Blogging and Emergent L2 Literacy Development in an Urban ...people.umass.edu/~mgebhard/Gebhard Publication PDFs...Blogging and Emergent L2 Literacy Development in an Urban Elementary

278

CALICO Journal, 28(2) Blogging&L2LiteracyDevelopment

CALICO Journal, 28(2),p-p278-307. ©2011CALICO Journal

Blogging and Emergent L2 Literacy Development in an Urban Elementary School: A Functional Perspective1

Meggebhard

University of Massachusetts, Amherst

dong-shin shin

State University of New York, Brockport

Wendy seger

ACCELA Alliance, University of Massachusetts, Amherst

ABSTRACT

Thisstudyanalyzeshowateacher intheUnitedStatesusedsystemic functional lin-guisticstodesignablog-mediatedwritingcurriculumtosupportsecondgradeEnglishlanguagelearners’(ELLs)literacydevelopmentandabilitiestousecomputer-mediatedcommunicationtoolsforsocialandacademicpurposesinandoutofschool.Theques-tions posed by this study relate to howblogging practices shaped a focus student’semergentusesofprintovernearlytwoyearsinaU.S.urbanschoolservingalargePuertoRicancommunity.ThisstudyisinformedbyHalliday’stheoryofsystemicfunc-tionallinguistics(SFL)andVygotskianconceptionsofappropriationandmediation.Us-ingacombinationofethnographicmethodsandthetoolsofgenreanalysis,thefindingsindicatethatblog-mediatedwritingpracticesaffordedstudentsanexpandedaudienceandrangeofpurposesforliteracyactivities.Thesepractices,coupledwithgenre-basedinstruction,supportedthefocalstudent’semergentliteracydevelopment.Theimplica-tionsofthisstudyrelatetoconceptualizinghowideational,interpersonal,andtextualmetafunctionsoflanguageintersectthroughcomputer-mediatedcommunicationtosup-portL2languagedevelopment.

KEYWORDS

Academic Language, Computer-mediated Communication, Elementary Schools, English LanguageLearners,L2Literacy,SystemicFunctionalLinguistics,LatinoEducation,SocioculturalTheory,TeacherEducation,UrbanEducation

INTRODUCTION

ManyresearchershaveanalyzedtheimplicationsofWeb2.0socialcomputingpracticesonlanguagedevelopmentforsecondlanguage(L2) learners(Bloch,2007;Myers,2010;Lee,2010;Thorne,Black,&Sykes,2009;Thorne&Payne,2005;Thorne&Reinhardt,2008;Ware,2008).Thesestudieshavedemonstratedthatcomputer-mediatedcommunication(CMC)isdistinct fromother formsof semioticpracticeand thereforeaffords teachersand learnersdistinctteachingandlearningopportunities(Chapelle,2009;Egbert,Huff,McNeil,Preuss,&Sellen,2009;Hubbard,2008;Shin,2006;Shin&Cimasko,2008;Thorne&Black,2007).

279

CALICO Journal, 28(2) MegGebhard,Dong-shinShin,andWendySeger

Forexample,Sykes,Oskoz,&Thorne(2008)describehowWeb2.0toolssuchasblogsandwikisaffordL2learnersattheuniversitylevelgreateropportunitiestoexchangeideasforrealworldpurposesandforexpandedaudiencesthandotypicalclassroominteractions.Inaddi-tion,theydiscusshowwebtoolssupportlearnersinreflectingonandmanipulatingsymbolictoolstoconstructknowledgeandself/otherrolesinwaysthatarenotreadilyavailableintypi-calface-to-faceinteractions.Sykesetal.(2008)writethatblogsallowstudentstodevelop“individual(andlessfrequentlygroup)authorshipthatisrelevanttoalarger,interactivecom-munity”(p.532),and“opennesstodifferenceandacapacitytocontingentlyanddynamicallyinteractwithmembersofotherspeechcommunitiesandcultures”(p.533).ThesefindingsaresupportedbyempiricalstudiesofL2learners’bloggingpractices(e.g.,Bloch,2007;Mur-ray&Hourigan,2008;Lee,2010).Forexample,Bloch(2007)analyzedhowaSomalistudentusedbloggingassignmentsinacollegecompositioncourse:

topubliclyparticipatewithhisclassmates in theprocessofknowledgecon-struction.Bymakingthisprocesspublic,hisclassmatescouldshareinhowhewascreatingknowledge,andhisteacherscouldbetterunderstandthestrate-gieshewasattemptingtouse.(p.137)

MurrayandHourigan’s(2008)worksupportsthisfindingwithattentiontowritinginstruction.Theydescribeusingblogsforcreativeandreflectivewritinginpost-secondaryacademicset-tingsandreportthatlearnersgainedconfidenceaswellasdevelopedtheirownwritingstyles.Similarly,Lee(2010),collectingdatafromblogpages,postsurveysandfinalinterviews,stud-iedthewritingpracticesofseventeenadvanced-leveluniversitystudentswhokeptpersonalblogsovera14-weekperiod.Shereportsthatbloggingaffordedstudentsopportunitiesforpersonalexpressionandcollaborativeinteraction,whichcollectivelyhadapositiveinfluenceonlearners’writingfluencyandincreasedtheirmotivationtowriteforabroaderaudience.

Whilethesestudiesdemonstratetheutilityofusingblogsinuniversity-basedlanguagepro-grams,fewstudieshaveexploredthemeaning-makingpotentialofusingthesesametoolsinelementaryandsecondarypublicschools,despitethepressingeducationalneedsofagrow-ingpopulationofL2learners.Forexample,between1979and2003,theproportionof5to17yearoldsintheUnitedStateswhospokealanguageotherthanEnglishincreasedfrom8.5%to18.7%ofthetotalschool-agepopulation(Lucas,2010).Studiesofthesestudents’school-ingexperiencesindicatethattheyarelikelytoperformpoorlyonmandatedhigh-stakesex-amsthatrequirethemtoreadandwriteinalanguagetheyareintheprocessofacquiring,andthatmanyofthesestudentsareapttodropoutofschoolastheytransitiontosecondaryschool,wherethedemandsofdisciplinaryliteracypracticesincreaseandsupportsfornativelanguage instructiondecrease(e.g.,Lucas,2010). Inaddition,otherstudies indicate thatthese students, especially those attendinghigh-poverty urban and rural schools, are lesslikelythantheirmiddleclasscounterpartstohaveaccesstotechnologiesthatwouldsupportacademic languagedevelopment (e.g.,Warschauer,Knobel,&Stone,2004).Thepurposeofthisstudy,therefore,istoaddressthisgapintheresearchandpedagogicalliteraturebyanalyzinghowateacherintheUnitedStatessupportedtheliteracydevelopmentofsecond-gradePuertoRicanstudentsattendingahigh-povertyurbanelementaryschoolbydesigningablog-mediatedwritingcurriculum.Thequestionsguidingthisstudyare:

1)HowdidbloggingpracticesshapethenatureofELLs’literacypracticesinanelementaryschoolcontext?

2)HowdidELLs’emergentliteracypracticesandabilitiestoproducewrittentextschangeovertimeasevidencedbyblogpostings?

280


CONCEPTUALFRAMEWORK

TheconceptualframeworkinformingthisstudyisgroundedinsocioculturalconceptionsofL2languageandliteracydevelopment(Byrnes,2006;Halliday&Hasan,1989;Halliday&Mat-thiessen,2004;Hyland,2003;Lantolf&Thorne,2006;Martin&Rose,2008;Thorne,2005;Vygotsky,1978;Wells,2003;Wertsch,1993). Specifically,wedrawonHalliday’stheoryofsystemic functional linguistics (SFL), including Martin’s SFL-based developments of genretheoryandgenre-basedpedagogy,andVygotskianconceptsofmediationandappropriation.

Halliday — Systemic Functional Linguistics

AfundamentalpremiseofHalliday’stheoryofSFListheinterconnectednessofthelinguisticandthesocial.Broadlydefined,SFLfocusesonanalyzinghowpeoplegetthingsdonewithlanguageandothersemioticmeanswithintheculturalcontextsinwhichtheyinteractandhowtheseusesorfunctionsdrivethedevelopmentofculturalsemioticsystems(Halliday&Matthiessen,1999,2004).DrawingonPainter(1984,1996a,1996b,2000,2004),SFLschol-arsmaintain that all human languages develop tomanage threemetafunctions (Halliday,1975,2004;Halliday&Matthiessen,2004;Martin&Rose,2008):1)ideational,represent-ing ideasandexperiences,2) interpersonal,managingsocial relationswithothers,and3)textual,organizingtheflowofcommunicationtomakediscoursecoherentandcohesive.Aschildrendevelopfrominfantstotoddlersandthenenterschool,notonlydotheyphysicallyandcognitivelymature,theculturalcontextsinwhichtheyinteractalsoexpandandbecomemore diverse (e.g., caregivers, the family, the neighborhood, the community, elementaryschool,secondaryschool,workplaces,highereducation,andadditionalkindsofworkplaces).Asthesecontextsbecomemoreexpansiveanddiverse,theideational,interpersonal,andtex-tualmetafunctionsindividualsrealizethroughlanguageandothersemioticmeans,includingcomputer-mediatedformsofcommunication,alsoexpandandbecomemorediversified.Thisdiversificationdrivestheontogenesisoftheindividual’ssemioticresourcesinregardtopho-nology,morphology,lexicogrammar,anddiscoursesemanticsaswellasthephylogenesisofthesystemitself(Halliday&Martin,1993;Halliday&Matthiessen,2004;Painter,1984).Forexample,inthefirstyearoflife,childrendevelopidiomaticvocalandgesturalsystemsthatconstituteaproto-languagetoexpresshere-and-nowbasicneedsandwantswithcaregiverswhoknowthemwell.Later,childrenbegintousewordsandsyntaxindailyinteractionswithfamilyandcommunitymembers.Atthispoint,childrendeveloptheirlanguage’s(orlanguag-es’)transitivitysystem(s)torealizeideationalfunctionsinmakingclaimsaboutwhodidwhat,towhom,andunderwhatcircumstances(e.g.,I want a cookie now).Theysimultaneouslydevelopthelinguisticresourcesneededtonegotiatesocialdistanceandstatusinculturallysanctionedwaysthroughthelanguage’smoodsystemtorealizeinterpersonalfunctions(e.g.,grammatical resources foraskingquestionsrather thanmakingdemands; themodalverb canandtheuseofplease inutterancessuchas,Can I have a cookie please). Tocoordinatetheseresourcesandmakethemrelevant,theyalsodevelopthesemioticresourcesneededtomanagetheflowofdiscoursethroughthelanguage’smodesystemtorealizetextualfunctions(e.g.,I want that cookie—there—the chocolate one, not that one).

Aschildrenenterschool,theculturalcontextsinwhichtheyparticipateandthefunctionstheymustlearntoaccomplishwithlanguageexpandevenmoredramatically,especiallyforELLswhohavebeensocializedtouselanguageandothersemioticmeansinwaysthatareverydifferentandpotentiallymisunderstoodordevaluedbymainstreameducators(Heath,1983).Children,now instudent roles,mustdevelopcontent-basedwaysofexpressing ideasandexperiencesbyexpandingtheirabilitytousetheideationalmetafunctionsoflanguage(e.g.,discipline-specificusesofgrammarinreading,writing,andtalkingaboutincreasinglyabstractphenomenon;technical lexis toconstructdisciplinaryknowledge).Theymustalsodevelop

281


newwaysofinteractingwithpeers,teachers,andadministrators,whohavedifferentialstatusandpower,byexpandingtheirabilitytousetheinterpersonalmetafunctionsofthelanguagein negotiating information exchanges (e.g., culturally patternedand valuedways of usinglanguageandothersemioticmeanstoconstructsolidarity,socialdistance,socialstatus,andevaluativestances).Inaddition,theymustexpandtheirabilitytousetextualmetafunctions,developingwaysofmanagingtheflowofdiscoursewithdistalinterlocutorsusingmultimodalmeans,suchasprintandCMCtools,tocommunicate(e.g.,newwaysofmakingprintandonlinediscoursecoherentandcohesive;discipline-specificwaysofusingimages,diagrams,maps,graphs,andformulas;seeKress&vanLeeuwen,1996;Unsworth,2001).Whilelearn-ingtoparticipateinthesecontext-sensitivetextualpracticesiscomplexandchallengingforallstudents,thisprocessisparticularlychallengingforELLsbecauseitisoftenaccompaniedbyalsohavingtolearnhowtopositionandre-positionthemselvesasmembersofmultipleandpotentiallyconflictinghome,peer,andschoolcommunities,astheytrytonegotiateso-cioculturalfaultlinesassociatedwithacademiclanguageproficiency,race,class,andgenderinK-12schooling(Ibrahim,1999;Gebhard,2004;Harklau,2000;Olsen,1997;Talmy,2008).

