Most discussions of qualitative research organize research methodologies according to their place in a set of research paradigms identified by epistemological and ontological commitments. Drawing on the work of Bourdieu, the authors argue for a theory of research as social practice in which researchers' purposes are determined not by philosophical paradigms but by their commitments to specific forms of social action. The authors offer a model of research practices organized according to their relationship to social power rather than abstract paradigms. From this perspective, the dilemmas presented by recent postmodern critiques of representation, the inclusion and co-optation of participants' voices, and validity become a question of ethics. The authors explore the problems of postmodern ethics and qualitative research through the work of Bauman.

Taking a social constructionist point of view and drawing on the work in cognitive psychology on situated cognition and expert performances, this study reports on a segment of an ethnography of writing in a workplace setting that reveals the interconnections of discourse community goals, writers' roles, and the socialization process for writers new to a given discourse community. Specifically, the data reveal 15 different writing roles assumed by members of the discourse community that depict a continuum from novice to expert writing behaviors. Writing roles were defined in relation to both the importance to community goals of the text to be written and to the amount of context-specific writing knowledge required to accomplish the task. The study applies the notion of legitimate peripheral participation in a discourse community and creates a framework for conceptualizing a social apprenticeship in writing either in school or nonschool settings.

The category of preliterate has been applied to cultures in which reading and writing practices are said to be nonexistent or restricted. This article argues that preliterate can be understood as a rhetoric or a socially constructive narrative (a) that devalues the cultures and peoples to whom it is applied by situating them within a 19th-century narrative of primitiveness and (b) that mystifies understandings of how literacy develops by representing the absence of literacy as an expression of inherent cultural values rather than an outcome of relationships among cultures of unequal power. This article considers the case of the Hmong of Laos, a people commonly described as preliterate, to illustrate that the widespread absence of written language in Hmong culture is not an expression of cultural values but an outcome of Hmong relationships with the Chinese, French, and Laotian governments and the United States Central Intelligence Agency during the Vietnam War.

The issues of authentic context and authoritative ethos are explored through a study of a graduate student learning to write for mathematics within the context of an English for academic purposes (EAP) course. The student faced conflicts about audience, purpose, and content knowledge as she was required to write math texts within what she perceived was an inauthentic context, an English as a second language (ESL) course. She questioned the purpose of the writing tasks as well as why an ESL instructor was teaching her to write for math, and she addressed the conflicts by writing for the instructor's discourse community and expectations, rather than her own, to earn a grade for the course. The text the student created was thus inauthentic within her own discourse community and lacked her voice of authority. These findings question the validity of EAP courses and raise several issues, especially in terms of the transferability of skills from EAP to content courses.

Rhetorical studies of genre have investigated the complex relationships between a range of genre activities and their social, historical, and institutional contexts. However, the temporal dimensions of these contexts require further specification and explicit examination. This article offers a first step toward conceptualizing the temporal dimensions of rhetorical contexts and considering the interplay between those dimensions and genre activity. First, the author reviews how temporality has figured in rhetorical studies of genre through the notions of kairos and temporal exigence. She then presents two models of time, “clock time” and “process time,” as a means for representing the temporal dimensions of rhetorical contexts and genre activity. Finally, the author examines the interplay between these temporal models and genre by analyzing a nurse practitioner's communicative interaction with two patients. By conceptualizing and examining the relationship between time and genre, this article adds to our understanding of genre as situated social action.

This interpretive study of two fifth-grade students' intrinsic motivation for writing examines the ways in which children who self-sponsor writing express “flow” experiences associated with writing. Considering a sense of flow seems to address why some children persevere when faced with challenging tasks and why they spend so much time and effort engaged in activities they find interesting. In addition to the challenge of writing, the social context of the classroom influenced opportunities for student-controlled writing. Flow experiences described by the boys occurred when each controlled important aspects of writing, such as ownership, genre, style, and length—although the social context of the two classrooms varied widely. The boys featured in this report demonstrated that elementary students identified as avid writers can differentiate between flow experiences and nonflow experiences associated with writing, and they describe flow experiences in terms similar to those reported in studies on adolescents and adults.

