Mandy Wright
The study of genre theory within Rhetoric and Composition is a relatively new branch of study, which is informed, fittingly, by work in several other disciplines. This information among disciplines is fitting because genre explains language interactions in terms of intertextuality, adoption, and change within and among the groups who utilize genres to serve a variety of social exigences. Since the arrival of genre on the comp scene, it has been amended through absorption several other theoretical concepts. Notable among recent applications is the connection of genre theory to activity theory in a continuing attempt to refine genre’s universality and its utility in studying human language interactions, including (and especially for this discipline) writing. Research in the field of Rhetoric and Composition in the past twenty years which has addressed genre theory, and especially that which has applied activity theory to it in use, has generally made a series of similar, although not necessarily sequential, moves. Each of these moves is characterized what I will call interelucidation: the example or analyzed material enriches the understanding of activity theory or genre theory, while activity theory and/or genre theory is used to analyze or explain the example. Thus even in defining, these two theories are continually synthetic. The three major moves are to explain or develop genre theory, to synthesize activity theory with genre theory, and to apply the synthetic theory. Applications of these theories not only elucidate both the theory and the subjects of analysis, but promote suggestions for the teaching of writing.
Move One: Development of Genre Theory in Rhetoric and Composition
First, the research defines genre theory, frequently adding new vocabulary and/or a new perspective (Bazerman; Devitt et al 7; Russell “Rethinking” 505; Wardle “Cross-Disciplinary”). One example is Bazerman’s synthesis of theories of speech genres, action, and intertextuality. Charles Bazerman refers to speech acts, aligns a theory of written genres-as-actions with theories of Searle, and points out difficulties which ensue as a result of the differences between speech and written genres with regard to both extemporaneity and “polysemiousness.” His perspective, drawing on research in several fields, reveals that because utterances can be both interpreted and act in a variety of ways, an extension of Devitt’s genre sets (“Generalizing” 580) must be conceptualized to account for their (i.e. genre sets’) involvement in broader human contexts. Though this example does not discuss in depth the theories outside of rhetoric and composition upon which it is drawn, it will suffice for this discussion to say that in this example, as in others of defining genre, the theorist often draws on (an)other field(s) for vocabulary or perspective. In using his own examples to illustrate how genre is delineated, Bazerman also synthesizes the definition of genre with his own examples. His definitions and new uses of theory from other fields also help him to bring together the genre systems that he defines.
Move Two: Synthesis of Activity Theory with Genre
Another move is to, with varying amounts of explanation of activity theory as well as varying levels of justification, synthesize activity theory with genre theory (Kain and Wardle 114; Russell “Activity Theory” and “Rethinking”; Wardle “Cross-Disciplinary” and “’Mutt Genres’” 4). For example, David Russell draws on Bazerman but then also submits that the cultural-historical activity theory of Vygotsky provides an ideal framework for analysis of how genres work in sets and systems. Russell and others identify an interpretation of activity theory that draws on Vygotsky via Leont’ev, Y. Engestrom, and Cole and Engestrom (Dias 16; Devitt et al 10; Kain and Wardle 120; Russell “Activity Theory” 53, to name a few). Again, here he offers the activity system itself as a unit of analysis to bring together the macro- and micro-levels of human interaction, and discusses at great length and with a number of concrete examples some ways in which his approach accounts for stability and change in individuals and in systems, as well as for the learning of writing itself. By applying activity theory along with genre theory to the study of those human interactions which involve writing, these researchers obtain the ability to discuss disparate acts, genres, and groups as unified by functioning within the human endeavor (Dias 16; Kain and Wardle 121; Russell “Activity Theory” 53; “Rethinking” 508; Wardle “Cross-Disciplinary”).
Move Three: Applications of Activity and Genre
Once both activity theory and genre theory are delineated and synthesized, and important vocabulary and concepts are introduced, the objective of the research may be fulfilled. There are several ways in which the research utilizes these two theories; in application the synthesis of genre and activity with what is used to analyze becomes apparent. However, some distinctions may be made of application of genre and activity theory as follows:
•Activity theory and genre theory are used to analyze the “real world,” for our purposes to include the disciplines of the university.
•Activity theory and genre theory are used to analyze the world of school.
•Analyzed activities are used to describe or forge innovative explanations of genre and/or activity theories.
•Activity theory and genre theory are shown to unify false dichotomies seemingly inherent in analyzed situations.
•Genre and/or activity theory is used to suggest pedagogy for teachers of writing.
Again, in performing any one of these actions, the discussion frequently performs other actions either simultaneously or as an end result. One typical action is to compare the genres and activity systems of the “real world” to those of school, wherein the analysis may reveal some false dichotomies (such at that between content and form) of school genres. The activities and genres of school and the real world are used to explain activity and genre theories, both submitting new findings and illustrating that suggested dichotomies are synthesized. Finally, this entire analysis is used to suggest at least to minimal extant a pedagogy for teachers of writing which utilizes this knowledge to unify school and workplace genres and activities. This series of maneuvers generally describes several past and recent articles on this topic (Dias; Kain and Wardle; Russell “Activity Theory” and “Rethinking”; Wardle “Cross-Disciplinary”). Indeed, even discussions of genre which have not included activity theory have still used examples to synthesize dichotomies, explain genre itself, and/or suggest pedagogy (Bawarshi; Carter; Devitt). Through these discussions the potential of genre and activity theories for the teaching of writing becomes clear.
Though the discussion of genre and application of activity theory to this discussion is a relatively young branch of a relatively young discipline, a few pioneers have begun to suggest ways in which the synthesis may continue to inform both research and pedagogy. The conversation thus far has focused primarily of first-year or general education writing courses, writing across the university, and writing in workplaces. Though much remains to be discovered about these systems and their intersections, both the analysis and pedagogical application of these theories to secondary education and the transfer of knowledge from high school to the university or workplace is thus far scarce (see Russell “’Kind-ness’” for one exception).
For works cited, see annotated bib.
Sunday, April 27, 2008
Fostering Writing Development through Online Peer Review
Kelly Whitney
Peer review has become a fundamental practice in composition courses over the past few decades. Instructors rely on students to provide feedback for others, with the hopes of improving both the writer and reviewer’s papers. As computers and technology become more prominent in the composition classroom, instructors are able to incorporate technology with fundamental activities such as peer review. Electronic peer review—also commonly referred to as e-peer review, online peer review, and web-based peer review—is simply moving the traditional face-to-face approach to peer review into an online format. For simplicity and consistency, I will refer to all modes of online peer review as OPR. More and more instructors are turning to OPR for several reasons; some teachers find it to be more convenient for the students, some use it to help create a paperless classroom, others prefer to dedicate class time to instruction, and many find the feedback to be of higher quality than in traditional peer review. Regardless of the reason, OPR is quickly replacing traditional face-to-face peer review, and students are profiting from what OPR offers that the traditional approach doesn’t.
Anonymity
A critical facet of peer review, anonymity is more easily achieved through OPR. Studies have shown that anonymous reviewers provide more critical feedback than identifiable reviewers (MacDonald). When kept anonymous, reviewers aren’t concerned with the feelings of the writers and can, in turn, provide more honest comments (Lu and Bol). Furthermore, anonymity is a key component of deindividuation. Deindividuation refers to situations when students stop seeing others as actual individuals—students remove interpersonal relationships with other members of a group. By separating individuals from social groups, they feel that they cannot be singled out by others and that others cannot single them out (Lu and Bol). Deindividuation, or the detachment of individuals from group dynamics, invites more critical and honest feedback, and anonymity is key to achieving it.
Additionally, students performed better in e-peer review when both the reviewer and the reviewed remained anonymous (Robinson). Reviewers claimed they felt uncomfortable reviewing friends or other students they knew, and therefore hesitated to provide critical or negative feedback. By keeping both the reviewer and the reviewed anonymous, students are “relieved from the social pressures and enabled to express themselves freely without considering interpersonal factors” (Lu and Bol 102). Anonymity allows students to review the text and not the person.
Multiple Reviewers
The importance of using multiple reviewers has been acknowledged by several researchers (Robinson; MacDonald; Althauser; Lu and Bol), and OPR is better able to accommodate this approach. Evaluating several texts has been shown to benefit both the reviewer and the reviewed. Reviewers are able to see alternative approaches to writing styles, become exposed to more writing in their genre, and are able to look at their own writing more critically after evaluating multiple pieces. Having several reviewers allows for the reviewed to receive much more critical feedback, which, if taken into account while revising, should improve their writing (MacDonald). While traditional peer review generally uses the multiple-reviewer approach, students are relieved of the hassle of flipping through numerous pages to find the comments with OPR; they find that simply clicking on each file to look at comments is much easier and organized (Althauser).
Implementing multiple reviewers also allows students to write multiple drafts more easily. Organized feedback can come more quickly from several readers in an online setting, giving the writer more time to revise (Althauser). And because revision is the key to improving student writing, it is important that students have ample time to receive feedback and incorporate the feedback into their writing, which OPR is better able to accommodate.
Student Engagement and Training
While study after study confirms that students who engage in OPR outperform those who practice traditional peer review, many students who participate in OPR are often unsure of how to approach it (MacDonald). Studies suggest that untrained students revert back to familiar forms of evaluation: They provide more feedback on lower-order concerns (grammar, spelling) than higher-order concerns (content, coherence) (Robinson). In order to achieve high-quality feedback, instructors must train their students on how to approach e-peer review (MacDonald; Robinson; DiGiovanni and Nagaswami).
