The editors introduce this issue of RTE.

Using a sociohistoric developmental lens, this paper traces the construction of texts composed by fifth graders in an urban classroom in order to answer the following questions: How do children develop as writers in school? How do writing and drawing function in children’s texts? How do teaching practices shape children’s writing development? Ethnographic data collected in a fifthgrade classroom reveal how children used drawing to create classroom texts. Data show that drawing is not simply a developmental preface to writing. Rather, when given guided intellectual freedom, children integrate writing, drawing, and pictures in sophisticated and creative ways. The author traces children’s text development to show how schooling as an institution bounds and limits their use of their authorial prerogatives, their textual possibilities, and ultimately their developmental potential. She concludes by asserting that we must reconsider development in writing to include not only orthographic symbols, but also the wide array of communicative tools that children bring to writing. Any analysis of development that fails to include an analysis of the corresponding institutional practices and ideologies is liable to be no more than a contribution to the efficacy of that developmental model.

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.

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.

The authors gave the following talk at the 2003 NCTE Annual Convention in San Francisco upon receiving the Alan C. Purves Award, presented to the RTE article from the previous year’s volume judged most likely to have an impact on classroom practice. Writing as lead author, Pauline Harris traces the history of her interest in children’s intertextuality through her life as a classroom teacher, her doctoral studies in the Bay Area, and her recent work with colleagues Jillian Trezise and W. N. Winser in Australia. As they describe the impetus behind their award-winning article and suggest directions for future research, the authors challenge classroom teachers to understand children’s intertextuality as a source of pleasure and complexity, and as a guide to appropriate and engaging instruction.

This study draws on queer theory, critical feminism, Critical Race Theory, and New Literacy Studies to explore the ways in which queer youth read and wrote words and worlds in ways that both challenged and reinforced power dynamics in and beyond a youth-run center for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and questioning (LGBTQ) youth.

In this archaeological investigation of the work of Louise Rosenblatt, we read and highlighted all text-level differences between the 1st (1938) and 5th (1995) editions of Literature as Exploration. We categorized each type of revision, traced a sample of each to the edition in which the change was made, and then extended our analysis to 70 passages.

Diane Stephens prepared the following talk for the 2000 NCTE Conference in Milwaukee upon receiving the Alan C. Purves Award, presented to the RTE article from the previous year’s volume judged most likely to have an impact on the practice of others. In her talk Stephens considers the doubts she has had about the design of the award winning study, focusing especially on a researcher’s obligation to help the teachers with whom the researcher is working, even at the risk of jeopardizing a study’s design. Stephens traces the way that her engagement with that question has led to her current professional commitments.