Vygotsky — Mediation and Appropriation

Halliday’sconceptoflanguagelearningasanontogeneticprocessofexpandingsemioticrep-ertoiresresonateswithVygotsky’sconceptofsemioticpropertiesofinnerspeechgroundedinthenotionof“sense”(Wertsch,1993,p.42).AccordingtoVygotsky(1934),awordhastwosemanticproperties—senseandmeaning.Hewritesthatthesenseofawordisa“dy-namic,flowing,complexformation”thathas“severalzonesofdifferentialstability”(p.305).Vygotskymaintainsthatmeaningremainsconstantacrossallthechangesofsenseinvariouscontexts,butthattheactualmeaningofawordisnotfixedbecauseawordconveysdiffer-entmeaningsinitsvariousoperations.Ininnerspeech,therefore,senseoutweighsmeaningbecauseaword“absorbsthesenseofprecedingandsubsequentwords,therebyextendingalmostwithout limit theboundariesof itsmeaning”(Vygotsky,1934,p.308).DrawingonWertsch,wedefinethissemanticexpansionasaprocessofsocialization inwhich learnersengage inusing linguistic resources indialogical relationswithvariouscontextsof speech(Wertsch,1993,p.43;Shin,2006;Willett,1995).

Moreover, socialization involves transforming an interpersonal process ofmakingmeaningintoan intrapersonalone(Vygotsky,1978,pp.56-57).This internalizationprocessoccursthrough themediation of the cultural tools and signs that learnersuse tomakemeaningwhileengagedinactivities.Mediatedactivitiesconstructexternally—andinternally—orientedchanges.Specifically,toolsfunctionas“theconductorofhumaninfluenceontheobjectofactivity,”whereasthesignsserveas“ameansofinternalactivityaimedatmasteringoneself”(p.55).Vygotskianscholarsdescribethistransformativeinternalizationprocessbyusingthemetaphorof“appropriation”(Cole,1996;Rogoff,1995;Wertsch,1998).Thismetaphorchar-acterizestheprocessoflearningastool-mediatedtransformationandemphasizesownershipofaculturaltool-mediatedactivity.Ownershipofaculturalactivitymeansthatlearnerstrans-forminterpretationsofandrolesfortheactivitytoaccomplishtheirindividualpurposes.Thefundamentalconceptofappropriationisthatinsocialpracticesoflearning,peoplenotonlyprepare themselves for changes insubsequentsimilaractivities,butalsoascribedifferentinterpretativemeaningstothesesocialactivities.Therefore,fromasocioculturalperspective,weviewteacher-designedblogsastoolsthatstudentscanadopt,use,andtransformforvari-ousgoalswhileengaginginliteracytasks.

282


Martin — SFL, Mediation, and Academic Language Development in Schools

SFLscholarssuchasMartinandhiscolleagues,inworkoriginatingattheUniversityofSydneyin1979,havespentoverthirtyyearsdevelopingHallidayanandVygotskiantheoriesasawayofconceptualizing,researching,andteachingnon-dominantstudentshowacademiclanguageworksinthetextstheyareroutinelyaskedtoreadandwriteinschoolsacrossdisciplinarycon-textsastheytransitionfromprimarytosecondaryschoolandentercollegeortheworkforce(e.g.,Christie&Martin,1997;Christie&Derewianka,2008;Cope&Kalantzis,1993;Gibbons,2002;Hammond&Macken-Horarik,1999;Martin&Rose,2003,2008;seealsoNewLondonGroup,1996).InMartin’sframework,theexpandingsocialcontextsandassociatedsemioticactivities inwhich individualsparticipate constructdifferentgenres. Martin (1992)definesgenresas“staged,goal-orientedsocialprocesses”(p.505).Infunctionalterms,MartinandRose(2008)addthatgenresarerecurrentconfigurationsofmeaningandthattheserecurrentconfigurationsofmeaningenactthesocialpracticesofagivenculture(p.6).Withinthesocialpracticesofthecultureofschools,recurrentconfigurationsofmeaningincludesuchtasksasstudentsrecountingeventsduringsharetimeinkindergarten,readingandwritingnarrativesintheprimarygrades,arguingaperspectiveregardinghistoricaleventsinsocialstudies,de-scribingaclassificationsysteminscience,explainingastatisticalanalysisinmathematics,orwritingatechnicalprocedureinacomputerscienceinternship.MartinandRose(2008)arguethatasstudentsaresocializedintoreadingandwritingthesegenresandparticipatinginthesocialnetworksinwhichthesegenresaresituated,theyareapprenticedintoahierarchyofknowledgeandspecializedactivitiesthatcouldpotentiallygivethemthepowertoparticipateinconstructingandcontrolling“thenaturalandsocialworld”associatedwiththesegenres(p.226).Forexample,inregardtoscience,theymaintainthatasstudentsaregivenaccesstoandaresupportedinparticipatingindisciplinarysemioticpractices,theymovefromdevelop-ingmoreeverydayorcommonsensewaysofconstructingknowledgetomoreandmoreun-commonanddiscipline-specificunderstandingsofthematerialworld.BasedondemographicdatafromAustralia,theyarguethatasstudentstransitionfromprimarytosecondaryschoolsandeventuallytouniversities,accessibleformsofacademiclanguageapprenticeshipbecomemoreandmorelimitedasschoolsofferamoredifferentiatedcurriculum.Theyarguethatthisdifferentiationrecreatesclassstructuresandeconomicrealities,particularlyfornon-dominantstudentswhosehomeandcommunitylanguagepracticesdiffergreatlyfromthelanguageofschooling(seealsoBernstein,1996).MartinandRose(2008) illustratehowstudentswhoareawardedadvanceddegreesinthesciencesaremorelikelytoparticipateincreatingnewtechnologiesandinbeingeconomicallyrewardedfortheirworkinanincreasinglytechnology-driveneconomy;thosewhoareawardedmoretechnicaldegreesarelikelytoreceivefewereconomicrewardsandaremorelikelytoplayaroleinbuildingandmaintainingthesenewtechnologies;andthosewhoarenotgivenaccessorsupportedinlearningtheseacademicdiscoursesarelikelytohaveaharderandhardertimeadvancingintheireducationandmain-tainingasecurefootholdintherapidlychangingnewworkorderofthetwenty-firstcentury(Gebhard,2004,2005;Gee,Hull,&Lankshear,1996;NewLondonGroup,1996).

Indefininggenresinthisway,MartinreglossesHalliday’suseoftheconstructscontext of cul-ture andcontext of situation2tocapturehowthelanguageofschoolingreflectsandconstructsculturalsemioticpracticesthatarebothmaterialandinfusedwithideology(Martin&Rose,2008).Forexample,whilecanonicalnarrativesinEnglishhavepatternedgenremoves(e.g.,orientation,complication,resolution),theyvarydependingonthelocalcontextofsituation(Labov,1972).Thisvariationisreflectedinthegrammardependingonpurpose,audience,andthechannelthroughwhichthenarrativeunfolds.Forexample,ifa14-year-oldboytellsastorytoentertainfriendsoverlunchinschool,thenarrativewouldbeconstrueddifferentlythanifheconstructedthesamestoryasanEnglishclassassignmentforhisteacher.Thisver-sionwouldvarystillfromhowthesameeventswouldbeconveyedtoalargercommunityonablog,Facebook,orsomenewmeansofCMC.

283


Toanalyzeregistervariationsofthissort,MartinusesHalliday’sconceptsoffield, tenor, and mode (seeMartin&Rose,2008,p.11). Thefieldofaspecifictextreferstohowanindividualconstruesthelexicogrammaticalsystemathisorherdisposaltorealizethecontentorsubjectmatterofatext(e.g.,Wow! My ice melted already because it’s soooo hot!versusActually, ki-netic energy in the form of heat causes greater vibration between H2O molecules, resulting in a change in the state of matter from a solid to a liquid).Thetenorreferstohowanindividualconstruesthe lexicogrammaticalsystemtorealizesubjectivityorstance incommunication(e.g.,morecasualandemotiveversusscientificandauthoritativevoices).Themodereferstohowanindividualconstruesthelexicogrammaticalsystemtomanagetheflowofdiscourseinattemptstomakethetextcoherentandcohesive(e.g.,howgivenandnewinformationregardingicemeltingispresentedandwoventogetherinrelativelystraightforwardandeas-ilyrecoveredwaysineverydaydiscourseversushowacademictextspackde-contextualizedinformationintolongerclausesthroughtherealizationofverbsintonounssuchasvibrate/vibration).

SFLscholarshavecoupledHallidayandMartin’sperspectivesofSFLandVygotsky’sconceptsofappropriationandmediationindevelopingandresearchingapproachestodesigningcur-riculum, instructionandassessment tools for classroomuse. This synthesis, developed incollaborationwithK-12teachersandteachereducators,producedtheteaching-learning cycle(Macken-Horarik,2002;Feez,1998;Rothery,1996).TheNewLondonGroup(1996)furtherdevelopedthiscycleandinflecteditwithapost-structural,criticalperspectiveof languageandpedagogytoaccountfornewformsofCMCinanincreasinglyglobalizedworld(e.g.,theNewLondonGroup’savailable design,p.65). Thegoalofthiscycleistoexpandstudents’meaning-makingrepertoiresbyprovidingthemwithmodels,explicitinstruction,andcriticalanalysesofauthors’andtheirownsemioticchoicesastheylearntointerpretandproduceacademic texts in school.As articulatedby Feez (1998,p. 28), this cycle consists of fiveteaching-learningphases(seeFigure1).Duringthefirstphase,thecontext-buildingphase,teachersandstudentsdiscussagenre’spurposeandthecontextinwhichitistypicallyused,asawayofbuildingbothcontentandgenreknowledgeandconstructingasharedcontextforlearning.Thesecondphase,thetextmodelanddeconstructionphase,involvesanalyz-ingthegenrefeaturesofmodeltextsandfurtherdiscussingthecontextofcultureinwhichthesesampletextsareused.Thisstagealsoincludesattendingtotheclause-levelregisterfeaturesofselectedtextsasawayoffurtherexploringthesubjectmatter(field),anauthor’sstance(tenor),andhowtheauthormanagestheflowofthetext(mode)tosupporthisorherpurposesinspecificcontextsofsituation.Duringthethirdstage,calledthejointconstructionphase,teachersdrawoninsightsgleanedfromphasesoneandtwotoco-constructanewtextwithstudentsinthesamegenreasawayofmakinggenreknowledgeandtheprocessofcriticallymakingsemioticchoicesvisibletoallstudents.Stagefouristheindependentcon-structionphase.Teacherssupportstudentsinusingmodeltextsandtheiranalysesofthesetextsindrafting,revising,andeditingtheirowntextsandattendingtohowgenreandregisterchoicesconstructsubjectmatterandmaintaintextcoherence.Duringphasefive,studentsandteacherscomparewhattheyhavelearnedtoothergenresandcontextsbylinkingrelatedtexts.AsdiscussedbytheNewLondonGroup(1996),thisphaseshouldalsoincludecriticalframingandattemptsattransformingpractice.AsarguedbytheNewLondonGroup(1996),aphasethatincludestheseaspectsofthecycleisvitalbecauseofthetendencyforschoolstoreproduceratherthanaddresspowerdynamicsthroughsituatedpracticeandovertinstruc-tionalone.Theywrite,

Neither immersion in situated practiceswithin communities of learners, norovertinstructionofthesortVygotsky(1987)discussed,necessarilygivesrise

284


to critical understanding or cultural understanding. In fact, both immersionandmanysortsofovertinstructionarenotoriousassocializingagentsthatcanrenderlearnersquiteuncriticalandunconsciousoftheculturallocatednessofmeaningsandpractices.(NewLondonGroup,1996,p.85)

Figure1TheTeaching-LearningCycle(Feez,2008,p.28)

Insum, the teaching-learningcycleprovidesapraxisapproach foruniting theconceptualframeworksofHalliday,Martin,Vygotsky,andtheNewLondonGrouptoinformcurriculumde-velopment,datacollection,andanalysisofstudentlearning.SFL,genretheory,andthiscyclehavebeenusedbyanumberofL2literacyscholarsintheUnitedStatestosupporttheaca-demiclanguagedevelopmentofELLsattendingK-12schoolsinthecontextofcurrenthigh-stakes school reforms (Achugar, Schleppegrell, & Oteíza, 2007; Achugar & Schleppegrell,2005;Aguirre-Muñoz,Park,Amabisca,&Boscardin,2008;Brisk&Zisselsberger,2010;Fang&Schleppegrell,2010;Gebhard,Harman,&Seger,2007;Gebhard&Harman,inpress;Geb-hard,Willett,Jimenez,&Piedra,2010;Schleppegrell&deOliveira,2006).InformingthesescholarsistheresearchofMarySchleppegrellandhercolleagueswhodevelopedtheCali-forniaHistoryProject(CHP).ThisprojectintroducedmainstreamandESLsecondaryteach-erstousingSFLtoolstodeconstructthemeaningofhistorytextbookpassagesandprimarysourcedocuments.Achugaretal.(2007)reportthatCHPteacherswhoplannedlessonsthatincorporated SFL analyseswere able to facilitatemore in-depth discussions of history. Insummarizingtheirfindings,theywritethatstudentswhoseteachersparticipatedintheCHPmadesignificantlygreatergainsonthestateexamsthanstudentswhoseteachershadnotparticipatedintheworkshops,andELLswereamongthosewhoshowedthegreatestbenefits.