Keith Topping offers seventeen parameters for Peer Review Typology to help both students and teachers in the peer review process. By following the typology, instructors will be able to better express their expectations for peer review and identify the rhetorical situation. For students, this typology will help them to understand the rhetorical situation and what is expected of them. These parameters identify the objectives (what students are to gain from peer review), focus (is it to be a summary or critique), and place (in or out of class), among several others (Topping 252). By following these parameters, students should have a better understanding of their expectations for peer review.
Yet even with training and preparation, students will only produce high-quality feedback if they maintain interest in OPR (Lin at al.). Instructors, therefore, need to be aware of students’ feelings towards e-peer review. There is a direct correlation between engagement and performance; they more interested students are in OPR, the better they will perform (Lin et al.). One study credits the novelty of OPR for student engagement; when the novelty wears off, students become disengaged (Xu). There must be open communication between teacher and students to identify concerns or lack of interest with e-peer review. Furthermore, instructors should create a venue in which students can discuss their thoughts and attitudes towards writing assignments with each other. Even though this might jeopardize anonymity, creating this open-discussion forum should foster more positive feelings towards both the assignments and OPR (Lin et al.).
Students’ Positions
When students are interested and adequately prepared for OPR, an overwhelming majority of them prefer this approach to traditional peer review. (Lu and Bol; Lin et al.; Robinson). Students claim they like the freedom of e-peer review; they can complete it on their own time and in the comfort of their own homes (Lin et al.). Furthermore, students find themselves staying focused and on task; they aren’t distracted by the social opportunities that develop in face-to-face peer review. Also, they claim that they have more opportunities to reflect on their thoughts before typing them, creating more focused and critical feedback. OPR also helps students retain information better, and fosters computer literacy (Lu and Bol; DiGiovanni and Nagaswami).
Implications for Further Research
Because OPR is such a new area of study, much more research is needed to identify the benefits of this approach and to support the procedures that previous research has established to be most efficient. While previous studies have provided excellent insight into the benefits of peer review, there is still much room for study. After reviewing the published literature concerning OPR, I have come up with three areas that further research needs to be conducted:
1.OPR pedagogy—Now that we know the benefits of OPR, we need to know how to teach our students to engage in it. Several studies indicate the importance of OPR, yet none offer suggestions on how to train our students.
2.Maintaining student interest—Studies have shown that maintaining interest is vital for the success of OPR, and highlight what happens when students lost that interest (Lin et al., Xu). With traditional face-to-face peer review, it is easier to take new approaches to maintain interest: Students can read aloud, take the assembly lines approach where each student is responsible for reviewing a specific aspect of the text, and the social relationships built with new group members all help to maintain student interest. Because the social context is removed in OPR, we need to create new ways to keep the students interested. More research is needed in this area to identify pedagogical approaches to keep the students interested.
3.OPR etiquette—Because of the interpersonal relationships that are created in traditional peer review, students are rarely disrespectful to the other group members. But if we take the anonymity approach to OPR—the approach that is deemed to be most efficient—deindividuation might make students victims; reviewers might not consider the writer while giving feedback, only the text. This could potentially lead to overly critical or disrespectful comments, ultimately hurting the OPR process. Researchers must investigate the extent of critical comments and offer an outline for OPR etiquette.
For works cited, see annotated bib.
Peer review has become a fundamental practice in composition courses over the past few decades. Instructors rely on students to provide feedback for others, with the hopes of improving both the writer and reviewer’s papers. As computers and technology become more prominent in the composition classroom, instructors are able to incorporate technology with fundamental activities such as peer review. Electronic peer review—also commonly referred to as e-peer review, online peer review, and web-based peer review—is simply moving the traditional face-to-face approach to peer review into an online format. For simplicity and consistency, I will refer to all modes of online peer review as OPR. More and more instructors are turning to OPR for several reasons; some teachers find it to be more convenient for the students, some use it to help create a paperless classroom, others prefer to dedicate class time to instruction, and many find the feedback to be of higher quality than in traditional peer review. Regardless of the reason, OPR is quickly replacing traditional face-to-face peer review, and students are profiting from what OPR offers that the traditional approach doesn’t.
Anonymity
A critical facet of peer review, anonymity is more easily achieved through OPR. Studies have shown that anonymous reviewers provide more critical feedback than identifiable reviewers (MacDonald). When kept anonymous, reviewers aren’t concerned with the feelings of the writers and can, in turn, provide more honest comments (Lu and Bol). Furthermore, anonymity is a key component of deindividuation. Deindividuation refers to situations when students stop seeing others as actual individuals—students remove interpersonal relationships with other members of a group. By separating individuals from social groups, they feel that they cannot be singled out by others and that others cannot single them out (Lu and Bol). Deindividuation, or the detachment of individuals from group dynamics, invites more critical and honest feedback, and anonymity is key to achieving it.
Additionally, students performed better in e-peer review when both the reviewer and the reviewed remained anonymous (Robinson). Reviewers claimed they felt uncomfortable reviewing friends or other students they knew, and therefore hesitated to provide critical or negative feedback. By keeping both the reviewer and the reviewed anonymous, students are “relieved from the social pressures and enabled to express themselves freely without considering interpersonal factors” (Lu and Bol 102). Anonymity allows students to review the text and not the person.
Multiple Reviewers
The importance of using multiple reviewers has been acknowledged by several researchers (Robinson; MacDonald; Althauser; Lu and Bol), and OPR is better able to accommodate this approach. Evaluating several texts has been shown to benefit both the reviewer and the reviewed. Reviewers are able to see alternative approaches to writing styles, become exposed to more writing in their genre, and are able to look at their own writing more critically after evaluating multiple pieces. Having several reviewers allows for the reviewed to receive much more critical feedback, which, if taken into account while revising, should improve their writing (MacDonald). While traditional peer review generally uses the multiple-reviewer approach, students are relieved of the hassle of flipping through numerous pages to find the comments with OPR; they find that simply clicking on each file to look at comments is much easier and organized (Althauser).
Implementing multiple reviewers also allows students to write multiple drafts more easily. Organized feedback can come more quickly from several readers in an online setting, giving the writer more time to revise (Althauser). And because revision is the key to improving student writing, it is important that students have ample time to receive feedback and incorporate the feedback into their writing, which OPR is better able to accommodate.
Student Engagement and Training
While study after study confirms that students who engage in OPR outperform those who practice traditional peer review, many students who participate in OPR are often unsure of how to approach it (MacDonald). Studies suggest that untrained students revert back to familiar forms of evaluation: They provide more feedback on lower-order concerns (grammar, spelling) than higher-order concerns (content, coherence) (Robinson). In order to achieve high-quality feedback, instructors must train their students on how to approach e-peer review (MacDonald; Robinson; DiGiovanni and Nagaswami).
Keith Topping offers seventeen parameters for Peer Review Typology to help both students and teachers in the peer review process. By following the typology, instructors will be able to better express their expectations for peer review and identify the rhetorical situation. For students, this typology will help them to understand the rhetorical situation and what is expected of them. These parameters identify the objectives (what students are to gain from peer review), focus (is it to be a summary or critique), and place (in or out of class), among several others (Topping 252). By following these parameters, students should have a better understanding of their expectations for peer review.
Yet even with training and preparation, students will only produce high-quality feedback if they maintain interest in OPR (Lin at al.). Instructors, therefore, need to be aware of students’ feelings towards e-peer review. There is a direct correlation between engagement and performance; they more interested students are in OPR, the better they will perform (Lin et al.). One study credits the novelty of OPR for student engagement; when the novelty wears off, students become disengaged (Xu). There must be open communication between teacher and students to identify concerns or lack of interest with e-peer review. Furthermore, instructors should create a venue in which students can discuss their thoughts and attitudes towards writing assignments with each other. Even though this might jeopardize anonymity, creating this open-discussion forum should foster more positive feelings towards both the assignments and OPR (Lin et al.).
Students’ Positions
When students are interested and adequately prepared for OPR, an overwhelming majority of them prefer this approach to traditional peer review. (Lu and Bol; Lin et al.; Robinson). Students claim they like the freedom of e-peer review; they can complete it on their own time and in the comfort of their own homes (Lin et al.). Furthermore, students find themselves staying focused and on task; they aren’t distracted by the social opportunities that develop in face-to-face peer review. Also, they claim that they have more opportunities to reflect on their thoughts before typing them, creating more focused and critical feedback. OPR also helps students retain information better, and fosters computer literacy (Lu and Bol; DiGiovanni and Nagaswami).
Implications for Further Research
Because OPR is such a new area of study, much more research is needed to identify the benefits of this approach and to support the procedures that previous research has established to be most efficient. While previous studies have provided excellent insight into the benefits of peer review, there is still much room for study. After reviewing the published literature concerning OPR, I have come up with three areas that further research needs to be conducted:
1.OPR pedagogy—Now that we know the benefits of OPR, we need to know how to teach our students to engage in it. Several studies indicate the importance of OPR, yet none offer suggestions on how to train our students.
2.Maintaining student interest—Studies have shown that maintaining interest is vital for the success of OPR, and highlight what happens when students lost that interest (Lin et al., Xu). With traditional face-to-face peer review, it is easier to take new approaches to maintain interest: Students can read aloud, take the assembly lines approach where each student is responsible for reviewing a specific aspect of the text, and the social relationships built with new group members all help to maintain student interest. Because the social context is removed in OPR, we need to create new ways to keep the students interested. More research is needed in this area to identify pedagogical approaches to keep the students interested.