This study addressed the question, “How consistently do students perform on holistically scored writing assignments?” Instructors from 13 introductory writing classes at two colleges were asked to provide essay sets written by their students in response to the three to five most important writing assignments in their classes. In all, 796 essays were collected from 241 students. The study drew on a pool of 15 experienced judges to evaluate the essays. Each essay set was scored holistically and independently by 6 of the judges who either ranked or graded the essays in the set. All papers written by a particular student were scored by the same judges. Pairwise correlations of the scores assigned to each essay set were computed for each judge and then averaged across judges. The average of these correlations was 0.16, indicating very low consistency of holistically scored student performance from essay to essay. This result suggests that drawing conclusions from one or even a few writing samples is problematic.

This article reports qualitative research on a perceived literacy problem in an electronics factory in the Silicon Valley of Northern California. Guided by a sociocultural framework, Hull investigates an instance of frontline workers' apparent failure to read, understand, and/or follow important manufacturing process instructions. Interviewing all parties involved, from engineers and managers to workers, Hull explores the significance of the mistake and a range of explanations for why it occurred. In so doing, she moves beyond explanations that center on deficiency in individuals and groups, and toward broader based accounts that consider institutional, social, and cultural arrangements and the relationships and practices they foster. She offers an expansive definition of what it means to be a literate, skills-rich worker, and she urges vigilance against the tendency in both schools and workplaces to label and mislabel, and thereby to miss human potential.

The author explores new conceptions of genre and genre learning: learning genres, learning through genres, and learning about genres. Drawing on the work of Bahktin, she argues that reconceptualizing genres as situated, social, and active, rather than focusing on formal features, can extend and enrich process approaches to writing and enhance learning in the elementary classroom.

This study examined the problems that four international graduate students of various linguistic and cultural backgrounds encountered in the process of adapting to the requirements of discipline-specific written discourses during their first year of studies in the United States. Qualitative data including participant and faculty interviews, observations, analysis of written samples, and reflective journals kept by the participants were collected. The results of the study suggest that international students, who bring different writing experiences with them to U.S. classrooms, need assistance to adjust more easily to the requirements of the new academic environment. This assistance, however, depends on international students and U.S. faculty alike learning to address explicitly how academic writing conventions differ across cultures.

Extending Bakhtin's chronotopic theory to the interpretation of nonfictional texts, this article examines the role of narrative conventions in the epistemological development of a health care field. The authors argue that changes marking the emergence of occupational therapy as an autonomous profession illustrate how explanatory narrative frames emerge from and embody assumptions about the world. Taking up pivotal lectures by key figures in this field as material for analysis, the authors demonstrate how biomedical, psychosocial, and dialogic-intersubjective narrative genres frame the dynamics of the therapeutic situation for clinical practitioners and other members of the field. By using chronotopic analysis to understand the narrative-epistemic transformation of academic and professional fields, the authors provide new ways to think about the long-term dialogue between explanatory frameworks in knowledge-making communities.

This study draws on the perceptions and experiences of upper-division students enrolled in writing-intensive (WI) classes in their majors at a large state university. During extended interviews, students reported confidence in dealing with the writing requirements of their majors and predicted success in future job-related writing situations. The primary bases for this confidence are their experiences with a significant number of WI assignments and their ability to engage a variety of resources and use the knowledge thereby obtained. Students particularly valued research-related writing assignments in the major as opportunities for professional skills development and identity building. The authors discuss findings as they relate to the ideologies of writing across the curriculum and writing in the disciplines. The authors argue for greater attention to students' readiness to make connections across assignments, courses, and disciplines; they also suggest greater attention to a field's inquiry methods and strategies for solving problems.

