University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Authenticity, appropriation and voice: One primary classroom's writing experiences

(USC Thesis Other)

Authenticity, appropriation and voice: One primary classroom's writing experiences

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content INFORMATION TO USERS
This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films
the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, som e thesis and
dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of
computer printer.
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the
copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations
and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper
alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized
copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by
sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing
from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps.
Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced
xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6" x 9” black and white
photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing
in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order.
ProQuest Information and Learning
300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, M l 48106-1346 USA
800-521-0600
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
AUTHENTICITY, APPROPRIATION AND VOICE:
ONE PRIMARY CLASSROOM’S WRITING EXPERIENCES
by
M arva Cappello
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
(EDUCATION)
August 2000
Copyright 2000 Marva Cappello
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
UMI Number: 3018060
Copyright 2000 by
Cappello, Marva
All rights reserved.
___ ®
UMI
UMI Microform 3018060
Copyright 2001 by Bell & Howell Information and Learning Company.
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
Bell & Howell Information and Learning Company
300 North Zeeb Road
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY PARC
LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 90001
This dissertation, written by
Marva Cappello_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
under the directum of h . & ! C .— Dissertation
Committee, and approved by all its members,
has been presented to and accepted by The
Graduate School, in partial fulfillment of re
quirements for die degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Dent o f Graduate Studies
Date ...A u g » .st...§ .* ..2 0 0 0
DISSERTATION COMMITTEE
Chairperson
l l
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Marva Cappello Dr. Robert Rueda
Authenticity, Appropriation and Voice:
One Primary Classroom’s Writing Experiences
This study explores the concepts of authenticity, appropriation and voice through
an investigation o f one mixed-age classroom’s writing practices across activity settings.
The major foci o f this dissertation are the children’s products and perceptions and the
role writing plays in shaping their social identities. A fundamental premise regarding the
social nature o f language frames this research. Specifically, Bakhtin’s (1981, 1986) and
Vygotsky’s (1978) theories are central to this exploration. Bakhtin makes language
dialogic and therefore inherently interactional and complex. Vygotsky discusses the dual
functions of language: a function of thought and a social function. Literacy is an
interactive and interpretive process, dynamic in situational context
The site for this research is a classroom of multi-age children in an unusual public
school. The research classroom is one of 8 clusters at the school, all team taught in double
size classrooms. The students in this cluster come from a wide range of economic and
ethnic backgrounds. I chose 5 of the 40 second and third grade students as focal
participants. Their perceptions, along with both teacher’s are at the heart of this
research.
Qualitative methods were utilized for data generation in creating a case study.
Methods employed included participant-observation, document analysis, photography
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
and open-ended interviews. Data was analyzed through inductive coding procedures. In
addition, deductive codes based on Bakhtinian theory were also used.
Five literacy portraits were compiled o f the focal participants. Their perceptions
of authenticity, appropriation and voice were viewed in relation to their social roles in the
classroom community. Findings demonstrate how each focal student drew upon their
social identities in creating texts. Reciprocally, the texts fed their social roles in the
classroom. Their writing processes and products supported a dynamic and situational
conception of learning.
The dissertation offers guidelines for classroom instruction. Suggestions for future
research are also included.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
DEDICATION
In memory of my father,
to whose paradise I subscribe.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I owe so much to my chair, Dr. Robert Rueda, who not only challenged my
preconceptions about the theory and data but reminded me to keep “real life” in
mind as I faced the stresses of the last few months. He aided me greatly in
articulating productive research questions which actualized my intentions. It is only
with his help that I was able to refine the finished product. My respect for him is
boundless.
My other committee members were also very helpful. I only returned to
school because o f Dr. Laurie MacGillivray. A doctoral degree was an out-of-reach
fantasy until we m et All during school, Dr. MacGillivray continually challenged me
to think and write outside the box. I hope I will be the kind of advisor she was to
me. I will always feel blessed to have been her student. Dr. El-Guindi was my
eleventh hour savior. She came on board with little notice bringing the
anthropological perspective I hope for.
One of my greatest joys o f graduate school has been the friendships I forged.
Nancy Walker’s support and encouragement never waivered since we met on our
first day as Dr. MacGillivray’s teaching assistants. Her stories kept me in touch
with the outside world despite many ten-hour writing sessions. I will treasure the
memories we made inside and outside academia. In Patrick Manyak I found mi
companero de alma. I am still surprised at what we have become. His insight and
frankness have afforded me growth I would have never made. Patrick’s no-holds
iii
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
barred approach to editing challenged my thinking in new ways. Who else would
have taken me surfing and camping for the first time in my life?
Without the teachers and children of Rainbow Cluster I would have no study.
Their openness and interest in my work was amazing. I have never worked with
such generous teachers. Ana and Dee welcomed me as part of the Rainbow
community from the first day of school through the last Rainbow Cluster became
my school family. I was a valued member. The focal children in particular need
acknowledgement They willingly shared their ideas and dreams with me. Their
wonderings fed my own interests throughout the study.
My family was extremely tolerant of the person I was while I was at school.
My mother waited for phone calls to NY that rarely happened. My brother and his
wife helped me financially and emotionally. Richard let me know how proud he was
to be my brother. Suzanne sent encouraging e-mails rem inding me how temporary
this all is.
No one could be more supportive of anyone than my young daughter was of
me. Through these years of school and months when mama was in
“dissertationland”, Nile sat quietly beside me and got to know Ally, Jamili and the
other children. She looked for small ways to help, counting writing samples and hole
punching interview transcriptions. She encouraged me with her smiles never
questioning what I could accomplish. Sometimes being under her watchful eye was
the only encouragement I needed.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication ii
Acknowledgements iii
CHAPTER ONE: Introduction 1
Introduction 1
Conceptual Framework 2
Importance o f the Study 3
Purpose o f the Study 4
Chapter Organization 5
CHAPTER TWO: Review of Related Literature 7
The Social Nature of Learning 7
The Social Nature of Writing 11
Authenticity 12
Appropriation & Voice 21
Research Questions 35
CHAPTER THREE: Methods 39
Introduction 39
Design 39
The Case Study 40
Setting and Participants 43
The School Community 44
The Classroom Community 45
The Workshop Community 46
Other Writing Events 49
The Focal Children 53
Data Generation 53
Participant Observation 54
Document Analysis 56
Photographs 58
Interviews 59
Data Reduction 61
Analysis 62
Deductive Procedures 63
Inductive Procedures 64
T rustworthiness 66
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table o f Contents, Continued
Benefits to the Participants 66
Definition of Terms 67
Summary 68
CHAPTER FOUR: Results 69
The Writing Experiences Defined: Introduction to the Portraits 69
Marisol 69
Jamili 86
Jared 97
Alexander 107
Ally 120
CHAPTER FIVE: Summary of Results 131
Findings Across and Beyond Focal Portraits 131
Perceptions of Purpose 131
The Impact of Appropriation and Voice 141
Authenticity 150
CHAPTER SIX: Discussion 157
Discussion o f the Findings 157
Limitations of the Study 161
Implications for Instruction 162
Implications for F uture Research 164
REFERENCES 166
CHILDREN’S LITERATURE 171
Appendix A: Photographs 173
Appendix B: Classroom Map 176
Appendix C: Writing Workshop Organizational Sheets 177
Appendix D: Focal Children Demographics 180
Appendix E: Time Line for Data Generation 181
Appendix F: Initial Student Interview Protocol 182
Appendix G: Exit Student Interview Protocol 183
Appendix H: Participant’s Notebook Sample 185
Appendix I: Deductive Coding Sheet 186
VI
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CHAPTER ONE
This chapter frames dissertation research which explores the writing practices
o f one mixed-age elementary school classroom. I studied the nature of writing in this
context through an investigation of a variety of activity settings including writing
workshop and intercurricular writing experiences. An analysis of the written products
constructed during classroom writing experiences is also important. The major foci of
this dissertation are the children’s products and perceptions, and the role writing plays
in shaping their social identities.
While examining these writing events and the products they yielded, I focused
on the concepts of authenticity, appropriation and voice. Participants’ unique
understandings of these constructs are defined in specific sociocultural contexts. Their
definitions unravel from the situated identities created in this primary classroom
through the work of written language.
Sociocultural theories have been widely applied to research in children’s writing
(Dyson, 1993, 1997,1999; Edelsky, 1991; Freeman & Sanders, 1987; Lensmire, 1994;
McLane, 1990; Nystrand, 1989; Willinsky, 1990). However, the research literature
leaves room for further investigation of the three key concepts explored in this study:
appropriation, voice and authenticity. The more recent work on voice and
appropriation (Gilbert, 1989; Hicks, 1998; Lensmire, 1994; Lensmire and Beal, 1994;
Lensmire and Satinovsky, 1998; Manyak, 1999) expand Bakhtin’s ideas in significant
ways. These authors’ work has helped to frame my own
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
assumptions about appropriation and voice. Careful review of their work helped me
identify specific places to go forward in the research.
Conceptual Framework
This research is based on a series of assumptions which shape sociocultural
theory. At the center of these theories are the works o f Bakhtin (1981, 1986),
Vygotsky (1978) and more recently Wertsch (1991, 1998). However, a narrow
definition o f a sociocultural view of literacy, one that could be easily summarized,
inherently contradicts the notion itself (Langer, 1991). I draw upon several general
factors of sociocultural theory in framing this investigation of children’s writing
practices.
A fundamental premise regarding the social nature of language is paramount.
Literacy is an interactive and interpretive process, dynamic in situational context
Learning takes active participation. Learners create knowledge as they build from and
upon their personal and social background. Because literacy practice is transformative,
context is intensely important. More specifically, the following conceptual
understandings frame the research questions and methods.
Bakhtin’s dialogic perspective of language is central to this exploration of the
constructs of authenticity, appropriation and voice. For Bakhtin, language is a social
phenomenon which can not be “neutral and impersonal... but rather it exists ... in other
people’s contexts, serving other people’s intentions” (Bakhtin, 1981, p. 294). In
school, children speak through other’s words, negotiating for voice with teachers and
peers, and within the constraints of literacy activities. Literacy learning is understood
2
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
as a unique experience shaped by constant interactions with the workings of school.
While literacy is individually constructed, our perceptions are inextricably embedded in
others concepts of ourselves and the language offerings made based on those
perceptions. Language is socially orientated
Wertsch builds upon Bakhtin’s ideas in developing his conceptual and
pedagogical view o f sociocultural theory. He adds several elements to Bakhtin’s
dialogical account of language. Among the relevant contributions is a discussion of the
“heterogeneity of voices”. Wertsch (1991) uses this term to depict the unique accents
and intentions which fill up words and utterances. The dialogic and multivocal nature
of voice, which I will elaborate in chapter two, contributes to a depiction which is
better described as a collection of voices. This accumulation o f voices by an individual
is situated and unique even though it inherently expresses others. If appropriation is to
make one’s own (Bakhtin, 1981) then the work of an individual is “to create a voice
out of the voices o f others, out o f the heteroglossia that is language” (Yancey, 1994, p.
xiii). Wertsch then challenges collective conceptions of voice representing (often under
represented) groups with individual collections of voices which are unique and
historical. He accounts for the individual in his concept of voice, but does not
underplay the important contributions made by the situational setting and mediated
activity.
Importance of the Study
This study contributes to a sociocultural perspective o f literacy by building on
earlier research addressing children’s social work in classroom writing environments
3
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
and how those interactions play out in their writing products. Participants’ definitions
lead us to implications for classroom practice.
Purpose o f the Study
The overall purpose of this study is to examine classroom writing events
through an exploration o f authenticity, appropriation and voice. By analyzing
participants understandings, guidelines for instruction are developed which foster
authentic experiences and a construction of voice through the appropriation of texts.
Appropriation implies transfer of a specific language feature. By identifying the
activity settings more likely to encourage appropriation of text, I identify situations
where children are able to use borrowed elements for their own purposes.
In addition, a close examination of participants’ definitions expands restricted
notions of authenticity as defined by the research literature. Information regarding the
contributions of the individual, their social roles within the writing setting and the
cultural tools used are highlighted to construct a multidimensional definition of the key
concepts. Because this study is framed by sociocultural theory, the guidelines
highlighted are dynamic and applicable to a variety of situations.
I plan to expand on previous research in two important ways. First, I explored
writing over a variety of classroom activity settings including those involving
expository texts. Previous research has been limited to reinventions of writing
workshop. I explored this classroom’s writing workshop, but also included assigned
writing events such as biographies, interviews, literature responses, and formatted
poetry as well as others. Second, while investigating appropriation and voice I develop
4
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
a conceptual definition o f authenticity. Since all three concepts feed and are fed by
participant’s positions in the classroom writing community, I am able to connect
valued experiences to those settings where appropriation and voice are evident. Adding
this concept has allowed me a deeper look at how social identity constructs literacy
learning and how literacy learning constructs social identity.
My aims for this study include: (a) providing a detailed, qualitative description
of the writing practices o f one mixed-aged elementary school classroom o f diverse
students in urban Los Angeles with special attention paid to the setting and cultural
tools employed by the participants; (b) identifying and describing the focus children’s
social roles in the writing environment and understand how these roles impact their
writing; and (c) elaborate the key concepts o f authenticity, appropriation and voice in
order to impact writing instruction.
Chapter Organization
This chapter has served as an introduction to the research on children’s writing
practices which follows. I have sketched out a conceptual framework which will be
further elaborated in the next chapter. The purpose and importance of the study have
been discussed and my goals for the research have been made explicit In developing
dynamic definitions o f authenticity, appropriation and voice, I specifically focus on
the children’s perceptions about writing, their written products and the reciprocal role
writing plays in shaping their social identities. The remaining chapters have been
organized in the following manner
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
In Chapter Two, I review the relevant theory and research that informs this
work. The reviewed research is organized into three strands. The first focuses on
literacy as social practice by highlighting three influential theorists: Vygotsky, Bakhtin
and Wertsch. I also review research that specifically considers writing as a social
practice. This early section frames the two that remain: authenticity, and
appropriation and voice. Summaries and analysis o f important work lead to the
research questions.
Chapter Three addresses design and methodology. I explain my choice of case
study for this research and describe the data generating procedures utilized. A detailed
description o f the research setting and participants is included. Both the deductive and
inductive analytical procedures are made explicit The coding scheme is elucidated and
trustworthiness o f the data is addressed.
Chapter Four focuses on the study’s findings. I develop five literacy portraits
of the focal participants. By providing rich samples from classroom documents,
observation notes and interview transcriptions, I am able to access student’s
perceptions about the purposes for classroom writing experiences, authenticity,
appropriation and voice. The focal children’s social roles are explored historically and
in relation to the written texts they produced.
Chapter Five summarizes the local findings in Chapter Four to answer the
research questions in broader terms. This chapter offers a comparative look across
portraits in developing dynamic definitions o f authenticity, appropriation and voice.
Chapter Six discusses the findings with respect to the research literature. It also
suggests implications for classroom practice and future research.
6
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CHAPTER TW O
The review of the literature which follows is organized from general to specific
and focuses on three strands o f research. I begin with a look at the social nature of
literacy learning paying special attention to Vygotsky, Bakhtin and Wertsch because
they impact this research so heavily. It does not mean to serve as an exhaustive look at
sociocultural theory or other theories which root from social conceptions of learning.
Instead, the overview of the social nature of learning in the early sections of this
chapter frames the survey of the literature on authenticity, appropriation and voice. I
use a social epistimological lens to view the research literature so I may highlight the
information most germane to the study and findings which follow.
The Social Nature o f Learning
I begin this review of the literature with a look at the research that socially
orients learning because the social nature of learning is a fundamental assumption at the
core o f my dissertation study. I borrow from sociocultural theory and constructivism,
but instead transcend labels by addressing the theorists and researchers whose works
profoundly influence my own.
Ley SemyQDQvich Vygotsky
Vygotsky developed an approach to cognitive psychology which views
learning as a social process. Key to this understanding is the notion that learning
precedes development as it relates to a child’s zone of proximal development.
7
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Vygotsky has identified this zone as “the distance between the actual development
level as determined by independent problem solving and the level o f potential
development as determined through problem solving under adult guidance or in
collaboration with more capable peers” (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 86). It requires an “other”
for learning to occur. Learning in the zone is a complex cultural activity that cannot be
seen independently o f process. School learning may establish a place that can nurture
the process by which a child can “grow into the intellectual life of those around him”
(Vygotsky, 1978, p. 89), and suggests that the social nature of school may be its
strongest attribute.
Language learning is specifically embedded in much of Vygotsky’s general
theories of learning. He recognizes that “the initial and primary function of speech is
communicative. Speech is a means o f social interaction, a means of expression and
understanding” (Vygotsky, 1987, p. 48, italics in the original). Therefore, language has
two functions: a function of thought and a social function. I apply these interconnected
functions to my look at children’s writing.
Mikhail Mikhailovich Bakhtin
Central to Bakhtin’s theories of language is the dialogic nature of learning.
Dialogism recognizes a relativeness in language by acknowledging competing
definitions. In language, “everything means, is understood as part o f a greater whole-
there is constant interaction between meanings, all of which have the potential
conditioning o f others” (Bakhtin, 1981, p.426). Inherent in this understanding is the
social nature o f language which is deeply connected to context Language only has
8
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
meaning in its immediate context Words change meaning as they are negotiated by a
specific user for specific intentions. Bakhtin’s theory of heteroglossia elaborated on
the role o f context in language learning. Heterglossia refers to an understanding that “a
word uttered in that place and at that time will have a meaning different than it would
have under any conditions” (263). Language then is dynamic, functioning in unique and
complex matrixes of overlapping conditions. For Bakhtin, “language is realized in the
form of individual concrete utterances (oral and written) by participants in the various
areas o f human activity” (Bakhtin, 1986, p. 60). Building from Bakhtin’s ideas of
dialogism are his theories of voice and appropriation which are explicitly addressed
later in this chapter.
James V. Wertsch
One way Wertsch builds upon Bakhtinian and Vygotskian notions about
learning literacy is by specifically addressing notions of context He explores the role
of activity itself and pays special attention to the tools employed by learners. In
Wertsch’s words, “human action typically employs ‘mediational means’ such as tools
and language, and that these mediational means shape the action in essential ways”
(Wertsch, 1991, p. 12). This view further expands a notion of context by considering
the cultural tools along with the participants in the setting. In addition, Wertsch
understands that every tool used in mediating a situation brings a long social history
with it adding to a complex analysis of the context experience. Wertsch’s views
multidimensionalize previous conceptions by elaborating the numerous influences on
the context setting.
9
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Activity Settings
Operationalizing Bakhtin’s (1981) notions o f context over text, and post-
Vygotskian ideas of activity theory (Engstrom, 1987), Tharpe and Gallimore (1988)
outline activity settings as a unit of analysis. Activity settings, as their name suggests
“incorporate cognitive and motoric action itself (activity), as well as the external,
environmental and objective features of the occasion (setting)” (Tharpe & Gallimore,
1988, p. 72). Therefore to “describe an event one must specify the who, what, when,
where and why” (74) involved. By allowing for a multi-layered view of an learning
event, activity settings are also helpful for actualizing Wertsch’s (1991, 1998) idea o f
mediational means.
This continued move toward an analysis o f whole events considers the complex
and interactive processes involved in learning. Thinking back to Bakhtin’s
heteroglossia, it is evident that if one of these contributors to the activity setting
change it is then considered a new event A few years after Tharpe and Gallimore
(1988) wrote their seminal book, Rousing Minds To Life. Gallimore collaborated with
Goldenberg (1993) to elaborate the features of an activity setting. Gallimore and
Goldenberg highlight five interwoven characteristics in their discussion of activity
settings: the participants involved in the interaction, the cultural values which frame
the event the operations which include internal and external processes, the scripts
which describe the structured behaviors o f the participants, and the purposes of
engaging in the event. Within this framework, the activity setting becomes a useful
unit of analysis for research considering literacy learning in terms of whole events
rather than individual acquisition of decontextualized skills.
10
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The next section o f this literature review builds upon the previous discussion
by looking specifically at the way the social nature of learning reveals itself in writing.
Much o f the research cited here will be revisited more explicitly when the review
focuses attention on appropriation and voice.
The Social Nature o f Writing
The advancement o f writing workshop, where children self-regulate their
participation and write on topics o f their own choosing, transformed the research
pedagogy on writing. Since the 1970’s writing workshop advocates have acknowledged
the social nature of writing (Atwell, 1987; Avery, 1993; Caullrins, 1983, 1986;
Graves, 1975, 1994). Teachers utilizing writing workshop principles organize their
writing classrooms to best capitalize on the social processes involved in creating
interesting and comprehendible texts. While participating in the workshop, student
authors help each other brainstorm and prewrite before they draft. Additionally,
workshop advocates promote peer conferencing for revising and editing. Children are
active participants in the construction of their learning. Their workshop peers become
tools for accomplishing their goals.
Building upon Bakhtin’s conceptions o f the dialogic nature o f language,
researchers of writing such as Dyson (1989, 1993, 1997,1999) and Lensmire (1994,
1998, 1999) have reconceptualized writing workshops by exploring the language
negotiations revealing themselves in classroom writing experiences. They look at the
ways student authors use writing to construct personal and social identities within the
complex interactional world of classroom writing workshops.
11
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
In several ethnographic studies of primary classroom writing, Dyson
(1989,1993, 1997) observed how children’s social relationships with others, especially
with peers, supported their growth as composers o f written story worlds. In addition,
she found the students began to use writing to accomplish social work. Writing
became a tool “to maintain and manipulate their relationships with peers” (Dyson,
1989, p. 12).
Lensmire (1994) challenged traditional ideas about writing workshop where
children actively and harmoniously write for their own intentions. In his teacher
research project Lensmire addresses the potency o f classroom relationships and
problematizes self-expression in a diverse writing community. Writing workshops
create social hierarchies where some children’s participation is constrained. His view of
peer culture is both pragmatic and theoretical focusing on the dialogic nature of the
writing community and how to help the third graders achieve his goals for them in the
workshop.
The next section considers the research literature on authenticity and classroom
experiences. This review discusses a wide range o f approaches to authenticity, many
from different epistomological perspectives. However, I choose to focus on those
studies that consider two salient features evidenced in the early sections of this
chapter a social-orientation to learning and an emphasis of context over text.
Authenticity
Authenticity is a theoretical construct widely held as a positive feature for
classrooms and instruction. However, there are competing discourses in the research
12
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
literature which leaves this notion suspended without a common definition held by the
education community. Authenticity is an important concept to study because it
suggests a model for instructional reform that improves classroom practice in regards
to participation, engagement, and school success. Furthermore, developing an essential
understanding o f authenticity is critical for looking discriminatingly at the available
research.
Authenticity traces its roots back to the existentialist movement in philosophy
in the writings of Sartre and Kikegaard. In fact, authenticity is a fundamental
existentialist concern. In her review o f the literature, Teves (1984) describes
authenticity as the “process in man’s life by means of which he attempts to fulfill his
potentialities in accord with his nature and the world” (14-15). For existentialists, man
is obligated to work to make his life meaningful. Definitions in education emerged from
the whole language paradigm. Significant amounts o f the research represents work
written by whole language theorists and practitioners during the time the movement
was flourishing in the United States (Bergeron & Rudenga, 1996; Butcheri &
Hammond, 1994; Edelsky, 1991; Kucer, 1991). Hiebert (1994) uses the term
authentic literacy to free herself from the “fray o f exchanges” (392), popular in
education circles at this time. She sees authentic literacy as a descriptive label that
includes the concepts of whole language, whole literacy, literature-based instruction
and situated learning. Dolly (1990) relates her assumptions about authenticity to
Rosenblatt’s (1985) transaction theory. Authentic literacy experiences are those
understood as a dialogue between the reader and the author. The text is a tool to help
children construct meaning for themselves.
13
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The research on authenticity represents a complex web o f overlapping and
unique assumptions and relationships. Conflict emerges in the research because
authors come to study authenticity from different epistimological perspectives and
instructional paradigms. Many o f the studies approach authenticity through a
framework o f constructivism and other social epistemic views (Dolly, 1990; Edelsky,
1991; Edelsky and Smith, 1984; Hiebert, 1994; Kucer, 1991; Myers, 1992; Vukelich &
Roe, 1995). Like Vygotsky (1978) these researchers view literacy learning as a
collection o f socially constructed practices. Learning is a dynamic process, influenced
by situational contexts which reflect elements of culture and social hierarchy (Dyson,
1993). Children are seen as active participants in the construction of knowledge.
I found a wide range of conflicting approaches to authenticity. Some
researchers focus on the processes that support and encourage authentic activity and
focus on “how to” by developing a theoretical model (Cronin, 1993; Dolly, 1990;
Newman & Wehlage, 1993; Petraglia, 1998). Other researchers describe authentic
instruction where the referent is the classroom activity. Exploring the “what is” o f
authentic practice includes looking at a variety of classroom events for exemplars o f
established criteria (Butcheri & Hammond, 1994; Keiser, 1991; Kucer, 1991; Vukelich
& Roe, 1995). Still other studies approach authenticity as a theoretical construct which
synthesizes both product and process features connecting their assumptions to
pedagogical practice (Bergeron & Rudenga, 1996; Byrd & Reid, 1995; Edelsky, 1991;
Edelsky and Smith, 1984; Hiebert, 1994; Myers, 1992). Some literature acts only as a
definitional model o f authenticity (Cronin, 1993; Newman & Wehlage, 1993;
Petraglia, 1998), while many studies apply the sentiment to classroom practice
14
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
(Bergeron & Rudenga, 1996; Butcheri & Hammond, 1994; Byrd & Reid, 1995; Dolly,
1990; Edelsky, 1991; Edelsky and Smith, 1984; Hiebert, 1994; Keiser, 1991; Kucer,
1991; Mitchell & O’Neill, 1997; Myers, 1992; Vukelich & Roe, 1995).
Two overall themes emerged from this exploration of the literature. Researchers
identified the fundamental character of authentic experiences as those which are
“imitations of life” (Vukelich & Roe, 1995, p. 179), or incorporate real life experiences
(Cronin, 1993; Dolly, 1990; Keiser, 1991; Kucer, 1991; Mitchell & O’Neill, 1997;
Petraglia, 1998). This group in the research literature describes authentic form s in
classrooms. Work in literacy recognized letter writing, journal writing, resume
preparation, learning handbooks, gift collections, and personal narratives as authentic
forms. Another group of researchers portrayed authentic activities in terms of
purposeful and meaningful engagements while seeking to distinguish between trivial
and significant content (Bergeron & Rudenga, 1996; Edelsky, 1991; Edelsky & Smith,
1984; Mims, 1999; Myers, 1992; Newman & Wehlage, 1993). Studies which
recognize authenticity in terms of meaningful engagements are more relevant to my
dissertation research. Therefore they will be the focus of my discussion.
In light of the various themes, purposes and epistemologies that unfold, it is
easy to see why developing a constant definition for authenticity is problematic.
Definitions from the 1993 Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary range from: (1)
conforming to fact and therefore trustworthy; (2) having a claimed and verifiable origin
or authorship; (3) not counterfeit or copied, not an imitation. Trustworthy, original,
and genuine are descriptors with positive attributes for instruction, but how does this
concept make sense in classrooms? The review of the research that follows will attend
15
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
to each study’s criteria for authenticity (in definitional terms), theoretical perspective,
application to classroom practice and overall analysis. I elaborate on the studies which
address authenticity in terms of meaningful engagement because they are the most
helpful in understanding the findings and discussion in later chapters o f this study.
Authenticity as Meaningful Engagements
The next section of this paper highlights research which defines authentic
experiences by their content. This research identifies incorporation of meaningful and
purposeful engagements as authentic ones. The work collected here are in many ways
dissimilar, but all consider purpose a paramount criteria.
Newman and Wehlage (1993) establish standards for authentic instruction. In
this definitional work, they explain, “we use the word authentic to distinguish between
achievement that is significant and meaningful and that which is trivial and useless” (8).
They establish five standards for authentic instruction: higher order thinking, depth of
knowledge, connections to the world beyond, substantive conversations and social
support for student achievement. The authors give exemplars which they suggest
make authenticity “more likely”. According to the authors, variable length of class
period, team teaching and hands-on activities contribute to the making of authentic
experiences. Newman and Wehlage provide a continuum for assessing instruction
based on their five established criteria for authenticity. This continuum ranks values
creating a numerical representation of the authenticity of a specific lesson. The
authors intend these measures for school reform.
16
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Other literature considers meaning with purpose and positioning defining
authentic experiences as those where four cueing systems are active: semantic,
syntactic, graphophonic and pragmatic (Edelsky, 1991; Edelsky & Smith, 1984).
Meaning and purpose are at the core of all literacy activities where children engage in
social work. Edelsky and Smith make a distinction between authentic and inauthentic
experiences as they relate to four criteria along a continuum. The four criteria are:
information, caring, integration and purpose. Information addresses purpose, choice
and volition. Caring asks about the child’s personal investment in their writing and
ownership. Integration looks at the way children relate audience, form and function in
their written experiences. Purpose looks at reasons for writing. The characteristics o f
authenticity were based on an examination o f a variety o f writing types such as letters,
invitations, dialogue journals, lists, outlines and personal narratives. Exemplars were
affixed and non-examples were also demonstrated. Inauthentic experiences are those
where the children looked to the teacher for evaluation, sought to meet the teacher’s
expectations, worked in time limits, and wrote for purposes that were unclear.
In her later work, Edelsky (1991), expands on this research to establish a
proposal for looking at literacy experiences. Her view of authenticity is quite complex,
working from three dichotomous criteria: object/subject, exercise/non-exercise, and
reading/not reading. The object/subject difference addresses sociopolitical positioning
within the classroom. Distinguishing between exercises/non-exercises is related to
purpose. “Non-exercises are initiated for something beyond instruction or evaluation
o f the literacy itself.” (76). Reading/ not-reading refers to “whether or not the reader
aims to make a text meaning for herself’ (76).
17
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Myers (1992) applies Edelsky’s framework in his work with eighth grade
English students and found Edelsky’s proposal did not fully develop the concept of
authenticity. His conclusions suggest everything is authentic in some context. Instead
he asks a new question: authentic for what purpose? Myers conceptualizes
authenticity as an individual notion dependent on children’s purposes for engaging in
literacy experience. Different purposes for engagement influence the role authenticity
plays. Myers illustrates his point by suggesting that for children who work with
deliberate intention to achieve established academic goals, doing worksheets might be
an authentic experience. Although it is an individual concept, Myers does not
underplay the importance of social work in its development. Authenticity is an
individual’s interpretation of a situational context Myers also finds that when
researchers look for features or characteristics to determine what is authentic, they
infuse those determinations with personal values. In other words, experiences
identified as authentic by researcher created criteria are authentic to the researcher and
not necessarily to the participants. Instead of etic categories imposed by researchers,
Myers promotes a situated and emic approach to authenticity.
In contrast to Myers’ dynamic notion o f authenticity, Bergeron and Rudenga
(1996) examine thematic teaching for exemplars of authenticity. Five criteria are
created, each working over a continuum. Bergeron and Rudenga ask the following five
questions when examining school experiences for authenticity: (1) Is the purpose of
the activity for evaluation or practice or for communication?; (2) What is the level o f
student choice?; (3) Is the audience assigned by the teacher or negotiated by the child?;
(4) Are resources contrived or genuine?; (5) Are activities relevant or superficial with
18
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
regards to curriculum and life long learning? The researchers give classroom examples
to support their framework but have no outcomes to compare or stated purposes for
planning for authentic literacy classroom experiences.
Kucer (1991) developed a frame for looking at literacy events for signs of
authenticity. This frame consists of three layers: cognitive authenticity,
developmental authenticity and sociocultural authenticity. Cognitive authenticity
finds meaning at the center of all literacy events. Classroom activities cannot be
cognitively authentic if making meaning is not the primary goal. Developmental
authenticity reflects constructivism and Vygotsky’s idea o f intrapsychological transfer
where knowledge moves from social construction through mediation and sharing before
it can be internalized (1978). Sociocultural authenticity reflects the pragmatic ways
individuals within their culture “use literacy to mediate their interactions with world”
(Kucer, 1991, p. 539).
Discussion on Authenticity
All of the perspectives reviewed here make strong contributions to a
development of a construct of authenticity. Each one was helpful in deciding the
approach to the research which follows, yet there are some gaps in the research that
suggest further exploration. Newman and Welhage (1993) align the construct of
authenticity with experiences which are significant and meaningful and make
pedogological suggestions for increasing the likelihood of authentic occurrences in
classrooms. However, their suggestions (variable length of class periods, team
teaching, and hands-on activities) might be recognized as sound classroom practice, but
19
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
are not related back to their own identification of experiences which are meaningful and
significant. Edelsky and Smith’s (1984) work is important to my own because it
examines authenticity across activity settings. However, it defines authenticity as a
stable construct identified by established criteria and the use o f non-examples. My
assumptions about authenticity include flexibility over classroom events. In other
words, it is context specific and cannot be defined across participants or writing
experiences.
While Myers’ article makes a strong case for his conceptualization o f
authenticity, it is interesting to note that Myers studied in a homogeneous school
