The ethics and efficacy of explicitly teaching disciplinary discourse conventions to undergraduate students has been hotly debated. This quasi-experimental study seeks to contribute to these debates by focusing on the conventional special topoi of literary analysis”conventions that previous Writing in the Disciplines (WID) research indicates are customarily tacitly imparted to literature students. We compare student writing and questionnaires from seven sections of Writing about Literature providing explicit instruction in these disciplinary conventions to those from nine sections taught using traditional methods. We examine whether explicit instruction in disciplinary conventions helps students produce rhetorically effective discourse, whether English professors prefer student discourse that uses these conventions, and whether explicit instruction in disciplinary conventions hampers student expression, enjoyment, and engagement. Five English professors who rated the student essays gave higher ratings to essays that engaged the special topoi of their discipline. Furthermore, they significantly preferred the essays written by students who had received explicit instruction in these topoi. Meanwhile, students who received explicit instruction in the special topoi of literary analysis indicated comparable, often higher levels, of engagement, enjoyment, and perceived opportunities for self-expression to those students who experienced the course’s traditional pedagogy. These findings suggest several implications for WID instruction and research relating to student and faculty professionalization in higher education.

David E. Kirkland argues that our understanding of literate practice in relation to space needs to be radically reworked to account for new digital dimensions that are dispersed, discontinuous, and yet deeply woven into everyday and institutional worlds. His account highlights the way these digital spaces pepper the official landscape of schooling, fracturing the dominance of official discourse as students’ diverse linguistic, literate, and semiotic practices infuse this complex composite space.

This study examines discussions of model papers in a high school Advanced Placement English classroom where students were preparing for a high-stakes writing assessment. Much of the current research on talk about writing in various contexts such as classroom discourse, teacher-student writing conferences, and peer tutoring has emphasized the social and constructive nature of instructional discourse. Building on this work, the present study explored how talk about writing also takes on a performative function, as speakers accent or point to the features of the context that are most significant ideologically. Informed by perspectives on the emergent and mediated nature of discourse, this study found that the participants used ventriloquation to voice the aspects of the essays that they considered to be most important, and that these significant chunks were often aphorisms about the test essay. The teacher frequently ventriloquated raters, while the students often ventriloquated themselves or the teacher. The significance of ventriloquation is not just that it helps to mediate the generic conventions of timed student essays; it also mediates social positioning by helping the speakers to present themselves and others in flexible ways. This study also raises questions about the ways that ventriloquation can limit the ways that students view academic writing.

Based on longitudinal data from a three-year ethnographic study, this article uses discourse analytic methods to explore the literacy and social practices of three adolescent English language learners writing in an online fan fiction community. Findings suggest that through their participation in online fan-related activities, these three youth are using language and other representational resources to enact cosmopolitan identities, make transnational social connections, and experiment with new genres and formats for composing.

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.

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.

Preview this article: EDITORS' INTRODUCTION: The Discourse of Standards, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/rte/41/1/researchintheteachingofenglish5993-1.gif

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.

Preview this article: AT LAST: "What's Discourse Got to Do with It?" A Meditation on Critical Discourse Analysis in Literacy Research, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/rte/40/3/researchintheteachingofenglish5104-1.gif

In this essay, I address the problem of White racism in the classroom, proposing a way of reading racist discourse that takes into account its emotional dimensions and hence its persuasive appeal for White students.

In literacy and composition studies, efforts to develop data-driven theories of disciplinary writing expertise and of writers’ developmental processes in joining specific discourse communities have so far been limited. This case study, of one writer’s experiences as an undergraduate history major, parses the multiple knowledge domains comprising disciplinary writing expertise and compares his beginning and later work for signs of developmental progress. A conceptual model of five knowledge domains writers must draw upon—discourse-community knowledge, subjectmatter knowledge, genre knowledge, rhetorical knowledge, and writing-process knowledge—is applied to the data both for analysis of the case and for exploring the usefulness of the conceptual model for further empirical and theoretical work. What results is a fuller depiction of the complexities of gaining expertise in any given discourse community, as well as an indication of the importance of educators across all disciplines considering the multi-dimensional and developmental nature of their curricula for building literacy skills.