This article examines the strategies used to read science articles written in the IMRD (Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion) format. Drawing on the results of a survey conducted at an international conference of science editors, it shows how three reader roles—those of the scientist, editor, and reviewer—influence reading strategies. Overall, respondents were more likely to read in IMRD sequence as editors than as reviewers. When reading for personal gain as scientists, they read strategically, not in IMRD order. Other variables considered were the mother tongues (native English or nonnative English), ages, and scientific backgrounds of readers. Nonnative English speakers tended to focus on news-rich sections, especially when reading as scientists. No evidence was found of an effect of age, but there was some evidence of a difference between readers from the hard sciences and those from the humanities. The findings have implications for our understanding of the function and development of the research article and for teaching scientists how to write for publication.

This article examines the production of new history textbooks that appeared after the breakup of the Soviet Union. It is argued that the radical revisions in official history in this context are shaped by the Bakhtinian process of “hidden dialogicality,” whereby new, post-Soviet narratives respond to earlier Soviet narratives in various ways. It is argued that different forms of hidden dialogicality are employed to revise official accounts of the Russian Civil War and World War II. In the former case, new texts respond to their Soviet precursors through processes of “re-emplotment,” whereas in the case of World War II, the plot is left largely unchanged, but the main characters are changed. Although many political, cultural, and economic forces play a role in the revision of any official history, it is argued that the importance of hidden dialogicality between narrative forms needs to be taken into account as well.

In many literacy studies, it is important to establish the reliability of independent observers' judgments. Reliability most commonly is measured either by the percentage of agreement or the correlation between the observers' judgments. This article argues that the percentage of agreement measure is more difficult to interpret than are correlation measures because of the following: (a) the effects of chance agreement are not accounted for automatically by the percentage of agreement measure; and (b) rates of chance agreement are strongly influenced by the variability of the data, by “ceiling” and “floor” effects, and by the scoring of near agreement as perfect agreement. For these reasons, the authors recommend that the field of literacy research adopt correlation as the standard method for estimating the reliability of observers' judgments.

Writing studies has been all but silent on the subject of metaphor because no theory has sufficiently forged a connection between the way metaphor works and what we actually say and write. Even the best accounts of metaphor put forward by proponents of conceptual metaphor do not consider important patterns of variation that concrete data reveal. Presenting findings from a study of the conceptual metaphor trade is war, the author offers a reconsideration of metaphor that refutes the standard Aristotelian view of metaphor and substantially expands upon current understandings of conceptual metaphor. Like all language, metaphors are fundamentally responsive. They are therefore implicated in a rhetorically constituted give and take among related groupings of metaphors and literal concepts. Moreover, metaphors are inflected by speakers' and writers' social commitments and are constrained by a concomitant rhetorical etiquette.

In the first section, the author addresses the most theoretical criticism of private writing as a false or misleading concept—that writing is inherently or essentially social. The author distinguishes and explores the various forms or senses in which this claim is true; in doing so, the author explores the limitations of certain kinds of totalistic forms of argumentation. In the second section, the author also addresses criticisms that acknowledge the existence of private writing but asserts that it is misguided or harmful. In the final section, the author suggests possibilities for empirical research that might not only throw light on theoretical disputes about the nature of private writing but also provide some concrete help to teachers of writing.

This article focuses on the role of overhearer participation in learning to write. Using Goffman's notion of the participation framework as a linguistic structure that organizes and is organized by talk and interaction in activity, data drawn from an ethnographic study of kindergarten journal writing activity will be presented in a discussion of how shifts in participant roles contribute to text construction.

Rhetoric continues to struggle to theorize the simultaneous existence of pattern and contingency. Responses to this issue have been couched in elaborations of genre theory and, more recently, of Vygotskian activity theory. Activity theory offers two advantages in theorizing how change and continuity can coexist: It expands our ability to see how text and context influence one another and it encourages us to see that lack of unity is normal in any activity system. This study exemplifies these advantages by looking at four entry-level engineers who produced a genre they called documentation in their first 4 years at work. They defined documentation as writing that describes events to establish a common understanding of completed or promised actions. Documentation was one of the tools the participants used to create and maintain the activity system of their workplace and to reshape it as well.

