Skip to content
2018
  1. NCTE Publications Home
  2. All Journals
  3. Research in the Teaching of English
  4. Volume 53, Issue 2
  5. Article
Volume 53, Issue 2
  • ISSN: 0034-527X
  • E-ISSN: 1943-2348
file format pdf download PDF
side by side viewer icon HTML

Abstract

To counter inequitable, hierarchical classroom structures, research in the fields of language and literacy studies often looks to the affordances of online spaces, such as affinity spaces, for learning that is collaborative and knowledge that is distributed; yet, researchers continue to locate theirstudies in virtual spaces, outside classroom walls. This study, situated in a high school writing class, repositions the familiar classroom practice of peer feedback as a way to access affinity space features. Using qualitative case study design and grounded theory analysis, the study reveals that,when supported by an emphasis on social connection, the practice of peer feedback served as a portal for students with a range of writing experience and interest to collaborate and exchange honest feedback, practices indicative of affinity space features. Yet, traditional expectations preserved teacher roles and student roles in ways that prevented the class from more fully accessing the affinity space features of distributed expertise, porous leadership, and role flexibility. Discussion expands the field’s understanding of affinity spaces and their application in physical classrooms by outlining new features, theorizing these classroom spaces, and advocating for a reimagine dvision of peer feedback in ELA classrooms where role reciprocity and flexibility resist traditional,inequitable classroom structures.