Quantitative analyses using CLASS 3.0 software and qualitative discourse analyses were conducted of the instructional and institutional effects of tracking in high- and low-track American literature classes taught by the same teacher, a participant in a national study of the effects of dialogic classroom discourse patterns on student achievement. The quantitative analyses of class activities and discourse patterns revealed somewhat different amounts and kinds of dialogic discourse in the two classes, but could not account for much of the difference in achievement between the two groups. A more detailed qualitative analysis of teacher interviews and classroom discourse, using discourse analysis to look at both how the classroom discourse positioned students vis-à-vis course content, and how students in the two tracks were characterized by the teacher, showed how instruction was influenced by the teacher’s cultural models of students’ institutional identities. The teacher’s identification with the high-track students aided her in enacting a curriculum that was more academically challenging and more coherent, both intertextually and culturally. These analyses suggest that institutional and instructional effects of tracking are inextricably interwoven where the teacher’s conceptions of students’ needs and abilities constrain the level of instruction and the coherence of the curriculum.

Presents annotations of 37 selected recent research in the teaching of English and related fields. Addresses bilingual/foreign language education, discourse processes, literacy, professional development, reading, teaching and learning of literature, teaching and learning of writing, and technology and literacy. Notes that most of the studies appeared during the six-month period from July through December 2001.

Examines the discourse in an English as a second or other language (ESoL) classroom in a best-case scenario that contrasted dramatically with more typical school settings. Samples student critical turns (SCTs) across a six-week literature-rich science unit. Shows that the teacher played a crucial role in extended dialogue among students.

Examines the collaborative discourse practices of the Red River Writing Project Teacher Research Group (RRWPTRG) as well as the processes by which this diverse group of classroom teachers developed into a discourse community of teacher researchers.

This study investigated a low-achieving class that featured regular discussions to gain insight into how dialogically organized instruction emerged within the context of a traditional recitation instructional setting, further complicated by settings of poverty and linguistic diversity. Dialogic discourse can happen when teachers are adept at linking and at enabling links between academic objectives and student concerns.

This paper draws on the notion of discourse to explore complex relationships between teachers and curriculum change. It uses poststructuralist views of discourse to explore ways in which school subjects, such as Literature, are discursively constructed across time, while teachers too are positioned within discourses that shape the ways they understand the subject and themselves as teachers of it.

The purpose of this research was to examine both what it means to teach writing and what it means to write in a first-year university course in the history of science. More specifically, I investigated what students learned about writing when the focus was mainly on subject matter and only secondarily on writing and rhetoric. A number of converging methods of research were used to address this issue: audiotaping classroom discourse and taking field notes, interviewing students and collecting retrospective protocols about their responses to a writing assignment, and analyzing students’ texts. The analyses indicated that classroom discourse focused primarily on framing concepts that brought into focus different and conflicting conceptions of the scientific method and the ways authorship in history is colored by writers’ subjectivity and perspective taking. Although students’ interpretations of the writing assignment were not very detailed, the texts they wrote revealed some understanding of how to use comparisons as a tool for analysis in writing history, the importance of attending to context in examining a given historical phenomenon, and the extent to which writing history is both interpretive and rhetorical. Yet neither the focal students nor the other students participating in this study responded uniformly to the assignment. The data raise the question of whether disciplinary courses in writing provide an authentic alternative to the space general writing skills courses currently occupy, particularly if such classes exist as sites where students are introduced to critical thinking and argumentative writing in college.

In this paper I examine the role of imagination in literacy learning using data collected over a 5-year period in my primary classrooms. My conception of imagination as a missing component in literacy instruction was raised by a child’s question about the importance of the read-aloud experience as a daily literacy practice. That question, and my failure to answer it effectively for my student, prompted me to undertake a close study of imagination and its role in discourse acquisition. The study progressed from a general look at how imagination makes itself visible in the work of children to a conceptual structure that proposes an inside-out theory of literacy learning. This structure presents identity, discourse appropriation, and what I am calling the authoring process as essential elements that are unified through the imaginative actions of students as they come into contact with the texts, tools, and props of each discipline. I argue that to be successful and meaningful to all, literacy teaching must begin and end with a focus on imagination.

Presents a semi-annual annotated selected bibliography of recent research in the teaching of English. Offers 45 annotated bibliographies addressing: bilingual/foreign language/second language education; classroom discourse; curriculum; exceptional learners; literacy; professional development; reading; and writing. Notes most entries were published between January and June 2000.

Shows how one first-grade teacher explicitly modeled her own authorship processes and how students took up those processes in their own writing. Analyzes classroom discourse to illustrate how the teacher and students shifted roles in the participation framework of writing activity among teacher, author, co-author, and overhearer to facilitate the co-construction of written texts.