This article treats the representations that are studied in situated literacy and an associated methodological approach based on semantic analysis that characterizes the representations in a systematic and principled manner. Application of the method is illustrated for four situated literacy examples: (a) mother-child word-naming games, (b) children's story writing, (c) journalistic writing, and (d) technical writing. The description of representations that is obtained constitutes an explanation of the literacy actions in that it reveals cultural, social, and cognitive influences on these actions.

This article describes an assessment carried out in collaboration with the administrators of a large freshman English course. The assessment team worked with instructors to identify course goals and to design tasks that the instructors felt would fairly assess the extent to which the students achieved the goals. Students who did and did not take the course were both pre- and posttested on five central goals: critical reading, argument identification, differentiation of summary and paraphrase, understanding of key terms used in the course, and practical strategies for writing academic papers. Results of the assessment failed to indicate any substantial improvement on any of the five course goals for students who took the course. These results contrasted with positive outcomes obtained by the same assessment team with introductory history and statistics courses. The article concludes with reflections on why instructors may fail to recognize that their courses are not working.

The authors twice replicated C. Haas and L. Flower's 1988 think-aloud reading study, which found that graduate students used “rhetorical” reading strategies to interpret a passage, whereas first-year college students used such strategies hardly at all. Rhetorical reading strategies use suppositions about the social, cultural, and historical context of the writing. The main intent of the replications was to see whether different outcomes might be found if the passage read dealt with a topic more familiar to first-year students. With the original passage, the results roughly supported Haas and Flower. But with the more familiar topic, the undergraduates generated substantially more rhetorical comments than they did with the Haas and Flower passage. Personal narrative and value-laden commentary were also measured, with older students far outproducing first-year students. The caution for researchers and teachers is to avoid hasty assumptions about underlying language competence without considering contextual factors.

This article explores the possible grounds for a research program in cognitive rhetoric that aims to forge a tight link between the structures of meaning and structures of brain, body, and world. In section one, I outline a theory of human meaning-making in terms of pragmatic, epistemic, and symbolic actions as they relate to the principles of intentionality, projection, publicity, and materiality. In section two, I consider recent global theories of mind and brain to assess the theory's neurological plausibility. The common link between these two sections is the phrase, “tombstone technology,” taken from the voice-over narration from a television show about plane crashes. I first analyze this construction in terms of its effects on attention, value, categorization, and memory; I then use it to speculate on the neurophysiological processes subtending our ability to use symbolic resources to make inferences and decisions. I conclude with some suggestions for future research in discourse production and comprehension.

A structural analysis of an explanatory text written by a 12-year-old pupil is discussed to demonstrate how the PISA technique (the Procedures for Incremental Structural Analysis; Sanders & Van Wijk, 1996a) may contribute to the understanding of conceptual processes in writing. First, the validity of PISA is supported by showing that the hierarchical text structure corresponds with the (idiosyncratic) punctuation conventions of the writer. Then, it is explained how the writer's strategies and procedures can be reconstructed from the text structure. Evidence for the validity of these inferred cognitive plans is obtained from the distribution within the text of spelling errors, language errors, and self-corrections. Finally, the generalizability of these results is discussed together with the desirability of combining this off-line method with on-line techniques such as pause measurements.

