working papers in literacy, culture, and language ...€¦ · examines the role that...

WORKING PAPERS IN LITERACY, CULTURE, AND LANGUAGE EDUCATION (WPLCLE)

VOLUME 3, April 2014

Department of Literacy, Culture, and Language Education School of Education

Indiana University Bloomington

EDITORIALBOARDFounder&Editor‐in‐Chief

SerafínM.Coronel‐Molina

ManagingEditorLeslieRowland

AssistantstotheEditorsBethBuchholzAlfredaCleggYing‐SinChenLindaCoggin

VesnaDimitrieskaHsiao‐ChunHuangRetnoHendryantiArnellHammondChristinaIvanovaTolgaKargin

Hsiao‐ChinKuoErinLemrowJaehanParkStacyPenalvaJulieRust

ChristyWessel‐PowellJae‐SeokYangPei‐ShanYu

AmberWarrenBitaH.Zakeri

AdvisoryBoardDonnaSayersAdomatStephanieCarterJamesDamicoD.TedHall

MaryBethHinesMitziLewisonCarmenMedina

LarryMikuleckyMarthaNyikosFaridahPawan

BethLewisSamuelsonRaymondSmithKarenWohlwend

WebsiteAdministratorsRebeccaBarrett

SerafínM.Coronel‐Molina

Copyright © 2014 Working Papers in Literacy, Culture, and Language Education (WPLCLE), and therespectiveauthors.

All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced in any form by any means, includingphotocopyingandrecording,orbyanyinformationstorageorretrievalsystem(exceptforbriefquotationsincriticalarticlesorreviews)withoutwrittenpermissionfromWPLCLEortherespectiveauthors.

WorkingPapersinLiteracy,Culture,andLanguageEducation(WPLCLE)SchoolofEducation,IndianaUniversityW.W.WrightEducationBuilding201N.RoseAve.,Room#3044Bloomington,IN47405‐1006

Phone:(812)856‐8270Fax:(812)856‐8287E‐mail:[email protected]:http://education.indiana.edu/graduate/programs/literacy-culture-language/specialty/wplcle/index.html

PAGE|i

TABLEOFCONTENTS

Contributors...........................................................................................................................................................iiIntroduction............................................................................................................................................................1SerafínM.Coronel‐MolinaDiscourseresourcesindiscussionsofstudentwriting:Anotherlookatthespeaking–writingconnection..................................................................................................................................................4BethLewisSamuelson“Actually,that’snotreallyhowIimaginedit”:Children’sdivergentdispositions,identities,andpracticesindigitalproduction................................................................................................................25BethBuchholzMaking the invisible visible:Whitepreservice teachers explore social inequitieswith theCriticalWebReader..............................................................................................................................................54JulieRust&ChristyWessel‐PowellDigitalliteracy:Asociologicalanalysis........................................................................................................75KerriRinaldiTheimpactofanarts‐integratedcurriculumonstudentliteracyengagement........................95RachelP.Feldwisch,KristieL.Coker,ShannaM.Stuckey,AshleyA.Rittenhouse,KassiK.Kite&JoshuaS.SmithReflectionsontheSWSEELRussianprogramfromasocioculturalperspective:Challengesandbenefits...........................................................................................................................................................113MartinaM.Barnas&SnezhanaZheltoukhova

PAGE|ii

Contributors(Alphabeticalbyfirstauthor)

MartinaM.Barnas is currentlyaResearchAssistant in theSchoolofEducation, IndianaUniversity, Bloomington.SnezhanaZheltoukhova is a doctoral candidate in the SecondLanguageAcquisitionProgram,UniversityofWisconsin,Madison.Theauthorswould liketo thank Ariann Stern‐Gottschalk, Elena Clark, and Viktor Kharlamov for fruitfuldiscussions.BethBuchholz has finished her doctoral coursework and is currently working on herdissertation.Herresearchinterestsfocusonhowteachersbuildonnonvalidatedformsofstudent knowledge in this era of standards and accountability. She ismost interested inexploring how “writing”—in all of its diverse (and technological) forms—can positionchildren as creators rather than consumers of knowledge, and in turn invite children toassertmoreempoweringacademicidentities.

RachelP.FeldwischandKristieL.CokerwereresearchassistantsattheCenterforUrbanandMulticulturalEducation(CUME)atthetimeofthisresearchandarecurrentlydoctoralstudents in the School of Education at Indiana University, Bloomington. CUME is aneducationalresearchcenteraffiliatedwiththeSchoolofEducationat IndianaUniversity–PurdueUniversityIndianapolis.ShannaM.StuckeyistheEducationResearchCoordinatorfor CUME, andAshleyA.Rittenhouse andKassiK.Kite were undergraduate researchassistantsatCUMEwhenthisstudywasconducted.JoshuaS.Smithistheformerdirectorof CUME.Dr. Smithnowholds thepositionofDeanof the School ofEducation at LoyolaUniversity,Maryland.

KerriRinaldi holds aMaster’s degree from theUniversity of Pennsylvania in Language,Literacy, andNewMedia.Currently she is a faculty readeratDrexelUniversity’sWritingCenter and works collaboratively with graduate students to improve their writingpractices.She isalsoa freelancewriterandacademiceditor.Herresearch interests lie inadultliteracy,self‐initiatedwritingpractices,andwriting‐centerpedagogy.Julie Rust spent four years teaching middle school and high school English beforebecomingaPh.D.candidateintheDepartmentofLiteracy,Culture,andLanguageEducationatIndianaUniversity.Herworkwithadolescentstriggeredacuriosityaboutthewaysthatnew media and popular culture are enacted in literacy classrooms. Current researchprojectsrevolvearoundthewaysinwhichplaymergeswithwhatisconsidered“legitimatelearning”inELAclassrooms,aswellasthenegotiationsthatteachersmakewhenplanningforstudentengagementwithnewmediaand“thecontent.”

Beth Lewis Samuelson is an Assistant Professor of Literacy, Culture and LanguageEducation at the Indiana University School of Education, where she teaches classes inliteracy theory and in the English as a Second Language and World Languages teachereducationprograms.She isaneducational linguistwithastrongbackground in language

CONTRIBUTORS PAGE|iii

learning and cross‐cultural experience in non‐Western contexts. She was a 2006Spencer/National Academy of Education Postdoctoral Fellow and a finalist in the 2006NationalCouncilofTeachersofEnglishPromisingResearchercompetition.From2008to2011,Dr.SamuelsonwasthefacultyadvisortotheBooks&BeyondProject,acocurricularservice‐learningprojectthatsupportsstorytellingandbookpublishingbyelementaryandmiddle school students in theUnited States and Rwanda. Her research interests includelanguage awareness and the flowsofEnglish literacypractices across global boundaries.Shehasparticularinterestsinunderstandingthenatureofmetaknowledgeaboutlanguageandtherolethatitplaysinliteracylearningandcommunication.

ChristyWessel‐Powell is a Ph.D. student in the Department of Literacy, Culture, andLanguageEducationatIndianaUniversity’sSchoolofEducation.PriortocomingtoIUshebegan her teaching career through the Teach for America program. She taughtkindergarten for six years in public, private, and charter school settings in Chicago,Philadelphia, and Brooklyn, New York, as well as internationally. Her current academicinterestscenteraroundliteracy,advocacyandlegislation,andincludetheintersectionsofpopular media, policy, and classroom practices in teaching literacy, adult self‐educationwith popular nonfiction and subsequent social action, early childhood education,particularly within reading and writing workshops, critical pedagogy, and comparativeeducation,particularlywithregardtothecharterschoolmovement.

PAGE|1

Introduction

SerafínM.Coronel‐Molina TheWorkingPapers inLiteracy,Culture,andLanguageEducation (WPLCLE) is an annualpeer‐reviewedonlinepublicationthatprovidesaforumforfacultyandstudentstopublishresearchpaperswithinaconceptual frameworkthatvaluesthe integrationoftheoryandpractice in the field of Literacy, Culture, and Language Education. The mission of thisjournalistwofold:(1)topromotetheexchangeofideasanddisseminationofresearch,and(2)tofacilitateacademicexchangebetweenstudents,faculty,andscholarsfromaroundtheworld.

Publications inWPLCLE are full‐lengtharticlesdealingwith the followingareasofresearch: first‐ and second‐language acquisition; macro‐ and micro‐sociolinguistics ineducation; linguistic anthropology in education; language policy and planning from localand global perspectives; language revitalization; pragmatics in language teaching andlearning;literacy,biliteracy,multiliteracy,hybridandmultimodalliteracies,newliteraciesor electronic/media/digital literacies; bilingual,multilingual andmulticultural education;classroom research on language and literacy; discourse analysis; technology in languageteachingand learning; languageandgender; language teacherprofessionaldevelopment;quantitativeandqualitativeresearchonlanguageandliteracyeducation;languagerelatedto curriculum design, assessment and evaluation; and English as a foreign or secondlanguage.Amongotherareasofpublication interestof theWPLCLE are theNewLiteracyStudies,homeandworkplace literacy, indigenous literaciesoftheAmericas,socioculturalapproachesto language and literacy education, second‐language instruction and second‐language teacher education, literacy as social practice, critical literacy, early literacy,practitioner inquiry/teacher research, children’s literacy, African‐American literacies,Latino/Hispanic literacies, cross‐linguistic and cross‐cultural literacy practices, heritagelanguageandculturemaintenanceandloss,andlocalandglobal(transnational)literacies.

This volume marks the third collection of six essays chosen from an array ofsubmissions for our 2014 volume. The first article, titled “Discourse resources indiscussions of student writing: Another look at the speaking‐writing connection,” waswritten by Beth Lewis Samuelson. This article examines a translingual approach to theeffects of voice and agency on the speaking–writing connection involved in the learningprocess. It describes a two‐part discussionbetweena bilingual teacher and aTaiwaneseundergraduate student during a writing lab in an English‐for‐Academic Purposes (EAP)class.Bothpartiesemployeddiscursivestrategiestoassertagencyandgiveitvoice,intheprocesscreatingashareddialogiccontextfortheproductionofapieceofacademicwriting.

Beth Buchholz offers us the second paper, “’Actually, that’s not really how Iimagined it’: Children’s divergent dispositions, identities, and practices in digitalproduction.”Initsheexplorestherangeofsocialanddigital literacypracticesinwhichagroup of 4th to 6th grade students engaged while collaboratively creating digital book

INTRODUCTION PAGE|2

trailers.Shewasparticularlyinterestedinunderstandinghowchildren’swaysofknowingand being in the world impact their multimodal production processes. Her analysisuncoversdivergentpracticesthatsuggestcontrastingetheaonthepartofthestudents,andleadshertoconclude,amongotherthings,thatthevisualartscouldmakeausefulpotentialentrypointforsupportingstudents’criticalengagementwiththedigitalworld.

The third article, “Making the invisible visible:White preservice teachers exploresocial inequities with the Critical Web Reader” by Julie Rust & Christy Wessel‐Powell,examinestherolethatempathy‐buildingpracticescanhaveinbroadeningtheperspectivesofpredominantlywhite,middle‐classteachercandidates.TheresearchersfoundthatuseoftheCriticalWebReaderhelped thesepreservice teachers confront ‘whiteness’ through agrowingempathyandvoiceinsider/outsiderclashes,aswellascomplicatingtheirvisionofAmerica as the land of opportunity. The authors conclude by discussing the challengesinherentinsocialactionresultingfromthedesiretomakeourworldmoreequitable,andimplicationsoftheirstudyforteachereducation.

Thefourtharticle,“Digitalliteracy:Asociologicalanalysis”byKerriRinaldi,analyzeshow sociological factors, access to literacy, and self‐sponsored digital literacy areinterrelated.Thepaperdemonstrates the textual validity andwidespreadaccessibilityofdigitallyproducedwriting,regardlessofsocialfactors,especiallysocioeconomicstatus.Theauthorconcludesbyexploringtheimplicationsforpedagogicalinstructionofherfindings.

The fifth article, “The impact of an arts‐integrated curriculum on student literacyengagement” by Rachel P. Feldwisch, Kristie L. Coker, Shanna M. Stuckey, Ashley A.Rittenhouse,KassiK.Kite&JoshuaS.Smith,examinestheimplementationandoutcomesoftheArtsIntegrationProgram(AIP)throughamixed‐methodapproach,includingclassroomobservations, interviews, and a pre‐post standardized Literacy Assessment Tool. Resultsshow high levels of student enthusiasm and engagement in the AIP, as well as modestincreases in literacy knowledge, which was one of the main goals of the program. Thefindingsprovideavenuesforotherschoolstoinfuseartsintotheirliteracyinstruction.

Thefinalarticle,“ReflectionsontheSWSEELRussianprogramfromasocioculturalperspective: Challenges and benefits” by Martina M. Barnas & Snezhana Zheltoukhova,describestheSWSEELintensiveRussianlanguagesummertrainingprogramheldannuallyat the Bloomington campus of Indiana University. The authors identify benefits andpotentialchallengesoftheprogram,fromtheperspectiveofsocioculturallearningtheories.Ultimately, they find that sociocultural instructional strategies strengthen the SWSEELmodel and validate the application of sociocultural learning design in the context ofintensivelanguageprograms.

Acknowledgments

WewouldliketothanktheAssistantstotheEditorsforreviewingthesubmissions.Wearealsodeeplygrateful toourAdvisoryBoardfor theircontinuedencouragementandmoralsupporttomakethisinitiativehappen.

Our special thanks go to Leslie Rowland, who provided valuable assistance asManagingEditor.Wealsooweadebtofgratitude to institutions, friends, colleagues,and

PAGE|3 INTRODUCTION

socialmediavenuesfromIndianaUniversityandfromaroundtheworldfortheirhelp inpublicizingtheWPLCLECallforPaperslocallyandglobally.

Lastbutnotleast,wearegratefultoallthecontributorstothisvolumeforchoosingWPLCEtopublishtheirwork.OurgratitudealsogoestotheSchoolofEducationforhostingtheWPLCEwebsiteandforsupportingthisnewpublicationvenue.Withoutthegenerousassistance of all these fine people and institutions,WPLCLE would not have become areality.

PAGE|4

Discourseresourcesindiscussionsofstudentwriting:Anotherlookatthespeaking–writingconnection

BethLewisSamuelson

Abstract

The social interactions surrounding the act of composing have often been theorized asmicrocosmsofteaching,assiteswheretheeffectsoftalkare intensified,andwheredialogicdiscourse,or internal speechmadeexplicit,promotes learning.Although the importanceofthe voice and agency are recognized, and their influence often implicitly acknowledged,researchonthespeaking–writingconnectionhasyettoincorporateatranslingualapproachthatgivesattentiontoagencyandvoice.Thisstudyattemptstoaddressvoiceandagencyinatwo‐partdiscussionbetweenabilingualteacherandherTaiwaneseundergraduateduringawriting lab in an English for Academic Purposes (EAP) class. Discursive strategies forasserting agency and giving it voice are employed to create a shared dialogic context forreviewing,evaluating,andrevisingawrittendraft.Atranslingualapproachtounderstandingtheproblemofdialogiccontext forsupporting literacypracticescreatesbothobstaclesandsupportsforrealizingthepotentialofdialogicinteraction.

Introduction

The social interactions surrounding the act of composing have often been theorized asmicrocosmsofteaching:siteswheretheeffectsoftalkareintensified,andwheredialogicdiscourse,internalspeechmadeexplicit,promoteslearning.Discussionsofstudentwriting,whetherinindividualwritingconferencesorinwholeclasssettings,havebeenviewedaswindowsontothedevelopmentof thought,wherewriterscan interactwithotherstogetfeedbackontheirwritingandactualizethereader–writerrelationshipalready implicit inthecompositionprocess(Dyson&Freedman,2003).

While this theoretical perspective emphasizes a connection between “learning towrite and learning to interpret—potentially, to reinterpret—the social world and one’splace in it” (Dyson, 1995, pp. 5‐6), or helping students make sense of the larger socialcontext that lies at the heart of learning (Sperling, 1996), writing pedagogies actuallychangeverylittlewhenlaminatedontotheexistingstructuresofschoolingandcustomaryteacher/student exchanges. While the potential of critical pedagogy for promotingparticipatory learning has been recognized, the “dominant interpretive framework”(Ulichny & Watson‐Gegeo, 1989) is a persistent, resistant pattern of teacher–studentinteraction.Criticaltheoriesmayrevealtheroleofschoolsinperpetuatingcurrentpowerdistribution;thesesamecriticaltheoriesoftendoapoorjobofshowingtheprocessesthatactuallyperpetuatetheseimbalances,asteachersandstudentscontinuetoenactthesameroles.Thissocialreproductionviewofschoolinghasbeenechoedbyeducationaltheoristslooking at the broader picture and not concentrating solely on literacy education(Ellsworth,1989).

PAGE|5SAMUELSON

Microinteractions provide opportunities for examining the perpetuation ofimbalancesinwritingpedagogy.Ameta‐analysisofrelatedstudieshasrevealedthreeareasthathavecontributedtothefailureofdiscussionsofwritingtomeetthehighexpectationsplacedon them: the influenceof conventionaldiscourse roles, the impactof cultural andexperiential differences, and the impact of classroom culture on writing instruction(Sperling & Freedman, 2001). First, problems can occur when teachers and studentsassumeconventionalclassroomdiscourseroles; inthesecircumstances,teacherswillstilldominate discussions (Cazden, 1988). Second, conversations around writing may breakdownwhenteachersandstudentsfollowdifferentrolesofinteractionduetoculturalandexperiential differences. Cultural differences in conversational turn‐taking, deference forteachers, and expectations for involvement in an instructional encounter, among others,willhaveasignificanteffectonthevarietyofresponsesfromstudentsduringtheirwritingconferences (Sperling, 1991, 1996). For instance, for many students, international ordomestic,whosefirstlanguageisnotEnglish,auniversity‐levelwritingcoursemaybetheirfirst encounter with formal one‐to‐one discussions for the purposes of revision,brainstorming, feedback or critical review. The final area of difficulty occurs whenclassrooms are not very supportive of studentwriting. Although pedagogical interactioncanprovidestudentswithopportunitiestohearwriterlythoughtprocessesandseethemmodelled, teacherexpectations—e.g., assuming thatstudentsmustparticipateverbally inorder to benefit from the conference—might help or hinder students in obtainingopportunities to hear writerly thought (Freedman & Katz, 1987; Sperling, 1988, 1990,1991,1992;Sperling&Freedman,1987).Theseconcernsraisesomeimportantquestionsaboutthecriticalnatureofpedagogicalinteractions.

Of course, microinteractions are not the only evidence available. Conversationsaround writing can break down when teachers and students follow different roles ofinteractionduetoculturaldifferences.Genderdifferencesareonesuchobstacletoeffectivetalk about writing. Teacher–student writing conference discourse has shown notabledifferencesinthewaysthatmaleandfemaleparticipantsuseddiscoursemarkerstoindexauthority to speak (Black, 1998). Introducing changes in discursive patterns based ongender, however, hasprovendifficult (Alvermann, Commeyra, Young,Randall,&Hinson,1997; Baxter, 2002). Perspectives due to other differences—ethnicity, class, personalhistory, or sexuality, for instance—can also impede effective interaction. In a study ofinteraction in three writing classrooms, Dysthe (1996) emphasized the importance ofintroducingengagingtopicsforencouragingstudentdiscussionsandofshowingstudentsthattheirperspectiveswerevalued.Theseapproachesultimatelypromotedlearningaboutwriting.

In this study, I examine how questions about critical pedagogy emerge in andthroughdiscursiveinteractioninadiscussionofstudentwriting.Usingtranscriptsoftapeddiscussions between an instructor in an English language institute and her Taiwaneseundergraduate student, I explore the linguistic and discursive details through which ateacher identity or a student identity dynamically emerges in the interactionalenvironmentof thewriting lab.Thisanalysisunfolds inanepisode‐by‐episode reviewofhowPatriciaandTracyprojectedtheirrespectiverolesduringtheirwritinglabdiscussionofTracy’sbusinesscasestudydraft.

DISCOURSERESOURCESINDISCUSSIONSOFWRITINGPAGE|6

TheoreticalFramework

Thespeaking–writingconnectionisanimportantsiteformicroanalysisofthedynamicsoftext production and mediation of knowledge about academic writing. This does not, ofcourse,obviatetheneedtoconductcarefulethnographicanalysesoflargersocialcontexts;rather,itdemonstrateshowinstitutional,socioculturalandsociohistoricalexpectationsareobservableinthediscursivechoicesofteachersandstudents.Likewise,analysisthatlookssolelyat theexpectationsof theparticipants, the roles theyplayor thecontextualizationcues they heed is not sufficient. The question is not to look at the discourse of theconferencealone,oratthelayersofnestedcontextalone,butatbothtogether.Ofparticularinterestarethe institutionalrepresentationsapparent in these factors,andthedilemmastheyengenderforteachersandstudentsalike.Thisapproachcanhelptoaddressquestionsabouttheperceivedsuccessorfailureofanexchange.

Discussantscocreate,or fail tococreate,asharedsupportstructure in thedialogicprocess of conversation aboutwriting. Asking how they do this is a critical element forunderstandinghowtalkaboutwritingsupportslearning.Anexaminationoftheirreduciblepropertiesofthelanguage,therelationalactivitiesofthespeakers,aswellasthehabitualcommunicative practices and value orientation of the users will help illuminate themediated nature of knowledge about writing, especially the interplay between formalknowledgeofwritingandthesocialworldinwhichitisusedanddiscussed.OrasHankssoeloquently described it, language practice is saturated by context “right down to itssemantic bones” (1996, pp. 140‐141). This perspective invites analysis that focusesattention on how “power and control translate into principles of communication”(Bernstein,1996,p.47).

Examining a methodologically complex question through discourse analysisrequirescarefulattentiontothenatureandstudyofdiscourseitself.Twobasicschematatostudyingdiscoursepersistthroughoutthevarietyofapproachesavailabletoday(Macbeth,2003).Thefirsttakesnaturallyoccurringdiscourseasitsdata,asexemplifiedbysequentialanalysisofdiscourse‐in‐interaction,inwhichtheidentitiesoftheteacherorthestudentarecoconstructed,deconstructedandnegotiatedinreal time.Mehan(1979,1992,1994)andCazden (2001), whose work has helped to expose the role of discourse in perpetuatinginequality in schools, are major representatives of this approach. The second approach,exemplified by variations on critical discourse analysis, focuses on formal–analyticalcategories that are not part of the “real” interaction experienced by participants (e.g.,Fairclough,1992;Gee,1999,2011).

The current study examines naturally occurring discourse in sequence withoutrecourse to formal–analytic categories, and does so in the tradition of conversationalanalysis,whichhasalreadycontributedtothestudyoftheintersectionbetweenspeakingand writing, when writers speak about texts. Gumperz (1982) examined frames on themicro level of discourse strategies, establishing the embedded nature of context withindiscourse. Frames, he concluded, or “expectation[s] about the world, based on priorexperiences, against which new experiences are measured and interpreted” (Tannen,1993), containmetamessages, information about the contexts of social situations, aboutbeginning, continuing, altering, andclosing them(Tannen,1984,1987;Tannen&Wallat,1993).Theyalsocontaincontextualizationcues,whichprovidetheactorswithcluestothe

PAGE|7SAMUELSON

situatedness of social activity. Goffman (1961) examined participation frames from asociologicalperspective,demonstratinghowininterpersonalinteractions,peoplerespondto institutional and social expectations of the frames they encounter, while alsosimultaneouslycoconstructing these frames. Individualsnotonlyrespondto institutionalandsocialexpectations,theyalsococonstructparticipationframesastheyproceedthroughtheirinteractions(Goffman,1961).Theacademicliteraciesmodelattemptstoexplainhowliteracypracticesarenodesofcontestation,embeddedinlocalmeaning,withoverlappingfunctions and features of both oral and literate practices contributing jointly to theachievementofmanycommunicativepractices.

The New Literacy Studies (New London Group, 1996; Street, 1993, 1999) andpractice‐engagement theory (Reder, 1994) have investigated how literacy practices areembedded in localmeaning, defining literacy as a set of socially or culturally patternedpractices used by learners located within larger communities of practice. The overlapbetween the functions and features of both oral and literate practices—the “manyculturally‐patternedcommunicativepracticesdraw jointlyonspeechandwriting in theirroutineaccomplishment”(Reder,1994,p.38)—comeintoplayinunderstandinghowtalkaboutwritingincludesbothoralandliteratecommunicativepractices.Discourseanalysisisembedded in ethnography of communication studies to describe individual literacypractices situated within localized cultural practices (Chafe, 1982; Dyson, 1993, 1994;Heath,1983).

LeaandStreet(1998)illustratedthisdynamicintheiracademic‐literaciesstudyofcollege‐level writing students. They conducted semistructured, in‐depth interviewswiththirteenstaffmembersandtwenty‐sixstudentsattwoBritishuniversitiesregardingtheirunderstanding of issues of epistemology, authority, and disputation of knowledge inacademic discourse. Students responded that although they were aware that differentcourseshavedifferentrequirementsforacademicwriting,itwasoftendifficultforthemtogauge the essential differences and write accordingly; writing assignments or promptsrarelymade the implicit expectations accessible to the students. For their part, teacherswere comfortable with identifying and using the aspects of text that are consideredessential for marking them as members of their respective discourse communities, butcouldnotarticulate thesedetails to their students.Andalthoughmany tutorsclaimed toknowwhat successfulwriting looked like, theywere unable to explain concepts such ascriticalanalysistotheresearchersortotheirstudents.

As a result of this analysis, Lea and Street concluded “the elements of successfulstudentwritingareinessencerelatedtoparticularwaysofconstructingtheworldandnotto a set of generic writing skills” (p. 163). Learning to write in the academy is thus aprocessofadapting toa socialworldwithmanycompeting formsofknowledgecreatingandknowledgesharing.Studentsmuststruggletonegotiatetheconflictingpracticestheyconfrontintheirvariouscourses.Whileearliermodelssawstudentwritingasatechnicalskill (study skills model) or as a means of acculturation into the discourse community(academic socialization model), the “academic literacies” model conceptualizes studentwritinginthislightasboth“meaning‐making”and“contested”(p.172).Workwithyoungerstudentshasdemonstratedthattheymust learntoprojecta“successfulstudent” identitythatincludesbehaviorsandattitudes(Hawkins,2005).


Ulichny andWatson‐Gegeo (1989) examined the roles of control and knowledgeplayedoutbyteachersandstudentsduringwritingconferences.Theorizingfromasocialreproduction view of schooling, they suggested that new pedagogies such as processwritingactuallychangeverylittlewhenlaminatedontotheexistingstructuresofschoolingand customary teacher/student exchanges, what they called the “dominant interpretiveframework.” Although theypointout thatwhile critical theoriesmay reveal the rolesofschools in perpetuating current power distributions, they also concluded that criticaltheoriesdoapoorjobofshowingtheprocessesthatactuallyperpetuatetheseimbalances.The authors suggested thatmicroanalyses of teacher–student interactionsmight help toclarifytheseprocesses.

Methodology

The discussion ofwriting analyzed herewas recorded in the computer lab of a content‐basedacademiccourseofferedbytheintensiveEnglishprogramataPacificRimuniversitylocated in the United States. The course was designed for international undergraduateswhoplannedtomajorinbusiness,butwhodidnotyetmeettheuniversity’sstandardsforEnglishproficiency.Theconferenceoccurredinthemiddleofthesemester,sotheclasshadhad time to establish the expectations for active student participation in writingconferences.ThewritingassignmentaskedthestudentstowriteashortcasestudyontheethicsofbuyinghandmaderugsmadebychildlaborersinMorocco.TheclasshadviewedashortdocumentaryonanAmericanwholesalerwhofrequentlytraveledtoMoroccotobuyrugs for sellers inNorthAmerica.Tracy, aTaiwaneseundergraduate student inher firstyearattheuniversity,andPatricia,abilingualEnglish–Spanishwritingteacher,mettwiceduringthelabtodiscussTracy’sfirstdraft.

TheParticipants

Tracy

Tracywasa first‐semester freshman,planning tomajor inpsychology.Although shehadcompleted high school in Taiwan, her spoken English was quite advanced, thanks to abilingualkindergartenprogramandcontinuousprivatetutoringinEnglishthroughoutherschooling.Heraccentwasveryclear,andherspeechfluent.Assheexplainedinherrecallinterview,shewaswillingtoplayanactiveroleindiscussingherwriting.TracyhadbeenintheUnitedStatesforninemonths,duringwhichshehadcompletedseveralnoncreditESLcourses.

Duringherrecallprotocol interview,Tracystatedthatsheviewedtheconferencesas a chance to ask questions about written comments from the teacher that she didn'tunderstand. While she usually looked forward to her conferences with Patricia, sheexpresseddismayoverwrittencorrectionsonherdrafts—”I’llfeellike‘humph,youknow.Ispentalotoftimeonit’…”Shealsoemphasizedthatshewaswillingtoindependentlyseekoutsolutionstoherwritingdilemmas—”Iwouldratherknowwhyit’snogood,or,youknow,rather than seeingall thewords crossedout,or ‘you shouldput this rather than that.’ I’dratheryoutellmetochangeitandIwillgofindthewords.”

PAGE|9SAMUELSON

Patricia

Patricia was a bilingual instructor and a doctoral student in applied linguistics. Whilegrowing up, Patricia spoke Spanish at home, acquiring English in kindergarten andelementaryschool,andthenlearningformalwrittenSpanishinhighschoolandcollege.Shehadfiveyears’full‐timeexperienceteachingSpanishandEnglish.Herprogramsupervisorrecommendedheras“extremelythorough”inherresponsestostudentpapers.Duringherrecallinterview,Patriciastatedthatshewantedtoemphasizethinkinginherteaching.Sheprofessedastrongcommitment to thedraftprocessandsharedhowshewould takehergraduateseminarpapersthroughdraftsbeforeshewashappywiththem.Becauseofthisintensivedrafting, she thought ofwriting as arduouswork.Thus shehad a greatdeal ofsympathy for her students. She explained tome: “And[writing’s]ahardprocess.AndsoIfigureifIdon’tunderstand,andI’manativespeaker,Idon’texpectthemtounderstand.Andsotheyneedtoquestionthings.”HersharedexperiencesledPatriciatopraiseherstudentsfrequently and sincerely; she understood that they were uncomfortable sharing theirdrafts. She pondered the usefulness of the writing conference as a means of improvingstudent writing. Like Tracy, Patricia attributed the success of the conference to Tracy’seffortstoparticipateactively.

DataCollection

In the initial data collection step, Patricia agreed to tape writing conferences during anafternoonclassheldinthecomputerlab.Asshecirculatedamongthestudents,shecarrieda small tape‐recorder and turned it onwhen talking to participating students about thepapersshehadreadandreturned.Fourstudentsagreedtoparticipateinthisstep.

As soon as possible following the writing lab session, Tracy’s and Patricia’sperspectives on the discussions were collected through stimulated recall protocols(DiPardo, 1994; Erickson & Mohatt, 1988; Newkirk, 1995). This procedure allowedparticipantstolistentotherecordeddiscussionandtotalkfreelyaboutwhattheythoughthappened during the interaction. Participants in a writing conference are like theaterperformerswho canuse a “backstagearea” (Newkirk,1995,p.195) toprivately expresstheir tensions, frustrations, misunderstandings, and personal interpretations. Thisstimulated recall procedurewas first used in educational anthropology by Erickson andMohatt(1988),whoreplayedvideotapesofclassroomdiscussionstoelicitcommentsfromthe participants. DiPardo (1994) used stimulated recall to encourage students and theiradjuncttutorstotalkfreelyabouttheirwritingconferences.

TracyandPatriciaeachlistenedtotherecordingoftheirdiscussionandcommentedon what had transpired. Both interviewees could stop the tape at any time to makecommentsordescribewhathappenedduringtheconference.Bothalsoansweredseveralopen‐endedquestionsabovetheirwritingprocessandwritingattitudes.

DataAnalysis

BecauseTracyandPatriciamettwiceduringthecomputerlabperiodtotalkaboutTracy’sdraft,thisdiscussionoccurredintwoparts.Thefirstpart(1)occurredearlyinthewritinglabperiodwhenPatriciastoppedatTracy’sworkstationtolookoverherworkandgivehersomecomments.The firstpart contains fourepisodes.Thesecondpartof thediscussion


(2)tookplacelater intheperiod,whenPatriciastoppedbytocheckonTracy’sprogress.Thispartcontainsthreeepisodes.Table1providesbriefsummariesof thetopicsofeachepisode.ThefulldraftofTracy’spapercanbefoundinAppendixA.Thetranscriptionkeycan be found in Appendix B. Idea units were marked—reflecting the assumption thatbreaks in speech reflect a change in the speaker’s object of consciousness (Chafe, 1980,1986)—at the boundaries of major tone groups with periods, and sometimes at theboundariesofminortonegroupswithcommas.

Table1.Episodes

Episode1‐1:Settingthestage(lines01‐21)

PatriciaopenedthefirstpartofthediscussionwithamonologuesummarizingherimpressionsofTracy’sdraft,whereuponsheintroducedoneproblemtobediscussed.Tracylistenedquietly,andrespondedwith“uh‐hmms”attheappropriatepausesinPatricia’sdiscourse.

Episode1‐2:Tracy’squestion(lines22‐28)

Tracyaskedaquestionwhichappearedtoinitiateaframechange.AfteraninterruptionbyanotherteacherspeakingtoPatricia,sheaskedaquestionaboutmovingsometext inherdraft.PatriciaansweredTracy’squestion.

Episode1‐3:Patricia’sresponse(lines29‐50)

PatriciarespondedtoTracy’squestionwithanotherlengthymonologue.

Episode1‐4:Exchangingmaximsofwriting(lines51‐62)

Tracyreiteratedamaximofwritingthatwasfrequentlyrepeatedinclass:“soconclusionisnotmyopinion”(line51).Bythissection,thetwohadachievedthehighestdegreeofconversationalcohesivenessthattheywould reach in this conference. They agreed on Patricia’s maxim, “Just summarize it,” (line 52) with asimultaneous“uh‐hmmm”(lines53‐54).InPatricia’snextutterance,“Butyouhaveagoodorganization,”shesummarizedtheconferencewithastatementrepeatedfromtheopeninglinesinthefirstepisode.Thefirstpartoftheconferenceendedwiththeconventionalexpressionsofthanks.

Episode2‐1:Tracy’ssecondquestion(lines63‐70)

Inthissecondpartofthediscussion,TracyposedaquestionregardingherdraftafteranopeningdiscoursemarkerfromPatricia(“OK,Tracy”).PatriciarespondedthatTracyhadtwooptions.

Episode2‐2:Tracy’sclarification(lines71‐76)

Tracy clarified that she actually meant to compare two points: “Well actually I’m just like compare,comparingthesetwo.”Shereadsomeofhertexttoshowhowshewastryingtoexpresshercomparison.Episode2‐3:Patricia’ssuggestionandclosing(lines77‐89)

Afterabriefpause,PatriciaofferedapossiblesentenceforinclusioninTracy’sdraft.Tracylistened,back‐channelled, and responded “OhOkay.” She had nomore questions for Patricia at this time. This secondportionoftheconferenceended,asthefirst,withthetypicalclosings.

Results

Theresultsof thecasestudyprovideabriefdescriptionof theevents in thediscussions,describingthemajoraspectsofeachepisode.Itaddressesthebasicquestion,“whatwentoninthisdiscussionofstudentwriting?”

PAGE|11SAMUELSON

PartOne

(1)Part1ofawritinglabconversationbetweenPatricia(teacher)andTracy(student)aboutTracy’sdraftforbusinesscasewritingassignment

001 P: OKTracywhen I sawyour essay I thought (.2) the first thingwas youhave agood(.2)organization.

002 Youhaveagood introductionand it's(.2) in termsofthegrammar it's(.2) it'sprettygood.

003 There'safewmistakesherethat(.2)thatIpointedoutandthere'safewmorethat(.2)thatIdidn'tpointout.

004 But‐um(.2)yourfirstparagraphisverygood,ittalksaboutMcHenry.(H)005 Now the only thing that I was worried about was (H) here you start talking

aboutMorocco.006 T: [softly]\Uh‐hmmm\007 P: And(.2)attheenddecyou'kindoftieitintoMcHenryaccbutit'salmostlikeit'sa

wholeseparatetopic.(H)008 T: \Uh‐hmmm\009 P: Soifyoucan(.2)sputasentenceinatthebeginning(.2)thatindicateshowthis

isrelatedtoMorocco,(H)010 accandthenyoucanexplainitinalittlebitmoredetail,011 andthatwouldmakethi:s(.2)paragraphalotsmoo:ther.012 T: [softly]OrcanIjustmovetheMoroccopartintothe(.2)Hashad'spointofview

tha:tmmake(.5)013 [AnotherteacherapproachesandasksthePatriciaaquestion.Patriciaresponds.]014 P: [speakingtotheteacher]NoIdidn'tseeit.015 [speakingtoT]Goahead.016 T: CanIputtheMorocco:situationintothe(.2)thisparagraph?017 Thenwillmake the reasonwhy thatHashad thinkdoesn't think (.2) s there is

anythingwrongabusingchildlabor.018 P: Yeahyoucandothat,y‐I‐(E)019 YeahthatwasmyinitialthoughtwastomovethistotheparagraphwithHashad,

buthereattheendyoudomakethatconnection.020 You said acc“he is concerned about those children because they are too young

(.2)tosecidetodecidewhatkindofjobtheywant”.021 So it is related, decbut there'sa fewsentencesherewhere I thought (.2)<QUh

(.2)accmaybesheshouldmovethis.Q>022 T: \Uh‐hmmm\023 P: So (.2)youcaneitherputasentencehere (.2) tomake thatconnectionearlier

(.2)024 \Uh‐hmmm\025 Oryoucanmoveit.OK?026 T: \Oh\027 P: AndthentheparagraphonHashad, Iknowyou justworkedonthat lastweek,

butitneedstobedevelopedjustalittlebitmore.(H)028 And(.2)um(.2)put(.2)youknow(.2)anotherideainthere,andthenyouneed

aconclusionthatsummarizeseverything.(H)Goahead.


029 T: Soconclusionisnotmyopinion.030 P: [Slightlynasalized]Right(.2)justsummarizeit.Uh‐hmmm=031 T: =\Uh‐hmmm\032 P: Yeah(.2)butyouhaveagoodorganization.033 AndsometimesIthinkthat'sthehardestthingfer(.2)ustodo=034 T: =OK.036 P: 'Kdoyouhaveanyquestions?037 T: No.038 P: OK.039 T: Thankyou.040 P: You’rewelcome.

PartOne isdominatedby theexchangeofmaxims thatTracyandPatriciaused todemonstratetheirsharedunderstandingofinstitutionalexpectationsforacademicwriting.PatriciaopenedPartOnewithamonologuesummarizingherimpressionsofTracy’sdraft,whereuponsheintroducedoneproblemtobediscussed.PatriciapresentedherreadingofTracy’s draft in the past tense: “when I saw your essay” (1). Tracy listened quietly, andrespondedwith“uh‐hmms”attheappropriatepausesinPatricia’sdiscourse(lines6&8).

Tracy was silent as Patricia made an “opening statement” (lines 1‐11). Patricia’sfrequent self‐repetition achieved through parallelism is easier to visualize in Figure 1,which shows the reorganization and reanalysis of Patricia’s openingmonologue. “Thing”was repeated twice during these lines, as a link between the opening and closing of themonologue: “the first thing” (line 1) and “the only thing” (line 5). This parallelism alsosignaledachangeintopic.Toparaphrasetheteacher:we’vetalkedaboutthegoodthingsinyourdraft,butIdohaveoneproblemtobringtoyourattention.The phrase containing “agood”was also repeated twice: “a good organization” (line 1) and “a good introduction”(line2).

Figure1.TranscriptwithParallelismHighlighted

a. OKTracywhenIsawyouressayIthought(.2)

b. Ithoughtthefirstthingwas

c. youhaveagood(.2)organization,

d. youhaveagoodintroductionand it's,

e. intermsofthegrammar it's(.2)

f. it's prettygood

g. there'safewmistakeshere that(.2)

h. that Ipointedout

i. andthere'safewmore that(.2)

j. that Ididn'tpointout,

k. but‐um,yourfirstparagraph is verygood

l. ittalksaboutMcHenry,(H)

m. nowtheonlythingthatIwasworriedaboutwas (H)

n. hereyoustarttalkingaboutMorocco.

PAGE|13SAMUELSON

Figure 1 demonstrates how repetitive parallelism can be observed in threeappearances of “it’s,” repeated each timewith a variation in the length of the followingpause.Likewise, “that”wasrepeated fourtimes;contrastingpairsappear in“that…thatIpointedout”versus“that…thatIdidn’tpointout.”Anothercontrastingunitappearedwith“afew”:“there'safewmistakeshere”and“there'safewmore.”