Describes the role of class discussion and a teacher’s particular discourse moves in the development of an inclusive learning culture in a high school English literature course with a rigorous academic curriculum. Focuses on how the teacher transformed previously tracked gifted and talented and general students’ understandings of what counted as being a reader while negotiating collaboration.

Studies the moral dimension of English-as-a-Second-Language (ESL) teaching to adults. Analyzes examples of classroom interaction to reveal the moral substrate of the teacher’s words and actions. Finds that various features of classroom routines and impromptu exchanges have profound moral significance. Suggests that the moral meanings present in classroom discourse cannot be reduced to simple judgments of right versus wrong.

Presents a 48-item selected annotated bibliography of recent research in the teaching of English (most published in scholarly journals between July and December, 1997). Organizes the annotations into sections on assessment; bilingual education and foreign language education; discourse processes; family/workplace literacy; professional development; reading; research methodology; teaching and learning of literature; technology and literacy; and writing.

Takes a systematic approach to defining and operationalizing the notion of discourse community, drawing on data from an ethnography of writing in a workplace setting. States that a single genre varied in form and function depending on the specific discourse communities in which it was used--writing events took on layered meanings in relation to other communicative activities.

Presents a selected bibliography of recent research in the teaching of English. Subdivides the 51 items into sections on assessment, bilingual and foreign language education, discourse processes, family/workplace literacy, professional development, reading, research methodology, teaching and learning of literature, technology and literacy, and writing.

Explores possible benefits of placing considerations of genre as more central to dialogs and debates about language arts education. Aims for a theoretical framework emphasizing the responsive and agentive engagement of students working through disciplinary literacies. Considers ways in which one first-grade teacher helped a non-middle-class learner to engage more deeply with science discourse genres.

Examines tense, aspect, and voice choices in the reporting verbs in a corpus of research articles from the "Journal of Psychosomatic Medicine." Investigates how such choices correlate with other syntactic elements in the citations, as well as with the discourse functions of the citations in their contexts.

Explores responses of 10 fifth graders to the dialog of a play. Creates 12 speech act interruption points and asks children to write predictions for the character’s line. Examines these for conversational cooperativity. Finds children’s oral explanations for their predictions revealed two major interpretive stances--an interactive focus and a focus on characters’ concerns.

There has been considerable interest in using a genre-based approach to the teaching of language. Genre has been described as a property of texts which allows them to be described as a sequence of segments, or “moves,” with each move accomplishing some part of the overall communicative purpose of the text, while register can be thought of as the language and linguistic patterns of one particular genre. The purpose of this study was to find out whether the registers of different moves of one genre can be very different from each other. A corpus of 44 typical examples of the genre, “Brief Tourist Information,” was created. A computerized concordancing program was used to analyze the three moves, “Location,” “Facilities/ Activities,” and “Description” in terms of discourse functions, length, reader address, modality, idioms, lexical phrases, and common lexical items. A comparison of the structures and lexical items of the three moves showed clearly that while they shared a few functions, for the most part they differed substantially. The results suggest that language educators should consider 1) basing instructional materials on corpora of texts in use, 2) teaching the move structure of genres and the concomitant move registers rather than the general register of the genre as a whole, 3) integrating the teaching of reading and writing, and 4) adopting a “purpose approach” to the teaching of writing.

This paper examines the written genres of a group of six children in a first grade classroom. Using the dual lenses of sociocognitive constructivism and emergent literacy, it explores relationships among the children’s genres and between these genres and the social context of the classroom in which the children’s written discourse is situated. Analysis of naturalistic data (using an integrated functionalformal analysis which considered substance, intention, form and context as interrelated dimensions of genre) resulted in a classification scheme which encompassed all genres in the children’s writing. Analyses of the classroom discourse revealed the children to be active participants in the social dialogue within their classroom. They constructed their written genres in response to the texts with which they engaged during collaborative reading and writing tasks and in response to the ways in which the teacher structured the writing tasks. They acted upon their world by writing about their personal experiences, creating imaginary worlds through drawing and writing and playing with words and ideas. The genres the children employed came from the morning news, from stories and poems, and from genres that were embedded in their literacy environment or constructed by them in collaboration with their teacher and each other. Both constructiona nd appropriationw ere seen as active processeso n the part of the child rather than as passive imitation or copying from models.