3.OPR etiquette—Because of the interpersonal relationships that are created in traditional peer review, students are rarely disrespectful to the other group members. But if we take the anonymity approach to OPR—the approach that is deemed to be most efficient—deindividuation might make students victims; reviewers might not consider the writer while giving feedback, only the text. This could potentially lead to overly critical or disrespectful comments, ultimately hurting the OPR process. Researchers must investigate the extent of critical comments and offer an outline for OPR etiquette.
For works cited, see annotated bib.
Assessing Written Language Proficiency of ESL Students
Emily Watkins
In recent years, as the validity and integrity of standardized testing has been called into question, more research has been conducted investigating the validity of existing forms of second language proficiency assessment. Effectively assessing the written proficiency of ESL students has proven particularly difficult, as language is not only being assessed, but must be used as a medium to complete the assessment. Teachers of English as a Second Language and researchers will take particular interest in the literature reviewed, as it analyzes whether written proficiency of ESL students can be best assessed through pencil and paper tests, computerized tests, or a student’s written work. The literature reviewed also addresses how to best evaluate the written work of ESL students.
Existing forms of Assessment
Traditionally, written language proficiency has been assessed through pencil and paper tests, computerized tests and standardized tests. The validity of such forms of assessment has been challenged (Genesee, McNamara, Upshur). These assessments often attempt to assess the writing process and various components of “writing ability” such as vocabulary and syntax and have proven to be inadequate (McNamara). Simply grading the written work of students has also proven to be an inadequate means of assessing language proficiency, as writers can often avoid using vocabulary, grammar, etc. they are unsure of (Perkins).
The popularity of standardized tests as a means of assessment has grown in recent years, because of federal legislation such as No Child Left Behind and because they can be more fairly and objectively scored. Standardized tests may typically be more reliable than teacher-made assessments, but they often have cultural, racial, and gender bias, a huge disadvantage when assessing ESL proficiency.
The most recent suggestion to remedy the invalidity and bias of existing forms of assessment is the use of computerized assessments such as DIALANG. DIALANG, a computer program that consists of diagnostic foreign languages tests, provides a detailed analysis of strengths and weaknesses and offers immediate feedback (Alderson). Despite support and its more proven statistics, many schools may not have the resources to fund this kind of computer technology for students.
Alternate Forms of Assessment
Because of the invalidity of existing forms of assessment, researchers and teachers have sought other means of assessment in hopes of providing a “fairer” evaluation. No single test can produce entirely reliable and valid results, nor is one type of assessment transferable to all situations (Genesee, Perkins, Upshur). Rather than using an actual “test” as a form of assessment, it has been suggested that using the written work of students may prove to be a more accurate assessment of written language proficiency.
When assessing the written work of students, the use of performance based assessment is the most popular alternative to traditional testing (Cruickshank, Bainer Jenkins, Metcalf). Using portfolios, or collections of student work, is beneficial as it provides evidence of student progress and the developing knowledge and craft of writers (Bainer Jenkins, Cruickshank, Metcalf, Hurley, Villamil Tinajero). Because portfolios can include a variety of works, such as papers, journals, projects, and homework, they can be used to make judgment on a range of skills.
Journals have also proven helpful as a means of evaluation by serving as interactive conversations that force a student to take ownership of learning. Like the written work in a portfolio, journals also monitor proficiency and can be used to keep record of student progress. Journaling also provides insight that tests are unable to provide, such as insight into the student’s linguistic, cultural, and educational backgrounds and experiences, as well as their attitudes and goals (Genesee, Hurley, Upshur, Villamil Tinajero).
Evaluating written work
When evaluating the written work of ESL students, careful consideration should go into the grading process. To better chart progress rather than one single written product, it may be helpful for students to complete rough drafts and turn these in with a completed final copy (Hurley, Villamil Tinajero). This way, teachers can monitor the corrections and changes students make and base their evaluation off of more than one piece of work.
Essays and other written work produced by ESL students are often evaluated holistically. Holistic assessment, or simply designating a number or letter grade for student writing, is often insufficient for assessing the many components of student writing (Hamp-Lyons, Hurley, Perkins, Villamil Tinajero). In holistic assessment, diagnostic feedback is impossible and thus provides no help for students hoping to understand their grade assigned or curious about how to improve their writing (Hurley, Villamil Tinajero).
Rather than holistic assessment, the use of multiple trait assessment, or rubrics, is much more appropriate when evaluating the written work of ESL students. Multiple trait assessment takes into account the differences of ESL learners, whereas holistic scoring and essay tests do not. Multiple trait assessments also aid teachers in assigning grades more consistently and give the student feedback on particular aspects of their writing (Cruickshank, Bainer Jenkins, Metcalf, Hurley, Villamil Tinajero).
Conclusion
Research existing on the validity of existing forms of assessment is lacking. Research shows that the traditional methods of evaluating written language proficiency are insufficient and that no type of assessment (whether it be a pencil and paper test, a computerized test, or standardized test) is completely reliable. Although the use of computerized diagnostic tests such as DIALANG may more validly assess language proficiency, this method may not be feasible for all school districts. Alternate assessments, such as performance based assessments, can chart student progress and offer insight into student writing that other means of assessment cannot, but research on the validity of this means of evaluation is also lacking.
To close this gap, future research can be devoted to investigating valid, reliable, and non-biased means of assessment that can be easily implemented in schools. Although some research has been done that shows the benefits of multiple trait assessment over holistic assessment, further research can be conducted on how these types of measurements can be modified to suit ESL writing needs.
For works cited, see annotated bib.
In recent years, as the validity and integrity of standardized testing has been called into question, more research has been conducted investigating the validity of existing forms of second language proficiency assessment. Effectively assessing the written proficiency of ESL students has proven particularly difficult, as language is not only being assessed, but must be used as a medium to complete the assessment. Teachers of English as a Second Language and researchers will take particular interest in the literature reviewed, as it analyzes whether written proficiency of ESL students can be best assessed through pencil and paper tests, computerized tests, or a student’s written work. The literature reviewed also addresses how to best evaluate the written work of ESL students.
Existing forms of Assessment
Traditionally, written language proficiency has been assessed through pencil and paper tests, computerized tests and standardized tests. The validity of such forms of assessment has been challenged (Genesee, McNamara, Upshur). These assessments often attempt to assess the writing process and various components of “writing ability” such as vocabulary and syntax and have proven to be inadequate (McNamara). Simply grading the written work of students has also proven to be an inadequate means of assessing language proficiency, as writers can often avoid using vocabulary, grammar, etc. they are unsure of (Perkins).
The popularity of standardized tests as a means of assessment has grown in recent years, because of federal legislation such as No Child Left Behind and because they can be more fairly and objectively scored. Standardized tests may typically be more reliable than teacher-made assessments, but they often have cultural, racial, and gender bias, a huge disadvantage when assessing ESL proficiency.
The most recent suggestion to remedy the invalidity and bias of existing forms of assessment is the use of computerized assessments such as DIALANG. DIALANG, a computer program that consists of diagnostic foreign languages tests, provides a detailed analysis of strengths and weaknesses and offers immediate feedback (Alderson). Despite support and its more proven statistics, many schools may not have the resources to fund this kind of computer technology for students.
Alternate Forms of Assessment
Because of the invalidity of existing forms of assessment, researchers and teachers have sought other means of assessment in hopes of providing a “fairer” evaluation. No single test can produce entirely reliable and valid results, nor is one type of assessment transferable to all situations (Genesee, Perkins, Upshur). Rather than using an actual “test” as a form of assessment, it has been suggested that using the written work of students may prove to be a more accurate assessment of written language proficiency.
When assessing the written work of students, the use of performance based assessment is the most popular alternative to traditional testing (Cruickshank, Bainer Jenkins, Metcalf). Using portfolios, or collections of student work, is beneficial as it provides evidence of student progress and the developing knowledge and craft of writers (Bainer Jenkins, Cruickshank, Metcalf, Hurley, Villamil Tinajero). Because portfolios can include a variety of works, such as papers, journals, projects, and homework, they can be used to make judgment on a range of skills.
Journals have also proven helpful as a means of evaluation by serving as interactive conversations that force a student to take ownership of learning. Like the written work in a portfolio, journals also monitor proficiency and can be used to keep record of student progress. Journaling also provides insight that tests are unable to provide, such as insight into the student’s linguistic, cultural, and educational backgrounds and experiences, as well as their attitudes and goals (Genesee, Hurley, Upshur, Villamil Tinajero).
Evaluating written work
When evaluating the written work of ESL students, careful consideration should go into the grading process. To better chart progress rather than one single written product, it may be helpful for students to complete rough drafts and turn these in with a completed final copy (Hurley, Villamil Tinajero). This way, teachers can monitor the corrections and changes students make and base their evaluation off of more than one piece of work.
Essays and other written work produced by ESL students are often evaluated holistically. Holistic assessment, or simply designating a number or letter grade for student writing, is often insufficient for assessing the many components of student writing (Hamp-Lyons, Hurley, Perkins, Villamil Tinajero). In holistic assessment, diagnostic feedback is impossible and thus provides no help for students hoping to understand their grade assigned or curious about how to improve their writing (Hurley, Villamil Tinajero).
Rather than holistic assessment, the use of multiple trait assessment, or rubrics, is much more appropriate when evaluating the written work of ESL students. Multiple trait assessment takes into account the differences of ESL learners, whereas holistic scoring and essay tests do not. Multiple trait assessments also aid teachers in assigning grades more consistently and give the student feedback on particular aspects of their writing (Cruickshank, Bainer Jenkins, Metcalf, Hurley, Villamil Tinajero).