InanefforttobuildonSchleppegrell’sworkandcontributetoSFLtheoryandpractices incriticalways,thepurposeofthisstudyistoanalyzehowtheuseofCMCtools,specificallyblogging,incombinationwithgenre-basedpedagogyinfluencedemergentL2literacydevel-opmentovertimeinthecontextofahigh-povertyU.S.elementaryschoolservingPuertoRicanELLs.

METHODS

285


Context and Participants

This study was conducted in a large urban elementary school in a former industrial cityinNewEngland.Atthetimeofdatacollection,approximately700studentsingradespre-kindergarten throughfiveattended thisschool.Thisschoolserved thesurroundingPuertoRicancommunity,whichwasdescribedinlocalandstatemediapiecesasoneofthepoorestcommunitiesinMassachusetts.Nearlyallofthestudentswereeligibleforafreeorreducedlunch;nearlyhalfreportedtheirhomelanguagewasSpanish;andnearlyallwerefailingthestatemandatedexamsinreading,Englishlanguagearts,andmathematics(MassachusettsDepartmentofEducation,profiles.doe.mass.edu/search).Inaddition,atthetimeofthestudyin2005,theschooldidnothaveacomputerlaborprovidestudentswithinstructioninusingtechnologywithinindividualclassrooms.Asaresult,students’andteachers’accessanduseoftechnologywerelimitedtowhatindividualteachersmadepossibleusingtheirownresources.Inthesecond-gradeclassroomwhereweconductedthisethnographicstudy,theteacher,Mrs.Seger,equippedtheroomwithtwoG3computersthathadoutdatedkeyboardsandoperatingsystemsandaprinterthathadbelongedtoherfather.InSeptember,atthebeginningofdatacollection,thiscomputerwasusedprimarilytopracticekeyboardingskills.

Mrs.Seger,awhitewomaninherearlyfifties,wasawell-regardedelementaryschoolteacherwithover twentyyearsof teachingexperience inavarietyofcontexts.However,shewasnewtoteachinginthisschool,toworkingwithELLs,andtousingtechnologyindesigningcurriculumandinstruction.ShebecameinvolvedinthisstudythroughherparticipationinafederallyfundedteacherprofessionaldevelopmentprogramthatofferedaMaster’sDegreeinEducationandastatelicenseinTeachingEnglishasaSecondLanguage.Thisprogram,calledtheACCELAAlliance(AccesstoCriticalContentandEnglishLanguageAcquisition),providedin-serviceteacherswithscholarshipsandresearchassistantstocompleteon-sitecourseworkandaction-orientedresearchprojectsintheirclassrooms.Courseworkcenteredonreadingrelevantscholarship;criticallyanalyzingstatecurricularframeworksandexams;designingcurriculum,instruction,andassessmenttoolsrelatedtosupportingstudents’criticalacademicliteracydevelopment;andcollectingandanalyzingdatarelatedtostudentlearning.ThetwouniversityresearcherswhocollaboratedwithMrs.SegeronthisinvestigationwereMegGeb-hardandDong-shinShin.Meg,awhitewoman,taughtcoursesinsecondlanguagelearningandacademicliteracydevelopmentwithintheACCELAAllianceandcollaboratedwithteachersandresearchassistantsindesigningresearchstudies.Dong-shin,aKoreanwomanwithre-searchinterestsincomputer-assistedlanguagelearning,actedasMrs.Seger’sco-researcher,co-teacher,andtechnologyspecialistthroughoutthefirstyearofthestudy.

Mrs.Seger’ssecond-gradeclassroomwascomprisedof19students,allbutfivePuertoRi-can,whohadarangeofproficienciesandliteracyabilitiesinEnglishandSpanish.Ofthefivenon-Spanishspeakers,threewereAfricanAmerican,onewaswhite,andonewasChinese.Inthisstudy,wefocusononeofthePuertoRicanstudentswecall“Diany.”WeselectedDianyinconsultationwithMrs.SegerbasedonMrs.Seger’s interest inbetterunderstandingtheneedsofstudentswhofitDiany’sprofileasasecond-language“strugglingreaderandwriter.”DianywasbornintheUnitedStatesandreportedspeakingmostlySpanishathome.Shelivedwithhermother,father,andoldersister,whohadasonanddaughter.Diany’smotherplayedanactiveroleinsupportingherdaughterandgranddaughter’seducation.Herabilitytoplaythisrolewasfacilitatedbyherjobintheschoolcafeteria,whichallowedhertovisittheclassregularly.Forexample,sheattendedclassroomeventsinwhichstudentssharedtheirfinalprojectsofvariousgenre-basedcurricularunits.Onesuchprojectinvolvedparentsrelatingfamilystoriesaspartofaclassroomunitonnarratives.

Socially,Diany’steachersdescribedheras“friendly”and“veryoutgoing.”Academically,how-ever,shewasidentifiedasa“low-performing”or“at-risk”readerbasedonanationallyused

286


readingassessmentcalledDIBELS(Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills).3Thiswidely used assessmentmeasures phonological awareness, alphabetic principles, fluency,vocabulary, and comprehensionof early literacy skills in English. At the beginning of theschoolyear,Dianyscoredalow47outof100,indicatingthatshewasinneedofremedia-tion.Shealsoscoredinthe“needsimprovement”rangeonstateexamsinlanguageartsandmathematics.BecauseMassachusettspassedapropositionlimitingstatesupportforbilingualeducationpriortothisstudy,wedonothaveanyformaldataregardingDiany’sSpanishpro-ficiency.However,Mrs.Seger,whowasconversationallyfluentinSpanish,remarkedthatDi-anyusedSpanishindailyroutinesinproficientways(e.g.,drop-offandpick-uproutineswithmother,classroomandlunchroomchatwithpeers),buthaddifficultyincommunicatingaboutacademicworkinSpanish.Forexample,Mrs.SegerreportedthatsomeofthemoreSpanish-proficientstudentsintheclassoftenmade“unkindremarks”regardingDiany’sSpanishwhenMrs.SegerencouragedthemtouseSpanishinmakingsenseofnewcontentmaterial.

Regardingtechnology,likeallofthestudentsinMrs.Seger’sclass,Dianydidnothaveaccesstoorexperienceusingcomputersatschoolorathomepriortoherparticipationinthisstudy.

Blog-mediated Teaching-Learning Cycle

ThewritingcurriculumimplementedinMrs.Seger’sclasswasinfluencedbyACCELAcourse-work,specificallythereadinganddiscussionofrequiredtextssuchasDyson’s(1993)Social Worlds of Children Learning to Write,Derewianka’s(1990)Exploring How Texts Work,andSchleppegrell’s (2004)The Language of Schooling. These texts introduce teachers to so-cioculturaltheory,classroomethnographicmethods,SFL,genretheory,andthecurriculumcycle.Inaddition,Mrs.SegerandDong-shinwereinterestedinmakinggreateruseoftech-nologicaltoolstosupportstudents’literacydevelopmentbyhavingthemwriteforexpandedpurposes and audiences, encouraging them to investmore effort in school-basedwritingtasks(Dyson,1993;Lee,2010;seePeirce,1995,foradiscussionoftheconstructofinvest-ment).Asaresult,ACCELAprovidedtheclasswithfourlaptopsthroughouttheschoolyear.Dong-shinalsocreatedaclassblogcalled“SegerKids”andprovidedcomputerworkshopsforstudentsandparentsintheclassroomandatalocalpubliclibrary(Shin,Gebhard,&Seger,2010).Intheseworkshops,participantslearnedhowtowordprocess,useWebbrowsers,andpostcommentstotheclassblog,showninFigure2.Thepurposeoftheseworkshopswastoprovidetechnologytrainingandintroducestudentstotechnologyresourcesofferedintheircommunitythroughthecitylibrary.Familieswereintroducedtotheblogandsupportedinlearninghowtousetheblogwhentheyattendedopenhouses,parent-teacherconferences,andotherclassroomevents.

287


Figure2ClassBlogInterface

Relativetootherfamilies,Diany’sfamilydidnotactivelyusetheblogtointeractwithDianyaboutherwritingotherthanthesinglepostfromDiany’smother,shownbelow,whichisfol-lowedbyitsEnglishtranslationandDiany’sreply:

MininaDiany,Leitucartaqueescribistesatuamiga.Estoyorgullosadeti,porreconocertuerror,esbuenopedirperdonaunamigo(a)cuandonosequivo-camo.yotambienhuvierahecholomismoquetuhicistes.Eresbuenaamigaybuenahijatequiere,muchomami.

Postedby:Diany’sMom|November08,2005at10:13AM

(Translation: My girl, Diany, I read the letter that you wrote to your friend. I am proud of you for recognizing your mistake. It is good to ask a friend to forgive us when we do something wrong. I would have done the same thing you did. You are a good friend and a good daughter. With much love, Mommy.)

Dearmom

thank for giveingme5 dollers formyattendance. I can’twait spendmy5dollers.IlikeyourSpanishletter.Iknowhowtoreadinspanish.DidMrs.Dong-shintichedyouhowtodothecomputerIthinkshedid.Mrsdong-shinisthecamrapersonhowvidotapettheclassroom.

Postedby:Diany|November08,2005at01:28PM

Despiteusingtheblogonlyonce,Diany’sfamilywasverysupportiveofheruseoftechnol-ogyinschool.Forexample,Mrs.SegerreportedthatDiany’smothernoticedherdaughter’sinterestinandabilitiesusingtheclassblogandconvincedherhusbandtobuythefamilyacomputerforChristmas.Mrs.Segeralsoreportedthatafterthispurchase,Diany’smotherreferredtoherasthe“computerexpert”forthefamily.

