Writing Research Across Borders III,February 19-22, 2014Université Paris-Ouest Nanterre La Défense, Paris, France

Symposium proposal

WRITING TO LEARN, LEARNING TO WRITE.
LITERACY AND DISCIPLINARITY IN DANISH UPPER SECONDARY EDUCATION

Background and aim

During the latest decades the technological development in communication has altered the nature and practice of writing and brought with it a dramatic increase in the spread and significance of writing. There is a call to know what this means for the individual in the context of a learner biography and how the challenge is met at subject and educational levels.Research in writing instruction has documented some patterns of change in writing instruction at secondary and upper secondary levels (cp. Applebee & Langer, 2011; Hillocks, 2008), but we know less about students’development as writers over longer timespans (Juzwik et al., 2006) and what kinds of meaning they ascribe to their school writing.

The symposium will present design, methodology and early findings from an explorative, longitudinal ethnographic research project, funded by the Danish Research Council of the Humanities2010-2014. The aim of the project is to explore students’ trajectories as writers through their upper secondary education, and the patterns of positioning and identification (Ivanič, 1998; Gee, 2009) inherent in the processes of learning to write in school subjects as well asin learning subjects through writing.

Design, methodology and analytical models

In the opening presentation project design, methodology and analytical approaches are introduced, and two heuristic models are presented. Inscribed in the socio cultural tradition (Vygotsky, 1986;Wertsch, 1998), as well as in the New Literacy Studies approach (Barton, 1994;Gee, 2012), the project understands writing as a social practice drawing on a range of semiotic resources (Kress, 1997). The design covers the double viewpoints of students and school subjects. In longitudinal studies, selected students are tracked through upper secondary school (ages 16-19), and in sub studies a range of school subjects are put under scrutiny, investigating genre conventions, textual norms and writing practices. Core data comprise class room observations, assignments, student writing, teacher responses and student interviews.

Analyses and findings

  1. The first analysis is based on selected data from a longitudinal study in which two male students were tracked through their final year of lower secondary and three years of upper secondary school. The study explores the students’ approaches to writing, their identifications and development as writers. Evidently, Michael identifies strongly with science. He has a flair for writing and explores language and writing, but in ways which are not always appreciated. Christian, on the other hand, identifies equally strongly with economics and prefers what he terms ‘reductionist writing’. Writing does not come easy to him, and he doesn’t use writing as a tool for thinking and exploring. This, however, does not necessarily lead to low appreciation. The studyexamines the impact of appreciation by subject teachers and student identification with subjects inthe twostudents'developmentaswriters.
  1. The second analysis foregrounds one girl’s trajectory as writer viewed in the transition from a secondary school setting (grade 9) to an upper secondary school setting (grade 10-12). Data sources are participant observations and constellations of literacy events (assignments, student writing, teacher responses, and semi-structured student interviews). The subjects in focus are Chemistry and Physics. Analyses suggest a remarkable shift in the student’s writer identity. In grade 9, she construes herself as a nerd-like ‘science writer’ appropriating dominant writing practices. Three years later, she construes herself as a non-science writer, to some extent still appropriating science writing practices, yet suggesting alternative writer identifications. The paper explores the research question: How does such a rewriting of a student’s writer identity develop, and how could it be explained?
  1. In the foreign language classroom, writing serves a double purpose, writing to learn the language and learning to write (Manchón, 2011). The study intends to shed light on the interaction of these two dimensions in FL-writing through longitudinal analysis of two students’ writing practice in the German classroom in upper secondary education. Data include communicative and creative writing assignments, teacher feedback and field notes. Focusing on learning opportunities prompted by the writing practice, the analysis explores the students’ development of literate linguistic resources and constructions of identity, and their interactions. The study draws on different, but supplementary readings of Vygotskian theory, i.e. language as a mediating tool for linguistic awareness and learning (Lantolf & Thorne, 2009; Swain 2000), and language learning as semiotic mediation of constructions of self(Kramsch, 2000, 2009).
  1. Although production of written mathematical texts plays a substantial part of teaching-learning activities in most mathematics classrooms, our understanding of how students develop linguistic competences and knowledge required for participation in different mathematical practices is limited (Morgan, 2013). In my presentation I will address this question drawing on data from a recent longitudinal exploratory study of eight student-writers of mathematics. Most studies concerning mathematics and language deal with brief episodes of dialogue or few written texts (Schleppegrell, 2010). In contrast to this I will take a developmental approach focusing on how the students’ writing develops over time. The analytical tools will primarily draw on previous research in mathematics education and language based on social semiotics (e.g., Morgan, 1998, 2006; Schleppegrell, 2012; Veel, 1999) and theories of identity (Burton & Morgan, 2000; Gee, 2009, 2012; Ivanič, 1998).
  1. The final contributionexplores the writings of the upper secondarystudent, Mette, in two mandatory multi-subject courseworks. The data sources are observations, interviews, assignments and student texts. Mette is a strategic writer (Habermas, 1983; Berge, 1988), writing to show that she knows the syllabus, but still claiming that this prepares her for reading papers and discussing with peers.The question leading the study is why she confines herself to using writing as a medium for preserving information, knowing that curricula aim at equipping students to reflect on epochal core problems (Klafki, 1985). Analyses of writing prompts and the possible self-hoods offered by these (Ivanič, 1998), document that what is demanded from students are the voices of the syllabus (cf.Bakhtin, 1986;Voloshinov, 1986). This claim is substantiated by a typology of the writing prompts offered in the two courseworks.