PatriciapraisedTracy’sdraftinvagueterms.Shepronouncedtheorganization,theintroduction, and the grammar all “good” or “pretty good.” She pointed out “a fewmistakes,”butthereare“afewmore”thatshedoesn’tpointout.ShedeclaredTracy’sfirstparagraph“verygood.”Havingestablishedthedraftasagoodpieceofwork,Patriciastatedthatthe“onlything”shewasworriedabouthadtodowiththesubjectofHashad’sroleinthe text. “The only thing” echoed “the first thing” in line b. She did not leave manyopportunitiesforTracytosayanything.

Furthercohesionwasprovided in lines19‐21 through therepetitionof “thought:”“that was my initial thought” and “where I thought”. The contrast provided by thereformulation of “thought” from noun to verb helped to denote the boundaries of theutterance.

Tracy did not seize the chance to speak, but back‐channeled “uh‐hmmm” (lines 6and8).Atline12,shefinallyspoke,makingan“initiationmove”(Cazden,1988,p.65)thatinitiatedaframechange,butshewasinterruptedbyanotherteacherspeakingtoPatricia(lines13‐14).Inlines16‐17,Tracyrepeatedherquestion:“CanIputtheMorocco:situationinto the (.2) this paragraph?” When Patricia answered Tracy’s question, she spoke lesssmoothlythanshehadpreviously,asevidencedinherglottalstopsandhesitationin line18. But she quickly recovered the equilibrium she possessed early and returned to thesmooth,repetitiveflow,thistimepunctuatedbyfortisenunciation(lines19‐21).

Patricia also employed hedges and appeared to minimize her role through herdiscourse: “if you can” (line 9), “and then you can” (line 10), and “a little bit” (line 58).Patricia’suseof“afewmistakes”(line3),and“theonlythingIwasworriedabout”(line5)conveyed amessage that learning towrite awell‐formed essay inEnglishwasnot a bigdeal.Thismayhavebeenanattempttolevelthepowerdynamicbetweenthestudentandtheteacherasrepresentativeoftheinstitution.

Inline21,Patriciaquotedherself:“Oh(.2)maybesheshouldmovethis.”Thisformof self‐ventriloquationmay have a number of purposes. It may have been a face‐savingpresentationalritual,allowingPatriciatorepresentherselfasadedicatedteacherwhohadgiventhedraftalotofthought.OritmayhavebeenevidenceofPatricia’sdiscomfortwithherroleasacriticofherstudents’writing,promptinghertotrytofurtherdistanceherselfthroughself‐quotationfromthedifficultanduncomfortabletaskofrespondingtoadraft.

Tracy back‐channeled in lines 22 and 24, but Patricia dominated the discussionagainuntil theendof line25,whensheconcludedwith,“Oryoucanmoveit,OK?”Tracyechoedsoftlywith“OK”(line26),andPatriciacontinuedonthroughline28.

Thissegmentofthediscussionfiguredprominentlyintherecallinterviewsasakeyeventinthewritingconferencethatshowedwhyithadbeensuccessful.Whilelisteningtotheplaybackofthediscussion,PatriciastoppedthetapeatTracy’squestiononline12andsaid, “See,rightthereTracy’sthinking.Ok,she’sfindinga…Imadeasuggestion,shethought


ofadifferentone.Sothat’swhatIliketoseeiswhentheystartthinkingandmakingtheirownsuggestions.” She focused on the first contribution by Tracy as evidence that Tracy waslearning to think for herself as a writer, and she commented that Tracy seemed to berealizingthatitwaspossibletowritethispassageinadifferentway,andthatshefeltmorecomfortablewith it. Then she offered a qualification: “There’s,youknow,betterways,butsheat leastthoughtofanalternative.” Patricia couldn't rememberwhat Tracy ultimatelyendedupdoing,whethermovingtheparagraphormakingtheconnection.

WhenTracylistenedtothispartofthediscussion,sherecalledthatPatriciawantedherto“changealittlebit”andmovethepartaboutMcHenrytoanearlierpointinherdraft,soherreaderswouldknowthatwhatfollowedwasrelatedtoMcHenry.

In her second initiation move, Tracy reiterated a maxim of writing that wasfrequentlyrepeatedinclass:“soconclusionisnotmyopinion”(line29).Patriciarespondedbysaying“Right,justsummarizeit”(line30),withaslightlynasalized,gravellyvoicethatismarkedly different from her voice quality during the rest of the conference, as if toacknowledgethatshewassayingsomethingthathadbeensaidmanytimesbefore.Bythisstage in the discussion, the two had achieved the highest degree of conversationalcohesivenessthattheywouldreach.TheyagreedonPatricia’smaxim,“Justsummarizeit,”(line30)withasimultaneous“uh‐hmmm”(lines30‐31).InPatricia’snextutterance,“Yeah(.2) but you have a good organization” (line 32), she summarized the discussionwith astatementrepeatedfromtheopeninglinesofPart1(seeline1andlineainFigure1)andalso appealed to institutional expectations for starting an essay with an introduction,anothermaximforwriting.

Patricia’s pronouns provide information about the relationship between thespeakers(Fillmore,1997).Asshesummarizedtheconference,sherepeatedaphrasesheused at the beginning of the conference: “but you have a good organization.” Theconjunction“but”canimplyanegationoftheexpectationspreviouslyexpressed,oritcanindicate a change in topic (Tannen, 1993). In the following line, Patricia used the firstperson plural in what appeared to be a hedge. This move also provides a clue to theparticipantframe(Tannen,1993):“that’sthehardestthingfer(.2)ustodo.”Thiswastheonly instance of the first person plural in this discussion. The hedges continued here inPatricia’suseofapause,andalsointhefirst,andonly,instanceofnon‐mainstream,ratherinformal,pronunciationof“fer.”Inlines32‐33,somecontextualizationcueswerepresentin the social deixis tomitigate the illocutionary force.These expressions of social deixis,together with the hedges, provide further evidence for Patricia’s discomfort with thefootingsshehadtoassumeintheinstitutionalfield.

The firstpartof theconferenceendedaprobe foradditionalquestionsbyPatricia(line36),anegativeresponsefromTracy(line37),afinal“OK”fromPatricia(line38),anexpressionsof thanks fromTracy(line39),andPatricia’sconventional “You’rewelcome”(line40).

PAGE|15SAMUELSON

PartTwo

(2)Part2ofaWritinglabconversationbetweenPatricia(teacher)andTracy(student)aboutTracy’sdraftforbusinesscasewritingassignment041 P: [alittlelater]OK,Tracy.042 T: OKumso(.2)shouldIchangethisparagraph?043 P: Youhavetwooptions.044 Youcaneitherchangeitorjustaddafewsentencestoit.045 T: Tomakethisandthisparagraphrelated.046 P: (H)Yeah(.2)tomakethissectiononMorocco(.3)andthechildrenofMorocco

(.2)relatedtohowMcHenryfeelsaboutthatsituation.047 T: WellactuallyI’mjustlikecompare,comparingthesetwo.048 P: Uh‐huh=049 T: =SoIputlike“however”inthere050 P: Right.051 T: And I put “this is the reason why that McHenry concerned about what

happened.”052 P: OK.(.6)053 [louder]Whatyoucansayis<QHoweverthesituationinMoroccois'different.

>Q054 <QInMoroccothereisnosuchsystemandthisiswhyMcHenryissoconcerned

aboutitQ>(H)055 T: \Hmmm\056 P: Andthenforexample(.2)<Qchildrenovertheageof12arefreetoworkQ>057 T: OhOK.058 P: Okay.SoifyoujustthrowinalittlebitaboutMcHenryherethenitsoundsmore

likeacomparison.059 T: OhOK.060 P: Okay?Anyotherquestions?No?061 T: Thankyou.062 P: You’rewelcome.

Part Two of the discussion occurred several minutes later, after Patricia had

circulated through the computer lab answering the questions of some other students.WhenshereturnedtoTracy,sheusedadiscoursemarker,“OK,Tracy”(line41),toinitiateanewexchange.Tracywasreadywithaquestionregardingherdraft,askingifsheshouldchangeaparagraphinherdraft(line42).PatriciarespondedthatTracyhadtwooptions.

Tracy clarified her question, asserting that she actually meant to compare twopoints:“WellactuallyI’mjustlikecompare,comparingthesetwo”(line47).Shereadsomeofhertexttoshowhowshewastryingtoexpresshercomparison.Patriciaback‐channelled“uh‐huh” (line 48) in response, butTracyproceededwithout allowing a pause. She readsomeofherdraftoutloudtoshowhowshehadalteredhertexttoreflecthergoals(lines49, 51). Patricia continued to back‐channel (line 50). But when Tracy had finished herquestion,Patriciasaid,“OK,”andthenwaitedforanextendedsixsecondsbeforecontinuingwithanotherlengthymonologue.


SheofferedsomesuggestionsforadditionalsentencesforTracy’sdraft,raisingthevolumeof her voice. She suggested thatTracy add an extra clause toherdraft to clarifyMcHenry’sperspectiveonchild labor inMorocco,dictatinga fewsentences toTracyandusing the fortis enunciation she employed earlier while re‐establishing the writingconferenceframe:

(53) Whatyoucansayis<QHoweverthesituationinMoroccois'different.>Q(54) Q<InMorocco there is no such system and this iswhyMcHenry is so concerned

aboutitQ>.(H)

AsTracyback‐channeled“\hmmm\”,Patriciacontinuedwithoutpausing:

(56) Andthenforexample<QChildrenovertheageof12arefreetoworkQ>.

Tracyrespondedtotheseinstructionswith“Oh,OK”(line57).Patriciasummarizedherstatementinline58:“Okay,soifyoujustthrowinalittlebitaboutMcHenryherethenitsoundsmorelikeacomparison.”ThismarkedthelastsubstantivecommentinPart2oftheexchange.Tracylistened,back‐channelled,andresponded,“OhOkay”(line59).Shehadnomorequestions forPatricia.This secondportionof theconferenceended,as the first,with thesame thanksandclosing.Tracy later incorporated these linesverbatim intoherdraft(seeAppendixA,linesw‐x,emphasisadded).

InPart2,Tracyspokeupbecauseshehadbeenencouragedtodoso.Patriciawaseager to encourage her students to talk and demonstrate that they were activelyparticipating in their conferences. But despite these expectations, Tracy’s questionsopening the second part of the conference once again led to a disruption in Patricia’sdiscourse. First, Patricia answered Tracy’s question, telling her she had two choices forimprovingherparagraph.WhenTracypointedoutthatshemeanttocompareparagraphs,andshowedhowshehadalteredhertexttoreflecthergoals,Patriciarespondedwithasix‐second pause, then, speaking in a louder voice, she dictated two sentences for Tracy toadopt. After her second attempt to ask questions and guide the discussion, Tracy onceagainreturnedtoback‐channelinguntiltheendofthediscussion.Discussion

The problem that seems immediately clear upon examination of this transcript, and hasbeen apparent to colleagues who provided peer checks of the analysis, is that theconferencewasnotassuccessfulasPatriciaandTracyclaimedithadbeen.Forboth, thecontributions made by Tracy and the questions she posed seemed to be the mostcompelling evidence that all had gone well. Tracy had participated, unlike some of herclassmateswhose tapes are full ofmonotone responsesmainly of the phatic type—“yes,OK,uh‐huh.” Atthis level,Tracyhadindeedcontributedaquestion,buthowwell,really,did she succeed indirecting the courseof the conversation?BothTracy andPatricia feltthat Tracy’s participation—suggesting a revision to her draft—indicated that theconferencewasasuccess.Theconferencetookplaceinthemiddleofthesemester,sobothwould have had some time to establish the expectations thatwould lead to fewer I‐R‐Eexchanges and more comments and back‐channeling from the student. Although thisconference is an example of ameeting between participantswho are familiarwith each

PAGE|17SAMUELSON

other, the analysis of the discourse raises serious questions about the efficacy of thediscoursetoallowTracytoparticipatetothefullestextentpossible.

It ispossiblethatPatricia’sinitialmonologueandsubsequentresponsestoTracy’squestionscouldbeinterpretedasPatricia“speakingfor”Tracy(Schiffrin,1994),sinceasanEnglishlanguagelearner,Tracydidnotyetpossessfullmasteryofthecode.Indiscussingasimilarmonologue,Sperlinghassuggestedthat“theteacherhadtoworkaroundsilenceinordertokeepuphisendoftheconversation”(1991,pp.145‐146).Rulesforconversationsuggestingthateachparticipanthasan importantroletoplaycanbeseenintheworkofGrice(1975)andSacks,Schegloff,andJefferson(1974).PatriciamayhavebeenattemptingtomaintainherendoftheconversationalcontractwhilemaintainingTracy’sendaswell.Or this explanation may be only part of several simultaneous reasons for her verbalperformanceinlines01‐15.

Her use of the first person plural may have been meant as another way ofexpressing solidarity, perhaps as a fellow writer, to provide some relief from theinstitutional aspects of her role. This mitigation may be glossed as a “good teacher”presentation:“Ididthehardworkofreadingyourdraftandcommentingonit.”PatriciaalsomayhavebeenattemptingtocreatesolidaritywithTracythroughpositivepresentationalrituals, creating positive face for both.Or the solidaritymay be built through her use ofparallelism.

AvoidanceritualsapparentinPatricia’sdiscourseincludetightcohesivenessofheropening paragraph that makes any contribution by Tracy difficult. There were severalplaces where Patricia paused at a clause‐final point, so Tracy had few opportunities tointerrupt. If Tracyhad attempted toquestionor respond to a teacher comment, buthaddoneitnon‐expertly,theresultingpragmaticdisruptionmayhavebeenembarrassingforboth.

BothTracyandPatriciafoundthemselvesondifferentfootingsvis‐à‐viseachother,and this was reflected in the ways they addressed each other. As an outsider bothinstitutionally and culturally, Tracy appeared to operate with a sense of the weight ofPatricia's institutional position. She was aware of the articulated expectations for herinvolvementinthewritingconference.Tracy’sattemptstoshowinvolvementreflectedhersociallysituatedsenseofselfandparticipationas itchangedover time.After listening toPatricia’s opening lines, she attempted to ask a question, thereby switching theconversationfromtheprimarytothesecondaryframe.WhenherattemptstoworkwithintheclassframeprecipitatedadisruptionandrecoverybyPatricia,shefrequentlyresortedtoback‐channeling,butalsotookopportunitiestomakeinitiationmovesthatallowedhertotakethefloor.Onbothoccasionswhensheaskedaquestion,shereceivedanemphaticresponsefromPatricia.Afterthesecondsuchevent,inwhichPatriciadictatedafewlinesforTracytowrite,Tracydidnotaskanymorequestions.

EventhoughshewasafairlyadvancedandconfidentEnglishlearner,Tracydidnotyetpossessfullpragmaticcompetence.Relevancerequiresthatthespeakerleaveimpliciteverythingthatthehearercanbetrustedtosupplywithlesseffortthanwouldbeneededto process an explicit prompt (Sperber&Wilson, 1995). In the ongoing development ofunderstanding during a conversation,material that is repeated can be assumed to have


some specific relevance; shared information can be safely elided. Parallelism focuses oninformationthatthespeakercannotcountonthehearertoknow.Ininstructionalcontextssuch as the writing conference where the interlocutors do not share the same firstlanguage,thisdistinctionseemsespeciallyimportant.Parallelismmarksassumptionsaboutthe lack of shared context, and the need to convey important information; it points tomeaningthatcannotbeleftimplicit.

Thus parallelism has an instructional purpose as a common resource ininstructionaltalk.Intheclassroomcontext,repetitionofthistypecanproviderhythmthatreinforcesgroupsynchrony;itprovidesextratimeforthelistenerstoprocessthemessageand catch up with the group. Teachers use parallelism, including the reformulation ofphrasesintorelatedforms,asawaytogainandholdstudents’attention(Sacksetal.,1974;Scollon,1982).Patriciamaybeusingparallelisminthemannersheisaccustomedtousingit while conducting classes. This analysis reveals theways that a useful strategy in onecontext does not support the instructional goals specific to another context, thewritingconference.Speaking inmaxims does not require the kind of independent thinking thatPatriciawouldliketoinstillinherstudents.

ImplicationsforResearch

This descriptive case study will serve as a pilot for future research that examines howdiscourse resources contribute to the coconstruction of context. The analysis revealstheoreticalquestionsand invites furthercollectionofethnographicdata,but thisattemptofferssuggestionsforhowsuchanapproachmightproceed.Assumingthatthecontextofadiscussion about writing is indexed in the utterances—in the discourse of the writingconferenceitself—thenthespeaking–writingconnectionisarewardingsiteforexaminingthe dynamics of text production and mediation of knowledge about academic writing.FurtherresearchisneededtounderstandthemicrodynamicsofthedominantinterpretiveframeworkbegunbyUlichnyandWatson‐Gegeo(1989).Howdothestructureofschoolingand the distribution of authority create dilemmas and embarrassments for participants?How can these hindrances be mitigated? Can they be effectively addressed in thetraditionalstructureofschooling?Thesequestionspromisearichandfruitfulagendaforfutureresearch.

PAGE|19SAMUELSON

AppendixA:Tracy’sdraft

“ChildLaborintheIndustry”

a. TheInternationalCarpetisarugimporteranddistributorinNewYork.Theb. buyerofthiscompany,Mr.JamesMcHenry,justmadeatentativeagreementwithc. thecarpetmanufacture,SOMARTA,inMorocco.Theiragreementisthatd. McHenry’sfirmisgoingtoprovidewoolforSOMARTAinexchangetheexporte. ofrugtotheWholesalersinNewYork.However,aftervisitingthefactoryinf. Morocco,McHenrywassomehowworriedabouttheuseofchildlaborintheg. SOMARTAfactory.Hesawalotofyoungwomenundertheageoftwelve,h. workingfourorfivetoaloom.McHenrycomesfromAmerica,acountrywhichi. isveryconcernedaboutchildlabor.Thereforehecannothelpbutfeelthattherej. issomethingwrongwiththeworkingageofthechildren.Ontheotherhand,thek. managingdirectorofSOMARTA,Mr.AbdelhadiHachad,isnotsurprisedaboutl. thissituation.Bothofthemhavedifferentpointsofviewtowardtheuseofchildm. labor.Theiropinionscanbeseeninhowtheyviewtheworkingageforchildn. labor.o. Firstofall,McHenryfeelsveryuncomfortablewiththeworkingageofchildren.p. Hethinksthattwelveyearoldkidsaretooyoungtowork.InAmerica,achildq. hastobeagesixteentoworkandaworkingpermitisrequired.Therefore,ther. governmentandtheparentsofthechildrencanclearlyunderstandwhatkindofs. workisgoingtobegiventothesechildren.Thusparentscanhelpthechildrent. decideiftheyshouldacceptthisjob,andparentscantellthemtheconsequencesu. oftakingthejob.Furthermore,theworkingtimeandtheamountoftheworkwillv. alsobeundercontrolsincethepermitwillbesubmittedbythegovernment.w. However,thesituationinMoroccoisdifferent.InMorocco,thereisnosuchx. system.Childrenwhoareoveragetwelvearefreetowork.Theamountandthey. timeoftheworkisnotrestrictedinMorocco.ThisisthereasonwhyMcHenryisz. worriedaboutthesituation.Heisconcernedaboutthosechildrenbecausetheyaa. aretooyoungtodecidewhatkindofjobtheywant.Youngchildrenarenotbb. familiarwiththestyleofthework,thereforeMcHenrythinksthattheyaretoocc. youngtowork.dd. Ontheotherhand,Hachadisnotconcernedaboutchildlabor.Hedoesnotthinkee. thatitisaproblembecausechildlaboriscommoninhiscountry.Childrenneedff. tomakelivingbyworkinginMorocco.ThereforeHashadthinksthereisnothinggg. wrongwiththeworkerswhereasMcHenryisveryworriedaboutit.Besides,hh. Hashadreliesonthemaalemasystemwhichtheyhireolderwomentosuperviseii. thechildren.Hethinksthatmaalemawilltakecareofthechildren.Thushejj. thinksthatthereisnothingtoworriedabout.


AppendixB:TranscriptionKey

, clause‐finalintonation:falling. clause‐finalintonation:risingorfalling? clause‐final:question: elongatedsyllable‐ self‐interruptionwithglottalstop(H) audibleinhalation(E) audibleexhalation<Q…Q> quotation‐likespeech= latchedspeech… longpause(.5) (fivesecond)pause““ quotefromstudentwriting\\ back‐channelingbylistener___ underliningindicatesfortisenunciationacc accelerationofrateofspeechdec decelerationofrateofspeech

PAGE|21SAMUELSON

References

Alvermann,D.E.,Commeyra,M.,Young,J.P.,Randall,S.,&Hinson,D.(1997).Interruptinggendered discursive practices in classroom talk about texts: Easy to think about,difficulttodo.JournalofLiteracyResearch,29,73‐104.

Baxter, J. (2002). Competing discourses in the classroom: A post‐structuralist discourseanalysisofgirls’andboys’speechinpubliccontexts.Discourse&Society,13(6),827‐842.

Bernstein,B.(1996).Pedagogy,symboliccontrol,andidentity.London,UK:Taylor&Francis.

Black,L. J. (1998).Betweentalkandteaching:Reconsideringthewritingconference.Logan:UtahStateUniversityPress.

Cazden,C.(1988).Classroomdiscourse:Thelanguageofteachingandlearning.Portsmouth,NH:Heinemann.

Cazden, C. (2001). Classroomdiscourse:The languageof teachingand learning (2nd ed.).Portsmouth,NH:Heinemann.

Chafe,W.(1980).Thedeploymentofconsciousnessintheproductionofanarrative.InW.Chafe (Ed.),Thepearstories:Cognitiveculturaland linguisticaspectsofanarrativeproduction(pp.9‐50).Norwood,NJ:Ablex.

Chafe,W.(1982).Integrationandinvolvementinspeaking,writing,andoral literature.InD.Tannen(Ed.),Spokenandwrittenlanguage(pp.35‐53).Norwood,NJ:Ablex.

Chafe, W. (1986). Writing in the perspective of speaking. In C. Cooper & S. Greenbaum(Eds.), Studyingwriting:Linguisticapproaches (pp. 12‐39). Beverly Hills, CA: SagePublications.

DiPardo,A.(1994).Stimulatedrecallinresearchonwriting:Anantidoteto"Idon'tknow,itwas fine". In P. Smagorinsky (Ed.), Speakingaboutwriting:Reflectionsonresearchmethodology(pp.163‐181).ThousandOaks,CA:Sage.

Dyson, A. H. (1993). Socialworldsofchildren learning towrite. New York, NY: TeachersCollegePress.

Dyson, A. H. (1994). Viewpoints: The word and the world—reconceptualizing writtenlanguage development or do rainbowsmean a lot to little girls? In R. Ruddell,M.Ruddell & H. Singer (Eds.), Theoreticalmodelsandprocessesof reading (pp. 297‐322).Newark,DE:InternationalReadingAssociation.

Dyson,A.H.(1995).Writingchildren:Reinventingthedevelopmentofchildhoodliteracy.WrittenCommunication,12(1),4‐46.

Dyson,A.H.,&Freedman,S.W. (2003).Writing. In J.Flood, J. Jensen,D.Lapp& J.Squire(Eds.),Handbookof researchon teaching theEnglish languagearts (pp. 967‐992).NewYork,NY:IRA/NCTE.

Dysthe, O. (1996). The multivoiced classroom: Interactions of writing and classroomdiscourse.WrittenCommunication,13,383‐425.


Ellsworth,E. (1989).Whydoesn't this feelempowering?Workingthroughtherepressivemythsofcriticalpedagogy.HarvardEducationalReview,59(3),297‐324.

Erickson,F.,&Mohatt,G. (1988).Culturalorganizationofparticipationstructures in twoclassrooms of Indian students. In G. Spindler (Ed.), Doing the ethnography ofschooling.ProspectHeights,IL:WavelandPress.

Fairclough,N.(1992).Criticallanguageawareness.NewYork,NY:Longman.

Fillmore,C.J.(1997).Lecturesondeixis.Stanford,CA:CSLI.

Freedman,S.W.,&Katz,A.(1987).Pedagogicalinteractionduringthecomposingprocess:The writing conference. In A. Matsuhashi (Ed.), Writing in real time: Modelingproductionprocesses(pp.58‐80).NewYork,NY:AcademicPress.

Gee, J. P. (1999).Anintroductiontodiscourseanalysis:Theoryandmethod. NewYork,NY:Routledge.

Gee, J.P.(2011).Sociallinguisticsandliteracies:Ideologyindiscourses(4thed.).NewYork,NY:Routledge.

Goffman,E.(1961).Encounters:Twostudiesinthesociologyofinteraction.Indianapolis,IN:Bobbs‐Merrill.

Grice,P.(1975).Logicandconversation.InP.Cole&J.Morgan(Eds.),Syntaxandsemantics(Vol.3,pp.41‐58).NewYork,NY:AcademicPress.

Gumperz, J. (1982). Discourse strategies (Vol. 1). New York, NY: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Hanks,W.F.(1996).Languageandcommunicativepractices.Boulder,CO:WestviewPress.

Hawkins,M. (2005). Becoming a student: Identitywork and academic literacies in earlyschooling.TESOLQuarterly,39(1),59‐82.

Heath,S.B.(1983).Wayswithwords.NewYork,NY:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Lea,M., & Street, B. (1998). Studentwriting in higher education: An academic literaciesapproach.StudiesinHigherEducation,23(2),157‐172.

Macbeth, D. (2003). Hugh Mehan’s learning lessons reconsidered: On the differencesbetween the naturalistic and critical analysis of classroom discourse. AmericanEducationalResearchJournal,40(1),239‐280.

Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons:Socialorganization intheclassroom. Cambridge, MA:HarvardUniversityPress.

Mehan, H. (1992). Understanding inequality in schools: The contribution of interpretivestudies.SociologyofEducation,65(1),1‐20.

Mehan,H. (1994).The roleofdiscourse in learning, schooling, and reform. InB.McLeod(Ed.), Languageand learning:Educating linguisticallydiverse students (pp. 71‐96).Albany,NY:SUNYPress.

New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures.HarvardEducationalReview,66(1),60‐92.

PAGE|23SAMUELSON

Newkirk, T. (1995). The writing conference as performance.Research intheTeachingofEnglish,29(2),193‐215.

Reder,S. (1994).Practiceengagementtheory:Asocioculturalapproachto literacyacrosslanguagesandcultures.InB.Ferdman,R.Weber&A.Ramirez(Eds.),Literacyacrosslanguagesandcultures(pp.33‐74).Albany,NY:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress.

Sacks,H.,Schegloff,E.,&Jefferson,G.(1974).Asimplestsystematicsfortheorganizationofturn‐takinginconversation.Language,50,696‐735.

Schiffrin,D.(1994).Approachestodiscourse(2nded.).NewYork,NY:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Scollon, R. (Ed.). (1982). The rhythmic integration of ordinary talk. Washington, DC:GeorgetownUniversityPress.

Sperber,D.,&Wilson,D.(1995).Relevance,communication,andcognition(2nded.).Oxford,UK:Blackwell.

Sperling, M. (1988). The writing conference as a collaborative literacy event. (doctoraldissertation),UniversityofCalifornia,Berkeley,CA.

Sperling,M. (1990). Iwant to talk toeachofyou:Collaborationand the teacher–studentwritingconference.ResearchintheTeachingofEnglish,24(3),279‐321.

Sperling,M.(1991).Dialoguesofdeliberation:Conversationintheteacher–studentwritingconference.WrittenCommunication,8(2),131‐162.

Sperling,M.(1992).In‐classwritingconferences.EnglishJournal,81(4),65‐71.

Sperling,M.(1996).Revisitingthewriting–speakingconnection:Challengesforresearchonwritingandwritinginstruction.ReviewofEducationalResearch,66(1),53‐86.

Sperling,M.,&Freedman,S.W.(1987).Agoodgirlwriteslikeagoodgirl:Writtenresponsetostudentwriting.WrittenCommunication,4,343‐369.

Sperling, M., & Freedman, S. W. (2001). Research on writing. In V. Richardson (Ed.),Handbookofresearchonteaching(4thed.,pp.370‐389).Washington,DC:AmericanEducationalResearchAssociation.

Street,B. (1993). Introduction:Thenew literacy studies. InB. Street (Ed.),Cross‐culturalapproachestoliteracy(pp.1‐23).NewYork,NY:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Street, B. (1999). Academic literacies. In C. Jones, J. Turner & B. Street (Eds.), Studentswriting in theuniversity:Culturalandepistemological issues (Vol. 8, pp. 193‐227).Philadelphia,PA:JohnBenjamins.

Tannen,D.(1984).Conversationalstyle:Analyzingtalkamongfriends.Norwood,NJ:Ablex.

Tannen,D. (1987).Repetition inconversation:Towardapoeticsof talk.Language,63(3),575‐605.

Tannen,D.(1993).What'sinaframe?Surfaceevidenceforunderlyingexpectations.InD.Tannen (Ed.), Framing indiscourse (pp. 14‐56). New York, NY: Oxford UniversityPress.


Tannen,D.,&Wallat,C.(1993).Interactiveframesandknowledgeschemasininteraction:Examples from a medical examination/interview. In D. Tannen (Ed.), Framing indiscourse(pp.57‐76).NewYork,NY:OxfordUniversityPress.

Ulichny, P., & Watson‐Gegeo, K. (1989). Interactions and authority: The dominantinterpretiveframeworkinwritingconferences.DiscourseProcesses,12,309‐328.

PAGE|25

“Actually,that’snotreallyhowIimaginedit”:Children’sdivergentdispositions,identities,andpracticesin

digitalproduction

BethBuchholz

Abstract

Thiscasestudyexplorestherangeofsocialanddigitalliteracypracticesinwhichagroupof4thto6thgradestudentsengagedwhilecollaborativelycreatingdigitalbooktrailers—one‐totwo-minute digital videos designed to entice classmates to read a particular book. Theresearchquestionframingthisworkishowdothesechildren’swaysofknowingandbeingintheworld impact theirmultimodalproductionprocesses?Fine‐grainedmultimodalanalysiswascombinedwithretrospectivethink‐aloudsandethnographicfieldworktouncovertracesofpracticethatweresedimentedintheirdigitaltexts.Theanalysishighlightstheimportanceof developingmethodological tools for studying digital composition processes, given thatmuch of the research in this area has focused on analyzing the final products usingmultimodalcontentanalysis.Thefindingsrevealdivergentpracticesaroundimageselectionandrepresentationthatsuggestcontrastingetheaofremixingculture. Implications includeconsidering the visual arts as a potential entry point for supporting students’ criticalengagementinthedigitalworld.

Introduction(NarrativeVignette)

Fourupper‐elementary‐aged children sit around a large table eating lunch; three of themgazeupatthelargescreen,eagerlywaitingfortheimagesfromthedigitalbooktrailertheyhavecreatedtogethertoappearandthemysteriousmusictoeerily filltheotherwiseemptyclassroom.Luna, inherusualblack sweatshirtadornedwith self‐drawnmystical creaturesandbitsof fabric sewnon,gazesdownatapartlydrawn imageofadragononapieceofnotebookpaperinherlap.Herknottedhair—akindofbird’snest—hasbitsofshells,beads,string,and twigspokingoutatallangles.She eatswithher lefthand so she can continuedrawingwith her right. Once themusic begins, Luna turns her gaze upward toward thescreenbutneverletsgoofherpen.

Thestudents’collaborativelycomposeddigitaltrailerforthebookFablehaven(Mull,2007)openswiththeimageofalushlywoodedforest(seeFigure1).Sunlightpeeksthroughtheleavesofthetreeswhileaslightmistrisesfromtheforestfloor.Inthecenteroftheimagesits a gatewith a small sign that says “Private”; a deterioratingwooden sign on the leftreinforcesthiswiththewords“PrivateProperty.”Aslightlywornpathleadsviewers’eyestothe gate and eventually to the sprawling title “Fablehaven,”written in the same vaguelycalligraphic font thatadorns thecoverof thebook.Thechildren launch intoexplaining thedesignconsiderationsthatwentintoselectingthisparticularimage:

Sam: Because that's thegate toFablehaven!…Andalsobecause… Iwas lookingatFablehavenpictures [online] atmyhouseand Iwas findingpicturesofactors tobe

“ACTUALLY,THAT’SNOTREALLYHOWIIMAGINEDIT”PAGE|26

Fablehavenactors in themovie,whichmightcomeout soon. I'mreallyhappyaboutthat.And then I typed inFablehaven toseewhatwouldcomeup—toseepicturesofcharacters.And this cameup.And so Iwas like, “Ohmy gosh!”And then they [theteachers]werelike,“We'regoingtomakebooktrailers,”andIwaslike,“Ohmygosh,weneedthis!”

Luna:[looksupfromthedragondrawinginherlap]Although,that'snotreallyhowIimaginedit.

Figure1.Openingimageinchildren’sdigitalbooktrailer.

ThisshortexchangebetweenSamandLuna—twochildrenatoddsoveramodalchoiceinthis digital book trailer—serves as a frame for the subsequent argument and analysispresentedinthispaper.Digitaltexts,suchasthisFablehavenbooktrailer,arearichsourceof data due to themultitude ofmodal choices children have tomake (e.g., images, text,voiceovers,music, sounds) during themeaning‐making process (Kress, 1997; Rowsell &Pahl,2007).Byexploringchildren’smultimodalchoices,onecanbegintounderstandhowsuchdesigndecisions are always situatedwithin the creator’s beliefs (Sanders&Albers,2010).Thus, thedisagreementover thisparticularFablehaven imagehintsatLuna’s andSam’s interests, histories, and identitieswithin school aswell as thoseoutsideof school.Takinganethnographiccasestudyapproach,thispapercombinesfine‐grainedmultimodalanalysiswithretrospectivethink‐aloudstopositionthebooktrailerasawindowintotheyoung digital composers’ design thinking. The researchquestion framing thisworkwas:Howdothesechildren’swaysofknowingandbeingintheworldimpacttheirmultimodalproductionprocesses?

PAGE|27BUCHHOLZ

LiteratureReview

NewFormsofComposing

In aWeb 2.0world, notions ofwriting and composing continue to evolve as technologybecomes a ubiquitous part of how people make sense of and meaning in the world.Traditionalviewsofauthorshipenvisionedawriterworkingalone,withpaperandpencil,composinganoriginalpieceofwriting imbuedwithhis/herownvoice(Lensmire,1994).Within this print‐centric, monomodal paradigm, schools have historically valued genressuchasthefive‐paragraphessay,theresearchpaper,andliteraryanalysisasencompassingthekindsofcompositionalskillsthatstudentsneedtobesuccessfulbeyondschool.Whileprinthasbeenthevaluedmodeofexpressionandinstructioninschools,recentadvancesintechnology are shifting notions of composition for English educators (Miller, 2007). Theliteracy practices needed for functioning in the world are rapidly transforming andbecomingmorecomplex(Leu,2002).

The school’s vision of print‐centric composition stands in stark juxtaposition tochildren’s everyday experiences with digitally mediated, multimodal composing eventsoutside of school (e.g., texting a friend, designing a blog, posting Facebook updates,tweeting a link, creating a meme, remixing a YouTube video). This disconnect betweeneveryday engagement in digitally mediated spaces and classroom literacy experiencesoftenmakeschoolfeel“outofsync”formanychildren(Sheridan&Rowsell,2010,p.5).Inchildren’s everyday lives, print is intertwined withother modes such as images, video,audio, andmusic to represent complexmeanings. As newdigital affordances change theway children play, think, live, and communicate in everyday life, best practices in theclassroom are being reconsidered to include themultimodal and interactive experiencesthatdefinehowchildrenconsumeandproducemediaoutsideof school (Jewitt,Kress,&Mavers,2009).

Digitalvideoproductionisjustoneformofmultimodalcomposingthathasreceivedincreasedinterestfromteachersandresearchersasschoolshaveinvestedfinanciallyinthenecessary technology (video cameras, video editing software, tablets, laptops). Withindigital video production, previous research has documented multiple forms: live action(documentary style, fictional dramas), puppetry, still image (with voiceovers and/ormusic),andanimation.However,despitethestrongbodyofresearchemerginginrelationtovideoproductionandmiddleschoolandsecondarystudents(e.g.,Bruce,2009;Doering,Beach,&O’Brien,2007;Hull&Katz,2006;Itoetal.,2009;Kajder,2008),therecontinuestobemuch lessresearch inelementaryandearlychildhoodcontexts(Marsh,2006;Ranker,2008;Wohlwend,Buchholz,Wessel‐Powell,Coggin,&Husbye,2013).Thisresearchstudyfillsagapintheresearchbyexploringthecomposingdecisionsanddesignlogics(Sheridan&Rowsell,2010)thatguideyoungdigital‐videoproducers.Byusingethnography,thiscasestudygoesbeyondthemultimodalartifacttoexplorethedispositions,identities,andlogicsthatguideyoungerchildrenduringthedigitalproductionprocess.


ComposingasSign‐Making

Whenstudentscomposeanytext,theyarepositionedassign‐makers(Kress,1997).Sign‐making (e.g.,writing anessay, composingadigital video,drawinga cartoon) is alwaysaprocess of actively remixing and remaking the cultural resources available—from homeandschool—tocreaterepresentationsmotivatedby theguidelinesofaparticularprojectaswell thestudents’own interests.Kress’s (1997) theoryof themotivatedsignsuggeststhatitispossibletoexplorestudents’signsastransformationsoftheresourcesthatwereavailable to them, made in light of their interests. In other words, even when studentscreate texts forprescribedschoolassignments, thesigns (texts) theyproducearealwayscreatedinlightoftheirinterests,culturalhistories,andsubjectivities(Kress,1997).Sign‐makingisalwaysapersonalprocess,evenwhenthecontent/topicisnotovertlypersonal.

Multimodal texts are considered “denser” than monomodal compositions; eachadditionalmodeaddsalayerofcomplexitythatallowsforamorecompleteexpressionofthe child’s habitus (Bourdieu, 1990). Roswell and Pahl (2007) unpack Kress’s (1997)conceptofthe“interestofthesign‐maker”byassertingthatinterestisthechild’sidentityinpractice,whichcanbetracedbacktothewaysofdoingandbeingintheworld.Withinthistheoretical framing, modal choices are always laden with ideologies, and “once theseelementsareconsidered,digitalstorytellinggetsmorecomplex”(Pahl&Roswell,2010,p.109). Even the simplest forms of video production are an especially rich source of databecauseofthemultitudeofmodalchoicescreatorshavetomakeconcerningimages,text,andsounds.EachmodaldecisionembedswhatRowsell&Pahl(2007)callsfractalbitsofhabitus in the final text. When creating multimodal texts, creators “sediment”(subconsciouslyandperhapsevenconsciously)fundamentalaspectsoftheiridentitiesintotexts.

Thisstudyexploressimpledigitalvideoproduction—specificallybooktrailers(1‐2minutevideosaimedatenticingviewerstoreadaparticularbook)—asoneofmanyofthenewdomainsofmultimodalcompositionthathavegainedinclusioninEnglishclassroomsover the last decade (Blondell, 2009; Costello, 2010; Doering, Beach, & O’Brien, 2007;Kajder, 2006;Miller, 2007). In effect, the book trailer project is an invitation to includeremixing—the process of taking available cultural artifacts and combining andmanipulating them to create newmeaning (Knoebel& Lankshear, 2008)—aspart of theofficialschoolcurriculum.Remixingisahighlyvaluedcompositionalpracticeintheworldoutsideofschool(e.g.,fanfiction,musicsampling,YouTubevideos);however,classrooms’notionsofplagiarismandoriginality complicate the inclusionof remixingasa legitimatecomposing practice. Because of tensions around originality and narrow visions of whatchildren are capable of, little is known about how children’s identities, histories, anddispositionsshapetheirremixingpracticesanddesignlogics.

Forexample,howdochildrensearchforrelevantcontentonline?Whatdochildrenconsider whenmakingmodal decisions? Previous research in the fields of instructionaltechnology and library science has explored how children use Internet search engines(Bilal, 2005; Foss et al., 2012; Jochmann‐Mannak,Huibers, Lentz, & Sanders, 2010), butthese studies often take simplisticmethodological approaches that remove the personalcontextthatmakesdigitalremixingprojectssucharichsiteforexploration.Thesestudieshavelookedtogeneralizehowchildrensearchfortextualinformationonline,whereasthe

PAGE|29BUCHHOLZ

present paper situates searching online and selecting relevant content as a complex,personalprocessrelatedtoidentityworkaswellashabitus.