This is a piece about language and how we evaluate the work of young writers as they learn to express themselves in writing. The authors' focus is on current reforms in writing assessment, including the brief life of the California Learning Assessment System (CLAS) writing portfolios, and how they rarely address the vibrant role of language—the work and play of words—in students' writing. Through audio taped interviews with two elementary and two middle school students and their teachers, as well as the written artifacts in the students' portfolios, we analyzed the patterns of the students' writing and the comments of teachers and peers on their work. In this article, language in writing is metaphorically compared to “the clay that makes the pot,” emphasizing that young writers want to startle, want to engage readers with refreshing and surprising language—but few are provided the guidance for how to do it. The authors' central point is that writing revolves around criticism, but if the assessment stays on the surface and encourages word substitution over content revision, then the criticism may not be helpful in pushing the generative aspect of writing: the work of language.

In electronic support groups, people use Internet-based electronic text communication to discuss personal problems or disorders with others who share common circumstances. Although their discussions exist only in the electronic medium, these groups can be viewed usefully as discourse communities. The authors draw on what is known about two other popular sources of help—face-to-face self-help groups and self-help books—to frame the rhetorical challenges faced by members of electronic support groups. The authors then compare the discourse of electronic support groups with that of electronic hobby groups to demonstrate that the two sets differ in terms of the rhetorical behavior of their participants. The authors analyze messages to determine how members establish legitimacy and authority in their texts and how message exchange gives rise to group identity and a sense of community. Our observations indicate that although some discourse characteristics and some rhetorical features are common to all the electronic groups we studied, others are unique to the special requirements of electronic support groups.

This article examines the behavioral differences of essay scorers who demonstrate different levels of proficiency for a psychometric scoring task. The authors compare three proficiency groups to identify differences in (a) essay features they consider, (b) their understanding of the scoring rubric, and (c) their decision-making procedures. Results indicate scorers with different levels of proficiency do not focus on different essay features when making evaluative decisions but their understandings of the scoring criteria may vary. Proficient scores are more likely to focus on general features of an essay when making evaluative decisions and to adopt values espoused by the scoring rubric than are less proficient scorers. Also, proficient scorers make evaluations by reading the entire essay and then reviewing its content, whereas less proficient scorers may interrupt the reading process to monitor how well the essay satisfies the scoring criteria. Finally, the authors discuss implications for scorer selection and training.

Commentary: When this essay first appeared more than 10 years ago, it built on a small but substantial body of scholarship that declared scientific writing an appropriate field for rhetorical analysis. In the last 10 years, studies of scientific writing for both expert and lay audiences have increased exponentially, drawing on the long-established disciplines of the history and philosophy of science. These newer studies, however, differ widely in approach. Many take the perspective of cultural critique (e.g., the work of Bruno Latour and Stephen Woolgar), whereas others use the tools of discourse analysis (e.g., Greg Myers, M.A.K. Halliday, and J. R. Martin). But, application of rhetorical theory also thrives in the work of John Angus Campbell, Alan Gross, Charles Bazerman, Jean Dietz Moss, Lawrence J. Prelli, Carolyn Miller, and many others. Randy Allen Harris offers a useful introduction to this field in Landmark Essays on Rhetoric in Science (1997). “Accommodating Science” applies ideas from classical rhetoric and techniques of close reading typical of discourse analysis to the question of what happens when scientific reports travel from expert to lay publications. This change in forum causes a shift in genre from forensic to celebratory and a shift in stasis from fact and cause to evaluation and action. These changes in genre, audience, and purpose inevitably affect the material and manner of re-presentation in predictable ways. Two concerns informed this study 10 years ago: the impact of science reporting on public deliberation and the nature of technical and professional writing courses. These concerns have, if anything, increased (e.g., the campaign on global warming), warranting continued scholarly investigation of the gap between the public's right to know and the public's ability to understand.

