Previous research has shown that teachers’ knowledge of a functional metalanguage plays a central role in supporting students’ writing development. However, only a few of these studies have focused on primary school teachers and their use of metalanguage in various text types. The aim of this study was to investigate how primary school teachers talk about young students’ (ages 7–9) narrative and informational texts before and after taking part in professional development workshops presenting different language resources and accompanying metalanguage. These resources represent a broader view of language than the more formal tradition offered to primary school teachers in Sweden. The results showed that after participating in the workshops, the teachers had broadened their repertoires concerning what aspects they talk about and how they talk about them; that is, their talks became more text-specific and extensive, and they used a formal metalanguage to a greater extent. These results are discussed in relation to the tradition of writing instruction used in primary grades in Sweden and the teachers’ pathways to broadening their repertoire of metalanguage. Also discussed is the potential a broader language view in early grades may have in supporting students’ writing development throughout their school years.

This study addresses the question of how different aspects of students’ writing achievement can be recognised and evaluated. We developed a linguistically based framework for criteria-based assessment, anchored in a functional view of language and language learning. The framework was used to determine what traits characterise texts at different Proficiency Groups based on comparative judgement and what traits characterise texts assessed differently. Altogether, 100 texts (written by students ages 6–9) representing four text genres were assessed and ranked using both comparative judgement (holistic assessment) and criteria-based analysis. The results indicate that texts generally are assessed as stronger (i.e., placed in a higher Proficiency Group) when comparative judgement is used than what the assessment of a specific language resource indicates. The results also indicate that assessment differences might be a result of different quality expectations for different genres. This points towards the need for genre- and subject-specific assessment criteria to scaffold students in their emergent disciplinary writing development.