“Accuracy is more important than creativity.”
Both accuracy and creativity are important in writing. Accuracy, through
methods of seriation or precise grammar, spelling and punctuation, for
example, allows for narrative to be easy to read and ideas effectively
communicated. Creativity, revealed in the expression of an exotic narrative
or original abstract ideas for example, distinguishes the writer from other
writers and keeps the reader engaged, moreover involved with the
narrative.
It can be argued that accuracy makes the creative output easier to read,
and therefore it is more important than creativity. It raises questions over
whether there is a purpose of creativity if this isn’t comprehensible. In data
set 2, ‘Wonder Dog’, the writer adheres to the first two stages of Labov’s
natural narrative structure, abstract and orientation, but is yet to progress to
the third stage of action. Yet, her creative output shown in her orientation,
describing the dog Buster as a ‘loving kind golden retriever’ who was ‘an
extremely fast runner’ is backed by accurate use of pre-modifiers. This
shows detail and fluency coinciding in her work, both crucial features
orchestrated through her accuracy. Data set 3, on the other hand, is
dominated mostly by action (‘I saw camels, Jack rabbits, cactus, foxes’),
lacking the detail and fluency that is so engaging in data set 2. Therefore,
accuracy remains more important than creativity.
However, to oppose this, the argument can be made that writing can be
understood without being one hundred percent accurate. In data set 3,
whilst this may not be completely the case for the writer, due to the lack of
introduction to ‘Jimay/Jamie’ for example, we can work out the spelling
mistakes. He seems to be in between stage 5 ‘invented spelling’ and stage
6 ‘appropriate phonetic spelling’ of Barclay’s stages, excluding lexis like
‘machine’ which we can infer the teacher likely gave to him to copy due to
the challenging digraphs. Instead, through lexis like ‘som’ as ‘some’, it is
evident the writer has a decent grapheme-phoneme correspondence.
Arguably, in an exotic narrative written by a child, this is all you need at this
Both accuracy and creativity are important in writing. Accuracy, through
methods of seriation or precise grammar, spelling and punctuation, for
example, allows for narrative to be easy to read and ideas effectively
communicated. Creativity, revealed in the expression of an exotic narrative
or original abstract ideas for example, distinguishes the writer from other
writers and keeps the reader engaged, moreover involved with the
narrative.
It can be argued that accuracy makes the creative output easier to read,
and therefore it is more important than creativity. It raises questions over
whether there is a purpose of creativity if this isn’t comprehensible. In data
set 2, ‘Wonder Dog’, the writer adheres to the first two stages of Labov’s
natural narrative structure, abstract and orientation, but is yet to progress to
the third stage of action. Yet, her creative output shown in her orientation,
describing the dog Buster as a ‘loving kind golden retriever’ who was ‘an
extremely fast runner’ is backed by accurate use of pre-modifiers. This
shows detail and fluency coinciding in her work, both crucial features
orchestrated through her accuracy. Data set 3, on the other hand, is
dominated mostly by action (‘I saw camels, Jack rabbits, cactus, foxes’),
lacking the detail and fluency that is so engaging in data set 2. Therefore,
accuracy remains more important than creativity.
However, to oppose this, the argument can be made that writing can be
understood without being one hundred percent accurate. In data set 3,
whilst this may not be completely the case for the writer, due to the lack of
introduction to ‘Jimay/Jamie’ for example, we can work out the spelling
mistakes. He seems to be in between stage 5 ‘invented spelling’ and stage
6 ‘appropriate phonetic spelling’ of Barclay’s stages, excluding lexis like
‘machine’ which we can infer the teacher likely gave to him to copy due to
the challenging digraphs. Instead, through lexis like ‘som’ as ‘some’, it is
evident the writer has a decent grapheme-phoneme correspondence.
Arguably, in an exotic narrative written by a child, this is all you need at this
