SIG Writing 2016

Hobel, P. (Oplægsholder)

Aktivitet: Foredrag og mundtlige bidragKonferenceoplæg

Beskrivelse

Præsentation i symposium: Writing to Learn, Learning to Write. Literacy and disciplinarity in upper secondary writing Ellen Krogh, Nikolaj F.Elf, Torben S. Christensen, Anke Piekut, Peter Hobel University of Southern Denmark The rise of writing in modern human life (cp. Brandt, 2015), mainly due to the technological development in communication, calls for research into the meaning of writing for the individual in the context of a learner biography and how the challenge is met at educational levels. The present research addresses these challenges through a longitudinal, ethnographic project, focusing adolescent writing and writer development in school settings. Research into adolescent writing development is scarce (Christie & Derewianka, 2008; Juzwik et al., 2006; Myhill, 2009; Rogers, 2008, 2010), and there is a need for longitudinal ethnographies adopting a student perspective. With their emphasis on change over time and across contexts, these have proved to be a particularly appropriate method in understanding writing development (Rogers, 2010). The symposium will present design, methodology and findings from an explorative research project, funded by the Danish Research Council 2010-2015. The aim of the project is to explore students’ trajectories as writers through their upper secondary education and the patterns of positioning and identification (Ivanič, 1998; Gee, 2009) inherent in the processes of learning to write in school subjects as well as in learning subjects through writing. Previous project studies have targeted writing cultures (Christensen, Elf & Krogh, 2014) and thematic student writing in specific subjects (Krogh, Christensen & Jakobsen, 2015; Krogh & Piekut, 2015; Krogh, forthcoming 2016; Elf forthcoming 2016). The studies presented in the symposium (to be published in Krogh & Jakobsen, 2016) focus issues of writing and writer development across longer spans of time and in various school subjects. Primary data consists in student texts and interviews with a small number of young Danish students who passed their upper secondary finals in either 2012 or 2013. In the introductory presentation, Ellen Krogh discusses theoretical and methodological issues, particularly concerning writing and writer development in adolescent years. Inscribed in the socio cultural tradition (Vygotsky, 1986; Wertsch, 1998), as well as in the New Literacy Studies approach (Barton, 1994; Barton, Hamilton & Ivanič, 2000; Gee, 2012), the project understands writing as a social practice drawing on a range of semiotic resources (Kress, 1997). The design covers the double viewpoints of students and school subjects. A theoretically informed model of student writing forms the general approach to studies of writing and writer development. This model places the observable writing event in the center and relates this to three interwoven analytical perspectives: • School writing viewed as a simultaneous actualization the aspects of adolescence, subject and school. Informed by semiotic and dialogical communication theory (Bakhtin, 1986; Ongstad, 1999; Smidt, 2002). • School writing viewed as students’ identification and positioning strategies in relation to subject writing cultures, school writing cultures and student writing cultures. Informed by socio cultural writing theory as developed within New Literacy Studies (Barton, 1994; Barton et al. 2000; Ivanič, 1998). • School writing viewed as students’ trajectories of writing across a span of years. Informed by theory of time scales (Lemke 2000, 2002; Wortham, 2003, 2008; Burgess & Ivanič, 2010). This model (nicknamed the toblerone) provides the basic theoretical reference for the empirical studies. Nikolaj F. Elf examines the writing development of one student from secondary education through upper-secondary education. In a previous study of his grade 9 writing, the student, Martin, was characterized as a ‘George Curious’, identifying with an explorative, playful and multimodal-aesthetical approach to writing (Elf, 2014). This study investigates patterns of identification and positioning in Martin’s upper-secondary writing. Based on ethnographic data and Bakhtin’s analytical distinction between order and freedom (Bakhtin, 1986) the study finds that Martin dismantles rather than develops writer identification. Whereas at the level of autobiographical self he continuously identifies with ‘free’ writing, he predominantly experiences upper-secondary writing as a process which requires subjecting to a non-negotiable ‘order’ of writing. Torben Spanget Christensen investigates the role of student note-writing as a tool for students’ reproduction of subject material taught in class, their reflections on academic issues connected to the subject material, and their identification with the role of being a student - and in a wider sense their association with academic subject communities. Based on notes by three students and interview data, note practices were mapped according to the three aspects of adolescence, subject and school. Analyzing these findings, the presentation discusses what students deliberately are trying to achieve in their note writing, and in what respect their note writing can be seen as part of their development as students as well as of their identity project. Anke Piekut presents an analysis of two students’ writer development in the L1 subject Danish through the three upper secondary years. The focus is on their creative and narrative skills. Although narrative writing is not invited in upper secondary L1 writing (cp. Krogh & Piekut, 2015), the students inscribed ‘small stories’ (Bamberg, 2006; Bamberg & Georgakopoulou, 