setting, one which offers little cultural, racial or economic diversity. Considering his
position that authenticity is personal and dynamic, I wondered if studying in diverse
settings would yield the same conclusions. Like this dissertation research, Myers is
concerned with portraying participant’s perceptions. In light of this concern I was
interested to see how children from diverse backgrounds differ in their ideas about
what it means to be authentic. His fundamental conclusion is that everything is
authentic in some situational context and “the social contexts o f literacy are neither
static nor single, nor can they be generalized for all students or for any one student
across all moments of literate action” (302). This makes a lot o f sense when
considering developmental and emotional challenges faced in schools every day.
Furthermore, his position compliments the changing personalities and demographics of
today’s schools.
Studies that suggest we use authenticity to distinguish between achievement
which is trivial and significant (Newman & Wehlage, 1993) make sense, but put us at
20
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
risk, as Myers (1992) suggests of implanting our values on instruction and devaluing
students notions about what are purposeful and meaningful experiences. Furthermore,
if we accept Myers contention that “the social contexts o f literacy are neither static
nor single, nor can the be generalized for all students or for any one student across all
moments of literate action” (302), then talking about what is authentic becomes “local
knowledge” (Geertz, 1973) and difficult to use for classroom implications.
The next section o f this literature review shifts attention to the two other key
concepts at the heart o f this dissertation study: appropriation and voice.
Appropriation and Voice
For the purposes o f this review I organized literature discussing appropriation
and voice together. They are interconnected features o f a dialogic view of language and
language learning. In addition, theorists and researchers often talk about the two
together. I examine the literature on voice and appropriation that has its roots in two
ideologies: writing workshop and sociocultural theory. While I include a look at
workshop advocate’s perspectives on voice, the literature which expands Bakhtmian
notions are the most relevant for understanding the research findings which follow in
Chapters Four and Five.
Voice is a slippery construct. Despite many clear theoretical and operative
definitions in the research literature, voice remains elusive. In fact, it is because
research on voice has emerged from several, sometimes competing views, that is
remains a highly used yet often misunderstood idea. In the introduction to Voices on
Voice: Perspectives, Definitions, Inquiry, Yancey (1994) addresses several references:
21
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
as infusing the process of writing;
as a reference for truth, for self;
as a reference for human presence in text;
as a reference for multiple, often conflicting selves;
as a source o f resonance, for the writer, reader and text;
as the appropriations of others: writers, text;
as the approximations of others;... (Yancey, 1994, p. xviii)
Questions surface from an examination of this list. Is voice a singular or plural
construct? Is it developmental or inherent? Is it found inside the text or insider the
reader/writer? Is it autonomous or dependent? Is voice stable or dynamic in nature?
The answers to these questions are embedded in different theoretical frameworks and
epistemologies.
These questions are not as binary as they might seem, and of course these
references are not always rivaling each other. Definitions and uses overlap in many
places creating a complex topography. This simple list is a testament to the multiple
ways voice is depicted- What is clear is that voice cannot be defined by universal
terms. As this review addresses the various conceptions o f voice, my focus will be to
find areas of discord and harmony among these views and develop my own definition
of voice that will frame the study presented in the following chapters.
Writing Workshop Views of Appropriation and Voice
The metaphor of voice is based in speech. It refers to our talk, which is layered
with differences in tone, pitch, and volume. Our oral voices are so uniquely our own
that it is said we have our “own voiceprint, the speaking analogue to fingerprint”
22
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
(Yancey, 1994, p.viii), which distinguishes us from others. Understanding this notion
so singularly feeds a conception of voice which has an unique existence. Writing
workshop advocates (Atwell, 1987; Avery,1993; Caulkins,1983, 1986; Graves,1994;
Murray, 1991) identify voice as an individual conception, as personal voice that
expresses inner truth. Voice is the representation of an authentic self. It is the author’s
unique expression “Voiceless writing is addresses ‘to whom it may concern’” (Graves,
1994, p. 81), but it is also left without a closure or a signature to identify its sender.
There is no “Yours truly” or “Sincerely yours”.
Graves (1994) identifies voice as the “driving force” of the writing process, the
author’s presence in the text. It is the power which publicly expresses our inner
selves. Voice is something that can be found within; it is expressionistic. Workshop
pedagogy supports self-examination when looking to realize one’s own voice. Student
author’s experiences and interests are taken seriously.
This conception of voice is individual and singular, working from the inside out.
Steson (1996) argues that “student autonomy [is] the basis for voice.” (77). It is a
unitary character of an individual’s expression that tells the reader who we are. Voice is
intrinsic and precedes the writing. It emerges as a recognizable and consistent quality
that sustains itself across texts and even across genres. Graves (1994) pinpoints voice
as the feature that tells him the most about the child as an author. “It is the writer’s
voice that gives me the best sense o f his or her potential” (81). Voice is recognized as
the desired outcome o f the the writing process. For workshop advocates, achieving the
goal o f voice in writing takes a concept that permeates the entire writing process. It
cannot be described as a stage or component that children pass through. Voice is not an
23
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
ingredient we can add to flavor the writing. Graves (1994) tells us voice “should
breathe through the entire process” (81).
Elbow (1994), a contributor to writing workshop pedagogy, illuminates five
meanings o f voice: audible voice, dramatic voice, distinctive voice, voice with authority
and resonant voice. He tries to separate these theories o f voice from theories o f self
and only concedes in a “link between the known text and the unknown actual author”
(2), with the fifth definition, resonant voice or author’s presence in text. This review
will address Elbow’s ideas which have most relevance for this paper: distinctive voice
and resonant voice.
Distinctive voice is interesting because it acknowledges a recognizable mark
that is consistent despite situations. Generally, distinctive voice is a stable quality.
Yet, Elbow discusses the situated variations we all display. Audience, both stated and
implied, effects tone, inflection, pitch and volume in oral and written worlds. Elbow
questions why having a distinctive voice is a desirable trait. He suggests that it might
be more advantageous to have the ability to use many voices. His conception of voice
includes its use as a way to develop relationships with various audiences.
Resonant voice or presence is what Elbow (1994) calls the “real voice” (16).
Here theories of self, identity, sincerity, and authenticity abound. What makes
Elbow’s views different from other writing workshop advocates is that his model of
self is not stable and constant. Elbow recognizes a dialogic quality in self as well.
Resonant voice “points to the relationship between discourse and the unconscious”
(17). He accepts a multivocal understanding of voice that will be expanded on later in
24
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
this chapter. It is important to note here, however, that for Elbow, voice is both
inherent and emerging.
Several other contradictions appeared while reviewing the literature. For most
researchers and teachers who understand voice as an individual expression, the concept
is singular (uniquely one’s own) and stable (it maintains across texts). Even though
voice is recognized as the desired outcome o f the writing process, it leaves little for
teachers to do. How can something so unique and already deep within a student author
be taught? Recognizing voice as inherent and not teachable, some of the same
researchers and teachers describe a nurturing o f voice. Here, it is conceived as singular,
but developmental. The process in which students “come to voice” is depicted in
various ways. Graves (1994) and Caulkins (1986) explain a process where voice
emerges naturally when student authors are allowed to make good choices. For Steson
(1996) finding your voice also happens naturally but by “the student individually
discovering and gaining confidence in what they have to say” (74).
In an earlier book, Caulkins (1993) describes the “third-grade plateau” that
faces young writers in school. She portrays a change in students as they progress
through the grades and become better at doing school. “Somewhere between the first
and third grade, the playfulness and personal investment had gone from composition”
(12) By third grade, children tend to focus their writing on conventions, often the
writing tool most valued by teachers. Caulkins describes one third grader who is the
focus of her study. “Her writing was a display of spelling and penmanship-not her
mark on the world. Instead of putting herself on the line, Susie had chosen a safe
challenge” (12). Caulkins (1986) believes children’s voices resound before they leam to
25
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
take the safer route in writing. Younger children, not yet bound by conventions of
written language are “a step ahead ...but we pay a price for this step...they include
colloquialisms...” (75). How can teachers balance the nurturing of individual
expression with the conventions of language? There will always be a price to pay.
A review o f the workshop literature finds the expressionists have generally
portrayed voice as a stable, singular, and autonomous, clear representation of an
author’s self. It values children’s unique contributions to their texts and encourages
them to write honestly, expressing a truth within. Supporters believe through choice
and discovery children naturally find their voices in a writing workshop. Conflict
arises when the individual emphasis of voice is juxtaposed against the social nature of
workshop classrooms. The workshop pedagogy does not account for the social work
they invite children to participate in. In addition, writing workshop pedagogy neglects
to explain the development of voice, possibilities of multivocal selves, or the influence
of hierarchy in classroom settings. The next section will begin to address these issues.
Sociocultural Views of Appropriation and Voice
Unlike workshop advocates conception of voice as a static feature found within
the writer, Bakhtin’s (1981, 1986) understanding is dynamic and developmental. It is
filled with intention and will. It is the “speaking personality, the speaking conscious”
(Bakhtin, 1981, p. 434). Voice is not “found” or “discovered” by a speaker or an
author. Instead, it is achieved through active participation. Bakhtin weaves voice into
the construct of appropriation which depends on deliberate intention. Voice is one
feature of the appropriation process.
26
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Bakhtin describes appropriation as the ability to bring something into one’s
self or to make something one’s own (1981). Of course it is never that simple. Words,
already filled with other’s intentions resist appropriation. The following is worth
quoting at length because it makes several points which need elaboration:
The word in language is half someone else’s. It becomes
‘one’s own’ only when the speaker populates it with his
own intention, his own accent, when he appropriates the
word, adapting it to his own semantic and expressive
intention. Prior to this moment of appropriation, the word
does not exist in a neutral and impersonal language (it is not,
after all, out of a dictionary that the speaker gets his
words!), but rather it exists in other people’s mouths, in
other people’s contexts, serving other people’s intentions:
it is from there that one must take the word and make it
one’s own. (Bakhtin, 1981, p.293-294)
Bakhtin has conceptualized voice as: an active engagement, a social construction and
therefore multivocal, yet still unique.
Active Engagement
We are not passive vessels for voice. Voice does not hide deep within our
private selves waiting to be found or discovered by the public. Instead, voice is
actively constructed and is filled with will and volition. The aforementioned quote uses
active language to describe the process of appropriation. We “populate”, “adapt”,
“take”, and “make”, when we appropriate (Wertsch, 1998). Further, some situated
27
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
language resists assimilation. “Forcing... [language] to submit to one’s own intentions
and accents is a difficult and complicated process” (Bakhtin, 1981, p. 294).
Voice, like other language engagements, is also active because it is tied to certain
cognitive functions (Bakhtin, 1986; Vygotsky, 1978; Wertsch, 1991, 1998). It takes
negotiation between inner and outer functions o f speech. “Voice serves as a constant
reminder that the mental functioning in the individual originates in social,
communicative processes” (Wertsch, 1991, p. 13).
Social and Multi vocal Views o f Appropriation and Voice
Language is a social phenomenon. Like the spoken word, text “does not exist
in neutral and impersonal language... but rather it exists... in other people’s contexts,
serving other people’s intentions” (Bakhtin, 1981, p. 294). In school, children speak
through other’s words, negotiating for voice with teachers and peers, and within the
constraints of literacy activities. Voice is an intrinsically dialogic concept. “The unique
speech experience of each individual is shaped and developed in continuous and
constant interaction with other’s individual utterances” (Bakhtin, 1986, p. 89).
However, the back and forth turn taking of conversation is not a true depiction o f the
process of appropriation. It is not so tidy. Some utterances are easily filled with
accents and volition while others fight appropriation.
In the referent quote, Bakhtin uses “word” to identify the active unit in the
process of appropriation. It would have been clearer to use “utterance” in his
definition. His description of utterance is important to the conversation o f voice
because it carries the heteroglossia of language. Bakhtin (1986) identifies the utterance
28
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
as the “real unit” o f speech (71). It is a meaning unit, and not simply a language unit
The utterance is a holistic feature sometimes (but rarely) composed of individual
words. Often the utterance consists o f phrases or sentences. It is deeply dependent
on context because it is dynamic in nature. Every “utterance is made specifically
social, historical, concrete and dialogized” (Bakhtin, 1981, p. 433). The dialogic texture
of the utterance furthers a multivocal conception of voice.
Voice is multivocal in at least three ways. First, multivocal refers to the
dialogue that occurs from the negotiation between inner and outer speech functions.
“Human communicative and psychological processes are characterized by a
dialogicality of voices: when a speaker produces an utterance, at least two voices can
be heard simultaneously” (Wertsch, 1991, p. 12). The second multivocality results
from the act of appropriating utterances already where “all words already have a
‘taste’ of a profession, a genre, a tendency, a party, a particular work, a particular
person, a generation, an age group, the day and hour” (Bakhtin, 1981). Finally, we
hear beyond our own efforts to include our expression of personal voice with the voice
of the cultural tool defined by its affordances and constraints. This is especially
evident in writing classrooms where children work either independently or in groups,
with specific cultural tools such as a narrative, report or letter. Writing itself becomes a
tool for expression with its own very situated advantages and restrictions. “The single
utterance, with all its individuality and creativity, can in no way be regarded as a
completely free combination of forms of language” (Bakhtin,1986, p. 81 italics in the
original). Therefore, the ability to appropriate cannot be understood as a
responsibility o f an individual, but rather a situated response to the purpose of the
29
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
literacy experience, the positioning of the participant, and the negotiation o f meaning
through dialogic encounters with voices of others.
Another way to think about multivocality is through Wertsch’s (1991)
depiction of the “heterogeneity of voices” comprising the unique accents and
intentions which fill up words and utterances. If we consider the heterogeneity of
voices, then voice would be better conceptualized as a collection of voices. This
accumulation of voices is situated and unique even though it inherently expresses the
voices of others. If appropriation is to make one’s own (Bakhtin, 1981) then the work
o f an individual is “to create a voice out of the voices o f others, out of the heteroglossia
that is language” (Yancey, 1994, p. xiii).
Appropriation, although intrinsically social is a process of making choices. It
goes beyond mimicry, reworking and recharging language for new purposes.
The idea of appropriation reminds us that our voices are
dependent on the voices o f others who precede us and
provide us with words to use. On the other hand, the notion
o f appropriation highlights the taking over, the working
over, by individuals, of the language o f others.
(Lensmire and Satanovsky, 1998, p. 284)
Appropriation makes it clear that voice is not an innate trait. It is deliberately
constructed through an intentional reworking of the charged voices of others.
Appropriation is dialogic and social. Therefore, it is also multivocal. Every utterance
contains at least two voices. Every utterance has a social, cultural and historical
context which is ever changing as people use it for their own deliberate intentions.
30
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Finally, voice is not singular, but it is uniquely situated by speakers and authors.
Voice is social, multivocal, and dynamic, but it is also a matchless phenomenon.
Reconceptions o f Appropriation and Voice
Recently many researchers (Dyson, 1998, 1999; Hicks, 1998; Lensmire, 1994;
Lensmire & Beal, 1994; Manyak, 1999) have taken up a renewed interested in the
concept of voice, particularly as it relates to children’s writing. Building from
Bakhtinian beliefs, this body of research is different from the work emerging from
traditional writing workshop perspectives in three significant ways. First, these
studies challenge Graves’ (1994) and other’s fundamental idea that voice is stable and
persists over contexts. This recent work represents a dynamic view of voice: one that
changes and develops as it appropriates language. The studies I present here are also
different because like Elbow (1994), they acknowledge a multivocal view o f voice
which supports a flexible existence. This research does not portray voice as a singular
concept. Finally, the following studies oppose the traditional workshop view that
describes voice as an authentic truth found within the writer, one which exists long
before the writing. These studies change the idea of voice showing itself from the
inside out by expanding on Bakhtinian (1981) and Vygotskian (1978) notions about
the social nature of learning. Learning happens socially before it happens internally.
While these differences are significant, we will find that many of the studies highlighted
here also situate themselves in workshop settings.
In When Children Write: Critical Re-visions o f the Writing Workshop.
Lensmire (1994) depicts the third grade writing workshop he guided children through.
31
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The workshop’s goals centered around “two related senses o f voice: one artistic and
aimed at naming yourself; the other political and focused on naming the world” (10).
As Lensmire struggled through the work o f the workshop, his goals for the children
evolved. He wanted students to “find” their voices, as workshop typically promotes,
but with the understanding that voice emerges through social interaction. Relating
these two elements has been a source o f conflict in workshop literature. On one hand,
there is the notion of voice found deep within the author waiting to be discovered
through “inside” work. On the other hand, the social structure o f the workshop calls
for “outside” work. In addition, Lensmire emphasized another sense o f voice for his
students: one that inserts a writer and texts into public spheres. This other sense of
voice is a textural power, with theoretical underpinnings in critical pedagogy, resulting
from active participation in the community.
As a teacher-researcher Lensmire generated a variety o f data. He was a
participant observer, conducted informal interviews and analyzed the products of
workshop writing. Through many concrete and elaborate examples, Lensmire
demonstrates the workings of his workshop, providing children access to a discovery
o f voice. However, Lensmire leaves himself open for criticism in two ways. First,
Lensmire never abandons the idea that children “find” their voices. He acknowledges
the crucial role social work plays in the development of voice, yet still refers to the
voice within. Second, Lensmire maintains voice as the goal o f his workshop. He
describes it as a process, but does not change the workshop’s objective.
Lensmire continues to write about voice and appropriation in several relevant
articles. Lensmire and Beal (1994) develop Bakhtin’s construct o f appropriation and
32
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
apply it to their analysis of one third grader’s writing. Excerpted from the larger study
already outlined, this article looks at texts created during the classroom writing
workshop. They explore the sources used by this student author and the
transformation of the material for appropriation in the new text Specifically, they
address three questions: from where did the author borrow material, what specifically
was borrowed, and how did the author transform the borrowed bits for her own
intentions? In examining this third grader’s original book, Lensmire and Beal found
that the student author borrowed material from two sources: a commercial classroom
trade book and local peer culture in the construction of new texts.
Manyak’s recent work (1999) expands on the struggle of finding voice by
applying the Bakhtinian concept o f ventriliquation to the analysis of child authored
texts. This teacher-research project generated multilayered sources of data. Manyak
analyzed writing samples and collected fieldnotes depicting the informal conversations
that occurred as part of the text construction. In this way, he was able to reconstruct
the literacy history of the text for his analysis. Manyak explores the ways children
“[employed] generic structures and borrowed content as mediational means and the
affordances and constraints these tools offered” (7). His study extends Bakhtinian
principles by utilizing them in his analysis of young Latina/o students’ narratives. By
doing so, Manyak clearly depicts the ways these student authors utilize borrowed
content and structures for their own purposes. Furthermore, the writing itself also
becomes a mediational means placing the students in the classroom com m unity
Hicks (1998) constructs a case study of one student author’s appropriations in
her search for voice. Hicks conception of voice is complex in that she describes
33
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
students’ “construction” o f voice as well as suggestions for teachers who can help
children “find” their voice. Like Lensmire, she investigates the ways “personal voice
intersects] with the social genres that partially define successful writing in school”
(28). Hicks traces the development of one writer, Janeen, an African-American, non
middle class first grader. Janeen evolves from a labeler and list maker to a narrative
storyteller reflecting the dominant discourse practice of her specific classroom. Hick’s
position is that “the act of achieving an individual voice is one involving active dialogue
with the discourses of one’s social surrounding.” (29). Janeen appropriated story form
as a way to do her social work and further, for a way for her to achieve voice.
While examining the ways pop-culture symbols and characters are used by
child writers, Dyson (1997) underscores the active role students take in appropriating
material from familiar movie and television episodes. Further, Dyson stresses the
social work involved in this negotiation and the contributions classroom workshop
peers make to this process (1993, 1997). Dyson explores the ways young children
appropriate for their own intentions. Her ethnographic work in classrooms affords her
rich opportunities for data generation. As part o f one of her year long studies, Dyson
(1999) outlines five kinds o f appropriation children employed to do the official and
unofficial social work of school. First, children appropriated content: usually borrowed
bits from films and sports media. They also appropriated forms, often choosing to
create announcements over narratives which typically define many writing workshops.
Third, children appropriated graphic symbols and arrangements. They borrowed
specific utterances. Finally, they appropriated cultural ideologies. This intentional
34
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
negotiation for a place in their social worlds is really a negotiation for a voice in the
classroom.
Discussions on Appropriation and Voice
Voice has been portrayed as singular/multiple, inherent/developed,
inside/outside, stable/dynamic and collective/collected construct by different theorists.
It is a complex term used to represent different things to different people. Writing
workshop advocates conceptualize voice as a singular and stable notion inherent in the
writer long before the writing. It is found or discovered in a place deep within the
writer and emerges as the author’s inner truth. Sociocultural theorists understand voice
as a dialogic, social and multivocal concept. It is a unique expression accumulated
through experiences and by appropriating others texts.
I understand voice as a situated and relevant expression of oneself. Because it
is specific to the setting and the constructor, voice must be multiple. Because it is
achieved through appropriating others utterances, it is dynamic and social. Because
every utterance has a social and cultural history, I understand voice to be a collection
o f voices. Regardless o f how one understands it, voice humanizes text
Research Questions
A review of the literature provides a stronger theoretical framework and a look
at where my own research follows. With this information in mind, I specify the
research questions elaborating their intents.
35
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Definitions and Purpose
The first questions leading the research investigate the way the participants
define and perceive the writing experiences offered in Rainbow Cluster over the school
year. The children and teachers contextualized their examination writing procedures
and learning outcomes for specific experiences. Their understandings are situated.
Teacher perceptions o f purpose and intent are contrasted to the focal children's
understandings. The questions posed are:
•How are writing experiences defined by the participants?
•How do teachers and students perceive the purpose and
nature o f various writing activities?
Appropriation and Voice
I build from Bakhtin’s definition o f appropriation where speakers and writers
actively fill language with their own accents and intentions to make it one’s own
(1981). I pay special attentions to the activity settings where children borrow for then-
own purposes. The activity setting is an especially useful unit of analysis because it is
not enough to find out who appropriates, but additionally should ask why. Therefore,
any exploration of appropriation should consider the complex language experiences as
a whole.
My investigation of voice is embedded in notions of appropriation. Therefore
writing workshop advocate’s definitions o f voice as a singular and stable concept are
not very helpful. Instead, I depend on Bakhtin (198 l)’s illumination o f voice which is
clearly multivocal, developmental and related to author’s social history and self-
36
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
perceptions. Like Elbow (1994) I understand voice as a situated and relevant
expression of oneself. The research questions that address appropriation and voice
are:
•How do appropriation and voice impact classroom writing?
•What are the activity settings more likely to encourage
appropriation?
•Why are children more likely to borrow in these settings?
•How do children’s social roles affect appropriation and
construction of voice?
Authenticity
Participants’ perceptions of important and meaningful classroom writing work
are also explored. Like Newman and Welhage (1993), I align the construct of
authenticity with experiences which are significant and meaningful especially when
distinguishing from those that are trivial. However, I also agree with Myers (1992)
when he suggests that researchers implant values on instruction and devalue students
notions about what are purposeful and important experiences. Therefore, my
exploration approaches authentic writing experiences inductively. I concern myself
with what the participants’ value as important and meaningful. Further, I examine the
ways the focal participants’ social history and participation impact the way they
distinguish significant from trivial classroom experiences. Like Edelsky and Smith
(1984) I generated data across activity settings. However in contrast with that
research, my concept of authenticity is one that does not remain stable across
37
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
situations. Furthermore, I apply Meyer’s (1992) findings to a diverse classroom of
young children to discover if authenticity remains personal and dynamic. Finally, I
extend the body of research by keeping in mind Bakhtin’s (1981, 1986) notion of
dialogism and Vygotsky’s (1978) conception o f the two functions of language: a
function of thought and a social function. The following research questions address
authenticity:
•What are the conditions under which authentic writing
occurs?
•How do children’s social roles impact definitions o f writing
and authenticity?
The following chapter describes the specific research design and methodology
utilized in answering these research questions. I describe the research setting and
participants, specify data generation procedures, and give an explicit description of the
deductive and inductive analysis. The chapter ends with a discussion of the
trustworthiness of the data as well as a section defining the key terms.
38
permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CHAPTER THREE
In order to best answer research questions which attend to the processes and
dynamic nature o f classroom writing, a flexible yet rigorous design was utilized. In the
following chapter I explain my choice o f using qualitative methods in this research,
describe the study setting and participants, address the specific research procedures,
present a time line for data generation, and frame my approach to the analysis. The
chapter concludes with study benefits for the participants.
Design
This research was conducted qualitatively because it looks at a social
phenomenon as it occurs in its natural setting (Marshall and Rossman, 1995).
Literacy, when seen as a sociocultural activity is neither static nor isolated.
Furthermore, writing experiences are immersed in the scene. They are situated and
socially constructed and therefore can not be explored decontextually. In addition, this
study emphasizes the processes of writing over exploring writing products.
The review o f the literature suggests that authenticity, appropriation and voice
are complex, dynamic and context-sensitive. Therefore they could not be universally
measured. I selected methods which best suit these characteristics. These included
participant-observation, interviews, photographs, and document analysis. They are
described in the following section.
39
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The Case Study
I constructed a case study which looks at the dynamic features of authenticity
and its relationship to appropriation and voice within one mixed-age elementary school
classroom’s writing community. A case study was decided upon as the research
approach because the classroom is a “bounded system” where it is “not always easy
to say where the child ends and the environment begins” (Stake, 1994). A case study
is an appropriate qualitative method for this research because it “investigates a
contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context [where] the boundaries between
the phenomenon and the context are not clearly evident” (Yin, 1994, p. 13).
Furthermore, the case study allows for use of additional qualitative procedures. This
study will employ four in its construction: participant-observations, document
analysis, photography, and interviews.
Participant-Observation
The phrase participant-observation is used here as referred to by Taylor and
Bogdan (1984). They define participant-observation as “research that involves social
interaction between researcher and the informants in the milieu of the latter, during
which data are systematically and unobtrusively collected” (15). I understand writing
as a complex and highly situated transactional relationship between the participants
and the text. Since social influences permeate the classroom writing experiences
investigated in the context of this case study, data is collected naturally, as it occurs.
My role as a participant observer changed over time in the writing community.
I chose to refrain from directing any classroom activities but instead made myself
40
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
available to help out the teachers and children in small ways. Like Dyson (1989) I
acknowledge that “the precise nature of my role in the classroom was determined by
the nature of the relationships expected in that room between adult observers and by
the children and by my own sense of appropriate adult behavior” (16). I enlisted the
teachers’ help in differentiating myself from them. I was introduced as Marva and not
Ms. Cappello which would be more appropriate for a teacher in this setting. It was
clear that my focus was on literacy learning and I was specifically interested in their
writing. While I did occasionally conference with the children over revisions, I also told
them when “I was too busy with my own writing” to conference. That was a right
extended to all members of the writing community. More often I helped distribute
papers, tried to problem solve on the computer, or wrote conventionally spelled words
in children’s word books (personal spelling dictionaries created out o f need).
Document Analysis
Document analysis is helpful, but alone cannot explore participants’ decisions
around choice and purpose in their writing. Using documents offers the advantages of
stability, and objectivity because they are usually not created for the benefit o f the
research (Merriam, 1998). The samples in this study were not created for my benefit
but instead are simply the products of the studied classroom writing processes.
Writing samples provided me with outcomes o f the classroom writing I observed and
participated in. Further, because documents are products of the context in which they
are produced, they are therefore “grounded in the real world” (126), of the study
setting. Included in the analysis are written works at various stages in the writing
41
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
process: prewrites, rough drafts, final drafts and published works. Published works
took the form of books, letters, hyper-studio texts, and other computer generated
documents. In this study, samples will also be used to support children’s
conversations about their writing.
Photography
Photography is included alongside more traditional data generation methods.
Still photographs guided interviews with children and extend to the reader another view
o f the presented data. I agree with Preskill (1995),
The value in photography lies in its ability to provide a
record o f people, places and events in a timely and authentic
way while contributing to the art of a method o f
communication that enhances understanding (Preskill, 1995,
p. 185).
Photographs were created of the writing environment, the teacher scribed products of
shared writing and o f the children doing the work of writing in a variety of situations.
In addition, the children photographed classroom writing with disposable cameras
creating personal visuals of writing perceptions (see Appendix A).
Because I am interested in constructing both a synchronic and diachronic view
o f this classrooms writing events, photography has been an especially helpful medium.
Singly, a photograph captures a rich description of one moment in the research.
Linked together, photographs offer a view of change over time.
42
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Interviews
There are two reasons why interviews will be included in this project. First,
interviews are important because they allow the participants an active role in the
construction o f an understanding of authenticity and appropriation. My ontological
position suggests that other’s understandings, interpretations and interactions “are
meaningful properties of the social reality” (Mason, 1996, p.39), which I am trying to
explore. Furthermore, “the ethnographic interview provides the researcher with critical
data about the participants’ perceptions” (Tierney, 1991, p. 10). The second reason
for including interviews builds on earlier research which addresses authentic instruction
in classrooms. Kucer (1991) used interviews as a way to focus on how the teacher and
the students understood the intent of literacy lessons. He explored the nature o f the
participants’ replies and looked for relationships between teacher and student
understandings. I too am interested in comparing teacher and student perceptions
regarding purpose and intent of literacy lessons.
Interviews were treated as conversations (Kvale, 1996), as classroom discourse
which normally occurs in the community. Initial and exit interviews manifested
themselves in different forms. While both tapped childlike, informal talk about
writing, the second interviews reported preliminary findings and utilized writing
samples and photographs as interview tools.
Setting and Participants
After reviewing the literature, I decided to look for a research setting where the
teacher was already experienced at running a writing workshop. I felt that running the
43
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
workshop would negatively interfere with data generation (how could I do both well?)
and would fix children’s perceptions of my role in their classroom community. If I ran
the workshop I would be a teacher and would be treated with the authority that comes
with wearing that label. Like Dyson (1989,1993, 1997) I felt that my role as
participant should be limited to helping out in small ways so that I could attend to the
engrossing work of generating and collecting data.
The School Community
I first met Dee Joseph (a pseudonym, as are all other names in this text) when
she was a participant in a university institute I facilitated which focused on helping
struggling readers. Dee team teaches at the Bridge School (also a pseudonym), a unique
public elementary school located in urban Los Angeles. Unlike traditional public
elementary schools, Bridge School is composed of eight multi-age clusters o f children
where each class covers a three year age span (approximately two grade levels).
Clusters are team taught in double sized classrooms adapted for the purpose of
accommodating 40 or more children.
The school was founded in 1977 by parents seeking an option to conventional
public school programs. It maintains a strong partnership with administrators, teachers
and parents in shared decision-making. At the Bridge school “children have
opportunities to make choices, to verbalize, to succeed and to make mistakes as part of
the learning process” (Mission Statement). In addition, the school emphasizes
interdisciplinary activities where students assume responsibility for their learning.
Their goal is to enable children to become life long learners. In addition to its charter
44
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
status, the school is a magnet which insures a diverse student population reflecting the
racial, ethnic and socioeconomic make-up o f the city in which it finds itself home.
There are 8 languages spoken by the approximately 380 students.
The Classroom Community
Dee teaches in the Rainbow Cluster along with her partner, Ana Handle.
Because the children in this cluster, are six to nine years old they qualify for class-size
reduction in the state of California. Under Senate Bill 1777, classes in kindergarten
through grade three are limited to 20 or fewer students. Of the 40 children in this
cluster, seven have been looped up and are spending their second year with these
teachers. The decision to loop children is not made because the have not met a certain
learning criteria: these are not holdovers. Children routinely stay in the same cluster for
two years. This year consideration was given to those students who “needed an
opportunity to shine”.
The Rainbow Cluster is home to a diverse group of students. O f the 40
students, 19 are boys and 21 are girls. 14 students qualify for GATE programs (gifted
and talented enrichment), five receive help from a special education resource specialist
(RSP) and eight participate in a school wide intervention program. Many students
come from middle class homes and 12 qualify for free or reduced lunch based on
income guidelines. 26 students would typically be identified as second grades and the
remaining 14 would be third graders. It is an ethnically and linguistically diverse group
as well: eight children are African American, eight are Korean, seven are Latina/os and
seventeen are Caucasian. There are seven children classified as limited English
45
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
proficient and five more were redesignated as English proficient this year. These 12
students bring either Spanish or Korean to the classroom from home.
Both teachers play an important role in this study. Dee Joseph has been