Todevelopthecurricularplan,Mrs.SegerandDong-shinalsoreviewedthestate’sEnglish

288


LanguageArts Curriculum Frameworks and analyzed the language demands ofmandatedstateexams,whichstudentswererequiredtotakeingrades3,4,and5.Basedonthisanaly-sis,they identifiedfivemaingenresonwhichtofocuscurriculumandinstructionovertheacademicyear.Thesegenres included letters, recounts, informational reports,arguments,andexplanationsinresponsetoliterature(seeChristie&Derewianka,2008).Indevelopingcurricularunitstosupportstudentsinlearningtoreadandwritethesespecificgenres,Mrs.SegerandDong-shinadaptedthephasesofthecurriculumcycletoincludebloggingactivi-ties(Shin,Gebhard,&Seger,2010).Aswithphaseoneoftheteaching-learningcycle,Mrs.Segerfirstintroducedthetargetgenreandsupportedstudentsindiscussingitspurposeandthecontextsinwhichitistypicallyused(e.g.,friendlyletters).Second,sheprovidedstudentswithmodeltexts.Shedeconstructedthesetextsforstudentstosupporttheminbecomingawareofgenrepatternsandthekindsoflinguisticchoicesauthorsmaketoconveyinforma-tion(field),establisharelationshipwiththeirreader(tenor),andmanagetheflowoftheirideassoreaders“don’tgetlost”(mode).Third,Mrs.Segerco-constructedanadditionalsam-pletextwithstudentsasawayoffurtherexploringthekindsoflinguisticchoicesavailabletostudents.Thegoalofthisphasewastoexpandstudents’linguisticrepertoiresandcriticallyanalyzethenatureoftheirlinguisticchoicesinrelationtotheirpurpose(s)andaudience(s).Fourth,atthelocallibraryandintheclassroom,Dong-shininstructedstudentsinhowtowritedraftsandpostthemtotheblog.SomestudentselectedtousepencilandpaperandotherscomposedtheirtextsonlineasMrs.SegerandDong-shincirculatedthroughtheroom,dur-ingthisstageaswellasthenext,toprovidebothtechnicalsupportandwritinginstructionasneeded.Fifth,Mrs.SegerandDong-shindemonstratedhowstudentsandtheirfamiliescouldrespondtopostsusingtheclassblog.Theyalsocontinuedtosupportstudentsincriticallyanalyzingthelinguisticchoices(e.g.,aspectsoftenor)theymightmakeinpostingtotheblogandrespondingtomessagespostedbytheirfriends,familymembers,theschoollibrarian,ormembersoftheACCELAresearchcommunity.Andlast,studentsusedthefeedbacktheyreceivedinonlineandface-to-faceexchangestorevisetheirtexts,whichtheythenturnedintoMrs.Segerinhardcopyform.

Data Collection

Indescribinghowthesedataweregeneratedandcollected,itisimportanttonotethattheclassblogdidnotfunctioninwaystypicalofotherclassblogs(e.g.,teachersandstudentspostingclassnewsandcommentaries).Rather, itwasdeliberatelydesignedandusedasapedagogicaltooltosupportstudents,teachers,andfamilymembersingivingandreceivingfeedbackonstudents’emergentliteracypracticeswithaneyetowardexpandingthenatureofthelinguisticchoicesstudentsmightmakedependingonthepurposesandaudiencesoftheirtexts.Studentsandteacherscertainlyusedtheblogtoexchangeinformationandideasaboutnon-academictopics,butitspurposewaslargelyapedagogicaloneandrelatedtoscaffoldingschool-basedliteracypractices.

Datacollectionandanalysiscombinedthetoolsofclassroomethnography(Dyson,1993)andgenreanalysisusingthetoolsofSFL(Christie&Derewianka,2008;Martin&Rose,2008).ThepurposeofthiscombinationwastoanalyzebothprocessandproductdatarelatedtohowMrs.Segerandherstudentsparticipatedingenre-basedinstructioninclassandonlineaswellashowtheseinteractionsinfluencedstudents’textproductionandinterpretationpracticesovertime.Tocapturebothprocessandproductdata,theunitofanalysisforthisstudywasthe“curricularunit.”Thisunitofanalysiscomprisedmaterialsfromalltheactivitiesofplanningeachcurricularunit (e.g., teachingmaterialsused inACCELAcourses,curricularmaterialsmandatedbytheschoolordistrict,teacher-madehandoutsandworksheets);theprocessofteachingtheunit(e.g.,videotapedclassroominteractions);andthetextsELLsproducedin

289


connectionwitheachunit(e.g.,hardcopynotesanddrafts,onlineposts).

Datawerecollectedover22monthsbetweenAugust,2005,and June,2007. During the2005-2006academicyear, thestudentswereenrolled inMrs.Seger’ssecond-gradeclass.Inthisfirstyearofdatacollection,foreachcurricularunitDong-shinvideotapedclassroomeventsandtranscribedclassroominteractions,wrotefieldnotes,collectedinstructionalma-terialsandstudenttexts(hardandelectroniccopies),andconductedinformalinterviewswithMrs.Segerandherstudents.

Duringthesecondyear,Mrs.Segertookapositionastheschool’s“EnglishLanguageArtsIn-structionalLeader”andnolongerhadherownclassroom.However,shemaintainedtheclassblogovermuchofthe2006-2007academicyearinamorelimitedway,providingreadingandwriting“tutoring”tostudentsbeforeandafterschool.Thesetutoringsessionsweredesignedtosupportstudentsinreadingandrespondingtotheliteraturetheywereassignedaspartofthethird-gradeLanguageArtscurriculumintheschool.Asaresult,datacollectionduringyeartwofocusedexclusivelyontheblogpoststhatstudentsproducedmoreindependentlyandnotasacomponentofadedicatedblockofLanguageArtsinstruction.Duringthisyear,Mrs.SegerreportedthatDianytaughtotherstudents,newtoblogging,howtocomposeatthekeyboard,posttheirdrafts,andcommentonpeerwork.Giventhattimewaslimitedbe-foreandafterschool,theamountofbloggingthathappenedinschoolwithassistancefromMrs.Segerdecreased,andDianybegantoblogmoreindependentlyfromhome.

Data Analysis

Analysisofthesedataoccurredinthreephases.Phaseoneconsistedofacontentanalysisoftheactivitiesassociatedwitheachunitofstudy.Thepurposeofthisphasewastodescribetheclassroomandonlineliteracyactivitysystems,identifymajortrendsinthedata,andac-complishtheinterimtaskofdatareduction.PhasetwoconsistedofprofilingDiany’sliteracypracticesassheengagedinclassroomandonlineactivitiesrelatedtoproducingtargetgenres(e.g., letters, recounts, explanations, reports, arguments). Last, phase three centered onanalyzingthelinguisticfeaturesofDiany’spostedtextsusingthetoolsofSFL(e.g.,genreandregisterfeaturesofstudenttexts;seeMartin&Rose,2008;Christie&Derewianka,2008).

FINDINGSANDDISCUSSION

AnanalysisofthedatarevealsthatDianyusedtheclassblogtocommunicatewithanex-pandedaudienceforawiderangeofacademicandsocialpurposesinwaysthatalsoexpandedhersemioticresources.InSFLterms,Dianyusedbloggingininterpersonalwaystoconstructanddisplaysocialrolesrelatedtobeingavaluedpeerandgoodstudent.Simultaneously,shedevelopedagreatermetalinguisticawarenessof thesemioticresourcesavailable inonlinecommunicationtotextuallydisplaytheserolesaswellastobettermanagetheflowofherwrittendiscourse.Consequently,Dianydevelopedanabilitytoproducemorevariedandcom-plexclausestructures,agreatercontrolovertenseandmodality,andabetterunderstandingofthedifferencesbetweenoralandprinteddiscourse.Inthefollowingdiscussion,weillus-tratehowDianyusedbloggingtocommunicatewithanexpandedaudiencebyanalyzinghowshe(1)completedgenre-basedclassassignments,(2)providedotherstudentswithfeedbackontheirwriting,and(3)constructedanddisplayedsocialboundariesandstatus.Finally,weprovideananalysisofDiany’slanguagedevelopmentthroughbloggingoverthecourseofthe22monthsofthestudy.

290


Completing Genre-based Assignments

Inlinewiththeoverarchinggoalofdesigningagenre-basedandblog-mediatedcurriculumtoteachgrade-levelliteracypracticestosecond-gradeELLs,thefirstunitofstudyfocusedonteachingstudentshowtowrite“friendlyletters.”Thisunitwasthefirstofseveralfocusingongenresstipulatedinthestatecurriculumframeworksandassessedonstateexams.Otherunitsfocusedonwritingshortnarrativesorrecountsofspecialevents,descriptionsoffriends,reportsonanimalcharacteristics,persuasive letterstoBillGatesrequestingcomputersfortheclassroom,andexplanationsinresponsetoliterature.Inthecontextofthefirstunit,Mrs.Segerprovidedstudentswithamodelandexplicitinstructioninthegenreandregisterfea-turesoffriendlyletters.StudentsdraftedtheirownlettersonpaperandatthecomputerusingMrs.Seger’smodelandDong-shinprovidedtechnicalsupportasneededtoassiststudentsinpostingtheirletterstotheblog.

AsillustratedinFigure3,DianypostedanapologylettertoaclassmatenamedMariregardinganincidentingymclassthatinvolvedstudentsformingtwoteamswithsomestudentswear-ingrednylonvestsandothersnot.DianyexcludedMarifromtheredteambynotgivingherwhatshereferstoasared shurt(redshirt).

Figure3Diany’sFriendlyLetter

October18/2005/

DearMari

sorydintletyouputtheredshurtonyouinjymsoryIgotyoumadPLESEfor-givemesoryigotyouverymadIwishIwooddoyouonethingforyouIwishyouhadtheredshurtonIwillputyoutheshurtnexttimeIwillmakeituptoyouyouaremyfriendplesebemyfriendjymtimewashardbutitgotfunitgothotinjymwasveryveryveryswetyweweretiredintherewegotcoolinthehallway.

Love

Yourbestfrienddiany

04:30PMinLetterWriting|Permalink

Inpostingthisletter,DianydraftedthistextinlinewithMrs.Seger’sinstructiontousethegenrefeaturesexplicitlymodeledinclass.Dianystipulatedthedate(October18/2005);beganwithagreetingtypicalofletterwriting(Dear Mari); includedamessageinthebodyofthetextthatmadeclearthepurposeoftheletter(sory dint let you put the red shurt on you in jym sory I got you mad PLESE forgive me);madeseveralstatementsregardinggymclass,andclosedwithasign-offalsotypicalofletterwriting(Your best friend diany).Inpostingthisletter,Dianyattemptedtoconstructanddisplayherselfasacontriteandvaluedpeerandacompetentwriterandcomputeruser.Thesewererolessheactivelypursuedandconstructedinclassandonlineoverthecourseofthestudy.However,atthebeginningoftheyear,asanemergentuserofprint,DianyspelledwordsusingherdevelopingknowledgeoftheEnglishsoundsystemandgraphology(e.g.,jym/gym, swety/sweaty).Shealsodidnotusepunctua-tioninwaysthatwouldsupportreadersinparsingtheflowofdiscourseinherpost.Ifcommu-nicatingthesameinformationfacetoface,shemayhavechosenthesamelexicalitemsand

291


grammaticalstructures,butshewouldhavemanagedtheflowoflanguageusingsemioticre-sourcesreadilyavailableinoralbutnotinwrittendiscourse(e.g.,pauses,breath,intonation,andgestures).ThisdifferenceissomethingMrs.Segeraddressedinclassinstructionandherpostedresponse(Figure4),whichdrewattentiontothefunctionalneedforpunctuationinDiany’spostratherthansimplystatingtheformalrulethataperiodgoesafterasentence.Inprovidingthisfeedback,Mrs.SegeralsomaintainedandreinforcedDiany’sperceptionofherselfasacompetentstudentandvaluedmemberoftheclass(e.g.,You wrote several nice sentences, but some don’t have a period or question mark. If you could fix that, your letter would be easier to read).

Figure4BlogCommentPostedbyMrs.Seger

DearDiany,

YourapologylettertoMariwasverythoughtful.I’msureshewillappreciateit.

Youwrote several nice sentences, but some don’t have a period or questionmark.Ifyoucouldfixthat,yourletterwouldbeeasiertoread.

Keepwriting!

Yourteacher,

Mrs.Seger

Postedby:Mrs.Seger|November01,2005at09:40PM

Diany’slackofcontroloverpunctuationandknowledgeofconceptionsofprintwasconsistentwithherlevelofdevelopmentasanemergentreader/writeratthebeginningofsecondgrade.Shedid,however,exploitothertextualaffordancesofprintinwaysthatwereinserviceofherprimaryinterpersonalgoalofrepairingandfurthersolidifyingherrelationshipwithMari.Forexample,sheusedcapitalsforemphasisinmakingherapology(PLESE forgive me)andselectedalargerfontforthewordLove tocloseherletter.Thechoiceoflove wasoneDianyselectedfromalistofpossiblechoicesMrs.Segermadeavailabletotheclassinmodelingtenoraspectsofletterwritingonaclinethatranfromintimate,toinformal,tomoreformal(e.g.,love, best wishes, best, yours truly, sincerely).Ideationally,Dianymadeotherlexico-grammaticalchoices,suchasI wish you had the red shurt (shirt);I will make it up to you; you are my friend, plese (please) be my friend.Collectively,thesetextualandideationalre-sourcesachievedthepurposeofconstructingasincereapologythatMariaccepted(Figure5),butshedidsowiththemoreformalsign-offbest, perhapssignalinggreatersocialdistancethanDianywashopingforgiventheteachers’emphasisonandtheirunderstandingoftheaspectoftenor.

