Figure 1 - uploaded by Kristen Campbell Wilcox
Content may be subject to copyright.
Source publication
This yearlong ethnographic case study investigated higher and lower track
adolescents’ experiences with core content-area (social studies, science,
and math) writing in one urban working-class district. Teacher, student, and
administrator interviews; field notes; and students’ written work comprised
the data set. The findings from this study, frame...
Citations
... In recent years, writing has been recognized as an important component of preparing middle and high school students to engage in more advanced discipline-specific discourse required in and beyond high school (Wilcox, 2015). Students can use writing to gather and organize knowledge, explore and refine their ideas, and show what they know (Graham, Hebert, Sanbank & Hariss, 2016). ...
... Schools may place students in higher or lower tracked classes based on prior academic achievement, teacher recommendations and/or family or student preferences (Alexander et al., 1978;Brunello and Checchi, 2007) with the ostensible purpose of differentiating instruction. Research, however, has shown that tracking can compromise not only students' language and literacy learning (Callahan, 2005;Gamoran et al., 1995;Wilcox, 2015) but also academic gains overall (Oakes, 1995). For example, in an investigation of tracking in two different school systems, Oakes (1995) found that tracked classes had too large a range of abilities to be considered homogenous ability groups. ...
... Studies of tracking, literacy and language have demonstrated that students enrolled in lower tracks are less prepared for advanced academic work. In a study of high school content area writing, Wilcox (2015) found that in comparison to students in lower track classes, students in higher tracks experienced writing instruction that was more disciplinary in nature and that prepared them to engage in advanced disciplinary discourse. Similarly, Callahan (2005), in a study of a rural high school in California, found that English language learners who were enrolled in lower level tracks were less exposed to college-preparatory curricula. ...
Purpose
This paper aims to report on a study investigating how young people and teachers interpreted reading proficiency and difficulty across different tracks of English language arts in the sole high school serving a culturally diverse city.
Design/methodology/approach
For six months, the researchers observed in three hierarchically tracked English classes. Participants were three teachers and 15 focal youths. The researchers also conducted semi-structured and open-ended interviews and collected classroom artifacts and students’ records.
Findings
Despite adoption of the Common Core State Standards and a school-designed common English curriculum, both of which were to contribute to shared literacy objectives, students and teachers built highly contextualized understandings of reading proficiency, which diverged across tracks and mediated instruction. Across tracks, however, deficit discourses about reading struggle persisted, and students and teachers attributed difficulty to students’ attitudes and behaviors. Young people never described themselves in negative terms, which suggests they resisted the deficit labels tracking systems can generate.
Originality/value
Findings extend research by showing how literacy-related tracking contributed to exclusionary contexts through which students were unproductively positioned at odds. Findings suggest a need for renewed rigor in the examination of tracking practices, particularly how notions of reading difficulty/proficiency position youths and mediate literacy instruction. Despite deficit conceptions of “struggling readers” across the school, youths never described themselves negatively and accepted reading difficulty as normal; how youths achieved such resourceful stances can be further investigated. These research directions will support the creation of English contexts that invite all youths into inquisitive, critical and agentive interactions with texts and each other.
... The relatively poor standardized assessment results are not surprising considering the context for writing instruction that has pervaded U.S. secondary schools for many years. While students in U.S. secondary schools have not been reported to engage in much writing beyond a paragraph in classes other than English language arts (ELA) (Applebee & Langer, 2009;Jeffery, 2009;Wilcox, 2014;Wilcox & Jeffery, in press), this is likely to change as a result of the adoption of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS). Although the CCSS are not national curriculum standards, in the states where they have been adopted they call for a focus on preparing all students for postsecondary academic and professional writing expectations in core content classrooms. ...
... Furthermore, the finding that ELLs had the most positive stances toward writing tasks that were cognitively demanding, yet of high interest in terms of the topic, suggest some directions educators can take in developing ELLs' authorial agency. Specifically, rather than simplifying the complexity and range of writing tasks adolescent ELLs experience, they should be encouraged to engage in writing that is both appropriate for their language proficiency level and stretches them to engage deeply in expressing their understandings of content in a variety of genres and using multiple modes of communicating their ideas (see discussion in Wilcox, 2013;Wilcox, 2014). ...
Since adolescent English language learners (ELLs) are facing increasing demands to engage in advanced disciplinary writing and this type of writing is oftentimes one of the most challenging academic tasks they encounter, this study investigated their experiences with writing in English language arts, social studies, science, and mathematics classrooms. Rooted in a social-constructivist conception of writing, which foregrounds the relationship between individual agency, engagement, and disciplinary discourse, this study asked: 1) What are adolescent ELLs’ stances toward content-area writing and how do they differ by grade level? 2) To what factors do adolescent ELLs attribute their stances toward writing? 3) How do adolescent ELLs’ stances vary across content areas and by type of writing? A micro-level discourse analysis approach was used to analyze interviews with 26 ELLs in different school contexts with varying emphases on writing in the core disciplines. The analyses revealed generally positive stances toward source-based writing tasks, even when students viewed these as challenging, yet negative stances toward writing in which literary texts provided the source material. This study is timely in light of the increased emphasis on the development of advanced disciplinary writing competencies among adolescent ELLs. Implications for pedagogy are discussed.
This paper reports a cross-case analysis of three summer writing programs for youth in the northeast United States, each a longitudinal study in the tradition of design research. Initially, all three programs were most concerned with leveraging cultural and linguistic diversity as a resource for multilingual participants. As the three principal investigators played the role of critical friend informally for one another, they identified a common commitment to inclusive writing pedagogy—instruction designed to promote writing proficiency and engagement for all students, including but not limited to students with disabilities. Employing lenses from disability studies applied to literacy, they undertook joint analysis with this focus. Common data sources across the sites included documents describing the programs to varied audiences, instructional artifacts, communication among team members in each site, students’ print-based and digital writing, and pre- and post-program surveys. Cross-case analysis with a design research heuristic adapted from Bakker yielded two cross-cutting design principles. To construct inclusive writing pedagogy in the context of summer programming, educators are advised to: (1) Build writing communities deliberately, by promoting a sense of belonging, and (2) Promote a broad vision of who can be a writer, by offering varied writing models and exemplar texts. The study concludes that research-based, cognitively-oriented instructional approaches are a necessary but not sufficient condition for supporting writing competence for youth writers with varied needs, including those with disability labels. Emphases on relational and social aspects of writing are essential as well.
Scholars contend that disciplinary literacy is a productive route for all secondary learners, including those identified as struggling readers, to build knowledge. Relatedly, scholars point to disciplinary literacy as a socially just alternative to decontextualized skill instruction and deficit positioning. Yet, little research has examined how instructional contexts facilitate these youths’ participation in disciplinary literacy practices. I present the case of one ninth-grade history classroom. Participants were three students and one teacher. Data sources included 48 hr of observations, 11 semistructured interviews, ongoing ethnographic open-ended interviews, and classroom artifacts. By closely examining the enactment of one lesson and situating the analysis in the class’s yearlong academic and social trajectories, I show how disciplinary literacy provided avenues for youths to wrestle with and critique historical texts, compare perspectives across sociohistorical periods, see themselves in history, and disrupt deficit positioning in school. I discuss implications for secondary literacy and social studies education.