teaching for seven years, four of them at the Bridge School and all with the same
partner, Ana Handle. Dee is a fully credentialed teacher who holds a Masters Degree in
education and at the time of the study was pursuing her National Board Certification
along with Ana and several other teachers from Bridge School. Ana is also fully
credentialed. In addition to her work for the National Board Certification, she earned
her Masters Degree during the year I worked in their classroom. Both are in their late
twenties and Caucasian o f European descent
There were many overall goals for the children in Rainbow Cluster. It is
important to note that it was a collaborative community that at the same time fostered
a sense o f independence, self-regulation and accountability. The physical set-up o f the
room advocated this ideology (see map in Appendix B). Instead of traditional rows or
fixed work tables, the Rainbow cluster was arranged for small groups of children to be
at work together. Tables were clustered and several floor and rug areas were left for
this purpose. Children often gathered together on either rug with their lap boards,
around one or two adjacent computers, or at the square or kidney shaped tables. One
favorite place to work was the fully stocked classroom library. The library welcomed
students with a colorful rug, a brown leather sofa with pillows and and over 1,300
books. (This number did not include the “book talk” titles which numbered
approximately 1,000 copies of over 185 titles which are stored separately.) In
addition to having full access to a large number o f books on a variety of topics, the
46
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
children were responsible for obtaining and monitoring their use of classroom tools
such as paper, books, glue, scissors and learning manipulatives across curricular
domains. There are no textbooks in use.
The Workshop Community
This sense o f collaboration and responsibility carried over to the writers
workshop. Children self-regulated their participation in the writing process. They
occasionally needed to be reminded of their roles in the workshop, but were free to
access materials, move about the room, and make choices about topics and writing
partnerships. Writing workshop typically occurred twice a week in Rainbow Cluster
lasting for approximately 90 minutes on Monday and Tuesday mornings. The children
usually participated in workshop activities for an additional 45 minutes on Wednesday
and Friday mornings working in shifts and alternating between meeting with teachers at
book talk groups. They typically engaged in writing workshop activities four
mornings a week.
The Rainbow Cluster’s writing workshop followed the structure I hoped to
find. Its anatomy was similar to those described by Graves (1994) and Caulkins
(1994), with time for minilessons, writing, reading, and conferencing. The writing
workshop usually began with groups participating in minilessons which focused on the
conventions of writing or on author’s craft. On Monday and Tuesday mornings this
was followed his was followed by at least 45 minutes for writing and conferencing.
During that time, children participated in a variety rehearsal activities. They often
brought pieces through multiple drafts revising and editing autonomously as well as
47
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
with the help of their writing peers and teachers. The children kept track of their work
by compiling information on a series of organizers provided to them (see Appendix C).
These organizers were kept in their writing workshop folders along with their writing
at various stages. The teachers offered guidance and helped facilitate the outcomes
desired by the children. During the workshop they moved about the double-size
classroom where specific areas were designated for independent and social work.
Usually the north room was specified for conferencing and the south room was home
for quiet work. In addition to the prepared minilessons that launched the workshop
each morning, spontaneous minilessons with small groups were conducted if
reoccurring themes emerged in the conferences. Sometimes children had the
opportunity to share at the close of workshop. Sometimes Dee or Ana took a “status
of the class”. This was accomplished in two ways. The teacher calls role expecting the
children to respond by identifying the stage they are at in the writing process. This
was marked on a large class roster. A less formal status check occurred when the
children were asked to hold up fingers representing how well they participated in the
workshop that morning (usually one to four fingers).
Over the course of the year the nature of the workshop changed. Curricular and
district mandates such as standards based instruction and standardized assessments
invaded the time set aside for the work of authors. As the year grew on workshop
time was frequently compromised with writing for a variety of purposes. The
teachers assigned more intercurricular writing to be accomplished during this time.
Test preparation was also conducted during writing workshop blocks.
48
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Other Writing Events
Along with workshop, additional writing opportunities were abundant in
Rainbow Cluster. In the next section I explore the contexts for Book Talk Writing,
Role Model, My Life on Film, Now and Then, The Dilemma Story and the Fairy Tale
Retold projects.
These assignments regularly consumed the afternoon block of instructional time but
nearly always found their way into the workshop. Many of these writing experiences
reinforced ideas about writing which were grown in workshop. Others differed from
workshop writing in several ways. Some assignments limited choice as teachers
narrowed topics, form and function of the writing outcomes. Sometimes children had
time limitations for completion and several projects were accomplished without going
through the stages of the writing process. The following list is not inclusive. I only
elaborate the writing experiences which frame the portraits in Chapter Four, these
experiences were not the only opportunities offered.
Book Talks
Book Talks were small, dynamic and homogeneous reading groups that met to
read and write about a novel. Dee and Ana divided the groups between them for the
purposes of planning and facilitation. The teachers roamed the room during book talk
time meeting briefly with each group in their charge. As a group they made decisions
about their goals, expectations, homework and consequences (see photographs in
Appendix A).
49
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Writing in book talks came in an assortment o f forms. Children completed
sheets outlining the group’s goals and consequences as well as an evaluation sheet at
the close o f the group. The children also decided from a variety of writing experiences
for homework such as open mind, venn diagram, or dual entry journal. They
sometimes created comprehension questions to be shared with their group. Writing
was related to reading.
Role Model Research
This complex project was built out of the social studies curriculum. Earlier in
the year every student in Rainbow was assigned a culture group to study. Each culture
study group then collected information and compiled a big book of facts. The Role
Model project supplemented this information. Students choose a role model who
represented the culture group they were studying. The students were lead through a
series of minilessons based on the organizational structure of the assignment and
elements o f expository texts. They looked for information about their role model’s
childhood, reasons for their fame and made personal connections. Children were also
taught researching skills such as skimming, note taking, paraphrasing and squeezing out
the details. Children read about their role model and organized information into a
biographical account The children used process writing at every stage and published
onto a series of electronic cards creating hyper-studio texts on the classroom
computers. Printouts of these finished products were displayed in the classroom.
50
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Mv Life on Film
This project originated in an earlier year of Dee and Ana’s partnership. The
teachers helped the students create nine different self-portraits as they studied art
history. Photography was originally included as another medium for self-portraiture.
It quickly evolved into a unique culture study.
Just before the December school holiday, the children were given disposable
cameras to take home. Ana, who guided this project, spoke to the children about
creating depictions o f their world outside school. Since the large majority of the
children at Bridge school are bused, not many socialize outside of the school
environment. The photographs were a way to share their home worlds. After the
holiday, the children returned with their cameras and a written list o f the images they
created. Once processed, the photographs were compiled into albums and captioned
by the students. This project did not move the students through the stages of the
writing process. The made quick drafts and final copies.
N oaiandThgp.
Sometimes called the ancestor interview by the children, this project focused on
comparing a relative’s life with the student’s own. The children learned about
interviewing and created protocols before they spoke to a relative o f their choosing.
The protocols attended to general questions about the interviewee’s childhood but also
narrowed to include a specific topic to contrast with contemporary experiences. Some
children focused on the differences in technology, others asked about the costs of
things and still other children inquired about collectables. They were free to ask about
51
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
topics that interested them most. After the interviews were transcribed, children
illustrated direct to final draft texts. These narratives were compiled into a bound class
book.
The Dilemma Storv
The Dilemma Story was created as a response to literature. This guided writing
activity was based on Jamaica’s Find bv Juanita Havill. The students participated in a
series of minilessons which attended to story action and paid special attention to
descriptive verbs, and the problem/solution story structure. Based on the literature
model, students created stories with likable characters who faced a difficult decision.
Most of the writing for this project was completed during the workshop time block.
The Fairv Tale Retold
Like the Dilemma story, the Fairy Tale was created as a response to literature
and worked on during writing workshop block. Ana used storybooks as models, even
providing an example o f how one author appropriated from another. She contrasted a
traditional version of The Three Little Pigs with The True Storv of the Three Little
Pigs bv Jon Scieszka. The Scieszka book borrows character and plot from its original
counterpart, but transforms the story by telling it from the w olfs perspective. The
children were then read a traditional Jack and the Beanstalk fairy tale and asked to
retell it from a new point of view.
52
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The Focal Children
During Phase One I observed the students, watching their interactions with
each other, the teachers and the writing tools. During Phase Two, while still observing
the entire classroom membership, I focused on nine children who I thought represented
the overall population o f the classroom. The teachers and I had several discussions
about which children would make the best subjects. I gave them lists o f my thoughts
which they responded to in writing. I considered ability, gender, ethnicity, age, and
perceived willingness to participate. I paid special attention to eight o f the nine for the
duration of the study but with the teachers’ help narrowed the focal children to five
during phase three. The five children depicted in the portraits in Chapter Four
represent a diverse group designed to be a micro view of the larger classroom. The
focal children have a wide range of abilities: two qualify for GATE and one receives
RSP. Three are third graders and two are second graders. They represent diverse
ethnicities: two are Caucasian, two are Latina/o, and one is African American. One o f
the five focal children is considered limited English proficient. These demographics are
similar to those in the classroom at large. Specific information about the focal children
is provided in their literacy portraits. See Appendix D for a table outlining the focal
students demographic information.
Data Generation Procedures
This study developed in four phases each relying on several research methods.
As previously outlined, this case study included a series of participant observations,
53
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
document analysis, photography and interviews. Data generation occurred over a nine
month period from September 1999 to May 2000.
During the initial phase o f the study, I set out to accomplish four overlapping
goals: overviewing the setting, establishing rapport, preliminary identification of focus
children and the introduction o f the dialogue journal. Phase One began at the start of
the school year and lasted until the end o f 1999. Phase Two focused data generation.
During January and February I increased the time spent in the classroom as well as the
documents I collected. Focus children’s identities were confirmed and initial
interviews were conducted. During the third phase, March and April, my goal was to
begin preliminary analysis while I continued data generation. The final phase was
dedicated to the exit interviews, in depth analysis and reflection as well as writing the
dissertation (see Appendix E for an overview of the data generating procedures).
Participant-Observation
Experiences as a participant-observer centered around the writing workshop
which typically lasted for 90 minutes on Monday and Tuesday mornings. In addition,
I looked for other writing experiences to observe every week. Usually these included
centers time and book talks which occurred over shifts for the same 90 minutes on
Wednesday and Friday mornings. I occasionally was able to watch content area writing
instruction normally conducted in the afternoon block. However, this writing always
seeped into morning workshop. Thursday mornings were left for teaching cursive
penmanship. The teachers’ assistant was assigned this job. I was not at school during
that block.
54
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
During experiences as a participant-observer I engaged the children and teachers
in informal conversations and constructed fieldwork notes for later analysis. These
notes tried to capture the essence of the activity setting by focusing on the who, what,
where, when, and why o f the writing events. These general notes were supported by
transcriptions of direct dialogue that occurred between the members of Rainbow
cluster (myself included). Fieldwork notes were expanded on as soon as possible after
leaving the classroom each day. In addition, I memoed on “post-it” notes and
elaborated in a Reflection Journal which contained planning and interpretative entries.
Photographic images were generated during these visits. I created images of a variety
of writing experiences offered during the workshop block as well as other writing times
throughout the day.
During these observations, my role was as an adult participant: someone to
question and conference with. My role was to support the ongoing processes which
the classroom establishes. However, I limited my interactions with the children
because I found it difficult to make field notes while I participated in the writing
workshop or other literacy activities. I rarely turned children away when they came to
me for help, but tried to position myself as unavailable when my own work needed my
fullest attention.
During Phase One of the study I visited the classroom twice weekly. Most of
my time was spent during writing workshop, book talks and centers time, all
collaborative writing events. The 24 observations included over 36 hours in the
classroom. Participant-observation focused on establishing rapport and overviewing
the setting. During this phase I became aware of classroom routines and expectations
55
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
enabling me to set up a scheme for the following phases. Visits during Phase Two of
the study focused on the activity settings bounding classroom writing events. I made
19 visits during this phase spending over 28 hours in the classroom. I paid special
attention to children’s participation in the activity settings during the third phase of
this research, and spent more time with the focal children. I visited Rainbow Cluster
another 19 times during March and April totaling over 30 hours. Findings from
preliminary analysis shaped my role during this phase. I narrowed the focal children
and gathered observational data that would inform the literacy portraits in Chapter
Four. I included observations o f test rehearsals and in-school field trips to supplement
the developing data on focal children’s social identities. During the final Phase of the
research, I observed five additional times. I spent over 13 more hours with the
participants during May. Over the nine months of the study, there were 67
participant-observation experiences totaling over 100 hours.
Documents
Writing samples are essential to understanding the concepts of authenticity,
appropriation and voice. The products of the writing experiences offer insight into
participants interpretations of the events, writing competencies, transfer, and display
of social or academic knowledge.
Because I was concerned about capturing a diachronic view of this community,
I was sure to collect samples over the course of the study. These samples represent
completed works and works in progress and represent all stages of the writing process:
prewrites, rough drafts, final drafts and published work. Some of the collected writing
56
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
were pieces where the children had one chance to write and never developed through
the typical writing process in this classroom. Others floated through several revision
cycles only to remain unfinished.
Focus student’s writing samples were gathered weekly and their work
comprises a good deal o f the documents analyzed. Over 450 pages of text were
collected from the five student authors depicted in the portraits of Chapter Four.
However, writing from other students are also included in this study. 360 additional
pages of text were assembled into organizational binders. These binders included 4
class sets where all 40 children were asked to respond to the same assigned writing
task. Group samples provided me an alternative frame for identifying focal children’s
positions within the classroom writing community. Samples from all the children were
photocopied from workshop folders, portfolios, and classroom displays. I collected
pieces children were taking home or disposing of. Public classroom writing, such as
the products of modeled and shared writing, were also compiled. I consider the
handouts and organizational schemes used by the children to be important documents
as well. They were collected and included in the analysis.
A community dialogue journal was circulated among the students. This journal
of letters serves as a written conversation about children’s attitudes and perceptions
about writing. Participation was voluntary and open to all students. The dialogue
journal found an accessible home on the cart of shelves where children went for paper,
staples, colored pencils and other tools o f the writers workshop. I read and responded
to children’s entries every week, sometimes encouraging them by targeting letters to
57
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
specific children. Unfortunately the novelty of the dialogue journal quickly wore off
and it remained untouched for most of the third phase o f the study.
As previously mentioned, I kept a personal journal of my reflections during the
research. Journal entries were made as a place to speak off the record and to organize
ideas for the future data generation. This journal later proved helpful for identifying
focal children as well as developing a coding scheme for analysis.
Still photographs were used in two ways: to guide interviews and to enhance
this final report I brought my camera with me on on ever}' classroom visit, but often
did not compose photographs. I used the camera to capture images of the children at a
variety of writing work including workshop, test preparation and intercurricular
writing experiences. Public classroom writing, such as the products of modeled or
shared writing, were too large to photocopy or temporary in nature (such as
instructions on the white board). I found photography useful for recording these texts
as well. On one occasion I offered the cameras to the students so they could compose
photographs depicting writing. The children were expected to sign out disposable
cameras in a photo log. This log became my tool for linking photographs with
photographers. All o f the images were collected into a binder for use in the photo
interviews. A sample of those photographs are assembled into Appendix A.
58
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Interviews
Open-ended interviews were conducted with both teachers and eight focus
children. Nine students were identified, but I had trouble securing a time to talk with
the final writer during Phase Two. These key informants were initially interviewed in
January or February. Interviews were audiotaped and later transcribed. I made
handwritten interview notes during the audiotaped sessions which were were also
included in the analysis. These interviews were semi-structured so that participants
could contribute outside the topics I had prescribed for the event. We spoke about
personal history, attitudes about writing and began to tap perceptions about
authenticity, appropriation and voice. Discussing these concepts with the children was
especially difficult because they are not member’s categories. I looked for ways to
help children articulate their understandings of these complex and interactive concepts.
You will find the protocol for the opening interviews in Appendix F.
The second round of interviews (exit interviews) were conducted near the end
off the study in May. By this time, I had narrowed my focal children to five, but
interviewed all eight students from the first round. An additional interview was
administered to an articulate non-focal student as a test run o f a new interview
methodology, the photo-interview.
In my pilot study (Cappello, 1999), I found interviews with the children to be
most helpful when kept brief and limited in scope because the children were easily
distracted. I often suspected the students were trying to feed me the answers they felt
I wanted to hear. In order to limit the problems involved with interviewing children,
the second interviews included classroom documents and photographs as tools for
59
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
expanding our discussions (Collier & Collier, 1986; Preskill, 1995). These photo
interviews were also open-ended in nature and involved a four step process (see
Appendix G). The first step utilized a binder of classroom writing organizers and
assignment sheets. I asked them about their purposes and the perceived teacher
intentions for engaging in the specific writing experiences represented in the
documents. During the second step, we discussed membership in the writing
community. I used a binder o f photographs to elicit information during the third step.
I highlighted pictures where the interview subjects were present and later asked them
to identify and rank photographs which depicted something important. Together we
organized the photographs engaging in preliminary analysis at the time o f data
generation. The final step asked the interviewee to look through their own writing
samples and distinguish which texts I should photocopy for my study.
The purpose of the exit interviews with the teachers was different from those
with the students. While I did use the time together to clarify and elaborate specific
points, I intended this conversation to be a time to get feedback on preliminary
research findings. We specifically discussed the focal children’s products and
perceptions. I outlined my view o f their social identities in the classroom writing
community. The teachers offered me supporting information for my portraits. Only
findings on one child of the six caused discord. Their additional insights helped me
reframe the portrait of Alexander which follows in Chapter Four. The interview was
conducted over lunch and unlike the initial interviews, both teachers were present.
The next section of this chapter explains the analytical schemes used to
understand the data. I have included a discussion of my choice for unit of analysis,
60
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
data reduction techniques and inductive and deductive analytical procedures.
Trustworthiness of the data is also addressed in this section.
Data Reduction
After months of generating and collecting data, I found myself with over 400
pages o f field notes, 280 pages o f interviewtranscriptions, nearly 200 photographs
and more than 800 writing samples or other classroom documents. Organizing the data
invited preliminary analysis. I grouped and regrouped the data, sifting through pages of
notebooks and binders.
I created a participant’s notebook which organized the demographic data of the
students and teachers. This book is important in two ways. Initially, it served as a
way to systematically order the data on a large number o f participants. Later it
became a tool for cross referencing. Participant’s pages contained coded columns of
related information including page numbers of appearances in the fieldwork reports,
interview transcriptions, and photographic images (see Appendix H). From these
compilations I was able to construct the five writing portraits which form Chapter
Four.
Another way I chose to reduce the data was to organize the information by
activity setting. For the purpose of this research, I paid special attention to the
activity settings which were the writing events o f Rainbow Cluster. By utilizing the
activity setting as my unit o f analysis I could break from the traditional boundaries of
classroom writing experiences and include an analysis o f the complex interactional
factors such as the classroom scripts and cultural tools used to mediate the writing
61
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
events. In addition, by collecting data from a specific activity setting I can reconstruct
the history of a piece o f writing. I choose to employ the activity setting for two
reasons. First, it relies heavily on context as does the concepts I am exploring. Second,
it allows me to evaluate several contributing factors of the writing.
Data Analysis
Analysis began as data was generated in the sociocultural context where it
naturally occurs. It is a reflexive process. I read and reread the field notes and
interview transcriptions. I sifted through large amounts o f writing samples reading as
they progressed from drafts to published pieces. Ongoing analysis reframed data
generation methods. Several reviews of the data were made using both inductive and
deductive processes.
Throughout the study I used two tools to mediate the data. Annotations were
created in the form o f memos (Dey, 1993; Strauss & Corbin, 1990) throughout the
generation and analysis process. Memos in the form of “post-its” were added to field
work reports and documents. In addition I created memos as I transcribed and
reviewed the interviews. These anecdotes resurfaced in the reflection journal I kept
throughout the study. Data displays were also helpful. I developed graphics as I
explored conceptual links in the data (Miles & Huberman, 1984; Strauss & Corbin,
1990). I created diagrams visually representing the relationships between the
constructs being explored and the categories which support them. These visuals took
many forms: graphs, diagrams, checklists, and continuums. Some of these displays
62
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
appear in the tables and appendixes included in this final report. Memoing and
diagraming were used from the start of the study and persisted until completion of the
study.
Children’s writing samples, interview transcriptions and fieldwork notes were
coded against the same scheme using constant comparison to link characteristics from
the collected data (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). Photographs were also coded against the
same general scheme but need supplemental analytical procedures . Early analysis o f
the photographs occurred in collaboration with participants immediately following the
photo-interviews. Analysis of all data included inductive theory building and
deductive components.
Deductive Coding Procedures
Working from a theoretical perspective grounded in Bakhtinian beliefs, I
developed a deductive approach to analyzing the data. The deductive component was
especially helpful in identifying participants understandings o f appropriation and
voice, concepts not easily discussed by the seven to nine year old participants of the
study.
In his discussion of appropriation of language, Bakhtin offers four critical
features: intention, volition, reflection and voice (1981). The first feature, intention, is
associated with purpose. When children act with focused attention on activities they
deem meaningful or significant and work toward specific outcomes they act
intentionally. Volition involves willful action, making choices. It is deeply tied to
intention. The third feature, reflection, is associated with metacognitive awareness. It
63
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
sometimes reveals itself in the processes of writing. For example, children who are
reflective use drafts to revise their writing. They make self-evaluations and are able to
talk or write about their texts. Finally, Bakhtin’s notion o f voice is dialogical and
dynamic. Voice was further elucidated in Chapter Two.
These four overlapping features were used as structural elements in the
foundation of a deductive analysis of the data (see Appendix I). These categories were
helpful in looking at the data but did not limit the emic categories which emerged.
Rather, Bakhtin’s features will be used in partnership with the inductive codes that
arise in the data.
Inductive Coding Procedures
An inductive approach to the analysis was used to build theories of
authenticity, appropriation and voice. The inductive component of the analysis
consisted of three coding procedures: open, axial, and selective coding (Strauss &
Corbin, 1990). Open coding is the basic analytic process which identifies and labels
concepts. Concepts were further developed in terms of their properties and
dimensions. I looked for comparisons coding the data forming initial groups into
categories. From these open codes and categories I developed several data displays and
visual organizers. My analysis included open coding from all data sources: fieldwork
notes, children’s writing, interview transcriptions, photographs and my own annotated
memos.
Axial coding was used to reorganize the data after open coding. This process is
a systematic look at relationships in the data that works toward the development o f a
64
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
paradigm model. In specifying the phenomenon under investigation, I considered
conditions, contexts, action/interactional strategies and consequences (Strauss &
Corbin, 1990). Axial coding was helpful in exploring the sociocultural context o f the
data as ongoing analysis continued. While open coding looked for several broad
categories, axial coding explored the situational specifics o f the data. The goal of this
level of coding was to strengthen the relationships between subcategories and category
toward the development of an understanding of the phenomenon.
The third level, selective coding, related and refined categories. It was an
integration process where the data came together to form theory. Selective coding
applied the analysis in axial coding in a more abstract way. Here, I began to
conceptualize the story to tell (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). This was a descriptive and
analytical process which incorporated all analysis to this point. The story explored
relationships, dimensions and properties as it presents a contextualized view of the
phenomenon. The selective coding process shaped the account in this final
dissertation report.
As I analyzed the data and made connections to both inductive and deductive
categories, I continued to ask how they play out in terms o f conception and
reproduction of authentic writing practices in this classroom and what role
appropriation and voice play in constructing authentic experiences. Throughout this
phase in the analysis I kept several things in mind.
First, I continually reconsidered Vygotsky’s (1978) idea that language has two
functions: a function of thought and a social function. I also reminded myself of
Bakhtin’s notion o f the dialogic nature o f language and how it plays it in their social
65
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
identities. Specifically, I borrowed from Wertsch (1991) who suggests when looking at
language we ask “who is doing the talking?” (63).
Trustworthiness of the Data
The researcher takes an active role in qualitative research. In many ways the
researcher becomes the instrument. There are four ways I elucidate my role as
researcher in reporting the findings. First, I make my position as a researcher and
classroom community member clear. By making my assumptions explicit, the reader
will gain insight into the heuristic process. Second, I provide readers with a “thick
description” (Geertz, 1973) of the situation under investigation. This detailed view
offers readers sufficient evidence to support findings. In addition, it allows for
comparisons across situations. While constructing a thick description I made an effort
to look for places o f discord: data which conflicts with early assumptions and
instances where my own theoretical perspectives were challenged. Third, I make my
analysis explicit. I provided a step by step description of the processes I employed.
Finally, trustworthiness will assessed by triangulating different types of data (writing
samples, photographs, audiotapes, interview transcriptions, dialogue journal, personal
journal and field notes) and from the perspective of different participants (myself, the
children and the teacher).
Benefits to the Participants
It is my opinion that educational research should benefit those being studied.
Throughout the project I looked for ways to give back to the research community,
66
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Rainbow Cluster. My presence in this classroom offered the participants several
advantages. I helped the teachers with physical and procedural arrangements o f the
writing workshop, ensuring children have access to the materials and tools they need to
work effectively. I helped the daily life o f the writing classroom in other ways:
offering conventional spellings and occasionally serving as a partner for revising or
editing. Furthermore, I shared my knowledge of writing with the teachers, sometimes
photocopying chapters or selections from the research literature. We had several
conversations regarding the problems o f the workshop such as developing topics or
refraining from writing “list stories”. I provided an after school in-service on literacy
instruction for a small group o f teachers. One goal of the study is that my presence in
the classroom will enhance the Rainbow Cluster’s writing workshop.
Definition of Terms
The following section provides working definitions o f a few key terms of the
study. Although the core concepts have research histories, their definitions are
slippery and used to represent a wide range o f meanings.
Activity Setting: For the purposes of this research, activity setting is used to
describe the complex interactional classroom writing events. They consider the who,
what, where, when, and why (Tharpe & Gallimore, 1988) of the classroom
experiences, but are not bounded by individual lessons.
Authenticity: Authenticity is a personal yet socially constructed concept of
what is meaningful or important to an individual. It is dynamic and identified in
67
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
context. These personal understandings are constructed through a unique history o f
experiences.
Appropriation: I utilize Bakhtin’s (1981) definition of appropriation as a
process o f filling language with our own intentions and accents in order to make it our
own. Appropriation is an active engagement realized in context
Voice: Voice is a situated and relevant expression o f oneself. Because it is
specific to the setting and the constructor, voice must be multiple. Because it is
achieved through appropriating others utterances, it is dynamic and social. Because
every utterance has a social and cultural history, I understand voice to be a collection
of voices.
Summary
This chapter outlines the research design, data generating procedures and data
reduction methods. I give a detailed description o f the setting and participants as well
as make the deductive and inductive analytical procedures explicit. The chapter closes
with a definition o f key terms.
In Chapter Four I present the research findings in the form of five literacy
portraits of the focal student authors. Each portrait offers a brief history of the writer,
and addresses the research questions through thick description and multiple examples
drawn from writing products, interview transcriptions and observation notes.
68
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CHAPTER FOUR
The Writing Experiences Defined:
Introduction to the Portraits
The research findings are organized around five student-authors and an
exploration o f the social and textural influences on their school writing. Each child is
unique but together they depict the development of appropriation, voice and
authenticity in this multiage classroom of student authors. I begin each portrait with
an introduction and brief history which typify their participation in Rainbow Cluster.
I then apply this social frame to the student’s perceptions of purpose, appropriation
and voice, and authenticity. In constructing the portraits, I studied their behaviors
across activity settings drawing upon extended classroom observations, interviews and
analysis of writing samples. I examine how the focal children actualize their social
stance through writing and take on identities constructed in their texts. While creating
these portraits, I kept Vygotsky’s two functions of language in mind: a function of
thought and a social function.
Marisol
Introduction
Already nine at the start of the study, Marisol is one of the tallest children of
the 40 in the class. She is a third grader who has been at the Bridge School since first
grade entering a new cluster each year. She is a Latina and an English Language Learner.
69
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Marisol is designated at English language development (ELD) level three. In her
district, an ELD level three signifies that she “actively participates in social and
academic conversations. Reads and writes simple sentences in all content areas.”
(Master Plan Program). She qualifies for additional help from Ms. Henry, the resource
specialist who facilitates the Bridge School’s special education pull-out program.
Marisol qualifies for free lunch according to federal income guidelines.
The following assigned writing was composed as a potential college admission
essay. The children were asked to write to college officials persuading them that they
would be good candidates for their school. Spelling and punctuation were left unedited
and in original form.
Hello my name is Marisol I am ‘9’ ear’s old and I am Spanish.
I live in a apartement with my little sister he name is Andrea
and with my Dad his name is pedro and my Mom name Maria
and with my aunt Juana and me.
My hobbies are football jummping playing handball reading
writing singing danceing I like football because all my best
friends like football. I like jummping becaus in this game calld
chainis jummproup I am so so good at it and evryone now
beg’s me to be in ther team. I like reading and writing because
reading helps you get better at reading writing is how you
learn to read. I like singinin and Dancing because it is fun for
me.
When I am in class I like to read and writ and in the class I
dount talk in teal we are alout to and when I am not in the
class and I am in the yard I like to play, sing, Dance, last of all
is I have a long way to go to college. (5/15/00)
70
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
MarisoFs essay is revealing in three ways: 1) by characterizing her as an
approval-seeker 2) by addressing the role of agency as a motivator and 3) by making
her self-perception as an English language learner clear.
As seen in the opening text, Marisol also is looking for approval from her
peers. She tells us she likes football because all her friends like football. She enjoys
jumping because her prowess earns her respect from others on the playground. Like
many children, she wants wants to be admired and looks for opportunities to be
portrayed in a positive light. One way Marisol accomplishes this is by working hard
at the official appearances of school an area where she is capable of excelling.
Marisol is a responsible member of the classroom community. Her work is neat
and organized in her workshop folder and her classroom bin. Assignments are nearly
always completed within expected time frames and exceptions usually have just cause.
For example, Marisol came to school without having completed the interview portion
o f the Now and Then writing assignment. Ms. Handle sent reminder notes home with
all the children who came unprepared. These notes included a space for the parents to
respond. Not all parents did respond. The following is MarisoFs father’s reply. “I am
sorry that my child didn’t do her interview packet because MarisoFs grandma does not
have a phone” (3/13/00).
Marisol is concerned with the right way to do school. She makes great effort in
maintaining the surface of school activities. She treats the teachers with respect and
has not been in any trouble for her behavior this year. This desire for superficial
competency seeps into her writing processes and products.
71
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
An English T .angiiflge. T e a m sr
I am also interested in way Marisol introduces herself. In the first sentence she
tells the reader she is Spanish, but she is not. Marisol is a Spanish speaking Mexican-
American, but Spanish is how she describes herself. Her home language is Spanish and
she is classified as Limited English Proficient. Spanish speaker/English learner is the
niche carved out for her in the social organization of the classroom.
Marisol is aware of her cultural heritage and often draws upon it in classroom
contexts. For example, Marisol interviewed her grandmother in Mexico for her Now
and Then project which focuses on comparing personal experiences with that of an
ancestor. She included photographs of Mexican artifacts in her My Life on Film work.