Persuasive/argumentativew riting is an importanta nd difficult mode of discourse for student writers. It is particularly problematic for non-native speakers, who often bring both linguistic and rhetorical deficits to the task of persuasion in English. This study analyzed 60 persuasive texts by university freshman composition students, half of whom were native speakers and half of whom were non-native speakers of English for 33 quantitative, topical structure, and rhetorical variables. The results showed clear differences between the essays of native and non-native speakers. These results and their implications for second language composition instruction are discussed.

Now let me remind you that the conference on which this book is based was organized to consider educational research, but this discourse, like our current discussions of values, is stranded in abstraction. Only in Popkewitz's chapter do we hear anything anything that has to do with schools, with children, with curriculum, with learning, with teaching. What ever happened to show-and-tell? I want to pass around my things, my pens, my frequent flier coupons. I want to empty my purse on the podium and let lipsticks, old change, keys, and stale pieces of Carefree gum and fuzzy aspirins contaminate the academic altar. I want to be obscene. What that means is that I want to show what goes on behind this scene, (p. 334)

Preview this article: The Influences of Mode of Discourse, Experiential Demand, and Gender on the Quality of Student Writing, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/rte/26/3/researchintheteachingofenglish15437-1.gif

This naturalistic study, coauthored by a composition specialist and a philosopher, explores the learning experiences of college students in an Introduction to Philosophy course and the learning experiences of the research collaborators themselves. The researchers identify conflicting ways of knowing in class discussion, student writing, and within their own interdisciplinary collaboration. They then ask questions about how these ways of knowing interact and with what effects. In order to answer these questions the researchers drew upon student data they collected in two consecutive semesters as well as the close records they kept of their own collaborative work. Four research methods were used: observation, interviews, composing-aloud protocols, and text analysis. Conclusions are drawn from the data regarding the benefits for students and researchers of juxtaposing multiple epistemological perspectives. Also presented are conclusions about the learning contexts that promote epistemic growth. The textual form of this study is “heteroglossic,” that is, certain sections are written by the researchers, certain sections by the teacher-researcher, and others are coauthored by both.

When composing, writers give shape to the meaning they construct, and they signal a possible configuration for meaning through the organizational patterns they supply for their readers. This study examined writers’ options in organizing comparisons–texts that are often considered to have a canonical pattern. Thirty college students wrote their comparisons through discourse synthesis, integrating content cued by two informative texts, each text dealing with one of the two topics to be compared. Analyses focused on the organizational patterns the writers generated and on the content they included. Of the two major ways of organizing comparisons–organization by aspect and organization by object–organizing by aspect was the format used by most writers in this study. However, there was much variability within this format in how writers combined material for the comparison. Writers could focus on specific aspects, could separate aspects into those that were similarities and those that were differences, or could generate macro-aspects to subsume several related aspects. In selecting source material the writers preferentially included content that was symmetrical, in that it related information that was available for both objects being compared. And almost half of their additions also contributed to symmetry by balancing their treatments of the two objects. Chunking of content in a systematic way, especially by generating macro-aspects for topical focus, was a strong predictor of holistic quality ratings, stronger than measures for the nature of the content that was included. These higher-rated papers providing readers with macro-aspects tended to be written by students with higher verbal ability and more extensive topic knowledge. The study points out the variability within comparison discourse and demonstrates the complexity of the choices writers must make in structuring comparison texts

This study was designed to determine (a) whether the writing of persuasive discourse can be improved by instruction and (b) the effect of reading on writing and of writing on reading within the mode of persuasion. Students in two sixth-grade classes in each of two schools (n= 110) were stratified by sex and ability and randomly assigned to one of four treatment groups: 1. instruction in a model for persuasion plus writing practice; 2. instruction in a model for persuasion plus reading practice; 3. reading novels and writing book reports plus a single lesson in the persuasion model; 4. reading novels and writing book reports (control group). Instruction was given for ten 45-minute lessons over five weeks. Pretests and posttests each consisted of writing a recall protocol of a persuasive text and writing two persuasive compositions. On the posttest, both the writing and the reading groups (groups 1 and 2) scored significantly higher than the control group on writing quality, on the organization of compositions, on the number of conclusions and text markers used, and on the degree of elaboration of reasons. There were no differences between the control group and other groups on reading recall scores.

