Recent Studies in ELA 9/11

Jeffery, J. V. (2011). Subjectivity, intentionality, and manufactured moves: Teachers’ perceptions of voice in the evaluation of secondary students’ writing. Research in the Teaching of English, 46(1), 92-127.

Author: Jill V. Jeffery is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Language, Literacy, and Sociocultural Studies and the Department of English at the University of New Mexico. According to academia.edu, her “scholarship focus on constructs of writing competence as perceived by students, teachers, and writing assessment designers.” I need to pay special attention to what she is producing because she is interested in understanding transition experiences from “secondary to postsecondary writing demands”. She studied English Education (post-bacc) here at the University of Texas and earned her PhD in English Education from New York University.

Date: Like Vieira, very recent publication in 2011. She is two years out of her doctoral study. An early impression on the academic scene.

Research Questions: From page 92:

1)      What language features do secondary English teachers associate with voice in secondary students’ writing?

2)      How do they explain their associations?

3)      Ho do such identified features vary across genres as well as among readers?

Context (need for study): Continued questioning of “voice” as a writing standard – inequity when applying same standard to ELLs in high-stakes writing assessment. “Researchers have used sociocultural and functionalist frameworks to analyze voice-related discursive patterns, yet we do not know how readers evaluate written texts for voice” (p. 92). Leaning on the 60s comp theorists Peter Elbow, Don Murray, and Stewart? voice had a big presence, but 80s and 90s saw the emphasis had gone too far – undermining goal for academic writing. Late 90s and early 2000s brought up the fairness to ELLs. Despite the academy’s discreditation of  voice, still remains in classrooms.

Methods: Think-aloud interviews (talk about voice as they read the papers with follow-up questions) with 20 teachers (at least three years, master’s degree, and National Writing Project, from West, Northeast, and Midwest – 1 is discarded over poor recording quality) over samples of secondary narrative and expository writing (high scoring from OR exit-level test 2007). Inductive analysis? of interview transcripts. Look through developmental and sociocultural lenses – “how developmental approaches to voice might be integrated within sociocultural models” (p. 93). Systemic functional linguistics? Narrative and expository should have certain characteristics with associated with development.

Findings: The  teachers involved showed a bent in recognizing voice toward  “appraisal features, such as amplified expressions of affect and judgment” (p. 92). What does this mean? All 19 used the “evaluative code” of “tone” to mark voice, 16 used “explicit stance”. Most also talked about structure patterns of diction, specificity, sentence structure, coherence, and development. Talk on language features included connecting voice to effectiveness  of intentionality (choice, control, command)). There is a feeling of sensing commitment and passionate with positive associations and academic or perfunctory with negative views on voice. There is an imagination of an author. They don’t know the student who wrote the piece, but they are connecting to developing writers. Associations of youthfulness and personality were positive in narrative and maturity in expository. 9 of 12 teachers who associated gender to the author, thought female because of the age and perceived maturity level of insight.

Discussion (my connection): A paradox in teaching voice – voice seems to be so individual that it conflicts with structures that can be taught or measure up to academic writing. Can voice be “manufactured” through following specific traits? I have the feeling that although everyone used tone (an evaluative code) the more used indicators of voice were structural patters – I see those more as tricks to make the reader perceive a powerful voice. In high school, my AP English teacher gave everyone awards – I received the “confidence” award. Looking back, I think I figured out that you could play the AP game – that certain structures could elicit the feelings of “rightness” or something to that effect. But half of the teachers talked as if they could spot natural vs forced effectiveness.

Purcell-Gates, V., Duke, N. K., & Martineau, J. A. (2007). Learning to read and write genre-specific text: Roles of authentic experience and explicit teaching. Reading Research Quarterly, 42(1), 8-45.

Authors: Victoria Purcell-Gates received her Ph.D from UC Berkely in 1986. She was awarded Most Promising Researcher from NCTE in 1987 and has seemed to live up to that – hitting some high-point awards and appointments in the early 2000s. She is on faculty at the University of British Columbia: victoria.purcell-gates@ubc.ca. Interested in purposes for and attitudes toward reading and writing and designing educational experiences for young children that build on knowledge gained in home communities. Cognitive learning and sociolinguistics are focuses. She is currently working with family literacy and doing study in Guatemala.

Nell K Duke was on faculty at Michigan State University in Teacher Education and Counseling, Educational Psychology and Special Education. She just started at the University of Michigan this fall: nkduke@umich.edu. Ed.D from Harvard. According to her page at umich.edu: expertise in “development of informational reading and writing in young children, comprehensions development and instruction in early schooling, and issues of equity in literacy education.” She highlights a lack of nonfiction texts (written outside of narrative?) in primary grades.

Joseph A. Martineau is a member of the state of Michigan’s Department of Education in the office of Educational Assessment and Accountability/Bureau of Assessment and Accountability. MSU in 2004? I am interested in his 2010 publication in Phi Delta Kappan about value-added models in accountability for teacher effectiveness and how parents see the situation.

Date: 2007 is near the end of President G.W. Bush’s second term – perhaps some NCLB backlash? Recent work in genre studies.

Research Questions:

1)      What is the impact of explicit teaching of genre features of informational and procedural text in science on children’s ability to read and write these texts? Does this impact differ from children from homes of different parental education levels?

2)      Is the degree of authenticity of literacy activities, or the degree of explicit teaching of language features, with these texts related to children’s growth in the ability to read and write them? Does this impact differ from children from homes of different parental education levels?

