Preview this article: Editors' Introduction: Toward Optimism in Bleak Days, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/rte/42/2/researchintheteachingofenglish6488-1.gif

“Where is God now?” is a question from the Holocaust memoir Night by Elie Wiesel and an underlying narrative dilemma for the teachers and most student participants in this qualitative study of three Holocaust units in secondary English classrooms in the Midwestern United States.

This study offers an alternative to traditional notions of scaffolding for reading comprehension by tracing the evolution of a fifth-grade small group literature conversation in which the teacher sought to displace himself as “primary knower” (Berry, 1981) in the conversation. The study examines how the teacher shared evaluation with his students even when they sought to reposition him as primary knower.

The purpose of this study was to examine the influence of Albert Bandura’s four hypothesized sources of self-efficacy on students’ writing self-efficacy beliefs (N = 1256) and to explore how these sources differ as a function of gender and academic level (elementary, middle, high). Consistent with the tenets of self-efficacy theory, each of the sources significantly correlated with writing self-efficacy and with each other.

The primary purpose of this study was to investigate the efficacy of formulaic writing such as the five-paragraph theme (FPT) or essay for the purpose of earning high scores on high-stakes writing assessments. This qualitative descriptive study analyzed more than 1000 essays from Delaware Grade 8 and 10 writers, written for a statewide direct-writing assessment.

This case study closely examines how John (a former student of mine, age eight, second grade)composed during an informal writing group at school. Using qualitative research methods, I found that John selectively took up conventions, characters, story grammars, themes, and motifs from video games, television, Web pages, and comics.

Despite the general trend to embrace interdisciplinarity in post-secondary education, we remain remarkably unclear concerning what we mean by interdisciplinarity and how it is achieved. Reporting on research conducted in a team-taught interdisciplinary course, I propose a new way of conceptualizing interdisciplinary connections, grounded in Bakhtinian theories of language and cognition. I offer a three-part schema for identifying the discursive disciplinary resources individuals use to make interdisciplinary connections and identify some broad characteristics of writing assignments that appear to invite students to make connections among disciplines. Finally, I argue that reflection on certain types of interdisciplinary connections can be an extremely powerful resource for interdisciplinary as well as disciplinary thinking and learning.

This study was conducted by members of a site of the California Writing Project in partnership with a large, urban, low-SES school district where 93% of the students speak English as a second language and 69% are designated Limited English Proficient.

This article is the text of Kyoko Sato’s presidential address, delivered at the NCTE Annual Convention in Nashville, Tennessee, in November 2006.

The 2006 Alan C. Purves Award Committee is pleased to announce this year’s recipients’ Sarah Warshauer Freedman, Verda Delp, and Suzanne Mills Crawford, for Teaching English in Untracked Classrooms (which appeared in the August, 2005 issue of Research in the Teaching of English, pp. 62-126). Here, the committee discusses the implications of this work for guiding important reforms in educational practice.

This issue of Research in the Teaching of English offers an array of perspectives that, like the discipline of English language arts itself, hit some recurrent notes but tend toward a kind of choral complexity.

The two lead recipients of this year’s Purves Award reflect on their work on Teaching English in Untracked Classrooms (2005) and look to the conceptual horizons of their ongoing work.

While peer review is a common practice in college composition courses, there is little consistency in approach and effectiveness within the field, owing in part to the dearth of empirical research that investigates peer-review processes. This study is designed to shed light on what a peer reviewer actually reads and attends to while providing peer-review feedback.

Preeminent scholar David Olson opens this symposium with a reflection on the decades-long debate concerning the relationship between written and oral discourse. His essay is followed by a series of responses by leading literacy researchers, including David Bloome, Anne Haas Dyson, James Paul Gee, Martin Nystrand, Victoria Purcell-Gates, and Gordon Wells. The symposium concludes with a further essay by Professor Olson, in which he offers his reflections on these scholars’ comments and looks to the continuing conversation.

Preeminent scholar David Olson opens this symposium with a reflection on the decades-long debate concerning the relationship between written and oral discourse. His essay is followed by a series of responses by leading literacy researchers, including David Bloome, Anne Haas Dyson, James Paul Gee, Martin Nystrand, Victoria Purcell-Gates, and Gordon Wells. The symposium concludes with a further essay by Professor Olson, in which he offers his reflections on these scholars’ comments and looks to the continuing conversation.

Preeminent scholar David Olson opens this symposium with a reflection on the decades-long debate concerning the relationship between written and oral discourse. His essay is followed by a series of responses by leading literacy researchers, including David Bloome, Anne Haas Dyson, James Paul Gee, Martin Nystrand, Victoria Purcell-Gates, and Gordon Wells. The symposium concludes with a further essay by Professor Olson, in which he offers his reflections on these scholars’ comments and looks to the continuing conversation.

The committee reviews important research works in the teaching of English that have been published in the last year. Committee members include Richard Beach, Martha Bigelow, Deborah Dillon, Lee Galda, Lori Helman, Julie Shalhope Kalnin, Cynthia Lewis, and David O’Brien, Karen Jorgensen Lauren Liang, Gert Rijlaarsdam, and Tanja Janssen.

Preeminent scholar David Olson opens this symposium with a reflection on the decades-long debate concerning the relationship between written and oral discourse. His essay is followed by a series of responses by leading literacy researchers, including David Bloome, Anne Haas Dyson, James Paul Gee, Martin Nystrand, Victoria Purcell-Gates, and Gordon Wells. The symposium concludes with a further essay by Professor Olson, in which he offers his reflections on these scholars’ comments and looks to the continuing conversation.

