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.

The purpose of this study is to describe the intermediate forms of children’s informational and story compositions across the elementary grades. Two hundred twenty-two informational texts and 222 story texts were collected from 2 classes of each grade level, K–5, in a suburban, middle- to upper-middle-class school in a large district. These texts were analyzed for sophistication in macro-level organization including global elements, grammars of story and information genres (e.g., setting, initiating event, etc. for story, and topic orientation, characteristic attributes, etc. for information), and global structures (e.g., visual diagrams of content relationships). Findings indicate that even the youngest children differentiated between the genres with over half of all kindergartners and first graders producing texts classified at some level of organizational complexity above labels and statements. By second grade all but a few children did so. The youngest writers’ readings of their productions of labels, genre-specific statements, and more complex information and story texts provide insights into the beginnings of written genre knowledge development for this suburban group of children. Texts produced across the grades offer additional insights into children’s developing control of story and informational writing. The intermediate forms are considered as a possible framework of story and informational writing development for children in this particular mainstream context.

Demonstrates ways in which three students in a multi-age, literature-based grade 3/4 classroom constructed and reconstructed their subjectivities based on demands of the social setting. Notes that each student’s participation was influenced by gender, social class, ethnicity, and the task. Suggests that interpretations of students’ interactions provide opportunities for developing a more sophisticated approach to multicultural education.

This study investigatest he abilityo f 48 children at two grades (3, 5) and reading ability levels (good, poor) to write functionally appropriate expository texts. Their texts (96 in all) were examined for appropriateness and complexity of organization; cohesion, including cohesive harmony; and voice. They were also ranked holistically for quality of writing by adult readers. The data were submitted to descriptive and parametric statistics that examined grade and reading level effects and relationships. Results suggest that nearly all these children understood the function and audience for exposition. Reading level was found to be significantly more related than grade level to sophisticated use of cohesion, organization, and a preference for lexical rather than coreferential cohesion devices. Adult rating of writing quality correlated significantly with those texts using more cohesive harmony and complex organization

The discussion of the nature and role of so-called “dialect, interference” in writing has been carried on in a literature which has failed to define its terms consistently, reported experimental results for poorly defined samples, and assumed much that has yet to be established empirically. Written partially as a response to Patrick Hartwell’s 1980 RTE article on the same topic, this paper examines these flaws in the literature of dialect interference in greater detail, examines the seven “correlates” of Hartwell’s “print code hypothesis” and finds them wanting or uninstructive, and sets forth suggestions for a more sophisticated study of this issue.