Commentary: It is easier to articulate the issues addressed in this piece today than it was when Written Communication first published it in 1985; we now have the familiar idioms of postmodernism, cultural studies, and reception theory to help illuminate the paradigm that we were arguing governs everyday communication behavior in organizations. In particular, while terms such as contingency, intersubjectivity, shared understandings, social construction of meaning, and discourse communities were familiar enough at the time in the fields of philosophy and critical theory, they had not yet influenced textbooks in organizational communication. Instead, these textbooks were dominated by the human resource and social systems models of the organization at work and by prescriptive approaches to writing. We drew on the work of contemporary theorists (Polanyi, Popper, Kuhn, Toulmin, Perelman, and others) to support the notion that, like scientific communities, organizational communities are “rational enterprises” that develop rules and protocols for the admission and analysis of evidence—criteria which individual practitioners internalize unevenly, imperfectly, and tacitly, and which evolve over time in response to new situations, but which govern the construction of meaning. Through the analysis of a particular case of strategic communication (and one that was deliberately ordinary, not exceptional), we were interested in demonstrating how important the larger context is in shaping communication, how meaning is negotiated by writer and audience, how “good writing” depends less on transmitting a “message” or even adapting a specific format than on tapping (or reenvisioning) shared but tacit recognitions about what is important in the organizational context. Looking back, we are gratified that these observations now seem commonplace, and also that we addressed them in humanistic, cognitive, and philosophical terms to argue the centrality—and complexity—of consensus making. One of the closing sentences still seems like an appropriate call to continue such an inquiry: “In a world marked by divergent values, galloping change, and the need for ethical approaches to problem solving, a rhetoric that both acknowledges the human complexity of decision making and suggests a practical rationale for producing consensus is needed.”

Commentary: My intent in doing this project was to illustrate that an archaeological site as (apparently) obscure as the Amphiareion of Oropos holds a wealth of evidence about the nature and practice of rhetorical contests. Indirectly, I also hoped to illustrate that developing new methods of analysis through “field work” in classical rhetoric complements conventional arm-chair research - characteristic of literary analysis - as a source of primary evidence. The study opportunities and support that I received in 1974 and 1977 from the American School of Classical Studies at Athens and the Greek Ministry of Science and Culture convinced me that the Amphiareion would be appropriate for study. The Amphiareion was small enough for an in-depth examination and large enough to be known by ancient geographers such as Pausanias. From 1977 to 1985 I analyzed the information I had gathered about the site: the inscriptions my wife, Jane Helppie, and I had photographed and drawn on our field trips, the commentary of ancient sources, and the results of archaeological excavations under Basil Petracos and the Greek Archaeological Service. This study reveals that rhetoric was practiced at locations other than prominent centers such as Athens and that these practices were sustained for centuries. In the future I plan to visit other larger and better known sites in order to continue the search for information that provides the basis for a richer understanding of the history of written communication in Greece.

Commentary: When “Ethos Versus Persona” was published in 1988, I was aware that these constructs easily transcend their ancient roots and that their richness and complexity have wide-ranging implications for contemporary rhetorical analysis and criticism. But I had no idea I was exploring concepts that would prove useful a decade later in understanding the political and legal travails of President Bill Clinton. As of this writing (March 1998), the president of the United States is caught in a firestorm of controversy surrounding alleged sexual improprieties and possible illegal acts (perjury, subornation of perjury, obstruction of justice). The national media are operating at a fever pitch to supply instantaneous information and analysis. And the American public, even if they might want to, cannot escape the deluge. By all accounts, the president's approval ratings should be sinking like a rock. Yet commentators from all sides of the political spectrum are astounded that his ratings have soared to an all-time high. At the heart of this conundrum is the question of character and how audiences (or readers or voters) judge character. High-minded conservative pundits such as George Will are railing that this presidency has become so tawdry that, for the sake of national integrity, it must be terminated. Mr. Will apparently subscribes to the (decidedly modernist) theory that a person must not just seem good but be good in order to be credible. But do the approval ratings suggest that the American people have adopted the more postmodern (but also ancient amoral) view that politics is not just about appearances - it is appearances? Maybe. Or has the public - perhaps subscribing to Will's ontology after all - concluded that the taciturn special prosecutor, Kenneth Starr, has employed questionable tactics in obtaining evidence and that, by comparison, the president's character does not seem so bad after all? Regardless of what theories may or may not be reflected in public opinion polls, have the president and his handlers been successful (thus far) in maintaining his image as a credible figure? Or is it just the economy, stupid? “Ethos Versus Persona” does not provide answers to these questions, of course. But it might yield some interesting ways to think about rhetoric and presidential politics as we close out the century. In any event, I would like to express my sincere thanks to Washington and its players for a months-long morality play enacting the tensions that energize ethos and that become even more apparent in any juxtaposition of ethos and persona. I could not have written a better or more timely script myself.

