13 November

Bartholomae, D. (1985). Inventing the university. In M. Rose (Ed.),  When a writer can't write: Studies in writer's block and other composing-process problems (pp. 134-165) New York: Guildford. 

But this is in An anthology of essays (pp. 403-418).

Author: David Bartholomae – PhD 1975 Rutgers – Professor of English and Charles Crow Chair at University of Pittsburgh. barth@pitt.edu Focus on composition, literacy and pedagogy, but also rhetoric and American studies. Most recent collection of essays: Writing on the Margins: Essays on Composition and Teaching (2005). Editor of Composition, Literacy and Culture.

Date: 1985 – had been a Fulbright Lecturer (Universidad de Deusto) in 1982. In 85 began time as Chair of Conference on College Composition and Communication.

Research Questions: How are college writing students situating themselves within the larger contexts and discussions of the university when they write?

Context (need for study):  Recognizes the disparity in writing within the voice or authority and that of students putting on or dabbling with command in a new and foreign discourse/register.

Methods: Essay using college writing placement essays on creativity as evidence.

Findings: Barholomae calls students patient and good-willed, putting up with the occasions and appropriations we ask them to undertake in school, knowing that the faculty is audience. All the while the student knows that they are trying on discourses for which they do not have the complete lexicon or tools.

            “I don’t know” is not that there is nothing to say, but acknowledging  that “he is no in a position to carry on this discussion” (p. 406). “There is a context beyond the reader that is not the world but a way of talking about the world, a way of talking that determines the use of examples, the possible conclusions, the acceptable commonplaces, and the key words of an essay on the construction of a clay model for the earth” (p. 406) – you can enter a discourse without approximating it.

            Linda Flower cites the difficulty as one of a troubled transition from writer-based to reader-based prose (p. 406).

            Writing is imagining ones-self as an insider, as privileged with the knowledge and right to speak. But writing for the teacher is assuming a privilege that students do not have and falls on “imitation or parody than a matter of invention and discovery” (p. 408).

            Success can be seen in an aggressive, self-conscious location of self within the discourse.

            Full context of more important than syntax and punctuation.

Discussion (my connection):  I have read this before with Brock Dethier at USU. It was a bit of a catapult to create a genre-study paper as well as looking specifically at what certain types of writing assignments from across the university were asking of the students – the various discourses of the university community.

            As with writing argument for children, there is a necessity to create audience, to allow for a genuine space for writing.

            I think of this trying on of registers in terms of a child playing at dress up, wearing adult-sized clothing and doing their best to become the new character, but it’s obvious to everyone that the clothes do not fit.

            The children in the Riley study were able to place themselves in the conversation, having met a father who home schools his child. If the university were to invite the undergraduate or basic writing students to be involved with scholarly work, then they could enter the discourse and actually see themselves there. This is asking quite a bit – how many can you actually let participate? Perhaps there is just more research that needs to be done at the ug level, not just seeing so many classes as a prerequisite for something else.

            I think the first time I read this, I looked too much to the idea of writing for the academy. I took offense to it, that students should have to betray themselves in order to be accepted. But, this time, I see it more of situating ones-self in the muck of the discourse and letting go of the comfort of what might be considered weak or small phrases/sentences.

Riley, J., & Reedy, D. (2005). Developing young children's thinking through learning to write argument. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 5(1), 29-51.

Author: Jeni Riley – Institute of Education, University of London j.riley@ioe.ac.uk, focus on early education, speaking language, written language vs writing of letters

David Reedy – Community Inspection and Advisory Service, London Borough of Barking and Dagenham

Date: 2005

Research Questions: What are the outcomes of structure-based writing instruction and writing to develop thinking with young children?

Context (need for study): Need to support children’s learning in literacy. Earlier year teachers “are often unaware of the role of written language” in enhancing student thought (p. 30). 1998 UK literacy standards do not ask for teaching of argument writing conventions until year 5 – 10 year olds (p. 30). Kress (1989) asserts that leaving children out of  the use of argument disenfranchises and excludes them from full participation in society.

Methods: Small-scale study, 2 early years (5-7 year olds) classrooms 25 1^st and 27 2^nd in White, working-class suburb of north-east London. Female teachers with literacy hour – 30 min whole class teaching, 20 group and individual practice, 10 whole class reflection on  work. Teaching done by the researchers. Use of writing frames with students – shared writing model. 3, 45-minute sessions over 2 weeks.

Findings: Young children are incredibly competent and “can engage  with contentions, real-life issues and if offered structured support, they are able not only to produce written texts in the argument genre but their thinking also develops” (p. 29). Genre theory informs how texts are shaped by social purpose and cultural context.

            Activating prior knowledge created a sense of multiple perspectives on issues at hand (zoos and homeschooling). Heavy importance on time for discussing, researching, and reflecting.

            An argument “writing frame” allows manipulation of perspectives without having to be too concerned with overall organization – already prepared within the frame (p. 45).