While academic discourse communities have been extensively studied as social contexts of forms/functions, and teachers, lessons, and students have been researched from every imaginable angle, the prevailing view of academic writing conventions is still quite normative. The conventions of the academy are often regarded as a stable collection of formal rules and objects that can be taught explicitly.

Preeminent scholar David Olson opens this symposium with a reflection on the decades-long debate concerning the relationship between written and oral discourse. His essay is followed by a series of responses by leading literacy researchers, including David Bloome, Anne Haas Dyson, James Paul Gee, Martin Nystrand, Victoria Purcell-Gates, and Gordon Wells. The symposium concludes with a further essay by Professor Olson, in which he offers his reflections on these scholars’ comments and looks to the continuing conversation.

Preeminent scholar David Olson opens this symposium with a reflection on the decades-long debate concerning the relationship between written and oral discourse. His essay is followed by a series of responses by leading literacy researchers, including David Bloome, Anne Haas Dyson, James Paul Gee, Martin Nystrand, Victoria Purcell-Gates, and Gordon Wells. The symposium concludes with a further essay by Professor Olson, in which he offers his reflections on these scholars’ comments and looks to the continuing conversation.

Preeminent scholar David Olson opens this symposium with a reflection on the decades-long debate concerning the relationship between written and oral discourse. His essay is followed by a series of responses by leading literacy researchers, including David Bloome, Anne Haas Dyson, James Paul Gee, Martin Nystrand, Victoria Purcell-Gates, and Gordon Wells. The symposium concludes with a further essay by Professor Olson, in which he offers his reflections on these scholars’ comments and looks to the continuing conversation.

Preeminent scholar David Olson opens this symposium with a reflection on the decades-long debate concerning the relationship between written and oral discourse. His essay is followed by a series of responses by leading literacy researchers, including David Bloome, Anne Haas Dyson, James Paul Gee, Martin Nystrand, Victoria Purcell-Gates, and Gordon Wells. The symposium concludes with a further essay by Professor Olson, in which he offers his reflections on these scholars’ comments and looks to the continuing conversation.

Drawing on data gathered during a seven-month study of the literacy practices of a group of White, working-class girls who have successfully navigated their high school’s English curriculum, this ethnography investigates (1) how gender and class influenced the girls’ uses of literacy in the classroom and (2) how the girls used texts from English class to construct gender.

In our previous “At Last” essay, “The “Problem’ of English Learners: Constructing Genres of Difference” (Gutiérrez &amp; Orellana, 2006), we identified a predictable genre that characterizes much research on English Learners. We noted how the genre may unwittingly perpetuate deficit constructions and keep us from identifying other issues for redress”such as structural and institutional inequalities that create the vulnerability of non-dominant students in schools and society. In this essay, we pose alternative ways of conceptualizing, examining, and reporting our work with English Learners and members of other non-dominant groups. We hope our suggestions will facilitate efforts to research, write, and think against the grain.

The basics of child writing, as traditionally conceived, involve “neutral” conventions for organizing and encoding language. This “basic” notion of a solid foundation for child writing is itself situated in a fluid world of cultural and linguistic diversity and rapidly changing literacy practices.

Drawing on data from a multi-year digital storytelling project, this comparative case study offers portraits of two emerging authors”one a child and the other a young adult”who used multiple media and modes to articulate pivotal moments in their lives and reflect on life trajectories. The conceptual framework blends recent scholarship on narrative, identity, and performance, with an eye towards fostering agency. These cases demonstrate how digital storytelling, in combination with supportive social relationships and opportunities for participation in a community based organization, provided powerful means and motivation for forming and giving voice to agentive selves.

This article employs the concept of intersubjectivity to analyze developments in and discrepancies between students’ understandings of criteria for effective writing and the criteria of their teacher. It reports on a study that employed qualitative methods of interview and classroom observation in conjunction with analysis of students’ writing and the teacher’s feedback on their writing to explore the struggles of students learning the “genre of power” (Lemke, 1988, p. 89) of the literary analysis essay. The greatest challenges for the students in this study occurred for those whose goals and expectations related to this high-stakes genre of writing were not based on the same taken-for-granted assumptions about context and purpose as were their teacher’s. The article concludes by discussing teachers’ professional responsibility to negotiate shared goals for literacy with their students.

In this brief essay, we take the opportunity to engage our literacy colleagues in a re-examination of approaches that have become normative ways of framing, representing, and describing English Learners and other nondominant students in literacy research.

In these pages we once again witness the complexity of the teaching-learning process”in elaborately woven webs of instructional talk, in teachers’ and students’ stumbling attempts to reach shared understandings, in the difficult task of assessing what students have already mastered, and in our efforts to develop insights into the needs of diverse learners.

This study was conducted to obtain empirical data to inform policy decisions about exempting incoming students from a first-year composition (FYC) course on the basis of Advanced Placement (AP) English exam scores.

In the current research climate favoring rigorous experimental studies of instructional scripts using randomly chosen treatment and control groups, education and literacy researchers and policy makers will do well to take stock of their current research base and assess critical issues in this new context. This review of research on classroom discourse as it affects reading comprehension begins by examining 150 years of research on classroom discourse, and then findings and insights shaped by intensive empirical studies of both discourse processes and reading comprehension over the last three decades. Recent sociocultural and dialogic research supports claims that classroom discourse, including small-group work and whole-class discussion, works as an epistemic environment (versus script) for literacy development. New studies examine situated classroom talk in relation to educational outcomes and cultural categories that transcend the classroom.