292


Figure5BlogCommentPostedbyMari

Ilikeyourletter.Itisgrat.Thankyouforwritungmethislettre.Iforgiveyou.

Best

Mari

Postedby:Mari|November02,2005at12:41PM

Posting Feedback

As the school year progressed, students developed increasingly sophisticatedways of re-spondingtoeachother’swritingusingtheclassblog.Forexample,atthebeginningoftheyear,studentstendedtopostmorephaticresponsesbywritingcommentssuchas“Ilikeyourletter.”Afterparticipatinginadditionalunitsofstudythatfocusedonotherdiscipline-specificgenresandtheassociatedregister featuresof thesegenres(e.g.,descriptions inScience;narrativesandresponsestoliteratureinLanguageArts),theirpostsbecamemorevariedandsubstantive,andtheyattendedmoretothefield,tenor,andmodeofeachother’sdrafts.Forexample,inthecontextofaunitinwhichstudentsresearcheddifferentmammalsandana-lyzedthelinguisticfeaturesofdescription,aclassmatenamedJoceywroteandpostedafirstdraftaboutskunks.Diany’sresponseisillustratedinFigure6.

Figure6BlogCommentPostedbyDiany

Dear joceyyouhaveagreatstoryskunkscansprayrealystinky.I learda lotabuotyourstoryIthinkyourstoryisthebestitissomuchfunreadingitIknpw123stinkwoo!!!!!!!!!!IwoodbelikeAHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!iWILLBERUNINGASCRAZY

LOVEDIANY

Postedby:Diany|October26,2006at09:27PM

Inthispost,DianygaveJocey’stexthighpraise(you have a great story, I think your story is the best, it is so much fun reading it). Shealso reiteratedsomeof themain facts shelearnedfromreadingJocey’stext.Namely,skunksgivethreewarningsignsbeforetheyspray(I know123 stink woo!!!!!!!!!).SheconcludedbytakingmoreofanemotivestanceinwhichshepersonallyengageswithJocey’spost(I wood be like AHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! i WILL BE RUNING AS CRAZY). Dianytookupthismoreemotivetenorbyexploitingthemodalresourcesofprintbyusingcapitallettersandexclamationmarkstocreatetheeffectofyellingloudlyandrunningfast.

Afinalwayinwhichstudentsrespondedtoeachother’stextscenteredonappropriatingMrs.Seger’s instructional discourse related to genre-based pedagogy and thewriting process.Specifictothewritingprocess,studentsgaveoneanotherfeedbackbydrawingattentiontospellingerrorsandtyposasillustratedinFigure7.

293


Figure7BlogCommentsPostedbyDiany

youwrotewritewrong.

lovediany

Postedby:Diany|April11,2006at11:25AM

DearJose

youwrotethankslikethist5hank.butthankyouforsentingmeback.

lovediany

Postedby:Diany|April12,2006at03:59PM

Inregardtogenre-basedpedagogy,studentsechoedMrs.Seger’sinstructioninrespondingtothegenreandregisterfeaturesofeachother’stexts.Forexample,inapostrelatedtothelettercampaigntoBillGates,astudent,Dawn,correctedoneofDiany’s typos(e.g.,buy/busy)anddrewattentiontoaspectsofregisterbycommentingonhowsheclosedherletter.AsshowninFigure8,sheremindedDianyoftheclassdiscussionsregardingthedifferencebetweenlove,whichtheydecidedshouldbeusedwithfriendsandfamily,andsincerely,whichshouldbeusedinmoreformalbusinesssettings.

Figure8BlogCommentPostedbyDawn

DearDiany

Ilikeyourletter.youneedtousesincerelyinsteadoflove.andyouputbuyin-steadofbusy.

yourfrienddawn

Postedby:dawn|May30,2006at01:33PM

InadditiontoDawn,anotherstudentnamedJosemadeasimilarcomment,showninFigure9,whichpromptedDianytorespondthatshewouldusesincerely becausetouselove wouldbeembarrassing.


Dearjose

Iwilldosincerlycausethatsinbarisen

towritelovetomrgatesthat’sNOTright

lovediany

Postedby:Diany|May30,2006at12:59PM

294


Inthecontextofthesameunit,theclassalsodiscussedtheeffectofmakingarequestwithseveraliterationsofthewordplease.Thegeneralagreementwasthattoomanyusesofthewordplease amountedto“begging”forsomethingasopposedto“requesting”it.Inrespond-ingtoanotherstudentnamedAngie,DianydrewherattentiontothisdifferenceasshowninFigure10.ShealsogaveAngiefeedbackthatshedidnotsubstantiateherrequestbyex-plainingwhytheclassneededcomputers,whichwasakeyfeatureofMrs.Seger’smodelandaccompanyinginstruction.


DearAngie

Youhavetoomanypleases.Youdidnottellwhyweneedcomputers.

lovediany

Postedby:Diany|May31,2006at12:29PM

Collectively,thesepostsillustratethatDianyandmanyofherclassmateswereabletoutilizethecombinationofclassroominstructionandbloggingtoconstructacommunityofwriterswhoprovidedfeedbacktoeachotherasawayofvalidatingeachother’seffortswhilealsoat-tendingtoaspectsofgraphology,register,andgenre.

Constructing and Displaying Social Networks

Asevidentinthedatadiscussedthusfar,studentsrespondedtoeachother’spostsforava-rietyofpurposes, includingtopraise,thank,joke,apologize,request informationandgiveinformation.Studentsalsousedbloggingtocompete,agree,disagree,defendopinions,giveevidence, provoke, and scold. For example,Diany used blogging to apologize (Figure 3);praiseandjoke(Figure6);providefeedback(Figures7and10);andthankandacceptfeed-back(Figure9).Throughthesefunctions,sheusedblogging,sometimessubtlyandatothertimesovertly,toconstructanddisplaysocialnetworksandpowerdynamicsrelatedtopeerrelationships.Forexample,Dianywassensitivetoandregularlykepttrackofthenumberofcommentssheandothersreceivedtotheirposts.Incaseswhereaclassmatedidnotreceiveanycomments,shewasquicktoprovideone,butoftendidsoinawaythatalsoconstructedthestudentasalessvaluedpeer,asillustratedinFigure11.

295



DearKeisha

Ifeelbadforyoubecauseyouhave1comentsoIwillwishyoualotofcoment.

lovediany


Dearray

Ifeelbadforyoubecauseyouhaveknowonetorighttoyou.

lovediany


Ininterviewswithstudentsregardingtheirbloggingpractices,theyindicatedthattheyof-tenrespondedtotheir“bestfriends”firstandstudentswhodidnothavemanycommentsnext.Assuch,postssuchasthoseillustratedinFigure11simultaneouslyhadtheintendedconsequenceofconveyingaffinityandempathyandtheunintendedconsequenceofpubliclythreateningthereceiver’sstatusintheclass.

Moreovertthreatstostudents’socialstatus,whileseldom,wereevidentbothinonlineandface-to-facecommunicationbetweenstudentswhohadmorevolatilefriendships,aswasevi-dentininteractionsbetweenDianyandastudentnamedFelecia.Forexample,aftertheintro-ductionoftheblog,FeleciacapitalizedonakeyaffordanceofWeb2.0socialcomputing—theeaseofassuminganother’sidentity.Shedidthisbyposting“Iloveyou”toDianyusingDawn’sname.ThisincidentresultedinaclassdiscussionregardingthedangersandillegalityofwhatMrs.Segercalled“identitytheft”andadiscussionofclassnormsregardingpro-socialblog-gingpractices.Whilethisconversationreinforcedclassexpectationsandacultureofcivility,Feleciaonoccasionstillusedbloggingtoprovokeherpeers,asillustratedinFigure12whenshepressedDianyforaconfirmationoftheirfriendshipafterDianywroteadescriptionofan-otherclassmateaspartofaunitofstudyondescriptions.FromanSFLperspective,Feleciaaccomplishedthisbyformingaquestionwiththeadverbsure tomarkhighpositivepolarity(e.g.,are you sure)andsigningoffwiththewordLOVE incapitalletters.

Figure12BlogCommentPostedbyFelecia

DearDianyareyousureyouaremyfriend.LOVEFelecia

Postedby:felecia|March15,2006at12:18PM

DianyrespondedasillustratedinFigure13inawaythatpragmaticallyparallelshercommentsdisplayedinFigure11.Thatis,shesimultaneouslyconstructedsolidaritywithFeleciawithherownuseoftheadverbsure (I am sure I am going to be your friend)whilealsodeclaringFele-ciatobefriendlessandthereforehavingverylowstatus.Sheintensifiedthestingofthisput-downwithcapitalletters,markeduseofexclamationmarks,andtheimperativeso chill.She

296


thenmitigatedthisstingbyclosingwithasign-offthatalsosignalshighaffinity(love diany).


Dear felecia, I am sure I am going to be your friend beacause you don’t have a lot of friends so I was sure I am going to be your friend so don’t be like ARE YOU GOING TO BE MY FRIEND!!!!!!!!!!!! so chill.love dianyPosted by: Diany | March 23, 2006 at 12:36 PM

Whileperhapsalarmingtoreaderswhodonotspendmuchtimewithelementaryschoolstu-dents,dynamicssuchasthesearearoutinepartofchilddevelopmentandarewelldocument-edintheliteratureregardingchildpsychology(e.g.,Crick&Grotpeter,1995),thesociologyofchildhood(e.g.,Thorne,1993),andinethnographiesofearlyliteracydevelopmentinschools(e.g.,Dyson,1993).Assuch,theyarealsorepresentativeofhowstudentsusedbloggingasanextensionoftheirface-to-facesocialnetworksandthepowerdynamicsrelatedtothesenetworks.Specifically,theyusedbloggingtonegotiateidentityandstatus,includingtakingonateachervoiceincorrectingoneanother’slow-levelspellingandpunctuationmistakes.ThisfindingsupportsotherstudiesthatsuggestthatCMCsemioticpracticesoftenreconstructface-to-facesocialpractices (e.g.,Lam,2000,2009;Shin,2006).However, incontrast toface-to-faceinteractions,bloggingaffordedstudentsacomputer-mediatedpublicsphereofinfluencethattranscendedthephysicallimitsoftheclassroomandthetemporalspaceoftheschoolday.

Literacy Development through Blogging

ThesecondquestionposedbythisstudyfocusesonhowELLs’emergentliteracypracticesandabilitiestoproducewrittentextschangeovertimeasevidencedbyblogpostings.Inexplor-ingthisquestion,thedatarevealthatthefunctionsforwhichDianyusedbloggingpushedandexpandedhermeaning-makingrepertoiresinregardtographology,lexicogrammar,anddiscoursesemantics.Inotherwords,asstudentsprogressedfromusingbloggingtoaccom-plishmorephaticfunctionsinthebeginningoftheyear(e.g.,I like your letter, thank you,seeFigure5) to communicatingmorepropositionally loaded functions, they triedoutanddevelopedagreatermetalinguisticawarenessofandcontrolovermorecomplexgrammaticalconstructionsandaspectsofwrittendiscourse.Thisprogression,whilecertainlynotlinearisillustratedinFigure14.