Conclusion
Research existing on the validity of existing forms of assessment is lacking. Research shows that the traditional methods of evaluating written language proficiency are insufficient and that no type of assessment (whether it be a pencil and paper test, a computerized test, or standardized test) is completely reliable. Although the use of computerized diagnostic tests such as DIALANG may more validly assess language proficiency, this method may not be feasible for all school districts. Alternate assessments, such as performance based assessments, can chart student progress and offer insight into student writing that other means of assessment cannot, but research on the validity of this means of evaluation is also lacking.
To close this gap, future research can be devoted to investigating valid, reliable, and non-biased means of assessment that can be easily implemented in schools. Although some research has been done that shows the benefits of multiple trait assessment over holistic assessment, further research can be conducted on how these types of measurements can be modified to suit ESL writing needs.
For works cited, see annotated bib.
Family Literacy and Ownership
Valerie Valentino
The area of concern for this literature review is family literacy. Studying family literacy aids one in gaining a better understanding of the effects of reading at home with one’s family. A child’s prior knowledge of the written word is often formulated at home with one’s parents before schooling. Through studying family literacy a teacher can understand how a child has developed their current knowledge. Teachers, therefore, can understand how to gear their classroom according to a child’s previous awareness. It is essential for parents to aid their child in developing their literacy through programs and helpful tips. A child’s literacy is often influenced by one’s environment or economic situation.
Parent Child Reading
Elsa Auerbahch explains how studies have demonstrated reading at an early age, with one’s parents, creates life long readers. According to Elsa Auerbahch, Paul Kropp, and Denny Taylor parent child reading is crucial to one’s development. Having parents advocate reading in the home through bedtime stories, everyday literary practices, or help with homework creates a critical thinker. Learning when not in school allows a child to connect what happens inside the classroom to what happens outside making literacy a meaningful tool. In addition, Paul Kropp emphasizes reading as a process starting with the family at infancy. Having the parent start a child’s literacy at infancy makes a substantial difference in one’s ability to connect with the world. This process of five stages, therefore, helps a child make sense of the world, aids a child with social skills, encourages family bonding, and enforces growing up since mom and dad are always doing it. Developing reading at home depends on a child’s future motivation. By cultivating family literacy a parent can create a future adult who reads.
Furthermore, Denny Taylor suggests family literacy can either strengthen or weaken a family. Taylor suggests family literacy to have a strong role in identity and status. For instance, Taylor details a situation where the parent is illiterate, however, the child grows up learning to read in school and becomes divided from one’s parent. A solution offered for this is to have one’s parent maintain a bond where reading is linked to talking. This not only produces literacy it creates a lasting bond.
The Effects of Literacy Programs in the Community
Promoting family literacy through family literacy programs can act as a core environment for success in one’s home and school life. Linda Phillips discuses how family literacy programs can break down the barriers between home and school, therefore, enabling teachers and parents to understand the way each defines, values, and uses literacy as part of cultural practices. When a family engages in a literacy program Gosse and Phillips suggest one can create a well-rounded reader for the child can come to terms with the differences between home and school literacy practices. The family by engaging in family literacy programs is evolving their literacy language practices and facing the literacy challenge together. Gross and Phillips stress the importance of the role of the family in order to sustain national literacy levels. The family is the foundation of literacy and by forming a community to support this; modern families can overcome challenges they are facing when they attempt to influence their children’s literacy and language development.
Accepting the role of family literacy in a community is an essential element for a child’s success. Denny Taylor focuses on family literacy in economic circumstances. To resolve the separation from parent and child in terms of knowledge, Taylor enforces the importance of community-based literacy programs. These programs, Taylor explains would relate to everyday lifestyle allowing everyone to communicate.
The Effects of Reading at Home
Paul Lesseman in “How Important is Home Literacy for Acquiring Literacy in School?” discusses how literacy was strongly related to a family’s socio-cultural context. Reading at home, at a young age, creates links between opportunity, instruction quality, and the social-emotional quality of informal home education. A conclusion is reached that reading at home, however, is not enough and should be enhanced with reading in school.
Reading at home with one’s family, according to Paul Kropp, aids a child with social skills, encourages family bonding, and enforces growing up. Reading at home creates a motivation for the future, which will ensure a child to grow into an adult who reads.
A Gap: Family Literacy and Ownership
Upon researching family literacy there was no information on the affects of family literacy and ownership. Does reading create a family ownership to the material one reads? If so, how does the family react to this bond? Does reading create an ownership of knowledge for the child? How does this influence a sibling relationship? How does family literacy and ownership change or motivate a child’s position in school, the friends one makes, or one’s participation? Literacy can give a person knowledge, which enables a person to put himself in a power position or a nurturing position.
For works cited, see annotated bib.
The area of concern for this literature review is family literacy. Studying family literacy aids one in gaining a better understanding of the effects of reading at home with one’s family. A child’s prior knowledge of the written word is often formulated at home with one’s parents before schooling. Through studying family literacy a teacher can understand how a child has developed their current knowledge. Teachers, therefore, can understand how to gear their classroom according to a child’s previous awareness. It is essential for parents to aid their child in developing their literacy through programs and helpful tips. A child’s literacy is often influenced by one’s environment or economic situation.
Parent Child Reading
Elsa Auerbahch explains how studies have demonstrated reading at an early age, with one’s parents, creates life long readers. According to Elsa Auerbahch, Paul Kropp, and Denny Taylor parent child reading is crucial to one’s development. Having parents advocate reading in the home through bedtime stories, everyday literary practices, or help with homework creates a critical thinker. Learning when not in school allows a child to connect what happens inside the classroom to what happens outside making literacy a meaningful tool. In addition, Paul Kropp emphasizes reading as a process starting with the family at infancy. Having the parent start a child’s literacy at infancy makes a substantial difference in one’s ability to connect with the world. This process of five stages, therefore, helps a child make sense of the world, aids a child with social skills, encourages family bonding, and enforces growing up since mom and dad are always doing it. Developing reading at home depends on a child’s future motivation. By cultivating family literacy a parent can create a future adult who reads.
Furthermore, Denny Taylor suggests family literacy can either strengthen or weaken a family. Taylor suggests family literacy to have a strong role in identity and status. For instance, Taylor details a situation where the parent is illiterate, however, the child grows up learning to read in school and becomes divided from one’s parent. A solution offered for this is to have one’s parent maintain a bond where reading is linked to talking. This not only produces literacy it creates a lasting bond.
The Effects of Literacy Programs in the Community
Promoting family literacy through family literacy programs can act as a core environment for success in one’s home and school life. Linda Phillips discuses how family literacy programs can break down the barriers between home and school, therefore, enabling teachers and parents to understand the way each defines, values, and uses literacy as part of cultural practices. When a family engages in a literacy program Gosse and Phillips suggest one can create a well-rounded reader for the child can come to terms with the differences between home and school literacy practices. The family by engaging in family literacy programs is evolving their literacy language practices and facing the literacy challenge together. Gross and Phillips stress the importance of the role of the family in order to sustain national literacy levels. The family is the foundation of literacy and by forming a community to support this; modern families can overcome challenges they are facing when they attempt to influence their children’s literacy and language development.
Accepting the role of family literacy in a community is an essential element for a child’s success. Denny Taylor focuses on family literacy in economic circumstances. To resolve the separation from parent and child in terms of knowledge, Taylor enforces the importance of community-based literacy programs. These programs, Taylor explains would relate to everyday lifestyle allowing everyone to communicate.
The Effects of Reading at Home
Paul Lesseman in “How Important is Home Literacy for Acquiring Literacy in School?” discusses how literacy was strongly related to a family’s socio-cultural context. Reading at home, at a young age, creates links between opportunity, instruction quality, and the social-emotional quality of informal home education. A conclusion is reached that reading at home, however, is not enough and should be enhanced with reading in school.
Reading at home with one’s family, according to Paul Kropp, aids a child with social skills, encourages family bonding, and enforces growing up. Reading at home creates a motivation for the future, which will ensure a child to grow into an adult who reads.
A Gap: Family Literacy and Ownership
Upon researching family literacy there was no information on the affects of family literacy and ownership. Does reading create a family ownership to the material one reads? If so, how does the family react to this bond? Does reading create an ownership of knowledge for the child? How does this influence a sibling relationship? How does family literacy and ownership change or motivate a child’s position in school, the friends one makes, or one’s participation? Literacy can give a person knowledge, which enables a person to put himself in a power position or a nurturing position.
For works cited, see annotated bib.
The Efficacy of Editing Practices: Literature Review
Yvonne Teems
In addition to printing a newspaper every week or every day, an editor has many demands on his or her time and energy. Marketing managers are placing increasing pressure on editors to include content that will increase sales; publishers are nagging editors to organize or chair newspaper-sponsored events; and reporter positions need to be filled with trained writers who will keep the paper running while the editor tackles these responsibilities elsewhere. But hiring trained reporters is not always a task that can be crossed off of the to-do list with ease. Editors of small- to medium-sized papers often must hire novices right out of college, and those novices come with writing backgrounds that aren’t in sync with the newspaper environment. The editor must be aware of where the novice comes from and what the novice needs to learn in order to help the novice adapt to the new workplace.
