STEPH HILL, ECT 2, SPRINGFIELD JUNIOR SCHOOL, SWADLINCOTE, UK
Context
Supporting pupils to write independently can be particularly challenging when working memory limitations affect their ability to retain and organise ideas. In my Year 5 mainstream classroom, writing had become a growing challenge, with some pupils struggling to maintain independence during extended tasks. While the class engaged well with shared writing and modelling, it became clear that a number of pupils required additional support to manage the demands of writing.
I began exploring ways in which to reduce cognitive load during writing, and to strengthen pupils’ ability to retain and apply key information. Widgit symbols had already been used across the school to support vocabulary and understanding, and I was interested in whether they could be embedded more deliberately to support writing processes. This case study focuses on my classroom trial of using Widgit symbols as both a universal classroom tool and a targeted intervention to support a small group of pupils with identified working memory challenges.
Identifying the need
Within my class of 26, three pupils were identified as having significant working memory difficulties that were particularly evident during writing tasks. These pupils frequently forgot multi-step instructions, lost track of their intended sentence structure and struggled to retrieve vocabulary that they had generated only moments earlier. During independent writing, they often paused mid-sentence or relied on repeated adult prompts to re-engage with the task.
Evidence for these difficulties was gathered through classroom observation, analysis of writing books and plan-and-write activities designed to explore how memory load affected writing. The patterns indicated that the cognitive demands of writing were exceeding pupils’ working memory capacity, consistent with research linking writing performance to cognitive load (Rocha et al., 2024).
Rationale for the approach
Writing is a cognitively demanding activity, requiring pupils to manage idea generation, planning, vocabulary retrieval, sentence construction and transcription simultaneously. Widgit symbols provide clear visual representations of key vocabulary, success criteria and writing steps. Drawing on dual coding principles, pairing symbols with written words strengthens memory traces and supports retrieval (Wooten and Cuevas, 2024). Scaffolds can also support sequencing and reduce the cognitive effort required to recall instructions (Cattrall, 2024). This aligns with Education Endowment Foundation guidance on using visual cues, chunked information and reduced cognitive load to support learning (EEF, 2021). It also reflects Sherrington’s (2019) guidance on reducing cognitive load through clear modelling and small, manageable steps.
Universal strategy
Before focusing on the target group, Widgit symbols were embedded consistently across whole-class teaching to support understanding and engagement. Symbols were added to teaching slides and vocabulary lists, and were used during vocabulary lessons to support pupils in exploring and revisiting word meanings. Key vocabulary, alongside corresponding symbols, was also displayed on the working wall to provide a constant visual reference. During shared writing, symbols were used to represent steps such as ‘think’, ‘plan’, ‘write’ and ‘check’, allowing pupils to follow the writing process visually as it was modelled. During dictation activities, I also displayed symbol-supported sentences on slides as I spoke.
Many pupils reported that the visuals supported their understanding, and several referenced them independently during discussions. However, the focus pupils continued to find it difficult to transfer whole-class instruction into independent writing and required more targeted scaffolds.
Targeted strategy
To support the identified pupils more directly, personalised symbol-based scaffolds were used to reduce memory load during independent writing. These included simplified planning frames, symbol strips showing the writing sequence and vocabulary mats tailored to each pupil’s needs. Such tools align with recommended practices for symbol-supported intervention frameworks (SENsible SENCO, 2026).
Before the end-of-unit writing task, pupils used a visual planning sheet with symbols to plan the content of their writing. While writing, they referred to a symbol strip displaying think-plan-write-check, which I used to support pupils in getting back on track independently without relying solely on adult prompts.
This approach was also used during writing skills lessons, such as teaching relative clauses, where symbols were used to break down and represent different parts of the sentence. This supported pupils in understanding and retaining the structure, enabling them to apply it more independently in their writing, in line with expectations outlined in the Department for Education’s Writing Framework (DfE, 2025).
In addition, transcription slips were used during dictation to provide a visual representation of each word within a sentence. For one pupil, key or more complex words were also written beneath the corresponding symbols, while the other two pupils relied solely on the visual representations. This adaptive approach reduced the need to hold the full sentence in working memory and supported more accurate transcription.
Over several sessions, routines were introduced to encourage independent use of these supports. Pupils were prompted to refer to the next symbol when unsure, and modelling demonstrated how symbols could be used to self-check rather than rely on adult guidance.
Findings
The impact of the targeted Widgit intervention was evident in pupils’ increased independence and confidence during writing. Pupils relied less on adult prompting and were more able to manage each stage of the writing process with reduced reliance on working memory.
This was notably clear during dictation, when pupils were required to retain and transcribe a dictated sentence. In one lesson, pupils worked with the sentence ‘On the one hand, some people argue that the holidays are too long’, which required them to maintain both structure and key vocabulary. While most pupils were able to write directly from teacher input, the focus pupils previously struggled to retain the full sentence, often forgetting key vocabulary or losing the structure mid-way. Following the introduction of transcription slips, these pupils were able to accurately record the sentence, maintaining both structure and vocabulary. This suggests that the visual scaffold supported pupils to manage more complex language during writing.
During sentence construction more broadly, symbol-based cues supported pupils to maintain their ideas and retrieve vocabulary without repeated reminders. One pupil required more consistent support to sustain writing but, with the use of Widgit symbols, was able to produce a greater amount of writing than previously, suggesting a possible reduced cognitive demand during the task. Another pupil was able to write a few additional sentences independently, demonstrating improved ability to retain and apply ideas without reliance on adult prompts. All three pupils showed improved writing fluency and stamina over time.
However, the use of symbols for high-frequency words, such as ‘the’ and ‘an’, was occasionally confusing, as these words do not have a clear or meaningful visual representation. In contrast to content words such as ‘argue’, where the symbol directly supports meaning, the symbols for grammatical words were less intuitive and could divert attention from their function within the sentence. In some cases, this actually increased cognitive demand, as pupils focused on interpreting the symbol rather than recognising the word automatically. This suggests that not all vocabulary benefits equally from symbolic representation, particularly where meaning is abstract or primarily grammatical.
Reflection and next steps
The consistent use of symbols and personalised vocabulary mats was particularly effective in supporting pupils’ independence and reducing anxiety during writing. However, some aspects required adaptation. At times, pupils became overly reliant on visual supports, hesitating to write without checking each step. This suggests the need to carefully select which vocabulary is best suited to symbolic representation and to gradually reduce scaffolding to support the development of independence.
Next steps include refining the resources by reducing less-effective symbols and continuing to model how pupils can gradually transition from visual cues to internal strategies. While some elements require careful consideration, particularly around symbol selection and the gradual fading of support, this approach offers a practical strategy for supporting inclusive writing practice in mainstream classrooms.
Read more from In Praxis: SEND and Inclusion