Commentary: When “Thucydides and the Plague in Athens: The Roots of Scientific Writing” was written in 1988, genre analysis was an emerging area for scholarship. Thucydides' Historiae, which includes numerous political speeches in context, provides a rich resource for exploring the ancient roots of rhetorical genres. Thucydides' text also sheds light on the origin of a specific scientific genre - the medical case history. In describing a devastating plague in Athens, Thucydides uses the Hippocratic approach, following an ancient genre or form that is remarkably similar to the modern medical case history. Thucydides' case history of the Athenian plague enabled 20th-century epidemiologists to establish a diagnosis of the illness (influenza plus toxic shock syndrome), predict its return, and validate their diagnosis during a 1987 flu epidemic. Although “Thucydides and the Plague in Athens” only hints at Thucydides' genre knowledge, his case history of the plague and his presentation of speeches display considerable insight into the social construction and function of these recurring forms. In explaining the speeches in his text, for example, Thucydides says, “[M]y habit has been to make the speakers say what was in my opinion demanded of them by the various occasions” (1.22). He prefaces his account of the plague with a statement of purpose: to help future scholars recognize future outbreaks of the same illness. These remarks, viewed in the context of genre theory today, suggest that Thucydides not only knew how to use genres but also understood their social origin and purposes.

Commentary: English composition as we know it began in the early nineteenth century...but why is that important? Why would we care about poorly educated grammar school pedagogues—our distant colleagues!—fingers aching with cold as they parsed sentences, heard recitations, and fed the wood stove during those long wintery terms? Very simply, because their lives, practices, and less frequently, their writings give us back ourselves. Our own problems in teaching writing have recurrently presented themselves in forms that nineteenth-century teachers easily would have recognized. Like them, we sense the ongoing need for hard basics, the primitive core of our profession. Yet like those early teachers, we also dwell within a “reform tradition” that stresses the importance of students' interests and experience and continues to see the writing task as based on what used to be called “synthetic” insights and “self-active” learning. Inspired partly by romantic educational theories from the continent, this tradition grew out of the social and educational reforms of the 1830s and 1840s and provided the basis for the early progressive teaching of the 1890s. Prominent during the 1930s, and reasserting itself powerfully in the 1960s and 1990s, this student-centered approach manifests the continuing vitality of the enlightenment ideas and values and the romantic individualism that first gave it life.

In response to the need for studies that focus on learning and writing in mathematics, this study examined changes in students' probabilistic thinking and writing during an instructional program that emphasized transactional writing in a problem-solving context. Although correlations between probabilistic thinking and writing levels at the end of the study were not significant, students did make significant gains in both probability reasoning and writing. Analysis of target students' journals revealed that their writing incorporated both writing symbols and mathematical symbols. These symbols were more complementary for those students whose writing increased to the higher levels during instruction. Moreover, this growth appeared to be promoted by the teacher herself, who systematically sought verbal explanations of solutions and written interpretations of diagrams and numerical patterns.