Literature

Bakhtin, M.M. (1986).Speech Genres and Other Late Essays. Austin:University of Texas Press.

Barton, D. (1994). Literacy.An Introduction to the Ecology of Written Language.Oxford UK & Cambridge USA: Blackwell.

Berge, K.L. (1988).Skolestilen som genre. Med påtvungen penn. Oslo:Landslaget for norskundervisning

(LNU)/Cappelen.

Burton, L. & Morgan, C. (2000).Mathematicians Writing.Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 31, 429-453.

Gee, J.P. (2012). Social linguistics and literacies: ideology in discourses. 4th ed. London and New York: Routledge.

Gee, J.P. (2009). Identity without identification.Carter, A., Lillis, T. Parkin, S. (eds.). Why Writing Matters. Issues of access and identity in writing research and pedagogy. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Habermas, J. (1981). Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns, Bd. 1-2.Berlin:Suhrkamp Verlag.

Ivanič, R. (1998). Writing and identity.The discoursal construction of identity in academic writing. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Juzwik, M.M., Curcic, S., Wolbers, K, Moxley, K.D., Dimling, L.M., Shankland, R.K. (2006). Writing Into the 21st Century. An Overview of Research on Writing, 1999 to 2004. Written Communication 23: 451.

Klafki, W. (1985).Neue Studien zur Bildungstheorie und Didaktik. Basel: Beltz Weinheim.

Kramsch, C. (2000). Social discursive constructions of self in L2 learning.In Lantolf (ed.) (2000) Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning.Oxford University Press. 133-153

Kramsch, C. (2009) The Multilingual Subject. Oxford University Press.

Kress, G. (1997). Before Writing.Rethinking the Paths to Literacy. London and New York: Routledge.

Lantolf, J.P., S.L.Thorne (2009).Sociocultural Theory and the Genesis of Second Language Development.Oxford University Press.

Manchón, R. M.(ed.) (2011) Situating the learning-to-write and writing-to-learn dimensions of L2 writing. In R. M. Manchon (ed.) Learning-to-Write and Writing-to-Learn in an Additional Language Amsterdam:John Benjamins. 3-14

Morgan, C. (1998). Writing mathematically.The discourse of investigation.London: Falmer press.

Morgan, C. (2006). What Does Social Semiotics Have to Offer Mathematics Education Research? Educational Studies in Mathematics, 61, 219-245.

Morgan, C. (2013, February). Language and Mathematics: a field without boundaries?, Plenary Talk presented at the Eighth Congress of European Research in Mathematics Education (CERME 8), Manavgat-Side, Antalya, Turkey.

Schleppegrell, M. J. (2010). Language in Mathematics Teaching and Learning: A Research review. Moschkovich, J. (Eds.). Language and mathematics education: multiple perspectives and directions for research (pp. 73-112). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

Schleppegrell, M. (2012).Linguistic Tools for Exploring Issues of Equity.Herbel-Eisenmann, B., Choppin, J., Wagner, D. & Pimm, D. (Eds.), Equity in Discourse for Mathematics Education.Theories, Practices, and Policies(pp. 109-124).Dordrecht: Springer.

Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In Lantolf (ed.) (2000)Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning.Oxford University Press. 97-114

Veel, R. (1999). Language, knowledge and authority in school mathematics.Christie, F. (Ed.),Pedagogyandtheshapingofconsciousness:Linguisticandsocial processes(pp.185–216).London: Continuum.

Voloshinov, V.N. (1986): Marxism and the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge, Massachusetts, London: Harvard University Press

Vygotsky, L. (1986): Thought and Language. (A. Kozulin, trans. and ed.). Cambridge, Massachusetts: The Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Wertsch, J. (1998). Mind in Action. New York: Oxford University Press.

1