How students write is connected to how they see themselves as powerful...or not

DRAFT: Writing itself provides a mechanism for student voice that becomes a vehicle for students of all ages to understand themselves and how they gain social standing and power (Elbow, 2012; Rowe, 2003 Martello, 1999). How students write becomes part of how they view themselves. Inversely, when students begin to consider the audience, they begin to make revisions in their writing processes: the social milieu helps the student make decisions that impact the writing (Midgette, Haria, & MacArthur, 2008, Myers, 1990). The sociocultural relationship between how the student views himself and the decisions he makes as a writer influence each other. The sociocultural context influences the writing processes selected by the writer.

In fact, “[w]riting processes are influenced by situations and are often distributed among participants. The multiple social, cultural, material, historical, technological, and personal relational variables influencing writing situations shape not only the final form of the written text, but the processes whereby texts come into being” (Prior and Shipka, 2002, p. 15). Interactions in the classroom with peers and the teacher are critical variables that influence the written product as well as how the writer writes, this time and the next time.

Unfortunately, social, cultural, and economic deficits are “unequally distributed” resulting in “a paucity of engaging learning opportunities will result in truncated trajectories of learning and development” (Bazerman, 2017, p. 15-16). This distribution of opportunity is further truncated for students who must learn and write in a second language (Boyd & Brock, 2004; Durgunoglu & Verhoevan, 1998). Consideration to how all students learn to write combined with how sociocultural influences impact classroom interactions and mastery of writing become important theoretical perspectives to guide research into solutions for writing pedagogy.

Ultimately, primary and secondary schools seek to prepare students for success outside of school. Yet, writing assigned and practiced in isolation in schools continues to follow “deeply entrenched classroom practices and habits that can be counterproductive” in the writing required outside of K-12 school experience (Bazerman, 2017 p. 19; Dias, Pare, Freedman, & Medway (1999). Dias, et al. followed students into other professions found that students who did not move toward a more collaborative stance focused on work and personal goals as writers did not efficiently or accurately complete their assigned work tasks, did not grow as writers in that domain, and did not advance in their careers. The nature of writing outside of school is fundamentally different that how it is taught in school. The complexity of writing and the demands of communicated, authentic meaning require viewing the writing as a process that includes an equally complex social collaboration “in which the writer asserts meaning, goals, actions, affiliations, and identities within a constantly changing, contingently organized social world, relying on shared texts and knowledge” (Bazerman, 2017, p. 18.) Such an approach will certainly be more motivating and meaningful and useful.  

Bazerman, C. (2017). What do sociocultural studies of writing tell us about learning to write? In C. A., MacArthur, S. Graham and S. Fitzgerald, (Eds.), Handbook of Writing Research. 2nd ed. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

Boyd, F., & Brock, C. (Eds.). (2004). Multicultural and multilingual literacy and language: Contexts and practices. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Dias, P. Pare, A., Freedman, A., & Medway, P. (1999). Worlds apart: Acting and writing in academic and workplace contexts. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Durgunoglu, A. Y., & Verhoeven, L., (Eds.). (1998). Literacy development in a multilingual context: Cross-cultural perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Elbow, P. (2012). Vernacular eloquence. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Martello, J. (1999). In their own words: Children’s perceptions of learning to write. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 24(3), 32-37.

Myers, G. (1990). Writing biology: Texts in the social construction of scientific knowledge. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.

Midgette, E., Haria, P., & MacArthur, C. (2008). The effects of content and audience awareness goals for revision on the persuasive essays of fifth-and eighth-grade students. Reading and Writing, 21, 131-151.

Prior, P., & Shipka, J. (2002). Chronotopic lamination: Tracing contours of literate activity. In C. Bazerman & D. Russell (Eds.), Writing selves, writing society (pp. 180-239). Fort Collins, CO: WAC Clearninghouse.

Rinck, F., & Boch, F. (2012). Enunciative strategies and expertise levels in academic writing: How do writers manage point of view and sources? In M. Castello & C. Donahue (Eds.), University writing: And texts in academic societies. Bradford, UK: Emerald.

Rowe, D. (2003). Nature of young children’s writing. In N. Hall, J. Larson, & J. Marsh (Eds.), Handbook of early childhood literacy (pp. 258-270). London: Sage.