This article examines the highly specific problems of roof support in coal mines to construct a theoretical framework that describes how texts represent information that is embodied, sensory, and uncertain. As this analysis suggests, workers in risky environments may follow instructions and still fail as situations change. Engineering and management approaches also may fail unless they reflect the kinds of embodied sensory information decision makers need to assess risk in local contexts. This analysis then raises ethical questions about (a) textbook notions of instructions as systematic procedures designed to produce predictable outcomes, (b) limits of particular types of information as signs or indexes of risk, (c) the role of generalized knowledge in uncertain environments, (d) the role of texts in representing knowledge that is sensory and uncertain, and (e) the locus of responsibility for safety if knowledge exists outside of written texts.

This study examines the numbers of relative clauses and the percentages of subordinate clauses they comprise in two sets of research reports from the Physical Review, one from the earliest years (1893-1901) and one from 1980. It finds only a slight decrease in percentages of relative clauses from the first set of articles to the second, but it also finds some striking differences in patterns of what the relative clauses modify, particularly in references to experimental instruments and materials, experimental results or products, and equations. This study also shows evidence of a stylistic shift between the two sets of articles, from what Halliday (1987a) calls the dynamic style (that reflects processes, happenings, and actions) to the synoptic style (that reflects structures, categories, and hierarchies). It speculates that this shift would have been motivated by later physicists' wish to use tenseless expressions and to communicate effectively in an increasingly built-up web of information.

This study investigated differences among student writers at three grade levels (6, 8, and 10) and between expert writers and students in terms of the uses and complexity of arguments presented in their persuasive texts. To analyze argument, a model was developed that could account for structural variations occurring across a range of writing situations. The characteristics of this model were defined using categories derived from a model of semantic representation in discourse. The structural analysis revealed that (a) argument was the predominant organizational structure for all writers, (b) more than 80% of students produced arguments involving some form of opposition, (c) embedded arguments identified in expert texts functioned primarily as countered rebuttals and in student texts as subclaims or reservations, and (d) expert texts contained relatively higher frequencies of warrants, countered rebuttals, and modals, and student uses of these substructures increased with grade.

The famous Awk is a well-known designation, but this label does not refer to a well-defined concept. The authors report here on an empirical study of the predominant types and patterns of awkward sentences in student writing. They suggest that four general types of syntactic problems—mismanagement of clause structure in errors of embedding, of syntax shift, of parallel structure, and of direct/indirect speech—are associated with four general patterns of semantic problems—mismanagement of idea structure in errors of subordinating ideas, of starting and finishing ideas, of adding ideas, and of incorporating ideas from sources. The authors argue that awkward sentences arise from a complex combination of semantics and syntax, as student writers struggle to manage the relationships among multiple ideas as well as the relationships among multiple clauses. These findings are used to suggest a number of possible pedagogical approaches to the problem of awkward sentences, including the use of read-aloud editing, the targeted teaching of grammar for syntactic editing, and the separation of ideas from sentence form for semantic editing.

Although the writing needs of English as a Second Language (ESL) students in U.S. higher education have been increasing as the number of ESL students continues to rise, institutional practices that are responsive to the unique needs of ESL writers are yet to be developed. The relative lack of attention to ESL issues in writing programs may be related to how the field of ESL writing has been defined in relation to its related disciplines: Teaching English as a Second Language (TESL) and composition studies. This study attempts to construct a view of the field that meets the needs of ESL writers. For this purpose, I present three models of ESL writing in relation to TESL and composition studies and discuss their implications.

The authors report an investigation of the discourse practices of the “affiliated professions” of software engineering design. Lists of design issues generated by students in computer science and technical communication were compared to lists produced by experts affiliated with software engineering and by students entering an unaffiliated profession. The results suggest that (a) the affiliated experts addressed a more balanced set of issues, (b) the students in computer science looked more like the affiliated experts in their attention to technical issues and more like the unaffiliated students in their attention to human issues, and (c) the students in technical communication looked more like the affiliated experts in their attention to the human issues and more like the unaffiliated students in their attention to the technical issues. The results are discussed in terms of a landscape of highly clustered, fractured, and stratified affiliated professions over which students travel during their educational and professional careers.