            Children need to be able to relate to and invest in the controversial topic. An experience (visit, trip, text, drama, etc.) is necessary in order to embed understanding. Brainstorm to see two viewpoints at the same time. Introduction of new information – “research.” Teacher modeling the process of writing and questioning spoken contributions.

Discussion (my connection): I need to take a look at Bereiter and Scardamalia (1985) to get a grasp of operational aspects of writing in terms of the “multidimensional information processing load that writing presents to an individual” (p. 29).

            Page 32 has a wonderful reasoning for why argument should be taught, citing Piaget, Vygotsky, and Kress (among others). The bringing of difference into existence is essential to having a clearer thought, entertaining difference in order to more fully understand and resolve into new meaning, requiring inter- and intrapersonal dialogues that develop cognition.

            Even though time to think about the argument is vital, students taking timed writing tests do not have that luxury.

            The big take away to me is to make ideas accessible and genuine – of purpose – of interest – to the student in order to benefit most from this, rather than completely imposing some task of thinking.

Schleppegrell, M. J. (2001). Linguistic features of the language of schooling. Linguistics and Education, 12(4), 431-459.

Author: Mary J. Schleppergrell, PhD from Georgetown University, published this article while at UC Davis, 2012 at University of Michigan in a 3year project looking at helping teachers focus students on grammatical choices authors have made to form meaning. Interested in linguistic tools’ relationship to equity.

Date: 2001

Research Questions: What is the “constellation of lexical and grammatical features that are most important for success in language tasks at school” (p. 435)?

Context (need for study): Researchers need to understand the grammatical realities and alternatives in meaning making contexts of the registers - “constellation of lexical and grammatical features that characterizes particular uses of language”-  of schooling (p. 431). This article focuses on “the lexical choices and strategies for clause structuring that are typical of the school-based registers that are represented in the texts students read and that students need to draw on in school-based language tasks” ( p. 432). There are lexicgrammatical and social dimensions to language choice. Importance of identifying school’s underlying grammatical expectations.

Methods: Using large, historical (corpus) studies and a series of discourse analytic studies of secondary writing samples to highlight features of schooling registers.

Findings: Suggestion that explicitness and complexity as described in school-based registers disregards the complex and explicit forms of expression in other registers. In a matter such as show and tell, students who can describe and narrate are praised and pushed to develop language skills, but those who struggle with “this register are considered disorganized,” and teachers find it difficult to guide development (p. 433). Table 1 on 438 shows difference between spoken interactions and school-based registers. Vocabulary is a main identifier of the desired more precise and technical lexis that is desired for student writing across subject areas.

            Students raise their hands to be seen as one of the people who “knows,” expecting the teacher to call on someone who has not raised their hand. Informational written texts have many more nouns than in spoken English between students. In the example texts, the ration of lexical density (how many ideas per clause are necessary to process) was 10:3. Speaking subjects are generally pronouns – “light subjects,” but the written “long subjects” create building arguments by clause (p. 441). Thus school register is considered more explicit (no room for misunderstanding meaning) “because the context of schooling is more appropriately realized through the lexical labeling,” but linguistic appropriateness is not to be confused with cognitive skill or vice versa (p. 442).

            In writing, the subject is the action doer, but in speaking the subject is often the object being talked about. Academic registers expect detachment in augments, but the examples from the bilingual student on page 445 show an involved and emotional style. The school-based register requires the use of a varied set of conjunctions. Spoken use of conjunctions does not tend to follow the semantic relationships of written texts. Conventional use of conjunctions requires a shift in lexical strategies to embed and compact information which is not seen/heard in spoken English….http://youtu.be/lF4qii8S3gw

Discussion (my connection): I find the discussion on 432 of genres and expected registers in schooling particularly helpful in thinking about reasons to pursue multimodality. Admittedly, others may see these same expectations as reasons not to challenge the structure of the school register with practice in multimodal composition.

            The school registers of efficiency and hierarchical arguments for a “noninteracting audience” seems so sterile and out of sync with developing whole persons (p. 435). It seems that it continues to feed the notion that school is for preparing workers on a United States-dollar oriented time-scale, not the mañana of other parts of the Americas – and how I operate on an all too regular basis.

            Using the school-based register makes for clear understanding – to those who have already appropriated the school-based register. I appreciate the author’s ability to consider the students competent, especially in realizing that pronouns are not inexplicit, but rather do not fall into the school register of needing to disregard assumptions of an audience who has shared knowledge. I tell many stories this way – for some reason, I live it with my wife. I assume she knows what I know, has experienced what I have. I know, though, that it was a main frustration of mine in reading writing that assumes I have the same background knowledge as the writer. It makes me question the “complete sentence” answer that rephrases the question that has just been asked. The shared knowledge is there. The question is in print for both the student and teacher to see. Why, then, is there still reason to restate the question in the answer?

Spoken language appears to be interpretive – made in community. I rely on this heavily in life – probably because of my lack of precise lexical vocabularies in many situations.