This issue opens with a hugely significant contribution to our understanding of writing development and writing pedagogy. John Keen’s account of a research project in schools in the northwest of England has implications for the ways in which we conceptualise the processes involved in writing – and for how as teachers we intervene in those processes. Central to this is the insight that the kind of knowledge that is involved in the development of writers is procedural, not declarative. In this respect, as in the emphases on the importance of starting from pupils’ own experience, on the social dimensions of writing, and on the value of drafting and redrafting, the compelling evidence that emerges from the Process Writing Project provides a very welcome counter to the current fashion for direct instruction, as well as to all those approaches that reduce writing pedagogy to the provision of a set of ingredients and pre-specified models. Brian Hanratty’s subtle exploration of Seamus Heaney’s ‘Poetics’ and their implications for teaching poetry and creative writing is equally averse to simple formulae. Hanratty, following Heaney, insists on the dialectical relation between the contingent and the transcendent that is enacted in and through poetry. The line between social speech and poetic language, as between lived experience and its imaginative representation in literature, is thus not a border to be policed so much as a route to be traced and retraced. A poetic quality also infuses Scott Jarvie and Alecia Beymer’s account of alternative approaches to assessment on an English teacher education programme. In opposition to the technocratic discourses of standardised assessment rubrics, they encouraged their students to experiment with other – aesthetic and figurative – ways of providing feedback on microteaching lessons: photographs, apophatic descriptions, Nerudian questions and gift-responses all served as more open-ended, polysemous ways of investigating the meaning of moments of teaching and learning. The following contribution, by Lalai Abbas, Clarissa de Leon and Rebecca Luce-Kapler, presents similar challenges to dominant paradigms of research, and to notions of objectivity in particular. Here, we witness a researcher engaging with data in the form of personal memoirs from an earlier research project, which had investigated how participants’ identity narratives were transformed through reading and writing. But what we see is not the researcher going to work on the data so much as the data going to work on the researcher, as the act of close reading of others’ memoirs forces her to confront her own story. ‘When,’ asks Jennifer Shaiman, ‘has a reader of Hamlet ever felt that they were partially responsible for Ophelia’s suicide?’ Focusing on one game, Life is Strange, Shaiman’s essay explores the affordances of video games and their effect on reader-text relations. Because of the strength of the connection between player and character, and because of the ways in which the game-playing involves taking responsibility for choices that affect how the narrative unfolds, the game can be construed as morally educative. At the same time, the experience of CHANGING ENGLISH 2020, VOL. 27, NO. 2, 119–120 https://doi.org/10.1080/1358684X.2020.1742452