297



Dear Mari I like your litter it was kind of you it was good tohear it.Posted by: Diany | October 28, 2005 at 11:16 AM

Dear keylaI feel bad for you becauseyou bork your back. So I woder how did you learn how to walk again?

your friend DianyPosted by: Diany | February 17, 2006 at 11:14 AM

jose can you tall every body in the class peas goood bye pluss mrs.segerbecause she is a graet teacher thank you all in the class for lissien to this becuse I have to go to sleep every body have a niceday than I wiil give you all soovinerspeiple who I have not wrote to you I am soory because my mom said go to sleep because we have to wace up at 5:30 so ggod night love dianyPosted by: Diany | May 9, 2006 at 10:00 AM

Dear Jose,You are the baby of the family. Me, too. I feel kind of left out since my niece and nefio came. My mom puts all of the attashian for the kids. My mom taught me how to carry my niece. Now I can feed her. My nefio is really heavy and he can really drool on me. Sincerely,DianyPosted by: Diany | February 3, 2007 at 10:27 AM

Dear mrs.seger,One of harriet’s goals was to be a pilot. And she had lessons. Another goal was from the story is she made her own close cause all men only worked on planes so she soyed her own suit.sincerly dianyPosted by: Diany | April 2, 2007 at 9:33 PM

Asevidencedinthesecomments,whichdisplayDiany’sfirstpostinOctober,2005,toherlastposttoMrs.SegerinMarch,2007,Dianycontinuedtolackcontroloverpunctuationandspell-ing,butdemonstratedanexpansioninthefunctionsherpostsserved:

•Praising(e.g.,I like your litter; it was kind of you, it was good to hear it, inthepostof10/28/2005);

•Expressingcuriosity(e.g., I feel bad for you beause… I woder how…, inthepostof2/17/2006);

•Requestingactionandcommittingtofutureaction(e.g.,can you tall every-body in the class pleas goood bye….I will give you all soovineers, inthepostof

298


5/9/2006);

•Explaining(e.g.,I am soory because my mom said go to sleep because we have to wace up at 5:30, inpostof5/9/2006,andI feel kind of left out since my niece and nefio came. My mom puts all of the attashian for the kids, inthepostof2/3/2007);

•Providingevidencetosupportaclaiminthecontextofdiscussingapieceofliterature(e.g.,Another goals was from that story is she made her own close cause all men only worked on the planes so she soyed her own suit, inthepostof4/2/2007).

FromanSFLperspective,performingthesemorevariedfunctionsinwritingthroughbloggingnecessitatedthatDianyexpandthegrammaticalresourcesavailabletoher,includingmodalresourcesrelatedtoprint.Forexample,despiteinconsistentusesofpunctuationandstan-dardizedspelling,whichcouldhavebeenanartifactoftheinformalmodeofbloggingand/orlackofattentiontoeditinginanearlydraftofapieceofwriting,sheprogressedfrompro-ducingsimplesubject-verb-objectpatternstousingmorecomplexclausestructurestoallowhertomanagemultipleeventsintime,showcausality,elaboratenominalgroupsusingWHclauses,andkeeptrackofparticipantsusingpronouns.DrawingondatashowninFigure14,thisfindingisillustratedinFigure15.Wehavenotedaspectsoftenseinbracketsandcausal-ityinbold.Wehavealsomarkedclausebreakswithabackslash(/)andincludedthedateoftheposttoillustratechangeovertime.

Figure15AnalysisofDiany’sBlogPostings

• I like your litter/ it was kind of you/it was good to hear it.Posted10/28/2005

•Ifeel(present)badforyou/becauseyoubork(past)yourback.Posted2/17/2005

•peiplewho(WHclause)Ihavenotwrote(presentperfect)toyou/Iamsoory/(present)becausemymomsaid(past)gotosleep(imperative)/becausewehavetowaceupat5:30(futureinten-tion).Posted5/9/2006

TheprogressionfromsimpleSVOpatternsinOctober,2005,(e.g.,I like your litter)tomorecomplexclauses inMay,2006, isofparticular interest. Forexample,byMay,2006,Dianyused the causal conjunctionbecause andaWHclause in the initial or themeposition. Inconstructingthismulti-clausesentence,sheattemptedtomanageaspectsoftensebyusingthepresentperfect(I have not wrote)aswellasthepresent(I am soory) andintentionalfuturetense(we have to wace up at 5:30). Thisprogressiondemonstratesanexpansioninherlinguisticrepertoireaswellasherabilitytorealizespokendiscourseinprint.Forexample,bloggingsupportedDianyindevelopingconceptionsofprintrelatedtotranscribingaspectsoforalityinwrittendiscoursethroughheruseofcapitallettersandexclamationmarkstodisplaysincerity,excitement,andirritation(e.g.,PLESE inFigure3,woo!!!!!!!!!andAHHHHHHHHH-HH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!inFigure6,andARE YOU GOING TO BE MY FRIEND!!!!!!!!!!!! inFigure13).

Thesedataalsorevealthedegreetowhichshedevelopedkeyboardingskillsasaresultofparticipatinginthisproject.Inadditiontoknowinghowtotypecapitalsandfindexclamationmarks,shealsoattimestookadvantageofthespellfunctionofwordprocessingprograms

299


(albeitinconsistently)andboastedtootherstudentsaboutherabilityto“typefastwithtwohandslikeanadult.”InaninterviewwithMrs.SegeraboutDiany’sfacilityinkeyboardingandtheimplicationofthisfacilityforliteracydevelopment,Mrs.Segerremarked:

Shewasthefirstonetolearnhowtoreallytype—fingersontheappropriatekeys—no“hen-pecking.”Theotherclassmatessoonnoticedhowfastshecouldtype.ThisiswhenInoticedachangeinherstaminatostickwithanacademictask.IfIputhertoapaper/penciltask,herconcentrationplummeted,andherresponsestendedtobeverymediocretounacceptable.MorethanonceIhadtoaskhertoexplaintomewhatshewastryingtosay,becauseherwrittenre-sponsewassopoor.However,sheseemedtobeabletocommunicateacademicideaswithrelativefluencyontheblog.Irememberhersittingatthecomputerwithgreatconcentrationreadingablogpostingthathadbeensenttoher.Shehadgreatmotivationtorespondtoherclassmatesabouthercompositions.

Inaddition,andperhaps inpartbecauseofher increasedandsustainedattentiontoprintthroughblogging,Diany’stestscoresinreadingimproved.Thisimprovementresultedinhernolongerbeinginstitutionallyclassifiedasan“at-risk”student,butasa“readerongradelevel.”Forexample,Diany’stestscoresontheDIBELSjumpedfrom47to87,andherscoresontheDevelopingReadingAssessment(DRA)increasedfrom18to28.Inregardtowriting,herscoresondistrictbenchmarkingexamsalsoimprovedslightlyintheareasof“developingideas”and“mechanics,”givingevidencethatDiany’sirregularspellingsanduseofpunctua-tionmaybeattributabletotheinformal,uneditednatureofsocialnetworkingpracticeswithpeersratherthanalackofcontrolorabilitytouseeditingtools(e.g.,spellcheckingfunc-tions).

Moreover,thereissomepreliminaryevidencethatDianywasbeginningtousebloggingtosupportmoreacademicliteracypractices.Forexample,inyeartwoofthestudy,inthecon-textofblog-mediatedtutoringsessionsbeforeschool,shepostedthelastresponseinFigure14.Thatpostisanunrevised,unassistedtextDianyconstructedathomeinresponsetoaquestionMrs.SegerpostedtotheblogaspartofanefforttosupportELLsinpreparingforthewrittenportionofanupcomingexaminLanguageArtsgiventoallthirdgradersinthestate,includingELLsnewtousingEnglish foracademicpurposes.Usingapaststateexamasaprompt,Mrs.Segeraskedstudentstoreadapassage,statethe“goals”ofthemaincharacter,and“explain”theiranswerswithexamplesfromthetext.Diany’spostrevealsthatshewasabletocomprehendthisgrade-leveltexttosomedegreeanddrawonMrs.Seger’sexplicitinstructioninthegenrefeaturesofexplanationaswellasinstructionintest-takingstrate-gies.Specifically,DianyappropriatedandreformulatedMrs.Seger’squestionbyconstructingathesisstatementusingasimpledeclarativestatementthatconveyedanauthoritativetone(e.g.,One of harriet’s goals was to be a pilot).Dianyconstructedthisstatementbydrawingonherknowledgeofthelinguisticfeaturesofexpositorytextsasopposedtonarrativeones(e.g.,compareOne of harriet’s goals was to be a pilot toOnce there was a girl named Har-riet…).Inotherwords,sheattemptedtotakeapositionandexplainherpositionbyselectingkeyeventsinthetextratherthansimplyretellthesequenceofeventsinthereadingpassage. AsSFLscholarshavemadeclear,newcomerstoacademicdiscoursewhohavenotbeenap-prenticedtoreadingandwritingexpositorytextsfordisciplinarypurposesareapttorelyonnarrativesinwaysthatareill-suitedtoconstructingdisciplinaryknowledgeinacademicways(Christie&Derewianka,2008;Martin&Rose,2008;Schleppegrell, 2004). Inaddition, inregardtotheregisterfeaturesofacademiclanguage,Dianyusedthewordsone and another toconstructlogicalconnectionsbetweennominalgroupswithinandbetweenclauses(One of harriet’s goals… Another goal was…)ratherthanconnectingclausestemporallyasistypicalinanarrative(e.g.,then, next, in the end).Whilefarfrombeingaresponsethatwouldreceiveapassingscore,Diany’spostprovidesevidencethatshewasbeginningtoexploreexpository

300


genresandacademicregistersinwaysthatrepresentashiftfromherpreviousposts,whichmostlycenteredonconstructingrelationshipswithpeersusingaprimarilyoral/everydayreg-isterrealizedinprint.

Giventimeandadditionalinstruction,Dianycouldhavebeensupportedinfurtherdevelop-ingthethesisofthispostandexplainingherexamplesusingseparateparagraphs,selectingquotesfromthetext,addingaconclusion,andcheckingherspellinganduseofcapitalizationsasshemovedthroughthestagesofthewritingprocess.Drawingonpreviousclassroomex-perience,Mrs.SegermightalsohavecontinuedtosupportDianyinnoticingandplayingwiththedifferencesbetweeninformaloralregistersandmoreformalacademicones.ThiskindofinstructionmighthaveincludedattentiontoclausecombiningandnominalizingstrategiestosupportDianyindevelopingtheabilitytoreadandwritedecontextualizeddisciplinarytextsthatpackinformationintoclausesinspecificways(Christie&Derewianka,2008;Schleppe-grell,2004).BasedonherreadingofSchleppegrell’s The Language of Schooling andheruseoftheteaching-learningcycleinpreviouscoursework,Mrs.Segerwaswellawareofthedif-ferencesbetweeneverydayoralregistersandacademicwrittenones.Forexample,priortoparticipatinginthisstudy,shesupportedELLsinwritingpersuasiveletterstotheirprincipaltogettheirafternoonrecessreinstated,somethingthathadbeeneliminatedfromtheirscheduletomakeroomformoretestpreparationactivities(seeGebhard,Harman,&Seger,2007).However,notlongafterDiany’slastpost,theblogprojectwasshutdownbecausethedistrictinstalledasystemthatblockedstudentsandteachersfromaccessinganywebsitesthatwerenotapprovedbyadistrict-widefilteringsystem.DespiteDong-shinandWendy’sbesteffortsandsupportfromsomelocaladministrators,theywerenotabletochangehowthisfilteringsystemwasconfiguredintheirschooltomaketheclassblogaccessibletostudentsandteach-ersduringtheschoolday.Inaninterview,Mrs.SegerremarkedthatwhensheandDong-shinstartedtheblogin2005,fewpeopleinthedistricthadexperiencewithsocialcomputingprac-tices,andthemainchallengewasexplainingwhatablogwasandwhyitmightbeausefultoolinsupportingtheliteracypracticesofELLsinthecontextofcurrentschoolreforms(e.g.,scriptedcurricula,littleornosupportfortheuseofstudents’L1incompletingacademictasks,high-stakestestingpracticeswithinstrumentsnotdesignedtoassessELLs).Later,asinterac-tivewaysofusingtechnologybegantotakehold,thedistricts’responsewastotightencontroloverInternetaccessinfearthatstudentsandteacherswoulduseinstructionaltimeunwiselyorwoulddownloadinappropriatematerialandopenthedistrictuptoliability.Asaresult,Di-anyandotherstudentswhowerepartofalargerstudyofCMCliteracystudiesinMrs.Seger’sclassnolongerhadaccesstotheWeb2.0socialcomputingareasaftermid-April,2007.Overtheremainingschoolyear,Mrs.SegercontinuedtoworkwithDianyandotherstudentsbe-foreschooltosupportandtracktheirliteracydevelopment,butnotinwaysthatinvolvedtheblog.ThissuggestsafundamentaldifferencebetweenusesofCMCinK-12schoolsversusuniversitycontexts.Namely,inadditiontogreatermaterialconstraintsregardingaccesstotechnicalassistance,hardware,andsoftwareinhigh-povertyK-12schools(Warschauer,Kno-bel,&Stone,2004),teachersandstudentsmaybemoreconstrainedbygreaternumbersoftop-downpoliciesandcontrolmechanismsthantheiruniversitycounterparts.

