Skip to content
2018
Volume 58, Issue 4
  • ISSN: 0034-527X
  • E-ISSN: 1943-2348

Abstract

Recent scholarship has demonstrated the need for criticality toward writing assessments that privilege standard language ideologies and correctness-based approaches. However, teachers continue to experience discrepancies between their intentions and actions, struggling to address both content and form in facilitative, constructive commentary. This study uses the activity theory framework of pedagogical tools, composed of conceptual and practical tools, to analyze through interviews and commented-on papers how two college composition graduate instructors responded to student writing. This study finds that while one teacher held and enacted consistent and congruent pedagogical tools grounded in sociocultural theories of writing development, the other experienced entrenched conflict between competing beliefs about evaluative and process-oriented purposes for teaching writing. These contrastive experiences illustrate how instructors’ development of pedagogical tools is mediated by interactions between their epistemological orientations and language ideologies, reinforcing the need to surface tacit beliefs about Standardized English and academic writing. This study concludes with recommendations for productive intervention in novice composition teachers’ development of response practices.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.58680/rte2024584353
2024-05-01
2024-06-18
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Ascenzi-Moreno L., & Seltzer K. (2021) Always at the bottom: Ideologies in assessment of emergent bilinguals. Journal of Literacy Research, 53(4), 468–490.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Baker-Bell A. (2020) Linguistic justice: Black language, literacy, identity, and pedagogy. Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Ball A. F. (1997) Expanding the dialogue on culture as a critical component when assessing writing. Assessing Writing, 4(2), 169–202.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Beach R., & Friedrich T. (2006) Response to writing. In MacArthur C. A., Graham S., & Fitzgerald J. (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 222–234). Guilford Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Blum S. D. Ed. (2020) Ungrading: Why rating students undermines learning (and what to do instead). West Virginia University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Buehl M. M., & Beck J. S. (2015) The relationship between teachers’ beliefs and teachers’ practices. In Fives H. & Gill M. G. (Eds.), International handbook of research on teachers’ beliefs (pp. 66–84). Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Calfee R., & Sperling M. (2010) On mixed methods: Approaches to language and literacy research. Teachers College Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Canagarajah A. S. (2013) Negotiating translingual literacy: An enactment. Research in the Teaching of English, 48(1), 40–67.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Christensen L. (2009) Teaching for joy and justice: Reimagining the language arts classroom. Rethinking Schools.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Cicchino A. (2020) A broader view: How doctoral programs in rhetoric and composition prepare their graduate students to teach composition. WPA: Writing Program Administration, 44(1), 86–106.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Davila B. (2017) Standard English and colorblindness in composition studies: Rhetorical constructions of racial and linguistic neutrality. WPA: Writing Program Administration, 40(2), 154–173.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Ferris D. (2011) Treatment of error in second language student writing (2nd ed.). University of Michigan Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Ferris D., Brown J., Liu H. S., & Stine M. E. A. (2011) Responding to L2 students in college writing classes: Teacher perspectives. TESOL Quarterly, 45(2), 207–234.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Flores N. (2020) From academic language to language architecture: Challenging raciolinguistic ideologies in research and practice. Theory Into Practice, 59(1), 22–31.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Flores N., & Rosa J. (2015) Undoing appropriateness: Raciolinguistic ideologies and language diversity in education. Harvard Educational Review, 85(2), 149–171.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Grossman P. L., Smagorinsky P., & Valencia S. (1999) Appropriating tools for teaching English: A theoretical framework for research on learning to teach. American Journal of Education, 108(1), 1–29.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Haswell R. H. (2010) Teaching of writing in higher education. In Bazerman C. (Ed.), Handbook of research on writing: History, society, school, individual, text (pp. 331–346). Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Inoue A. B. (2022) Labor-based grading contracts: Building equity and inclusion in the compassionate writing classroom (2nd ed.). WAC Clearinghouse.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Kynard C. (2006) “Y’all are killin’ me up in here”: Response theory from a newjack composition instructor/SistahGurl meeting her students on the page. Teaching English in the Two-Year College, 33(4), 361–387.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Lippi-Green R. (2012) English with an accent: Language, ideology, and discrimination in the United States (2nd ed.). Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. McBee Orzulak M. J. (2015) Disinviting deficit ideologies: Beyond “That’s standard,” “That’s racist,” and “That’s your mother tongue.” Research in the Teaching of English, 50(2), 176–198.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. McQuitty V. (2012) Emerging possibilities: A complex account of learning to teach writing. Research in the Teaching of English, 46(4), 358–389.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Merriam S. B., & Tisdell E. J. (2016) Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Metz M., & Knight H. (2021) The dominant school language narrative: Unpacking English teachers’ language ideologies. Linguistic Society of America, 97(3), e238–e256.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Modern Language Association. (n.d.). Data from the MLA survey of departmental staffing, fall 2014. https://www.mla.org/Resources/Guidelines-and-Data/Reports-and-Professional-Guidelines/Data-from-the-MLA-Survey-of-Departmental-Staffing-Fall-2014