The Novice Writer
The recent literacy history of the novice reporter in most cases will consist of his time at a university. The way the writer writes and learns in a university is very different from how the writer operates in the workplace. Editors, in trying to adapt novice writers to the workplace, must understand the environment from which writers are coming in order to help them adapt. Students in a university are accustomed to a type of learning called “guided participation,” in which students function in a system where the purpose is student learning (Dias et. al. 186). Students understand that the activities in which they engage – assignments, lectures, presentations – are all created for the purpose of their education. Because students can easily recognize opportunities for learning, they will – when properly motivated – be able to learn to the best of their abilities (Dias et. al.) The fact that students recognize that every activity in which they engage is created for their learning might lead students to adopt an ego-centric way of thinking about all tasks, or what is called “an individualist ethos” (Dias et. al. 198) This “individualist ethos” is supported in the university because often individual students can adapt assignments to themselves. That is, if a student completes the task in his own way, but the task does not conform completely to assigned standards, as long as he learns something, he still is successful (Adam). What further reinforces this “individualist ethos” is the fact that often a professor’s comments on student work are not taken into a revision process because most students are not asked to revise. This leads students to believe that they can take or leave the professor’s opinion on how to create the best text. In other words, students adapt assignments to themselves, as opposed to adapting themselves to assignments, or to someone else’s goals (Adam).
The above details describe the novice on his first day in the newsroom: Ego-minded, theory-laden and unaware of how to adapt to his first new writing environment. The editor wants to help the novice transition into a person who is a contributing member of the team that will help produce a newspaper every day or week. This means the writer has to be aware that he is part of an organization, and his work is a contribution to that organization (Dias et. al.). The writer also must acquire practical skills that build on the theory he learned in school so that he can become a productive member of the team who can also stand on his own two feet. In order to help the novice writer transition from where he is upon entering the workplace to where he needs to be, the editor needs to help the writer socialize; help the writer find new ways to learn; and help the writer gain practical skills.
Socialization
One of the biggest tasks the novice must complete in order to adapt to his new writing environment is adapt well to his new work environment. That is, the novice writer must be socialized into his new community so that he can understand and adapt to the community’s culture, politics and workplace norms (Katz). The better the writer adapts to the new community, the more easily he will adapt to the new writing requirements of his job (Katz, MacKinnon, Dias et. al.). Indeed, it is not just a matter of accepting writing requirements, but also the writer must understand the culture of the organization so that he can write to further its specialized goals.
New Ways of Learning
Socializing into a new writing environment involves adapting to the new learning methods of that environment. In the workplace environment, novices must adapt to the “legitimate peripheral participation” learning environment, which means he must figure out how to learn when learning is not the ultimate goal of the exercise (Dias et. al. 187). The novice simply has to join in the work and learn as he goes along, trying to pick up new pieces of knowledge on the way. The purpose of his work is not to learn from it, but it is to complete the work. Even though the purpose of the work is not to learn from it, he still can learn by doing it (Dias et. al.) Because the novice is accustomed to the academic, “guided participation” way of learning in which learning is the ultimate goal, the novice may not recognize new ways to learn (Dias et. al. 186). The novice may not recognize all the available mentors to learn from or the opportunities in which the writer can learn, such as in conversations with defined or undefined mentors (Dias et. al.)
Because the novice writer may not be aware of potential learning opportunities or may be accustomed to academic-styled opportunities, the editor may employ several tactics to ensure the writer socializes into the new workplace and improves as a writer. Many suggest a “coaching” or “review” style of teaching writing, in which the editor sits down with the novice to go over the first attempt at the writing task (Adam; Katz 61; Wiist 70). The coaching style does several things to help the novice adapt and learn: It first offers an opportunity for the “coach” to socialize the writer into the new community by mentioning here and there details about the workplace culture, politics and norms (Katz 61). The one-on-one session also allows the editor to help the novice adjust his attitude if he’s thinking like a student: that his writing is for him, and not the organization; or that an editor’s revisions are just suggestions, and not requirements (Adam).
Helping Novices Gain Practical Skills
Managers also can employ several other tips to help novice writers adapt: Provide novice writers with good feedback in addition to critical comments; avoid placing too much input on a draft; allow novice writers opportunities to observe senior writers because they are good mentors; require novices to read other newspapers and older copies of that newspaper in order to better adjust to the new discourse community; and start novice writers out with smaller tasks and allow them to build up to more responsibility (Beaufort).
In the newsroom, there are some specific things editors can do to help new reporters adapt to the workplace and new writing environment. Just as the novice worker enters the workplace with a university-influenced background, the reporter often enters the newsroom with a journalism school-influenced background. The journalism student is conditioned to write in a way that is not precisely in sync with what is demanded of the novice reporter in the newsroom. Journalism students who come from most journalism schools will have a deep background in journalism theory, but not necessarily a lot of training in practical skills (Arwood, Hickey). The practical skills journalism students do obtain can be narrow-minded: Journalism schools often place a heavy emphasis on the inverted pyramid style of journalism writing. In addition, while journalism students will know communications history, they may not know much about how a newspaper functions as a business (Arwood). Unlike journalism novices in the past, students coming out of journalism schools today will have less of a focus on their duty to serve the community, have less basic knowledge in subjects such as history and economics and have less of a grasp of current events (Hickey). In addition to the deficiencies in necessary general knowledge novices will have upon entering the newsroom, journalism school graduates also will be accustomed to a different editing style than that of the newsroom. Journalism school graduates have been edited in the news writing classroom in a similar way to how they’ve been “corrected” in the composition classroom: with markings on a paper that’s handed back to the student with no requirement for revision (Wiist). Additionally, the journalism classroom has forced students to focus on writing a rhetorical lead, instead of writing the lead in order to direct the rest of the story (Pitts).
Need for Further Research
While many have made conclusions about how best to help writers adapt to their new workplaces and become better writers, little work has been done that explores the best ways to help novice reporters adapt to newsrooms and become better writers. Editors seem to know what they want, and the differences between what they want and what they’re getting in the classes graduating from journalism schools have been defined. But little research has been done to explore what editing methods are the most common in newsrooms and which of those methods work best to help novice writers improve. How effective are common newsroom editing practices today? The answer to this question will help the editor cultivate productive reporters, discourage turnover and save time and money in the long run.
For works cited, see annotated bib.
In addition to printing a newspaper every week or every day, an editor has many demands on his or her time and energy. Marketing managers are placing increasing pressure on editors to include content that will increase sales; publishers are nagging editors to organize or chair newspaper-sponsored events; and reporter positions need to be filled with trained writers who will keep the paper running while the editor tackles these responsibilities elsewhere. But hiring trained reporters is not always a task that can be crossed off of the to-do list with ease. Editors of small- to medium-sized papers often must hire novices right out of college, and those novices come with writing backgrounds that aren’t in sync with the newspaper environment. The editor must be aware of where the novice comes from and what the novice needs to learn in order to help the novice adapt to the new workplace.
The Novice Writer
The recent literacy history of the novice reporter in most cases will consist of his time at a university. The way the writer writes and learns in a university is very different from how the writer operates in the workplace. Editors, in trying to adapt novice writers to the workplace, must understand the environment from which writers are coming in order to help them adapt. Students in a university are accustomed to a type of learning called “guided participation,” in which students function in a system where the purpose is student learning (Dias et. al. 186). Students understand that the activities in which they engage – assignments, lectures, presentations – are all created for the purpose of their education. Because students can easily recognize opportunities for learning, they will – when properly motivated – be able to learn to the best of their abilities (Dias et. al.) The fact that students recognize that every activity in which they engage is created for their learning might lead students to adopt an ego-centric way of thinking about all tasks, or what is called “an individualist ethos” (Dias et. al. 198) This “individualist ethos” is supported in the university because often individual students can adapt assignments to themselves. That is, if a student completes the task in his own way, but the task does not conform completely to assigned standards, as long as he learns something, he still is successful (Adam). What further reinforces this “individualist ethos” is the fact that often a professor’s comments on student work are not taken into a revision process because most students are not asked to revise. This leads students to believe that they can take or leave the professor’s opinion on how to create the best text. In other words, students adapt assignments to themselves, as opposed to adapting themselves to assignments, or to someone else’s goals (Adam).
The above details describe the novice on his first day in the newsroom: Ego-minded, theory-laden and unaware of how to adapt to his first new writing environment. The editor wants to help the novice transition into a person who is a contributing member of the team that will help produce a newspaper every day or week. This means the writer has to be aware that he is part of an organization, and his work is a contribution to that organization (Dias et. al.). The writer also must acquire practical skills that build on the theory he learned in school so that he can become a productive member of the team who can also stand on his own two feet. In order to help the novice writer transition from where he is upon entering the workplace to where he needs to be, the editor needs to help the writer socialize; help the writer find new ways to learn; and help the writer gain practical skills.
Socialization
One of the biggest tasks the novice must complete in order to adapt to his new writing environment is adapt well to his new work environment. That is, the novice writer must be socialized into his new community so that he can understand and adapt to the community’s culture, politics and workplace norms (Katz). The better the writer adapts to the new community, the more easily he will adapt to the new writing requirements of his job (Katz, MacKinnon, Dias et. al.). Indeed, it is not just a matter of accepting writing requirements, but also the writer must understand the culture of the organization so that he can write to further its specialized goals.
New Ways of Learning
Socializing into a new writing environment involves adapting to the new learning methods of that environment. In the workplace environment, novices must adapt to the “legitimate peripheral participation” learning environment, which means he must figure out how to learn when learning is not the ultimate goal of the exercise (Dias et. al. 187). The novice simply has to join in the work and learn as he goes along, trying to pick up new pieces of knowledge on the way. The purpose of his work is not to learn from it, but it is to complete the work. Even though the purpose of the work is not to learn from it, he still can learn by doing it (Dias et. al.) Because the novice is accustomed to the academic, “guided participation” way of learning in which learning is the ultimate goal, the novice may not recognize new ways to learn (Dias et. al. 186). The novice may not recognize all the available mentors to learn from or the opportunities in which the writer can learn, such as in conversations with defined or undefined mentors (Dias et. al.)