This article examines the kinds of instruction that foster student engagement with literature and the effects of such instruction on achievement. First, two general kinds of student engagement are distinguished: “procedural,” which concerns classroom rules and regulations, and “substantive,” which involves sustained commitment to the content and issues of academic study. The article then describes the manifestations of these two forms of engagement, explains how they relate differently to student outcomes, and offers some empirical propositions using data on literature instruction from 58 eighth-grade English classes. The results provide support for three hypotheses: (a) Disengagement adversely affects achievement; (b) Procedural engagement has an attenuated relationship to achievement because its observable indicators conflate procedural and substantive engagement; and (c) Substantive engagement has a strong, positive effect on achievement. Features of substantively engaging instruction include authentic questions, or questions which have no prespecified answers; uptake, or the incorporation of previous answers into subsequent questions; and high-level teacher evaluation, or teacher certification and incorporation of student responses into subsequent discussion. Each of these is noteworthy because they all involve reciprocal interaction and negotiation between students and teachers, which is said to be the hallmark of substantive engagement.

Research and theory in composition is divided regarding the role of audience awareness more generally, social cognition in writing. One position holds that social cognition is central to all composing processes, though the nature of social cognitive activity differs depending on such factors as the function of discourse (e.g., expository or persuasive) and the determinateness of the audience (e.g., a known individual or a generalized other). Another position, in contrast, regards social cognition as coming into play only in manifestly persuasive writing; for most school and literary uses of writing, writers are guided more by genre conventions than by anticipating audience responses. Thirtyfive college freshmen of heterogenous writing abilities wrote a typical academic essay and also a persuasive appeal directed toward a specific readership. They also completed a battery of four social cognitive assessments. Results indicated that the social cognitive assessments predicted 26 percent of the variance in judged quality of the persuasive writings. The most powerful single predictor was the degree to which participants were able to recognize and reconcile divergent traits in others. Quality ratings of the expository essays were more adequately predicted by composition length, though multiple regression indicated an additional contribution attributable to social cognitive ability. Results tend to confirm the position that social cognition is most important in persuasive writing, but do not support a strong disclaimer of the role of audience awareness in nonsuasive discourse. The notion of audience awareness commands a central position in composition theory, research, and instruction. (See recent reviews by Ede, 1984; Kroll, 1984; Rubin, 1984b). Proficient writers attend to the broad rhetorical dimensions including audience of their writing task, while nonproficient writers show a compulsive attention to matters of surface correctness (Flower & Hayes, 1980; Perl, 1979. While current research shows some of the ways in which good writers attend to matters of audience through specific discourse features (Rafoth, 1985; Rubin & Pliche, 1979), there is conThis research was supported by a grant from the University of Cieorgia Research Foundation to the first author. The authors express appreciation to John O'Looney for assistance in data analysis. Research in the Teaching of English, Vol. 20, No. 1, February 1986

This study investigated the assumption that proficient writers, unlike nonproficient ones, adapt their essays for a particular and occasion. Good and poor writers wrote a persuasive essay for a real that expressed topic-relevant attitudes and opinions in an interview presentation. Essays were then coded for ideas mentioned in the interview. Results showed that good writers take greater advantage of information than poor writers, but that good and poor writers both favor adaptations from explicit statements over more subtle statements. Studies of in human communication help to show how individuals manage in a world of diverse attitudes and opinions. Researchers in related disciplines, recognizing that effective discourse requires an understanding of situation including aspects of have shown many ways that people alter their messages for different contexts. In the field of writing, however, situational influences have received relatively little attention, though today's textbooks devote many more pages than before to matters of and intention. Overall, there seems to be little consensus about just how aspects of are manifested in writing. I use the term here and elsewhere as a general term to denote issues of awareness and adaptation. Where necessary, I distinguish between awareness, which refers to a writer's or speaker's focus of on readers or listeners irrespective of the communicator's language behavior, and adaptation, which refers to the audience-conditioned language behavior resulting from this awareness. What constitutes adaptation and how it can be measured is a question not always faced squarely by researchers. Some investigators have adopted quite general (and vague) criteria. In a study conducted by Flower and Hayes (1980), for example, categories labeled audience and reader and response to the larger rhetorical problem were used in analyzing protocols for evidence of awareness. Similarly, Hilgers (1980) rated adaptation in students' writing samples according to the criterion attention to the specific needs of the audience. This article is adapted from the author's doctoral dissertation from the Department of Language Education, University of Georgia, 1984, under the direction of Donald L. Rubin. Research in the Teaching of English, Vol. 19, No. 3, October 1985