中文翻译：

---

社论

这个问题对我们对写作发展和写作教学法的理解做出了巨大的贡献。约翰·基恩 (John Keen) 对英格兰西北部学校的一个研究项目的描述对我们将写作过程概念化的方式以及作为教师我们如何干预这些过程具有影响。其核心是这样一种见解，即作家发展所涉及的知识类型是程序性的，而不是陈述性的。在这方面，正如强调从学生自己的经验出发、写作的社会层面以及起草和重新起草的价值的重要性一样，过程写作项目中出现的令人信服的证据提供了一个非常受欢迎的反驳直接指导的当前时尚，以及所有将写作教学法简化为提供一组成分和预先指定模型的方法。布赖恩·汉拉蒂 (Brian Hanratty) 对西莫斯·希尼 (Seamus Heaney) 的“诗学”及其对教授诗歌和创意写作的影响的微妙探索同样反对简单的公式。汉拉蒂跟随希尼，坚持在诗歌中并通过诗歌制定的偶然性与超越性之间的辩证关系。因此，社会言论与诗歌语言之间的界限，以及生活经验与其在文学中的想象表现之间的界限，与其说是一条需要监管的边界，不如说是一条需要追溯和追溯的路线。Scott Jarvie 和 Alecia Beymer 对英语教师教育计划的替代评估方法的描述也充满了诗意。与标准化评估标准的技术官僚话语相反，他们鼓励学生尝试其他——美学和比喻——提供微课反馈的方式：照片、无言的描述、尼鲁德问题和礼物回应都作为更开放的方式, 调查教学和学习时刻意义的多义词方法。Lalai Abbas、Clarissa de Leon 和 Rebecca Luce-Kapler 的以下贡献对主流研究范式，尤其是客观性概念提出了类似的挑战。在这里，我们目睹了一名研究人员以个人回忆录的形式处理早期研究项目中的数据，该项目调查了参与者的身份叙事如何通过阅读和写作发生转变。但我们看到的并不是研究人员对数据的研究，而是数据对研究人员的作用，因为仔细阅读他人回忆录的行为迫使她面对自己的故事。“什么时候，”詹妮弗·沙曼问道，“哈姆雷特的读者有没有觉得他们对奥菲莉亚的自杀负有部分责任？” Shaiman 的文章专注于一款游戏 Life is Strange，探讨了电子游戏的可供性及其对读者与文本关系的影响。由于玩家与角色之间的联系的强度，以及游戏玩法涉及对影响叙事展开方式的选择负责的方式，游戏可以被解释为具有道德教育意义。同时，体验CHANGING ENGLISH 2020, VOL. 27，没有。2、119–120 https://doi.org/10.1080/1358684X.2020.1742452 因为仔细阅读他人回忆录的行为迫使她面对自己的故事。“什么时候，”詹妮弗·沙曼问道，“哈姆雷特的读者有没有觉得他们对奥菲莉亚的自杀负有部分责任？” Shaiman 的文章专注于一款游戏 Life is Strange，探讨了电子游戏的可供性及其对读者与文本关系的影响。由于玩家与角色之间的联系的强度，以及由于游戏玩法涉及对影响叙事展开方式的选择负责的方式，游戏可以被解释为具有道德教育意义。同时，体验CHANGING ENGLISH 2020, VOL. 27，没有。2、119–120 https://doi.org/10.1080/1358684X.2020.1742452 因为仔细阅读他人回忆录的行为迫使她面对自己的故事。“什么时候，”詹妮弗·沙曼问道，“哈姆雷特的读者有没有觉得他们对奥菲莉亚的自杀负有部分责任？” Shaiman 的文章专注于一款游戏 Life is Strange，探讨了电子游戏的可供性及其对读者与文本关系的影响。由于玩家与角色之间的联系的强度，以及由于游戏玩法涉及对影响叙事展开方式的选择负责的方式，游戏可以被解释为具有道德教育意义。同时，体验CHANGING ENGLISH 2020, VOL. 27，没有。2、119–120 https://doi.org/10.1080/1358684X.2020.1742452 “哈姆雷特的读者有没有觉得他们对奥菲莉亚的自杀负有部分责任？” Shaiman 的文章专注于一款游戏 Life is Strange，探讨了电子游戏的可供性及其对读者与文本关系的影响。由于玩家与角色之间的联系的强度，以及由于游戏玩法涉及对影响叙事展开方式的选择负责的方式，游戏可以被解释为具有道德教育意义。同时，体验CHANGING ENGLISH 2020, VOL. 27，没有。2、119–120 https://doi.org/10.1080/1358684X.2020.1742452 “哈姆雷特的读者有没有觉得他们对奥菲莉亚的自杀负有部分责任？” Shaiman 的文章专注于一款游戏 Life is Strange，探讨了电子游戏的可供性及其对读者与文本关系的影响。由于玩家与角色之间的联系的强度，以及由于游戏玩法涉及对影响叙事展开方式的选择负责的方式，游戏可以被解释为具有道德教育意义。同时，体验CHANGING ENGLISH 2020, VOL. 27，没有。2、119–120 https://doi.org/10.1080/1358684X.2020.1742452 由于玩家与角色之间的联系的强度，以及由于游戏玩法涉及对影响叙事展开方式的选择负责的方式，游戏可以被解释为具有道德教育意义。同时，体验CHANGING ENGLISH 2020, VOL. 27，没有。2、119–120 https://doi.org/10.1080/1358684X.2020.1742452 由于玩家与角色之间的联系的强度，以及由于游戏玩法涉及对影响叙事展开方式的选择负责的方式，游戏可以被解释为具有道德教育意义。同时，体验CHANGING ENGLISH 2020, VOL. 27，没有。2、119–120 https://doi.org/10.1080/1358684X.2020.1742452