Because the novice writer may not be aware of potential learning opportunities or may be accustomed to academic-styled opportunities, the editor may employ several tactics to ensure the writer socializes into the new workplace and improves as a writer. Many suggest a “coaching” or “review” style of teaching writing, in which the editor sits down with the novice to go over the first attempt at the writing task (Adam; Katz 61; Wiist 70). The coaching style does several things to help the novice adapt and learn: It first offers an opportunity for the “coach” to socialize the writer into the new community by mentioning here and there details about the workplace culture, politics and norms (Katz 61). The one-on-one session also allows the editor to help the novice adjust his attitude if he’s thinking like a student: that his writing is for him, and not the organization; or that an editor’s revisions are just suggestions, and not requirements (Adam).
Helping Novices Gain Practical Skills
Managers also can employ several other tips to help novice writers adapt: Provide novice writers with good feedback in addition to critical comments; avoid placing too much input on a draft; allow novice writers opportunities to observe senior writers because they are good mentors; require novices to read other newspapers and older copies of that newspaper in order to better adjust to the new discourse community; and start novice writers out with smaller tasks and allow them to build up to more responsibility (Beaufort).
In the newsroom, there are some specific things editors can do to help new reporters adapt to the workplace and new writing environment. Just as the novice worker enters the workplace with a university-influenced background, the reporter often enters the newsroom with a journalism school-influenced background. The journalism student is conditioned to write in a way that is not precisely in sync with what is demanded of the novice reporter in the newsroom. Journalism students who come from most journalism schools will have a deep background in journalism theory, but not necessarily a lot of training in practical skills (Arwood, Hickey). The practical skills journalism students do obtain can be narrow-minded: Journalism schools often place a heavy emphasis on the inverted pyramid style of journalism writing. In addition, while journalism students will know communications history, they may not know much about how a newspaper functions as a business (Arwood). Unlike journalism novices in the past, students coming out of journalism schools today will have less of a focus on their duty to serve the community, have less basic knowledge in subjects such as history and economics and have less of a grasp of current events (Hickey). In addition to the deficiencies in necessary general knowledge novices will have upon entering the newsroom, journalism school graduates also will be accustomed to a different editing style than that of the newsroom. Journalism school graduates have been edited in the news writing classroom in a similar way to how they’ve been “corrected” in the composition classroom: with markings on a paper that’s handed back to the student with no requirement for revision (Wiist). Additionally, the journalism classroom has forced students to focus on writing a rhetorical lead, instead of writing the lead in order to direct the rest of the story (Pitts).
Need for Further Research
While many have made conclusions about how best to help writers adapt to their new workplaces and become better writers, little work has been done that explores the best ways to help novice reporters adapt to newsrooms and become better writers. Editors seem to know what they want, and the differences between what they want and what they’re getting in the classes graduating from journalism schools have been defined. But little research has been done to explore what editing methods are the most common in newsrooms and which of those methods work best to help novice writers improve. How effective are common newsroom editing practices today? The answer to this question will help the editor cultivate productive reporters, discourage turnover and save time and money in the long run.
For works cited, see annotated bib.
Students Entering the Workplace: Writing Transitions
Carly Schott
Preparing students to succeed in their places of work upon graduation is undoubtedly a main focus of any university. An essential component of this success is competency in writing, a communication skill that is vital in most fields of work. The question of how to adequately prepare a student for post-graduation writing tasks has been debated and explored by researchers from many different angles. The focus of this research has been to evaluate student transition from classroom to workplace, noting the influences from writing at school and the subsequent writing obstacles faced as a new employee. Many of the discussions seek to understand why students struggle in workplace writing upon graduation, and how to improve this transition.
Why Do Students Struggle With the Transition?
Understanding why students struggle with this writing transition can help shed light on what both university professors and workplace managers can do to help them be more productive writers. Recent research has incorporated genre theory, emphasizing that writing in the workplace and writing for the university means writing in two different genres (Adam 168-169). As such, the exigences that shape these genres are different, and result in confusion for the student’s transition (170). In addition, the nature of the two settings that create the genres often are not aligned, affecting a new employee’s ability to produce effective writing (“Write Where You Are” 45). Truly, a major difference in these two settings is the primary goal of writing tasks. At the university level, the goal of writing is “clearly and explicitly for students to learn;” in contrast, the workplace tasks are “focused on material or discursive outcomes and in which participants are often unaware of the learning that occurs” (46).
To further illustrate this idea of genre discrepancy, Christine Adam conducted a study that focused on differences in reading practices of university professors and workplace managers, as they “responded to texts of less experienced members of the two communities” (170). The study found that for the professor and manager, the purpose of responding to texts is different, the processes of reading texts are different, and the comments written on texts are different (172-176). For example, the purpose of a professor reading a student’s text is evaluative, while the purpose of a manager reading a text is to make revisions to create the best possible text that will most likely effect future action (172-173). This is due to the fact that at the university, guidance primarily takes place prior to the writing task being completed, while in the workplace, guidance and collaboration occur after completion of the initial draft (“Write Where You Are” 45). Because the writer’s text should be constructed with sensitivity to audience needs and wants, this presents a problem when audience’s expectations change after students enter the workplace.
An additional reason why students may struggle with this writing transition is grounded in the idea of identity negotiation, as newcomers must adjust to new written practices that effect identity when entering the workplace from the university. New writing expectations may be unfamiliar to a newcomer, in contrast with their personal values, or “may ask them to give up some measure of authority to which they believe they are entitled” (Wardle 5). In addition, a newcomer transitioning from a university to the workplace may be given some new authority, but then have it taken away when he or she does not quickly adopt the new writing conventions and practices that go along with that authority (7). In order to achieve enculturation into the workplace, a newcomer’s identity is often challenged and shaped by the new community, and their shortfalls in writing may not be a result of ability level, but identity issues (5). Students coming from the university into workplace settings come with their own sets of beliefs, personal expectations for their position within the new community, and ways of writing – their own personal identities. To become a full participant, this identity is negotiated: “new workers must find ways to engage in the work that other community members do, including the writing they do; newcomers must be able to imagine their own work – and writing – as being an important part of a larger enterprise.” Because of the genre discrepancies between the university and workplace previously outlined, this is often a struggle for newcomers.
How Can Students Be Helped?
At School
Many studies have been conducted with the goal of learning how to structure classroom writing tasks so that they best prepare students to enter the workforce. Because the university goal of learning does not align with the future-orientated goals of the workplace, it has been a challenge for researchers to establish clear course structures that ensure that students are exposed to the kinds of writing practices they will experience in the workplace. In order that assignments reflect the workplace nature of future-action, writing tasks “need to have consequences beyond the classroom (and the student’s grade) in order for the student to fully appreciate the prospective aspect of workplace writing” (Adam 179).
Besides the hands-on experience of an internship or co-op, actually gaining experience with assignments that are future-oriented proves to be difficult for students in the university. For example, a class where students simulate workplace reports in their field still has the primary goal of learning, which is in conflict with the primary goals of the workplace (“Write Where You Are” 32). As a way to reconcile this discrepancy at the university, students themselves can be charged with the task of defining the course goals and actions of the class, which hopefully align with the teacher’s goals (Dias 26). Then, “in small groups students can begin to define the goals and frame the tasks that will help them realize these goals” (26). This encourages the students to look at and situate themselves within the larger university, a process they will have to undertake in the workplace.
There are other course structures that also accurately reflect workplace settings. For example, Aviva Freedman and Christine Adam analyzed a fourth year practicum course in a business school that is able to align its writing goals to that of the workplace. The students are broken up into groups and assigned real clients who need their workplace computerized in some way. The students interact with the clients, visit their workplace to interview participants there, and must produce several documents outlining their computerization plans for the client. Ultimately, many of the clients end up using the proposals of the students. As a result, this course is answering a real-life exigence, the goal of which is not to get a satisfactory grade but to provide the clients with their services and expertise. Overall, this course was successful in mimicking the workplace “in the social roles taken on by the students and instructor, in the writers’ sense of audience, in the textual features, and in the responding and collaborative practices of the instructor” (“Bridging the Gap” 143).
At Work
Undoubtedly, when “students leave the university to enter the workplace, “they not only need to learn new genres of discourse, they need to learn new ways to learn such genres” (“Write Where You Are” 53). In order to ensure that their employees produce effective writing, managers must realize their needs as newcomers. Students should be made aware of their new goals and audiences, so managers must help students “see how their new readers’ roles and contexts shift their response” (Adam 177). Because their reader’s roles are focused on revising, not evaluating like at the university, “a program of sheltering or coaching for new employees can be used to make explicit the role of revision in learning how the workplace operates” (178).
In addition, managers must be sensitive to the identity and values that are challenged, shaped, and redefined as newcomers enter the workplace (Wardle 5). The values and attitudes of an organization have a significant influence on the writing produced, values that are specific even to various divisions within the organization (Ledwell-Brown 212). For example, a marketing division would have a different “desired outcome” and “prescription for writing” than an M.I.S division within a company (215). These various writing practices reflect such values as teamwork and commitment to high quality. To aid in a newcomer’s transition to the writing in a workplace, a manager can make explicit the goals and values of the company and specific divisions, so that the new employee will be aware of her identity within the larger enterprise.
Questions for Further Investigation
Much of the current research investigates university versus workplace writing, without much of a focus on the actual student and his or her transition. A long-term study on the evolution of a student’s writing early at the university until a few years into a new work environment would be insightful research. A study like this would emphasize the student’s perspective and provide a fuller picture of the writing transition. Also, there is not a lot of research concerning workers who do not attend a university, and how this has an effect on the writing that they have to produce in their fields. For example, if a person enters the workforce right after high school, is this a significant disadvantage when it comes to writing tasks? How does their writing transition compare to the transition of someone who went to a university? All in all, these questions can be answered with case-studies focused on various students and their writing transitions.
For works cited, see annotated bib.
Preparing students to succeed in their places of work upon graduation is undoubtedly a main focus of any university. An essential component of this success is competency in writing, a communication skill that is vital in most fields of work. The question of how to adequately prepare a student for post-graduation writing tasks has been debated and explored by researchers from many different angles. The focus of this research has been to evaluate student transition from classroom to workplace, noting the influences from writing at school and the subsequent writing obstacles faced as a new employee. Many of the discussions seek to understand why students struggle in workplace writing upon graduation, and how to improve this transition.
Why Do Students Struggle With the Transition?
Understanding why students struggle with this writing transition can help shed light on what both university professors and workplace managers can do to help them be more productive writers. Recent research has incorporated genre theory, emphasizing that writing in the workplace and writing for the university means writing in two different genres (Adam 168-169). As such, the exigences that shape these genres are different, and result in confusion for the student’s transition (170). In addition, the nature of the two settings that create the genres often are not aligned, affecting a new employee’s ability to produce effective writing (“Write Where You Are” 45). Truly, a major difference in these two settings is the primary goal of writing tasks. At the university level, the goal of writing is “clearly and explicitly for students to learn;” in contrast, the workplace tasks are “focused on material or discursive outcomes and in which participants are often unaware of the learning that occurs” (46).
To further illustrate this idea of genre discrepancy, Christine Adam conducted a study that focused on differences in reading practices of university professors and workplace managers, as they “responded to texts of less experienced members of the two communities” (170). The study found that for the professor and manager, the purpose of responding to texts is different, the processes of reading texts are different, and the comments written on texts are different (172-176). For example, the purpose of a professor reading a student’s text is evaluative, while the purpose of a manager reading a text is to make revisions to create the best possible text that will most likely effect future action (172-173). This is due to the fact that at the university, guidance primarily takes place prior to the writing task being completed, while in the workplace, guidance and collaboration occur after completion of the initial draft (“Write Where You Are” 45). Because the writer’s text should be constructed with sensitivity to audience needs and wants, this presents a problem when audience’s expectations change after students enter the workplace.
An additional reason why students may struggle with this writing transition is grounded in the idea of identity negotiation, as newcomers must adjust to new written practices that effect identity when entering the workplace from the university. New writing expectations may be unfamiliar to a newcomer, in contrast with their personal values, or “may ask them to give up some measure of authority to which they believe they are entitled” (Wardle 5). In addition, a newcomer transitioning from a university to the workplace may be given some new authority, but then have it taken away when he or she does not quickly adopt the new writing conventions and practices that go along with that authority (7). In order to achieve enculturation into the workplace, a newcomer’s identity is often challenged and shaped by the new community, and their shortfalls in writing may not be a result of ability level, but identity issues (5). Students coming from the university into workplace settings come with their own sets of beliefs, personal expectations for their position within the new community, and ways of writing – their own personal identities. To become a full participant, this identity is negotiated: “new workers must find ways to engage in the work that other community members do, including the writing they do; newcomers must be able to imagine their own work – and writing – as being an important part of a larger enterprise.” Because of the genre discrepancies between the university and workplace previously outlined, this is often a struggle for newcomers.
How Can Students Be Helped?
At School
Many studies have been conducted with the goal of learning how to structure classroom writing tasks so that they best prepare students to enter the workforce. Because the university goal of learning does not align with the future-orientated goals of the workplace, it has been a challenge for researchers to establish clear course structures that ensure that students are exposed to the kinds of writing practices they will experience in the workplace. In order that assignments reflect the workplace nature of future-action, writing tasks “need to have consequences beyond the classroom (and the student’s grade) in order for the student to fully appreciate the prospective aspect of workplace writing” (Adam 179).
Besides the hands-on experience of an internship or co-op, actually gaining experience with assignments that are future-oriented proves to be difficult for students in the university. For example, a class where students simulate workplace reports in their field still has the primary goal of learning, which is in conflict with the primary goals of the workplace (“Write Where You Are” 32). As a way to reconcile this discrepancy at the university, students themselves can be charged with the task of defining the course goals and actions of the class, which hopefully align with the teacher’s goals (Dias 26). Then, “in small groups students can begin to define the goals and frame the tasks that will help them realize these goals” (26). This encourages the students to look at and situate themselves within the larger university, a process they will have to undertake in the workplace.
There are other course structures that also accurately reflect workplace settings. For example, Aviva Freedman and Christine Adam analyzed a fourth year practicum course in a business school that is able to align its writing goals to that of the workplace. The students are broken up into groups and assigned real clients who need their workplace computerized in some way. The students interact with the clients, visit their workplace to interview participants there, and must produce several documents outlining their computerization plans for the client. Ultimately, many of the clients end up using the proposals of the students. As a result, this course is answering a real-life exigence, the goal of which is not to get a satisfactory grade but to provide the clients with their services and expertise. Overall, this course was successful in mimicking the workplace “in the social roles taken on by the students and instructor, in the writers’ sense of audience, in the textual features, and in the responding and collaborative practices of the instructor” (“Bridging the Gap” 143).
At Work
Undoubtedly, when “students leave the university to enter the workplace, “they not only need to learn new genres of discourse, they need to learn new ways to learn such genres” (“Write Where You Are” 53). In order to ensure that their employees produce effective writing, managers must realize their needs as newcomers. Students should be made aware of their new goals and audiences, so managers must help students “see how their new readers’ roles and contexts shift their response” (Adam 177). Because their reader’s roles are focused on revising, not evaluating like at the university, “a program of sheltering or coaching for new employees can be used to make explicit the role of revision in learning how the workplace operates” (178).
In addition, managers must be sensitive to the identity and values that are challenged, shaped, and redefined as newcomers enter the workplace (Wardle 5). The values and attitudes of an organization have a significant influence on the writing produced, values that are specific even to various divisions within the organization (Ledwell-Brown 212). For example, a marketing division would have a different “desired outcome” and “prescription for writing” than an M.I.S division within a company (215). These various writing practices reflect such values as teamwork and commitment to high quality. To aid in a newcomer’s transition to the writing in a workplace, a manager can make explicit the goals and values of the company and specific divisions, so that the new employee will be aware of her identity within the larger enterprise.
Questions for Further Investigation
Much of the current research investigates university versus workplace writing, without much of a focus on the actual student and his or her transition. A long-term study on the evolution of a student’s writing early at the university until a few years into a new work environment would be insightful research. A study like this would emphasize the student’s perspective and provide a fuller picture of the writing transition. Also, there is not a lot of research concerning workers who do not attend a university, and how this has an effect on the writing that they have to produce in their fields. For example, if a person enters the workforce right after high school, is this a significant disadvantage when it comes to writing tasks? How does their writing transition compare to the transition of someone who went to a university? All in all, these questions can be answered with case-studies focused on various students and their writing transitions.
For works cited, see annotated bib.
Literacy and Class Issues
Arnecia Patterson
Class issues occur when the equalizing effect of literacy is thwarted by pedagogy that propagates hierarchical literary frames and textual responses instead of broadening students’ familiarization with writing and writing responses. At the university level, where instructors can be stylistic and liberal, there is a chance that the classroom boundaries can widen and systemic mandates can be broken to recognize the value of myriad learning styles and how they were shaped in formative
years. Writing instruction in college and university programs can reach across class lines and empower students through familiarization of the diverse discourse communities they will encounter in their lives.
By the time students matriculate through the primary and secondary levels of English instruction they are exposed to writing instruction that privileges the goals of the teacher, the institution represented by the teacher and the formats for teaching sanctioned literature of the approved canon. Secondary school writing instruction gives ample consideration to test scores, grammatical, syntactical, structural and ideological “rightness” and to students’ abilities to achieve along these lines. Less attention is paid to how students have been socialized to approach writing and how they respond to texts. Furthermore, in writing instruction the grammatical, syntactical and structural attributes of texts are couched in a context that does not consider the identity of the students. Instead, the classist monikers: black, working, middle, upper class, thug, queer, woman, white, Jew, man, and WASP lurk nearby, influencing axiologies of writing instruction and responses to literature.
THE CLASS ASSUMPTIONS OF HEIRARCHICAL TEACHING
Class labels assume that students’ acquisition of primary language skills acquired through socialization influence how they learn secondary language skills in formal settings. These serve as lines of demarcation between primary and secondary language acquisition and make assumptions about how formative language skills are shaped. Critical Theory pedagogues believe there is a marginalized class of individuals who lack critical consciousness of language; however these theorists base their assumptions on what they can glean from public literate artifacts, the public transcript, without accessing the hidden transcript as Ellen Cushman did in her ethnographic study, Critical Literacy and Institutional Language (Ellen Cushman).
While Cushman lived in Quayville, an upstate New York, inner-city community where she worked as a literacy tutor and conducted a three-year ethnographic study of two adult women who looked for housing following an eviction. Cushman’s study showed the participants’ had an awareness of institutional language and successfully refined their primary vernacular language in order to make interaction with institutional “gatekeepers” more successful (267). When one of the subjects needed to phone a landlord for an apartment, she asked Cushman to “help [her] sound more respectable, you know White” (259). The participant not only had critical consciousness of institutional language, but access to knowledge (through Cushman) that would increase that awareness. Her request for Cushman’s help signals the co-intentional learning referred to by Friere’s historic text, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, that contends the “oppressed…must perceive the reality of oppression as a limiting situation which they can transform” (34). The pedagogy has to “be forged with, not for, the oppressed (whether individuals or peoples) in the incessant struggle to regain their humanity (33). This is an argument for a shift in the power dynamic of the teacher-student relationship, one that foregoes class assumptions and hierarchical practices. Wider boundaries in discursive practices can cut across class assumptions to allow influential exchanges in which the hidden transcript unfolds; students no longer need to hide unique literacy and critical consciousness is increased.
Even when class assumptions about the acquisition of language are proven, it need not follow that language use is undermined by any context. In classrooms where all students achieve highly there may be distinctions of literacy related to social and economic classes. Yet the distinctions may not undermine further language acquisition. In Lowry Hemphill’s study of high-achieving teens, she found that “students…draw upon narrative practices from their families and communities…” (294) Working-class students offered detail-rich, reflexive responses to poetry that Lowry believed reflected primary skills in oral storytelling traditions; whereas, the middle-class students “stand outside text and show ‘big idea’ understanding” (291 293). Lowry suggests that teachers keep in mind that the differences in students’ responses to discourse have value and complexity that reflect a number of factors. She recommends differences be made a part of the English curriculum through peer discussion, teacher critique and the critique of outside professionals to discourse presented in classroom practices (296 297).
RESPONSES TO CLASS LABELS
In the hierarchical gender construct of Jewish culture contemporary, female writers are giving a different voice to traditional folk characters (Ruth Bienstock Anolik). Their revisionist writing practices have hardly toppled the male-dominated structure in full, but have exercised a public forum in which the entire culture can “grapple with the traditional powerlessness of women in Jewish culture, the curtailing of their authority and of their voice” (40). Additionally, re-writing the voice of tradition can recognize the intersectionality theory of socially and literary constructed labels (Karen Gaffney). Intersectionality theory is useful in analyzing the discourse of writers who recognize the effect of categories in their writing. Students could learn to identify with discourse that bears a marked resemblance with or difference to their experiences, interpretations and written responses. Gaffney looks at Dorothy Allison’s novel Cavedweller as her way of fictionalizing the labels that Allison has worn her entire life. Cavedweller is not part of the English literary canon, but Gaffney’s treatise on it offers an analytical aid in meaning-making that cuts across class labels. Through intersectionality an academic gaze is maintained while class differences are recognized. Even in the larger, institutional literary canon teaching across class differences has helped to make “an imaginative connection intended to invite alliance and coalition” (Irma Maini; Jeanne Phoenix Laurel; Jane Wood; Yasmin DeGout; Deborah Thompson. Arlene Wilner; Ary Trager; Victoria Boynton; Stephen Spencer; Karen J. Hall; Dian Killian). In a two part roundtable discussion at the Northeast Modern Language Association meeting, college English instructors are teaching literature in ways that cross-fertilize likeness and examine differences to stretch the former meaning associated with these texts.
A THEORY OF EMPOWERMENT IN WRITING STUDIES
Given what we know, what are the tenets of a Theory of Empowerment that teaches the academic discourses and the discourses needed in students’ lives beyond their educational careers? As an alternative to focusing learning on the objectives of institutions, a Theory of Empowerment suggests a problem-posing, co-intentional learning environment that is inclusive of students’ unique responses to texts, established general knowledge and the means by which formative language has been acquired and used.
For works cited, see annotated bib.
Class issues occur when the equalizing effect of literacy is thwarted by pedagogy that propagates hierarchical literary frames and textual responses instead of broadening students’ familiarization with writing and writing responses. At the university level, where instructors can be stylistic and liberal, there is a chance that the classroom boundaries can widen and systemic mandates can be broken to recognize the value of myriad learning styles and how they were shaped in formative
years. Writing instruction in college and university programs can reach across class lines and empower students through familiarization of the diverse discourse communities they will encounter in their lives.
By the time students matriculate through the primary and secondary levels of English instruction they are exposed to writing instruction that privileges the goals of the teacher, the institution represented by the teacher and the formats for teaching sanctioned literature of the approved canon. Secondary school writing instruction gives ample consideration to test scores, grammatical, syntactical, structural and ideological “rightness” and to students’ abilities to achieve along these lines. Less attention is paid to how students have been socialized to approach writing and how they respond to texts. Furthermore, in writing instruction the grammatical, syntactical and structural attributes of texts are couched in a context that does not consider the identity of the students. Instead, the classist monikers: black, working, middle, upper class, thug, queer, woman, white, Jew, man, and WASP lurk nearby, influencing axiologies of writing instruction and responses to literature.
THE CLASS ASSUMPTIONS OF HEIRARCHICAL TEACHING
Class labels assume that students’ acquisition of primary language skills acquired through socialization influence how they learn secondary language skills in formal settings. These serve as lines of demarcation between primary and secondary language acquisition and make assumptions about how formative language skills are shaped. Critical Theory pedagogues believe there is a marginalized class of individuals who lack critical consciousness of language; however these theorists base their assumptions on what they can glean from public literate artifacts, the public transcript, without accessing the hidden transcript as Ellen Cushman did in her ethnographic study, Critical Literacy and Institutional Language (Ellen Cushman).
While Cushman lived in Quayville, an upstate New York, inner-city community where she worked as a literacy tutor and conducted a three-year ethnographic study of two adult women who looked for housing following an eviction. Cushman’s study showed the participants’ had an awareness of institutional language and successfully refined their primary vernacular language in order to make interaction with institutional “gatekeepers” more successful (267). When one of the subjects needed to phone a landlord for an apartment, she asked Cushman to “help [her] sound more respectable, you know White” (259). The participant not only had critical consciousness of institutional language, but access to knowledge (through Cushman) that would increase that awareness. Her request for Cushman’s help signals the co-intentional learning referred to by Friere’s historic text, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, that contends the “oppressed…must perceive the reality of oppression as a limiting situation which they can transform” (34). The pedagogy has to “be forged with, not for, the oppressed (whether individuals or peoples) in the incessant struggle to regain their humanity (33). This is an argument for a shift in the power dynamic of the teacher-student relationship, one that foregoes class assumptions and hierarchical practices. Wider boundaries in discursive practices can cut across class assumptions to allow influential exchanges in which the hidden transcript unfolds; students no longer need to hide unique literacy and critical consciousness is increased.
Even when class assumptions about the acquisition of language are proven, it need not follow that language use is undermined by any context. In classrooms where all students achieve highly there may be distinctions of literacy related to social and economic classes. Yet the distinctions may not undermine further language acquisition. In Lowry Hemphill’s study of high-achieving teens, she found that “students…draw upon narrative practices from their families and communities…” (294) Working-class students offered detail-rich, reflexive responses to poetry that Lowry believed reflected primary skills in oral storytelling traditions; whereas, the middle-class students “stand outside text and show ‘big idea’ understanding” (291 293). Lowry suggests that teachers keep in mind that the differences in students’ responses to discourse have value and complexity that reflect a number of factors. She recommends differences be made a part of the English curriculum through peer discussion, teacher critique and the critique of outside professionals to discourse presented in classroom practices (296 297).
RESPONSES TO CLASS LABELS
In the hierarchical gender construct of Jewish culture contemporary, female writers are giving a different voice to traditional folk characters (Ruth Bienstock Anolik). Their revisionist writing practices have hardly toppled the male-dominated structure in full, but have exercised a public forum in which the entire culture can “grapple with the traditional powerlessness of women in Jewish culture, the curtailing of their authority and of their voice” (40). Additionally, re-writing the voice of tradition can recognize the intersectionality theory of socially and literary constructed labels (Karen Gaffney). Intersectionality theory is useful in analyzing the discourse of writers who recognize the effect of categories in their writing. Students could learn to identify with discourse that bears a marked resemblance with or difference to their experiences, interpretations and written responses. Gaffney looks at Dorothy Allison’s novel Cavedweller as her way of fictionalizing the labels that Allison has worn her entire life. Cavedweller is not part of the English literary canon, but Gaffney’s treatise on it offers an analytical aid in meaning-making that cuts across class labels. Through intersectionality an academic gaze is maintained while class differences are recognized. Even in the larger, institutional literary canon teaching across class differences has helped to make “an imaginative connection intended to invite alliance and coalition” (Irma Maini; Jeanne Phoenix Laurel; Jane Wood; Yasmin DeGout; Deborah Thompson. Arlene Wilner; Ary Trager; Victoria Boynton; Stephen Spencer; Karen J. Hall; Dian Killian). In a two part roundtable discussion at the Northeast Modern Language Association meeting, college English instructors are teaching literature in ways that cross-fertilize likeness and examine differences to stretch the former meaning associated with these texts.
A THEORY OF EMPOWERMENT IN WRITING STUDIES
Given what we know, what are the tenets of a Theory of Empowerment that teaches the academic discourses and the discourses needed in students’ lives beyond their educational careers? As an alternative to focusing learning on the objectives of institutions, a Theory of Empowerment suggests a problem-posing, co-intentional learning environment that is inclusive of students’ unique responses to texts, established general knowledge and the means by which formative language has been acquired and used.
For works cited, see annotated bib.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)