Responses to one poem, Coleridge's Frost at Midnight, were studied using repertory grid technique. Twenty-one undergraduate stu- dents of English literature participated. A significant commonality in response was found within the grids, suggesting that for this group of readers a number of invariant features in the poem were determining response. The grids also brought to light individual differences in approach to the poem, which were explored during interviews with each student. Grid technique thus offers a method for mapping the boundary between individual and common features in literary response. A major tradition in literary studies has argued that a literary text offers one correct reading which all well-informed and sufficiently sensitive read- ers can be expected to discover. Recent arguments have undermined the authority of this approach: Fish (1980, p. 13), for instance, finds the author- ity of the text secondary to that of the interpretive community in determin- ing a given reader's response. One recent reader of Fish has taken him to imply that any reading of a literary work is acceptable (Eagleton, 1983, p. 85). Behind this debate lies an obvious but important theoretical point. To what extent does a given literary work constrain individual readings? Does a work's structure as a whole, for example, tend to determine the way in which its parts will be understood? Or is the work open at any point to influences originating outside the boundary of the text? Clearly, texts cannot be divorced from the language and culture in which they are written and read; but it might be postulated that a work of literature is distinguishable from other types of discourse by its possession of a structure of meaning internal to the text, and that this tends to direct the responses of all com- petent readers. To be specific: two or more elements within a text may be amenable to a variety of interpretations, according to the disposition or experience of indi- vidual readers; for example, I may enjoy Donne's attitude toward women, my neighbor may detest it. But if, despite such response differences, inter- pretations of particular elements in the poem show systematic relationships to each other across all readings, it may be argued that the text exhibits an internal structure that is determining response. In studying this question Groeben's (1980) distinction between text mean- ing and text sense is helpful. We may postulate that a given work has a

This study investigated the relationships among features of textual cohesion, as identified by Halliday and Hasan (1976), and primarytrait assessments of writing quality and coherence, with manuscript length held statistically constant. A random sample of 493 persuasive papers written by 17-year-olds during the 1978-79 National Assessment of Educational Progress writing evaluation were analyzed. The results of the analyses indicate that general coherence is an important element of writing quality and that the lexical cohesive features of synonym, hyponym, and collocation are important elements of writing quality and general coherence in manuscripts of the same length. When Alexander Bain (1867) first categorized prose discourse into four discourse modes, he stipulated that quality in each mode consisted of the elements of unity, mass (later known as emphasis), and coherence. Conners (1981) notes that Bain's ideas greatly influenced composition instruction in this country until 1950 but have waned since then, giving way to conceptualizations of written discourse that place increased emphasis on the contexts for writing (e.g., Kinneavy, 1971) and the processes that writers use to produce writing within varying contexts (e.g., Flower & Hayes, 1980). Clearly, these emphases now permeate all levels of practice and theory. Yet Bain's notion of coherence still holds sway, as Bamberg (1983) points out: Coherence is generally accepted as a 'sine qua non' in written discourse. Oddly, little research has been conducted to determine the relationship between writing quality and coherence, an important relationship because coherence is often used to identify the strengths and weaknesses in student writing. For example, the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP, 1980a) hypothesized that the apparent drop in the writing abilities of 13and 17-year-olds between the first national writing assessment (196970) and the second (1974-75) was due in part to a drop in the number of coherent paragraphs. However, at that time NAEP had no way of empirically determining whether this assertion was accurate. In an effort to determine if coherence in student writing was indeed declining, NAEP (1980a) constructed a primary-trait coherence measure (referred to as a cohesion measure by NAEP) for use in the third national writing assessment (1978-79). Scores on this measure were shown to have the same degree of reliability as scores on primary-trait measures of writing quality. What differed was the focus of the assessment. The primary-trait Research in the Teaching of English, Vol. 19, No. 3, October 1985

In this study, the effects of writing ability and mode of discourse of cognitive capacity engagement were investigated. Sixty-three college freshmen of varying writing abilities (basic, average, and honors) were randomly assigned to experimental treatments (descriptive writing, narrative writing, and persuasive writing). Using the secondary task method, it was found that writing ability differentially affects cognitive capacity engagement across modes. For example, honors writers were least engaged when writing descriptive essays but were most engaged when writing persuasive essays whereas average writers were most engaged when writing descriptive essays but were least engaged when writing narrative essays. Analytic quality scores and engagement were related and results were interpreted in the context of schema theory to estimate the learning potential of a given mode of discourse. Also, engagement and syntactic complexity treasures were related. It was found that as words per clause increased, engagement also increased; whereas, as clauses per T-unit increased, engagement decreased.