Methodology

This paper draws on extended ethnographic work in a multiage classroom located in apublicschoolinamidsizedMidwesterntown.Asaparticipantobserver,Ispenttwoyearsengaged with 57 students (ages 5 to 12 years old) and their two teachers, exploringliteracy‐related learning and engagements. I worked with teachers to understand thiscomplexclassroomcommunity.Weconsistentlysharedreflections,insights,andquestionsaboutparticularstudentsorcurricularengagements.Icollecteddatatwomorningsaweek,audio‐recordedwhole‐classandsmall‐group talkduringclassroom literacyengagements,and took “quite thick” fieldnotes (Carspecken, 1996). Rowsell (2012) argues thatethnography is a critical component to multimodal analysis, because students’ culturalhistoriesandidentitiesarecriticalinshapingdesigndecisions:

Thesehistories,however,canonlybeunderstoodthroughamediumsuchasethnography,whichisaboutfindingcontext,aboutproviding“thickdescription”andalayeredcontextualaccountofhowchoicesweremadeandinwhatcontext,andaboutthehistoryofthesignmaker.(p.106)

Ethnographic fieldworkprovidedarichcontext inwhich tosituateandexplorestudents’artifacts,designpractices,andwaysofbeingintheworld(Grenfelletal.,2012).

Participants

ThiscasestudyfocusesonagroupofstudentswhocreatedtrailersforthebookFablehaven(Mull, 2007)—the first book in the New York Times's best‐selling children's literaturefantasyseries.ThegroupmembersincludedMegan(4thgrade),Luna(4thgrade),Paul(4thgrade),andSam(5thgrade;allnamesarepseudonyms inaccordancewith IRBprotocol).Afterthefirstdayofdiscussingthegeneralstorylineandsearchingforimagesonline,Lunaand Megan broke off and began working on a separate trailer for the same book. Thisbecameasecondary,unfinishedsideprojectofsorts;thegirlseventuallyrejoinedSamandPaulafewdayslatertocompletetheoriginalbooktrailerthattheycollectivelysharedwiththeclass.LunaandMegannevermentionedorsharedtheirseparatebooktrailerpublicly.

DataSources

Digitalbooktrailers

Book trailers are an updated and tech‐savvy form of the “book talk” (Chambers, 1985),which has been a familiar practice in literacy classrooms for decades (Gunter & Kenny,2008; Kajder, 2008). Book trailers are based on the trailers that advertise upcomingfeaturefilmsinmovietheatersandontelevision,andhavestrongconnectionsbeyondtheclassroom; major book publishing companies have recently turned to thesemovie‐stylebooktrailersasawaytopromotenewbooksinacrowdedmarketplacetoreaderswhoareincreasingly communicating online. In this research setting, children worked in smallgroups to locate imagesandmusiconline that representedabook theyhad just finished


readinginclass.Thesevisualandmusicalmodeswerecombinedusingsimplevideoeditingsoftware.

Prior to this digital video project, children in this classroom primarily usedPowerPoint,Word,andMicrosoftPaintsoftwarefordigitalcomposinganddesigning.Somechildren in the class had created digitalmovies at home as part of independent inquiryprojects, but the book trailer project was the first official class project where all of thestudents were asked to multimodally compose a text using video software. The trailerformatwasfamiliarenoughtochildrenthattheywereabletodrawonexplicitandimplicitout‐of‐schoolknowledgeabouteffectivecommunication invideo.Priorresearchsuggeststhat using familiar genres for digital video composing (e.g., commercials, music videos,movietrailers)createsstrongconnectionsbetweenschoolandthemedia‐richexperiencesandpracticesthatstudentsengageinoutsideofschool(Miller,2007).

Thispaper focuseson the twodigitalbook trailers thatchildrencreatedbasedonthebookFablehaven (seeTable1foranoverviewofthetwogroupsandtheirrespectivebook trailers). Reading across the book trailers offered a unique opportunity to usecomparative analysis to better understand students’ divergent compositional choiceswithinandacrossmodes.Ofparticularinterestwasthefactthatbothgroupshadaccesstothesamesetoftoolsandresources(e.g.,thebook,classroomcomputers,voicerecorders,software, the Internet, previous group Literature Circle conversations), and yet the twobook trailer groups reflected divergent production practices and logics, as well asrepresentations.

Retrospectiveinterviews

Post‐productioninterviewswereconductedwiththegroupmemberstobetterunderstandtheir design considerations and logics while composing the digital book trailer. Bruce(2009)argues for the importanceofdevelopingmethodological tools for studyingdigitalcompositionprocesses,giventhatmuchoftheresearchinthisareahasfocusedentirelyonanalyzing the final products using multimodal content analysis. In his video productionworkwith high school students, Bruce (2009) used think‐alouds in two different ways:concurrentlyandretrospectively.WhileBrucecitestheconcurrentthink‐aloudsasoffering

Group Participants(&Grade)

GroupLeader

BookTrailerDetails

VideoLength

A Sam(5th)Paul(4th)

Sam Image(8frames)Print(2frames)MusicVoiceTransitions

29seconds

B Luna(4th)Megan(4th)

Luna Image(4frames)Print(2frames)MusicTransitions

18seconds(unfinished)

Table1:FocalParticipantsandBookTrailerOverview

PAGE|31BUCHHOLZ

apotentiallyrichdatasource,hediscoveredthatstudents found it logistically frustratingandoften forgot todo italtogether.Theretrospectivethink‐alouds,wherestudentswereaudiotaped as they watched their finished movie for the first time and discussedevaluationsoftheprocessaswellastheartifact,wereamorereliabletool.

Forthisstudy,arevisedversionoftheretrospectivethink‐aloudwasdevelopedtogather data with children that could be used to explore the multimodal analyses morecompletely (seeAppendixA for the complete version of the revised retrospective think‐aloud heuristic based on thework of Bruce, 2009). All fourmembers of theFablehavengroupwereinvitedtoeatlunchintheclassroom(thescenefromtheopeningvignette)todiscussthebooktrailer(s)andthedesignprocess.Theseconversationswerevideotaped,and a transcriptwas created for analytical purposes. The retrospective think‐aloudwasinitiated by playing the group’s book trailer from beginning to end. Although studentsmadeinformalcomments(e.g.,“That’ssocreepy!”),Ididnotaskspecificquestions,nordidIpausethevideo.Ithenreplayedthetrailer,thistimepausingoneachimagesostudentscouldtalk.Althoughopenconversationwasinvited,theheuristicwasdevelopedaheadoftimetomoresystematicallyprobeforbackgroundinformationanddesignconsiderations.Ifocused heavily on images in this retrospective think‐aloud as a way to explore thecomplexities and patterns within the visual mode that might not be evident to viewers(includingtheresearcher).Someoftheprobingquestionsincluded:

1. Describe the image.Who/what is this?Why thisparticular image?Whatwere youtryingtoshowtheaudience?

2. History/location of the image.Howdidyoufindthisimage?Doyourememberwhatsearchtermsyouused?Hadyouseenthisimagebefore?

3. Choices.Arethereotherimagesthatyouwishyouhadfoundorincluded?Weretherethings that you looked forbut couldn’t find?Didyou intentionally leaveout certainimages?

After discussing each image, the trailerwas played additional times to invite talk aboutother modal decisions, as well as inviting a holistic look at the trailer design andproduction.

Analysis

FirstLayer:MultimodalMicroanalysis

Thefirstlayerofanalysisfocusedonanalyzingthebooktrailermultimodally.Multimodalcomposition isconsideredaprocessof “braiding” (Mitchell,2004)and“orchestration”ofmultiple modes of meaning (Kress & van Leeuwen, 2001), and analysis attempts tounderstand the particular logics of organization and respective meaning‐makingaffordances of different modalities. The book trailers can be considered “manageablymultimodal” (Hull & Nelson, 2005) due to their lack of animation and slick transitions,which facilitates the “unbraiding” process. Each mode was pulled apart—spoken word(voiceovers),images,music,print,andtransitions—bycreatingavisualtranscript.HullandNelson(2005)suggestthatthistranscriptionprocessisachallengingbutnecessarystepinmultimodalinvestigations:


Onemustinventawaytographicallydepictthewords,pictures,andsoforththatarecopresentedinthepieceatanygivenmoment.Theformthetranscriptionschemetakeswillbedictatedtoagreatextentbytherespectivematerialitiesandaffordancesofthefocalmodes.(p.235)

IadoptedatranscriptionstylesimilartoHullandNelson’s(2005)horizontaltimeline,or“parallelpresentation” format.For thebooktrailers thereweresixmodal tracks:1) timecode, 2) actual image, 3) written text, 4) description of the image, 5) music/soundeffects/voiceover,and6)transitions.Ilateraddedfieldnotesandretrospectivethink‐alouddata.(SeeAppendixBforhorizontaltimelinesofbooktrailer.)

Thehorizontaltranscriptswereanalyzedforsalientpatterns—lookingforemergingpatterns within each mode as well as identifiable patterns across modalities. Analyzingmultimodal texts is complexwork, given thatmultimodality cannot be thought of as an“additiveart”wherebymeaningisstackedupwitheachnewmodethatisaddedtoapiece.Hull andNelson (2005) refer tomultimodal textsasa formof “semiotic tapestry”wherestudentscraftmeaning“notmerelyinbutalsoinbetweenthewarpandtheweft”(p.239).Particular attention was given to the types of meaning conveyed within each semioticmode; in other words, I looked at how the children managed the affordances of thedifferent modalities available to them. The image and music modes were of particularinterest, based on fieldnotes that indicated students spent most of their time workingwithinandacrossthesetwomodes.

SecondLayer:RetrospectiveThink‐Alouds

For thesecond layerofanalysis,a retrospective think‐aloudwas conductedwithall fourgroupmemberstogether. ItwasherethatLunaandMeganfirstexpresseddissatisfactionwith the “group’s” book trailer and began contrasting it with a book trailer they hadworked on separately. I transcribed the retrospective think–aloud conversations andengaged in rich description, recursive, and iterative analyses, discerning themes andpatterns in the data.Whilemany interesting patterns emerged thatwill be discussed atlength furtheron, the insight that frames theanalyticaldirectionof thispapergaveclearevidence that Luna and Megan’s Fablehavenbook trailer was a significantly developedmultimodalartifactthatneededtobeanalyzedinrelationtotheonethatSamandPaulhadpredominantlycontrolled:

Paul:…wehadliketwocomputers.MeandSamwereworkingonone…Megan:Well,meandLunawerekindofdoingonetogether,buttheyfinisheditfirstsotheygottodo[share]theirs.Researcher:Sowhowasworkingtogether?Megan:MeandLuna.

Givenlimitedtimeforthisclassroomproject,LunaandMeganendedupabandoningtheirseparatebooktrailerafterafewdaysandjoinedbacktogetherwithSamandPaulsotheywouldhaveafinishedpiecetosharewiththeclass.Theboyswerebasicallyfinishedwiththetraileratthispoint,soLunaandMegandidnothavesignificantinputintoanypartofthe design. Having two book trailers to read across offereda unique opportunity to usecomparativeanalysis tobetterunderstandchildren’sdivergentchoiceswithinandacrossmodesaswellascontrastinglogicsanddispositions.

PAGE|33BUCHHOLZ

LunaandMeganofferedacopyoftheirbooktrailerwiththecaveatthatit“wasn’tquite finished.”Thisbooktrailerwastranscribedusingthesamehorizontal transcriptionformatpreviouslydiscussed(seeAppendixB).Twoadditional retrospective think‐aloudswerealsoconducted:onewithSamandPaul,andanotherwithLunaandMegan(viewingandtalkingabouttheirownbooktrailersrespectively).Workingwithpairsofstudentswasmore productive in that it invited all students to have a more significant voice in theconversation.Intheinitialthink‐aloudsessionwithallfourgroupmembers,PaulandSamdominatedintermsofnumberofturnsattalk.Eachsessionwastranscribed,andrecursiveanditerativeanalyseswereusedtodiscernthemesandpatternsinthedata.Quantitativemeasures,suchasthenumberofturnsattalk,aswellaslanguagesuggestingownershipofspecific design decisions, suggested that Sam and Luna were the leaders within theirrespective groups. Questions often arose during the transcription and coding processes,and my extended placement in the classroom allowed me to engage in informalconversations with students related to these questions. The quantitative indicators ofleadership (i.e., Sam and Luna) mirrored qualitative ethnographic fieldnotes collectedacrosstwoyearsofworkingwiththesechildren.

Findings

We now return to the opening vignette—Luna expressing disagreement over the imagethatSamhadchosentoopenthebooktrailer—locatingthisasaplaceinthedatatobegindemonstrating how multimodal microanalysis was used in conjunction with theretrospective think‐alouds to identify traces of students’ sedimented identities,dispositions,andlogicswithinthebooktrailers.

Sam’sexplanationofhisimageselectionprocesssuggeststhathecalleduponout‐of‐schooldigital literacypracticesduringthebooktrailercomposingprocess.Hereferencedpreviouslysearchingforonlineimagesathomerelatedtothebook,andconsideringactorsandactressesforapotentialmovieversionofthebook(i.e.,a“dreamcast”).HeexpectedGoogle and YouTube to be sites of media convergence (Jenkins, 2006), where bits oftransmedia storytelling would offer sites of continued engagement with the ideas andfantasyworldofferedthroughtheprintversionofFablehaven.Thisflexibilityanddesiretomove between print and digitalworlds fits closelywith Prensky’s (2001) description of“DigitalNatives”:“[they]havespenttheirentirelivessurroundedbyandusingcomputers,videogames,digitalmusicplayers,videocams,cellphones,andalltheothertoysandtoolsof thedigital age” (p. 1). For Sam, readingwas an experience that also involvedplaying,talking,watching,searching,browsing,andcreating.The“screen”wasacriticalpieceofthereadingprocess,evenwhenhewasreadingatraditionalprintedbookaspartofaschoolassignment.Luna,ontheotherhand,offersanemphaticrejectionoftheimage—“Actually,that'snotreallyhowIimaginedit”—essentiallyquestioningnotonlySam’s interpretation,butalsothe“official” interpretationofthetextasexpressedthroughtransmediareleasedbythepublisher(http://brandonmull.com/fablehaven/).Lunabroughtaverydifferentsetof identitiesandliteracypracticestothemultimodalcomposingprocess—onesthatwereatoddswiththesensibilitiesthatSam’sidentitiesoffered.

Throughouttheirrespectiveretrospectivethink‐alouds,SamandLunabothreferredtoout‐of‐schoolpractices and interestswhendiscussing theirmodaldecisions.Tracesof


identitiesandsocialpracticescanbeidentifiedinbothtrailers,basedonRowsellandPahl’s(2007)thesisthat“textmakingisaprocessinvolvingthesedimentationof identitiesintothetext,whichcanbeseenasanartifactthatreflects,throughitsmateriality,thepreviousidentitiesofthemeaningmaker”(p.388).Lookingacrossthemovies, itisclearthisbooktrailer project was about much more than the official schooled task of multimodallyrepresenting the book Fablehaven; it was a process infused with personal investmentwhereby “fractal parts of practice together with identity, [were] embedded, shard‐like,withinthedigitalstory”(p.94).Thesubsequentsectionsofferan in‐depthexplorationofeach student, identifying their different identities, dispositions, and social practices byplacingthedigitalbooktrailersalongsidestoriesofproduction.

TheDisagreement:Officialvs.Unofficial

Luna’sdisagreementwithSamandPaul’simageselectionhintedataclashofpracticesandidentitiesasshewentontodescribewhatshehadvisualized:

Megan:WellitISthegateto...

Researcher:SoLuna,howdidyouimagineit?

Luna:Well,haveyoueverbeenlike,drivingonacountryroadandyouseethisgravelpathgoingup…anditsaysprivate…Justkindofsomething…kindoflikethatandthenIimagineithavingagateonit…

Figure 2. Sam’s opening image (frame #1) compared to official cover of thebook(frame#10).

MeganandSambothinsistedthatthiswas“thegatetoFablehaven”despitetheimagenotbeingexplicitlyconnectedtothebookitself(i.e.,theimagewasnotonthecoverorinanyofthe books in the series). Notice that they did not say that it “looks like the gate toFablehaven”butrather“thisisthegatetoFablehaven.”Therewasasensethatthisimage(see Figure 2, frame 1) was “official” even though the children couldn’t identify exactlywhatwebsitethisimagecamefromorwhocreatedit.Itwasimbuedwithofficialstatusfortwomainreasons:1)SamfounditusingaGoogleimagesearchfortheterm“Fablehaven,”and2)theimagelookedartisticallysimilartotheillustrationonthecoverofthebook(seeFigure2,frame10).Notonlyarethecolorsfairlysimilar,butbothimagesalsousethesamefont for the large “Fablehaven” title. Although students didn’t mention these aesthetic

PAGE|35BUCHHOLZ

connectionsexplicitly,hadtheimagelookedlesssimilartothebookcover,itsofficialstatuswould have beenmore in question.1With the image imbuedwith the official stamp of aGoogleImagesearchandappearingsovisuallysimilartotheofficialcoverillustration,itisquiteremarkablethatLunawaswillingtosay,“that’snotreallyhowIimaginedit.”Takinga closer look at Luna’s book trailer revealed traces of practices andhabitus that helpusbetterunderstandherwillingnesstoresisttheofficialnarrativeproposedbySam.

Sam:TheDigitalExpert

During the initial layer of multimodal microanalysis, it was difficult to discern patternsfromtheimagesthatSamandPaulselectedfortheirbooktrailer(seeFigure3).

Figure3.StoryboardofSam’sbooktrailer(twoframesoftext;eightimages;29secondslong).

Therewereplentyofmultimodalelementstoattendto(e.g.,colors,imageplacement,gaze,linedirection,quality),butwithoutknowingwhat theboysattended to, it feltas if Iwasattaching my own meaning to the selection process. While some looked to be officialimagesassociatedwiththebook(frames1,3,5,and10),otherslookedtobehanddrawn.Itwasonlythroughtheretrospectivethink‐aloudthatthehistoriesandintentionsbehindtheselectionoftheseparticularimagesweremadeevident.Asthebooktrailerwaspausedoneachoftheeightimages,SamwasabletodescribetheexactGoogleImagesearchtermsheused to locate the images. The search terms included “Fablehaven,” “Fablehaven house,”

1BecauseSamreliedonGoogleImagesearches,hewasn’tawaretheimageinquestioniswhatfirstgreetsviewersuponentering“TheFablehavenPreserve,”aninteractivewebsite(http://brandonmull.com/fablehaven/preserve/),whichisasmallportionofauthorBrandonMull’smuchlargersite.Inthe“TheFablehavenPreserve”usersmoveafluttering‐wingedfairyaround—insteadofthetypicalarrow‐shapedcursor—toplaygames,“paint”pictures,anddownloadofficialimagesfrombooks(desktops,avatars,andscreensavers).Oneofthepossibledesktopdownloadsincludestheimage(#1)thatSamandPaulselectedtobeginthebooktrailer.AlthoughSamdidnotdownloadtheimagefrom“TheFablehavenPreserve”(norknowaboutitsexistence),itisimportanttonotethattheimageitselfispartoftheofficiallylicensedmediacreatedforMull’sFablehavenseries.


“Fablehavencharacters,” “Fablehaven fairies,”and“FablehavenHugo.”Everysearch termstartedwiththetitleofthebook.Oncetheimagesforaparticularsearchcameup,SamandPauldescribedscanningthroughthefirstfewrowsofpotentialimagesanddiscussingwhatseemed to best represent the character or scene. They could instantly identify that thehouse(frame#3),fairysittingontopoftheflower(frame#5),andbookcover(frame#10)wereallofficial imagesof theFablehaven series (i.e., these imageswere found inside thebooksoronthecoversofbooksintheseries).SamandPaulweren’tsurewhohadmadethe other images, but they were in agreement that these images were based on theFablehavenbookandmatchedhowtheyvisualizedthecharacterswhilereading.

When Sam finished reading Fablehaven, he had already begun exploring onlinemedia related to thebookathome.Thebook trailerprojecthadnotbeenannounced, sothese practices had no direct connection to school. He had two main ways to look forrelated content online: 1) Google Image searches, and 2) YouTube searches. Sam wasparticularly interested in watching “dream cast” videos on YouTube, which his olderbrother introducedhim to. “Dreamcasts”areapopulargenreof fan‐madevideocontentwhere users recommendwhich famous actors or actresses should play the parts of thecharacters in the movie version of a particular book. Sam created his own Fablehaven“dreamcast”athomeiniMovie,whichrequiredthathelocateandimportimagesofactorsandactresses,createtextframesforthetitleandnamesofeachcharacter,aswellasimportmusic—thesameremixingpractices thatwere laterutilized inthebooktrailerproject inschool.Inadditiontothe“dreamcast”videos,Samalsowatchedmanyoftheuser‐createdFablehavenlive‐actionvideosonYouTubewhereusersactoutcertainpartsofthebook.Hewas highly critical of the versions that he watched online, and he and Paul discussedpossiblymaking their ownmovie and posting it to YouTube—implying that this sort ofproductionwouldneedtobedoneoutsideofschool.

In the 21st century, there is an expectation by readers, like Sam, who grew upsubmersed in the transmedia storytelling world of Harry Potter—which has played outacrosstelevision,movies,music,websites,amusementparks,andtoys—thatallbookswillhaveanequallyrichanddiverseworldofperipheraltextsavailable.TheseexpectationsoftextsexistingbeyondtheprintedbookwereevidentinthefollowingexchangewhereSamexplainedhowandwhyhesearchedonlineforFablehavenathome:

Researcher:ArethereanywebsitesthatyoucheckedoutrelatedtoFablehaven?

Sam:Some.Well,notintentionally,butIlikeIwouldgoontoGoogleImagesandIwouldtypeinFablehavenjusttoseewhatpeoplecomeupwith.BecauseIliketoseewhatpeoplecomeupwith,it'slikeoneofmyfavoritethings.Andthen,solikeIsee“ohcoolFablehavenpicture”andsoIclickonittoseeitfullscreenandthenitaccidentallycomesupwiththewebsiteandI'mlikewowthisisaFablehavenwebsite,Ilikethiswebsite.

Sam’s searches online were always oriented toward the visual mode. He expected that“people” would come up with images and videos related to Fablehavenand post thesethingsonline.Websiteswereof little interest tohimunless an image “accidentally” tookhimtoasite.(FieldnotesrevealthatalmostallstudentsusedGoogleImagesearchestosortthroughresults—evenwhensearchingfortextualinformation.)

PAGE|37BUCHHOLZ

Whileusefulinsomerespects,Sam’svisualsearchtechniquesmeantthathewasn’taware of the official websites for FablehavenauthorBrandon Mull, or any of the otherFablehavenfansites.UsingaGoogleImagesearchgavehimtheimpressionthatallimagesexistedseparatelyonline,anddidn’tallowhimtoeasilyseewheretheimagesoriginated,who created them, orhow theymightbe connected. Inmost of Sam’s image searches athome, he simply perused the images to get a sense ofwhatwas out there and tomakewiderconnectionstoatextthatheloved.Heevenfoundwaystousetheimagestobrandeverydayobjects:

Sam:…likeonmyiPod,likeyouknowwhenyouturnonaniPodoraniPadithaslike,theoriginalone[originalhomescreen]isofraindrops.IchangedminetoapictureofSethandKendra[maincharactersofFablehaven].Likethat'smypicturewhenyouturniton—youseethatpicture!

Sam alluded to not only knowing how to search for and save images online, but alsoknowinghowapersonmightuse images tosignify identityclaimswitheverydayobjects(iPod or iPads). This kind of practice connects to other digital practices such as using afoundimageforone’sTwitteravatarorFacebookprofilepicture—ineachofthesecasesaselectedimageistiedtoparticularidentitiesandpractices.Sam’sbooktrailersedimentedhis identity as a “fan” of Fablehavenacross print and digital media, as well as that of a“digitalexpert.”

Luna:TheArtistinResidence

Luna had a computer at home but rarely used it, choosing to spendmost of her out‐of‐school time reading, drawing, crafting, and playing outside. She often brought the craftprojects to school that she had created at home. Recently, Luna brought awallet, pencilcase, and backpack that she made completely out of duct tape. This “craft” caught onimmediatelywith classmateswhowanted to learn how tomake duct tape objects. Lunawasconsideredakindof“artistinresidence”:otherstudentswouldruntoaskforhelporadviceontheirducttapeprojects(orotherart‐relatedprojects).Sheeventuallymovedontousingtinfoilandducttapetocreatethree‐dimensionaldragonfigurines.Thisartformalsocaughtonintheclassroom,andbecameaFridayinvitationwhereLunaworkedwithsmall groups of classmates, teaching themhow to create the intricate figures.When shewasn’tcreatingducttapefigurines,shewasdrawing—constantly.

LunaandMegan’sFablehavenbooktrailerbeganwithtextinsteadofanimage(seeFigure4,frame1).Allgroupmembersagreedonthetextduringtheinitialplanningstageof the book trailer project, and the actual wording varied very little between bothFablehavenbooktrailers:

Paul&Sam’sbooktrailertext:

[Frame#1]“SiblingsKendraandSeththinkit’sgoingtobeaboringsummerattheirgrandparent’shouse.”[Frame#3]“Untiltheydrinkthemilk!”

Luna&Megan’sbooktrailertext:


[Frame#1]“kendraandseththoughtthatitwouldbeaboringvacationuntil…”[Frame#4]“theydrankthemilk…”

Figure 4. Storyboard of Luna’s book trailer. [Two frames of text; four images; 18secondslong.]

Whilecomparingthesemanticsof thetextualmodeoffers little insight, therewasacleardifferenceinthewaythetwogroupsdecidedtovisuallydisplaythetext.SamandPaulusedthedefaultsetting inMovieMaker:whiteArial fontonaroyalbluebackground.Theboysmade very few conscious design decisions within this mode; Luna took a far differentapproach. In the retrospective think‐aloud, Luna explained that she and Megan usedMicrosoftPaint(asimplegraphicsprogram)towritethewords,savedthefiles,andthenimportedthetwoPaintfilestoMoviemaker:

Luna:…inMovieMakerit'sreallyhardtogetitexactly.Ihavealotof,andPaintisalittlebiteasierandIhavealotofexperiencewithPaintbecauseI'vebeendrawingonitforalongtime.

Researcher:WhatkindsofthingsdoyouguysdoinPaint?Orwhatkindofstuffhaveyoudoneinthepast?

Luna:Drawing,shading...

Megan:She'sdonealotandtheonlythingI'vedonewasacompletefailure,andIwastryingtomakeapictureformagicalorbinmystory.

Luna:Icouldmakeagoodone.

PAGE|39BUCHHOLZ

Megan:Yesyoucan.

Luna:BecauseMegan,youknowthegrayishtoolwiththe...kindofgrayishcoloredone?Thenmakethe,makeithaveacircle,thenmakeitbehuge,andthenlikethisbig,andthenjustclickitonce,andyou’llhaveanorb.

LunaknewhowtocreateatextframeinMovieMaker,butshemadethedecisiontousetheMicrosoft Paint software because its tools offered greater affordances based on herextensive prior experiences. Megan, and all of the other students in the classroom,recognized Luna as a talented artist (with pen/pencil, duct tape, and on the computer).Otherstudentsoftentriedtositnearhersotheycouldwatchherdrawandwouldaskforhelpwiththeirowndrawings.Lunaevenstarteda“drawinggroup,”ofwhichshewastheclear leader. The special folder shemade to collect the club’s artwork had two interiorpockets: one labeled “Luna’s Drawings,” and the other, “Other People’s Drawings.” HerexpertiseandleadershipwasevidentinthepriortranscriptwhensheexplainedtoMeganhowtocreateanorbinPaint—referringtothespecifictoolsandstepsneededtomakeitlook likea threedimensionalobjectandnota flat circle.LunaoftenusedPaint to createimages that she imported into PowerPoint presentations for her inquiry projects. Shetalked,thought,andenactedpracticesinschoolandoutthatsituatedherasanartist.ShewantedawiderangeoptionsandfeltconstrainedbythechoicesofferedinMovieMaker.InMicrosoftPaint,Lunafeltthatshehadmorecontroloverallaestheticdecisions.

Using only multimodal analysis, one could infer that Luna’s design decisionsregarding the color, location, and font style of the text suggest that shewas using theseaffordances in thevisualmode to conveymeanings related toFablehaven.The fontLunachosewasscript‐likeandseemedtoslightlyresemblethefontusedforthetitleofthebook.Lunaquicklydismissedthisassumptionduringtheretrospectivethink‐aloud:

Researcher:AndhereIseeyouchosekindofadifferentfontthanistypicallyfoundinMovieMaker…SoIwonderifyouusethatfontalotoryoupickeditintentionally,oryouthoughtitwas...

Luna:ThatwasactuallymyfirsttimeusingthatfontandIjustthoughtthenamesoundedcool.Iforgetwhatthenamewas.

WhileLunaimpliedthefontchoicewasrandom,thefactthatshemadeaconsciouschoiceabout it sedimentedavery specific setofpractices inherbook trailer.Luna’s text‐basedmodalchoicesweren’tmeanttoexplicitlycarrymeaningrelatedtoFablehaven,butthesechoicesdorepresentideologicallyshapedpracticesthatcanbetracedbacktotheinterestandidentityofthesignmaker.Asanartist,LunawasresistanttoallowingMovieMakertomake decisions for her; she maintained control over the software rather than beingcontrolledbyit.

Additionally,thewaysLunaandMeganselectedimagesfortheirbooktrailerwerefar different from Sam and Paul’s method. Rather than using search terms such as“Fablehaven” or “Fablehaven characters,” the girls searched for “Brian Froud drawings.”Froudwasanartistandillustratorthattheybothidolized:

Megan:MeandLunawereusingBrianFroudwhodesignedlikeawholebunchofpuppets.


Luna:HeisanAWESOMEperson.SoBrianFroudhastobeonemyfavoriteartists.HehasthisawesomebookcalledtheRunesofElfland.IthastheRunicalphabetinthebackandithassecretmessageshiddenallinit,inRunic….He’sareallygooddrawerandhehelpeddesignliketheindexesinTheDarkCrystal.

Froud,anEnglishfantasyillustrator,workedwithJimHensonasadesigneroflandscapesandcreaturesforthemoviesTheDarkCrystal(1982)&Labyrinth(1986).LunaandMeganestimatedtheyhadseenbothofthesemoviesovertwentytimesandcouldrecitethelinestospecificscenes.Froudhasalsoillustratedmanybooksthatareamongthegirls’favorites:Goblins, The Runes of Elfland, and Good Faeries/Bad Faeries. While he has drawn andcreatedavarietyoffantasycreatures,heisperhapsbestknownforhisdrawingsoffairies.In the fantasy art world, many suggest that Froud’s work was the first to offer analternative interpretation of fairies that disregarded the traditional angelic, Victoriancreatures in favor of creatures as multidimensional and sinister. There was no officialconnectionbetweenFablehavenandFroud’sartwork,butLunaexplainedthat theymadetheconnectionbecause thebookdealswitha fantasyandFrouddrawssomany fantasy‐basedcreatures.Theyfoundtheimagesforframes2and3(seeFigure4)usingthesearchterm“BrianFrouddrawings”inaGoogleImagesearch.

AfterselectingtwoFroud‐inspiredimages,thegirlssearchedforanimageofmilk—butnotjustanyglassofmilk:

Megan:Milk!Welookedupmilk.

Luna:Ihavethat[theoriginalmilkpicture]savedonmylocker[folderonthecomputer]stillandyouknowhowwhenit'ssavedthere'salittlenameunderit,thatone'srawmilk,whichIthinkisgoodbecauseifyouthinkaboutitinFablehaventheydrankrawcow'smilkfromamagicalcow.

Researcher:I'massumingwhenyoutypedinmilktoGoogleImagesthere'sprobablylotsofdifferentpicturesofmilk.

Luna:Thereweretoomanybadones.That'sliketheoneofthreeoutof50thatwereactuallyreallygood.

Researcher:Sowhatmadeyoupickthisimage?

Megan:Itwasinacanteen.Lunalikedthatpart.

PAGE|41BUCHHOLZ

Figure5.GoogleImagesofmilkthatLuna&Megandebatedbetweenfortheir

booktrailer.

LunaandMeganwereprecise in theirsearchto findtheexacttypeofmilktheypicturedSethandKendradrinking inFablehaven.Themilkwasakeyelementto thestory: itwasonlybydrinkingthemilkthattheprotagonistswereabletoseethefantasycreaturesinthewoods;withoutthemilkeverythinglookednormal.AftersiftingthroughthefirstfewpagesofGoogleImageresults,theysettledonaglassbottleofmilkwithasilverlid,butastheylookedcloserthebackgrounddidn’tmatchupwiththestory:

Luna:Oneofthem[pictureofmilk]thatIalmostchose,butthenIrealizedthatinthebackground...Ididn'tpaytoomuchattentiontothebackground,Irealizedinthebackgroundsomeonehaditsittingonthegroundandhadchickenswalkingaroundit.

Luna’sattentiontothebackgroundofthemilk image(seeFigure5)reflectedherregularpractice of closely analyzing images (background and foreground) to ensure that thedetailsmatchedhervisualizationsofthebook.Shereturnedtothesearchresults,andafterscrolling throughmany pages—“Thereweretoomanybadones”—she finally foundwhatshewas looking for on pagenine. This prolonged engagementwithin a single search onGoogle ImageswasnotexhibitedbySamandPaul.Alsoofnote, thegirlsneverused thetitle“Fablehaven”inanyoftheirsearches.

FractalpartsofLuna’spracticesanddesignlogicswereclearlyembeddedwithinthevisualmodeofherbooktrailer.FromchoosingtouseMicrosoftPaintinsteadofthedefaultfont inMovieMaker to sifting though pages of image results to find the perfect bottle ofmilk,herpracticesweresedimentedinthetext.Thesepracticescanbetracedbacktoherhabitus and identities as an artist and lover of fantasy culture. The multimodal projectinvitedLunatonotonlyrepresentthestoryofFablehaven,butalsoprovidedherwiththefreedomtosedimentherpassionsandidentitiesasan“artistanresidence.”

Discussion&Implications

Thismultimodaldigitalcomposingprojectofferedchildrenopportunities toexpandtheirrepertoiresofwaysinwhichtheycouldcommunicatewhatandhowtheyknow.SamandLunawereable to sediment their identitiesanddrawon theirdispositions in theirbooktrailers in diverse and sometimes surprising ways. Sam called upon his experiencesconsuming and producing digital media, while Luna called upon her experiences as an


artist. Sam and Luna’s divergent practices around image selection suggest contrastingethea of remixing culture and digital production. Remixes are found everywhere online,andaremadepossiblebytheopendesignoftheInternetthatallowsuserstoborrow/steal(depending onwhom you ask) creative content that can be put together in “new”waysusingdigitaleditingtools.Creatingthebooktrailerspositionedchildrenasremixerswithinthe schooled‐basedprojectof representingaparticularbook.Thepracticeof remixing isgreatlycontestednotonlyintermsofcopyrightinfringement,butalsoregardingthemoreaestheticissueofwhetherremixesarecreativeorartistic,oraresimplyahigh‐techformofcopying.Criticstendtoregardremixesas“schlock”whereusersstealcontent(e.g.,music,text,video)andmashittogether,thuscontributingtoacultureof“anostalgicmalaise…acultureofreactionwithoutaction”(Lanier,2010,p.x).Ontheotherhand,proponentsofremixingarguethatessentiallyeverycreativetexteverproducedhassimplybeenaremixoftextsthatcamebefore—suggestingthattheromanticimageofthelone,creative,originalauthor/artistismerelyaculturalmyth.

Sam’sandLuna’s trailerssedimenteddivergentremixingpractices thatconnect totheirhabitus.Byusingthetitleofthebookinhisimagessearches,SamreliedonGoogle’salgorithmtosearchforimagesthathadsomeofficialconnectiontothebook—evenifthatconnectionwasrelatedtouser‐generatedmaterials.Eachresultthatappearedmeantthatsomeone (or some machine) somewhere had tied that particular image to the bookFablehaven.WhileSamfounditinterestingtoseewhatother“peoplecomeupwith”relatedto the text, onehas towonder about the limitationsof relyingonGoogle to giveusers adiverselookatthecontentandvisualcultureavailableonline.Google’sgoalwithasearchisto locatethe imagesthatmostpeopleare lookingfor—nottoprovideavarietyofuniqueimages.Forbooks thathaveawiderwebofofficial transmedia‐relatedcontent, aGoogleImagesearchforthetitlewillprincipallyresultinofficiallylicensedproducts,images,andmediarelatedtothebook.Forexample,aGoogleImagesearchfor“HarryPotter”resultsin412millionimages,andalmostalloftheimagesincludetheofficialcastfromthemovies.Inthefirst25pagesofresults,onlytwoimagesdon’tusetheofficialcastorcoverillustrationsinsomeway.Thereissurelyasignificantamountoffan‐generatedmediaonline,butabasicGoogleImagesearchdoesnotlocateit.

Amoviehasyet tobecreated forFablehaven, soSam’sGoogle Imageresultswerefairly diverse and included unique user‐generated drawings of some of the characters.However, the issueofGoogle Imagesearchesraisesquestionsabouthowimagesbecomeofficially tied to texts and what this means for children’s reading behaviors in a worldwherepeopleareincreasinglyturningtoonlinespacestohelpthemmakesenseofbooksandextendtheirengagementwithtexts.Lunawasabletosomewhathidefromtheworldofofficial images related to Fablehaven by not explicitly using the title of the book in heronlinesearches.Asanartist,shefeltconfidentusingimagesthatrepresentedthewaysshevisualizedthetext,eventhoughtheywerenotofficiallyconnectedtothebook.Itwasthisidentityasanartist,sedimentedthroughoutherdigitaltext,whichopenedupaspaceforLunatodisagreewiththeofficial‐lookingimagesinthetrailer.

In light of the results of this studyof Sam’s andLuna’s sedimented identities andpractices,asresearchersandteacherswemustmorecloselyconsiderchildren’spracticesoflocatingandchoosingbitsofmediaonline.Itwouldseemthatthe68,700imageresults

PAGE|43BUCHHOLZ

for “Fablehaven” would offer a wealth of possibilities, but Sam’s practices suggest that68,700imagescanjustaseasilyleadtothoughtlessacceptanceofanofficialnarrative.InMaxine Greene’s (1995) bookReleasingtheImagination,she refers to the importance ofresistingan“objectsetofcircumstancesdefinedbyothers”:

AsIviewit…resistancecanbestbeevokedwhenimaginationisreleased;but,asweknow,thebombardmentofimagesfromthedivinityofTechnologicalCommunicationfrequentlyhastheeffectoffreezingpeople’simaginativethinking.Insteadoffreeingaudiencememberstotaketheinitiativeinreachingbeyondtheirownactualities,inlookingatthingsasiftheycouldbeotherwise,today’smediapresentaudienceswithpredigestedconceptsandimagesinfixedframeworks.(p.124)

We must ask ourselves what kind of remixing practices lead to the thoughtful andimaginative possibilities we know are possible within the open culture of theweb. Yes,digitaltextsofferchildrenmorechoicesintheirmeaning‐makingprocess,butwemustalsolookcloselyatthewaysthatdigitalcomposingclosesdoorsbydefiningaworldofofficialandunofficial images:“Whenweholdan imageofwhat isobjectively ‘thefact,’ ithastheeffectof reifyingwhatweexperience,makingourexperience resistant toevaluationandchangeratherthanopentoimagination”(Greene,1995,p.126).

ForLuna,engaginginthevisualartsbeyondthescreenandheridentityasanartistin residence offered her the space to consciously make decisions about the images shewantedinherbooktrailer.ShewasabletouseGoogleasatoolratherthanbeingusedbyit.Inspendingtime lookingfor the“right”pictureofmilk,Lunademonstrated“anability tonotice what there is to notice,” which is critical in that aesthetic experiences “requireconsciousparticipation” (Greene,1995,p.125).This “conscious [online]participation” iswhatJaredLanier(2010)arguesforinhismanifesto:thatusersmuststruggleagainstthe“easygrooves”thattechnologyoffersthatultimatelyentrap“allofusinsomeoneelse’s ...carelessthoughts”(p.22).

As educators we often talk and theorize about the kinds of critical practices,dispositions,anddigitalliteraciesthatchildrenneedtolivemoreinformedlivesonline,butrarely do we consider the visual arts to be a possible entry point into these practices.Remixing can be a process of critical and engaged participation in the visual world ifchildrenareabletoconfidentlysay,“Actuallythat’snotreallyhowIimaginedit”inthefaceofthecanonicalGooglesearch:“Tothinkinrelationtowhatwearedoingistobeconsciousof ourselves struggling to make meanings, to make critical sense of what authoritativeothersareofferingasobjectively,authoritatively‘real’” (Greene,1995,p.126).


ReferencesBilal,D. (2005).Children’s informationseekingand thedesignofdigital interfaces in the

affectiveparadigm.LibraryTrends,54(2),197‐208.

Blondell,M.(2009).AnEnglishteacher’sdesignofdigitalvideocomposinginanurbanhighschool: Impacts on student engagement and learning. Doctoral dissertation,UniversityatBuffalo,StateUniversityofNewYork.

Bourdieu,P.(1990).Thelogicofpractice.Stanford,CA:StanfordUniversityPress.

Bruce,D.L.(2009).Writingwithvisualimages:Examiningvideocompositionprocessesofhighschoolstudents.ResearchintheTeachingofEnglish,43(4),426‐450.

Carspecken, P. (1996). Critical ethnography in educational research: A theoretical andpracticalguide.NewYork,NY:Routledge.

Chambers, A. (1985). Booktalk: Occasional writing on children and literature. London:BodleyHead.

Costello, A. (2010). Silencing stories: The triumphs and tensions ofmultimodal teachingandlearninginanurbancontext.InP.Albers&J.Sanders(Eds.),Literacies,theartsand multimodality (pp. 234‐254). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers ofEnglish.

Doering,A.,Beach,R.,&O'Brien,D.(2007).InfusingmultimodaltoolsanddigitalliteraciesintoanEnglisheducationprogram.EnglishEducation,40(1),41‐60.

Foss, E., Druin, A. Brewer, R., Lo, P., Sanchez, L., Golub, E., & Hutchinson, H. (2012).Children's search rolesathome: Implication fordesigners, researchers, educators,andparents. JournaloftheAmericanSocietyforInformationScienceandTechnology,63(3),558‐573.

Greene, M. (1995). Releasing the imagination: Essays on education, the arts, and socialchange.SanFrancisco,CA:Jossey‐Bass.

Grenfell, M., Bloome, D., Hardy, C., Pahl, K., Rowsell, J., & Street, B. (2012). Language,ethnographyandeducation:BridgingNewLiteracyStudiesandBourdieu.NewYork,NY:Routledge.

Gunter, G., & Kenny, R. (2008). Digital booktalk: Digital media for reluctant readers.ContemporaryIssuesinTechnologyandTeacherEducation,8(1),84‐99.

Hull, G., & Katz, M. (2006).Crafting an agentive self: Case studies of digital storytelling.ResearchintheTeachingofEnglish,41(1),43‐81.

Hull, G., & Nelson, M. (2005). Locating the semiotic power of multimodality. WrittenCommunication,22(2),224‐261.

Ito,M.,Baumer,S.,Bittanti,M.,Boyd,D.,Cody,R.,Herr‐Stephenson,B.,&Tripp,L.(2009).Hanging out,messing around, and geeking out: Kids living and learningwith newmedia.Cambridge,MA:MITPress.

PAGE|45BUCHHOLZ

Jenkins, H. (2006). Convergenceculture:Whereoldandnewmediacollide. New York, NY:NYUPress.

Jewitt,C.,Kress,G.,&Mavers,D.E.(2009).TheRoutledgehandbookofmultimodalanalysis.London,UK:Routledge.

Jochmann‐Mannak, H., Huibers, T., Lentz, L., & Sanders, T. (2010). Children searchinginformation on the Internet: Performance on children’s interfaces compared toGoogle. In Proceedings from the SIGIRWorkshoponAccessibleSearchSystems (pp.27‐35).NewYork,NY:ACMPress.

Kajder, S. B. (2006). Bringing the outside in: Visual ways to engage reluctant readers.Portland,ME:Stenhouse.

Kajder, S. B. (2008). The book trailer: Engaging teens through technologies.EducationalLeadership, 65(6). Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational‐leadership/mar08/vol65/num06/The‐Book‐Trailer@‐Engaging‐Teens‐Through‐Technologies.aspx

Knobel, M., & Lankshear, C. (2008).Remix: The art and craft of endless hybridization.JournalofAdolescent&AdultLiteracy,52(1),22‐33.

Kress, G. (1997). Before writing: Rethinking the paths to literacy (2nd ed.). London:Routledge.

Kress, F., & van Leeuwen, T. (2001). Multimodal discourse: The modes and media ofcontemporarycommunication.Oxford,UK:OxfordUniversityPress.

Lanier,J.(2010).Youarenotagadget.NewYork,NY:AlfredA.Knopf.

Lensmire, T. (1994).Whenchildrenwrite:Criticalre‐visionsofthewritingworkshop. NewYork,NY:TeachersCollegePress.

Leu,D.J.(2002).Thenewliteracies:ResearchonreadinginstructionwiththeInternet.InA. E. Farstrup & S. J. Samuels (Eds.), What research has to say about readinginstruction(3rded.,pp.310–336).Newark,DE:InternationalReadingAssociation.

Marsh,J.(2006).Emergentmedialiteracy:DigitalanimationinEarlyChildhood.LanguageandEducation,20(6),493‐506.

Miller, S. (2007). English teacher learning for new times: Digital video composing asmultimodalliteracypractice.EnglishEducation,40(1),61‐83.

Mitchell,W.(2004,April).Soundingtheidols.PaperpresentedattheConferenceonVisualCulture,UniversityofCalifornia,Berkeley.

Mull,B.(2007).Fablehaven.NewYork,NY:AladdinPaperbacks.

Pahl,K.,&Rowsell, J.(2010).Artifactualliteracies:Everyobjecttellsastory.NewYork,NY:TeachersCollegePress.

Prensky,M.(2001,September/October).Digitalnatives,digitalimmigrants.OntheHorizon,9(5),1‐6.


Ranker, J. (2008). Making meaning on the screen: Digital video production about theDominicanRepublic.JournalofAdolescentandAdultLiteracy,51(5),410‐422.

Rowsell, J. (2012). Artifactual English. In M. Grenfall, D. Bloome, C. Hardy, K. Pahl, R.Rowsell, B. Street (Eds.), Language, ethnography, and education: Bridging newliteracystudiesandBourdieu(pp.7‐26).NewYork:Routledge.

Rowsell,J.,&Pahl,K.(2007).Sedimentedidentitiesintexts:Instancesofpractice.ReadingResearchQuarterly,42,388‐401.

Sanders, J., & Albers, P. (2010). Multimodal literacies: An introduction.In P. Albers & J.Sanders(Eds.),Literacies,thearts&multimodalities(pp.1‐25).Urbana,IL:NationalCouncilofTeachersofEnglish.

Sheridan,M.P.,&Rowsell,J.(2010).Designliteracies:Learningandinnovationinthedigitalage.NewYork,NY:Routledge.

Wohlwend,K.E.,Buchholz,B.A.,Wessel‐Powell, C.,Coggin, L. S.,&Husbye,N.E. (2013).Literacy playshop: Playing with new literacies and popular media in the earlychildhoodclassroom.NewYork,NY:TeachersCollegePress.

PAGE|47BUCHHOLZ

AppendixA

RetrospectiveThink‐AloudHeuristic(basedonBruce,2009)

Step1:Askparticipants towatchbook trailer frombeginning toend.Donotaskspecificquestionsbutallowinformalcomments/conversation.

Step 2: Play trailer again but this time stop on each image and explicitly inviteconversation.Ifnecessary,usethefollowingprobes:

1. Describetheimage.Who/whatisthis?Whythisparticularimage?Whatwereyoutryingtoshowtheaudience?

2. History/locationoftheimage.Howdidyoufindthisimage?Doyourememberwhatsearchtermsyouused?Hadyouseenthisimagebefore?

3. Choices.Arethereotherimagesthatyouwishyouhadfoundorincluded?Weretherethingsthatyoulookedforbutcouldn’tfind?Didyouintentionallyleaveoutcertainimages?

Step3:Afterdiscussingeachimage,playthetraileradditionaltimestoinviteconversationabout themusic (and/or othermodes) and related to amore holistic look at the trailerdesignandproduction:

1. Music.Iwanttounderstandmoreaboutyourmusicalchoice(s).Tellmetostopthetrailerwhenyouwanttocommentonsomethingspecificallyrelatedtothemusic.Howdidyouchoosethisclip?Werethereotherclipsthatyouconsidered?

2. Holistic.Iwanttounderstandhowyouthoughtabout(orsee)allthesedifferentpiecesworkingtogether.Tellmetostopthetrailerwhenyouwanttocommentonadesigndecisionthatyoumade.Whatdidyourplanningprocesslooklike?Whatmodedoyouconsiderthemostimportant:music,writtentext,orimages?Howwasthisprojectdifferentfromwritingaboutthebookwithpaperandpencil?


AppendixBHorizontalMultimodalTranscriptsofBookTrailersVideoA:Sam&Paul0:00[1] 0:04[2] 0:10[3]

TEXT:FABLEHAVEN [whitetext,bluebackground,font= Arial]

SiblingsKendraandSeththinkit’sgoingtobeaboringsummeratthere[sic]grandparent’s[sic]house.

IMAGE:Description:Gatesto“Fablehaven”Search:“Fablehaven”inGoogleImages.Saminitiallyfoundthispictureathomewhenhewastryingtocreatea“dreamcast”movie.Thispictureisnotinthebook.

Description:Blackandwhiteillustrationfromthe2nd book.Kidsseemtoassumethatthisisgrandparent’shouse.Lightoninupperroom.Evening,starsinsky.Glowsurroundinghouse.Metalfence.Search:“Fablehavenhouse”inGoogleImages

SPECIALEFFECT:

MUSIC:[0:01‐0:02]fivequicknotesonkeyboard[lastnoteholdson&slowlyfades…]

[0:08‐0:09]repeatoriginalfivequicknotesonkeyboard[lastnoteholdson&fades…]

Transition: Fade FadeRetrospectiveThinkAloud:[1]Sam:AndalsobecauseIwasfindingaFablehaven,IwaslookingatFablehavenpicturesatmyhouseandIwasfindingpicturesofactorstobeFablehavenactorsinthemovie,whichmightcomeoutsoon.I'mreallyhappyaboutthat.AndthenItypedinFablehaventoseewhatwouldcomeup—toseepicturesofcharacters.Andthiscameup.AndsoIwaslike,“Ohmygosh!”Andthentheywerelike,“We'regoingtomakebooktrailers,”andIwaslike,“Ohmygosh,weneedthis!”

PAGE|49BUCHHOLZ

VideoA:Sam&Paul0:12[4] 0:16[5] 0:17[6]

TEXT:[whitetext,bluebackground,font=Arial]UNTILtheydrinkthemilk!IMAGE: Description:Blackandwhiteimageofafairysittingona

purpleflower.Thisimageislocatedattheendofthe2ndbook,althoughstudentssuggestthatsheisalsoacharacterinthefirstbook.Search:“FablehavenFairies”inGoogleImages

Description:Blackandwhitehanddrawnimagewithpen/pencil.Search:“FablehavenHugo”inGoogleImages

SPECIALEFFECT:

MUSIC:previouslastnotestillfading… repeatoriginalfivequicknotesonkeyboard four quicknotesonkeyboard[octavelower?]

Transition:Fade None None

RetrospectiveThinkAloud:[4]Studentsidentify“Untiltheydrinkthemilk!”astheturningpointinthebooktrailer.Althoughtheydonotusethephrase“turningpoint,”whentalkingaboutthemusicselection,theysaytheywantedthemusictochangehere.Sam:It'slikewhew!Paul:Yeah,itcomesinfastbecauseyoujustfigureditout.Sam:It'slikeyou’reseeingtheworldforthefirsttime,again.Sam:Itwasoriginallygoingtobe‘GentleThoughts’andthenwewerejustlookingaroundforfuncausewethoughttheremightbesomething...Paul:No!That'sbecauseweweregoingtomakeitmoreexcitingwhenitgottothe"Untiltheydrinkthemilk.”Sam:Butthenwefoundthisanditwaslikeperfecttimingandeverything.


VideoA:Sam&Paul0:19[7] 0:19[8] 0:20[9]

TEXT:

IMAGE:

Description:handdrawnwithpen,blackandwhiteSearch:“FablehavenNewellandDorin”inGoogleImages

Description:handdrawnwithpenandcoloredpencilSearch:“Fablehavenfairies”inGoogleImages

Description:handdrawn,blackandwhitewithpencilSearch:“FablehavenMuriel”inGoogleImages

SPECIALEFFECT:

fourquicknotesonkeyboard[samepattern,twooctaveshigher?]

singlenote,evenhigher repeatoriginalfivequicknotesonkeyboard

MUSIC:

Transition:None None None

RetrospectiveThinkAloud:[9]Sam:Likeifpeoplesawthat,peopleseethecoverofthebookallthetime.Andit'snotlikethey'reohthat'sMuriel,she'sawitch.ButImean,ifweputBahumatin...peoplewouldbelikeoh,thatguylooksevil.Ifyouseeanevilbigperson...Researcher:Soyouthinkthat'ssomethingthatshouldbekeptforthereader?Sam:Yes!Areader'ssecret.

PAGE|51BUCHHOLZ

VideoA:Sam&Paul0:21[10] 0:26[11]

TEXT:

FABLEHAVEN

IMAGE:Description:Gatesto“Fablehaven”[sameimageasthebeginning]Search:“Fablehaven”inGoogleImages

Description:Screengoestoblackassoonassoonasvoiceover

SPECIALEFFECT:

MUSIC/SOUNDEFFECTS:musicfadesoutat00:23[voiceover,whisperedvoices]“Bewaretheyarerising.”

Transition:None None

RetrospectiveThinkAloud:Sam:Sowewerelike,wait,butthemusicisjustplaying,andwethoughtthisisgood,butit'skindofboringforlikethewholewaythroughtobelike[beginstohum].Sam:Sowethought,um,maybewecould...wewerelike,ok,evilpeoplearecoming,soit'slikeevilpeoplearecomingandthekidsarelikeoh,evilitisrising.Researcher:Sowhatdoesthatmean?Paul:EveningStar.Sam:Yes,theSocietyoftheEveningStar,whichisanevilorganization,sotheSocietyoftheEveningStarisagroupofevilpeoplethatwanttomakesure,tomakedemonscomeoutandkilleverybodycausetheythinktheycancontrolthedemons—liketheiroverallgoal,likeIcannottellanyone...otherwiseitgivesawaythewholebook,but,so,we'relike,"Bewaretheyarerising,"anditkindofmakesensebecauseinthefirstonethere'skindoftalkabouthowevilpeoplearecoming.


VideoB:Luna&Megan0:00[1] 0:05[2] 0:08[3]

TEXT:[blacktext,bluebackground,font=Papyrus]kendraandseththoughtthatitwouldbeaboringvacationuntil…

[incidental]Agmour

IMAGE: Description:Paintingofamyticalcreature

Search:“BrianFrouddrawing”inGoogleImages.

Description:PencildrawingofamythicalcreatureSearch:“BrianFrouddrawing”inGoogleImages.

SPECIALEFFECT:Alternatingcoloredbackground,rainbow‐like

MUSIC:Classicalmusic,quicktempo [Continued] Classicalmusic,quicktempo [Continued]Classicalmusic,quicktempo

Transition: Shatter(smallpiecesflytoright,uppercorner) Dissolve

RetrospectiveThinkAloud:[1]Researcher:AndhereIseeyouchosekindofdifferentfontthanistypicallyfoundinMovieMaker.…SoIwonderifyouguysusethatfontalotoryoupickeditintentionally,oryouthoughtitwas…Luna:ThatwasactuallymyfirsttimeusingthatfontandIjustthoughtthenamesoundedcool.Iforgetwhatthenamewas.[2]Megan:MeandLunawereusing[searchingfor]BrianFroudwhodesignedlikeawholebunchofpuppets.Luna:He[Froud]isanAWESOMEperson.SoBrianFroudhastobeonemyfavoriteartists.HehasthisawesomebookcalledtheRunesofElfland.IthastheRunicalphabetinthebackandithassecretmessageshiddenallinit,inRunic.He’sareallygooddrawerandhehelpeddesignliketheindexesinTheDarkCrystal.

PAGE|53BUCHHOLZ

VideoB:Luna&Megan0:12[4] 0:17[5] 0:22[6]0:27[end]

TEXT:[blacktext,purplebackground,font=Papyrus]Theydrankthemilk

IMAGE: Description:Photographofbottleofmilkwithwhitelid

Search:“Rawmilk”inGoogleImages

Description:Photographofaporcupine‐likeanimalSearch:?

SPECIALEFFECT:Alternatingcoloredbackground,rainbow‐like

MUSIC:[Continued]Classicalmusic,quicktempo [Continued]Classicalmusic,quicktempo [Continued]Classicalmusic,quicktempoabruptlycomes

toendat0:27

Transition: None None

RetrospectiveThinkAloud:[5]Researcher:I'massumingwhenyoutypedinmilktoGoogleImagesthere'sprobablylotsofdifferentpicturesofmilk.Luna:Thereweretoomanybadones.That'sliketheoneofthreeoutof50thatwereactuallyreallygood.Researcher:Sowhatmadeyoupickthisimage?Megan:Itwasinacanteen.Lunalikedthatpart.Luna:Oneofthem[pictureofmilk]thatIalmostchose,butthenIrealizedthatinthebackground...Ididn'tpaytoomuchattentiontothebackground,thenIrealizedinthebackgroundsomeonehaditsittingonthegroundandhadchickenswalkingaroundit.

PAGE|54

Makingtheinvisiblevisible:WhitepreserviceteachersexploresocialinequitieswiththeCriticalWebReader

JulieRust

ChristyWessel‐Powell

Abstract

Thisstudyseekstoestablishtherolethatempathy‐buildingpracticescanplayinbroadeningperspectivesofpredominantlywhite,middle‐classteachercandidates.Usingemergentcodingandgrounded theory,we investigatepreservice teachers’onlineanalysesofwebsitesaboutpoverty statistics.Themesemerging from theirparticipationwith theCriticalWebReader1included confronting ‘whiteness’ through a growing empathy, complicating their vision ofAmerica as the land of opportunity, and voicing insider/outsider clashes.We conclude bydiscussingthechallengesinherentinsocialactionresultingfromthedesiretomakeourworldmoreequitable.Wealsonoteimplicationsforteachereducation,giventherichdiversityoftheUSeducationalsystem.

Introduction

Becominga teacher is rifewith complex identitywork (Britzman,2003) thatdemandsareconciliationbetweenperspectivesofselfandfuturestudents,alongsidearecognitionofthe inequality that often colors classrooms. There is an ever‐growing gap between thedemographicsofteachercandidates(primarilywhite,female,middle‐class)andthewide‐ranging demographics of their future students (Ladson‐Billings, 2005; Rogers, 2013). Avaluablepreserviceteachereducationexperience,then,involvesacloseexaminationoftheassumptions and personal backgrounds future teachers carry regarding issues such associalclassandrace.

Many university teacher‐education programs feature a stand‐alone “diversity”coursetoaddresslargeculturalgapsthatmanywhite,middle‐classteachercandidatesfaceoncetheyarethrustintoclassrooms.Suchdeliberatecoursescreatespaceforcritical,andoftenpainful, self‐reflectionanddiscussion.Teacher candidates commonly report feelinguncomfortableinthesespaces,andattimesitisdifficulttodiscernattheendofthecoursewhether future teachers simply learn the sanctioned, socially sensitive way to speak toplease their professors, or if they have genuinely internalizedmultiple perspectives andgrownthroughdiscussions.

Here we explore how one online platform, Critical Web Reader (CWR), canpotentially serve as a safe entry point into honest and sensitive reflection in one stand‐

1This researchwas supportedby funding from the IndianaUniversity School ofEducation for theCriticalWebReaderproject(http://cwr.indiana.edu/).Co‐principal investigator includedDr. JamesDamicoandDr.TarajeanYazzie‐Mintz.

PAGE|55RUST&WESSEL‐POWELL

alone diversity course. By guiding students to reflect independently on quantitativeinformation about social class from various websites, the CWR fosters preliminaryimaginative engagement and empathy in these future teachers. Through this study, weexamine the affordances and limitations of these exercises formajority‐white preserviceteacherswithlimitedaccesstodiversecommunities.

LiteratureReview

Greene (2007) speaks poignantly about “ethical imagination,” which empowers us to“recognizethefamiliarinthestranger”andimbuesuswith“theabilitytotrytoseethroughsomeoneelse’seyes,theabilitytoreachout”(p.32).Itisinthearenaofethicalphilosophywhere taken‐for‐granted assumptions or “prereflective understandings” (Kerdeman,1998), and empathic response (Hoffman, 2000) build a bridge to true learning. Buildingempathyfortraditionallydisenfranchisedgroupsisofcentralconcern,since

[i]foneempathizedwiththisgroup,thiscouldunderliethemotivationforadoptingpolitical ideologiescenteredaroundalleviationof thegroup’splight. [It is]alsoaninternalmotivebasisforacceptingasystemofdistributingsociety’sresourcesthathelpstheleastadvantagedevenatsomecosttooneself.(Hoffman,2000,p.86)

Though empathy for diverse communities is a crucial quality for preservice teachers todevelop,itisanelusivequalityto“teach”orfosterinpreserviceteacherprograms.Thereisanentirebodyofresearchonmanifestationsofwhitenessinteachereducationprograms,bothdomestically(McIntyre,1997;Sleeter,2001)andinternationallyincountriessimilarto the US in terms of histories of racial tensions, such as Australia (Aveling, 2012). Theoverwhelmingmajorityof thiswork focusesonwhitepreservice teachers, andhow theysortthrough(ormoreoften,fallshortof)makingsenseoftheirownidentitiesinrelationtothosewithlesspower.Thistaskismostoftenapproachedinclassthroughreadings,classdiscussions,and/orreflectionsonfieldexperiences.

Often,criticalliteracyactivitiesareemployedasentrypointstosuchconversationsto encourage position‐taking (Rogers, 2013), particularly when most of the preserviceteachersinvolvedarewhiteandmiddle‐class;forexample,invitingpreserviceteacherstorespondtotheresearchpublishedonpreserviceteachersandwhiteness(Laughter,2011).However, technological tools forpreservice teachers’ entry into critical conversationsonempathyandwhitenesshavebeenstudied lessoften.Our researchaddresses thisgap intheliterature.WebelieveCWRhasutilityinmajority‐whitepreserviceteacherclassroomsinparticular,asanadditionalintroductorycriticalliteracytool.


Weapproachour interpretationsofstudentresponses toraceandclass in thecontextofCWR activities through a “whiteness” lens. Whiteness theorizes power relationshipsbetween people in positions of historical dominance (e.g., white,male, affluent, English‐speaking) and historicallymarginalized people (e.g., racial and ethnicminorities, female,poor, non‐English‐speaking). Sources of social inequities are often invisible to those inrelativepositionsofpower, soengagingwithwhitenessmeansdigging into complexand

MAKINGTHEINVISIBLEVISIBLEPAGE|56

often personally painful conversations. Disassociation from engaging fully or refusingresponsibilityforone’srolearecommonresponses(Lazarre,1997;Lewis,2004).

Althoughtheprocessmaybepainfuloroverwhelming, it isparticularly importantforpreserviceteachers(Aveling,2012;McIntyre,1997).Whitenessisoftenmanifestedinschools through curriculum (Rodriguez, 1998; Spring, 1998;Woodson, 1990); academictracking or ‘giftedness’ criteria (Staiger, 2004); normative institutional practices (Hurd,2008; Lewis, 2003; Tatum, 2003); student perceptions of ability; or student–teacherrelations(Castigo,2008;Hurd,2008;Staiger,2004).Manifestationsofwhitenessarealsooften intimately linkedwith economic disparities and legacies of poverty (Lipsitz, 2006;McClaren,1996). Inorderforpreserviceteacherstocombatthese injusticesforandwiththeirstudentsinthecontextoftheirfutureclassrooms,criticalself‐reflectiononpersonalinvolvementinandpositioningwithregardtotheseissuesisessential.

It isourhopethatbyengagingpreserviceteachersmeaningfullyincritical literacypractices (Janks, 2000; McLaughlin & DeVoogd, 2004) that confront race and povertydirectly, we can support white, middle‐class participants in particular in interrogatingmultiple viewpoints and “disrupting the commonplace, focusing on sociopolitical issues,and taking action promoting social justice” (Lewison, Flint, & Sluys, 2008) in their ownfutureclassrooms.Webelievethataskingpreserviceteacherstobeginthiscriticalworkbyreviewingweb resources viaCWR is an introductory step to building an awareness thatshouldeventuallyleadtolong‐term,productiveaction(Behrman,2006;Poyntz,2006).Inpart, this study gauges how effective such preliminary steps can realistically be, givensemestertimeconstraintsandsociallimitationsinamajority‐whiteuniversitysetting.

Context&Participants

In the fallof2008,wegatheredCriticalWebReaderstudentresponses foronerequired,semester‐longcourseatalargeMidwesternuniversity,called“ElementaryEducationforaPluralisticSociety.”Theuniversity’sSchoolofEducationstudentpopulationwas83‐93%whiteandonly15%lowsocioeconomicstatus(Shedd,2012).UtilizingapowerfulwebtoolcalledtheCriticalWebReader,studentsdiscoveredandcritiquedboththemselvesandthesourcestheyreadonline.Becauseoftherelativelackofracialandsocioeconomicdiversitywithin the class of teacher candidates, CWR was used as an effective way to initiatediscussions about social class and the very real existence of povertywithpredominantlyyoung,white,middle‐classtoaffluentstudents.

This study draws upon the responses of fourteen undergraduate elementarypreserviceteacherparticipantstoaCWRactivityentitled,“ExaminingtheNumbersaboutSocialClass”(seeFigure1below).TheCWRisa“asetofeasy‐to‐useonlinetoolsdesignedto help address 21st century teaching and learning challenges” that “guides students tocarefully and critically evaluate and read any source of information on the Internet”(CriticalWebReader). A flexible template, CWRallows instructors to create theme‐basedactivities for students that involve looking reflectively at the wide array of resourcesavailableontheInternet.Oncestudentshaveperusedtheresources(articles,charts,songs,movies,images)towhichtheactivitylinksthem,theylookcarefullyateachsitethroughavariety of lenses (such as descriptive, academic, critical, or reflexive) that ask them to


answer specific questions (see Figure 2). Student contributions are then saved forinstructorstoexamine,assess,orsharewiththeclass.

Figure1.CWRIntroductionPage

Descriptive‐QL

WhatdoIknowandbelieveaboutthistopic?

Whatquantitativedataisusedonthissite?

o statistics

o visualrepresentations

Howandwhenwasthisdatacollected?

Whatdoesthesitetellmeaboutthe:

o author

o sponsor

o intendedaudience

Isthesitereliableornot?Explain.

Academic‐QL


Whatmainclaimorclaimsdoestheauthormake?

Howisquantitativedatausedasevidencetosupportclaims?

Aretheclaimsandquantitativeevidenceconvincing?Explain.

Arethereotherpossibleexplanationsforthedatapresented?Explain.

Critical‐QL

Whatdoesthissitewantmetothink,believeordo?

Whattechniquesareusedtoinfluenceme?

o Generalities

o Loadedquestions

o Biasedsample

Emotionalappeals

Distortedvisualrepresentations

Omittedvariable

o Arethetechniquesconvincing?Explain.

Reflexive‐QL

WhataffectsthewayIreadthisquantitativedata?

o Myvalues,opinions,emotions

o Mybackground,culture

o Myfamiliaritywithquantitativedata

Howmightpeoplewithdifferentexperiencesandknowledgereadthissite?

WhatquestionsdoIhaveaboutthequantitativedataonthissite?

Figure2.CriticalWebReaderLensesandQuestions

Today’spreserviceteachersarelikelytoencounteraspectrumofstudentsocial

classbackgroundsthatmayvarywidelyfromtheirown,sotacklingsocialclassinthe“diversity”courseisvitallyimportant.ThefirstsiteontheCWRSocialClassActivitydesignedbytheinstructorfeaturesWikipedia,offeringabroadoverviewof“SocialClassintheUnitedStates”(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_class_in_the_United_States)(Figure3).There,studentswereaskedtoexaminetheirbeliefsaboutsourceslikeWikipedia,aswellashowacollectivegroupofauthorsdefinessocialclassintheUS.


Figure3.Website1

Next, teacher candidates were directed to a PBS site entitled “People Like Us”(http://www.pbs.org/peoplelikeus/resources/index.html)(Figure4)thatincludedalistofdecontextualizedstatistics.


Figure4.Website2

Thencamea siteon “UnderstandingPoverty” (Figure5), sponsoredby theWorldBank(http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTPOVERTY/0,,menuPK:336998~pagePK:149018~piPK:149093~theSitePK:336992,00.html), chosen by the instructorto help students think critically about different organizations with an investment inpoverty.


Figure5.Website3

Finally, students ended their journey with a look at the Statewide NCCPDemographicsofPoorChildren(http://www.nccp.org/profiles/IN_profile_7.html)(Figure6)inordertogroundtheconversationinthecontextoftheuniversityandthecommunity.


Figure6.Website4

While visiting each website (focusing on only one site each week), studentscontributedanswers toquestions that focusedon fourdistinctwaysofmakingmeaning.The descriptive lens pointed students to look carefully at the website itself, askingquestionssuchas,“Howandwhenwasthisdatacollected?”Theacademiclenscalledforamore analytical mindset, asking, for example, “Are the claims and quantitative evidenceconvincing?”Thecriticallens,amongseveralquestions,askedstudents,“Whattechniquesareusedtoconvinceme?”Finally, thereflexive lensprovidedaspace to investigatesuchthoughts as “What affects the way that I read this quantitative data?” and “Howmightpeoplewithdifferentexperiencesandknowledgereadthissite?”These lensesseemedtoserveascriticalethicalscaffoldsas theypointedstudents toquestionandchallengeboththetextstheyencounterandthepersonalreactionstheyexperience.

Because of the tedious nature of each thorough set of questions, students wereassignedonlyonewebsiteeachweek.At theendof thesix‐weekunit, theyengaged inaCritical Web Reader debriefing during whole‐class discussion. Throughout the exercise,students were encouraged to share their responses with a partner and have briefdiscussions. These seemingly objective sources of information proved to be a singularly


illuminatingwaytogainaglimpseintohowpreserviceteachersperceive“number”dataintermsofsocialclass.Students, therefore,madesenseofsocialclassprivatelyat first,andthentransitionedgraduallytomorecollaborativeformsofmeaning‐making,thusprovidingasafe,judgment‐freeplaceforstudentstohonestlyreflectontheirinitial,personalbeliefs.Furthermore, it gave them thoughts todrawupon,defend, or reshapeduring thewhole‐class discussion, duringwhich clashing visions of “the good life” (R. Kunzman, personalcommunication,October2010)directlyconfrontedeachother.

Our analysis looks more closely at student online comments to interrogate thenatureofthiscriticalliteracydevelopment.Specifically,weareinterestedinhowstudentsreferenced,ignored,ordisplayednotionsofwhitenessandempathyinthosecomments.Itis important tonote that although this study criticallyhighlights the attitudes that thesefourteenteachercandidateshadregardingissuesofsocialclassandinequality,wewanttoavoidforegroundingtheirevolvingbeliefsthroughadeficitlens,andalsoavoidperceivingthem as a homogenous group themselves (Laughter, 2011). Instead, we view thesometimes problematic understandings expressed through their participation with theCWRstepsintheirindividualjourneys,notasfaultyfinaldestinations.

Methods

Our central researchquestion is,howdopreserviceteachersreflectonwhitenessandreactempathicallywhencriticallyanalyzingonline textsabout socialclass? In order to explorethis, we gathered CWR response data from the classroom of 14 preservice teachers asdescribed above. An emergent coding approach, with categories such as “belief” or“tension,”guidedanalysisofstudentresponses,makinguseofproceduresassociatedwithbuilding grounded theory (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). We then drew conclusions on thesuccessandlimitationsofusingCWRtoengagewithdiversityissueswithmajority‐whitepreserviceteachersbyrevisitingtheliteratureonempathyand,mostcentrally,whiteness.By iteratively discussing interpretations of student responses, we refined three majorcategoriesofstudentresponsethemesthatwerethemostprominent.

ThroughanalyzingCWRresponses fromthese14students,and integrating theoryregardingwhiteness and empathy‐building in the classroom,we hope to illuminate howCWR’s critical literacy emphasis helps foster ethical reflection regarding diverseperspectives, and towhatextent.Secondaryquestions that surfacedduringdataanalysisincludedthefollowing:

HowcanCWRactivitiesanddiverserangesofonlinetextsactuallyaddamyriadofperspectivestotheclassroom?

Howisastudent’ssenseofempathyand imaginativeengagementshapedthroughCWRparticipation?

What affordances and limitations exist when using CWR to begin criticalconversationsaboutraceandclasswithintheconstraintsofasinglesemester‐longcourse?

Results

Themajority of student responses fell into roughly three thematic categories: Empathy‐Building, LandofOpportunity, and Insider/OutsiderClashes.These categoriesor themes


are described in detail below, and illustrated with representative comments from thestudents themselves. We feel it imperative, however, to contextualize ourfindings first,withanexplicitacknowledgmentofwhatstudentsbringtocriticalconversationslikethesein terms of personal identities, beliefs, and background experiences that shape theirparticipation.

IBelieve...

Iknowthatthereisalotofinequalityduetorace,gender,andeducation.Idonotbelievethatpeopleareinpovertybecausetheydonotworkhardenough.Ialsodonotbelievethatthosewiththemostwealtharethehardestworkers.(Becky)

Students,ofcourse,begintheidentity‐buildingandmeaning‐makingprocesseslongbefore they enter our classroom doors. If we are determined to see young people as“agents,not justpatients” (Pritchard,1996), it isvital topayrealattentionto thebeliefs,experiences,andattitudesthatstudentsalreadypossess,evenbeforeengagingintheworkof the classroom. The CriticalWeb Readermakes this explicit by directly asking, beforeevendelvingintoaparticularwebsite:“WhatdoIknowandbelieveaboutthistopic?”Thisactivatesthe“prereflectiveunderstanding,”taken‐for‐grantedassumptions,thatKerdeman(1998)seesassovitalinleadingtofurtherunderstanding.

Interestingly,althoughperhapsunsurprisingly,intheirinitialresponsestheteachercandidatesexpressedattitudesandexperiences that resonatedwithmuchof the contentandperspectivespresentedonthewebsites.Althoughthiscouldbebecausesomestudentsfirst previewed the website before answering any questions, because other in‐classdiscussionsaboutsocialclassensuedsimultaneously,orbecausestudentswereengaginginacertainlevelof“teacher‐pleasing,”thisalsocouldbeattributedtothefactthatevenourwhite,middle‐class studentsmay comeequippedwith fundsof knowledge that couldbehelpfulinaclassroomexaminingissuesofdiversity.

Oneofthemostcommonthoughtscommunicatedinitiallybystudentswastheideathat poverty is a huge problem that exists on both local and international scales. Butperhaps the most recurring comment focuses on the unfairness of our current socialsystem. John, inferring that reality does not currentlymatch upwith the ideal, states, “Ibelievethatpayshouldbebasedonhardworkandexperience.”Sampointsout, “Iknowthat there isawhite (male)advantage inourculture.”Sarahasserts, “It isnot fair to thechildren,becausetheyhadnochoiceandarenotresponsibleforanyoftheirstrugglesorconditions.” Even these preliminary reflections allude to an acknowledgement of aninherentlyunequalsystemperpetuatedbywhiteness.

Justonewell‐intentionedcommentrevealsanentirelydivergentunderstanding:“Ibelievethatsocialclassisnotimportanttome,andIalsobelievethatisshouldnotmatterto anybody. Why do we have to group people as different from each other?” (Carrie).Although it is unknown whether this prereflective understanding evolved during thecourseofthesemester,thethemesexpressedhereechoashonestportrayalsofastudent’sfrustration,perhapswithacourseondiversityingeneral.Carrie’swordsareundoubtedlywellintentioned,andmostlikelyresonatewiththeunderlyingattitudesofmanypreserviceteachers thrust into the required diversity class. When explicit reflection on diverseexperiences and backgrounds is seen as more divisive than community‐building or


perspective‐broadening, a student is unlikely glean as much as possible from such anexperience.Withthisinmind,wemoveforwardtodescribefurtheriterationsofreflectivecomments,astheCRWactivitymovedforwardoverthecourseofthesemester.First,weexaminethenatureofstudents’empathicdisplays.

Empathy‐Building

“IhavesaidtimeandtimeagainabouthowIfeelbadaboutthis...I’vebeenakidmyselfandIhatethethoughtofchildrensuffering…yes,Ifeelguilty.”(Peter)

Manystudentsempathizedwiththesufferingrepresentedbythestatisticslistedonthesewebsites,sometimestothepointofarticulatingpersonaldistressandguilt,orevenempathetic fatigue, as in Peter’s comment above. Hoffman (2000) describes empathicdistress (oftenexperiencedby “helping”professionals, like teachers) as a “metacognitiveawarenessofexperiencingempathy…[providinga]generalsenseofhowtheywouldfeelandhowotherswouldfeelinasimilarsituation”(p.63).Hecontinues,“Victimsneednotbepresentforempathytobearoused…[it]canbearousedwhentheyimaginevictims,readaboutthem,ordiscussapoliticalissue”(p.91).Suchempathicposition‐takingcanleadtothe adoption of a given political ideology or to personal sacrifice regarding a group’sparticular plight (p. 86) and is an important first step to unpacking white privilege(McIntosh,1990).

Our data confirms that images, charts, videos, and articles online were effectivestarting points for imaginative engagement and perspective‐taking that took preserviceteachers beyond personal experience. Several CWR contributions, however, revealed apointed focus on personal guilt, rather than on the plight of those in poverty. One inparticularstandsout:

Myrace,mywhiteprivilege,alongwithmysurvivor’sguilt,playoutadefensiveuneasinessinmyemotionalstate.Itjumpsaround,becomingoverlycompensatingtothosewhohavenothadmyopportunities.Mysuccess—obviouslyunmeritedbecauseofmyunfairadvantages—wantsmetoreadintoeverythingoutsideofthepersonasbeingareasonforthatperson’sfailure.Successandfailurearearbitrarytoaperson’sabilities.ThisallplaysintohowIreadthesecold,drabfacts.(John)

While John’s comment demonstrates an understanding of his role in whiteness, whenprocessing personal issues related to whiteness, personal guilt can be a frustratingroadblockinhibitingindividualsfromgrowingtowardproductiveaction.Forsomeitcanbedebilitating,andmayevenstifletheconversation.

Hoffman (2000) also addresses empathy’s limitations: “empathic overarousal”(whenempathymorphs intopersonaldistress) and “familiarity”or “here andnow”bias.Sarah describes the numbing result of compassion fatigue: “Since Iwas brought up in alargecity,Ihavebeenexposedtopeoplefromallsocialclassesandhaveseenpeoplelivinginpovertyon thestreets,whilewealthybusinessmenwalkrightpast themwithoutevenflinching.” Here, the limitations to empathy are clearly articulated. Such reactions arecommonincriticalconversationsonwhiteness,particularlyforwhiteornonmarginalizedparticipants(Aveling,2012;McIntyre,1997).


Onestudentdisplaysaway todefendherself againstdisablingempathy: “My firstreactionistofeelbadabouthowthesekidslive.ThenItrytothinkabouthowmanycanbestrongand survive it.That ismywayofdealingwith feelings” (Donna). Familiaritybias,beingmost concerned with immediate friends or family members, also surfaced amongresponses:“Ihadthesefeelingsofsadnessandsympathywhenreadingthedescriptionsofpoverty. They cause you to think about personal experiences or experiences of othersclosesttoyou”(Scott).Forstudentswithlimitedexposuretoracialandeconomicdiversityon a daily basis, the tendency to look for personal connection when empathizing withdisparitymaybelimiting.Hoffmanisquicktonote,however,thatthesearenatural,humanways of responding to our world, and that empathy still does provide the basis for auniversalsetofethicalprinciplesthatdemandbasichumanrightsforeveryone.

AlsonotableinrelationtotheCWRtool,Hoffman(2000)pointsoutthat“[v]ictimsneednotbepresentforempathytobearousedinanindividual…[it]canbearousedwhenthey imagine victims, read about them, or discuss a political issue … this is enabled bycognitivedevelopment—nowweareonlylimitedbyourimagination”(p.91).

Itseems,then,thatusingimages,charts,videos,andarticlesonlinecouldverywellbe the starting point for imaginative engagement and perspective‐taking that takesstudentsbeyond theirownpersonal situations, even if only as a tentative first step.Oneillustrativestudentcommentfollows:“Itmakesyouthinkabout[how]yourownfamilyandyoulive,andhowmuchyouliveoffof.ItmademethinkofeverythingIhad,andhowhardmy familyhas it, inoureyes, tomakeendsmeet. Ihaveno ideawhat thesechildrenaregoingthrough!”(Jade).

LandofOpportunity

“Youcanbepoorandstillbeabletoaccesseducation…you justneedtotakeadvantageofyouropportunity.”(Christopher)

The next themewe routinely observed in student responses regarded the UnitedStatesasa“LandofOpportunity”inwhichanyonecansucceediftheyonlytryhardenough.Hoffman(2000)describes factorsthatpotentially interferewithempathy:blaming,beingself‐centered,orminimizingavictimormarginalizedperson’ssuffering.Thesearetypicalreactionsfromwhiteorotherwisenonmarginalizedpeopleconfrontingwhiteness,becausethemechanisms keeping power unbalanced are often unseen and undetectable to thosewhoenjoyrelativepositionsofpower.Althoughallteachercandidatesremainedrespectfulof the trials facing those in poverty, some used talk of “opportunity” and “education” tooversimplifywhatshouldbeaverycomplicatedpictureofsocialclass.Theirimplicationinwhitenesslikelymadecomplexhistorico‐social,‐economicand‐politicalfactors“invisible”to them (Lipsitz, 2006). Kelly, for instance, after viewing statistics about the correlationbetweeneducationandpoverty level,concluded,“thisarticledoesconfirmmybelief thateducation and hard work will improve your class standing.” Jade hinted at feelingfrustratedaboutadvantagespoorpeopleareofferedinthenameofopportunity:

AsanAmerican,opportunitiesarepresentedtousinseveralways.AndIfeelthatthosewhoarerichandconsideredtobehighclassmayhavemoreopportunities,butthoselessfortunategetopportunitiesaswelltoturntheirlifearound…While


myparentsandIworkhardtoachieveourgoals,thoselessfortunatecanattendcollegeunder21stcenturyscholarsforfree.LikeIsaidbefore,thosewhoarerichmayhavemoreopportunities,butthoseconsideredpoorarepresentedwithopportunitiestochangetheirlifestyle.

ThesereactionsdemonstratelimitationsinCWR’sabilitytoengagestudents,atthispoint,in a historically basedholistic understandingof the cycle ofwhiteness andpovertywithregardtoeducationandfree‐marketcapitalism(Lewis,2003;Lipsitz,2006).

Mostoften, itwasapparent thatstudentsspeakingabouthowpoorpeopleshouldtakeadvantageoftheopportunitiesofferedthemheldan“outside”perspectiveasmiddle‐or upper‐classwhites.Narayan (1988) cautions against such assertions, since oppressedinsiders have understandings that outsiders cannot possibly have, due to first‐handexperience,emotion,andknowledge.Althoughthestudentcontributions listedabovearein no way inherently wrong, they reveal, perhaps, a limited piece of the picture, subtlyminimizing the emotional costs of oppression, missing the subtler manifestations ofoppression, or failing to see oppression in new contexts. This is also apparent in theassertion several students made that race has nothing to do with poverty, such as thefollowing:“Race isnot really the issue,andweneed to lookmore intopeopleasa socialclass rather than a race” (Christopher). This is problematic given the complex andintertwiningrelationshipbetweenraceandclasssystemicallyandhistorically,particularlyintheUnitedStates(Lipsitz2006).

Taking responsibility for one’s role in the cycle ofwhiteness is an important, butoften painful, step (Lazarre, 1997; McIntosh, 1990; Pixley and Schneider VanDerPloeg,2000; Woodson, 1990). More nuanced views on the issue, however, also surfaced.Christopher complicated this notion of a “land of opportunity” by displaying someunderstandingofsocialreproduction:“[There is l]imitedopportunity forunderprivilegedstudents from succeeding…As soon as these kidswalk into school, they alreadyhave atargetontheirbackasbeingafailure…Therichgetricherandthepoorgetpoorer.”

Insider/outsider perspectives were regularly taken up in student responses,sometimes, though not often, flexibly (i.e., displayed simultaneously by one student), asChristopher demonstrates. John, for example, is a student who also shows anunderstanding of some systemic inequities thatwas likely developed before engaging inthis class material. Subsequently, we noted his ability to articulate insider perspectiveseventhoughheoccupiesarelativelyclearpositionofpowerinsocietyasawhite,middle‐classmale.The self‐doubt that arises from thisnegotiationbetween the familiar and thestrangeisnotableinseveralstudentcontributions,suchasJohn’sbelow:

Icomefromthetop5%financially,andtoknowthattherearealmost10timesasmanychildrennowwhoareimpoverishedthanwerethosewhoweremorefinanciallysecurethanmegrowingupmakesmethink.SomanythingsIdidnothavetothinkaboutgrowingupthatsomanyhavetobeconcernedwithtoday.ThisarticlereinforceshowprivilegedIwas:marriedparentsforthefirst13yearsofmylife,withthesamehome,beingwhiteandsuburban.Iwasmeanttosucceed.


Insider/OutsiderClashes

Igrewupinasingleparenthome,andmymotherhadnoeducation.Igrewuppoorjustlikethesegraphsshow…inotherwords,thingslikethisareveryconvincingbecauseIliveitandIbelieveit.(Angie)

The final theme we noted in student responses positioned participants as eitherinsidersoroutsiders topoverty.While somestudentsappearedmorecognizantof socialclasscomplexityintheUS,nearlyallstudentswerequicktoidentifyaspoverty“insiders”or“outsiders.”Studentswith littlepovertyexperiencehadavarietyofresponses.Severaldescribedtheimpossibilityoffullygraspingtheissue,sincethosewhohaveneverbeeninpoverty“mayunderstandthatitisanissue,butsincetheyhavenoexperiencetheycannotplace themselves in the shoesofapersonwho lives inpoverty” (Becky).Others found itimportanttopointout thatnoonehas it thateasy:“Withourstockmarket theway it is,evenourupperclasspeoplearestruggling”(Angie).

Thoseexpressingamore“insiderview”ofpovertyalsoaddedarangeofcommentsto the conversation. One student waxed eloquent about the unfairness of classstratification,since“alljobsarenecessaryforthefunctioningandwell‐beingofthesociety”(John). Several students, referring to data about factors leading to and resulting frompoverty,reacteddefensively,as iscommonincriticalwhitenessengagementand identityreformation (Lewis,2004).For instance,Beckywrites, “Ididcome fromasinglemother,and I am fine.Many parents of these kidsmay be scumbags,missing, or dead, and thatcouldaffect themmuchmore thanaSIMPLEdivorce.”Anothersimilarly inspiredstudentpointsoutthatnotallpoorpeoplearesubjecttoaninevitablyunhappyexistence:

Igrewuppoor,andmymotherandIhadtoworkhardforeverythingwehad.Therefore,ImaygetfrustratedwhenIhearaboutanargumentbeingmadeaboutsomeonebeingpoorbeingthereasonoftheirtribulations.However,Igrewupinasmalltownwithgoodmoralsandethicsandaparentthatcaredforme.(Angie)

Therealquestionbecomes,then,isitworthwhileto“worktogetheracrossdifference,”asNarayan (1998) calls for? Is communicationandunderstandingreachablebetween theseinsiders and outsiders? Several students, like Jade, find this a difficult proposition, sincethey see irreconcilable differences in perspective: “Whatever you take out of the sitedepends on who you are, your point of view, and past and current knowledge of thesubject”(Jade).

Moststudentsconceivedifferentunderstandingsofsocialclasstobepredominantlybasedonone’ssocialclassmembership.Kellyconfidentlycategorizesthewayeachsocialclassmightseetheissue:

Thosegrowingupinpovertywillfeeltherestofthepeoplehaveabigadvantageoverthemontheladderofsuccess.Middle‐incomepeopleshouldhavesimilarfeelingstomethatweneedtohelpthelower‐incomepeoplemore.Thewealthypopulationmightbelievethattheyareentitledtomorethantherestofsociety,sotheymightnotseeanythingwrongwiththesestatistics.


Waldron(1996)seekstocomplicatethesearbitrarydivisionsbyemphasizingthatourhybridizedidentitiesgobeyonddistinctcategoriesandclassorculturalmemberships.Inhiseyes,itisjustsuchartificialgeneralizationsaboutvariousgroupsthatcanarisefromwell‐intentioned multicultural curricula. This is a particular danger in the context ofdiscussions pertaining to whiteness that take place without nonmarginalized peoplerepresented. Pedagogically, then, it becomes essential to complicate neatly drawncategories and distinctions surrounding assumed identities, beliefs, and experiences. Ifstudents are able to find commongroundbetween various social classes alongside theirdifferences,perhapsaconversationcanreallybegintotakeplace.

ActionorInaction?“Seeing”Whiteness

Given the time constraints of a semester‐long course, we found that CWR effectivelyinitiatedtoughconversationsonpovertyandrace forwhitepreservice teachers,butasasmall first step to a larger engagement needed to sustain change. Though participantssometimesexperiencedshock,pain,orsurprise,thesefeelingswerenecessarytobegintounderstandandconfront theirpersonal role inwhiteness.Voicingunsettled responses istypical but productive in whiteness conversations (Carter et al., 2007; McIntyre, 1997)becauseparticipantsaremorelikelytoactafterward(Kerdeman,1999).Kellyexplains,“Ibelievethisarticleraisesmorequestionsthanactuallygivesanswers…forme,thisarticleactuallymakesmewondermoreaboutwhat is trueandwhat isnot,andmightmakemewanttodoresearchofmyowntofigureitout.”

Some directly related their urge to action to the empathy the sites triggered: “I feelreallybadforpoorpeoplerightnowandfeel theneedtodosomethingtohelp”(Carrie).Notably,however,mostofthevowstotakeactionthatstudentsmadewerevague.Carriecontinuedon to say, “Ibelieve that somehow, someway,we should take steps to tryandendpovertyoratleastcontainit.”Whilethetoneisadmirable,thelackofspecificitylendsdoubt to whether any change in action or behavior will really result. Peter similarlycomplicates a social action response to the data he encountered on CWR, but in amorespecificandnuancedway:

AfterIfeelbadaboutit,it[makesmewant]togooutandjointhecauseagainstpoverty.Honestly,though,thissiteannoysme.Itremindsmeofthepeoplewhostandoutsidethe[campusbuilding]handingmesmallslipsofpaperandaskingmetotakeaminutetostopglobalwarming.It’sgoingtoatakealotmorethanaminute,andthisgoingtotakealotmorethanjustme.

Pushing students beyond empathy and into action requires regular opportunities to talkabout whiteness and to interact in personwith historically marginalized people. It alsorequireshumility,consciousness,anopenmind,andalong‐termcommitment.Asemester‐long“diversity”coursewithonlineCWRactivitiesthatopenupproductiveconversationsisagoodstart,butonlyafirststepinbuildingateachertoolkitofself‐awareness,backgroundknowledge, and awillingness to reach out tomarginalizedpeoplewhile respecting theirexpertise.

Whilemanystudentsdiscussedbeingmovedtoaction, it isalso importanttonotetheseveral responses that indicate a sense of hopelessness or a lack of change in


understanding. Hoffman (2000) might attribute these to self‐centeredness or evenempathicoverarousal.Somestudentsspeakofpovertyasinevitable,“abigcirclethatwilljust keep continuing over time without a change in helping underprivileged students”(Christopher). Others feel the need to point out the unrealistic nature ofmost potentialsolutions to the problem: “I know that poverty exists all over theworld, and it is a sadthing.At thesame time, it seems impossible to fightwhenpeoplearenaturallygreedy ...While this is a fine cause, it seems impossible” (Peter). Scott, assertinghis “functionalistview,” adds, “No matter what, there will be unemployment, which inevitably leads topoverty. We cannot provide everyone in the nation with jobs; there are not enough ofthem.”Othersjustappeartobeunmoved:“Iamabletoregardthedatawithoutanoverlysurprised feeling” (Patrick). Jadegoesso faras toexplainwhyshechooses to ignore thedataandtheintendedimpactofthestatistics:

Thetechniquesarenotconvincingtomeasareader.Ihaveknowledgeofsocialstatusandfinancialstatus,andIfeelsadthatitissadthattherearesomanychildrenwhoarelessfortunate,butevenmoreIfeelitissadthatasaparentonewouldn’tstrivehardertomakethingsbetterforhis/herfamily.

Kellyaddsthedishearteningcomment:“Idonotreallyfeelmotivatedtodoanything,soIhope the articledoesn’twantme todo anything.”Whetherher lackofmotivation stemsfromnotunderstandingtheproblem,notfeelingempathyforothersoutsideofhercircle,orasadefensemechanismtoavoidfeelingempathicoverarousalisnotclear.

ClassDiscussion:EthicalInquiry

Althoughthestorymightendhere,theinstructorinthisclassviewedCWRparticipationasjustaway tobegintheconversation.The technologyand thewebsiteswithout reflectioncouldpotentiallyresultinjustanotherreaffirmationofpreviouslyheldopinions.TheCWRdebriefclassroomdiscussionresultingfromthesix‐weekwebsiteexplorationisthespacewhere authentic community inquiry occurs around the question “What is social class?”Such a discussion format is far from confrontational debate, and revolves around acooperativemeaning‐makingprocess,onethatresonateswithTannen’s(1998)preferencefor dialogue and Parker’s (2003) description of valuable discussion, in which studentsdiscovertheirownsenseofjusticethroughdialogicinteractions.

Much of the groundwork for discussion has occurred during personal CWRparticipation, since, as Parker (2003) points out, “Reversibility is an ideal form ofreciprocity and means changing places with—perspective‐taking, genuine exchange. Itrequiresinclusion,dialogue,andimagination”(p.86).Inessence,then,teachercandidatesarebetterequippedtodiscussissuesofsocialclasswithadiversegroupofstudentsoncetheyhavebeenexposedtoavarietyofperspectivesthroughthewebsites.

Being serious about quality student discussion participation is part of Simon’s(2001)visionofschool‐wideinquiryformoraleducation,movingteachersbeyondavisionofmere pedagogical neutrality. Interestingly, the CWR activity, on its own, presents thepotential risks of pedagogical neutrality, namely the inevitability that teachers omit,include,andshapecurricularmaterials,thusremainingunabletobeentirelyneutral.The


discussionthatensues, then, ispivotal inopeningupaspaceforthestudentstodialogueabouttheirfindingsinawaythatcanbebothresponsiveandgenerative.

Implications

Althoughourresearchdrawsupontheexperienceofjustoneclassthroughthelimitedlensof their virtual contributions to an online activity, we feel it highlights the very realchallenges that teacher educators face in enabling future teachers to more clearly seethemselvesandtheirfuturestudents.Whileeverycourseundoubtedlyprovidesitsownsetof issues,challenges,anduncertainties,acourseondiversity forteachercandidatesmusthavemorethanitsfairshare.OurworkfindsthattheCRW,wovenalongwithothertexts,movies, activities, and discussions, has enabled students to begin thinkingmore broadlyaboutissuesthatpreviouslymayhaveseemedirrelevant.Byperusingquantitativedataonsocialclass,reflectingonthisdatapersonallyandindependentlyonCWR,anddebriefingonthe experience in a large‐group‐discussion, these preservice teachers revealed empathy,imaginativeengagement,anawarenessoftheirinsider/outsiderstatus,understanding,andethical inquiry. Importantly, students did not emerge from the six weeks with easyanswers.ThediversitycourseinmanywaysaccomplishedLewisonetal.’s(2002)criticalliteracygoalof“disruptingthecommonplace.”

Of course, not every student who leaves the class has grasped the complexity ofsocial class andhow itmightplayout in the classroom.A fewmost likely leftwith theirprevious beliefs affirmed. But the work of class‐wide critical–ethical inquiry isn’t toindoctrinate,buttohelptoopenup.Whetherornottheseteachercandidatesfindasenseofclosureorresolutionforthebigquestionsraisedintheirclassondiversitymaynotevenbe thepoint.The fact that they spent sixweekswrestlingwith thesebigquestions,bothindependentlyandcollaboratively,steepedinawiderangeofrelatedresources,pointstothehopethattheymayseethevalueincriticallylookingatthebigissuesandconfrontingthem in their future classrooms. After all, examining deep‐seated assumptions,experiencing empathy and imaginative engagement, learning how to speak acrossdifferences, fosteringrealunderstanding,andengaginginclass‐wideethical inquiryseemtobethemostauthenticallyeducativeexperiencesofall.

More research needs to be done in the ways that technology might foster theseimportantconversations,andmoreworkneedstolookhonestlyatthewaysthatteachers’useofnewmediaintheclassroommayinadvertentlyworkagainstperspective‐broadeninggoals.The role that theCWRplayed inour case, asa safeplace for students toprivatelymakesenseoftheirowndeep‐seatedreactionsandassumptionsbeforeengaginginopenface‐to‐facedialogue, seemsworthexploring,because itpoints toaverydifferentwayofconsidering technology implementation in the classroom. Future teachers need to buildempathy towards action, to complicate their understandings of America as “the land ofopportunity,” and to bridge insider/outsider perspectives. Looking critically at the waywebsites present quantitative data on social class while explicitly hashing out the lifeexperiencesandassumptionsthatcolortheirperspectivesisperhapsonepotentialwayinto“seeingwhiteness”throughthelensofsocialclass.


References

Aveling,N. (2012). Critical engagementwithwhiteness: Beyond lecturing on the evils ofracism. InB.Down& J. Smyth (Eds.),Criticalvoicesinteachereducation (pp. 111‐123).Dordrecht,Neth.:SpringerSciencePress.

Behrman, E. (2006). Teaching about language, power, and text: A review of classroompracticesthatsupportcriticalliteracy.JournalofAdolescentandAdultLiteracy,4(6),490‐498.

Britzman,D.(2003).Practicemakespractice.Albany:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress.

Carter,S.,Honeyford,M.,McKaskie,D.,Guthrie,F.,Mahoney,S.,&Carter,G.D.(2007).Whatdoyoumeanbywhiteness?Aprofessor,fourdoctoralstudents,andastudentaffairsadministratorexplorewhiteness.TheCollegeStudentAffairsJournal,26(2),152‐170.

Castigo,A. (2008). “Idon'twant tohear that!”Legitimatingwhiteness throughsilence inschools.Anthropology&EducationQuarterly,39(3),314‐333.

Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008).Basicsofqualitativeresearch (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA:Sage.

CriticalWebReader.(2010).Retrievedfromhttp://cwr.indiana.edu/.

Greene,M.(2007).Artandimagination:Overcomingadesperatestasis.InA.C.Ornstein,E.Pajak,&S.B.Ornstein(Eds.),Contemporaryissuesincurriculum(pp.32‐38).Boston,MA:Pearson.

Hoffman, M. (2000). Empathyandmoraldevelopment: Implications forcaringand justice.Cambridge,UK:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Hurd,C.(2008).Cincodemayo,normativewhiteness,andthemarginalizationofMexican‐descentstudents.Anthropology&EducationQuarterly,39(3),293‐313.

Janks,H.(2000).Domination,access,diversity,anddesign:Asynthesisforcriticalliteracyeducation.EducationalReview,52(2),175‐184.

Kerdeman, D. (1998). Between Interlochen and Idaho: Hermeneutics and education forunderstanding. In S. Tozer (Ed.), Philosophy of education 1998 (pp. 272‐279).Urbana,IL:PhilosophyofEducationSociety.

Ladson‐Billings,G.J.(2005).Istheteamallright?Diversityandteachereducation.JournalofTeacherEducation,56(2),229‐234.

Laughter, J. (2011). Rethinking assumptions of demographic privilege: Diversity amongwhitepreserviceteachers.TeachingandTeacherEducation,27(1),43‐50.

Lazarre, J. (1997).Beyondthewhitenessofwhiteness:Memoirofawhitemotherofablackson.Durham,NC:DukeUniversityPress.

Lewis, A. (2003). Race in the school yard: Negotiating the color line in classrooms andcommunities.NewBrunswick,NJ:RutgersUniversityPress.

Lewis, A. E. (2004). "What group?" Studying whites and whiteness in the era of "color‐blindness."SociologicalTheory,22(4),623‐646.


Lewison, M., Flint, A., & Sluys, K. (2002). Taking on critical literacy: The journey ofnewcomersandnovices.LanguageArts,79(5),382‐392.

Lipsitz, G. (2006). The possessive investment inwhiteness:Howwhite people profit fromidentitypolitics.Philadelphia,PA:TempleUniversityPress.

McClaren, P. (1996). Whiteness is … In J. L. Kinchelos, S. Steinberg, N. Rodriguez, & R.Chennault (Eds.),White reign:Deployingwhiteness inAmerica. New York, NY: St.Martin'sPress.

McIntosh,P.(1990).Whiteprivilege:Unpackingtheinvisibleknapsack.IndependentSchool,49,31‐35.

McIntyre, A. (1997).Makingmeaning ofwhiteness:Exploring the racial identity ofwhiteteachers.Albany,NY:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress.

McLaughlin, M., & DeVoogd, G. (2004). Critical literacy as comprehension: Expandingreaderresponse.JournalofAdolescentandAdultLiteracy,48(1),52‐62.

Narayan,U.(1998).Workingtogetheracrossdifference:Someconsiderationsonemotionsandpoliticalpractice.Hypatia,3(2),31‐47.

Parker,W.C. (2003).Teachingdemocracy:Unityanddiversityinpubliclife.NewYork,NY:TeachersCollegePress.

Pixley,M.,&SchniederVanDerPloeg,L.(2000).Learningtosee:White.EnglishEducation,32(4),278‐279.

Poyntz,S.(2006).Independentmedia,youthagency,andthepromiseofmediaeducation.CanadianJournalofEducation,21(1),154‐175.

Pritchard,M.S.(1996).Reasonablechildren:Moraleducationandmorallearning.Lawrence,KS:UniversityPressofKansas.

Rodriguez,N.M.(1998).Emptyingthecontentofwhiteness:Towardanunderstandingoftherelationbetweenwhitenessandpedagogy.InJ.L.Kincheice,S.R.Steinberg,N.M.Rodriguez,&R.E.Chennault(Eds.),Whitereign:DeployingwhitenessinAmerica(pp.31‐62).NewYork,NY:St.Martin'sPress.

Rogers,R.(2013).Cultivatingdiversitythroughcriticalliteracyinteachereducation.InC.Kosnik, J. Rowsell, P. Williamson, R. Simon, & C. Beck (Eds.), Literacy teachereducators:Preparingteachersforachangingworld.Boston,MA:SensePublishers.

Shedd,J.(2012).SchoolofEducationEthnicitybyPrimaryProgram.InUniversityDatabase.Bloomington,IN:IndianaUniversity.

Simon,K.G. (2001).Moralquestionsintheclassroom:Howtogetkidstothinkdeeplyaboutreallifeandtheirschoolwork.NewHaven,CT:YaleUniversityPress.

Spring,J.(1998).Educationandtheriseoftheglobaleconomy.NewYork,NY:Routledge.

Sleeter, C. E. (2001). Preparing teachers for culturally diverse schools: Research and theoverwhelmingpresenceofwhiteness.JournalofTeacherEducation,52(2),94‐106.


Staiger,A.(2004).Whitenessasgiftedness:Racialformationatanurbanhighschool.SocialProblems,51(2):161‐181.

Tannen, D. (1998).Theargumentculture:Movingfromdebatetodialogue. New York, NY:RandomHouse.

Tatum,B.D. (2003).Whyarealltheblackkidssittingtogetherinthecafeteria?NewYork,NY:BasicBooks.

Waldron,J.(1996).Multiculturalismandmélange.InR.Fullinwider(Ed.),Publiceducationin a multicultural society: Policy, theory, critique (pp. 90‐118). Cambridge, UK:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Woodson,C.(1990).Themiseducationofthenegro.Trenton,NJ:AfricaWorldPress,Inc.

PAGE|75

Digitalliteracy:Asociologicalanalysis

KerriRinaldi

Abstract

This paper analyzes how sociological factors, access to literacy, and self‐sponsoreddigital literacy are interrelated. By reviewing New Literacy Studies literature andstatistical analyses of digital communication usage, this paper gives a sociologicalreadingtoself‐sponsoreddigitalliteracy.Literacyasawholeisanimportantfacettomodernsociety,butwemustacknowledgetheriseofdigitaltextualityasanewformofliteracyandrecognizetheprofoundrelationshipthatexistsbetweensocioeconomicfactors and writing. This paper demonstrates that digitally produced writing istextuallyvalid,steepedinsocialcapital,andisextraordinarilyaccessibleregardlessofsocial factors, especially socioeconomic status. Based on these conclusions,implicationsforpedagogicalinstructionarealsoexplored.

IntroducingtheOverlap

A student begins her day by sending a textmessage to her boyfriend confirmingplanstomeetafterschool.Duringtheschooldayshesendsmultipletextmessagestovariousfriendsaboutherdayorthelatestgossip.Sheremembersareportthatisduesoon,andmakesawrittennoteofitsdeadlineinhercellphone’scalendar.Afterschool, shechecksherFacebookandwritesona friend’swall.Later thatnight, asshestruggleswithherhomework,shesendsaquickemailtoherteacherrequestingfurtherexplanation.

Eachoftheseactsatypicalstudentmightengageiniscertainlywriting—thestudent is using the written word to communicate an idea either to herself oranotherperson.However,theyalltakeplaceinvariousdigitalformats,textualinputchanneledbyadigitaldevicesuchasacellphoneora laptop.Thestudentengageswithdigitaltextnumeroustimesadayandwithextraordinaryease.Infact,digitalwritingistheprimarywayshecommunicateswithherfriendsandadultsinherlife.Whatdoesitmeantobesocomfortablewiththesetypesofwritinginthesetypesofsocialcontexts?

The simplest way to define this is digital literacy, or the ability tocommunicateeffectivelywithtextthatexistsindigitalcontexts.StudentusageoftheInternetandcellphonesisnearlyubiquitousinpresent‐dayAmerica—78%ofteensages 12 to 17 own a cellphone, and 93% use the Internet regularly (Madden,Lenhart, Duggan, Cortesi, & Gasser, 2013; Zickuhr, 2010). The field of literacyinstruction acknowledges the rise of digitally produced text, and has started toconsideritwhenexaminingthevalidityofself‐sponsored(definedbyNewLiteracyStudies as extra‐institutional writing that is self‐initiated) texts. The study of thesociology of literature is a field that is also currently being rejuvenated, and ittackles such issues as the history of the book, sociological critique of literaryaesthetics, the relationship between socioeconomic forces and the publishing

DIGITALLITERACYPAGE|76

industry, and the rise of the digital humanities. I approach my analysis with aquestionthatdrawsfrombothofthesefields:what ifweweretotakethetoolsofsociologicalanalysisofliteratureandapplythistypeofexaminationtoliteracy,andinparticular,self‐sponsoreddigitalliteracy?Itismyaimtotakethesetwoemergingfields and join them in a manner that gives a sociological treatment, one that isgarneredfromtheconceptsofcriticalliterarytheories,toliteracyinsuchawaythatitisanewinterdisciplinaryapplication.

This sociological reading given to digital literacy diverges from priortraditionalapplicationsofsocialandculturaltheoriestoliteracystudiesbyfocusingon topics important to the fields of sociology, literature, and literacy instruction.Suchtopicsincludethetransitiontowardsprimarilydigitaltextualcommunication,class status, and access to literature. Each of these areas undoubtedly affectsliteracy, and therefore has implications for literacy instruction. By framing thisanalysis as one that draws from the fields of sociology and literature, I makeconnections to pedagogy and tease out implications for it, motivated by theextraordinarychangesbothliteratureandliteracyareundergoingaswetransitiontowardsadigitizedsociety.

This digital transitioning of our society brings about new forms of literacythatraiseseriousquestions:howdoesthisshifttohighdigitalliteracyinformaccessto literature, questions of textual validity, and ultimately, pedagogy?What are thesociocultural implications of new digital literacies, and how can we use theseimplicationstoshapeourliteracyinstruction?Thesequestionsaresignificantforthefieldofsociologyaswellasforeducators,andaredeservingofinquiryasthefieldofliteracychangesasaresultofthetransitiontowardsdigitaltextualityandthetrendtowards studentswhoaremostat easewithdigitallyproduced text. Ifwehope tounderstand this transition in such a way that we can enlighten our pedagogicalinstruction,itisimperativetoexaminethewaysinwhichsociologicalandeconomicfactorsinteractwithdigitaltextsandliteracy.


A theoretical framework for conceptualizing social status that can be applied tounderstandingthemeaningandvalueofsocialactions—likewriting—isthatoftherenowned contemporary sociologist Pierre Bourdieu. Bourdieu (2008) theorizesthat capital is not only economically accumulated and exchanged, but that it alsoappears inobjectifiedorembodied forms that canbeaccumulatedandexchangedjust as economic capital is.He terms these intangible typesof capital as symbolic,whichcanbefurtherdividedintotwogroups:socialorculturalcapital.Theformerrefers to societal status, networks, connections, and the like. Cultural capital isfurtherbrokendown intoembodied,objectified,or institutionalizedcapital.Thesetypesofcapital—whichcanincludeone’saccent,disposition,booksowned,degrees,or institutional pedigree—take time to accumulate and have an intimaterelationshipwithwealth.AccordingtoBourdieu(2008),allformsofcapitalmustbeacknowledgedinordertounderstandthestructureofthesocialworld.

PAGE|77RINALDI

Inthefieldofthesociologyofliterature,AlanLiu’sworklooksatthewaysinwhichthenewdigitalageinteractswiththehumanitiesandliteraryinstruction.InhisworkFromReadingtoSocialComputing,Liu(2010)statesthatsocialcomputingisarepurposingofthesocialfunctionsofreadingandliteraryactivityandshouldbegiventreatment in literaryscholarship,because it isavitalcoming‐togetherof thepersonalexperienceoflanguage.Heproposesthatweshouldalsoemployanewsetof methodologies that are interdisciplinary, new analytical tools that are madepossiblebythedigitalage,andmostimportantly,newpedagogies.

Tosetthestageforhowwewillapproachandsituatetheconceptofliteracy,Cook‐Gumperz’sworkinliteracyresearchwillbeused.ForCook‐Gumperz(2006),historicalandsocialcontextsare inseparablefromourconceptionof literacy:howwe as a society view literacy is highly contingent upon the social, historical, andculturalenvironmentinwhichweareconsideringit.Sheconceptualizesliteracyinthe way that is commonly accepted in the field of New Literacy Studies. That is,there is not one universally accepted, autonomous literacy, but rather multipleliteracies,eachfunctioningdistinctivelyandholdingdifferentvaluesinvariedsocialand cultural contexts. Through her historical analysis of literacy education, Cook‐Gumperz (2006) highlights how intimately related societal conditions, includingdominant class ideology and social control, are to literacy instruction. Her workstressestherelationshipbetweenliteracy,perceivedvalues,andhowliteracyservesas a function of cultural power in societal contexts, which will be useful forproviding a framework for understanding value‐making and cultural status as itrelatestodigitalliteracy.

Therelationshipbetweenwritersofdigitaltextandthewritingtheyproduceiscarefullymediatedbyinstitutionalinfluence—institutionsofliteraryconvention,institutionsofsocioeconomicstatus,andinstitutionsofsocialrelationships.Writingisinherentlyasocialpractice,anacknowledgmentthatformsthebasisfororientingthisanalysis.Whenweconsiderliteracyasapedagogicalpractice,andchampionitsimportance for success and knowledge‐building in our society, wemust not losesightofthefactthatbeingliterateisnotmerelyameansofgainingknowledgeandsuccess. The ability to write is ultimately the ability to be social via the writtenword—tocommunicatewithothersintextualform.

Thesociologyofliteraturehasanalyzedgenresofliterature,andthispaperispredicatedonthenotionthatthesametypeofanalysisispossibleforcategoriesofliteracy.Variousformsofsocialcomputingcanbecategorizedasgenresofwriting,accordingtoLiu(2010),andthispaperexpandsthatideatopositthatallformsofdigitalwritingcouldbeclassifiedassuch, includingtextmessagesandemails.Notonlycouldtheseassortedtypesofdigitallyproducedwritingbeconsideredgenres,buttheabilitytobeliterateineachcontextamountstodifferentpossibleliteracies;onewhoiswellversedindigitalwritinginatextingformat istexting‐literate,onewhoiswellversedinablogformatisblog‐literate,andsoon.Thoughthesecanallfall under the general umbrella of digital literacy, there are still differentconventions and rules in each digital context, thusmimicking the classification ofgenres.


This paper provides a sociological analysis of digital literacy by combiningthetheoretical frameworksofBourdieu—payingparticularlycloseattentiontohisconcept of social capital as it pertains to group memberships and peerrelationships—with that of New Literacy Studies—which promotes thepluralization of literacy, or the idea that there are multiple literacies one canpossess,eachofwhichcanholdvalueindifferentculturalcontexts—andwiththatofthesociologyofliterature,whichpositsthatevenwithinthebroaderumbrellaofdigital literacy, there are several forms, or genres, of digital writing with whoseconventionsonemaybefamiliar.

ScopeandDefinitions

Thispaper’sfocusisnarrowedinitsapproachtodigitalliteracy,asthisisoftenthebroad catchall term given to being literate in computer use. For our purposes,however,thispaperconcentratesonthosewhoarenotonlycomputerliterate(canoperate a computer with ease, and navigate the Internet and forms of digitalcommunications),butarealsohighlyliterateindigitalrhetoric,orthespecificstyleofwritingthatisubiquitousindigitalcommunication.Thespecificcontextsinwhichliteracyeventstakeplace,especiallywhentheyareformsofsocialcommunication,have impliedconventions, rules,andstructures thatguide thewritingwithineachcontext. The digital sphere is no exception: in order to be digitally literate in therhetoric of this format, one must at least be aware of and able to navigate theconventionsandnormsofdigitalwriting.Iusethetermsdigitalwritinganddigitalrhetoric to signal the writing style that takes place in digital contexts. One finalcaveat on terminology choice: while I often refer to digital literacy as a singularconcept,Irecognizethatitisnotasingleautonomousorindividualliteracy,justastraditional literacy is not. Rather, digital literacy also refers to multiple differentpossibleliteracieswithinthedigitalsphere.Forclarity,whenIusethetermdigitalliteracy,Imeanalltypesofwritingthatoccurindigitalcontexts.

Analysis

QuestionsofTextualValidity

Justwhat itmeans tobe literatehasbeenaquestionpainstakinglydebated in theeducationfieldsincethefirstattemptstodefineliteracy,anditsdefinitionhasbeenfluidlychangingshapeovertime,influencedbytheoreticalreimaginingsofwhatitisthat literacy isanddoes.Cook‐Gumperz(2006)states that it isgenerallyacceptedby both educators and the public at large that literacy plays “amajor role in theimprovementofthequalityoflifeforindividuals,socialgroupsandevenforwholesocieties” (p.19). In thepast, functional literacy,or the literacy levelnecessary tofunction in society, has been loosely defined as the ability to read, write, and dobasic calculations, as well as the ability to create new comprehensible writtenmaterials. Cook‐Gumperz (2006) rightfully points out that such a definition isinherently freighted with cultural bias and implicit evaluations. The previouslyaccepted definition of literacy was not only overly simplistically reduced, withimplied cultural evaluative standards, it was also presented as a neat dichotomy.Literacywasregardedastheskillofreadingandwriting—thatis,eitheryoucould

PAGE|79RINALDI

read and write and were literate, or you could not, and you were consideredilliterate(Purcell‐Gates,2007).

Literacywasalsoheavilytiedtoinstitutionalauthority;itwasthoughtofasadecontextualizedskilllearnedinonespecificsetting—theclassroom—andalackofaccesstosuchaninstitutionalsettingmeantapersonwasmorelikelythannottoberegarded as illiterate (Purcell‐Gates, 2007). However, this reductionist,institutionallyladendefinitionofliteracyhasfallenbythewaysideinthepastthirtyyears.BrianStreet(1984)wasamongthefirstscholarstosuggestthatliteracywasnot an autonomous, decontextualized, singular skill, but rather an ideologicalconstruct defined by the social institutions and groups in which it occurs. Thisinitiated a theoretical move towards thinking about how literacy is sociallyconstructed and determined by specifics: localities, contexts, and social practices(Purcell‐Gates, 2007). Literacy is no longer regarded as a singular, independentconcept, but rather as a contextualized, pluralistic set ofmany literacies. This isreferred to in the field of New Literacy Studies as multiple literacies ormultiliteracies. In this pluralized state, different literacies are accorded differentvalues,legitimacy,andstatus,alldependentupontheinstitutionorcontextinwhichthatliteracytakesplace.Putsimply,wenowrecognizethatthereisnotmerelyoneliteracy thatapersoncaneitherdefinitivelydoorhave,but instead, apersonhasseveralliteracies,andcanbeliterateinseveraldifferentcontexts,eachofwhicharevaluedinacertainspaceorbycertainpeople.

Given this new vantage point, there is no one universal definition offunctional literacy,andprovidingatechnicaldefinitionof literacyisnowregardedasanearimpossibility.WhatwasoncethoughttobethecorrectsingularversionofliteracyisnowoftenreferredtoasStandardEnglishliteracy(specifically,theabilitytobeabletoreadandwriteinStandardEnglish)oracademicliteracy(specifically,theabilitytobeabletoemployStandardEnglishcriticallyinanacademiccontext).Fromthemultiliteraciesperspective,academicliteracyisnolongerconsideredtheonlyliteracyapersoncanachieve,ortheonlyliteracythathasvalueorthatmatters;rather, it is merely one type of literacy that is given meaning and status in thenarrowlyspecificcontextoftheacademicinstitution(Purcell‐Gates,2007).

As a whole, literacy practices are patterned by the personal and socialeverydaylivesofpeople:theymakelistsforgroceryshopping,writebirthdaycardsto relatives, read instructions for takingmedicine, andwrite in personal journals(Purcell‐Gates,2007).Theseareallexamplesofvarioustypesofliteracyatplayineveryday contexts. In our current time, people expend much of their literacypractices on social digital writing. This is especially true of our youth, who havecomeofagewithsuchmodesofcommunicationasdominant.

In terms of validity, a more level playing field arises from the idea thatacademicliteracyisbutoneinaseaofmanypossibleliteracies.Withtheadventofthe multiliteracy ideology, nonacademic literacies were no longer viewed asdeficient tomainstreamacademic literacies,onlyasdifferent (Cazdenetal.,1996;Purcell‐Gates, 2007). Academic or Standard English literacy, as is argued bymultiliteracyproponents,shouldnotberegardedastheonecorrectformofwriting.


Afterall, “[t]heemphasisupongrammarandcorrectness is,”notesCook‐Gumperz(2006), “ahistorical featureof our societybasedupon thehistorical accident thatthewritten literate languagewas different from the spoken vernacular at criticalhistoricalperiods”(p.45).Barton(2000)warnsus,aswell,thatwemustavoidthethought that there issomesortofnatural formof languageor literacy,one that isuntouched by social institutions or cultural power dynamics. Those types ofliteraciesthatarecontextualizedandvaluedoutsideoftheschoolsettingbegantoinfluence pedagogical considerations. Extra‐institutional literacies were termedvernacular literacies, and educators searched for ways to make use of these self‐initiatedliteraciesintheclassroomasameanstoincreaseacademicliteracy.

MiriamCamitta(1993)pointsoutthatvernacularwriting,orwhatshetermsself‐sponsored writing, is “literate behavior that conformed, not to the norms ofeducationalinstitutions,buttothoseofsociallifeandculture”(p.229).InherworkataPhiladelphiahighschoolintheearly1990s,Camitta(1993)realizedthatwhileher students rarely produced writing for their teachers in the classroom, theyengagedheavilyinextra‐institutionalwriting,primarilyforsocialpurposes.Atthattime, self‐sponsored writing included journaling, passing handwritten notesbetween friends, and transcribing rap collaborations. Though the classrooms oftodaydiffer from thoseof theearly1990s, the samecanbe saidof contemporarystudents’ writing practices, to an even greater degree. Even those students whoproducelittleinthewayofacademicallysanctionedwriting(orarethoughttohavea low level of academic literacy) are likely to engage heavily inwriting practiceswiththeirsocialgroupthatareself‐initiated—amajorityofcontemporarystudentswriteemails,textmessages,andsocialmediacontent—inshort,digitalrhetoric—onadailybasis.

Whatdoesdigitalrhetoricactuallylooklike?Tobesure,justlikeotherformsofliteracythataredifferentfromStandardEnglishliteracy,itisnotsofarremovedfrom standard literacy that it is unintelligible to the untrained eye; rather, itemployscertainaestheticcharacteristicsandconventions,whichappearfrequentlybutarenotnecessarilyarequirement.Inanethnographicstudyofwrittenlanguageused in instantmessaging(or IM)by teenagersaged12to17,DavidCraig(2003)identified fourcharacteristics thatregularlyappeartodifferentiateanddemarcatedigital rhetoric. These four categorieswerephonetic replacements, or the usuallyshortened form of a word with its phonetic letter equivalent (e.g., ur for your);acronyms(e.g.,omgforohmygodorlolforlaughingoutloud);abbreviations(e.g.,ppl for people); and finally what Craig termed inanities, or nonsensicaltransmogrificationsofwordsorotherdigitaltextualconventionsthatwerepurelyaplayonwords,yetthatstillsuggestedacertainmeaningortone(e.g.,lolz).

Craig (2003) remarks on how such conventions of digital writing seepinginto other contexts, especially the institutional setting, have garnered negativecommentsaboutthedevolutionofthelanguageandliteracyskillsofouryouth,withmostoftheblameplacedontheadventoftechnology.Ultimately,heresiststheideathat the Internet and cellphone usage are to blame for the perceived decline ofliteracy,arguingthatbeingliterateinwhathecallsa“lowbrowvernacular”doesnot

PAGE|81RINALDI

damageastudent’swritingability.Thisisbecause,incongruencewithmultiliteracyideologies,beingliterateinonecontextdoesnotprecludeastudentfromdevelopinga wide array of different literacies, academic literacy included. Being digitallyliterate actually benefits the student, Craig argues, by promoting regular contactwithwordsandregularcontactwithawrittenmediumofcommunication.Notonlyisregularcontactwiththewrittenwordfostered,butthefocusoncommunicationinwrittenformhelpsstudentsdevelopskillsthatareimperativeforotherformsofliteracy,academic included.Afterall,onecannotcommunicateviatextmessageorIMifthemessageisunintelligible,or ifthespellingissomangledorthesyntaxsojumbledthattheintendedmeaningdoesnottransmit.Despitetheuseofshortenedspellings and other conventions that are held in esteem in their social group, thedigitally literateare stillwriting inamanner that clearly communicateswhat it istheyaretryingtosay—animportantfeatureofliteracyasawhole.

AccordingtoJohnFrow(2010),suchasociologicalconsiderationofdifferentformsofwritingallowsus toundo thecoherenceof social systems thatappear toneatly favor some particular cultural distinctions over others. From this vantagepoint, and also in accordance with New Literacy Studies, we can unravel thepresuppositionthatacademicorStandardEnglishwritingisthecorrectmannerofwriting with the highest value or prestige. In doing so, the class and economicattachmentstocertainformsofliteracyareexposed:academicdiscourseisstronglycorrelatedwithvalue‐makinginmiddleandhigherclasses,whiledigitaldiscourseisstronglycorrelatedwithvalue‐makinginyouthsocialpeergroups—apointwhichIwillexploremoreinthenextsection.

Despite some teachers’ or policy makers’ laments that digital rhetoric isdevolving language and impeding literacy, it is imperative thatwe look at digitalliteracy from the perspective of multiliteracies. While digital rhetoric is surelychanging thewrittenword inwaysweneverpredicted (something that iseasy toresist), digitally producedwritingmust be viewed as yet another type of literacy,one that is highly contextualized with its own set of social norms and values.Digitally mediated text is extraordinarily social, and thus richly imbued with thesocial underpinnings that New Literacy Studies regards as informing all literacycontexts.Liu(2010)hasevenadmitted toat timesbeingdismayedby thestateoflanguage,yetheremindshimselfthatitshouldbeouraimtolookatlanguagewhereitismostlivelyandmostsocial:

Itistofollowthelivinglanguageofhumanthought,hope,love,desire,hate,andwitwhereveritgoesandwhereverithasthecapacitytobeliterary—eveniftheform,style,orevenspellingandpunctuationofsuchliterarinessdoesnotconformtothosestabilizedintherelativelybriefperiodofhighliteratureroughlybetweenShakespeareandJoyce.(para.26)

The multiliteracy perspective would determine digital writing as a valid form ofliteracythatissociallyconstructedtohaveitsownmeaningandstatusinitsdigitalcontexts.Digitalrhetoric,inessence,istextuallyvalid.


SocialStatusandLiteracies

Having established the textual validity of digitally producedwriting,we can nowturn our attention more closely towards digital literacy as a social practice andinterrogate the relationship between its sociological factors and its use. As it is asocially constructed event, a certain type of writing gains widespread use in aspecificcontextbecausewithinthatcontext,ithassocialvalueandstatusattachedto it. Fromwhere do suchmeaning‐making and status derive in digital rhetoric?Howdoesthisvaluetranslatetopervasiveuseindigitalcontexts?Moreimportantly,whatroledoesdigitalliteracy’ssociallyassignedstatusandvalueplayinitsuseinacademiccontexts?

Beforeweareabletotacklesuchquestions,itwouldbeusefultoexploretheconnectionbetweensocioeconomicfactorsandliteracyingeneral,withanemphasisonacademicsuccess.Timeandtimeagain,researchhasshownthatthesociologicalfactorwiththestrongest influenceonliteracyandacademicsuccessisclassstatus(Lareau,2011).Whileothersociologicalfactorssuchasrace,gender,andcitizenshipplayastrongrole,economicstatushasbeenfoundtobethestrongestinfluenceonacademicsuccessand literacy,and though thegenderandracegapshavesteadilybeen closing, the gap in literacy skills due to socioeconomic disparities onlycontinues towiden (Lareau, 2011;Reardon,Valentino,& Shores, 2012). Likewise,householdincomeisthestrongestpredictorforInternetandcellphoneusageacrossall age levels (Smith, 2010), an important similarity that will be useful for ourpurposes.

By investigating the relationship between educational success and classstatus,AnnetteLareau(2011)discoveredthatitisadistinctivedifferenceinculturalchildrearing,whichsheconcludedledtoadifferenceinculturalvalues,thatisthelinkresponsibleforsocioeconomicstatus’seffectonacademicsuccess.Themiddle‐and upper‐class families Lareau studied followed a strategy of child rearing shetermed“concertedcultivation”—childrenwerecommunicatedwithasiftheywereequals,andwereencouragedtoaskquestions,challengeassumptions,andnegotiaterules (2011). Working‐class families, on the other hand, employed the“accomplishmentofnaturalgrowth”strategy,whichgavechildrenmorefreedomtoplayandinteractwiththeirsocialpeers,butincludedinstructiontodefertoadultsand treat them with quiet, revered respect (Lareau, 2011). Both strategies wereemployedsubconsciouslybyparentsasameanstoinstillculturalvaluesthatwereesteemed and deemed worthy of transference in their respective socioeconomicclasses.

It is important to note here the relationship between the concertedcultivationstrategyofchildrearingandacademicsuccess.Lareau(2011)foundthatthe values encouraged by this strategywere the same values that are specificallyheld in esteem by the upper class. Being exposed early to such values acted asculturalcapitalforchildreninmiddle‐andupper‐classfamiliesandbenefitedthemacademically,sincethesevaluesareconducivetosuccessfullyoperatinginamannercongruent with academic success. Students from these social classes learn todevelopandvalueculturalpracticesthatarevaluedbythedominantclass,likehigh

PAGE|83RINALDI

Standard English literacy, precisely because their socioeconomic class recognizesthesepracticesasculturalcapital.

Questioning, negotiation, and authority testing were frowned upon in theaccomplishmentofnatural growthmethod, andyet these areprecisely thevaluesthatsuccessfullytranslatetoacademiccontexts,sinceacademicinstitutionalvaluesare closelymatched to the values of the hegemonic ideology (Lareau, 2011). Theability toquestionandnegotiatewithauthority,especiallywhencultivated fromayoungage, translates to theability toquestionandnegotiatewithknowledge,andwithauthority inknowledge—inotherwords, theability toengagemasterfully incritical analysis. The values instilled in working‐class children are effective fornavigatingsocialrelationships intheir familyandsocialunits,but in theacademicworld, these values do not hold an advantage. In the academic and professionalworld,theruling‐classideologyprevails,andthequalitiesdevelopedbyupper‐andmiddle‐class childrenarevaluedmuchmore strongly over theonesdevelopedbyworking‐class children. The lessonwe can take away from Lareau’s study is thatdifferent cultural practices are given different values, particular to social andinstitutional contexts. The values of the dominant upper class have a strikingsimilarity to the values of academic institutions. This helps to explain why thedominant upper class values Standard English literacy, and why academicinstitutionsdoaswell.Tobe sure, the institutionof academia is a complex setofcontexts with values that vary by location, mission, prestige, and other markers.However,itissufficientforourpurposestoconcludethattheacademicinstitutionasasimplifiedentity(beitapublicgradeschool,aprivatehighschool,acommunitycollege, or an ivy league university) consistently values Standard English literacyabove all other types of literacies. A person’s class has a strong influence on theculturalvaluesthatarefosteredandencouraged,andif thesevaluesdonotmatchthose of the dominant academic ideology, the student is at a preemptivedisadvantage.

Nowthatwehavedrawnouttherelationshipbetweenacademicliteracyandsocialandculturalvalues,wecanexamineasimilarinfluenceofsuchvaluesontheuse of digital rhetoric. In drawing from theories of multiliteracies, we know thatcertainstylesofwritingandmodesofspeechareusedinspecificcontextsbecausetheybenefittheuserinthatcontext.VernacularformsofEnglishareusedinspeechandwriting as ameans of assertingmembershipwithin a community, familiaritywiththesocialnormsandvaluesofthecommunity,andasanidentity‐makingtool.Byusingthetypeofliteracythatisvaluedinaspecificcontext,onereapsbenefitsintheformofrecognitionasamemberofthatcommunity.Theabilitytocorrectlyandmasterfullyusethecategoryofliteracyandlanguageassociatedwiththevaluesofaparticularcontext,or ‘field’ inBourdieu’s terminology, isa formofculturalcapital(2008). Those students who employ digital rhetoric in socially communicativecontextsdosobecauseitisaformofcapital—itestablishestheirknowledgeofthenorms and rules of their social peer group, and is palpably beneficial to themviasocialacceptance.Moresuccinctly, theability toproducedigital text isameansofassertingtheirplaceintheirpeergroup,amembershipfromwhichtheyreapnearlyimmediatesocialandpersonalrewards.


It is this cultural legitimacy that causes digital rhetoric to be used innondigitalcontexts.Studentsseethelegitimizingpowerofbeingdigitallyliterateintheir social circles: knowing how to communicate digitally and use the rhetoricsolidifiestheirpositionasanin‐the‐knowmemberofthecommunity.Ifthebenefitsofdigitalliteracyasculturalcapitalintheirsocialgrouparecleartostudentsasanimportant part of their social identities, it follows that employing such digitalrhetoric might be seen as more beneficial than engaging in Standard Englishliteracy, the benefits of which are not so immediately clear. By placing greateremphasis on their social status in their peer group, it makes sense that somestudentswouldnotmakeitapointtocode‐switchbetweenliteracies,orwouldfailtoseethebenefitofdroppingtextspeechincontextsoutsideoftheirsocialfield—theirdigital literacy legitimizestheirsocialstanding.Usingdigital rhetoricoutsideof digital contexts is therefore not merely a result of comfortability with certaintypesofwriting,butratheracarryingofsocialprestigefromonecontexttoanother,the decisive questioning of the benefits supposedly promised by adapting to adifferenttypeofliteracy.Digitalwriting,therefore,servesadistinctsocialfunctionforstudents.JustasFrow(2010)proposesthat“readersareformedbytextasmuchastextsareformedbyreaders”(p.247),writersareformedbytheirtextsasmuchastheirtextsareformedbywriters.

DigitalLiteracyAccess:TheDigitalDivide?

The digital divide, the name given to the gap between those who have plentifulaccess to computers and the Internet and those who lack access, certainly existsacrosstheglobe, includingwithintheAmericancontextweare inspectinghere. Inattemptingtodeterminewhattypeofsociologicalfactorscorrelatewiththisdivide,socioeconomicstatus(primarilyincomeandeducationlevels)standsoutasastronginfluence.Forinstance,thosewithahighschooldiplomaorlessschoolingaremuchless knowledgeable about using the Internet than those with a college degree(Hargittai & Hinnant, 2008). As previously stated, there are many sociologicalfactorsthatinfluenceandrelatetodigitalliteracyandrhetoricuse,butthestrongestpredictorofwhetherapersonengages indigital communication is socioeconomicstatus. Given the existence of the digital divide, how does socioeconomic statusaffect access to the various means for producing digitally mediated text? In thefollowingsection,Iwillexaminestatisticalevidenceofthisinfluenceandshowthatwhile thedigitaldivideexists,accesstocontexts inwhichdigital literacyoccurs isabundantlywidespread,regardlessofsociologicaldynamics.

ThePew InternetandAmericanLifeProjecthasprovidedvaluabledataonthe usage of the Internet and cellphones, and has mapped out trends in usagedivided by sociological markers such as gender, income level, and age. Theirresearchconfirmstheexistenceofthedigitaldivide,astheynotethathigherincomelevels,specificallyabovethethresholdofanannual incomeof$75,000, isstronglycorrelatedtohigherInternetandcellphoneusage.OfAmericansearningabovethisincomethreshold,95%usetheInternet;ofthosebelowthethreshold,70%usetheInternet.OutoftheseInternetusers,99%abovethe$75,000incomethresholdusetheInternetintheirownhome,and93%ofInternetusersbelowthethresholduse

PAGE|85RINALDI

theInternetathome(Jansen,2010).

These data do underscore the digital divide’s existence and confirm thatsocioeconomic status is a strong indicator of access to digital contexts, and thusfamiliarity with digital literacy. But a distant reading, a sociological methodologyencouragedbyMoretti (2000)andothersthatexercisesdistanceasaconditionofknowledgeaboutasocialarenaorpracticesuchasdigitalwriting,isappositehere.Notonlywill this introductionofdistance into the textualanalysis letus focusonunitsorclassificationsthatarelargerthantheprocessofwriting(orliteraryevent)orthedigitallymediatedtextitself,thisstepbackalsoshowsusthattheinfluenceofthesociologicalcategory is lessthanwemighthave imagined inthedigitaldivide.Even among those Americans with a lower income level, Internet and cellphoneusageisstillextraordinarilywidespread,signalingastronglikelihood—despitetheacknowledged influence of socioeconomic status—of digital literacy among allincome levels.Outofalladults thatmakeunder$30,000ayear,nearly two‐thirdsstillregularlyusetheInternet.Theusagejumpssharplyinthenextincomebracket:of those making between $30,000 and $50,000 annually, 80% regularly use theInternet(Jansen,2010).

Not only is Internet use incredibly prevalent along the full spectrum ofincome levels and other sociological factors such as age and race, its primaryfunctions formostusers are communicative innature.Email remains thenumberonefunctionaluseoftheInternetforeveryagebracketamongAmericans,andfully90 to 100% of Americans under the age of 74 use email (Zickuhr, 2010). Thisstrongly suggests that literacy in digitized textual rhetoric is exceptionallyprominent,andhasastrongpresenceandroleinthesocialandpersonallivesofthemajorityofAmericans,regardlessofsociologicalunderpinnings.

Cellphonesareevenmoreremarkableintheirflatteningofhierarchalaccesstodigital technology.Used for telephone calls, of course, but also for transmittingtext messages, emails, instant messages, social networking, and sending andretrieving informationviatheInternet,cellphonesareutilizedinsuchmannersbywhat amounts to virtually most of the population. Cellphone usage is incrediblywidespread,regardlessofrace,age,or incomelevel,andubiquitousinourcurrentsociety:85%ofallAmericanadultsownacellphone,andofthosewhoareundertheage of 35, 95% own a cellphone (Zickhur, 2011). Ownership is increasinglyprevalentevenamongyoungerstudents,andby2010,three‐quartersofAmericansbetweentheagesof12and17ownedtheirowncellphone(Lenhart,Purcell,Smith,&Zickhur,2010).

The$75,000incomethresholdindicatorstandsforcellphoneusagejustasitdoesforInternetuse,butthegaphereisevensmaller:ofthoseoverthethreshold,95%owncellphones,andofthosebelowit,83%owncellphones.Eveninthelowestincomebracket,below$30,000inannualincome,75%ownedacellphone(Zickhur,2011).AspecificPewstudyonmobileusageamongraceandclassevenpointsoutthatcellphoneownershipishigheramongAfricanAmericansandLatinosthanitisamongwhites(Smith,2010).


This pervasive usage of cellphones points towards a prevalence of digitalliteracy among all sociological sectors. Of all cellphone owners, nearly threequarters use it regularly to transmit textmessages; that is, they engage regularlywith and exercise their digital rhetoric literacy. Underage students are the mostcommonusersof this typeof communication,withgirlsaged14 to17 in the lead(Lenhart,Ling,Campbell,&Purcell,2010).Morethanhalfofall teenssendfiftyormoretextmessagesinasingleday,andoneinthreesendsmorethan100perday(Lenhart,Lingetal.,2010).SuchwidespreaduseisalsoseeninInternetusagewiththisagegroup:93%of teenagersuse the Internet foremailing, socialnetworking,listeningtomusic,andinformationretrieval(Lenhart,Purcelletal.,2010).

Ifwethinkofaccesstotechnologyinpurelyphysicalterms,thatis,physicalaccesstoacomputerorcellphone,thenindeed,nearlyallAmericansdohaveaccesstodigitaltechnology.Somescholars(Hargittai&Hinnant,2008;Warschauer,2008),however,callforabroaderviewofaccess,statingthatotherformsofaccessinformthe ability to use this physical access in a meaningful way. Warschauer (2008)concludesthatinadditiontophysicalaccess,otherformsofaccessthatarecrucialfor true accessibility to thedigital arena includedigital resources, or anadequateamountofmeaningfulcontentavailablethat isculturallyrelevanttoanindividual;human resources, or the skills and know‐how needed to use a computer in ameaningfulway;andsocialresources,orthesocialstructuresnecessarytosupporteffective use of technology. Thus, it might be argued that just because Americanteenshavenearlylimitlessphysicalaccesstoacomputerorcellphone,thisdoesnotnecessarilyimplyhighdigitalliteracyortheabilitytointeractwithatechnologicalinstrumentinmeaningfulways.However, ifwe lookmorecloselyathowstudentsutilizetheirphysicalaccesstotechnology,wewillseethattypesoffunctionalusagesthatindicatedigitalliteracyremainhighlypervasive,includingacrossclasslines.

While69%ofteensreportowningacomputer,afull95%ofAmericansages14 to17use computers in theirhomes, school, or libraries toaccess the Internet.Evenmore striking, 82% of teens ages 14 to 17 regularly use this time online toaccesssocialnetworkingsites,andusethesedigitalenvironmentstosendmessagestofriends,createshortpoststhataresharedpublicly,andcommentonpicturesandvideos—allpracticesindigitalrhetoric.Thoughateenfromalower‐incomefamilymaylacktheformsofsocialcapitalnecessarytosuccessfullyusedigitaltechnologyfor, say, performing academic research, this does not appear to be the case foronlineactivitiesthatindicatestrongdigitalliteracy.Infact,teensfromfamilieswhoearnlessthan$30,000peryeararemorelikelytouseonlinesocialnetworkingsitesthan theirwealthierpeers (Lenhart,Purcelletal.,2010).Thisprevalenceof socialmedia site usage in conjunction with the pervasiveness of texting, regardless ofsocioeconomicstatus,showsnotonlyfunctionalability,butalsoimpliesteensofallincome levels engagewith digital technology regularly in amanner thatproducestext, therefore signalinghigh literacy in theuseofdigital rhetoric.These formsofcommunicativeusageare farmore important in termsofsociallyesteemeddigitalliteracy practices than other ways of using technology—which may indeed beinfluencedbyotherformsofaccess—thatinsteadsuggestotherformsofliteracies,suchasacademicliteracy.

PAGE|87RINALDI

Digitalwriting,especiallyintheformoftextmessaging,istheleadingtypeofwrittencommunicationusedbyyouthstudents.APewstudy (Lenhart,Lingetal.,2010)hasfoundthat“textmessaginghasbecometheprimarywaythatteensreachtheir friends, surpassing face‐to‐face contact, email, instant messaging and voicecallingasthego‐todailycommunicationtoolforthisagegroup”(Overview,para.2;italicsmine). This is a fascinatingly regular usage of and contactwith thewrittenword forpurposes that arepurely extra‐institutional, sociallymotivated, and self‐initiated. We can then deduce that high school aged students are the leaders indigital literacy, and they typically employ this type of literacy with much morefrequency than other institutional, personal, or social categories of literacy. Inessence, theyaretrulymastersofdigitalrhetoricandareextremely literate inthedigitalwritingarena.

By offering a statistical exploration of the digital divide, I set out todemonstratethateventhougheconomicfactorsareinfluential,thelargerpictureisthataccess toandparticipation indigital literacyarenearlyubiquitous,especiallyamong students, regardless of socioeconomic positioning. Juxtaposed against theprivilegingofacademic literacyasan ideology thatmaintains thepowerstructureandmarginalizesthoselackingaccesstoculturalcapital,andthusimpedingaccesstoacademic literacy(Purcell‐Gates,2007), theprevalenceofdigital literacyacrosssocioeconomicfactorsstandsoutwithaweightedsignificance.

Perhapsthisindicatesthatnotonlyisdigitalliteracyavaluablepedagogicalresourcebecauseofitsvernacularliteracystatus,whichispermeatedwithpositivesocialandculturalvalue,butalsobecauseitexistsasaformofliteracythatis lessinfluencedby institutionalandsocioeconomic factors in termsofaccess. Increasedaccessibility and literacy in digital rhetoric, regardless of class status or race,suggeststhatitisahighlyvaluablepedagogicalresource,onethatisworthminingas a means to increase both academic literacy—which is much more steeped ininstitutionalandsocioeconomiclimitationstoaccess—andliteracyingeneral.

What can we make of the fact that nearly all students text message on aregular basis? Despite how conventions of digital literacy might differ fromconventionsofStandardEnglishliteracy,weshoulddrawanoptimistichopefulnessfromthefactthatstudentsengageinself‐initiatedwritingonadailybasis,andarehighlyskilledinusingthewrittenwordtocommunicateinasocialcontext.Becauseof digital writing’s accessibility across socioeconomic statuses, it stands out as aformof literacythatis less influencedbyonesocioeconomicgroup’s ideology, lesshierarchal, and less rigid in its rules. This is because they are developed andlegitimizedbytheheterogeneoususersthemselves,asopposedtoStandardEnglishliteracy’s rules, which are determined by a hierarchal and hegemonic powerstructure.Inessence,digitalliteracyisademocraticformofliteracythatnearlyallstudentsusewithease,makingitapotentiallypowerfulpedagogicaltool.


ImplicationsforPedagogy

FormerAssessments

Purcell‐Gates(2007)haswritten,“inresponsetotheeducators’question‘whatdoesthissayforinstruction?’…socialliteracyresearchdoesnotnecessarilyhavetosayanythingforinstruction.Rather,muchofthisresearchstandsonitsownasliteracystudies research and is interesting and significant in its own right” (p. 15).Whenever researchonoranalysisof literacy’s connection to social factorsoccurs,the question always follows: how should this influence or change literacyinstruction?Purcell‐Gatesmakesavalidpoint:thisresearchissignificantinitsownright andworthyof studywithout automatic attempts to implement findings intopedagogy. However, it still stands that by studying literacy, we are studyingsomething that we regard to be intimately tied to the act of teaching andscholarship. If we change the way we think about or approach literacy, weultimatelyarechanging(oratleastsubtlyinfluencing)thewayweapproachliteracyinstruction,andareexpandingourpedagogicaltoolbox.Forthisreason,thispaper’sstand‐alonesignificanceshouldbenoted,butwewillalsoattempttotranslateittopracticalimplications.

First,therecertainlyhavebeenexamplesinthepastofsuccessfullymarryingdigitalliteracy(bothofthedigitalrhetoricandthecomputer‐usageliteracyvariety)andtraditionalcriticalacademicengagementintheclassroom.Liu(2010)providesseveralexamplesofusingdigitalcontextshisstudentsarefamiliarwithasameanstoboostacademicskills,suchasclosereadingsandcriticalanalysis.Hesuccessfullymerged social computing and literary analysis by using digital platforms, such asLiveJournal,anonlinejournalingorpersonalbloggingsitethatstressescommunitybuilding, to study TheCanterburyTales. His students created a journal for eachcharacter,andthenhadcharacterscommenton(andengageindialoguewith)othercharacters’journalentriesinlinewiththeplot.HealsousedFacebook,anextremelypopularsocialnetworkingsite,toanalyzeRomeoandJulietbycreatingaprofileforeachmaincharacter,andthenhadthestudentsmodeltheplaybyhavingcharactersfriend the appropriate profiles, create events (complete with the appropriateinvitations sent) thatwere integral to the plot, andpost status updates, completewith replies, as the events transpired. These examples use a format inwhich thestudent is literate,andplaysuponthisresource toactivelyengage thestudents toexplore and develop a critical understanding of the events and complex socialrelationships in each famous literary work. By tapping into the students’ digitalliteracy,LiuwasabletofosteradeeperunderstandingofChaucerandShakespeareinhisstudents.Notonlydidhefocusuponhisstudents’literacyinsocialcomputingintheseexamples,healsofosteredagreatercriticalunderstandingofthetextsvis‐à‐vis his students’ literacy in digitalwriting—hewas able to engage the studentspreciselybecauseheencouragedthemtowriteintheformatandwiththerhetoricinwhichtheyarealreadycomfortableandliterate.

More closely related to literacy instruction, Kristen Turner (2009)encourages educators to employ exercises that allow students to break down thecorrect contexts for each type of literacy, such as aworksheet inwhich students

PAGE|89RINALDI

searchtheiracademicwritingforexamplesoftext‐speak—definedbyTurnerastheinformal,abbreviated,andoftenfragmentedversionofEnglishwidelyfoundintextmessages—record it, and “translate” it to its Standard English equivalent. Shestressesthatstudentsshouldbemadeawareoftheirabilitytocode‐switchbetweeneach type of rhetoric, and that engaging them in thoughtful analysis of their ownwordchoicesallowsthemtounderstandcontextualuse—specificallythatStandardEnglishismoreappropriateforacademiccontexts,andtext‐speakforsocialdigitalcontexts. The vast number of digital contexts that students use frequently (textmessage, IM, email, social networking, etc.) demonstrates that students have theabilitytowriteformanydifferentdigitalplatforms,andcode‐switchbetweenthemwell. These skills are transferable to academic literacy;moreover, code‐switchingbetweenstandard literaciesandother formsof literacies isan importantskill thatshouldbetappedintoandfostered.

Liu (2010) states that by employing social computing in academicinstruction, “we expand or reconfigure the nature of reading”; similarly, it is notpossibletosuggestthatwecompletelyreinventliteracyinstructionorliteracyitselfinanattempttopositionself‐sponsoreddigitalwritingintheliteracysphere(para.46).Rather,myanalysissuggestsanexpansionorreconfigurationof thenatureofwriting instruction, that we introduce digital writing alongside more traditionalformsofliteracythatarenormallyinstitutionallysanctioned.Self‐sponsoreddigitalliteracy not only speaks to the ongoing developments in our language and ourmodesofcommunication,itisalsoadeepresourceforliteracyinstruction.

TheBiggerPicture

Acknowledging the validity of digital literacy—and using it as a resource forincreasingacademicliteracy—isusefulonthepractical levelwithintheclassroom,butit is importanttonotethatpedagogicalimplicationsmayalsoexistonanevenlarger scale. The analysis made earlier certainly stresses the broader idea thatdigitalliteracydoesnotnegativelyinfluencestandardformsofliteracy;infactquitetheopposite is true.Craig(2003) insistsonthispoint,notingthattext‐speakdoesnot have a negative impact on other forms of literacy for three distinct reasons.First, phonetic playing with language leads to improved literacy as a whole.Languageplayisametalinguisticskill,onethatdependsuponstudents’knowledgeof their languageandcognitiveawarenessofhow it functions. Secondly, literaciescananddodevelopindependentlyofeachother.Andfinally,languagesevolveovertime,andtheproliferationoftext‐speakisjustoneexampleofthis(Craig,2003).

Viewing literacy on an even larger sociological scale, we have seen thatliteracies thataremarkedasgoodorhigh arepracticedby those ineconomicandpoliticalpower,namelytheupperclass.Literaciesmarkedasbadorlowareusuallyseen as practiced by those in the margins (Purcell‐Gates, 2007). What if thepropagation of a type of literacy that is prevalent among groups representing aspectrumofsociologicalmarkers,includingacrossallclassstatuses,isabletoplayarole in disassembling this power structure? Surely, digital literacy ismarked as alow literacy—there have been countless laments of text‐speak creeping into


academic writing—and academic literacy will undoubtedly continue to bepositionedasahighandstronglyvaluedliteracy.Butitseemsfromouranalysisthatdigital literacy has been more ubiquitous in use among various social and classgroups than previously researched forms of vernacular literacy (such as BlackEnglish).Thatistosay,itisnotvaluedprimarilybyoneclassordifferentlybyraceorgender.Tobesure,digitalwritingisnotfreefrominfluencebysuchsociologicalmarkers;however,beingliterateindigitalrhetoricisgivenstrongvalueandsocialsignificance across all of these socialmarkers. Suchvaluemaking is an importantconsiderationintermsofpowerandstatusmaintenance.

Textual validation is also an important pedagogical tool. By validatingliteracies thatarecommonplace inaperson’severydayhomeandcommunity life,such as digital literacy, an instructor would in effect motivate students in theclassroomthroughsuchacknowledgement(Purcell‐Gates,2007).Notonlycanself‐sponsored literacies act as a bridge to academic literacy, it provides—throughvalidatingextra‐institutionalliteracies—anopportunityfordiscoursethatexploresandcritiquesthedominantacademicliteracy.

The reason digital literacy is such a deep resource for pedagogicalinstruction, then, is because it validates self‐sponsored vernacular literacies, andexposes students to their ability to code‐switch and use language contextually. Itfollows that the answer towhy it is important for educators to acknowledge andmakeuseofdigitalliteracyisextraordinarilymanifold.Itisvitalbecauselanguageisevolving,literacyissteepedinsocialstatus,anditismetalinguisticlanguageplay.Italso gives power to students by acknowledging the communicative power andvalidity of their vernacular, and opens the possibility for a disassembling of thepowerstructurethatissetinplacebydominantliteracies.Mostimportantly,sinceitis an extremely accessible type of literacy across all sociological groups, it is aresource worth using in the classroom. Digital literacy is, without a doubt, lesshierarchalandmoreaccessiblethanstandardacademicliteracy.Itispossibletouseits accessibility to play with and break open the power structure, andsimultaneously to teach contextual literacy usages of appropriate (and the word‘appropriate’ is key here, not ‘right’ or ‘wrong’) rhetoric for matching to specificcontexts.Andofcourse,inthespiritofourever‐evolvinglanguage,suchcontextualboundariesshouldbepushed.

LimitationsandSuggestionsforFurtherResearch

Thisanalysisemploysasomewhatdistantandbroadscopeinordertogiveabigger‐picture view of how one might combine multiliteracies and sociologicalconsiderations to investigate digital literacy. This application could certainly benarrowed in various ways—thinking about digital literacy from a sociologicalstandpoint opens up tremendous opportunities for further analysis. For instance,onemightlookmorecloselyatthedifferenttypesorgenresofdigitalliteraciesthatarewidelyused,andqueryhowstatusandvalueoperateineachspecificcontext.Docertaintextualconventionsappearinonlysomegenres?Doothersspanplatforms?

PAGE|91RINALDI

Givingdigitalwritingaclosereadingwouldalsobeaworthwhileendeavor,as there issurelymuchtouncoverbyexaminingsentence levelstructure,spellingconventions, and other characteristics unique to digital rhetoric. How are suchconventionsperceivedbythosewhousethem?Bythosewhooptnottousethem?Onemightalsolookmorecloselyathowdigitalliteracyconventionsareshapedbyformal constraints (the keyboard, Swype‐style keypads, limited character space),and interrogate how such constraints influence textual choices. A close readingcould also aim to uncover the cultural status attached to specific conventions bydifferent producers of digital text, as well as explore the relationship betweenconventionsandrestrictionsofform.

Lastly,thoughIhaveproposedthataccessismoreopenandthusbeneficial,insteadofrestrictive,whenitcomestodigitalliteracy,importantresearchisbeingdoneinthefieldofsociologyonthedigitaldivide’sroleasaccessincreases.Asnotedpreviously,HargittaiandHinnant(2008)havefoundthatthoughthedigitaldivideisshrinking in terms of access among classes, class status still strongly affects howcomputers are used. They find that higher classes tend to use Internet access forcapital‐buildingactivities,towhichaccessandknowledgeaboutisstillrestrictedinlowerclasses.Itisworthinvestigatingifandhowthistranslatestodigital literacy,orrather, ifdifferences inusageamongsocioeconomicclasses indicatedifferencesinaccesstoandusageofdigitalliteracy.

Conclusion

This analysis has attempted to approach digital literacy from a sociologicalviewpoint. It was found that, in accordance with New Literacy Studies’conceptualization of literacy as pluralistic, digital literacy is but one of manyliteracies,andisequallylegitimateasaformofwriting.Thispaperalsodeterminedthatbecauseof therelationshipbetweena literacy’sperceivedvalueandstatus inspecific social contexts, digital literacy is employed by students, even in contextsdeemed inappropriate, because their social and cultural group attach value andmeaning to being digitally literate. Finally, this paper proposed that the digitaldivide has shrunk so considerably that access to digital literacy is incrediblywidespread, and such accessibilitymakes it an exceptionally valuable resource intheclassroom.

What, then,doweconclude frommarrying theseconclusions?Wenowseethatdigital literacy isa textuallyvalid formofwrittencommunication,one that issteepedwithuser‐beneficialsocialandculturalcapitalwhichleadstoitsusebothintheappropriatecontextandoutofcontext,andisaformofliteracythat,duetoitswidespreaduseacrossvarioussociologicalvectors, isarguablymoreaccessible toall socioeconomic levels than other types of literacy. These findings indicate thatdigital literacy is both worthy of sociological analysis, and a truly importantpedagogicalresourcethatitwouldbeunwisetoignore.Introducingdigitalrhetoricintoacademicliteracyinstructioncouldprovetobebeneficialonnumerouslevels.Itacknowledges students’ self‐sponsored writing, empowers students byinstitutionally validating their socially prestigious literacy, and opens up the


possibilityfordissectingthepowerstructurethatreveresStandardEnglishliteracy.Itenablesstudentstorecognizetheirhighlyusefulabilitytocode‐switch,andopensupdialogueaboutcontextandmatchingtheappropriateliteracytoitsappropriatecontext. Lastly, there is the opportunity for skill transference betweendigital andacademic literacies: by transferring specific skills from areas in which they arehighlyliterate,studentscanstrengthenotherareasinwhichtheyarelessliterate.

It is undeniable that a vast majority of a high school or college students’writingnowtakesplaceindigitalcontexts.Asweexploredearlier,thisishavinganunmistakable influence on our language, and has introducedwhole new types ofcommunication that are rifewith their own social codes, rules, and judgments ofvalidity.Whilethepointofliteracyinstructionisarguablytogivestudentsthetoolsnecessary for expression, especially in academic Standard English contexts, werecognizethatliteracyisnotanautonomousactionthatservesonepurposeortakesoneform.JustasCamittadeducedthatstudents’handwrittennotespassedbetweenfriends was useful for exploring literacy and an untapped resource for literacyinstruction,Iproposethesamecanbethoughtofdigitalwriting.Infact,giventhatextra‐institutional digital communication is socially legitimized and anextraordinarily accessible form of literacy, self‐sponsored digital rhetoric is evenmorefruitfulforbothstudyonasociologicallevelandasaresourceforinstructioninacademicliteracy.

References

Barton, D. (2000). Researching literacy practices: Learning from activities withteachersandstudents.InD.Barton,M.Hamilton,&R.Ivanič(Eds.),Situatedliteracies: Reading and writing in context (pp. 167‐179). New York, NY:Routledge.

Bourdieu,P. (2008).The formsof capital. InN.WoolseyBiggart (Ed.),Readingsineconomicsociology(pp.280‐291).Hoboken,NJ:Wiley‐Blackwell.

Camitta, M. (1993). Vernacular writing: Varieties of literacy among Philadelphiahigh school students. InB. Street (Ed.),Cross‐culturalapproachestoliteracy(pp.228‐246).Cambridge,UK:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Cazden, C., Cope, B., Fairclough, N., Gee, J., Kalantzis, M., Kress, G., ... Nakata, M.(1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. HarvardEducationalReview,66(1),60‐92.

Cook‐Gumperz, J. (2006). Literacy and schooling: An unchanging equation? In J.Cook‐Gumperz (Ed.),Thesocialconstructionofliteracy (2nd ed., pp. 19‐49).Cambridge,UK:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Craig, D. (2003). Instantmessaging:The languageofyouthliteracy.Retrieved fromhttp://bootheprize.stanford.edu/0203/PWR‐Boothe‐Craig.pdf

Frow,J.(2010).Onmidlevelconcepts.NewLiteraryHistory,41(2),237‐252.

PAGE|93RINALDI

Hargittai,E.,&Hinnant,A.(2008).Digitalinequalitydifferencesinyoungadults'useoftheInternet.CommunicationResearch,35(5),602‐621.

Jansen, J. (2010). Useof the Internet inhigher‐incomehouseholds. Retrieved fromPew Research Center, Pew Internet & American Life Project site:http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2010/Better‐off‐households/Overview.aspx

Lareau,A.(2011).Unequalchildhoods:Class,race,andfamilylife(2nded.).Berkeley,CA:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.

Lenhart, A., Ling, R., Campbell, S., & Purcell, K. (2010). Teensandmobilephones.RetrievedfromPewResearchCenter,PewInternet&AmericanLifeProjectsite: http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2010/Teens‐and‐Mobile‐Phones/Summary‐of‐findings.aspx

Lenhart,A.,Purcell,K.,Smith,A.,&Zickuhr,K.(2010).Socialmedia&mobileInternetuseamongteensandyoungadults.RetrievedfromPewResearchCenter,PewInternet&AmericanLifeProject:http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2010/Social‐Media‐and‐Young‐Adults/Summary‐of‐Findings.aspx

Liu,A.(2010).Fromreadingtosocialcomputing.RetrievedfromLiteraryStudiesinthe Digital Age: http://dlsanthology.commons.mla.org/from‐reading‐to‐social‐computing/

Madden, M., Lenhart, A., Duggan, M., Cortesi, S., & Gasser, U. (2013). Teens andtechnology 2013. Retrieved from Pew Research Center, Pew Internet &American Life Project: http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2013/Teens‐and‐Tech/Summary‐of‐Findings.aspx

Moretti,F.(2000).Conjecturesonworldliterature.NewLeftReview,1,54‐68.

Purcell‐Gates, V. (2007). Complicating the complex. In V. Purcell‐Gates (Ed.),Culturalpracticesofliteracy:Casestudiesoflanguage,literacy,socialpracticeandpower(pp.1‐23).Mahwah,NJ:LawrenceErlbaum.

Reardon,S.F.,Valentino,R.A.,&Shores,K.A.(2012).PatternsofliteracyamongUSstudents.TheFutureofChildren,22(2),17‐37.

Smith,A.(2010).MobileAccess2010.RetrievedfromPewResearchCenter,PewInternet&AmericanLifeProject:http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2010/Mobile‐Access‐2010/Summary‐of‐Findings.aspx

Street,B.(1984).Literacyintheoryandpractice(Vol.9).Cambridge,UK:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Turner, K. H. (2009). Flipping the switch: Code‐switching from text‐speak tostandardEnglish.EnglishJournal,98(5),60‐65.


Warschauer,M. (2008).Whither the digital divide? InD. L. Kleinman, K. A. CloudHansen, C. Matta, & J. Handesman (Eds.), Controversies in science &technology:Fromclimatetochromosomes.NewRochelle,NY:Liebert.

Zickuhr,K.(2010).Generations2010.RetrievedfromPewResearchCenter,PewInternet&AmericanLifeProject:http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2010/Generations‐2010/Overview.aspx

Zickuhr,K.(2011).Generationsandtheirgadgets.RetrievedfromPewResearchCenter,PewInternet&AmericanLifeProject:http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2011/Generations‐and‐gadgets/Overview.aspx

PAGE|95

Theimpactofanarts‐integratedcurriculumonstudentliteracyandengagement

RachelP.FeldwischKristieL.Coker

ShannaM.StuckeyAshleyA.Rittenhouse,

KassiK.KiteJoshuaS.Smith

Abstract

Thispaperpresents theresultsofmixed‐methodexaminationof the implementationand outcomes of the Arts Integration Program (AIP). The AIP was created by anational nonprofit organization that works with educational systems, the artscommunity, and private and public sectors to provide arts‐related education toelementary school aged children. The arts‐based literacy curriculum included anartist‐in‐residence component. The study design included classroom observations,interviews,andapre–poststandardizedLiteracyAssessmentToolin11schoolsintheMidwest.Resultsshowhigh levelsofstudententhusiasmandengagement intheAIP,withconsistentlysustainedlevelsofstudentengagementwhentheartistsinresidencefacilitatedlearning.Studentscoresincreasedmodestlyinliteracyknowledge,andthefindingsprovideavenuesforotherschoolstoinfuseartsintotheirliteracyinstruction.

Introduction

EmbeddingartsintoliteracyinstructionfitsnaturallywithmanyEnglishLanguageArtscurriculaacrossthecountry.TheadventoftheCommonCoreStateStandards(CCSS)challengesschoolsandteacherstoviewtheintegrationofsubjectsandmovetoward interdisciplinary lessons and units. This is consistent with prior researchshowingpositiveoutcomesforarts‐integratedlearningamongstudentsatallgradelevels going back to the 1990s. Eisner (1998) concluded that arts‐integratedlearning had the greatest academic impact when fine arts were integrated withlanguagearts.Researchershaveexploredreasonswhytheartsbenefitlanguageartslearners (Cowan&Albers, 2006; Csikszentmihalyi, 1990; Leland&Harste, 1994),how learners benefit (Burton, Horowitz, & Abeles, 2000; Heath, 2004), and thedegreeofbenefit that canbeachieved througharts‐integrated learning (Burger&Winner, 2000; Caldwell & Moore, 1991; Smithrim & Upitis, 2005; Trainin,Andrzejczak,&Poldberg,2006).Whilemostauthorsagree that theartsshouldbeappreciatedfortheirownuniquecontributionstothedevelopmentoftheindividuallearner,manyalsoseetheartsasapotentialcatalystforlearninginothersubjects(Eisner,1998).

THEIMPACTOFANARTS‐INTEGRATEDCURRICULUMPAGE|96

TheoreticalPerspectivesandPreviousResearch

TheInfluenceoftheArtsonStudentMotivationandEngagement

Theorists have suggested that mediators exist between communication throughmultiple sign systems and improved performance on measures of academicachievement. Csikszentmihalyi (1990) and Oldfather (1995) believed thatmotivation is the key to student engagement and subsequent academicperformance. They suggested that artistic expression has motivated students tobecomemoreengagedinlearning.Studentswhoparticipatedinvisualartormusicreported increased intrinsic motivation to pursue these endeavors, whereasstudents who pursued math or science reported very low levels of intrinsicmotivation (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990). Csikszentmihalyi addressed the need forteachers tomotivate readers toward literacy bymaking learningmore rewardingandenjoyable.AsOldfather(1995)stated,

Whenstudentsengageinauthenticself‐expressionaspartoftheirliteracyactivities,theirlearningprocessesbecomeinherentlyconnectedtohowtheythink,whattheyvalue,andwhotheyare.Theyareabletobecomepartofacommunityoflearnersthatenrichesandextendsmutualthinkingandideas,andenhancestheirmotivationforfurtherengagementinreadingandwriting(pp.421‐422).

Oldfather’srationalecouldexplainhoweducationalprogramsthatallowedstudentsto express themselves using multiple modes of symbolic communication havemotivatedthemtolearn.

Burger andWinner (2000) concluded that children aremoremotivated toread and write after they are engaged in the process of creating visual art, butquestioned whether other engaging activities would have the same impact onmotivation. Similarly, Smithrim and Upitis (2005) evaluated the impact of theLearning Through the Arts (LTTA) curriculum by comparing data from LTTAstudents to control groupswhoparticipated in a technology integration program.They concluded that students’ academic gains in mathematic computation wereassociated with engagement in the LTTA curriculum, and that these studentsperformed better in computation than those who participated in a technology‐integrated curriculum because they were more engaged by the arts‐integratedlessons.

TheAcademicImpactofArts‐IntegratedLearning

Additionalgroupsof researchershaveprovidedevidencesupporting the inclusionof the arts in literacy instruction. In their study of drawing as a precursor tonarrativewriting,CaldwellandMoore(1991)comparedthewrittenexpressionsoftwo groups of second‐ and third‐grade students, onewith arts‐integrated literacyinstruction and one with traditional language arts activities. They found thatstudents who participated in drawing activities prior to narrative writing scoredsignificantly higher on the Narrative Rating Scale compared to students whoparticipated in discussions as a prewriting experience. In a subsequent study

PAGE|97FELDWISCHETAL

(Moore & Caldwell, 1993), teachers combined drama and drawing as prewritingactivities.Theuseofmultiplesignsystemsalsoproducedabetterqualityofwrittenwork than the traditionally prepared control group. Trainin, Andrzejczak, andPoldberg (2006) provided additional evidence linking the integration of art andwriting to improvements in academic achievement on standardized language artstests. These researchers found that second‐ through fifth‐grade students (N=342)who participated in an arts integration program called PicturingWriting showedincreased quality and quantity in theirwrittenwork compared to control groups(Trainin et al., 2006). Recent research by Walker, Tabone, and Weltsek (2011)revealed that middle school students in an arts‐integrated classroom were 77percent more likely to pass the language arts portion of the New Jersey statestandardized assessment when compared to students in a traditional classroom.The study compared testing outcomes in four schoolswith a traditional languagearts curriculum to four schools with a theater arts‐infused curriculum. Theseresearchers also found a higher level of student engagement as evidenced bystudents’daysabsent fromschool:students in thedrama‐infusedprogrammissedfewerdaysof school (M=5.51) thanstudents in thecontrolgroup(M=6.3).Thepositiveoutcomesoftheseresearchstudiessupportedtheconclusionthatstudentsin elementary and middle school grades derived academic benefits from theintegrationofthefineartsandlanguagearts.

TheArtsandWrittenExpressionasMultipleModesofCommunication

In contrast to the arts‐integration view of the arts within literacy instruction, agroup of literacy researchers who are also practicing artists have encouragededucators to see the interconnectionbetween language arts and fine arts (Albers,Holbrook, & Harste, 2010). This body of work focuses on multiple modes ofcommunicationinteractingtoformanewdefinitionofliteracyineducation.Lelandand Harste (1994) described the history of language arts education as“verbocentric,” having been focused on written and oral language as opposed toother sign systems. They advocated for a view of literacy that incorporated“multipleways of knowing for the purpose of ongoing interpretation and inquiryintotheworld”(p.339).Drama,music,visualart,andmathematicsweredescribedassymbolic languagesthatexpandstudentperspectivesandunderstandingacrossthe curriculum. Caldwell and Moore (1991) specifically identified drawing andwriting as “two equally important symbol systems” that can support each otherduringthecreativeprocess(p.207).Drawingwasnotonlyaprecursortostudents’development of written expression, but also presented a more individualizedsystemofcommunicationinthatsymbolsweredevelopedbythecreators.Caldwelland Moore noted that the use of drawing as a planning strategy allowed youngauthors“tofindacorrespondencebetweeninternalandexternalrepresentationsofideas”(p.208).CowanandAlbers(2006)tooktheimportanceofsymbolsonestepfurther, stressing the relationship between cognition and emotion during artisticand linguistic expression. In their discussion of the arts andwriting as “semioticrepresentations,”CowanandAlbersstated,“comprehensionincreasesascognitionand affect are connected” (p. 134). Leland and Harste (1994) called for future


researcherstoexploretheinteractionofsignsystemswhentheartsareintegratedwithliteracy.

Theoretically, we agreewith Albers and Harste (2007) that “amultimodalapproach in teaching acknowledges, then, that language is only partial, and thatmany modes are involved in meaning‐making, even though one mode may bechosen to representmeaning” (p. 11). The creators of the arts‐integrated literacyprogram that is the focus of this study infused fine arts into a curriculum thatemphasizesamultimodalperspective,yettheirquantitativeassessmentaddressedthe more traditional view of language art—reading comprehension and Englishwritingskills.Asaresult,weselectedamixed‐methodsdesigntoexploreboththequantifiablegainsintraditionalliteracyskillsandthequalitativelyrichexperiencesofstudentsengagedinmultimodalliteracyinstruction.

ResearchObjectives

Thepurposeof this studywas tounderstand the impacton student literacyof anarts‐based literacy curriculum with an artist‐in‐residence component. The ArtsIntegrationProgramwasdesignedbyanationalnonprofitorganization(NPO)thatworkswitheducationalsystems,theartscommunity,andprivateandpublicsectorstoprovideartseducationtochildren.Theprogramwascreatedtoenhancereading,writing,and learningskillsofchildren inkindergarten througheighthgradeusinganarts‐infusedcurriculumthatcombinesartistresidencieswith lessonstaughtbyclassroom teachers. Visual arts, dance, theater, music, and literary arts wereintegratedwithbestpractices in literacyeducationtocreateaprogramthathelpsteachersmeet state standards in language arts. Lessons are focused aroundwell‐knownliterarypiecesandinvolvedbetween12and18hoursofstudentinstruction.The NPO created a standardized assessment tool, the AIP Student LiteracyAssessmentTool(SLAT),tomeasureliteracygainsamongstudentparticipants.

The NPO enlisted researchers from the School of Education at a localuniversity to conduct an evaluation of the AIP program for three school years.Researchers conducted an implementation fidelity study the first year andtransitioned to a summative evaluation during the second and third years of thepartnership. Using a mixed‐method research model, the focus of the summativeevaluation included analyses of the AIP’s effects on students, the perspectives ofteachers, and the contributions of the artists in residence. The guiding researchquestionsforthesummativeevaluationwere:

TowhatextentdoAIPlessonsengageandintereststudents? To what extent do AIP classrooms exemplify teaching as modeled by the

trainingandintentofthecurriculum? After students have experienced AIP lessons, what is the impact on their

literacyskills?


Method

ParticipantsandSetting

From2009 to 2011, 11 statewide schools (one rural, eight urban, two suburban)participated in the research (see Table 1). The teachers participated in trainingsessions specific to the unit they implemented in their classroom. Fifty‐oneclassroomswereobservedduring implementationof theAIPunit.Thirty teachersparticipated in interviews regarding their experiences with the AIP curriculum.Throughout the three years, all five units were implemented across the 11 sites.Students in these classrooms ranged from second through sixth grade. Fourhundred and thirteen students completed the SLAT before and after programimplementationduring years twoand three.However, resultswereonly includedfromstudentswithsignedparentalconsentandstudentassentforms(N=43yeartwo,N=190yearthree).

School Locale Free/ReducedLunch

Students ofColor

Enrollment

1Rural Smalltown 49% 0% 932Suburban Urban fringe of

mid‐sizecity47% 39% 974

3Suburban Urban fringe ofmid‐sizecity

46% 30% 584

4Urban Mid‐sizecity 70% 57% 4865Urban Mid‐sizecity 86% 50% 2546Urban Largecity 77% 81% 3887Urban Largecity 54% 57% 3388Urban Largecity 35% 41% 3129Urban Largecity 85% 63% 45410Urban Largecity 86% 86% 34111Urban Largecity 68% 60% 213

Table1.2009‐2010DemographicDataofParticipatingSchools

Classroom assignment of the AIP curriculum within school systems wasdecidedby thenationalprogramprior to the initiationof the research study.Thenational program requesteddata regarding all participants; therefore, our samplewas essentially predetermined. While all students in the selected classroomsparticipatedintheAIPcurriculum,studentswereself‐selectedtoparticipateintheresearch study. Principals signed permission for classroom observation andgatheringofdata,andteacherssignedconsentformspriortointerviews.However,students’assessmentdatawasnotincludedwithoutasignedconsentfromparentsandassentfromstudents.

MeasuresandProcedures

Observations.Researchersconductedobservationsin51classroomsin11differentschools. During each classroom observation session, extensive field notes weretaken by an outside observerwho focused on interactions between teachers andstudents,students’ levelofengagementwiththeAIPcurriculum,andtheteachers’


fidelitytoimplementationofthecurriculum.Researchersscheduledvisitsaccordingto the teachers’ schedules and intentionally observed a variety of experiences,including teacher‐instructed lessons, cooperative learning exercises, artist‐in‐residence visits, and final performances. Semistructured observations wereconductedfortheentireAIPlesson.Observerssatatthebackorsideoftheroom,noted the characteristics of the room, took copious notes during the lesson, andimmediatelynotedanyemergenthypothesesorassessmentsaftereachobservation.

Interviews.Thirtyteacherstookpartininterviews,lastingapproximately30minutes each, following the completion of the AIP curriculum. General programimpressionsandrecommendations for improvementwere themain focusof theseinterviews.Sampleprompts included“Describe theatmosphereyoucreatedwhileconducting lessons,” “TellmehowtheAIP trainingyoureceivedpreparedyou forthe process,” “Describe your feelings about the artist residency portion of theprogram,”and“DiscussyourfeelingsabouttheAIPprogramingeneral.Whatwentwell? What would you like to change?” Interviews were transcribed verbatim inpreparationforanalysis.

Literacy assessments.The AIP Student Literacy Assessment Tool (SLAT)wasadministeredbeforeandaftercompletionoftheAIPunitduringyearstwoandthree.AstheNPO’stool forassessing literacygainsforstudentsacrossthenation,the SLAT has been used in classrooms across the United States for the last fouryears. To complete the assessment, students read a short biography about theAmericansocialiteRuthHarkness,andthenansweredninetotwelve(dependingonthe version of the assessment) open‐ended questions, most of which included aseriesofsubquestions.Samplequestionsincluded“HowwouldyoudescribeRuth’spersonality? List asmany character traits as you can. Support each trait with anexamplefromthebiography,”and“IfyouwerewatchingamovieofRuth’slife,whataresomesoundsthatyoumighthear?Usewordsorphrasesfromthebiographytosupport your answer.” In year two, the assessment consisted of twelve questionswithvaryingpointvalues,withstudentscoresrangingfrom12to49.Inyearthree,changes were made to the assessment by the NPO and the number of questionsdecreasedtonine,withstudentscoresrangingfrom2to42.

DataAnalysis

Qualitative data. Transcribed observations, open‐ended survey items, andverbatim transcripts from audiotaped interviews were entered into NVIVOqualitativesoftware.Researchersappliedcodesrepresentingthesentimentofeachparagraphordata cluster and/ordeveloped codes identifyingpatternswithin thedata. As a group, the teammet to discuss the relationships among codes and tocombine similar codes into broader patterns or themes. Next, they divided intogroups in order to return to the original data sources to identify representativeexamples from observations and quotations from interviews. Finally, the entireteam met to share findings, which resulted in specific themes. This type ofcooperative work among qualitative research teams creates an overall betterunderstandingofthedataandleadstomorevalidconclusions(Creswell,2007).


Quantitativedata.Studentswhocompletedbothpre‐andpost‐assessmentswereincludedinthestatisticalanalysis.ScoresontheSLATpre‐andpost‐measureswereanalyzedusingSPSS.Apaired‐samples t‐testwas conducted to examineanydifferencesinstudentscoresbetweenthepretestandpost‐test.

Results

Overall, the AIP program was viewed as an asset in the classroom and itsimplementationwas related to improvements in student learning. Several trendsemerged from the data, including student engagement and motivation, studentgains,studentchallenges,andteacherperspectives.

StudentEngagement

Literatureregardingtheimpactofarts‐infusedprogramsonliteracylearningtoutsan increase in student engagement and motivation for learning (Arts EducationPartnership, 2004; Caldwell&Moore, 1991; Upitis& Smithrim, 2003). Consistentwith this literature, students were described as highly motivated and engagedduring AIP lessons. Behaviors typifying engagement included maintaining eyecontact, refraining from off‐topic talk during direct instruction, participatingappropriately in activities, and displaying excitement about the curriculum in theformofsmiles,eagertones,andactiveparticipation.Asoneteachercommented,“Itwasfun.Itwasengaging.Itwaswonderfultoseeallkidswantingtobeapartofit.”The theme of engagement and motivation was further defined as enthusiasm,studentcollaboration,andself‐expression.

Enthusiasm.Studententhusiasmwasanoticeable indicatorofengagementintheAIPlessons.Duringandafterclassroomobservations,teachersspokedirectlytoresearchersaboutstudentinvolvement, indicating,“Thekids just lovethis,”and“[Students]reallygetintothelessons.”ElevatedandanimatedtonesexemplifiedtheanticipatoryexcitementofstudentswhenbeginningtheirAIP lessons.Speaking totheeagernessofherstudents,oneteachercommented,“Thekidslookedforwardtodoing it. So thatmade it so happy for everyone… Everybody is excited, clearingthings off [their desks] so they could get on it.” In another classroom, studentsexpressed excitement when the teacher told them they were moving from thecurrentlessontotheAIPlessononmotifs,acurriculumcomponentfromthemusicunit. Students rushed to grab instruments composedof commonclassroom items,suchasrulersandpencilboxes.WhenateacheraskedherfourthgradeclassroomiftheywouldliketodoAIPagaininfifthgrade,anoverwhelmingmajorityofstudentsaffirmed that they did. Other students learning the theater curriculum wereparticularly excited when their teacher offered herself as a prop for the dramaperformance.Theentireclassroomlaughedandsmiledastheteachercurledintoaball on the floor while the narrator introduced the scene and the audiencediscoveredthatsherepresentedarock.

Student volunteers were never in short supply during AIP lessons. Whilestudents were noted as beingmore apprehensive during the early stages of AIP,therewere timeswhen almost every student volunteered during a single period.


Studentsbounded from their chairsandwaved their arms frantically in theair toprovideananswer. Inoneclassroom,a femalestudentvolunteeredtogiveuphertimein“specials”classtoshowoneresearcherhercollageanddiscussherrevisionprocess.

Involving professional artists in the classroom experience has beenassociatedwithenriched learning for students (ArtsEducationPartnership,2004;Deasy,2002).AccordingtotheArtsEducationPartnership(2004),residencies“canintensifythelearningexperiencesofstudents,addtotheskillsrepertoryofteachersin schools, and improve the pedagogy and classroom management skills ofparticipating artists” (p. 21). Student engagement was more pronounced duringartist residencies as compared to their behavior during lessons taught by theirclassroom teachers. Each artist’s enthusiasm for his or her artistic medium wascontagious, as evidenced by students’ excited facial expressions, the number ofhandsthatwereraisedwhenanartistaskedaquestion,andthenumberofstudentswhodancedalongwiththemusic,movedintopositionforaperformance,usedtheirmost animated warm‐up theatre voice, or cut and pasted onto a collage withnoticeable enjoyment. One teacher described the power of these partnershipsduringherinterview:

Theartistwhocameinwasamazing.Itmakesmesmilejustthinkingaboutitbecausehewassopersonable,sokind.Heknewhisthing.Hedidsuchagreatjobwiththekids.Hereachedout.Hegotkidstodothingsthatyouknowtheyjustdon’talwaysgettheopportunitytodoanditwasamazing.

Teachers repeatedly commented on the excitement of their students at having a“real”artist intheclassroom.Studentswereeagerto learnfromtheartistandfeltprivilegedtobeworkingwithprofessionals.Oneteachernotedstudents’particularexcitement through drawings she continued to see once the artist was gone. Shereported,

Thekidsweresuperexcitedabouthavinganartistcomein.Shedidawonderfuljob,andIstillseepalmtreesandmonkeysontheirassignmentsandstuffallthetime…Itisreallynicetogettheartbugintotheirbodies.

Collaboration.Ahighlevelofstudentengagementwasevidentthemajorityof the time during observations of structured group collaboration. Studentcollaborationoccurredintheformsofintentionallyconstructedgroupactivitiesandnaturallyoccurringinteractionsbetweenstudents.Forexample,fifthgradestudentsparticipating in collaborative poetry groupswere observedworking together andworking through disagreements. The younger students participating in theateractivities initiallystruggledwithcollaborativeworkaseachgroupmember foughttoplaythemainrole.However,asthe lessonsprogressed,studentsbecamebetterabletodividerolesandworktogethertoachievetheircommonpurpose.Studentsengaged in collages sought feedback from fellow students and incorporatedsuggestions as they revised their artwork. One teacher reported an increase instudententhusiasmregardingtheirperformancesafterworkingtogetheringroups.Whenworkingasagroup,onestudententhusiasticallysaid,“I’llbethedirector.Or


atleastsaydirectorlines.”Withenthusiasm,afemalestudentexclaimed,“Y’all,let’sdo it again,”as she rounded up her group members to reenact the scene. Whenmovingintothesecondscene,thestudentmutteredaunitvocabularyword,“level,”under her breath to remind the actor as the student crouched and smiled inresponse to thesuggestion.Thegroupof students thengaveeachotherhigh‐fivesafterpracticingthescene.

Teachersalsoaskedstudentstocollaborateregardingwrittenwork,andthiscooperative learning helped them to gain a better understanding of thematerial.During group work, students adjusted their answers in their student notebooks,askingeachotherquestions,andprovidingfeedbacktotheirpeers.

Self‐expression.Educatorsperceivedthatstudentengagementwasrelatedto opportunities for self‐expression during AIP lessons. Teachers gave severalexamplesoftimeswhentheparticularartmediumevokedexpressionfromstudentswho were typically resistant to traditional verbal forms of communication. Ateacherusingthetheaterunitinherclassroomnoted:

Intermsofthe[actingaspects]andallofthat,thatwasamazing.Theylovedit.Ilovedit.Ifullyintendtouseitwithotherbooks.ThenicepartisIsawsomanykidswhoaretypicallyintrovertedchildrenreallyloveit.

Oneeducatorspokeaboutamalestudentwho“getsstuckandveryfrustratedandhejustrefusestowrite.”However,whenheservedasanarratorforhisscene,thestudentwasabletoexpresshimselfinanewwaythatbecameasourceofprideandaccomplishment. Another teacher noted a similar outcome from a female studentworkinginthetheaterunit,“Ihaveonegirlwhobarelyspeaksandshegottheonespeakingpart.Hermomwasjustbeamingbecausesheisknownfornottalking.”

Several teachers pointed out that the artisticmedia contributed to overallstudent enthusiasm. Speaking to her experiencewith the dance unit, one teachernoted, “The music was very helpful to go along with the words. That kind ofloosened up that free‐flowing spirit for the students.”Teachersworkingwith thecollage curriculumnoticed studententhusiasmrelated to theartisticprocess.Oneteacherstated,“Itwasneattoseethemgetexcitedabouthowtheyusedtheartstopromotesomeofthoseideas,piecesfromthestory.”

Student self‐expression was most obviously evidenced by their finalproducts. For example, fourth grade students proudly displayed collages andchattedexcitedlyastheyhungtheminahallwayforallstudentsintheschooltosee.Fifthgradersstudyingthedanceunitrehearsedfortheirfinalperformances,whichfeatured a wide variety of music, movements, and subject matter, while anothergroup of fifth graders hosted local NPO staff when they performed their originalmusic compositions at the conclusion of the unit. During each of these instances,students were uniquely inspired by the curriculum and noticeably excited abouttheircreations.Teachers,parents,andotheradultobserversrepeatedlystatedhowimpressedtheywerebythedepthandbreadthofstudents’self‐expressions.


StudentLiteracyGains

Bothquantitativeandqualitativemeasureswereusedtoassesstheacademicgainsof students participating in the AIP program. The SLAT provided a quantitativemeasure of student gains during years two and three, while observations andinterviews provided a qualitative basis for gauging student learning. AfterimprovementsweremadetotheassessmentbytheNPO,thenumberofquestionsdecreased from twelve inyear two tonine inyear three,which is reflected in thewholesamplemeanscoresforeachyear.Themeanscoreforpretestsforthe2009–2010schoolyearwasM=28.98,SD=9.20,andthemeanscoreforpost‐testswasM=32.98,SD=8.90(SeeTable2).Themeandifferencebetweenthepretestandpost‐test for this sample was ‐3 points. The t score for this data was t(42) = ‐1.51,indicatingthatthe2009–2010resultsoftheSLATwerestatisticallysignificantatα=0.10.Cohen’sd=0.435,indicatinganeffectsizethatwasjustbelowthemediumormoderatecategory.

TotalScores Pre(N=43) Post(N=43)M 28.98 32.98SD 9.20 8.90

*p<0.001

Table2.MeanTotalScoreComparisons2009‐2010

Themeanscoreforpretests forthe2010–2011schoolyearwasM=18.91,SD=9.67,andthemeanscore forpostassessmentswasM=21.66,SD=8.66(seeTable3).Themeandifferencebetweenthepretestandpost‐testforthissamplewas‐2.75points.Thetscoreforthisdatawast(178)=‐0.74,indicatingthattheresultswerenot statistically significant at α = 0.10. Cohen’s d = 0.28, indicating that theeffect size was small. Overall, students showed an increase in literacy skillsfollowing their completion of the AIP program, but resultsweremore significantduringthe2009‐2010schoolyearcomparedtothe2010–2011schoolyear.

TotalScores Pre(N=179) Post(N=190)M 18.91 21.66SD 9.67 8.66

*p<0.001

Table3.MeanTotalScoreComparisons2010‐2011

In addition to assessment results, observed evidence of student gainsincluded vocabulary acquisition, oral communication, and achievement of unit‐specific goals. Studentswere observed learning the AIP vocabularywords duringlargegroupinstructionandpracticingapplicationofthevocabularyinsmallgroups.Duringinterviews,teachersstatedthatthenewvocabularywordswouldbeusedinsubsequent lessons, including lessons in other subject areas. The uniformity and


depthofvocabularydevelopmentbroughtto thosediscussionsandactivitieswerenotedasadditionalevidenceofstudentgains.

Several teachers reported gains related to both oral and nonverbalcommunication,whichwerenottestedbytheSLAT.Accordingtooneteacherwhosestudentsstudieddance,they“learnedagreatdealaboutcreatingaperformanceandperforming.” Educators also mentioned the growth that occurred as studentslearned how to express their needs and opinions within a group. Researchersobserved small group interactions in classrooms andwitnessed students dividingtasks, making decisions, working through disagreements, and formingcompromises, especially towards the end of units after students had a chance toadapttoworkingcloselywiththeirpeers.

StudentChallenges

Studentchallengesvariedaccordingtounitandgradelevel.SecondgradersworkingonaspectsofthetheatercomponentsofAIPexpressedfrustrationregardingwrittenexercises. Fourth grade students who completed collages were frustrated whenasked to repeatedly revise their work. Most teachers believed that studentsbenefited from learning about rewriting and revision, but they also felt that therepetitive nature of the revision process was a challenge for students. As oneteachernoted:

Torevisethecollageinfourthgradewasveryfrustratingtotheconcretethinkersinmyclassroom–“Ididwhatyouasked,whychangeit?”Theabstract/creativethinkersenjoyedtheprocess,butsometimeswerefrustratedwiththerevisionaswell.

Whileconcernsregardingrepetitionduringtherevisionprocessseemeduniquetothe collageunit, several teachersmentioned that their students found the studentnotebookstoberedundantduringotherunits.Itwashardforthesecondandthirdgraders studying theater to work through the question‐and‐answer processmultipletimesformultiplestories,andbothfourthandfifthgraderswerefrustratedby repetition of the same subject matter in the collage and music units. Someteachers suggested that shortening the amount of time spent on AIP writtenmaterial may have decreased student boredom, while others suggested using agreaterdiversityofmaterialwithinasingleunit.

StudentswerealsofrustratedbytheSLATthatoccurredbeforeandaftertheunit.Duetothecomplexityandlengthofthetest,studentsoftendidnotfinishtheassessment. Some of the factors that influenced student frustration included thedifficulty of the material (i.e., above grade level), the lack of correspondencebetweentheassessmentandtheunitconcepts,andtherepetitivenatureofthepre‐andpost‐test.Severalteachersalsoreportedadministeringthetestclosetothestatestandardizedtest,whichmayhavecontributedtosomestudentaggravation.


TeacherPerspectives

Albers and Sanders (2010) noted that teacher comfort level, collaboration, and“buy‐in”are important factorswhen introducingamultimodal literacycurriculumsuchasAIP.Teachers’overallappraisaloftheAIPunitswasconsistentlyfavorable,as many stated that both educators and students benefited from the program. “Ilovedtheprogram,”statedoneteacher.“Wealllearnedalittleaboutourselves.Wewere able to come out of our comfort zone.” Many educators shared similarcomments:“Youhaveagreatcurriculumandphilosophy…myselfandmystudentsgreatlybenefitedfromthisunit.”Beyondstudentliteracygains,additionalbenefitsincluded students learning about performance, teachers gaining new ideasregardingintegratingartsacrossthecurriculum,andeveryoneenjoyingtheartisticprocessesandproducts.OneteacherenthusiasticallystatedthattheAIPCurriculum“gave me lots of new ideas and overall, just a great experience—I am a bigsupporter!”

Teacher fidelity toAIPcurriculum. In general, educators approached thecurriculum in ways that aligned with the AIP unit guides. Classroom teachersdescribedstrictadherencetothemodelwhentheyfirstintroducedthecurriculumtostudents.Theyconsistentlyusedvocabularyandconceptsduringinstructionthatwere provided by AIP for each specific unit. Several teachers mentioned makingadaptations and adjustments to the curriculum as they progressed through theirunits, suchasadapting lessons to theirownteachingstyle,adjusting the lengthofthelessons,orincorporatingoutsideresourcestomeettheneedsoftheirstudents.Whileteachingthecollageunit,oneteacherbroughtinaparentwhoisasuccessfulcollageartisttospeakwithherclass.Educatorsfeltmorecomfortablemodifyingthelessonsastheyprogressedthroughthecurriculumandbecamemorefamiliarwiththeunit‐specificcontent.

Teachercollaborationandsupport.Teachersdescribedcollaborationwithothereducators,whichincludedartteachers,musicteachers,aSpanishteacher,andgeneraleducationteachers.Visualandperformingartsteacherswerewidelyviewedasaresourceforassistanceandadvicewhengeneraleducationteachersintegratedthe arts with literacy. At the conclusion of the units, several teachers invitedstudents fromothergrade levelstobetheaudiencefor finalperformances. Inthisway,studentsfromothergradelevelswereexposedtotheAIPcurriculumdespitenotreceivingdirectinstructionusingtheAIPlessons.

Administrators and parents consistently supported the AIP program inschools. Throughout the program, administrators supported teachers by viewingdisplays of artwork, attending final performances, and visiting classrooms duringimplementation of the lessons. Parents participatedby talkingwith their childrenabouttheunits,sendinginartmaterials,returningpermissionslips,andattendingeventssuchas the finalperformances.Several teachersreceivedpositive feedbackdirectlyfromparentsbyemailandinpersonfollowingperformances.


Concept transfer and application. Evidence of teacher buy‐in includedteachersreportingreuseofAIPstrategiesinsubsequentlessonplansandtransferofarts‐integrated learning to other subjects. Concept transfer was not directlyobserved by researchers because all observations were intentionally conductedduringAIPlessons.TransferofAIPvocabulary,concepts,andartisticmediatootherlessons and contexts emerged as consistent themeswhen teachers explained theimpact on student learning. Several teachers expressed plans to implementinterdisciplinary lessons, integrating the arts with other subject matter usingstrategieslearnedthroughtheirAIPexperiences.Oneeducatormentionedrewritingscience and social studies curricula during their summer mapping sessions, toincludeconcepts fromtheunits.Anotherteachertoldastoryaboutastudentwhointegratedtheartswiththesciencecurriculumonhisown,followingthedanceunit:

Wedidascienceprojectandoneofthestudentscameinwithabigcollagewithdifferentthingsfromtheenvironmentandputitonanice,bigwoodendisplayboard.SothenIknewthatthekindofworkwe’vebeendoinggeneratedthatthinking.

Teacher challenges.While many teachers commonly integrated arts intotheir lessonsand felt comfortabledoing so,others reportedbeingoutsideof their“comfortzones”andhadtoadjusttonewanddifferentteachingmethods.Afewofthechallengesreportedbyteacherswerespecifictotheirparticulargradelevel.Forexample,thesecondgradeteachersrepeatedlymentionedthatthewrittenmaterialand exercises for the theater unitwere “too difficult” for their students, and theyhad to modify the curriculum (i.e., writing group responses on the overhead forstudents to copy instead of working individually). Other challenges were unit‐specific,suchasoneteacher’ssuggestionthatthedanceunitincludeliteraturefrommore ethnically diverse poets, as well as more opportunities for students to useprosody.

Suggestionsofferedtoimprovetheprogramincludedallocationoftimeandschedulingoflessons.TeachersfeltthatthetimelineintheteacherguideprovidedbytheNPOdidnotmatchtheactualamountoftimeneededtoconductthelessons,and should be adjusted to allow additionalminutes of instruction. Educators alsocommented on the timing of implementing the unitwithin the school year. Someteachers were still conducting lessons during the final days of school, and fifthgradersatoneschoolwereheadedtotheirend‐of‐yearcelebrationrightaftertheirfinalAIPperformances.Schedulingunitsclosetotheendoftheschoolyearseemedtoaddstresstoteachers,whorepeatedlymentionedtoresearchersthattheyweretired,andinsomecases,overwhelmed.

AnotherchallengeforteacherspertainedtotheSLAT.Someteachersfelttheassessmentswerenotatanappropriatelevelforthegradetheywereteachingandfeltchallengedbytheamountoftimerequiredtocompletetheassessment.Theydidnot likeadministeringtheassessment,andseveral felt that itwasawasteoftime.Othercriticismsincludedthelackofanswerlines,unclearquestions,andtheuseofthesameessayinboththepre‐andpost‐test.


Discussion

Theresultssuggest that theAIPprogramwasgenerally implementedas intended,had strong support from classroom teachers, and was enjoyed by students.Extensive teacher training, coupled with assistance from professional artiststhroughtheresidencyprogram,empoweredteacherstoutilizetheartsasavehicletopromoteenjoyable,engagingstudentliteracylearning.

In the existing literature, cognition and motivation are the two mostcommonlycitedbenefitsof integratingtheartswith literacyinstruction(Burger&Winner, 2000; Trainin et al., 2006). Quantitative analyses in the current studyrevealed statistically significant gains in literacy skills during year two, and highlevelsofstudentengagementwereconsistentlyobservedduringAIPlessons.Thesefindingsalignwiththebodyofresearchonstudentlearningthrougharts‐integratedprograms. In addition, Burton, Horowitz, and Abeles (2000) suggested that thecognitive benefits of the arts and other areas of learning are dialectical, withacademic skills being enhanced by the interaction of various educationalexperiences.Inotherwords,onecannotassumethatartsinstructionhasenhancedliteracy instruction without literacy instruction having enhanced arts instruction.Symbolic communication and motivation could share a similar dialecticalrelationship. As Heath (2004) observed, “Much of the learning within the arts isdescribedbyyounglearnersas‘play’”(p.340).Childrenhavebeenengagedbytheopportunity to create using other sign systems, while the pure “fun” of theexperiencehasmotivatedchildrentocommunicateinandthroughthearts.Beyondsheerenjoyment, perhaps studentsweremotivatedby theopportunity toexpressthemselvesinmultipleways,leadingtothe“multiplewaysofknowing”describedbyLeland&Harste(1994,p.337).

Limitations

To maintain consistency across programs, the national NPO enforced specificguidelinesforimplementation,suchastheteacherguideandtheinstrumentsusedforevaluation.Onechallengewiththesemandatedinstrumentswastheinflexibilitytomakeadaptationsbasedonlocalneeds.Inaddition,theNPOmadechangestotheinstrumentseachyearbecauseofthegrowth,development,anddesiretoestablishbestpractices.While thesemodificationsareultimatelybeneficial, this limited theability tocomparedataacross the first threeyears.Wealsoquestionwhether thechanges made to the SLAT during year three caused the instrument to be lesssensitivetostudentgains,impactingresults.

Coordinatingmultipleschedulesacrossdifferentschoolswasachallenge.Inaddition, coordination of communication between the NPO, the teachers, and theevaluatorswas at times difficult due to varying schedules andmultiple prioritiesfrom all stakeholders involved. Likewise, obtaining consent and assent fromstudentsandtheirparentsparticipatingintheAIPprogramemergedasachallenge,primarily due to misconceptions regarding the consent process by teachers andparents.Duetotheconstraintsmentionedabove,alimitednumberofpre‐andpost‐literacyassessmentswereadministered, scored, andanalyzed.Conclusionsdrawn


from this sample regarding literacy gains, therefore, are limited in scope andgeneralization.Further,significantgainsreportedonthepre‐andpost‐testsinyeartwocannotbecausallyattributedtotheAIPcurriculum,duetothelackofacontrolgrouptoaccountforhistoryandmaturationeffects.Futureresearchcouldemployaquasi‐experimentaldesignstudyutilizingclassroomsreceivingtheAIPcurriculumasanexperimentalcondition,andthoseusingthetraditionalliteracycurriculumascomparisongroups.Thematchedclassroomswouldbe identifiedwithin the sameschool, and statistical controls would be applied to account for differences inteacherandstudentdemographics. Inadditiontoexaminingdifferencesin literacyassessmentscores,futureresearchshouldexaminestudentaffect,includingattitudetowardreading/writingandinterest/likingschool.

ImplicationsforPractice

Theexperienceofdocumentingteachingandlearningasschoolsintegratedtheartsinto literacy instruction presents a counternarrative to the direct instructionmovement in ELA of the early 2000s. The approachmore closely alignswith theCCSS and the expectation for elementary generalists to integrate curriculum.Instead of restricting or narrowing the curriculum in preparation for high‐stakesexams, these schools opened the curriculum and connected literacy to the livedexperiences of children in the classroom. Inviting art professionals to serve ascoteachers further expanded notions of the curriculum experts and pedagogicalcontentknowledge.Teachersgainedasetofskills,andstudentshadthechancetoexploretheircreativity.Exploringnewwaysofthinkingandhavingthe“freedomtofail” when the first ideas did not work out as planned provided opportunities tobuild persistence and internal motivation (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990). The AIPcurriculum, the pedagogical guidance by the teacher, and the artist facilitatedprocess‐generatedshort‐termsuccessesandopportunitiesforstudentstoproduceknowledge.

Theimplicationsforliteracyeducationcannotbeunderstatedinthisregard.The pressure to increase test scores in English/Language Arts has resulted in askills‐based, phonemic awareness‐focused environment in the early years ofschooling (Walker,Tabone,&Weltsek,2011).Teachers feelpressured to increasevocabulary, hone sentence structure, and help students write the perfect five‐paragraphresponsetoasetofstoryquestions.Theevaluationresultsheresuggestthat these important skills need not be the curricular anchor, but rather thesupportingskillstoanengagingliteracycurriculumthatisbuiltaroundaparticulargenre of the arts. The fact that test scores increased only buoys the support forteachers to take the necessary risk of changing how literacy is done in today’sschools. Teachers need solid evidence to approach curriculum directors andprincipals about moving away from basal readers and more static skill‐basedinstruction, impelling them toward a multimodal approach to language artseducation (Albers & Sanders, 2010). Reaching outside of the general educationclassroom, the findings provide support not only for arts integration but also forincreasedconnectionsbetweencommunityartseducationandliteracy instruction.When the arts and literacy were integrated through the AIP lessons program,


students became literate in more than one method of communication, gainingknowledgewhilealsoimpartingknowledge,aseducatorsgainedabetterpictureofstudents’worldviews.

References

Albers,P.,&Harste,J.C.(2007).Thearts,newliteracies,andmultimodality.EnglishEducation,40(1),6‐20.

Albers,P.,Holbrook,T.,&Harste,J.C.(2010).Talkingtrade:Literacyresearchersaspracticingartists.JournalofAdolescent&AdultLiteracy,54(3),164‐171.

Albers, P., & Sanders, J. (2010). Literacies,thearts,andmultimodality. Urbana, IL:NationalCouncilofTeachersofEnglish.

Arts Education Partnership. (2004). Theartsandeducation:Newopportunities forresearch.RetrievedfromArtsEducationPartnershipwebsite,http://www.aep‐arts.org/files/publications/OpportunitiesResearch.pdf.

Burger,K.,&Winner,E.(2000).Instructioninvisualart:Canithelpchildrenlearntoread?JournalofAestheticEducation,34(3‐4),277‐293.

Burton,J.M.,Horowitz,R.,&Abeles,H.(2000).Learninginandthroughthearts:Thequestionoftransfer.StudiesinArtEducation,41(3),228‐257.

Caldwell,H.,&Moore,B.H.(1991).Theartofwriting:Drawingaspreparationfornarrativewritingintheprimarygrades.StudiesinArtEducation,32(4):207‐219.

Cowan,K.,&Albers,P.(2006).Semioticrepresentations:Buildingcomplexliteracypracticesthroughthearts.TheReadingTeacher,60(2),124‐137.

Creswell, J.W. (2007).Qualitativeinquiryandresearchdesign:Choosingamongfiveapproaches.ThousandOaks,CA:Sage.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Literacy and intrinsic motivation. Daedalus, 119(2),115‐140.

Deasy,R. (Ed.). (2002).Criticallinks:Learningintheartsandstudentacademicandsocialdevelopment.Washington,DC:ArtsEducationPartnership.

Eisner,E.W.(1998).Doesexperienceintheartsboostacademicachievement?ArtsEducationPolicyReview,100(1),32.

Heath, S. B. (2004). Learning language and strategic thinking through the arts.ReadingResearchQuarterly,39(3),338‐342.

Leland,C.H.,&Harste,J.C.(1994).Multiplewaysofknowing:Curriculuminanewkey.LanguageArts,71(5),337‐345.

Moore, B. H., & Caldwell, H. (1993). Drama and drawing for narrative writing inprimarygrades.TheJournalofEducationalResearch,87(2),100‐110.


Oldfather, P. (1995). Commentary: What’s needed to maintain and extendmotivation for literacy in themiddlegrades. JournalofReading,38(6),420‐422.

Smithrim,K.,&Upitis,R.(2005).Learningthroughthearts:Lessonsofengagement.CanadianJournalofEducation,28(1‐2),109‐127.

Trainin, G., Andrzejczak, N., & Poldberg, M. (2006). Visual arts and writing: Amutually beneficial relationship. Arts & Learning Research Journal, 21(1),139‐155.

Upitis,R.,&Smithrim,K.(2003).Learningthroughthearts:Nationalassessmentfinalreport.Toronto,Can.:TheRoyalConservatoryofMusic.

Walker, E.,Tabone, C.,&Weltsek,G. (2011).Whenachievementdatameetdramaandartsintegration.LanguageArts,88(5),365‐372.

PAGE|112

ReflectionsontheSWSEELRussianprogramfromasocioculturalperspective:Challengesandbenefits

MartinaM.BarnasSnezhanaZheltoukhova

Abstract

The SWSEEL intensive language summer training program held annually at theBloomington campus of Indiana University is one of the oldest andmost popularintensive Russian language programs in the US. In this paper we reflect on ourrespective combined experience as a Russian course learner and a Russian courseinstructor to identify benefits and potential challenges from the perspective ofsocioculturallearningtheoriesasdevelopedinthefieldofLearningSciences.WeshowthesocioculturallensiswellsuitedfordescribinglearningintheSWSEELenvironment,and the Russian SWSEEL course is designed and taught in agreement withperspectives of learning in sociocultural learning theories. Ultimately, socioculturalinstructionalstrategiesstrengthentheSWSEELmodelandvalidatetheapplicationofsocioculturallearningdesigninthecontextofintensivelanguageprograms.

Introduction

Sinceitsinceptionin1950,thesummerintensivelanguageworkshopSWSEELheldannually at the Indiana University, Bloomington has grown into one of themostwell‐knownintensivelanguageprogramsinthecountry.Thispaperpresentsafirststep toward the examination of the program through the lens of socioculturallearning theories, as understood by the field of Learning Sciences, amultidisciplinary field ineducationresearch thatempiricallystudies learningas itexistsinrealworldsettings,andalsohowlearningcanbebetterfacilitated(Sawyer,2005).Central toeducation is theconceptofknowledge.Sinceknowledge isnotatangibleobject,itreliesonphilosophytogiveititsmeaning.Forthisreason,therearevariedapproaches tounderstanding learning,but theconsensus in the field isthattheygenerallyfallintooneofthreecategories(seeCase,1996;Greeno,Collins,&Resnick,1996)rootedinthreedifferentepistemologies(forareviewseeBredo,2006), each emphasizing a different aspect of learning.We argue that one of theepistemologies—namelythesocioculturalperspectiveoflearning(Brown,Collins,&Duguid,1989;Greeno&MiddleSchoolMathematicsThroughApplicationsProjectGroup,1998),whichhasitsrootsintheworkofSovietpsychologistLevVygotsky—providesaparticularlysuitableframeworkforadescriptionofthelearningprocessin an intensive Russian course. It is important to acknowledge that sociocultural(Vygotsky, 1987) and/or cultural‐historical activity (Leont’ev, 1974) theory hasinfluencedsecondlanguageacquisition(SLA)researchdirectlyandprofoundly(seeLantolf,2000;LantolfandThorne,2007;Thorne,2005);however,areviewofSLA

PAGE|113BARNAS&ZHELTOUKHOVA

researchisoutsideofthescopeofthisarticle.InsteadwereflectonourexperiencesfromthepointofviewofLearningSciences.

Furthermore, during the preparation of this article, questions have arisenthatarealsobeyondthescopeofthispaper.Forexample,aswewilldocumentlater,teachers in the program are given considerable autonomy, yet the system isremarkably consistent and cohesive. This points to the important role of theorganizers,andtheinterplaybetweenthestructureoftheprogramanditsvariousactors,whichisofinterestonitsown.Inthisfirststudy,wereflectonthecombinedexperience of a learner and a lecturer of the program at a broad level, withoutdistinguishingbetweentheactorsandthestructure.

Thispaperisorganizedasfollows:firstwebrieflyreviewthefundamentalsof the sociocultural view of learning in Learning Sciences, which establish atheoreticalprismforouranalysis.NextwedescribetheRussianSWSEELprogram,drawingonourcombinedexperienceswiththeLevel5andLevel6Russiancoursesin which we, the authors, participated as a student (Barnas) and an instructor(Zheltoukhova),respectively.Wethenreflectonourexperience,identifynumerousbenefits, acknowledgepotential challenges for learners and instructorswithin thecontext of an intensive summer language course, and offer some practicalsuggestions inspired by input from sociocultural learning theories to improvelearning in this environment.We concludewith a call for research to be done inmultiplelearningissueswithinthecontextofintensiveRussianprogramsfromthesocioculturalperspective.

OverviewofFundamentalsofSocioculturalLearningTheories

Thephilosophicalfoundationsofsocioculturalapproachesarebasedonthedialecticepistemologies of Hegel, Marx, and their followers. As Case (1996) states,knowledge“has itsprimaryorigin inthesocialandmaterialhistoryofculture”(p.79),whichconstitutesarejectionof therationalistviewthatputsemphasisonanindividual, rather than a group. However, Greeno (1997) argues that thesociocultural perspective is a synthesis encompassing previous perspectives, andaccommodatespracticescenteredonanindividual.SocioculturaltheoriesstemfromtheworkofVygotsky(Case,1996),whowasactiveintheSovietUnioninthe1930sbutwhoseworkdidnotgaininfluencegloballyuntilpostmortem.Vygotsky(1978)pointed out that through interaction with more knowledgeable adults or peers,children’scapabilitiesareextendedbeyondwhattheywouldbeabletodowithouthelp,aconceptknownasthezoneofproximaldevelopment(ZPD).

Some elements of Vygotsky’s work were met with criticism, which led tomodifiedtheoriesbyneo‐Vygotskianscholars.Forexample,toolsareseenashavinga specific, rather than general, effect on capabilities. While Vygotsky consideredlanguage the most important milestone, contemporary neo‐Vygotskian theoriesrecognizetheimportanceofnotationalsystemsasavitalclassofintellectualtools.Theuniquecontributionofsocioculturalapproachesistherecognitionof“cognitiveapprenticeship” (Rogoff, 1990), a practice in line with the assumption thatintelligenceissociallydistributed,ratherthanconfinedtoanindividual.

REFLECTIONSONTHESWSEELRUSSIANPROGRAMPAGE|114

CognitiveApprenticeship

The sociocultural perspective does not view a learner in isolation; rather, thelearner is perceived as a part of community. Thus, one form of knowing isdemonstrated through the ability of the entire group to perform cooperativeactivities.Thiscollectiveknowingiscomplementarytoindividualknowing,i.e.,theabilityofanindividualtoparticipateinthegroupactivity.Learningisperceivedasstrengtheningtheabilitiesofindividualstoparticipateinacommunity,orasGreeno(1997)putsit,“aprogressalongtrajectoriesofparticipationandgrowthofidentity”(p.9).Aquestioniswhethertheperipheralparticipationofbeginnersislegitimate.An environment of apprenticeship (Rogoff, 1990) is supposed to allow for suchparticipation. However, to be in a productive environment for learning, learnersneedtohaveopportunitiestoobserveandpracticeinawaythatstrengthenstheirabilities.

Thesocioculturalperspective isbroadandencompassesarichspectrumofinteractivecomponents,asseeninseminalarticlesbyBrownetal.(1989),Greenoetal.(1998),andPea(1993),whoeachexploredifferentsocioculturalperspectivesofknowledgeand learning.Brownet al. (1989) focusonhowactivityandsituationsare integral for learning, and point out that it is impossible to separate what islearned fromhow it is learned. By ignoring this, education defeats its purpose ofproviding robust, useable knowledge. Cognitive apprenticeship provides analternativethatemergesfromresearchoncognitionandlearning.Thekeyelementof the proposed approach is authentic practice,which is distinct from the typicalschool practice. Authentic practice is definedas ordinary practices of the culture.Brownetal.(1989)pointouttheartificialityofmanyschoolactivities.Theauthorsargue that authentic activities are not restricted to experts, and that novices canparticipateviaapprenticeship.

DistributedIntelligence

According to Pea (1993), knowledge is socially constructed in interactions, andintelligence can be distributed for use in diverse artifacts. Artifacts range fromphysical tools to notational systems (e.g., algebraic expressions). Environmentswhich humans create are thick with such artifacts. The concept of distributedintelligence arises in contrast to the concept of intelligence as an attribute of anindividual, referring to the individual’s mental representations. Distributedintelligencemanifests inactivity,which isenabledby intelligence,butnot just theintelligence of one individual. Tools and artifacts can advance activity. Peadistinguished two types of distribution of intelligence: social andmaterial. Socialdistribution comes from the construction of intelligence in social interactions;material distribution refers to the invention of uses or the exploitation ofaffordancesofartifacts.

Pea (1993) recognizes that distributed intelligence canbe augmentedwithcomputing,e.g.,bycreatingmalleablevirtual realities formodelingandreasoning,including visualization programs characterized by guided participation thatdistributesintelligenceacrosschildandadult,employinginscriptionalsystemssuch


asscientificsymbolsandmathematicalrepresentations,andwithsituatedcognitionthatis,accordingtoPea,“highlyinventiveinexploitingfeaturesofthephysicalandsocialsituationsasresource”(p.63).

Greeno et al. (1998), for their part, concentrate on socially organizedinteractions, and propose that the situative perspective offers a view of learningbeyondlimitationsofthecognitive(rationalist),whileacknowledgingthatstudiesofindividual cognitionand interactional cognitionexhibit strengthsandweaknesses.Theauthorsformulategeneralizationsofcognitiveconceptsofschemata,meaning,andengagement,butrecognizethatonechallengeforthestudyofsociallyorganizedinteractionsisthenecessityofdealingwithcomplexsystems.

LearningCommunities

The theory of learning translates into educational design. Generally speaking, thefavored method in the sociocultural perspective is to create a community ofauthentic practice in the learning environment and initiate learners into it (Case,1996). For example, learners work in small groups, and as their understandingdeepens, so does their ability to communicate it. As discussed in Greeno et al.(1996), sociocultural theories view learning as an increase in the ability toparticipateindistributivecognitivesystems.Theindividual’sidentityderivesfromparticipation in communities.Notwithstanding this, the authors acknowledge that“effective learning involves being strongly engaged in activities that capturelearners’ interests because of their intrinsic qualities as well as participation incommunities” (p. 26). Moreover, while some individuals may become stronglyengaged in activities that are dominated by group interaction, the view does notdisregard those for whom the activity is primarily a solitary pursuit, and theirpersonal immersion defines their social role. From the situative view, curriculashouldconcentrateonactivitiesthatstudentsshouldlearntoparticipatein,aswellas subject matter. One aspect of this is organizing the curriculum of the subjectmatter in a way that students come to appreciate and learn to participate inauthenticdiscourses(Greenoetal.,1996).

Sociocultural perspectives offer a pragmatic approach for fosteringengagement. From a sociocultural perspective, an individual is never an isolatedentity.Sheisinseparablefromthecommunity,andthisconceptincludestoolsandartifacts, all of which carry knowledge. Knowing is the ability to participate inactivities of the community. Community plays a crucial role in engagement ormotivation.

ProductiveEngagement

Engle and Conant (2002) present four design principles that were formulated aposteriori to account for the success of productive disciplinary engagement in aspecific classroom. These principles identify underlying regularities in what theteachers, curriculum, and learning designers did that may explain students’engagement. While these principles were inferred in a specific content domain(biology),theyaresufficientlygeneraltobeusefulinothercontentareas.Thefour


guiding principles that the authors inferred are problematizing content, givingstudentsauthority,holding themaccountable toothersand todisciplinarynorms,andprovidingrelevantresources.

Crucial for productive engagement and any productive learning is theelement of assessment. The sociocultural view provides a broader,more situatedand contextually significant perspective of assessment than other perspectives oflearning. According to Greeno et al. (1996), since from the sociocultural viewknowing is seen as an ability to participate in socially distributed practices,assessmentshouldevaluatethisability.Somealternativeassessmentpracticesthatareacceptablefromthispointofviewareevaluationasadirectresultofaninquiryor observation of the work of groups or an individual in a group. Greeno et al.(1996)alsosuggestthatstudentsshouldbeparticipantsintheassessment,beyondbeing assessed. An example of meaningful participation of students in theassessment process is the students’ contribution to the formulation of standards.Hickey and Anderson (2007) offer a comprehensive and practical multilevelassessment framework. They cover assessment from the immediate level—i.e.,teacher monitoring and refining discourse via informal observation of a specificcurricularevent—totheremote—i.e.,norm‐referencedteststodeterminenationalachievement that should provide input for policymakers to formulate long‐termpoliciesonbroadachievementtargets.

In summary, the sociocultural viewofhowan individual learns is that it isnever an endeavor carried out in isolation.To understand learning and to designeffectively to achieve it, consideration must be given to the community and theenvironment. The environment includes tools and artifacts, such as technology,books, and notational systems, all of which carry intelligence. Participation in acommunity activity fosters engagement and motivation; however, this does notnegate the need for a learner’s intrinsic interest in the activity. The socioculturallearningtheories,seenasasynthesisandageneralization,ratherthananantithesisof learning theories focused solely on an individual, broaden the perspective onassessmentaswell.Suchsociocultural instructionaldesignacknowledgestheneedfor various assessment instruments without the extremes of overreliance on anysingle one, or rejecting any. It posits that each vehicle has its merits when usedappropriately.

AnIntensiveSummerRussianProgramfromtheSocioculturalPerspective

We argue that the SWSEEL intensive summer language course, held annually atIndianaUniversity, Bloomington, exhibits sociocultural principles reviewed in thefirst part of the article. Notably, the sociocultural perspective, rather than anassociationist or constructivist view, aligns with the recently developedsociolinguistictheoriesofL2acquisition(seeTarone,2007).Inthefollowingsectionwe describe features of the SWSEEL intensive summer language program as asynthesisoftheviewsofbothalearnerandaninstructor.Weshareourreflectionsasasixth‐levelRussianlanguagestudentinsummer2013andafifth‐levelRussian


language instructor in the summers of 2012 and 2013, to identify challenges andbenefitsoftheSWSEELapproachtointensivelanguagelearning.

SWSEEL:SummerLanguageWorkshop

In the summerof 2013, at least19 intensive summerRussian languageprogramsoperated at universities and colleges in the US, offering a variety of levels ofinstruction(www.aatseel.org).Foundedin1950,RussianSWSEELoffersoneoftheoldestintensivesummerRussianlanguageprogramsintheUnitedStates.Inrecentyears the number of SWSEEL students learning Russian has fluctuated betweenapproximately100and130persummer.Insummer2013,theRussianprogramhad20facultyandabout110students.Thedefiningcharacteristicofsuchaprogramisthefactthatitprovidestheopportunityforparticipantstocoverthematerialoftwoacademicsemestersofstudy ineightornineweeksofdailyclasses.Studentsmaycompletethefirstfourweeksofstudyastheequivalentofoneacademicsemester.SWSEELcreditsaretransferabletootheracademicinstitutions.Theprogramisnotlimited to a particular cohort of students; rather, it is designed for domestic andinternationalundergraduateandgraduatestudents,professionals,andexceptionalhigh school students over age 17. Students are grouped according to theirplacement test results into different levels. Some proficiency levels may requiremore thanonegroup, since thesizeof thegroup iskept relativelysmall,with themaximumcappedat18students.Thus,forexample,in2013thelargestgrouphad14students.TheRussianprogramatSWSEELoffersninelevelsofRussian,varyingfromnovicetoadvanced.

Curricular design includes a placement test, a post‐test and three to fiveacademichoursinaclassroomsettingeveryworkday.Classroomhoursaredividedbetweenfourinstructorswhoseprimaryfociaregrammar,conversation, listening,and phonetics, respectively. The fact that there is a separate phoneticsmodule issignificant;toourknowledge, it isoneofthedistinguishingfeaturesofSWSEELincomparisonwithothersimilarprograms.

Grammarinstructorsareeachassignedtoonespecificgroupforthedurationof the course, and spend three hours with their students a day. Conversationinstructors work with each group four academic hours a week. Listening andphonetics instructors teacheachgroup for twoacademichoursaweek.Grammar,conversation, and listening instructors involved with the same group coordinatetheireffortstocreateacohesiveprogram.Forexample,theysharetheirsyllabi,andkeep topics, vocabulary, and grammar coordinated according to the sharedtextbook.Phoneticsinstructorshavedifferentoverarchingtopicseachweek,suchas“vowel reduction” and so forth. In otherwords, their focus is on amuch smallerscaleofelementsoflanguage.Theremayormaynotbesomecoordinationwiththegrammarinstructors,sinceitisnotneededfortheefficiencyofthecourse.

DailyhomeworkisanimportantpartofthecurriculumatSWSEEL.Asarule,the grammar section instructors assign the majority of the homework, with thephonetics,conversation,andlisteninginstructorscontributingonly10%to20%ofthe total amount of homework. Daily grammar homework typically consists of


learningvocabularyforthenextday,andofgrammarexercisesfromatextbook,butmayinsteadinvolveacreativewritingassignment.Studentsareencouraged,butnotrequired, towrite theentireexercise, rather than simply fill inblanks, topracticetheir writing skills. The instructors have a considerable amount of autonomyregarding classroom materials. One major textbook is usually regulated by theSWSEELRussianprogramadministration,whiletherestofthematerialsarecreatedorprovidedbyinstructorsaccordingtotheirteachinggoals.

Extracurricularactivitiesinclude“Russiantable,”abiweeklylunchgatheringthat facilitates informal conversation among program participants. Attendance atRussian table is strongly encouraged, to the extent that it appearsmandatory forstudentsenrolled in all levelsof theprogram.Additional extracurricular activitiesarecomprisedof lectures in the target language, filmscreenings,andanumberofinterest‐basedclubs(theater,choir,poetryclub,Russianradioetc).Thisprogramisenhancedbyone‐timeeventssuchasatalentshow(organizedincollaborationwithother language programs) or food tastings.While participation in extracurricularactivitiesisnotmandatory,forstudentsofhigherproficiencylevels,someactivities,most notably the Russian film screenings and lectures,may be incorporated intohomework assignments for the mandatory classroom components (conversationandlistening)inordertoencourageattendance.

Sociocultural Principles Observed in the SWSEEL 2013 Russian SummerIntensiveProgram

Wewill now apply the sociocultural perspective of learning to the SWSEEL 2013Russian program, based on our observations as student and teacher. The authorsregularlymetduringtheeightweeksoftheprogramandexchangedtheirreflectionsinordertosituatethemwithinasocioculturalframework.

Knowledgeastheabilitytoparticipateinagroupactivity

Thisviewofknowledgeisexactlytheimplicitviewofknowledgethatunderliesthedesignofintensivecourses.Theaimofanintensivecourseistoenablealearnertocommunicate in the target language and effectivelyparticipate in group activities,with theultimategoal ofbeingable to engagewith a communityof L1, ornative,speakers.

The SWSEEL Russian curriculum includes a conversation component inadditiontocommunicativelybasedgrammarclasses.Suchcurriculardesignaimstoprovide adequate training for future use of the language by students in theirpersonalandprofessionallives.Asaresult,intensivelanguagecoursesarepopularamong students who intend to study abroad, as well as among Reserve OfficersTrainingCorps(ROTC)students.

Thecurriculardesignimpliesseveralclassroomhourswiththesamegroupofcolearnersdaily,incontrastwithatypicalacademicyearlanguageclassroomortutoring.Asaresult,groupactivitiesbecomethemaintoolforlanguagelearningatboth the microlevel of one academic hour and the macrolevel of overarchingprojects that span several weeks. Implementation of macrolevel project‐based


learning is enhanced by collaboration between grammar, conversation, listening,andphonetics instructorswhoworkwith thesamegroupofstudents.Specifically,instructors of Level 5 exchanged emails sharing theirweekly plans, requests, andsuggestionsforeachother.Forexample,twotimesoutofeight,oralpartsofweeklygrammar tests were conducted by the conversation instructor during his officehours.

Suchprojectswereenhancedbyextracurricularprogramming.Forinstance,fifth‐levelstudentsin2012and2013wroteandperformedoriginalplaysaspartoftheirstudyof law/criminalvocabulary.First theymastered thevocabularyduringgrammar‐ and vocabulary‐oriented classroom hours. Then, during conversationclassestheyweregiventhetaskofcollaborativelycreatinganoriginalplaywithamysteryplot. Conversation and grammar instructors provided classroom time forrehearsalsandguidedthegroupsthroughtheentireprocessofcreatingatheatricalperformance.Allgroupsrehearsedtheirplaysinfrontoftheaudienceatleastonceduring class time, and some performed their plays voluntarily at an all‐programtalentshow.Thecollaborationofinstructorswascrucialfortheimplementationofthisproject toguaranteeefficientorganizing, time framing,adequatesupport,andso forth. As a result, effective learning is enhanced by participation in groupactivities.

Learningasan increasingability toparticipate inaparticular communityofpracticeThe target community of practice in language studies is a community of nativespeakers.IntensivecoursesclearlyprovideatrajectorythatgetscloserandclosertothelanguageskillofL1speakersandanunderstandingoftheirculture.Whileatfirstthe learners need to master basics of the target language, as their proficiencyincreases,theculturalcomponentneedstobeimplemented.Thisisoftenachievedinaclassroomenvironmentthroughaliteraturecomponent,orthroughinformativearticlesdescribingcertainaspectsof life(see, forexample,atextbookusedfortheRussianSWSEELLevel6byRifkin,1996),whichareusedasacontextforextendingvocabularyandgrammar.

TheinformalpartoftheSWSEELintensivecourse,particularlytheinterest‐based clubs, expandson classroom learning. For example, studentsof all levelsofRussian, includingbeginners,hadtheopportunitytoparticipateinaRussianradioclub.ThegoalwastocollaborativelyprepareandconductweeklyradioshowsasDJsandmusic programmerswith theminormediation of an instructor. Rising to thechallenge, students of the second and third levels expressed their willingness toparticipate in this club, sharing the responsibilities equally with higher‐levelstudents. As a result, despite a noticeable knowledge gap, thesemixed‐skill‐levelgroups successfully prepared and conducted radio shows. This informal learningenvironmentgaverisetoacognitiveapprenticeship(Rogoff,1990).

The first task for theDJswas to createanadvertisingposter, and this taskwasmanageableeven for lower‐level studentsofRussian.Thesecond taskwas toprepareaplaylistofsongsweekly,andthistaskwasmanageableaswell,duetothe


factthatRussianmusic isreadilyaccessibleontheInternet.Forexample,asearchfor “Russianrap”onYouTubeyieldsseveral links tosongs inRussian.Asa result,DJscreateacommunitybycollaboratingonproducingashowandcommunicatingwith each other andwith listeners of the show in Russian. This club successfullysatisfied the often daunting demand for any apprenticeshipmodel (Rogoff, 1990)thattheparticipationofbeginners,whichisofnecessityperipheral,bemeaningful(Greeno et al., 1996). The context of an authentic radio studio facilitated thedevelopmentofspecificaspectsoflanguageandcommunicationskills.

AnothersalientexampleistheRussiandramacircleinSWSEEL2013,whichwas led by three instructors. As in the previous example, students of varied skilllevelswerewillingtoparticipateinthisclub(Levels2‐6).Thesuccessfulcompletionoftheproject(i.e.,performanceoftheplayduringtheTalentShowcaseattheendoftheprogram)couldbeanalyzedusingtheimportantVygotskianconstructofZPD.Interms of Vygotskian concepts, all student activities during drama circlemeetingswere other‐regulated by the instructors, but were developed in self‐regulatedactivities, and expanded the ZPD for the future L2 language development oflearners.

Despite the benefits of apprenticeship seen in interest‐based clubs, weshouldbeawareofpossiblechallengesforstudents.Timemanagementisonesuchchallenge, as many students experience difficulties in finding a good balancebetween informal activities and requiredwork. Thus, it is important that interestclubsnotbeapartofformalprogramrequirements,whichallowsstudentstodefinetheir own level of involvement in extracurricular programming withoutjeopardizingtheiroveralllanguagelearningprogress.

Importanceofauthenticpractice

An important principle distinguishing sociocultural perspectives from all otherperspectives of learning is the emphasis on authentic practice. According to thesocioculturalperspective,authenticpracticeisdefinedasanordinarypracticeoftheculture,whichisoftendifferentfromatypicalschoolactivity.Whiletheimportanceoreven feasibilityofusingauthenticpractices for learning inschools in fields likemathematicsorhistorycanbedebated,inlanguagelearning,especiallyatthemoreadvanced levels, the importanceofadoptingauthenticpractices isundeniable.Forexample, many common American cultural practices such as smiling orcomplimenting strangers, or the way we phrase requests, would be perceived inRussia as intrusive, rude, or could be misinterpreted entirely. A target‐languagespeakermight use correctwords but not in a culturally correct context, and thispotential issuecanonlybeavertedbyusingauthenticpracticeswhenlearningthetarget language. Such practices are taught effectively by L1 Russian‐speakinginstructorswhoteachhigherlevelsoftheprogram.

AnexampleofhowauthenticculturalpracticeswerebroughtintothesubjectmatterwasaunitonRussiantelephoneetiquette,whichwaspartofthecurriculumofLevel6in2013.Thiswasachievedthroughavarietyofactivitiescoordinatedbygrammar, listening, and conversation instructors. The activities included role‐


playing phone conversations, inspired by a recent amusing news event,watching(and listening to) a Russian comedian’s performance in the form of a phoneconversation during grammar class, recognizing phone numbers as they arepronounced by L1 speakers during listening class, and a continued discussion ofRussianphoneetiquetteduringtheconversationclass.

Oftenauthenticpractices and cultural insight arebrought into the learningenvironmentthroughtheuseofauthenticliterarytexts.Thedownside,oratleastachallenge, is thatnotall learnersconnectwellwithwhat theyperceiveas literarystudy. The sociocultural perspective offers an insight and a recommendation.Studentsaremoremotivatedifthecontext issomethingthattheyalreadyhaveaninterest in.Therefore, if studentsareallowedautonomy inchoosingprojects, theycanbeexposedtotheculturalaspectsinawaythattheymayfindengaging.

Distributedintelligence

Recently, using technology as an authentic learning tool in a language classroombecame not only desirable, but inevitable due to the increased capability andaccessibility of Internet resources and information technologies. According to Pea(1993), computing promotes both social and material intelligence distribution.Thus, contemporary intensive language programs in general, and SWSEEL inparticular, extensively use various information technology resources in languageclassrooms. For example, grammar instructors incorporated various Internetresources in their classrooms, including the social network for education,www.lore.com, as a virtual space for discussion forums. To increase theirwillingness to engage, students could choose their imaginary identities whileanswering forum questions. The imaginary identities allowed them to practicelanguage skills while maintaining personal boundaries. During breaks betweenclasses,studentsenjoyedstreamingcurrentnewsfromRussia,thankstoon‐lineTV(www.1tv.ru ), Powerpoint animated presentations, subtitled videos, a document‐reading camera, and so forth. Indiana University’s Oncourse virtual workspaceplayed an integral part in every class session, providing numerous benefits forlearning.

This practice of bringing authentic cultural experiences into the classroomwiththeaidofinformationtechnologyappearstobeacommonpracticeamongthegrammar instructorsofSWSEEL.Thecurrentstateof technologyenablesthat toaconsiderabledegree.Anotableexampleisateleconferencewithasurvivingfamilymember of amurdered journalist, organized via Skype by a lecturer in a weeklyextracurricularseminar.

Nowhere,however, is thedistributednatureof intelligenceasevidentas inthephoneticsmoduleofthecourse.Sinceplacementtestsdonothaveaphoneticscomponent,phonetics instructorshadtofacethechallengingtaskofworkingwithstudents of very different backgrounds in phonetics in the same group. Thephoneticsmodule for Level 6 consistedof oneweekly theoretical lecture andoneweeklypracticehour in lab. (Perhapsowing to theoutgoingnatureof theLevel6group,eventheweeklylecturesbecamehighlyinteractive,withstudentsrequesting


clarifications of previously identified challenges and practicing aloud, and theinstructoreagerlyworkingwiththem.ThisisfurthertestimonytotheflexibilityoftheSWSEELprogram.)Duringthelab,studentspracticedphonemes,andconcludedwitharecordingthattheysubmittedviaIUOncoursetotheinstructor.Thisenabledtheinstructortomanagethelearningofdiversegroups.ThisechoesthesentimentofLearningSciencesingeneralthatinstructionaltechnologyisacrucialcomponentof learning, and illustrates Pea’s (1993) point of intelligence being augmented bytechnology. Additionally, phonetics relies on inscriptional systems (e.g.,InternationalPhoneticAlphabet,IPA)tocapturepronunciation,inaccordancewithPea’s (1993) notion that distributed intelligence is augmented by inscriptionalsystems.

Smallgroups:advantagesanddisadvantages

Small‐group activities are relevant not only for classes with large numbers ofstudents but also for relatively small classes of intensive summer languageprograms. Such activities save classroom time in comparison with all‐classactivities,duringwhicheveryoneisforcedtolistentoalanguageperformance(e.g.,eitherreadingorspeaking)ofonlyonestudentata time.Whensplitting theclassintonumeroussmallgroups,itispossibletoproductivelyengagetheentireclassatthe same time. Further, work in small groups fosters students’ engagement.Additionally,fromtheperspectiveoftheinstructor,itiseasiertocontroltheactivityin smaller groups of students than it is in larger groups. In larger groups, not allstudents have to be participating, whereas in a small group lack of engagementquicklybecomesnoticeable.

Typical small group activities in the SWSEEL Russian Level 5 includeddialogues based on a range of topics, structured interviews with a preset list ofquestions, a “speed‐dating” role‐playing game, fill‐in‐the‐blanks on handouts inpairs, vocabulary‐based guessing games in small groups of three to four, etc.Learning in small groups isusuallyperceivedas advantageous.However, takingasociocultural perspective,we should be aware of the increased importance of theclassroom environment in small groups. For example, one of the challenges oflearningRussianislearningthecorrectstress.Stressisnormallynotmarkedinthewrittentext,atleastnotinauthentictexts.Compoundingthedifficulty,therearenodefinitiverulesregardingtheplacementofstress.L1speakerssimplyhaveafeelforit. Unfortunately, learners do not. For this reason, a disadvantage of working insmall groups is that the learners are likely to pick up incorrect stress from eachother.Theinstructorcannotmonitoreverywordbeingsaidwhiletheentireclass,divided into small groups, works in parallel. Moreover, taking into account theunusually large number of classroom hours and increased pressure and stress inintensive programs, we must be aware of possible psychological problems thatmightoccurinsmallclassroomsduetostudentincompatibilityorotherindividuallearningfactors.


Designingformotivation

The SWSEEL program has an advantage over a typical college language courseenvironmentduetotheuniquenatureofitsparticipants.ThestudentswhoenrollinSWSEELtypicallyentertheprogramhighlyself‐motivatedtomakethemostofthecourse. Nevertheless, even with this favorable initial condition, designing formotivationisimportanttoexamine.

AsthedescriptionofSWSEELimplies,thisintensivesummerprogramcanbegruelingandexhaustingforboth learnersandteachers,andinourexperience, thesecondhalfofthesummer,inparticular,canbemarkedbyfatigue.Designprinciplesthat foster engagement are, therefore, critical.Engagement can be enhanced bygiving students authority over formulating classroom tasks andhomework.Whenstudentsareallowed toactively choose theproblem theyworkon, theyaremorelikely to be interested in it.However, it is important that studentshave adequateaccesstoresourcesforlearning,aswellasbeingallowedsufficienttimetocompletetasks(Engle&Conant,2001).

The Russian instructors at SWSEEL strive to provide opportunities forstudent autonomy within the restrictions of the fast‐paced, intensive learningenvironment.Intheexperienceofthearticleauthors,RussianLevel5Bstudentshada certain amountof autonomy throughout the coursebybeing able to choose themajor focus of their homework, presentations, and projects that would fit theirpersonalinterests.Somehomeworktasksallowedchoosingbetweendifferenttypesof activity (either reading or writing). For weekly 5‐7 minute presentations,students chose topics related to the major lexical theme of the week and usedtextbookvocabularyfortheweek.Thegrammarinstructortriedtoavoidgivingfullautonomy to students by localizing and charging the driving project question ortopic(seethediscussionofproject‐basedlearninginLarmer,Ross,&Mergendoller,2009), inorder tomakeaprojectbemoreengaging forstudentswhile facilitatingthe process of topic choosing. Likewise, SWSEEL Russian instructors have aconsiderable amount of autonomy in choosing the teachingmaterials in order toincreasethedynamicsofthelearningprocessinclass.

However, identicalpractical tasksmightbeacceptedbydifferentgroupsofstudentswith varied amounts of enthusiasm and engagement. The same learningactivitiescouldproduceverydifferentresponsesandresultsfromdifferentgroups.For example, grammar instructors of SWSEEL Level 5A and Level 5B sharedmaterials they had created, and then shared observations on how suchmaterialswerereceivedbytheirstudents.Asaresult, itbecameclearthatgroups’reactionsvarieddependingonthepreferencesofstudentsasagroup.Forinstance,whileonegroup preferred conversations, another group had a strong preference for fill‐in‐the‐blanks tasks. This reflection on the role of group dynamics in determiningstudent preferences was shared by a listening instructor. Her observation isvaluableduetothespecificteachingcontextforthisinstructor,assheworkedwiththe same materials in two different groups of the same level, thus having anopportunity to compare learners’ preferences as groups. It is interesting thatmaterials that one group likedwere off‐putting or toodifficult for another group,


and exercises that one group would find boring would be very engaging for theothergroup.

We would like to return to the question of adequate resources impactingmotivation.Particularly the timeelement requiresadelicatebalance inaSWSEELcourse. Undeniably, part of the students’ weariness can be attributed to theirdevotion to reviewing what has been covered in the class each day and theirdiligenceindoingtheirhomework.Ontheotherhand,withoutthereinforcementofstudents’ independent extracurricularwork, the intensive coursewouldnot be asefficient.Providingadequatebutnotexhaustinghomeworkassignments,therefore,posesyetanotherchallengefortheSWSEELinstructors.

AssessmentConsistentwithSocioculturalLearningCaptureTheSWSEELprogramemploys awhole spectrumof student assessment.Muchoftheassessment isusedfor formativepurposes,notsurprisingly,giventhe intense,dynamicnatureoftheprogram.Aformativeassessmenttakesplacewhenateacherseekstorespondtostudentwork,makingjudgmentsaboutwhathasbeengraspedand what has not, with an intention of improving that learning.As summativeassessmentsinherclass,oneofthearticleauthors,agrammarinstructor,usedtwomajorexams(amidtermandafinal),weeklytwo‐hourtestswithwrittenandoralparts, and weekly vocabulary and grammar quizzes. As a student in the Level 6grammar module, the other article author encountered a slightly differentsummative assessment, in that the instructor did not employ vocabulary orgrammar quizzes, but administered only written weekly tests, in addition to themidterm and final. While the instructor also assigned grades for homework, sheemphasizedthathomeworkwasprimarilyforlearning.

In conclusion, while there are slight differences in the assessment aspracticedbyindividualgrammarinstructors,overallafullspectrumofassessmentinstrumentsisutilizedintheSWSEELRussianlanguageprogram.

ConcludingRemarks

Wehave shown that the SWSEEL intensive Russian course is consistentwith thedesignprinciplesoriginatingfromsocioculturallearningtheories.Inturn,thereareinsightsinsocioculturallearningtheoriesthatmightofferpracticalsuggestionsforSWSEEL designers and instructors. Here we summarize the main points of howsociocultural theory frames a contemporary intensive Russian course such asSWSEEL,andproviderecommendationsforfurtherresearch.

WearguethatthestrengthofSWSEELliesinitsflexibility.Itoffersaplethoraof learning environments that accommodate learners of numerous interests andlearning preferences, allow for authentic practices, learning through inquiry, andcognitiveapprenticeship.Withaprogramthisintensive,achallengeforinstructorsis to weigh the time needed to adequately satisfy classroom requirements (i.e.,homeworkandreviewofclasswork)againstthebenefitsofstudentsparticipatingininformallearningenvironments.Insomeinstances,studentsfelttheywouldnothaveenoughtimetotakepartininterest‐drivenclubs.Thismightbemoredifficult


for the advanced intermediates than for advanced or novice learners. Novicelearnersarenotyetata levelwhere theycan takeadvantageofactivities suchaslecturesinthetargetlanguage,andadvancedstudentscanparticipateinthesemoreorlesseffortlessly.Incontrast,advancedintermediateshavejustreachedthelevelwheretheycanattendthelectures,butnotwithoutexertingeffort.

This paper is a first step, analogous to a feasibility study.We only brieflytouched on the role of technology in SWSEEL. Learning Sciences is amultidisciplinary field,andexpandingourunderstandingof learningas ithappensindiverseenvironments, invivosotospeak, isonlyoneof itsmissions.Theother,equally important,mission is advancing learning through design.One of LearningScience’s main components, alongside cognitive psychology, sociology andeducation, is computer science and instructional technology. With the strongemphasisonutilizingtechnologyfortheadvancementoflearning,LearningSciencesmay be of use to the intensive language programs where technology, as weestablished, opens new, unprecedented possibilities. Having established thesuitabilityof this framework, thenext step ismore research concentratingon thedesigncomponent.

References

Bredo,E.(2006).Philosophiesofeducationalresearch.InJ.L.Green,G.Camilli,&P.B.Elmore (Eds.),Handbookofcomplementarymethodsineducationresearch(pp. 3‐31). Hillsdale, NJ: American Educational Research Association/LawrenceErlbaum.

Brown, J. S., Collins, A.,&Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture oflearning.EducationalResearcher,18(1),32‐42.

Case, R. (1996). Changing views of knowledge and their impact on educationalresearchandpractice. InD.R.Olson,&N.Torrance(Eds.),Thehandbookofeducationandhumandevelopment(pp.76‐99).Oxford,UK:Blackwell.

Engle, R. A., & Conant, F. R. (2002). Guiding principles for fostering productivedisciplinaryengagement:Explaininganemergentargumentinacommunityoflearnersclassroom.CognitionandInstruction,20(4),399‐483.

Greeno, J. G. (1997). On claims that answer the wrong questions. EducationalResearcher,26(1),5‐17.

Greeno, J. G., Collins, A. M., & Resnick, L. (1996). Cognition and learning. InD. C.Berliner&R.C.Calfee(Eds.),Handbookofeducationalpsychology.NewYork,NY:Simon&SchusterMacmillan.

Greeno, J. G., & Middle School Mathematics Through Applications Project Group(1998). The situativity of knowing, learning, and research. AmericanPsychologist,53(1),5.


Hickey, D. T., & Anderson, K. T. (2007). Situative approaches to assessment forresolvingproblems ineducational testingandtransformingcommunitiesofeducationalpractice.InP.Moss(Ed.),YearbookoftheNationalSocietyfortheStudyofEducation:EvidenceandDecisionMaking,106(1),269‐293.

Lantolf,J.P.(Ed.).(2000).Socioculturaltheoryandsecondlanguagelearning.Oxford,UK:OxfordUniversityPress.

Lantolf, J. P., & Thorne, S. L. (2007). Sociocultural theory and second languagelearning. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second languageacquisition:Anintroduction(pp.201‐224).Hillsdale,NJ:LawrenceErlbaum.

Larmer, J.,Ross,D.,&Mergendoller, J.R. (2009).PBLStarterKit.Novato,CA:BuckInstituteforEducation.

Leont'ev,A.N.(1974).Theproblemofactivityinpsychology.JournalofRussianandEastEuropeanPsychology,13(2),4‐33.

Pea,R.D.(1993).Practicesofdistributedintelligenceanddesignsforeducation.InG. Solomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educationalconsiderations(pp.47‐87).Cambridge,UK:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Rifkin,B.(1996).Grammatikavkontekste:Russiangrammarinliterarycontexts.NewYork,NY:McGraw‐HillHumanities/SocialSciences/Languages.

Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in socialcontex.NewYork,NY:OxfordUniversityPress.

Sawyer,R.K. (2005).TheCambridgehandbookofthelearningsciences. Cambridge,UK:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Tarone, E. (2007). Sociolinguistic approaches to second language acquisitionresearch,1997–2007.TheModernLanguageJournal,91(s1),837‐848.

Thorne,S.L. (2005).Epistemology,politics,andethics insociocultural theory.TheModernLanguageJournal,89,393‐409.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychologicalprocesses. Ed. M. Cole, V. John‐Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman.Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). ThecollectedworksofL.S.Vygotsky,volume1:Problemsofgeneralpsychology.Ed.R.Reiber&A.Carton.NewYork,NY:PlenumPress.

working papers in literacy, culture, and language ...€¦ · examines the role that...

Documents