CONCLUSIONANDIMPLICATIONS

AnanalysisofthedatarevealsthatDianyappropriatedtheclassblogtotranscendthephysi-cal limitsoftheclassroomandthetemporalspaceoftheschooldaytocommunicatewithanexpandedaudienceforawiderangeofprimarilysocialfunctions.InSFLterms,sheusedbloggingininterpersonalwaystoperformidentityworkbyconstructinganddisplayingsocialrolesasatechnologyexpertandvaluedpeer.Simultaneously,shedevelopedagreatermeta-awarenessofthesemioticresourcesavailable inonlinecommunicationtotextuallydisplay

301


theserolesaswellastorealizeoraldiscourseinawrittenmode(e.g.,useofcapitallettersandexclamationmarks todisplay sincerity, excitement, and irritation).Consequently, shedevelopedanabilitytowritemorevariedandcomplexclausestructuresthatrequiredhertoattendtoandgaincontroloveraspectsoftheEnglishtensesystemanddevelopconceptionsofprint.Whilethemajorityofherpostsexhibitthefeaturesofinformaldiscourseasopposedtoamoreformalacademicregister,shedemonstratedgreatercontroloverusesofprinttointerpretandproduceinformalexchangeswithherteacherandpeersforanexpandingsetof functions. In regard to these functions, the interpersonal functions forwhich sheusedgraphology,lexicogrammar,andbloggingappeartohaveexpandedhersemioticresources.Thefinding that the interpersonal functionsof languagestimulate thedevelopmentofhersemioticsystemisconsistentwithPainterandHalliday’sworkregardingL1languagedevel-opment (Halliday,1975,2004;Halliday&Matthiessen,2004;Painter,1984,2000,2004).ThissuggeststhataHallidayanperspectiveoflanguage,whichattendstotheinterpersonalandtextualfunctions,cancomplementaVygotskianperspective,whichattendsmoretotheideationalfunction.Inotherwords,Vygotskiantheoriesfocusprimarilyonhowchildrende-velopconceptualunderstandingsofwordsthroughsocialinteractionandhowlanguageactsasamediatingtoolintheserviceofcognitivedevelopment(e.g.,thedevelopmentofscien-tific conceptsasopposed toeverydayones through interactionswithmoreskilledothers;theuseoflanguageasamediatingtoolintheserviceofdevelopment,seeLantolf&Thorne,2006).Incontrast,aHallidayanperspectiveviewslanguageasadynamicsystemofsemioticchoiceschildrenlearnsimultaneouslyatthephonological/graphological, lexicogrammatical,anddiscourselevelsorstrataintheprocessofmakingmeaning(Halliday,1985;Halliday&Matthiessen,1999,2004).Hallidayarguesthatwhatdrivesthissemioticsystemisnotnec-essarily interactionsregardingconceptsorthe ideational functionsof language.Rather,hemaintainsthattheenginedrivinglanguagelearningisthelearner’sdesiretoconstruesocialrelationshipsandmanagetheflowofdiscourse,whichhereferstoastheinterpersonalandtextualmetafunctionsoflanguage.InhighlightingatheoreticaldifferencebetweenVygotskyandHalliday,Hasan(1992)arguesthatVygotskydidnotdevelopthetheoreticalapparatusre-quiredforexploringtheinterpersonalandtextualfunctionsoflanguageandtheroletheyplayindevelopment(seealsoWertsch,1993,1998;Wells,2003).Therefore,shemaintainsthatVygotskiantheorybyitselfprovidesaninadequatesocialtheoryoflanguageandlanguagede-velopmentandarguesforthecouplingofVygotskywithHalliday.ThiscritiqueofVygotskyisworthconsideringinlightoftheattentionVygotskiantheoryhasreceivedinsecondlanguageacquisitionstudies,specificallyinstudiesofWeb2.0socialcomputingpractices(e.g.,Sykesetal.,2008;Thorne&Reinhardt,2008).

Inadditiontotheoreticalconsiderations,asecondimplicationofthisstudyrelatestoclass-room practice and the potential of coupling genre-based pedagogy with a blog-mediatedreadingandwritingcurriculumasawayofprovidingunder-servicedlanguagelearnersat-tendingunder-resourcedschoolswithmoreopportunitiestointeractthroughprintwithanex-pandedaudienceabouttopicsinwhichtheyareacademically,socially,andpoliticallyinvested.Specifically,inthisstudyELLswereprovidedaccessandinstructioninhowtouseWeb2.0technologies,models,explicitinstructioninhowtoreadandwritehigh-stakesgenres,andopportunitiestogiveoneanotherfeedbackontheirdraftsonline.Assuggestedbytheinterac-tionsbetweenDianyandherpeers,studentsusedbloggingtoa)completegenre-basedclassassignments (e.g., friendly letters, descriptions, persuasive letters, and explanations), b)provideeachotherwithpeerfeedbackregardingaspectsofspellingandpunctuation,register,andgenre,andc)constructanddisplaysocialboundariesandstatusasemergentwriters.

AccesstotechnologyandinstructioninusingtheclassblogsupportedDianyindevelopingkeyboardandwordprocessingskillsandinadvocatingformorecomputersfortheirclass-roomthrougha letterwritingproject.While thisprojectwasunsuccessful, itdid result inMrs.Seger’sroombeingequippedwithanadditionaltwolaptops(onefromACCELAandone

302


fromtheschool).Moreover,asaresultofstudentsandtheirfamilieswantingtohaveaccesstotheblogfromhome,anumberoffamiliespurchasedcomputers,includingDiany’s.Inthisrespect,thecombinationofgreateraccesstotechnologyandtheuseofthesetechnologiestosupportboththesocialandacademicgoalsthatwererelevanttostudents,teachers,parents,administrators,andACCELA faculty resulted ina change in thematerial conditionsof theclassroomandinthehomesofthosestudentswhodesiredandcouldaffordacomputer.How-ever,gainsmadeinregardtousingtechnologyinschoolasopposedtohomewereironicallynotsustainablebecauseofthedistrict’spoliciesregardingstudents’andteachers’accesstotheInternet.Afinalimplicationofthisstudyistheimportanceofresearchingtheinstitutionalcontextofclassroom-sponsoredsocialcomputingandofworkingwithschoolofficialstode-veloppoliciesandpracticestosupportacademicliteracydevelopmentthatfosterratherthanshutdowninnovativeusesoftechnologyinschools.

NOTES

1Thisstudywasfundedbyseveralfederalandstategrants:TitleVIIDepartmentofEducationCareerLadderGrant,TitleIIIDepartmentofEducationNationalProfessionalDevelopmentGrant,andaMas-sachusettsTeacherQualityGrant.

2 The terms context of culture and context of situation come fromMalinowski (1935), a renownedethnographer. It is important tonote thatHallidayandMartin’s treatmentofgenreandregisteraredifferent.Hallidaydoesnotusethetermgenrebutusesonlytheconstructsoffield,tenorandmode.ForHalliday,contextofcultureandcontextofsituationinstantiatetheoverallsemioticpotentialofthesysteminaparticularinstance.ForMartin,contextofcultureisrealizedthroughgenre,andinturnthecontextofsituationisrealizedthroughregister.SeeMartin&Rose,2008,pp.9-18,foradiscussionofthesedifferencesandtheirimplicationsforanalysis.SeeHalliday&Matthiessen,2004,pp.27-28,foradiscussionofinstantiationonaclinefrompotentialtoinstance.

3SeeGoodman(2006)foracritiqueoftheuseofthiswidelyusedassessment,particularlywithbilinguallanguagelearners.

REFERENCES

Achugar,M.,&Schleppegrell,M.(2005).Beyondconnectors:Theconstructionofcauseinhistorytext-books. Linguistics and Education: An International Research Journal, 16(3),298–318.

Achugar,M.,Schleppegrell,M.,&Oteíza,T.(2007).Engagingteachersinlanguageanalysis:Afunctionallinguisticsapproachtoreflectiveliteracy.English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 6(2),8–24.

Aguirre-Muñoz, Z., Park, J., Amabisca, A., & Boscardin, C. (2008). Developing teacher capacity forservingELLs’writing instructionalneeds:A case for systemic functional linguistics.Bilingual Research Journal, 31(1/2),295–323.

Bernstein,B.(1996). Pedagogy, symbolic control, and identity: Theory, research, and critique. London:Taylor&Francis.

Bloch,J.(2007).Abdullah’sblogging:Ageneration1.5studententerstheblogosphere.Language Learn-ing & Technology,11(2),128–141.

Brisk,M.,&Zisselsberger,M.(2010).“We’velettheminonasecret”:UsingSFLtheorytoimprovetheteachingofwritingtobilinguallearners.InT.Lucas(Ed.),Preparing all teachers to teach English language learners(pp111-126).Mahwah,NJ:Erlbaum/Taylor&Francis.

Byrnes,H.(Ed.).(2006).Advanced language learning: The contribution of Halliday and Vygotsky.Lon-don:Continuum.

Chapelle,C.(2009).Therelationshipbetweensecondlanguageacquisitiontheoryandcomputer-assist-edlanguagelearning.The Modern Language Journal,93(1),741–753.

303


Christie,F.,&Derewianka,B.(2008).School discourse: Learning to write across the years of schooling.London:Continuum.

Christie,F.,&Martin,J.(1997).Genre and institutions.London:Continuum.

Crick,N.R.,&Grotpeter,J.K.(1995).Relationalaggression,gender,andsocial-psychologicaladjust-ment.Child Development,66(3),710–722.

Cole,M.(1996).Cultural psychology: A once and future discipline.Cambridge,MA:BelknapPressofHarvardUniversityPress.

Cope,B.,&Kalantzis,M.(Eds.).(1993).The powers of literacy: A genre approach to teaching writing.Bristol,PA:FalmerPress.

Derewianka,B.(1990).Exploring how texts work.Rozelle,NSW:PrimaryEnglishTeachingAssociation(PETA).

Dyson,A.(1993).Social worlds of children learning to write.NewYork:TeachersCollegePress.

Egbert,J.,Huff,L.,McNeil,L.,Preuss,C.,&Sellen,J.(2009).Pedagogy,process,aclassroomcontext:Integratingteachervoiceandexperienceintoresearchontechnology-enhancedlanguagelearn-ing.Modern Language Journal,93(1),754–768.

Fang,Z.,&Schleppegrell,M.J.(2010).Disciplinaryliteraciesacrosscontentareas:Supportingsecond-aryreadingthroughfunctionallanguageanalysis.Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy,53(7),587–597.

Feez,S.(1998).Text-based syllabus design. Sydney:NationalCentreforEnglishLanguageTeachingandResearch(NCELTR).

Gebhard,M.(2004).Fastcapitalismandsecondlanguageacquisition.Modern Language Journal, 88(2),245–265.

Gebhard,M.(2005).Schoolreform,hybriddiscourses,andsecondlanguageliteracies.TESOL Quar-terly, 39(2),187–210.

Gebhard,M.,&Harman,R.(inpress).GenretheoryinK-12schools:Aresponsetohigh-stakesschoolreformsintheUnitedStates.Journal of Second Language Writing.

Gebhard,M.,Harman,R.,&Seger,W.(2007).Reclaimingrecess:Learningthelanguageofpersuasion.Language Arts,84(5),419–431.

Gebhard, M., Willett, J., Jimenez, J., & Piedra, A. (2010). Systemic functional linguistics, teachers’professionaldevelopment,andELLs’academic literacypractices.InT.Lucas(Ed.),Preparing all teachers to teach English language learners(pp.91-110). Mahwah,NJ:Erlbaum/Taylor&Francis.

Gee,J.,Hull,G.,&Lankshear,C.(1996).The new work order: Behind the language of new capitalism.Boulder,CO:WestviewPress.

Gibbons,P.(2002).Scaffolding language, scaffolding learning: Teaching second language learners in the mainstream classroom.Portsmouth,NH:Heinemann.

Goodman,K.(2006).The truth about DIBELS: What it is – What it does.Portsmouth,NH:Heineman.

Heath,S.B.(1983).Ways with words.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Halliday,M.A.K.(1975).Learning how to mean. London:EdwardArnold.