Context (need for study): From page 8: “This study addresses the long-held debate regarding how language is best learned, particularly language forms that are not acquired as one’s primary discourse (Gee, 1992), such as reading and writing.” Spectrum: language acquired only through situated experiences to explicit instruction. Question has been addressed in decoding individual words, indicating explicit teaching is best. Grades 2 and 3 are at “a developmental level rarely included in studies of genre learning of content area written discourse” (p. 11). Critical mass agreement on necessity of authentic literacy activities in genre learning, but little research, “nor is there even a well-established meaning of this variable” (p. 13). What combination of experience and explicit instruction best facilitates learning of new language forms? Exploring “the roles of (a) authentic, communicatively functional reading and writing and (b) the explicit explanation of genre function and features on growth in genre-specific reading and writing abilities of children in grades two and three” (p. 9).

Methods: Within constructivist perspective, view of language as essentially social. Experimental and correlational designs? Longitudinal (at classroom level) for a year, possibly two. 420 students (student level is quasi-experiemental) from 16 2^nd grade classes, 10 were followed to 3^rd grade, growth measured 6 timeusing Hierarchical Linear Modeling. 2 groups – authentic reading and writing with science texts (informational and procedural genres) OR authentic experiences WITH explicit language feature explanations. Teachers attended summer workshop, taught science 2 times a week for 45-60 min at a time. One or more researchers in on a weekly basis to code implementation and coach instruction. Each teacher bought a library of science books for purposes of research – fitting criteria. Study not in change of curriculum, but of increased use of authentic literacy activities and (for one group) “explicit teaching of genre functions and features” (p. 17).

Findings: “No effect of explicit teaching on reading and writing growth for six of seven outcomes” (p. 9). Strong correlation of degree of authenticity with growth for 4/7. Addition of “growing empirical evidence regarding the efficacy of involving students in reading and writing for real-life purposes in the classroom” (p. 9). Parent education levels did not seem to be a factor – page 30: 1/7 outcomes in 2^nd grade. Some schools supposed to be A+E fell into A-only distributions – not every class had the same degree of explicitness. Degree of authenticity of events shows faster rate of student growth.  Findings do not indicate that the amount of time is not the simple answer, looking directly at the nature of the experience.

Discussion (my connection): How is there a degree of authenticity? Either it is authentic or it is not. Be on the look out – page 14 answers this…”This term relates specifically to the nature of the reading and writing acts, or events, in which students engage while participating in the activity of schooling” (p. 14). The idea of teaching of language and genre features matches with Jeffery’s article about teachers associating certain features with positive assessments of voice. How does one’s interpretation of tone and skill (and whether these are natural or forced) differ across the board? Does teaching a formula or being explicit lead to students trying too hard to have a good lead, for example? In regards to the note that it is not just the quantity of time spent reading and writing – I think Wilt Chamberlain said something against the idea of practice makes perfect. You can practice incorrectly all the time. It will just make you good at doing the wrong thing. There are times for intervention – perfect practice makes perfect. So, I see the value in regularly making authentic events, but there are times for the explicit direction. The evidence doesn't find a correlation, though.

Vieira, K. E. (2011). Undocumented in a documentary society: Textual borders and transnational religious literacies. Written Communication, 28, 436-461.

Author: Kate Elizabeth Vieira writes on discourse study, immigration in education, cultural difference, acculturation. She finished her dissertation, “an ethnographic study of the writing of two Portuguese-speaking immigrant groups” in Massachusetts, in 2010 at The University of Wisconsin - Madison. Currently at University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign; kvieira@illinois.edu.

Date: Like Jeffery, very recent publication in 2011. She is two years out of her doctoral study. An early impression on the academic scene.

Research Questions: How has the transnational movement of a particular group of people, from Brazil to Massachusetts, shaped their literacy lives?

Context (need for study): Looking at migrants’ literacy practices as shaped from crossing national boarders – subset of interest in transnationalism within Writing Studies. Note the demographics of the 22 participants on page 438.

Methods: Ethnographic study – undocumented Brazilian community in Massachusetts. Ethnographic observations, study of writing samples (from whomever was willing to supply – see page 439), and analysis of participants’ accounts of own literacy practices on both sides of migration experiences. Heavy on literary history interviews. Constructivist approach to grounded theory. Open coding of interviews for all literacy practices.

Findings: Crossing borders keeps certain literacy experiences out of reach, especially for those who are undocumented in the new nation. Refuge or revitalization of literacy practices within institutions not connected to the sate – specifically churches. “Writing practices became increasingly religious in the United States when compared with writing practices in Brazil” (p. 441) – political immigrant status drove participants to religious literacy events. Trauma often led to increased involvement at church – an exploitation of non-dominant/marginalized positions. Workplace literacies remained similar, but a general increase in digital literacy practices. Pro-immigrant readings of the Bible designate the difference between what is man-made (governments and borders) and what is part of the inclusive law of God (p. 453).

Discussion (my connection): Church seems to be a safe place from the government. I have a sense that there is a substantial hope in the spiritual or honored tradition that the uncertainty of government cannot provide. There is a sense of community and reality that the church can provide – easier? to be open about yourself at church than with a government that doesn’t seem to want you there – you have a PLACE at church. (p. 445). The increase in digital space literacies is a way to be known – both in their new situations as well as back at “home”. Teenagers in PBS Frontline’s “Growing Up Online” flock to digital spaces in order to find community. Knowledge transfer is a big part of this new identity in The United States; look at the transformation of secular genre practices to religious genres in the US on page 448. I am intrigued by Washington. His plan to return to Brazil after 5 years and refusal to have an “artificial” US marriage shows me that his hope is in the return, the past? So there is not a look to the divine for the future. On page 457: “If bureaucracies have a historically documented need to count, participants in this study had a corresponding need to be counted.” WOW! I do not think I have engaged this idea of textual belonging yet – this is a must watch for me.