© 2018 by the National Council of Teachers of English. Printed in the United States of America
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.58680/rte201829865
2018-11-15
2023-12-05
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/rte/53/2/researchintheteachingofenglish29865.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.58680/rte201829865&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Alvermann D. E. (2008)  Why bother theorizing adolescents’ online literacies for classroom practice and research?. Journalof Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 52 (1), 8–19 10.1598/JAAL.52.1.2
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Atwell N. (1987)  In the middle: Writing,reading, and learning with adolescents. Upper Montclair, N.J: Boynton/Cook.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Beach R. Thein A. H. Webb A. (2016)  Teaching to exceed the English language arts common core state standards: Aliteracy practices approach for 6-12 classrooms 2nd New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Black R. W. (2008)  Adolescents and online fan fiction. New York: Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Blumer H. (1954)  What is wrong with social theory?. American Sociological Review, 19 (1), 3–10.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Bogdan R. C. Biklen S. K. (2007)  Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and practice 5th Boston: Pearson Education.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Bomer R. (2011)  Building Adolescent Literacyin Today’S English Classroom. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Bommarito D. (2014)  Tending to Change: Toward a Situated Model of Affinity Spaces. E-Learning and Digital Media, 11, 406–418.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Chandler-Olcott K. Mahar D. (2003)  Adolescents’ anime-inspired “fanfictions”: An exploration of multiliteracies. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 46, 556–566.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Charmaz K. (2006)  Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide Through Qualitative Analysis. London: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Cuban L. (2013)  Why so many structural changes in schools and so little reform inteaching practice?. Journal of Educational administration, 51 (2), 109–125.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Curwood J. S. Magnifico A. M. Lammers J. C. (2013)  Writing in the wild: Writers’ motivation in fan-based affinity spaces. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 56, 677–685.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Denzin N. (1984)  The research act. Engle-wood cliffs. Nj: Prentice Hall.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Emerson R. M. Fretz R. I. Shaw L. L. (1995)  Writing ethnographic fieldnotes. Chi-cago The University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Foucault M. (1984)  The means of correct training/panopticism. Rainbow P. . The foucault reader, 188–213. New york: Pantheon. (Original work published 1975).
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Freire P. (2005)  Pedagogy of the oppressed 30th Macedo D. . New York: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Gee J. P. (2004)  Situated language and learning: a critique of traditional schooling. New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Gee J. P. (2017)  Teaching, learning, literacy in our high-risk high-tech world: A framework forbecoming human. New York: Teachers Collegepress.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Gee J. P. Hayes E. R. (2010)  Women and gaming. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Gee J. P. Hayes E. R. (2011)  Languageand learning in the digital age. New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Geertz C. (1973)  Thick description: Toward an interpretive theory of culture. New York: Basic Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Graham S. Perin D. (2007)  Writing next:Effective strategies to improve writing of adolescents in middle and high schools - A report to Carnegie Corporation of New York. Wash-ington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Hovardas T. Tsivitanidou O. E. Zacharia Z. C. (2014)  Peer versus expert feedback: Aninvestigation of the quality of peer feedback among secondary school students. Computers & Education, 71, 133–152.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Ito M. Gutierrez K. Livingstone S. Penuel B. Rhodes J. Salen J. Watkins C. (2013)  Connected learning: An agenda for research and design. Irvine, CA: Digital Mediaand Learning Research Hub.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Ito M. Horst H. Bittani M. Boyd D. Herr-Stephenson B. Lange P. G. Tripp L. (2008)  Living and learning with new media: Summary of findings from the digital youth project. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Kline S. Letofsky K. Woodard R. (2013)  Democratizing classroom discourse: Thechallenge for online writing environments. E-Learning and Digital Media, 10, 378–394.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Lammers J. C. (2013)  Fangirls as teachers: Examining pedagogic discourse in an online fan site. Learning, media and technology, 38, 368–386.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Lammers J. C. (2016)  “The Hangout was serious business”: Leveraging participation in an online space to design. Sims fanfiction. Research in the Teaching of English, 50, 309–332.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Lammers J. C. Curwood J. S. Magnifico A. M. (2012)  Toward an affinity space methodology: Considerations for literacy research. English Teaching: Practice & Critique, 11 (2), 44–58.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Lammers J. C. Magnifico A. M. Curwood J. S. (2014)  Online spaces for writing. Pytash K. E. Ferdig R. E. . Exploringtechnology for writing and writing instruction, 185–201. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Lammers J. C. Magnifico A. M. Curwood J. S. (2018)  Literate identities in fan-based online affinity spaces. Mills K. Stornaiuolo A. Smith A. Pandya J. Z. . Hand-book of writing, literacies, and education in digital cultures, 174–184. New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Lammers J. C. Marsh V. L. (2015)  Going public: An adolescent’s networked writing on Fan Fiction.net. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 59, 277–285.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Lankshear C. Knobel M. (2003)  New literacies: Changing knowledge and classroom learning. Buckingham, United Kingdom: Open University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Lankshear C. Knobel M. (2011)  New literacies: Everyday practices & social learning 3rd Maidenhead, England: Open University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Lecompte M. Schensul J. (1999)  Designing and conducting ethnographic research. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Lesko N. (1996)  Denaturalizing adolescence: The politics of contemporary representations. Youth & Society, 28 (2), 139–161.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Loretto A. Demartino S. Godley A. (2016)  Secondary students’ perceptions of peer review of writing. Research in the Teach-ing of English, 51, 134–161.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Magnifico A. M. (2012)  The game of Neopian writing. Hayes E. R. Duncan S. C. . Learning in videogame affinity spaces, 212–234. New York: Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Magnifico A. M. Curwood J. S. Lammers J. C. (2015)  Words on the screen: Broadening analyses of interactions among fan fiction writers and reviewers. Literacy, 49, 158–166.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Magnifico A. M. Lammers J. C. Fields D. (2017)  Affinity spaces, literacies, and class-rooms: Tensions and opportunities. Literacy, Advance online publication, Retrievedfrom https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/17414369
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Marsh V. M. (2016)  New Literacies ethos in a high school English class: A case study. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (Order No.10109876)
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Marshall C. Rossman G. B. (2011)  Designing qualitative research 5th Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Mckenna M. C. Conradi K. Lawrence C. Jang B. J. Meyer J. P. (2012)  Reading attitudes of middle school students: Results of a U.S. survey. Reading Research Quarterly, 47, 283–306.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Miles M. B. Huberman A. M. (1994)  Qualitative data analysis 2nd Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Morse R. (2013)  April How U.S. News calculated the 2013 best high schools rankings: We looked at thousands of public schools to identify the most outstanding. U.S. News &World Report: Education
    [Google Scholar]
  46. National Council of Teachers of English (2013)  The NCTE definition of 21st centuryliteracies, Retrieved from http://www.ncte.org/positions/statements/21stcentdefinition
    [Google Scholar]
  47. O’brien D. (2012)  “Struggling” adolescents’ engagement in multimediating: Countering the institutional construction of incompetence. Alvermann D. E. Hinchman K. A. . Reconceptualizing the literacies in adolescents’ lives: Bridging the everyday/aca-demic divide 3rd 71–91. New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. O’brien D. Bauer E. (2005)  New Literacies and the institution of old learning. ReadingResearch Quarterly, 40, 120–131.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Padgett E. R. Curwood J. S. (2016)  A figment of their imagination. Journal of Ado-lescent & Adult Literacy, 59, 397–407.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Panadero E. Romero M. Strijbos J. W. (2013)  The impact of a rubric and friendship on peer assessment: Effects on construct validity, performance, and perceptions of fairness and comfort. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 39 (4), 195–203.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Patton M. Q. (2002)  Qualitative researchand evaluation methods 3rd Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Ravitch S. M. Riggan M. (2012)  Reason & rigor: How conceptual frameworks guide research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Schunn C. Godley A. Demartino S. (2016)  The reliability and validity of peer review of writing in high school AP English classes. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 60, 13–23.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Scott D. (2008)  Critical essays on major curriculum theorists. New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Sherff L. Piazza C. (2005)  The more things change, the more they stay the same: A survey of high school students’ writing experiences. Research in the Teaching of English, 39, 271–304.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Simmons J. (2003)  Responders are taught, not born. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 46, 684–693.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Spradley J. (1979)  The ethnographic interview. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Stake R. E. (1995)  The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Street B. (1995)  Social literacies: Critical approaches to literacy in development, ethnography, and education. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Tyack D. Cuban L. (1995)  Tinkering toward utopia: A century of public school reform. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Van Deweghe R. (2004)  Awesome, dude! Responding helpfully to peer writing. English Journal, 94 (1), 95–99.
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Vygotsky L. S. (1978)  Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Welker R. (1991)  Expertise and the teacher as expert: Rethinking a questionable metaphor. American Educational Research Journal, 28, 19–35.
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Yim S. Warschauer M. Zheng B. Law-Rence J. F. (2014)  Cloud-based collaborative writing and the Common Core standards. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 58, 243–254.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.58680/rte201829865
Loading
Portal and Gatekeeper: How Peer Feedback Functions in a High School Writing Class
Research in the Teaching of English 53, 149 (2018); https://doi.org/10.58680/rte201829865
/content/journals/10.58680/rte201829865
/content/journals/10.58680/rte201829865
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error