Halliday,M.A.K.(1985).An introduction to functional grammar(1sted.).London:EdwardArnold.

Halliday,M.A.K.(2004).The language of early childhood.London:Continuum.

Halliday,M.A.K.,&Hasan,R.(1989).Language, context, and text: Aspects of language in a social-semiotic perspective.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.

304


Halliday,M.A.K.,&Martin,J.R.(1993).Writing science: Literacy and discursive power. London:Falmer.

Halliday,M.A.K.,&Matthiessen,C.(1999).Construing experience as meaning: A language-based ap-proach to cognition.London:Cassell.

Halliday,M.A.K.,&Matthiessen,C.(2004).An introduction to functional grammar(3rded.).London:EdwardArnold.

Hammond,J.,&Macken-Horarik,M.(1999).Criticalliteracy:ChallengesandquestionsforESLclass-rooms.TESOL Quarterly, 33(3),528–543.

Harklau,L.(2000).Fromthe‘‘goodkids’’tothe‘‘worst’’:RepresentationsofEnglishlanguagelearnersacrosseducationalsettings.TESOL Quarterly, 34(1),35–67.

Hasan,R.(1992).Speechgenre,semioticmediation,andthedevelopmentofhighermentalfunctions.Language Sciences,14(4),489–528.

Hubbard,P.(2008).Twenty-fiveyearsoftheoryintheCALICO Journal.CALICO Journal,25(3),387–399.Retrievedfromhttp://calico.org/journalTOC.php

Hyland,K.(2003).Genre-basedpedagogies:Asocialresponsetoprocess. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12(1),17–29.

Ibrahim,A.(1999).Becomingblack:Rapandhip-hop,race,gender,identity,andthepoliticsofESL.TESOL Quarterly, 33(3),349–368.

Kress,G.,&vanLeeuwen,T.(1996).Reading images: The grammar of visual design.London:Rout-ledge.

Labov,W.(1972).Language and the inner city.Philadelphia,PA:UniversityofPennsylvaniaPress.

Lam,W.S.E.(2000).Secondlanguageliteracyandthedesignoftheself:AcasestudyofateenagerwritingontheInternet.TESOL Quarterly,34(3),457–482.

Lam,W.S.E.(2009).Multiliteraciesoninstantmessaginginnegotiatinglocal,translocal,andtrans-national affiliations:A caseof anadolescent immigrant.ReadingResearchQuarterly, 44(4),377–397.

Lantolf,J.P.,&Thorne,S.L.(2006).Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language develop-ment.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.

Lee,L.(2010).Fosteringreflectivewritingandinteractiveexchangethroughblogginginanadvancedlanguagecourse.ReCALL, 22(2),212–227.

Lucas,T.(Ed.).(2010).Teacher preparation for linguistically diverse classrooms: A resource for teacher educators.NY:Taylor&Francis.

Macken-Horarik,M.(2002).“Somethingtoshootfor”:Asystemicfunctionalapproachtoteachinggenreinsecondaryschoolscience.InA.M.Johns(Ed.),Genre in the classroom: Multiple perspectives(pp.14-42).Mahwah,NJ:LawrenceErlbaumAssociates.

Malinowski,B.(1935).Coral gardens and their magic.London:Allen&Unwin.

Martin,J.R.(1992).English text: System and structure.Philadelphia/Amsterdam:JohnBenjamins.

Martin,J.R.,&Rose,D.(2003).Working with discourse: Meaning beyond the clause.London:Con-tinuum.

Martin,J.R.,&Rose,D.(2008).Genre relations: Mapping culture.London:Equinox.

Myers,G.(2010).The discourse of blogs and wikis.London:Continuum.

Murray,L.,&Hourigan,T.(2008).Blogsforspecificpurposes:Expressivistorsocio-cognitivistapproach?ReCALL, 20(1),82–97.

NewLondonGroup.(1996).Apedagogyofmultiliteracies:Designingsocialfeatures.Harvard Educa-

305


tional Review,66(1),60–92.

Olsen,L.(1997).Made in America.NewYork:NewPress.

Painter,C.(1984).Into the mother tongue. London:Pinter.

Painter,C.(1996a).Learningaboutlanguage:Construingsemiosisinthepre-schoolyears. Functions of Language,3(1),95–125.

Painter,C.(1996b).Thedevelopmentoflanguageasaresourceforthinking:Alinguisticviewoflearn-ing.InR.Hasan&G.Williams(Eds.),Literacy in society (pp.50–85).London:Longman.

Painter,C.(2000).Researchingfirstlanguagedevelopmentinchildren.InL.Unsworth(Ed.),Research-ing language in schools and communities (pp.65-86). London:Continuum.

Painter,C.(2004).The“interpersonalfirst”principleinchildlanguagedevelopment.InG.Williams&A.Lukin(Eds.),The development of language: Functional perspectives on evolution and ontogen-esis (pp.133–153).London:Continuum.

Peirce,B.N.(1995).Socialidentity,investment,andlanguagelearning.TESOL Quarterly, 29(1),9–31.

Rogoff,B.(1995).Observingsocioculturalactivityonthreeplanes:Participatoryappropriation,guidedparticipation,andapprenticeship.InJ.V.Wertsch,P.delRio,&A.Alvarez(Eds.),Sociocultural studies of mind(pp.139–164).NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Rothery,J.(1996).Makingchanges:Developinganeducationallinguistics.InR.Hasan&G.Williams(Eds.),Literacy in society (pp.86–123).London:Longman.

Schleppegrell,M.(2004).The language of schooling: A functional linguistic perspective.Mahwah,NJ:LawrenceErlbaumAssociates.

Schleppegrell,M.,&deOliveira,L.(2006).Anintegratedlanguageandcontentapproachforhistoryteachers.Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 5(4),254–268.

Shin,D.-s.(2006).ESLstudents’computer-mediatedcommunicationpractices:Contextconfiguration.Language Learning & Technology, 10(3)65–84.

Shin,D.-s.,&Cimasko,T.(2008).MutimodalcompositioninacollegeESLclass:Newtools,traditionalnorms.Computers and Composition, 25(4),376–395.

Shin,D.-s.,Gebhard,M.,&Seger,W.(2010).WeblogsandEnglishlanguagelearnersacademicliteracydevelopment: Expanding audiences, expanding identities. InS. Rilling&M.Dantas-Whitney(Eds.), Authenticity in the classroom and beyond (pp.99-111).Alexandria,VA:TESOL,Inc.

Sykes,J.,Oskoz,A.,&Thorne,S.L.(2008).Web2.0,syntheticimmersiveenvironments,andthefu-tureoflanguageeducation.CALICO Journal,25(3),528–546.Retrievedfromhttp://calico.org/journalTOC.php

Talmy,S.(2008).TheculturalproductionofESLstudentsatTradewindsHigh:Contingency,multidirec-tionality,andidentityinL2socialization.Applied Linguistics, 29(4),619–645.

Thorne,B. (1993).Gender play: Girls and boys and school.NewBrunswick,NJ:RutgersUniversityPress.

Thorne,S.L.(2005).Epistemology,politics,andethicsinsocioculturaltheory.Modern Language Jour-nal,89(3),393–409.

Thorne,S.L.,&Payne,J.S.(2005).Evolutionarytrajectories,internet-mediatedexpression,andlan-guageeducation.CALICO Journal,22(3), 371–397.Retrieved fromhttp://calico.org/journal-TOC.php

Thorne,S.L.,&Black,R.(2007).Languageandliteracydevelopmentincomputer-mediatedcontextsandcommunities.Annual Review of Applied Linguistics,27,133–160.

Thorne,S.L.,&Reinhardt,J.(2008).“Bridgingactivities,”newmedialiteraciesandadvancedforeign

306


languageproficiency.CALICO Journal,25(3),558–572.Retrievedfromhttp://calico.org/journ-alTOC.php

Thorne,S.L.,Black,R.W.,&Sykes,J.M.(2009).Secondlanguageuse,socialization,andlearninginInternetinterestcommunitiesandonlinegaming.Modern Language Journal,93(1),802–821.

Unsworth,L.(2001).Teaching multiliteracies across the curriculum: Changing contexts of text and im-age in classroom practice.Buckingham,UnitedKingdom:OpenUniversityPress.

Vygotsky,L.S.(1934).MyshlenieIrech’:Psikhologicheskie issledovaniya [Thinking and speech: Psy-chological investigations].MoscoweandLeningrad:GosudarstvennoeSotsial’no-Ekonomiches-koeIzdartel’stvo.

Vygotsky,L.S.(1978).Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes(M.Cole,V.John-Steiner,S.Scribner,&E.Souberman,Eds.andTrans.).Cambridge,MA.:HarvardUni-versityPress.

Ware,P.D.(2008).Languagelearnersandmultimedialiteracyinandafterschool.Pedagogies: An In-ternational Journal,3(1),37–51.

Warschauer,M.,Knobel,M.,&Stone,L.A.(2004).Technologyandequityinschooling:Deconstructingthedigitaldivide.Educational Policy,18(4),562–588.

Wells,G.(2003).Dialogic inquiry: Toward a sociocultural practice and theory of education.NewYork,NY:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Wertsch,J.V.(1993).Voices of the mind: A sociocultural approach to mediated action.Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress.

Wertsch,J.V.(1998).Mind as action.Oxford,England:OxfordUniversityPress

Willett,J.(1995).BecomingfirstgradersinanL2:AnethnographicstudyofL2socialization.TESOL Quarterly,29(3),473–503.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSWewouldliketothankMrs.Seger’sstudentsandtheirfamiliesfortheirwillingnesstopar-ticipate inthisstudy.Wewouldalso liketoacknowledgethecontributionofNelidaMatos,HollyGraham,RuthCritcher,andmembersoftheACCELAAlliancefortheirsupport.Andlast,wewouldalsoliketothankJimMartin,theeditors,andoutsidereviewersfortheirvaluablefeedback.

AUTHORS’BIODATA

MegGebhardisanAssociateProfessorintheSchoolofEducationattheUniversityofMas-sachusetts,Amherst.Sheistheco-directoroftheACCELAAlliance(AccessthroughCriticalContentandEnglishLanguageAcquisition).Thispartnershipisauniversity-schoolcollabora-tivedesignedtosupportclassroomteachers inusingaHallidayanperspectiveof languageandlearningtodesign,implement,andcriticallyreflectoncurriculum,instruction,andas-sessmentinthecontextofschoolreformsintheUnitedStates.HerworkhasappearedintheTESOL Quarterly,Modern Language Journal,Journal of Second Language Writing,Canadian Modern Language Review,andLanguage Arts.

Dong-shinShinisanassistantprofessorintheDepartmentofEducationandHumanDevel-opmentattheStateUniversityofNewYorkatBrockportintheUnitedStates.Herresearchinterests includecomputer-mediatedcommunication,new literacy forL2academic literacydevelopment,andL2 teachereducation. Herworkhasappeared inLanguage Learning & Technology,Computers and Composition,andintheTESOLClassroomPracticeSeries,Au-

307


thenticity in the Language Classroom and Beyond: Children and Adolescent Learners

WendySeger isaNationalSeniorLiteracyFellowwithCornerstoneLiteracy, Incorporated.Shehasovertwentyyearsofexperienceasaclassroomteacherandnowworksasanin-structionalleaderwithdistrictteamsinseveralcontexts.ShehaspresentedherworkattheAmericanEducationalResearchAssociationandtheNationalCouncilofTeachersofEnglishandpublishedinLanguage ArtsandintheTESOLClassroomPracticeSeries,Authenticity in the Language Classroom and Beyond: Children and Adolescent Learners. SheearnedherMaster’s Degree in Education from theUniversity ofMassachusetts, Amherst through theACCELAAlliance.

AUTHORS’ADDRESSES

Dr. Meg Gebhard, Ph.DAssociate ProfessorSchool of Education206 Furcolo HallUniversity of MassachusettsAmherst, MA 01003Email: [email protected]

Dr. Dong-shin ShinAssistant ProfessorEducation and Human Development350 New Campus DriveThe College at Brockport, SUNYBrockport, NY 14420

Wendy Seger12 Pleasant CourtAmherst, MA 01002

Documents

Blogging and Emergent L2 Literacy Development in an Urban ...people.umass.edu/~mgebhard/Gebhard Publication PDFs...Blogging and Emergent L2 Literacy Development in an Urban Elementary