Like many children bound by non-school home languages, she often speaks Spanish
with her closest classroom peer group (all Latinas with cultural ties to Mexico or
Guatemala). The teachers do not discourage Spanish speaking in the classroom unless
it is used for exclusionary purposes. Generally, bilingualism is valued and bilingual
students are sometimes called upon to display their knowledge. Although she is still
designated as Limited English Proficient, Marisol often translates for friends, including
redesignated English learners. She most frequently chooses Spanish speakers for
revision partnerships but only rarely uses Spanish in conferences.
Despite the positive attributes o f knowing Spanish in school, Marisol situated
herself negatively as an English Language Learner in Rainbow Cluster. During my
classroom observations, I noticed that Marisol positioned herself at the back of any
group meeting on the carpet. She rarely volunteered to answer teacher prompts and
responded with a question in her voice when called upon. She struggled to share in any
72
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
group larger than a few members. The teachers, Dee and Ana, commented about her
reluctancy to share on her first report card, “we would love for her to share her
thoughts and ideas during class discussions” (10/99). In preparing for the student lead
parent conferences of the second reporting period, Marisol reflected, “ I will work on
sharing my ideas with the class” (3/9/00).
Marisol understands English to be school language and is aware that Spanish
may not be appropriate in all classroom situations. For example, early in the year
Marisol was part of a book talk group (modified literature circle) whose members
included along with herself two Spanish speaking Latinas and an African-American
boy. Dee spoke to the girls about only using English for their discussions because
Tony could not otherwise understand. Dee’s message was not a devaluing of Spanish
in the classroom because she never reprimanded children for using home languages in
school. Instead, she encouraged them to draw upon what they already knew to make
English connections and transformations. Despite their talk with Dee and much to
Tony’s chagrin, the girls consistently relied on Spanish to aid their comprehension of
the English text they were reading. Marisol reflected about her participation in the
book talk group on a written evaluation, “What I need to work on next time is not
talking Spanish” (2/9/00).
Book talk group members were always changing. Soon Marisol found herself
in a new group without her Spanish speaking peers. I asked her about her new
association
73
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Marva: W hat do you think about your new group?
Marisol: (hesitates then shrugs her shoulders)
Marva: I noticed you are with different people this time,
what do you think about that?
Marisol: Well its going to be more harder but it will be good
for me to leam new things.
Marva: How can you tell it will be harder?
Marisol: The words in the book and its bigger. I didn’t pick
that book but the teachers gave it to me. I think the book I
chose was too easy for me.
(3/29/00)
The children typically get some say in the books they will read and who their group
members with be comprised of. I followed this thread when we met five weeks later
for an exit interview.
Marva: What did you think about working with different
kids?
Marisol: That’s more better that it could make me leam more
English and I got a harder book. (5/3/00)
Marisol saw her new group as an improvement over her last group. Certainly it was
perceived as a jump in the academic hierarchy of the classroom, perhaps achieving
more viable social status as well because her group was composed of predominantly
native English speakers.
Marisol cared very much about school success, not in terms of learning
achievement, but in doing school behaviors the right way. For her that meant English.
Marisol struggled with bilingualism. During our initial interview Marisol told me she
speaks, read and writes in Spanish. Early into the interview the following exchange
occurred:
74
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Marva: What kind of writing do you do at home?
I was referring to type such as letter writing.
Marisol: English
Marva: Do you sometimes write in Spanish too?
Marisol: Yeah, sometimes. Now I don’t really know that
much Spanish how to write because now I write more in
English. (1/26/00)
Marisol did not believe languages could co-exist Learning English meant the sacrifice
of Spanish. Marisol willingly made the sacrifice if it meant she could successfully
participate in the discourses of doing school. However, there was one indicator of
resentment toward the dominant school language. After completing her role model
project, Marisol related an anecdote from Rosa Park’s childhood. Marisol informed
me that while walking home from school Rosa and her brother were chased and stoned
by English people. She quickly edited her oral retelling to say white people.
Struggling with Conventions
On the first day of school the children were invited to write about what they
hoped to learn in Rainbow Cluster during the year.
I whant to lrem abaut the new school
I whant to lrem abaut animls
I whant to lrem abaut lots o f thigs
I whant to lrem abaut dofens and fishes
I whant to lrem abaut mathe
I whant to lrem abaut ranbo claster” ( unedited, 9/8/99)
75
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
At nine years old, Marisol’s written expressions were limited by her struggle
with conventions. This six line list has no punctuation and 19 of the 43 words Marisol
scribed are spelled conventionally. She made great gains over the school year.
However, I do not want to focus on Marisol's acquisition of skills, but instead want to
explore how skills shaped and expressed her intentions.
When Marisol’s visited the RSP teacher, Ms. Henry, conventions were
strongly emphasized. Her special education pull out program intended to provide her
with basics. Usually this was accomplished in small steps and through
decontextualized skill building activities. This value o f conventions found its way into
her writing experiences in writing workshop. She became extremely concerned with
correctness, even in creating rough drafts. Marisol’s greatest writing partner became
her word book. This individualized spelling dictionary was always at her side during
writing workshop. Most o f the children used their word books on occasion, but
Marisol would leave her seat to have an adult write in the traditional spelling of a word
as many as nine times in one workshop period. I suggested she try to spell words as
best as she could, circle them and then wait until editing to fix them. The incorrectly
spelled words on the page became roadblocks to generate ideas. She simply could not
get past them. Doing what was correct took precedence over concern with
communicating an idea. It is not unusual for English language learners to focus on
correctness, but in Marisol’s case it became doubly emphasized as a result of her
experiences with Ms. Henry.
76
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Perceptions o f Purpose
Marisol’s perceptions o f purpose are reflected in the conflict between her
desire to display competence and her position as an English language learner in the
classroom. As presented in the opening writing sample completed in May, “... writing
is how you leam to read”. However, her response to a classroom writing survey in
October, stated “I think people like to write because their printing will get better”.
Focus on correctness and mechanics is typical of students exposed to remedial
curriculum. However, this range of responses not only echoes her social stances as a
writer, but also indicates that Marisol is aware of varied purposes for writing. Her
interviews support this conclusion.
During the exit interviews classroom handouts were used to elicit response
about writing purposes and teacher intentions. Reflectively I feel that by setting apart
the writing tools into sections, I implied that there were different purpose for the
separate activities. As a result, we talked about writing in “kinds” and not as an overall
concept. Perhaps this encouraged Marisol’s (and other’s) differentiation o f purpose.
According to Marisol, some writing was for the purpose of gaining insight into
valued classroom knowledge. When asked about the purposes of engaging in the role
model project, Marisol spoke about content only focusing on acquiring biographical
information.
...because she (Rosa Parks) helped a lot o f ... black people so
everything could be equal. They couldn’t drink from the
same water fountains and they couldn’t go to the same
schools. (5/3/00)
This assignment was the first research project for most o f the children in Rainbow
77
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
This assignment was the first research project for most o f the children in Rainbow
Cluster. They learned to skim, find the main idea and squeeze out important
information to put in their reports. In addition the children learned to create hyper-
studio texts on the computers, filling the electronic cards with the information they had
gathered. Marisol made no reference to these assignment benefits. Instead, she
attended to learning about her historical figure. Marisol was proud to be awarded Ms.
Park’s biography even though many children requested her. She took this as a gesture
of esteem suggesting she was given the prized role model because she already knew a
little bit about Rosa Parks. Like the role model project, writing workshop was a place
to gather valued classroom knowledge. For Marisol workshop was a time “to get more
stuff in my head where the stories [are]” (5/3/00). Marisol believed that the more
“stuff” she could collect, the better stories she could write.
Another perceived goal o f the writing workshop was to leam and perform the
steps o f the writing process as a way to receive teacher approval. Marisol was explicit
about this goal, “...you have to go to do it to prewrite, rough draft, final draft,
publishing... so Ms. Joseph will say that its ok” (5/3/00). Marisol thought the
teachers asked her to do workshop writing as a way to demonstrate her competence to
others who may not know her.
Marva: Why do you think Ms. Joseph and Mrs. Handle ask
you to do writers workshop?
Marisol: So maybe when I go to a next cluster she’s going to
show it to another teacher and say oh that’s what she did.
(5/3/00)
78
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Dee and Ana did tell the students that a piece would be placed in their portfolios for
their next teacher. It was the explicit goal of one classroom writing assignment, a
retelling of Make a Wish Mollv. This specific writing event did not require students to
go through the complete writing process as typically done in workshop stories.
However, workshop time was used for the completion of this assignment. Creating
text for new teachers was never stated as a goal for the writing workshop.
In general, classroom writing events served one o f two purposes for Marisol: as
a way to gather important content information or as a way to receive teacher approval.
The next section describes the sources Marisol used for appropriation. It also address
the way borrowed bits were transformed as they populated her narratives.
Appropriating, from Texts
The students in Rainbow Cluster’s writing workshop participated in at least
three guided writing activities which focused on a central piece of literature and
encouraged the appropriation of text features such as point o f view, style, plot,
characters, and even specific utterances. Marisol constructed suitable responses to the
literature. I will briefly discuss two texts, “Jack the Big Boy” and “Dear Carpenter’s
Apprentice” before I address “Diana and I and the Magic Ring” more deeply.
In February, Mrs. Handle facilitated a project that had the children retell a
classic fairy tale from another point o f view. The children rewrote Jack and the
Beanstalk from a new perspective. Marisol wrote a five page narrative that included
dialogue. It was structured to include a problem and resolution and included clever
reinventions of the original text as seen in the following excerpt:
79
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
When his mother saw the big long beanstalk she fell down on
to the floor.... Jack climbed up the beanstalk. He saw a big
cow. The cow said, “hello my friend”. Jack said to himself,
“That is the voice o f my dad”. (2/15/00)
Marisol was not able to maintain the Giant’s point of view in her text which was the
desired outcome of the assignment. However, the framework of the original story
allowed her a place to speak from. Marisol wondered about the father’s absence in the
original text. Her father is an important part o f her life and is often the parent with
whom she does homework. He is studying English in the evenings and was assigned a
similar writing
event in his adult classroom. Marisol enjoys talking to her father about school. It
makes sense that she would want to include him in her story.
Another time Marisol borrowed from literature models was in an intercurricular
writing assignment rooted in a math lesson on measurement. After listening to the
book How Big is A Foot by Rolf My Her, the children wrote letters to the main
character, the carpenters apprentice, in order to help him understand why the bed he
made for the queen was too small. They also gave the craftsman ideas on how to make
the bed more functional. In addition to borrowing content from the specific text in
question, Marisol borrowed from other books with kings and queens in choosing her
words for expression. Marisol wrote, “The little guy did what he was told. At last it
was as pretty as can be.” (4/5/00). Recognizing the royal element in the story, Marisol
borrowed a specific language type to serve her intentions. These lines sound more like
80
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
traditional fairy tales than Marisol but it is an appropriate way to speak in the context
o f the story.
Appropriating Identities
In one salient example, “Diana and I and the Magic Ring”, Marisol allows us a
view of her world and the role she wants to occupy in it. For this assignment the
children responded to Jamaica’s Find by Juanita Havill. The children composed a story
like the original, with a moral dilemma. In the book, Jamaica brings a treasure
discovered on the playground into the lost and found. Her reward is purely the
owner’s joy when she retrieves the coveted item. In her story, Marisol and Diana find
a magic ring. Although Diana is reluctant to turn it in to lost and found, Marisol
persuades her that it would be the right thing to do. Their reward comes in the form of
the loser’s happiness when she recovers her treasure.
MarisoFs text is interesting in several ways. She privileges herself in the text
creating a place where she can be admired for her actions. Unlike her social identity as
an English Language Learner in Rainbow Cluster, Marisol situates herself as a role
model worthy of admiration. In addition to borrowing from literary sources, Marisol
borrows the name of the classroom aide in her story construction. Diana is the part-
time classroom assistant whom Marisol seeks allegiance with. Like Marisol, Diana is a
Spanish speaking Latina. Marisol often seeks Diana out when adult help is needed. In
contrast to their roles in the story Marisol admires Diana. By appropriating Diana’s
name for her intentions, Marisol asserts their relationship.
81
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Even when not explicitly instructed to do so, Marisol borrows from a variety
o f sources. She draws upon life experience in appropriating the problem at the center
o f one o f her earliest writing workshop stories.
My New Neighbor
My family lived in an apartment and my neighbor lived
in a house. They were teasing me because I lived in an
apartment and they lived in a pretty house. We lived very
close and on vacation we moved to a house and I had
neighbors and they lived in an apartment. I told her that
when I lived in an apartment my neighbor was teasing me.
Now I live in a house and nobody teases me anymore. I
now have a friend that lives in an apartment She plays with
me. We go to the park with my sister and my friend
Stephanie. She even goes to my school. I never teased her
and she became my good friend (10/19/99)
Marisol again takes a first person stance and creates a situation where she can be
admired. In her story, the problem is resolved when Marisol and her family move into
a house and she decides to break the cycle o f teasing. In her own life, Marisol still
lives in an apartment with her family and perhaps with unresolved issues. Her stories
are personal visions of how the world should be. Problems are resolved and she is
admired
Language and poverty issues are salient for Marisol. In response, she
competently borrows what she needs to create stories where she is positioned as
capable and important Her expression of what is valued is clear and therefore so is her
voice. In this setting her voice expresses her conflict between acting in a valued manner
and the limited skills she has to do so. Her stories offer expressive resolutions to this
conflict by creating situations where she is able to act in a meaningful way.
8 2
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Authentic Literacies
As addressed in earlier chapters, authenticity is a difficult concept to discuss
with seven to nine year old children. This next section seeks to capture Marisol’s
unique conceptions o f authenticity through conversations about important and
meaningful writing experiences. Like appropriation and voice, her ideas about
significant writing and writing acts are tied to her social situation in the classroom and
her self-perception as an English language learner.
Marisol expresses two different kinds of valued experiences: authentic forms
and authentic content. Authentic forms result from situations where she finds a place
to display her competencies. Important writing included writing in preparation for the
standardized assessments and the Make A Wish Mollv literature response. The
literature response was significant because it was created independently (without the
aid of an adult for revising or editing) and provided a view of Marisol’s writing ability
for the new teacher. Marisol thought the test preparation work was especially
important because she believed it would give her an advantage on the test Further,
when asked why the tests were important she responded, “because you can pass the
test and go to another cluster” (5/3/00). Even though the teachers never tacitly or
explicitly stated i t Marisol believed that moving to a new cluster depended on her
passing this assessment. Her movement in the academic hierarchy of the school
depended on her success. This was definitely not the case. Children remained in the
same cluster for a variety of reasons, but they were not considered holdovers.
Designated as a third grader in this multiage group, Marisol wanted to move on, and
would move on regardless o f her performance on the test. I believe this misperception
83
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
may have been reinforced by Ms. Henry the resource specialist who encouraged
Marisol to focus on the conventions of literacy. Marisol was one of five students in
Rainbow Cluster who were exempted from taking the standardized assessments with
the class. Instead, she took the tests with the resource specialist a week after they
were given school-wide. She tested in the small room used for the pull out program.
Marisol’s identification o f authentic forms was supported in her photo-
interview. Of the 13 images she distinguished as showing something important, 7 were
photographs o f written texts. The two identified as most significant displayed the
writing workshop checklist (see Appendix C ) and an organizational plan for the role
model project (see Appendix A). Both were considered important because they are
instructions. Marisol sees them as tools to help her achieve success in the writing
assignments.
When asked to identify the most significant written text produced this year,
Marisol asked if she could consider a text created the year before while a student in
Turquoise Cluster. Marisol could not tell me what the text was about because content
was not why she valued it. Instead Marisol distinguished her Turquoise writing as
important because the teacher appreciated her effort and told her she was proud of her
work on that text. Marisol again relates significance with approval.
Authentic content included text written about her family although very little
writing on this subject was created over the year. Marisol talked about relying on
family experiences (like her trip to Mexico) as sources for topics, but few were
actualized. In addition to the clever inclusion of the father in her appropriation of Jack
and the Beanstalk, she made incidental inclusions o f her sister in two texts. She wrote
84
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
explicitly about her family as required in the My Life On Film project. Marisol drew
on experiential knowledge for her stories by using her family as a story spring board.
The teachers encouraged all the students to use what they know. Dee and Ana often
recommended beginning with a “seed of truth” in hopes that children look at life in
creating their texts.
By the end of the year Marisol was able to make personal connections to text.
She considered making connections an important and significant source for writing. In
order to relate life to text, Marisol required choice. Choice makes writing important
because she can express the “stuff” in her head, authentic content Choice also allows
her to create ideal worlds where she can be admired and valued as an important person.
Summary
Marisol’s conflict between her role as an English language learner in Rainbow
Cluster and her desire to be seen as a valued community member in her perceptions of
purpose. She identifies her reasons for writing in two ways: to gain valued classroom
knowledge and to be socially cast as an admired individual. Marisol capably
appropriated theme, character and other literary elements in the construction o f new
texts. In her continual search for approval, she borrowed and transformed valued
identities for her own intentions. In contrast to her classroom position as an English
language learner struggling with conventions, Marisol situated herself in her stories as a
role model worthy of admiration. These new texts offer the reader a view o f her world
as she hoped it would be.
85
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Writing events that provide opportunities for Marisol to demonstrate her
“stuff” are considered authentic. Her “stuff’ may be charged with surface text features,
but also included information understood important to the classroom community. In
this way, Marisol negotiates her place as a writer in Rainbow Cluster as she negotiates
what is significant in written form and content.
Jamili
Introduction
Jamili Harris is healthy and muscular seven year old African-American boy.
He is the oldest of three children whose father is a firefighter and mother also works
outside the home. His parents actively communicate with the teachers filling all
requests for information and conferences. Like most children at Bridge School, Jamili
arrives each morning by bus. His primarily African-American neighborhood is home to
a popular campus o f the state university system. The campus is how he measures
distance from home. He is interested in sports and plays in organized baseball and
basketball leagues. Jamili is a gifted runner. He has won numerous track awards and is
currently the fastest child in his division. In September Jamili was reluctant to
participate remaining silent and sometimes distant. Over the year his role in the
classroom has expanded. Jamili has become an important member in the classroom
community. He often volunteers to participate, initiates interactions with teachers and
peers and takes on leadership roles. His contributions in class are usually relevant and
add to the conversation at hand. Jamili is known as a comedian in the classroom but
not as a disruptive child.
86
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
He is not exempt from getting in trouble. Occasionally Jamili takes the role of
comedic performer to inappropriate levels causing reprimand from the teachers. At
these times he demonstrates remorse, sometimes with tears. Jamili is more often prone
to crying out o f frustration or panic. He gets extremely agitated if the teachers do not
understand his intentions. For example, Jamili was having trouble creating a Dilemma
Story as it was assigned. First Dee conferenced with Jamili offering suggestions for
revision. After an additional 90 minutes of attending to his story, he still could not
conform to her requests. Later, he met with Ana who helped him reorganize his
thoughts, taking dictation as a way to provide him with a story outline. Ana asked,
“How can I help you get it right?” and reminded him that “everybody struggles with
some story” (2/28/00). Nevertheless, Jamili could not accommodate these revisions
either. Finally in tears, he decided to throw away his drafts and begin the story anew.
A Performer
Jamili’s desire to perform permeates his classroom activities and specifically
his writing experiences. His role as performer offers him constraints and affordances.
Because he dominantly uses a n ‘T ’ stance in his texts Jamili has difficulty
collaborating. He is capable at leading revision conferences but has trouble
transforming his own texts to include others suggestions. I often found Jamili working
with other children. However, a closer observation revealed that Jamili controlled the
situation or children worked in parallel groups. During one book talk group meeting
Jamili compiled words from text for the creation of a dictionary. He warned the other
students to “stay away from the rainbow words” (he wrote each letter in a different
87
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
color) because they were his contributions. His elaborate inscriptions differentiated
his texts from others.
More often Jamili’s social role as a performer positively impacted his writing
experiences. As previously mentioned, he predominantly utilized the “F stance in his
writing which is an effective narrative technique. Because of the stage-like quality o f
his writing, he is able to understand audience and often addresses his readers directly in
the texts he composes. Most importantly, his social role as performer in the
classroom allows him to shift identities as situations make new demands. Consider
this text created for homework in the domain o f mathematics. The teachers asked the
students to answer: How can addition help you solve a multiplication problem?
Repeated addition can help solve a multiplication problem.
Let’s say you were going to do 24 X 4 that equals 96. I
know that because you can do 24 + 24 + 24 + 24. See if I
got it right. Addition can also help you do a multiplication
problem by doing this. If you had to do 6 X 6 = that equals
36 I’m sure. You can do it by adding 6 [-] 6 times. Let’s see
what you get? Another way addition can help you do a
multiplication problem is like this. If you were to do 5 X 5.
You could do 5 + 5 that would be 5 X 2 = 10 then you add
15. What do you get? (2/24/00)
Jamili demonstrates what he knows. He takes the “I” stance in this expository text
and directly addresses his audience gently asserting his dominance. Jamili
accomplishes this by using his classroom role as a performer to enact a teacher-like
position in his writing.
88
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Teachgr-Psrformer
Jamili often takes on teacher-like leadership roles in the classroom. He guides
book talks and conferences. He reads like a teacher, with expression and clarity often
taking on the voices of the characters he portrays. Jamili encourages other students and
offers advice. In one conference Jamili told Peter to “use the checklist, read the rules
and think about what you do” (3/21/00). Jamili’s playful nature enables him to
dominate children without discomfort He is not mean or overly critical of his
classmates. However, as a classroom leader and performer Jamili asserts his authority
over his audience in oral and written texts.
One effective way Jamili asserts dominance over his readers is by directly
addressing them in his compositions. This is a strategy Jamili employs in his
expository writing. In the math homework above Jamili, challenges the reader to “see
if I got it right” and later asking “let’s see what you get” (2/14/00). In another text, his
Now and Then project, Jamili describes an adventure to the El Capitan theater in Los
Angeles to see a Disney movie and engage in the supplementary fun offered at this
special theater. He then asks his reader directly, “Don’t you wish you were there?”
(3/00). He poses questions that assume his advantages. Some questions assume
knowledge authority over his audience. For example, the last section o f the Role Model
project includes a place for the student author to make personal connections to their
subject. His lengthy text concludes with, “Don’t Juan [Gonzalez] and I have a lot of
similarities and differences?” (5/00).
Another way Jamili takes on the teacher role is by developing expert classroom
knowledge. He has become the community’s authority on African-American culture.
89
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
He is quick to offer explanations and anecdotes to the class. Jamili named and
discussed Martin Luther King Jr.’s murdered and defined Negro when Peter did not
know what this word referred to. He knew more about Kwanzaa than any other
student in the class, and independently choose African-American folk tales to read.
Jamili’s mother contributed to his role of African-American expert. She spent
classroom time sharing her knowledge, providing fabric samples and explanatory
stories. Mrs. Harris shared a video tape of African dancing in which she was a
performer. Jamili became a helpful resource for the children doing research on this
culture group. His identity as an African-American was clear from his first day in
Rainbow Cluster when he illustrated a self portrait complete with a red, gold, and green
border. He was proud to share his knowledge and expressed a desire to study an
African-American instead of an Hispanic-American for his role model project because
“he would learn more about him self’ (5/8/00).
Narrator
Another performance role Jamili took on is the narrator. He labeled objects and
experiences in oral and written forms. Like the labels he created for the My Life on
Film project, his short commentaries became captions for events in his world.
Photographs created for his My Life on Film project were labeled with an article
marker. He titled images, “The Smiles”, “The Meeting”, and “The Living Place”
(1/13/00). He orally labeled photographs bound together for the photo-interview
stating “Working on the Role Model” and “ Now and Then” (5/8/00) as he turned the
pages. His first person storytelling encouraged narration. In “The Man Who Stole a
90
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Hammer”, Jamili is in the action assuring the reader, “I saw it so I am going to tell the
police” (3/3/00). He uses this strategy even he is his only audience whispering
“revising, I’m up to revising” (2/7/00).
Changing Roles
Jamili’s role as performer allowed him a way to shift identities in the social and
written worlds of the classroom. He defined his roles by their appropriateness across
varied settings, audiences and purposes for writing experiences. His changing roles
were exemplified in the names he used as well. He most often headed his papers with
Jamili or Jamili Harris, but occasionally used Mr. Harris or Jamili Khahili to identify
himself in texts. Another way he found to name his shifting identities was in
participating in the Compliment Box. This box contained unassigned written praise for
classroom community members. Jamili composed three in the week following Disco
Day when he came to school in appropriate ‘70’s attire.
Dear Left Platform Shoe,
Thank you for hurting my left foot.
From, Jamili
Dear Pencil #2,
Thank you for falling out of my shirt.
From, Jamili
Dear Hands,
I know you’re tired from all that writing on that
interview card but thank you for finishing.
From, Jamili #2
(3/9/00; edited for conventions)
91
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Jamili’s role of literacy performer positively effected his classroom compositions. It
allowed him to competently utilize the “I” stance, attend to audience and change
identities as different activity settings demanded. The following “I Am” poem
exemplifies the multiple positions Jamili actualizes for himself.
I am a movie star with a long name.
I am a track being run over.
I am a domino being flipped.
I am an eagle in the air.
I am a jack-o-lantem shinning bright.
I am a pair of baggy jeans that don’t fit good.
I am an Egyptian King.
I am a candy wrapper being opened.
I am 25 donuts put together.
(12/15/00; edited for conventions)
His role of performer also impacted his perceptions about the stated and implied
purposes of writing events in Rainbow Cluster.
Perceptions of Purpose
Purposes for writing were generally linked to performance and public displays
of the text. For example, Jamili recognized that he needed to “ get every bit of
information you can think o f’ to include in his Role Model text, but he also claimed it
was important to “make it so people can read it and want to read it” (5/8/00). Book
talk writing had multiple purposes: to aid comprehension and to prepare for the
culminating project. Book Talk writing often took the form o f graphic organizers, and
checklists. Jamili saw their function as a way “to know what is going on in the book”
(5/8/00). Book Talks culminated with a project. Project forms often included plays,
92
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
puppet shows, and other public demonstrations. Jamili thought writing would prepare
for their final displays. Surprisingly, Jamili identified the aim of workshop writing as a
singular goal. He told me workshop writing was engaged in in order to have a text to
publish in the Bridge School Yearbook. Every child at the school included a piece in
this school publication, but not every cluster has a writing workshop. I am also
surprised at Jamili’s perception because yearbook pieces were chosen from a variety
of sources. The purpose of the Now and Then project was “to show stuff around the
house...to show how your life is” (5/8/00). And that is what Jamili did. His pictures
depict him with his family and his prized possessions: a go cart, bicycle and video
game equipment. He looks directly into the viewer’s eyes, as if on stage performing
My Life on Film. Because he has been cast as a classroom performer, audience was
directly linked to perceptions o f purpose.
His perceptions of the teacher’s intentions for specific writing experiences
sometimes clashed with his own purposes. While Jamili’s own perceptions of
purpose were usually linked to performance and public displays, his perceptions of
teacher’s prescribed purposes were linked to knowledge learning. .T amili believed the
teacher’s reasons for engaging in writing events was to leam content. He specifically
identified three writing experiences as places to leam about culture. First, the Role
Model project offered a place to study “different cultures”. When asked to clarify,
Jamili stated, “you know, I’m African-American and Juan Gonzalez (his role model) is
Hispanic American” (5/8/00). Different cultures meant different cultures than one’s
own. Writing experiences assigned for the purpose o f learning about your own culture
were Now and Then and My Life on Film. Jamili had difficulty sacrificing his own
93
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
intentions to serve the teachers purposes. This was demonstrated earlier in the
description o f the Dilemma Story writing experience. For Jamili, intent and purpose is
linked to volition and willful participation.
Appropriating from Texts
Jamili articulated a need to borrow from a variety of sources in the construction
o f his own texts. He told me it was helpful “when we are listening to a poem and kind
o f make up our own poem kind of like that so we can like have it somewhere to show
people” and this was most important if done “only if we wanted to” (5/8/00). His
views of appropriation reinforced his role as performer, functioning as a tool to
produce text to “show people”. It also demonstrates the significance o f willful
participation: volition.
When given opportunities to make decisions about composing, Jamili
competently borrowed and transformed text features for his own purposes. Given his
social role as a performer, it is not surprising that he would cite television as a source
for appropriated materials. However, it is not media characters he used in his writing.
Jamili borrowed format from television intentionally trying to make his writing “kind
of like a show” (1/31/00). His continued referral to the audience in his texts borrows
from performance discourses. Asking the reader, “Don’t you wish you went there?”
(3/00) provides Jamili with a way to check on his story development. He is asking,
“Have I engaged you sufficiently?” and “Would you enjoy it the way I did?”. He also
appropriates school discourses in his teacher-like performances. In the math response
94
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
provided in an earlier section, Jamili urges “see if I got it right” and “let’s see what you
get” (2/14/00).
One morning Dee shared poems with a small group she was working with as
part o f an exhaustive, participatory science focus on sound. These poems contained
onomatopoeias and creative spellings o f sound depictions. She encouraged, but not
required the children to create their own sound poems for homework that night. Jamili
chose to try on the structure o f the poem, but transformed it for his own intentions.
Homework
I hear the sound of my pencil on the paper tstststs.
I hear the sound of shoes stomping boom! boom! boom!
I hear the sound o f my crayons coloring wwwwwwww.
I hear the sound of a poem named homework which is not
very far from finishing. (2/1/00)
By including the final line in this poem, Jamili articulates his playful stance, his social
role in the classroom. Without that last line, it would be no more than a mimic of its
original model. Given choice, Jamili recognizes the variety of resources he has to
borrow from.
In contrast, Jamili felt constrained by guided writing activities which assigned
writing that appropriated features from specific works o f literature. In two classroom
writing events which required appropriation, Jamili struggled to complete the
assignments. He was not able to take on another point of view as the Jack and the
Beanstalk retelling demanded, nor was he able to articulate a dilemma in his
appropriation of Jamaica’s Find. However, it is interesting to note that Jamili’s
dilemma story appropriated from additional sources. He borrowed the character John
95
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Henry from traditional African-American lore. In Jamili’s story John Henry was in a
quandary forced to make moral decisions.
Authentic Literacies
Jamili’s perceptions of authentic experiences seemed to focus on cultural
articulations. He identified the most significant writing experiences this year as the
Then and Now project and his Martin Luther King Jr. mobile. The Then and Now
project included an ancestor interview. Jamili interviewed his grandmother. The
children used index cards to prepare interview protocols. They created drafts and
illustrated their final products which were later bound into a classroom publication.
He thought the purpose for this assignment was to leam about your own culture. The
Martin Luther King Jr. mobile was a one morning activity that did not follow the
typical process writing format. The students watched a video of the famous “I Have
A Dream” speech. Afterward the children considered their own dreams for their
communities, country, and the world in creating their mobiles. As a famous African-
American, Dr. King is part o f Jamili’s culture. Jamili is strongly tied to African-
American culture and values school work that enables him to leam more. Recognized as
an expert in Rainbow Cluster, studying African-Americans is significant because it
“would be more about me” (5/8/00).
Summary
Jamili’s social role a performer framed his perceptions of purpose,
appropriation and authenticity. Just as a performer can change his social identity,
96
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
different settings change writing purposes. Writing functions as a way for Jamili to
make himself public as a narrator or playfully assertive teacher. Given the choice,
Jamili appropriates from a variety o f sources, sometimes performance sources
reinforcing his social role in the texts he creates. Choice is a valued component of
writing because it allows him opportunity to use the “I” stance, become a narrator,
address the audience, and appropriate from a multiple contexts. Choice may lead to
authentic experiences because it provides Jamili a way to draw attention to his values
and name himself in the world.
Jared
Introduction
Jared is a sports minded seven year old boy. In addition to his consuming
interest in sports, Jared enjoys art and takes lessons after school. He is a Caucasian,
Jewish- American who lives with his eleven year old sister, and both of his parents.
Jared’s father has a high profile job defending civil rights, something that Jared enjoys
talking on the fringes of. He is one o f only a few students who does not come to school
by bus. He is a bright boy, challenges himself and does well in all subject areas. He is
not disliked in class, but invites few interactions outside his immediate peer group.
His closest friend is a valued classroom collaborator. Their friendship is long standing
and moves beyond the school boundaries. However, Jared’s face is often dirtied with a
runny nose and frequently appears generally unkempt. I believe his hygiene may
negatively influence his social interactions. The following excerpt depicts Jared’s
typical classroom relationships.
97
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Buck, a fair skinned African American classmate, shared his My Life On Film
project photographs with me. He was proud of the images he made o f his family, his
home and cultural artifacts. In particular, Buck enthusiastically spoke about an
African painting depicted in one photograph. Jared leaned into our conversation, rolling
his eyes in response to Buck’s picture.
Buck: You don’t like the painting, Jared?
Jared: Bunch of naked people.
Buck: They’re not naked. They look like you.
Jared: I’d say more white. They look like you.
Jared gently touches Buck’s face with his fingers.
Buck: No they don’t and by the way, you smell.
Jared: That’s not me, its you.
Buck: That is your hand that smells. (2/22/00)
Initially Buck was interested in Jared’s feedback. When Jared responded with
disapproval, Buck retaliated with comments about Jared’s personal care. Jared had
heard these comments before. He simply shrugged it off and went on his way. As a
result of these types o f interactions with peers, Jared limited participation to large
group activities run by the teacher. In smaller groups he often took the role as