2008), attempting to link experiential and academic domains. An important finding in Piekut’s study is that creative linguistic skills and ‘small stories’ are part of the students’ identification processes and also contribute to an academic expansion. Peter Hobel examines the writing development of two students in mandatory Multi-Subject Coursework during two years, focusing their negotiations of the possibilities of selfhood made available by the subject writing cultures. Since these two students are in the twenties (and attend a special upper secondary programme), ‘adolescence’ carries a different meaning in this context. Key data consists in ‘talk around texts’-interviews (Lillis, 2008). Analyses focus on the ontogenetic time scale of the students. While one student attempts to assimilate the subject writing cultures to the writing culture of his former job (enlisted private), the second student can be said to actualize identity without identification (Gee, 2009), adapting to the subject writing cultures for pure strategic purposes. References Bakhtin, M. M. (1986). Speech Genres and Other Late Essays. Austin, Tx.: Austin University Press. Bamberg, M. (2006). Stories: Big or small: Why do we care? Narrative Inquiry, Volume 16, Number 1, 2006. 139-147(9). Bamberg, M. & Georgakopoulou, A. (2008). Small stories as a new perspective in narrative and identity analysis. Text & Talk, 28(3), 377-396. Barton, D. (1994, 2007). Literacy. An Introduction to the Ecology of Written Language. Oxford UK & Cambridge USA: Blackwell. Barton, D., Hamilton, M. & Ivanič, R. (eds.) (2010). Situated Literacies. Reading and Writing in Context. London and New York: Routledge. Brandt, D. (2015). The Rise of Writing. Redefining Mass Literacy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Burgess, A. & Ivanič, R. (2010). Writing and being written: Issues of identity across timescales. Written Communication, 27 (2), 228-255. Christensen, T.S., Elf, N.F., Krogh, E. (2014). Skrivekulturer i 9. klasse. [Writing Cultures in Grade 9] Odense: Syddansk Universitetsforlag. Christie, F. & Derewianka, B. (2008). School Discourse. London, New York: Continuum International Publishing Group. Elf, N. F. (2014). Her er Martin Nysgerrig: En elevs legende konstruktion af skriveridentitet i fysik/kemi. Kvan, 99. Elf forthcoming 2016 Gee, J.P. (2009). Identity without identification. Carter, A., Lillis, T., Parkin, S. (eds.). Why Writing Matters. Issues of access and identity in writing research and pedagogy. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 45-46. Gee, J.P. (2012). Social Linguistics and Literacies (4th ed.). London and New York: Routledge. Ivanič, R. (1998). Writing and identity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Juzwik, M.M., Curcic, S., Wolbers, K., Moxley, K.D., Dimling, L.M., Shankland, R.K. (2006). Writing into the 21st century. An overview of research on writing, 1999 to 2004. Written Communication 23 (4), 451-476. Kress, G. (1997). Before Writing. Rethinking the Paths to Literacy. London and New York: Routledge. Krogh, E. (forthcoming 2016). Crossing the Divide Between Writing Cultures. Spelmanmiller, K. & Stevenson, M. (eds.). Transitions in Writing. Brills. Krogh, E., Christensen, T.C., Jakobsen, K.J. (2015). Elevskrivere i gymnasiefag. [Student Writers in Upper Secondary Subjects]. Odense: University Press of Southern Denmark. Krogh, E. & Jakobsen, K.S. (2016). Skriverudviklinger i gymnasiet. [Writer Developments in Upper Secondary Education]. Odense: University Press of Southern Denmark. Krogh, E. & Piekut, A. (2015). Voice and narrative in L1 writing. L1, Educational Studies in Language and Literature, 15, 1-42. Lillis, T. (2008). Ethnography as method, methodology and deep theorizing. Closing the gap between text and context in academic research. Written Communication 25 (3), 353-388. Myhill, D. (2009). Becoming a designer: Trajectories of linguistic development. In R. Beard, D. Myhill, J. Riley, & M. Nystrand (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Writing Development (pp. 402-414). L.A., London, New Delhi, Singapore, Washington DC: Sage. Ongstad, S. (1999) Self-positioning(s) and students´ task reflexivity - a semiotic macro concept exemplified. Journal of Structural Learning and Intelligent Systems. Vol. 14 (2). Rogers, Paul 2008. The development of writers and writing abilities: A longitudinal study across and beyond the college-span. Doctoral dissertation, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database (UMI No. 3319795). Rogers, P. (2010). Longitudinal studies and writing development. In C. Bazerman, R. Krut, K. Lunsford, S. McLeod, S. Null, P. Rogers, & A. Stansell (Eds.), Traditions of writing research (pp. 365-377). New York and London: Routledge. Smidt, J. (2002). Double histories in multivocal classrooms. Notes toward an ecological account of writing. Written Communication 19 (3), 414-443. Vygotsky, Lev 1986/1934: Thought and Language. (ed. A. Kozulin). Cambridge, Massachusetts: The Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Wertsch, James 1998. Mind in Action. New York: Oxford University Press. Wortham, S.E. (2001). Narratives in action: a strategy for research and analysis. New York: Teachers College Press. Wortham, S.E. (2003). Curriculum as a resource for the development of social identity. Sociology of Education, 76, 228-246. Wortham, S.E. (2008). The objectification of identity across events. Linguistics and Education, 19, 294-311.
Periode6. jul. 2016
BegivenhedstitelSIG Writing 2016: SIG Writing International Conference and Research School 2016
BegivenhedstypeKonference
PlaceringLiverpool, Storbritannien

Emneord

  • Writer development
  • Upper secondary school
  • Wrtiting to learn, learning to write