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Montgomery J. L., & Baker W. (2007) Teacher-written feedback: Student perceptions, teacher self-assessment, and actual teacher performance. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(2), 82–99.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Myers J., Scales R. Q., Grisham D. L., Wolsey T. D., Dismuke S., Smetana L., Yoder K. K., Ikpeze C., Ganske K., & Martin S. (2016) What about writing? A national exploratory study of writing instruction in teacher preparation programs. Literacy Research and Instruction, 55(4), 309–330.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Newell G. E., Bloome D., & Hirvela A. (2015) Teaching and learning argumentative writing in high school English language arts classrooms. Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Newell G., Tallman L., & Letcher M. (2009) A longitudinal study of consequential transitions in the teaching of literature. Research in the Teaching of English, 44(1), 89–126.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Phelps L. W. (1989) Images of student writing: The deep structure of teacher response. In Anson C. M. (Ed.)., Writing and response: Theory, practice, and research (pp. 37–67). National Council of Teachers of English.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Prior P. (2004) Tracing process: How texts come into being. In Bazerman C. & Prior P. (Eds.), What writing does and how it does it: An introduction to analyzing texts and textual practices (pp. 167–200). Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Saldaña J. (2013) The coding manual for qualitative researchers. SAGE Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Sieben N. (2017) Building hopeful secondary school writers through effective feedback strategies. English Journal, 106(6), 48–53.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Simon R. (2013) “Starting with what is”: Exploring response and responsibility to student writing through collaborative inquiry. English Education, 45(2), 115–146.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Smagorinsky P., Cook L. S., & Johnson T. S. (2003) The twisting path of concept development in learning to teach. Teachers College Record, 105(8), 1399–1436.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Smagorinsky P., Rhym D., & Moore C. P. (2013) Competing centers of gravity: A beginning English teacher’s socialization process within conflictual settings. English Education, 45(2), 147–183.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Smith S. (1997) The genre of the end comment: Conventions in teacher responses to student writing. College Composition and Communication, 48(2), 249–268.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Smitherman G. (2017) Raciolinguistics, “mis-education,” and language arts teaching in the 21st century. Language Arts Journal of Michigan, 32(2), Article 3. https://doi.org/10.9707/2168-149X.2164
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Sommers N. (1982) Responding to student writing. College Composition and Communication, 33(2), 148–156.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Sommers N. (2013) Responding to student writers. Bedford/St. Martin’s.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Sperling M., & Freedman S. W. (1987) A good girl writes like a good girl: Written response to student writing. Written Communication, 4(4), 343–369.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Straub R., & Lunsford R. F. (1995) Twelve readers reading: Responding to college student writing. Hampton Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Taggart A. R., & Lowry M. (2011) Cohorts, grading, and ethos: Listening to TAs enhances teacher preparation. WPA: Writing Program Administration, 34(2), 89–114.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Thomas G. (2011) How to do your case study: A guide for students and researchers. SAGE Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Vossoughi S., Nzinga K., Berry A., Irvine F., Mayorga C., & Gashaw M. (2021) Writing as a social act: The feedback relation as a context for political and ethical becoming. Research in the Teaching of English, 56(2), 200–222.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Woodard R. (2015) The dialogic interplay of writing and teaching writing: Teacherwriters’ talk and textual practices across contexts. Research in the Teaching of English, 50(1), 35–59.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Young V. A., Barrett R., Young-Rivera Y. S., & Lovejoy K. B. (2014) Other people’s English: Code-meshing, code-switching, and African American literacy. Teachers College Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Zuidema L. A., & Fredricksen J. E. (2016) Resources preservice teachers use to think about student writing. Research in the Teaching of English, 51(1), 12–36.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.58680/rte2024584353
Loading
/content/journals/10.58680/rte2024584353
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