observer, watching and attending to details. Further, when Jared engaged in peer
conferencing and author’s chair he rarely used other’s suggestions for the
transformation of his texts. Even with adults, Jared listened but made few changes.
His personal appearance extends to his work. Despite the fact that Jared
qualifies for Gifted and Talented Enrichment, he still struggled with fine motor skills.
His work was very sloppy and often found stuffed into his folders and bins. He
98
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
frequently misplaced assignment sheets but somehow managed to come to groups
prepared. Jared realized he produced messy work and understood it as a creative
choice. His work was “messy because it doesn’t take as long” (1/31/00), to get the
story down on paper. The mechanics o f writing may hinder his expressive nature.
When the students in Rainbow Cluster wrote college essays they were
instructed to persuade their chosen university to allow them admission. Jared
interpreted the assignment from a different perspective.
I think UCLA would be a good college because it is very
advanced in academics. That fits me. It is also high in
sports which also fits. I will love UCLA. (5/15/00)
Jared’s strong sense o f self esteem is evident As directed, he presents himself as
worthy of the institution. However, instead o f Jared expressing hopes for admission,
his essay conveys control. He decides that “UCLA would be a good college” for his
needs. Jared admits the university to his world rather than the university admitting
Jared.
Jared is interested in facts. He is a keen observer with an amazing recall of
details. He especially enjoys participating in content area instruction. I looked to
Jared for accurate retelling of events I may miss when away from the classroom. He
was a reporter, quite content to objectively retell sequences of events.
The Documentarian
Jared maintained the same stance for art and writing. “I like everything to be
basic and perfect and exactly like it is,...exactly true” (1/31/00). He did not like comics,
99
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
with special disregard focused at Superman, and he did not like poetry. Jared was a
journalist, objectively reporting the facts o f his life. He stayed away from dramatic
constructions unless they could be validated by situational evidence.
During one writing workshop mini lesson Dee introduced the beginning, middle,
and end, graphic organizer for use as a prewriting activity. Jared had trouble making
sense of the format asking, “Does it have to have a problem?” (10/26/99). Instead, he
preferred to impart anecdotal events deemed autobiographically important. Jared
capably used writing as a way to document his world as it unfolded before him.
My favorite kind of writing is non-fiction writing because I
like telling people about my life and if I could write about
anything it would be non-fiction stories.
(from Dialogue Journal, date unknown)
With only one exception all year, Jared’s stories were written in the first person. He
wrote about important content: his dog, his best friend. He wrote about important
events: a game changing basket, his first hit. His workshop folder documents
experiences he feels were significant within his autobiography.
Truth in text, or the appearance of truth appears to be valued. He used several
text features as tools for convincing his reader of the accuracy of the text Two
significant ways Jared accomplished this was by focusing on the sequence of events
and by using numbers as text evidence.
100
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Time Indicators
True to his journalistic style, Jared employed time indicators to accurately
describe events. They formalized the texts, creating official documents. Jared also used
a variety of temporal markers to lead the reader through his narratives. His stories
seem to remain true to the experience they serve to replicate, however, Jared values the
power to “make it into a more interesting order” (1/31/00). Lead sentences usually
indicate when the event begins. The following excerpts begin some of Jared’s stories:
One day my parents, My sister Tamara and I took a vacation to Utah
(10/25/00).
One day I went to the zoo (11/4/00).
One day my father signed me up for a baseball team (11/8/00).
Hi, I am a giant. One day I woke and asked for my hen (2/17/00).
W hen I first met Jack I was 3 years old (3/7/00).
Not long ago...(5/11/00).
Jared measures time passing in days and years. In “My First Hit” he marks
time in a variety of ways. Consider the underlined phrases.
One day my father signed me up for a basketball team. The
last year I played but I was too nervous to hit...One
Saturday morning I found out that I was in the
Mariners...Ten davs went by. One Monday morning. I
realized that on Saturday I had a game. (11/8/00)
Proper names o f days are also used as measures. In addition, movement across time
builds suspense. “The Champion’s Dilemma” was one of the few texts not
constructed around an autobiographical account. In this story, Sam, a conniving
101
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
character, was injured a week before an important game. Sam found a way to play
because his mother would be at a meeting at the same time the game was scheduled
He further delineates time.
Sam did not play in the 1st or 2nd periods. The 3rd began and he was
in. With three minutes to go in the 3rd period Sam was limping. The
coach did not notice. The 3rd period ended and the 4th began. (3/3/00)
Jared often used numbers in his time markers. Numbers made the text official and
important. They occurred in many of his texts, most frequently in texts centering
around sports themes.
Using Numbers
Once I signed up for a basketball team with 8,9,10, 11 and 12 year old
players... I played 4 seasons and I am going to play 5.... I averaged 0
points per game. In our 4th season we won the championship. I was
so proud. In the final game, with 29.3 seconds, the coach put me in.
...The 1st shot I missed but the 2nd one I made. (10/12/99)
Numbers offered Jared journalistic integrity even when facts may not be accurate. Did
he see the clock read 29.3 seconds? Was this so important a moment that Jared
checked the time as a way to engrave the moment in his memory? Or did Jared create
fictitious numbers as tools to authenticate his texts? Jared tells me they are true. In
either case, they superficially function as truth markers.
102
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Perceptions of Purpose
According to Jared, reading and writing serve different intentions. Reading is a
pleasurable endeavor. He considers himself a very good reader and enjoys collecting
books. Jared reads fantasy and fiction, two genres he does not participate in for
writing purposes. Early in the year, Jared did not consider himself an author because
he was “still learning the basics of writing” (10/11/00). From one perspective, Jared
sees writing as a way to collect skills. On the other hand, writing functions as a way
“to share ideas” with others” (10/11/00). Regardless of specific function, writing
generally “helps you with education” (1/31/00).
Sometimes Rainbow Cluster writing experiences functioned for the purpose of
skill acquisition. Specifically, the Then and Now project and Role Model research were
perceived as writing experiences designed by the teachers for the purpose of writing
instruction. While participating in the Then and Now project Jared learned
interviewing skills. The children created and executed protocols while conducting
interviews with their ancestors. Despite his attention to facts, Jared did not recognize
this as a valuable skill because he could not see its usefulness unless he was “going to
interviewPhil Jackson (the coach of the Los Angeles Lakers) or a famous someone”
(5/23/00). On the other hand, he found the research skills learned during the Role
Model project helpful to have as writing tools. He learned to “squeeze out
information” and provide relevant details (5/23/00). Jared distinguished his Role Model
project as an important piece o f writing precisely because he generated research skills.
The journalist in Jared perceived writing as a way to communicate ideas. For
example, the My Life on Film project was intended as a way to “go back into your life
103
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
so people can leam about it” (5/23/00). Teachers used writing workshop to help
students to leam to “use time wisely” (5/23/00). Jared felt workshop was a place to
“use your imagination” (5/23/00), but rarely actualized this function o f workshop.
However, workshop offered Jared a time to write autobiographical vignettes, his most
valued genre, and a place to tell his stories.
Appropriating from Texts
Jared balked at assignments which required the appropriation of story
elements. He participated in the projects for the purpose o f completion but did not
understand why students were asked to “copy stuff’. He called guided writing
experiences “copyrighting” (5/23/00) because they asked you to copy a feature o f the
original texts. Given choice, Jared very capably appropriated stance and form from
sports journalism. He was deeply interested in sports, specifically local professional
sporting events. He participated in at least two organized athletic leagues and reflected
about sport driven family outings. In addition, Jared consistently read the “box scores”
in the daily newspaper. These elements regularly surfaced in his written texts.
My First Hit
... One Saturday morning I found out that I was in the Mariners, was
number 24 and I was going to play 1st base....I hit a triple...I was up to
bat two more times and hit two more triples. The final score was
Mariners seven and Yankees five. I was happy that I won and went
three for three with three triples. (11/8/00)
Borrowing from sports commentaries was an effective means for documenting
Jared’s significant autobiographical stories in three ways. First, Jared’s life events
often revolved around sports content. Therefore, the format typical of sport reporting
104
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
allowed for the simple insertion of Jared’s life facts. Second, this journalistic form
provided a forum for a play-by-play commentary, capitalizing on sequence and
validated by the use of numbers, tools Jared already had in place. Finally, it freed Jared
from the responsibility of innovation and encourages neutrality. He is able to stick to
the facts and make it “exactly true” (1/31/00).
Authentic Literacies
Jared clearly distinguished literacy practices he felt were meaningful from those
which were insignificant. He was outspoken against the genre of poetry because he
perceived it as a restricted medium. Any assignment limits were understood as
communicative constraints instead of opportunities to experiment with text. As a
result, the choice stories of writing workshop were identified as the most meaningful
writing engagement in Rainbow Cluster. Workshop was a time where Jared could
write his true stories and life reports. Workshop as a place with few restrictions
allowing the opportunity to make personal choices in texts.
Sometimes the written products themselves were valued. “My First Hit” was
meaningful because it measured academic improvement and not because the experience
of creating the text was important. Jared felt this early story was a tool for reflection
offering a way to trace his growth as a writer. He also recognized the Role Model
project as significant because it was his first formal opportunity to engage in research.
Jared knows the skills he learned as a participant in the process will serve as helpful
tools for the creation of other written texts.
105
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Summary
Jared is a bright boy who actively participates in large group classroom
gatherings. In that context, his comments usually enrich the discussions. However,
Jared has limited social appeal outside his immediate peer group, perhaps limited by
personal hygiene. As a result, Jared sometimes takes on the role o f classroom observer
during small group work. As observer, Jared pays acute attention to setting details.
Because he has limited interactions, Jared uses his texts as windows into his world. He
reports important life events and expresses relationships. He writes as a way to offer
his readers a chance to get to know him through his documented autobiographical
vignettes. Even though Jared recognizes multiple purposes for different classroom
writing events, his texts serve one function. He writes for the purpose of
autobiographical documentation.
Truth in text appears to be valued. Jared found the most authentic writing
experiences were those where he was able to serve his own intentions, namely life
event reports. Content was significant because Jared was his own subject. In addition,
choice allowed him the opportunity to write about events he selected offering readers
insight into his values.
When allowed the chance to make decisions about his written products, Jared
negotiated topic, form and stance. As demonstrated in this portrait, Jared often
borrowed elements from sport reporting. He used numbers and time markers to
officialize his texts. He offered commentary o f events that reflected journalistic
commentary o f sporting events. Thus, his stance in his text reflected his frequent
position in the classroom: observer and documentarian.
106
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Alexander
Introduction
Alexander is an eight year old Latino. He is English dominant but also speaks
Spanish fluently. His mother is Guatemalan and his father is from El Salvador.
Alexander is the middle of three sons. The youngest is not yet old enough to be at
school. The oldest brother also attends Bridge School and has a distinguished
reputation as a trouble-maker on the bus and in class. Alexander looks up to his older
brother and sometimes finds himself part of the trouble he creates. In May, Alexander,
his brother and his cousin were nearly kicked off the bus for their disruptions even
after repeated warnings. Alexander and his brothers live with both parents on the other
side o f the city. He participates in the reduced lunch program at school.
Alexander has no difficulty finding trouble without the aid o f his big brother.
He wrote at least eight behavior conference sheets this year, far more than any other
member of Rainbow Cluster. His behavior difficulties stem from lack of
responsibility. Alexander often comes to school unprepared, without homework or
other school tools. There were also behavior conference sheets that addressed
disrespect, although I never saw him act inappropriately to any adult in the Rainbow
Cluster classroom.
Our personal interactions enabled me to identify Alexander as the first focal
child. During my early time in the field, I could tell Alexander benefited from the short
time we spent together. One morning Alexander arrived at school wearing a tee shirt
that declared the name of another elementary school. Serendipitously, it was a school
were I once worked as a reading resource specialist. Alexander had no idea how the tee
107
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
shirt came into his hands, but this event forged a special bond. We had shared
knowledge that others in the cluster did not understand. From then on he
enthusiastically shared his writing and other literacy accomplishments with me. He
looked to me as an editing partner and occasionally withheld writing until I was at
school.
When Alexander finds himself in need of reprimand, Dee and Ana assign an
appropriate consequence. However, consequences have very little effect on Alexander.
Benching him at recess or extricating him from group work had no correlation to
improvement in responsible classroom actions. Alexander constantly negotiated how
much he wanted to give to the community, weighing out the input needed for his
intentions to be realized. In general, Alexander was content to do the minimum amount
o f work needed to have some extra time with his classmates. Time is his great engager.
Time is his classroom luxury.
Alexander demonstrates an interest in technology. There are 16 computers in
the classroom environment, but he has made one his favorite. Whenever possible,
Alexander chooses to work at the one imac in the north room, the place usually
designated for conferencing and social work of writing. Typical of Alexander, he has
found a way to simultaneously attend to academic and social concerns of Rainbow
Cluster.
Apprentice Bov-in-Trouble
The social work o f Rainbow Cluster is a paramount concern for Alexander. He
takes pride in helping his classmates by enacting his job and through conferencing.
108
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
However, Alexander is easily distracted by his desire to help and frequently chooses to
be involved in a peer’s work rather than his own. On his first report card, Dee and
Ana reflected on Alexander’s place in the classroom culture.
Alexander is a helpful student who loves to complete his
class job. Unfortunately, this tends to distract him from his
class work. W e’d love to see him show the same amount of
responsibility and enthusiasm for his work. He is an active
participant and we love to hear his ideas. (11/99)
Alexander volunteers to participate in a variety of classroom settings. He engages
equally enthusiastically in whole group and small groups. He contributes to
discussions which focus on content and skills. Left to self regulate, he does not
effectively use his time. He sometimes spends more time off task then attending to the
work before him. Alexander is aware of his tendency to be distracted and takes steps
to mediate the situation. The following excerpt from my field notes illustrates a typical
negotiation during writing workshop.
Alexander wanders the north room (designated for talking)
looking for a place to write. Nick invites him over but
Alexander says, “no way, you will be talking to me the
whole time!”. I am surprised that he declines this invitation,
given his favor o f social interaction in the classroom. Alex
finds a quieter spot, arranges his workshop folder then leaves
his seat to show Nick where he will be working. (1/18/00)
Alexander makes the effort to participate in the textural work o f workshop, but is not
able to sustain engagement and remain focused on the writing.
109
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Book talk groups proved especially challenging for Alexander. The teachers
facilitated these small, homogeneous groups but most decisions were left to the
members. The children were steadfast rule enforcers who handed out consequences as
situations dictated. Groups were dynamic: both texts and members changed regularly.
One o f the first tasks a group is assigned is to establish goals, responsibilities and
consequences. Alex was the only member o f Rainbow Cluster to be kicked out o f a
book talk group all year. The teachers did not make the decision to dismiss him,
instead his group determined the consequences based on the outline created during their
initial meeting. We spoke more than once about this classroom incident
Alexander: Yeah it happened to me once, yeah when I was in Summer
Reading is Killing Me. I didn’t bring my stuff very much so I got
kicked out and I was alone.... I tried, I tried not to make it happen
again. (5/3/00)
Marva: Is it a drag working by yourself?
Alexander. No, because I don’t get distracted (3/9/00)
Despite months in Rainbow Cluster, Alexander was still accustomed to working in
traditional paradigms for instruction. I observed one book talk group which
commenced later in the year. During their initial meeting they focus on behavioral
consequences. Alexander was fully engaged in the discussion, offering suggestions for
group expectations. However, he also admitted how difficult it would be for him to
maintain responsibilities. I am pleased to say he remained a member throughout the
duration o f the book talk group.
110
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Classroom Helper
Once as the pencil monitor, Alexander had the opportunity to pass out new
pencils to every student in Rainbow Cluster. As he distributes the pencils he reminds
the recipients to say thank you. Additionally, he remembers to place a pencil in the
mailboxes o f those students who were absent He is diligent about whatever classroom
job he is assigned. He performs his tasks willingly and usually with a wide grin.
Alexander freely initiates and responds to requests for conferences during the
writing workshop. As a revising partner, he responds appropriately. He listens
carefully and receives a piece with relevant comments such as, “I felt sorry for you
when you got hurt with the sprinkler” (10/19/99), or while pointing to the text, “You
said you would write Senji’s father but you wrote Senji father” (4/3/00). The above
example was taken from a time when instead of working on his own incomplete texts,
Alexander helped Darlene edit Darlene requested his help, and Alexander obliged. He
became known as a capable collaborator in the workshop. I never heard him decline a
request for help. His desire to be a contributory member of Rainbow Cluster was
sometimes at the expense of his own accomplishments.
Conferences where he was the recipient of help made a difference to the texts
he produced. I once observed Alexander conferencing with Peter and John N..
Alexander was not sure what to write about so he used these peers as a sounding board
for his ideas. He brainstormed and made oral revisions as he elaborated his story.
Peter and John N. listened enthusiastically and offered finessing to his outline. Finally
John N. leans over and says, “Draw it man! Do your story!” (3/13/00). John N.
Ill
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
referred to a creating a storyboard, a common classroom prewriting tool. Alexander
listened to his advice, got the paper and started at it right away.
I also watched Alexander conferencing with teachers. He responded with less
zeal. I observed one discussion where Dee concentrated on his nearly completed role
model project. That morning Alexander remained focused throughout the workshop
block. It made a marked difference that Alexander could recognize for himself. Near
the end of the workshop block Dee met with Alexander to check his progress.
Together they transformed dry facts into interesting text Alexander was excited to be
near completion because he anticipated using the computer to publish a hyper-studio
text. Dee offered encouragement and suggested that he could be finished with just a bit
more effort Dee told Alexander, “You did a great job. Alexander, you are so close! Do
you want to take this home tonight?”. Despite her enthusiasm Alexander responded
with exasperation, “Well, what do I have to do?” (3/15/00). Even with the prospect of
creating a computer generated text, Alexander was reluctant to do any “extra” work,
especially work done outside the classroom.
Perceptions o f Purpose
According to Alexander, people “write to see things in a different way”
(10/11/99). He finds writing useful because “it can help me think about things that
pass through my life” (5/3/00). Writing serves reflective purposes: way to record and
leam from life events. However, writing takes work. Producing dedicated energy was
sometimes a roadblock to producing quality text When asked about participating in
112
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
classroom writing experiences, Alexander tells me, “I like to do it but sometimes I just
don’t like to and I want to relax and not do work and I really like writing though”
(3/1/00).
Alexander differentiates purpose with genre. He recognizes there are varied
reasons to engage with text. For example, Alexander believes the students in Rainbow
Cluster were asked to participate in the My Life on Film project for the teachers’
benefit He believes this project was assigned “so they can leam what’s going on in
my house” (5/3/00). The purpose of the Role Model project was to leam content
information about his biographical subject. As previously mentioned, the Role Model
project included specific research skill and technology instruction. Alexander did not
acknowledge this residual knowledge about being a writer as a benefit of the project.
His primary focus was on the biography. He participated in the project to leam about
someone other than himself and appeared highly engaged in the research content.
Alexander studied Steven Speilberg as a representative of Jewish-American Culture.
Writing workshop served two separate yet related intentions. For Alexander,
writing workshop was a place to remember. Workshop texts provided Alexander with
an opportunity to reflect on life experiences. He often choose to write about his older
brother and the situations they created for themselves. The dilemma story also offered
Alexander a way to use writing for reflective intentions, perhaps even as a catharsis.
Workshop was a place for remembering writing skills too. Alexander believed Dee and
Ana offered writing workshop so students in Rainbow Cluster could practice writing
conventions like composing paragraphs with strong topic sentences and “zinger”
closers. In general workshop was where students engaged in the work of becoming a
113
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
good writer. For some, like Alexander, part o f this work was rehearsing standard
paragraph formats. For others, the work had different purposes. To be a good writer
in Rainbow Cluster, one must fulfill unique intentions. For Alexander, definitions of
good were not broadly stated. Instead characteristics were consistent to the individual
but changed over community membership. Specifically, Alexander had the following
three goals for himself: remain organized, to be able to do some of the writing in his
head before putting it on paper and “make things exciting so people won’t think the
story is boring and they won’t read it” (5/3/00). Alexander utilized a variety of
strategies toward his goals. One important mediational means he employed was
appropriating scripts from his brother’s distinguished status as a trouble maker at
Bridge School.
Appropriating From a Variety o f Sources
Alexander is a perceptive and resourceful writer. He capable draws on a
variety o f means for the creation of new texts. I am continually amazed by the
connections he makes to prior knowledge. During one writing workshop, Alexander
drafted a story at a table in the north room. Daryl, a younger female student whom
Alexander had little interaction with sat beside him producing a final copy of a story. I
sat nearby and watched.
Daryl: Marva, if I get my word book will you tell me how to
spell Beverly.
Marva: Beverly? Like the name?
Daryl: No, like the Beverly Center.
Marva: Why do you need to know how to spell that?
Daryl: We go shopping there in my story.
114
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The Beverly Center is a high-end mall in Beverly Hills, California. Daryl reads
her text out loud for me to hear the context o f her spelling need. Before I have
a chance to provide her with the correct spelling in her word book (a personal
spelling dictionary of words created out of need), Alexander enters the
conversation.
Alexander: Just check the bookshelf.
Daryl: What?
Alexander: Just check the bookshelf.
Daryl: (excitedly) Do we have a book on the Beverly Center?
Alexander No, but we have lots of books by Beverly Cleary.
Daryl: Oh yeah.
Books are a valuable asset for Alexander’s writing, not just for conventional spellings,
but for many reasons. During book talks he often returns to the novel, “the book is
there in case you need it” (5/3/00) to resolve a question, to aid in comprehension. He
draws on his experiences with books when working on assigned and choice topics in
writing.
More often than from books, Alexander borrows scripts from his older brother
Robert’s world. Robert is consistently in trouble at school and on the bus.
Occasionally he includes Alexander in his mischief. Alexander admires his brother and
is a willing participant in these escapades. Robert and his adventures, especially as
they relate to Alexander often appear in his writing. Along with the “brothers-in-
trouble” script that he appropriates, Alexander sometimes looks to popular culture as
a resource. As the following writing samples illustrate, Pokemon cards reappear as a
source of conflict for the brothers.
115
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
On a school day during recess Alexander found a Pokemon card. He
picked it [up] and said to himself, should I keep it or not? SO he did
the wrong thing. He showed it to his cousin. His cousin said that the
card sucked but he did not care. When he went home, he told his
brother Robert. His brother said you’re lucky. “Can [you] collect
card[s] with me?” Jimmy answered ‘yes”. Robert yelled “yes!”
The next day Alexander’s cousin had a soccer game. We went
to the game and brought cards to trade. The problem was that
Alexander took the stolen Pokemon card and some others. He traded a
card. But Alexander’s dad found out that they had brought the
Pokemon cards to the game. So Alexander & Robert’s dad told Robert
to give the Pokemon cards to him. He put the cards in his pocket. On
Monday, Alexander’s mom washed the laundry. Alexander and Robert
went to hang up the laundry. Robert found the cards, witch had been
washed, and the one Alexander stole had been messed up. Alexander
said, “I will never ever steal again because someone will do something
to the thing you stole. (2/24//00)
Pokemon characters, movies and cards were very popular over the school year. Some
children had binders filled with cards, many with the sparkling adornment which
increased their value. Alexander, with limited income, participated only peripherally.
Alexander writes about himself and the dilemma he faces in third person, breaking once
with “We went to the game...”. The card itself has a dynamic role in his story.
Initially, it is seen as a treasure, something worth “stealing”. Later his cousin
undermines the card’s value by telling him it “sucked” but his brother validates its
worth by using his power to take it over. In the end, he never faces up to his folly.
Instead, because of negligence on Robert’s behalf the treasure is taken away. His
explicit moral shows no remorse for his actions, only that he paid the price for them.
116
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
In another sample created during the same research phase, Alexander writes of
another story where his brother is a main character and a conflict arises around the
treasured Pokemon cards.
One afternoon my cousin Brian came to my house. I got so excited! I
went to get Pokemon cards. When he came inside the house, I asked
him if he wanted to play with my Pokemon cards and he said yes.
Then my big brother Robert snuck up behind me and he took my
Pokemon cards and started running. He hid them and I got made at
him. I looked all over the house and I couldn’t find them. I went and
told my mom. She told me to call my brother so she could speak to
him. He came and he said he did not take them away. He lied! I felt
suspicious. Two weeks later, when we were cleaning our room, I
finally found my Pokemon cards under my brothers’s bed! My brother
said you finally found them! And I felt so happy. I wasn’t angry
anymore. (3/2/00, unedited)
Once again Robert takes power away from Alexander in the form o f Pokemon cards.
Alexander uses the brothers-in-trouble script but this time writes from a a first person
perspective. I believe his change in stance may be related to his actions. In the earlier
story, Alexander “stole” the Pokemon card. In the example written from the first
person, Alexander is the victim, left to resolve the conflict on his own terms. His
brother Robert’s roles and ideas shape Alexander’s writing as well as his social role in
the classroom. In appropriating his brother’s scripts, he constructs his own voice and
asserts his place in the Rainbow Cluster community.
Authentic Literacies
Building a concept of authenticity with Alexander was challenging. His ideas
about meaningful and significant writing and experiences were convoluted by flooding
117
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
assigned texts, “...when I had to do this thing that the teachers told us to do its kind o f
hard for me to think about” (3/1/00).
Summary
Alexander is a resourceful writer and thinker who very often finds himself
distracted from the work of school. He enthusiastically works with his classroom
peers making thoughtful and relevant comments during conferences. He is helpful to
the teachers by completing his classroom jobs. However, it is difficult for Alexander
to take personal responsibility for the work prescribed by school. Several behavior
conferences were held over the year to address issues o f responsibility. Dee and Ana
frequently implemented behavioral consequences for him.
Writing required active reflection for Alexander. Often his reflective writing
centered around a behavior issues and usually involved his older brother Robert.
Robert had already established a reputation as a child with behavior problems at Bridge
School. He served as a role model for the brothers-in-trouble scripts Alexander
appropriates for use in his written texts. Writing, specifically workshop writing,
functioned for the purpose of remembering and learning from life’s incidents.
Alexander established his own purposes for writing, but recognized every writer has
unique intentions to fill. Further, he understands that even for an individual, purposes
for engaging are dynamic across settings.
In addition to borrowing from his older brother’s behavior scripts, Alexander
transforms a variety o f texts to serve his own intentions. He borrows from literature
and pop culture to find moments of power in his texts which are typically undermined
119
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
perceived teachers values into his own. When questioned, Alexander talked about what
he thought was important based on what he felt the teachers esteemed. For example,
Alexander highly regarded guided writing because the teachers assigned it to him. After
all, if Dee and Ana thought it was worth assigning it must be important. Alexander
identified the I Am poem as important writing in Rainbow Cluster. He told me it is
“one of the things the teacher told us” (5/3/00). There are inconsistencies in
Alexander’s perceptions. The “Role Model [project] is more interesting than writers
workshop to me” and he called it the “most important forme. ” (5/3/00). His photo-
interview supports this conclusion. He chose 18 photographs because they showed
children “working hard and not getting distracted”. The 19 remaining photographs
depicted texts: 5 teacher created, 9 assigned writing products, and 5 choice stories.
These ideas of what is important are separate from ideas of what is authentic for
Alexander. They suggest writing and writing behaviors praised by the teachers.
I was not content to present Alexander’s interpretations of the teacher’s ideas.
Alexander talked to me about being able to engage in writing on topics of his choice.
When allowed choice, workshop was a place where he could challenge teacher
prescriptions. For Alexander, workshop presented a place to “put my ideas on the
paper, [and write about] what I think I should write, not what the teachers think I
should write” (3/1/00). Because o f this privilege, writing workshop became a
meaningful time for Alexander. In addition, he was able to create personal narratives
during workshop, an enjoyable endeavor, “My favorite is like when I write about
myself because...I know everything, every fact I know”. He contrast choice with
118
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
by his brother’s actions. His topics are reflected in his world. Alexander’s school role
as apprentice boy-in-trouble manifests itself in his topics, purposes and perceptions
about writing.
Ally
Ally is an eight year old, Caucasian girl who is spending her second year with
Dee and Ana in Rainbow Cluster. However, she is not a holdover; students in this
multiage environment often spend two years in the same cluster. Ally is recognized by
her teachers as an “insightful and original thinker” (11/5/99) and through testing
qualifies for Gifted And Talented Enrichment. Ana informed me that Ally remained in
Rainbow Cluster because “we felt that she would benefit from being separated from
some of her classmates last year and it would also give her an opportunity to not be
overshadowed by them. She definitely can be a leader and we saw less o f that last
year” (6/4/00). Dee conferred, “She was a leader last year, but had some friendships
that hemmed her in a little, dominated her outlook. We sent those girls on and kept
her” (6/6/00).
Ally has had a chance to shine this year. She was an essential member in small
groups and is a responsible member o f the Rainbow community. She shares her ideas
with confidence and is proud of her accomplishments. She lights up when Dee or Ana
use her work from last year as a model for new students. Because Ally was looped,
occasionally she had slightly different curricular agendas. For example, the children
who were in Rainbow Cluster last year already experienced the Role Model project
120
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Instead o f creating another Role Model project, these students wrote Autobiographies.
Ally created the following list in preparation for writing her autobiography.
The Ten Most Important Things About Me
1. One important thing is that I am kind and thoughtful o f
others.
2. I’m cheerful most o f the time (99% of the time).
3 .1 have a good mind.
4 .1 help others
5 .1 play with people who are left out.
6 .1 have a good imagination
7 .1 love to sing, dance and act
8. I’m a good listener.
9. I’m a good friend to others.
10. I’m an important part of a loving family. (2/7/00)
This list captures the essential elements I learned about Ally. She is “part of a loving
family”. Ally is an only child with two supportive parents. Her parents work with
her on homework and participate in many school activities. Ally’s father, an actor by
profession, is a recognized substitute at Bridge school. His humorous and thoughtful
demeanor is always welcomed in Rainbow Cluster. Many boys are special fans who
actually line up to conference with him.
Like her father, Ally is interested in theater. She loves to perform in and out of
school. This year Ally acted in two plays as part of a community theater. She also
enjoys singing and wrote that she “sang in front of 1000 people at church...” (5/15/00).
Ally enjoys an audience. Naturally she delights in conferencing, author’s chair and any
opportunity to share her work in class. Her comments in class often clarify ideas for
121
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
her classmates. However, she is sometimes overly chatty and must be asked to leave
the rug during whole group instruction.
Ally wants to be well liked and tries to act with kindness. In response to How
Big is a Foot?. Ally, like the other students, wrote to inform the Carpenter’s
Apprentice o f his mistake measuring “...but I think you still did a good job.” (4/5/00).
She reflects, “I’m a good friend to others” (5/15/00), and goes out o f her way to help
during conferences and interactions with peers. Ally’s dominant peer group in
Rainbow Cluster includes 2 other strong willed girls. The three girls had harmonious
and turbulent times together. All three could be classified as independent thinkers.
Their time working together was to enhance individual goals rather than collaborative
efforts.
Ally is not as easy to typify as it was to see Marisol as an English language
learner, Jamili as a performer, Jared as a documentarian, and Alexander as an apprentice
boy-in-trouble. However, it is clear that she connects her life experiences to writing
and wants a place, like a stage, to have her say.
Expressions o f a Big Life
Ally is an enthusiastic writer especially when given the opportunity to tell
about her world. Ally consistently uses the same strategy to come up with topics to
write about, “I decide by thinking of my life” (5/3/00). She lives a “big life” which is
the main source o f ideas for her writing.
...just like Saturdays and Sundays I don’t just stay home
and watch T.V.. Me and my dad go bike riding and stuff and
that gives me ideas and sometimes we rent old old movies
122
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
that are black and white and we watch it and that makes me
get ideas...its not like I have a small life and I’m closed in...
(3/6/00)
According to Ally, if you live big you can write big and children who stay at
home and watch television do not have sources for interesting stories. Creating
interesting stories for engaged audiences was one goal of the writing workshop.
Because they encouraged their student-authors to begin with a “seed o f truth” Dee and
Ana received many stories composed as lists of daily events. These list stories are the
“and then” stories written in elementary school classrooms. Several minilessons were
created to combat this problem that transcends structure and topic choice. Dee ran
minilessons highlighting problem and solution in texts. Ana introduced a
beginning/middle/end graphic organizer for use as a prewriting activity. Ally
frequently contributed to these conversations.
After modeling with her own story, Ana invited the children to conference. The
class discussed revisions needed in Ana’s writing.
Ana: But I think there is a problem with this part.
Ruby: You are just making a list.
Ana: And a list is not really a story?
Ally: Its for a grocery store. The food can be kind of exciting
but...
Ana: But, so what? Is somebody going to want to read this?
(10/26/00)
Continuing the conversation, Ana and Dee discussed story format, and conceptions of
conflict. They built stories from real events and elaborated to make them more
interesting: “a seed o f truth”. Ally took a defensive stance “sometimes stories are
123
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
100% true and they are very exciting” (10/26/00). She knows her big life provides her
with enough “seeds o f truth” to create interesting texts audiences will want to transact
with.
Perceptions of Purpose: Having Her Sav
Writing functions for personal expression. Even early in the school year Ally
explicitly described her intention. “I think people write because they put out their
feelings and problems” (10/11/99). Ally most notably wrote to “put o u t... feelings and
problems” (5/2/00) during writing workshop . In that context, Ally writes “...to get
her ideas out in words...” (5/2/00) in a safe way and still act in kindness.
...telling your friend, they might not understand and go ‘I don’t want to
be your friend anymore’ and they might misunderstand you. But in
stories you can really bring it out and not hurt anyone’s feelings cause
you can change their names. (5/2/00).
Workshop writing was cathartic and comforting for Ally. She valued having a way to
have her say without stressing the classroom relationships she worked hard to
establish.
My Life on Film and the Now and Then projects served similar intentions.
The My Life on Film project provided Ally with an additional way of communicating
her life, photography. She enjoyed making the photographs and sharing with them
with the class. This additional medium supplemented the writing she did all year. The
images were captions for texts already written about her family and her life. The Now
