 

At first glance, elaborate dictation appears to be an effective teaching ‘hack’. It involves children copying or lightly adapting a teacher- or scheme-generated text, essentially filling in blanks within pre-structured sentences, or piecing together paragraphs composed largely of pre-determined vocabulary and syntax. These texts may appear impressive to external observers but they flatter to deceive. Beneath the surface lies a troubling question: Are students truly learning to write, compose and author – or are they merely learning to recite, regurgitate and transcribe (Cremin et al. 2003)? Writer-teacher John Warner calls this producing ‘writing-related simulations’ (Warner 2025).

What is ‘elaborate dictation’?

Unlike traditional dictation exercises, where students write down what the teacher says to practice listening and spelling, elaborate dictation is more sophisticated – and arguably more misleading. It often disguises itself as independent writing. In reality, however, the intellectual and creative effort is largely outsourced to the scheme-writer (or teacher) (Young 2025). Students may be walked through every sentence, prompted with what to say, and told exactly what to include in each paragraph.

In some classrooms, a model text is slightly adjusted and then rewritten en masse. Students essentially copy the text into their books, making only slight variations. To an outsider, the final product may appear student-authored, but the level of actual authorship is minimal (Young 2025).

Why are schools doing this?

There are several reasons behind the rise of elaborate dictation, chief among them being the pressure of accountability. In England, schools are subject to rigorous inspections and assessments by Ofsted and the STA, and they must demonstrate, one way or another, measurable progress in students’ writing. In response, some schools feel compelled to produce evidence of high-quality writing at any cost – even if that means providing, what we might call a ‘fake’ or superficial level of academic competency. All the while, other schools work hard to ensure that their children present an authentic level of academic achievement (LINK).

The ethical dilemma

At the heart of the issue is an ethical concern: children are being asked to write without ever truly authoring (Bruyère & Pendergrass 2020). They are being evaluated on pieces they did not actually produce, and these pieces are being used to judge their progress and even the school’s performance (Bars 2019; Clarkson 2024; Cremin et al. 2003).

This undermines not only the purpose of writing education but also students’ sense of achievement. Writing is fundamentally an act of thought, self-expression, and linguistic play. When that is reduced to filling in blanks and copying a polished template, students are denied the rewarding experience of sharing their own ideas and voice (Young 2025). According to Warner (2025, p.5), this happens ‘not because teachers are bad or students lack ability but because these simulations have been privileged in a system where “schooling” is divorced from “learning”‘.

Long-term consequences

The implications are serious. Students accustomed to elaborate dictation will struggle later in their lives. Their ability to structure arguments, craft narratives, and think critically through writing will be underdeveloped. Moreover, such practices can widen the gap between students from different backgrounds. Those with greater support outside of school may learn to write authentically, while others will remain dependent on regurgitating out models.

It also risks student cynicism. Children often know when they are not really writing (Dyson 2020). Repeated exposure to these practices may erode their confidence and lead them to believe they are ‘fractured writers’ incapable of original thoughts, only of parroting back what adults provide (Ryan et al. 2022).

Towards an sincere approach to writing teaching

To counter this trend, schools must reclaim the integrity of writing instruction. This means creating space for real composition and genuine academic achievement (Young 2025). It requires supporting children to conceptualise, translate and transcribe their own writing (LINK for more on this).

Of course, direct instruction, teacher modelling and scaffolding contribute significantly to the quality of writing teaching (LINK to find out more). But when support becomes so prescriptive that the child’s role is reduced to simply transcribing out the teacher’s text, the line between genuine learning and fabrication has been crossed (Young 2025).

Writing must remain an act of authorship.

Conclusion

Elaborate dictation, as practiced in some English schools, may seem like a harmless or even helpful teaching tool. But when it replaces genuine composition with coached mimicry, it does a disservice to students’ development and misrepresents their abilities to others (Barrs 2019; Myhill & Clarkson 2021). The reality is that children are cheated out of receiving a genuine writerly apprenticeship. As the education system continues to grapple with assessment pressures and performance metrics, we must ask: are we helping children find their own writing voice – or merely giving them ours to repeat?

The future of our young writers depends on your answer.

References and further reading

  • Barrs, M. (2019). Teaching bad writing. English in Education, 53(1), 18-31
  • Bruyère, J., Pendergrass, E. (2020) Are Your Students Writing or Authoring? Young Author’s Milieux, Early Childhood Education Journal, 48 pp.561-571
  • Clarkson, R. (2024). ‘It’s missing the heart of what writing is about’: teachers’ interpretations of writing assessment criteria. British Educational Research Journal, 50(1), 134-161.
  • Dyson, A. H. (2020). “This isn’t my real writing”: The fate of children’s agency in too-tight curricula. Theory Into Practice, 59(2), 119-127.
  • González-Díaz, V., Parr, E., & Nourie, K. (2024). Conceptualisations of ‘good’ writing in the English primary school context. Language and Education, 1-24
  • Grainger (Cremin), T., Goouch, K., Lambirth, A. (2003) Playing the game called writing, English in Education, 37(2), 4–15
  • Lambirth, A. (2016). Exploring children’s discourses of writing. English in Education, 50(3), 215-232
  • McDonald, R. (2025). Exploring teachers’ positioning of children as writers, English in Education, 1-16
  • Myhill, D., & Clarkson, R. (2021). School writing in England. In International Perspectives on Writing Curricula and Development (pp. 147-168). Routledge
  • Ryan, M., Khosronejad, M., Barton, G., Myhill, D., & Kervin, L. (2022). Reflexive writing dialogues: Elementary students’ perceptions and performances as writers during classroom experiences. Assessing writing, 51, 100592
  • Young, R. (2025) “It’s healthy. It’s good for you”: Children’s perspectives on utilising their autonomy in the writing classroom UKLA International Conference – Liverpool – 2025

Discover more from The Writing For Pleasure Centre

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading