I’lll'l'llll'll I I I I. I. I- -

V RSITY LIBRARIE

MilliWilliam‘s1m:1 H

l
3 1293 00892 7471

ll

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is to certify that the

dissertation entitled

AUTHORS, TEXT, AND TALK:
THE INTERNALIZATION OF DIALOGUE FROM
SOCIAL INTERACTION DURING WRITING

presented by

Sarah J. McCarthey

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ph.D. Teacher Education

degree in

 

 

 

a? [Major professoi

Date Jilly 111 1991

 

MS U i: an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771

 

—‘——_————_—__l
DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

LIBRARY
Michlgan State
University

 

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.

 

 

 

 

m

335'
M%AYMWLJ
.1 ,3 [

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

”—1

MSU Is An Affirmative ActiorVEquel Opportunity Institution
chS-o.‘

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

AUTHORS, TEXT, AND TALK:
THE INTERNALIZATION OF DIALOGUE
FROM SOCIAL INTERACTION DURING WRITING

By
Sarah J. McCartney

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Teacher Education

1991

”It

~ I

ABSTRACT

AUTHORS, TEXT, AND TALK:
THE INTERNAIJZATION OF DIALOGUE
FROM SOCIAL INTERACTION DURING WRITING
By

Sarah J. McCartney

The purpose of this study was to investigate what students internalized from the
dialogue that occurs during the writing period in a process writing classroom. Using a
social constructivist theoretical perspective. the study focused on four students from
culturally diverse backgrounds who participated in a fifth/sixth-grade classroom in New
York City. In this classroom, the teacher used literature in her lessons, focusing on the
qualities of good writing, and conducted individual writing conferences with students.
Students kept notebooks of their personal experiences and reflections and then selected
from those to create a project for a larger audience.

Methods of data collection drew from interpretive/qualitative traditions. Sources
of data included: (a) videotaped and audiotaped observations of classroom interactions; (b)
interviews with the teacher; (c) interviews with the case study students; (d) students'
texts; and (e) an intervention in which students conducted writing conferences with
younger students. Analyses were derived from case study, ethnographic, and
sociolinguistic sources (e.g., such features as body language and proxemic cues,
conversational moves by the teacher and student, and prosodic cues were used to examine
the teacher-student writing conferences). Results are presented in the form of (a)
classroom themes and patterns of interaction; (b) individual cases of the students; and (c)
comparative cases.

The comparative cases of students suggest that what the students internalized from

the dialogue was related to the quality of scaffolding provided by the teacher and their

p0.

developing intersubjectivity with the teacher. The dialogue from the classroom
interactions was more likely to reemerge in students' talk with younger students and in
their own texts when their images of good writing matched those of the teacher. The study
illuminates the social conditions supportive of internalization as well as techniques by
which it might be inferred. Contributing to our understanding of the role of dialogue in

learning, the study supports some current practices in process writing classrooms and

challenges others.

In memory of

my father

93‘

[J

I.’

Numerous colleagues, friends, and family members have contributed in a variety of

ways to the completion of this dissertation. I wish to thank you all for what you have given

me.

My committee--
I gratefully acknowledge the multitude of contributions by my advisor and friend,

Taffy Raphael. Her continued guidance, undying support, and frequent humor helped make
this task rewarding. Her optimistic attitude, endless supply of energy, patience, and faith
in me have made this dissertation possible. I especially appreciate her availability to deal

with every issue of theory, design, and procedure, no matter how large or small. From

her I have learned the meaning of mentor.

I wish to acknowledge Penelope Peterson for her continued professional and
personal support during this process. Sharing ideas, experiences. and insights over work
or meals has helped me immeasurably. As both colleague and friend, she has been there to
listen, to connect with, and to ask probing questions about teaching and learning.

The insight, eloquence, and sensitivity of Susan FIorio-Ftuane have contributed a
great deal to this dissertation. Through her ability to both see the big picture and attend to
the myriad of details, she has taught me to think about issues related to research, writing,
politics, and ethics. I appreciate the many discussions in which we have engaged and the
lengthy lresponses to my writing she has provided.

Linda Anderson has taught me to think hard about issues of methodology and

teaching. Her interest and enthusiasm provided support and encouragement throughout the

process.

 
 

Jim Mosenthal's ideas, reflections, and philosophical musings have provided
alternative perspectives on teaching and language. Our shared experiences--talking,
laughing, and thinking about the teaching of writing--have shaped this work. I especially
appreciate his willingness to explore deeply an idea with humor, tenacity, and enthusiasm.
Participants in the study--

I wish to acknowledge the teacher who was willing to take the risk to allow a
researcher in her room and whose ongoing work in the teaching of writing is making an
important contribution to students' learning. I thank the students: Miguel, Anthony, Ella,
and Anita whose perceptions, humor, depth, and willingness to share their ideas and work
taught me a great deal.

Members of the Michigan State University community--

Jim Gavelek has contributed extensively to my knowledge of social constructivist
theory through coursework, informal talks, and sharing of his vast resources. In
particular, his suggestion of providing a teaching task for the participating students
contributed to my design. Sue McMahon's friendship. encouragement, and collegiality
along with her determination have served as inspiration to me throughout our shared
ordeal.

I appreciate the financial support offered by the National Center for Research on
Teacher Education (NCRTE), directed by Mary Kennedy and the Center for the Learning and
Teaching of Elementary Subjects, co-directed by Penelope Peterson and Jere Brophy.

Lisa Roy's diligence at the computer and friendly smile have helped in assembling
this dissertation. I also wish to acknowledge Chris Clark who has added humor and
friendship; Suzanne Wilson, whose articulateness, humor, and dramatic flair have
enriched my stay at MSU; and Deborah Ball who has shown interest in my work as well as

personal support. I thank the Video Group and the Literacy Colloquy members for their

vi

insights into my study. Friends including Jeremy Price, Gem Reid, Linda Tiezzi, and
Michelle Parker have contributed to my work by being available for walks, talks, and
laughs.

Friends from near and far--

Hours of phone calls with Jane Abe in which she listened carefully, provided
perspective, and told stories gave me the strength to focus, the courage to continue, and the
hope of completion. Her cookies sent from Salt Lake City, her apple pies to welcome me
home, and her supply of mystery books to provide diversion have been symbols of her
faith, support, and concern. Cliff Abe's weekly newspaper articles have kept me informed
of the world outside of MSU, while his editing of my references deserves recognition.

I also wish to acknowledge my wonderful friends--Rhea Lisonbee, Mary Moody, and
Carolyn Schubach for their interest and encouragement. I thank all of the friends from
near and far who have supported my efforts throughout graduate school: Margaret Bray,
Gail Economou, Julie Hartenstein, Susan Walker, Jim Wasserstrom, Robin Rettew,
Barbara Porro, Katey Brichto, Miriam Gibbs, and Carol Jean Mule.

My family--

I provide a special acknowledgement to that rare combination of characters who
comprise my family: my mother; Tommy and Mary and their daughters, Rachele and
Dominique; Phil and Sandy and their children, Molly and Mairin; Shaun; and M01 Through
their alternating teasing and encouragement along with their everlasting humor they have

been a huge part of my life. shaping who I am.

vii

 

TABLEOFCCNTENTS

UST OF TABLES ..................................................................................................... xii
LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................. x i ii
m... 1
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW .............................................................................................. 9
Theoretical Framework ........................................................................................ 9
Discourse in Classroom Practice ....................................................................... 1 7
Discourse in Traditional Classroom Practice ................................................. 1 8
Alternative Patterns of Classroom Discourse in Literacy .............................. 2 0
CHAPTER 3
IVER-DDS ............................................................................................................... 3 4
Assumptions and Definitions .............................................................................. 3 5
Data Collection .................................................................................................... 3 7
The Setting ....................................................................................................... 3 7
The Participants .............................................................................................. 4 5
Sources of Data ................................................................................................ 4 8
Processes for Collecting Data .......................................................................... 61
Analysis .............................................................................................................. 61
Developing Classroom Themes ........................................................................ 6 4
Cases of the Students ....................................................................................... 6 7
Comparisons of the Students ........................................................................... 7 7
Making Links Among Types of Data ...................................... 7 9

viii

 

CHAPTER 4
CLASSROOM THEMES AND PATTERNS OF INTERACTION 8 2
Content ................................................................................................................... 8 3
Phase 1: Qualities of Good Writing .................................................................... 8 5
Phase 2: From Notebooks to Projects ............................................................... 8 9
Phase 3: Using Literature to Improve Writing ................................................ 91
The Activity Structure of Writing Workshop ....................................................... 9 3
Mini-lessons ...................................................................................................... 9 4
Writing ............................................................................................................... 9 8
Conferences ...................................................................................................... 1 O1
Sharing ............................................................................................................. 1 05
The Teacher's Image of Good Writing .................................................................. 1 06
The Best Topics Come From Personal Experience ........................................... 1 07
Selecting a Genre for a Particular Audience .................................................... 1 13
Elements of Language and Style ........................................................................ 1 1 4
Focus and Organization ..................................................................................... 1 1 7

CHAPTER 5
TI-ECASES .............................................................................................................. 1 21
A Perfect Fit? The Case of Miguel ...................................................................... 1 21
Who is Miguel? ................................................................................................ 121
Appropriation: Opportunities for Social Interaction ...................................... 128

Transformation: How Does Miguel Make Sense of the Classroom Dialogue? ...1 44
Publication: What Has Miguel lntemalized From the Classroom Dialogue?..147

What is Significant About Miguel's Case? ........................................................ 155

Description and Didacticism: The Case of Anthony ............................................. 156
Who is Anthony? .............................................................................................. 156
Appropriation: Opportunities for Social Interaction ....................................... 162

Transformation: How Does Anthony Make Sense of the Classroom Dialogue? .1 6 8

Conventionalization: What Has Anthony Internalized? ................................... 169
What is Significant About Anthony's Case? ............................. 180
Fact or Fiction? The Case of Ella ........................................................................... 1 81
Who is Ella? ..................................................................................................... 181
Appropriation: Opportunities for Social Interaction ...................................... 185
Transformation: How Does Ella Make Sense of the Classroom Dialogue? ....... 1 97
Conventionalization: What Has Ella lntemalized? .......................................... 201
What is Significant About Ella's Case? ............................................................ 21 1
Culture and Conflict: The Case of Anita .............................................................. 212
Who is Anita? .................................................................................................. .212
Appropriation: Opportunities for Social Interaction ...................................... 217
Transformation: How Does Anita Make Sense of the Classroom Dialogue? ..... 2 26
Conventionalization: What Has Anita lntemalized? ........................................ 228
What is Significant About Anita's Case? .......................................................... 236
Summary ............................................................................................................... .239
CHAPTER 6
WARISCNSACFKBSCASES ............................................................................... .241
Conferences with Teacher: Establishing lntersubjectivity ............................... 241
Teacher-Student Uptake .................................................................................. 241

Content ............................................................................................................. 24 7

xi

Conversational Style .................................................................................... 251
Writing Conferences With Younger Students ................................................... 2 6 1
Content .......................................................................................................... 2 6 2
Conversational Style ..................................................................................... 2 6 4
Texts: Match Between Teacher's Image and Student's Representation ............... 2 6 8
Personal Experience .................................................................................... .2 6 8
Language and Style: Imagery and Figurative Language ................................ 2 70
Audience ........................................................................................................ 2 7 1
Organization and Focus ................................................................................. 2 71
Summary .......................................................................................................... 2 75
CHAPTER 7
CWOLUSIONS AND IMPUCATIONS .................................................................. .2 7 6
Summary and Discussion ................................................................................ 2 7 6
Implications for Practice and Theory ............................................................. 2 8 5
Significance, Limitations, and Future Research ............................................. 2 9 3
APPENDIX A
TEACHER INTERVIEWS ....................................................................................... 2 9 6
APPENDIX B
STUDENT SEMI-STRUCTURED ENTRY INTERVIEW ............................................. 2 9 8
APPENDIX C
STUDENT SEMI-STRUCTURED EXIT INTERVIEW ................................................ 3 0 1
APPENDIX D
INFORMAL STUDENT INTERVIEW ........................................................................ 3 O 3
APPENDIX E
USTOFCHILDREN’S BOOKS USED INCLASSROOM ............................................ 304

LISTOFREFERENCES .......................................................................................... 305

UST OF TABLES

Table 1--Summary of Categories of Analysis ...................................................... 6 3
Table 2-Key to Transcription Conventions .......................................................... 75
Table 3--Summary of Classroom Themes and Patterns of Interaction ............. 1 1 9
Table 4--Comparisons of Teacher-Student Conferences .................................. 248
Table 5--Comparisons of Cases ......................................................................... 263

xii

UST OF FIGURES

Figure 1--Vygotsky Space .................................................................................... 1 1
Figure 2--Classroom Map .................................................................................... 43
Figure 3--Data Sources and Harre Model ............................................................ 50
Figure 4o-Classroom Themes and Harre Model ................................................. 1 1 8
Figure 5--Miguel’s lntersubjectivity with Teacher ........................................ 260
Figure 6-—Anthony's lntersubjectivity with Teacher ...................................... 260
Figure 7--Ella's lntersubjectivity with Teacher ............................................. 260
Figure 8--Anita's lntersubjectivity with Teacher ........................................... 260
Figure 9--Match of Miguel's Text with Teacher's Image of Good Writing ........ 274

Figure 10--Match of Anthony's Text with Teacher's Image of Good Writing ...274
Figure 11--Match of Ella's Text with Teacher‘s Image of Good Writing ........... 274

Figure 12--Match of Anita's Text with Teacher's Image of Good Writing ......... 274

xiii

\

CHAPTER1
INTRODUCTION
Rationale for the Study

Recent theory and research on human cognitive development have begun to focus on
its cultural and contextual basis. Of particular interest are the relationships among
language, literacy. and learning (Rogoff, Gauvain 8. Ellis, 1984; Scribner 8 Cole, 1981).
A social constructivist perspective of learning and development views dialogue within
social contexts as central to learning (Cole, 1985; Rogoff, 1986; Vygotsky, 1978, 1986;
Wertsch, 1985).

One result of recent scholarship about these relationships is a shift in the dominant
theory and practice of writing instruction, away from a focus on the written product and
form of writing toward an emphasis on writing as a process of planning, drafting. and
revising that is influenced by both audience and purpose. This shift toward a process
approach to writing reflects the increased attention to the social context in which learning
occurs and the role of language in developing literacy (Applebee, 1986; Flower, 1989;
Freedman, Dyson, Flower & Chafe, 1987).

Process approaches to writing are attempting to change the traditional role of the
teacher and traditional discourse patterns. In traditional settings, where teachers ask
questions, students respond, and teachers evaluate their responses. students have little
opportunity to interact and learn from one another (Cazden, 1988); teachers rarely turn
over control of the dialogue to students (Goodlad, 1984). Process approaches seek to
replace the teacher-dominated patterns within classrooms with more student-controlled
interactions in which students have more choice over topic selection and opportunities to
participate with teachers and other students for purposes of improving their writing
'(Calkins, 1986; Graves, 1983).

Current school practices that lie at the heart of the process approach to writing are

the teacher-student writing conference and peer response groups in which the teacher and

 

an individual student or peers discuss a student's text (DiPardo 8 Freedman, 1988). In
writing, teacher-student conferences and peer conferences have been the primary means
for altering discourse patterns. Both researchers and practitioners have suggested that
writing conferences provide the opportunity for students to become critical readers of
their own texts and to develop strategies for monitoring their own thought processes while
writing (Calkins, 1986; Daiute, 1985). That is. the dialogue that takes place between the
teacher and student and among students and the processes through which the student
intemalizes that dialogue may be central to helping students become critical readers and
monitor their own strategies during writing.

While social constructivist theory links dialogue to learning, researchers and
practitioners are advocating the practice of conducting conferences. Yet, previous
research has left gaps in our knowledge about what students actually learn from the
dialogue that takes place during these conferences. Therefore, additional research is '
needed to determine potential links between the dialogue that occurs during writing,
especially within writing conferences. and what students learn about text.

The purpose of this study was to examine the link between the classroom dialogue
that occurs during writing and students' learning. The study links fundamental principles
of a current theoretical framework, social constructivism. to practice, while supporting
certain aspects and challenging other features of process writing classrooms.

Theoretical Framework

To study what students learn from the dialogue, I use a social constructivist
perspective on development because it delineates the relationship between dialogue and
Ieaming, providing a framework to examine the role dialogue plays as students develop as
writers within the contexts of classrooms. The social constructivist perspective consists
of three key features: (a) knowledge and knowing have their origins in social interaction
(Bruffee, 1984; Harre, 1984; Mead, 1934; Wittgenstein, 1953); (b) learning proceeds

from the interpsychological plane (between individuals) to the intrapsychological (within

.‘lr -
-

 

 

 

 

 

an individual) plane with the assistance of knowledgeable members of the culture (Rogoff,
1986: Vygotsky, 1978; Wood, Bruner 8. Ross, 1976); and (c) language mediates
experience, transforming mental functions (Leont'ev, 1981; Vygotsky, 1986; Wertsch,
1985). Transformation of mental processes occurs as the external, social plane is
internalized and children reorganize and reconstruct their social experiences into
individual, psychological processes (Leont'ev, 1981; Tharp 8 Gallimore,1988; Vygotsky,
1978; Wertsch, 1980).

The internal reconstruction of external operations is referred to as
internalization. Harre (1984) described four phases of the internalization process that
proceed cyclically from the social to the individual and back to the social: (a)
appropriation; (b) transformation; (0) publication; and (d) conventionalization.

This internalization of social experiences highlights two key features of Vygotsky's
(1978, 1986) developmental theory--the role of the knowledgeable other and the role of
dialogue. Because learning occurs as a result of the individual's interactions with others,
the role of the knowledgeable member of the culture is vital to facilitating learning.
Initially, children cannot function independently on tasks, but need the assistance of an
adult or more capable peer through a process called scaffolding (Applebee & Langer,
1983; Cazden, 1983; Rogoff, 1986; Wood, Bruner, 8. Ross, 1976).

An essential means through which a knowledgeable member of the culture can
scaffold instruction for a learner is through dialogue. The dialogue itself becomes the
means through which the external, social plane is internalized to guide the child's own
thinking (Cazden, 1983; Palincsar, 1986; Palincsar 8. Brown, 1989; Wertsch & Stone,
1985); the transformed dialogue is referred to as 'inner speech“ (Vygotsky, 1986).
Bakhtin (1986; cited in Emerson, 1983), whose ideas parallel Vygotsky's. suggested that
inner speech is modeled upon social discourse; inner speech consists of dialogues conducted
with imagined audiences drawn from the many voices a person has encountered. Because

the individual is continually assimilating the words of others, establishing communication

through intersubjectivity. "a temporarily shared social world" (Rommetveit, 1979, p.
10), is essential (Wertsch, 1985).
Related Literature

In writing instruction, one of the ways that has been suggested for students to
internalize dialogue to improve their writing is through teacher-student and peer
conferences (Calkins, 1986; Freedman, 1987; Graves, 1983; Harris, 1986; Murray,
1979). The writing conference may offer students the opportunity to establish
intersubjectivity with a more knowledgeable other, while providing models and strategies
for students to improve their writing (Daiute, 1985). Descriptions of ideal conferences
suggest that the role of the teacher is to listen to the writer's intentions and not impose
her own structure upon the student (Graves, 1983; Harris, 1986). Previous research
on writing conferences suggests, however, that teachers usually dominate the interactions
and turn them into unilateral lessons from teacher to student (Jacob, 1982; Michaels,‘
1987; Ulichny & Watson-Gegeo, 1989).

Peer conferences and response groups have been recommended as a means to reduce
teachers' domination of the talk in writing conferences. Peer response has had a positive
impact upon elementary, high school, and college students' writing in several studies
(Daiute, 1989; DiPardo & Freedman, 1988; Core & Stevens, 1985; Nystrand & Brandt,
1989), yet peer response groups are used in only a minority of classrooms (Applebee,
1986). Despite the descriptions of successful conferences and the research suggesting
these may have positive effects on students, few studies have related peer talk to the larger
instructional context. Further research is needed to explore what students learn from
these conferences as they participate in writing process classrooms.

Research Questions

This study explores the relationship between discourse and learning about text

from a social constructivist perspective, while extending previous work related to writing

conferences. The focal questions guiding the study were:

 

 

.‘u'

 

'.
\

( 1 ) What do students internalize from the discourse1 that occurs during the writing

penod?
(2) What might account for what students internalize from the dialogue?

In this study, internalization of social experiences was defined according to Harre's
(1984) model. To examine what students internalized from the discourse, the study
focused on two major aspects: (a) the opportunities that students had during the writing
period for internalization to occur and (b) the reemergence of that dialogue from social
interaction In students' talk and students' texts as indicators of internalization. The
internalization of both the social norms of the classroom and the cognitive features of
writing was studied.

Methods

The methods of data collection and analysis for this study were consistent with
assumptions from interpretive/qualitative traditions of research (Erickson, 1986). The
method also drew from Merriam's (1988) work on case studies, while analyses drew
from sociolinguistic literature that suggests that interactions are governed by context
specific rules (Cazden, 1986, 1988; Florio-Ruane, 1987; Green, 1983; Hymes, 1972).
Data sources included: (a) audiotaped and videotaped observations of classroom activities;
(b) interviews of students; (c) students' texts; (d) students conducting writing
conferences with younger students; and (9) interviews with the teacher. The observations
of naturally occurring classroom activities and the interviews with the teacher provided
information about the opportunities students had for internalization, while the students'
texts and student interviews provided evidence of internalization. The writing conferences
with younger students established a teaching situation, providing an additional means of

seeing what students had lntemalized.

 

1 Dialogue and discourse are used interchangeably to indicate an exchange of
thoughts by words; the former has Greek roots, while the latter comes from
Latin.

One fifth/sixth-grade classroom in an ethnically diverse public school in the heart
of New York City was the focus of the study for a five-week period. This classroom was
selected for the study because the teacher had extensive knowledge and understanding of the
Writing Workshop described by Calkins (1986) and had been implementing a writing
process program for over four years. The study presents analyses of the cases of four
students as they engaged in a set of writing activities that included writing narratives and
reflections in their writers' notebooks, and then selecting pieces from them to turn into
revised projects for a particular audience.

Organization of the Study

The organization of this dissertation is as follows:

Chapter 2 delineates the theoretical perspective used in the study-social
constructivism. which focuses on the cultural and contextual nature of learning,
emphasizing the role of dialogue. The chapter introduces key concepts such as
internalization and intersubjectivity as part of the framework. Both traditional patterns
of classroom discourse and alternative patterns such as the Kamehameha Early Education
Program (KEEP) (Au 8 Kawakami, 1984), Reciprocal Teaching (Palincsar 8 Brown,
1984); and a Daycare Program (Rowe, 1989) are explored in chapter 2. These patterns
and programs are presented as a background for examining the research on writing
conferences. Current practices and research on teacher-student writing conferences are
described in the chapter prior to discussing findings on peer conferences.
WM

Chapter 3 presents the research questions and the underlying assumptions about
the methodology used. The methods chapter describes: (a) the setting in which the study
took place, a fifth/sixth-grade classroom in New York City; (b) the participants, a

teacher and four students studied as individual cases; and (c) the sources of data. The

chapter concludes with a detailed description of how the data were analyzed. The results
are presented in chapters 4 through 6.
WWW

Chapter 4 explores several themes that emerged from the data and describes
patterns of Interaction to allow the reader to understand the context of the classroom. This
chapter provides an overall sense of the ways in which the teacher and students interacted
about writing through literature. The chapter is divided into two main sections: (a)
content and activity structure; and (b) the teacher's image of good writing. The first
section is further divided into narratives about the lessons observed and explanations of
the types of writing activities in which students engaged. The section about the teacher's
image of good writing explores the components of the implicit and explicit messages the
teacher provided to her students.
W

Chapter 5 presents the individual cases of the four students: Miguel, Anthony,
Ella, and Anita to delineate the differing ways in which students understood and used the
dialogue. In each case, I introduce the student by providing background information, topics
he/she wrote about, and the teacher's perceptions of the student. The cases are organized
around several features drawn from the Harre (1984) model: (a) Appropriation: What
opportunities has the student had to participate in classroom interactions? (b)
Transformation: How has the student made sense of the classroom dialogue? and (c)
Conventionalization: What has the student internalized from the classroom dialogue. I
conclude each case by providing a summary of what was significant about the student's
case.
W

Chapter 6 presents a comparison of the four cases to suggest the ways in which the
teacher's interactions with students had differing consequences upon the reemergence of

the dialogue. The comparisons are presented along the features of: (a) conferences with

' .1

LI

the teacher; (b) students' texts; and (c) writing conferences with younger students. In
comparing the teacher's interactions with the student, I compare both the content of what
they discussed and the conversational style--the ways In which speakers communicated
their messages to one another. I compare students' texts along the features of the
classroom discourse such as use of personal experiences, use of figurative language,
audience, and organization and focus. Comparisons of writing conferences with younger
students use the features of content and conversational style.

Chapter 7 summarizes the findings and discusses the significance of the study
linking it to previous work. Implications for practice and theory are presented as well as

limitations and suggestions for future research.

no...
'3 vs

0-- iv-

Tr: ..

~n.'

“In...
0- t
‘ ' v’v.

“an:
a,
4: ¢ w
c
.A
e-
v

 

 

\

 

 

CHAPTER2
LITERATURE REVIEW

This chapter lays out the philosophical assumptions, psychological foundations, and
the role of language in a social constructivist theoretical framework. Next, the chapter
describes discourse in traditional classroom practice and delineates several alternative
patterns of discourse in literacy. Research evidence on teacher-student writing
conferences and peer response groups, which offers examples of alternative discourse
patterns, concludes the chapter.

Theoretical Framework

The social constructivist perspective consists of several key features: (a)
knowledge and knowing have their origins in social interaction (Bruffee, 1984; Harre,
1984; Mead, 1934; Wittgenstein, 1953); (b) learning proceeds from the
interpsychological plane (between individuals) to the intrapsychological (within an
individual) plane with the assistance of knowledgeable members of the culture (Rogoff,
1986; Vygotsky, 1978, 1986; Wood, Bruner 8 Ross, 1976); and (0) language mediates
experience. transforming mental functions (Bakhtin, 1981, 1986; Leont'ev, 1981;
Vygotsky, 1986; Wertsch, 1985). These three assumptions that undergird social
constructivism will be discussed in more detail in the following sections.

El'l I'l! I' ,0” III II .5.“ .

Rather than being a form of objective reality mirrored by the individual, a social
constructivist perspective assumes that knowledge is consensually formed through social
interaction. In this view, knowledge is not an external entity that can be discovered.
Instead, knowledge is created through the interaction of the individual with the community.
Knowledge. because it is social in origin, cannot be separated from values, beliefs, and
attitudes. In contrast to rationalist Cartesian philosophy that assumes that knowledge is
separate from language, social constructivist views suggest language is constitutive of

knowledge. New knowledge is generated through language by the process of socially

5.4"

1.!

«J

-.-o

10

justifying beliefs (Bruffee, 1984; Rorty, 1983). These philosophical underpinnings
about the nature of knowledge have important implications for learning and development
discussed in the next section.

Social interactions promote the development of higher mental functions that are
critical to knowledge growth. Vygotsky (1986) characterized higher mental functions,
including those that comprise literacy, as processes that require self-regulation,
conscious realization, and the use of signs for mediation. The sign is an intermediate link
between the individual and the environment that mediates experience and becomes a means
for regulating internal activity; language is one important type of sign system. The
acquisition of higher mental functions such as literacy occurs first on an
interpsychological plane, or between people; then on an intrapsychological plane, within
an individual. Transformation of mental processes occurs as the external, social plane is
internalized and children reorganize and reconstruct their social experiences into
individual, psychological processes (Leont'ev, 1981; Tharp 8 Gallimore,1988; Vygotsky,
1978; Wertsch, 1980). The internal reconstruction of external operations is referred to
as internalization. The process of internalization is not 'transferral of all external
activity to a preexisting internal plane of consciousness; it is the process in which the
internal plane is formed" (Leont'ev, 1981, p. 57).

Harre (1984) built on Vygotsky's notions of the relationship between the social
and the individual through what he calls the ”Vygotsky space," by defining the process of
internalization. As Figure 1 illustrates. Harre defined two dimensions that include the
public and the private at opposite ends of one continuum and the individual and the social at
opposite ends of a second continuum. The two orthogonal dimensions create a two-
dimensional space containing four quadrants. Psychological development occurs through

the transfer of rules and conventions that govern social practices from Quadrant I through

Social .-

Pubncann

11

Public

Convenuonaflzaflon

 

Transformatlon

 

Private

\ >
'o
i U
1 q
I 0
j g - Individual
r In
I 2’.
' o
l
a
F

Figure 1 Vygotsky Space (Adapted from Harre [1984] Model by Gavelek)

12

the other three quadrants. This development can be described as phases of the
internalization process that proceed cyclically from the social to the individual and back to
the social. The four phases include: (a) ampflatign in which the individual
participates in social practices; (b) nansmmatign in which the individual takes control
over the social appropriations; (c) publication in which the transformation again becomes
public; and (d) W in which the transformation is reintegrated into the
social practices. The internalization process is iterative such that learning is continual
and social experiences build upon, yet transform One another (Harre, 1984).

This internalization of social experiences highlights two key features of Vygotsky's
(1978, 1986) developmental theory--the role of the knowledgeable other and the role of
dialogue. Since learning occurs as the result of the individual's interactions with others,
the role of the knowledgeable member of the culture is vital to facilitating learning.
Initially, children cannot function independently on tasks, but need the assistance of an
adult or more capable peer within what Vygotsky (1978) calls the "zone of proximal
development."1 Adults or more capable peers can offer assistance to learners in the
performance of literacy tasks through a process called scaffolding. Scaffolding involves
the structuring of tasks through instruction, modeling, questioning, and feedback for the
purposes of the learner gradually taking control of the task (Applebee 8 Langer, 1983;
Cazden, 1983; Rogoff, 1986; Wood, Bruner, 8 Ross, 1976).

An essential means through which a knowledgeable member of the culture can

scaffold instruction for a Ieamer is through dialogue. The dialogue itself becomes the

 

1The zone of proximal development is defined as ”the distance between a child's
actual developmental level as determined through independent problem solving
and potential development as determined through problem solving under adult
guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers" (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 86).

13

means through which the external, social plane is internalized to guide the child's own
thinking (Cazden, 1983; Palincsar 8 Brown, 1989; Wertsch 8 Stone, 1985); the
transformed dialogue is referred to as “inner speech“ (Vygotsky, 1986). Bakhtin (1986;
cited in Emerson, 1983), whose ideas parallel Vygotsky's, suggested that inner speech is
modeled upon social discourse; inner speech consists of dialogues conducted with imagined
audiences drawn from the many voices a person has encountered.

Discourse is not only the means through which a knowledgeable member of the
culture can assist another, but social discourse is the very model upon which thought in
the form of inner speech is based (Bakhtin, 1986). Social dialogue provides the initial
point of entry for the Ieamer. Then, the social discourse is transformed by the individual
into abbreviated forms called inner speech. Inner speech retains the dialogic quality of the
external social speech (Bakhtin, 1986; Todorov, 1984; Wertsch, 1980).

This dialogic quality of speech is explicated by Bakhtin (1981; in Wertsch,

1991). In his view, the utterance, an idea unit, rather than the sentence is the ”real unit
of speech communication“ (1986, p. 71). The utterance focuses on concrete action within
a particular context; the same words can have different meanings depending on the
intonation and particular context. Meaning is not an abstract concept, but is created when
two voices come into contact. Using the term 'addressivity,’ Bakhtin (1986) suggested an
utterance is always responding to preceding utterances and anticipating succeeding ones,
even if the speakers are temporally, spatially, or socially distant.

The utterance is the site where the systematicity of language and situated
performance come into contact and struggle with one another (Wertsch, 1991). National
languages (traditional linguistic unities such as English, Russian, and French), social
languages characteristic of certain groups (such as professional jargon, language of
fashion at a particular time) or speech genres (typical speech forms or conventions such
as greetings, table conversation, or military commands) influence the individual

utterance (Bakhtin, 1986). Bakhtin suggests:

14

. . . the unique speech experience of each individual is shaped and developed

in continuous and constant interaction with others' individual utterances.

This experience can be characterized to some degree as the process of

assimilation--more or less creative--of others' words (1986, p 89).

Bakhtin (1981) described two ways of assimilating social discourse by the
individual: (a) ”reciting by heart” and (b) ”retelling in one's own words" (p. 341).
Reciting by heart involves using another's words in the form of models, rules, and
directions. This is an inflexible kind of assimilation fused with authority, thus it is called
”authoritative discourse” (p. 342). Intellectual growth in the form of "internally
persuasive discourse” (p. 342) results from the struggle between these two forms of
assimilation. The internally persuasive word is ”half-ours and half-someone else's" (p.
345), yet it is not static and isolated, but rather is part of a creative process that can be
applied to new situations.

Because the word is ”half-ours and half someone else's,” a concept referred to as
'ventriloquation" (Wertsch, 1991), issues of power and hierarchy come into play.
Wertsch (1991) identified the term ”privileging” to suggest that one form of social
language is more appropriate in one setting than another. Yet, privileging is more
dynamic than domination, implying that patterns of privileging are accessible to reflection
andchange.

The concept that discourse is dynamic, continually being shaped and developed by
constant interaction and dialogue with others is key to understanding internalization.
Because learning is assumed to occur on the interpsychological level first, and because the
individual is constantly assimilating others' words. establishing communication between
speakers is central. How do an adult and a child who is operating in the zone of proximal
development, for instance, construct dialogue that can be subsequently transformed into
intrapsychological functioning? The concept of intersubjectivity plays a role in

explaining how the transfer from the interpsychological plane to the intrapsychological

plane occurs (Wertsch, 1985). Rommetveit suggests that ”communication aims at

15

transcendence of the private worlds of the participants“ (1979, p. 94) and that through
negotiation they can create a "temporarily shared social reality" (1979, p. 10); this
temporary, shared reality is intersubjectivity.

Establishing intersubjectivity depends on three factors: (a) the social expertise of
the expert; (b) prior experience and knowledge of the novice; and (c) the nature of the
task. The expert must be able to make public her own knowledge, taking into account the
novice's perspective, while the experience of the novice will influence whether the novice
accepts or resists the view. The task, which is always contextualized within cultural
values, plays a role in determining intersubjectivity (Brandt, 1990). Establishing
intersubjectivity is not merely the novice matching the schema of the expert, but rather
through negotiation, the shared reality may be transformative for both participants.
WEED

An example from the work of Wertsch (1980) serves to demonstrate several
features of the social constructivist framework that can be applied to research in literacy,
while providing evidence that children do internalize and use the speech from social
settings when solving various problems. His study described the dialogue and activities of
a two and a half year old child and her mother in a problem-solving setting. The child,
with the help of the mother, was to insert pieces in a ”copy” puzzle such that it would be
identical to the ”model“ puzzle. The analysis of the problem-solving activity was divided
into three episodes to capture the transition from external to internal activity. In the
initial episode, the child did not use the model puzzle until her mother asked questions and
told the child where to look. In the second episode, the child's question led to a response by
the mother which, in turn, led to the child responding by consulting the model. In the
third episode, the child was able to place the pieces in the puzzle independently and talk to
herself, not to her mother, as she placed the pieces.

Several features of social constructivist theory emerge from this description.

First, the problem-solving task required higher mental functioning including self-

. All

Lo

16

regulation and the use of signs for mediation. Second, learning to put the puzzle pieces into
a puzzle occurred first on the interpsychological plane; the child participated in a social
setting with her mother and was able to internalize the dialogue to guide her own thinking
in completing the puzzle. Third, the mother played the role of a knowledgeable member of
the culture who provided a scaffold through questions, feedback and instructions initially,
but allowed the child to complete the puzzle on her own in the third episode. Fourth, the
adult and child have established intersubjectivity, evidenced by the child's understanding
and taking control over the task. Fifth, the egocentric speech that appeared in the third
episode reflects the dialogue between the mother and the child, yet it is transformed into
new talk that retains elements of the social dialogue, but is not an imitation of the social
dialogue.

The example described above demonstrates the relationship between a social
constructivist theory and a problem-solving activity in the form of putting a puzzle
together. Although constructing a puzzle is a very different activity from literacy
practices, most likely less complex, the example serves to demonstrate in a fairly
straightforward way how the lntemalization process operates on a specific, convergent
task in a limited amount of time. Further links need to be demonstrated between social
constructivism and significant, complex, cultural and school practices such as literacy.
This link can be explored by using a social constructivist perspective to study the
relationship between the discourse that takes place during a specific literacy act, writing,
and students' Ieaming about texts because: (a) the discourse during the writing period is
an example of a situation in which teachers and students can construct new knowledge; (b)
writing is an example of a higher mental function that has its origins in social interaction;
(c) both the teacher and other students can provide scaffolding of instruction through
dialogue; and (d) students have the opportunity to internalize and transform the social
discourse into new Ieaming. This perspective now allows us to examine relevant research

regarding the issues of discourse and the learning of writing.

(T)

 

.
rm;
0- b v

z.“-
“..I

1’.

O-
x
on...

‘n._

s
Q
3‘

‘1
'
.

 

17

Discourse in Classroom Practice

Currently, researchers have become increasingly aware of the need for students to
engage in meaningful literacy activities going beyond current literacy practices in schools.
The goal of moving beyond current practices is to promote "self-regulation” in which the
reader or writer engages in checking, planning, monitoring, testing, and revising text, and
"knowledge transformation” in which the learner is involved in solving content-related
and rhetorical problems in composing text (Bereiter 8 Scardamalia, 1987; Brown,
Campione 8 Day, 1981; Englert 8 Raphael, 1989; Palincsar 8 Brown, 1984). Process
approaches to writing parallel this increased awareness of changing literacy practices in
schools. Process approaches to writing focus on the problem-solving nature of composing
text and emphasize the importance of the process and functions of writing instead of
traditional conventions (Applebee, 1986; Freedman, Dyson, Flower 8 Chafe, 1987).

Several programs have been developed to change literacy practices in schools in
both reading and writing. These programs share the assumptions of the: (a) importance
of the social context in learning; (b) need for changing the teacher's role; (0) need to
change the nature of the tasks in which students are engaged; and (d) focus on discourse as
a means to link social context to learning. Although all of these dimensions are related and
to some extent inseparable, I will focus on discourse as the link among these literacy
programs because it is the essence of the relationship between social context and Ieaming.

In reviewing the literature that is relevant to examining discourse and the learning
of literacy, several different bodies of research are critical. These include research on:
(a) traditional patterns of discourse in classroom practice; and (b) alternative practices
for students Ieaming about text through dialogue. Research on traditional patterns of
discourse is relevant because the studies provide descriptions of current practices that
suggest what kinds of opportunities students have to internalize the dialogue within
traditional classroom settings. Because there are few models for examining the

relationship between dialogue and writing, literature from related areas of literacy

“pd F Al
:. If V’

1
.""MI
HI.

'
“Tull
.: Ml

 

 

 

19

information or, alternatively, a command to stop laughing (Coulthard, 1977). Much of
the talk by teachers in classrooms consists of informing, directing, or eliciting moves by
the teacher with responses by individual students. Informing moves include the teacher
providing information about the content or providing explanations about how to do
something. Directing moves can include questions such as, ”Are you ready to sing that,
then?“ as well as more command-like statements such as, ”You sit down and join us,”
depending on the function the directive move serves within the specific context. Eliciting
moves tend to be questions about either the content or classroom management issues. For
students to be able to participate appropriately in the classroom discourse, students need
to be able to interpret the teacher's intended meaning (Florio-Ruane, 1987). Children
learn these rules for interaction and discourse at a very young age (Willes, 1983).

An example from McCarthey and Peterson's (1991) study of literacy practices in
one school provides an example of traditional discourse patterns. After reading the book,
W the students and teacher participated in a traditional
recitation pattern. The teacher asked the questions, "Who can remember our story? What
did we talk about?“ A student responded, “The bomb.“ After this response, the teacher
evaluated the response by saying, ”Okay“ and then asked ”What happened first?” The
student then replied "On Pearl Harbor“ to which the teacher responded “Very good.“ The
discourse followed the traditional sequence of initiation by the teacher, response by the
student, and evaluation by the teacher.

These dominant patterns of interaction do not provide opportunities for students to
participate in discourse that is less structured, more conversational in tone, and more
conducive to Ieaming from peers (Goodlad, 1984). Further, there is little scaffolding of
instruction by the teacher for the learner because the amount of teacher talk does not
change, nor is there an attempt to allow the learner gradually to take control of the
discourse. Additionally, there are few opportunities for a student to apply the lntemalized

dialogue from the social setting. Within the dominant patterns of classroom interaction,

18

instruction such as reading may suggest some implications for writing. Research on
current practices of teacher-student and peer conferences is useful in providing evidence
about what students have learned through their participation in discourse events related to
writing. This review begins with an examination of dominant patterns of classroom
discourse, then describes research on practices that have explicitly attempted to change
classroom practice in reading through discourse, and finally describes changing practices
in writing through discourse.

Verbal interactions in classrooms differ from ordinary conversation. In
conversation, topic changes are unpredictable and uncontrollable, whereas, in the
classroom, the teacher chooses the topics of discourse. generally takes two turns for every
one of the student's, often asking questions to which he or she already knows the answers.
In typical classrooms, teachers have the right to speak to anybody at any time; whereas,
students do not have these rights. Instead, students have to bid for an opportunity to speak
and the teacher nominates the next speaker (Cazden, 1988; Coulthard, 1977). Because
the teacher is doing most of the talking, talk among peers is rare in schools (Cazden,

1 9 88).

Mehan (1979) has identified a structure of classroom lessons consisting of three
phases: opening, instructional, and closing. Within each of these phases, the most common
pattern of classroom discourse is the three part sequence of teacher initiation, student
response, and teacher evaluation, often referred to as the l-R-E sequence (Cazden, 1988;
Mehan, 1979, 1982). Usually the initiation takes the form of a question to which the
student gives an answer, and the teacher provides feedback about the adequacy of the
answer. This form of classroom discourse limits the amount of interaction among peers
and keeps the control of the interaction with the teacher.

Teachers' questions In classrooms can serve a variety of functions. For instance, a

question such as ”What are you laughing at?” can be interpreted as a request for

 

19

information or, alternatively, a command to stop laughing (Coulthard, 1977). Much of
the talk by teachers in classrooms consists of informing, directing, or eliciting moves by
the teacher with responses by individual students. Informing moves include the teacher
providing information about the content or providing explanations about how to do
something. Directing moves can include questions such as, ”Are you ready to sing that,
then?“ as well as more command-like statements such as, "You sit down and join us,”
depending on the function the directive move serves within the specific context. Eliciting
moves tend to be questions about either the content or classroom management issues. For
students to be able to participate appropriately in the classroom discourse, students need
to be able to interpret the teacher's intended meaning (FIorio-Ruane, 1987). Children
learn these rules for interaction and discourse at a very young age (Willes, 1983).

An example from McCarthey and Peterson's (1991) study of literacy practices in
one school provides an example of traditional discourse patterns. After reading the book,
W the students and teacher participated in a traditional
recitation pattern. The teacher asked the questions, "Who can remember our story? What
did we talk about?" A student responded, 'T he bomb.“ After this response, the teacher
evaluated the response by saying, “Okay” and then asked ”What happened first?“ The
student then replied ”On Pearl Harbor" to which the teacher responded "Very good.“ The
discourse followed the traditional sequence of initiation by the teacher, response by the
student, and evaluation by the teacher.

These dominant patterns of interaction do not provide opportunities for students to
participate in discourse that is less structured, more conversational in tone, and more
conducive to Ieaming from peers (Goodlad, 1984). Further, there is little scaffolding of
instruction by the teacher for the learner because the amount of teacher talk does not
change, nor is there an attempt to allow the learner gradually to take control of the
discourse. Additionally, there are few opportunities for a student to apply the lntemalized

dialogue from the social setting. Within the dominant patterns of classroom interaction.

20

few opportunities exist to test out the social constructivist theory of language and
learning.

To gain some understanding about the relationship between classroom discourse and
Ieaming about text, we need to turn to alternative instructional patterns and examine
interactions that come from programs designed to alter traditional classroom practices for
literacy instruction.

The following sections detail some of these alternative practices including reading
instruction in the Kamehameha Early Education Program, reciprocal teaching, teacher-
student writing conferences. and peer response groups in writing instruction.

ISEEE

The Kamehameha Early Education Program (KEEP) in Honolulu, Hawaii has focused
on altering traditional discourse interactions during the reading of text to become more
culturally congruent with native Hawaiian participation structures outside the classroom.
Teachers use the experience-text-relationship method that involves the teacher using
initial questions about children's background experiences that are relevant to the text,
students reading silently, and the students and teacher talking about the text in relation to
the students' background knowledge. The talk-story-like participation structure is
characterized by student control of turn-taking and collaborative production of responses
(Au 8 Kawakami, 1984; Au 8 Mason, 1981). Using discourse analysis of segments of
videotapes of reading instruction during a lesson with five third graders, Au and Kawakami
(1984, 1986) found that complex interchanges among the students and the teachers
allowed the teacher to support students' comprehension, while allowing students to initiate
discussions. Their research indicates that students are able to increase their
comprehension of text through participating in altered patterns of talking about text under

the guidance of a trained teacher.

‘lgi.

Oil

21

BecinmcaLIeachino

A second example of altering discourse patterns in classrooms during literacy
events is Palincsar 8 Brown's (1984, 1989) ”Reciprocal Teaching" method. Reciprocal
teaching, developed to increase reading comprehension and metacognitive strategies, is
premised on students internalizing the dialogue about text that is modeled by the teacher.
The dialogue is structured around four strategies: summarizing, self-questioning,
predicting. and clarifying. The teacher provides support for the students as they gradually
acquire the ability to use the strategies independently (Brown 8 Palincsar, 1982).
Besides showing that reciprocal teaching significantly increases reading comprehension in
both elementary and junior high school students (Palincsar 8 Brown, 1984; Palincsar,
1987; Palincsar 8 Brown, 1989). research on reciprocal teaching suggests that students
do internalize the dialogue modeled by the teachers. This internalization is reflected in
students' use of strategies in their dialogue with other students, independent of the teacher
(Palincsar, 1986; Palincsar 8 Brown, 1989). Distinguishing features of the dialogue
that affected student learning included the teacher (a) supporting students' ideas at the
idea level rather than the word level, (b) linking students' ideas to new knowledge; (0)
focusing the dialogue; (d) being explicit with students; and (e) reformulating evaluation
of students' responses from negative to more constructive (Palincsar, 1986).

Students are able to learn reciprocal teaching methods through dialogues the
teacher uses and successfully implement the strategy with peers. In their study of
seventh-grade remedial reading students, Palincsar, Brown and Martin (1987) found that
tutors provided modeling for their students and provided help to their tutees in ways that
reflected the previous teacher-student dialogues. The reciprocal teaching research links
classroom discourse, specifically the dialogues used in the instruction, to Ieaming of

students about the texts with which they engage.

‘4

22

Wm

A third example of setting that altered traditional discourse patterns and classroom
interactions can be found in an ethnographic study by Rowe (1989). She studied a daycare
program for 21 three and four year old children. The program focused on providing
opportunities for children to choose how, when, and why they would participate in literacy
activities. Print related activities included writing notes to parents and classmates.
writing books to be shared, writing stories for the class paper, and reading trade books
with a teacher. Teachers provided demonstrations and supported children's efforts at
using literacy. Children and teachers participated in continual discourse about the
literacy activities in which they were engaged in a natural conversational form.

Rowe's work illustrates how young children learned to interact with each other and
with their texts through dialogue. The study shows frequent patterns of linkages between
children's earlier social interactions with other children and adults and their later
conversations as well as links between social interaction and the texts students produced.
Children used content. processes, and purposes demonstrated by the adult or student
authors as starting points for their own texts, as confirmation of their existing literacy
knowledge, as means to form new literacy knowledge, and as opportunities to revise their
own hypotheses about literacy. The data show that the character of the interactions among
teachers, children, and their peers played an important role in the kinds of cognitive
strategies that students used independently as they read and wrote. Examples from the data
indicate the ways in which students appropriated the dialogue from the interactions to use
in their own texts. The study suggests that, in classrooms where there is curriculum
aimed at developing children's literacy learning by providing children with functional
reasons to participate in literacy, students can learn about text from social interaction.

The three examples are linked by their focus on altering patterns of discourse and
social interaction during literacy instruction. Each provides some evidence of the

relationship between discourse in the social interactions and Ieaming about written texts.

23

The KEEP example is informative about how “participant structures,“ which are

culturally learned forms of interacting, influence the learning about texts (Philips,
1972). Reciprocal teaching provides evidence of how scaffolded dialogue can enhance
comprehension and be used by students to direct their own learning. The research by Rowe
specifically links discourse about literacy in a less structured setting with learning about
text.

The first two examples, however, are limited to comprehension instruction in
reading. Additional research is needed with students in public school classroom contexts to
investigate further the link between dialogue in social interaction and learning about text,
especially in the area of writing. Fortunately, a basis for this research exists in the
literature that supports alternative forms of discourse through two major vehicles within
writing instruction: the teacher-student writing conference and peer response groups.
These two approaches to changing classroom practice through discourse have been
influenced by the Teachers College Writing Project (Calkins, 1986; Calkins 8 Harwayne,
1987; National Center for Research on Teacher Education (NCRTE), 1987).
leacheD-Studanmannmfloniemnces

Bumsas, In writing instruction, one of the ways that has been suggested for
students to internalize dialogue about texts and improve their writing is through teacher-
student writing conferences (Calkins, 1986; Graves, 1983; Murray, 1979). Both
researchers and practitioners have expressed several different purposes for writing
conferences. Calkins (1986) described the main purposes of the writing conference as
getting students to become critical readers of texts--to engage in dialogue with their own
texts. The conferences are conceived of as conversations between the teacher and child that
can include the topic of writing, the strategies the student uses. as well as the writer's
goals and opinion of the work (Calkins 8 Harwayne, 1987).

Beginning writers have the opportunity to have their work supported and valued

through dialogue, while discussing texts gives students the opportunity to practice orally

24

ways of using written language (Florio-Ruane, 1991; Graves, 1983). Writing
conferences also provide an immediate audience for responses to a piece of writing. Daiute
(1985) suggested that conferences offer children models and strategies for looking at
their writing objectively and an opportunity for the monitoring of a writer's thought
processes. The writing conference also provides the students and teacher the opportunity
to "trade conversational places“ (FIorio-Ruane, 1991) because the student may initiate
talk, while the teacher is ideally in the role of responding to student concerns.

The goal of the writing conferences is, ultimately, for the improvement of student
texts and the development of thought processes by stimulating reflection in relation to
suggestions and responses that have been offered. After engaging in conferences, students
ought to be able to carry on inner dialogues in which they internalize the social and
conversational activities that took place between the teacher and student.

W. Most of the literature on conferences consists 'of descriptions of
successful conferences and guidelines for participants to consider in conferences (Calkins,
1986, 1991; Graves, 1983; Murray, 1979). For example, Murray (1979) emphasized
the need for the respondent to listen to what the writer is communicating and not impose a
particular structure onto the text the student is creating. Graves (1983) suggested that
the child must lead in the interaction about text, while the teacher must react in a
responsive, intelligent way. Calkins (1986) provided more specific guidelines for
conducting conferences by suggesting there are different kinds of conferences that serve
different functions. Whereas content conferences are focused on asking questions about the
writer's intentions and the content of the text, design conferences may include suggestions
about focusing a topic or the questions about the structure of a piece. Strategies for
responding to the writer include listening to what the writer has to say, asking authentic
questions, and making suggestions about how to improve texts. The role of the teacher is to
help the writer find his or her own intentions (Graves, 1983). Although these authors

provide rich descriptions of classroom practices to facilitate teacher-student interaction

 

__ . ..—~.._ __

25

about text. few research studies have examined the relationship between these conferences
and student Ieaming.

The studies that have been done on teacher-student conferences have focused on the
process that takes place between teachers and students and suggest that writing
conferences replicate the traditional teacher domination of the talk that characterizes
other kinds of classroom discourse. Although teachers believe that the writing conference
is more helpful than any other type of response to students' texts (Freedman, 1987),
successful scaffolding of instruction rarely occurs. Freedman's (1987) ethnographic
study of two ninth-grade classrooms demonstrates how the students were oriented to the
teacher's task rather than to one another's writing. An analysis of the patterns of talk
revealed that the teacher did not relinquish control.

Instead of teachers relinquishing control and encouraging students to take over
more of the dialogue, teachers have continued to dominate the conferences and turned them
into unilateral lessons from teacher to student (Jacob, 1982). In some cases, writing
conferences resembled traditional “teacher red penciling, oriented to correcting mistakes“
(Bruce 8 Michaels, n.d., p. 71) through face-to-face interaction rather than substantive
exchanges between teacher and student.

Michaels and her colleagues have studied conferences within the context of two
sixth-grade classrooms using ethnographic approaches to data collection and analysis. A
common theme in the studies is the relationship between the teacher's authority role and
her expectations for the kinds of texts students should produce. The teacher's goals played
a dominant role in the 60 conferences that were analyzed in the first study. In most cases,
students changed their texts to match the teachers' expectations (Michaels, Ulichny, 8
Watson-Gegeo, 1986). In a linguistic analysis of compositions by 14 students and the
conferences about those drafts, Michaels (1987) found that responses by the teacher and
revisions by the student were geared toward finding a match between the text and the

teacher's implicit schema for an adequate representation of the text. If students' texts did

 

 

 

 

 

26

not match the teachers expectations, the students changed them to get the teacher's
approval. The power differences between teacher and students resulted in lack of
synchrony between students' intended meanings and the teacher's expectations as well as
resulting in students becoming passive, expecting teachers to correct their drafts
(Ulichny 8 Watson-Gegeo, 1989).

The studies conducted by Michaels and her colleagues point to the difficulties of
changing classroom norms within the teacher-student writing conferences. Suggested
reasons for these difficulties include minimal support for instructional innovation.
system-wide pressure to improve achievement test scores. and district mandated writing
tests that do not support the goals of process writing (Ulichny 8 Watson-Gegeo, 1989).
Although mandated curriculum, large class size, and lack of time are institutional forces
that impinge upon teachers' practice of writing conferences (Florio-Ruane, 1991),
teachers can learn to listen and respond to student writing in an authentic way through
extensive inservice programs that are aimed at changing teachers' conceptions and
practice of writing (McCarthey, 1990b). Teachers need supportive conditions and
extended training in process writing that provide the means to engage in meaningful
dialogue with students.

Besides teachers' domination of conferences, teachers display differential
treatment toward students of differing ability levels and ethnic backgrounds. In Freedman
8 Sperling's (1985) linguistic analysis of one teacher and four college students who
differed in ethnicity and achievement level, the authors found there were differences in
topics that were the focus of the conferences, differences in the amount of praise low and
high achieving students received, and differences in synchrony between teacher and
student depending on the student's achievement level. The study suggested that although the

teacher did not intend to treat the students differentially, ethnicity and achievement level
do affect the teacher-student interaction. Recent studies such as Sperling (1989) suggest

that patterns of interaction in dialogue vary from one student to another. In her study

27

focusing on one teacher's interactions with six ninth-grade students, Sperling (1989)
used both quantitative and qualitative analyses to establish that the dialogue patterns
between teacher and student varied for different students according to the purpose of the
conference. the particular writing task, and the different types of conferences. In
addition, the collaborative relationship between the teacher and student varied for the
same student at different times in the sequence of tasks. This study suggested that dialogue
patterns in conferences are dynamic and that collaboration between teacher and student
exists on a continuum.

Although the studies described above are helpful in highlighting the power
differential between the teacher and student, the difficulties with changing classroom
norms, and differential treatment among students by the teacher, the studies do not make
explicit links between the teacher-student interaction in the conference and what students
learn about text. Relatively little research has focused on the process through which
students incorporate the dialogue from the conference into their thinking about and
revision of their texts. Research is needed to examine the relationships between the
dialogue that takes place within writing conferences and student Ieaming within classroom
contexts. This study builds on the work done in writing conferences, but extends it by
making more explicit the link between what occurs during writing conferences and what
reemerges in students' talk and in their texts.

Another classroom practice designed to change the nature of student Ieaming about
their writing through discourse is through peer response groups. Peer response groups
hold the promise of altering traditional discourse patterns because they lack the
traditional authority figure, the teacher, who generally dominates the talk about text.
Problems with teacher-student writing conferences may be ameliorated by having

students in control of the discourse.

28

Wane
W The literature on peer groups in writing suggests a variety of purposes

for peer groups depending on teachers' and students' goals: (a) responding to writing; (b)
thinking collaboratively; (c) writing collaboratively; and (d) editing writing (DiPardo 8
Freedman, 1988). Further, groups provide a forum for discussing the writing process,
generating Ideas. understanding the functions of an audience, and providing support for
engaging in writing (Gebhardt, 1980). The benefits claimed for teachers and student
discussing texts together include writer's knowledge becoming available in talk; the
beginner's work being supported through questions, comments, and suggestions of others;
beginning writers having the opportunity to practice orally ways of using written
language; and talking about text making clear to the writer the value of his/her work
(Calkins, 1986; Florio—Ruane, 1988; Graves, 1983). Students can then transform the
conversation based knowledge and strategies into their independent writing. Additionally,
students who engage in talking about their texts reveal their beliefs about literacy and
their thought processes (Daiute, 1989).

BMW What do students learn about writing from peer interactions?
What is the nature of the social interaction and the discourse when writing groups work
together? A small body of literature from both process-product and ethnographic
methodologies has contributed to our understanding of the relationship between social
interaction and student learning. Hillock's (1984) meta-analysis of 29 experimental
studies comparing instructional approaches that rely on small groups found that students
can learn from one another to improve their writing when given more structured tasks.
Other process-product studies by O'Donnell, Dansereau, Rocklin, Lambiotte, Hythecker
and Larson (1985) have provided additional evidence about the relationship between
students working in groups and improved writing. In their first study of college students
writing cooperatively, O'Donnell et al (1985) found that not only did students who wrote

cooperatively write more explicit communicative instructions than those who wrote alone.

29

but the students who worked together initially also wrote better instructions alone than
those who initially wrote alone. In the second study of 49 cOIlege students, the authors
found that cooperative interaction during rewriting can also improve some aspects of the
written product.

Research focusing specifically on revision when peers respond to and edit writing
has revealed that students can help one another improve their writing through response.
For instance, in a process-product type of study of 250 college students, Nystrand
(1986) compared different classroom structures and measured their success through
students' achievement in writing. He found that students who worked in groups produced
better revisions than students who did not work in groups. In addition, the students who
worked in groups reconceptualized writing as revision, whereas students who did not work
in groups viewed the task of revision as editing only. When the peer groups worked well,
students tended to gravitate to the problem areas of the texts and deal concretely with the
uncertainties of the texts to which they were responding. Nystrand (1990) suggested that
peer conferencing is successful because it concretizes readers for writers; students write
for a particular reader and learn to balance their intentions with writers' expectations.
These studies suggest the impact that peers can have on student writing, especially in the
revision stage.

Although the Hillocks, Nystrand, and O'Donnell studies provide data about the
relationship between group interaction and effects on the products of writing, none of the
studies examined the quality or kind of talk engaged in by students during writing.
Nystrand and Brandt (1989) did investigate the talk of group members in their study and
found that students who worked in peer groups produced higher quality texts than those
who did not, and that the students who worked in peer groups could accurately predict the
strengths and weaknesses of their own texts in ways that correlated with trained raters.
Another study by Nystrand and Brandt (1989) found a relationship between peer input

and the author‘s subsequent revisions, with the extent of the discussion predicting the

30

level of revision. For instance, discussion at the level of genre would influence other
levels of changes such as revisions in organizational structure of the text.

In their studies of the talk of 46 students in peer response groups from nine
classrooms representing 5th, 8th, 10th, 11th, and 12m graders, Gere and Stevens
(1985) found that students' responses were specific and focused on the text. The coding of
talk into the content of the topics students discussed and the ways of responding such as
informing, eliciting, and directing revealed that students' talk was focused on the writer's
intended meaning. The students were evaluative in their comments, praising or criticizing
using accompanying details to support their suggestions, and collaborative as expressed in
the ways in which they helped each other improve the drafts. Students' comments were
richer and more varied than teacher feedback which tended to be generic, focused on
mechanics, and embodied a specific conception of good writing. Further research suggests
that the type of text and the grade level of students affects what students attend to in the
texts. Gore and Abbott (1985) found that younger students attend more to content, while
older students attended more to form. In addition, narratives evoked more discussion of
content than expository texts.

Studies focused on the talk of elementary students about writing suggest that even
young writers can discuss text in useful and sophisticated ways. Dahl's (1988) study of
one fourth-grade classroom focused on the nature of the talk about revision, the
expectations learners had when they conferred with a peer, and the extent to which
revision occurred. Using a microanalysis of peer conferences and student interviews,
Dahl found that students did focus their talk on helping other students revise and writers
took into consideration respondents' comments to their drafts. Students expected and
received help through peer conferencing when conferences focused on improving the
author's draft.

Group writing conferences influenced revision knowledge and revision activity in a

study of 16 students in a first-grade classroom (Fitzgerald 8 Stamm, 1990). Using a

I!

‘1‘

“I

 

31

combination of methods that included a single-subjects-with-replicates design and a
coding scheme to trace revisions to conference comments, the authors found that students'
talk during interviews and the actual revisions were linked to the talk that occurred
within teacher-led response groups. The extent of the conference's influence on their
knowledge of writing was mediated by their entry-level knowledge of revision such that
there were much greater effects for students with the least knowledge and little
measurable change for students with high amounts of knowledge initially. This study
linked the talk that takes place in conferences with subsequent revisions by young
children.

Daiute's (1989) study of third-, fourth-, and fifth-grade classrooms did not focus
on student talk in relation to revision, but rather focused on what students learned from
the talk during collaborative writing tasks. When student discourse was analyzed, the
researchers found that children engaged in playful talk that contained elements of critical
thinking. After examining the texts the students wrote individually after collaboration,
Daiute found that students' individual writing improved after collaborating with one
another, especially when there was a balance between playful talk (e.g., role-playing,
trying out concepts, using imagery) and controlled talk (e.g., planning, evaluating,
labelling, or controlling the composing process).

These studies have differed in the questions that were asked (e.g., relationship
between group interaction and achievement, the relationship between talk and writing, or
the relationship between the teacher's authority and group interaction), in the definitions
and purposes of the task in which students were engaged (e.g., writing together versus
responding to one another's individual papers), the grade level of participants (e.g.,
college, high school, and elementary), and the method used in the study (e.g., meta-
analysis, process-product. or ethnographic). Because of these many differences, there is
no consensus about the relationships among group interaction, talk within groups, and

Ieaming. However, an emerging picture suggests that: (a) peer groups, whether writing

if

L.’

If.

1‘

‘1

32

collaboratively or responding to writing, can have a positive impact on student writing;
(b) the nature of the talk is an important element in determining the kinds of revisions
students make in their texts; and (c) the kind of talk may influence the learning of
individual students. What is lacking, though, are data about how the talk within peer
groups is related to student Ieaming as measured by anything other than changes in
students' drafts. More research is needed to examine what students learn from the talk
using additional measures of student learning.

Although response groups have been used in some elementary, secondary, and
college settings, they are not widespread (Applebee, 1986). Students who have
participated in them do not necessarily find them as helpful as conferences with the
teacher (Freedman, 1987). Additionally, teachers may experience difficulties in
organizing, managing, and monitoring the groups within the larger classroom structure.
Like teacher-student conferences, they are labor-intensive and time-consuming. The
larger constraints of the organization such as large class size, mandated curriculum, and
other institutional forces may mitigate against teachers' widespread use of them (Florio-
Ruane, 1991; Ulichny 8 Watson-Gegeo, 1989). Additionally, some teachers may not want
to give over the control of response to students.

As DiPardo and Freedman (1988) concluded at the end of their review of peer
response groups, many questions about the nature of peer response remain unanswered.
They suggested that studies are needed to relate peer talk to the larger instructional
context, while focusing on actual patterns of students' interactions and ways that students
solve intellectual problems. Although this study focused more on teacher-student
interactions than on peer response, the body of work on peer talk in writing contributes to
our understanding of programs that are attempting to change the traditional norms of
classroom discourse. Peer response is another form of response that might go on in a

process writing classroom simultaneously with teacher-student conferences; both

 

33

teacher-student conferences and peer conferences are recommended in elementary

classrooms by Graves (1983) and Calkins and Hamayne (1987).

 

 

CHAPTER3
METHODS

This study extended previous work related to writing conferences, while linking
this work to the larger classroom context and exploring issues about the relationship
between discourse and Ieaming about text. The focal questions guiding the study were:

( 1 ) What do students internalize from the discourse that occurs during the writing
penod?
(2) What might account for what students internalize from the dialogue?

In this study, internalization of social experiences was defined according to Harre's
(1984) model. Because the theoretical model is a socio-cognitive one, both the cognitive
and social domains were included in exploring what was lntemalized. For example,
cognitive domains might include understanding (a) the writing process such as planning,
drafting, and revising; (b) the use of descriptive language and style; (c) organization of
text; or (d) mechanics of grammar and punctuation. The social domains of writing include
how to participate in a writing process classroom such as choosing an appropriate topic,
conferring with the teacher, and sharing writing with an audience.

To examine what students internalized from the discourse, the study focused on two
major aspects: (3) the opportunities that students had during the writing period for
internalization to occur; and (b) the reemergence of that dialogue from social interaction
in students' talk and students' texts as indicators of internalization. Several concepts
discussed in Chapter 2 emerged as particularly significant in what students internalized.
First, the concept of intaraubjagmjiy in this study is defined by a shared understanding
between the teacher and student within a particular moment about a particular task.
Participants achieve intersubjectivity through negotiation within the writing
conferences; uptake by speakers--often incorporating the words of the other in a
meaningful way (not simply parroting)--is an indication of intersubjectivity. Second.

the term mum implies agreement on the part of the two speakers. Sgafiglding, the

34

35

third term, is the process by which the teacher helps the student solve a problem or carry
out a task, nudging the student from one level of competence to a new level through models,
questions, or explanations. As the Ieamer becomes more competent, the teacher gradually
withdraws the temporary scaffold.

Assumptions and Definitions

The philosophical assumptions about methodology that undergirded this study were
consistent with interpretive traditions articulated by Erickson (1986). lnterpretivist
traditions assume that humans share systems for defining meaning through culture.
Epistemological roots of these traditions may be found in phenomenological approaches
(e.g., Husserl cited in Bogdan 8 Biklen, 1982) and in symbolic interactionism which
assume that human experience is mediated by interpretation; therefore, reality consists of
multiple interpretations (e.g., Mead, 1934). Because different individuals may assign
different meanings to any particular action, the symbolic meaning attached to the action is
more important than the behavior itself (Erickson, 1986).

In lnterpretivist traditions, the researcher is the primary instrument of data
collection, providing a detailed, descriptive account of the setting and participants to
answer questions about how a phenomenon occurred (Bogdan 8 Biklen, 1982; Erickson,
1986; Merriam, 1988). Consistent with understanding the meaning that the participants
ascribe to their actions, the natural setting is the site for collecting data. Often research
questions emerge from the site as the researcher comes to understand the meanings the
participants ascribe to their actions.

The method of data collection and analysis for this study drew from Merriam's
(1988) work on case studies and Bogdan 8 Biklen's (1982) approach to qualitative
research. A case study is a bounded system appropriate for examining a particular
phenomenon, a specific social group, or an individual (Merriam, 1988). Case studies can

use either quantitative or qualitative methods. In this study, because of shared

I rat

5““.

1.19

...f‘

36

assumptions with interpretive traditions, I used qualitative methods-~use of words rather
than quantitative analyses.

Analyses drew from sociolinguistic literature that suggests that interactions are
governed by context specific rules (Cazden, 1986, 1988; FIorio-Ruane, 1987; Green,
1983; Hymes, 1972). Sociolinguists provide analytic methods to examine language in its
every day use, enabling researchers to use particular tools for analyzing everyday
interactions.

l have selected an interpretive frame in the belief that the research questions that l
was interested in studying, grounded in issues of social context, were best addressed
through its use. First, I wanted to understand how individuals used language to shape their
understanding of the contexts in which they lnteracted. Second, I wanted to understand how
the roles of the participants and the social context would mutually shape one another.
Third, I was interested in how the particular participants in the setting, the students and
the teacher, would make sense of their actions. Thus, I have drawn from interpretive
traditions, used sociolinguistic methods of analysis for understanding language use, and

presented my data in the form of themes and cases.1

 

1Although my assumptions and data collection processes were consistent with
interpretive traditions, the study was not purely ethnographic in several ways.
First. I had a somewhat well-defined question I wanted to examine before
beginning my fieldwork. This contrasts with many ethnographic studies in which
the specific research questions emerge from the context. Second, my analysis
was not purely inductive, building towards grounded theory (Glaser 8 Strauss,
1967). Instead, I used a particular theoretical framework to begin the study,
that of social constructivism, especially the model of Harre (1984), challenging
and revising this model as I went along. Third, a five week time period is not the
same as conducting a year long ethnography in a classroom; I chose to focus on a
particular period of time and set of tasks. Fourth, ethnographers generally study
the context as it is (Bogdan 8 Biklen, 1982). I, however, set up an intervention
of writing conferences between the older and younger students for a particular
purpose; some researchers might claim that I intervened in the setting and set up
a situation in which the older students do not ordinarily engage. However, once
students were engaged in the conferences, their conversations were naturally
occurring. For these reasons, I do not consider my study an ethnography, yet I do
believe that the assumptions, sources of data, and processes of analysis have
much in common with qualitative/interpretive traditions.

 

37

While my study focused on several individuals and their learning processes, thus
qualifying as psychological cases studies (e.g., Merriam, 1988), my interests were in
understanding those individuals within their social contexts, thus issues of culture were
essential.2 I collected my data in a natural setting, a classroom, and consider myself the
primary instrument of data collection, augmented by various technological tools. Analysis
proceeded inductively, although I had some constructs in mind before beginning.

I present my understanding of the individuals within the setting In subsequent
chapters in three ways: (a) presentation of classroom themes and patterns of interaction;
(b) individual cases of the students; and (c) a cross-case analysis of the students. I
present a chapter on themes to provide the social context of the classroom to better
understand the individual cases. I present the complete cases of the individual students
because it is only through examining the individual's processes that we can understand the
nature of internalization for that student. A cross-case comparison is presented next to
compare and contrast students and to provide a lens on the larger issues relevant to
internalization. In the sections below I provide details about my data collection processes.

Data Collection

The following sections describe the setting of the study, the participants, and the
sources of data.

Mine

The study took place in a fifth-sixth grade classroom in New York City. The
teacher had participated in the Teachers College Writing Project and implemented a

particular version of process writing. Below, I discuss the rationale for selecting this

 

2Case studies can be of an individual, a classroom, a school, or even a larger
organization. My unit of analysis was the individual, thus qualifying as a
psychological study. Case studies can also be observational, relying on
observational data or life history in which extensive interviews are conducted.
My cases combined observational data and interviews.

38

site. provide some details about the Teachers College Writing Project, and describe the
school context and the particular classroom.
W

What led me to choose this site, this teacher, and these students? My previous
work with the National Center for Research on Teacher Education (NCRTE) provided access
to a particular writing program with a specific orientation towards writing-the
Teachers College Writing Project. Because of my interest in this program and my findings
that teachers could enhance their knowledge about writing, change their beliefs about
writing, and change their writing practices through their engagement in a particular
program (e.g., McCarthey, 1989; 1990a; 1990b), I wanted to explore the connections
between teachers' practice and student learning. Thus, I selected a teacher, Elma Meyer3,
who had demonstrated in her interviews in the NCRTE study a high level of understanding
of the principles of the Writing Project.

Although I had only been in Ms. Meyer's classroom on one occasion, I had observed
another teacher in the school on several occasions and knew something of the school
context. It was after discussions with the teacher about how to select the children, when to
come, and what she would be teaching that I found myself at Public School 9994 in New
York City. To understand Ms. Meyer's classroom, it is helpful to discuss the Teachers

College Writing Project which had influenced her teaching before describing the school and

classroom context.

W
The Teachers College Writing Project was a coordinated effort between the New

York City Board of Education's Division of Curriculum and Instruction and Teachers

College at Columbia University to involve teachers and students in the writing process

 

3All names of principals, trainers, teachers. and students are pseudonyms.
4 This is a pseudonym for the school; schools in New York City are numbered by
district.

39

within the regular classroom setting (Calkins, 1986; Calkins 8 Harwayne, 1987; NCRTE,
1987).5 The Writing Project had two major components: (a) teacher trainers
(including two co-directors, seven teacher-trainers, and three professional writers)
who interacted with teachers and children about the writing process in the public school
classrooms; and (b) workshops run by project staff at Teachers College that took place
during the two week Summer Institute, on Saturdays, and monthly during the school day
for New York City teachers (NCRTE, 1987). During the workshops and the Summer
Institute teachers engaged in writing themselves and responded to the writing of peers,
watched videotapes of trainers working with students, and engaged in such activities as
role-playing and discussing with one another ways to teach writing in their classrooms
(Calkins 8 Harwayne, 1987).

In the Teachers College Writing Project, writing is assumed to be purposeful;
students should be involved in the process of what "real authors” do (Calkins, 1986).
Just as authors write to record ideas, plan, organize, and make sense of their lives,
children should be able to choose their own topics to make sense of their lives (Calkins 8
Harwayne, 1987). Writing is a process that consists of drafting ideas, responding,
revising and rethinking, sharing those drafts with others, and finally editing for
publication. Essential aspects of the program, called Writing Workshop, include: (a)
involvement of very young children in writing; (b) the use of invented spelling as part of
the acquisition of conventional spelling; (c) the use of literature for exposure to different
genres of writing; and (d) anecdotes about the personal lives of authors (Calkins, 1986).
The workshop is a place for ”teaching to become deeply personal” (1986, p.6) where
teachers and students focus on topics of importance to children. The focus of much of the

Workshop is on encouraging students to write personal narratives.

 

5Soon after my data collection, the New York City School District cut the funding
for this program.

40

The role of the teacher is to “help students care about their writing“ (Calkins 8
Harwayne, 1987, p. 23) and to “listen, extend, and guide” (Calkins, 1986, p. 8).
Teachers should establish a ”literate environment" in which they can respond to the
writing of children by providing materials and a simple, predictable schedule. The
predictable structure which Calkins promoted in the staff development program consisted
of a mini-lesson in which the teacher presents an idea about the process of writing or
exposes students to a published author's piece, regular writing time in which students
write and confer with one another while the teacher circulates among students conferring
with individuals about their writing, and share time in which several students read their
work-in-progress and other students respond to It (Calkins, 1986). Calkins views
teacher-student writing conferences as being "at the heart of teaching writing” (1986, p.
21) because through them students learn to interact with their own writing. This visible
structure is a vehicle for altering traditional classroom norms and fundamentally
changing the relationship between teacher and student by getting teachers to interact on a
daily basis with students about writing.

The Writing Project staff believed that involving a whole school in the process of
changing writing instruction was important. Public School 999 had been selected as one of
the sites for extensive on-site work. The teacher whom I selected worked closely with
personnel from the Teachers College Writing Project to develop long term changes in
classroom practices. One trainer, Ms. Ezmie Henderson, visited the school twice a week to
work with several teachers on the staff. Another trainer, Ms. Elsa Hall, visited the school
on one occasion when l was there.

mm

The setting for the study was Room 555 located on the fifth floor of Public School
999, an old school building in the heart of Manhattan, New York City. The school is located
in a middle class neighborhood close to several area hospitals and draws students from both

the neighborhood and from across the city. The school draws primarily from the

”MR

Ii: '

‘ I
e"-

‘D
4"

”4A

a .
11‘

O...
“I

‘3..-

“s
“v

\-
n "

1'4”

.f

fi

 

 

'
.Io

,-
I

41

neighborhood children who do not attend private school and those whose parents work in
the nearby hospital facilities. However, as the teacher in the study suggested, students
come from all parts of the city, providing their own transportation, to escape going to
schools in a ”ghetto type neighborhood." The student population consists of an ethnically
diverse population, consisting of 53% whites, 16% blacks, 17% Hispanics, and 14%
Asians, as reported by the school principal. About 30 % of the 387 students that attend
the school are on free or reduced lunch.

Like many school buildings in New York City, the building was old, noisy, and not a
very inviting structure for teachers, students, parents, or visitors to enter. The
building's starkness was interrupted by the red door that faced the street and set the
building off from the residences and commercial buildings surrounding It. Few soft
comers were evident in the building; instead, I was surrounded by clanging metal, heavy
doors labelled 'in" or ”out,“ and cage-like apertures on the stairwells.

The attendants at the door warmed up with familiarity, but their function was
clear--to protect children from the possibilities of strangers entering the building and
harming the students. The bureaucracy of signing in and signing out, stating one's
purpose. and securing permission to enter the building decreased as the attendants got to
know me, although making friends with those whose jobs were to sit at a desk facing the
front door was not an easy one. I felt I had reached friendly communication in my final
week when the guard shared with me the manual he was studying to become a technician.

One of the striking features about this school was the noise level. The screeching of
bus brakes. the blaring of taxicab horns, and intense ambulance sirens continually pierced
the air. Additionally, the voices of children yelling in the schoolyard and the increasing
volume of teachers' voices to hold students' attention above the din could be heard much of
the time. In the hallways and stairwells. students' and teachers' voices contributed to the
overall sense of frenzy that characterized the school, specifically, and Manhattan, in

general.

42

The school was run by the principal, Tamara Klein, who was in her fourth year of
being a principal, having come from an administrative position at the district office. Ms.
Klein was trying hard to bring literacy programs such as whole language and the Teachers
College Writing Project to her school. As understood by the teacher in the study, the
principal hoped to persuade many of the neighborhood families who send their children to
private schools to return to public schooling by offering a more progressive approach
toward education.

Ms. Klein seemed reserved and business-like, but appeared committed to
improving the educational program offered in her school. She was not pleased that l was
doing research in her school, perhaps because she felt her teachers were already stressed.
She greeted me with the phrase, 'I can't believe Ms. Meyer has agreed to do this with all
she has going on." However, once I was in the setting, Ms. Klein waved to me and made
arrangements for me to use the copy machine, although such severe restrictions were
applied that I always had to walk several blocks to have students' notebooks copied.
Iheflamm

Stepping into Room 555 was a reprieve from the constant noise and hubbub of the
hallways, although the playground, street, and hail noise often invaded the classroom
space. As Figure 2 illustrates, the room was essentially divided into two areas: the rug
area and the desk area. The area of the room that contained the rug was devoted primarily
to reading and writing activities. The class met daily on the blue rug that occupied about a
quarter of the room. This area consisted of bookshelves, bulletin boards, and book jackets
that hung above the bulletin boards. This part of the room gave the impression of being a
“literate environment" because the bookshelves were crammed with picture books, while
shelves and shelves of fiction were easily accessible to the students. Students utilized the
space freely and selected books to read throughout the day. They recorded the titles of the
books they were reading on a chart on one of the bulletin boards. Book jackets were

43

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

W
mu Chm
Chdkbocd Paw
IITlllllll Door
Oubbloc for sinuo-
g "3 wa Anm ‘3
2 .
i “9 3°
l-G W8
K3
:3
Teacher VG
but
Anthony 33 Clout - - -
for
8tongo_ __ _
Mlguol wa
Bullotl
M
wa VG m Chart
g l l
i l l
3 K3 as 3 -—
E
3
wa 38
VB VB
Ella Student's U
Pictures 0
Flug Area ‘ PM“ —
E Via H! D
. El
Bookcholvu —"
a
Student‘s
Pictures
8. Photos
swam Book
Clout JackothUDUUD

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 2 Classroom Map

 

WB-Whlto Boy VIC-White Girl
AB-Aslnn Boy AG-Aclm Glrl
l-lB-l-lcponlc Boy lie-Hispanic Girl
BB-Block Boy BG-Blnck Glrl

 

“14;!
I, HUI

I“:

II?

I'V-
III

Q‘l
1‘

‘m.

u.

D
s

O

h. .

P11
It

 

 

 

 

'O.

y P
v

 

 

 

44

arranged aesthetically above the bulletin boards with a variety of jackets from Ibelme
W to m.

Two large bulletin boards occupied the back corner of the rug area; they were
divided into 1' x 1 1/2' sections in which each child out out his/her name, placed it on the
board, and covered it with personal mementoes or pictures. For instance, Ella had a
picture of herself drawn by her friend, Serena; Anthony had a magazine photo of New York
City from the air; Miguel had cut-outs of whales, pop-eye, and assorted figures that he had
drawn himself; and Anita had photographs of her family and friends. The overall
appearance of the rug area was of a focus on literacy, an eye for aesthetics, and attention to
students as individuals.

The rest of the classroom consisted of five tables arranged throughout the rest of
the room, with four of the tables near the front of the room and only one near the back.
The teacher had assembled these tables herself because the original ones had come in the
wrong height; she spent the first week of school getting the tables to be the right size.
Students were seated in groups of five-six. An Apple Ile, a VCR, a “math center" and the
teacher's desk occupied the back corner and the wall space underneath the windows. A coat
closet took up a small space in the back corner. The front of the room contained a large
blackboard and cubbies where students kept some materials. Most of the students' books
and materials, however, were kept in baskets under their chairs or on the tables
themselves. Students' writing notebooks, for instance, remained within easy reach of the
students--on the table or in the baskets.

Patterns of interaction during writing time will be described at length in Chapter

4. However, the following description provides the reader with a brief account of the
types of activities that took place during daily writing sessions to understand the rationale

for the methods and procedures used. The daily writing period consisted of:

45

(a) a ”mini-lesson“ in which the teacher and students discussed a topic related to
literature or the writing of texts; (b) writing time during which students worked on their
texts; (c) teacher-student writing conferences in which the teacher discussed an
individual student’s text with him or her; and (d) a share session in which several
students had the opportunity to read their texts to the entire class.

W

The participants in the study were the teacher, trainers from the Teachers College
Writing Project, and four students from ethnically diverse backgrounds.

Ieamer

The teacher, Elma Meyer, was an experienced classroom teacher, having taught
elementary school for 18 years. She had taught in another part of New York City for 3 and
1/2 years prior to coming to PS. 999 where she has been since 1977. Ms. Meyer had
been using a process approach to writing in her classroom for four years. She had taken
part in the Summer Institute in the summer of 1987. She continued to participate in
workshops at Teachers College, having taken a course in adult literature the summer just
previous to data collection. She was well-read herself and kept her own writer's notebook.
Ms. Meyer seemed eager to learn new things about writing and literature, and was sharing
her own knowledge with other teachers who attended workshops.

Ms. Meyer described herself as growing up in a middle-class Jewish family; she
had wanted to become a lawyer, but decided to become a teacher instead. A native New
Yorker, Ms. Meyer was in her mid 405, was slender, had very dark, just short of shoulder
length hair, and had a strong presence in any room. She was a very expressive person,
bordering on the dramatic. Ms. Meyer talked a great deal and provided her opinion on most
matters quite freely. She had a rather loud, high-pitched voice that increased in volume
when she became excited. Her style of interaction matched well with Tannen's (1984)
description of ”high-involvement style.” In this style, the speaker tends to prefer

personal topics, shifts topics abruptly, uses a fast pace of speech and exhibits quick turn

46

taking. Several paralinguistic features such as expressive hand gestures linked to high
involvement style marked her style as well. Ms. Meyer's style was often evident in her
interviews with me in which she would speak rapidly, shift the topic abruptly, and add a
dramatic flair; it was a challenge keeping up with her pace.
Ihalrainacs

Two trainers worked with Ms. Meyer at the time of the study. One trainer, Ms.
Henderson, came into Ms. Meyer's classroom at least weekly, occasionally twice a week for
a total of five visits. The other trainer, Ms. Hall, worked in the classroom on one occasion.
Both were experienced trainers who had worked for several years with the Project. Ms.
Henderson's role was to share literature with the large groups of students and to meet with
individuals or small groups of students about their writing. She also provided ideas and
support to Ms. Mayer. In fact, they worked collaboratively, discussing plans together
before the lesson Ms. Henderson conducted.
Students

Classroom 555 consisted of 28 students of ethnic backgrounds that reflected the
school population: 14 Caucasians, 7 African-Americans, 4 Latinos, and 3 AsiansG. There
were fifteen girls and thirteen boys in this fifth/sixth-grade classroom. Students stayed
together for all subjects except for mathematics where they were divided into two groups
by ability. The school day was a busy one; students had different teachers for computers,
art, physical education and moved to those different locations where the subjects were
taught.

Initially, the teacher and I had planned that I would follow six students as case
studies. I had provided some guidelines for her to consider when selecting students. I

asked her to select students who varied according to culture, class, and gender as well as

‘

6The school administrator used the terms: black, white, Asian, and Hispanic to
refer to students. I use these terms on the classroom map and when identifying
the school population, but in the text I use the terms: Caucasian, African-
American, Asian, and Latino.

Iil

‘7 ..I
“a"

pee
‘n-l

1v]

"2
Q‘U

-.
.P-
U
at

47

students who differed in their oral and written fluency, but who would be willing to be
interviewed. I selected these features because of existing theoretical and empirical data
that suggests that culture, class, and gender are interrelated (Aronowitz & Giroux, 1991)
and that these features influence teachers' interactions with students (Michaels, 1981;
Freedman & Sperling, 1985).

I also advised Ms. Mayer to select students about whom she wanted to learn more.
She told me she was tempted to select students who were all “good writers” but said she did
not think that was what I wanted. Ms. Meyer selected six students: three girls and three
boys; three ”high achievers“ and three "low achievers” (her words); three African-
American students, two Latino students, and one Caucasian student. From these six
students I have selected four to present here as cases studies because they (a) have the
most complete data sets (e.g., the Caucasian girl was absent for two weeks during data
collection); (b) provide examples of the varied nature of internalization; and (c)
represent a balance of gender. Next I briefly describe each student; the individual cases
presented later contain longer descriptions of the background of each student.

Miguel. Miguel was an eleven-year-old sixth grader who came to the United States
in third grade from Guatemala, speaking only Spanish. He learned fluent English quickly
and often helped his mother with her English. He was from a working class background.7
Miguel lived in an apartment shared by several families with his mother and his brother.
The apartment building was in the neighborhood and he walked to school. His mother
worked as a baby sitter at the homes of other families. Miguel read extensively, both
fiction and non-fiction books.

Anthony. Anthony was a nine-year-old fifth grader whose parents came from

Puerto Rico. He considered Puerto Rico a second home even though he had lived in

 

7Determinations about class were made based on whether the student were on
free lunch, the occupation of parents, the neighborhood in which a student lived
and transportation to school.

V275

va A;
' 1

4M

‘R‘lp

¥ 1'.

:“ I.
I u --

48

Manhattan all of his life. Anthony was from a middle-class background. His father was a
local newscaster; his mother worked in the school as an aide. Anthony considered himself
an inventor and a writer. He often experimented with scientific activities at home and
kept a scientific journal of his discoveries. He read a great deal, especially fiction and
liked writing, although he revealed that he frequently got ”writer's block.” Anthony had
participated in writing process classrooms before by virtue of his attendance at this
school where other teachers had used features of the Writing Workshop.

Ella. Ella was a tall, African-American, fifth-grade girl. She lived with her
mother in an apartment in Spanish Harlem, and was from a middle-class background. She
commuted to school by taxi or by subway, accompanied by her mother. Her mother worked
as a proofreader in a publishing company. Ella read extensively, mostly fiction and
defective novels, and enjoyed writing fiction and more personal types of writing. She had
been at the school since kindergarten and had many opportunities to participate in writing

process classrooms.

Anita. Anita was an eleven-year-old sixth grader from a working class
background, living in the Bronx. She was an African-American, living with her brother
and her mother, who worked as a housekeeper. Anita liked singing and dancing and
entertaining people, although she was very withdrawn in whole group class discussions.
Anita took the train to school each morning by herself. She had not had many opportunities
to participate in writing process classrooms previously. She reported having done little
writing before; this was her first year at PS. 999. Anita did not enjoy reading; she read
very little, and the teacher reported that she read at a very low level. Anita, however,
enjoyed writing in her notebook and she reported having written flve pages on one story,
'Lenox Hill Camp,“ which was the most she had ever written in her life.

We
I collected data over a five-week period-from October 8 through November '8. I

chose this time period because it provided the opportunity to trace the development of at

49

least one text through its inception, development, and publication phase, corresponding to
Hayes and Flower's (1980) planning, drafting, and revising stages. This time frame
represented a meaningful unit of study for the teacher because she was introducing
students to notebook writing, a particular genre, with the intention that they would select
one theme or issue from their notebooks to turn into a revised piece for a larger audience.
The span of five weeks allowed me to gain an understanding of the classroom context, while
seeing the development of students' writing of particular pieces. Having observed both the
notebook writing and the progression through their projects, I could gain a sense of how a
student approached a tapic, drew from previous entries, and revised them into a piece for
a larger audience. Because I was there during the phases in which they generated notebook
entries and because I had copies of their notebooks, I could trace the history of a topic and
the student's thinking about the relevant issues.

Data for the study drew from five different sources described below: (a)
observations of the classroom during the writing period; (b) interviews with the teacher;
(c) individual interviews with students; (d) students' texts; and (6) students teaching
younger students. These sources of data were intended to map onto the Harre (1984)
model of internalization, tracing the process of appropriation of dialogue from the social
interaction through transformation by the individual and back to the public reemergence
of dialogue (see Figure 3).

The classroom observations helped to understand the opportunities that students
had during the writing period to learn the cognitive aspects of writing and the social norms
related to participation in a writing process classroom. The observations related to
quadrant l as students began the process of appropriation, participating in the social
practices of a writing process classroom. Interviews of the teacher provided additional
context to understand her perspective about classroom events. Individual interviews with

students fit into quadrants II and III as students transformed and made public what they had

Wit

is

50

 

 

Public
Convenflonaflzaflon
Conference: with fat graders Classroom Obnrvaflone
Sfudenftem I,"- N"
1 >
5 g IV I \ 3
— ' t ‘
'8 | I 0
Social— 3 I l E — lndiwdual
- r D
'g ‘t I 2
8 f
n- . I I I I I . g
\ 1‘
ex" Informal
Transformatlon ,1
r: l
P r i v ate
lntervlews

figure 3 Data Sources and Harre Model

I
.Flu‘.“

 

51

appropriated. Interviews provided Information about the students' understanding of
classroom events and their own texts. The informal interviews were designed to get
students' immediate understandings of events and to get as close as possible to students'
internal processes. The exit interviews, occurring at the end of data collection, were
designed to understand students' transformations as they were made more public.
Students' texts and the teaching of younger students provided data to understand what
students had lntemalized from the classroom dialogue. These sources fit into quadrant IV,
as students' knowledge became reintegrated into the social practices of their texts and talk
with younger students.

Using multiple sources provided opportunities for triangulation of data to
strengthen the interpretations of the data. I provide details of the sources of data and
processes of collecting these data below as they link to the Harre model.

Annmaflation

Audiotaped and videotaped observations of classroom interactions provided an
account of opportunities students had to participate in the writing process classroom. The
teacher provided her perspective about events and goals for students through interviews.

Winn. In order to understand the nature of the
interactions and the dialogue that took place during the writing period, I kept an ongoing
record of those interactions. The focus of my observations was on the hour block of the
writing session each day. However, I spent three to four hours at the school daily between
setting up my equipment, interviewing students and the teacher, and photocopying
students' work.

My role as participant observer was primarily to observe classroom activities. I
was certainly known to the students, accentuated by my video camera and audiotape system.
I became part of the classroom setting rather quickly, though, in spite of my equipment. I

focused on the case study students, but talked to other students as well, often approaching

«‘2
-
I'-

o..
elf

p-n

\o'l. ‘

-~

an...

6.5

.a

'v

 

a"

52

students to ask questions about their writing. Further, many students approached me to
ask my opinion and solicit my help for their writing.

A few times, my role became more than that of an observer. For instance, on one
occasion Ms. Meyer asked me to read aloud to the class while she talked to certain
individuals outside the classroom in the hall. She also had recommended to me to keep my
own ”notebook“ of perceptions of New York City to become more of a part of the classroom.
I did keep a notebook, but did not share any pieces until the very last day when I read aloud
a text I had written about all of the students in the class.

In this classroom, many adults were often present for either working with the
teacher, like the trainers, or observing Ms. Meyer's writing process classroom.
Consequently, students seemed quite at ease with having adults present and with
approaching them to ask questions. Students seemed to accept me easily, but I felt the
teacher regarded me as a disruption. Because I spent a lot of time interviewing the “case
study“ students, I developed a strong rapport with each of them.

I collected observational data in three ways: (a) my field notes; (b) videotapes;
and (c) audiotapes. Field notes provided information about the general classroom context
and a description of the activities in which the teacher and students engaged. Videotapes
provided visual information that was used to add detailed descriptions of the classroom
context and specific writing activities. Audiotapes provided an accurate record of the
dIangue that took place between the teacher and students. While in the classroom, I
alternated taking field notes with videotaping and audiotaping the classroom sessions. My
primary source of data for the observations was the videotapes, augmented by my field
notes and the audiotapes. After each day in the classroom, I watched the videotapes,
listened to the audiotapes. and consulted my field notes to write a narrative of the events of
the day; these narratives became my expanded field notes including observer comments.

W: The focus of my classroom observations was on the case study students

as they engaged in their various writing tasks. Generally, I set up the equipment in this

53

way: (a) the teacher wore a wireless microphone connected to an audiotape that recorded
her comments; (D) I ran the video camera using a tripod whenever possible; (c) I used
another tape recorder with a ”sound grabber“ microphone to pick up the voices of the
students in whole group sessions; and (d) I jolted down notes in my notebook as l was
recording. However, different phases of the writing period demanded differing amounts of
attention on my part and different levels of involvement. During the ”mini-lessons" and
“share sessions“ I generally kept the camera on the tripod, and focused on the speaker. If
the teacher were reading aloud or talking for a long period of time, I would alternate
between focusing on her and taking close-up shots of the case study students.

Negotiating the writing/conferring time was more complicated, as I: (3) followed
the teacher and her conferences with students; (b) focused on the case study students; and
(c) conducted informal interviews with the case study students, especially if they had had
an interaction with the teacher. Because I could not do all of these things all of the time, I
used several implicit rules in this order of priority: first, made sure I got an accurate
record of all conferences between the teacher and case study students; second, kept a visual
or written record of all students with whom the teacher had conferences; third,
interviewed case study students as close to their interactions with the teacher as possible;
fourth, recorded the interactions of case study students with other students. I kept these
priorities in mind as I tried to respond to and record the changing, complex social system
of the classroom.

All audiotaped observations were transcribed by professional transcribers. I
listened to the tapes and edited all pieces that I subsequently used for analysis and
inclusion in the data set. For example, I edited all of the teacher-student conferences and
added analytic notations.

Winn. The teacher interview was intended to provide data about the
school context, the teacher's goals for writing, her specific plans, and perceptions of the

students. I conducted two, forty-minute interviews with the teacher during data collection

O
‘D
u

i

i.»
. ..

.5:

Is'

a
\.
I.

 

4*?

I?

ll

54

(see Appendix A). The first interview included questions about the school setting and the
students who attended the school. In this interview, questions focused on the teacher's
goals for notebook writing, her rationale for having students engage in notebook writing,
and the progress students had made so far. I also asked about her plans for moving students
to projects and her expectations about those projects. During this interview, I began to
ask questions about the specific case study students I was studying.

In the second interview, the questions emerged from issues within the classroom
context. My purpose was to try and understand the norms of interaction from the teacher’s
perspective. I had noticed several features that seemed to be important to the ways in
which the classroom was operating and I wanted Ms. Meyer to provide information about
why she had established the rules for writing that she had. I asked questions about how she
thought the projects were going so far, and asked about particular events that occurred
with students. For Instance, I asked about Ella's writing of fiction and elicited Ms. Meyer's
beliefs about students' writing of fiction as well as her perceptions of particular writing
conferences she had with students. I also elicited the teacher's impressions of the case
study students and how they were progressing as writers. These interviews were
audiotaped and transcribed verbatim. I gathered demographic data on the teacher from
previous NCRTE (1987) interviews and from a telephone conversation with her.

I conducted two types of interviews with students: (a) semi-structured
interviews--entry and exit; and (b) informal interviews. Semi-structured interviews
consisted of a set of pre-determined questions that I asked the case study students, were
conducted with individual students, lasted about 40-50 minutes, and took place outside the
classroom context. By contrast, informal interviews took place within the classroom
context, were brief (5-10 minutes), were frequent, and consisted of contextual questions
about events that just occurred. I found that each type of interview revealed different

kinds of information about students' internalization processes.

55

Each student had at least two semi-structured interviews-usually an entry
interview and an exit interview. In the case of Anita, however, because of complicating
circumstances (see her case), she did not have an exit interview, but did have a total of
two interviews outside the classroom context. The purpose of the entry interview
conducted with each student was to gain information about students' personal histories and
their knowledge of and experiences with writing.

W. The entry interview contained two major parts: (a) Part I:
personal history; and (b) Part II: knowledge of writing (see Appendix B). The personal
history section consisted of two subsections: (a) background knowledge and (b) literacy
history. Questions in the background knowledge subsection related to family life,
neighborhood, interests, and school. The questions rest on the assumption that children
bring to the writing process experiences that bear either directly or indirectly upon their
future Ieaming. This section also served to establish a level of comfort between the
student and me by asking students about issues that were familiar to them.

The history of literacy section of the interview focused on the students' prior
experiences with and attitudes towards reading and writing. Questions were related to
reading and writing habits such as how often students were engaged in writing, topics they
wrote about, and attitudes towards writing. These questions provided background
information about what kinds of attitudes and reading and writing habits students possessed
that may have influenced their learning.

Within the history of literacy section, I also asked students about experiences in
writing from previous years, opportunities they had to engage in writing currently, and
perceptions of the current classroom. I asked students to describe what it meant to be a
good writer and followed up with probes about their own processes of writing including
sources of ideas, specific audiences, and genre or types of writing they did.

Through Part II of the interview, I intended to elicit information about students'

knowledge of text. Believing that explaining their own texts provided the opportunity for

3577
“1‘ r!

7.1%

V" A

u
\: 9-
‘V

'5
n
,5."-
'I:.
'u

.“A
63-3
.'.>

56

students to express what they knew in an area in which they were experts--that of their
own text, I asked students to bring examples of their own work.

In the task of responding to their own texts, I asked students to select a piece they
liked, read It aloud, and talk about what they had written, pointing out features they
thought were effective or Interesting to the reader. The questions were intended to be
very open-ended so that the students could select the things about the text they wanted to
explain. Follow-up questions focused on asking the student about the source of their ideas,
audience, purposes for writing the piece, and revision strategies because these all
potentially influence what authors write. I also asked the students to describe the process
they went through to write their pieces. Because the students were keeping notebooks, I
asked students about the function of their notebooks and the types of writing they included
in them.

The last series of questions about the students' own texts were related to the
planning process. I asked questions about topics they planned to write about next and
planning strategies they used.

Although I used the protocol I had developed as a guide so that I would collect
comparable data on students, my goal was to get the students to talk about their texts, their
understanding of writing, and the classroom context. Thus, I deviated from the protocol
when necessary, following the student's lead and asking questions that related to topics the
students raised.

W. The exit interviews consisted of questions I developed out of
themes that had grown out of the classroom context (see Appendix C). I focused the
questions around four major topics: (a) qualities of good writing; (b) classroom events;
(0) notebooks and projects; and (d) conferences with younger students. First, because so
much of the classroom discourse centered on ”the qualities of good writing“ I asked
students to describe to me what they considered good writing. Follow up probes included

asking students to use examples from books, from other students' work in the class, and

57

from their own notebooks or projects. In the second question, I asked students to identify
good writers in their class and describe what those writers did. The third question about
qualities of good writing consisted of asking students to describe what they thought were
important aspects of writing. Then I presented to students a list of ideas and examples that
had come out of the classroom discourse such as ”description,” “getting a picture In the
reader's mind,“ and “keeping the reader on his toes.” Within this list I also included ideas
that had not been part of the discourse such as “punctuation,” ”spelling,“ and “character"
to see which ones they would select as important.

The second series of questions focused on classroom events. I asked students what
they had Ieamed about writing this year and from whom. I followed this up with questions
about books, events, or things that occurred in the classroom that helped the student. I
began with asking the questions in an open-ended way and then provided some examples of
events that had occurred. I then asked students to describe what the classroom was like
during writing and followed up with probes such as asking them to describe a particular
event or conference with the teacher that had influenced them.

The third area of focus was on their own notebooks and projects. I asked students
about their projects, how they had selected their topics, and which notebook entries they
used. I then asked them about audience, revisions, and why they had made the changes they
did. Follow-up questions included what events or individuals (e.g., conferences,
discussions, etc.) had affected changes they made in their projects. Because the students
had not done their final copies, I asked what they would do to finish their projects.

I concluded the interviews by asking students about the conferences they had
conduced with the younger children, how they had gone, and why they did what they did.
Again, in these interviews, my purpose was to try to understand what students had
Ieamed, what the students' views of writing were, and how they had constructed the

events. To this end, I pursued certain aspects with students when they seemed fruitful and

58

did not pursue to the same extent issues that seemed less meaningful to a particular
student.

W: The semi-structured interviews took place outside of the classroom
context in a separate room to provide privacy, some quiet, and an opportunity for the
student to reflect in a setting outside the classroom. The interviews took place in either a
small teacher's lounge next to the classroom or in the larger science room across from the
classroom. Although the rooms were separate from the classroom, teachers and students
often came in and out of the rooms, interrupting us as they entered or exited.

The entry interviews lasted about 45 minutes and occurred during lunch time
because this was the only time the teacher would allow the students out of the classroom.
Students had to try and eat their lunches as I asked them questions. Because I could only
conduct one interview a day with each child, the entire set of interviews was not completed
until the end of the second week of data collection. These interviews were audiotaped and
transcribed verbatim by a professional transcriber and subsequently edited by me.

The exit interviews took place all on the same day, the third to last day of data
collection, in the science room. The teacher had allowed me to take students out of class on
this day to be interviewed. She was planning to be absent and thought they would not miss
anything substantive because a substitute would be handling the class. These interviews
averaged about 50 minutes. The exit interviews were both audiotaped and videotaped; the
audiotapes were transcribed verbatim which I then edited.

lnfgmalJmemm. Informal interviews were an important source of data about
students' thinking and understanding of events as they occurred in the classroom. An
important reason for conducting these interviews within the classroom was to get students'
immediate thoughts about classroom dialogue as close to the event as possible. Questions
emerged from the classroom context, focusing on what the student was writing or had
written that day, where the student got his/her ideas, and their impressions of

interactions they had with adults or other students. After asking an open-ended question

 

U

I) H!
r *-
Is \-

 

[Y

3;

".04 .

"In.

1".

I1

.
C

a...

’-

59

about what they were thinking or writing, I usually asked about a specific event that had
taken place, especially a teacher-student writing conference.

W Another reason I conducted these interviews within the class was that
the teacher approved of them and preferred them to taking the students outside of the
classroom. Therefore, I tried to make use of this time as much as possible. Typically, I
briefly interviewed from one-three students daily about their writing and classroom
events. These interviews often took place as students were writing and the teacher was
conducting conferences with students other than case study students. Occasionally, I waited
until close to the end of the writing period and asked students questions then. I selected the
student whom I would interview based on (a) who had recent interactions with the teacher,
and (b) what student I had not talked to recently. I got to each student at least once every
three days, resulting in four-six informal interviews for each child. On several
occasions, I was able to have informal interviews with students during lunch. The focus of
these discussions was on events that had occurred that day.

To understand what students had internalized from the classroom dialogue, I
collected students' texts and asked the case study students to conduct writing conferences
with younger students.

W. Because the focus of the writing process was on texts the students
generated, I collected all of the pieces that students wrote. Drafts of student texts provided
information about how students' writing changed in relation to the dialogue and, was,
therefore, one representation of what the student had internalized from the social
interaction. Students had written two types of texts: entries in their notebooks and final
projects. Students' notebooks contained both their responses to books they were reading
and the entries in their personal notebooks. I collected the students' notebooks, in which
each entry was dated, several times weekly and made photocopies of every page in the book

so that I had a record of their work from the beginning of the year through the end of data

*l “I
file's!

SW5

9“ ‘0
Mv‘

up.“
D

‘.vy

l-p
.I.:'|

1
i
s

‘f

H at
.

.5

'9 ... .
‘1 1
"Wu. -

Fir

.
: tr:
I.\ "

D
9.
r»:

n.
4 '2.
;.v

60

collection. I collected all drafts of the projects as well as the students' final projects. In
the case of Ella, who kept another notebook and wrote stories outside of class, I also
collected samples from those pieces.

W. Each participating student conducted a writing
conference with a first-grade student about the younger student's text. This provided the
older students with the opportunity to demonstrate what they had internalized from the
classroom dialogue through the help they provided a peer. Because students had been
participants in the process of conferences, they had some experience with conferences.
However, they had little prior experience with conducting writing conferences with
younger students; therefore, conducting conferences with younger students provided the
case study students with the opportunity to make explicit their knowledge of text in a real
situation with a particular student.

W: I made arrangements with a flrst/second-grade teacher whom I had
known previously and explained my research project to her. She readily agreed to select
students from her writing process classroom who were at least adequate or were very
fluent writers. These younger students were working on pieces of their choice and had
experience in conferences with their teacher and in reading their work to peers.

After I explained who the younger students were, I gave the older students only
brief instructions about how to talk with the younger students because I wanted the case
study students to construct the task in a way that was meaningful to them. I gave the
students three guidelines: (a) have the younger student read his/her piece to you; (b) try
to help the student improve his/her work; and (0) use what you have learned this year
about writing to help the child. These conferences took place in the hallway at small desks,
or in one case, the small teacher's lounge during the older students' lunch time. Three
dyads met together simultaneously with a tape recorder between the two speakers. All
writing conferences with dyads of students were audiotaped, transcribed verbatim, and

then edited by me.

IA I
‘D\
.~-

0
‘lb
Q

I
.

A.
I l»:

M!
‘5 i

'r

a

(~I } .

61

W

The first week of data collection involved observing the classroom to get a sense of
the classroom context and beginning the interviews with each of the students. My intent
was to introduce myself and the equipment gradually so that students would become
accustomed to my presence. On the first day, I brought only my notebook and took field
notes, while on the second day I brought a tape recorder. For the rest of that week, I used
the wireless microphone for the teacher as well. It was not until the beginning of the
second week that I brought the videocamera. Intensive classroom observations using all of
the equipment continued for the next four weeks.

Because of the nature of the school calendar and due to the teacher's own schedule, I
conducted a total of 17 observations in five weeks. Several holidays and incidents
interrupted the flow of data collection including two scth holidays (Columbus Day and
Election Day); two Teachers College lnservice days that the teacher attended; two days in
which the teacher was absent due to a family emergency; one field trip day; and one day the
students did not have writing (Halloween). I was able to interview students, however, on
the four days that the teacher was absent.

During the five weeks, each student participated in at least two semi-structured
interviews and four-six informal interviews that were spread out across the data
collection period. I interviewed the teacher during the second and fourth weeks of data
collection. Each student conducted a writing conference with a younger student during the
last week of data collection. All texts written during the data collection period were
collected. Students also sent audiotapes of their reflections of their final projects. These
reflections were in response to a set of questions and a blank cassette that I gave them
before leaving the site.

Analysis
Ideas for analysis were derived from a wide variety of case study (e.g., Merriam,

1988), ethnographic (e.g., Bogdan & Biklen, 1982; Schatzman 8 Strauss, 1973) and

I
e, P.‘
y fir

‘nr

5

'55.?
I“ i
‘10 n A

#3.".

{MI-
I‘ *i

 

.‘i
x.

I.“
I .
4.. f'
’ i
PM
I!
I

62

sociolinguistic sources (e.g., Cazden, 1986; FIorio-Ruane, 1987; Gumperz, 1982;
Hudson, 1980; Hymes, 1972; Mehan, 1979; Stubbs, 1983) as well as from research
specific to writing and the analysis of talk and text (e.g., Daiute, 1989; Michaels, 1987;
Nystrand, 1986; Sperling, 1989). Analyses of cases were useful to construct ways of
describing individuals and comparing those individuals with one another. The
ethnographic sources contributed ideas about sorting, compiling, and categorizing data,
especially observational data. The sociolinguistic frameworks were particularly helpful
in constructing ways to analyze linguistic data, especially from the classroom interactions
in terms of features such as turn-taking, roles and interactions of speakers, and the
functions of language within particular contexts. The studies of writing were helpful in
analysis of student-teacher writing conference data.

I used different kinds of analyses and different levels of analyses depending on the
kind of data (interview, observational, text) and the pertinent chapter (see Table 1). The
chapter on classroom themes and patterns of interaction, for instance, draws primarily on
observational data; the individual cases of students draw on data from particular aspects of
the observations, from student and teacher interview data, from the students' texts, and
from the writing conferences the older students conducted with younger students; the cross
case comparisons draw from observational data, writing conferences with younger
students, and texts. Although the overall guiding principle was triangulation of data (both
in the sense of obtaining the participants' views and the researchers views, and in the
sense of combining different types of data to make an argument stronger and more valid),
each chapter with accompanying level of analysis needs detailed explication.

My procedure for doing analysis was both deductive and inductive. I had begun my
analysis with a particular question in mind, namely the nature of internalization, and two
particular categories I wanted to use: content and conversational strategies. However, as I
became immersed in the data, other issues, patterns, and themes emerged including

intersubjectivity which came to play a key role in the ways in which I made sense of the

 

63

Table 1 Summary of Categories of Analysis

WW
Observational data
Content
Activity structure of writing workshop
mini-lessons
writing time
conferring
shafing
Teacher's image of good writing
Teacher interviews
Wm
Observational data
content
body language and proxemic cues
conversational moves by the teacher
prosodic cues
conversational moves by the student
Student interview data
Texts
Students' conferences with younger students
W
Teacher-student conferences

Writing conferences with younger students

Texts

'nra

:1

”.0

lb.

.1:

64

data. Therefore, there was a continual interplay between beginning with theories and
categories and checking those against the data, and starting with the data to move to
“grounded theory” (Glaser 8 Strauss, 1967).
Dexeloainafilassroomlhames

The observational data from classroom interactions were my primary sources of
data for developing classroom themes. From the narratives of the classroom, which were
developed from a combination of my field notes, watching the videotapes, and the verbatim
transcriptions of the audiotapes recorded during classroom interactions, I discerned
several recurring activity structures, events, and relationships between teacher and
students. These recurring events developed into the classroom themes.
95mm

First, I analyzed the content (the main ideas of the sessions) of the 17 observations

by rereading the narratives and establishing a logical way in which the sessions were
organized. The two major ideas the teacher expressed as being important were: (a) the
focus on literature and (b) the process of fuming notebooks into projects. These ideas
were interrelated and occurred throughout the five weeks. Three phases emerged as I
organized the observational data: (a) notebooks and qualities of good writing; (b) moving
to projects through writing conferences; and (c) using literature to improve writing.
These phases seemed to capture both the teacher's goals and the ways in which the topics
and interaction patterns related to one another. I then selected the most salient events and
phrases from the narratives of each day, while providing a description of the case study
students' involvement to present in brief narrative form.
II “HI SI | I ”III III I |

The Teachers College Writing Project uses the term “Writing Workshop“ to
describe the types of events related to students' participation in writing. I have added the
term “activity structure“ to designate the types of activities that took place within Ms.

Meyer's classroom. To establish the common interaction patterns, I drew upon my

9,153?”

as

:\E UVLI

:' o
u: a

65

existing knowledge about how Writing Workshops are often established (e.g., with a mini-
lesson, writing and conferring time, and sharing) and sought to understand how the
structure of Ms. Meyer's classroom was similar to or different from the ones described by
Calkins (1986). Because the teacher used Calkins' (1986) terms, and had established a
Writing Workshop in her classroom, I used the same overall categories and labelled the
observational data accordingly: (a) mini-lessons; (b) writing time; (c) conferring; (d)
sharing. However, by analyzing the data more closely, I came to understand how the
phases of the Workshop in Ms. Meyer's classroom were more dynamic than in other
Project classrooms.

Mini-Jeanna. To understand the patterns of the mini-lessons, I read through all of
the mini-lessons several times and viewed the videotapes, making note of the language the
teacher used, the cues she gave to students about when it was appropriate to respond, and
the pace of the lessons. I then selected three observations (10/19, 10/24, and 11/2) to
watch in closer detail; these three had lengthy mini-lessons, seemed typical of the types of
interactions present in the classroom, and contained rich information about the teacher's,
trainers', and students' perceptions of the qualities of good writing, which I had already
identified as an important theme. From these observations, I observed the pace of the
lesson, the kinds of questions the teacher asked students, the teacher's involvement with
the literature and the ideas, and the amount of participation by the students.

W. While in the field, I had been puzzled about how it was that students
knew when it was appropriate to talk to peers during writing and when it was not. I
pursued this in interviews with both the teacher and students and drew upon these data to
write about ”quiet writing time." A key incident with one of the students had caught my
attention and I used this as a vignette to explore in more detail to provide information
about the larger theme of the messages the teacher was communicating to students during

writing.

‘An. , I
a. _

5‘ Pa.
q .
"" ‘

66

Qaniamm. I developed the teacher's conferring patterns by selecting three days
in which the teacher had conducted from 6-8 conferences on each day. I read the
transcripts from these conferences several times to understand how the teacher began the
conference, what transpired in the middle, and how the conferences ended. From these
conferences, I interpreted a pattern and then tried this pattern out on additional
conferences, checking for disconfirming conference structures.

Sharing. I read through the transcripts, noting how sharing time was organized
during different writing sessions. I looked for frequency of share sessions within the
writing period, number of students who shared their work each time, and which students
seemed to share more often than others. I also discerned the patterns of where students
and the teacher sat when they shared their work, especially whether these sessions were
held on the rug or at students' tables.

W

The idea for this section evolved from reading the transcripts and noticing that the
teacher had specific ideas she wanted to convey to the students about what constituted good
writing. I developed this section as a backdrop against which to compare the students.
Developing the ideas for the teacher's image of good writing section was complex. I
selected these themes by rereading my narratives and the verbatim transcripts several
times, highlighting key phrases, important events, and ideas that stood out. I tried out
several category systems before I finally settled on the one I present. This category
system was developed by organizing all of the recurring phrases into the categories of
personal experience, selecting a genre for a particular audience, elements of language and
style, and organization and focus. Within these categories the tapics of strategies the
teacher used such as modeling, examples of texts used, assignments, and language cues
emerged as capable of capturing the relevant events. The teacher's interview data also
provided evidence about her own beliefs about important themes of the classroom. I

analyzed all interview data that was relevant to her perspective on writing and selected

67

particular passages to use in this section. I looked for overall themes to capture the
teacher's image, but examined disconfirming examples as well.
Qasasotthasmdams

The individual cases of the students drew from the complete data set including
students' interviews, the teacher's interviews, writing conferences with younger
students, classroom observation data, and students' texts. Triangulation of data was
essential to developing the cases. The Harre model provided organization to present data
from the four cases in a comparable manner.

Initially, I approached the cases by having a folder for each individual student on
my word processor, then developing subfolders for chronologically identifying interview
data, relevant fieldnotes, transcripts of teacher-student conferences, and transcripts of
student-student conferences. Further, students' texts were organized chronologically,
separating notebook materials from ”project“ materials. I then analyzed students' data on
a case by case basis, trying to understand each student‘s point of view and what was unique
about each student's internalization process.

h H _ .H h. ”I . m" H ”1.”, J. I.“ H 0.”. .

My analysis of the observation data proceeded in several ways. First, while still in
the field, I wrote a summary of each case study'student's participation in classroom
activities at the end of each day. In these summaries I noted whether the student had
participated in the classroom discussion, whether she had had a conference with the
teacher or a peer, whether I had interviewed her, and what she wrote in her notebook or
for her project that day. These notes aided me in the more in-depth analysis. Using the
observational data set on each student, I could look for patterns of student participation and
understanding of the particular events that had transpired.

Next, I selected all the teacher-student conferences for a particular student and
performed a systematic microanalysis, similar to Erickson's (1977) microethnography.

I conducted a detailed analysis on these segments of video and audiotape because. as I got

68

deeper into my analysis, the conferences seemed increasingly important in finding out if
and how the teacher and student established intersubjectivity. Through this process I
defined intersubjectivity as "a temporary shared reality,“ in line with Rommetveit's
(1979) definition. The link between intersubjectivity and internalization became more
significant as I struggled to make sense of the individual cases. The importance of these
conferences as windows to understand the classroom discourse was substantiated by
meetings with individuals and a group of researchers who corroborated and expanded many
of my emerging theories and offered some of their own.8

First, I edited each of the conferences for accuracy of transcription by listening to
the tapes repeatedly. Then, I watched the videotape segments of the conferences to get a
sense of the event. Next, I read the transcripts of an individual writing conference and
asked myself, "What appears to be going on here?” By using an inductive approach, I
formulated some hypotheses about what was occurring. l segmented parts of the data into
meaningful units that seemed to capture certain aspects. For instance, with Ella's
conferences, I found that a sequence of events took place that I labelled, “finding a shared
topic,” "establishing a shared meaning," ”problem solving,“ and “recommendations for
revision.“ Even though this structure did not end up being the final presentation in the
case, it helped me to find patterns within an individual conference.

I used various units of analysis, depending on the meaning that seemed to be
developing between participants. For instance, the larger turn exchanges such as that just
described for Ella helped in understanding how the communication between speakers was
unfolding generally. However, I also examined the individual turn of each speaker and
what messages were being conveyed. In the transcripts of the conferences presented in the

cases, I have labelled the dialogue exchanges by numbering the turn exchanges sequentially

 

 

8I wish to thank the video group consisting of Susan FIorio-Ruane, Sue McMahon,
David Eichinger, Jim Reineke, Ruth Heaton, Jenny Denyer, and Dan Chazan for
their many contributions and insights into my teacher-student conference data.

69

from the approach of the first speaker and ending with the words of the last speaker; this
provides the reader with a means to orient the dialogue presented within the whole
exchange. In addition to these types of analyses, I also examined the specific utterances
within each turn exchange. An utterance is the unit of talk that has meaning; therefore, a
short 'Mhmmm" can carry as much significance as a long statement about how a student
might change her piece.

In analyzing the conferences, I noted several features of the dialogue. First, the
conferences focused around particular content--what the participants said. Second, how
the teacher and students conveyed their messages was essential to whether they established
intersubjectivity. Several features of the ways in which speakers communicated surfaced
including: (a) body language and proxemic cues; (b) conversational moves by the teacher;
(c) prosodic cues; and (d) conversational moves by the student. These are all features of
the social interaction between teacher and student that are indicators of communication
during the appropriation phase of internalization. I discuss each of these below. Each of
these types of analysis provided a means to approach what transpired between teacher and
student, yet it was the gestalt of the interaction that was important.

Qantanl. As I looked at the transcripts, I noticed that certain patterns emerged
concerning the conference content--what the teacher and students talked about. The
teacher and student tended to discuss the topic of the project students had selected or were
about to select; the genre or form of the writing; or the organization of the piece. When
discussing the topic of the project, the teacher focused on students' previous entries,
having the student try and identify themes, issues, or particular persons about which the
student had written. In discussing genre, the teacher used the categories of fiction vs.
non-fiction, letter, speech, story, or poem. Conferences about organization focused on

themes, leads, or sequencing of sections. Sometimes several of these topics were discussed

in one conference.

70

WW. Because other researchers (e.g., Hall, 1966;
Erickson & Mohatt, 1982) have found that body language and proxemic cues can be very

Important in communicating messages to others, I viewed the videotapes of the individual
conferences with the teacher from eight-ten times each, jotting down when a participant
in the event smiled, laughed, or nodded. I also noted the distance between speakers and
whether they faced each other because these details can provide information about how the
participants perceive and feel about each other. I also indicated when participants made
eye contact with one another.

WWW. Several researchers studying the language of
classrooms have noted the common structure of classroom discourse (e.g., Cazden, 1988;
Coulthard, 1977; Mehan, 1979; Willes, 1983). They have identified strategies that
teachers often use with students such as eliciting (asking questions), informing (making
declarative statements), and directing (giving commands). I drew from these general
categories to analyze the teacher's moves in the classroom I studied and formed four main
categories: (a) interrogatives; (b) statements; (c) commands/recommendations; and (d)
expressive cues. I considered utterances that ended with a question as interrogatives.
However, these interrogatives served different functions within the context. For instance,
some interrogatives requested specific information such as, ”So you actually have that
entry? . . . Now are there other parts, other entries where that happens?" Other
interrogatives were much more open-ended such as, “Okay, you want to talk?” In still
others, the teacher raised her voice at the end, but was actually summarizing the student's
responses. An example of the summary, which also had the function of suggesting that the
student ought to do something, was this, "You've started to look through your notebook,
take all the good stuff and copy it over and work it into one piece?” Here the teacher was
summarizing what the student had done, but was also suggesting if he had not, he should.

I distinguished statements from commands with the former providing information

to the student, while the latter directed the student to do something in particular. A

71

statement provided information to the student about what the teacher was thinking. For
instance, when the teacher said, "I wasn't asking what you were thinking about her. I was
asking what you were thinking about you.“ Statements also functioned in different ways
within different contexts. The previous example was a statement of fact. A statement of
"That's terrific” had the function of praising the student, while other statements seemed to
summarize and extend what the student had said. For instance, the utterance, “You know
how you start feeling like the whale and that kind of led you to thinking about the killer
whale is your favorite whale.” In this case, the teacher is not directing the student to do
something but rather is extending what the student has suggested or agreed to.

Commands on the other hand, directed a student to do something. However, I
distinguished between different types of directives, mostly through whether they seemed
insistent or were mere recommendations. Often the teacher couched her suggestions in
'might's" or "could's' which I considered recommendations, whereas at other times she
used more directive language such as, “You need to really go through this book very
carefully and read it very carefully and take another color pen.“

In looking at the transcripts and listening to the tapes, I noticed that words such as
'Mhmmm' or 'Ok" seemed to serve different functions in different contexts and I set out to
understand these uses within the individual cases. For instance, for some students,
'mhmmm's" by the teacher served as encouragement, while for others the 'Mhmmm's"
were merely acceptance or indicated boredom. I made these judgments on the basis of
prosodic cues--the ways in which the teacher used her voice.

W. Gumperz (1982) defines prosodic phenomena as voice cues that
include (a) intonation (pitch levels on individual syllables); (b) changes in loudness; (c)
stress (general feature that incorporates variations in loudness, pitch, and duration); (d)

vowel length variations; (e) chunking by pausing; and (f) overall shifts in speech
register. I considered these features as I listened to the conferences and focused on which

ones seemed to make a difference in the communication between teacher and student. Next,

72

I attempted to train myself using Trim's (1973) categorical scheme for grouping English
intonation into one of seven patterns.9 This detail of coding did not seem essential for
understanding the discourse of the teacher and students. Nor did my word processor allow
for easy notation of such a system. When examining my data, the crucial prosodic cues
that seemed to play a role in whether the teacher and students developed intersubjectivity
were (a) intonation in a general sense--whether the teacher raised her voice at the end of
statements to turn them into questions; (b) pauses and overlapping talk; (c) stressed
words; and (d) changes in loudness or speed.

As I read through the conference data and listened repeatedly to the audiotapes of the
conferences, l devised a notation system to capture the interactions. I used question marks
to indicate a rising intonation. Question marks also suggest the speaker expected either a
verbal or nonverbal response. I developed a system to denote pauses because I thought that
pauses and overlapping talk might be indicators of the synchrony and comfort between
speakers, depending on the particular context. For instance, Tannen (1984) found that
overlapping talk was comfortable and a sign of participants relating well in a conversation
in some cases, whereas overlapping talk made others quite uncomfortable. Pauses can
suggest whether the speaker is anticipating a response, but can also indicate discomfort or
comfort on the part of the speakers. I investigated Michaels' (1987) work using a system
of slashes to indicate pauses, as well as Tannen's (1984) work using a series of dots to
indicate time elapsed as possible notation systems, before selecting the one I did. First, to
indicate pauses, I placed pause marks (I a short pause) and (I/ = long pause) in the

transcripts. I did not time the length of the pauses, but chose a simple short pause, longer

 

9 These patterns include low fall, high fall, low rise, high rise, fall-rise, rise-
fall, and rise-falI-rise. Each of these patterns can fall within the overall
categorization of questions, commands, or statements. For instance, the ”high
rise“ can turn a statement into a question or it can be used to repeat an order in a
command.

73

pause system as being sufficient for my purposes. Next, to indicate overlapping talk, I
placed the marks (--) into the transcripts.

A feature that emerged from the data as being important was the stressed word. I
noticed that at certain points In the conversations, the teacher or student would repeat the
idea mentioned by the other speaker; the words that were stressed by each speaker seemed
to be operating as cues. I went through all of the transcripts of the conferences,
repeatedly listening to the tapes, noting words stressed by each speaker. These are
indicated by the underlining of each stressed word in a phrase; words that are emphasized
more than usual are underlined and italicized.

The last type of analyses of prosodic cues that I used included pitch and speed,
especially with regard to the teacher who increased or decreased volume and pace at
certain points in the conferences. The most convenient way to indicate these changes was
by setting them off in brackets and italiclzing these features. For instance, I wrote
[Increased speeol to indicate a change in pace. When not otherwise noted, the reader may
assume that the pitch and volume are within the normal range for this teacher or student.

WWW. Because communication involves at least two
parties, I wanted to represent the students' discourse patterns in the conferences. Reading
the data over several times, it appeared that students were using several types of moves in
their responses to the teacher. Student moves fell into one of several categories: (a)
explanations in response to a question by the teacher; (b) agreement with the teacher such
as 'yeah" or "sure;" (c) disagreements with the teacher such as 'no" or “not really;" (d)
initiating a new topic for discussion; (e) requesting information from the teacher; or (f)
transitions such as ”Well.“ An example of an explanation in response to the teacher's
question might be, "I do have every single entry here, they're all different.” Initiating a
new topic for discussion occurred when the student introduced a topic that the teacher had

not previously asked about. A request for information included, "It's due next week?” I

74

used these categories as general guidelines to analyze students' responses. Prosodic cues
including enthusiasm in voice were also indicators of students' responses.

Although I employed many different analytical schemes on the conferences with
students, the guiding principle for me was: What is the function of this statement, change
of tone, or pause in this particular context? At this point in time, I did not numerically
score any of the sections of the conferences. Instead, I selected from these features when
relevant to the discourse and used these analyses in the interpretations I present in the
cases (see Table 2 for notation scheme).

After reading all of the interview data for a particular student several times, I
marked relevant passages from the interviews. Next, I developed the categories of
background, views about writing, writing topics, and the teacher's views of the student for
analyzing the entry interviews. I organized the exit Interview data around the ideas that
seemed central to the classroom discourse: use of the personal, description and imagery,
audience, and organization. However, these categories did not capture the essence of every
child. For instance, as I read through Ella's data, the most significant issue seemed to be
her interest in fiction writing as well as in notebook writing. Therefore, I moved between
inductive analysis, in which I tried to discern the most salient features of writing from
the student's perspective, and deductive analysis resulting from categories I had identified
from the overall classroom themes.

The informal interviews were used to understand the students' perspectives on the
conferences that had just occurred and their developing understanding of their own texts. I
selected relevant passages from these to present, providing evidence of the student's

perspective.

75

Table 2 Key to Transcription Conventions

1 . number of turn in sequence of dialogue
/ short pause

/ / longer pause

undariina marks emphatic stress

italics marks more emphatic stress

CAPS mark very emphatic stress

- - overlapping talk of speakers
? marks question, rising intonation

[brackets] are used for comments on pitch, amplitude,
quality of speech

(parentheses) used for comments about actions such as nods

(inaudible) indicates transcription impossible

76

mummmmanzam

I had available to me all of the students' notebook writing since the beginning of the
year as well as their projects. I read all of the examples from their notebooks and
categorized them into topics that emerged from their writing. Consulting with an expert
in the field,10 I also examined stylistic features such as elements of an oral text, that
emerged from the texts. For analysis of the texts constructed for the projects, I used both
inductive categories that emerged from the individual texts as well as more deductive
categories I developed from using the teacher‘s image of an effective piece. These
categories included features such as use of imagery and figurative language and
organization. My analysis of imagery and figurative language was aided by Lukens'
(1990) book on children's literature.

0:. ' oi::|o,; ,i 0 io- 0;. ' ;ioi: iio,o,0i I:t'=0l

In analyzing the students' conferences with younger students, I used the two major
categories of content and conversational style. Topics within each of these categories
emerged from the data. For instance, description and imagery was a relevant category for
the topics of two students' conferences, while a focus on the author and a focus on
mechanics and spelling emerged for another student. I discovered these categories by
reading the students' conference data several times and noting when the topics students
discussed shifted. I traced these ideas back to the content of the classroom discourse,
checking to see if similar topics were discussed. I then selected characteristic samples
from the data to use to explain what the students had internalized.

I analyzed the conversational styles of the students by using a similar, but less
detailed structure to that of the teacher-student conferences. For the student-student
conferences, the primary focus was on what they had internalized and used from the

classroom dialogue, not whether they had established intersubjectivity with the younger

 

‘0 I wish to thank Eliot Singer for sharing his knowledge of text with me and, in
particular, helping me to understand elements of an oral text.

77

students. Therefore, I used a scaled down version of the conversational moves by the case
study students. In this version, I examined the moves of the case study students into (a)
questions; (b) commands or recommendations; or (c) informative statements. Utterances
such as ”What do you want to do to make the book better?” were considered questions.
Directives included statements such as ”You should really listen“ whereas
recommendations consisted of statements such as “You can write about that.“ Informative
statements consisted of “Now that's actually like a diary” where the student explained
something to the other child. I also looked for the amount of talk of each participant and
overall tone of the conferences and how the younger child seemed to be responding. I used
these ideas as a guide as I found patterns in the ways in which the older students were
conducting the conferences.
WWW

To make the comparisons among the students I proceeded inductively and
deductively. I used my understanding of the individual students in a holistic way to
compare the ways in which they interacted with the teacher, the manner in which they
conducted their own conferences, and the texts they produced. I also used the categories I
had used inductively, described in the previous section, in a more defined, deductive way.
That is, I had a hunch, backed with evidence, that the teacher was interacting differently
with different students.
W

In comparing the teacher-student conferences, I sought ways to understand if and
how the teacher and student established intersubjectivity. I did this in two ways: (a) by
identifying key moments in the conferences that seemed crucial to the interactions; and
(b) through establishing categories of content and conversational style to look across
students. I identified the key moments by reading the conferences several times and
understanding the development of the interaction. Uptake, integrating one speaker's ideas

into subsequent discussion, emerged as a salient feature of teacher-student interactions.

78

Therefore, I examined particular segments of dialogue, focusing on whether uptake on the
part of the speakers had occurred.

Next, I wanted to understand the pattern of the whole conference of each student to
make comparisons. In using the category system to examine the conference as a a whole, I
examined both the content of what occurred in the conferences and the conversational
styles of the teacher and student. I divided the content into the categories of (a) the topics
that were discussed; (b) language cues such as “important“; and (c) encouraging words.
These three features emerged from the data as factors in establishing intersubjectivity.

To understand the conversational styles of teacher and student, I compared the
teacher-student interactions along the dimensions of: (a) body language and proxemic
cues; (b) conversational moves by the teacher; (c) prosodic cues; and (d) conversational
moves by the student. I further categorized the conversational moves by the teacher in
each of the conferences into (a) interrogatives; (b) statements; (c) commands; or (d)
expressive cues. I then characterized interactions within those categories. Using the
features of (a) explanation; (b) agreement; (c) disagreement; (d) initiating a topic; (e)
requests for information; or (f) transitions, I examined the conversational moves by the
student.

However, these categories served to guide my understanding of the interactions and
as a basis for comparison. I used the categories not to tally, but rather as guiding
principles to establish the kinds of patterns that occurred within each conference. Based
on the various patterns of the data, I described the ways in which the teacher and student
established intersubjectivity and made comparisons. I made these assessments based on
examining the data in a holistic manner after considering each of the types of analysis, and
then providing examples to substantiate these claims.

”IT [I I III 1! SI l |
Next I compared the writing conferences the older students conducted. I compared

what the students talked about in those conferences with the important themes such as

79

imagery and figurative Iangauge that had emerged from the classroom dialogue. I examined
what the students discussed and then looked back at the classroom transcripts to see if the
dialogue linked to the ideas presented.

When comparing the students' conversational styles--the ways in which they
communicated their ideas, I looked for overall concepts to capture their styles. For
instance, a style in which the older student was continually telling the younger child what
to do constituted a ”didactic” style. In contrast, when the older student listened to the
younger students' ideas, the style was characterized as that of an interviewer or as
Calkins' (1986) ideal teacher. These styles emerged inductively from the data to
characterize a particular type of interaction between two children. To link these styles
back to the classroom dialogue, I searched for evidence to characterize in a holisitic way
the manner in which the teacher had interacted with the individual student. I compared
these interactions to the student-student interactions.
lens

To compare what students had internalized from the classroom dialogue that
reemerged in their texts, I used the features that characterized the teacher's image of good
writing. The features of (a) personal experience; (b) language and style; (c) audience;
and (d) organization and focus seemed like logical dimensions by which to compare
students. Because the teacher had attempted to convey these aspects of good writing either
implicitly or explicitly to the students, they seemed appropriate features to use. I
examined students' texts for these features and noted whether they were present or not. I
also examined other features of students' texts that emerged from their individual
constructions and used these when appropriate.

We

After establishing categories to look at the various data, I next decided to make

links among the classroom observation data, the texts, the writing conferences with

younger students, and the interviews. Certain themes, ideas, and concepts related to the

80

content of classroom discourse provided a means of linking the data. Identifying the
components of the teacher's image of good writing: writing from personal experience, use
of language and style, audience and genre, and organization and focus allowed me some
overarching categories to examine the students' interviews, texts, and writing conferences
with younger students. I used these organizing themes, while maintaining sensitivity to
other issues and ideas that might emerge as I tried to take other perspectives. The
conversational style categories that came from the observational data provided some
categories for trying to link students' styles to the interactions. However, the categories
were flexible and dynamic.

l have attempted to present the analysis of the cases as proceeding in a logical
fashion; however, it was anything but linear. Instead, the analysis was both inductive,
examining the data closely, and deductive, drawing from theoretical schemes from existing
literature. Analysis was dynamic and interwoven, and frustrating as I went down many
blind alleys and encountered many unexpected problems.

Prior to data collection, I had envisioned the analytical task as a fairly
straightforward one of tracing certain ideas, key words, and categories back to the
classroom interactions. After struggling with the data as well as trying many analytic
schemes, I found that the one-to-one correspondence model I had envisioned simply did not
apply. Instead, a metaphor that more nearly approximates the task was that of attempting
to describe a rich, complex pattern of cloth as it Is being woven, while attempting to
identify the original strands of yarn. In the process of analysis, I would identify a
particular color, texture, or pattern and try to trace it to its origin, yet the threads would
become intermingled and woven together.

In this process, I have made some thematic links between the social interaction in

which students engaged and what they subsequently internalized. Through continually

81

triangulating the data from the cases and searching for disconfirrning examples, I have
attempted a systematic analysis of complex, qualitative data. Next I present the chapters

that discuss what I Ieamed in classroom 555.

CHAPTER4
CLASSROOM THEMES AND PATTERNS OF INTERACTION

In this chapter, I set the larger context for the cases of the individual students.
Because the four students I followed as cases were part of this particular classroom where
certain norms of interaction prevailed and the teacher had particular objectives and
images of writing she wanted to convey to students, exploring the classroom themes is
essential. The chapter describes the classroom around two central themes: (a) the content
and structure of the particular lessons taught by the teacher, Ms. Mayer, often in
collaboration with trainers from Teachers College and (b) the teacher's image of effective
writing. I have chosen these themes because the first one provides both a narrative of the
lessons I saw and a means of understanding the organizational structure of the classroom,
while the second theme allows us to understand how the teacher's views of writing may
have influenced student learning.

The Content and Structure of Lessons

The work of Lucy Calkins (1986) and particularly Calkins' latest work, Liyina
W (1991) strongly influenced the content and the structure of the lessons
during the writing period. For instance, Calkins (1991) advocates having students keep
writer's notebooks in which they can record events, memories, and reflections of their
lives. Sharing literature with students as models of powerful writing is a strong
component of the model. Calkins (1986) also promotes establishing a ”predictable
structure“ in which students can write and teachers can respond to student writing. This
structure includes establishing a consistent daily writing period for students in which
they participate in mini-Iessons--teacher directed lessons to discuss qualities of good
writing, revision strategies, or editing; writing time where students work alone on their
drafts; conferences-both teacher-student and peer conferences; and share sessions in

which student/authors read their writing to others and get feedback.

82

83

Ms. Mayer used many of these features in her classroom. Students kept writer's
notebooks and selected pieces to turn into projects for a particular audience; the teacher
made extensive use of literature as examples of good writing; and the teacher established a
time of the day devoted exclusively to writing. However, due to personal idiosyncrasies,
contextual constraints, and her years of experience as a writing-process teacher, Ms.
Meyer implemented her own version of the Workshop.

The first deviation from the Calkins' model is in the consistency of the writing
period. In Ms. Meyer's classroom, writing was rarely at the same time, depending on Ms.
Henderson's schedule and the schedule for the rest of the school day. In fact, I called Ms.
Meyer nightly to find out what time writing was scheduled for the next day. Second, Ms.
Meyer used the activity structure quite freely, not necessarily including all the features
such as mini-lesson, writing, conferring, and sharing on a daily basis nor in a particular
order. Instead, she interspersed these elements depending on what she wanted to
accomplish that day. Sometimes she wanted students to talk about literature together In
the whole group, while at other times she focused on helping students with their individual
projects. Ms. Meyer established norms of interaction within this activity structure that
shared some elements with the published versions of the Writing Workshop (e.g., Calkins
8 Harwayne, 1987), but also reflected her own interpretation and adaptation. Below I
begin by describing the content of Ms. Meyer's lessons and then discuss the activity
structure in her classroom.

998nm

In her book, Wm, Calkins (1991) described writers'
notebooks as ”invitations to write” (p. 38) in which children like writers could generate
entries, make notes, write rough drafts, use descriptions, or record whatever it is they
notice about the world around them. Notebooks are the records of students' lives or

observations about the world that they could draw from to create more polished pieces to

84

be shared with a wider audience. Notebooks are the “raw material” to be shaped and
elaborated upon.

Projects are described by Calkins as revised pieces that come from the notebooks.
In selecting topics, students can find “the meaning in the moments“ (p. 74) and should
select topics that ”feel significant.“ Topics can come from puzzling lines and anecdotes in
notebooks, or topics might come from entries that use beautiful language or ”reveal
something bigger“ (p. 61). According to Calkins, projects are intended for real world
audiences. Drawing largely from Calkins, Ms. Meyer defined projects as consisting of a
collection of entries about a person, event, or something ”important“ to the writer to be
developed and shared with a particular audience.

Students had been writing in their notebooks for about three weeks when my
observations began. In the class sessions I observed, the students continued writing in
their notebooks for about two more weeks. Students then moved on to selecting topics for
their projects from their notebooks, working on their projects, and then revising them
for a particular audience of the student's choice. Different students moved from notebooks
to projects at different points in the five weeks. Students subsequently shared these
projects with their parents at an afternoon school session.

In the next section, I describe the content of the lessons related to the notebooks and
projects. For purposes of analysis I have divided the 17 class sessions I observed into
three phases: (a) discussion of qualities of good writing found in literature to generate
notebook entries; (b) the transition from notebooks to projects through the use of
conferences; and (c) use of literature for revising and editing project pieces. I have
hypothesized these phases based on the teacher's plans and implementations. Because the
actual content of the various lessons was essential to this classroom, I provide a brief

narrative of each of the lessons I observed.

85

El I'Illl | III III [E IIII'II

Phase I of the class sessions took place primarily during weeks one and two of my
observations. The focus of these sessions was on providing examples of “good writing“ and
identifying those qualities for students to Include in their own notebook writing. Examples
included texts from literature, from the teacher and trainer's notebooks, from students'
work from previous years, and from current students' notebooks. In the following
descriptions of the content and events of the Writing Workshop during my five-week stay,
I have Included the major events, the focus of the content of the lesson, key phrases, and

major interactions of any of the case study students.

Iasling_mamaflas (10/9). The first class session I observed had three parts: a
mini-lesson, writing time, and sharing time. Ms. Henderson, the trainer, emphasized the
importance of students rereading their notebooks, looking for ”the real meaning.“ Ms.
Henderson used Fiom's (a student) example of writing about the porch as an example of a
writer who had expanded on one particular idea. Both Ms. Meyer and Ms. Henderson
selected a line from their own notebooks and told that line to students.

Ms. Henderson described how she had reread her own notebook to find the deeper
meaning behind her own experience. Her description included having read in the paper
that it would have been John Lennon's 50th birthday which reminded her of the song,
“Imagine" he had written. From that song she wrote about her friend in Providence who
worked in a soup kitchen. Ms. Henderson suggested that “the real meaning" behind her
notebook entry was the discovery that one person could make a difference. Ms. Meyer then
instructed students to try and "get to the bottom of something" by rereading their
notebooks and expanding upon something already written or by writing a new entry.

During writing time, Ms. Henderson and Ms. Meyer wrote in their own notebooks.
At the sharing session, Ms. Mayer read her piece that started out with "I can almost taste
the memories" that described laughing with an old friend. Ms. Henderson read her piece

that was sparked by John Lennon's birthday and the idea of making a difference. Four

86

students shared their pieces including Anthony who shared his first story about his
grandmother and Ella who wrote about a best friend.

Wanna (10/10). The session began with a student reading
his piece about bazooka bubble gum to which Ms. Meyer responded that he had ”focused in

like a camera lens,“ using detail. Next Ms. Meyer read a portion from ”Autumn Street" in
which Lois Lowry describes in detail the taste of school milk. Discussion focused around
using beautiful language. Ms. Mayer told students to underline descriptive pieces in their
own writing and to expand upon them. Ms. Meyer wrote along with the students during
writing time. During the share session, eight students including Miguel volunteered to
share examples from their notebooks. Miguel read aloud his piece about being followed by

a shark. Ms. Meyer had called on three other students who declined to read because they

did not feel they were ready.

Wain: (10/11). For the mini-lesson, Ms. Meyer

read a piece written by a student from a previous year, about being at a baseball game with
his grandfather. The paper was read as an example of how the student focused on one thing
and described that in detail. As students pointed out what was good about the piece of
writing, key phrases such as "using description,“ “using beautiful language,” and
”focusing on certain moments” emerged. Next, Ms. Meyer read aloud WhanJJflaflaunan
maMaumains by Cynthia Rylant. The subsequent teacher-led discussion focused on
description, the use of beautiful language, forming pictures in the reader's mind, and
writing about something you know well because ”that's how you get the best language.” Ms.
Mayer and the students then had about a 25-minute writing time in which they were to
take one entry and write it In "beautiful language" in the way that Cynthia Rylant had.
Four students including Ella, who read her “Catskills” piece, and Miguel, who read his
piece entitled ”Man's Best Friend, the Car" shared their pieces with the group. Ms. Meyer

closed the share session by reading her own piece about autumn in Connecticut.

87

W (10/12). During the mini-lesson, Ms. Meyer had
students focus on qualities of good writing by coming up with a list. First, Ms. Meyer
asked students to provide examples of her 'hate" list; students correctly provided words
such as ”nice” and ”good.” During the discussion of qualities of good writing, students
suggested ideas such as descriptive language, sticking to one subject, using a good
structure especially starting out with a strong beginning, and providing excitement for the
reader. “Keeping the reader on his/her toes“ was the expression that Miguel used to
express suspenseful writing. Anita did not respond when the teacher called on her for an
answer during the discussion. Anthony contributed his idea of “the pineapple filled my
mouth with joy" about which Ms. Meyer became excited. Five students shared their
examples of good writing. Ella read her piece about handicapped people; and Anthony read
his piece about his grandmother dying. Students then went back to their seats to write for
the rest of the period.

8918mm: (10/15). Ms. Henderson, the trainer, began the mini-
lesson by reading a portion from WWII. one of the Babysitter
Club books, by Anne M. Martin in which the character describes and gives examples of the
difference between diaries and notebooks. Diaries are recordings of daily events, while
notebook entries are "deep, sensitive, and interesting.” Ms. Henderson led a discussion on
the differences between them, read an example of a diary entry from her notebook, and
then read an example of a notebook entry in which she identified procrastination as an
issue for her. Students stayed on the rug and wrote diary entries. Four students and Ms.
Meyer read their diary entries aloud. Students then were to identify an important issue in
their diary entry to turn into a notebook entry. Three students including Ella, who wrote
about not being able to find something to wear, shared their notebook entries. Ms. Meyer
read her piece about being envious of a friend with cancer who was a very strong
character. Ms. Henderson directed a discussion about the differences between diaries and

notebooks, suggesting that diaries were like grocery lists because they both merely listed

88

things, while notebooks identified significant events or issues. Students went back to their
seats to find an issue to write about. Ms. Henderson and Ms. Meyer talked to two students
back on the rug about how you could make many different things out of your notebook

entries.

AQhaiLLQLmLMgmaI (10/17). During the mini-lesson, students read and
selected significant lines from Vera B. Williams' W. Ms. Henderson

asked students to focus on the writing, not on the particular topic. Discussion focused on
use of details, forming a picture in the reader's mind, use of flashback, comparisons, when
a grocery list type of description can be powerful, and convincing the reader. Ms.
Henderson asked students to imagine and provide ideas for what the author's notebook
might have been like from which to draw on for this particular piece. Ella and Anthony
contributed ideas to the discussion. Students went back to their seats to write about
anything of their choice. Ms. Meyer and Ms. Henderson both conferred with two students,
and each of them conducted a conference with one other student during writing time.
Jenny (10/19). During the mini-lesson, Ms. Mayer read five short poems from
the book, Jenny, and students were to jot down ideas on yellow "Post-its” about what the
poems in ,lanny meant in their own lives. Students were also supposed to look in their own
notebooks to see if they had any entries like the poems. Five students shared pieces they
thought resembled the poems from Janny. In the subsequent discussion, Ms. Meyer
emphasized the use of description, focusing on one aspect like a camera lens, and the use of
beautiful language that had been represented in the poems. Ms. Mayer then instructed
students to go back to their seats and write entries from the “Post-its“ where they had
jotted down ideas related to the poems. Ms. Meyer had individual conferences with five
students, and a small group conference with three girls. During the share session which
was held in their seats, Anthony shared his writing with the group, but Ms. Meyer
responded that he had spent too much time talking and not enough writing. Four students

shared their pieces.

89

WOO/22). For the mini-lesson, Ms. Meyer read aloud to students
from Jean Little's book, jamming. The chapter was about the girl in the story
Ieaming to read. Students were instructed to write down in their notebooks whatever
came to mind as they listened to the book. Ms. Meyer had brief individual conferences with
six students including Miguel. For the share session, students did not read what they had
written. Instead, Ms. Mayer asked them if the book had affected what they wrote. Students
then volunteered the topics about which they had written and how those topics connected to
the book. One of the student's comments reminded Ms. Meyer of the death of her cat; Ms.
Mayer ended writing time by telling the students about her fear of telling her daughter,

who was very attached to the cat, about the death.

El 2,”. IE . I II IIII'I' Cl

Phase 2 of the observation period, taking place within weeks three and four,
consisted of mini-lessons and conferences about selecting topics and working on projects
for an audience. Conferences during this time differed from previous conferences in that
they focused specifically on selecting a topic for a project. Although chapters from the
book Linla_by_l_inla were read aloud on two occasions, literature was the background
during this phase, while topic selection was highlighted. The teacher and the trainers used
two key metaphors to describe the process of moving from notebooks to projects: (a)
taking bread dough (the notebook) and shaping it into many different forms (a particular
genre); and (b) mining for gold (notebook entries) to turn into a jewel (polished
project).

W (10/23). Ms. Hall, another trainer from Teachers
College, joined Ms. Henderson and Ms. Meyer on this day for the mini-lesson. Ms. Hall
brought in a figure woven from yarn of three girls of different ethnic backgrounds sitting
on a park bench. She asked students to generate ideas about the figures and pointed out that
students could just walk in the park and not notice the figures or they could "live like a

writer,“ being observant and recording the meaning of events. Ms. Hall then talked about

90

her own experiences of becoming ”obsessed with a topic" such as the New York Yankees and
mentioned some other topics with which students in other schools had become obsessed.

Ms. Hall used the metaphor of contact lenses being like an obsession that changes and
shapes one's view of the world. She then asked students to give examples of obsessions to
which Anthony responded his grandmother was an obsession for him. Ms. Henderson
showed her folder with many different examples of writing and suggested that these pieces
would be shaped and pushed and pulled like “bread dough“ to form a project--in her case, a
speech. Ms. Henderson also suggested finding a topic to turn into a project was like

“mining for gold” in one's notebook. Ms. Hall gave yet another example of her discovery
that many powerful moments she had written about in her notebook were related to her
mother and sewing. A brief discussion followed in which the teacher and trainers
suggested to students that they select a topic that was so important that they could live with
it for awhile. During writing time, the teacher and the two trainers met with a small
group of six students that included Anthony to discuss projects. They did not specifically
discuss Anthony's text with him.

W (10/24). At the teacher's request, I read a chapter from
the book LinlabLLinla to the class while Ms. Meyer had a small group conference in the
hallway with three students, including Miguel. After returning from the hallway and
listening to the rest of the chapter I read, Ms. Meyer told a story about meeting the author,
Jean Little, the previous summer. Ms. Mayer then conducted a small group conference on
the floor with three students. Ms. Meyer then had one additional individual conference.

Wad (10/29). Ms. Meyer held a brief mini-lesson
about how to turn notebook entries into projects with one part of the class while the others
went to physical education. She used several different students' topics as examples of
projects, including Anthony's, and asked them what form they would take (e.g., letters,
articles for magazines, poems) and to what audience they would be addressed. Key phrases

included ”using such beautiful language," selecting something that "seems to be more

91

important than something else,” and ”writing what it felt like in your heart.“ Ms. Meyer
held brief, individual conferences with six students, including a very brief interaction
with Anthony and a lengthy conference with Anita.

WW (10/30). Ms. Mayer read another chapter of Lima
M to the students; the chapter was about the protagonist participating in a game in
which she was harassed by other children. Students were sent back to their seats to work
on their projects or to write a new entry if they got an Idea from the book. Ms. Meyer met
with a small group that included Ella to discuss projects. Key phrases in the small group
conference included “getting to the bottom of something,” “thinking about what is really
important“ and “what speaks to you from your heart.” After Ms. Meyer spoke with those
students individually, she had individual conferences with five students. Ms. Meyer called
the whole group back together, and used one student's piece as an example to explain the
process of selection, organization, and revision of a project. Ms. Meyer also used Ella's
examples of her memories with her aunt to show how students could think about their
projects.

WWW: (11/1). On this day Ms. Mayer met
with the other half of the class who had not been present two days before. During the
mini-lesson she asked student to suggest books from published authors that would help
other students with their projects. Students provided Ella with some examples of books
that might be helpful for her piece, while Miguel suggested many different books for other
students. During writing time, Ms. Meyer looked for additional books for students to use
and gave some students suggestions. Miguel and Porn had a peer conference about their
texts.

El 3‘ H' H I I | MIT
Phase 3 began at the end of week four and continued through week five of the study.

It consisted of using literature to revise and improve students' drafts for their projects.

92

During this phase the teacher and the trainer focused on aspects of good writing such as
language, the use of time, voice, and having a strong beginning.

Wing (11/2). The teacher read the picture book,
fiallmglg, by Karen Lynne Williams to the students and asked them to jot down what they
were thinking. Students including Ella and Anthony shared what they had written. After
this discussion, Ms. Meyer asked students to identify features of good writing that the
author had incorporated. Responses included ”description,” “imagination,” ”a. good use of
wor ," ”getting a picture in your mind,” the use of real voices, and suspense-~“keeping
the reader on his/her thin toes.” Miguel and Anthony participated orally in the discussion.
Ms. Meyer had a lengthier conference with Anthony, and brief individual conferences with
Miguel, and brief conferences with several other students.

WM (11/5). Ms. Henderson showed several picture
books about the topic of grandfathers because several students were writing about

grandparents. She then read the picture book, W, to the
students in the mini-lesson to point out several features of powerful writing and suggested
to students that literature could offer many ideas about how to improve their writing. The
focus of the discussion was on how the beginnings of stories are important, how the author
provided language to help the reader get a picture in their minds, playing with time as a
feature of writing, and point of view or in whose voice to tell a story; these aspects
characterized the book, WW. When Ms. Henderson met with six
students, she asked them to suggest books that would help people in the group with their
projects. Ms. Henderson also suggested that students think about what holds their notebook
entries together and used the image of a clothes line. Ms. Henderson recommended that
students write “from their hearts" instead of writing summaries and praised a boy who
was going to turn his fishing entries into memories about fishing instead of using them to
teach somebody how to fish. Key phrases included it should be ”more from your heart“ and

'it should be more personal.“ Ms. Henderson emphasized students choosing an important

93

thing to write about and thinking of an audience. Ms. Mayer then had a conference with
another student after Ms. Henderson left.

Bavising_ang_egiting (11/8). Ms. Meyer held a whole group discussion with
students remaining in their seats to discuss the features of revision and using an editing
checklist. She mentioned the importance of "a lead“ to ”grab the reader,” and
recommended to students that they consult literature if they wanted to get ideas of good
leads. Ms. Meyer then asked students for suggestions about what ought to be on an editing
checklist. Students made suggestions such as spelling, capitalization, punctuation, and use
of paragraphs and Ms. Mayer wrote these on the board. She then told students their last
decision would be about how to present their piece, for instance a letter should be written
on nice stationery. Students then copied down the checklist and Ms. Meyer had two longer
conferences, one with Ella, and three brief conferences including one with Miguel.

Baginning§_gi_giaga5_ang_ananng_pmiegis (11/9). Ms. Meyer started off the
mini-lesson by telling students that she had been thinking about their projects and how
great they were last night. Then she read the beginnings of several picture books including
W Want. and We to students to
demonstrate how to interest the reader and set the stage for further development of their
texts. Ms. Meyer recommended to Ella and two other girls to read the beginning of a book
to get some ideas for their leads. She had individual conferences with six students. Two
students shared their work at the end of the writing period.

The next section describes some of the norms the teacher had established within the
classroom. The section is structured according to the four types of activities during the
writing period.

Students engaged in four types of activities during the Writing Workshop: (a)
mini-lessons; (b) writing; (c) conferring; and (d) sharing. These were terms that Ms.

Meyer used to describe her version of the writing workshop which are the same terms

94

Calkins (1986) uses to define the Workshop. However, not all activities occurred within
every class period; instead, they were interspersed throughout the week.
Minklessons

The mini-lessons were teacher-directed lessons with the entire class in which the
teacher, Ms. Meyer, or the trainer, Ms. Henderson, read pieces of literature to students
and discussed with them qualities of good writing based on those selections. Mini-lessons
most often took place on the rug in the back of the room, although on three occasions the
teacher had students remain in their seats for these lessons. During the mini-lessons, the
teacher or trainer read aloud pieces of literature and then focused students' attention on
certain aspects of the texts.

The teacher often sat on the floor with students, but occasionally sat in a chair or
on a small stool while students sat on the floor in the rug area. She seemed to be more a
part of the group when she sat with her back resting against the wall rather than sitting in
front of students on her stool. Most of the time, however, Ms. Meyer sat in front of the
students while the students sat in various positions. Students chose locations on the rug;
they were not assigned.

Mini-lessons were teacher-directed and teacher-dominated. Either Ms. Mayer or
Ms. Henderson selected the literary texts that were to be discussed that day; there seemed
to be a particular purpose for each piece selected. Ms. Meyer read with a very expressive
voice, often interpreting each character's voice and providing information about the
character through her pitch and tone. It was very easy as a listener to know when she was
taking on the voice of the narrator and when she was being each of the other characters.
For instance, she would shout angrily if a character in the story was angry or whisper if
the character had a gentle nature. Her reading was very dramatic; students listened
carefully and seemed to be very engaged while she read.

The teacher's presence was apparent during the mini-lessons, though when Ms.

Henderson directed the lesson, Ms. Meyer deferred to her and took on a supportive role.

95

This was clear through Ms. Henderson's sitting on a chair or on the floor in front of the
group and doing most of the talking, while Ms. Meyer sat in a chair away from Ms.
Henderson or on the floor with the students. Ms. Meyer would speak up on occasion to add
her own opinions, but when Ms. Henderson was in the room, she was in charge. However,
when Ms. Henderson was not there and Ms. Meyer was directing the lesson, she was very
much in control.

Similar to Mehan's (1979) I-R-E, Ms. Meyer selected the speaker to provide an
idea or to read from her notebook. Students volunteered by raising their hands to get a
turn; however, the students who sat close to Ms. Meyer often provided ideas without
raising their hands and being called upon. These students' answers were often
acknowledged by Ms. Mayer, especially the answers of three students in particular--
Miguel (a case study student), Orlanda, and Alexis. Ms. Meyer also dominated the
discourse through the relative amounts of talk by teacher and students. In other words,
Ms. Meyer talked frequently and for long durations of time. Ms. Meyer asked questions of
students, but often provided her own opinion. For instance, in the session on Jenny where
she had asked a student, Rom, how he would have categorized these entries and he suggested
that the poems could be grouped under the title ”Nature,“ Ms. Meyer had a different
opinion. She said:

Nature, you think? Earth? You mean entries about earth or about nature?

That's interesting. I kind of thought these fell under the category of like the

kind of notebook entries where you wonder about things.

It was difficult to disagree with the teacher in this class; she had definite ideas
about things and was very willing to share her ideas with students. On another occasion in
which she had read the book, fiaiimgtg, to students and they were sharing their written
responses, Ms. Meyer gave a mini-lecture on what she thought the theme was. In the book,
the main character went to great lengths to find the materials to make a small toy, a

galimoto. Ms. Meyer expressed her opinion about the boy and about the moral she thought

96

students should gain from it--kids today are missing the challenge of making their own

fun:
I was very jealous of the fact that he really wanted something
badly enough, went ahead and had the determination and he
gathered everything. Today things are so easy for us here, you
want something, you want a car, you want a toy--and then how
long do you like it? (Students piped in with answers like an
hour and she continued.) Couple hours, and, you know, we sit in
front of a, we buy a disk we go to the store, we sit in front of a
disk, we plug it into a computer and you sit there for hours.
Here's this boy who had nothing but his box of stuff; and he was
so happy he got these wires and he made this incredibly
wonderful car. And he had the challenge of getting it, and in
certain ways I felt so envious of that. I think that in some ways,
you kids need more of that kind of stuff. You need to be able to,
have less things and make more of your own, that's, you know--

Alexis: More challenges.

T: Anyway, yeah. I think that kids today are missing the challenges
of that. These mini-lectures within mini-lessons were
frequent. Ms. Meyer believed she had a lot of expertise in
literature and writing worth sharing with the students.

One of the striking features of her discussions with students during the mini-
lesson time was the pace. Ms. Meyer seemed to have felt nIshed much of the time and
wanted to fit in as much reading of literature and time for individual writing as she could.
Often the sense of trying to fit everything in was reflected in the discourse during mini-
lessons and subsequent discussions. For instance, when Ms. Meyer asked questions about a
book, she provided little wait time and often began summaries of students' responses with

”So what you are saying is." In the same Galimglg discussion, Alexis offered that she would
be angry in the protagonist's situation. Ms. Meyer rephrased her suggestion calling it
frustration to which Alexis agreed.

The fast pace of the mini-lessons was also promoted through Ms. Meyer's questions
which were quickly followed up by additional probes of the same or different student. For
example, when Carl said he was wondering why there was a bike in the story, Ms. Mayer

fired the following questions at him without a breath, “Why what? Why a bike? What do

97

you mean, why a bike? What would be a bike?" This kind of questioning kept the pace of
the class lively.

The teacher often moved into the 'teacher—as-teller" mode during these mini-
lessons. For instance, Ms. Mayer asked Carl a question about what he had been thinking
about the book. Carl answered that he was wondering where it took place. Ms. Meyer
quickly followed up by asking him where in thought it took place. When Carl said he did
not know, she did not ask other students to speculate, but instead, gave a lengthy
description of the part of Africa where the story took place.

Some students seemed to flourish within this rapid pace discourse. In fact, several
students were quite adept at negotiating turns and offering opinions without being called
upon. About eight students participated regularly In the dialogue and offered their
opinions consistently even if those opinions did not seem to be immediately valued. About
eight other students rarely contributed to discussions. Occasionally, Ms. Meyer would call
on students who did not have their hands raised, but these students often declined to
answer.

Ms. Meyer slowed down the pace of her own speech when she was giving directions.
On several occasions, Ms. Meyer had specific assignments related to identifying qualities of
good writing that she wanted students to do. Before dismissing students to return to their
seats to write, Ms. Meyer would give explicit instructions in a directive voice at a much
slower pace than either her “reading" or "discussion” voice.

Ms. Meyer appeared to really enjoy the mini-lessons. She told the class on one
occasion that she Ieamed a lot from her own lessons. It was in these sessions that her
sense of humor and sense of drama were highlighted. She often joked with students,
especially about her own personal appearance. Once, she got the class and the adults
present laughing about her jeans that she explained were too tight because of just being
washed. When the trainers were present, they too joined in the fun and made jokes about

Ms. Meyer's sense of the aesthetic and how she noticed and liked colors and nice clothes.

98

Ms. Meyer was often quite dramatic in these conversations with the whole class, telling
stories about her daughter, her cat, or her own experiences. She enjoyed bantering with
students, especially with those who responded with a quick repartee.

IALfltinn

The second feature of the activity structure was students' writing time. Ms. Meyer
provided students with class time to write every day that I observed. She also encouraged
students to write in their notebooks at home and to carry them with them wherever they
went. Notebooks were prominently displayed on students' desks and many students did
write in them at home. The duration of writing time depended on the particular day, what
other events occurred during the school day, and the amount of time Ms. Meyer had
allocated to writing that day; generally students had from 15-25 minutes of quiet writing
time daily. The time allocated for writing tended to be shorter when the trainer, Ms.
Henderson, was there as she spent a proportionally greater amount of time in whole group
sessions.

Students usually wrote at their individual seats, located at tables of five to six
students. Some writing took place by the whole class during the mini-lesson on the rug;
this tended to be a very short amount of time in which students wrote a few lines directly
related to the text being discussed. For instance, during the sessions on “Differences
Between Notebooks and Diaries” students wrote short pieces in their notebooks while they
were seated on the rug. Often several students would ask if they could remain in the rug
area; Ms. Meyer usually granted permission to them. It was definitely considered
desirable by the students to be able to write on the rug when others had been dismissed
back to their seat after the mini-lesson. However, students who remained on the rug knew
they could not speak to anyone but the teacher.

The expectations about both the permissible noise level for writing time and the

expectations about what students could and could not talk about were difficult to understand

and seemed inconsistent. The norms were also different from Workshops in which

99

teachers are encouraged to establish an environment where a "busy hum” can be heard.
Almost every single day, Ms. Meyer would say to students at least once, 'T his is to be
ABSOLUTE QUIET writing time" in a very loud, emphatic voice. Usually after Ms. Meyer
made this announcement, silence would settle on the group for about three to five minutes,
and then the noise level would rise. At times the noise level was high enough that it was
difficult to hear a student's response to my informal interviews (especially compounded
by the street and hail noise). Ms. Meyer became very frustrated at times and reprimanded
students in a high-pitched, loud voice or interspersed her one-on-one conferences with
'Shhhh's" to the whole class. Ms. Meyer scolded students continually for the lack of
silence in the class, but did not use other sanctions to gain quiet.

It was not clear to me, nor do I think it was clear to the students, whether or not
they could talk with peers about writing. During writing time, students occasionally read
their work to other students or made a comment about what they were writing. However,
much of the talk among students was about topics other than writing. Ms. Meyer became
frustrated with several students on occasions when she did not think they had accomplished
much writing. For instance, one day she admonished Anthony for not having written much,
saying he was not accomplishing anything because he was not concentrating on writing but
was either playing or talking. On another occasion she asked Terry to read aloud what he
had written. When he seemed unwilling to read, she told him it was because he was too
embarrassed because he had not written anything. He said he had written one sentence and
she became very annoyed, asking him if that were enough for a twenty minute writing
period. Terry told the teacher he had been sharing to which she replied in an apologetic
voice, "Oh, you were sharing? Okay." She then told the whole class they needed to
concentrate on writing more.

Initially, Ms. Meyer had been annoyed because Terry had been talking during

writing time, and thus did not get writing accomplished. Yet when he announced he was

100

sharing his writing with someone else, she sanctioned his talking. When I asked Ms.
Mayer later about her expectations for writing time, she said:

Ms. Meyer: That they'll be quiet --

Sarah: So kids should not be talking to each other at their table?

Ms. Meyer: That there won't be distractions because I think that the

minute there are distractions they lose their train of thought
and they're not writing.

It was somewhat unclear what she meant by distractions. Clearly, Ms. Meyer wanted
students to write and she expected them to be quiet when she reminded them. However, in
some cases talking--if it were about writing--was permitted. I asked Ms. Mayer
specifically about the case of Terry to which she replied:

Yes, that is legitimate because that's the way it's been, that's the way it's

been in the younger grades. They've always been able to do that, and now

that they're expected to do a little bit more s0phisticated kind of stuff.

Somebody like Terry, who's a baby, can't do it. Do you know what I mean?

He can't sit still long enough to go ahead and do it. So he'll do that because

he's been allowed to do it in the past, so even though my words say it's quiet

writing time, to him, it's OK for him to conference because conference is

part of writing, it has been.
It seemed, then, that because students had Ieamed in other classes that it was appropriate
to read their work to other students, Ms. Meyer sanctioned sharing with another student
during writing time. She believed that Terry, who had Ieamed that having a conference
with another student during writing time was permissible, did not have the maturity to
wait until the appropriate time (share time) to read his work aloud. In this case, she
allowed Terry to share once she knew that is what he had been doing on that occasion.

Ms. Meyer saw a big difference in the types of conferences certain students had.
For instance, she thought that Terry was simply reading his work to another student, but
not really learning anything from it. She said:

If I say it's quiet writing time, then I will, you know, we'll have time to

share. You know what I mean, we'll have share time and conferencing time,

but he's not, he's not really conferencing to learn. See he's conferencing to

talk and to tell what he's written. They're not helping each other; they're
missing the point of the true conference.

 

101

However, in the case of Miguel and Rom, both high achieving students who had sought one
another out, she thought their conference had been quite valuable to each of them. She said:

Oh I think they were really working together today. You know that's a

different story; they were really helping each other. But when Terry says

he's conferencing, he's saying listen to what I wrote, and somebody's

listening and saying, they're not commenting to him, they're not helping

him. Terry's not speaking to somebody to say look I'm stuck, what do you

think about this, give me some advice, Terry's not doing that.

Ms. Meyer distinguished between the types of interactions students were having and
clearly valued some of those over others. The expectations seemed to be, then, that
students were to be quietly writing in their seats. However, students were allowed to talk
if they were talking about writing, especially if they were students who, in Ms. Meyer's
opinion, were sophisticated and could provide substantial help to one another.
Conferences

The third type of activity that took place was the writing conference which
occurred while the students were writing. I defined conferences as more than one turn
exchange about writing so that a simple question of “How is it coming?“ or 'Are you
working on your grandmother piece?“ would not count as a conference. Conferences
consisted of teacher-student exchanges about writing that took anywhere from 30 seconds
to 7 minutes per student. The teacher conducted both individual conferences with students
and small group conferences with three to five students at a time.

In a given daily class period, Ms. Meyer conferred with about six-eight students.
During the five-week period of my observations, Ms. Meyer averaged about three writing
conferences per student. Every student in the class had at least one conference with the
teacher, but differences existed in the frequency of encounters between Ms. Mayer and
particular students. For example, Alexis, a high-achieving, prolific writer in the class
had a total of seven conferences about writing with either Ms. Meyer or one of the

trainers, whereas five other students only had one conference each with the teacher or

trainer. Of the students followed as case studies, Miguel had the most frequent number of

102

conferences--four; Ella and Anthony each had two; and Anita had only one, although it was
lengthy.

W. Individual conferences occurred In many different
places in the room--there was no set pattern for the 17 observations I saw. Individual
teacher-student conferences occurred in several locations throughout the room: (a) at the
student's seat with the teacher leaning over or squatting beside the student; (b) on the rug
with the teacher and student seated together; (c) standing together briefly at different
places in the room; or (d) at a table pushed against the wall where the teacher and student
were seated. Once she met with several students in the hall.

When Ms. Meyer conducted conferences on the rug, she often called the students
back to her. In the beginning phase of the projects, she called upon students who she
thought were ready to move from their notebooks to their projects. When called, students
joined her at the place she indicated. Sometimes, Ms. Meyer leaned against the wall and the
child sat next to her. At other times, she sat more centrally on the rug and faced the
student. Her proximity to the student, amount of eye contact, and the content of what she
discussed with students differed, depending on the student and the particular context.

At other times, Ms. Meyer conducted conferences by roving around the room,
looking at students' texts and talking to them about their pieces. Because students were
seated quite closely together at their tables, Ms. Meyer stood or squatted close to the child.
Unless a seat were unoccupied, she rarely pulled up a chair and sat next to the child.
Instead, she just leaned in towards the child and was in either a standing position or a
squatting position, level with the child.

Both the teacher and the trainer conducted small-group conferences. Most of these
conferences took place on the rug. On one occasion Ms. Meyer conferred with three
students in the hall. During the small group conferences, 3 student usually remained in

the group until his or her turn of focus was over. Then, the student returned to his or her

103

seat after the interaction; however, on one occasion Terry remained to hear what the
teacher and another student discussed.

W- Generally, it was the teacher who determined with whom she would
have a writing conference. Unlike some writing process classrooms, Ms. Meyer did not
use an explicit system of selection such as keeping track on paper those students with
whom she had spoken. Further, while some classrooms have a means for students to
indicate a need to talk to the teacher (e.g., by putting their names on the board), students
in this classroom did not have any such system. Ms. Meyer apparently kept track mentally
information about students because she indicated knowledge about students' topics by
raising ideas in share sessions or in subsequent conferences.

Rarely did students approach Ms. Meyer to talk to her about their writing. Two
students were notable exceptions--Alexis and Jade, both of whom had frequent conferences
with her. Both of these girls approached the teacher and asked her opinion of what they
were writing or shared information with her. Additionally, on one occasion Miguel
initiated the conversation as Ms. Meyer was walking by.

Wang. Although many variations of
conferences occurred, Ms. Meyer had a particular style in which she usually conducted the
conferences. In my analysis, I found the conferences generally consisted of three parts:
(a) the opening; (b) the body; and (c) the closing. Ms. Meyer usually began by asking an
open-ended question such as, 'So what were you thinking?” or ”How is it going?“ Ms.
Meyer followed up her opening by asking several more specific questions such as, "Is
there something you write about more often than not?“ or "Which pieces have you
selected?” The "body” of the conferences consisted of Ms. Mayer asking many questions,
the students responding or clarifying issues, and Ms. Meyer's summary of what the student
had said, often interspersed with recommendations. The closing of the conferences
frequently consisted of Ms. Meyer providing specific directives about what the student

should work on. Particularly noteworthy is the amount of teacher talk during these

104

conferences. Ms. Meyer always talked more than the students, but the proportion of
teacher-talk to student-talk differed. For instance, in one conference with Anita, Ms.
Meyer said four times as much as the student, (900 teacher words versus 246 student
words) whereas with Miguel she only talked 33% more than he (462 teacher words
versus 357 student words).

Much of Ms. Meyer's talk was filled with questions, indicated by the inflection at
the end of sentences such that she would turn statements into inquiries. However, these
questions often functioned as recommendations or as openers for student agreement with
her ideas. For example, she might ask, "What about if you turned them into a letter to
her?“ or ”And you are going to describe them so beautifully?” She phrased these as
questions indicated by her rising intonation at the end of the utterance, yet she was
actually recommending to the students that they follow her advice. Likewise, Ms. Meyer
often summarized her interpretation of what the student was trying to express in the form
of a question; within these summaries she often phrased questions in such a way as to get
the student to agree with her. An example of this is her frequent use of, “So don't you
think that . . . " or “So it will have to be . . . right?” Ms. Mayer also tended to ask many
focused, closed questions in which she asked for specific information from students rather
than asking open-ended questions.

Ms. Meyer gave out suggestions and ideas about what students ought to do quite
freely. Her closings were filled with either recommendations about what the student could
do including ideas like "So maybe this would be where you describe things in the park to
your father“ or more directive statements about what the student ought to do such as
underlining particular phrases that were well written. Her tone of voice and selection of
words distinguished recommendations from her more directive statements.

Pace was another distinctive feature of Ms. Meyer's conferences. She spoke rapidly

to students and her pace increased when she became impatient with students or wanted to

105

move the conference along. Long pauses tended to mark the occasions in which she was
uncomfortable.

Student responses tended to consist of explanations after the teacher had made a
request for information. Sometimes the student would initiate a topic .to be discussed.
With some students, Ms. Meyer followed up their topics, while with others she re-
introduced her own topics. Students rarely openly disagreed with Ms. Meyer; agreeement
was much more frequent. However, occasionally, a student would resist by saying, “Not
really." In this case, the student would not Openly disagree, yet would not be totally
compliant. Some students were much more enthusiastic than others about following the
teacher's advice.

EaQngniaLangas. Peer conferences as such were quite rare in this classroom. No
particular place in the room was set aside for this activity and the teacher did not
encourage students to exchange ideas with students seated near them at their tables. Recall
that Ms. Meyer frequently began writing sessions by telling students this would be
“absolute quiet writing time,“ yet, students often chatted at their tables with one another.
Conversations occasionally consisted of brief exchanges about writing, but Ms. Mayer
never officially sanctioned or encouraged peer conferences as was evident through the
discussion about Terry.

Shauna

Sharing was the fourth activity that comprised the structure of the classroom
during the writing period. Sharing generally took place on the rug, although on one
occasion students shared from their seats. Sharing consisted of students reading aloud
entire pieces or portions of pieces of their written texts. There was no specific chair or
place assigned as “author's chair;" students read aloud from where they were already
seated. Peers did not provide feedback for one another to Improve the piece of writing
during this time. Instead, the teacher used share sessions as opportunities for students to

provide examples to one another of “good writing.”

106

The share sessions were consistent with the purposes Calkins set up in her 1990
book where students ”reread, celebrate, and learn from their notebooks” (p. 50) rather
than providing suggestions for revision. Occasionally Ms. Meyer would have noticed a
specific aspect of a piece written by a student and ask that student to share, but usually
students volunteered to read portions of the text that they wanted to share or that seemed to
fit the point either the teacher or trainer was making. About eight students including
Anthony and Ella frequently volunteered to read their pieces; some shared infrequently;
some students including Anita never did share any of their work.

The next section will describe Ms. Meyer's image of good writing that came through
in her interviews and in her interactions with students in whole group sessions as well as
in conferences. This image provides a backdrop upon which we may view students'
understandings of texts as manifested through their writing and their talk.

The Teacher's Image of Good Writing

What was the teacher's image of good writing? How did she communicate her view
to students? Ms. Meyer had a particular view of good writing that she told me she had
Ieamed at an institute at Teachers College the previous summer. She described the course
as being an adult literature class in qualities of good writing with the implication that the
same qualities could be applied to children's literature.

Evidence for Ms. Meyer's view of good writing can be found in her interviews, in
her selections of literature to read aloud to students, in her discussions with the whole
class, and in her individual writing conferences. The trainer, Ms. Henderson, shared Ms.
Meyer's view to a great extent; they worked collaboratively and shared many of the same
opinions about literature and good writing. In Ms. Meyer's view, good writing (a) comes
from personal experience; (b) takes on a particular form for a particular audience; (c)
uses elements of style such as imagery and figurative language; and (d) focuses on one
particular subject. Because these ideas were central to Ms. Meyer's interactions with

students, these topics will be discussed in detail below. The role of writing from personal

107

experience and using elements of style are particularly relevant to what students
subsequently internalized.
111W

Ms. Meyer strongly believed that children should write about issues with which
they are very familiar. For her, this meant that children should write from personal
experience and write "true' stories rather than fiction. This belief underlay Ms. Meyer's
rationale for having students keep writers' notebooks. Ms. Meyer provided this rationale
for her use of notebooks:

Well, I think what I want from them is to be able to just get them to become

chroniclers of life, of their lives. I think for me the most important thing

is that I give them this gift of being able to observe their lives and to look at

themselves and what they're doing and their place in the world and be able

to keep track of that. . . . I think it's really a very nice gift to be able to give

children to teach them to be observers and recorders of their lives and the

lives around them. That's what I really hope that they'll get, that they'll

take always with them, that this gift that will last forever.

Ms. Meyer believed that through the notebooks students could record their own
lives and that this was a gift they could have forever. Part of her rationale for providing
this opportunity for children reflected her sadness that she had not chronicled her own
life. She expressed it this way:

I think one of the saddest things in my life is that I never wrote down all of

these things that I thought I would always remember but that I didn't. I'm

very envious of people who always do, who wrote in notebooks and kept

their feelings. They chronicled their lives and just had it for whatever

reasons, whether they never looked at it or whether they always looked at

it.

Ms. Meyer believed so strongly in children writing about their own lives that she
discouraged students from writing fiction. She did not want students to write fiction in her
class for two reasons: (a) students wrote better pieces when they wrote about their own
lives and (b) she could not monitor their writing nor teach them the qualities of good
writing using fiction. Ms. Meyer expressed her beliefs that it is necessary to explicitly

teach fiction writing in the second interview:

108

There's no way to model them, there's no way to get them to understand what

qualities of good fiction are. They get out of hand so if you're going to let

them do that, you have to study fiction first. You have to study how to

develop a character; you have to study how to develop a setting; you have to

teach them how to do that and then you have to model for them first good,

short pieces of fiction, good short stories so that they understand how to

structure a fiction piece.

Ms. Meyer's dislike of children writing fiction at this point in the year rested on
her assumptions that the students were too unsophisticated to see that fiction writing was
based on truth--the personal experience of authors. She believed that writers used
notebooks to generate ideas for fiction, but that notebooks recorded events of writers' lives
that could be used for deveIOpment into stories. Ms. Meyer said:

. . . .[students] don't have an idea that it really is the same and that fiction

writing should really be based on truth from their notebooks. In other

words, nobody goes out, Katherine Paterson, nobody goes out and writes a

piece of fiction that isn't based on truth somehow or somewhere. You know

what I mean, and if they did do fiction, it should really have come, should

come from their notebooks at some point.

Ms. Meyer felt strongly that students should base their writing on research or the
reality that they observe around them. Students have to write from their own experience
because:

That's the way it has to be for young kids. Otherwise you get these stories

about Ninja Turtles and that G.l. Joe is coming alive and about people living

on the moon. It's not based in any kind of fact or any kind of research or any

kind of reality. Whatever their story is about, they're not doing any

research into the reality of the fiction, you know?

Ms. Meyer had found that students wrote long fantasy stories that went on and on
when a teacher allowed them to write fiction without teaching them about the qualities of
good writing. She found that the students' writing was unwieldy and difficult to get a
handle on. Furthermore Ms. Meyer believed that students did not learn from just writing
fiction without a teacher “monitoring” it and teaching them about good writing. She
acknowledged that students liked to write fiction, but she felt they did not learn anything
from such writing. She said:

They [students] like to but they don't learn anything from it, (writing
fiction] they never learn anything from it, ever.

109

Ms. Meyer communicated her value on writing from experience to the students both
explicitly and implicitly in a variety of ways including: (a) modeling writing from her
own experience through the use of her own notebook; (b) selecting literature that focused
on personal experiences; (0) assigning students to keep notebooks and to develop
particular, personal events from their lives; (d) using specific language cues; and (e)
through implicit messages during writing conferences.

Madeline

First, both the trainers and the teacher focused on the importance of drawing from
personal experience by modeling. Both Ms. Meyer and Ms. Henderson encouraged students
to write about personal topics by providing examples from their own notebooks. In the
first session I observed, "Tasting Memories,“ both Ms. Mayer and Ms. Henderson read
from their own notebooks. Ms. Meyer read about her daughter and an old friend from her
childhood, while Ms. Henderson read about wanting to make a difference like her friend
who worked in a soup kitchen. In the session on "Diaries and Notebooks," Ms. Meyer read
about her feelings of inadequacy compared to a friend who had cancer, but was so strong
and determined. Ms. Henderson read about an issue in her life--procrastination of the
writing of a speech.

In the session on ”Selecting Topics for Projects" the teacher and both trainers used
examples from their personal lives and from their own writing to demonstrate the topics
that were really important to them. Ms. Hall provided the example of writing about her
mother and the images she had of her mother sewing a new dress for her. Ms. Henderson
read from her own autobiography about an incident of skating. Besides modeling from

their own notebooks, the teacher and trainers discussed their own experiences and shared

them readily with students.

We

The second way in which Ms. Meyer and Ms. Henderson communicated their

emphasis upon the personal aspects of writing was through the selection of texts they read

to the class. Ms. Meyer and Ms. Henderson read several pieces to the class about relatives
of both published authors and students from previous years. For instance, on October 10,
Ms. Mayer read a piece by a previous student, Tommy, about a memory of his grandfather
and him at a baseball game. In this piece there is a physical and emotional closeness
between the author and his grandfather. On another occasion, Ms. Meyer read from the
book, Jenny, the poem, ”My Daddy,” describing a birthday of the author and her
relationship with her father who was divorced from her mother.

Relatives were central characters in other pieces read to the class as well. In A
War the mother is the central character, while in W
Sam, the author tells an event in which her aunt is the central character. Additionally,
these pieces are written in first person, providing the reader with the sense that these
events did occur in the authors' lives. Ms. Mayer also read Win
Mgumains that included the author's memories of her experiences growing up in the coal
mines. unla_by__l_ima is about the life of the writer, Jean Little, and is written in first
person as is Lois Lowry's description of school milk. Except for the book, fialimgig, Ms.
Meyer and Ms. Henderson selected pieces of literature that shared many of the following
features: (a) were connected to the authors' lives; (b) were written in first person, (c)
were about a relative; or (d) included a memory of childhood. Through selecting these
particular texts, Ms. Meyer and Ms. Henderson encouraged students to write about their
own lives and people who were close to them.

Assignments

A third way in which Ms. Meyer expressed her value upon personal topics was
through encouraging students to write about their personal lives. The entire idea of
keeping writers' notebooks rested on the assumption that students would keep records of
their own lives and jot down and elaborate upon important events, people, and issues. Ms.
Meyer encouraged students to write about their own lives through specific assignments as

well. For instance, on October 11, Ms. Meyer instructed students to select one entry that

had happened to them and embellish it by using “beautiful language” to describe the event.
Discussions that were focused around having students imagine the notebook entry beth
the picture book encouraged students to tie writing into personal experience. Ms. Meyer
and Ms. Henderson wanted students to imagine events in the authors' lives that might have
generated the ideas that they subsequently included in their texts. After reading pieces
from Janny, Ms. Meyer asked students to write about something from their own lives that
connected to the poems. These assignments encouraged students to focus on particular,

personal events in their lives.

W

One of the implicit ways in which Ms. Meyer and Ms. Henderson communicated to
students the value of writing from their own experience was through specific language
cues. Because Ms. Meyer and Ms. Henderson believed that students wrote better pieces
when they wrote about their own lives, they used a phrase called "getting to the bottom of
something” as a metaphor for having students write about important events or issues in
their lives. Several examples of use of this phrase provide evidence for the teachers'
encouragement of students to write about deep issues in their lives. For instance, in the
diaries and notebooks session, Ms. Henderson explained that the students did seem to be
doing a lot of notebook writing, rather than diary writing because they were “trying to get
to the bottom of things.” This phrase is used to denote writing about personal issues.
expressing feelings, and finding patterns among events or feelings. Getting to the bottom of
things indicates that students should look for an underlying meaning. For instance, Ms.
Henderson found that vacuuming, eating, and talking on the phone had been indications of
the characteristic of procrastination. The teacher and trainer wanted students to find
similar patterns in their own writing.

Other phrases that communicated this value on sharing deep, personal feelings and

events were variations on the theme of “write from the heart.“ Ms. Henderson often asked

students ”What speaks to you from your heart?" or encouraged students by saying, ”Write

from your heart.“ Although neither Ms. Henderson nor Ms. Meyer defined these
expressions, the expressions seemed to imply selecting or writing entries that expressed
emotion or a depth of feeling about a person or event.

In both whole group discussions and her conferences with students, Ms. Meyer used
the word "important" frequently. In fact, so prevalent was the word ”important” in topic
selection that on three different occasions, the word was used from 12-14 times in the
transcripts from each lesson. Ms. Meyer would encourage students to select entries that
were really "important." She alternated using this word with the phrase ”what really
stands out for you?" Ms. Meyer's use of the word ”important“ seemed to imply that
students should write about people with whom they had a close bond, especially parents,
grandparents, or siblings or about events in which a special bond or relationship was
evident. Ms. Meyer seemed to hope that students would reveal deeply personal, moving,
emotional thoughts. As we will see later in the cases, however, the use of the word
”important” had different meanings to different students and not all students shared her
definition nor her value on writing about emotional events.

Discussionsandmnferencas

An emphasis upon selecting personal topics and infusing them with deep emotion
was also apparent through the interactions with students in small group or individual
conferences. Often in individual conferences students would reveal personal anecdotes or
observations about relatives or people that were close to them. Dana, for instance,
revealed how she would walk to the park with her father who was blind and describe what
she saw to him and how she felt about the experience; Carl expressed his confusion over
his parents' divorce; Sam talked about the differences between his mother and the woman
who was to become his step-mother. Alexis became angry and discussed how she hated her
grandmother and how much her feelings contrasted with Orlanda's relationship with her
grandmother. Both Ms. Meyer and Ms. Henderson encouraged students to both write and

talk about these family issues. With Carl, for example, Ms. Meyer encouraged him to

113

. write about his feelings about his parents getting divorced and the resulting confusion. In
the conferences, Ms. Mayer often made suggestions about how a student could write about
one particular moment with a grandparent or a memory of the relationship between the
child and another person.

To a large extent, Ms. Meyer was successful in communicating her emphasis on
personal writing. One measure of this success is an examination of the topics about which
students in the class wrote. Of the 28 students in the class, 19 wrote about relatives--
aunts, grandparents, great grandparents, brothers, and parents. Five students wrote
about themselveso-being dyslexic, memories of fishing, experiencing holidays in both
China and the US, growing up in Africa, and comparison between a student and a whale.
Few students wrote about topics that were not of a personal nature. One student wrote a

theme piece about feelings and friendship; one wrote a series of nature poems; and two

students' pieces were unknown to me.
S | I' E l E I. I E I'

A second aspect of the teacher's image of good writing is revealed through selection
of genre and audience. Ms. Meyer believed that students ought to write texts with a
particular audience in mind. This belief was interwoven into the class sessions-both
whole-group mini-lessons and in the individual writing conferences. Ms. Meyer and the
trainers used words such as ”audience” and having a purpose or reason for writing. When
students were determining the form their projects would take, Ms. Meyer began
conferences by asking students questions about form and function of their texts. For
instance, she asked, ”Who is this going to be for? Who do you think would want to read
this?“ to get students to think about audience. She also asked students what form their
projects would take by saying, "What will this be?” and made suggestions about turning
the piece into a letter to someone or a poem.

Ms. Mayer and the trainers supported the idea of writing for a particular audience

by modeling their own writing. For instance, Ms. Hall described writing a letter to her

mother telling her how she felt on one occasion and writing a toast on another occasion.
Ms. Henderson explained how she was writing a speech for a large group of people about
her experiences in classrooms. Ms. Meyer explained to Serena that she could imagine
writing a letter to her own daughter to tell her how much she cared. Ms. Meyer had
several favorite formats that she recommended to students; letters to a particular person
and poems were the most frequently recommended.

The concern for selecting a particular form for an audience was represented in the
students' projects. Students used a variety of genres for their projects, often with a
particular audience in mind. Several students wrote descriptive pieces about their
relatives, while others wrote poems to be shared with classmates. Several students wrote
letters to a particular relative, and one student wrote “an open letter“ to the school
community about being dyslexic. Two students picked up on the trainers' ideas of writing a

speech and wrote toasts to parents who were getting remarried.

W

A third aspect of the teacher's image of good writing was the emphasis upon
elements of language and style. Ms. Meyer had strong beliefs about what constituted
effective pieces of writing. Consistent with practices advocated by Teachers College, Ms.
Meyer drew heavily from children's literature to form her ideas and to communicate her
values to students. In the five weeks of my observations these images began to emerge both
through Ms. Meyer's planned lessons and through the underlying messages she
communicated to students in conferences. The most powerful elements of~ style that Ms.
Meyer focused on were the uses of imagery and figurative language; these elements
permeated the literature she read, the discussions, and assignments she gave students.
Additional aspects of language such as suspense, use of flashback and voice occurred less

frequently, but were nevertheless part of the classroom discourse.

Wm

Ms. Meyer focused on two related features of language in her lessons and in her
interactions with individual students: imagery and figurative language (Lukens, 1990).
Imagery consisted of including descriptive adjectives, adding detail to events and settings,
and avoiding the use of common words such as nice and good for the purposes of forming a
picture in the reader's mind. Figurative language included any type of comparisons,
especially similes and metaphors.

In almost every class session, the teacher, the trainer, and the students discussed
the uses of language by authors and by student/authors. The teacher did not refer to
imagery or figurative language by these names, but used such expressions as
”description,” “beautiful language,“ ”detail“ and comparisons. Both Ms. Meyer and Ms.
Henderson referred to “getting an image in the reader's mind'_ as a phrase to connote
imagery. Other specific language cues included [the author] putting “you right there,“ and
”creating pictures” for the reader. The most prevalent phrases were ”description,“
“beautiful language,“ and ”getting an image in the reader's mind.” Description was
common enough that in one lesson it was used nine times.

When reading literature to the students, Ms. Meyer and Ms. Henderson pointed out
particularly effective language. These examples tended to be filled with adjectives and
details such as W: “When I was young in the mountains,
we'd pump pails of water from the well at the bottom of the hill and heated the water to fill
round, tin tubs for our baths." Similarly, the discussion that followed the reading of A
W centered on two particular phrases: "But each evening every single
shiny coin goes into the jar" and "Yes, a chair. A wonderful, beautiful, fat soft armchair.
We will get one covered in velvet with roses all over it."

Students' texts that were read aloud also provided opportunities for teachers and
students to discuss description and adding details to form a picture in the reader's mind.

Ms. Meyer celebrated students' use of imagery in their writing by calling attention to it

116

and by becoming quite excited about the inclusion of beautiful language or comparisons.
For example, when Anthony offered "the pineapple filled my mouth with joy” as an
example of good writing, Ms. Meyer jumped up and said, 'Oh wow! That's so great! The
pineapple filled my mouth with joy.“ She also pointed out that Anthony's description of a
scream filling the room was a very good way of saying something.

Much of the discussions, then,'were filled with examples of “good writing" that
included descriptive and figurative language. The class session on October 12 was
particularly informative for understanding the teacher's conception of good writing
because the discussion focused around having students generate ideas about good writing to
which Ms. Meyer responded. In this session, Ms. Meyer explicitly discussed use of
descriptive language as a key issue in good writing.

W

The qualities of "voice” and "use of time" or flashback qualified as components of
good writing, but were much more in the background than the aspects of imagery and
figurative language. The issue of voice was mentioned in the qualities of good writing
session and in W discussion. Voice seemed to mean developing a
style or way of writing that was both unique to the writer, but was very realistic-as if
one could hear the person saying it. Ms. Meyer and Ms. Henderson also considered the use

of flashback as a quality of good writing as mentioned during two sessions, Amman:

anerandlheflinunmnemndomt.
15mm:

The element of suspense was an idea that seemed to be introduced by students, not
the teacher, though Ms. Meyer valued surprise as an aspect of good writing. Miguel
introduced the phrase ”keeping the reader on his or her thin toes" as an expression to
indicate surprise or suspense. For instance, in his own piece, ”Man's Best Friend, the
Car," Miguel withheld the information that the best friend was a car and led the reader to

believe the friend was another animal. The reader's discovery that the friend was a car

was a surprise, yet the reader wondered throughout the piece just who the friend would
turn out to be. This piece was valued by the teacher and students and often referred to by
the students as an example of ”keeping the reader on his toes.” Students also described the
book, Galjmmg, as an example of keeping the reader on his or her toes because of the
suspenseful nature of finding out what the toy was. Although Ms. Meyer did not consciously
work on getting students to understand this quality of writing, she did value it and respond
to it when she saw this feature in students' work. Unlike the more explicit features of
imagery and figurative language, suspense operated at a more implicit level.
W

A fourth key feature in Ms. Meyer‘s conception of good writing was the ability of a
writer to focus on one particular aspect and to develop the piece around that focus. In the
session on October 11, Ms. Meyer pointed out to students that in the pieces she read,
especially Tommy's, the author had focused on one particular thing and told it in detail.
“Sticking to one subject” was the way in which a student described this need to focus in the
October 12 session. Throughout conferences with students, Ms. Meyer had them try to find
a focus for their projects and to develop one issue. Once the piece was focused, Ms. Meyer
used the beginnings of literature to help students to have strong ”leads" that would engage
the reader. What constituted a strong beginning or lead was not well-developed in what
Ms. Meyer communicated to students, but she did emphasize an organizational structure
that included using a beginning sentence such as Anthony's "Thank god I still remember
what my grandmother looked like." These features of writing from personal experience,
writing for a particular audience, including devices of language and style, and focusing on
one particular subject were key to Ms. Meyer's view of good writing.

Figure 4 provides a visual representation of the classroom themes and patterns of
interaction described in this chapter as they relate to the appropriation phase of the Harre

(1984) model. Table 3 summarizes the central features of the classroom interactions

Public

Phase I
Phase II

/

l Content

Phase III

 

 

 

 

(Classroom Observationg

 

uogteu Forddv

118

 

Mini-lessons
Writing Time
/ Conferring
Sharing
Activity
Structure

 

 

 

 

Teachers' Image
of Good
Writing

 

 

Personal Experience
Audience
Language & Style

Organization

Individual

Figure 4 Classroom Themes and Harre Model

119

Table 3 Summary of Classroom Themes and Patterns of Interaction

Element

Phase 1: Notebooks and Qualities of Good Writing
Phase 2: Moving to Projects Through Writing Conferences
Phase 3: Using Literature to Improve Writing
Wm
Mini-lessons

Writing Time

Conferring

Shafing

III I 1| [G Illl'l'

The Best Topics Come From Personal Experience
Elements of Language and Style

Selecting A Genre for a Particular Audience

Focus and Organizational Structure

120

that provided opportunities for students to internalize the classroom dialogue. In the next
chapter consisting of the cases of individual students, we will see how these features

played a major role in influencing what students internalized.

CHAPTER 5
THECASES
This chapter presents the four cases of the students: Miguel, Anthony, Ella, and
Anita. The cases could be presented in several different orders. For instance, the two
strongest contrasting cases could be presented first. However, I have chosen to present the
cases in order of descending synchrony with the teacher. The first three cases: Miguel,
Anthony, and Ella are examples of the teacher's scaffolding instruction in varying ways for
the students and the development of intersubjectivity. The three students had previous
experiences in writing process classrooms and internalize much of the classroom dialogue.
The fourth case, Anita. is illustrative of less successful scaffolding and lack of shared
understanding. There is less reemergence of the dialogue in her case as she both resists
aspects of the classroom interaction and makes compromises in terms of topic.
Each case is organized by providing background information on the student first.
Then, the cases present data and interpretation from the classroom interactions in which
each student participated. Students' internalization processes are traced through their
texts and their conferences with younger students. Each case ends with a description of its

significance.

A Perfect Fit? The Case of Miguel
Mil . II' I"
This section describes Miguel's background, views of writing, and topics about
which he wrote. It also provides examples of the teacher's views of him and gives an

example of her concern for him.

Backamund

Miguel was an eleven-year-old, medium-sized, dark-haired sixth grader whose
native language was Spanish. Miguel lived in Guatemala until he was in third grade when
he came to New York. At the time of the study, he lived with his younger brother and his

mother in one-room apartment, sharing kitchen facilities with other families in the

121

122

apartment. The building was in the neighborhood of the school, so Miguel walked to school.
His father lived elsewhere and Miguel reported that he came to visit him and his brother
“once every lifetime." Miguel reported that his mother babysat children at their homes.
He was on the free lunch program at the school.

Miguel spoke no English when he came to the United States, and there were no
bilingual classrooms in the school. His mother had Ieamed some English from a school in
Guatemala. Miguel reported that he learned English from friends and that he had to learn it
to succeed in school; now he reported that he was proficient enough to correct his mother's
English. In fact, Miguel's facility with the English language was notable--he was very
fluent, articulate, used extensive vocabulary, and was a delightful conversationalist.
Miguel gave elaborated answers to most interview questions and was quite orally fluent in
both interviews and in class discussions, interspersing his comments with figurative
language. He was also quite exacting in his facts and theories. For instance, when he was
telling me about a scientist from a television show who was struck by lightening, he said,
”the chemicals on the shelf made him run really fast. I think 642.2 miles an hour.“

Non-school activities in which he participated included reading, skateboarding, and
watching television. Miguel read both fiction and non-fiction extensively. He liked to read
books about animals, especially killer whales. However, his interests ranged to include
books about space. In fact, in a three day period, Miguel had checked out five books about
comets, the moon, and nebulae. Additionally, he also read fiction, checking out several
books a week.

Miguel appeared to be quite artistic. He had drawn several pictures of whales,
parrots, Pop-eye, and Darth Vader that decorated his space on the bulletin board. In a
class discussion about the book, fiaflmmg, Miguel pointed to this space and suggested that

he, like the character in the book, had set his mind to something and achieved it; Miguel's

achievement was accurately drawing the whale.

123

Achievement was a concern of Miguel's. In describing his own writing process,
Miguel suggested that he coached himself along by telling himself he would get an 'F' if he
did not produce writing. Later on when he achieved his goal, he would pat himself on the
back:

It's really funny. See, I say ”you better write something or you'll get an 'F'
on it“. . . . And when I did it, I go ”great, Miguel, now you're getting an 'A'

plus.“

Miguel was also a kind of political activist. He believed strongly in preserving the
earth from pollution, in saving the trees, and in keeping species of animals from
extinction. He was particularly disturbed by damage that was done to animals by human
carelessness and pollution such as throwing rings from aluminum cans into the water
where fish could choke on them and die. He acted on these beliefs by writing letters to
forest associations to help save trees. Miguel also spoke out about cultural differences
between the land of his birth and the United States. For instance, he was very upset about
the way in which New Year's Eve was celebrated in New York which was quite boring in
contrast to Guatemala where children can set off firecrackers and are very involved in the
celebration. He also expressed his anger about Mexico taking land from Guatemala.

Miguel had a depth and intensity about him that allowed both adults and children to
engage easily with him. He also was very charming, sincere, and captivated others with
his brilliant smile. Miguel was very well-respected by both the teacher and his peers.
His friends tended to be other fluent, articulate boys in the class such as Anthony whom he
sat next to and Born, a fluent writer. Several students considered Miguel to be one of the
best writers in the class and mentioned his piece about “Man's Best Friend, The Car“ as an
outstanding one.

Miguel also seemed to highly respect authority. He would only say positive things
about the teacher and became very uncomfortable in a small group setting in which other
students had criticized the teacher. He liked this year's class a great deal, much better

than the previous year‘s class and attributed success in writing to his teacher.

124

W

Miguel enjoyed writing when he felt he had ideas: "when all these ideas are popping
out of my head." He found that there was too much talk about writing and not enough time
to write in the classroom, preferring to look out the window or just think rather than
listening during the mini-lessons. He was unhappy when the trainers had the students
read something more than once, noting in one example, "she (the trainer) read it and then
she made us read it again. And I wonder why if we already knew what it said." Miguel also
seemed frustrated when a student read a piece that did not seem to connect with the
discussion at hand. However, he was always polite, never criticizing another student; he
just seemed to wonder quietly to himself.

Miguel was particularly sensitive about the audience for his and others' writing.
He wanted to share with people who would like and respect his writing--individual
students or the whole group. He was willing to share his writing with people who would
not laugh. During the interview, he defined a good audience as:

A person that won't laugh about my writing or a person that will say it's

good because they know it's really hard to think about something when it's

too noisy.
Even though he thought that about 10% of the class did not respect others' pieces, he
attempted to ignore them and read his work anyway. He acknowledged that some people
might not like his writing, but felt confident enough about his own writing to say that he
liked it anyway. When asked why he liked his writing, he said:

I like it because it comes out of me and I don't copy from other people. But

sometimes I read books and I like their description so then I sort of copy

them but I don't do that often.

He also liked to read his work to the teacher:

I do like sharing stuff with her because she knows it's really hard for a kid
to get something out of their mind and write it.

Not only did Miguel enjoy sharing pieces with his teacher, but he believed that his teacher

provided him with many ideas and helped him with his writing.

125

WAN

Miguel was a fluent writer, filling his notebook with lengthy entries and often
writing two or three entries daily. Miguel had strong feeling about his notebook and these
are reflected in the metaphors he used when describing his notebook:

Well, it's [his notebook] like a seed where you get ideas out of and then the

tree starts to come out and it forms a story. And then the branches come out

which form the description.

Miguel wrote about many topics from sports to love and death. Most of his notebook
entries fell into one of five categories: (a) himself and his feelings; (b) his family and
relationships with them; (c) science including space or how things worked; (d) the
environment, especially pollution; and (e) whales. He had from four to nine entries in
each of these categories. In his project Miguel combined two of these topic areas by
writing a comparison of himself and killer whales. He tended to draw more heavily from
the information he gathered on whales and the pieces he had written about them, and drew,
to a lesser extent, upon his entries about himself and his feelings.

Miguel's pieces reflect a depth of thought about himself, others in his life, and the
impact of humans on the earth. He often took the perspective of others in his pieces or
identified with the person who was suffering. For instance, in writing about a first grader
who had cancer, he connected it to the death of his grandmother and wrote:

I wish someone would cure him, or even a miracle. I don't know what to

say! And life only comes in once! I wish he could be cured so his parents

won't be crying for him. And worse, I don't want his parents to have to go

through what I went through, that is- one loved so much- one life in one

turn- to die of cancer.

Miguel also was concerned about problems in the world such as illiteracy and
wanted to be able to do something about it. He wrote:

I feel terrible, because its so sad that some people don't know how to read.

That is a very important thing in ones life, you don't get to enjoy books, the

wonderful things someone has written. If I could get a chance to teach
someone how to read, that would count in my life alotl

126

Miguel's deep concern for the environment comes through in his pieces about pollution. In
the following excerpt from an entry, he addressed his audience directly. He wrote:

Have you ever seen the sky? Well if you have, have you seen the bright

colors there are and how beautifull they look. But guess what? Those

colors are made by man-kind, humans, we were the ones that did it. Do you

know how we did it? Well, we did it by polluting the air, our only oxygen.
Miguel's work often used descriptive language and he used similes and metaphors
frequently. For instance, on one occasion he wrote:

Windows opened, cranes hanging on the lights. Wind blowing in, cranes

dancing (paper cranes), cheerfully dancing. Wanting to get out, and just

try to fly away towards the outside world.

This excerpt from an entry also reflected Miguel's use of perspective as he took on
the viewpoint of the paper cranes and imagined they would like to fly away. Miguel wrote
about a large variety of topics, drawing upon an extensive knowledge of the world and a
curiosity about how things worked. He expressed strong viewpoints about the world and
displayed empathy with other people. Miguel also incorporated descriptive language into
many of his entries. Later in the case, we will see how these features are incorporated in
his project entitled, “Who Am I?"

I I Z 11' [II' I

The teacher considered Miguel an excellent student who scored in the 99%ile in
standardized achievement tests. Ms. Meyer enjoyed Miguel and valued her relationship
with him. During an interview following a conference with him, she expressed her
enthusiasm for him and voiced her concerns about his readiness to do a project:

Miguel is the greatest kid, he's the greatest kid, he really is. Yet, he's not

that interested in doing a project, he's really much more interested in his

notebook and writing in his notebook than finding something that he really

wants to work on you know as a project. I think he's forcing his project

because he has to do it but I'm not sure it's something that he's really that

interested in.

The positive feelings that Miguel and the teacher had for each other were reflected

in his defending her against other students at times, while she attended to Miguel when he

seemed to be troubled about something. For instance, on at least two occasions, Ms. Meyer

127

spoke to Miguel privately about his feelings that day. It was unusual for Ms. Meyer to have
an individual interaction with a student that was not related to writing during writing
time. The first brief exchange took place on October 19 when Ms. Meyer approached
Miguel who was seated on the rug looking pensive:
1. T: Scared you didn't l?/ What were you thinking?/
2. Miguel: Well/ The outside world//

T: The outside world?/ Wishing you were there?/
Miguel: Yeah/I

T: It feels all closed in today/ huh?/ It's a day you want to be outside?/

Miguel: Yeah/l

VODU‘IAOD

T: Me too// It seems like the first really crisp day//
Here Ms. Meyer showed concern for Miguel's feelings and tried to identify with him by
expressing an understanding of a closed-in feeling related to the change in weather.

On another occasion, Ms. Meyer was concerned about Miguel's upset feelings and
lack of contributions to the class. The Incident that precipitated Miguel's sadness was Ms.
Meyer's lecture to the whole class about their inappropriate behavior on the playground.
Students had not been lining up and coming in properly; she took the opportunity to tell
children that they were not respecting authority. The teacher had singled Miguel out as
well as several other individuals in her lecture by saying that he had been overheated from
running on the playground too much. Miguel seemed to have been strongly affected by this
lecture. When Miguel looked quite unhappy during writing time, Ms. Mayer asked him,
“Do you know what you are doing?“ to which he responded “yes." She then said to him,
"Don't look so sad; it is not the end of the world,” directed him to look at her and then did a
fake smile, seemingly trying to cheer him up. Miguel did not seem cheered, however, and
later she went over to him and spoke very gently to him. This was their exchange:

1. T: Here. How are you doing?/ Are you still upset with me? Is that
why you are looking like that?

128

2 Miguel: (inaudible)

3 T: Bad things?

4. Miguel: No. (inaudible)

5 T: You get so upset whenever I say anything to you about the bad
things/ about the negative stuff// I feel terrible/ Most of the
things I say are so wonderful! you are so terrific! that I feel bad
ever saying anything to you in a negative way .because I think you
get so depressed about it// I don't want you to/ You know you were
wrong and that's the end of it/ I don't want you to feel bad/

These brief exchanges provide an indication of Ms. Meyer's concern for Miguel and
her desire to be sensitive toward him. While she seemed aware that scolding Miguel might
be embarrassing to him, she may not have been aware of why he seemed particularly
offended. If his cultural background highly values authority which some Hispanic cultures
do (e.g., Reyes, 1991), that may have been a reason for his embarrassment that she did
not consider. However, Ms. Meyer seemed to care about his response to her and wanted to
repair any damage that might have been done temporarily to their relationship.

Miguel's participation in class, his writing conferences with the teacher, and his
writing conference with a peer, Rom, are described in this section.

Miguel was an active participant in the classroom, oflen contributing ideas to class
discussions and occasionally sharing his entries. On October 11, Miguel read his piece
entitled, ”Man's Best Friend.” In this entry he suggested that most people thought about
man's best friend being the dog, but he believed man's best friend was something else.
Miguel did not say exactly what it was until the very end. Instead, he described features
such as being able to snuggle and love them that led the reader to believe he was writing
about another animal. Near the end, he gave hints about treating this thing well and
making it shiny, ending the piece by saying that man's best friend was the car. Miguel's

piece received praise from the teacher as well as other students. After Miguel completed

reading the entry, Ms. Meyer laughed and said, “That's a surprise ending. I didn't get that.

129

What made you think of that?” Miguel responded that he had been walking down the street
noticing people taking care of their cars and decided to write about it. Ms. Meyer praised
his work and told him what an interesting entry he had written.
Two points are significant here. First, this is one of several examples in which
Ms. Meyer praised Miguel's work within the whole-class setting. Second, Miguel had
introduced the idea of using a surprise ending to his piece which Ms. Meyer noted. This
feature of surprise played a role in what Miguel contributed to subsequent class
discussions. The next day Miguel introduced the idea of "keeping the reader on his toes" in
the discussion of qualities of good writing. (When asked later about this particular
expression, Miguel took credit for coining the expression and said that he just found it in
his brain). The teacher encouraged this expression by repeating the phrase and suggesting
that an indication of “keeping the reader on its toes“ is when people are so interested in the
writing that they continue to talk about it with other people. As she was summarizing the
qualities of good writing, Ms. Meyer used the expression ”get the reader on its toes” and
interpreted the statement as writing an exciting piece. This expression, introduced by
Miguel, became part of the classroom discourse for talking about text.
MW
Something that was distinctive about Ms. Meyer's interactions with Miguel was the
relative frequency of contact about writing. Ms. Meyer held one lengthy conference with
Miguel that took place with three other students present. She also talked to Miguel briefly
on three other occasions about writing.
Ms. Meyer's first conference was a brief one of about thirty seconds on October 22,
in which she responded to his piece about his experiences learning to read. Miguel's piece
started out by expressing a concern for those who could not read and then ended with a

brief description of how his uncle had taught him to read by hitting him with a belt if he

got stuck reading a word. The following is his text:

130

It was frustrating, I didn't know how to read, but, with a belt on my uncles
hand I soon dashed through the words. They seemed pretty hard, but I tried
hard, so I wouldn't get belted by my uncle. He was serious about it to, when
I got a paragraph right, he would give me a peice of gum, but when I got it
wrong, well all I can tell you is that it was terrible. But it was a great
experience. Before I knew how to read I took a book and started mumbleing
with out knowing how to read, | just faking it. Even though, I had to unless I
wanted my uncle to come over with his belt on his hands ....... And if I get a
word wrong he would say: Do you want this. Even though then, we had to be

able to read at the age of six I learned at the age of 5.1

On this occasion, Ms. Meyer knelt on the floor very close to MigueI--about one foot
away. They made frequent eye contact and Miguel nodded and smiled throughout the
conference. Ms. Meyer started out by saying, 'Ohhh" as she read his piece. Then Miguel
began the conversation, almost as if they had been reading simultaneously, and he could
just begin at a point in the text. Here is their exchange:

1. Miguel: With a new

2. T: Oh/ (she reads) ”with a belt I on my"/
3. Miguel: HUGE: hand/
4. T: my god/ [appreciative sound] Your writing is so good] [whispers] So you

are saying he kind of like/
Miguel: W me/
6. T: Manned you! flow/l [draws out] That got you to mad because you knew

you had to?// But it worked for you/ It's not the best way to get somebody
to read/ (laughs) (some momentary, overlapping, inaudible talk)

0'!

\l

Miguel: (nods and smiles in agreement).

Although the teacher initiated the conversation by going over to him and reading his
text, it was Miguel who began the exchange of words by bringing up the belt his uncle had
hit him with to get him to read. This was somewhat unusual because Ms. Meyer almost
always began the conversations. Even though this was the beginning of the conference and
the only day in which Miguel had worked on this particular entry, it was almost as if they

were continuing a previous conversation because of the ease with which they talked about

 

1All students' texts are presented using students' original wording, punctuation marks,
and spellings; they have not been edited, except for cross-outs or students' own editing.

This
read
uni.
tall. 1

EVI

Air

131

the line (“hit me with a belt") and the overall idea of the text (being forced to read
through physical means). The rapport between teacher and student was quite strong
during this brief exchange. They were sitting close together and they both nodded and
smiled throughout the exchange. Their emphasis was upon the same words, both
emphasizing 'belt" and ”threatened.“ Also, Ms. Meyer provided a kind of generic praise
for his overall writing by telling him his writing was good, emphasized through the
whisper and the use of “oh, god.“ This brief conference provides an Indication of the strong
rapport between Ms. Meyer and Miguel that had been established.

The next conference which took place two days later was about Miguel's project.
This conference took place in the hall with only an audiotape (I was in the other room
reading to the rest of the students). Several students took part in the small group
conference about projects. First, Ms. Meyer told students this was a good opportunity to
talk together about their projects and to review what Ms. Henderson had mentioned the
previous day. She reminded the four students of what Ms. Henderson had been talking
about by saying:

T: . . . Look through your notebooks and kind of treat them like you're a miner/
and you are going through and you are mining for the pieces of gold that you
found for your notebooks/l

Miguel: Or the seeds for the trees?!

T: Right! or the seeds for the big trees/ Miguel/ you have such a nice way of
putting it/ and what you decided was real important to you// What deserved
your attention// Either some entries that worked together/ or some big
idea that you had that you figured that you would like to do a project on/
okay?!

Ms. Meyer then focused on Jimmy's pieces about feelings and asked him if there
were something that appeared often in his notebook. They continued their conversation
with her asking Jimmy to think about what the project could become (meaning what form,
although she continued her metaphor of turning the gold into something such as a bracelet

or earrings). She suggested Jimmy turn his entries into poems and then encouraged him

to “start taking the wonderful pieces of gold lifting them off that page and trying to make

.4-
Ln

132

them more, more, and more beautiful.“ When she turned to Miguel, then, she had

established some background for how the project was to consist of entries that were linked

together into some type of theme. Ms. Meyer and Miguel had an exchange that lasted over

six minutes about Miguel's tapic for his project. Here is their beginning:

1.

2.

(”01:50)

\I

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

T:
Miguel:
T:
Miguel:
T:

Miguel:

Miguel:

Miguel:

Miguel:

Miguel:

Miguel:

Okay/l (sighs) Miguel! you want to talk?!

Sure/l Um (long pause) Well! Nothing's really come an"
Mhmm» [mild encouragement]

like too often/

Mhmm/

Because I do! I do have every single amt! in here are almost! different”
They're all different!

Mhmmm/

They're not! they're like strangers to each other!
Mnnmmm” [chuckles with an appreciative intonation]
So/ I don't know which one to enegee”

So mun saying Miguel that! now what I'm hearing you! is that netning
stands out in that notebook as being more important than the next?”

Uh huh--

You can't read through it and find! um” any connections like there's some
theme that runs mum it! that! you know! that most of your entries!
that! like most of them have to do with your tatner/ or do most of them have
to do with being attain! or/ um/ do most of them show you a specific kind of
person/ one who takes ename/ who goes and does things! or/ you know! are
you saying that! there's no connection at all you haven't seen?” [draws out
father and afraid]

No I haven't seen any connection in £1911! Uh! entry! but I like all of
them!

Mmmmj What do you like about all of them?” [shows interest with
elongated sound]

Um! I like my enmeaalene towards them and I like ~-

133

17. T: Okay/ so say more. about that! you like your mastene towards it”
[slower pace]

In the beginning segment, Ms. Meyer turned the floor over to Miguel by inviting
him to talk. Miguel's response indicates the continuing nature of the conversation which
Ms. Meyer and the other student, Jimmy, had begun. Miguel immediately began to describe
how his notebook entries did not connect to one another in a thematic way. He expressed
this thought using the metaphor of his entries being “like strangers to one another.” Ms.
Meyer showed an appreciation for this figure of speech by her laughter which had a
friendly, amused tone. She then followed up on his statement and phrased a series of
questions to get at whether there was a theme in his notebook. It is interesting that she
phrased it using negative words such as ”netan stands out" and “you ganlt read through
it?” Her strategies consisted mainly of asking him questions and summarizing her
interpretation of what he had said.

In this segment, Ms. Meyer also clarified to some extent what she meant by
“important.“ For instance, she mentioned the words ”theme" and “connections“ and then
gave suggestions such as ”entries that have to do with your father,“ or “being afraid,“ or
the writer himself. The teacher's "hmmms" in this segment seemed to serve as sources of
encouragement for Miguel. We can get a sense of how the teacher and student were
communicating through the types of responses they both gave. Each time she asked a
question, he was able to give an example of what he meant, which in turn led her to ask an
even more specific question to which he provided a more specific answer.

Miguel responded rather matter-of-factly, not apologetically, that he did not see
any connections but that he liked his pieces. Ms. Meyer responded to this by asking him to
provide examples of the qualities of writing he liked, and then prodded him in the next
segment to become specific about the entries that he liked. The following section shows the
teacher encouraging Miguel, while Miguel tried to explain that he was pleased with his

writing, even if other people did not respond positively. Ms. Meyer continued to encourage

134

him by agreeing with him, saying, "I know what you mean," and getting him to be more

specific about the entries he liked. Here is that portion of their discussion:

18. Miguel: See! I like the way! the way I write aemetmng/I I don't gate what other
pe0ple say//

19. T: So! you like--

20. Miguel: Not! not like I don't gate what they say-- [spoken rapidly]

21. T: Ne I know what you mean// [spoken rapidly and emphatically]

22. Miguel: If they say something like/ oh! you QanLt write ( inaudible)--[lifts voice
to imitate a student mocking another]

23. T: Yeah so what is it seeelflealty?” find a place that you're talking about
like find which entries you like” Okay/ like that one/ tell me
specifically/l [encouraging tone]

After being prodded by Ms. Meyer to tell about a particular entry, Miguel told Ms.
Meyer about the feeling of being a killer whale when swimming. It seems that because
Miguel had not identified a particular topic that Ms. Meyer was trying to get him to
identify a type of writing. However, she did not make that very explicit in the following
series of questions:

24. Miguel: Well! I used! when I went swimming

25. T: Mhmm/ [mild interest]

26. Miguel: Well I usually went swimming! and I! all of 3 antigen I felt like a
(inaudible)!

27. T: Mhmmm/ [rise-fall-rise to her voice, indicating interest]

28. Miguel: like! going through--

29. T: Ahhh/ [draws out] so you actually have that entry! you like the way you
actually lemme the whale?!

30. Miguel: Mmhm/
31. T: Now are there other parts! other entries where that happen?!

32. Miguel: Well/

(A,

23':

33.

34.
35.
36.

37.
38.

39.
40.

41.

42.
43.
44.

45.

Miguel:

Miguel:

Miguel:

Miguel:

Miguel:

Miguel:

135

Where you think you did that kind of writing?! In other words you think
you're need at that kind of writing/I You think you're really good at it”

lthinlt I've got another one// Yeah! I got (long pause) Wait! here it is!
Mhmm/ And how does that one go?!

Um! it says! (alternates reading and explaining) "I remember the day that
my mother had to leave me herne/ alene/I It was night!/ And I was very
scared! because I thought that someone might come/l” And tree know! when
you get the feeling! that someone's watching you! well I felt that! "I felt
that way/ like I felt! scared! as if I was a shark's prey/I I didn't know
what to do! Except watch TV” When I nratehed television! there was a
mexje/I It was Friday the 13th Part 7” It was really seary/ mostly when
the girl knew lwhat would happen in the future// She knew how to move
things without touching it! and when, I! when I got! hold of that
inlerrnatlen/ I sort of went to sleep on the couch!”

: Mhmm/ [some interest]

“and I! had a dream that l was I was a kid who! who knew how to move
things without touching them//."

: Mhmmm!

“And! Jason came teward me/ and I said--"

- You know! now that I'm thinking about it! I think me have uh! don't you

have a lot of entries about dreams?” [interrupts and expresses interest]
No!

hle?! You didn't have another entry about dreams?”

No/

Hmm/ So nhat do you think you want to do! Miguel?! You think you may
not be £9.2de to do a project yet?! Nothing really stands out as being
important to you in here?” You can't kind of put your finger on what's

important to you?”

In the previous segment, the teacher seemed to have wanted Miguel to identify a

topic (dreams), an issue (being scared or something personally revealing), or a type of

writing (taking another perspective, becoming something else). He provided two

examples of pieces of writing with accompanying explanation. Although she seemed

somewhat anxious to get on with her own agenda, Miguel did have the floor to read his

entries. She interrupted Miguel's reading and explanation of his entry to ask him about

136

dreams, and then suggested that perhaps there was not something ”important" for him to

turn into a project. Throughout the segment both teacher and student initiated topics--

Miguel by reading from his notebook and Ms. Meyer by asking questions. They responded

to one another and seemed to understand each other's meaning, but had not arrived at a

common topic. Up to this point the teacher had been encouraging him to find a topic, as her

questions encouraged him to focus more and more specifically. Ms. Meyer seemed on the

edge of abandoning Miguel's identifying a topic for a project, when in the next turns,

Miguel literally picked up on her use of the word "stands out' and continued the

conference. Here is their interaction:

46. Miguel:
47. T:
48. Miguel:
49. T:
50. Miguel:
51. T:
52. Miguel:
53. T:
54. Miguel:
55. T:
56. Miguel:
5 7. T:
58. Miguel:
59. T:
60. Miguel:
61 . T:

Well--

Okay, so--

Mostly the killer whale/
Uh huh/

It's my favorite whale and! I like the way it stands out!
Mhmm!

It's/l the eelers it has”
Mhmm!

And it's not like! a shark”
Mhmm! [encouraging tone]
But it can be”

So do you think that! whtr do you think you like that killer whale so
much?” What do you think! why do you think that one for all the ones that
stand out to you! why the killer whale?”

Because! the killer whale can be mean! and it can be friendly
Mhmm
like brothers or sisters!

So you think that's at all/ you think you're at all like a killer whale?”
[questioning tone shows interest]

62.

63.

64.
65.
66.
67.

68.

Miguel:

Miguel:
T:
Miguel:
T:

Miguel:

137

Yeslde!

: Yeah/l So you think that might be a! an interesting kind of! project for

you?! Try to mite something on! take mgr entries! and look through your
entries and see where you find! go through all! mine filming your
notebook! for places! where you write about yeurseli/ where you really
think you seen specific ehataetetistiesj and then work on the

characteristics of the killer whale! and kind of work that together?”
Sure! [with enthusiasm]

What do you think about that?!

It's geed/

Sounds like something that might be mum to you?!

Yeah!

Immediately after Miguel's suggestion that the killer whale might be a topic

because its colors make it stand out, Ms. Meyer encouraged Miguel's development of that

topic for a project. He introduced the topic of the killer whale and she immediately

followed up on it. It was at this point in the conversation that the teacher and student

seemed to have developed intersubjectivity, a shared understanding. The emphasis upon

the words ”stands out“ seemed to have triggered a response from Miguel. The teacher

pursued this topic with him briefly before introducing her own idea-~that the killer

whale was like himself. She introduced this idea in the form of a question. When he

responded in the affirmative, she immediately suggested he look through his notebook to

find the places where he had written about himself and the characteristics of the whale,

and then recommended he work these two ideas together. Ms. Mayer brought in her own

idea of what she thought was 'important"--that is, that a project should include something

personal.

Miguel was amenable to the idea of comparing himself to the killer whale; he

used many affirmative statements and provided clarification when Ms. Meyer asked for it.

It was at this point that Miguel and the teacher seemed to have reached a shared

understanding and agreed upon a topic, based upon their negotiations. Miguel had not

merely accepted his teacher's idea, but contributed his own.

his

oI

F‘V
as

R
V.

(v.

‘1‘

‘7’

a
l’\
I

138

In the final segment, Ms. Meyer gave Miguel suggestions about how to go through

his notebook to identify relevant pieces, and then asked him what it might become, meaning

what form or genre such as poetic, personal narrative, or fiction. Here is the conclusion

of their conference:

69.

70.
71.

72.

73.

74.

75.

76.
77.
78.
79.
80.

81.

82.
83.

T:

Miguel:

Miguel:

Miguel:

Miguel:

Miguel:

Miguel:

Miguel:

Yeah! You want to try that?” Okay! so see what happens” Go through that
neteheek/ and see what you can find get! about// how you and the killer
whale are kind of alike/l

Ok/

Kind of an interesting thing! And then somehow you might be able to use
that first entry you wrote! about the whale?!

Uh huh/

You know! how you start teeling like the whale and that kind of led you
thinking! about the killer whale is your taxerite whale! and what ways/
you know you're together! [pace quickens] It's interesting And what would
you de with that?! But! what can you imagine it heceming?”

WeIV this is a lot of intermatien about the killer whale/l

Okay! so you can imagine it being a nee-fiction piece about the killer
whale?!

Uh huh--

Uh huh/

And// what (???) and you know how--
Yeah--[interruption and high rise indicates an interest]
Like a! like a beek/

So you could see! you could 593/ [increased pace] you could write a little
piece about the killer whale! and then! and then! kind of like a peem about!
yeu/ comparing you and the killer whale tegether/ how you and the killer
whale are the same?”

Uh huh!

It would be interesting to do that/l That would really be nice” [with
emphasis] Yeah! You could work on a book! a little you know non-fiction
piece on killer nhales/ That's amt! Okay Miguel! ge for that! Does that
sound like impertant to you/ important stutt?” [voice becomes more
emphatic]

139

84. Miguel: Yes!
85. T: figed’

The conference ended and Miguel left the group at this point to go back into the
classroom. In this segment, Miguel had provided ideas such as drawing upon the
information that he had about killer whales. The use of non-fiction piece seemed to be
quite ambiguous. Initially, it appeared that Miguel wanted to write an expository piece
based on his ideas to include information about the whale. Ms. Meyer's view of the “non-
fiction" project, however, seemed to be more of a personal-comparative piece in which
Miguel would compare himself to the killer whale. She seemed quite pleased with her idea
and praised Miguel, highly recommending that he should write a ”non-fiction piece on the
killer whales.”

Miguel seemed quite agreeable, and indeed, he wrote his piece about how he and the
killer whale were alike. One of the ways in which Miguel indicated agreement in the
conversation was through his many uses of "uh huh” and other affirmative statements that
were sprinkled throughout the conference. When Ms. Meyer provided an idea, he picked up
on it, indicating her scaffolding had been successful. Her recommendations to him were
almost all in the form of questions; that is, she raised her voice at the end. Although she
contributed her ideas to the conference, Miguel also found an opportunity to suggest he
wanted to write the piece in the form of a book.

Ms. Meyer was concerned that Miguel would like the ideas. For instance, toward
the end she asked him if that would be “important stuff“ for him to write about. Her tone
of voice and the fact that she asked him indicated that she hoped that he would be invested in
the project and value it as something worth writing about. When the teacher seemed to
have been giving up on his selecting a topic, Miguel may have felt pressured to hurry and
come up with the killer whale as a topic. From the tone of their interaction, however, it

seemed they had reached a common understanding of what the project should be. Although

Sh
fill
en?
iii

Slit

140

Miguel may have had to compromise what he had originally been planning, he seemed
positive about the idea of writing a comparative piece about the killer whale.

In the conference between Miguel and the teacher, they seemed to develop
intersubjectivity, a kind of shared understanding. Ms. Meyer took on a role of prodding
Miguel to identify something in his notebook to use for the project. Each time he would
make a statement, she built upon that statement and asked him to be more specific. She
apparently wanted him to identify the topic, yet her implicit messages were that the topic
should fit her own idea of what constituted a good narrative. When Miguel described his
dream, Ms. Meyer indicated an interest in dreams, asking whether Miguel had a lot of
entries about dreams. When she was about to abandon the idea of Miguel's honing in on a
topic, he found the whale piece. Ms. Meyer was able to weave in her beliefs that a project
should contain something personal by recommending that Miguel compare himself to the
whale. Although she provided suggestions and support, she also wanted him to take control
over the selection of topic. Ms. Meyer wove into the dialogue her conception that the
projects should also be ”non-fiction,“ yet she did not want the piece to be expository
either. Thus, she reiterated that it would be a non-fiction piece. Additionally, by
including the comparison to himself, the piece could bring in the personal characteristics
that Ms. Mayer valued. Miguel seemed to have valued her contributions and felt that she
got him going on his project.

Miguel had several opportunities to interact with the teacher as well as having a
writing conference with a peer. The teacher followed up on Miguel's development of his
pieces in two brief exchanges which occurred on November 2, and November 8. In their
one minute conference on November 2, Ms. Meyer came over to Miguel, sat close to him
and put her arm around his chair. Miguel opened the conversation, suggesting that he had
taken seriously the teacher's idea:

1 . Miguel: I'm doing what you asked!

141

2. T: Heels it coming?

3. Miguel: I am taking the pieces” and on like on this piece I write (reads the part)
"Killer whales can live up to sixty years--

4. T: Uh huh--

5. Miguel: sixty to seventy years! Then I took something from myselt and I said! "But

guess what? So can 1?” [enthusiastic]

6. T: OK/ but why ean you?! See this is where the part that could become really
really interesting because! because you are going to take really good eare of
yeurseli you are going to see mutant! like all that part about seeing
yourself in the future and you are going to exercise! and stuff like that//
And maybe you do a lot of swimming! like the killer whale! You know what I
mean?-- [pace increases as she becomes more involved]

N

Miguel: Yeah-- -
8. T: You can kind of get it all into that! it is really neat” [emphatic]

Miguel suggested to the teacher that he was “doing what she asked" by comparing
himself to the killer whale. His examples suggest that he was taking a feature of the whale
such as living a long time and then adding something comparable about himself. We can see
the teacher's emphasis upon the personal here as she pressed Miguel to be more explicit
about himself. We can see how many times she used the words “yourself” and "you" and
compare it to the infrequency of uses of the word killer whale. Synchrony between teacher
and student was particularly apparent in this interaction as teacher and student sat close
together; Ms. Meyer was quite enthusiastic in her tone of voice, and Miguel nodded and
smiled during their brief conference. He also became excited when he told her about the
connection he had made between the killer whale being able to live seventy years and his
own life span.

In the exit interview with Miguel, he reflected upon the influence that the teacher
had had upon him. He gave Ms. Meyer credit for both the idea of writing about himself and
the killer whale and the development of the piece in which he compared the life span of the

whale to his own. When I asked him if he had experienced any conferences with the teacher

4..
El:

53

*.~
Sm

clue

I
\

142

that he thought went well, he discussed both the October 24 and the November 2

conference. Here is the way in which Miguel expressed it:

Oh yea, Ms. Meyer . . . l was telling her about my project. So I was only

writing the killer whales and then she said um, do you have a lot of, she said

that l have a lot of um entries about myself. So I just said yea. I do and then

when I said I had a killer whale in me, so then she said you can compare

both of them so then I did and at. At the same time I didn't want to, until one

day she really got me into it because she said because I was writing it. I was

writing um that the killer whale can, can live up to 70 years, 60 through

70 years and l was just going to leave it like that and I was going to say but

so can I. And now I was just going to leave it like that but she said you can

write hey you can live up to 70 years and I wrote like a paragraph about it.

Miguel's understanding of the two conferences was that he was intending to write
about killer whales only, but Ms. Meyer asked if he had written a lot about himself. In the
second conference about his project she “really got [him] into it" by giving him a
particular suggestion about how to compare himself to the whale. His interview supports
the idea that he had made a connection between the killer whale and himself and felt

enthusiastic about it.

Ms. Meyer showed further interest in Miguel's project a few days later when she
asked him how things were going on his project and suggested that a teacher next door had
several books on whales that he should examine. Their last interaction about the project
took place when Ms. Meyer came over, leaned over Miguel, and had the following
conversation with him about intended audience and the form of the piece. Below is their
interaction:

1 . T: This is going to be a eeuele of different entries here?! It's a peem?”

2. Miguel: No/it's notapeem!

3. T: This is all one mesa?! It just keeps going on from here?” (looks through
different pieces of paper.) This is separate and this is separate?”

4 . Miguel: Yeah!

5. T: And the poem is going to he?! What kind of term do you want this to take?!
How are you going to de this! just on three separate pieces of paper as a
erejeet?! Whe is it going to be for?! Who is the audience?! Who do you
think is going to want to read this?! Ihat is what you have to think

143

about/who is the audience” Do you know what I am sayineZ! Like some
peeple are writing 181mm others are doing something 21.3.9! others are
writing deems” You have to decide who your audience is going to be! how
you are going to present it! What would you like it to he?” Would it be an
article like for a magazine? nah/l Would it be a seeeeh?! Who would be
interested in it! you know// Would it be a talk?! You know! you have to

think! OK?”

In this conference, unlike others with Miguel, he said very little and the teacher
did almost all of the talking. At this point Miguel had written several different pieces with
the poem as the lead. Ms. Meyer seemed to be pressing him to find a particular audience
and to think of the form it would take. Miguel contributed little to the conversation;
instead, he answered her questions but did not add any explanation. In this interaction,
there was less synchrony between the two speakers than in others between the two. Ms.
Meyer provided one of her “mini-lectures“ about Miguel's need to consider audience.

Besides the influence of the teacher on his work, Miguel mentioned in the exit
interview the influence of his conference with Born, a boy who sat at another table, on him.
Below a narrative of Miguel's conference with Rom is presented.

EeeegentereneemritLBem. During writing time on November 1, Rom moved to the
seat beside Miguel to discuss his writing with him. Miguel began the conference by stating
that he was going to write about killer whales to which Rom asked what specifically he was
going to write. Miguel said, “Well, first I'm going to write a book about it and compare the
killer whale to me,“ and asked Flom what he was doing. Rom responded he was writing
about “the balcony" where his grandparents live. After looking at each other's entries,
Miguel asked Rom, "Do you like It?" Rom responded, "These are good. I like it. You are a
human being?" Miguel then said, "Yeah, of course I am. I'm a human being. I express
myself as a killer whale, but I'm not."

In the opening of this conference we see the two students exchanging entries and
finding out about the topics each is writing. Each seemed to be interested in the other's
work, asking general questions. In the next segment of the dialogue, Rom helped Miguel

with indenting his paragraphs properly, ensuring he had capital letters, and correcting

144

his spelling. Miguel told me that Rom was very good at providing help with spelling and
capital letters. At this point, Miguel suggested he tried to copy Rom's handwriting, but
couldn't, and Horn responded that he had learned to write like that when Vanessa, a former
student teacher, had taught them about haikus.

The introduction of the term haiku into the discussion seemed to have influenced
Miguel because he told me he decided to use the haiku poetic form to write the poem, "Who
Am I?“ After Miguel and Rom talked about things related to the sea, Miguel read his piece,
"Who Am I?“ to Born and the conference ended.

What is significant about the conference between Born and Miguel is that Ms. Meyer
encouraged them to write together, telling me that they really helped each other as opposed
to just providing an audience for one another. In other words, Ms. Meyer sanctioned their
conference, even though she did not encourage all students to hold conferences with peers.
Additionally, besides reading and sharing their work with one another, Rom did bring up
the issue of the haiku which, in turn, influenced Miguel to start his place off with a haiku-
type of poem.

.. e n:'..- .o, .. ll. ; “.0: :l ;. .; ., a." I to be?

Miguel came away from the long conference about his project on whales with a
clear sense of what he wanted to write and articulated his new understanding of what a
project was. He used several of the words and ideas that emerged from the conference. For
instance, in one response he used the gold metaphor that Ms. Mayer had described,
developed his own metaphor of the tree growing, and linked these to the idea of connecting
entries to form a whole. He also used his own topic as an example for connecting entries
into a project. Here is how Miguel expressed his understanding of the project after the
conference:

Like gold and making it into a bracelet or a ring or something like that.

Like a like a tree growing. Making it into a tree with apples and so we sort

of got the most entries that are connected together. You know like let's say

for me it was whales and how did the whale become the killer whale and
they're alike. At least I think we are alike. And umm, see the killer whale

1 45

is one of my favorite, it is my favorite whale and it's one of my favorite

animals too.

In Miguel's response we can see how the ideas took hold and compare it to the
teacher's and trainer's intentions. The whole metaphor of a miner mining for gold was
intended to capture the idea of an author (the miner) going through the notebook, looking
for all the best entries (the gold) to turn into a finished product with a particular form
such as poem, letter, non-fiction piece (the bracelet, ring, etc). Miguel seemed to have
been able to use the terminology in a meaningful way, while developing his own metaphor
of the seeds (presumably the notebook entries) to allow them to grow into the tree,
complete with apples. Most interesting was that Miguel understood that the entries were
to be connected to one another in some way. He then described literally connecting the
killer whale to himself. At this point in the development of his ideas, Miguel suggested
that his project would take the form of both a poem and a non-fiction book about killer
whales. He said:

I'm doing a poem. I'm doing a non-fiction book about killer whales. Then I'm
going to do a poem on how the killer whale and me are compared.

Clearly, the teacher's suggestions had made an impact. He explained that he was
writing both a non-fiction book and a poem, one of the teacher's ideas she had introduced
Into the conversation, and he explained that his topic was about the comparison between
himself and the whale, another suggestion she had made to him.

Miguel described the most important attributes of good writing as ”good
description,” “good use of language,” and ”imagination.“ He gave examples of description
reading from other students' work as well as from books. For example, he suggested that a
girl, Alexis, had written a descriptive piece about her father that provided Miguel with an
idea about what constituted good writing. Miguel also provided an example from his piece
about being followed by a shark as illustrative of the use of ”beautiful language." He said:

We were kind of taking a word, a sentence and then making it into beautiful

language. 80 then I took being followed by a shark and then I made a whole
sentence out of it.

lite

146

For Miguel, good description seemed to mean both adding detail and using adjectives.
He also particularly enjoyed the writings of Tolkien, especially Ihe_l_erd_gt_the_Bings
because of the author's use of detail and description. In an interview Miguel noted:

Mr. Tolkien, he uses um lots of imagination and he uses a lot of language and

he describes like the elves and everything and it's, and he uses a lot of

imagination at the same time.

Miguel thought that the most important thing he had Ieamed in this year's class
was about description, and stated that It was the teacher who "got him into description” by
having him use ”Post its” to mark phrases in books that used descriptive language. He felt
that he could make ”people get a picture in their minds.” He also distinguished descriptive
writing from diary writing, providing some examples of the differences. Miguel was quite
adept at drawing from the classroom discourse and transforming the dialogue to create his
own understanding.

He identified several factors in the classroom as being beneficial to helping him
understand description, including talk and other students reading his notebook. When I
asked him why pieces became more descriptive, he said, “Maybe a lot of talk and a lot of
children reading your notebooks." Miguel also cited a specific example of where a girl,
Orlanda, had read where the rain kissed her cheek. In his next piece, Miguel tried to
create images. Miguel gave examples of imagery that were unlike the rain kissing her
cheek, but conveyed a strong visual sense such as "fire burst out of the engines” that had
rolled over. When I asked how Orlanda had helped, he said:

Well, she sort of gave me the idea of what descriptive writing was when the

rain kissed her cheek . . . so I just get like a tv up here, think about it and

just write it.

. Listening to other students talking about their brothers and sisters had also caused
him to be reflective about his own family, especially his relationship with his brother.

He brought up Anthony's piece about is grandmother saying that that also had made him

think about his own grandmother. Miguel credited Rom for helping him specifically with a

147

part in his whale piece, suggesting that Fiom had told him that one part did not make sense
which had improved the whale piece.
nonmnionalizatiotuMJaLtIaLMicuelJmemalized?

We can infer what Miguel has internalized from the texts he created for his project
and his conference with the younger student.
Inns

As noted before, Miguel filled his notebook with lengthy entries about a variety of
topics. Many of these entries reflected the emphasis in the classroom upon description,
imagery, and writing about personal issues and events. Miguel's project, "Who Am I?”
went through one draft before the final project. His project reflects the classroom
dialogue and shows the influence of the teacher-student and peer writing conference. In
composing his project, Miguel drew from two existing pieces in his notebook as well as
constructing new text, based on information from a video he had watched and books he had
borrowed on killer whales. Miguel's final project, entitled ”Who Am I?“ reflected these
various sources of published texts, his own, and classroom dialogue.

Miguel's project, which was neatly typed, was divided into four separate parts with
two lines separating the parts. The first part is in a poetic form and was revised from his
October 4 notebook entry. The second part is a description of being a killer whale, revised
from his first notebook entry, written on September 17. The third part is a comparison
of himself to the killer whales, imagining what the author could be in the future; this part
was revised from information he had written about the whale on October 30 as well as
revisions after the November 2 conference. The fourth part of the text provides
information about the length and strength of killer whales, drawn from information he
found in books about whales.

What do we see in Miguel's text? The first part of the text is written in poetic

form:

 

lit

148

I am a human being

But can't be seen

I express myself as a killer whale

But I am not a killer

I am friendly as a trained dog

But I can be fierce as a killer whale hunting
I can be your friend

But I can ignore

In the poem, Miguel has used first person. After starting off by explaining he was a
human, he quickly took the perspective of the whale. Miguel used figurative language in
this part, combining personification with simile. Miguel's use of simile reflects the
teacher's emphasis upon figurative language. In this revised segment, Miguel took the
advice of Rom whom he had conferenced with earlier. Rom had suggested that the Initial
lines "I can be your friend, But I can be your enemy" were contradictory. Apparently
Miguel agreed because he took this line out as well as the line "I can love.” Interestingly,
Miguel thought this format was a haiku, but never really explained why It fit that
category. It may be that his knowledge of poetry was limited to using haiku.

The second part of the text reflects his knowledge of whales with the use of details
such as the size of the body of both the whale and the shark. It also reflects the emphasis on
description and detail in the classroom. For instance, Miguel used several adjectives to
describe the sea and ”great” and “powerful” to describe the fluke. Miguel also used
expressive language such as ”crunch" along with verbs that express particular actions as
in "dash" or "rip.“ Miguel also "put himself into the piece“ starting off by taking the
perspective of being a human and then taking the perspective of being a whale. In this
segment, Miguel has used features of personal narrative as well as description, both
features of the classroom discourse for constructing successful texts.

You know, when I go swimming I just get the feeling of being a killer whale

in the deep blue ocean. Then again I feel like I am being followed by a shark,

so then I get scared and I get out of the water. But thinking of being a killer

whale, I then dash ot the water without being scared of he shark. But

imagining the shark, how fierce it would be, hurdling through the water,

mouth open, wantin to crunch on my bones and rip my flesh ofi my bones.

Boy that would be scary!

But wait, I'm a killer whale so then I would be able to tear the shark's flesh
and crunch on it's bones.

149

With my 30 ft. body and the shark being only 15 ft., boy would I crunch

him for lunch I would slap the shark on it's head with my great and

powerful fluke, and let it swim away.

In the third section, Miguel does the comparison of himself to the whale. Beginning
with a factual statement about longevity of the whale, he formulated a question to the
reader, and then used the comparison. Using features of the killer whale such as strength
and bravery, Miguel as author then suggested how he as a human would attain these
characteristics. In this segment, we see the influence of the teacher's conference with
Miguel. In their November 2 conference, Ms. Meyer had indicated that the most
interesting part was where he wrote about himself. Miguel included this in his final
project, although it was reduced from his October 30 draft.

Killer whales can live up to 60-70 years, but guess what?

So can II

I know, because I am going to exercise, swim [but of course not as fast as

the killer whale], eat properly and I am going to be as strong as the killer

whale, and as brave as the killer whale.

The fourth part of the project seems to be the least related to the rest of the
project. It is here that Miguel has included the information about whales. He used third
person and did not bring himself into it at all. It is interesting, though, that even in the
expository part of the project, he has included similes such as the killer whale being like
a submarine and the swing of the fluke being like playing baseball. He used several
adjectives to describe the whale, although the last sentence looks like those often appearing
in published informational texts.

The dorsal fin of a killer whale is 6 ft.. The killer whale is like a

submarine. It's great 8 ton body hurdling through the water.

It's great powerful fluke can knock off a human being's head with just one

swing, as if it was playing baseball.

New borns are 8 ft. long. Killer whales live in family groups of several

hundred- remaining in them for life- in all oceans, mostly in cooler coastal

waters. This expremely powerful whale is tame and gentle and survives

well in captivity.

In Miguel's texts, he has transformed the emphasis on description and imagery in
the classroom to use in his own work. His project included descriptive adjectives, precise

verbs, and an attempt for the reader to “get a picture in his mind.“ His texts reflect the

150

multiple voices of the teacher with her emphasis upon the personal, of the student, Rom,
who encouraged him to use haiku, and of books he had read about whales. Miguel drew from
many sources from his interactions in the classroom to include in his text.
WW

Miguel's writing conference with the first-grader, Monet, occurred in the hallway
during lunch time. The two children sat together at a small desk with a tape recorder
between them. Monet had brought her story which was a personal narrative about the
events of her day, including feeding the fish. After reading her piece to Miguel, he thanked
her and asked her what she wanted to do. Below is their interaction:
1 . Miguel: OK/ you can read you stuff!
2. Monet: The (pause) One day I had a (inaudible). After I ate my dinner, I went to

bed! The next morning (inaudible). Before I left! I fed my fish! I came

home! I was tired! I decided not to eat dinner! Then! I took/ I mean the!
what I said!/ I took my fish into the kitchen so I can feed them! The end//

3. Miguel: Thank you! Now! would you want to! what do you want to do now?”

4. Monet: Umm/ what I want to do is/ I'm not doing those// What to do because it's
nothing but (inaudible).

5. Miguel: Well! do you want to describe your fish?”

6. Monet: What do you mean?”

7. Miguel: Like you can say! ”His mouth was full of water/! Then the water went on.

(inaudible) water! went out!“ And then you could say/ as if he was kissing
at you because they. open their mouth! right?” And it looks like they're
kissing at you! right?” So you can say that!/

Miguel opened the conversation by asking Monet what she wanted to do rather than
imposing his idea of what she ought to write about or how to improve her text. Next he
provided some help by asking if she wanted to describe her fish. When she seemed unclear
about what he meant, Miguel offered an example such as the fish's mouth was full of water
or he “was kissing at you." In this segment we see the idea of description emerging right

away. Not only did Miguel use the word description but he provided an example of

description that would work within the specific context of Monet's work. Following this

151

discussion, Monet suggested that this was not a true story. Miguel asked if she made it up

to which she replied, part of it was true but part was made up--the part about the fish

dying. In the next section, Monet said that she had wanted the book to have more adventure.

Miguel picked up on that idea and then gave her some ideas about how to do that. Their

dialogue continues:

12.
13.
14.

15.

16.

17.

18.
19.
20.
21.
22.

23.

Monet:
Miguel:
Monet:

Miguel:

Monet:

Miguel:

Monet:
Miguel:
Monet:
Miguel:
Monet:

Miguel:

Yea!/ I wanted to make it more adventure-like!
Oh! oh/
I just couldn't think of like more than this” I just like wrote anything”

Oh! so you mean you wanted more adventure in there?” So you mean just
about your fish?”

Well/ sort of because umm/ like when I first! I started the story and
stuff// But every time I start a story! because I think it's going to be good!
but then it's like I can't! . . . stuff! And then!

Oh! so you want your book to be an adventure book/l Umm/ that's easy//
Well! I you want to do is! about your fish and you! right?”

Mm! mm!

See! you can write umm/ do you have a tank or just like a bottle?”

A tank/l

Like how big?” The width of the table we're on right now?!

Umm/ this big// (Demonstrates) See where this is?! If this wasn't--

So you mean 28 inches?! Oh! 28 inches// So then you can say you can
almost feel this fish//

Miguel built on Monet's idea that she wanted to make her piece include adventures

and tried to clarify whether the adventures would be about fish. He also asked her if she

wanted to write about the fish and her. Miguel then asked the first grader questions about

what she kept her fish in. One of the most interesting things is that Miguel brought in his

own experience, drawing from how he had written his piece when he says in turn 17,

“about your fish and you, right?“ That is, he suggested to Monet that she could imagine

152

being the fish and write about that in a similar way to how he had compared himself to the

whale.

Monet and Miguel's conference continued with Monet describing how she had
combined two stories about Halloween and Christmas into one story to make it humorous.
Miguel's responses were very supportive; he made statements such as 'Oh, that's a really
cool thing” and “So you mean it's like a mixed up book. I never thought of that.“ In this
portion of the dialogue, Miguel supported Monet's ideas and tried to summarize what she
was saying. He then asked her what she wanted to do to make the book better. Monet
explained that she was writing the book backwards because it was a mixed up story. Then
Miguel began to give Monet a series of ideas she could write about.

The next sequence of turns consisted of Monet volunteering ideas and Miguel
suggesting that those were good ideas that she could write about. In turns 3550 we can
see how Monet introduced an idea and Miguel encouraged her through telling her she could
write about that topic, but also by showing an interest in the topic of her cousin. The next
sequence of dialogue shows Miguel's supportive role:

35. Monet: Because I start from this way! but I like/ I just like// . . . story/I I tried
to make it a mixed up story/I I'm writing about stories! I wrote two
stories! but . . . I take all my stories home because I always read my stories
to my umm/ my mother and my father! and she's like my cousin! she's

always home and stuff// I never get to like really see her//

36. Miguel: Well! you can write about that!/ You can write a book about it! like you
going to her house and everything!/

37. Monet: But If I write and like I want to see her/ but I know it's going to happen//
We're going to have like a ---l Because she always helps me on stories!

38. Miguel: Who's the she?”

39. Monet: She's my cousin!

40. Miguel: ON!

41. Monet: Her name's Diedra/ And every time I'm starting! like if I go and I start a
book! and then I read to her/ she's going to say! " ----- ." And I go to say!

umm/ let's say I made a map book! And then she comes! when I read it to
her and stuff I just want her to read a book// We don't really get to see each

42.

43.
44.
45.
46.

47.
48.
49.

50.

Miguel:

Monet:
Miguel:
Monet:

Miguel:

Monet:
Miguel:
Monet:

Miguel:

153
other// And I'd rather write a book about like! if I write a mystery I'm
writing about my tooth/l

You can write about your cousin/I You can write about the fun times you
had with her//

But I don't like making up! I don't like like writing//

Excuse me?”

I said that umm/ I don't really like/so much writing/l And that's all//
What were you talking about?” You can write about your cousin/I You can
write about the good times you've had with her// You can write about the
books you two/ you both! you two wrote// You can write really good stuff
about it”

I guess! Sometime! I don't know”

Try that”

I try to write stories! but I think of doing pictures/l Every time I do a
story--

It's good to make pictures//

In this segment of the dialogue, Miguel attempted to build on the statements that

Monet had made. When Monet introduced the idea of a person helping her with stories,

Miguel asked who the person was and suggested she write about her. He seemed to ignore

the statements she made about not liking to write, and instead focused on how she could

write about the good times with her. He even praised her for doing pictures, telling her it

was a good idea. Later on in the conference, Monet brought up two additional ideas, one

about slipping and falling on a banana peel. Each time, Miguel would recommend that she

could write a story about that incident. Toward the end of the conference, Miguel suggested

she could write about several ideas and she could include description. Here is their

interaction:

67. Monet:
68 . Miguel:
69 . Monet:

70. Miguel:

I slipped on a banana peeV

You can write about that/I You can write about lots of things! Like you can
write about this moment right now//

Well/I

You can write about the school! what it looks like!/

154

71. Monet: That's what I already wrote about in here!

72. Miguel: That's what's called description/I You like! like let's say--.

73. Monet: Do you want me to read this to you and I'll show you what I mean?”
74. Miguel: Sure/I

Miguel encouraged Monet to write about several topics and re-introduced the idea
of description. He used the example of her writing about the school and describing what it
looked like. He both used the ideas she had initiated and introduced some of his own Ideas
such as writing about the school or this particular moment. Miguel's primary emphases
were on giving Monet additional topics to write about and using description in her piece.
Both of these seem to link back to the classroom content which emphasized description and
Miguel's conferences with the teacher in which she helped him with topic selection.

Most striking about this conference is the evenness of the turn exchange. Monet
took as many turns as Miguel, and her turn was often more extended than his. He seemed to
really listen as she spoke about a particular event or something she was thinking,
evidenced by his picking up on what she said and asking relevant questions or making
suggestions that fit the context. Miguel saw his role as trying to help the younger child
write more stories. In fact he ended the conference by saying, "I'm trying to help you
write more stories." Miguel's role was very supportive during the conference. He did not
interrupt Monet, but let her complete her sentences. He gave suggestions and asked
questions, but did not insist that she write something. In this conference, Miguel played
the role of the prototypical teacher that Graves (1983) writes about. Here, Miguel has
allowed the child to lead, by asking questions about the piece and supporting the child's
efforts.

His conference with Monet has some connections with his conference with the
teacher. Just as the teacher built on his responses in his long conference with her, Miguel
built on the responses of Monet. They used similar overall strategies such as asking

questions, summarizing what the student had done, and making recommendations.

155

However, Miguel focused even more on the author's feelings and tried to be supportive of
the girl.

Several features are noteworthy about Miguel's case. First, he was a student who
regarded the teacher highly and was anxious for her approval. The teacher, in turn,
valued his contributions to class and found occasions to meet with him frequently. The
teacher scaffolded instruction by building on his ideas, yet introducing some of her own.
During their interactions, they developed a shared understanding of meaning and of the
task. Their body language and their emphasis upon particular words resulted in a shared
understanding of the task. Teacher and student were in synchrony with one another.
Although Miguel may have compromised initially by writing about something he was not
clearly enthusiastic about, he became more invested in the project after the subsequent
conference about the piece.

Second, Miguel's case reflects the multiple voices of the teacher and others with
whom he had interacted. The teacher clearly influenced his topic choice, but Rom's
reference to the haiku affected Miguel's writing as well. His style of conducting writing
conferences also linked back to his interactions with the teacher In which both teacher and
student built upon each other‘s ideas. Miguel was the ”ideal" teacher Graves (1983)
described because he followed the ideas that the younger student introduced and supported
her efforts.

Third, Miguel was almost a perfect fit with the teacher's expectations; he turned an
expository piece into a personal piece and he included features of language and style.
However, he was also a perfect fit with the Teachers College Writing Project ideals, more
so than his teacher, because he focused on the younger student and her text, not on his own
agenda. Miguel acted upon his own beliefs about the need to have a supportive audience who
would take seriously the author's ideas. Despite the norms of the classroom that

discouraged peer conferences, Miguel initiated a conference with Flom about their projects

 

_lu—1E _
I

156

and acted upon ideals that were consistent with the Writing Project. He did so because the
teacher was supportive of him and his efforts in the classroom setting.
Description and Didacticism: The Case of Anthony
W

This section describes Anthony's background, the teacher's views about him, and
his own strongly held beliefs about writing. It also details some of the topics he wrote
about, especially pieces related to his grandmother.

Bantam

Anthony was a lively, thoughtful, and entertaining nine-year-old boy in the fifth
grade. He was small and slight and young for his grade because he started school early. He
had brown curly hair and wore wire-rimmed glasses giving the appearance of a “little
professor." His body was continually in motion and his answers were often accompanied
by dramatic facial expressions, getting up and walking around the room as he sought an
appropriate way to express his ideas, and changes in voice and intonation to make a
particular point. In interview situations Anthony often used any objects that were
available as both items to play with as he was talking and as objects that took on particular
meanings, events, or people to illustrate his responses. On one occasion, he represented
his ideas through the use of a cassette tape as his “writing,“ the use of his glasses that he
dangled in front of him as the “writer's block,” and the use of a plastic tape holder as his
“teacher” who helped him over the block. His conversation was also filled with the use of
metaphors such as describing his project as, ”about one subject, whereas, my notebook is
a thousand and one taste adventures."

Although Anthony lived with only his mother and father, he considered his extended
family consisting of a brother and sister who were much older and lived in their own
homes, an uncle, aunts, grandparents, and godparents as part of his family. English was
his native language, but he understood Spanish because it was often spoken by his

relatives. Having relatives who still lived in Puerto Rico, Anthony regarded Puerto Rico

157

as an important place in his life and spoke of it tenderly such as, '[My relatives are] all
from Puerto Rico. That's my hometown. I call it my hometown because I love going there."

Anthony lived in mid-Manhattan, within a long walk of the school or a short cab
ride. His father was a reporter for a local television station, while his mother worked at
the school as an assistant teacher. Anthony's home environment seemed to have provided
many opportunities for reading, writing, and science activities. His father had written a
book that Anthony had read and Anthony reported that dinner table discussions were filled
with talk about happenings of the day as well as discussions about particular words and
ideas related to literacy. Anthony had access to a computer at home and reported reading
many books. In short, Anthony's home environment seemed to have been filled with many
opportunities to participate in literate activities that would support and extend school
Ieaming. He read a great deal at home as well as in school, mostly fiction. but sometimes
books on science.

Besides engaging in many reading and writing activities at home, Anthony
considered himself an inventor, having invented a heat ray that succeeded in keeping him
warm at night and an electronic boomerang that flies in the air, and was pursuing making
robots. He took private piano lessons and sculpted in clay on occasion. While viewing the
Ramses exhibit in Boston he had gained an interest in hieroglyphics and studied the
pamphlets and materials well enough to identify several relevant hieroglyphics.

Anthony's perception of himself was that he was an intelligent boy and this
occasionally caused him some discomfort. He explained that he did not write down the
experiments he tried at home in his notebook because he would get embarrassed in front of
other students, they did not share his interests. Anthony expressed his embarrassment
and his view of himself in this way:

It makes me feel embarrassed sometimes because everybody else is into

football. Hey, man. [they are] like into football, not science. They don't. . .

. .I skipped a grade. I skipped kindergarten. . . .I'm smart. I'm smart. I'm

smart. But, it's just that I know a lot more things. Like I know a lot more
things than other people do. I know things that, like if you ask an ordinary

158

kid what are these lines on the guitar, they wouldn't know. I could tell
them. They're called frets. There are a lot of things. I am actually the
class dictionary. l have been a class dictionary for a long time. It's like,
"Hey Tony, what...how do you spell this word?" And they say it out to me.
G-o-n-e. And sometimes it's very silly words like...This is one that I'm
working on. Anti-dIs-establishmentarianism.

The teacher's perception of Anthony did not necessarily coincide with Anthony's own views.

MW

Ms. Meyer viewed Anthony as a “good student” who scored in the 80%ile on
standardized achievement tests. Yet, she described him as a phony and a student who was
into “the show" rather than the substance of classroom interactions and concepts. She
described him in this way:

I think he's Mr. Show Biz, I think he's like his father, you know his father
is, his father is . . .this newscaster on t.v. and I think Anthony's a big, he's
like a real ass kisser. He's real phony; Anthony's a real phony and he
pretends to know everything and to be able to do everything . . . . but if you
call on him he'll like» and he'll try to beat around the bush. I don't think
there's anything there really of substance. Anthony's very verbal and he's
bright about a lot of things but [with regard to] his performance, he's a
real big baby.

Ms. Mayer felt that Anthony had been pampered by his father who was an older man
and by his mother who was over protective of him. She reacted negatively to his having
skipped a grade and suggested that this contributed to his lack of maturity as a writer. Ms.
Meyer believed that Anthony got easily distracted during writing time and that his thoughts
were scattered. While she thought that Anthony had some good pieces in his notebook, she
believed that lack of maturity made him unable to focus on writing and following a piece
through. Ms. Meyer's perceptions of Anthony as a writer included these:

I think his writing could be very sophisticated but I think he lacks the

maturity to get it down on paper. He'll sit down and he'll have the thoughts

but unless you sit with him and he's all quiet, he's very easily distracted

during writing time. He's another one who could write two sentences in a

half hour because he's looking around the room or he's kicking his feet or

he's doing something else. It's just so immature. He's supposed to be

writing about his grandmother and he's got some pretty decent things in that

notebook, some snippets of good stuff . . . . and he could tell you all those
things but I'm not sure that he could really get it down [in writing].

159

While Ms. Meyer held the view that Anthony was an immature writer, Anthony had
strongly developed views about writing and himself as a writer.
I!’ El I 1!! ll'

Anthony considered himself a writer. He engaged in many different kinds of
writing activities at home including keeping scientific journals in which he wrote down
chemicals used and experiments he tried. He also liked to write about himself and "what's
happening“ in his notebook. When asked if he were a good writer, he initially responded,
”Not bad. If I tell you, it would be an opinion but I don't know.“ When reassured that his
opinion was welcome, Anthony responded, “Alright, alright, alright. Yes. Yes. Yes“
meaning he did think he was a good writer. His criterion for good writing matched one of
the teacher's criteria--that of using description. Anthony said, "I describe when I write”
and then read an example from his notebook to express what good writing was. He believed
he was a good writer because he incorporated description in his writing. Anthony
expressed it this way:

When I said I heard a scream that filled the whole room and gave me a chill

down my spine, it's like ahhhhh and you can hear it in the room. It actually

made me quiver. That's what I call it. It makes me shake. And that's what.

That's what makes my good writing descriptive.

Anthony was familiar with such ideas as writer's block and described that as a

problem that he had. He had a strategy for solving this problem though.

The simplest one in the world-~keep on writing . . . Just write any old
thing. Actually, just walk around the room and immediately you get an idea.

He gave an example of having a block and looking out the window and noticing it was
raining. By saying aloud "it was raining“ and by talking about the weather, Anthony was
able to get an idea to stop his writer's block. Anthony believed that he could say things
orally better than writing them down and agreed with the teacher that he usually talked
instead of writing during writing time.

His experiences in Ms. Meyer's class have been much more positive for him than

last year's writing class. He found that Ms. Meyer loved writing and was a good teacher,

160

whereas Anthony reported that the teacher last year made students write book reports and
he hated that class saying, “Oh, don't talk about it.“ and "Oh boy. [I] just went into tears.“

Anthony's sense of what a writer did was based both in practical terms and in
aesthetic terms. He recognized difficulties that may be part of producing a piece of
writing. Anthony suggested that a writer needed to make many drafts of a piece before
submitting to a ”publishing place” and that even then the piece may not include all the
relevant information and might contain mistakes. Besides having a conception of writing
as a process of revision, Anthony believed that writers used their whole bodies to generate
ideas and to continue the process. He used metaphors to describe what writers do as well
as to describe how ideas can slip away. Anthony described a writer in this way:

A writer is a person who uses their mind and body and thinking with their

head. . . . Sometimes they use thinking of your heart. That is allowed. . . .

They use their hearts sometimes about what they're writing like if they

really want to write something stupendous and they really have to grab. It's

like taking a piece of sand and grabbing it and let it slide out of your hands

and if it goes out of your hands, you've lost all your writing. And if you

don't keep that sand in your hands without spilling any of it, believe me,

you're not going to be a writer.

Anthony felt that he was a writer, perhaps because he, too, wrote with his heart,
"When I write, I use my heart.” When asked to explain what he meant, Anthony divided
writing into two portions--from his brain and from his heart. An example of writing
from his brain was to do the kind of writing he had done the previous year in another
classroom, presumably the book reports he had described earlier. In contrast, writing
from his heart meant to write about someone he cared about like his grandmother.
Anthony explained it this way:

Like if I want to write something very, very lovely like I love my

grandmother. She is very nice. She used to kiss me all the time. That's

what I would just say. I would use my heart about that.

Anthony had a sense of the writer as much more than a person who wrote books and

used correct spelling and mechanics. A writer, like Anthony considered himself, wrote

from his heart. Anthony also thought about writers as doing different kinds of writing,

161

each attached to either the heart or the mind. The writer who used his mind was concerned
with writing book reports, whereas the writer who used his heart wrote pieces that were
full of emotion and would move others. In the quotation above, Anthony indicated that
writers used ”their hearts” when they wanted to produce a quality piece of writing and that
producing such a piece was not necessarily easy. It is as if the writer needs to hold onto
the ideas and the words without letting them slip away.

Although Anthony had a belief that writers created many drafts before having
pieces published, during the notebook phase of the project, he did not believe in revising
his notebook entries in any way. He suggested that he would not change anything nor edit,
though he was willing to add to it. Revision implied crossing out and he did not want to lose
any of the ideas that he had written in his notebook, especially in the pieces about his
grandmother.

Anthony's notion of audience was tied to his work in his notebook. He indicated that
his notebook was personal and not to be shared with the group. He wrote the entries for
himself. At the end of the project, however, Anthony had a different view of audience and
believed it was important to write for particular people and to share work with
classmates. He especially wanted to share his work with the adults who listened to him
such as the teacher, the trainer, and me.

Anthony did not believe that punctuation was important at all in the notebook and
said he did not like using punctuation, but he was willing to go back and put it in when he
finished his notebook, not before. The most important aspect about writing for Anthony
was the idea of description. He suggested that he loved putting in interesting details such
as what a character wore. Anthony believed that the most important thing in writing was

description. He said:

We always come back to that subject-describing . . . because that's the
main subject.

162

Will

Anthony's notebook was filled with responses to literature he had read as well as
memories of his earlier childhood. In his recollections, Anthony often described
particular moments with one of his parents such as skating or his father cutting himself
with a knife. He wrote about them in caring terms. He often incorporated descriptive
phrases or words in his pieces. On two occasions he jotted down particular phrases that
had struck him from the group interaction. The most striking feature of his notebook was
the number of entries about his grandmother who had died in his presence. He had a total
of seven entries about is grandmother in a month's period of time. These entries tended to
have descriptive words, and expressed emotion on his part. Not surprising, Anthony chose
to focus his project on his grandmother and drew heavily from the entries he already had
in his notebook about her. 1

In this section, Anthony's classroom participation Is described and his two
conferences with the teacher about his writing are presented.

Wm

Anthony was highly involved in classroom discussions and interactions. He
contributed to many discussion through his verbal responses as well as by sharing his
entries from his notebook. His responses were generally valued by the teacher as
evidenced in the reactions she had to his contributions in several discussions. When
discussing qualities of good writing, Anthony offered two examples from his notebook
which were both noted and praised by the teacher. Later Ms. Meyer used "pineapple filled
my mouth with joy" as an example to illustrate the use of ”good language."

In the discussion about choosing topics with two trainers and Ms. Meyer, Anthony
offered his writing about his grandmother as an example of an “obsession“ to which the
teacher and trainers responded positively. He also provided his interpretation of the

meaning of Galjmete, a book the class had read, in the session in which the teacher and

163

students discussed what the book was about. Ms. Meyer's response to his analysis that if
you believe in something, it can happen, was “Absolutely right, Anthonyl Absolutely right.
If you believe and you want something badly enough and you really want it, then you can
make it happen.”
1!! 'l' C I

Below, Anthony's conferences with Ms. Meyer about his grandmother piece are
presented to understand how the teacher-student interaction might influence Anthony's
thinking and to trace his internalization process from the conference to his own text. The
first exchange about his grandmother piece occured on October 29 with a group of eleven
students present. Ms. Meyer had asked several students about their projects, and asked
two girls who were doing grandparent stories about their projects. They had just
explained that they were going to put them together to make "grandparent stories.” At this
point, Ms. Meyer directed her attention to Anthony who was seated against the wall in front
of her. Anthony had his notebook opened and was looking at the teacher. Below is the brief
exchange about Anthony's writing:
1 . T: Anthony! what do you think?
2. Anthony: I think that would be a good idea for her because--

3. T: I wasn't asking what you were thinking about her!/ I was asking what you
were thinking about tree/l [annoyed tone of voice]

4. Anthony: Oh” Well/ I think I've got my project pretty well/
5. T: And that's about?

6. Anthony: And I/ I was thinking that l was going to put the sad part! my sad part! in
the middle and then end it with a ham one instead of um sad at the
Mining! [accompanying hand gestures with wide movements for the
happy ending]

7. T: Is that! you're talking about your grandmother?! [voice softens here,
looses annoyance]

8. Anthony: My grandmother!

<0

T: So what's the beginning going to be? The handy ones?

164

10. Anthony: Yes! the first is going to be a happy one! and the middle is going to be like a
really sad! and the ending is happy again--

11 . T: So the end is going to be happy again! Great” Have you started to werk on
that in your neteheek? (Anthony nods) You've started to look through your
notebook? (Anthony nods) Take all the need stuff and copy it over and work
it into one 9.18.9.8” (Anthony nods) Ok/ Ierritie”

Although the teacher was annoyed in the beginning of the conference, she became
excited as Anthony gave details about his project. After he described how he was going to
organize it according to sad and happy parts, Ms. Meyer identified that he was writing
about is grandmother and became interested. Her tone of voice changed and she ended the
exchange by using several supportive words such as ”great” and ”terrific." Although the
conference got off to a rocky start, teacher and student seemed to have come together to
develop a shared understanding.

On the occasion of the second and lengthier conference, the teacher had come over to
Anthony's desk. She noted that Anthony was using a printed copy of his piece (one he had
created at home on his word processor) as a basis for subsequent writing. He had used
several of the ideas that were on the printed copy and wrote those ideas onto a piece of
notebook paper. So far he had written on notebook paper, "T hank god. I still remember
what My Grandmother Always wore loose clothes. She was very nice. She was old. thank.“
Ms. Meyer approached him, squatting down by his desk so that she was at eye level with
him. She started out in an irritated voice with three questions right in a row without
pausing for a response. Here is their interaction:

1 . T: What are you fining now?! MILD! are you copying this over now? Are you
copying this over exactly as it is here? [machine gun questions suggesting
challenge]

2. Anthony: No/ I'm adding! I was just adding on” [tone is slightly defensive]

3 . T: Uh uh uh/ No” You need to write mere about this! OK?! You need to pick a
specific time! You need to work up a speeiiietime! OK? [slows down her
pace to emphasize specific time]

4 . Anthony: Oh! Ok” [low fall intonation indicates unhappy tone].

165

In this first segment, Ms. Meyer expressed irritation and appeared to have an

expectation that Anthony was merely writing in handwriting what he had already typed on

the computer. Anthony responded by being defensive and trying to explain that he thought

he was adding on to what he had written. Ms. Meyer began, with a series of elicitations and

then moved into providing some directives about what Anthony needed to do. In the second

part of the conference the teacher became more specific about what she wanted Anthony to

do, explaining her interpretation and imposing her organizational structure on the piece.

The conference continued in this way:

5.

10.
11.
12.
13.
14.

15.

16.
17.

T:

Anthony:
T:

Anthony:
T:

Anthony:
T:
Anthony:
T:
Anthony:
T:

Anthony:
T:

You need to” you need to! first there is this! The way I see it Anthony is
there are like a few parts to this grandmother thing// One is! a
description of what she 1.99.155. like! OK! and it is not eneueh to say my
grandmother always were nice glethes! You need much more!

I know I am going to write mere!

The second! It seems the 5.899.011 part of this is that's where it starts steries
about the times you spent together// So then It starts steries! One story is!
is about! she used to play the (pause trying to read word)

Pilon [an instrument]

Playing/0k” And now you need mueh mueh muehmueh more about that and
what it was like for yen! and how you sat together with her/ and where you
sat! and what it telt like/l Much more from your heart--

Al rig h t - -

OK?--

Yeah--

Then this--

This is just like a--

Take out this part! “My grandmother was very nieell' thieusly you don't
need to say that! OK/ because we knew she was very nice because you are
writing this 919.92 about her// OK?

Yeah/l

OK?! Right! So the third part here it seems to me Anthony Is about the time
you would go to the heights! OK! And you need to have much more! OK!

166

18. Anthony: Yeah! I am still nrerking on it-- ‘
19. T: OK Well! then get then get with it!
20. Anthony: Yeah! That's what I am geing to do”

In this part of the conference Ms. Mayer used many directives, telling him what he
needed to do, interspersed with statements that were more informative in nature where
she told him how she was thinking of the piece. Anthony completed statements in which he
was suggesting his intention to write more and where he was clarifying information
central to the decoding of the text, e.g., 'pilon" (a Puerto Rican instrument). Despite his
being occasionally interrupted, Anthony's attitude was not defensive. His 'yeahs" of
agreement were enthusiastic and sincere, unlike his initial responses in the first segment.

The body language of both teacher and student suggested a kind of synchrony in their
interaction throughout the second portion of the dialogue. Ms. Meyer sat in close
proximity to Anthony and alternated eye contact with him with looking at what he had
written. During this time, Anthony nodded and smiled a great deal at the suggestions she
recommended. At this point in the interaction, the momentum picked up; this Is
demonstrated by Anthony's moving his arm bent at the elbow in a continuous back and forth
motion and changes in the teacher's voice. In the following part of the dialogue, the
teacher's voice changed intonation, reflecting a shift from being solely directive and
informative. She became engaged in certain aspects of Anthony's text. Here is the last
segment of dialogue from their conference:

21. T: higyy I want to see a total deseriptien! I want you to work right now/ “My
grandmother always wore loose elethesfl" I want you to fill up this page
now with deseriptiens of what she looked like” That's all! and then shew it
to me” OK! Just what she leeked like! the kinds of things she were! what
her lane was like! what her hair was like// [as she says 'wore', 'face', and
half, her voice softens and she draws out those words]

[As she is saying this, Ms. Meyer writes (1) description, (2) pilon, stories, and (3)
heights on Anthony's typed piece]

22. Anthony: lrememher! [softly, drawn out]

167

23. T: Go ahead! Go ahead!/ So now you can say! ”thank ged!“ You can start it that
way!/ I [eye that!“ Thank ged! I remember! I still remember// what my
grandmother leeked like/l” It is just what you just said! “What my
grandmother! looked like/l“ OK?! [her voice gets soft, she draws out 'ged'
and emphasizes the words]

[Anthony is writing .]

Now you can start it like that! ”She aways! wore loose clothes!" What did
they Innis like?!

24. Anthony: They were! I always saw blue with hearts on it” [draws out 'blue' in a
reverent tone]

25. T: fie! ge! ge!! Explain what the embroidery leeked like! Was it neat?! You
know? You see what I am saying?! You really need to ge for that and de
that// [her voice increases in pitch and pace]

In this segment Ms. Meyer continued to provide directives about how Anthony
should add more details to his piece. She stood up, rather than being at eye level so that
she could write on his paper more easily. She wrote down an organizational structure for
him on his printed sheet, suggesting he should place ideas within those categories. As she
did this, she read more of his piece aloud and became engaged in what he had written.
Evidence for this engagement includes a change in Intonation and pitch. As she got to the
part, “Thank ged I still remember what my grandmother looked like” she slowly drew out
her words, almost whispering, yet saying them with expression while she wrote. Her tone
became increasingly more gentle. Anthony's voice matched this gentleness as he explained
what he remembered about her clothes. At this point, Ms. Mayer became quite excited and
said loudly, “Go! Go! Gol" touching him as she left. Her role resembled that of a coach,
urging him on.

Although much of the conference was about the organization of the text, the point of
contact between Anthony and Ms. Meyer occurred when they were discussing description.
Toward the end of the conference, Ms. Meyer provided ideas for what Anthony should
include in his grandmother piece once she was engaged. Likewise, Anthony connected with
her and offered a description of his grandmother's clothes. In this segment of the

conference we can see how Ms. Meyer's emphasis upon imagery and description from the

168

whole-class discussions reemerged in her conversation with Anthony. Anthony seemed to
understand the point she was making and connected it to his own text. Throughout their
interaction, the teacher was directive, coaching him along. She scaffolded instruction for
him by providing ideas about organization and asking him questions about description, yet
it was clear that she wanted him to assume control over his piece.
rzt Ont-01'... I- “In II-O‘ 'I.:0 I‘ . mu...) 5:7

Although he did not directly refer to his teacher helping him with description in
his piece, in an interview Anthony expressed how the conference made a deep impression
on him. Anthony did not seem to take offense that the teacher was imposing her
organizational structure on him. Instead, he found it helpful that she had written on his
paper to aid him in thinking about how to include more description. He remarked that
having a conference with his teacher was “like magic that she does to me.“
Anthony explained his interaction with his teacher in the one-on-one conferences in this
way:

Oh it got me started again. . . . I got writer's block, yeah I got a block. (He

demonstrates with tape holders, indicating his glasses as the 'block,’ the

cassette tape as his 'writing,' and the tape holder as the 'teacher'). It's like

um this thing, this is my writing and this is the block, all right I was

writing, writing, writing, writing, the block was starting to fade away and

then just when I was going to hit, it came back--
He then went on to explain that it was the teacher who had helped him “jump the block:"

She made me jump the block. . . . She saved me, she, she um, like took the

block and threw it away, like put it, or like put it away for a while and

helped me on my writing.

It appears, then, that a connection between the teacher and Anthony occurred
during this conference that had the potential to influence his subsequent thinking.

Anthony was apparently influenced by the type of interaction from his own
teacher-student conference as well as by the class discussions about qualities of good
writing. In the exit interview, he focused on description as the most important aspect of

good writing. He not only used examples from his own notebook, but he revealed that he

kept notes of some of the phrases the teacher used that made an impression upon him. For

169

instance, he said that the “sun kissing the top of the leaves like gold coins" was an example
of description she used that he particularly liked. Anthony tended to notice descriptive
phrases in many places including the teacher's work, other student's work, and In
published books. For instance, Anthony stated that IheQarkJsBising was a very good book
because from the beginning the author provided images:

They start out with this country home and ice and it gives-~the first word

they start out, the first Iine--mind picture, mind picture, mind picture!

It's truel It's truel

The idea of providing the reader with particular images had taken hold, evidenced
by Anthony's continual references to getting pictures in the reader's mind and using
description. Besides thinking description was important to include in a piece of writing,
Anthony referred to Miguel's piece about man's best friend, the car, as an example of good
writing because it kept ”the reader on his or her thin toes.“ What he learned from Miguel
that he wanted to use in his own writing was, "Never, never tell, never tell a moral in the
beginning.“ Anthony's interviews provide information that he was making sense of the
classroom discourse, fitting it in with his prior knowledge of text, especially in relation
to imagery and figurative language. Anthony's text and conference with the younger
student provide further evidence of what he had internalized from the classroom discourse.
By analyzing features of Anthony's text, and by examining Anthony's conference with a
first-grader, Will, we can infer what Anthony has lntemalized from the classroom
dialogue, especially in relation to imagery and figurative language.

Wm?

We can infer what Anthony has lntemalized from the texts he created for his
project and his conference with the younger student.
AW

Anthony internalized many of the aspects of ”good writing” that had been discussed
in class, especially in the features of imagery and figurative language. Anthony's

internalization process can be traced through examining the development of his texts about

170

his grandmother. Beginning on October 3 Anthony wrote seven entries In his notebook
about his grandmother. He then used these pieces as the basis for his project. In his first
entry about his grandmother Anthony wrote:

I remember when l was 5 years old and my Grandmother was dying and I

herd a scream. that filled the whole room and gave me a chill down my spine

I went to her room and l huged she and took me By the shoulders and said I

am going to die and we cried

Beginning with this piece we can see how Anthony's text reflected already many of
the aspects of "good writing” that Ms. Meyer discussed with students subsequently.
Anthony drew upon a vivid memory of his own about his grandmother. Here he has
included the features of using one's own personal experience and writing about something
personal and touching-the moment of death of his grandmother. He has focused on a
particular moment and used figurative language, "herd a scream that filled the whole room
and gave me a chill down my spine.” The use of description was an aspect of text that Ms.
Meyer valued and discussed in class.

Anthony's second entry about his grandmother again incorporated many of the
features of narrative text that were valued by the teacher. His second entry was the
following:

My Grandmother was very nice. She was old thank God I saw her because

she always realy loved me--l mean realy loved me. She used to play the

pilion and I would play the drum and we used to go the Park and then have

lunch and then go to the hights and get a Ice that was called pidagua' (It's ice

that is shaved from a block of ice and Put it in a cup and there are different

flavors that you drink and first you put the ice in the cup then put the

flavor and they give you a straw and you eat the ice and drink the flavor)‘,

and then I took the subway home and wen to the returant that I called the pop

shop and I had some bacon and eggs went home to the house and went to bed.

In this piece Anthony again used many of the features that characterize the
teacher's conception of good writing. He included a lengthy description about what a
pidagua was, presumably for the reader to be able to picture it. Anthony ended the piece

with a series of events-going home, having eggs, and going to bed, however, they were not

171

valued by the teacher as examples of good writing. These events later disappeared from his
subsequent revisions.

Anthony wrote other entries in his notebook that reflected this same emphasis upon
the use of imagery and figurative language. For instance, in the October 10, piece about
his grandmother, he wrote about a specific event, going to get Kentucky Fried Chicken with
her, and later on underlined the line:

'T he oily's Best spicest chicken I have ever tasted. It was Good. lt filled my
mouth with joy.”

Just as Anthony used description in this line, he also used imagery and figurative language
in his October 30 piece, just before beginning his project. Here he wrote:

My grandmother was a very nice old Woman when I touched her crinkly

face and she kissed my clean face and I kissed her back I felt like history

just changed

Subsequently, Anthony went back and highlighted this piece except for the last
three words ”history just changed;" these three words never appeared again In his project
about is grandmother. Throughout Anthony's entries about his grandmother, he used the
features of interweaving his personal experiences, revealing his feelings about her, and
use of description and metaphor to communicate. Anthony appropriated the classroom
dialogue and transformed it in a unique way to use in his piece about his grandmother.

Besides the inclusion of imagery, Anthony's final project reflected the interaction
he had with his teacher in the writing conference on November 2. The focus of the
conversation was about Anthony's organization of his pieces into a coherent whole and
including more details. JuSt previous to this conference, Anthony had typed three entries
from his notebook onto a new piece of paper. Two of the three entries were typed exactly
as they appeared in the notebook while the third entry began in the same way but had a
slightly different ending.

After the conference with the teacher, Anthony's project was revised several times.

In his first revision directly after the conference, Anthony included a description of what

172

his grandmother wore. This seemed directly tied to the Interaction during the conference
in which Ms. Meyer suggested that he should add details about what his grandmother wore.
At her suggestion, Anthony began his piece with the following:

Thank god I still remember what my grandmother looked like; She always
wore loose clothes. She used to wear embroied [embroidered] flowers on
her blue Gown. It was the best most buityful Dark Blue. More Blue than
the sky. her shoes were black with a brown and a zig zag bottom. and when
she walked it had a stutter like a man with a cane.

In his piece, Anthony has added a great deal of imagery as evidenced by his inclusion of
many adjectives and his comparison of how she walked. There seemed to be a great deal of
uptake on Anthony's part in relation to the use of description.

Anthony's final project reflected the organization that his teacher had suggested to
him, even though it was different from the original organization he had told me he would
use. The teacher had written ”(1) description; (2) pilon, stories; and (3) heights.”
Anthony used the organization of first describing what his grandmother looked like, then
describing the instrument, pilon, that she used to play, and then included incidents of
times he and his grandmother spent together on the ”heights.” He ended the piece with the
scene in which he heard a scream and his grandmother died. We can see this organization
by looking at his final piece:

My Grandmother Matilda

Thank god I still remember what my Grandmother looked like; she always
wore loose cloths. She used to wear embroiderd flowers on her blue gown,
bluer than the sky. It was the most Beautiful Dark Blue, more bluer than
the sky. Her shoes were black with a Brown zig zag bottom; when she
walked she limped like a man with a cane. Thank god I saw her because she
always loved me I mean realy loved me. She used to play the pilion, a

pilion is a kind of instrument that you pound and it makes a high piched ding
that filled the whole niehborhood. I would play the drum and we would go to
the park and have lunch and go to the hight's and have a ice that is called a
piragua. (it's a ice that is shaved from a big block of ice and there are
flavors that you have to pick and the ice is put into a cup and then the flavor
in the cup and then you eat it and drink it. When you go to 181st it gets
noizy and people come gushing in to the streets and they put out there tables
and start to sell. it's weird when we came home it's different. in the
morning people dont come gushing into the streets and you cant get the
mouth watering flavor of the air and the frut flys hitting your face like a
mist of water. it's so poluted in new york so you cant sell or get a piragua.

173

my grandmother took me to kentucky fried chicken. it was the most oily
good chicken and I almost ate the whole thing and the room looked like a lot
of pigs just ate the time of there life and they were right. I remember when
I was five years old and my grandmother was dying and I herd a scream that
filled the whole room and gave me a chill down my spine I went to her room
and I kissed her and huged her and she took me by the sholders and said that
she was going to die and she cryed. my grandmother always wanted to see
me get old but she dyed to soon.

In his final project, Anthony has retained many of his original ideas that reflected
aspects of ”good writing“ envisioned by the teacher. Additionally, he incorporated his
teacher's suggestions at an organizational structure and told me that his teacher's

suggestions ”made more sense."

lll'l' C [ lll'll Mill

The writing conference between Anthony and Will, a first grader, took place at a
desk in the hallway outside of Anthony's classroom during lunchtime. Sitting side-by-
side, the two students hunched together over Will's text, with the tape recorder In between
them. I provide a narrative of the conference to give the reader a sense of the sequence of
talk/events.

The writing conference began by Will's reading of his co-authored book with
another first grader named Alex. The first story he read was entitled, ”Mike's Adventure”
about a boy who runs away from home after being yelled at by his father. The story
continues through the boy's meeting of his brother and their adventures to Utah. After
Will paused, Anthony responded, "That was a very good book,” to which Will said, ”It's not
over yet.“ Will finished reading this book and then immediately began to read his second
story entitled, “Indiana Jones and The Last Crusade” about Indiana Jones' adventures in
Spain finding a treasure.

At the close of this story Anthony asked who Alex was and Will explained that he
was a boy in the class who had written the book with Will. Anthony then focused on the
first piece indicating the beginning where Will had written that his father yelled at the
character and asked Will, ”What was that screaming about?” After Will explained that the

character had done something bad with the result that his parents yelled at him and the boy

174

decided to run away, Anthony asked whether the boy had really run away. Will responded
that in the story the character did.

Anthony then raced back to his classroom to retrieve his entry notebook and showed
it to Will. Anthony continued to refer to his own notebook at several different points in the
conference and read several pieces from it, explaining to Will that description was
important. Anthony then began to write on a separate piece of paper the beginning of
Will's story, adding his own details to it. After adding some details, Anthony asked Will if
he minded. Will tried to explain that he was going to add some pictures to the book, and
then Anthony told Will that every book did not have pictures in it implying that Will
should not worry about that.

Next Anthony flipped through his notebook and showed Will his “Post-its” that
marked what he called “good words.” After Anthony mentioned that the good words help the
reader get a picture in their minds, Will began to tell Anthony about a book he had read,
Ihe_l$arate_l$id_lll, to which Anthony responded by telling him about a book, Ihe_Eex_Mare.
When Will suggested he needed to go back up to his classroom, Anthony then asked him
whether he had a computer to use for writing. Anthony used the paper containing his
project-in-progress that had the words the teacher had written on it to show Will how he
could add on to his own writing. When Will offered that he wanted to draw a picture of
Indiana Jones in his diary, Anthony began to write on the cover of Will's book, “retold and
republished by Will.“ The conference then ended.

Because Anthony and Will were engaged in a lengthy talk about text in which
Anthony had the opportunity to respond to Will's text and to teach Will about his own
writing, this conference provides an excellent opportunity to find out what ideas Anthony
used that related to previous social interaction. We can trace several ideas of Anthony's
back to the social interaction from the classroom. The most striking activity was that
Anthony, without any prompting, went back into the classroom to get his own notebook to

use as a reference and to illustrate the points that he made throughout the dialogue. This

175

action suggests that not only did Anthony value his own notebook as important to him, but

that he also seemed to believe, as his teacher did, that it is through illustration of good

writing that another writer could learn. In the portion of the dialogue that begins with
turn 20, Anthony was trying to describe in a nutshell his own development as a writer
through the pieces in his notebook Anthony said:

20. Anthony: This is, um, what I call, my entry notebook. It is a very large notebook. It
has many things that I would like you to hear. It starts out like this, this
was my first entry I ever did. (He reads) "I remember when l was five
years old and | used to water my mom's plants. And then she gave them a
pot" and blah and blah and blah. It's like a diary, it goes on and on and on.
Now, as I get deeper, into the notebook, like, if you were to take a piece of
paper when your teacher's reading you a story, and do this, like this, (he
takes a piece of paper and inserts it in his notebook) listen. (He reads) "I
remember when I was five years old, and my, and my grandmother was
dying and I heard a scream that filled the whole room up. And I, and gave me
a chill down my spine." Do you know what a chill down my spine is?

In this turn of Anthony's, he demonstrated several features he had internalized

from the classroom interaction: (a) the use of his own notebook as an example; and (b)

the use of a placeholder (Post-its) to keep track of important lines and uses of

description. Anthony had had several opportunities from the classroom interactions to

internalize the activity of sharing your own notebook with a younger audience. Besides

just the action of using your own notebook as an illustration, Anthony clearly seemed to
value his own notebook and the sharing of his ideas with students.
The most consistent topic that Anthony incorporated in his conference with Will

was the idea of description. Anthony also included the ideas of needing to give the reader a

picture in his/her mind and the differences between notebooks and diaries, linking to the

teacher's emphasis upon the use of imagery. Description was clearly a focus of Anthony's
writing conference with Will. For instance, Anthony used the word describe, description,
or ”good words” as synonyms seven times during the conference. In addition, during five
different turns, Anthony gave examples from his own notebook of ideas that included the

use of description. Using Will's story, Anthony also demonstrated how Will could

176

elaborate and add interesting details. Turns 26 and 27 are particularly indicative of

Anthony's emphasis upon description.

26. Anthony: That's what makes you have a chill down your spine// And um/ when! and!
when you describe about that! like, if you would! you put! you would say!
like! my grand mother was! I remember when I was five years old and my
grand mother was dying” I heard a scream that whole! the! that! I heard a
scream// I went to her room! like! listen! you don't describe! that's the
problem with the! with some kids! even my/even my age! they don't
describe/l That is the major problem” And!

BREAK IN TAPE

27. Anthony: When you describe! it helps you learn sometimes” Like when I wrote
this! (He reads) “My grand mother had an old crinkly face“ /like! you
know when it's old and you can move your skin! move your skin very
well?! And! that "I kissed! old! had an old! crisp! crinkly face that I
kissed” And when her wet lips hit my face like a drop of rain/l“ You
understand like! if you say! my grandmother had an old crinkly face that I
kissed// Blank/l It would not! like he had! and (He reads) "her wet lips
hit my face like a drop of rain/l“

Even though Anthony struggled somewhat in his trying to give Will examples, he
did succeed in using description in his examples. “Making you have a chill down your
spine” is an example of what the teacher considered good language or including description.
Anthony's inclusion of several adjectives such as "old," “crisp,“ and ”crinkly“ along with
his comparison of wet lips to a drop of rain constitute examples of using "good words.“
Additionally, Anthony believed that description itself was important in writing,
highlighted by his telling Will that that was a problem with some kids--they did not
describe. Although Anthony did not tell Will how description helped him learn, Anthony
did believe that description helped him.

Linked to his emphasis upon description was Anthony's belief that diaries did not
include description but only told a chronology of events. Turns 29 through 33 illustrate
Anthony's conception that diaries did not include description and told events. Here is Will
and Anthony's interaction:

29. Anthony: Alright! here! (He reads) "I remember when l was five years old and I
used to water my mommy's plants/I And then she gave me a big hug! And

we would have a picnic in the park// And then we'd go to the carousel and
meet my friend Sal and he would give me free rides! and then I would climb

30.

31 . Anthony:

32.

33. Anthony:

Will:

Will:

177

on the rocks and I used to jump big distances and then go home/l“ Now that's
actually like a diary! like you know! If you start out like this! woke up!
brushed my teeth! uh! woke up/ brushed my teeth! looked at a little
Nintendo--

Yeah--

Ate breakfast! it's like a diary! one thing and over the other!

But you're not telling them about it!

Yeah! you're not describing anything/l Now listen/l When you're writing
this book Indiana Jones! this one/ whoa! wait--

In this example, Anthony provided illustrations from his own notebook about what

constituted a diary entry. Will seemed to have picked up on the distinction Anthony was

making by agreeing that Anthony had not told the audience much about each event. Anthony

not only seemed to have internalized the concept of description, but he was able to apply it

to Will's story. This is one of several different points in the dialogue in which Anthony

tried to get Will to elaborate upon his story. In his subsequent attempts to get Will to add

more description, Anthony provided examples for him. In turns 52-58, Anthony showed

Will what he should have done as an author:

52. Anthony:

53.

54. Anthony:

55.

56. Anthony:

57.

58. Anthony:

Will:

Will:

Will:

I know! I know it says that! but this is what I would have done// And then
um! and then on the next page! you would write! why you felt bad! like!
because! ”because I have no reason to be"-- (Anthony writes and says this
slowly.)

Yelled at!
Yelled all

But the reason I did that! because! I'm working with somebody! and they
did the first page! so like! they did the first page// I did the 2nd page//
They did pictures for that page/l But what happens is! as the story goes on!
like! I wrote the pictures for this! well/ as the story--

You should really! but listen/l When! and then I won't! "I shouldn't be
yelled at/!" You know when you turn to the next page! the next day! is it
the next--

Well! yeah! it's like--

”Next! day! when! my! mother! and! father! were! asleep! I! went!
very/quietlyland! and! took! my! blanket! and! made! a! rope! and! and!
then! ran! away// Now that's what I would do” Now look” The next
day/when my mother and father were asleep! I went very quietly and took

1 78
my blanket and made a rope and then ran away from home”” (Anthony
writes this on a separate piece of paper as he says this.)

Anthony seemed to become quite invested in having Will include description and
greater detail, setting the stage for the character's running away. Indications of his
investment are Anthony's overriding Will's explanation of what was written already and
why. Anthony seemed to have valued description and adding detail to such an extent that he
almost completely rewrote Will's story to include more detail.

As this conference illustrates, Anthony had internalized several features of the
content of the social interaction of the classroom. The features of description, adding
detail, and giving the reader a picture were apparent in Anthony's teaching of the younger
student. Clearly these features were the focus of the classroom dialogue during the five
weeks I observed. Sources in the classroom interaction for these features can be seen
throughout the time, especially in the particular sessions in which literature was
discussed. In these sessions the teacher discussed and provided examples from literature
of the features of using beautiful language, description, adding detail, and getting a picture
in one's mind. However, the teacher did not differentiate among the ideas, perhaps
implying that they were all connected to one another and shared many features. They all
seemed to fall under the teacher's image of using imagery and figurative language.

How did Anthony interact with Will during the writing conference? What
strategies did Anthony use to talk to Will about his story? Anthony's style during the
conference can be described as very didactic. Anthony took more conversational turns
(59) than did Will (57), but most striking is the length of Anthony's turns compared to
Will's. Other than reading his two stories aloud, Will had to battle for the floor. Anthony
often interrupted him and provided his own examples, giving lengthy descriptions of his
own work.

Anthony interpreted his role in the conference as a traditional teacher role in
which he would ask questions about the story and provide Information. In fact, most of

Anthony's talk was filled with informative statements, although he used both elicitations

179

and directives. Anthony was also very task-oriented, not asking personal information
about Will but discussing only issues having to do with writing.

Several sections of the conference are particularly illustrative of Anthony's
Interaction style with Will. At several points in the dialogue, Anthony told Will what he
would have done if he were the author, indicating that WIII should consider these:

50. Anthony: This is what I would have done/! It all started five days ago when my
mommy yelled at me for no reason and I felt! and I felt bad/l

51 . Will: Is that the like--the like--

52. Anthony: I know! I know it says that! but this is what I would have done// And then
um/and then on the next page/ you would write! why you felt bad! like!
because! because I have no reason to be--(Anthony writes and says this
slowly.)

Anthony wrote on another piece of paper the ideas he thought Will should Include on
Will's next draft. The above excerpt is illustrative of Anthony's didactic style in which he
actually demonstrated for the child, showing him how to change his piece. Throughout the
dialogue, Anthony was often directing Will's attention to the story or to his notebook by
telling him to look or listen.

Anthony's own Interaction with his teacher was apparently fresh in his mind both
in terms of content and in terms of style of interaction. In the following excerpt, Anthony
demonstrated his understanding of his interaction with his own teacher. Here he used a
combination of strategies from directing Will to look at his notebook, to Informing him
about how his teacher had helped him, and adding his own interpretation of how words
grow into sentences.
107.Anthony: Like when you start out! look! you could write this!/ My grandmother!

My grandmother always wore loose clothes and print more and more and
stuff” Now/ when you're done with this! you can take a sheet! and as you
see my teacher did this// Put description! about this part! and then she put
stories! all these stories together! then she put pilon/ Pilon is that word//
Then another thing! the heights! And we made a big thing out of it! as you
see! it's big! it starts out with one sentence! then it goes to a word! then it

goes to a big/ to the whole paragraph! and it gets even bigger/I That's what
happens in your writing! you get corrupted” If you write a lot--

180

Much of the way Anthony interacted with Will reflected his own writing conference
with Ms. Meyer. Many parallels, especially in style, are apparent. The most striking
parallel is that both the teacher and Anthony dominated the discussion, providing many
ideas. and making strong recommendations. Their talk had a similar style in its didactic
tone and emphasis.

WOW

Why did Anthony seem so successful at internalizing the classroom interactions?
The content of the classroom dialogue can not be separated from the norms of interaction
during writing time. Anthony was not only able to understand the content of the
discussions about qualities of good writing including description, but he also understood
the underlying rules of interaction between the teacher and student and among students.
Anthony contributed to group discussions, and his ideas were valued by the teacher and
students; these ideas then became part of the ongoing discourse. In other words, there was
uptake of Anthony's ideas in the group setting as well as understanding on his part.

Anthony and his teacher were in synchrony in terms of their styles of interaction.
The teacher scaffolded instruction for him, yet relinquished control to him. The teacher-
student writing conference provides a microcosm to view the ways in which Ms. Meyer and
Anthony's styles matched. This match between teacher and student contributed to
Anthony's success. Anthony was able to understand and match his writing to the teacher's
notion of good writing, perhaps in part because his existing background knowledge about
text already shared features with the teacher's image of a successful text.

In Anthony's case we can hear the voice of the teacher both in what he wrote and in
his style of interacting with the student. The teacher's emphasis upon the personal and her
uses of language and style were clearly evident. However, Anthony had transformed the
dialogue to use in the particular contexts of his text and the writing conference with the

younger student.

181

Fact or Fiction? The Case of Ella
W

This section describes Ella's background, her previous experience with writing
including her fiction notebooks, and her views about writing. It also provides the teacher's
perceptions of Ella.

Background

Ella was a tall, African-American, fifth grader. She usually were her hair tied
neatly in a braid on top of her head. She wore wire-rimmed glasses and often sported
colorful sweaters or interesting T-shirts such as one with tie-dyed patterns. Ella loved to
talk. She often spoke very softly and swallowed some of her words so that often her
responses were difficult to hear. However, she particularly liked to engage adults in
conversation and would launch into lengthy stories about herself or humorous anecdotes of
the world around her. For instance, one time Ella and I spent about 20 minutes during a
lunch time discussion talking about and demonstrating different techniques for hailing
taxis in New York.

Ella described having a big family consisting of more than just her parents and
sister. She spoke of her Uncle Val as a member of the family, as well as her Aunt Dolores,
and her grandparents. Ella lived with her mother in an apartment in a neighborhood that
would be considered Spanish-Harlem. She took cabs to school, often accompanied by her
mother. Her mother was a proofreader for a publishing company and Ella spoke of her
mother and her mother's friends teaching Ella how to proofread texts. I had the
opportunity to meet Ella's mother on one occasion when she came to take Ella to lunch.
Like her daughter, she was tall, and elegantly dressed. She was very supportive of the
research project I was conducting. Ella's father, a teacher at NYU, lived in what Ella
described as a fancy apartment about 14 blocks south of Ella's. Ella was not certain what

he taught, but commented that he taught people “how to run things“ like elevators. She saw

182

him most weekends and spent time with her baby sister who lived with her father and his
wife.

Ella had many opportunities to engage in literate activities at home. She read
voraciously, frequently wrote stories on her own at home, and played on her father's
computer. She thought she wanted to be a banker when she grew up, but her Uncle Val, a
writer, had suggested to her, "'I want you to follow in my footsteps" and she was taking
this advice seriously. She read for at least forty-five minutes every night. Her
compelling interest was Nancy Drew books or any type of mysteries; she wanted to read all
80 in the series. She read many other types of books, though, because her teacher did not
approve of Nancy Drew books and required students to read literature from the classroom
as well. Ella checked out from the classroom a piece of fiction about every two days. She
had read several different versions of Ihe_l_ittle_Erineess and was interested in comparing
them because she saw ”how the story changed with each version” and said that ”different
authors write different ways.” Her tastes were rather eclectic as demonstrated by her
reading of the "National Enquirer“ and “the Post.“ About these she said:

The only newspaper I like to read is "The Post“ and the “National Enquirer“

because nothing is true. . . . They pick the wackiest stories. A lobster baby

and ape give birth to a regular baby. Just seeing Vanna White starving

herself.

Besides reading often in her free time, Ella also participated In several different types of
dance—-ballet, tap, and ethnic (African)--at the Harlem School of the Arts.

Ella's oral discourse was filled with stories and humor. One idea would remind her
of another idea and she would talk and talk. A striking feature of Ella's conversations,
which seemed to be how she interacted in life, was the ways in which she interwove books
she read, games she played, and her own writing. She would move back and forth between
these worlds, often leaving me wondering, “Was she talking about her own life, a book she

had read, or something she wrote?” For instance, in describing books she liked to read
Ella stated:

183

I like detective stories so she's a detective. Me and Serena play this game of

spy where we're the detectives. And Morris is an ace detective that loves to

eat and is always sleeping. And Marsha is goody two shoes.

This passage roughly translated suggests that Ella liked detective stories and identified
with Nancy Drew. She and her friend, Serena, played a game in which they were spies--
Ella was Morris, a sarcastic detective and Serena was Marsha, a "goody two shoes.“ What
is interesting is that the characters, Marsha and Morris, reemerged in Ella's fiction
stories. It seems that the girls played the roles of these characters in their games and then
used them for writing material.

On almost every occasion when I would ask her about an event that had occurred in
the classroom, Ella would relate it to her background knowledge, a book she was reading,
or a specific experience she had. For instance, when I asked her about the class discussion
In relation to A_Qhair_ieLMy_Mether, Ella immediately launched into how she, like the
character, was saving her pennies, but she would buy a Nintendo, not a chair. The visit
from Ms. Henderson and Ms. Hall and their description of the park bench had reminded her
of her own friends and what she would get them for Christmas. From talking about the
description in a book she was currently reading, Ella immediately shifted Into how she
could not live with her own grandparents--presumably the character in the story was
living with his grandparents. In another instance, Ella told about a series she had been
writing two or three years ago, then immediately shifted to what she was writing in the
classroom now, and then to an experience she had on the beach where the waves pulled her
in.

Ella's discourse during interviews was characterized by lengthy turns, humor, and
many personal anecdotes sprinkled with insights about her teacher, her relatives, books,
New York City, and humanity.

Ella had been at PS. 999 since kindergarten and had many opportunities to engage

in writing process classrooms. In fourth-grade she had been in a classroom, which she

184

really loved, where she was allowed to write many stories. In response to whether she
liked to write she said:

I like writing. I like writing. I don't know why I like writing detective
stories so much but I just do.

When asked any question about writing, Ella almost always began to tell a story of
something she had written. She believed that the one thing she had gained from Ms.
Meyer's class was the importance of literature in supplying ideas for writing:

I learned that you can use your best writing off of books. Books can give you
some good ideas. .Like I got the ideas for the Catskills [piece]. The

Catskills came from. that book, WhenJflasleumJntheMeuntams.
When asked if she considered herself a good writer, Ella responded, "It depends on what
kind of a story it is.” Ella believed she was best at writing fiction, and thus, to continue
her work on fiction she kept a separate notebook.
W

Ella kept two notebooks-~a small one for her classroom writings and a larger one
for her writing fiction and what she called “humorous stories.“ She described the
difference in notebooks in this way:

There's one that you usually use for stories and then there's one that you

use for things that have happened in your life. Ms. Meyer says you are

supposed to put everything in your notebook.

However, Ella did not put everything in her small, class notebook. Instead, she kept
a secret, fiction notebook. This seemed to be related to the fact that the writing of fiction
was not sanctioned in the classroom and was strongly discouraged. Ella shared with me the
book she had written in fourth grade of which she was very proud. This was the book
entitled, Merris_and_llllarsha._E_._l. (the "l" is cleverly drawn in the form of an 'eye.)"
Inside were three stories, "The Case of the Dog de Manson,” “The Case of the Foggie
Building“ and ”The Vanishing Castle.” Each story had several chapters with the book

totalling 32 pages. Her large notebook for fiction contained several fictional pieces, some

185

with a several chapters. This notebook also contained the story that she and Serena had
written together, much of it on the telephone.
We

Ms. Mayer felt positively towards Ella. She described her as an excellent student
who received ratings of "excellent” in every subject and scored in the 99% on standardized
achievement tests. She found that Ella had good Ideas and seemed in control of school and of
her writing. About Ella Ms. Meyer said:

Ella is a really neat kid, she's a very, very neat kid, she really is. She's

very much on top of the situation, she's a little flighty, you know, she's a

little like disorganized and all over the place.
Ms. Meyer believed that Ella's mother may have overrated Ella's abilities.

Well her, it's very interesting, her mother has come into school and asked

for her to be skipped a grade because she thinks . . . obviously her family

thinks that she's this brilliant child. She's very bright, I mean there's no

question about it, but she's certainly not extraordinary in any sense of the

word. So I think that, that she's probably you know an only child who's

really being doted upon and who gets a tremendous amount of attention. I

think that the family is pushing her
Ms. Meyer did find that Ella was performing well In the classroom, got her work
completed, and wrote some very good pieces. Ms. Meyer expressed her attitude toward Ella
in this way:

As far as her work is concerned, she really does fine. She pays attention in

class, she's really a really neat kid, I really like her. I think her notebook

is lovely. I mean I think it's honest and it's really lovely and you know

there's a lot of really great things happening there. I think perhaps her

project will really be very nice, you know she'll pull out those really nice

pieces about her aunt and do some really nice writing about them.
Ms. Meyer valued Ella's contributions in class.

E '|"D il'iS'lll Ii

This section describes Ella's active classroom participation and presents the two

conferences she had with her teacher about her project, a letter to her aunt.

186

CI E I" l'

Ella often contributed to classroom discussions and shared what she had written
with the whole class. Ms. Meyer responded very positively to her texts. For instance, on
October 11 after the mini-lesson on WhenJJilasJeunantheMeuntalns. by Cynthia
Rylant, and after writing time, Ella read aloud to the class her piece about being in the
Catskills. In this piece she wrote about the fresh aroma of pine trees and her difficulties
with skiing when she got tangled up in the pine trees. She ended the story by writing,
“Somebody helped us out. I'll never forget him.“

Ms. Meyer's response to Ella's piece was filled with praise, pointing out where Ella
used description:

You know, it's so interesting. That's such an interesting ending. It almost

sounds like that's what could have been, like Cynthia Rylant's notebook

could have been like that. All those little, like your line went from one

thing getting there to the snow mobile, to the skiing, to the drinking cocoa to

that. I could just see, I can almost see lifting that out and turning that into a

picture book about going to a country house. And all the different things,

being tangled in the trees and drinking the cocoa. It sounds great, Ella.

Really great. And I loved how you described. Each thing you talked about

you did such a nice description about the cocoa and about the sledding. I

loved it. And about the smell of the pine. It's really nice.

Ella commented that she had gotten her idea to write about the Catskills from
Cynthia Rylant‘s mention of hot cocoa in the book, WhenJflasleunanJheMeuntains,
Ella appeared to pick up on tepics and ideas that were discussed in class with some ease,
connecting them to her own experiences. The teacher found many different aspects of
Ella's writing to which to respond. For instance, on October 12, during the discussion of
qualities of good writing, Ella read her piece on handicapped people. Ms. Meyer asked the
class to come up with ideas about what made Ella's piece an example of good writing. Ms.
Meyer herself responded that the piece had ”voice,” sounding as if a real and specific
person read it. Ms. Meyer suggested to the class that “author's voice” contributed to

effective writing.

187

Students also contributed ideas and suggestions about Ella's work. For instance,
Ms. Meyer used Ella's example of writing a letter to her aunt as an illustration of the type
of project that other students could do. Ms. Meyer asked students to suggest some books
that would help Ella write her piece and she recommended that Ella read the book, .lust_l.ls
tillemen. Students made suggestions to Ella that she also include pictures of herself in the
letter to her aunt. Although Ella did not use the book for her project, she liked the idea of
the picture and decided to send a gift as well as the picture to her aunt.

Ella was quite involved in classroom discussions and sharing of her pieces. She
made a comment during most whole-group discussions and shared her pieces on three of
the four occasions in which students shared their work with the class.

Ella sat at the table with her best school friend, Serena. They occasionally shared
their work with each other informally at the table. Their table was one of the quiet tables
in the room, and Ella and Serena spent most of their writing time absorbed In their
Individual writing. However, they thoroughly enjoyed writing together which was not
permitted in the classroom. Ella and Serena tried to find ways In which they could
collaborate on their fiction writing. Mostly this occurred by telephone because the girls
lived in different neighborhoods from one another and it was difficult for them to find time
at school to write. When Ella had asked me if I would allow Serena and her to write during
lunch hour one day, I agreed. I had access to a separate classroom that the girls thought
was suitable for writing. I ate my lunch, talked to the girls, and watched their
collaborative writing efforts. What was most striking was how they collaborated in the
construction of their fictional texts. For example, Ella began the actual writing with
Serena providing some ideas about characters. The girls took turns coming up with
different events that would take place in the story. Then, toward the end of the session, the
girls traded handwriting roles, though both continued to compose the text. Both girls

enjoyed this session so much that for the next few days Ella begged me to allow them

188

another lunch time writing session. I Include these events and obsenrations because they
affected Ella's subsequent interactions with the teacher and with me.
W

The first conference between Ms. Meyer and Ella occurred on October 30 within a
small group conference held on the rug. In the original group, six students had been
present. Two of these, Michele and Jenny, had gone back to their seats after Ms. Meyer
explained that the students should return to their seats and find all the good parts about
their grandparents and start writing those over for use in their projects. The teacher
then had a conference with Terry, asking him "what was at the bottom” of his piece,
meaning what seemed to be important to him. Terry then stayed on the rug to listen as Ms.
Meyer conferred with Ella.

Prior to the conference, Ella had written many pieces in her notebook, but had not
yet decided upon a topic for the project. As the conference with Ella began, the teacher and
student faced each other, sitting about four feet apart, while the three other students
remained in their places. In the beginning of the dialogue, the teacher and Ella were trying
to find a common ground on the topic of what Ella would write her project about. Ms.
Meyer started off with several cpening lines, trying to get a sense of where Ella was In

terms of topic selection. Their conference began In this way:

1. T: Umm/ so what were yen thinking! Ella?”

2. Ella: ldon'tknewj

3. T: Have you read through your notebook already?!

4. Ella: Yeah/

5. T: Mhmm/l And nething seems to stand out for you as being impertant?”
6. Ella: Not really! [little affect or intonation]

Ella seemed at a loss as how to respond to the teacher's question about what may

have been “important" to write about. For instance, the expression on her face was one of

189

puzzlement. She responded to the teacher's questions, but offered little information on her
own Initiative. At this point, there does not seem to be a shared sense of what Is
"important“ to write about. From the teacher's point of view, what is important to write
about is a personal subject that has some deeper meaning for the child's life. Ella,
however, based on previous interviews with me, seemed to have a very different Idea about
what selecting something important meant. When I asked her before the conference what
she was going to select for her project that was important, Ella responded:

I don't know what I'm going to do . . . because, because there's no really big,

important issues In here (indicating her notebook). Except for this, I

wrote about the news. I was mad though because this guy was missing since

Sunday and they found him in the lake drowned and they didn't put it on the

news or anything.

Ella may have been having difficulty responding to the teacher's questions because
she was operating from the assumption that the teacher wanted her to select an item in her
notebook that had dealt with a news event; that was her definition of “important.“

However, when the teacher continued to probe and ask specific questions about what Ella

had written, Ella was able to respond more fluently, with greater ease. The conference

continued:

7. T: Mhmm! Is there something you seem to write about more etten than! than
not?/!

8. Ella: Yeah!

9. T: What do you think that is?”

10. Ella: Ummm/ Well! about ummm/ usually about me and when I was little!/

11. T: Mhmm! Mhmm! Why do you think that you're writing a lot about when you
were little?! It's interesting when we de that when we! when we write a lot
about when we we're little and we're not little anymere/ Why do you think
you're doing that?”

12. Ella: Because (inaudible) . . . I'm not Lani]! sure!
13. T: I'm I'm not hearing yOu sweetie!
14. Ella: My Aunt Delores really reminds me of that because i spent a lot of time with

831/

190

15. T: Mhmm/

16. Ella: And/I

17. T: You spend a lot of time with her neyr9/
18. Ella: Not anymere cause she lives in Virginia!

At this point, teacher and student seem to have found a common ground. The teacher
asked Ella several questions to lead her to talk more about her aunt. Ella seemed more
eager to respond, adding why she did not spend time with her aunt now. The non-verbal
language contributes to the picture as well. Whereas Ella had looked puzzled in the
previous sections, here she nodded her head on several occasions and then shook her head
when the teacher asked her if she spent time with her aunt now.

In the next section, the teacher revisited the issue of trying to find what was
“important" about Ella's relationship with her aunt. In this sequence of dialogue, the
teacher suggested that Ella was missing her aunt and remembering the wonderful times.
For the teacher, it appeared that this is what was important for the child to discover--
what was "important“ was the personal relationship the student had with the other person.
Here is the next sequence of dialogue:

19. T: Okay! So you so you are missing her/ is that what you're saying?”
20. Ella: Yeah/

21. T: Ahhhjl So you're saying that the hettem of all this is that you're missing
your Aunt Delores now and you're! remembering all the wonderful

times?”

22. Ella: (nods) And I'm mad at my 9188mm: because they're going to see her and
they're not taking me!

23. T: 80/ don't you think that! what does that seund to you?! that maybe this
would be that! that you you have all those steries about when you used to do
things with her?” Well what about if you turned them into uh! kind of a
letter to her” That would be a really neat project a real neatlener to her
where you! went on and on and talked to her about all the wonderful times
as a way to say to her I miss you so mueh” Maybe in a way to plan! a time
where you could get tegether?! Yeah?! Does that sound like something you
might want to de?”

191

At this point, Ella had become engaged in the conversation about her aunt and
seemed to have found this a satisfactory topic about which to write her project. The
teacher suggested that she write a letter to her aunt and this seemed to strike Ella as a good
idea, evidenced by her nodding of her head at several different points. The teacher
emphasized several words such as ”stories,“ ”letter” and ”miss” indicating these were the
important ideas. In her recommendations to Ella, she also placed her inflection on “neat,”
giving the implicit message that writing a letter was a good idea. She did couch her
recommendation in less directive words such as “might” and expressed her own
enthusiasm about the topic.

In the next sequence, however, conflict emerged. At the mention of the word
project, Ella suggested that she and her friend, Serena, were doing a ”project” with me.
Here is how the conversation proceeded:

24. Ella: Yeah! Ellis I'll be doing a project for Sarah! (laughs and turns toward
camera) [intonation becomes more animated] This fiction Project that me
and Serena are doing// We're writing we're writing these two steries! and
we've been writing them for (laughs) guite a while now!

25. T: For Sarah?! [surprised lane]

26. Sarah: I'm willing to listen to the stories she writes with Serena. I'm not really
writing them with her--

27. Ella: She's going to read--
28. T: Qh! Okay--
29. Ella: Umm/ well! she's listening to us while we're writing them--
30. T: Um/ OK! [spoken quickly]
31. Ella: (inaudible)--
At the point where Ella introduced the topic of writing another project for me, Ella
looked directly at the camera which I was holding. Ella was somewhat animated as she
smiled and gestured towards me. Ms. Meyer seemed very surprised, also looked at me, and

asked ”For Sarah?“ indicating she was trying to understand my role with the students. In

192

an interview later that day, Ms. Meyer explained that she had thought I was encouraging
students to write fiction, of which she disapproved. Just prior to the Interview, in fact,
Ms. Meyer had shouted at me in the hall when I asked if Ella and Serena could write
together during lunch. Ms. Meyer then accused me of undermining her attempts at having
students write personal pieces by encouraging them to write fiction.

Ms. Meyer's further interactions in the conference reflect her discomfort with
both what she saw as my intervention with the students and the fact that Ella was
proposing writing a fictional piece, rather than a personal expressive piece. In the next
phases of the conference, Ms. Meyer moved into a more directive mode after the brief
interaction about the ”other project" and became explicit about the procedures that Ella

should go through to complete the letter to her aunt.

32. T: So! umm/ you need to get started with that! OK” So how do you think about
that?! You have a couple of those entries In your neteheek?”

33. (Ella nods)

34. T: Okay so why don't you start! take a telder! okay/I and on separate pieces!

stick some papers in your folder! and start lifting out those entries about
your aunt! and start finding the ones that really are imeertant! about the
times that were really impertant” And start writing them in such a way
that you think that they would fit in perfectly” Okay?! (Ella nods) And
then you'll decide how to put it in to a letter term to her! ekay?” (Ellas
nod) That sounds like a nice Dmifim Serena! uh Serena! (laughs) Ella!

The conference ended with Ella getting up from the floor and going back to her seat where
she began to select existing pieces from her notebook for her project.

Ella responded positively, if not enthusiastically, to her conference with the
teacher. In an informal interview with me after the conference, Ella explained that she
now felt that she understood what a project was. She said that the teacher had explained it
to her. Ella summarized her interaction with the teacher by saying that she had told the
teacher she had a lot of entries about her Aunt Dolores and that, the teacher, then

recommended turning those entries into a letter to her aunt. When I asked Ella if the

193

teacher's idea were a good one, she said, “I'm going to go ahead with it." In response to
whether that were something she wanted to do, Ella responded:

Yeah. And she's [aunt Dolores] been begging me to write her a letter so it
won't run up my grandparents' phone bill.

Looking back at the writing conference, we can understand Ella's interpretation of
the events. Initially, Ella suggested that she had written several entries about her Aunt
Dolores. Ms. Meyer picked up on this and encouraged Ella to write about this topic for her
project. Ms. Meyer also suggested Ella turn these entries into a letter which seemed
satisfactory to her because she could meet the teacher's criterion of an appropriate topic,
while meeting her own interest in contacting her aunt without creating an expensive
telephone bill.

The teacher and student had come to a shared understanding of what the project was.
Even though Ella had temporarily gotten excited about writing a fiction project when she
told the teacher I was listening to her and Serena, her interest waned when the teacher and
l (for my own reasons) did not encourage her to write fiction for this project. Ella may
have compromised her own interests to satisfy the teacher, but she did so in a way that
allowed her to find a topic that she was interested in pursuing.

Ella's interest in the letter to her aunt developed over the next several days. She
worked on her project, selecting work from her notebook and expanding upon those
entries. On November 8, Ms. Mayer conducted a second writing conference with Ella. The
conference took place between the two of them at the back table. Ms. Meyer was seated at
the table and called Ella over to her, saying, “Can I see what is going on with you?." Ella
was standing and handed her paper into Ms. Meyer's outstretched hands. Ms. Meyer looked
through Ella's sheets of paper and started the conference out by saying:

1. T: Where where is this beginning?

2. (Ella remained standing and shuffled through papers and showed her the
beginning.)

Ella:
T:

Ella:

194

Here! Now/ is this in the form of a letter?
No! not yet!

Oh! these are just the entries?

Yeah but I ehanged them.

In the opening segment, teacher and student were again trying to find a common

ground. Ms. Meyer remembered having suggested that Ella turn the piece into a letter and

asked her If it were in the form of a letter. When Ella responded no, Ms. Meyer asked

another question to find out what she had done. In the next sequence, the teacher pointed

out how Ella needed an introduction that would be more fitting to a letter after establishing

that there was a conflict between writing a letter (which required second person) and a

story (which required the use of either first person or third person).

7.

10.

11.

T:

Ella:

Ella:

T:

Oh OK/ So first you are copying all the entries then you are going to go
through this! and you are going to find! how to make this because it canfit be
[speeds up pace] ”Dear Aunt Dolores! Me and my Aunt Dolores have always
been close!" See what I am saying? (pause) So new are you going to do
that?” That that's your challenge!

I have to have a new start (inaudible) something like (inaudible) I
changed--

But you need to have the whole tene change In other words you have to be!
speaking to her as it it is in a letter!/ See what I am saying?! So if you
were writing all this! to her/ you weeldnit be saying it like “summers
were no different something always happened like when“ (reads a part from
Ella's text very quickly) You might want to say, 'fiemember Aunt Dolores

when" [says this slowly] or/ you know remember when! or “Boy I laugh
when I think about us!" It's kind of like you kind of need to be talking to
her as if you would in a letter!

I started doing. that! it was like I was telling it to Serena (laughs).

Ahh! yeah! it's a good idea! (turns to reprimand class)

In turns 7-11, the teacher smiled frequently and moved her body back and forth in

a rhythmic fashion as she was giving Ella ideas. At the point where Ms. Meyer gave

specific suggestions about how Ella could start off her piece, teacher and student seemed to

connect. Ms. Meyer leaned in toward Ella and Ella sat down, closing the physical gap

 

195

between them to a distance of about one foot. Ella began to tell the teacher about how she
had started to do that and had even tried it out on her friend, Serena. Then Ms. Meyer
reprimanded the class briefly, and turned immediately back to her. The two resumed their
conference when Ella showed the teacher the last entry.

12. Ella: I'm on the last entry/

13. T: Ok/ so that's when you need to! kind of! take all this stuff and deeide! how
you can turn this in/

14. Ella: My mother said! my mother said! she um like she got her friend to! like we
are making a tape!

15. T: You are going to tape it and send it to her else?!
16. EHa: Yeah!
17. T: That's wendertul! [draws out word]

18. Ella: She has a friend that has her yeiee! my Aunt Dolores' exact voice! (laughs)
she just talks/ just like her/

19. T: New” 80/ I am trying to think how you are going to get this dene! So it'll
have to be ”Dear Aunt Dolores!” right?!

20. Ella: Uh huh//

21. T: That's your challenge! OK Your challenge is to find where it should start!
OK and him you are going to say it In your yeiee!

The teacher responded positively to Ella's suggestion that she send a tape along with
her letter as evidenced by the teacher's enthusiasm in her voice and her saying “Wow.” In
this segment there is a much more cooperative element to their interactions. Ella initiated
this part of the exchange by offering to show Ms. Meyer the last entry. Additionally, each
speaker said about the same amount within a turn. The student offered ideas and the
teacher used those ideas. We can see how both speakers incorporated the Ideas of the
previous speaker. For instance, Ella stressed the word, tape, which Ms. Meyer then
picked up on, emphasizing the same word.

Both seemed to be in a problem-solving mode as Ms. Meyer commented, “I'm trying

to think how you can get this done." It was not just the teacher telling Ella what to do, but

196

rather the teacher giving suggestions that would support Ella's idea of using the tape.
Although the teacher provided suggestions, the dialogue was negotiated between them.
Their body language also demonstrated a kind of synchrony in turns 1219; both looked at
the papers at the same time, looked back at one another simultaneously, looked at the
papers again, and then made eye contact. In the next sequence, the teacher seemed to take
over again, doing more of the talking and providing specific suggestions.

22. Ella: It's due next week?!

23. T: Yeah! Now you don't have to include all of this OK! Not all of this you are
going to have to inelude right?! You're not going to always say [speeds up
pace for next part] (reads) “me and my Aunt Dolores have always been
close I love all of my aunts but we have a special friendship we love being
together considering the fact that we're always getting into trouble like the
time!" All right up to here! This this might be important in the letter?! So
"Dear Aunt Deleresll" What kind of a start? What do you think you need to
start this with so the rest of it can come afterwards?” ”I've been thinking
a lot about y0u lately!"

24. Ella: Yeah!

25. T: You know! Maybe that or! "I find myself very angry Dolores! because
Grandma and Grandpa are coming to lLifiii You and--

26. Ella: They already totem--

27. T: ”And lam net going/ and I am finding myself thinking a lot about yeu! And
these these are the things I have been thinking about” You know not! as
simple as that! but that might be a way to get inte it! You know what I am
saying?! That that might be your beginning! Something like that! You need
to go and work on that OK?! It‘s really going to be nice!

As the teacher was talking in turn 25, she leaned in closer to Ella and spread her
arms in an open gesture towards Ella. Ella seemed to be in agreement with the teacher‘s
suggestions as evidenced by her looking directly at the teacher and nodding. Both turned at
the same time to get Ella's text, then Ms. Meyer handed it to her. At this point, Ella was
standing up to leave and added the following:

28. Ella: She is always been telling me “Write me a letter write me a letter instead
of running up the 0119.83. bill" (laughs)!

197

29. T: So that could be a good start! "I decided to listen to you after all Aunt
Dolores and kill twe birds with one stone--/ 5811511 You and write you a
letter! and satisfy my writing project in school by turning my love for you
into a letter!” [pace of this slower, tone is friendly, warm and interested]

30. (They both giggle.)

31. T: Something like that! right? So here it goes! That's kind of great right?!
"Dear Aunt Dolores! I finally decided to listen to you and guess why?!”
That could kind of be]! a yery good beginning! OK?! [friend/y, excited lift
to her voice]

32. Ella: OK/
33. T: Ihings like that! You think about it!
34. Ella: All right!

The conference seemed to end on a positive note. Ella offered the statement about
how her aunt had wanted to communicate with her without adding up the phone bill, and the
teacher picked up on the idea immediately, suggesting that the phrase could serve as the
introduction to the letter. Synchrony between teacher and student continued as they both
laughed about "I finally decided to listen to you." Ms. Meyer was smiling and her voice got
a little louder as she made a hand gesture outwards Indicating to Ella how she might use the
idea of writing the letter. Both teacher and student seemed to enjoy the idea of starting off
the letter in that way; Ms. Meyer moved her body back and forth, leaning in and out as she
said the words, "Dear Aunt Dolores,” while Ella nodded and then returned to her desk.
Later on in an informal Interview, Ella shared with me that Ms. Mayer had given her the
idea to begin her piece, ”Dear Aunt Dolores, I finally listened to you.” Ella liked this idea

and said that she was going to begin her piece that way.

 

Ella had a unique way of making sense of the classroom discourse and fitting it into
her existing knowledge of writing. A way to understand how Ella made use of the classroom
discourse and her previous knowledge about writing is to examine her views about fiction
versus non-fiction writing. Ella distinguished between the two types of notebooks she kept

and‘ suggested there were different standards for notebook writing and fiction writing.

 

198

When I asked her to tell me about the qualities of good writing, she expressed her beliefs
this way:

. . . if it was like a story and it was fiction, then humor. And if it was non-
fiction story--feeling. If it was a notebook entry-~feeling.

In this brief statement, Ella not only identified how she thought the two genres
differed, but also implied that she knew how to write using both genres. Her example of
what was meant by feelings had much in common with the teacher's emphasis upon
description and imagery. In response to what she meant by feeling, Ella said:

I mean, using, not just saying, like if you go to sleep, not just saying "I

went to bed.” But saying like, "I drifted off into a deep sleep“ or something

like that.

It seems that Ella's use of the word feeling had much in common with the teacher's
view of the use of "good language." In her example, Ella used the word ”drifted” instead of
”go to" and used an adjective, ”deep” to describe sleepuboth examples that Ms. Meyer
would have agreed were indicative of descriptive language. On another occasion, Ella
defined ”feeling" as "using detail” and provided an example of using specific words to
convey an idea. It appears that Ella had a good grasp of the Idea of using description, and as
will be shown in her texts, she was quite capable of using imagery. However, she did not
believe it was important to write with ”feeling“ in her fiction works. Instead, in her
view, fiction should be filled with action and humor. Ella made the further distinction
between fiction writing and nonfiction writing in this way:

You don't always have to write with feeling in detective stories. Sometimes

you can, but you don't have to. In some instances you just like, when you

really get to the end of the book, that's where the exciting parts happen and

you can zip through it actually. But in the beginning, it's kind of, there's no

action or anything, you try to put a little humor in It.

Ella seemed to have read enough detective stories to know that plot and action are
the salient features, and that you might want to add humor in the beginning to get the

reader's attention. In fact, most mystery books I have read do not include a lot of

description of setting, character's motives, or detail about how things happened. Instead,

 

199

mysteries are focused on plot, are packed with action, and often employ humor (Lukens,
1990).

"Voice” was another characteristic of Ella's secret fiction writing. I have labelled
this characteristic voice because it seems to both literally and figuratively capture what
Ella was trying to express. When Ella described how she used her own voice to
differentiate among characters, she was using a more literal definition of voice. However,
she also employed voice in a more abstract sense in terms of developing her own style
where a reader can almost hear the individual writer. Ella expressed some difficulty with
writing "with feeling," whereas using her voice to indicate different characters' actions
was an easier way to express herself and more entertaining for an audience. Ella said:

It's hard to just come up with something like that [using feeling, detail,

description]. . . . Sometimes if you're writing a book, you don't have to

write with feeling. But you can just, but if you're reading it out loud to

somebody then you can just say it with feeling instead of writing it with

feeling. . . . When you read a story out loud you can use different characters'

voices. I think that's why I like writing stories so much because when I

read them, everybody seemed to like them.

Ella clearly preferred writing fiction to anything else and on several occasions
mentioned this to me. One day she mused, "I wonder when she's (the teacher) going to
start letting us write stories.” Later on in the interview, she said:

I don't like writing non-fiction but she said we're going to write an

autobio- a biography. . . . I'm going to have to go through a lot of things

because my mother tells me all these different stories.

One of the reasons Ella preferred writing fiction rather than personal expressive
pieces was that she had difficulty remembering incidents that had happened to her in her
life. Also, she found that trying to write with ”feeling" slowed her down. She could not
just jot down her ideas quickly in her class notebooks, but rather had to take a lot of time
to include detail. She thought of non-fiction stories as being about herself and taking a

biographical, perhaps even chronological format:

If you're writing a biography of yourself, then you don't use feeling in the
beginning because you don't really remember because that's like when you

200

were little. And then in the end you can use feeling because you just had it
recently or last year.

In Ella's mind, writing with feeling (using description) seemed connected with
being able to remember and use details from her experience. In her mind, it seemed to be
easier to write what is freshest or most recent In her memory. In talking about writing

about herself, she said:

If It just happened then you can really write about it, but when you're

younger, you write a short little piece about it because you don't really

know that much about it. . . . When you're writing fiction, you can just

write what you want to write. I mean you have to like put a setting and

everything, but still you don't have to remember, you don't have to strain

your brain to remember.

Ella, then, clearly preferred writing fiction to personal memoirs recorded in her
notebook. However, Ella was quite savvy about the classroom context and norms. In fact,
Ella said that she thought the teacher "Obviously believes In using feeling.” Ella did not
totally accept her teacher's view of good writing and was able to articulate the view that
different people had different standards of good writing. When asked In the exit interview
about characteristics of good writing, Ella responded:

There's a lot of different ways to describe good writing like expressing

yourself, using feeling and not just zipping through, but taking some time

to do it. All different people have different ways of doing good writing. And

all different people have different standards of good writing. Like Ms.

Meyer thinks that good writing is feeling. And another person might think

you should not just zip through it. Well, a lot of different peOple have
different feelings of writing.

Besides recognizing the teacher's values about good writing, Ella was able to read
the teacher's reactions to students' writing quite well. In describing her teacher's
responses to students' writing, she offered this insight:

Ms. Meyer, every time she hears something she likes, she's always like,

'Wowl" And then every time she hears something she doesn't like, “Oh,

that's good.“ So I want something she's going to go wow to.

Although Ella was able to figure out what was important to the teacher, her
relationship with Ms. Meyer was not without conflict. Ella believed the teacher did like

her as a person and valued some of her entries, but knew there were some entries the

201

teacher did not like. Ella continued to like some of the entries she knew the teacher did not
like, but at the same time she felt the need to please the teacher:

Sometimes when you're with an adult, it makes you feel nervous, especially

Ms. Mayer. Every time she looks over my shoulder, I get frightened

because she makes me feel nervous sometimes. . . . She's so unpredictable.

Sometimes she loves an entry and you'll think, “oh.“ And some times she'll

hate an entry and you say, “Hey, I like it.”

Ella was successful at understanding her teacher's values about good writing and
using her teacher's ideas to construct a text in a genre that would be acceptable to her. She
acknowledged that the teacher gave her ideas to write about both directly and indirectly,
but believed that students, especially, her friend, Serena, provided ideas too.

From Ella's texts and conference with the younger student, we can infer what she
has internalized from the classroom dialogue.

Iaxts

Ella's texts consisted of three different genres: her fiction writing kept in her
"secret notebook,” her classroom notebook, and her project. Each of these contributes
something different in understanding Ella's writing and what she had internalized from the
classroom dialogue. In her fiction notebook, Ella focused on characters,” setting, and plot.
She sprinkled much dialogue in the stories to develop her characters. The characters
generally encountered some dilemmas that are resolved by the heroics of one of the major
characters. The stories are packed with events and filled with humor. Here is an example
of the beginning of one of Ella's untitled works from her fiction notebook:

WAAHI, there was a cry from the bedroom. Does that baby always cry Ella,

my dog asked. I was babysitting my cousin Leland for 2 weeks. I went to get

him. I brought him into the living room and put him into his playpen. Then

it hit me. my dog was talking. I fainted. I woke up 5 minutes later with

coffee all over my face. Scooter are dog was gone. I looked up to see my

brother Andy starring down at me. Wake up and smell the coffee he said

helping me up.

Even in the short excerpt, we can see how Ella organized her fiction stories with a

setting, characters, and events. She combined dialogue and humor in the sentence ”Does

202

that baby always cry Ella, my dog asked.“ This use of dialogue and humor did not
characterize her classroom notebook entries.

Although Ella wrote about a variety of topics in her classroom notebook, those
entries tended to be more serious and reflective pieces. The entries fell into four
categories: (a) pieces about relatives (3 entries); (b) entries about news events such as
how a man had died but his life seemed insignificant to news reporters and the plight of
handicapped people (4 entries); (c) reflective pieces such as her feelings of empathy for a
friend who hurt herself and comparing roses dying to keeping people alive through
respirators (5 entries); and (d) stories consisting of personal narratives about her own
experiences (3 entries). Ella's entries indicate a wide range of interests and an ability to
reflect deeply about the world and her experience through writing. For instance, in her
entry about the roses. Ella combined description with reflection. She wrote:

Ms. Meyer says those roses Ginas mother sent her are just dried out I say
there dead. I mean they were beatiful before and had such a sweet smell but
now their just not the same. I can understand her wanting to keep them
alive but you just have to let them live and die naturally. They lost there
beatifull color and shape. It's just like with people If you put them on one
of those breathing systems they may be alive but there just not the same.

Likewise Ella's personal narratives included a chronology of events with some
descriptive words. Her narratives became filled with more descriptive language over
time. For instance, she wrote this entry on October 11:

Me, my mother and some friends used to go to the catskills in the winter. I
remember the chill that ran down my spine when I got there and the fresh
aroma of pine trees and evergreen trees. My mothers friend Seth had a
house there. We would sit around the fire place and drink hot cocoa. The
cocoa tasted so good after being outside. It felt like getting into a jacuzzi
after being in an ice cold pool. There was a hill right outside. we would go
sleding every day. But I was nervous because Seth had told me that there
were bears. We would come inside with snow on are faces. I felt like Ice
when it flew in your face. One day we went cross country skiing. l was
miserable. I had just started skiing when I got tangled up in a tree morn
tryed to help me but she got tangled up too some guy helped us out. I'll
never forget him. He was about 92 and had clusters of white hair. I wanted
to puke when I saw his head. Clip. Clop went my skis. Slide my mother
kept saying. Clip. Clop. Clip. Clop I went thrue the blue path. Then mom
wanted to go on the red path. I walled I screamed but she dragged me along

203

Ella told the story of her experiences in the Catskills in this entry. She used
description as in the ”fresh aroma of pine trees” and the description of the 92 year-old
man with clusters of white hair. Additionally, Ella brought her voice into this piece
through the use of such words as "Clip. Clop. Clip. Clop.” These are all features of ”good
writing“ that the teacher had discussed in class. Ella was able to use these features in her
own text, while bringing the quality of voice that is more distinctive in her fiction works
into this personal narrative.

Although the previous pieces give us a glimpse of Ella's writing, It is through an
examination of Ella's project that we can see what Ella had internalized from the classroom
discourse. First, the first writing conference Ms. Meyer held with Ella clearly influenced
her selection of a topic and the format of her project. Ella did, in fact, write a letter to
her Aunt Dolores. Second, we can trace the changes in her texts from the original notebook
entry to the project and see the influence of the teacher's image of good text as exemplified
through the aspects of description and imagery, the structure of the text, and voice.

Ella's first entry about her Aunt Dolores formed the first vignette in what became a
letter to her aunt. Presented below is Ella's entry from her notebook, dated September
16.

Me and my aunt Dolores have always been close. When we get together

we're like Fred and Barney always getting into trouble. like the time we

went over to the grocery store. I was about 3 years old. It was winter and

there was ice all over the ground. We were walking down the street then

suddenly I let go of her hand and started running. I slipped and fell and

started laughing. She ran over to help me but she fell down too. We just sat

down laughing for awhile. finally we got up. But we fell down again.

Although my behind was sore I had a great time.

In this text written early in the year, Ella used little descriptive language. She did
include a setting where she wrote, "It was winter and there was ice all over the ground.”

Ella did not use comparisons, detail, or metaphor. She used a tight narrative structure in

which she introduced the relationship with her aunt, set the stage for the event, and told

204

chronologically the story of falling down and laughing. Ella concluded her story with an
ending that tied the story together.

In the first draft of the project, we see a great deal of influence from the classroom
discourse on both general and specific levels. The writing conference of October 30
clearly influenced Ella's selection of topic. Ella decided to write to her aunt, crediting the
teacher with the idea of writing a letter. Even though she had not written any other
entries about her aunt in her notebook, Ella suggested that she had been thinking about this
topic. She said 'I had a lot of entries in my head about my aunt." Ella had an interest in
writing about her aunt, and Ms. Meyer encouraged her to develop that interest.

The text itself reflects some of the broader classroom discourse, including the
teacher's emphasis upon description and detail, or as Ella would say, ”feeling.” In the
beginning of the draft, Ella drew heavily from her notebook entry about her aunt, and then
added two other vignettes. Ella did not just copy the first draft from the notebook, though
she engaged in serious revision as she went along. Her first draft consisted of three
vignettes that were separated by a line between each one. The first vignette was the
following:

Me and my Aunt Delores have always been close. I love a lot of my aunts but

we have a special friendship. We love being together considering the fact

that we're always getting into trouble like the time my grandmother sent us

to the grocery store. I was about two or three years old and loved her just as

much as I do now (well maybe a little less). It was snowing, ice covered the

ground. I had to skip to keep up with her. Snow landed on my nose we

laughed as we walked. Suddenly I wriggled out of her grasp and started

running. I slipped and fell I sat there for a few seconds than burst out

laughing. She ran after me and slipped and fell almost landing on top of me

we sat there laughing. Finally we got up well at least we tried to get up but

we fell down again finally sombody came to help us up. She carried me

there and back.

In this first part, Ella used more descriptive language and detail than in the
original notebook entry. For instance, she added the phrase ”snow landed on my nose“,

perhaps to give the reader a sense of the scene. She substituted ”wriggled” for ”let go of

205

her hand“ because she said 'it sounded kind of neat.“ The second part of the piece.
displayed below, shows even more description that Ella has included:

Summers were no different somthing always happened like when I was 1

1/2 my love for sausage had just begun. I was at my aunt Delores's house it

was very hot and sunny. We were eating a breakfast of Sausages and eggs. I

noticed that she had gotten more than I did. "I want some owange juice

pwease" I said with an innocent look on my face. I watched her go to get it

before quickly swiping one of her sausages and putting it onto my plate

when she came back I stuffed it into my mouth. She sat the orange juice in

front of me. 'Fank rou" I said trying to swallow it as fast as I could. 'Hey'

she said locking angrily at me. “Didn't I have 4 sausages?“ "Yes“ I said. Well

where did it go? she asked. I don't know, I answered. “Than that's where

your sausage is in my tummy,“ I said as I stared at her with my big brown

eyes.“ Well how did it get there? she asked. “What is this 20 questions?“ I

thought. "What does she expect I'm only a little kid!” She picked me up I

closed my eyes expecting somthing bad to happen then I heard her burst out

laughing. Grown ups, I thought I just can't figure them out.

In this second vignette, Ella used more descriptive language such as ”swiping" and
“stuffing.“ Additionally, she used several adjectives such as ”innocent' and ”big brown” to
describe the look on her face and then her eyes. Ella also brought in a great deal of dialogue
which characterized her fiction pieces. Ella's own voice also comes through in the second
vignette. She seemed to get into her character—-herself as a young child-- 'Owange juice
pwease' and fictionalize the account of the sausage consumption. The last vignette also
shows the influence of the classroom dialogue in relation to the use of descriptive language:

Every morning (when my Aunt Delores lived at my grandmother's house) I

used to climb into bed with her. The feeling of her soft skin would feel so

good. If I wasn't there I was in my favorite chair. It was an old white chair
that I could just squeeze into.

In this final vignette, Ella used several adjectives such as “soft“ and "old white“
describing the chair. The use of these adjectives suggests that Ella was internalizing
certain features of the classroom dialogue and consciously incorporating them into her
text.

These three vignettes that Ella had intended to use for her project reflect the
emphases of the classroom discourse, but also reflect other voices that Ella seemed to have

drawn upon that were not directly connected to the current classroom. Ella seemed to have

206

developed a distinctive style in her personal narrative that had some commonalities with
her fiction. In the first two vignettes, Ella introduced the topic and then set the particular
scene, whether it was winter or summer. In each case, a humorous event took place, and
was resolved by humor. Ella's narratives display a setting, character, plot format. And
she has added her own style of humor to the stories. In this version, Ella combined things
she valued as an author such as humor and use of voice, while including the language that
the teacher would value such as use of adjectives and descriptive words.

In the final version of the project, we can see again the influence of the classroom
dialogue, and specifically hear the voice of the teacher in the revision of the introduction
of the letter to her aunt. Here is her final project:

Dear, Aunt Delores.

I finally decided to listen to you. Instead of running up your or

Grandma's phone bill I'm writing you a letter. Remember those stories you

used to tell me about when I was little. 'I know“ "I know.“ Of course you

remember them. Well you're going to hear them again. My wayl Here's

one you've told me only once, you'll remember it once you hear it. Here it

goes: It was snowing, ice covered the ground. We were on are way to the

grocery store for Grandma. I had to skip to keep up with you. Snow drifted

down onto my nose We giggled as we walked even though I had something

else on my mind-”mischief"! I waited for the perfect moment then

wriggled out of your grasp. I ran with the wind and slipped and fell and sat

there for a few seconds then burst out laughing. Meanwhile you had run

after me and slipped and fell, almost landing on top of me. 'Yikes" I said as l

scrambled to the side. Your face turned red as a beef but then you started

laughing. We tried to get up but we could'nt. Finally sombody got us up.

You carried me there and back.

Ella had, indeed, used the suggestion of starting out with the line, 'I finally decided
to listen to you.” She also added a lengthier introduction and prepared the reader for the
stories by adding, ”Well you're going to hear them again. My wayl” She kept the
descriptive language and the essentials of the story, adding the line about having something
else on her mind-mischief. In the revision, Ella kept the events and the imagery, but
added features of "voice" where you can almost hear Ella telling the story aloud. In the

second part of the letter which is separated from the first by a line, Ella inserted a

207

question about whether her aunt could make it to her recital. Here is the second vignette

introduced by ”Sound familiar?":

Sound familiar? There's your all-time favorite. Oh by the way could you

and a few other family members come to my recital in June? I would really

like you to be there and hopefully you'll meet my sisterl Well here comes

the story. It was a sunny summer day. l was staying at your apartment and

we were eating breakfast. I glanced over to your plate and noticed that you

had more sausage than I did. "I want some orange juice please“ I said. I

watched you get the juice. Before I quickly swiped one of your sausages onto

my plate, you came back with the juice. 'Hey," you said ”how come I only

have 3 sausages and you have 4? "I don't know,“ I answered You didn't say

anything else after that. I wondered why.

In the second vignette, Ella retained the beginning of the story, but left out the
original ending that included the discussion of the sausage ending up in her tummy.
Instead, Ella left the ending much more ambiguous, leaving the interpretation more up to
the reader. Here, again, Ella's fictional voice came through: Which ending occurred in
real life, which took advantage of artistic license? Ella closed her letter with a poem.
Here is her ending:

I love you and I miss you and I hope I'll see you soon.

though times were hard

and we were spread apart

I've always had faith in

you cause you were in my heart.

P.S Please write back.

Love

Ella

P.P.S I know you told me to stop growing, but I couldn't help being 5'2 1/2".

In Ella's final project, she made use of the dialogue from the classroom, her
writing conferences with the teacher, and previous experiences with literature and fiction
writing. Her letter shows the direct influence of the teacher in using a letter and in the
opening line. The description she used reflects the teacher's value on using detail and
interesting language. Additionally, Ella made use of her own voice, which seemed to have
been most linked to her fiction writing, to tell the stories within the letter. She appeared
to have internalized much of the classroom dialogue, while transforming it to fit within

her previous experiences and emerging style.

 

208

Ill'l' Q [ Ill'll E

Ella conducted a writing conference with a first grader, Eva, at a small table in the

hallway. Ella began the conference by requesting Eva to read her the stories. In her

stories, Eva made use of conventional spelling and included several illustrations. Here is

the beginning of their conversation:

1.

2.

(0

Ella:

Eva:

Ella:

Eva:

Ella:
Eva:

Ella:

Eva:

Ella:

Okay/ read me your stories//

"The Three Little Girls" by Eva// Once upon a time/ there were three little
girls// And then the three little girls found a house// Then the three little
girls went into the house/I And then the three little girls went to play
pool// And then they went for a long trip// And then it was night time//
And then it was one . . .

Okay/ now how did you get the idea for the story?//

I've got some books/ ”The Three Little Bears'/ and I copied them” And I
came to school and make them/ And I have another book about the two ‘
little/

Oh/ I see// And you did all the illustrations/ all the pictures?”
Mm/ mm/ All those//

Ms. Little said you have to write books/ ls everybody in your class writing
a story?/

Umm/ yep/

Umm/ how many books have you written?!

In the beginning of their conversation, Ella asked several questions about where

Eva got her ideas, who did the illustrations, and if she had written many books. Ella did not

focus on particular aspects of Eva's story, but rather focused on the author herself and her

process. Afler Ella asked how many books she had written, Eva decided to go back to her

classroom to collect other books. When Eva returned laden with the other books she had

written this year, the two girls continued their conversation. First Eva read several of

her stories to Ella. Here is their conversation after Eva had read several of them to her:

29.
30.

Ella:

Eva:

Which one's your favorite?/

This one//

209

31 . Ella: Did you get these from books too?”

 

32. Eva: Uh UN

33. Ella: You made those up” What about is Marana your best friend?/ (She tries to
read it to herself. Eva corrects her at times.) And like umm (pause) You
like to write and you like to draw?”

34. Eva: Mm/ mm/

35. Ella: Which do you like better/ writing or drawing?/

In

36. Eva: Writing”

37. Ella: Alright/I Do you want to be an author?” Where's your other rabbit?”

38. Eva: Huh?/

39. Ella: Where's your other rabbit? (pause) Why do you like this one better than
the other ones? (Continues to read the piece to herself.)

In this segment of the dialogue, Ella assumed the role of Interviewer. She asked Eva
several questions about where she got her ideas, which story was her favorite, and if she
liked drawing or writing better. It seemed that Ella was trying to get to know the author
rather than providing specific help with her writing. Ella continued in this role
throughout the conference, asking questions and occasionally agreeing with Eva's comments

such as in this section:

41 . Ella: Why do you like them better than the other ones?/'
42. Eva: Because my rabbit is so cute/ I love rabbits/I
43. Ella: So do I/ It's my favorite animal! Do you like this one?”

44. Eva: Yeah/
After a few more turns of this nature, Ella thanked Eva for sharing her work with her and
walked the little girl to her classroom.

What has Ella internalized from the classroom dialogue that she then used in her
conference with Eva? In terms of content, we see little attention to description or
imagery. Ella did not mention using descriptive language to Eva, nor did she focus on

mechanics and spelling. Ella did not really respond to the piece. Instead, Ella tried to get

210

to know the author and asked the author questions about whether she liked writing and
which story was the author's favorite.

Ella's style of conducting this conference had very little in common with the
teacher's style of interaction. In Ella's conferences, the teacher had been quite directive at
times, telling Ella what she needed to do. The teacher gave explanations and ideas to Ella,
suggesting she write a letter or start out in a specific way. Yet Ella did not use any of these
strategies with the younger child. At other times, the teacher asked many probing
questions. trying to find out what Ella was going to write about. It is this strategy that Ella
has used the most in her conference with Eva. Ella seemed to have been trying to find a
point of connection with Eva where they could talk about something of interest to the first
grader. Yet the tone of the teacher's conferences with Ella and the tone of the conference
with Eva were quite different. What was Ella trying to accomplish with Eva?

ln Ella's final interview, she revealed something quite interesting in terms of why
she had interacted the way she had with Eva. Ella agreed that she had been asking Eva a lot
of questions. When I asked her why, Ella responded:

Well, because umm, well because it was to see if she really, really liked

writing. Since I know I liked writing when l was younger, but I was really

like into growing. . . . If somebody didn't really like what they wrote, they

really sometimes they would feel uncomfortable sharing it, but still. And

when she, she seemed to open up. I took her back down so she could get the

rest of her stories. She's written a lot. She wrote six stories. And umm,

and she's not not modest, she's a little bit, but still, she's not the kind of kid

that's really shy. Because sometimes kids that age get really shy.

Ella was concerned about the author and tried to connect her own experience to the
young child's. When I asked her if the conference resembled any conferences she had with
anyone else, she said, "Not really” but then added she got the ideas for questions to ask
from me and the trainer, Ms. Henderson:

And from you and from Ms. Henderson and from, especially from you,

actually. . . . Like, whenever I think of you I think of this question, this one
question-Do you like writing?

 

211

So when we look for internalization, we can't always assume it is going to be
internalization from the teacher or the classroom discoursel Here Ella revealed that she
was essentially playing the role of interviewer with Eva and that she had Ieamed that role
from me, the researcher. She remembered the question I had asked her early on about
whether she liked writing and used it in her conference with Eva. So we can not assume
that Ella did not internalize her teacher's voice or the classroom discourse, but we have
some evidence that on the occasion of the writing conference with the younger student that
the researcher's voice was a more powerful influence than the teacher's.

First, Ella had quality interactions with her teacher during the two writing
conferences. In the first conference, teacher and student had developed a temporary shared
understanding of what the project was. In the second conference, Ella and Ms. Meyer built
on their shared understanding by developing the project into a letter to Ella's aunt. These
conferences were pivotal in Ella's subsequent texts. She was clearly influenced by these
conversations and included the teacher's ideas in her project.

Second, Ella used several features of the classroom dialogue In her texts. She
labelled the use of description and imagery as “writing with feeling,” but clearly had the
concepts, evidenced by her inclusion of these features in her writing and her ability to
articulate what she thought the teacher valued. However, Ella did not use the content of the
classroom discourse in her conference with the younger student. Instead, she focused on
the student as author and played a role of an interviewer. She transformed her knowledge
of writing and her understanding of writing conferences to use in a new way with the
younger student.

In conclusion, Ella was skillful at understanding the classroom norms and the
teacher's expectations. She was able to combine those features she thought the teacher
valued such as writing about the personal and using description, while developing her own

voice. Ella could draw from a variety of her own experiences, including her childhood

212

memories, books she had read, games she played with her friend, discussions with her
mother about the tape, and conversations with me. Ella is an example of a student who. in
Bakhtin's terms, drew from ”multiple voices.” She was particularly adept at
orchestrating these voices to serve her own purposes within the context of the classroom.
Culture and Conflict: The Case of Anita

This case contrasts with the three previous cases in that more conflict arises
between teacher and student. Whereas the other three cases illustrate examples of
successful scaffolding by the teacher and internalization by the students, this case
illustrates where communication goes awry. The conflict makes more visible the cognitive
and social norms that students needed to learn as they participated in this teacher's
Writing Workshop. In this case, we see how Anita intemalizes some of the classroom
norms, yet compromises her original intentions.

W

This section describes Anita's background, her lack of previous experience in a
writing process classroom, and her views about notebook writing. It also describes the
topics she wrote about in her notebook and the teacher's perceptions of her.
W

Anita was an eleven year old African-American girl in the sixth grade. She is of
medium height, slender with a warm smile. She often wore different hairdos, very
carefully and attractively arranged, and seemed to be going through an adolescent phase of.
being quite concerned with her hair and personal appearance. Anita was shy at first with
adults, but warmed up quickly when they paid attention to her. She especially enjoyed
talking to visitors in the classroom and often read her writing to them. She was friends
with several girls in the class, especially the girls at her table.

Anita lived with her mother and her older brother in a neighborhood in the Bronx.
Anita's mother worked as a housekeeper. Her mother had chosen the school in Manhattan to

provide an opportunity for Anita to go to a "better“ school outside of the neighborhood.

213

This was Anita's first year at PS. 999 and she took the train to school by herself each
morning. In the course of discussions about writing and in her notebook entries, Anita
revealed to me that she had been abused by her father who no longer lived with her. Anita
was born in Jamaica and had attended school there. In a conversation with the teacher that
Ms. Meyer reported to me the mother expressed her care for her daughter, but felt Anita
was out of control and she did not know what to do with her. The mother suggested sending
her back to Jamaica because she had been happier and was successful at reading there. The
mother also reported that she was unaware of the abuse from the father, but knew that
Anita had slept in the same bed with her father and stepmother. This conversation
occurred after Ms. Meyer had sent a letter to the mother threatening to call Social
Services if the mother did not respond. Ms. Meyer believed that she had tried to contact
the mother several times without receiving any response from the mother.

Anita had many difficulties in school. Her teacher reported that she did very little
work, that she had very low achievement scores (9% on the CAT reading test), but that she
had not been placed in resource at PS. 999 or at her previous school. Apparently, Anita
had been referred at her previous school, but the paper work had been lost and there was
no record of her having received additional help.

Anita was interested in singing and dancing, reporting to me that she often made up
songs at home with friends and sang on the train on the way home. Her favorite subjects in
school were math and gym, although she did not think she was good at math. Anita read
very little in school or at home, although she mentioned two books she had read at home
that she did not read at school. She explained that she was not a fast reader so that it had
taken her three weeks to read W. She reported that number of pages of the
book and the title determined her selection of books.

Anita did like to write. She told me on several occasions that in her notebook she

had written the most she had ever written anything in her life. At the time of our first

214

interview she had written thirty three pages and was very proud of that achievement.
Writing in her notebook seemed to have a kind of therapeutic function for Anita. She
described it this way:

It helps me put away the memory of what bad things happened to me. I can

put it in my notebook so I won't want to remember it so much. Like the

time when my uncle asked me to do something with him and I didn't do it.

Anita suggested that her notebook helped her put away the bad memories and yet
there were some memories that she did not feel she could write down or share with anyone.
These were things that she believed were so personal that they should not be shared with
anyone. She said:

I told my mother. But that one I didn't really write in my notebook because

I didn't feel like it would be good . . . Because I didn't really like anybody

else should know about it except for my family.

Her notebook was also a place where she could write about the good things that had
happened to her. She especially liked it when she shared an entry with people at her table
and they appreciated it. She told me that it made her "feel good” when other people liked
her entries:

It makes me feel good. It's like the entry that I wrote about my grandfather,

when he died and he was the only person who ever gave me anything much.

That one was really nice because he's the only one that really cared a lot

about me anyway. He would give me ...He would give me food. He would give

me clothes. He would give me money.

Although she did not describe herself as a good writer, Anita believed that she was
"OK" at writing. Anita had had no experiences with writing last year except for a private
journal she had kept at lunch time. The teacher she had had at the previous school did not
encourage children to write so Anita explained that she had sneaked this private notebook.
For Anita, writing in her notebook was easy, not hard, because she could write about
things that had happened in her life. She thought it took work, but it was a task she could

complete. About her notebook, Anita said:

215

You have to do a lot of work on it. You can just think of something that

happens in your life or something that somebody says that reminds you of

something. You can just write it down in your notebook.

Anita was excited enough about her experiences with her notebook to tell a woman
she met on the train about what a notebook was. She liked writing in it so much that she
had encouraged the woman on the train to keep one. Here is what she reported:

I would say that notebook is something you write stuff in that makes you

feel sad, happy, and stuff like that. And I was telling a lady on the train

yesterday what a notebook is for because she didn't really know. . . . I told

her a notebook is for things that happen to you like if you get, if you think

somebody had been trying to hurt you, you just write it in your notebook.

And when it happens now anybody could find your notebook and pick it up

and read what is in there.

Anita believed that her notebook could provide a place to write both the good things
and the bad things that had happened to her, but it could also provide information to other
people to help her. Anita did not think that issues related to mechanics were important. In
the entry interview, she stated that the most important aspects of writing were to write
about something you cared about, and to put things in a story in order.
MW

Anita's notebook was filled with many entries about incidents that had happened to
her. She wrote about good times she had had in a swimming pool, learning to play kick
ball, dressing up as a singer, a birthday party, and going to the beach, and a time in
Jamaica. She also wrote about her 'bully" brother, her grandfather who was good to her,
and four entries about her father who had hurt her either physically or emotionally. One
example of this type of entry is the following:

it riminds me of my father he dose not think of loving he abouse people and

one day he punch my brother right in his heart and we never liked him

again
The entries about her father either described his hitting her or had a more neutral
emotional tone such as in, ”My father had something like an idea to let the chickens lea

[lay] some eggs . . . my father hung the dog.”

n‘

ll...

216

Anita's longest entry was about Lenox Hill Camp. She worked on this story for two
weeks. Most of Anita's writing between October 10 and October 29 (the day of the
conference with her teacher) was a continuation of this story, although she did write some
additional entries on different topics at home. After the conference, Anita did not write any
more entries in hernotebook; only responses to reading were recorded. Anita then began
to write her project which was about her grandfather; this was based on her original
entry in her notebook about her grandfather.

WW

Ms. Meyer viewed Anita as a slow Ieamer who did not achieve in any subject. She
described her as a "failing" student who scored in less than the 10%ile on standardized
achievement scores. She was frustrated by Anita's lack of completing work in other
subjects and this influenced her view of Anita as a writer. At one point, Ms. Meyer
described her as a “disturbed child" who was often at the center of classroom conflicts.

For instance, one of the girls had a party and did not invite Anita. Anita was upset and
called the girl "prejudiced.” Ms. Meyer saw this as Anita disturbing the class and creating
bad feelings. Ms. Meyer expressed that she did not know whether to believe Anita when she
wrote about issues that had happened with her father:

I just don't know if I believe her or not, I just don't know if I believe all

this stuff about her father and all that stuff. I have this sense of wanting to

feel sorry for her about that, her life, but yet I'm not sure that I believe a

lot of it.

Ms. Meyer had little information about Anita because she was a new student on whom there
were no records. She said:

She just came to the school; she's brand new to the school so I have no

history of her. I have no records on her. I have no other teacher input, so I

haven't got a clue. I haven't met her mother, her mother refuses to come to

school which is a real indication of you know, I just can't get a fix on her. I
just don't like her . . . I think she's very, very slow.

 

217

However, the teacher had been concerned enough to choose Anita as one of the students I
should study to provide her with more understanding of the student and what she was
learning in the classroom.

This section describes Anita's lack of classroom participation and presents her one,
lengthy writing conference with the teacher about selecting a topic for her project.
Wigwam

Perhaps because of her lack of previous experience in writing process
classrooms, Anita did not contribute to classroom discussions. In the 17 classroom
lessons observed, Anita never made a single oral contribution. She did not give ideas, nor
did she read anything she had written to the whole group. She was virtually silent during
whole group sessions. However, she wrote at the designated times when the whole group
was writing on the rug.

At her table, Anita often wrote during the designated writing time, but she also
spent time not engaged in writing. During this ”off-task” time, Anita talked to the girls at
her table. had disagreements with boys at her table, and passed notes or engaged in
activities unrelated to her notebook. These actions seemed to occur more frequently during
the last two weeks when students were working on projects, rather than the first three
weeks in which students were writing in their notebooks. Anita, however, reported that
she shared her writing with the people at her table when they were not passing notes or
“talking about boys.“

Anita had conflicting feelings about sharing her writing with both adults and
students. In an interview Anita revealed that she did not like to share her writing with the
whole class and would only read if the teacher forced her to read aloud. She also said that
she did not like to share her writing with the teacher and that the teacher “never“ talked to

her. Anita said:

218

I don't want her [the teacher] to. I just don't want her to. I don't want her

to talk to me at all. She yells at people too much . . . especially me . . . She

never does [talk to me] so why should I want her to?

Anita seemed to have conflicting feeling about sharing her writing with others.
While not wanting to share with the whole class nor the teacher, she was willing to read
some of her work to students at her table. She often sought out visitors to listen to her
work. but then said she did not like to read her pieces to visitors because they brought in
their own lives too much and did not listen to hers. Anita seemed to have difficulty finding
her place in the classroom organization and did not seem to feel valued and accepted, except
by a small group of peers at her table. What opportunities, then, did Anita have to
participate in the classroom discourse?
W

Because Anita rarely interacted in the whole-group sessions and because the
events occurring after the conference were so significant, the individual teacher-student
conference is an important source of information about Anita's relationship with the
teacher. During the five weeks of observation, Anita had only one occasion to talk to the
teacher in an individual writing conference.

On this day, October 29, Ms. Meyer had discussed with the class the process of
turning notebook entries into projects. Just prior to the conference with Anita, she had
held conferences with several other students. The following conference occurred in the
rug area. Ms. Meyer sat with her back against the cupboards, had just completed a
conference with a boy, and called Anita to sit by her. Anita sat about four feet away from
her. At the beginning of the conference teacher and student made eye contact with one
another. Ms. Meyer started off their seven-minute conference in this way:

1. T: OK Anita/l What do you think? My god] for somebody who has such an
incredible notebook/ it should be easy for mu to find a project//

2. Anita: I was thinking about using my--

3. T: Come here-- (motioning for her to come closer.)

219

4. Anita: you know my Lenox Hill camp--

5. T: Mmhmm” And what do you think you would do? Do you think that out of all
these entries that one is the most Want for you?/ WW

6. Anita: Because it was really my We had about 20 minutes to play around/ going
in the bathroom--

7. T: Uh huh--
8. Anita: All of that--

In this opening part, the teacher started off by complimenting Anita, suggesting she
had an interesting notebook. This is a common opening that teachers familiar with the
Writing Project often use. They try to get the student comfortable talking by making a
general comment about the student's work. As soon as Anita suggested that she wanted to
write about Lenox Hill Camp, however, Ms. Meyer already implied some disapproval by
her emphasis on all, that, and jmpaflant. Her question about was that the entry the most
important and her tone implied that she did not think this was a good topic. When Anita
continued and explained that she wanted to write about it because it was fun, Ms. Meyer
changed the topic to ask what kind of piece would it be, inquiring about genre or form. The
section of the conference concerned with genre took this form:

9. T: So you think that is the thing you really want to write about? And what
would it pa?” What kind of niece would it be?” You see what I'm saying?

10. Anita: It could be a mam/

11. T: A poem?” You would turn that entry into a mamw [emphasis and tone
implies some surprise]

12. Anita: Yes/
13. T: Mmm/ That would be mtaLestjng/
14. Anita: Yeah a story/

15. T: Well/ What kind of story?/ You mean just a story about 911.9 Specific time
in your [He that was so jmpmtant?! When you think about it/ why do you
think it was so jmpartant? Why do you think that that one time of being
away is an important?/

220

After the brief exploration of genre, Ms. Meyer brought the conference back to the
issue of what Anita should write about by suggesting that she write about something
”important.” Ms. Meyer then tried to get at the issue of what was important by asking
Anita why it was important. The implicit message at his point seems to be that having fun
at Lenox Hill Camp was not ”important" enough to pursue further.

The non verbal actions during this activity were also informative about the
teacher-student interaction. Ms. Meyer took the notebook from Anita almost immediately
and kept it in front of her, holding it through most of the conference. When Anita began
talking about what she did at Lenox Hill Camp, Ms. Meyer began to engage in a series of
nervous gestures. She brushed her face with her hand, then scratched her face. Then she
began thumbing through the notebook as Anita explained what she had done at camp. Ms.
Meyer then scratched her nose, took a piece of hair and bmshed it behind her ear. During
the next series of questions and statements, Ms. Meyer alternated between looking at Anita
and looking through the notebook. Once she looked away from Anita and the notebook to look
at the class. While Anita was talking, Ms. Meyer scratched her nose, nodded slightly, and
scratched her chin.

The dialogue during this time focused on the events at Lenox Hill Camp. Ms. Meyer
asked a question and offered her own interpretation of why Anita liked camp, then Anita
disagreed without overtly contradicting her by saying, "Not really" twice. Turns 12
through 28 show how Ms. Meyer seemed to be offering her own interpretations in her
search to suggest something else besides Lenox Hill Camp for Anita to write about.
Meantime, Anita tried to explain her own feelings about camp while answering the
teacher's questions:

16. Anita: Inayat missed my mother so much/

17. T: Ahhh/l And you thought it was really neat to miss your mgthafll You
liked it because you missed your mother?

18.

19.
20.
21.
22.

23.

24.
25.
26.
27.

28.

29.
30.
31.
32.

Anita:

Anita:

Anita:

Anita:

Anita:

Anita:

Anita:
T:

Anita:

221

Not Leallx/ I liked it because it was a lot of mm We got a free telescope and
time with your manna and your mm"

Uh huh-- [rise-fall intonation implies some interest]
And (?) with your taaahat/

Ahth so you liked spending time with your 19391191?"
Not [aatlyj Not everybody djd/

Not everybody liked spending time with their teacher so you djdnit like
spending time with your teacher?/

max I did/ I was running around with the datum.-

Uh huh uh huh--

The daughter kept going back and team back and forth to her mother--
Uh huh--

And her daughter and l/ we/ 1 was running/we were playing my and l was
running to catch her land/l fell in this little 1191.9. in the mound] and so I
called her back/l forgot her nama and I called her back/ and/ and I told her

abaut it and aha said/ let's make samathjngso every time people try to run
past here--

Mhmmm-- [flat tone, losing interest]
They just fall in this Data--
Mhmmm--

We both made it biggar/

Ms. Meyer and Anita did not ever seem to connect in this portion of the dialogue.

First, Ms. Meyer seemed to want to get Anita to get to the "important part“ of camp. She

suggested that it might be the missing of her mother that was important to Anita, then

suggested perhaps it was the time that she spent with her teacher that was important.

However, Anita seemed to think it was having fun and participating in the events at camp

such as running around with the daughter, playing tag, and falling in holes that was

“important.“ The teacher and student had quite different ideas about what “important”

meant. Although the pronoun 'it" is used interchangeably with camp, what is important

222

about "it" was not shared by the teacher and the student. On the one hand, Anita believed
that what was important about camp was the enjoyable time she had participating in
activities. In contrast, Ms. Meyer seemed to believe that what was important about "it"
was the experience of being at camp, away from home. Ms. Meyer was hurrying Anita
along to get to what was ”important", while Anita prolonged the details of camp and what
she enjoyed about the experience which seemed to be having fun.

The lack of shared agenda was also manifested in their body language. While Ms.
Meyer was distracted and scratched her face and played with her hair, Anita smiled, looked
at the teacher, and used gestures when she was describing the incidents at camp.
However, when Ms. Meyer asked questions about what was ”important,” Anita looked at the
rug, but never directly at the teacher. Both the dialogue and the gestures indicate a lack of
shared agenda.

Ms. Meyer shifted the conversation and again gained control over it in the next
section. She effectively cut off Anita's stories about camp by saying, "It is so interesting."
The next part of the conference is presented here:

33. T: It is an interesting/ Anita! that you you talk about writing that because
there are 52 many entries/ when I look tumult this/ I would have thought
that the thing that would have stood out to you most would have been about
your 19111.91” You have samanyantnias. about your father in here//
[pace slows down] (She reads from text slowly with feeling) ”When I was
living in .Lamajaa I had a farm/ We had gnjakana and my father, has
something like/ an idea to let the chickens'”

34. Anita: Lay eggs--

35. T: 'Lay agga and salt them/” I mean/ I could just sag, this becoming/all the
like/ you know/ either the 9.091 times/ [pace slowed down] You had a lot of
good times and a lot of bad times with your father/ right? [pace quickened]

36. Anita: Yeah/ [agreeing unenthusiatically, falling tone]

37. T: You knaw/ It seems to ma that/ you have all mesa antflas about the mad and
the bad times about your taman and maybe you should just pick one” You
know I'm not trying to tan you what to up] you know but/ it seems to me
that you have more tmpaLtant stuff in here than/ Lenox Hill camp/l
[somewhat disgusted tone of voice] You know what I maan?” Unless you

223
don't really want to mjta about it/ Do you have 9.01% good entries about
your father here besides this one?”
38. Anita: Not mall!” [drawn out syllables]

[They look through the notebook together. Anita puts her hands on notebook and is trying
to flip pages)].

39. Anita: That is the first day of school when Nick was hpthaflng me/

40. T: Mhmmm (long pause) So many of your entries have to do with your
Lamar.

41 . Anita: This is about--

42. T: Mhmmm--

43. Anita: that's the same thing/

44. T: Mhmmm/l [even, noncommital tone]

45. Anita: I have another/ not gmd/ but bad thing about my father/
46. T: Mhmmm/l (reads) "My tathaL'I

47. Anita: That Is one of the had things he did/

48. T: Mhmmm/

49. Anita: That is another thing about the maid]

50. T: Mhmmm/

During this portion of the conference the teacher read a line aloud, traced lines
with the eraser tip of her pencil, and alternated looking at Anita with looking at the
notebook. Several times Anita put her hand on her notebook which was still on the
teacher's lap and flipped slowly through the book pointing out specific entries. As soon as
the teacher mentioned the entries about her father, Anita's shoulders stiffened and she
looked at the ground. After this point, the teacher and student never made eye contact; they
would look at one another, but not at the same time.

Anita had pointed out several entries in her notebook that seemed to be of interest
to her. However, Ms. Meyer did not follow up on any of those. Instead, she continued to

come back to the issue of Anita's father, pointing out how many entries there were. Even

224

though Ms. Meyer said she was not telling Anita what to write about, the implicit message

was that her father was an important issue in her life and Anita should write about him.

Ms. Meyer's numerous 'mhmmms" suggest a lack of interest in what Anita had said and

suggest that Ms. Meyer was anxious to get Anita off of other subjects and onto discussing

her father. Anita's responses seem to be a mixture of compliance and resistance. For

instance, her “not really" in response to Ms. Meyer's question about were there other 'good

entries' about her father suggests that Anita was not interested in finding other entries

about her father. Instead, she pointed out examples of different topics she had written

about. When Ms. Meyer brought up her father yet another time, Anita complied with the

requests by showing the teacher other entries about her father. However, Anita continued

to point out the ”bad things.”

The last segment of the conference shows how Ms. Meyer took control over the

conference, providing little opportunity for Anita to respond. This is signified by Ms.

Meyer's lengthy turns and her suggestions that Anita find something else in the notebook to

write about. The teacher's underlying message was that Anita should not write about Lenox

Hill Camp because it is not really "important“ or that there is more to the experience of

Lenox Hill Camp than just having a good time. The conference ended in this way:

51.

T: Mhmmm/ I don't know// (sighs, long pause) I think you need to think// I

thjnk you really need to go through this hmk/ tight? IReally go through
this book very caLetullx and man it very carefully/ And take 30.0.0191 color
pan] OK/ and nndartjna/ all of the santangas in your book/ all of the places
in your bag]; where you think you wrote something 59, beautifully and that it
was an important for you/ OK?/ Because I minty Anita that you have
Laallvmallxdssn and immutam things/ to say! about relationships
and about your mother and your father and I just don't thjnk/ that Lenox
any is the most important thing for you in here// If you decide that that
ta what you want to do/ OK/ If it turns that after this you can't find] some
big important idea that comes out of this for m that you would like to
write ahaut/ [pace slowed down, former said very deliberately] Maybe it's
going to be willing” y0u know/ that your father were djtfaLant/ that you
could have more gnad times like the time in Jamajaa” [pace speeds up]
Maybe you could really really write up that time in Jamaica because that
was a really am time/ wasn't it?”

52.
53.

54.

55.
56.

57.

58.
59.
60.

61.

62.
63.

Anita:

Anita:

Anita:

Anita:

Anita:

Anita:

225

(no audible response)

Flight/ Can you nasanha what Jamaica lnakad like/ and/ what it was like
being there with your tathat/ and you know the good times// Maybe for you
it's kind of like wishing there were mom, of those good times/ Are you in
tough with your father? Do you know--

All I know is that he is living at my ntannmnthan'a/ [dull, unenthusiastic
tone]

Do you know where to junta to him? I mean maybe you could write--

My moths; knows her address/

So maybe it would be a nice lattat, to him/ ”Dear dad] I remember
Jamaica” and you know you could write this whole haautitut thing about
Jamaica/ and "I wish we could have more times like that” You know/
Maybe that is something you would like to do as a way of contacting your
fathom you know?/ I mean that is a thought/ You think about it/ I don't
want to/ you know/ you decide mm you think you want to do” Because
somehow with alLthis important stuff/ you know! I am wonooLino
whether/ Lenox Hill Camp/ is mall! important to you/ and if it is] then
you have to decide way it was so important to you/ OK?/ Maybe it is more
important than just because you had a good time/ maybe there is more stuff
there than just you had a good time/

Because I never [an my mother for that long--
Uh huh--
About mg, weeks or nna/

No/ you were gone for ana week/ like for four days/ that's how long Lenox
Hill Camp is” And you think you just had to take care of W for the
first time and that was why it was so imnaLtant?/

Yeah/

Maybe that is what you need to think about/ why Lenox Hill Camp was so
important because you did all these things on your own and you never did
before” And rather than telling about first I jumped off the [an and then I
did this and then I did my [used sing-song voice]

[Teacher reprimands in a loud voice student across the room].

64.

T: So_thjnk about that/ and then come hack to me if you need some more 11219”

All tight?/ Think Long, and ham”

At this point Anita got up and left the rug as Ms. Meyer handed her the notebook. At

the end of the conference Ms. Meyer was still pushing Anita to either write about her

226

father or to find something "important” about Lenox Hill Camp. Anita seemed to try to find
a topic within Lenox Hill Camp that might satisfy the teacher. For instance, she suggested
that she had never left her mother for such a long period of time. Having said this, Ms.
Meyer immediately, but subtly, undermined Anita's attempts by telling her that she was
wrong about the period of time that camp lasted. The teacher continued her pursuit of
finding an ”important" issue such as the child doing things on her own. Having fun and
describing In narrative form seemed inappropriate for a project in Ms. Meyer's view.

As evidenced by their body language and their dialogue, teacher and student never
found a place to connect during this conference. They shared neither the same physical
space, the same agenda, nor the same conception of good writing. The teacher provided
little scaffolding of instruction about how to select topics; she was neither sensitive to
Anita's not wanting to write about her father nor did she provide explicit instruction about
what elements constitute an appropriate tepic. Scaffolding was not evident because she did
not start with the child's expressed interest. Instead. she assumed that Anita should write
about her father because she had mentioned him in her notebook. How did Anita make
sense of this interaction? What effect did the conference have on her and her subsequent
interactions and texts? The next section describes Anita's impressions and explains

subsequent events that bear on what she actually lntemalized.

 

After Anita's conference with her teacher, I was curious to get Anita's viewpoint of
the interaction. When I asked her about how the conference had gone, Anita responded that
the teacher had told her “how nice my book is to read and how many things in there I have
written about my father.” When I asked her how she felt about that, Anita answered, "I
hate my father a lot” and then leaned down to tell me an example of physical abuse. She
further reported that “everything in here [her notebook] is confusing” and said that she
did not know what to write about for her project. Her interpretation of the conference was

that the teacher wanted her to go through her notebook and find some 'good entries' about

227

her father. However, she stated that she did not have to write about her father If she did
not want to. At this point she got giggly and started acting nervous, stretching out against
the chair and looking away. Then she told me that she would write about her grandfather
because he was the nicest person in her family who had done a lot of nice things for her.

Anita's disclosure resulted in further events that precluded having an exit
interview with her. The teacher did not know of the particular events the child disclosed,
but subsequent actions were taken on the child's behalf. These complicated relationships
and issues seemed to influence what Anita internalized from the dialogue.

In the informal interviews with me prior to the conference, Anita did not seem to
be connecting to the classroom dialogue focused on imagery and figurative language. For
instance, she rarely responded to probes about ”beautiful language.” Instead, in
responding to pieces or explaining what she liked about certain texts. Anita focused on the
topic and events. She resisted giving any examples of imagery and did not use examples of
description as indicators of good texts. Instead. she explained her choice of texts in terms
of the value of the topic and her personal relationship to the person or event. For
instance, she explained that what was good about her writing about Nick on the first day of
school was the fact that he was a person who "bugged” her and that she did not like him.
When probed about her reason for liking the initial piece about her grandfather, she
remarked that it was because he had loved her. She decided to write about this because
another student in the class had written about her grandmother which reminded Anita of
her grandfather.

When I asked Anita questions about herself or her writing, she often answered them
by telling a story about something that had happened to her. Instead of expressing her
feelings directly about the teacher or classroom, Anita often answered by telling a story.
She almost never answered questions about description except by saying, "I don't know."
Description simply seemed beside the point of what Anita considered to be a good text. It

was difficult to gain evidence of what Anita had internalized at this point. However, her

 

lilis al

inlerna

seeme

@000
feature
vision
Lenox

Projec

228

texts and writing conference with the first grader provide information about what she
internalized.
0 I' ll “lllllll E'lll l' I?

Anita's texts and conference with the younger student are indicators of what she
seemed to have internalized from the classroom dialogue.
Anita'slexts

Anita's texts suggest the kind of match that she had with the teacher's conception of
'good writing.” In the piece that Anita spent over two weeks writing, we can see certain
features that seem to characterize her narrative style and compare it to the teacher's
vision of a good narrative. The following is the story Anita wrote about her experiences at
Lenox Hill Camp. This is the piece from her notebook that she wanted to use for her
project. but was discouraged from using by the teacher.

My teacher was saying something and I remember the time when my old
class went to Lenox Hill camp we had a lot of fun My bus was the first bus
to leave a couple of us was in the bus I'II name the people. Ophelia, Cindy,
Jasmin, bosise, Micle, Antony, marcus. patric, Joey, and me our bus was
the first to leave After that the other bus came The teacher disided to pick
out the rooms for girls and boys We were in scode [squad] one and the other
class was in scoude [squad] two well [while] the girls were less [last].
what I mean was that there were less girls. The scond [second] day that we
were there the boys were Trying to come in our room. and then we plade
[played] a game, spin the botle. it was a realy bad game. I'll tell you how it
gose you take a botle and spin it and if it lands on a girl, then they have to
wate [wait] and then you spin it agian and if it points at a boy, the girl and
the boy have to go in the colset and do something and if you don't you get a
slap so when I went in the closet with the boy we acted like we were doing
something But we were not and I put spit all over my mouth and came out of
there and they said Had fun I was like yes I had a lot of fun. and then our
class introctor [instructor] came and brought us outside and we went on the
seld [sled] and hade a lot of fun we went down a little hill and went on the
seld and then my friend Ophlea and l were talking [taking] some ice out of
the water. it was winter. It was realy cool and it was the Bigest piece of ice
you ever seen. I Loved Lonx hill camp. it was like we went hikeing and I
wore my water baiters [boots] and it had a hole in it and my feet were
frezing so much you could do me thing [something] with it. Well then that
night my teacher read us a horrour story and I got real Scared and then I
could hardly sleep and one Time we aske the teacher to get a drink of water.
She looked kind of wear [weird]. When she said yes, I saw some smoke come
out of her mouth. I was really sick. I was so scared that the, that she might
be smoking crack because she was like acting like strange all the time.
Every morning and every day every morning and everybody is like was she

Anit.
and
emo
indlc
leac
Thel

Alli:

WOU

Willi

liter

229

really smoking at my table the ones that were in my group and maybe a

litle and the next day maybe a litle The next day we had to go hiking so we

went we learned about foot tracks, animals I don't remember how the

squirel looked and anyway we went on the bridge blindfold and my friend

Jasmin was Ok when I did her and when she did me I almost fell off she was

so dumb. we went back to the camp it was fun Fun. we went on the hike

but I got really scared because she put me at the edge of the bridge I was

like get this thing off of me and I almost throw up on her. So I took off the

blindfold and l was at the edge of the bridge. She was very careless. She put

me at the edge of the bridge.

What characteristics of the teacher's conception of 'good writing" are evident in
Anita's piece about Lenox Hill Camp? Although Anita wrote the piece in the first person
and told me that these experiences had happened to her, this piece does not include an
emotional response about the event. Anita stated it was fun and in subsequent interviews
indicated that her experience at the camp was one of the best times in her life. From the
teacher's point of view, there may have been no personal conflict described in the story.
There was no “real issue" or nothing that is personally revealing in Anita's piece. Instead,
Anita had described a series of events that were connected by occurring at Lenox Hill Camp.

In an interview, Ms. Meyer expressed her view of how she had hoped that Anita
would write about something that seemed ”important" to her such as her father instead of
writing about these series of events from Camp. Ms. Meyer said:

I wanted her to try to see what was the bottom, what was the bottom of all

this, you know what I mean, all these horrible pieces that she has, all these

bad luck things. . . . I was hoping that she would um, you know she's got all

of these horrible stories. . . . And I didn't want to let her do that [write

about Lenox Hill Camp] because that would have been just one of those you

know, I went to great adventure kind of things. I had a lot of fun, I hid in the

woods.

Ms. Meyer had suggested that Anita's story lacked getting to "the bottom“ of
something which seems to mean for the author to figure out why something occurred or
what difference that event made in the child's life. Getting to the bottom of something
seems to entail being reflective about an event or person and describing its emotional
impact. In contrast, writing about Lenox Hill Camp is of the “great adventure“ genre

which lacks emotional impact and focus.

lol

the

IEXI
rESI
Inst
liar,
eile

Incl:

230

In terms of language and style, Anita had used very little imagery or figurative
language. For instance, given the length of the piece there are relatively few adjectives
that might “give the reader a picture in his mind.“ Anita had not used any similes,
metaphors, or comparisons of any type. In Anita's piece we do not see any of the
reemergence of ideas such as figurative language that were introduced during the whole
group sessions.

Additionally, the structure of this piece does not match Ms. Meyer's image of 'good
writing.“ Instead of focusing on one small event within the overall experience at Lenox
Hill Camp. Anita had chosen to write about the entire trip. There Is no overall explicit
point of the story or thematic focus. Events are not linked to an overall theme, but instead
are linked with the event just prior in time. For instance, she went from playing spin the
bottle to sledding with the instructor to getting a piece of ice. The sequence of events seems
to be linked temporally in Anita's mind with the thematic focus on "it was fun.” Although
there is an overarching topic--Lenox Hill Camp--there is no central dramatic theme.

Although Anita's text does not seem to match the teacher's image of a good text, her
text contains many interesting features. The most striking feature is that her text
resembles ”an oral text.” It was not necessarily meant to be read as a written text.
Instead, imagine Anita telling this story to a group of peers who might share the same
frame of reference or discourse style and who might be quite appreciative of the dramatic
effect that she could create through her voice and the retelling of several dramatic
incidents.

What is the evidence that this might read like an oral text? First, Anita connected
her story with several 'ands" and 'thens" throughout the story, especially as she got
further into it. This is a feature of text often found in adults' and children's oral story-
telling. Second, Anita used explanatory features in her text reminiscent of oral texts. For
instance, she wrote "well the girls were less. what I mean was that there were less girls.”

This is the kind of data a story teller might include orally to provide an immediate

231

explanation. Additionally, Anita added conversational features such as "I don't remember
how the squirrel looked and anyway.“ It as if she were telling the audience, ”by the way
you might be wondering how the squirrel looked. but I don‘t remember." Also the use of
“anyway“ is another connective term often used in oral discourse, but less prevalent In
standard English written prose.

Although Anita's text may not have an explicit point, it does contain several
dramatic points or points of tension. For instance, the explanations of what happened in
the closet with spin the bottle, the tension around whether the instructor at the camp had
smoked crack, and the ending telling about the incident on the bridge were subplots in her
narrative. The story has a structure of its own, but this structure does not fit into the
teacher's conception of what makes for a well-organized piece. Instead, Anita's piece has
much in common with Michaels' (1981) analysis of African-American girls' topic-
association structure of telling stories during ”sharing time."

In the analysis of the piece that Anita produced about her grandfather, there is
more evidence than in the Lenox Hill Camp piece that she lntemalized some aspects of the
classroom dialogue. She chose a topic, her grandfather, that fulfilled the criterion of
writing something personal, yet would not be as painful as writing about her father
seemed to be. In this way, she showed that she understood the classroom norm that one
should select a topic about a relative. It was not necessarily the content that she
understood, but the social expectations about appropriate topics gained from being part of
this classroom. Her final project expressed not only a compromise with the teacher's
expectations, but showed some evidence of 'intemalization" of the classroom dialogue. In
the following poem, Anita used some of the ideas that were part of the classroom discourse.

The Poem about My Grandfather

The sun shines bright

The plums smell sweet

The birds fly high

and my Grandfather is nice Just like
you see, Grandpa! Grandpa! I'll never leave

232

you, Grandpa! Grandpa! I miss you so much
Granmal Grandpa! Come back to me and

I'll come back to you, Grandpa! Grandpa!
I'll heare you in my hartl You are Sweet
like a plum and you are nice like a blFlD

I'll keep you in my hart tonight and

let the stars shine so bright

I MISS you
GrandoA

In this poem, Anita has used some descriptive words such as "bright" and “sweet."
Additionally, she included comparisons such as “You are sweet like a plum and you are nice
like a bird.“ This seems to be the type of language that Anita thought the teacher wanted
and expected. An alternative explanation is that Anita believed that the poetic form was an
appropriate one for including descriptive language, whereas a narrative form was not.
Whether or not Anita had “internalized" the use of imagery and figurative language for use
in subsequent texts, or whether she herself valued it and transformed it to make it her
own in other settings, is left open to question. What seems to have occurred is that Anita
had gone through a process of writing a text consistent with her own beliefs about a good
narrative-the Lenox Hill Camp piece, had interactions with her teacher in which her
text was not valued or taken up in the public domain, and then tried to match the teacher's
image of good writing through the production of a new text, the poem. Her compromise of
topic selection and use of description reflects the influence of the teacher and her peers
who had written successful pieces about grandparents.

Anita conducted a writing conference with a first-grader, Ginny, in a small
room. They both sat at a table and the conference started off by Ginny reading her piece
about an adventure. In this story Ginny wrote that she and a friend, Will, were sitting on
the front porch when another character, Danielle, came along and ruined everything. The
adventure continued in which the three children went to the playground, fell into a hole,
and ended up in a graveyard where they were lost. After more adventures, the characters

went home. Ginny's story was written in magic marker on construction paper using

233

invented spelling. Ginny's text contained a combination of words spelled in conventional

ways such as ”man,” “we,“ ”were,” ”yard“ and many words such as "went,“ and “grave,”

found that were spelled in less conventional or invented ways.

After Ginny read the story to Anita, Anita said, “That is good, Gin. All you need

to do is put the words [inaudible] and make your handwriting a little better.” After asking

Ginny if she had written the story herself and suggesting that one page should be the cover

of the book, Anita proceeded to help Ginny with the spelling.

Almost the entire focus of the conference was on spelling with one small section

on correcting a grammatical mistake. In over 200 turn exchanges that the two girls had

during the conference, almost all of the turns centered around fixing the spelling or adding

periods. Turns 48-72 demonstrate Anita's focus on spelling and grammar:

48.

49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.

58.
59.
60.
61.

62.

Anita:

Ginny:

Anita:
Ginny:
Anita:
Anita:
Ginny:
Anita:
Ginny:

Anita:

Ginny:

Anita:

Ginny:
Anita:

Ginny:

Well Will/ Just use those/ Will/ you put a comma/ period/ whatever/
comma/

Put--

Danielle/

Danielle/

Danielle and l/

Will/ yes I/ Not me/ Ill
Danielle and --

And l/ Danielle--

And I?

I makes much more sense than me/ Who wrote Danielle and me? Okay/
Let's fix up some of the words you have in here//

Okay/
Me and Will were--
Talk--
Ah ha/

Were on the front porch talking--

234

63. Anita: Will/ And/ l/ W-E-R-E/

64. Ginny: Were talking/ On the front porch//

65. Anita: On the front, F-R-O-U-N-T/ F-R-O-U—N-T” Front, por-- P-O-Fl-E/
66. Ginny: Okay/

67. Anita: What's that?/

68. Ginny: Talking/

69. Anita: Will and l were on the front porch talking/l T-A-L-K-l-N-G” Just turn
it around it around. l-N/ Will and I were/ U-R-E/ um/

70. Ginny: Why is that wrong?

71. Anita: Well/ N-T/l P-O-Fl-T/ P-Fl-E/ front porch/ T-A-L-K-I-N-G/l
Talking/ Will and l were on the front porch talking/I

72. Ginny: Talking/l

This focus on mechanics characterized the entirety of the conference except for
three departures into non-text related discussions-one about Anita's T-shirt, one about
whether Ginny had eaten lunch yet, and the final one about the tape recorder. Generally in
the conference Anita pointed out places where Ginny should add a period or cross a 'T'.
Ginny said the word and then Anita wrote it in tiny letters over Ginny's word. Anita then
wrote the story all over on a separate piece of paper using her own “invented spelling." On
the back of this paper, Anita made two lists using the red dividing line of the paper. The
list looked like this:

words for Jenny to spell

adventure

with wall

frount well

porture Will, Danyal and I
talking will and l

She were.

ronead [ruined]

ever thing

The list as well as the conversation provides clues about what may have been going

on with Anita. How does this conference with Ginny link back to the classroom

235

interaction? This list seems to resemble school-like lists with rows of words that a
student should practice and memorize, yet this is not a task in which the teacher, Ms. .
Meyer, had ever engaged students. Not once in the four weeks preceding this student-
student conference did Ms. Meyer refer to mechanics or grammar. Instead, her focus was
on use of imagery and figurative language. Mechanics did not enter into the discussions at
all until the last week after the student-student conferences. One possibility is that Anita
was responding to the invented spelling of the student in a way that she thought was quite
appropriate. If it were difficult to decode the words of Ginny's story, Anita may have been
acting in a way that was suitable to the task. She was providing the kind of help she
thought was appropriate in the situation.

The style of this conference resembles traditional teacher student roles. Anita was
quite didactic in her style, suggesting to Ginny what she should change. Her tone was
gentle, while authoritative. Anita was quite explicit about what she thought Ginny should
change in her text. Some parallels exist between the teacher's authoritativeness and
Anita's.

In Anita's conference with Ginny, we have no evidence that she internalized what
had occurred in the classroom dialogue concerning description and use of figurative
language. Instead, Anita's focus was on spelling and punctuation. Why might this be the
case? Several explanations are plausible for Anita's seeming lack of uptake of the
classroom discourse. One explanation is that because Anita did not orally participate in the
discussions, she was not attending to the discussions and thus had little opportunity to
understand and use the concepts. A competing explanation is that Anita understood what
was occurring in the classroom, but actively resisted the content. Because there was little
rapport with the teacher and because Anita felt alienated, she chose not to use the ideas that
were presented in class as an act of resistance. Yet another possible explanation is that
Anita was responding to the constraints of the text that Ginny presented to her; she may

have been responding to the text itself. Anita's list of words to spell correctly is indicative

236

of Anita's orientation to the teaching task itself and her experience with previous
schooling.

Anita may have seen herself in a more traditional teacher role whose job it was to
impart knowledge about correct spelling and grammar and to provide an opportunity for
Ginny to practice the correct Spelling. Further evidence that Anita may have constructed
the teaching task in a traditional way is that in two instances, Anita asked Ginny, "Am I
boring you?” The questions may have been related to Anita's understanding that school is
about doing many spelling tasks and being bored by them. Because she had little
experience with writing in a process-oriented classroom, Anita had little opportunity to
learn the norms of taking on a less didactic role.

In neither Anita's piece about Lenox Hill Camp nor in her writing conference with
Ginny do we see evidence of reemergence of the classroom dialogue. Instead, the text that
she constructed did not include imagery or figurative language. The writing conference
with the first-grader, Ginny, contained no references to figurative language. Instead, the
text used an oral format and the conference focused on mechanics and grammar. Why
might this be the case?

Several factors seem to have influenced Anita's actions and thinking. First, Anita's
lack of previous experience in writing process classrooms may have made it difficult for
her to internalize both the cognitive and social norms of participating in Ms. Meyer's
class. She had been in a Writing Workshop for only a few weeks, a radically different
setting from many traditional classrooms, when she was asked to move from writing
personal issues in her notebook to selecting a tapic that was appropriate to share with a
broader audience. Anita may have believed when she wrote in her notebook about her
abusive father that this was an end in itself, thus notebook writing was therapeutic.

However, when she was asked to select a topic for a larger audience, she was faced with a

237

difficult personal dilemma. One of the things she may have internalized for future work
was the limits of what should be included in a notebook in this classroom.

Second, Anita's own personachltural values may account for the lack of
reemergence of the classroom dialogue in her Lenox Hill Camp piece and in her writing
conference with Ginny. Anita may come from a background in which the teacher's use of
traditional literary figurative language and metaphor are not part of the culture.2 As we
see from her Lenox Hill Camp piece, Anita did not seem to have much experience with
traditional literary devices primarily associated with forms of 19th and early 20th-
century European and Euro-American realisitic fiction which still dominate "middle
brow" literature and children's novels. It may be the case that she has had little
experience with this mode of narrative tradition, but may have more exposure to other
forms of narrative through televison, picture books, or oral storytelling. If she comes
from a strong narrative tradition that uses other constructions of word play, it may be
even more difficult for her to adjust to the Euro-realistic, personal narrative style,
especially if the teacher assumes that this is the only appropriate form (Singer, 1991,
personal communication). We do not see indications of signifying either in her written
text, but that may be because that form of metaphor is primarily used in oral texts, not
written ones.

Third, Anita's shaky relationship with the teacher may have contributed to Anita's
dilemma. The teacher explained in an interview that she did not like Anita and Anita felt
conflicted about whether she wanted the teacher to talk to her or not. As evidenced by the
conference with the teacher, Anita's concept of text and the topic she wrote about did not
match the teacher's image of a good text. During the course of the writing conference, Ms.

Meyer never looked at Anita's story on Lenox Hill Camp; the conversation was never really

 

2Note for instance the work of Carol Lee in a 1991 American Educational
Research Association address about the use by some African-Americans of
figurative language in discourse called ”signifying” of which ”yo mama so skinny,
she do hoola hoop in a apple jack” would be an example.

238

about Anita's text or topic. Instead, the conference revolved around finding an alternative
topic about which to write. The implicit messages to Anita were most likely that the text
she wrote was not valued and that it was better to write about something “important“ such
as her father, even if that meant writing about a painful relationship. Yet, the teacher did
little scaffolding to help Anita understand how to select what she considered an appropriate
topic for a project. Anita was faced with a difficult dilemma: How could she please the
teacher and yet still write about something that would not cause her pain?

Anita's response to this situation was to compromise in genre and in topic. Instead
of pursuing her piece on Lenox Hill Camp from her notebook, which was clearly not valued
by the teacher, Anita chose to write about her grandfather for her final project. Writing
about her grandfather seemed to fulfill the implicit criteria held by the teacher. She chose
a poetic form instead of a narrative. The teacher had given two clues that a poetic form
might be valued. In the conference when Anita had suggested writing a poem, Ms. Meyer had
said in a noncommittal way, "T hat would be interesting." Also, Ms. Meyer suggested that
rather than telling about events, Anita should get to what was ”important,“ thereby
suggesting that a narrative of events was not the correct format for a project.

Another indication of compromise was Anita's choice of topic--writing about her
grandfather. This choice of topic fulfilled the implicit criterion of writing about
something ”important“ which for Ms. Meyer seemed to be linked to writing about a
relative or a personal incident such as a relationship. By writing about her grandfather,
Anita could avoid bringing up painful memories about her father and sharing incidents that
may have been forbidden by her own cultural or family norms. Yet, Anita could still
satisfy the teacher's need for writing about something personal and perhaps her own need
to write about something “good " that happened in her life.

We can view Anita's conference with Ginny as another example of a compromise.
Because she either did not know how to help another student use imagery and figurative

language or because she did not choose to focus on these features, Anita discussed mechanics

239

in her writing conference with Ginny. Discussing mechanics may have been a way to
please her teacher by engaging in the type of talk that she thought was appropriate for
talking about text in school--focusing on mechanics. It may have been a topic in which she
felt that she was the expert and could provide help to a younger student. No doubt previous
school norms played a large part in Anita's focus on mechanics and predominated over the
current classroom discourse. However, it may be that the previous norms were
predominant because Anita felt alienated in her current classroom situation.

Anita's coping strategy of compromise suggests that she did internalize some of the
social norms including selecting an appropriate topic and cognitive emphases including the
use of imagery. Her case helps illustrate the types of knowledge a student needed to be
successful in this classroom.

Summary

The four cases have provided examples of differences in the quality of interaction
between teacher and student and the subsequent texts students created and their
interactions with younger students. The case of Miguel was an example of a student who
contributed often to class discussions and whose ideas were valued by the teacher. He drew
upon multiple voices in the classroom to use in his text comparing himself with the killer
whale and in his talk with other students. He represents the ”ideal” Graves (1983)
teacher in his conference with the younger student because he focused on what younger
student wanted to express.

Anthony's case was illustrative of a student who was successful at internalizing
much of the content of the classroom dialogue. In the teacher's interactions with him, she
provided direction and encouragement, acting as a kind of coach. Anthony used extensive
description and imagery in his text about his grandmother and took on a didactic role in his
writing conference with the younger student.

Ella and the teacher developed a shared understanding of her topic over the course

of two writing conferences. Although some conflict arose with the teacher in relation to

240

her writing of fiction, she and the teacher negotiated the t0pic and genre of her project--
writing a letter to her aunt. Ella was able to understand the norms of the classroom and
the teacher's expectations, drawing from features of the classroom dialogue, while
retaining her previously developed ”fictional“ voice.

Anita offered an example of a student who was less successful in negotiating a
shared understanding with her teacher during the conference. Anita had no experience
with writing process classrooms before and the teacher did little scaffolding to help Anita
understand the classroom norms, ways to select a topic for a project, or the focus on
language and style. Anita responded by taking on the traditional role of a teacher, focusing
on mechanics and grammar during her conference with the younger student. Although her
initial text about Lenox Hill Camp did not fit the teacher's image of good writing, Anita
wrote a poem to her grandfather for her project that reflected some of the classroom
dialogue.

Chapter 6 compares the cases of the four students in terms of the quality of the
interactions with their teacher and what they subsequently internalized for use in their

texts and talk with younger students.

CHAPTER 6
CGVPARISONSACROSSCASES

In this chapter, I compare the four case study students in terms of both the
cognitive aspects and social norms, which are intertwined, of the classroom. First, I
compare their opportunities for social interaction by looking closely at the teacher-
student conferences for each student. These conferences allow for a close-up analysis of
the factors that contributed to the teacher and student developing intersubjectivity.
Second, I compare the conferences that the case study students conducted with younger
students. Third, I compare the texts that students produced. The texts and conferences
with younger students provide windows through which to compare the students'
internalization processes.

Conferences with the Teacher:
Scaffolding and Establishing lntersubjectivity

In the section that compares teacher-student interactions during writing
conferences, two different approaches are used. First, I identify the points within the
conferences where there is teacher-student uptake. These points are indicators of how the
teacher scaffolded instruction for the student and how the teacher and student attempted to
establish intersubjectivity, a shared understanding. Second, I place these points within
the larger context of the overall interactions between teacher and student within the
conferences. As I compare teacher and student interactions in the conferences, I use the
features of content and conversational style. By using both the close-up viewpoint and the
larger patterns of the conferences, the comparisons among students become clearer.

Waits

In analyzing the teacher-student conference data, key points within the dialogue
emerged as contributing to whether the teacher and student developed a shared
understanding. The teacher and student usually developed this understanding by actively

picking up on the other‘s idea and pursuing it. These key points are also windows into how

241

242

the teacher scaffolded instruction for the student. In the section below, I use examples
from the conferences to show how the students' and the teacher's ideas were either picked
up and pursued by the other or not followed up. One indicator of when and how the teacher
and student developed an understanding is listener-speaker uptake. Uptake is evidenced by
the listener actually incorporating the speaker's words or ideas in his/her subsequent
phrases. Often the inflection that was used by one speaker was mirrored by the other
when the teacher and student seemed to be communicating. The example of Miguel serves
to illustrate this point.

Miguel's synchrony with the teacher has already been noted. The example below
provides an opportunity to see the factors that may have contributed to their developing
intersubjectivity. In this conference, Miguel began with noting a phrase from his
notebook:

I . Miguel: With a halt/

2. T: Oh/ (she reads) ”with a halt Ion my"/
3. Miguel: nngta} hand/
4. T: Qh/ Gad/ [appreciative sound] Your writing is so good! [whispers] So you

are saying he kind of like/
Miguel: Ihtaatenan me/

6. T: Ihroatened you/ Mum/I
In turns 1 -2, Miguel emphasized the word 'belt" which Ms. Meyer picked up on,

01

echoing his emphasis. Likewise in turns 5-6, a similar phenomenon took place with the
word ”threatened.” The similarity of inflection on the part of the teacher and student here
is indicative of developing synchrony. Likewise, in another conference, Miguel and the
teacher had the same type of interplay with words. Either the teacher or the student
introduced an idea, then the other incorporated it. The following is an example of this

incorporation:

 

243

45. T: Hmm/ So what do you think you want to do/ Miguel?/ You think you may
not be Load)” to do a project yet?/ Nothing really stands, out as being
important to you in hata?” You can't kind of put your finger on what's

impouam to you?”
46. Miguel: Well--
47. T: Okay, so--
48. Miguel: Mostly the hills; whale/
49. T: Uh mm
50. Miguel: It's my favorite whale, and/ I like the way it stands out/
51 . T: Mhmmm/
52. Miguel: It's/l the mints it has”

Here the teacher had introduced the idea of ”standing out“ which Miguel seemed to
pick up on in such a way that he associated the meaning with a killer whale “standing out“
among other whales, perhaps because of its colors. Miguel picked up the idea of choosing a
topic that was important, while making use of the term ”stand out." This is the segment of
the dialogue in which the teacher and Miguel seemed to have come to a shared understanding
of what the topic of the project would be; it was the pivotal point for subsequent
discussions about the project.

In Anthony's case, Ms. Meyer dominated much of the conference, not providing
many opportunities for Anthony's input. However, towards the end of the conference, Ms.
Meyer focused on description, using his text and pointing out parts of the text she liked. As
she was providing suggestions and asking what the clothes looked like, Anthony volunteered
that his grandmother had worn blue clothes with hearts. He clearly showed that he
understood the point she was making by offering an example. It was at this point at the end
of the conference that the teacher and Anthony displayed that they had developed a shared
understanding of description:

23. T: . . . Now you can start it like that] she always] wore loose clothesi' What
did they look like?/

24. Anthony: They were/ I always saw hing with hearts on it”

244

25. T: 59/ an] no” Explain what the embroidery [aghast like/....

The teacher and student had attained shared understanding about the task of
describing Anthony's grandmother. The emphasis upon “looked" seemed to have provided
cues to Anthony which he understood and pursued. Ms. Meyer emphasized 'look;" Anthony,
in turn, emphasized 'blue' as a response to what the clothes looked like; and the teacher
emphasized again the word “looked" as she departed. These are clues to the ways in which
the teacher and student established intersubjectivity.

In the case of Ella, the teacher and student did not start out with a shared
understanding of what the project was about. When Ella and the teacher began their first
conference, they did not have a shared understanding of what “important” meant. The
teacher believed it to be something deeply personal, while Ella believed important had to
do with items that were newsworthy.

3. T: Mhmm/ And nothing seems to stand out for you as being impactant?”

4. Ella: Not Laally/

However, Ella demonstrated understanding when the teacher used the word “often“ as an
indicator of something important about which to write. At this point, Ella brought up the

topic of herself and later her aunt:

5. T: Mhmm/ Is there something you seem to write about more ottan than/ than
not//

6. Ella: Yeah/

7. T: What do you think that is?”

8. Ella: Ummm/ well/ about ummm/ usually about ms and when I was tittla

Although the teacher and student did not use each others' words in the subsequent
sentences, they were responding to one another in such a way that communication seemed
to have been clear. Ella had understood the topic of the project as something she wrote

about frequently in her notebook.

 

245

In their second conference, Ms. Meyer and Ella also developed a shared
understanding at particular points in the conversation. In the following example, the
teacher suggested what Ella needed to do to turn her entries into a letter form. When the
teacher introduced the idea of the letter and needing to address a particular person, Ella
picked up on it and provided an example of talking directly to the person:

9. T: But you need to have the whole tons change In other words you have to be!
speaking to her as it it is in a [attar/l. . . . It's kind of like you kind of need
to be talking to her as if you would in a [snarl

to. Ella: I started doing that! it was like I was telling it to Serena (laughs)!
11. T: Ahh/mah/it'sagoodjdaa/

The teacher emphasized the words ”tone,” “speaking“ and ”letter" to convey the idea
of changing the form of the written work into a letter. Ella picked up on this idea, giving
an example of how she had read her piece aloud to her friend, Serena. The teacher, in
turn, encouraged her through the use of her emphasis on ”yeah” and "idea.“ In this
example, we see how the teacher introduced ideas that Ella pursued. In the next example
which occurred later on in the second conference, Ella introduced an idea which the teacher
built on:

14. Ella: My mother said / my mother said! she um like she got her triand to! like
we are making a taps!

15. T: You are going to tags it and send it to her also?!

16. Ella: Yeah!

17. T: That's madam [draws out word]

Near the end of the conference, Ella demonstrated that she understood the teacher's
emphasis upon turning the entries into a letter, expressed through her inflection upon
letter as opposed to 'phone:"

28. Ella: She is always been telling me ”Write me a latta: write me a 1.91191 instead
of running up the dhdna bill" (laughs)!

29. T: So that could be a good start!

246

In these selections, both Ella and Ms. Meyer have introduced ideas which the other picked
up on and developed. lnflection on certain words seemed to be a key feature in
communication between the teacher and student, aiding in establishing intersubjectivity.
In contrast to these examples is the case of Anita. Despite Anita's introduction of
several topics. the teacher rarely pursued those topics. Ms. Meyer introduced the topic of

Anita's father on several occasions. yet Anita resisted pursuing those leads even though she

answered the teacher's questions. We can observe the lack of following up on a topic each

speaker had introduced in this series of turns taken by the teacher and student. Ms. Meyer
had just suggested that Anita might select entries about her father for her project. She
ended the turn by saying:

37. T: You know It seems to ma that! you have all thasa entries about the good and
the bad times about your tathat and maybe you should just pick anal! You
know I'm not trying to tail you what to do! you know but! it seems to me
that you have more important stuff in here than! Lenox Hill camp/l
[somewhat disgusted tone of voice] You know what I mean?” Unless you

don't really want to mite about it! Do you have other. good entries about
your father here besides this one?”

38. Anita: Not really/I [drawn out syllables]

(They look through the notebook together. Anita puts her hands on notebook and is trying
to flip pages).

39. Anita: That is the first day of school when Nick was hathannd me!

40. T: Mhmmm (long pause) So many of your entries have to do with your

41. Anita: This is about--

42. T: Mhmmm--

43. Anita: that's the same thing!

44. T: Mhmmm/I [even, noncommittal tone]

Each time Anita introduced a possible topic, Ms. Meyer ignored it. Likewise, when the

teacher brought up her father, Anita focused on a different topic. In their inflections, they

247

emphasized different words. Essentially, no overlap of ideas existed in the conference
segments between Ms. Meyer and Anita.

The close-up analyses of where in the conferences teacher and student seemed to
develop a shared understanding can now be put in the larger context of the overall patterns
of interaction between the teacher and a student in the conferences. These comparisons
will be made in the next section. Both the content of what students and teachers discussed
during the conferences and the conversational styles that they used during their
interactions were important aspects of the social interaction.

Several features of the content such as topics discussed, particular language cues
such as the word ”important,“ and indicators of support such as 'good idea” were relevant
to establishing intersubjectivity . Features of conversational style such as body language.
prosodic cues, and conversational moves were related to the quality of their interactions.
Students will be compared on these features, beginning with the content, what the teachers
and student talked about, during the conferences. Table 4 represents the comparisons
among the teacher-student conferences.

Content
IooicsoLQonteLences

What topics did the teacher discuss with the students and why might this be
important? Topics of writing conferences may include anything from an exploration of
genre, writing topic selection, organization, to spelling and mechanics (e.g., Sperling,
1989). The topic of the conference is an important factor for negotiation and can affect
the student and teacher coming to a shared understanding. The topics of the conferences
Ms. Meyer conducted with the students in Room 555 tended to be focused on selecting a
topic for a writing project, selecting an appropriate genre or form for the project, or
developing good leads. The main topics of the lengthy conferences between Ms. Meyer and

the case study students followed this pattern.

 

248

Table 4 Comparisons of Teacher-Student Conferences

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Miguel Anthony Ella Anita
Class Working Middle Middle Working
Ethnicity Latino Latino African- African-
Amerioan Amofloan.__
Academic
Number of
teacher-student
W 4 2 2 1
Content
Project Comparison Description Letter to Oral
Topic of himself and narrative aunt with narrative
to whales of grandmother narrative about camp
exponence;
poem to
«Hammer...—
Encouraging Many Some Many Few
lllLode
Conversational
Style
BodyLanguage Close proximity; Close proximity; Close proximity; Distant;
eye contact; eye contact; eye contact; little eye contact
nods._smlles__nods hodsJauohler
Teacher Moves Open and specific Few open Open and specific Few open
questions; questions; questions; questions;
few recomm- directive summarized; directive
endations tentative
recommendatioan
Prosodic Cues Gentle, Became Supportive Disapproving,
supportive supportive (except bored
tone disapproval tone
of fiction)
Student Moves Agreement Agreement Agreement Some
with teacher; with teacher; with teacher; disagreement with
enthusiasm; didn't some teacher;
initiated topics initiate topics enthusiasm; no enthusiasm;
teacher pursued initiated topics initiated topics
teacher teacher didn't

m DUEL——

 

 

249

Because Anthony had already selected his topic and was well on his way to writing
his project, his conference with the teacher focused on organization and elaboration of the
piece. In the conference, the teacher selected particular lines to bring to Anthony's
attention and made suggestions about how he needed to add more description. Teacher and
student had a shared understanding of Anthony's topic, his grandmother, from the outset.

Topics of the discussion between Ms. Meyer and Miguel focused on the selection of
the topic he would write about for his project. Most of the conference was about finding an
“important” topic to develop into a project with the outcome being Miguel's choice of the
killer whale. The conference ended with an exploration of genre-writing a non-fiction u
piece comparing himself to a killer whale.

Ella had two focal conferences with the teacher. The first centered on selecting a
topic-memories of experiences with her aunt. and then moved into a discussion about
genre, with the teacher encouraging Ella to write a letter. The second conference developed
the focus on genre and included specific suggestions about how to turn the present draft
into a letter to her aunt by starting off with a particular lead.

With Anita, a brief exploration of genre took place near the beginning of the
conference in which Anita first suggested she would turn her Lenox Hill Camp piece into a
poem, then a story. The bulk of the conference, however, centered around the teacher's
trying to get Anita to find an alternative topic-namely writing about her father because
that is what seemed to have been ”important“ to the teacher.

In comparing the topics discussed in the conference, we can see how topics fit the
teacher's idea of what constituted an appropriate topic for a project. In each case, a
personal topic was discussed. Anthony had already selected his grandmother and the deeply
personal experience of her death as his topic. The conference picked up on some of the
special moments he had selected. The teacher seemed to see the killer whale as a vehicle
for Miguel's writing about himself--a personal topic. It was the discussion about

moments with her aunt that prompted Ella to write about her. For Anita, the struggle in

250

the conference occurred around the issue of her writing about a personal, upsetting topic-
-her father, versus writing about an experience she remembered as filled with fun.

In three of the four cases, then, the teacher and student developed a shared
understanding of the topic of the projects within the conference Itself. Both the teacher
and student came to agree within the conferences that these were “important“ topics about
which to write. In the fourth case, that of Anita. the student and teacher did not come to an
agreement in the conference about the topic she should write about. However, later Anita
selected a topic that most likely would have gained the teacher's approvaluthe topic of her
grandfather.

Want:

Language cues also formed part of the content teacher and students discussed in the
conferences. In three of the four cases. the word ”important“ played a key role in
indicating intersubjectivity. With Anthony, where the word important did not surface,
there was a tacit agreement that what he was writing about, his grandmother, was already
an important topic. In the case of Miguel, the teacher and student came to a shared
understanding of what was important with the teacher suggesting he write about himself
and the student suggesting the killer whale. Together they decided upon the comparison
between the child and the whale as an important topic about which to write. Both seemed to
agree that this topic satisfied the criteria for what was ”important.“

With Ella, intersubjectivity was established over the course of the conference.
First. Ella had had a different idea of what was an “important“ topic; that is, she believed
one had to write about something newsworthy. However, through the conference the
teacher and student came to a shared understanding about what constituted an ”important“
topic. They agreed that Ella should write about her aunt.

In the case of Anita, her definition and the teacher's definition of what was
”important“ did not match during the conference. Anita believed initially that writing

about Lenox Hill Camp was significant, while the teacher assumed that it was her

251

relationship with her father that was essential to Anita. The word, “important,” was key
to understanding both the similarities and the differences among students and the degree to
which they established intersubjectivity with their teacher. When the student already
shared. or came to share the teacher's definition of "important,” a greater opportunity
existed for a quality interaction in which the participants understood one another.
W

The teacher's use of supportive words such as 'good" or “wonderful" also seemed to
be indicators of when the teacher and student had reached a shared understanding of what
was important. For instance, Ms. Meyer ended her conference with Miguel by telling him
his piece would "really be nice.“ At the point at which the teacher and Anthony seemed to
have reached agreement, she pointed to a particular line and said, "I love that.” She ended
her conferences with Ella by saying, “That sounds like a nice project" at the close of the
first and by saying, "That's kind of great, right?” In contrast, the teacher did not use
supportive statements during the conference with Anita, nor did they reach agreement
within the conference. Words of encouragement by the teacher were indicators of how the
teacher viewed the student's choice of topic and her beliefs about the potential of the piece
to be interesting to an audience.

In addition to the content (tepic, language cues, and words of encouragement), other
factors also contributed to the development of intersubjectivity between teacher and
student. These factors are concerned with the ways in which the teacher and students
conveyed their messages during their conferences.

QonxersationaLfiMe

Aspects of conversational style within the conferences relating to the quality of
student-teacher interactions include: (a) body language and proxemic cues; (b)
conversational moves by the teacher; (c) prosodic cues; and (d) conversational moves by

the student. These factors were intertwined and mutually influential, providing evidence

252

for intersubjectivity. First, I will compare the proxemic cues and other aspects related to
body language.
BodyLamuaooanoELoxomiefiues

Factors such as distance between speakers, amount of eye contact, attention to the
other speaker, nods. smiles, and laughter all contributed to the degree of success in the
interactions. With both Anthony and Miguel, the teacher came into very close contact with
them. She stooped next to them in conferences, occasionally touched them on the shoulder
or arm, and made frequent eye contact. Both students nodded in agreement frequently
during the conferences. Teacher and students tended to be very attentive to one another,
indicated by their looking at one another. Both the teacher and the student smiled during
their interactions, and the teacher laughed appreciatively, particularly during her
interactions with Miguel.

In the teacher's first conference with Ella, the distance between speakers was about
three feet, which is average in American discourse (Hall, 1966). Facing each other
during their conversation, they made frequent eye contact. Ella also indicated her
agreement through her occasional nods. In the second conference, the teacher and student
were even closer together and shared laughter near the ending sequence. The speakers'
body language indicated a degree of synchrony between them.

In contrast, in her sole conference with Anita, Ms. Meyer sat at a distance from her
and they rarely made eye contact. After the teacher raised the issue of her father, Anita's
gaze drifted toward the floor or the rest of the class, rather than toward the teacher. The
teacher herself indicated discomfort in the conference by her distracted gaze and through
nervous behaviors such as picking lint off her blouse. In their conference, there were few
authentic smiles, no laughter, and little physical contact. Ms. Meyer's and Anita's body

language lacked any indication of development of synchrony between them.

253

QonyensationaLMoxeobuheJoaohet

Types of conversational moves by the teacher and frequency of each type differed
among her interactions with the students. For instance, Ms. Meyer had four major moves
that she made during conferences: (a) interrogatives; (b) commands; (c) statements; and
(d) expressive cues. Students tended to produce (a) explanations in response to requests
for information by the teacher; (b) agreements with the teacher; (0) disagreements; and
(d) topic initiations in which the student introduced a topic for discussion. Requests for
information from the teacher occurred in only one case. Within each of these moves, each
respondent used several strategies. These differences in moves provide a second way in
which to look at how the teacher and student did or did not achieve synchrony.

tntatmdatiyas. As referred to in chapter 4, Ms. Meyer used interrogatives, both
open and closed, frequently. Even when she did not preface her sentences with an
interrogative format (e.g., using do, how, what when, where, why), she raised her voice
at the end of the sentence to indicate she wished a response by the student. Often these
questions were framed in such a way that she sought agreement, "Do you want to try that?”
Occasionally she used her questions to challenge a student's idea. She used these strategies
differently with different students, however.

With Miguel, she asked both general open questions such as ”What were you
thinking?” and more closed questions requesting specific information such as "Don't you
have a lot of entries about dreams?“ In fact, most of the teacher's talk with Miguel
consisted of questions and follow-up probes as opposed to use of commands or
recommendations. Ukewise, Ms. Meyer asked Ella many open and closed questions. In
contrast, Anthony and Anita were asked fewer questions; these questions tended to be
probes requesting specific information. With both Miguel and Ella, Ms. Meyer sought
their agreement through a number of questions such as ”Sounds like something that might
be important to you?" In contrast, she questioned the assumptions of Anita asking, "Do you

think that out of all these entries, that one is the most important to you?”

 

254

Statamants. Frequency and type of statements the teacher made to individual
students differed as well. The teacher made fewer factual statements to Miguel and Ella,
while providing more statements to Anthony and to Anita. More telling, however, is that
within these statements her emphasis was more upon agreeing with Miguel or indicating
understanding such as, "I know what you mean." Ms. Meyer's statements to Anthony tended
to be expressions of her opinion and advice about his work. She was not necessarily
commanding him to organize his piece into three parts when she said, “The way I see it
there are three parts to your grandmother piece.” Rather, she was providing him with
her view of how she saw the piece. With Ella, she summarized frequently what she
understood Ella to be saying like, ”So you are missing her,” but with Anita she challenged
her or implied the girl was wrong as in, ”No, you were gone for one week like for four
days, that's how long Lenox Hill Camp is.”

The teacher's use of statements functioned in different ways within the specific
contexts of her conferences with the individual students. Saying to a student, "I know what
you mean” seemed to function for Miguel as encouragement to continue talking and thinking
about his topic. By contrast, the teacher's authoritative correction of what Anita had
suggested for the time frame of camp served to cut down on communication and reduce
opportunities for developing synchrony.

Qdmmandslracdmmandatidns. The teacher's use of commands varied from gentle
encouragements to suggestions to strong recommendations, depending on the student and the
situation. She made fewer recommendations to Miguel and Ella than she did to Anthony and
to Anita. With Miguel and Ella, her suggestions were more tentative, using words such as
'could" or ”might.” With Anita and Anthony she tended to be more directive. For instance,
to Anita she said, ”Really go through this book really carefully and read it very carefully
and take another color pen and underline all of the sentences where you wrote something so

beautifully.” Here the teacher is being much more directive, telling Anita quite explicitly

255

what she needed to do. Although she was explicit with Anthony as well. there was a
different tone to their interactions. This will be discussed in detail in a later section.

Examsshlasuas. Ms. Meyer appeared to have a core of frequently repeated
expressions, conveying different meanings depending on the context of the conversation.
For instance. she used "Mhmmm“ and “OK,” varying her meaning through intonation and
inflection cues. Thus 'OK" served as a question, a transition, or an indication of
agreement. ”Mhmmm" could indicate boredom or encouragement.

With Miguel, the teacher's "Mhmmm's" served to encourage him to read more from
his work or to search his notebook for relevant pieces. At one point, early in their lengthy
conference, she laughed and emphasized her ”Mhmmm" to show Miguel that she agreed with
his interpretation and she liked his use of the metaphor "like strangers to each other.” In
her conference with Anthony, she did not use expressive cues. but rather indicated her
interest in the piece by reading aloud from it, pointing out the features she liked. Ms.
Meyer used several 'Mhmmm's" in her first conference with Ella in which they were
trying to find a topic for the project. These expressive cues served as communicating to
Ella that she was understanding her. In contrast to the other students, with Anita her
'Mhmmm's" were either matter of fact or bored. showing little interest or enthusiasm.
Typically, the tone of voice indicated the expression's function.

Emsodicfiues

The teacher, whose style of interaction was often dramatic, used several prosodic
cues such as speed, intonation, pitch, and inflection to communicate with the students.
With Miguel, Ms. Meyer's tone was gentle. She used a soft whisper on occasion when she
was reading his work such as when she said, "Oh find your writing is so mad." She also
used voice inflection to show her understanding and appreciation of his work, emphasizing
“Oh God” and "good.” She encouraged Miguel to continue talking and describing his ideas

through the ways in which she said. "Mhmmm” which usually included a tone of interest.

256

For the most part, Ms. Meyer used a supportive tone of voice with Ella. She
laughed and was enthusiastic; her tone was marked by change of speed when reading Ella's
work and actually taking on the voice of Ella in the letter to her aunt. Giggling together
was also an expression of how Ms. Meyer and Ella were establishing intersubjectivity
through their voices. These voice indicators expressed Ms. Meyer's enthusiasm for the
piece that Ella was writing. By contrast, she expressed her disapproval for Ella's fiction
project through her voice change and suggestion to get to work on her letter to her aunt.

Communicated through her tone of voice, Ms. Meyer started out on the occasions of
her conferences with Anthony by being annoyed with him. However, on both occasions she
became interested once Anthony began to discuss his topic or when she read from his actual
text. Once she was engaged, the teacher showed her interest and appreciation by reading
his piece with a dramatic flair, whispering when she said, "Thank God.” Her voice also
conveyed an emphasis upon description as she encouraged Anthony to add more description
to his piece.

With Anita she expressed disapproval through her intonation and inflection. When
Anita suggested she would turn her Lenox Hill Camp piece into a poem, Ms. Meyer
responded with surprise, ”A poem? You would turn that entry Into a poem?" This seemed
to cue Anita to change her mind; she indicated immediately that. no, she would turn it into
a story. Similarly, Ms. Meyer's 'Mhmmm's' to Anita rarely reflected genuine interest.
Instead, they were usually flat, marked by a low-fall pattern. Her directives were also
marked by a slower speed, indicating she wanted Anita to pay attention and follow through
on her suggestions.

Together, the teacher's body language, conversational moves, and prosodic cues
gave students both explicit and implicit messages about the value of their ideas. On each of
these dimensions the teacher and student match were slightly different, depending on the
student and the context. However, taking all of these factors into consideration, indicators

of intersubjectivity included: (a) sitting in close proximity to student and making

257

frequent eye contact; (b) asking more open-ended questions and making fewer
recommendations to the student; (c) using expressive cues as indicators of agreement and
encouragement; and (d) using a supportive tone of voice. In contrast, lack of
intersubjectivity included: (a) distance between speakers with little eye contact; (b)
frequent closed questions with frequent commands or directives; (c) expressive cues that
indicated boredom; and (d) prosodic cues that did not support students' ideas.

Because communication involves two participants, the students' conversational
moves were also very important. Their initiations of topics and responses determined
subsequent discourse within the conferences and contributed to the quality of interaction.
QonxmsalhnaLMoxesbuhLStudem

Students tended to have several forms of response to the teacher. The most common
conversational move was for the student to explain something in response to the teacher's
questions. Another common form of response was to show agreement with the teacher such
as ”Yeah,” "Sure” or ”Good" or, less common, disagreement took the form of ”No,” or ”Not
really.“ Sometimes the student initiated a topic for discussion such as looking through
their notebooks and bringing up an issue, or in the case of Ella volunteering that she was
doing a project with me. Most rare was for a student to request information from the
teacher.

What difference did students' responses make in the interactions? All four
students spent the bulk of their time answering the teacher's questions, explaining what
they had written or were intending to write. Differences among students emerged in
comparing their degree of agreement with the teacher. For instance, Miguel's-responses
frequently agreed with the teacher. Anthony and Ella also agreed with the teacher, while
Anita was less likely to agree with the teacher, expressed through either ignoring the
teacher or saying, “Not really." The tone of voice also communicated agreements or
disagreements. For instance, Miguel used strong positive statements, said in an

enthusiastic tone of voice, whereas Anita's agreements consisted of reluctant "Yeahs."

258

Only Ella asked a question of the teacher, asking when the project was due, which
suggests that students may not have seen this as part of their role. Students did initiate
topics to discuss with the teacher. For instance, Miguel and Ella brought up topics for
discussion during the conferences. Anita, too, initiated topics several times, reading from
her notebook and pointing to specific features in her text. Yet, although Anita initiated
topics for discussion on several occasions, her topics were never pursued by the teacher.
The teacher did not respond to it, but instead introduced a new topic. In contrast, Miguel
introduced fewer topics, but each time he did, the teacher built on it.

The building upon ideas appeared to be connected to the development of
intersubjectivity. Miguel's ideas were frequently pursued, contributing to
intersubjectivity. Ella did not initiate many ideas. but those that were introduced were
often pursued by the teacher. Anthony had little opportunity to contribute ideas in his
conference, but towards the end when he described his grandmother's clothes in response
to the teacher's probes, she encouraged him. Anita's topics were not pursued, nor did they
reach a shared understanding during the conference.

These data suggest that the quality of the interaction was determined through a
variety of means: body language and proxemic cues. conversational moves on the part of
the students and the teacher, and prosodic cues including intonation, pitch, and voice
inflection. None of these factors in of itself determined whether the teacher and student
developed intersubjectivity. Rather, all of these features played a role in contributing to
synchrony between the teacher and student.

Figures 5-8 represent in a holisitic way the degree of synchrony the teacher and
student developed. The data suggest that the teacher and Miguel had a high degree of
synchrony. They developed a shared understanding of Miguel's' project, comparing the
whale to himself. The teacher and student sat close to one another and made frequent eye
contact. She asked him many questions, including some open-ended ones. She used few

factual statements with Miguel, and tended to seek his agreement. Ms. Meyer made fewer

259

recommendations to Miguel than to other students, and when she did, she used more
tentative words such as ”might" and ”could.“ The teacher's tone was gentle and supportive
with him. Miguel responded by agreeing frequently with the teacher, often with
enthusiasm. When he introduced topics into the conference, the teacher usually pursued
them. These features led to a high degree of intersubjectivity between teacher and student
which is represented in Figure 5.

Anthony and the teacher had a shared understanding of what was important to write
about--a personal piece about his grandmother. Although the teacher used only occasional
words of encouragement, she focused on particular features of his text that she liked and
supported his development of those. They were in close proximity for much of the
conference and both focused their eyes on the piece they were discussing. The teacher
asked few open-ended questions, providing her own opinion instead. The teacher was quite
directive with Anthony, but supportive as well. Although she began the conferences being
slightly irritated, she became engaged in his piece, and became quite supportive. Anthony
agreed with the teacher during the conference and became more enthusiastic during the
course of it. He did not initiate topics, but responded to the teacher's probes. Anthony and
the teacher developed intersubjectivity during the course of the conference; their degree
of synchrony is represented in Figure 6.

Figure 7 reflects the level of intersubjectivity Ella and the teacher developed
during the conferences. Although they initially had differing views of what was
"important,“ they developed a shared understanding of what was involved in Ella's writing
a letter to her aunt. While in their first conference, they were not in close proximity,
during the second conference teacher and student sat near one another and shared moments
of laughter and synchrony. The teacher asked both open and more specific questions of
Ella, often summarizing what she had said. Her recommendations tended to be more
tentative than directive, interspersed with encouragement. Generally, the teacher was

supportive of Ella's ideas. except in the case of the controversial subject of writing a

260

Figure 5 Miguel's lntersubjectivity with Teacher

Figure 6 Anthony's lntersubjectivity with Teacher

Teacher

Figure 7 Ella's lntersubjectivity with Teacher

Teacher

Figure 8 Anita's lntersubjectivity With Teacher

261

fiction project. In this case, the teacher expressed disapproval through prosodic cues and
becoming more directive about what Ella should do in her piece about her aunt. Ella
outwardly agreed with the teacher in almost all instances. When she initiated topics, the
teacher usually pursued them. The teacher and students had developed a shared
understanding within certain realms. When Ella accepted the teacher's definition of
writing about something important and not writing fiction, the two were in synchrony.

In contrast to the other three cases, there is lack of synchrony between the teacher
and Anita; this lack of synchrony is represented in Figure 8. They did not reach a shared
understanding within the conference about the topic. While Anita had suggested the topic of
writing about Lenox Hill Camp, the teacher maintained her own view that Anita should
write about her father. The two speakers were distant from one another and did not make
eye contact. The teacher used few words of encouragement. Ms. Meyer also used fewer
interrogatives, relying more on directing the student to do specific things. The teacher
also included factual statements and, on occasion, challenged Anita's statements. The
teacher's tone of voice was sometimes disapproving or bored. Anita sometimes disagreed
with the teacher, and her voice lacked enthusiasm when responding to issues related to her
father. When she initiated topics, the teacher rarely pursued those topic, but introduced
her own agenda.

Differences in teacher-student interactions are clear from the conferences
between the teacher and student. How did these differences in interaction styles among the
teacher-student pairs relate to what different students internalized? By [comparing the
writing conferences the students conducted with younger students, and the texts students
created, we can gain some insight into how they used the dialogue from the conferences and
other aspects of the classroom.

Writing Conferences with Younger Students
How did the case study students conduct conferences with younger students? What

do these conferences reflect about students' internalization processes? The features of

262

content and conversational styles of conferences with younger students are used in
comparing the different students' ways of interacting. Using these categories allows us to
link the content and styles of the conferences conducted with younger students back to the
teacher-student interactions and the classroom dialogue. Table 5 summarizes the
comparisons of students' conferences with younger students.

.Qontent

Of all the students' conferences, Anthony's conference with Will most clearly
reflected the content of the classroom dialogue. Anthony clearly focused on the use of
imagery, calling it “description.” He mentioned description on several occasions and
strongly encouraged Will to use it in his own text. Anthony's examples from his own text
were illustrative of descriptive pieces. He pointed out which pieces in his notebook were
more like diary writing as opposed to notebook writing. He chose two pieces from his own
notebook that used descriptive language: (a) the description of his grandmother dying and
her scream filling the room; and (b) a description of his grandmother's “old crinkly face
that I kissed. And her wet lips hit my face like a drop of rain.” Anthony also used an
example from literature, Iha_F_Qx_MaLe_to show description.

Besides using his own notebook which tied directly back to the classroom and the
modeling of the teacher and trainer, Anthony also demonstrated how Will could use ”post
its" to mark important aspects of his text. Anthony often employed the exact words that
had arisen in the classroom such as ”getting a picture in the reader's mind" or using 'good
words” like “kissing the top of the leaves like gold coins." Anthony clearly made use of the
classroom dialogue in his conference with Will, using the terms and ideas in a' way that
demonstrated he understood the ideas, even if the younger student did not.

Like Anthony, Miguel brought up description in his conference with Monet. On two
occasions, he suggested that she could use description in her piece. In fact, early in the
conference he gave her an idea about how she could add description to her piece about the

fish. However, his focus was not on description as much as it was on encouraging Monet to

263

Table 5 Comparisons of Cases

 

 

 

Miguel Anthony Ella Anita
Content Student's Description Author as Mechanics
Focus interests; person and spelling
of description
Conference
Style in Ideal Didactic; Interview Didactic;
Conferences ”Graves" uses own style makes list
With teacher notebook of words for
Younger student to
Student copy
Text Imagery, Imagery, Imagery, Event-
simile metaphor. fictional centered,
simile voice chronological,

little
imagery

 

264

write about additional topics. He frequently picked up on ideas Monet expressed, giving
her examples of how she might turn her ideas into text. Much of the content of the
conference between Miguel and Monet depended upon ideas Monet mentioned. For instance,
when Monet said she had wanted to make her story more adventure-like, Miguel asked her
if that were true and then asked her questions about the fish, a character in her story.
Unlike Anthony, who seemed to have his own agenda about description to pursue, much of
the content of Miguel's conference depended on Monet's initiation of topics.

Ella's conference focused on the author herself and what the author liked. She asked
questions about where the younger student got her ideas, who did the illustrations, and how
much the class was involved in writing. The central component was on the young writer
and her attitudes and experiences with writing. There was no mention of description, nor
did any of the content tie directly back to the classroom dialogue. The content of the
conference more nearly resembled the interview sessions I had with Ella in which I
focused on her interests, her attitudes toward writing, and her former experiences with
writing.

Unlike Miguel's, Anthony's, and Ella's conferences with younger students, it was
difficult to trace the content of Anita's conferences to any classroom events this year. The
content of the conference consisted almost entirely of mechanics such as spelling,
grammar, punctuation, and penmanship. Anita corrected Ginny's use of 'me" to “I,"
spelled words for her, explained that she needed a period, and pointed out where she needed
to cross her "t." Although Ms. Meyer did not discuss any of these grammatical features
before Anita engaged in the writing conference with the younger student, this content is
often discussed in many American classrooms. Perhaps Anita's perception of Ms. Meyer's
correcting her work prompted her to 'fix' Ginny's paper as best she could.

oonxersationaLSMe

The styles which case study students used in their conferences with younger

students varied widely. Anthony's style tended to be very didactic; he would often tell the

265

young child what to write or explain the importance of certain features of text such as
description or how to use ”post its.“ He used examples from his own notebook and
examples from literature to make his points. He even wrote down a new beginning for the
younger student, drawing from his experiences in his own teacher-student writing
conference in which the teacher jotted down an organizational structure. His occasional
questions of Will were quite specific, for instance. asking him if he knew what a “chill
down my spine is?" Anthony used these questions and Will's responses to explain his own
point of view. Occasionally, he even interrupted Will to pursue an interest of his own.
The tone of the conference was supportive. however, and Anthony tried to encourage Will,
suggesting that he could become a writer.

Anthony's didacticism resembles the teacher's style of interaction with him. In
Anthony's lengthy conference, Ms. Meyer was didactic. She gave very specific advice about
how he could improve the organization of his piece, writing down three parts that he
should include. She told him which parts to take out such as “Take out this part . . .
because we know she was very nice” and gave him very specific directives about how he
could fill up the page with description. Her tone was supportive of Anthony, yet she often
interrupted Anthony, providing her own view of how he should set up his piece. Her
interruptions, her strong recommendations, and her specific questions pointed to a very
didactic style.

Anita's style in her conference with Ginny was didactic as well; she saw herself as
the source of knowledge about Ginny's text and provided her with specific advice as well as
a spelling list of words to copy. She played the traditional teacher role of correcting the
younger student's mistakes. For instance, she told her she needed to use "I" instead of me
because it “made more sense” and frequently used phrases such as “let's fix up some of the
words." Anita's tone was not as forceful as Anthony's, but she used the strategy of giving
the student the answers. Making a list for the younger student to go over and change the

spelling was perhaps the most telling feature of Anita's strategy in the conference. She

266

wrote the list for the child, with the implication that the child ought to practice spelling
the words. Anita's tone was that of a friendly teacher who corrected work because
mistakes were made.

Anita's strategies are puzzling if we try to trace them back to the classroom
discourse from Ms. Meyer's classroom because the teacher did not explicitly correct
students' work. However, Ms. Meyer did provide many implicit messages to Anita,
indicating that her work was not ”correct.” Anita did not seem to use the specific
strategies that her teacher used, but she did give the implicit message to the younger
student that her writing was not ”right.” In a somewhat similar way to Ms. Meyer's
suggestion to Anita that her Lenox Hill Camp story was not the ”right” one to pursue, Anita
continually corrected Ginny, suggesting that she had not spelled words correctly. This
mode of interaction seems to have much more to do with the traditional teacher role and
how writing is often taught than it has to do specifically with Ms. Meyer's classroom. It
may be that the ”teacher voice" from past experiences was more powerful than the current
teacher's voice. Having not been in a "process writing school" before, Anita may have
experienced a teacher's role during writing to be correcting a student and telling her how
to fix her mistakes. Or it may be that the teacher's way of ”telling" her what topic to
write about was not very different from other teachers' voices telling her about grammar
and spelling.

Miguel and Ella contrast with Anthony and Anita because their styles of interaction
with the younger students were not didactic. Miguel played the role of the interested
reader, while Ella played the role of the interested interviewer. Miguel may be the ideal
”teacher“ Calkins (1986) had in mind when she wrote Who.
Miguel was sensitive to the needs of the student, Monet, listened to what she wrote as well
as to her explanations, and asked questions accordingly. In the words of Graves (1983).
he ”followed the child's lead.“ Miguel also encouraged Monet by giving her many topics

about which to write and by praising what she had written. For example, when she

267

explained she had written a mixed up book, his response was, "Oh that's a really cool
thing." He asked questions about the topics she brought up, such as asking who her cousin
was and finding out about the fish tank. His interest was genuine when he asked if he could
see the piece of writing she had mentioned. His suggestions were consistently couched in
the conditional, using phrases such as "you could write about that,” never pushing his idea
onto her. He explained his role to her as someone who was trying to help her get ideas of
what to write about.

How was Miguel's conferencing style similar to or different from the style which
Ms. Meyer used with him? With most students, Ms. Meyer tended to be dominating and
provide her opinion. With Miguel, she tended to listen to his ideas and to build upon his
responses. She still provided many suggestions and was successful at getting him to bring
himself into the writing about the killer whale. Thus, with Miguel, she used a combination
of strategies--asking him questions, summarizing what he had said, and making
recommendations for pursuing his topic, and praising him. Miguel used those same
strategies, combining them differently, and focusing even more on the author than Ms.
Meyer did. However, traces of the supportive tone and focus on the author, which
characterized Miguel's conference with Monet, can be found in Ms. Meyer's talk with
Miguel. .

The case of Ella is the most puzzling in terms of strategies as well as content.
Essentially, she only asked questions. She gave no recommendations, she provided no
feedback except to praise the students' work on one occasion, and she gave no explanations
about how to write something. Instead, Ella only asked questions. Most questions were of a
specific nature such as ”Which is your favorite story?” All questions were asked in a
gentle, interested, and supportive tone. Although Ms. Meyer asked questions, and often
specific questions, her main strategy was not to ask questions about the writer. Instead,
she focused on the topics, asking questions where she hoped the student would agree with

her. Ella's questions were more open than the teacher's.

268

How do I account for this? I think Ella's style in this conference reflects much
more of an interview style than it does the style of Ms. Meyer conducting conferences. The
fact that I very frequently asked questions about the lives, works, and experiences of the
case study students influenced Ella. In fact, she suggested that I had given her ideas earlier
in the study about what questions to ask through my own questioning of her. In Ella's case,
it isn't the teacher's voice that is dominant in this particular situation, but rather another
person's voice with whom she had interacted-mine.

Texts: Match Between Teacher's Image and Student's Representation

How do students' texts compare as indicators of what they lntemalized from the
classroom dialogue? The texts that students created represent a longer term, more static
situation than the writing conferences with younger students. They embody to some extent
students' values, experiences, and background and show how they integrated the classroom
dialogue into existing knowledge and beliefs. Additionally, this teacher had a very
powerful influence in the classroom dialogue. It is for these reason that it makes sense to
compare the students' revised projects along the dimensions of 'good writing” that the
teacher valued and introduced either explicitly or implicitly in the class discussions.
Through this comparison, we can see to what extent there was an overall match between
the teacher's idea of text and the student's product. The aspects of good writing that Ms.
Meyer conveyed to the students included the features of: (a) valuing of personal
experience; (b) elements of language and style; (c) audience; and (d) organization and
focus. First, how do students compare on the dimensions of writing from personal
expenence?

Bensonaljxoetienoe

In chapter 4, I suggested that the teacher believed that the best topics come from
personal experience. All four students ended up writing pieces that included something
from their personal experiences. However, students' texts varied in the extent which they

matched the teacher's image. Anthony's descriptive piece about his grandmother had a

269

clear fit with the teacher's idea of what a personal piece should be. In Anthony's text he
included several memories of experiences he had with his grandmother such as getting
piraguas with her, going for Kentucky Fried Chicken, and, finally, the scene of her death.
This fit the teacher's idea of a successful piece because it drew from Anthony's own
experiences, and included a deep, personal, moving description of his grandmother hugging
and kissing him as she lay on her deathbed.

Ella also drew from her own childhood experiences with her aunt. She wrote about
an event where she and her aunt slipped and fell into one another and she wrote about an
early memory of swiping sausage from her aunt's plate. Her letter to her aunt was also
filled with emotion such as loving her and missing her. Ella, however, added fictional
elements to her story, using a setting, plot, character format with humor. This piece fit
Ms. Meyer's image of effective writing because it drew from Ella's own experience and
included emotion such as missing her aunt. The fictional elements were subtle enough and
could be considered a vehicle for expressing personal feelings and memories.

Miguel's piece comparing himself to a killer whale fits the criterion of writing
from personal experience. Miguel brought himself into the piece at several points: In the
beginning haiku where he explicitly compared himself to the whale, in the second section
in which he became the killer whale and described the feelings of being followed by a
shark, and then where he described how he would take care of himself to become as strong
as a whale. In the final section, Miguel did not bring himself into the description at all,
but wrote more of an expository section about the whale. Although the piece did not bring
in deep emotions or heartfelt memories, Miguel did bring in his own memories of going
swimming and imaging being followed by a shark.

Even though Anita wrote about her own experiences in the Lenox Hill Camp text,
this piece did not fit the teacher's criterion of writing from personal experience. It seems
that the reason it did not fit was that the teacher thought it only focused on 'fun" and the

good times that she had at a camp. Closer inspection of the text reveals that in the piece

270

Anita did write about some tense moments where she was fearful: playing spin the bottle,
worrying that her instructor was smoking crack, and tearing falling off the bridge.
However, the teacher gave no evidence of having read the piece, nor did she see the fearful
points as ones that Anita could develop from her personal experience. From her
interviews, Ms. Meyer expressed that she hoped Anita would focus on “something that had
some substance,” not on an event where she had a really fabulous time. Further, the
writing conference data suggest that the teacher had in mind Anita's writing deeper,
personal expressions of emotion about her father. Therefore, the Lenox Hill Camp piece,
though it drew from Anita's experience, did not fit the criterion of writing from personal
experience as defined by Ms. Meyer. Her poem to her grandfather was a closer fit with the
teacher's image because Anita expressed emotion about how she missed her grandfather and
would keep him close to her heart. She also wrote about the good times with a relative.
| | El l , I I E' I' I

The students used imagery and description to varying degrees in their texts.
Anthony used imagery extensively in his piece, especially in the beginning where he
described the clothes his grandmother wore. Throughout the piece he added details about
the ice he ate (piragua), the setting of 1815f street where people set out the tables, and
the taste of the oily chicken. Anthony also used figurative language in comparing fruit
flies hitting him ”like a mist of water" and the ”scream filling the room." Anthony showed
that he had internalized the dialogue by its reemergence in the form of description in his
text. His use of imagery and description also fit well with the teacher's idea of a successful
text.

Like Anthony, Miguel used many features of descriptive language in his text. He
included adjectives to describe the sea and the whale, as well using expressive verbs. In
comparing himself to the whale Miguel also included simile. Miguel's text reflects the

emphasis upon descriptive language that occurred in the classroom.

 

271

Ella also used description in her text, noting the ice that covered the ground, and
using language such as ”big brown eyes.” Ella tended to use precise verbs such as
"wriggled” and ”swiped” to express her ideas, meeting the teacher‘s idea of using unusual
words and adding detail to make the text interesting to the reader. Ella added humor and
voice, which were not explicitly focused on in the classroom, but were encouraged by Ms.
Meyer when she saw students using these features.

Anita's Lenox Hill Camp piece reflected little description in the way the teacher
emphasized. For instance, there were few adjectives and no metaphors or similes. Anita
had, however, included many details such as listing the people who went on the trip,
explaining the rules of the game of spin the bottle, and being at the edge of the bridge.
However, these were not features the teacher valued in the model of text she had in mind.
In her poem to her grandfather, Anita used more adjectives such as ”bright“ "sweet“ and
'high" and included some figurative language, "I'II heare you in my hart!” The grandfather
piece, then, fit more closely with the teacher's emphasis upon figurative language and
imagery.

Audience

In terms of audience the student/authors had in mind, Ella's piece was the closest
fit with the teacher's image. Ella wrote a letter and sent it to her aunt; this was a clear
audience. The other three students wrote about themselves or about their grandparents
with the intended audience classmates and parents with whom they would share these
pieces. The students seemed to have developed a concept of audience and could talk about
writing the piece with a reader in mind, but they chose to act upon those views in different
ways.

0 . l' IE

Ms. Meyer seemed to have the idea that the students' pieces should be focused

around a particular event or person, not going from event to event. She communicated this

idea through the various mini-lessons conducted about literature as well as through her

272

conferences with individuals. Students included this feature in their texts to various
degrees. ,

Anthony's piece focused on one person, his grandmother, and centered around two
events that they shared: getting piraguas on the heights and her death. This type of focus
was valued by the teacher. Additionally, Anthony used the specific organizational
structure she had suggested during their conference: description, stories, and heights,
while ending with the dying scene. He presented his piece, however, in one long paragraph
instead of breaking up the text into paragraphs around several central ideas.

Miguel focused on one topic-the whale, though he brought himself into It. He
organized his pieces in four groups. Each part had a slightly different focus and format:
first-~the haiku, second and third-~the description of becoming the whale, and last--the
expository details about the whale. Because the pieces of the text were organized into these
four sections, the piece appeared to have an organizational structure.

Ella used the letter genre and focused on two memories from her childhood. She
introduced the reasons behind the letter to her audience, wrote the stories, and then
concluded with statements about how she missed her aunt. The focus on just two memories
while using the letter format clearly fit the teacher's view of writing an organized and
focused piece. 1

It was Anita's piece that did not fit the image of what the teacher expected. Her
Lenox Hill Camp story was not focused on a particular time at the camp, but rather went
from event to event within this experience. From Anita's point of view, she may have been
writing about one particular experience--her experience at Lenox Hill Camp.‘ The
teacher, though, saw Anita's text as rambling and disjointed, proceeding from event to
event without any point or overall theme, evidenced by her stating in the interview that
Anita's piece seemed to be one of the ”great adventure kind of things-~l had a lot of fun.“
Anita's text was held together by a sequential, plot-centered style not valued by Ms.

Meyer. From this perspective, Anita's Lenox Hill Camp piece did not fit the teacher's idea

273

of a coherent text. Her poem to her grandfather more nearly fit the teacher's idea because
it was focused on one person and had more thematic unity, as it addressed her grandfather
and told about missing him.

The students. then, varied in how they appropriated the focus on writing and
transformed what they experienced in the classroom to write their pieces. The dialogue
reemerged in a variety of forms in these texts, but the use of personal experiences,
imagery and figurative language, and organization were more likely to occur when the
student and the teacher shared these values.

Figures 9-12 take into account the various features of the students' texts to
represent in a holistic way the student's transformation with the teacher's image. In
Figures 9-11, strong overlap between teacher and students exist. Figure 9 of Miguel
reflects a close match between teacher and student in which he included description and
comparison, focused the piece on a personal comparison, and imposed an organizational
structure upon it. Figure 10 of Anthony suggests his inclusion of the features of the
personal topic, description and imagery, and focus and organization in his piece; there is a
strong overlap between the teacher and student. Ella is represented in Figure 11. Despite
Ella's incorporation of a fictional style into the personal piece to her aunt, her text
incorporates the features of writing about important personal events. using description
and imagery, writing to a particular audience, her aunt, in a specific genre--the letter,
and focusing on two events. These three students incorporated different features of the
teacher's image of good writing to differing degrees in their texts. They had transformed
their understandings into unique representations. Yet, in each of the three cases there was
overlap with the teacher's image of good writing.

Figure 12 represents the match between Anita's text and the teacher's image.
When using her Lenox Hill Camp piece as an example, there is virtually no overlap at all.
Her focus on a narration of events rather than a deep relationship, her organizational

structure connecting these events chronologically rather than temporally, and her lack of

iguel '

Figure 9 Match of Miguel's Text with Teacher's Image of
Good Writing

Figure 10 Match of Anthony's Text with Teacher's Image
of Good Writing

eacher

Figure 11 Match of Ella's Text with Teacher's Image of
Good Writing

Figure 12 Match of Anita's Text with Teacher's Image of
Good Writing

275

inclusion of traditional literary imagery in the Lenox Hill Camp piece suggest little match
between her values and those of the teacher. When considering her grandfather piece,
more overlap exists because she included some of the aspects of the personal emphasis by
writing to her grandfather who had died. She also included several adjectives and a
metaphor, "I'll heare you in my hart.” In this piece, Anita had transformed her
understanding of the classroom dialogue into a poem that included imagery.

Although students' texts matched the teacher's image of good writing to varying
degrees, internalization does not necessarily imply matching the teacher's schema. The
students' texts show that they transformed the dialogue in unique ways, drawing from
their previous knowledge and experience as well as the current classroom discourse.

Summary

The quality of interactions between the teacher and the case study students differed.
The teacher and students developed differing degrees of synchrony within the writing
conferences. Although students and teachers did not have to agree for students to
internalize the classroom dialogue, developing intersubjectivity, a shared meaning,
seemed to enhance students' internalization. The three students who developed a strong
degree of intersubjectivity with the teacher used the dialogue in their writing conferences
with younger students and in their own texts. The fourth student, who experienced conflict
with the teacher, used the classroom dialogue to a lesser extent, but nevertheless
internalized some of the classroom norms. The comparisons of the four students suggest
that although not developing a shared understanding within the writing conference does not
preclude internalization, the quality of interaction does have consequences for students'

subsequent work and interactions.

CHAPTER 7
CONCLUSIONS AND IMPUCATIONS
Summary and Discussion

What did students internalize from the classroom dialogue during writing? What
accounts for what they internalized? Theory and research on human cognitive
development have focused on its cultural and contextual basis, relating language, learning
and literacy (Bruner, 1990; Rogoff, Gauvain & Ellis, 1984). A social constructivist
theoretical perspective has emphasized the role of dialogue in learning, focusing on the
individual's internalization of social experiences (Bakhtin, 1981; Rogoff, 1986;
Vygotsky, 1978; Wertsch, 1985). One result of the increased attention to the role of
culture, context and dialogue has been a shift towards a process approach to writing in
which students choose their own topics, participate in planning, drafting, and revising for
a particular audience, and engage in dialogue with teachers and peers about their writing
(Flower, 1989; Freedman, Dyson, Flower & Chafe, 1987). Understanding what students
internalize from the classroom dialogue is essential in refining current theory as well as
challenging or supporting current practices in writing Instruction. ’1

The study focused on four fifth/sixth grade students from culturally diverse
backgrounds: Miguel, Anthony, Ella, and Anita as they participated in a writing process
classroom. During the five weeks of the study, the teacher, who had been trained in the
Teachers College Writing Project model, used literature to connect reading and writing;
established a structure of mini-lessons, writing time, writing conferences, and share
sessions; and emphasized the qualities of good writing such as use of imagery and
figurative language. Students kept notebooks of their personal experiences and reflections
and then selected from those entries to compose a project for a larger audience.

In this chapter, I discuss the findings of the cases of the four students and the role
that both scaffolding of instruction and intersubjectivity played in students'

internalization of dialogue. I suggest that establishing intersubjectivity depended on the

276

277

values and norms that students and the teacher brought with them, stressing the
importance of the teacher-student relationship. I relate intersubjectivity and the
teacher-student relationship to current literature on social constructivist theory and
research on writing conferences. I then discuss implications for practice and theory
before examining limitations and directions for further research.

S [ill' I! l' I"! III I' l'

The study suggests that the four students, Miguel, Anthony, Ella, and Anita
internalized the classroom dialogue to use in their texts and in their talk with younger
students to varying degrees and in different ways. What students internalized differed
from student to student and was related to the ways in which they appropriated and
transformed the dialogue to fit with their previous experiences. What they internalized
was connected to their interactions in the classroom, especially their interactions with the
teacher. However, previous experience in writing process classrooms seemed to be a
factor in their success at negotiating the social norms and using the dialogue of the present
classroom.

Soattoldind. Students varied in the kind and quality of their interactions with the
teacher. Miguel, who had some previous experience in writing process classrooms, had
favorable interactions with his teacher. She provided suggestions for his topic, yet she
built upon his ideas. Although she interjected her own ideas in their conference, they
negotiated the topic together. The teacher's conferences with Miguel were examples of
successful scaffolding in which she built on the student's ideas, while providing support
through questions and suggestions.

Anthony had extensive experience in writing process classrooms and had reached
agreement with his teacher about an appropriate project topic-writing about his
grandmother. The teacher understood that Anthony needed assistance with including more
description and with organizing his piece. By asking questions about what his grandmother

looked like and providing a model for organizing his piece, Ms. Meyer successfully

278

scaffolded instruction for him. By taking on the role of coach, she encouraged his work and
extended his thinking.

Like Anthony, Ella had extensive previous experience in Workshop classrooms,
especially with fiction writing. Her task was to learn the norms of this classroom to write
from personal experience in a new genre. The teacher provided specific suggestions to her
to help her succeed in this task, while building on the student's idea of writing about her
aunt. Together, teacher and student negotiated the topic and genre of the project.

The case of Anita differs from the others in several ways. First. Anita was a new
student who lacked previous experience with writing, and was faced with the complexity of
participation in a Writing Workshop. Second, unlike with the other students, the
teacher's scaffolding was far less successful. She did not start with the student's suggested
topic and build on it, but rather imposed her own topic, based on what Anita had written in
her notebook. Ms. Meyer seemed to have misunderstood the student's perspective and
believed Anita wanted to write about her father for a larger audience because she had
mentioned him in her notebooks. This topic was painful for the student, yet the teacher did
not pick up on the student's reluctance to write about her father. The teacher became
directive rather than supportive and did not successfully scaffold instruction for Anita.
The scaffolding of instruction by the teacher related to the degree of intersubjectivity
teacher and student established.

lntatsuhjaotimy. The cases of the four students suggest that the classroom
dialogue in which the students engaged was more likely to reemerge when students had
established a shared meaning, intersubjectivity, with the teacher. The writing conference
in which we can see where they constructed or failed to construct shared meaning acted as
a window through which to view the teacher~student relationship. What students
internalized was related to the quality and type of interaction and relationships with the

teachers and others with whom they interacted. Developing a shared meaning within the

279

momentary, dynamic setting such as a writing conference seemed to be connected to the
teacher's and students' existing values and prior relationships.

Miguel and Ms. Meyer established a shared understanding of his project--
comparing himself to a killer whale. Their interactions in the conferences suggest
synchrony and uptake of each other's ideas. Likewise, Anthony and the teacher built on an
existing understanding about his topic and the need to include description. Teacher and
student agreed upon what needed to happen in further writing. Ella and Ms. Meyer
established a shared understanding of topic and genre through negotiation. In these cases,
the teacher provided scaffolding and teacher and student established a shared understanding
of the project. In the case of Anita, the teacher and student did not develop a shared
understanding within the writing conference. However, Anita understood the teacher's
expectations, evidenced by her compromising on a topic to satisfy her teacher and herself.
Anita did not agree with the teacher's choice of topic, but she did seem to understand later
what she needed to do to select an acceptable topic.

Establishing the momentary and temporary state of intersubjectivity seemed to
depend on a host of features that each participant brought to the specific task. For
instance, the teacher brought in her own expertise in notebook writing gained from
participating in the activity herself. She also brought her experience in conducting
conferences within a particular Writing Project framework. Influenced by her own
cultural norms, the teacher brought her knowledge, beliefs, and past experiences with
particular students into the moments of interactions with the students. In a similar way,
the student brought her cultural background, past experiences with writing, and beliefs
about text to the specific interaction. Students entered the interactions with their own
stories and expertise about their particular lives. Both teacher and student brought in, in
the words of Bakhtin (1986), the “multiple voices” of their past experiences to bear on

the specific interaction.

280

Both the events during the moments of the specific interactions and what students
and the teacher brought to the situation allowed for some students to be more successful
than others in their interactions and in what they subsequently internalized. Whether
students matched with the teacher's intents and values played a large role in their
interactions as well as their texts and talk with others. The study supports other work in
writing conferences (e.g., Michaels, 1987; Ulichny & Watson-Gegeo, 1989) that suggests
teachers have dominant interpretive frameworks that influence their interactions with
students about text. As in the cases of the students discussed here, these frameworks have
consequences for student learning.

lntemalization. Students varied in the degree to which they used the dialogue from
the classroom in their text and in their talk with other students. Although the discourse
they used in their texts and with younger students was connected to the teacher's and to the
classroom interactions, it was not imitative. Students had transformed the dialogue to
meet the constraints of a new situation.

To what extent were students responding, in Bakhtin's (1981) words, to an
”authoritative voice,” which is more imitative and to what extent were they finding an
”internally persuasive voice,“ which is both unique and reflective of past interactions? In
Anthony's case, the teacher's voice is clearly reflected in both the didactic quality of his
tone with the younger student, but also in his use of description and imagery and his ease
in talking about it. However, Anthony seemed to have found an 'intemally persuasive”
voice by using description in a unique way. It was his grandmother he wrote about, his
descriptive language, and his examples he provided for the younger student. The voice of
his teacher was clear in Anthony's case, but he had made it his own.

Miguel, too, included the teacher's voice in his work. Yet, his work reflected other
voices-~that of a peer, Rom, with his suggestion of using a haiku, and a voice of a past
teacher who taught them haiku. Miguel had drawn upon multiple voices to use in his text,

reflecting a uniqueness in the product. The voice of “the ideal writing teacher“ was

281

apparent in Miguel's talk with the younger student; he had transformed his expectations
about what a conference should be to create something different from what the teacher had
established.

Ella not only used the voice of the teacher in her beginning of her letter to her
aunt, but also "ventriloquated" the voice of the researcher, or others who may have
interviewed her, to use in her conference with a younger student. Additionally, Ella
showed evidence of an “internally persuasive“ voice through the use of her "fictional
voice" in her texts, gained from previous experiences.

With Anita, the case is less clear. There is less evidence that she has drawn from
the classroom dialogue or developed an “internally persuasive voice.” In her conference
with a younger student she focused on mechanics and spelling, issues that were not part of
the current classroom dialogue. However, she seemed to have drawn from other past
experiences, which may have emphasized those features. Anita may also have been
influenced by voices from her own culture it she were linked to a background in which
oral narrative was more likely to be emphasized; yet this voice was not encouraged in the
classroom by the teacher. However, Anita's compromise of writing about her grandfather
and including imagery in her poem demonstrate that she did internalize some of the
cognitive aspects and the social norms of the classroom.

The study highlights the importance of the teacher-student relationship. It is not
only the teacher's expertise, the student's knowledge, and the nature of the task as Brandt
(1990) suggests, but rather the prior relationship between the teacher and student that
is important. Further, aspects that contributed to establishing intersubjectivity and the
relationship with the teacher included affective components as well as the cognitive ones
delineated by Wertsch (1985).

The importance of the relationship between teacher and student and the match or

mismatch between them raises a host of questions about voice, authority, and power. How

282

much authority did students in Room 555 have over their texts in this classroom? Did
teacher and student really co-construct meaning? Was the teacher forcing her
interpretation and framework upon the students? Were the students just trying to please
the teacher? Did the teacher guide and extend students' writing or did she take it over?

AntaamanLandmonfljgt. Were students just complying with the teacher's
expectations? What role does conflict play in establishing intersubjectivity and
internalization? Although three of the case study students seemed to reach a shared
understanding with the teacher, which may look like agreement, the study does not suggest
that students and teachers must agree for internalization to take place. In the case of
Anita, she was able to internalize aspects of the cognitive and social norms without
reaching a shared understanding within the conference itself. However, the conference
itself did have consequences for her and what she subsequently wrote.

With each of the students there was some small or large conflict with the teacher
that surfaced in their interactions. With Miguel, it was the reprimands of the teacher
about the playground that caused some conflict. The teacher expressed some annoyance
with Anthony at the beginning of each of the two conferences. Ella received the teacher's
disapproval when she mentioned doing a fiction project. Anita and the teacher did not agree
on a topic. However, students resolved these tensions in a variety of ways; yet they were
not just compliant.

In terms of their writing, each student seemed to have gone through an internal
negotiation in which they transformed the teacher's expectations to write something
meaningful. Miguel found a way to make the comparison between himself and the whale
meaningful; he also added an expository paragraph, adding a piece that reflected his own
intentions. Anthony used the teacher's organizational structure, but did not just write
what the teacher had suggested. Ella interwove her fictional voice into her work. Although
Anita did not actively resist the teacher and did write a poem about a topic she believed

would be pleasing to the teacher, she did not comply. She did not write about her father

283
despite the teacher's best efforts to get her to focus on those entries. The students were
able to find ways to meet the teacher's expectations without totally giving up their own
intentions.

W. Teacher-student relationships are inherently asymmetrical
by virtue of the fact that teachers have power and students have little. Chapter 2 suggested
that teacher-student writing conferences were examples of changing traditional discourse
patterns that had the potential to transform norms and to provide students with
opportunities to have more authority over their texts. In this study, the teacher did not
succeed in changing the power differential nor in substantially altering the traditional
patterns of discourse. She controlled the dialogue, not only in whole group mini-lessons
and share sessions, but also within individual writing conferences. She did not encourage
peer conferences where students have more opportunities to change traditional patterns
and share authority more equally. The teacher only provided these opportunities to Miguel
and another student who she thought were responsible and could teach each other.
However, despite a largely teacher-controlled environment, Ms. Mayer did encourage
students to contribute ideas which she then extended. She made efforts to understand the
student's point of view at various points in the conferences.

As the ”expert” in the area of traditional literary language, the teacher asked
questions, provided feedback, and made recommendations to students-scaffolding
instruction for them (Wood, Bruner, 8. Ross, 1976). Falling within a social
constructivist model, these are all aspects of teaching that a knowledgeable member of the
culture can do for a less knowledgeable member. Yet, students were also ”experts” about
their own topics and their own experiences. In the ideal model of writing conferences,
students would initiate talk and determine topics; the teacher would have responded to the
student's concerns. In effect, students and teachers would have the opportunity to “trade
conversational places” (Florio-Ruane, 1991). In this classroom, the teacher initiated

talk for the most part, generally determined the topics except at some moments where

284

students introduced t0pics, and provided the students with explicit recommendations.
While scaffolding for the students, there was never any question that students and the
teacher had traded "conversational places.” Students, for the most part, did not have the
opportunity to be in control of the dialogue and have the teacher respond to their topics,
questions. or issues.

Although in general the teacher and students did not change conversational places
during the writing conferences nor in the other types of speech events in the classroom,
some students did seem to have greater opportunity to participate more fully in the
classroom discourse than did others. This differential treatment supports Freedman and
Sperling's (1985) study of college students in which differences between the teacher's and
students' synchrony were related to ethnicity and achievement level.

Emulaoino. At particular moments in their conferences or when they shared work
in the larger group sessions, the students in Room 555 seemed to have been ”privileged“
in Wertsch's (1991) sense that the social languages they employed were appropriate in
specific situations. Because the teacher connected better with some students than with
others, those appeared to be the ones who were privileged. For instance, Miguel's voice
was ”privileged” because he had the opportunity to have a peer conference sanctioned by
the teacher. Anthony's voice was “privileged" when the teacher became excited about his
use of ”the pineapple filled my mouth with joy.“ Ella, too, was heard when the teacher
used her piece as an example to the class. But what about Anita? Her voice was never
pfivfleged.

It is unlikely that in any situation there will be total equity, with all student have
equal access to the discourse. However, the notion of privileging as a dynamic, ever-
changing phenomenon might allow for students to have more voice at certain times. If, for
instance, it is not always the teacher's voice that is considered privileged, or if different
students have opportunities to participate in various speech events, than privileging could

be more equitable. For instance, if Anita's “oral text" were valued in the classroom at

285

some point, she might have greater access to the classroom discourse, and thus more
opportunities to learn from it.
Implications for Practice and Theory

The study raises questions related to current practices in writing process
classrooms and questions of a theoretical nature. This section addresses issues of practice
by exploring the potential risks and benefits of the current focus on writing from personal
experience; discussing the advantages and disadvantages of focusing on language and style,
audience and organization; and examining the difficulties of changing norms in classrooms.
Implications for theory follow the discussion on practice.

Emeline

Proponents of writing process programs suggest that students need opportunities to
choose their own tapics, write for real purposes and audiences, participate in revising and
publishing their work, and talk to teachers and peers about their work (e.g., Calkins,
1986; Graves, 1983; Murray, 1979) Some implementations of ”process“ approaches
suggest that instruction should build on students' interests. fluency ought to be developed
before skills, and writing is a way to learn about oneself (e.g., California State
Department of Education, 1987). Even if process writing practices are not widespread as
Applebee (1986) has found, students have most likely benefited from the movement away
from teaching decontextualized grammar and other skills; giving infrequent, assigned
topics; and the “one draft” mentality.

Critics of process approaches claim that process writing excludes many black
students and others of color from the ”culture of power“ (Delpit, 1988). When the focus
is on process rather than explicitly teaching children language skills, children of color
have little access to written language codes which would help them succeed in dominant,
white middle class society. A study by Reyes (1991) suggests that, in fact, this lack of
explicitness about how to select book to read or topics for writing in whole

language/process writing classrooms contributes to failure for many Hispanic students.

286

Lensmire's (1991) study of his own teaching using a process writing approach suggests
that current practices such as “author's chair“ and choosing one's own topics present many
risks to students. Because process approaches tend to have a romantic conception of the
child and the social context and have not considered the content of what children write,
students may use writing to hurt one another. One issue that has not been raised, however,
that relates to this study is the relative risk versus benefits associated with writing from
personal experience.

W- This study raises questions about writing
process programs that focus almost exclusively on writing from personal experience as
the genre most appropriate for young writers. To some extent, Ms. Meyer's emphasis
upon writing from personal experience was her individual appropriation and
transformation of the Teachers College Writing Project; however, the Writing Project
strongly influenced her conceptions of writing instruction (McCarthey, 1990b). Calkins
(1986) never explicitly states that students not be allowed to write fiction; rather, this
interpretation seemed to be specific to Ms. Meyer. Calkins has a ten page chapter (in a
329 page book) at the end of We about the teaching of fiction. In
the chapter, Calkins suggests that she herself has had difficulty teaching students to write
fiction, noting that the quality of children's writing goes down as they often produce pieces
that are rehashed television shows. Such writing is both long and difficult to revise. It is
conceivable that such a message implicitly discourages teachers from including fiction in
their writing curriculum. Despite her lack of enthusiasm for fiction, Ms. Meyer planned
to introduce students to other genres such as poetry during the rest of the year. Even if
the teacher introduced students to other genres, writing from personal experience poses
problems as well as the potential to help students become better writers.

In the case of Anthony, we see a student who drew from his personal experience and
relationship with his grandmother to produce a detailed, deeply moving account of her

death. We can all identify with and respond to his piece. In the case of Anita, we see

 

287

something quite diflerent. Encouraged to write about her confusing, upsetting relationship
with her father, she is faced with a dilemma: how to please the teacher and avoid a painful
situation. In these two cases we see both the potential and the risk of writing from
personal experience. Anthony's piece reflects some of the benefits associated with writing
from personal experience. Reflecting his close relationship with his grandmother and his
memories of their shared experiences, his piece is authentic. He seems to have found his
own voice to express his experience to a larger audience. Perhaps it was also therapeutic
for Anthony to write about his deep, sad feelings about witnessing his grandmother's death
and his subsequent loss of her. Anthony was ready to transform his experience of her into
the writing of a coherent piece.

On the other hand, Anita's experience raises questions about potential risks of
writing from personal experience including: (a) unintended consequences from what is
revealed; (b) possibilities of limiting students' voice; (c) potential cultural conflicts; and
(d) lack of readiness for some students. First, the focus on deep, personal response may
create unintentional emotional consequences in a classroom. Unfortunately, physical and
emotional child abuse appears to be widespread. Yet. many teachers have had little
experience or training in handling issues that emerge through children's writing. If the
teacher is not prepared psychologically or emotionally to respond to the painful elements
of students' lives and find the appropriate support, it is questionable whether teachers
should encourage their students to write deep, personal pieces. At the same time, teachers
may feel pushed into the role of therapist without adequate preparation or outside support.
To provide students with mixed messages, encouraging them to write ”deep, important
things about relationships" while at the same time not being prepared for the
consequences, may be confusing and a source of discomfort to students.

Second, a focus on writing from personal experience may limit some students'
voices. Other genres of writing (e.g., fiction) may provide students with opportunity to

make sense of their lives in a way that does not necessarily require them to reveal deep

288

personal issues, or may provide outlets that make them less vulnerable to the
consequences. Process writing programs may be limiting some students' access to another
form of knowledge. In this sense, process programs emphasizing writing from personal
experience may have "institutionalized" this genre in such a way that students are
discouraged from using other forms such as expository or fiction writing as vehicles to
communicate with other audiences.

A third problem in promoting writing from personal experience, or notebook
writing, is that teachers may come into conflict with values of students from other
cultures. Process writing programs may appear to be "culture free"--that is, they are
presumed to be appropriate for all students. regardless of culture or class. For some
' students, however, writing about their own personal relationships or experiences may
conflict with cultural values. If the model presumes to transcend cultural and personal
differences, it can perpetuate the dominant culture and alienate members of minority
groups just as traditional instructional models have done (Aronowitz 8 Giroux, 1991).
Like the whole language and writing process classrooms that Reyes (1991) and Delpit
(1988) describe, this model may assume that "one size fits all" and disengage minorities
who do not fit the model.

Fourth, some students may not be ready to transform their personal experiences
into writing for a larger audience. Because students Ieam in different ways and bring
different background knowledge and experience with them, some students may not be ready
to transform their experiences into writing for a larger audience. Unlike Anthony who
wanted to write about his sad experiences, Anita, who was new to notebook writing and
project writing, most likely did not understand initially that her notebook writing would
be made public to the teacher or to others. When she realized her that she was expected to
draw from her painful experiences hinted at in her notebook. she selected a safer topic.

She was not ready to share her upsetting experiences with others.

 

289

In researchers' and practitioners' quest for ways to change writing practices, we
may have embraced a model without questioning the underlying assumptions of a model.
We may have come to assume that talking about literature with students, having them keep
notebooks, and conducting conferences with them is somehow inherently good. In being
enamored with classrooms that look different from traditional ones because students are
allowed to write about their own experiences, and talk about their writing, we may be
assuming positive outcomes.

This study suggests that the fundamental relationship between teacher and student
has important consequences. Students not only lntemalized the cognitive aspects such as
using figurative language and organizing their writing, but they lntemalized the social
norms for participation in a social setting such as a writing conference. This suggests that
teachers and researchers need to be cautious about what values, norms, and beliefs about
writing they embrace because these values are conveyed either explicitly or implicitly to
students.

W In Classroom 555, the teacher
emphasized language and style, writing for a real audience, and organization of writing.
These seem to be valuable components, relating literature to writing and helping students
to become better writers. However, these aspects of writing, which appear to be very
beneficial, need to be considered as well. In the cases of Miguel, Anthony, and Ella students
were successful at understanding how to include these aspects in their writing. Their
values and previous experiences seemed to support the Inclusion of such, features. Their
values matched those of the teacher and they were able to successfully use those features.
In the case of Anita. however, the suggestion to write for a real audience, her father, may
have been inappropriate, given the nature of the father-daughter relationship. In this
case, there was a mismatch of values. Likewise, the emphasis upon traditional literary
language to the exclusion of other forms of figurative language may have alienated Anita.

The implication for practice is that teachers need to be sensitive to a range of different

290

cultures and backgrounds of students, understanding that language in many children's
books may not be congruent with all students' cultures. While many students may benefit
from a focus on a particular kind of figurative language, writing to a real audience, or
organizing text along certain features, other students may not. Caution, reflection, and a
weighing of alternatives are necessary as we consider the variety of students and what they
bring to the classroom setting. Many factors contribute to making it difficult for teachers
to consider all of their students as they make decisions about their writing curriculum.
The following section delineates some of those problems as they relate to the study.

W- The roles of power and authority
are mitigating factors against changing the fundamental relationship of teacher and student
(Aronowitz & Giroux, 1991). They are interwoven within the other factors that
contribute to maintaining traditional patterns of discourse and relationships. Much has
been written already about the difficulty of changing school norms. Teachers cite class
size as a major roadblock in changing the discourse (Devaney & Sykes, 1988). In addition
to the number of students with whom teachers are expected to conduct conferences, the
diversity of cultures, differing experiences and fluencies with writing that students enter
classrooms with all serve to make the task of teaching writing in purposeful ways an
overwhelming one.

One of the things that the teacher in this study may have been responding to in her
own classroom was a pressure to get to all of the students about their writing. She was
attempting to hold individual conferences about their notebooks with 28 students and then
moving them into projects. One reason for her pace and controlling behavior in the
conferences may have been a belief that she had to get students to select a topic so they
could get on with their writing and she could meet with other students. As McNeil (1986)
suggests, the teacher may have been controlling the dialogue in her own classroom in
response to the lack of control she felt about larger decisions of content, school structure,

and larger societal issues. Although she had difficulty communicating and finding a

291

common ground with one of the case study students, it is notable that she was able to
connect successfully with three of the students and move them on to revising their
projects.

School and organizational factors such as the rest of the school day and how it is
structured contribute to the difficulty of teaching writing to diverse students. Is it
realistic for writing programs to expect that teachers might change the way they teach
writing without substantially altering the larger contexts in which they teach?
Organizational factors such as loss of funding compound the difficulties. For instance, the
Teachers College Writing Project was having an effect on teachers' practices and beliefs
(McCarthey, 1990b; Mosenthal, 1989), yet the district cut the funding in December.
How can teachers be expected to alter their practices when they can not tmst that their
staff development programs and other support systems will continue?

School and organizational issues are, of course, imbedded within larger societal
structures of power and authority. Bakhtin's (1986) notion of voice being "half-ours and
half someone else's' implies that the “someone else's" voice may have as much or more
power. Decisions about funding for staff development, class size, and mandated
curriculum are made by those who have authority. As Marxist critics (e.g., Apple, 1978;
Bowles 8. Gintis, 1976; Giroux, 1981; Willis, 1977) point out, schools reproduce the
power relationships in the larger society. These power relationships with their
inequitable distribution of power and access to knowledge mitigate against changing
relationships between teachers and students. The fundamental relationship between
teacher and student, which is central to learning, is difficult to change because it is
imbedded within larger social structures of power and authority. While this section has
focused on the difficulties of changing practices within the larger organizational and

societal contexts, the next section focuses on theoretical issues that the study raises.

292

1116.er

The study highlights several features of social constructivist theory that could
benefit from further explication: (a) definition of scaffolding; (b) enculturation versus
transformation; and (c) the Harre model of internalization. In the study, the teacher
attempted, on the one hand, to make explicit the issues of imagery and figurative language
she thought were important, while, on the other hand, being responsive to the students'
interests. These two features may come into conflict with one another, even though in both
cases, the teacher could be considered ”scaffolding“ instruction for the Ieamer.

It appears that a range of definitions and interactions can fall within the term
scaffolding. At one extreme, the person doing the scaffolding would provide the model,
initiate topics, and make recommendations to the student about text. At the other end, the
person doing the scaffolding might rely totally on students' responses and allow the student
to initiate the topics and work through the problems with support given only when he or
she asked for it. Other researchers including Palincsar 8. Brown (1984) who use the
scaffolding metaphor to describe reciprocal teaching rely heavily on models and initial
teacher control; students have control of the dialogue only after the teacher had given it
over to them. Graves (1983), on the other hand, advocates students' control over the
dialogue in writing conference early in the process. When in the learning process should
students have control over the dialogue and how much control should they have? This
study highlights the difficulty of both providing models or suggestions for the student and
yet listening to the student, ”following the student's lead.” It also suggests that much more
theoretical work needs to be done in defining what is meant by “scaffolding" to prevent the
term from being used as a new buzzword that has little meaning to researchers or
practitioners.

Difficulties in defining scaffolding and in explicating the role of the teacher are
reflected in the tension between enculturation and transformation. Should schools be

involved in merely enculturating students into values of the dominant culture? Should

293

schools provide students with tools for transforming the society? Clearly, answers to
these questions are well beyond the scope of this study; however, the study raises these
issues because of the role the teacher played in influencing these students. Though
strongly impacted by the teacher, students did not just enculturate the norms of the
teacher and the values she had. They were able to transform their experiences. However,
the students who shared the values of the teacher were more likely to succeed in
internalizing the dialogue in a visible way. Both theoretical and empirical work is needed
to explicate the tension between enculturation and transformation.

In this study, the Harre (1984) model of the cycle of internalization from public
to private to public again has served as a means to investigate what students have Ieamed
from the classroom discourse. The model has been especially helpful in visually tracing
what happens to the dialogue as students appropriate and transform it to use in their own
work. The idealized version of how an individual takes from social interaction and changes
it until it reappears in the public domain under a new guise seems to fit well the cases of
Miguel, Anthony, and Ella where we can trace the dialogue through to their conferences and
texts. However, the model serves the case of Anita to a much lesser extent, at least when
tracing internalization within a particular time frame. What is happening when the
dialogue does not reemerge? Although the idealized version of internalization is less
helpful when reemergence does not occur, the lack of reemergence can encourage
researchers and practitioners to examine what is happening and suggest other models.

Significance, Limitations, and Future Research

The study contributes to both educational theory and practice. By focusing on the
dialogue that students internalized from the interactions during the writing period, the
study both supports social constructivist theories and points out some of its weaknesses.
The study also provides data about the process of internalization and the role of dialogue in
learning to write, while providing a greater understanding of the role of the teacher in

facilitating students' construction of text through dialogue. The analysis of how the

294

students used the dialogue from the writing period, especially the dialogue from the
writing conferences, to guide their thinking supports some practices within current
writing programs, while questioning others.

Although the study uncovered several examples of differing interactions among the
teacher and her students and their consequences, this study had a number of limitations
including the following: (a) limited number of teacher-selected participants; (b) length
of study; (c) examination of only one genre; (d) setting; and (e) researcher's perspective.
First, because of the focus on only four students, it is not possible to generalize to other
students in other classrooms. Additionally, the teacher selected the participants,
contributing to potential biases.

Second, although much was revealed in a five-week time frame about what students
internalized, the study was limited to a short period of time in the fall. Students were in
the process of learning the norms of participation in the classroom and may not have had
sufficient time to internalize them. Tracing students' Ieaming over the course of a school
year may have revealed ways in which they used the focus on qualities of good writing in
subsequent texts.

Third, data for this study focused on one genr «notebook entries written from
personal experience. Following these students as they wrote in a variety of genres may
have revealed differences in what they internalized, depending on the nature of the genre
itself.

Fourth, this study took place in a particular classroom using a specific approach to
the writing process. The teacher had a particular view of good writing based on her
interpretation of a program and her own beliefs; therefore, what students internalized
from the classroom dialogue may have been specifically related to her views within a
specific context. Studies in other settings might reveal that students internalized different
aspects of the classroom dialogue than did these four students. Further, I observed and

interviewed students only within a school setting; students' previous experiences with and

295

beliefs about text most likely influenced what students internalized from the school
setting.

Finally, because I developed a close relationship with each of the case study
students, my interpretations and analyses reflect much more of the students' "side" of the
story rather than the teacher's. In trying to understand what students gained from the
experience of being in this writing process classroom, I have been sympathetic to the
students' perceptions and even "put myself in their shoes” at the cost of not being as
understanding of the teacher’s perspective.

While a close analysis of a writing process classroom in New York City provided
details about the teacher and students within a particular context, more research is needed
in a variety of settings. In a social constructivist theory of learning and development, it is
the interaction of individuals with a specific context that constitutes knowledge. It follows
that future studies should continue to study learning within particular social and cultural
contexts.

Future studies could build on the present study by following students over a longer
period of time such as over the course of a school year to trace the dynamic pattern of
internalization over several genres of writing. While this study focused on students in a
fifth/sixth grade classroom, other studies might look at relationships between dialogue and
learning to write in high school classes.

The study also suggests the importance of the ideas, experiences, and beliefs about
text gained from students' previous interactions and from their family and cultural
backgrounds. Extensive observations and interviews of students in settings other than
classrooms could investigate the links between home and school Ieaming about text and the
impact of those experiences in shaping their learning in schools. In conclusion, I suggest
that through additional studies relating dialogue to literacy, we can build more ”concrete
universals' (Erickson, 1986) to understand individuals learning about text in a variety

of contexts.

APPENDICES

 

O)

‘1

APPENDIX A
TEACHER INTERVIEWS
First Teacher Interview
a) Tell me a little about the neighborhood and school.
b) Where do most of the students come from?
c) What type of desegregation plan does New York City have?
a) What have been your goals for having students keep notebooks this year?
Why?
b) Where did you get these ideas about students being chroniclers of their
fives?
Have notebooks been successful this year? Why?
a) What is the next step you plan to with the students?
b) Why Projects?
0) How will students go about deciding on the form their projects will take?

a) Tell me about the idea of qualities of good writing.
b) Where did you get these ideas?

. How do you think the students are progressing with their writing?
Can you give me some examples?

. Please tell me about your goals for the particular students I am studying.
What kind of progress is this student making?

Second Teacher Interview

. Could you tell me about why you do not want students to write fiction?
(Probes based on her responses)

a) How do you think students' notebooks are going?
b) How about their projects?

a) Why do you think it is important for students to write for a specific
audience?
b) Have students had experience with that before?

. Please tell me about the students I am studying.
(Probes based on teacher's responses.)

. Tell me about your conference with Anita the other day. How did it go?
(Follow up probes based on her responses)

. Would you encourage students to write about certain situations that might be difficult
for them?

. I noticed you have had students gather in small groups to have conferences with them,
why have you done this?

296

297

8. What are your goals for having conferences with students?

9.

10.

a)
b)

a)

b)

What are your expectations for students during writing time?
Should students be talking to one another?

Tell me about the situation with Terry sharing his writing with other
students today.
What about with Miguel and Rom talking about their work?

APPENDIX B
STUDENT SEMI-STRUCTURED ENTRY INTERVIEW

Part I: Personal History

GeneraLBaclsomund
E 'I III . || | I
1. Please tell me about your family and where you live.
was

2. What are some of the things you like to do when you are not at school, lite at home or
at a friend's house? (Probe for things such as reading, drawing, sports, writing,
games, computers, tv.)

E 'l S l' | . S | l

3. What are your favorite subjects or things you like to do at school?
H II' |

B I. II II

4. Do you enjoy reading?

5. What kinds of books do you like to read?

6. Can you tell me the names of books you like or favorite authors?
1!! 'I' II I 'l

7. How often do you write?

8. Do you write at home?

9. At school?

chnmlmx

10. Do you use a computer or hand write?

11 . Do you like one better than the other? Why?
Audience

12. When you are writing, whom do you like to share your writing with (parent,
teacher, friend, classmates)?

298

299

Wm

13. Do you like to write?

14. Does it seem easy or is it something that is hard for you?
15. Do you think you are a good writer?

16. What does it mean to be agood writer?
E . 'IIIM'I' 'Sl I

17. Tell me about writing in classrooms where you were last year.

18. What is writing like this year in your classroom?

19. How is it different or the same as last year?

20. What are some of the things you have Ieamed about writing this year in your class?
(Probe for definitions of “description," ”notebooks,“ ask what student means by
term.)

21 . How do you think you learned those things? (From the teacher, talking to other
children, listening to other people's stories, writing a lot, reading and talking about
other authors.)

22. Do you have writing conferences with the teacher? How about with other students?
Describe those.

Ionicslhemasfiemas

23. What kinds of things do you write? (Probe with letters, journals or diaries,
stories-~fiction or non-fiction, ”teaching books”. Poetry, lists of things to do or
buy.)

24. Tell me some of the topics you have written about this year in school or at home?

E III'IMT IE II
3W

(Student should bring an example of a text s/he has written recently.)
25. Please tell me about your piece.
Seymoudeas
26. Where did you get your idea to write about ?
Audience

27. When you wrote about , did you write it for anyone in particular?

300

Bum

28. Did you write it for any reason such as did your parent or teacher ask you to write it
or did you just want to?

B . .
29. When you wrote about . did you just write one draft or a few drafts?
30. If you wrote more than one draft, what did you change?

31 . Why did you change those things?

0' II. I MIT

32. When you were writing this, what did you think about while you were writing?

33. What are some of the things you like about your piece of writing? Why?

34. Are there any things you do not like? Why not? What would you change?

El I II | E'

35. I am interested in what kind of story or piece of writing that you are planning to
write next.

36. What will it be about? -
37. What things will you think about as you write your piece?
38. Do you think you will have any particular problems with what you will write?

39. How will you solve those problems? (Will you ask the teacher, go to a peer, look at a
book, think about it yourself?) .

APPENDIX C
STUDENT SEMISTRUCTURED EXIT INTERVIEW
Qualities of Good Writing

a) How would you describe good writing?

b) Could you give me an example from a book you are familiar
with? Why is that good writing? .

c) Could you give me an example from another student? Why is
that good writing?

d) Could you give me an example from your own writing? Why is
that good writing?

a) Who do you think are good writers? Why?
b) Published?
c) In your class?

Here is a list of things some peOple consider important to writing. Which ones do you
think are important? Why?

audience

choosing a topic that is really important to you
writing about your own experiences
spelling

having a strong beginning

keeping the reader on his toes

giving the reader a picture in their mind
putting events in order

using time in different ways
punctuation

character

description

Classroom Events

a) What have you learned about writing this year?
b) From whom? (Ms. Meyer? Ms. Henderson? other students?)

a) What are some of the books, events, or things that have happened during writing
that have helped you? (I provided examples of events if student could not
remember.)

b) What things seemed to help the most?

c) Ms. Henderson's visits?

d) Books?

e) Conferences with your teacher?

f) Talking to other students?

a) Could you describe to me what this classroom was like during writing?

b) Describe an event during writing that was good.

0) Any events that were not so good?

d) Tell me about one of your conferences with the teacher? What was it like?

e) Do you talk to your classmates during writing? Why or why not? Is it OK to do
that?

301

10.
11.
12.

13.

14.

15.

302

Notebooks and Projects
How do you see the difference between notebooks and projects?
How did you select the topic for your project?
Are there notebook entries that led up to that? Which ones?
Who is your audience? Why did you choose that audience?
Describe your process of selecting your entries and then writing your project.
What changes have you made? Why?

What has affected those changes? (teacher conferences? group discussions? books?
talking to other students?)

What will you do next to finish your project?
Writing Conferences With Younger Students
a) Tell me about your conference with (named the student) the other day.

b) What was it like?
0) Why did you do things you did? (gave examples it necessary)

APPENDIX D
INFORMAL STUDENT INTERVIEW

A form of this interview was given to participating students about every three days or if
they had a writing conferences with the teacher that day.

1. Please tell me a little bit about what happened during writing class today? (I probed
each event the student mentioned.)

2. [If a conference took place] How did the conference go with your teacher? What are
some of the questions, suggestions or comments the teacher made? What did you think
of the teacher's comments or questions? Why or why not?

3. Did you talk with any students about your writing today? What did you talk about?
Were those comments or questions helpful to you?

4. Let's talk about your notebook or project. How is it going? What did you work on
today?

5. Where did you get your ideas to write that?

303

APPENDIX E
UST OF CHILDREN'S BOOKS USED IN CLASSROOM
Hess, A. (1991). W.
Little, J. (1987). Wm. New York: Viking.
Lowry, L. (1986). "Tasting memories“ in W. New York: Dell.

Martin. A. M. (1989). WWW NO- 29. New
York: Scholastic Books.

Rylant. C. (1982). W New York: Dutton.
Williams, K. L. (1990). mm. New York: Lothrop, Lee & Shepard Books.

Williams, V. B. (1982). W. New York: Greenwillow Books.

Wilson, 8. P. ( 1990). Jfllfll. New York: McMillan.

304

IJST OF REFERENCES

LIST OF REFERENCES

Apple, M. (1978). The new sociology of education: Analyzing cultural and economic

reproduction W. Afi. 495- 503

Applebee, A. (1986). Problems in process approaches: Toward a reconceptualization of
process instruction. In A. Petrosky 8. D. Bartholomae (Eds. ), WW
(pp. 95- -.113) Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Applebee, A., 8. Langer, J. (1983). Instructional scaffolds: Reading and writing as
natural language activities. WJMZ), 168-175.

Aronowitz. S & Giroux H A (1991) W
W. Minneapolis. University of Minnesota Press.

Au, K. H., & Kawakami, A. J. (1984). Vygotskian perspectives on discussion processes in
small-group reading lessons. In P. L. Peterson, L. C. Wilkinson, 8. M. Hallihan

(Ede) WW (pp 209 225). Orlando. FL: Academic

Press, Inc.

Au, K. H., 8. Kawakami, A. J. (1986). The influence of the social organization of
instruction on children's text comprehension ability: A Vygotskian perspective. In T.

E- Raphael (Edi WWW (pp- 63-78)- New York:
Random House.

Au, K. H., & Mason, J. M. (1981). Social organizational factors in Ieaming to read: The

balance of rights hypothesis. WWJZU), 115-152.

Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). Minnigimaninatinn. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Bakhtin, M. M. (1986). The problem of speech genres. In C. Emerson, & M. Holquist
(Eds), W. (V. W. McGee, Trans). Austin:

University of Texas Press.

Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). An attainable version of high literacy:
Approaches to teaching higher order skills in reading and writing. Qnmnuinm

LDQHIIL. 11(1)! 9'30-

Bogdan. Fl. 0., & Biklen, S. K. (1982). W
Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Bowies S-. & Giniis H (1976) W
W New York: Basic Books

Brandt, M. E. (1990). Getting social about critical thinking: Power and constraints of

apprenticeship WWW
Common 12(2) 56- 63 '

Brown, A. L.. & Palincsar. A. S. (1982). Inducing strategic learning from texts by
means of informed, self-control training. WW9

W.Z. 1-17.

305

306

Brown, A. L., Campione, J. 0., & Day, J. D. (1981). Learning to learn: On training
students to learn from texts. EnunaiinnaLannarnnnL 19,14 21.

Bruce, B., 8. Michaels, S. (no date). WWW. Final report.
(Grant #G-83-0051).

Bruffee, K. (1984). Peer tutoring and the ”conversation of mankind." QQIIQQLEDQIIED.
55.. 635-652.

Bruner, J. (1990). Ani§_ni_mnaninn. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

California State Department of Education. (1983). W
W Sacramento

Calkins, L. M. (1986). WWW. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Calkins. L- M. & HanNayne. 8- (1987). WWW

Calkins, L. M. (1991). W. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Cazden, C. B. (1983). Adult assistance to language development: Scaffolds, models, and
direct instruction. In R. Parker & F. Davis (Eds.), W
mmmmfpp 348) Newark DE: IRA Books

Cazden, C. B. (1986). Classroom discourse. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Hanmnninnt
WWW (pp. 432-463). New York: Macmillan.

Cazden, c. B. (1988). WWW

Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Cole, M. (1985). The zone of proximal development: Where culture and cognition create

each other IN V Wertsch (Ed-.I WW
nnmnnnfim (pp. 146-161). London: Cambridge University Press.

Coulthard, M. (1977). W. Essex, England: Longman
Group.

Dahl, K. (1988). Peer conferences as social contexts for learning about revision. In J.

Readance (Ed I W (pp 307-315) I Chicago: 37th
Yearbook of the National Reading Conference.

Daiute, C. (1985). Do writers talk to themselves? In S. W. Freedman (Ed.),1nn

WM 133-158) Norwood NJ:
Ablex.

Daiute, C. (1989). Play as thought. Thinking strategies of young writers. fianLaLd
Educationaljexim 52(1) 1 -23

Delpit, L. D. (1988). The silenced dialogue: Power and pedagogy In educating other
peeple's children HamerdjducaticnaLBexiew 53(3) 280-298

307

Devaney, K., 8. Sykes, G. (1988). Making the case for professionalism. In A. Lieberman

(Ed) WW (pp 3- -22) New York Teachers
College Press.

DiPardo, A. 8. Freedman, S. W. (1988). Peer response groups in the writing classroom:
Theoretic foundations and new directions. 3WD. 58(2),
119-149.

Emerson, C. (1983). The outer word and inner speech: Bakhtin, Vygotsky, and the
internalization of language. CnijnaiJnnuiry, 19(2), 245-264.

Englert, C. S. 8. Raphael, T. E. (1989). Developing successful writers through cognitive

strategy instruction in J Brophy (Ed). WW mu (pp
105- -151). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Erickson, F. (1977). Some approaches to inquiry in school/community ethnography.
WWW 8(3) 58- 69

Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In M. C. Wittrock
(Ed-I. WWW (pp- 119-161). New York: Macmillan.

Erickson, F., 8. Mohatt, G. (1982). Cultural organization of participation structures in

two classrooms of Indian students. In G. Spindler (Ed.), WM
snnnnlinn (pp.132-174). New York: Holt, Rinehart 8. Winston.

Fitzgerald, J. & Stamm, C. (1990). Effects of group conferences on first-grader's
revisions of writing. mainLQnmmnnjnaiinn, 1(1), 96 135.

Florio- Ruane, S. (1987). Sociolinguistics for educational researchers. Amnfinan
WEIZI 185-197

Florio-Ruane, S. (1988). How ethnographers of communication study writing in school.

In J. Readance (Ed), WW (pp. 269- -284). Chicago: 37th

Yearbook of the National Reading Conference.

FIorio-Ruane, S. (1991). Instructional conversations in Ieaming to write and learning

to leach In L Idol and B P Jones (Eds) WWW
imnlinaiinnanLLnfan (pp. 365- -.286) Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Flower, L. (1989, May). WWW (Occasional Paper No.
11). Berkeley, CA: Center for the Study of Writing.

Freedman, S. W. (1987). Winn (Research Report No. 23).

Urbana, IL: National Council for Teachers of English.

Freedman, S. W., Dyson, A. H., Flower, L., 8. Chafe, W. (1987). W

Warn (Technical Report No. 1). Berkeley, CA: Center for the
Study of Writing.

Freedman, S. W., 8. Sperling, M. (1985). Written language acquisition. The role of
response and the writing conference. In S. W. Freedman (Ed.,) W

mnenJannuaoLBesmmaniLexisim (pp 106-130) Norwood NJ: Ablex

308

Gavelek. J. Fi- (in preparation). WWW.

Gebhardt, R. (1980). Teamwork and feedback: Broadening the base of collaborative
writing. QQIIQQLEninsmazUI. 69-74.

Gere, A. R, 8. Abbott, R. D. (1985). Talking about writing. The language of writing groups.
WW. 19(4) 362- 385

Gere, A. R. 8. Stevens, R. (1985). The language of writing groups: How oral response
shapes revision In S W Freedman (Ed) MW

me 85405). Nomood. NJ: Ablex.
Giroux. H. A. (1981). WWW- Philadelphia:

Temple University Press.

Glaser B 8- Strauss A L (1967) WWW
gualitatixueseamn Chicago: Aldine

Goodlad, J. l. (1984). A_niane_naiied_snhnnl. New York: McGraw Hill.
Graves, D. (1983). WWW. Exeter, NH: Heinemann.

Green, J. L. (1983). Research on teaching as a linguistic process: A state of the art. In E.

H Gordon (Ed) WW (pp 152-252) Washington.

DC: American Educational Research Association.

Gumperz, J. J. (1982). W. Cambridge, England: Cambridge

University Press.
Hall, E. T. (1966). Inuinnnnnjmnnsinn. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
Harre. R. (1984). WWW Cambridge:

Harvard University Press

Harris. M. (1986). W Urbana. IL: National

Council of Teachers of English.

Hayes, J. R, 8. Flower, L. S. (1980). Identifying the organization of writing processes.

In L W Gregg & E R Sieiribeig (Eds) Winn (pp 3- -30)
Hillsdale, NJ. Erlbaum.

Hillocks, G, Jr. (1984). What works in teaching composition. A meta- -analysis of
experimental treatment studies. W. 23,, 107-132.

Hudson, R. A. (1980). Snniniinnnistinn. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University
Press.

Hymes, D. (1972). Introduction. In C. Cazden, V. John, 8. D. Hymes (Eds.), EunniinnLnt
WW (pp. xi-lvii). New York: Teachers College Press.

 

309

Jacob, G. P. (1982). An ethnographic study of the writing conference: The degree of
student involvement in the writing process. DissnnaiinLAdeactstnmatinnal. 4.3,
386A. (University Microfilms No. 8216050).

Lee C (1991 April) WWW Ied
. aper presen

at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.

Lensmire T (1991) WWW
Unpublished dissertation. Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI.

Leont'ev, A. N. (1981). The problem of activity in psychology. In J. V. Wertsch (Ed.),
Wildcat: Armonk NY: Sharpe

Lukens. Fi- J. (1990). A_nritinal_nandbnnls_nf_nnildrnn:s.JitnratuLe Glenview. IL: Scott

Foresman.

McCarthey. S J (1989 November) Cnndmnflnnannmaflmaflnnunsnnnsnfln
smdnmmmn. Paper presented at the National Reading Conference. Austin, TX.

McCarthey, s. J. (1990a). WWW
W. (Research Report 88-4.) Michigan State

University, East Lansing. National Center for Research on Teacher Education.

McCarthey. S J (19906 April) WWW

insimniinn Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational
Research Association, Boston.

McCarthey, S. J, 8. Peterson, P. L. (1991, April). Bnflnniinns_nn_[nsimniuflnn_ni
. Paper presented at the

annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.
McNeil, L. M. (1986). W. New York: Routledge 8. Kegan Paul.
Mead. 6- H. (1934)- Mind._self._and_snnidy_tam_mn_dandnnim_nLa_snniaLbnnavand

Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Mehan, H. (1979). Lnaminansnnnn. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Mehan, H. (1982). The structure of classroom events and their consequences for student

performance. In P. Gilmore 8. A. A. Glatthorn (Eds.), WW
(pp. 59-87). Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.

Merriam. S. B. (1988). W San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Michaels, S. (1981). ”Sharing time": Children's narrative styles and differential access

to literacy LEW 1n. 423- 442

Michaels, 8. (1987). Text and context. A new approach to the study of classroom writing.
W 10.. 321-346.

310

Michaels, S. Ulichny, P. 8. Watson- Gegeo, K. (1986, April). Wand

.I:.Iooo :I .H-on Ina-I::I: Io o-I-.I.Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San
Francisco.

Mosenthal J H (1989 April) WWW

nnannanJnanhaninkinn. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, San Francisco.

Murray, D. (1979). The listening eye: Reflections on the writing conference. Qniinnn
English. 41(1). 13-18.

National Center for Research on Teacher Education. (1987). Wang.
Michigan State University, East Lansing.

Nystrand, M. (1986). Learning to write by talking about writing: A summary of
research on intensive peer review in expository writing at the University of

Wisconsin- Madison. In M. Nystrand (Ed.), WWW
(pp. 79- -211). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

Nystrand, M. (1990). Sharing words: The effects of readers on developing writers.
, 1(1), 3- 24.

Nystrand, M., 8. Brandt, D. (1989). Response to writing as a context for learning to

write In C M Anson (Ed) WWW
(pp. 209- -.230) Urbana, IL: National Council of the Teachers of English.

O'Donnell, A., Dansereau, D., Rocklin, T. Lambiotte, J. Hythecker, V. 8. Larson, C.
(1985). Cooperative writing: Direct effects and transfer. MW,
2(3), 307- 315.

Palincsar, A. S. (1986). The role of dialogue in providing scaffolded instruction.
EducatlnnaLEdLnnnlnnid. 2.1.(1 & 2) 73 98

Palincsar, A. S. (1987). Peer interaction in reading comprehension instruction.

EnundinnaLEdLnnnlncld. 22(384), 231 252.

Palincsar, A., 8. Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering

and comprehension-monitoring activities. anniiinanLinsminiinnJQ), 117-
175.

Palincsar, A. S., 8. Brown, A. L. (1989). Classroom dialogues to promote self-regulated

comprehension ln J BrOphy (Ed-.I WWW (pp 35-
72). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Palincsar, A., Brown, A. L., 8. Martin, S. M. (1987). Peer interaction in reading
comprehension instruction. WM. 22(3 8. 4), 231-253.

Philips, S. U. (1972). Participant structures and communicative competence: Warm
Springs children in community and classroom. In C. Cazden, V. P. John, 8. D. Hymes

(Eds) Wan (pp 370- -394) New York: Teachers
College Press.

311

Reyes M. L. (1991. April). WW Paper presented

at the the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.

Rogoff, B. (1986). Adult assistance of children's Ieaming. In T. E. Raphael (Ed.),
WW (pp. 27-40). New York: Random House.

Rogoff, B, Gauvain, M, 8. Ellis, S. (1984). Development viewed in its cultural context.

InM H Bornstein&M E LambIEdsu) DexelmmemaLpsxcholoommanced
textbook (pp. 533—571). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Rommetveit, R. (1979). On the architecture of intersubjectivity. In R. Rommetveit 8. R.

M Blakar (Eds) Woman London:
Academic Press.

Rorty, R. (1983). Wm. Princeton, NJ: Princeton

University Press.

Rowe, D. (1989). Author/audience interaction in the preschool: The role of social

interaction in literacy learning. MW, 21(4), 311-349.

Schatzman, L., 8. Strauss, A. (1973). W. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-
Hall.

Scribner. S., 8. Cole, M. (1981). W. Cambridge: Harvard

University Press.
Singer, E. (1991, May). Personal communication.

Sperling, M. (1989).

W (Technical Report No. 37). Berkeley, CA: Center for the
Study of Writing.

Stubbs, M. (1983). W. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Tannen.D. (1984). WWW Norwood. NJ:
Ablex.

Tharp, R. G, 8. Gallimore, R. (1988).
WWW. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Todorov, T. (1984). WWW. Minneapolis: University of

Minnesota Press.

Trim, J. L. (1973). Major and minor tone groups in English. In W. E. Jones 8. J. Laver
(Eds.) WWW (pp 320- 323) London:
Longmens.

Ulichny, P., '8. Watson-Gegeo, K. (1989). Interactions and authority: The dominant
interpretive framework in writing conferences. W, 12, 309-328.

312

Vygotsky. L S (1978) WWW

processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). W. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Wertsch, J. V. (1980). The significance of dialogue in Vygotsky's account of social,
egocentric and inner speech WW 5. 150-162

Wertsch. J. v. (1985)- WWW Cambridge: Harvard

University Press.

Wertsch, J. V., 8. Stone, C. A. (1985). The concept of internalization in Vygotsky's
account of the genesis of higher mental functions. In J. V. Wertsch (Ed.,) Qujrure,

WWW (pp 162-179) Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Wertsch. J. V. (1991). Wearing. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Willes. M. (1983). WWW London:

Routledge 8. Kegan Paul.
Willis, P. (1977). Whom. New York: Columbia University Press.

Wittgenstein, L. (1953). W. (Trans. G. E. M. Anscomb).
Oxford. England: Blackwell 8. Mott.

Wood, B, Bruner, J. S., 8. Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving.
.11, 89- 100.