and Then project was “not really the story of you” but was connected to Ally
124
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
“because of their genes” (5/2/00). She reasoned further, “if you have an exciting life
your ancestor probably has more exciting” (5/2/00). Because Ally was a student in
Rainbow Cluster last year, she constructed an Autobiography instead o f a Role Model
project. The purpose o f writing her autobiography was to share information about
herself and her life. Ally found ways to have her say in a variety o f contexts.
Appropriating From Life
Ally created interesting texts from assigned guided writing. Like the other
children, she borrowed text features such as plot, characters and theme in constructing
her new stories. However, she does more than mimic the original models. She sets out
to make it her own transforming text elements through personal expression. Even
when Ally writes from another point of view, she embeds a consistent quality marking
it as her own. Ally does this purposefully because writing serves expressive
intentions.
She appropriates stylistic characteristics from books and draws upon the plots
o f the old black and white movies she views at home with her parents. I watched her
struggling for an idea one writing workshop in March. Ally sat sketching a storyboard
but was not making much headway. In an instant she decided on her topic. Once set,
she looked to share her idea.
Ally: Have you seen “The Bluebird”?
Marva: The Shirley Temple movie? Yeah.
Ally: My story is going to be something like that.
125
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
She continues sketching and writes “The Journey To” across the top o f the page. I
watch her stop to check the spelling o f “journey” in her word book. Once back on
task, she reengages me in her prewrite.
Ally: You know how they are looking for the bluebird?
Marva: I remember that.
Ally: Well this is going to be “The Journey to the Silver
Fish”.
Later during writing workshop, Ally takes a turn at the dialogue journal. She writes
about her favorite movies and asks me to choose a favorite when I respond.
Ally competently borrows from books and movies for her own textural
intentions. However, the most frequent source of material by far is her lived
experiences. She chooses writing topics by reflecting on her life because “my life is
really interesting and it tells a lot of kids about me” (3/5/00). This year during
workshop she wrote about a trip to Disneyland, a scary ride experience, and her most
valued piece about a car accident. Ally had additional opportunities to write about her
life in the Now and Then, My Life On Film, I Am poem, and Autobiography projects.
Her sound poem was about the theater where she spends a significant amount of time.
Ally was the only focus student to use the word voice in describing her place in
her written texts. She intentionally used voice as a personal phenomenon so she
“doesn’t sound like a dictionary” instead “it’s just me saying stuff about my life.”
(3/6/00). For Ally sounding like a dictionary is a contrast to expressive voice because
“you have to know what it means [and not take it from a dictionary] to really
understand, to really hear your voice in your story even though some people say its
126
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
just a piece of paper and a story.” (5/2/00). In other words, lived experiences inspire
voice in texts because the author owns them and knows them.
Personal expression as an integral part of voice, but so is style and word choice.
There are a lot of kids in Rainbow and probably at least one
person writes like me...[but] I put in parenthesis or I bet you
a million bucks that no other child knows the word
inconspicuous (3/6/00).
Ally recognizes this quality of voice in her texts and so did her teachers. Dee and Ana
commented at the second reporting period, “Ally has also developed a very strong
voice in her writing which is exciting to see.” (3/9/00). The teachers identified voice as
an identifiable essence o f the student in the text and saw this as an admirable quality.
Dee spoke to the whole class about developing voice in written texts. She asked,
“How do you make it sound like you? The words you choose?”. Ally’s answer was
immediate. “Write from inside of you.” (4/24/00). As a personal expression, writing
allowed Ally a place to construct her voice.
Authentic Literacies
Consistent with the unfolding case, Ally valued literacy practices which
encouraged personal expression. Specifically, writing workshop provided a time to
write about topics she choose from her life. She wrote about her lived experiences
because she thought they were important. Ally’s stories told people about herself,
shared her ideas, and made her feelings public. Stories from her life were also important
because she was invested in them and therefore could express voice.
127
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
“The Car Accident” (i 1/1/99) exemplified an authentic writing experience for
Ally. Ally retold the story of a car crash she was involved in with her parents on a Los
Angeles freeway. She was proud o f her efforts constructing this story. In working this
story, Ally completed a storyboard as a prewriting activity, two separate rough drafts
with revision marks on them, a hand written final product and three published versions
on the word processor. She began her story on October 11, 1999 and did not complete
it until November 1, 1999. During that time she conferenced with two peers about
revisions and edits. Ana worked with her at least two additional times. Dee helped
once with technical changes on her typed product. Ally did whatever was necessary
to create the story she envisioned. When she was finished, she asked the teachers for
time to share her story aloud with the class. She read the descriptive text which
follows in an expressive voice, pacing the story to add suspense. Her audience
remained engaged listeners and followed with thoughtful questions and comments.
The Car Accident
One day a taxi came to bring my mom, my dad and me home
from the airport. We were driving on the 405 freeway. All
of a sudden, a driver weaved in and out of the lanes and hit
us in the side, hard. We skipped two lanes and went down
the embankment because the driver lost control of the car. I
heard the trees swishing. I heard the car bumping. I heard
the bushes cracking. Suddenly it stopped. Everything was
still. Even though I didn’t see anything I felt that we could
be hurt. I smelled clean bushes and new flowers being
crushed. Luckily there were some people just down the
embankment at a restaurant called Tito’s Tacos. People came
running up to us. One o f them called an ambulance. My
family went in the ambulance. W went to the hospital and I
got a Care Bear stuffed animal. We were all better when we
got home. The story got passes on and I kept getting “ahs”
128
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
and “are you oks?” but what is good about it is I get all the
attention. Still I would not want to go through that mess
again. (11/1/99)
The story was valued because she very capably executed and performed it.
However, Ally also feels it is significant because of its content “It really means a lot
to me because its just how lucky I am that I lived through it. A lot o f people would
have died” (5/2/00). Further, it allowed Ally a vehicle for personal expression and
voice.
In addition to workshop, Ally thought the dilemma story and compliment
writing were meaningful writing experiences in Rainbow Cluster ail because they
afforded her a place to use writing for personal expression.
Results from the photo-interview revealed and additional valued literacy
practice. When asked which showed something important, Ally identified two
categories of photographs. The first strand of images were focused on the text
products. They were highlighted when Ally felt the texts would be important to the
author who created them. The second category in some ways contradicts the
observations discussed in Ally’s portrait do far. She choose an equal amount of
photographs that depicted Rainbow students working together. This case has focused
on Ally as an individual writer in Rainbow Cluster. However, Ally frequently enlists
the help o f her classmates in order to improve her personal writing. Ally does not
choose writing partnerships, as these images my suggest. Instead, classroom peers are
tools to help her have her say.
129
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Summary
“You really have to know why you are talking about to make your work
special” (5/2/00). Ally willingly engages in writing for the purpose o f personal
expression. She reflects on and draws from her lived experiences in her texts. Writing
from within allows Ally a place to have her say in her texts, a place to assert her voice.
Experience is her most valued attribute. Ally believes she is a strong writer
because her life provides her with interesting anecdotes to create stories about She
prefers choosing topics and enjoys independent composing. “My writing is not good
when people bug me” (5/3/00). Because Ally draws from one compositional source,
she understands voice as a singular expression o f herself and tries to imprint all of her
texts with a similar representational quality. Voice is connected to authenticity because
Ally understands writing experiences which afford her the opportunity to express
voice as the most significant ones.
In this chapter, I examined the social and textural influences on five focal
student’s writing. These influences were contextualized across activity settings to
explore their perceptions of purpose, appropriation and voice, and authenticity. By
compiling data from a variety of research sources I was able to create rich portraits of
these student-authors. Chapter Five summarizes the findings across focal participant’s
and goes further into the exploration of Rainbow Cluster’s writing practices.
130
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CHAPTER FIVE
In this chapter I summarize the research findings across the focal portraits and
extend further into the Rainbow Cluster Community. The findings are organized
around the prevailing theoretical concepts which shape this dissertation research. After
a synthesis and comparison o f the study’s findings on perceptions of purpose, I turn
my attention to appropriation and voice. Following those summaries I reflect on the
research findings on authenticity and the connections found among the key concepts.
Findings Across and Beyond Focal Portraits
Perceptions o f Purpose
This section focuses on the perceived purposes o f the various writing
experiences in Rainbow Cluster. I summarize the focal students perceptions of writing
purposes and explore the relationships between teacher and student understandings.
For this section I rely heavily on the portraits presented in Chapter Four and
specifically from interview transcriptions.
All o f the focal children were able to differentiate purpose with function and
genre. Marisol connected writing with reading, suggesting the function o f writing was
to help reading achievement Alexander used writing for reflective purposes because it
helps “to see things in a different way” (10/11/00). Jamili worked to make his texts “so
people can read it and want to read it” (5/8/00) making him worthy of an audience.
The following sections illuminate the multiple purposes for writing from the
participant’s perspective.
131
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
For the Purpose o f Display
Dee Joseph worried about engaging the students in classroom writing. She
hoped children would would find a passion to study and not work simply to get an A
or to display classroom competencies. “What we try to do is make school about the
kid, you know they need to own it” (2/9/00). Her own experiences in school are the
basis for her attitudes about writing. As a child, doing school meant finding out what it
took to get a good grade and them performing for that goal. Despite her intentions,
several Rainbow students worked for school reward. Specifically, Marisol believed she
participated in several writing experiences for the purposes of demonstrating her
capabilities to her next teacher or qualifying her to move to another cluster. She worked
to display what she could do for a teacher audience. Like Marisol, Yonjoo, another
English language learner, participated with the intent of displaying all she knew. She
created volumes of neatly scribed texts and would invite adults to “see” what she
wrote instead of “read” what she wrote. For Yonjoo the purpose was to complete the
task as assigned. The following excerpt from my field notes highlights how paramount
fulfilling this intention was.
Yonjoo is working on her fairy tale during centers time. She
is a bit behind for meeting the target due date, but opts to
help another student with revising. As the teachers give the
warning to switch [to book talk groups or the reverse]
Yonjoo goes into a panic because she did not revise her own
story with an adult. When Dee calls switch Yonjoo runs up
to me and begs me to revise with her “please do it fast”. I
tell her that there is no time because she has to join her book
talk group. She motions for me to bend down and give her
my ear [for a secret]. I was shocked when she whispered,
132
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
“can you just put your name on it then?” This is a well
behaved girl. Was she that worried about pleasing the
teachers? (2/11/00)
I believe she was that concerned. Display was the reason she engaged in classroom
writing. Specifically, I found many beginning English users wrote to demonstrate
competence and be rewarded by their efforts.
Another related goal centered around displays of writing and the daily battle to
help differentiate writing from penmanship. Several times Ana and Dee helped the
children understand that writing was about content and handwriting was about the way
it looked. The following classroom exchange occurred in trying to distinguish writing
from handwriting.
Dee: What is the purpose o f learning to write?
Jared: To tell kids stories.
Dee: Ok, that is one purpose.
Jim: To tell what you are thinking.
Nicole: So you can get better at it
Tamara: We need to do it to get to cursive
This was a typical exchange. Perhaps because o f the children’s age in Rainbow
Cluster, and the fact that the curriculum required direct instruction in cursive
penmanship, these children continually associated the two processes.
Ana Handle wanted the children to experience process writing in workshop and
be able to utilize writing jargon as they talk about their texts. Marisol, like Ana,
viewed the writing workshop as a place to familiarize herself with process writing. She
always worked her way through in a linear fashion, strictly adhering to the stages of
133
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
the workshop, proud to be able to quickly articulate the stages, in order, when
prompted.
The teachers also demonstrated writing intentions for the purpose of
displaying competencies. They designed two guided writing activities for the purpose
o f showing the National Board Certification committee that they were competent
teachers of writing. While it is true that the Dilemma Story and Fairy Tale Retold
projects had additional goals for the children, they originated in the examinations
directions. Workshop writing, more typical in Rainbow Cluster, did not fit the explicit
goals o f the certification process so the teachers created classroom writing
opportunities that would display their teaching abilities.
Some displays were public performances to entertain or educate classroom
audiences. Not unexpectedly, Jamili worked through the writing process for the
purpose of public display or publication. He wrote to share out his stories which he
read with clarity and expression. Jamili wrote all year with the intention of publication
in the Bridge School Yearbook, hoping for his largest audience yet. One experience that
afforded Jamili a chance to perform was the My Life On Film project. In this writing
project, facilitated by Ana, the children had an opportunity to display their home lives
through a camera lens. She made her goals clear during both interview conversations.
The thing about this type of school is that we have kids coming from all
over. It is just another side to them. It is an eye into their worlds
outside o f this environment. You know, they have all this in common
but look at where they come from. They come from different places.
They live in different types of places. ...[The project] allows us, mostly
the adults, a look into their lives at home and what it is like, but [it is]
also for the other kids. (2/14/00)
134
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
They may not go to each other’s houses they may not know where each
other live. They all come from such different backgrounds and it is such
an important opportunity to learn about each others backgrounds
through the camera. ...We are always learning about different culture
groups. Well this is their culture. It may not be to a specific group or
ethnicity but it is where they come from. (5/9/00)
Ana was explicit about the project goals when she presented them with the
cameras before the December holiday. As a result, the children paraphrased her
intentions when they spoke to me about their own purposes. All of the focal children
believed the project was a way to show the teachers about their families and lives at
home. However, they approached the projects in very different ways. Marisol
photographed cultural objects found in her home and in what seems like an
afterthought, included two pictures of her family at the end. Alexander included several
family pictures which highlighted his brothers. Jared begins with a family photograph
but follows with several self-portraits doing art or displaying his favorite books. Like
Jared, Jamili is also included in his photographs. He created images of himself on his
bicycle, go cart and playing video games. Jamili also photographed a Kwanzaa setting
and family members in traditional African clothing. Jamili makes eye contact with the
his audience by looking directly though the camera lens. He is performing “this is my
life” for the camera. Ally enthusiastically participates in writing for personal
expression. She understands the My Life On Film project as a place to “share her life”
rather than show her life. Her captions are subjective emotions instead of object
descriptions that form the majority of the student writing. In addition to the perceive
135
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
purposes for school, these photographs also offer us insight into what the children
value as important in their worlds outside.
Ally and Jared displayed additional bits o f autobiographical content throughout
the year and across context whenever possible. Workshop was best suited for both
student-author’s intentions. Ally wanted to share her big life with other children who
may be able to learn from her lived experiences. She voraciously wrote about her world
with her parents and their many adventures. Jared consistently wrote autobiographical
vignettes as journalistic accounts of his life markers. His stories rely on
accomplishments he deems interesting to a wide audience.
For the Purpose of Learning Writing Skills
Another pervasive writing goal articulated by the teachers of Rainbow Cluster
was to provide the children with enough skills to be able to make pertinent choices
when creating new texts of a variety of genres and for a variety of intents. Conventions
were taught to enable students to “learn skills they need to communicate” (2/9/00).
The more skills the children had to use as tools the better choices they could make
with them. One of Ana’s goals for Book Talk writing was “... to reinforce the reading”.
She teaches students to “go back and reread and look at it over again” (2/14/00), to
accomplish the writing tasks. This skill is a goal o f writing because it had longevity.
... when you get into high school you are doing that. When
you have to write essays you have to go back and forth
through the book...in the future they are going to have to be
doing it a lot, so I kind of see it as a good opportunity
to...[be] at the beginning stages o f that (2/14/00)
136
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
I will revisit Ana’s intention for Book Talk writing when I discuss authenticity in a
later section of this chapter.
Dee had several intentions for assigning the Role Model research project. First,
she wanted to give the students an opportunity with non-fiction writing. Dee realized
that this was likely the seven to nine year old student’s first encounter with
expository writing. She planned several small minilessons around the process of
creating the biographical text. The children were taught research strategies such as
skimming, note taking, creating bullets, paraphrasing, and squeezing out the important
facts. The teachers highlighted writing goals such as paragraph structure and organizing
important details around topics. The children learned to create hyper-studio texts on
the classroom computers for the publication of their research. Jared was clear about the
purposes o f the Role Model research project. He understood the project as a way to
learn valuable research skills which can be applied to other expository writing. As
seen in Chapter Four, Jared’s journalistic style compliments the research skills learned
in writing this project
When Ana designed the Fairy Tale Retold project she had skill development in
mind. Ana created a context for writing where the children focused on the story
narration. Specifically, they attended to the story’s point of view. After exploring
several models in literature that exemplify point o f view writing, Ana asked the
students to retell the traditional Jack and the Beanstalk story from another character’s
perspective. Her goal was straightforward and simply put to her students. Only Jamili
spoke about his perceptions o f purpose for this writing experience. He indicated that
the Fairy Tales were assigned “so you could be kind of creative and stuff like that”
137
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
(5/8/00). Jamili enjoyed writing his fairy tale because it was an opportunity to express
humor. In this context goofiness was permitted, even encourage. There are two
interesting factors that relate to Jamili’s experience with this assignment. At the time
the children were working on this guided writing assignment Jamili was deeply
involved in a book he bought from the school book fair. It was also an appropriated
version of Jack and the Beanstalk. His book, Shaq and the Beanstalk, stars the giant
Los Angeles Lakers basketball player as the small hero. In addition, Jamili submitted
his Fairy Tale to the Bridge School Yearbook. Publication in this book was something
Jamili looked forward to for months. His purposes for involvement contrast Ana’s
goal for skill development.
For the Purpose o f Learning Content Information
The children consistently articulated comprehension as the purpose of writing
dining book talks. Writing was a requirement of the process, functioning to benefit
reading. Usually, prescribed texts were completed which attended to character
analysis, sequence, vocabulary or other functions of comprehension. Ana talked about
her intentions for book talk writing during the teachers’ exit interview. “We don’t have
writing goals for book talks they are reading goals” (5/9/00). The focus children agreed
with the explicit purpose of book talk writing as serving reading comprehension.
In addition to learning valuable writing skills, Dee and Ana had social studies
goals for the Role Model project The children searched their assigned culture group
for a role model to study. In creating biographies, the students were able to
supplement information already compiled on specific culture groups. They made
138
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
connections and elaborated earlier understandings. Even though there was a large
amount of new writing instruction presented to the students in this context, the
children articulated the intention o f this project as way to acquire biographical
information about an important person. For example, Marisol wrote to learn about
Rosa Parks, a valued member of the African-American culture group she studied.
When questioned, she did not identify any writing goals as purposes for participation.
Jamili also perceived the Role Model project for social studies learning. Like Marisol,
he connected this project to his involvement in the culture group studies. As part of
the Hispanic-American study group, Jamili choose Juan Gonzalez to research. Jamili
indicated that the teachers created this project for the purpose of exploring cultures
other than your own, relating back to content area intentions. Ally learned about
famous people. Her perceived purposes were related to social studies content as well.
Ally’s clever perception was that the teachers’ intention was to capitalize on the
children’s interests for learning outcomes. She believed Dee and Ana assigned this
project “to take kids interests and turn them into school work” (5/2/00). Alexander
also wrote to learn about Steven Speilberg, his role model in the Jewish-American
culture group. He was engaged in the project because if offered him a place to write
“about a person not us” (5/3/00). Alexander thought learning about Mr. Speilberg was
more interesting than writing about himself.
For the Purpose o f Reflection
The writing workshop was a place to make personal connections and
reflections. Dee felt it was most important for the children to realize they have
139
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
something to say. She focused on beginning with a “seed of truth” for this purpose.
She believed students would be able to write more interesting and understandable texts
if they wrote from what they knew.
Two of the focal children told me they used writing to reflect and remember:
Ally and Alexander. Workshop provided Alexander a place to remember his
experiences and think back on his actions. He was able to enact his role as an
apprentice boy-in-trouble by retelling lived events that cast him in this light. Alexander
wrote to deal with and remember his experiences. Dee believed Ally realized “when
something significant happens to you there is an outlet for it and that is what writers
workshop should be about” (2/9/00). Ally consistently wrote about her feelings and
problems with sophistication, filling the pages with her emotions.
The Dilemma Story specifically offered children a text to express reflective
intentions. Alexander, who characteristically used writing for reflective purposes, used
this writing opportunity to to try to work through a real-life playground dilemma.
Ally valued the chance for all the kids in Rainbow to deal with some o f the problems
kids face everyday.
The children in Rainbow Cluster were able to distinguish different purposes for
writing across projects and classroom writing experiences. They used writing to
display competencies, entertain or educate through performance, learn skills or content
information, or be reflective. The next section of this chapter summarizes the research
findings on appropriation and voice. I present the teacher’s definitions and look at the
results across the focal participants portraits in order to expand and clarify these
concepts.
140
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The Impact of Appropriation and Voice
The students of Rainbow Cluster were encouraged to be resourceful and
collaborative. They demonstrated these characteristics in choosing sources for
appropriation. Children borrowed from a variety o f resources in creating their original
texts They borrowed from books, each other’s workshop stories, popular culture and
their social worlds. In addition to exploring where the students borrowed from, I
examined the way the children’s social roles impacted the process o f appropriation.
Further, I studied how their social positions impact the construction o f voice. In
addition to the focal student’s findings presented in Chapter Four, I explore some
other salient examples where students transformed borrowed elements for their own
intentions.
Borrowing from Texts
At least three assigned writing experiences required appropriating
characteristics from models in literature. Guided writing events were based on a series
o f minilessons constructed around a central text. According to Dee, who facilitated The
Dilemma Story project, it was a success. The children created story situations where
the characters were forced to make a moral decision. Most children were able to mimic
the plot structure in the original text, Jamaica’s Find. In order to make the stories more
believable and start with a “seed of truth” some children additionally borrowed from
lived experiences in composing their stories.
On the other hand, The Fairy Tale Retold project did not meet the goals Ana
had predicted. Ana used storybooks as models, even providing an example o f how one
141
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
author appropriated from another. Ana intended for the children to create new
versions of Jack and the Beanstalk as retold from another character’s perspective.
Most o f the children in Rainbow Cluster could not take on another point of view for
their stories. However, they did create interesting and often humorous texts.
Many o f the students in Rainbow Cluster benefited from writing assignments
with more structure than workshop writing. Marisol enjoyed working within the
framework and although could not meet the assignment’s intentions, found it a helpful
place to speak from. Alexander thought the guided writings were very important
because the teachers assigned them and they used workshop time to compose. Jared
resisted involvement with projects requiring appropriation. He completed the tasks as
the teachers demonstrated, but was not invested in them because they did not provide
for writing for the intentions he perceives.
Children borrowed from texts even when not required. Carter, an expressive
writer, frequently looked for ways to help his story better communicate his intentions.
Carter is a Korean, third grade boy who qualifies for Gifted and Talented Enrichment
Because he is an English language learner he often makes checks to see if he is being
understood. As a way to be sure he is communicating clearly, Carter developed an
elaborate system of markings as expressive indicators in his texts. Carter informed me
that he first saw a similar system in place when he was reading from the Magic School
Bus series. Based on the symbols found in The Magic School Bus Inside a Hurricane.
he created his own system to better serve his own purposes. In his stories, Carter
differentiates between spoken and thought dialogue. Other marks indicate actions and
gestures.
142
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Children borrowed from each others stories as well. Peter, also Korean and one
o f Carter’s closest peers watched Carter’s writing processes very closely. The boys
were frequent writing workshop partners for revising or editing texts as well as
companions on the yard during recess. In October, Carter created a story titled “My
Dream” during the writing workshop. His finished story follows.
My Dream
One dark night, I dreamed that my room was filled with
Pokemon. I dreamed that I had all the Pokemon cards in the
world. I dreamed I had an older brother to play with so I
would not be bored. I dreamed that I had a bigger room than
my parents. I dreamed that I had a lot of food in the
refrigerator so I could eat a lot. I dreamed that.. “Carter, it’s
time to wake up!” It was time to go to school. (10/15/99)
Carter’s text gives the reader insight to his world. In addition to expressing his desires,
his writing ends on a humorous note, as does many of his texts. Peter was an active
participant in Carter’s composing. He served as a revising partner, and two days later
as an editor.
Two months later, Peter completed his own story titled “My Dream” during
writing workshop. He chose this topic and made decisions about his text.
My Dream
One day I had a dream that I was in space. I saw an alien
saucer. I was so scared because the alien might do something
to me. The alien took me to alien land but i escaped I rode
my spaceship but they brought their strongest spaceship to
catch me. Then I pressed a red button so my ship’s wings
grew bigger. Then the spaceship blew up and I jumped out
We battled at plant T. I pushed the alien. The alien flew
back to alien land Then I woke up and I said, “What a
dream!!!” (1/13/00)
143
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Peter borrows the premise and conclusion from Carter’s original story but utilizes
them for his own intentions. Peter, like Carter, was looped and spent a second year in
Rainbow Cluster. He was familiar with Dee and Ana’s request to start with a “seed of
truth” but wanted to write about spaceships and aliens. Borrowing from Carter’s
story allowed him a way to stay within the boundaries of workshop but create texts
that told the story he wanted to tell.
Borrowing from Popular Culture
As illustrated in Alexander’s stories and Carter’s example above, many children
were involved in the Pokemon craze. Acquiring the treasured cards propelled one’s
status in the classroom. Therefore, the children constructed texts where they owned
the valued items. By creating stories where they possessed Pokemon paraphernalia
(typically cards) they created ways to increase their position in the classroom social
hierarchy. Carter was especially fond o f Pokemon, and they appeared in several o f his
writing workshop stories. Along with Jacob, a younger boy, Carter created an
elaborate series of comics based on this super hero theme. Together the boys sat
through many writing workshops sketching and captioning with The Official Pokemon
Handbook: Collectors at their side. They took turns flipping the pages and using the
pencil, until the teachers gently encouraged them to move on to another project.
Jamili was not terribly interested in Pokemon, but he was interested in
television. He enjoyed watching television with family and sometimes spoke of
specific shows in school. Instead of borrowing characters or program plots from
television, Jamili borrowed form. As a classroom performer, he was concerned with
144
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
audience and strived to make his stories “kind of like a show” (1/31/00). Jamili was
convinced that a major goal o f writing was to please your reader. Television show
format pleased him, so he transformed it for his textural intentions. Jared looked to
popular culture as well. He appropriated from sports journalism utilizing professional
sports players names, team scores and a reporting stance. Often in workshop stories
Jared reproduced the box scores he read in the daily paper. In addition, he usually
wrote about sports content. His typical sports stories were negotiated to include
valued autobiographical contexts.
The Influence of Social Worlds
I consistently saw a relationship between the focal student’s social position in
the Rainbow Cluster community and their purposes and places for appropriation.
Marisol, an English language learner struggling with conventions, continually cast
herself as an admired individual in her own texts. She privileged herself as someone
important, someone with power. By appropriating a valued identity, she was able to
assert a desired place in the social hierarchy as well as the display the classroom
relationships she longed for. Jamili’s role as a performer in the classroom framed his
choice for appropriation. He borrowed a show-like format from television creating a
stage to perform his written texts. Jared’s texts take on the stance o f an objective
observer. His journalistic approach to writing compliments his social identity as casual
outsider in the classroom community, limited by personal hygiene. Alexander
borrowed the boy-in-trouble scripts from his brother who etched out a replicable
identity for his younger sibling. Alexander’s stories actualize the social niche of trouble
145
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
maker that goes beyond the boundaries o f Rainbow Cluster and into the Bridge School
at large. Ally capitalizes on her lived experiences to become a respected resource in the
classroom. She transforms any source for appropriation for personal expression, the
explicit intention of all her writing engagements.
The children borrowed from a variety o f sources in appropriating material for
their new intentions. They borrowed from trade books and classroom texts. The focal
students used story form, characters and plot from popular culture, especially
Pokemon. Their reasons and choices for appropriating material were bounded by then-
social roles in the classroom. The next section takes appropriation even further in
examining the development of voice.
Expressions of Voice
It was only when students wrote with volition and used borrowed bits for their
own intentions did they express voice. As seen above, acts o f appropriation were
inexplicably linked to the social roles children occupied in the classroom community.
Mimicking original models, as many of the guided writing stories required, usually did
not provide a way for the students to express voice even though they were required to
appropriate text features for their assignments. Voice was best expressed when
children were invested in the texts they created. Investment most often occurred when
children had the opportunity to make choices and decisions about their texts. The
writing experiences best suited for this purpose was the writing workshop.
Dee Joseph and Ana Handle consistently defined voice as an identifiable
essence of the student in the text. This was an admired textural trait and considered a
146
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
sophisticated accomplishment. We discussed voice as a display of personality in some
way connected to the author’s use o f oral language. We thought voice might have
something to do with word choice. However, I struggled with differentiating an
identifiable essence as a stylistic feature with one that expresses identity. I recognized
stylistic distinguishers in the student-author’s texts but did not consider them
expressions o f voice unless they spoke to/from a situated identity position
The focal portraits demonstrated how Marisol wrote from the perspective o f
an English language learner. Her social stance in the classroom was reflected in her
writing. In her stories, she articulated her desired position which did not compliment
her actual place in the classroom society. She borrowed from both roles in expressing
her voice. Further, the activity settings where she could express voice were considered
the most valuable writing experiences.
Jamili consistently spoke from his role as performer in the classroom. He
appropriated form and stance as tools to please an audience o f readers. Texts became
stages for narrative constructions. He used his voice to entertain. However, Jamili
fulfilled another role in Rainbow Cluster. He was also the resident expert on African-
American culture. Jamili and his family shared their knowledge with his classmates
and he was proud to take on a teacher-like position. He occasionally was able to voice
this stance by utilizing teacher jargon and authoritative positions in his text. Jamili
never (to my knowledge) displayed these teacher-like positions in terms of cultural
knowledge. That was a voice is was not yet able to express.
Jared’s social position as a casual observer in small groups reveals itself in the
journalistic approach he takes to writing. Jared wants his texts to represent an
147
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
objective truth. He expresses his voice in the reporter stance he displays in his texts.
Even when writing about momentous autobiographical occurrences, he remains
narrator, stating the scores and imparting factual information.
Alexander’s voice told the reader ‘1 make trouble!”. He used a variety o f tools
to make his position clear. First, he appropriated the behavior scripts his older brother
bequeathed him. Alexander often wrote about predicaments unraveling under his
brothers charge as they reflect his life. However, he was also able to take the lead or
share an equal partnership with his brother in his texts, a role he only hoped to
actualize. Alexander also used a vernacular to support his articulated identity. He
freely used terms like “sucked” to express his intentions, never thinking they might be
inappropriate for school contexts.
Ally also used word choice as a stylistic feature for personal expression.
Recognized by Rainbow Cluster as an intelligent and resourceful writer, she
intentionally chose complicated multi-syllabic words to mark her place in the texts she
created. However, she knew to take a stance in her writing and looked down upon texts
that sounded like a dictionary. Dry and halted writing even when complex, signified
incompetence. Contextualized and expressive writing was esteemed. Ally’s ability as a
writer affords her more tools for transforming texts for new intentions. Because she
writes for expressive purposes, she does more than mimic original sources; she makes
them her own.
Children’s social roles impacted the construction and expression of voice in
Rainbow Cluster. Their positions framed their places and purposes for appropriation.
The children’s social roles came with unique sets of affordances and constraints which
148
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
changed over activity setting. Students were able to appropriate text features for their
own purposes for assigned writing, however, expression of voice was limited unless
the children acted volitionally. Choice writing created opportunities to willfully
appropriate for their own intentions. Children’s places in the classroom hierarchy
also shaped their conceptions of meaningful and significant writing experiences. I found
the following five categories evident in analyzing voice in Rainbow Cluster:
1) The teachers believe voice is related to personality and the user’s style in
oral language. If this is true, then we would need insider’s information to recognize
voice. A certain level of familiarity with the author must be in place. I disagree. Jamili,
who avoided talking with me in public classroom spheres, articulated a voice in his
texts that could not recognize from our superficial interactions. I only consider stylistic
features of text voice when they assert or reflect social identity.
2) More capable writers are better at expressing voice. It appears that the more
language tools you have the better choices you can make. Choices allow for
appropriation and transformation of text for new intentions. Choice creates
opportunity to express voice. Therefore, those activity settings for writing that allow
authors to make decisions about their texts are most suitable for appropriation and
voice. Guided writing experiences are also purposeful ways for children to act like
authors and try on other’s intentions as a way to gain competence for the
transformation of texts for their individual intentions.
3) The more capable students appear to have multiple voices that remain
unrecognized. For example, the most competent focal child, Ally utilized different
voices for different writing intentions even though she set out to leave her singular
149
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
mark in all texts. I believe this may have to do with age or developmental limitations
(see Limitations of the Study). Acknowledging multiple voices appears to be related to
capability because stronger students have more resources to choose from. Within this
consideration is the assumption that voice is constructed in context. Be that the case,
voice can be taught (see Implications for Instruction).
4) All of the products that seemed to have voice, were composed by student-
authors who were invested in their texts (see Implications for Future Research).
Investment meant volitional acts or emotional connections. The students cared about
what they wrote because they understood that it reflected themselves. They were
deeply involved in the writing.
5) Appropriation and voice are inexplicably linked to children’s social
identities. Further, I believe there is a reciprocal relationship between their social
identity and the texts they create. In other words, the children’s writing forms and
displays identity.
The next section summarizes the findings on authenticity by identifying: how
the study limits the development of the concept, how the focal children’s social roles
impact perceptions and what conditions are likely to produce authentic writing.
Authenticity
It was very difficult to talk to second and third graders about authentic
experiences because authenticity is not a members category. The concept is too
abstract and understood as relevant to their writing lives. In order to access their
perceptions of authentic literacy practice and products we had broad conversations
150
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
about valued literacies. Their own perceptions o f valued experiences were clouded by
the teachers’ beliefs. After analyzing our formal and informal conversations with
support from my field notes, I have developed three categories for teacher beliefs
about authenticity: important/purposeful writing experiences, meaningful/significant
writing experiences, and investing in writing.
Important and Purposeful Writing Experiences
Both Ana and Dee perceive authentic writing as connected to real world work.
However, they come at it very differently. Dee believes instruction should be
purposeful for “the now” and Ana wants to make instruction purposeful for the
future. Dee illustrates her point of view in the following interview transcription.
Authentic- meaning they have some correlation in the real
world where you are not just doing it because you are going
to need it later. I think that is a broad base. I think if
someone asks why are we doing this and I don’t have an
answer than I would rather not do it. (2/9/00)
Dee resists assignments that do not yield an immediate benefit to her students. I also
believe she wants the children to be informed. Dee hopes the children do not ask,
“what are we doing this for Miss Joseph?”, because intentions should be clear, even if
not explicitly stated. Ana has a different view. She wants instruction to prepare
children for future school experience. In the following excerpt from an interview
transcription, Ana discusses her purposes for book talk writing where the children are
taught to go back into the novels for help with their writing.
151
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
... when you get into high school you are doing that When
you have to write essays, you have to go back and forth
through the book... In the future they are going to have to be
doing it a lot, so I kind of see it as a good opportunity to
[be] at the beginning stages o f that (2/14/00)
Important experiences have lasting effects. Ana identified the Role Model project as a
purposeful writing experience in Rainbow Cluster because it has long term outcomes.
I think it is very empowering to see that process, very
empowering. They feel real grown up, and its on the
computer now. It looks nice. They did their stack and they
did their buttons. I think that for the kids is the most
empowering writing. It will leave the longest lasting effect I
think. (5/9/00)
Dee agreed that the Role Model project was an important writing experience. She
identifies this project as purposeful because o f immediate and not long term reasons.
I think the role m odel... was such an intensive project and it
was so unlike what they had before that I think THEY
would think that is the most significant. (5/9/00)
Instead, Dee distinguishes it because of the investment it took to participate fully.
The children needed to be deeply involved in the content (the biography of their role
model) and the process (applying research and computer skills) to make it work.
Investment will be discussed later in this section.
For Alexander, important experiences were identified by the teachers. Instead
of investing in writing for his own purposes, Alexander valued what the teachers
152
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
valued. He determined which writing experiences were important by what the teachers
assigned. Marisol valued test preparation as writing experiences because displaying her
capabilities in that context was associated with being promoted to the next grade. This
was especially salient for Marisol in light o f her classroom status as an English
language learner struggling with conventions. Her social position framed another
category of valued experiences. She found writing workshop important because she
was able to write stories about her family. Workshop was also where Marisol created
stories which included herself as a significant character, worthy of admiration. In this
way her two views o f valued literacy experiences are closely related: one to display
competence and the other to be admired.
Meaningful and Significant Writing Experiences
When identifying meaningful and significant experiences I borrowed Myers
(1992) question, “Authentic to whom?” and added “Authentic in what context?”.
Sometimes this led to contradictions, specifically in the writing workshop. During
workshop, Ana and Dee encouraged the children to question their choice of topics,
often referring to the “so what” in children’s writing. I heard Dee ask a child, “Who
would want to read this story?”. Ana asked, “How can you make your audience
care?”. The teachers believed every student had something meaningful to write about.
Part of their job in the workshop was to help them find that “something to say” that
mattered to the writer and therefore to the reader.
However, the teachers put their own ideas about what is meaningful into the
children’s writing workshop. By encouraging them to begin with a “seed of truth”
153
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
they limited the topics they could choose from for their own intentions. The teachers
openly discouraged stories about aliens and super heroes because they thought those
were trivial topics. Writing about paltry subjects undermined the significance of
writing in the workshop. I spoke to the teachers about beginning with a “seed o f truth”
and contrasted the wild tales that often appear in elementary school writing with the
documentary style prose that Jared consistently produced. My suggestion was that
Pokemon and aliens were the children’s truths: things they cared and knew a lot about
Ana reluctantly agreed. “That is very true, but TO ME it is not meaningful” (2/14/00).
The notion o f beginning with a “seed o f truth” had its roots in meaningful writing
experiences. However, I believe it constrained some student authors instead of
promoting authentic experiences.
Marisol valued school experiences that allowed her a place to demonstrate her
competencies because of the rewards associated with successful completion. She
spoke nostalgically about a text she created in the year before this study, when she
was in another cluster. The text itself was meaningful because the teacher praised her
efforts.
Jamili valued the classroom writing experiences where he could make cultural
connections. During our exit interview, he indicated that his Now and Then project
was the most meaningful writing he accomplished all year. At our first interview,
Jamili distinguished his “I Have A Dream” mobile as significant writing work. These
are diverse projects. The Now and Then project was long term, took collaboration
from family, and evolved through the stages of the writing process. The Martin Luther
King Jr. mobile, was completed independently and one morning time block. Both
154
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
projects were published, which the performer in Jamili valued. The mobile was
displayed in the classroom and the Now and Then interview was illustrated and bound
into a book for the classroom library. Both projects tapped African American history,
a subject the class recognized Jamili as an authority in.
Ally was single-minded about her intentions for writing. She transformed all
texts for personal expression. Therefore, she valued all opportunities for that purpose.
Ally was a sophisticated writer who drew on her life experiences to make writing
meaningful. She also created opportunities to mark her texts as her own. Writing
situations where Ally could express voice through text were the most valued literacy
experiences of all.
Investing in Writing
Authentic writing experiences were identified as those where the children were
invested in the process or the products. Investment signifies volitional engagement and
emotional tie. Investment like authenticity show itself in a variety o f ways. It is
different for each student, and highly contextualized. Dee acknowledged differences in
what children valued.
It is different for different kids. Yonjoo will tell you it’s the
longest, clearest [neatest] piece of writing...even if it has no
heart. Ally wants it to mean something...I think she gets
that when something significant happens to you there is an
outlet for it and that is what writers workshop should be
about. (2/9/00)
155
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Investment yields a large return for the writer which Dee believes is evident in the
products they create. Texts that reflect an investment are filled with emotion. They are
stories the authors are proud to claim as their own. Dee believes emotional
involvement with the texts leads to expressions of voice.
The focal children had unique yet overlapping constructions of valued literacy
practices that were deeply connected to social role and activity setting. No general
conclusions can be made except to say that authenticity is unique to the individual in
sociocultural context.
The next chapter applies these findings to the research literature. The
discussion section, like the summaries proceeding, are organized around theoretical
concepts of purpose, appropriation and voice, and authenticity. In addition, Chapter
Six includes sections dedicated to the limitations of the study, implications for
instruction and implications for future research.
156
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CHAPTER SIX
Discussion of the Findings
In this chapter, I relate the findings back to the research literature and
reconceptualize previous concepts o f authenticity, appropriation and voice.
Throughout the data generation, analysis and reporting processes, I kept Vygotsky’s
(1978,1987) ideas in mind. I was continually reminded that language learning required
two functions: communicative and cognitive. Creating text in Rainbow Cluster
displayed both functions. Children worked to both ends. Even those children, like
Alexander, who preferred independent writing processes understood that text
functioned for an audience. In addition, the teacher’s goals for writing workshop
included helping them have something to say, to share with the community. Further, I
found a reciprocal relationship between the children’s social identities and their stories.
Their texts reinforced their positions in the social hierarchy of the classroom and their
social positions informed the construction of new texts. As in the case o f Marisol
struggling for competence, increasing the cognitive wealth of her texts affected her
social position in the classroom as well.
Perceptions o f Purpose
The focal children attributed a variety o f intentions to classroom writing
activities. Their articulated intentions did not always match the explicit or tacit
purposes identified by the teachers. Like Kucer (1991), I found incongruent results
157
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
across participants and teachers. Kucer attributes the differences to “deviant” school
activities. These literacy events fail to be relevant to a world outside school, which
makes them difficult to understand. Miller et al. blamed the teacher’s pressures of test
accountability as an influential factor.
I found when Dee and Ana framed classroom writing projects with
considerably unreserved conversations about purpose, the children were able to
verbally replicate the teacher’s intentions. However, the focal student’s social
identities bounded their perceptions of writing experiences, which sometimes cause
discord in their interpretations.
Even though all o f the focal participants recognized that purpose varies over
genre and function, Ally, Jared and to some extent Jamili became single minded in their
reasons for engaging with text. Ally worked unrelentlessly toward personal
expression. Jared maintain his stance as a reporter across classroom writing genres.
Jamili utilized several tools for addressing his audience in his texts. These students
displayed knowledge o f the teacher ascribed outcomes, but nevertheless worked to
their own intentions framed by their social roles in Rainbow Cluster.
Appropriation and Voice
In Rainbow Cluster, “Learning to write was not a simple matter of developing
new skills; it was a matter o f entering an ongoing conversation.” (Dyson, 1993, p.
131). Children entered these conversations through the literacy activities presented in
earlier chapters. They continually negotiated through the activity itself, the cultural
tools for text construction, and their social identities in the classroom. Therefore,
158
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
writing displayed the “constant interaction between meanings, all o f which have the
potential conditioning o f others” (Bakhtin, 1981, p. 426).
In their strive for voice, the children did not understand the heteroglossia of
language. The focal children viewed voice as singular and expressive, largely
uninfluenced by situational context. Instead, they looked to leave their unique mark in
the text. This conception better reflects the workshop advocates (Atwell, 1987;
Graves, 1983) perceptions of voice as personal expression. This conception of voice as
individual and singular, works from the inside out. The teachers would agree with
Steson (1996) who argues that “student autonomy [is] the basis for voice.” (77) and
characterize voice as a unitary character of an individual’s expression that tells the
reader who we are. Because the teaches feel it is an identifiable essence of the author,
voice is intrinsic and precedes the writing. Ally would agree looking to express voice as
a recognizable and consistent quality that sustains itself across texts and even across
genres.
Elbow (1994) calls this sustaining quality distinctive voice. Distinctive voice
acknowledges a recognizable mark that is consistent despite situations. Ally and the
teachers ideas support Elbow’s view. However, Elbow questions why having a
distinctive voice is a desirable trait. He suggests that it might be more advantageous to
have the ability to use many voices. His conception of voice includes its use as a way
to develop relationships with various audiences. This is an ability only Ally, the most
competent writer exhibited any trace of. Perhaps being able to access multiple voices
for different intentions is a result of writing competencies.
159
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Resonant voice or presence is what Elbow (1994) calls the “real voice” (16).
Here theories of self, identity, sincerity, and authenticity abound. Elbow’s model of
self is not stable and constant. He recognizes a dialogic quality in self. Resonant voice
“points to the relationship between discourse and the unconscious” (17). He accepts a
multivocal understanding of voice. Resonant voice is a meaningful expression which
relates to theories o f authenticity. For Elbow, voice is both inherent and emerging. My
finding agree. If voice was only dependent on intrinsic characteristics in could not be
conceptualized as multiple or able to be taught.
Authenticity
When identifying meaningful and significant experiences I borrowed Myers
(1992) question, “Authentic to whom?” and added “Authentic in what context?”. I
wanted to apply Myers’ fundamental conclusion that everything is authentic in some
situational context and “the social contexts of literacy are neither static nor single, nor
can they be generalized for all students or for any one student across all moments of
literate action” (302), to individuals in a diverse school setting. His findings remained
consistent, validated by my own. I too found authenticity a changing concept across
individuals and also across situational context
Authenticity and Appropriation and Voice
Many students identified the most authentic writing experiences in Rainbow
Cluster as those where they can express voice. For the focal students, texts that
reflected their social worlds and appropriate elements for their own intentions are the
160
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
most valued experiences offered During this dissertation, I have presented voice and
authenticity as constructs with many shared features. Concepts o f authenticity and
voice are both understood as unique to an individual and highly influenced by social
role and situational context. Both concepts are broadly related to choice and
investment, and both make use o f appropriation in certain settings. Yancey (1994)
extends the relationship between voice and authenticity even further.
Each time we write, it is possible to wrest from the
language and from ourselves a new voice that may or may
not be truthful or authentic, for what is the source o f such
an evaluation? Authentic to who we used to be? To who
we are now? To which of the current conflicting selves?
Perhaps, then, voice isn’t so much authentic or
nonfictional, but faithful-to the current voices composing
the writer. (Yancey, 1994, p. xiv).
Challenging notions o f truth in authenticity, Yancey personalizes a continually
changing view of this concept. In closing, I suggest that dynamically conceived
authentic experiences are best actualized through the expression o f voice in a specific
sociocultural context
Limitations of the Study
No research is objective and this qualitative study does not imply that it is. I
was deeply involved in my research setting and the participants who star in this
dissertation. As I observed, I hoped for successes, and applauded achievements. In
addition, I came to this research firmly grounded in sociocultural theory. That is the 1
161
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
lens in which I viewed the data. A researcher grounded in another theory would surely
see things differently.
One goal o f this research was to apply Myers’ (1992) findings to younger
research participants. Myers’ eighth grade participants were better prepared for
conversations about such abstract concepts. I believe my study was constrained by
the age and writing development of my seven to nine year old subjects. Perhaps
children who are free from attending to the conventions o f writing would be better able
to conceptualize towards abstract constructs.
This study explored the social and textural influences on five focal participant’s
classroom writing experiences. The five focal students were chosen because they best
represented the demographics and composition of Rainbow Cluster during the 1999-
2000 school year. The portraits I constructed in Chapter Four are case studies and
should be seen in sociocultural context. However, their context is a unique elementary
school setting, with mixed-age groups, team teaching and double sized classroom. It is
also unique because the students represent a diverse range o f economics, ethnicity and
ability. Therefore, the results have limited appeal for generalizability. However, that
not to say they do not have implications for instruction.
Implications for Instruction
If voice is understood as a constructed concept through the work of volitional
appropriation, then it can be taught. Knowing that voice is a unique construct relative
to an individual’s history and dynamic over situational context makes a model for
instruction impossible. Further, as demonstrated in this study, age and developmental
162
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
ability may constrain understandings o f appropriation, voice and authenticity. The
following suggestions are guidelines for instruction that must themselves be
appropriated for specific students in their instructional settings.
My first suggestion reflects on practice found in Rainbow Cluster, guided
writing. In this study, guided writing assignments were created as literature responses
that required appropriation of some textural element. For students like Jared, these
forced situations of appropriation constrained an expression of voice. Others, like
Marisol benefited from their structure. I suggest using guided writing assignments as a
way to do the work of a specific author. Mimicking is not appropriating, that is clear.
It takes a willful transformation to make borrowed bits one’s own. However, I see
mimicry as a step toward appropriation. I would like to see students appropriate
from a large number of published authors. Writing from a multiple styles, topics,
forms, and other text features will provide students with a variety o f tools from which
to choose. My intent is to replicate an instructional mode common in art school. Art
students are frequently sent o f to museums to copy the work of great masters. After
trying on and acquiring great artist’s stances, they create their own vision which I liken
to voice in text. In this way, appropriation becomes a strategy for constructing voice.
My second suggestion asks teachers to be explicit in recognizing voice as a
valued outcome. Literature models are wonderful but students must know to transfer
this feature to their own texts. That is why I recommend using classroom created
stories that exhibit voice as models as well. In addition, since voice is a unique
expression, it may contradict traditional school notions of conformity. If consistency
and conformity are valued, children will not likely want to risk personal expression.
163
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Children, like Ally, should be aware that their stories should not sound like
dictionaries, but should reflect the author who creates them.
I would also like Dee Joseph and Ana Handle, the teachers in Rainbow Cluster
to revisit their idea about beginning with a “seed of truth”. I understand that they
bring this concept to the workshop as a way to encourage meaningful writing
experiences. I suggest that the “seed of truth” constrains students to write about what
the teachers deem meaningful and devalues choice, a bedrock of writing workshops.
Children’s concepts of meaningful and significant topics may not be congruent with
those prescribed for them. In addition, I am not sure the seven to nine year old writers
we worked with were able to begin with the truth and take it someplace else. For these
writers it appeared to be all or nothing, fact or fiction.
Finally I would like to suggest that teachers pay attention to children’s
concepts of authentic classroom experiences. Authentic contexts should not be
random. They can be created by assessing student’s perceptions of valued literacies
and literacy practices. These settings should also provide a place to express voice.
Authentic contexts suggest an improvement in engagement which is related to school
success.
Implications for Future Research
This qualitative study on authenticity appropriation and voice, drew from a
thorough research experience and generated many data sources. However, there are
two places where I suggest additional research be conducted.
164
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Marisol’s portrait left me with many unanswered questions. As an English
language learner, she brings additional complexities to her classroom writing
experiences. Further, the influences o f a remedial curriculum offered through the
resource specialist conflicted with the Rainbow Cluster’s teaching and learning
ideologies. Being identified as an English language learner shapes a child’s school
identity and therefore the social and textural influences on their writing. I would like to
see research which specifically explores the constraints and affordances of bilingualism
on the process of appropriation and the construction o f voice.
In addition, I am interested in exploring investment as a theoretical construct
for application in studying expressions of voice in elementary school classrooms. As
discussed earlier in this chapter, investment was a salient property for identifying
authentic writing experiences and the expression of voice. Social roles highly influence
investment, especially as it relates to motivation and engagement.
165
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
REFERENCES
Atwell, N. (1998). In the Middle: Writing, reading and learning with adolescents.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Avery, C. (1993). ...And with a light touch: Learning about reading, writing and
teaching with first graders. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Bakhtin, M (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essavs bv M. Bakhtin. Austin:
University o f Texas Press.
Bakhtin, M M (1986). Speech genres and other late essays. (In C. Emerson &
M.Holquist, Eds.) Austin: University o f Texas Press.
Bergeron, B.S. & Rudenga, E.A. (1996). Seeking authenticity: What is “real” about
thematic literacy instruction? The Reading Teacher. 4 9 .544-551.
Butcheri, J. & Hammond, J.J. (1994). Authentic writing makes the difference. Journal
of Reading. 38. 228-229.
Byrd, P. & Reid, J. (1995). Authenticity and authentic materials: Using student-
produced writing in ESL materials. Journal of Intensive English Studies. 9. 1-
23.
Cappello, M. (1999). Authenticity and appropriation in school writing events. Paper
presented at the National Reading Conference, Orlando.
Caulkins, L.M. (1983). Lessons from a child:On the teaching and learning of writing.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Caulkins, L.M. (1986). The art of teaching writing. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Collier, J. Jr. & Collier, M. (1986). Visual anthropology: Photography as a research
method. Albuquerque, New Mexico: University of New Mexico Press.
Cronin, J.F. (1993). Four misconceptions about authentic learning. Educational
Leadership. 50. 78-80.
166
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Dey, I (1993). Qualitative Data Analysis: A user friendly guide for social scientists.
London: Routeledge.
Dolly, M.R. (1990). Integrating ESL reading and writing through authentic discourse.
Journal o f Reading. 33. 360-365.
Dyson, A.H. (1989). Multiple worlds of child writers: Friends learning to write. New
York: Teachers College Press.
Dyson, A.H. (1993). Social worlds of children learning to write in an urban primary
schools. New York: Teachers College Press.
Dyson, A.H. (1997). Writing superheroes: Contemporary childhood, popular
culture.and classroom literacy. New York: Teachers College Press.
Dyson, A.H. (1999). Coach Bombay’s kids learn to write: Children’s appropriation
of media material for school literacy. Research in the Teaching of English.
22. 367-402.
Edelsky, C. (1991). With literacy and justice for all: Rethinking the social in language
and education. London: Farmer Press.
Edelsky, C. & Smith, K. (1984). Is that writing-or are those marks just a figment of
curriculum? Language Arts. 61.24-32.
Elbow, P. (1994). What do we mean when we talk about voice in texts? In K.B. Yancey
fEd.l Voices on voice: Perspectives, definitions, inquiry.Urbana. Ill: National
Council o f Teachers of English.
Engestrom, Y. (1987). Learning bv expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to..
developmental research. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit Oy.
Freeman, E.B. & Sanders, T. (1987). The social meaning of literacy: Writing
instruction and the community. Language Arts. 64. 641-645.
167
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Gallimore, R. & Goldenberg, C. N. (1993). Activity setting o f early literacy: Home and
school factors in children’s emergent literacy. In E. Forman & N. S. Minick
(Eds.) Education and mind: The integration o f institutional. social, and
developmental processes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation o f cultures. New York: Basic Books.
Graves, D.H. (1975). An examination o f the writing processes of seven-year-old
children. Research in the Teaching of English. 9.227-241.
Graves, D.H. (1994). A fresh look at writing. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Gilbert, P. (1989) Schooling, writing and deconstruction: From voice to text in the
classroom. London: Routeledge.
Hicks, D. (1998). Narrative discourses as inner and outer word. Language Arts.75 (11.
28-34.
Hiebert, E.H (1994). Becoming literate through authentic tasks: Evidence and
adaptations. In Robert Ruddell et al. (Eds.) Theoretical models and processes
of reading, fourth edition. Newark. DE: International Reading Association.
Keiser, B. (1991). Creating authentic conditions for writing. The Reading Teacher. 45.
249-250.
Kucer, S.B. (1991). Authenticity as the basis for instnir.tion Language Arts. 68. 532-
540.
Kvale, S. (1996). Interviews. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Langer, J. A. (1991). A sociocognitive perspective on literacy. In J. Langer (Ed.)
Language, literacy, and culture: Issues of society and schooling. Norwood. NJ:
Abiex.
Lensmire, T J. (1994). When children write: Critical revisions of the writing
workshop. New York: Teachers College Press.
168
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Lensmire, T. J. (1998). Rewriting student voice. Journal o f Curriculum Studies. 30 (3).
261-291.
Lensmire, T. J. & Beal, D.B. (1994). Appropriating others’ words: Traces of literature
and peer culture in a third grader’s writing. Language in Society. 23. 411-426.
Lensmire, T. J. & Satanovsky, L. (1998). Defense of the romantic poet? Writing
workshops and voice. Theory Into Practice. 37. 280-288.
Manyak, P.C. (1999). Struggling for voice: A Bakhtinian analysis of voung Latina/o
children’s writing. Paper presented at American Educational Researcher
Association National Conference.
Marshall, C. & Rossman, G.B. (1995). Designing Qualitative Research. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Mason, J.(1996). Qualitative Researching. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
McLane, J. B. (1990). Writing as a social process. In Luis C. Moll (Ed.) Vvgotskv and
education: Instructional implications and applications of sociohistorical
psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Merriam, S.B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Miles, M. & Huberman, M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.
Mims, N. G. 09991 Motivation for authentic teaching and learning. Paper presented
at the annual conference o f the American Educational Research Association,
Montreal, Canada.
Mitchell, D. & O’Neill, B. (1997). Four projects that promote authentic learning.
English Journal.-g£-(4), 68-72.
Murray, D. (1991). The craft of revision. Forth Worth: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
169
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Myers, J. (1992). The social contexts of school and personal literacy. Reading
Research Quarterly. 27. 296-333.
Newman, F.M. & Wehlage, G.G. (1993). Five standard of authentic instruction.
Educational Leadership. 50. 8-12.
Nystrand, M. (1989). A social-interactive model o f writing. Written Communication.
£ 66-85.
Petraglia, J. (1998). Reality bv design: The rhetoric and technology of authenticity in_
education. Mahwah. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Preskill, H. (1995). The use o f photography in evaluating school culture. Qualitative
Studies In Education. 8 ( 2 \ 183-193.
Rosenblatt, L.M. (1985). Viewpoints: Transaction vs. interaction: A terminological
rescue operation. Research in the Teaching of English. 19. 96-107.
Stake, R.E. (1994). Case Studies. In N. Denzin and Y. Lincoln (Eds.) Handbook of
Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Steson, M. (1996). Freedom o f Voice. English Journal. 74-78.
Strauss, A. and Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory
procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Taylor, S. J. and Bogdan, R. (1984). Introduction to qualitative research methods:
The search for meanings. New York: Wiley.
Teves, R.R. (1984). The concept o f authenticity and its implications for lifelong
learning. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California
Thaipe, R.G. & Gallimore, R. (1988). Rousing minds to life: Teaching learning and
schooling in social context. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Tierney, W.G. (1991). Utilizing ethnographic interviews to enhance academic decision
making. New Directions for Institutional Research. 72. 7-22.
170
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Vukelich, C. & RoeJM (1995). Imitations of life: Authenticity in classroom literacy
events. Contemporary Education. 66.170-182.
Wertsch, J.V. (1991). Voices of the mind: A sociocultural approach to mediated
action. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.
Wertsch, J.V. (1998). Mind as action. New York: Oxford University Press.
Willinsky, J. (1990). The new literacy: Redefining reading and writing in the schools.
New York: Routledge.
Vukelich, C. & Roe, M. (1995). Imitations of life: Authenticity in classroom literacy
events. Contemporary Education. 66.179-182.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development o f higher psychological
processes. M.Cole (Ed.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Yancey, K.B. (1994). Introduction: Definition, intersection, and difference-mapping
the landscape o f voice. In K.B. Yancey (Ed.) Voices on voice: Perspectives,
definitions, inquiry. Urbana. Ill: National Council o f Teachers o f English.
Yin, R.K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.
171
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CHILDREN’S LITERATURE
Barbo, M. S. (1999). The official Pokemon handbook: Collectors. New York:
Scholastic.
Cohen, B. (T9951Make a wish Molly. New York: Yearling.
Cole, J. (1996). The magic school bus inside a hurricane. New York: Scholastic.
Faulkner, M. (19861 Jack and the beanstalk. New York: Scholastic Trade.
Havill, J. (1987). Jamaica’s find. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Marshall, J. (1989). The three little pigs. New York: Puffin Pied Piper.
Myller, R. (1962). How big is a foot?. New York: Dell Yearling.
O’Neal, S. (1999). Shaq and the beanstalk. New York: Cartwheel Books.
Scieszka, J. (1989). The true storv o f the three little pies. New York: Viking Penguin.
Scieszka, J. ( 1998V Summer reading is killing me. New York: Viking Children’s Books.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Appendix A: Photographs
173
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Appendix A: Photographs, continued
174
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Appendix A: Photographs, continued
175
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Appendix B: Classroom Map
8 * ?’
W'
bookcase
P table^j
student
cubbies and
tables with
5 computers
table and chairs
Class library-,
withcouch[| X
and mg
P.
0
teachers'
work area with
desks, book
cases, and
two
computers
file
cabinets
0
• •
tables
• I
# = chairs
0 = computers.
student
cubbies
student
tables wi
computers
>
1
I o
o
I °
o
•
t
t •
A °
o
I O '
o
table
176
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Appendix C: Writing Workshop Organizational Sheets
Name Date
Writer’s Workshop Checklists
Title of Story
1. Pre-write •picture story
•Four Square W’s (Date Completed)
•Brainstorm
•Other
2. Rough Draft •Skip Lines
(Date Completed)
3. Revise •Make it better
•RAD Sheet (Date Completed)
Add details, make changes
Revise with Others •Share with a friend
• (friend) (Date Completed)
•Share with an adult
• (adult)
•Make 2-3 changes
4. Edit •Editing checklist by self
•Use word book (Date Completed)
•Editing checklist with partner
•TURN IN TO BOX for teacher edit initials
5. Final Draft
TEACHER OK
•No mistakes
•Don’t skip lines (Date Completed)
6. Publish •Mac Write II
•Make a Book (Date Completed)
•Page numbers -Dedication
•Illustrations ‘Title Page ‘Cover
177
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Editing Checklist
A u t h o r _______________________________E d ito r_________________________
T itle ot P a p e r ______________________________________________________ _
1. I have circled the w ords that I think are spelled wrong,
2. I h ave spelled correctly all w ords that we have learned.
Clt^e worrt boot')
3. All sen te n c e s begin with capital letters.
4. All sen te n c e s end with a punctuation mark.
5. All proper nouns (n am es and places, etc.) begin with
capital letters.
0 0
____________________ D ata .
Tilla of S lo r y _________________________
R A D . WRITER
SHEET
O move a word in a better spot
O replace a boring word
O move a sentence to a better spot
o move a paragraph to a better spot
change any parts that don’t make
sense
^ ~ )a d d any missing words
O add any missing sentences
O add more descriptive words
O add more details
i----
take out repeated words
O take out words I don’t need
take out sentences I don't need
Appendix C : Writing Workshop Organizational Sheets, continued
Appendix C: Writing Workshop Organizational Sheets, continued
I
I.
Writer's Workshop Idea U $t
Things I want to write about:
/ > A f S f
179
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Appendix D:
Focal Children Demographics
Dseudonvm teacher level ££□&£ date of birth
Marisol 1 Latina-lep3 f 1/20/90
Jamili m/h African-Amer m 9/2/92
Jared h Caucasian m 3/20/92
Alexander m Latino-Eng. only m 8/7/91
Ally h Caucasian f 6/21/91
rsp
gate
reduced/lunch
gate/looped
Kev:
1 - low
m - middle
enrichment
h - high
f - female
m - male
rsp - resource specialist
gate - gifted and talented
lep - limited English proficient
180
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Appendix £:
Time Line For Data Generation
The following time line outlines the data generation procedures for this study.
Phase One
9/99-12/99
Phase Two
1/ 00- 2/00
•establish rapport
•secure permission slips
•overview the setting
•create initial photographs of children
•observe writing workshop/other writing
•begin document collection
•informal conversations with teachers/children
•preliminary identification of focus children
•initial interviews with informants
•collect demographic data for p. notebook
•introduction of dialogue journal
•confirmed identification of focus children
•continued participant-observation
•regular collection of writing samples
•photographs generated of children at work
3/00-4/00
Ehass Four
5/00-6/00
•evaluate research based on preliminary analysis
and meeting goals of research questions
•continued data generation
•exit interviews with informants
•continued in-depth analysis
•write up o f final report which include
text/photos
•submission of dissertation
181
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Appendix F:
Initial Student Interview Protocol
I Personal Information
1. Grade
2. Last Year’s Cluster
3. Years at Open
4. Home Language
II Attitudes About Writing
1. What do you think about writing?
In school?
Out of school?
2. What is your favorite kind o f writing?
3. What do you think of workshop?
4. Do you think you have all the time you need for writing?
5. What helps you write?
EH Authenticity
1. What do you think is the most important-meaningful kind of writing
you do? Why?
2. Do you have things you have written that are important -meaningful-
special to you? Why?
3. What kinds of writing do you do at school that helps you to become a
better/strong writer?
4. Is there any kind of writing you do in school that you would do out of
school?
5. Do you prefer when Teacher tells you what to write about, like
biographies o f culture big books or when you you choose the topic like
in workshop? Do you know why you prefer that?
IV Appropriation
1. Where do you get the ideas for your stories? (give examples)
2. Are any o f your stories about you? Are you in any o f your stories?
3. Which pieces of your writing sound most like you?
4. Could someone tell a story was yours even if you didn’t have your
name on it? Which ones? How could they tell it was yours?
182
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Appendix G:
Exit Student Interview Protocol
SECTION A
(Uses Worksheet Notebook as realia)
Tell me about__________(writing experience)
What did you learn by doing_______ ?
What is the reason for_______?
Why do the teachers ask you to d o ________ ? (purpose)
•Writing Workshop
•Book Talk writing
•My Life on Film
•Role Model/Autobiography
•Ancestor Interview
•STEPS/test prep
•Dilemma Stories
•Jack/Fairy Tales
•I am Poem
•Sound Poem
•compliments/letter writing
•hw assignment sheets
Did I miss any?
O f these, which is the most important kind o f writing? Why?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Appendix G, continued
SECTION B
What kind of a writer are you? How would you describe yourself as a writer?
Who are the good writers in Orange Cluster?
How do you know? What makes them good?
What does it take to be a good writer?
Who do you like to revise/edit with? Why?
SECTION C
Photo-Interview (Uses photo-interview album)
I found these pictures o f you. Can you tell me what is going on in them?
I want you to go through and pick out all the photos that show something important.
Why is that one important?
Early analysis together: What can we say about the photos you chose?
SECTION D
(Uses writer’s workshop folder and portfolio)
Workshop Review
Where do you get your ideas from?
What do you think Ms. Johns meant by voice (college essay)?
What are the most important pieces you have written?
What should I photocopy from your folders?
What is the most important thing you have learned about being a writer?
When I write about you, what should I call you?
184
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
NAME:
Appendix H: Participant’s Notebook
[PHOTO HERE]
GRADE: SEX: BIRTH DATE:
ETHNICITY: HOME LANGUAGE: GATE/RSP/LUNCH
185
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Appendix I: Deductive Coding Sheet
INTENT
•purpose
•agency
•particpation
V O L IT IO N
•choice
•ownership
•participation
•engagement
REFLECTION
•perceived value
•how do they talk
about it?
VOICE
•borrowed bits
•social identity
(specific data)
interview
transcriptions
writing samples
fieldwork notes
(specific data)
interview
transcriptions
writing samples
fieldwork notes
(specific data)
interview
transcriptions
writing samples
fieldwork notes
(specific data)
interview
transcriptions
writing samples
fieldwork notes
Using a Bakhtinian analysis to access participant's perceptions o f authenticity and
appropriation.
186
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Access factors and homerun experiences: Making readers of our children

PDF

Coordinating the reading and writing competencies during the early literacy development of 5--6 year -old Spanish -English emergent bilinguals

PDF

An investigation of shame and anxiety in learning English as a second language

PDF

Change beliefs and academic outcomes: A construct validation

PDF

Does first-year treatment intensity predict outcome in young autistic children receiving Lovaas' ABA intervention?

PDF

Impact of Proposition 227 on bilingual teachers' beliefs and practices

PDF

A cross -cultural comparison of achievement motivation among college students in South Africa

PDF

At home in the world: Indian literature in the postcolonial academy

PDF

Examining the relationship between writing self -efficacy, writing performance and general achievement for third graders

PDF

Emergent literacy: A sense of becoming and being literate in Latino families

PDF

Early reading predictors of literacy achievement for English learners: A longitudinal study from first through third grade

PDF

Generals and particulars in Thucydides

PDF

English phoneme and word recognition by nonnative English speakers as a function of spectral resolution and English experience

PDF

"Self" in self -worth protection: The relationship of possible selves to achievement motives and self -worth protective strategies

PDF

An evaluation of ultra -wideband propagation channels

PDF

Comparing the motivational profiles of high -ability-low -performing (HALP) students and high -ability -high -performing (HAHP) students

PDF

A cut above: Fashion as meta -culture in early -twentieth -century Russia

PDF

A culture of sociability: Popular speech in ancient Rome

PDF

Estimation of origin -destination matrices from link traffic counts and user equilibrium link information

PDF

Design of a stealth liposome delivery system for a novel glycinamide ribonucleotide formyltransferase inhibitor

Asset Metadata

Creator Cappello, Marva (author)

Core Title Authenticity, appropriation and voice: One primary classroom's writing experiences

School Graduate School

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Education

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag education, elementary,education, language and literature,OAI-PMH Harvest

Language English

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Advisor Rueda, Robert (committee chair), [illegible] (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c16-73215

Unique identifier UC11328280

Identifier 3018060.pdf (filename),usctheses-c16-73215 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 3018060.pdf

Dmrecord 73215

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Cappello, Marva

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA