MICROFILMED 1992 INFORMATION TO USERS

This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer.

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.

Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand corner and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced form at the back of the book.

Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6" x 9" black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order.

University Microfilms International A Bell & Howell Information Com pany 300 North Zeeb Road. Ann Arbor. Ml 48106-1346 USA 313/761*4700 800/521-0600

Order Number 0238278

An exploration of the nature of the relationship between students’ response to literature and writing self-evaluation

Stowcll, Laura Patricia, Ph.D.

The Ohio State University, 1092

UMI 300 N. Zeeb Rd. Ann Aibor, MI 48106

AN EXPLORATION OF THE NATURE OF THE RELATIONSHIP

BETWEEN STUDENTS' RESPONSE TO LITERATURE AND

WRITING SELF EVALUATION

DISSERTATION

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the

Graduate School of The Ohio State University

By

Laurai Patricia Stowell, B.A., M.A.

* * * * *

The Ohio State University

1992

Dissertation Committee: Approved by:

Dr. Diane DeFord e_.i ^ College of Education Dr. Robert J. Tierney

Dr. Janet Hickman

Dr. Anna O. Soter Copyright by

Laura Patricia Stowell

1992 Dedicated to my brother Matt.

I look forward to sharing

your intellectual pursuits. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like, first of all, to acknowledge all the students who have been my teachers, but especially this particular class who had the patience to put up with my endless questions and who were willing to share their thoughts, their writing and their lives with me.

I have been extremely fortunate to have the support and guidance of faculty members, my family and my mends. My advisor, Diane DeFord had the patience and faith that I would finish this process which sustained me when I had doubts. I relied on her insight, inspiration and wisdom throughout the process. I also had the privilege of learning to conduct and write research under the guidance of Rob Tierney in conjunction with the Apple Classroom of Tomorrow Project. He was truly a mentor in my apprenticeship and I learned more about conducting research and ways to think about research with him than in any graduate class. Anna Soter and Janet Hickman provided support, encouragement and many lively discussions both formally (in classes) and informally.

Antonia Gale Moss has been a friend and constant companion in this process, providing support, and technical advice as welt as enduring many long hours in formatting.

Debbie Cooper, my friend, editor and spiritual advisor has also been able to see far and deep and has helped me to see as welt.

Laurie Desai has been a good friend and kindred spirit. She has challenged my assumptions, offered insight, spent long hours discussing ideas and helping me to keep my doctoral program and my life in perspective.

I have been blessed with many supportive friends: Kathy, Lynn, Linda, Carol and Catherine among others, who had faith when I didn't and were always there for me.

My parents, brothers, sister, grandmother, aunts and uncles provided an atmosphere of love and support where books and ideas were always valued and always made me feel I could do anything.

Finally, I could not have finished this final year without the love and support of John. VITA

October 24,1956 Bom Nurenburg, West Germany

1978 B.A, Capital University, Columbus,Ohio

1978-1983 Elementary School Teacher, Dublin, Ohio

1983-1987 Middle School (Sixth Grade) Reading Teacher, Dublin, Ohio

1985 M.A., The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio

1987-1988 Teaching Assistant, EPIC Program Research Assistant,Applc Classroom of Tomorrow project The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio

1988-1989 Middle School (Sixth Grade) Reading/Language Arts Teacher

1989-1990 Middle School (Eighth Grade) Language Aits Teacher, Dublin, Ohio

1990 Instructor, Ashland, Ohio, Columbus Site, Columbus, Ohio

1990-Present Teaching Assistant, EPIC Program Research Assistant, Apj)le Classroom of Tomorrow project The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio

1991 Instructor, Ohio Weslyan University, Delaware, Ohio

PUBLICATIONS

Galindo, R. Tierney, R„ Stowell, L. (1989). Multimedia and Multilayers in Multiple Texts. Cognitive and Social Perspectives for literacy Research and Instruction. Sandra McCormick and Jerry Zutell (Eds.) Thirty-eighth Yearbook • National Reading Conference. NRC.

Tierney, R., Galindo, R., Harris, J.E., Stowell, L., Williams, S. (1988). The Engagement of Thinking Processes: A Two Year Study of Selected Apple Classroom of Tomorrow Students. (Technical Report). Cupertino, CA: Apple Computer, Inc.

IV FIELDS OF STUDY

Major Field of Study Education

Studies in Language Arts and Professor Diane DeFord Language Development

Studies in Reading and Professor Robert J. Tiemey Research Methods

Studies in Children's Literature Professor Janet Hickman and Response to Literature

Studies in Composition and Professor Anna 0. Soter Composition Research TABLE OF CONTENTS

DEDICATION...... ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... iii

VITA...... iv

LIST OF TABLES...... ix

LIST OF FIGURES...... xi

PROLOGUE...... xii

CHAPTER I 1 THE NATURE OF THE PROBLEM...... Research Site ...... 5 Design of the Study ...... 8 Definitions of Terms ...... 9 Scope of the Study...... 12 Significance ...... 12 Limitations ...... 14 Summary...... 17

CHAPTER n ...... 18 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE The Reading-Writing Relationship ...... 19 What Reading and Writing Share ...... 19 Authorship and Audience ...... 23 Children’s Writing and Children's Literature ...... 25 Reading and Writing Classrooms ...... 28 Response Theory ...... ,...... 29 Reader Oriented Theories ...... 30 Response and Cognitive Development ...... 35 vi Elements of Response ...... 41 Research in the Classroom Context ...... 44 Writing Evaluation ...... 46 Teacher as Researcher ...... 56 Summary...... 60

CHAPTER IE ...... 62 METHODOLOGY AND PROCEDURES The Teacher as Participant Observer ...... 63 The School ...... 65 The Classroom ...... 67 The Students ...... 72 Social, Emotional and Cognitive Development ...... 73 Reading and Writing ...... 78 Data Collection ...... 82 Field Notes ...... 84 Other Sources of Data ...... 88 Time Line...... 91 The Case Study Students ...... 92 Data Analysis ...... 95 Codes ...... 97 Reliability of Codes ...... 101 Summary...... 102

CHAPTER IV ...... 103 CASE STUDIES Jimmy (low reader, low writer) ...... 107 Susie (high reader, low writer) ...... 120 . Max (high writer, low reader) ...... 134 Mindy (high reader, high writer) ...... 143 James (high Reader, high Writer) ...... 153 Summary...... 170

CHAPTER V ...... 172 CONCLUSIONS: THE NATURE OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RESPONSE TO LITERATURE AND WRITING SELF EVALUATION Major Findings ...... 174 Features of the Relationship...... 181 Text-based Features ...... 181 Topics ...... 181 Genre ...... 181

vii Subject ...... 184 Craftsmanship ...... 186 Descriptive Detail ...... 187 Visual appeal ...... 189 Flow ...... 194 Immediacy...... 195 Moral ...... 196 Length ...... 197 Reader / Writer-based Features ...... 198 Identification ...... 198 Effort ...... 206 Descriptors ...... 208 Funny ...... 208 Original ...... 210 Exciting ...... 211 Interesting ...... 212 Engagement ...... 212 Discussion of Findings ...... 216 Summary...... 226

CHAPTER V I...... 227 REFLECTIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH Reflections ...... 228 Implications ...... 235 The Teacher’s Role ...... 236 Response in the Classroom ...... 238 Idiosyncratic Evaluation ...... 239 Writing as Aesthetic Experience ...... 240 Social Context ...... 241 Directions For Future Research ...... 245 Summary...... 249

APPENDIX A...... 250

APPENDIX B...... 252

APPENDIX C ...... 254

APPENDIX D ...... 256

APPENDIX E ...... 258

viii APPENDIX F ...... 260

APPENDIX G...... 262 APPENDIX H ...... 265

APPENDIX 1...... 267 APPENDIX J ...... 271

APPENDIX K...... 277

APPENDIX L ...... 287

BIBLIOGRAPHY...... 291

ix LIST OF TABLES

TABLE PAGE 1. Shared Aspects of Reading and Writing 22 2. Time Line 92 3. Jimmy - California Achievement Test Scores 108 4. Subtests of California Achievement Test 109 5. Jimmy - Writing Conference Comments 113 6. Jimmy - Book and Writing Evaluations 117 7. Susie - California Achievement Test Scores 124 8. Susie - Writing Conference Comments 128 9. Susie - Book and Writing Evaluations 130 10. Max - California Achievement Test Scores 135 11. Max - Writing Conference Comments 138 12. Max - Book and Writing Evaluations 142 13. Mindy - California Achievement Test Scores 144 14. Mindy - Writing Conference Comments 147 15. Mindy - Book and Writing Evaluations 151 16. James • California Achievement Test Scores 153 17. James - Writing Conference Comments 162 18. James - Book and Writing Evaluations 166

x 19. Common Factors of Books and Writing 179 20. Genres of Books and Writing 182 21. Subjects of Books and Writing 184 LIST OF FIGURES

RE PAGE

1 Room Layout 68

2 Codes 99 3 Jimmy - Draft of Drug Story 111 4. Susie - Draft of Heidi and Me 126

5 Max - Draft of Hunting Story 140

6 James - Draft of Space Colony Report 160

7 Student Play Contract 205

8, Evaluation and Response Double Helix 217 9, Aesthetic to Efferent Continuum 220

10, Reader / Writer Continuum 221

11, Reader-Based Prose / Writer-Based Prose Continuum 222

12, Reader / Writer Role Continuums 224

13, Response Evaluation Continuum 225

xu PROLOGUE

"In a sense, he said, it's the student's choice of Quality that defines him. People differ about Quality, not because Quality is different, but because people are different in terms of experience" (Pirsig, 1974) CHAPTER I

THE NATURE OF THE PROBLEM

It was a lot of fun — at first. It stopped being fun when I discovered the difference between good writing and bad and then came an even more terrifying discoveiy — the difference between very good writing and true art; it is subtle but savage. (Truman Capote, 1990)

How a writer comes to understand what is (good or bad’ in writing, as Capote indicates, is an evolutionary process. The literature on written composition and children's learning processes suggests a reciprocal relationship between reading and writing. As readers respond to an author’s message, style of using language, and subtleties of plot and theme, they learn about the construction of narrative and other forms. As they write, they balance the complexities of the constructive writing process against the intuitive understandings they are developing, grappling with how to make their messages clearer, the story more interesting to carry their reader into other ’possible worlds.’ (Bruner, 1986) As Capote discovered, the writer is weighing qualitative judgments. The writer is also balancing the dual roles of writer and reader. However, little is understood about the development of this judgmental sense, especially in the developing adolescent writer. This study was undertaken to unravel the 1 2 subtleties of adolescent students* evaluations of good writing in their own work. In this endeavor, the links students made between reading and writing, the peer culture, and student — teacher interactions were critical components of study. The links between the reading and writing processes have been well established. Not so recent theorists Vygotsky (1978), Rosenblatt (1938), and others have contended for decades that we compose meaning, whether we are reading or writing. Despite long-standing support for the interaction between reading and writing, only recently have efforts been made to call into question the practices of teaching reading and writing separately. Past practices have failed to capitalize on the processes that reading and writing share. They failed to integrate in the manner described by Moffett and Wagner (1983):

The best way for the receiver to learn to comprehend is to compose. Communication is a game and like any other in some respects. To play well you have to play all roles in it. You cannot be a good fielder in baseball if you are not also a base runner, because to know which teammate to throw the ball to you must know what the runner is likely to do This is why a good theory of language arts should make clear that composition and comprehension are equal and reciprocal. Chess players role-play each other in order to read each other's mind and that is what readers and writers have to do. A learner needs to practice all roles and relations in the communication structure. This amounts to being sender, receiver and sometimes even subject in all kinds of discourse. (10-11) 3

During the last decade, research and theory from a variety of language-related disciplines have contributed to a view of the reading and writing processes. Writers and readers are said to share a common goal: they must construct a coherent text. Numerous recent studies have shown the complementary relationship between reading and writing. (Applebee, 1978; Burton,1985; DeFord,1981; Moffett,1968; Murray,1982; Newkirk, 1984; Smith, 1983; Squire, 1968) Researchers have written about a composing model of reading (Tiemey and Pearson) and a transactional model of writing (Shanklin). In 1983, Calkins, in a case study report of one child writer, stated that she regretted missing an opportunity to study the potential connection reading has to writing and suggested that the reading-writing relationship was the “research territory of the future.” She also suggests that there is a vast need for research on the “links between reading and writing for children who can already decode and encode words.” More studies are beginning to use elementary school children as participants in looking at the relationship between their experiences with literature and their writing processes. DeFord’s study (1981) serves as a starting point in that it looks at literature-based reading programs as well as more conventional ones and addresses the “supportive, interactive relationship between children's reading and their writing.” Burton (1985) further explored the connections between children's writing and their experiences with literature in a classroom setting. “Special attention was given to how children's literature functioned and the ways that eight-to-ten year-old children used literature as they created written compositions.” A 4 major theme of his work was that child writers borrow and improvise on their literary knowledge in a variety of ways. They borrow and improvise on literary language patterns, literary formats and various elements of literature itself, such as characterization, plot, setting, theme, style, and tone. Various facets of the reading-writing relationship have been explored: how reading ability affects children's writing quality, how writing affects children's reading comprehension, factors influencing reading and writing growth, and reading and writing in the classroom. If reading and writing processes impact each other and evaluation is part of these processes, then it is logical that they also impact each other during evaluation. To date the nature of the relationship between how writers read their own writing and how they read literature has not been explored. It is my intent to document the ways in which writers evaluate their own writing and how they respond to and evaluate the texts they read. Is one's ability to identify good books or good writing a derivative of the other? Does one inform the other? Three questions guided this study:

1. How do students evaluate the writing of self selected, published authors?

2. How do these same students evaluate their own writing and the writing of their peers ?

3. What relationship exists among students' evaluative responses to self-selected literature, the writing of their peers, and their personal evaluations of their own writing ? 5

Research Site The nature of the above questions dictated that this study must occur in a context in which students were engaged in genuine reading and writing experiences, a context where literature was the “content of the reading program” (Huck, 1977) and writers' workshop was the heart of the writing class. It was also necessary that the site be a context where students had time to read and write, where they could choose what they read and wrote and where they gave, received, and listened to response to printed text. These were the three vital components of a reading-writing workshop, according to Atwell — time, ownership and response. (Atwell, 1987). Finally, the study had to take place in a context in which the researcher had access to children talking about books and writing, in which reading and writing took place in a meaningful context, and where the tasks were authentic and unfolded daily. One other facet of the context was critical. Britton (1968) suggested that children in different Piagetian stages of cognitive development will make different kinds of responses to literature. Specifically, he stated that until children have passed through the stage of concrete operations they will not be aware of the nature of the processes which have led them to satisfaction. Britton implied that, while children who are not yet in the stage of formal operations will have vibrant experiences with books and should not be rushed into higher level responses, the responses of these readers are “immature.” Britton also implies that a child's stage of 6 cognitive development serves as a limit upon that child's ability to respond to literature. Britton's student, Arthur Applebee, studied the cognitive, developmental nature of response and found that cognitive development played an impoitant role in how children respond to literature. Applebee (1978) asked a group of six-year-old, nine-year-old, thirteen-year-old and seventeen-year-old children to talk about their favorite stories. His data suggested that each group talked about their stories in a different way. The thirteen-year-old students were the first group to move beyond the information in the text and begin to reflect upon their own likes and dislikes. While Vygotsky (1978, 1986) and Donaldson (1978) caution researchers and teachers not to limit a child's opportunity to do certain kinds of thinking due to preconceived notions of a particular stage of cognitive development, Bruner and Applebee's research must be taken into account when selecting participants for a study involving literature response. The participants must be children who have experience with books, are able to articulate that experience to some degree and are approaching what Piaget would call the "formal operations" period. Pre-adolescents in the school in which I was teaching fit all the above criteria and presented the best option for me to explore the relationship between rcader-response and writing self evaluation. A teacher-researcher model offered insider access to students' knowledge of the response- evaluation relationship, as well as opportunities for the researcher-teacher to observe readers and writers daily as a natural participant. Duckworth and others have said that teaching is research. Britton has called it a "quiet form of research." (1983) The most powerful reason for conducting 7 teacher-as-researchcr studies in education is their potential for generating insider knowledge useful to educators in a manner that does not disrupt the classroom, but instead potentially enriches the quality of education that children receive. Research “in” rather than research “on” educational settings (Stenhouse, 1981) is a methodology which can more powerfully portray insider knowledge of classroom participants. Berthoff argues that the kind of research which can provide direction to educators is similar to dialogue among teachers. “When real teachers get together, we ask one another real questions: 'If language capabilities are innate, why is it so hard to teach kids to write sound sentences?'..I don't think real teachers ask questions like 'what is the T-unit average among your 110 students?'” (1987) She goes on to say, “...if the questions and answers are not continually REformulated by those who are working in the classroom, educational research is pointless.” (Bertoff, 1987) One important dimension of teacher-researcher studies in the language arts is discussed by Britton (1983). He describes the process of discovery that takes place during the teaching day:

As human beings, we meet every new situation armed with expectations derived from past experiences or, more accurately, derived from our interpretations of past experience. We face the new, therefore, not only with knowledge drawn from the past, but also with developed tendencies to interpret in certain ways. It is in submitting these to the test of fresh experience — that is, in having our expectations and modes of interpreting either confirmed or discontinued or modified, that learning, the discovery, takes place, (p. 90) 8

Finally there is a need for teachers to take on the role of researcher in order to focus more clearly on children and their work. Shanklin has called for more research that gathers children's own accounts of their thinking about reading and writing processes. In order to capture the richness of children's thinking* one must be present daily where they are reading and writing. It was for all these reasons that I chose to conduct this research in my own sixth grade classroom in a public school setting. The research site will be discussed further in Chapter III.

Design of the Study From September, 1988, through June, 1989, data collection occurred within my own sixth grade classroom. Teacher-as-researcher methods were used to gain insider knowledge about how students viewed the relationship between reading response and writing self evaluation. Ethnographic, qualitative methods were especially suited for the study of this relationship, yielding rich data regarding children's understandings of language, literature and composition. (Dyson, 1986, 1988; Graves, 1983; Calkins, 1983; Harste, Woodward & Burke, 1984; Heath, 1981; Taylor & Dorsey-Gaines, 1988) Data collection methods consisted of daily field notes (Bogdan & Biklen, 1982), reading conference notes, students' reading and writing journals (Atwell, 1984; Shuy, 1987), audio-taped interviews of writing conferences (Spradley, 1979) and artifacts of student work in the form of 9 artwork, student record-keeping, and writing samples (Bogdan & Biklen, 1982; Heath, 1983). Analysis consisted of transcribing, sorting, coding and interpreting the data sources. (Bogdan & Biklen 1982, Strauss & Corbin 1990 and Miles & Huberman, 1984) Analysis primarily took place after the data was collected, although the purpose of some of the reflective field notes was to make sense of what was happening while it was happening. Descriptive data in the form of case studies (Bissex, 1980; Emig, 1971) of five children were used to aid in data reduction, and general descriptions of themes highlight the complex interplay of response and evaluation. This study offers only one suggestion regarding what happens when students' evaluate their own writing; that they are making evaluative responses similar to those made while reading literature. Field notes point to, but do not entirely capture, the social nature of response and evaluation. Four critical areas of research conducted in the field of language and literacy education informed the substantive and methodological dimensions of this study. They were: 1) research on the reading-writing relationship; 2) transactional theory; 3) research on writing evaluation; and 4) the teacher-as-researcher. These areas will be discussed at length in chapter two.

Definitions of Terms The first difficulty in dealing with issues related to assessment is the term itself. In the literature, the terms evaluation and assessment are used interchangeably, which proves problematic. Literacy researchers use a 10 range of terms to describe evaluation: assessment tool, formal and informal measure, and testing. For the purposes of this study, these definitions will be used: Assessment is generally used to denote the collection of information about children and educational programs. Evaluation, on the other hand, describes the value of something or conveys what is involved in the process of making judgments about information — using judgment to describe what is good or bad. The definition guiding this study is the one used by Purves in his study of adolescents' written responses to literature. Evaluation is why the reader thinks the work is good or bad and includes the reasons for that judgment. Rosenblatt's definition of response guided this study. Reading is a transaction, a two-way process involving a reader and a text at a particular time under particular circumstances. Both reader and text contribute to the construction of the text — the meaning is not solely in the reader nor solely in the text. “We respond, then, to what we are calling forth in the transaction with the text." (Rosenblatt, 1982) Response is open, dynamic, a “live circuit set up between reader and text". Meek (1980) discusses the importance of the context in which response occurs: “Response is a product of the context in which it occurs. It is a collaborative process in which teachers and children help each other come to know what they are reading in ways they help each other define." This is very similar to the way in which Fish (1980) discusses the inteipretive community. 11

Essential to the understanding of response is that of stance, which Bruner also calls a “posture of the mind." Rosenblatt says that, of the many choices a reader makes while reading, the most important choice is that of the reader's stance or mental set. If the reader is seeking information and focuses her attention to accumulate meanings and ideas to carry away at the end of the reading, she has adopted an efferent stance. However, while reading a story, poem or play, the reader's attention will shift inward and “center on what is being created during the actual reading." Rosenblatt calls this kind of reading aesthetic. Any reading event falls somewhere on the continuum between the aesthetic and the efferent poles. Essential to understanding response and evaluation is the social context in which they took place. Vygotsky (1986) discusses the impact of the social context on learning and more specifically, writing. The social context of this study also had an impact on the readers and writers in this study. In this study the social context will be used to describe the milieu and atmosphere of the classroom in general and specifically the context that each student is reading and writing within, which describes the world inside the child's head. Each reading and writing event creates its own context (see Edmiston, 1990, Benton, 1979)) and a reader or writer functions within that context or "secondary world" as Benton calls it ("secondary worlds" will be discussed more thoroughly in Chapter II). This social context includes those times that a student was writing (or reading collaboratively) with another student, the teacher, a parent, or another text. 12

Scope of the Study

Significance It is well established that reading and writing are complementary processes. However, it is not clear as to whether this relationship exists in the evaluation of reading and writing. If such a relationship exists, this would only serve to strengthen the notion that the two processes enhance each other and further support the contention that they should be taught together rather than in isolation. In child-centered classrooms, students are encouraged to become decision makers in terms of setting goals, selecting their own books, choosing their own writing topics, and developing criteria for assessment. At a time when portfolios are taking on a central role in literacy evaluation and as students assume more responsibility in becoming independent evaluators, it behooves educators to find out how students evaluate their own work. If our goal in education is to enable students to become independent learners and evaluators, we must be certain that their own evaluations are meaningful and effective. When we begin to understand what students think, we can offer appropriate guidance that facilitates individual progress. With regard to evaluation, little research has been done to discover exactly how children acquire their own theories and models of evaluation. It is not even well established how teachers do so. This research posits the theory that at least a portion of these models are acquired through experiences with books and subsequent response to them — that a part of 13 evaluation is a response. If one of the primary goals of education is to enable students to become more independent learners, self-evaluation of reading and writing would certainly increase the probability of achieving that goal. To enable students to become more independent evaluators, an understanding of that process is crucial so that teachers, peers, and caregivers can support and extend the process. By considering alternative conceptions of educational inquiry such as the teacher as researcher, the educational community may increase its breadth and depth of understanding. In addition, teacher-researchers need not be concerned with whether or not their findings will be used in the schools. Practitioners may then find teacher research more accessible and more credible. Because of this, the findings may tend to be disseminated more quickly and directly into classroom practice and engender increased effectiveness. In turn, teacher-researcher methodology could work to close the gap between universities and public schools. As teachers begin to accept the idea that all good teaching requires research, and university faculties accept the notion that all researchers are teachers, or should be, both could be working toward the same goals. 4*The teacher-as-researcher approach used in this study has aligned itself with the way human beings naturally construct meaning ” (Burton, 1985). Burton explains that the way human beings acquire meaning, by action and then reflection, to construct a theory with which to operate, holds true whether they are infants or researchers. Perhaps as more researchers adopt this methodology, more credibility will be given its results. 14

Limitations The first limitation of this study is best described by Peter Medway: "The hardest bit is making the familiar classroom strange to yourself.” Having conducted this research study in my own classroom, there could be aspects that I overlook or take for granted. There is the danger that my own classroom is so familiar to me that I have difficulty stepping back to analyze and interpret what I have seen and heard. However, I believe that I am not so different from most qualitative researchers, who, when the time comes to interpret their data, also find it difficult to make the “familiar strange to yourself.” I do have some knowledge of conducting qualitative research in other settings and have felt, at the end of the study, that I knew the participants almost as intimately as my own students. Therefore, I do not feel that I am any more limited by my view of the students than any other qualitative ethnographic researcher. Traditional conceptions of objectivity do not apply to this study. Qualitative research is often criticized for the ways that data are interpreted. This approach to research is highly personalized and reveals as much about the researcher as those who are researched. Researchers of the positivist paradigm go to great lengths to ensure that their own biases do not "contaminate” the behaviors of the research “subjects." However, in an observer-as-participant study such as this, with the researcher an active participant in the classroom, the teacher-researcher will influence the study. All of the influences of the teacher-researcher will not be recognized in the results. However, research is always done by human beings and thus cannot ever be truly objective because each brings his or IS her own perspective to the research he or she is conducting. Therefore, this study is no more or less “objective'* than any other qualitative research study. With the teacher-as-researcher, there is a danger that the teacher can influence the participants with regard to making the kinds of evaluative statements she is looking for. However, this is true of any research. No research is truly “objective" because any researcher enters a context with a set of assumptions and beliefs which influence the ways in which she sees that context. As this was an ethnographic study, it was difficult to influence the students' statements, since I was not entirely certain of what I was going to find. In addition, the students' awareness of the teacher's research may raise the level of awareness of evaluation and possibly make the students self-conscious of their own reading and writing behaviors which could create an artificial situation. But this danger is present in any research and must be accepted as part of the process. Any research is read with such cautions in mind. However, this study is designed to remain within the bounds of normal classroom procedure and present the least amount of intrusion possible. One difficulty is the students' inability to articulate their own evaluative criteria. They may know how they feel or what they think, but be unable to express it. They may not be equipped with the language. It is possible that what Bruner and Applebee describe is true — that children must be in the formal operational stage of development to make evaluations. Possibly there is a developmental component to evaluation 16 and self-evaluation which this study does not address. It is also possible that these particular students did not have adequate experience with books and/or writing to begin to make evaluative statements. It is difficult to discover exactly what kinds of experiences with books these children had, and this researcher recognizes that this is certainly a limiting factor. While it was the intent of this researcher to explore the possibility that response informs self-evaluation, this is a narrow focus on self- evaluation. Response and evaluation are complex processes. While this study will attempt to show the existence of a relationship between response and evaluation, it may not give the total picture regarding self-evaluation. Field notes and conferences pointed to the social nature of response and evaluation and the need for further study. Therefore, while this study does describe the nature of self-evaluation in part, it does not provide the total picture. This researcher accepts that there is a philosophical argument which exists regarding “What is good?” and that there is little agreement about this concept. In the Coles and Vopat book, What Makes Writing Good, composition instructors share a good piece of student writing and discuss its elements. What is interesting about this book is that each discussion is specific to the piece — there are no universals regarding “good” student writing. Although this is a consideration in any study of evaluation, it is the intention of this research to discover what is good in the minds of the participants and how they arrived at that definition. It is well understood by this researcher that the teacher is a strong factor in any classroom and that the ways in which the teacher comes to terms with this concept no 17 doubt influence the students. Therefore, teachers' understandings of good literature and writing will be discussed.

Sum m ary The problem of this study is to explore the relationship between student readers' responses to the literature they read and the evaluations they make regarding their own writing. Four areas framed the study: 1) the reading-writing relationship; 2) transactional theory; 3) writing evaluation; and 4) the teacher-as-researcher. While a brief overview of these areas has been provided in Chapter I, this will be expanded and elaborated upon in chapter II as I examine the theory and research related to each of them. How this theory and research relates to the study will be emphasized. Chapter III will discuss the methodology and procedures used in the study, as well as an account of the analysis process. Chapter IV will include a narrative account of the five case-study students as well as the findings represented as themes which emerged from the analysis. Chapter V will consist of personal reflections on the methodology issues raised by the teacher-as-researcher in this study. Implications for school, teacher education, and suggestions for further research will be discussed. CHAPTER H

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

In a true experiment you keep constant every cause you can think of except one, and then see what the effects are of varying that one cause. In the classroom you can never do this. -Robert M. Pirsig Zen and the An of Motorcycle Maintenance

Because of the complexity of classroom research, especially with “inside the head” processes like reading and writing, multiple perspectives must be examined to provide different windows of evidence. The literature that informs this study encompasses four areas of related research: that which discusses the reading-writing connection, reader response theory, writing evaluation, and that which discusses the teacher- as-researcher. Each will be explored in the following chapter to provide a backdrop for this research study.

18 19

The Reading-Writing Relationship Research in the past decade has strengthened the already existing ties between reading and writing processes and shown the relationship to be a complex and multifaceted one. The areas of research which most directly relate to this study have to do with what reading and writing share, students' considerations of authorship and audience, what happens in classrooms when reading and writing are used together, and how literature affects writing.

What Reading and Writing Share In a longitudinal examination of the reading and writing abilities of 220 students across twelve grade levels, Loan (1964) argued that the relationship between reading and writing “was so striking to be beyond question" (p. 212). He found that there was a definite positive relationship between reading and writing, especially for students who performed very well or poorly. Recent studies have attempted to be more explicit about the kinds of knowledge shared across reading and writing. The correlation between features such as word recognition, print awareness, phonics, spelling, cohesion, text structure, text format, comprehension, and writing quality varied across grade levels and showed that knowledge and abilities are shared between reading and writing processes. Shanahan (1984) and Shanahan and Lomax (1986, 1988) found that the correlation between 20 reading and writing measures accounted for most of the variance. Phonics and spelling ability accounted for most of the variance in beginning readers, and as proficiency increased, writing measures such as vocabulary diversity and story structure combined with a comprehension score accounted for most of the variance. However, they also indicated that the precise nature of the reading-writing relationship is far from clear. Many have attempted to explore the cognitive dimension of the two processes. Wittrock (1984) argued that reading and writing are generative cognitive processes in which readers and writers “create meanings by building relations between the text and what they know, believe and experience.” (p. 77) Squire (1984) suggested that “both comprehending and composing seem basic reflections of the same cognitive processes (p.24).” Kucer (1985) asserted that readers and writers are involved in several strategies of “generating and integrating propositions through which the internal structure of meaning known as the text world is built”(p. 331). Each act is separate in terms of text world production but draws from a common pool of cognitive and linguistic questions. Martin’s (1987) data supports this view and suggests that readers and writers vary in the extent to which they employ various strategies during text construction. Tiemey and Pearson (1984) have outlined a “composing model of reading” in which they describe reading and writing as “essentially similar processes of meaning construction.” According to this model, readers and writers engage in planning, drafting, aligning, revising and monitoring. Writers as well as readers engage in planning which involves goal setting and mobilizing background knowledge and experience. During drafting, 21 readers and writers make and refine meaning. Aligning refers to the stances that writers adopt toward readers and readers adopt toward writers as well as the roles a writer or reader adopts in the writing or reading process. They also suggest that revising is as essential to reading as it is to writing. They (readers) “must examine their developing interpretations and view the models they build as draft-like in quality — subject to revision” (p. 41). Monitoring is the time when readers or writers distance themselves from the texts they have created to evaluate what they have developed. Rosenblatt (1988) discusses the overlap between writing and reading processes. From her perspective, readers and writers follow similar patterns of thinking and engage in similar uses of language. Both readers and writers draw on their own past experiences with language and with life to create new meanings. She describes every reading and writing act as falling somewhere on an efferent/aesthetic continuum (this will be discussed more thoroughly later in this chapter). “Both reader and writer develop a framework, principle or purpose, however nebulous or explicit, that guides the selective attention and the synthesizing, organizing activities that constitute meaning” (p. 14). In a similar manner, Butler and Turbill (1984) outline the nature of the composing processes of reading and writing: 22

Table 1 Shared Aspects of Reading and Writing

What Readerfl_Do_BEFORE Reading What WriteraDo-BEFORE Writing

The proficient reader brings and uses The proficient writer brings and uses know ledge: knowledge • about the topic • about the topic • about the language used • about the language to be used • about the sound symbol system • about the sound system

The proficient reader brings certain The proficient writer brings certain expectations to the reading cued by: expectations based on: • previous reading experiences » previous writing experiences • presentation of the text • previous reading experiences • the purpose for the reading • the purpose of the writing • the audience for the reading • the audience for the writing

What Readers Do DURING Reading What Writers Do CURING Writing

The proficient reader is engaged In The proficient writer is engaged in • draft reading • draft writing •skimming and scanning •writing notes and ideas •searching for sense • searching (or a way in, a 'lead' • predicting outcomes • selecting outcomes • re-defining and composing meaning • re-reading • revising and composing meaning • re-reading -re-reading parts as puipose Is defined, • re-writlng clarified or changed -re-writing text as purpose changes or -taking Into account, where appropriate, an becomes defined, clearer audience •considering readers and the intended •discussing text.maklng notes m essage •reading aloud to ‘hear* the message •discussing and revising text -re-reading to ‘hear* the message • using writer's cues •using punctuation to assist meaning • preparing for readers •using spelling conventions to assist meaning -reading to place correct punctuation -proof-reading for conventional spelling •deciding on appropriate presentation

What Readers Do AFTER Reading What Writers Do AFTER Writing

The proficient reader The proficient writer • responds in many ways, e.g. talking, doing, • gets response from readers writing • gives to readers • reflects upon it • feels success • feels success • wants to write again • wants to read again 23

Butler and TurbiH's views suggest that reading and writing can be defined in terms of the same general processes of gathering ideas, questioning, hypothesizing, meaning-making, perspective-taking, refining, self-correcting and self-assessing. Different students enlist varying strategies in accordance with their own approach and ability. Kiiby (1986) found that, while students behave idiosyncratically during reading and writing, they constantly related the text, whether read or written, to their personal experiences. Petrosky (1982) summarizes the commonalties of these models:

When we read, we comprehend by putting together impressions of the text without personal, cultural and contextual models of reality. When we write, we compose by making meaning from available information, our personal knowledge and the cultural and contextual frames we happen to find ourselves in. Our theoretical understandings of these processes are convergent...around the central role of human understanding — be it of texts or the world — as a process of composing, (p. 34)

Authorship and Audience Particularly relevant to this study is the child's awareness of the author of a text that they're reading, as well as the audience of their own writing. Several studies suggest that students of all ages have a sense of authorship, but that younger and less proficient readers do not consider authorship to the same extent or with as much breadth as older, more proficient readers. Understanding the author's intentions can help a reader 24 solve problems or conversely, a lack of understanding of the author’s intention can result in failure to comprehend. Therefore, a sense of authorship can be heightened, and, once heightened, students tend to read more critically and flexibly. A few educators (Graves & Hansen 1983; Calkins, 1983) suggest that students who write fluently approach a text with an awareness of authorship and author’s craft. Children’s sense of audience has generated more research than their sense of authorship. Kroll (1985) indicates that sensitivity to audience is likely to manifest itself in various ways for different discourses. Findings from a variety of studies (Kroll, 1985; Flower and Hayes, 1981; Rubin and Piche, 1979; Roen and Willey, 1988) suggest that in selected writing assignments all students are sensitive to audience, but older, more proficient writers tend to adapt their text differently to meet audience demands. The influence of writing awareness varies across different parts of the writing process. Audience awareness, as manifested in written products, is also influenced by different contexts. Several researchers (Tierney, Leys and Rogers, 1986; Newkirk, 1982; Graves and Hansen, 1983) demonstrated that students in collaborative settings who share their writing with others appear to read their own writing with more objectivity and understanding of ways to improve their writing than students in less collaborative settings. 25

Children’s Writing and Children’s Literature Children’s literature scholars have believed for some time that “literature can enrich all subjects across the curriculum.” (Huck, 1977) Lundsteen (1976), in a publication published by the National Conference on Research in English, argued that the “relationship between composition and literature are strong and irrefutable.” Stotsky (1983) claimed that there is a “paucity of research” on reading-writing relationships and that:

...while a large body of theoretical and experimental research in writing has focused on methodological issues, very little research in writing has examined the influence of reading instruction or reading experience on the development of writing ability, (p. 627)

Stotsky goes on to say that this reading experience “may be as critical a factor in developing writing ability as writing instruction itself.” Michael Benton (1983) contends that we cannot discuss reading and writing in isolation “for in both we are makers.” Benton uses Tolkien’s notion of the “story as secondary world" to explain that while readers and writers get to this secondary world in different manners, they are both creating secondary worlds. Tolkien and Iser state that readers and writers adopt an “inside viewpoint" in their experiencing of the secondary world, that readers and writers must enter the world or be "inside” in order to construct it. 26

A recently published series of books edited by Nancy Atwell (1989) called Workshop recognizes the importance of this relationship in the classroom. The first book is entitled Writing and Literature. Through articles written largely by teachers, the goal of this book is to show what is possible when teachers complement student writing with approaches that draw on children’s literature. The articles describe classrooms where there is “constant talk about the qualities of good writing, but in the context of pieces of student writing and children’s literature.” (p. 9) Teachers recognize what the research community is beginning to document: the importance of literature in writing classrooms. Relatively recent research has begun to highlight the relationship between what children read and what they write. King, et al., (1981), in a study of kindergarten, first and second-grade children, provided a strong theoretical and empirical foundation for inquiry into children’s writing as it relates to their literary experiences. They claim that children learn how to make sense of language by utilizing available patterns of discourse. Their research makes a very strong case for narrative being one of these patterns. They suggest that as young children mature, their stories increasingly resemble the structural units found in folk tales. Children hold the structure of folk tales in their memories and draw upon them to create written texts. King, et al., point out that children do not copy the literary patterns, but abstract general literary principles and then use them for their own purposes. 27

Eckhoffs (1983) study describes how children’s writing is affected by the style of prose found in basal readers. The children’s writing reflects the features of the basal text. DeFord’s (1985) research on three first- grade classrooms with different philosophies of instruction (i.e. mastery learning, traditional basal and literature-based) expands the notions outlined in Eckhoffs study. In all the classrooms, “writers borrowed from the contextual and instructional cues provided.**

If literature was emphasized, then it was more likely that the literature would find its way into student texts. In other words, what children read, they tended to use in writing. The reading material emphasized in the reading program was the most influential factor in determining the form as well as the content of children’s writing, (p. 18-19)

A study similar to the two described above was conducted by Mikkelsen (1984). Using neighborhood children as subjects, Mikkelsen read aloud and told stories to them. Following was a discussion prompted by various levels of questions. Afterwards, the children were asked to write or tell their own stories. Although this study occurred out of the classroom context and involved contrived tasks, results indicated that a significant number of the children’s stories were “literature based.’’ In his classroom-based, year-long study, Burton (1985) explored the connection between children’s writing and their literary experiences. He observed child writers “borrowing and improvising.” In a study rich with examples of children’s writing, Burton realized that children borrowed and improved on literary language patterns, literary formats and various elements of literature itself. Children produced written compositions that 28 were structurally or rhythmically similar to an autho r’s text The language patterns that they borrowed were at the word or phrase level. Children also borrowed or improvised upon the literary formin t (including title page, dedication page, jacket flap, jacket cover and the ‘a ^bout the author page’) of a book; its typography, illustrations and the way ts text and illustrations were organized. Children used the literary format of a text as a guide to shape their own pieces. Finally children borrowed and improvised upon the traditional elements of literature including bharacterization, plot, setting, theme, style, and tone. Most of the borrow} ng involved more than one element and improvisation occurred in a vari itety of ways and for a range of purposes.

Reading and Writing Classroo ms What do readers and writers learn when re ading and writing are used together? Studies in classrooms which reflect what Willinsky (1990) has called the "New Literacy" are relatively recent. Willinsky defines the “New Literacy” as consisting

...of those strategies in the teaching of reading and writing which attempt to shift the control of literacy from the teacher to the students: literacy is promoted in such programs as a social process with language that can from the very beginning extend the students' range of meaning and connection, (p. 8) 29

New literacy programs are generally labeled with terms such as “whole language/’ “reader response/* and “process writing.” There is a need to study reading and writing relationships more closely in those kinds of settings in order to gain a fuller picture of how the two processes enhance each other. Findings from several studies (Tierney, et al; 1989 McGinley, 1988; Langer and Applebee, 1986, 1987) suggest that when reading and writing are used together, students adopt a more inquisitive attitude toward learning which facilitates the expansion of knowledge. Based upon her observations of first grade classrooms, Short (1986) argues that “the potential for learning and thinking are changed when the classroom environment facilitates intertextuality. A collaborative and meaning- centered learning environment engages learners more fully and actively in learning and encourages higher levels of thinking” (p. 17).

Response Theory There exists a range of theories regarding the nature of interpretation of text; the framework informing this study is that of reader-response theory. There are two perspectives that are critical to this study: a) The reader-writer and his or her own construction of meaning in a text; and b) the reader-writer’s evaluation of how well that text accomplished its purpose. Therefore, the theory and research which is most relevant to this study is that which holds the reader's role and the meanings he or she creates as the focus. Because this study is primarily 30 concerned with how reader-writers respond to literature and their own writing, the literature review will focus on those literary theories concerned with reader response. I. A. is often cited as the first literary theorist to recognize the role of the reader. wrote a number of books in the 1920*s on readers and reading, books that are still referred to and highly relevant. He noted the influence of the reader's past experience and personality on the interpretation of literature. However, he saw that influence as problematic: that individual perceptions interfered with the “correct” interpretations of a text. Louise Rosenblatt is generally credited with being the first proponent of reader-response theory with the publication of Literature and Exploration in 1938, but she suggests that there is a “spectrum” of response theory. The spectrum runs from reader-oriented theories (Holland, Bleich) to reader-plus-text oriented theories (Iser, Rosenblatt) to text-oriented theories (Culler, Scholes, Fish). Currently, the importance of the reader’s role is becoming more and more widely acknowledged.

Reader Oriented Theories In a psychoanalytic approach, looking at how the personality of five college freshmen affected their reading, Norman Holland (1980) identified four elements of response. In this theory of transactive criticism, he suggests that people deal with literary texts the way they do with life 31 experiences, by developing a style of coping. He calls this their "identity theme" and maintains that this theme imprints itself on every aspect of behavior including textual interpretation. A text is processed in accordance with this identity theme. If a reader responds favorably to a text, it is because he or she has been able to put elements of the work together so they act out his or her lifestyle. The reader merges with the book and the events of the book become as real as anything in his or her own mind. This is how Holland accounts for various interpretations of text. "Somehow, all kinds of people from different eras and cultures can achieve and reachieve a single literary work, replenishing it by infinitely various additions of subjective to objective." (Holland, 1980) While everyone reads the same piece it is interpreted in terms of the reader’s own identity. Holland assumes that some aspects of the text exist prior to interpretation. The reader creates meaning as a result of his or her interpretation of the elements of the story combined according to his or her identity theme. “To be sure, differences in age, sex, nationality, class or reading experience will contribute to differences in interpretation. Yet it is a familiar experience in the world of literary or clinical interpretation to find people similar in age, sex, nationality, class and interpretive skill nevertheless differing radically over particular interpretations.” (Holland, 1980) Holland’s second principle is that defenses must be matched. A reader must have found something in the work that does what he or she does to cope with needs or dangers. The third related principle is that fantasy projects fantasy. Each reader uses the materials he has taken in 32 from the literary work to create a wish-fulfilling fantasy characteristic of himself. Works do not have fantasies, but people do. Once the reader has matched his or her defensive structures and matched to suit his or her own fantasies, the fourth principle comes into play: “character transforms characteristically.” We use the literary work to symbolize and replicate ourselves. The reader will use higher functions, such as interpretive skills, literary experience and his or her life experience as a human to make sense of the text. In fantasizing, defending and transforming, the reader works out his or her personal style through story. Each reader takes in what he reads as the raw material from which to create one more variation on his continuing identity theme. The individual shapes it to match his ways of dealing with reality. No single interpretation satisfies anyone except the interpreter. Holland has developed the acronym DEFT — defenses, expectations, fantasies and transformations — to describe this process. Similar to Holland’s notion of a reader searching for his or her identity in a text, Bleich’s theory is based on the assumption that a person’s most urgent motivations are to understand his or her self. Interpretation of a text reflects the individuality of the reader’s response. The response of the reader is the affective response or the actual affect felt while reading. Meaning is in the reader rather than in the text and is a direct outgrowth of the reader’s emotional grasp of the story. Critical interpretation occurs after the reading experience and is a response to that experience. The critical interpretation is then open to negotiation by the community of interpreters to which the reader belongs. Understandings of texts are co­ 33 created by all those readers of a common community and their own individual responses. Classrooms can be and are powerful communities where these negotiations take place. Rosenblatt was one of the earliest literary scholars to discuss the ideas of the reader as crucial to the construction of a literary text rather than a hindrance, as described. Rosenblatt stated that “the reading of any work of literature is, of necessity, an individual and unique occurrence involving the mind and emotions of some particular reader and a particular text at a particular time under particular circumstances.” (Rosenblatt, 1985) While the reader negotiates meaning with the text, he or she is constantly making selections from the multiple possibilities offered by the text and their synthesis into an organized meaning. The most important choice is made early in the reading event — that of the reader’s stance or mental set. The reader may take an efferent stance in which attention focuses on the public aspects of meaning and what needs to be remembered after he or she has completed the text. An aesthetic reading focuses on private feelings, ideas, attitudes and what is being lived through as the text is being read. Any reading event falls somewhere on the continuum between the aesthetic and the efferent poles. The reader responds, then, to what he or she calls forth in the transaction with the text. The reader brings to the work personality traits, memories of past events, present needs and preoccupations, a particular mood of the moment and a particular physical condition. These and many other elements in a never-to-be-duplicated combination determines the reader’s response to the peculiar contribution of the text. An intense response to a work will have 34 its roots in capacities and experience already present in the personality and mind of the reader. Another factor which adds to the variability of response is the great diversity in the nature of the literary works themselves. But because text is organized and self-contained, it concentrates the reader’s attention and regulates what will enter into his/her consciousness. Through Rosenblatt's work, meaning was no longer viewed as residing solely in the text, nor solely in the reader. But rather, meaning is a negotiation between the two. It is a meeting place between the reader and the text. Rosenblatt called this new entity the “poem,” which is not an object but an event, a lived through process or experience. For Rosenblatt, the text is an active element, but also an open one requiring the contributions of the reader. More recently Rosenblatt (1988) wrote about the transactional theoiy of reading and writing. Writers too, construct texts from past experiences of language and life. New meanings constructed through writing are also extensions of the experiences writers bring to the task of writing. Stance is also important for writing. Stance is adopted when the writer is setting his or her purpose and will also fall somewhere on the efferent-aesthetic continuum. However, Rosenblatt does point out that the writer, as first reader of a text, reads the text differently than a reader. She called this first reading “authorial reading I.” “The new words, as they appear on the page, must be tested, not simply for how they make sense with the preceding text, but also against something more demanding — whether the emerging meaning serves or hinders the intention, or purpose, however 35 nebulous and inarticulate that we have seen as the motive power in the writing" (p. 11). She suggests this kind of reading leads to revision at various phases of the writing process. A second kind of authorial reading (authorial reading II) occurs when the writer dissociates from the text and reads it with the eyes of potential readers — “tries to judge the meaning they would make" (p. 12). Rosenblatt calls this a more sophisticated kind of reading than authorial reading I. Children must be helped to see that what was in their heads will not necessarily be conveyed to others by what is on the page.

Response and Cognitive Development Norma Schlager’s dissertation study published in 1974 sheds more light on how children relate to the characters within a story. At the time of her study she was concerned that what children read has taken precedence over why children read certain things and not others. However, she is quick to point out that children’s choices in literature are not made on a conscious level. Children can rarely articulate the reason for their selection. However, children’s choices are reflected in their stages of development. Books that reflect the child’s perception of the world are the books children clamor for. Those books having main characters who reflect the complex psychological and emotional aspects of the reader gain wide readership. Books which fail to reflect these aspects have a very low readership, no matter how beautifully written the book may be. In addition, a child’s perceptions change with each stage of his or her development, so that a toddler delights in aspects that will be of little 36 interest to the seven-year-old, and the interests of middle childhood are likewise not of interest to the young adolescent. Schlager also claims that while people vary in taste from culture to culture, human development does not vary and so there is a universality among children in their enjoyment of literature. Schlager’s study consisted of three components. First she compiled the behavioral characteristics of middle childhood based on Piaget and Erickson's work. Then she rank-ordered the Newberry award books (52, as of 1973) according to frequency of circulation over a three year period. Third, she analyzed the books with the highest and lowest circulation counts to determine if there was a correlation among the books widely read and the characteristics exhibited in middle childhood. From this analysis, the five most circulated books were:

1. Island of the Blue Dolphins

2. Witch of Blackbird Pond

3. From the Mixed up Files of Mrs, Basil E, Frankweiler

4. It's Like This, Cat

5. A Wrinkle In Time

The five least circulated books were:

1. I, Juan de Parja

2. Amos Fortune, Free Man

3. Tales from Silver Lands 37

4. Trumpeter of Krakov

5. Dobry

Schlager discussed in great detail how developmentally valid and complex characteristics appeared in the most-circulated books and how conspicuously absent they were in the least-circulated books. For example, the book Island of the Blue Dolphins is about a girl, Karana, who survives alone on an island. Erikson (1959, 1963, 1968) describes this desire in seven-to-twelve year olds to handle reality situations independently and to cope and succeed in reality situations. He calls it “reality orientation." This observation of successful ventures of main characters is vital to the children's healthy growth toward meeting successful independence. Karana also exhibits the kind of reasoning in this story (syllogistic reasoning), which Piaget claims is developing during middle childhood. In contrast, the least-circulated books were characterized by Schlager as not displaying the middle childhood perspective. The characters did not show any of the characteristics of those years. Therefore, however high the literary quality of a book, it will be lost upon children unless their interest is first aroused by the developmental characteristics displayed within the story. Her research supports the position that the books which succeed are those that contain an identifiable stage of development, regardless of the literary quality so appropriately desired by adults. Jose and Brewer (1983) found similar results concerning character identification and story-liking. They looked at the development of story- liking among second, fourth and sixth graders in relation to character 38 identification, suspense, and outcome resolution. Their results showed that similarity to character (age and sex of child) increased character identification, and increased identification produced more suspense. Similarity was found to be a major basis for identifying with a character. Sympathetic caring for a story character caused suspense when the character faced a significant consequence. Liking of story outcome was determined by resolution of suspense by a positive ending for young children and a “just world" ending for older children. Overall story liking was found to be caused by identification with the story character, suspense, and liking of outcome, showing that each of the three components made an independent contribution to the final evaluation to the story. Like the Schlager study, Jose and Brewer found that a children’s liking of the outcome of a story was tied to their developmental level. The three age groups showed the gradual acquisition of the “just world" belief. The second graders relied almost entirely on outcome information to determine their liking for a story ending. They wanted to see a “happy ending" regardless of the valence (good or evil) of the characters. The fourth graders’ ratings reflected a tendency to combine character valence and outcome valence to make judgements about story endings, but outcome still exerted a dominant influence. The sixth graders showed the ability to integrate the two sources of information in a pattern reflecting the just world belief. Reliance on outcome information is a distinguishing characteristic of Piaget’s concept of “moral realism”. 39

Britton (1970), as well as Galda (1982) and Petrosky (1975) discussed the link between response and the development of formal operational thought. Britton maintained that it is necessary for readers to approach a narrative text with a certain attitude which he labeled spectator stance." This stance involves the ability to approach a story as a valid depiction of possible experience. This ability to assume the spectator stance is therefore linked to cognitive development It is important to note, for the purposes of this study, that in his study of the writing abilities of 11-18 year olds Britton, et al.(1975), also identified the spectator role and participant role as ways that writers use language. When writers use language to recreate real or imagined experience in order to enjoy it, or represent it to someone else for their enjoyment, they are using language in the role of the spectator. When writers use language to get things done, they are using language in the role of the participant. There is clearly a link between Britton's notion of a spectator stance in writing and spectator's role in reading. Perhaps there are other stances or roles that readers and writers adopt that link these two processes. That is the question this study explores. Utilizing Piaget's stages of development, Applebee (1978) took a developmental perspective in looking at response. He stated that children pass through certain developmental stages related to those postulated by Piaget as they construct responses to literature. In the first stage of response, related to Piaget's pre-operational stage, children’s representations take on the simplest possible form; a nearly one-to-one correspondence between the representation and the original experience, 40 with little or no evidence or reorganization of recoding. As children move into the concrete operational stage, their responses take on a new organization, based on the ability to organize and classify the experience being confronted. During Piaget’s concrete operational period, the reader is able to summarize and categorize response. The reader begins to separate subjective (reader-centered) from objective (text-centered) responses. A response might be: “This is boring, so I don’t like it.*’ In the second stage, formal operational, children can analyze the work in terms of its symbols and structures. Both objective and subjective responses reflect this change. The reader can identify with or become involved in a literary work. Responses can also be described in relation to three aspects of Applebee’s model — analysis, generalization and evaluation. Analysis at the formal operational level is an understanding of how a piece works. This includes the mechanics, logic of the structure, images and symbols. A child begins with analysis and goes beyond it in generalization to examine the work as a statement of a particular viewpoint. Response is consciously concerned with understanding the world through the work. Evaluation becomes systematic at the concrete operational stage. Children classify their responses with clearly marked attributes. But the objective and subjective are still intertwined: literary pieces are categorized according to how the work has affected a particular reader rather than as a basis for the work’s style or structure. Children develop the ability to move beyond the information given towards more objective consideration of the message and 41 structure. The beginnings of literary analysis skills can be discerned as children attempt to refine and extend the meanings of what they read.

Elements of Response Squire (1968) identifies four levels of response to a text in the young reader listening to literature. The reader responds to the quality and patterns of sound, events, roles, and worlds. Children respond to the texture and rhythm of literature. Both rhythm and form involve a pattern of expectation. Stories for young children embody a pattern of events within this rhythm or form. Children also take up the role of characters in a story and replay the story, sometimes reshaping and extending it. Finally children relate and organize elements of the world of that story to their own world. It is this final element that recurs in many theories and research into reader response. Within another framework for evaluating response style, Purves (1968) also offers a way of getting at evaluative criteria. His framework is based on a content analysis of the written responses of critics and students to literature. Similar to Rosenblatt’s work, it is organized around the basic stance a reader can take toward a work: interpreter, evaluator, describer, personalizer. These stances correspond to Purves' four categories of response: interpretation, evaluation, engagement-involvement, and perception. 42

Unlike Applebee, these categories are not related to any stages of development. The first category, engagement-involvement, is highly subjective and defines the various ways by which the writer indicates his surrender to the literary work and the ways in which s/he has experienced the work or its various aspects. The second category, perception, encompasses the ways in which a person looks at the work as an object distinct from himself. Once the writer (responder) has established that the work exists apart from the writer’s experience of it, he or she may seek to connect it to the world s/he knows. Purves calls this process “interpretation", which is an attempt to find meaning in the work, to generalize about it, to draw inferences from it, to find analogues to it in the universe that the writer inhabits. Interpretation can be either of form or of content. Evaluation, the last category, encompasses the statements about why the writer thinks the work is good or bad. The judgment may be derived from either a personal or an objective criterion. One’s evaluation of a work is based on one's engagement-involvement, perception or interpretation. Each of the Purves’ major categories of response are subdivided. Relevant to this study are the sub categories of evaluation. It is important to represent them in their entirety here because they are similar to the statements made by the students in this study. Summarized below are the elements of evaluative response: 43

1. Citation of criteria are statements defining the criteria without specific reference to the work.

2. Affective evaluation is the criterion of emotional appeal.

3. Evaluation of the author's method reflects the various criteria by which the reader judges the way in which the work was created.

* formal evaluation uses the criterion of aesthetic order — work may or may not fulfill its function, succeed or not.

* rhetorical evaluation uses the criterion of effective use of form or of adequacy of parts to the whole.

* typological rhetoric — failing or succeeding in reaching for a symbolic structure.

4. Generic evaluation uses as its criterion the abstract notion of genre. (It’s a bad poem, it does not rhyme)

5. Traditional evaluation is akin to genre but less rigid, judges the work according to the history or its type in form or content.

6. Originality. 7. Intentional evaluation uses the criterion of the author’s expressed or inferred intention.

8. Multifariousness is the criterion of levels. The Writer asks of literature that it be interpreted in many ways and judges the work accordingly.

9. Evaluation of author’s vision judges the sufficiency of what the work is presenting.

* Mimetic plausibility is the criterion of surface credibility or the ability of the author to create a world to which the writer can relate himself. * Imagination is loosely referred to a judgement of the ability of the author to transmute experience and to make the work both stimulating and credible. 44

10. Thematic importance is the criterion of seriousness.

11. Sincerity asks that the writer's point of view coincide with the writer’s own.

12. Moral significance is the criterion of lessons. “Has the work taught me anything?”

13. Moral acceptability is the criterion of good lessons. “Has the work taught what I consider to be morally correct?” (41-45)

Several dimensions of the reader affects response include personal style, preferences and experience, cognitive development, and concept of story. Readers do seem to have characteristic manners of responding which are linked to their personalities and which hold across texts. (Galda, 1980; Holland, 1975; Petrosky, 1975). In addition, readers choose to respond in a particular way, through interpretation or evaluation. These responses may be as much learned behaviors as preferences. (Purves, 1981)

Research in the Classroom Context Besides the influence of the reader and text on each other, the context in which the response is generated also influences the response. Responses vary in individual settings and group settings. Beach (1973) found that the opportunity for free association generates different kinds of responses than those generated by group discussion. 45

Much of the research regarding response in classroom settings has been conducted at The Ohio State University. Hickman (1980) found that response can be related to a whole range of behaviors such as listening behaviors, contact with books, sharing books, oral responses, actions and drama, making things, and writing. Although all categories of response were represented by all three age groups in the study (K-lst grade, 2nd- 3rd grade, 4th-5th grade), some modes were characteristic of children in each age group. The K-lst grade students tended to use their bodies to respond, 2nd-3rd grade students were more concerned with mastering and demonstrating reading skills and spent more time reading together and sharing their reading, while the 4th-5th grade students characteristically became more engrossed in a book to the point of becoming oblivious to his or her surroundings. Hickman also points out that these response events are intimately tied to a supportive context. Hepler (1982) also observed response behaviors in the supportive context of a sixth grade classroom, noting that the classroom became a community of readers. Discussion in this classroom revealed an appreciation for exciting stories, real situations, clear characters, a straightforward plot, and unique vocabulary. The evaluations were subjectively stated, although objective characteristics such as clarity, characterization, quality of writing, and others also seemed to be of value. In McClure's dissertation study (1985) of children's responses to poetry, fifth and sixth grade children also built a strong social network. These children developed a strong affinity for poetry and it was named among their favorite genres to read. They built a strong awareness of 46 poetic elements and forms and began building constructs about the meanings. These children demonstrated an understanding of how a piece “works”, determining its mechanics, the logic of its structure, its images and symbols. The beginnings of formal literary analysis skills could be discerned as they attempted to refine and extend meanings of what they read. As the year progressed, many children offered evaluative responses to poems in an objective, analytic manner. Again, in this study, the interrelationship between context and response is emphasized. A supportive context is a critical element of children's response and evaluation. Children in these supportive literary contexts demonstrate a wider range of response behaviors and a more sophisticated criteria for evaluating literature.

Writing Evaluation The third source of pertinent information comes from the writing evaluation literature. Early research in judging student writing ability had to do with multiple choice and essays tests as well as error counts. Most of the writing took place in a testing, research or some other contrived setting. A survey of the literature on writing evaluation points to the need for studies such as this one because of the lack of research on how students evaluate their own writing. Research abounds on teacher evaluation of student writing and some exists on peer evaluation, but as to what students are doing when they evaluate their own writing, the research community has been relatively inactive. 47

Any literature on writing evaluation discusses the basic problem of the lack of agreement among teachers as to what good writing is and is not. Part of the difficulty for evaluating student writing comes out of an understanding that teachers need to consider the process of writing as well as the product and that much of what the student is trying to say is not clearly reflected in the words on the page. Confusion about evaluation is also bound up with a confusion about the nature of the student text, an odd form of literature created for the sole purpose of being criticized. Generally, teachers hold a license for vagueness in their evaluations, while students are commanded to be specific in their writing. Teachers and researchers acknowledge that, while evaluating writing is problematic, it is important. “Important because teaching students to write, sorting students for placement or admission, and research in composition all depend upon ability to discriminate levels of quality in writing” (Gere, 1980). The difficulty arises because, currently, there does not exist a theory of evaluation. Gere (1980) attempts to outline what a theory of evaluation might look like. She suggests that the theory be based on Halliday’s premise that to use language is to "mean”. He sets forth three functions of adult language: ideational, interpersonal and textual. “He designates these as macro-functions which incorporate the larger, more discrete set of child language functions and render the function-structure relationship more complex and indirect than it is in child language" (p. S3). The interaction between language and cognitive development contribute to ideation. 48

Therefore any measure of ideation should include attention to mental development. She discusses how existing systems for evaluating writing (analytic, specific, dichotomous, and essay scales, holistic scoring and measures of maturity) ignore the communication function of meaning. While acknowledging that designing evaluation which attends to communication intention as well as formal semantics will be difficult, parts of such a system exist and further development is possible. But the important consideration is that effective evaluation requires “scrutiny of our concept of meaning” (p. 58). “Because views of language form the basis of any thought about composition, a concept of meaning in language should underlie any theory of composition evaluation" (p. 58). Moffett’s (1968) theory also addresses the inteipersonal as well as ideational functions. He describes growth in terms of the distance (in time and space) between writer, audience and subject. The greater the distance that a writer is able to assume, the more mature the writing. Early in their writing, students address small, known audiences like themselves and their classmates, and shift to addressing a distant, unknown and different audience. Many researchers have written about ways of evaluating student writing, but few can agree. Donald Murray defined the qualities of good writing as that which carries meaning, authority, voice, development, design, and clarity. Cooper, et al. (1984) looked at the writing abilities of freshmen on persuasive essay and identified ways of evaluating student writing. He discussed errors, fluency, cohesion of the text, types of 49 arguments and depth of elaborations, structural features of persuasion and ideological competency. Miller (1989), when faced with the task of judging junior high poetry in an annual contest, decided to set out guidelines for evaluating student poetry. Because so many of the students in this study were engaged in writing poetry, this discussion is relevant. Miller says she was forced to think about how she evaluated poetry when a prospective writer said, “But if you like poems about roses and 1 happen to write a poem about the insole in my tennis shoe, then I’m skunked.’’ She replied to that student that what poets choose to write about is their business, but how they choose to write about it becomes the business of the judge or teacher. One thing that disturbs me about this article was that she referred to the poetry she was judging as “junior poem” as if this was a lesser form of poetry. However, she did provide some interesting guidelines for evaluating students' poetry. Miller mentions the possibility of weighting criteria which include internal logic (the way the poem holds together), tone, music, word choice, figurative language, the arrangement of stanzas and lines, use of space, detail, voice, and life. She also points out the importance of informing students of these criteria. Hilgers makes the point that all evaluative language is learned. Therefore, evaluation may initially be a form of mimicry. One way that students may develop their own models of evaluation is through the kind of feedback and response that teachers give them about their writing. This response, given before, during and after the process of writing, is a kind of evaluation. In a study utilizing survey and ethnographic methods, 50

Freedman (1987) asked how response can support the teaching and learning of writing. She found that the range of response is great and its perceived helpfulness varies according to when in the process it occurs. There were several findings from this study, but the most relevant are about the values transmitted during the response. “Above all else, the surveyed teachers expect writing to help their students learn to think for themselves" (p. 158). The two teachers exemplified two versions of what it means to use writing as a way of teaching students to think deeply about their own life experiences and to communicate those experiences. One teacher (Glass) places her students in the roles of "independent researchers and critic/evaluators." They are to think critically about the information they gather and the written form it takes. Peterson, the other teacher, asks her students to take on roles of “perceptive thinkers who learn to understand people in their world and in the world of books by examining the differences between facts and judgments and by learning to look for and articulate the interesting contradictions in individual personalities" (159). This would suggest that teachers do guide students in the ways that they evaluate their own writing. Particularly relevant to this study is the discussion of the transactional theory and student writing. A few researchers (Probst, 1989; Wamock, 1989; Kucer, 198; and Baumlin and Baumlin, 1989) point out the transaction that occurs between teachers and students texts and acknowledge the uniqueness inevitable in any reading of either literaiy text or written composition. “The meaning the teacher makes of the paper will depend upon who that teacher is, just as the meaning any reader makes of a 51 literary work depends upon who that reader is” (Probst, p. 69). Probst observes the elements that influence a teacher's reading of a composition: natural biases, resulting from the uniqueness of his or her personality, abilities and experiences as well as the various roles that the teacher adopts (common reader, copy editor, reviewer, gatekeeper, diagnostician/therapist). What a teacher looks for when reading, i.e., copy editor hunting for errors, is what he or she will find. Wamock (1989) concurs with Probst's thinking and goes on to categorize of responding to students' texts by schools of literary criticism (new criticism, deconstruction, psychoanalytic, feminist, etc.). She and Kucer (1989) claim that we can never encounter a student text without encountering a student. Kucer suggests that teachers also encounter themselves in student texts. "I see my reflection in their papers and my ego becomes involved. I am unable to be the objective, detached observer; I love their papers where I look good and hate them where I do not. As I read their papers, my evaluation of the author as student becomes an evaluation of myself as teacher” (p. 167). Winnock puts a different slant on this view:

In our written and oral responses to students and their texts, we are not telling the truth about the text or about ourselves. We are primarily responding to a situation, to questions posed not only by the individual student but also by the context-of the class, the situation, and the culture. And we are making our responses for particular reasons which often we don't know, but must try to unravel, (p. 63) Probst goes on to propose that “What is important in the teaching of writing, however, is to transfer that power to the student. The responsibility for making judgements about the quality of their work must become the students"* (76). To encourage this, teachers must share honest responses with their students, showing the effects of their writing and modeling the transaction between readers and texts. One naturally wonders, then: if there is a transaction between teachers and student texts if there is also one between the students and their own texts? Many studies show that teachers send conflicting messages with regard to evaluation. Dillon found that teachers’ overwhelming focus was on form and mechanical correctness. Kline discussed the contradictory signals sent to students. He says that teachers set up a course with one idea in mind, to teach about that idea and evaluate with yet another idea in mind. Different messages are also being sent in terms of the evaluative priorities in reading student papers. Instructors who indicate that most assignments would focus on students* personal feelings and/or opinions said that instructional time would be spent on:

dialects and levels of usage fragments and run-ons, dangling participles comma errors editing, rewriting techniques invention, prewriting paper formats, documentation 53

However, the instructors said that when reading/grading/evaluating students’ papers, their priorities were (in order of frequency selected):

errors in use of words representation of experience insufficiently precise data not taken into account inappropriate tone of voice, point of view unclear thesis lack of coherence inaccurate or doubtful assertations inconsistency in reasoning or judgments

Most marked spelling and comma errors as very high priorities in reading/grading/evaluating, but most gave no teaching time for spelling improvement and very little was spent on comma errors. West (1985) speaks to the importance of informing students of teachers’ criteria for good writing. Often, the only way students learn what teachers are trying to teach about good writing is by making discoveries themselves when evaluating their own writing. “Peer and self- evaluation will be meaningless if students themselves have no criteria or standards on which to base them, no yardsticks to measure by; our summative evaluation will be arbitrary if we don’t use the same yardsticks.” (p. 185) In one study, Zirinsky (1978) had 100 tenth grade students write two essays and rate each other’s papers holistically according to their personal rating as well as how they thought their teachers would rate them. The teachers also rated the compositions. There was a high correlation between 54 personal and predicted ratings, but no correlation between student ratings and actual teacher ratings. There is evidence that students and teachers are two distinct communities of readers and evaluators of student compositions. This suggests that differences in evaluations of papers (between teachers and students) are not caused by misreadings on the part of students — students* readings are not just inferior versions of teachers’ readings — but by two equally plausible ways of viewing texts. Newkirk (1984) had college freshmen and their instructors read two essays and evaluate them. The preferences of the instructors differed significantly from those of the students. Eighty-two percent of the instructors preferred one essay while sixty-five percent of the students preferred the other. Newkirk then categorized the teacher and student responses according to how they justified their evaluations. The highest number of responses by both groups involved the role of organization. There was a big discrepancy as to what the students and teachers considered a well organized essay. The second category of teacher and student responses was the role of identification. Students tended to react to experiences that the reader shared with the writer rather than the text and rated the text higher if they shared those experiences. The third category was the role of interest. Students saw their engagement with the text as irrelevant to a judgement of writing quality. The role of logic and point of view was the fourth category. Students used another criterion of logic than teachers did — the criterion of evenhandedness — how well the pros and cons of an argument were presented. The last category was the 55 role of word choice. Students preferred elevated vocabulary because teachers tend to reward wordy academic register. The implications of this study suggest that students who write for their peers (as in peer revision, which is currently a popular technique in process classrooms) place the teacher in a difficult position. If, as many textbooks claim, a piece of writing should be judged by its effectiveness with the intended audience, the instructor has little choice than to grade it accordingly. The danger is that, once again, teachers send mixed messages. Hilgers (1984) categorized the responses of students in grades two through six. They ranked unevaluated sets of compositions that they or peers had written (blind readings). They then discussed the factors upon which their rankings were based. Their evaluations can be divided into four categories. The first is an affective response — the feelings aroused by the text. They react not to a written text, but rather to memories of their own experiences cued by the text. It appears that to be liked at all, the story or part of the story must have been experienced by the evaluator. The more intensely the rater likes his or her experience, the higher was the rating of the text. The second category they respond to is surface features. They ignore the ideas and focus on the words written on the page, like length of story, appearance, penmanship, neatness and drawings. This category (at least for older children) may include evaluation derived from a sense of the effort required for writing. 56

Response to text as it is understood is the third category — does it make sense? Children seem concerned with words in understandable order and the presence or absence of important things. This quality of what things are important varied with the reader. A fourth category is a response to the craftsmanship of a piece. The composition is evaluated on an aesthetic level. Literary critics spend most of their time evaluating on this level. Evaluation at the aesthetic level looks at what a piece of writing intends to do, what it does, and how well it does it. According to Applebee’s developmental response to literature model, this kind of response does not occur until later in a student’s school life.

Teacher as Researcher While research on the teacher as researcher does not exist, researchers have written about the phenomenon of teacher research and its relative value to the research community. Andrea Lunsford (1990) claims “that all teaching involves research, that all teachers are researchers, and that all research implicates theory’’(p. 52). Hillocks (1990) contends that effective teaching must involve reflecting and researching and that teaching and research have “goals, involve observation and predict results” (p. 15). Research methods provide selective lenses, sharpening our focus on some things while excluding others from view. Berthoff (1979) suggests research means: 57

looking and looking again. The new kind of REsearch would not mean going out after new data, but rather REconsidering what is at hand. REsearch would come to mean looking and looking at what happens in the English classroom. We do not need new information: we need to think about the information we have. (30)

Over the past few years, an alternative research tradition has been evolving in this country. It goes by various names: “teacher research," “classroom inquiry,” “naturalistic research,” “action research.” “There are signs of a widening realization that research methods appropriate to the physical sciences are not the best models for research in the social sciences.” “Research” has been viewed by those in the classroom as an elaborate, formalistic process best left to experts with special training and special funding, which casts teachers in the role of consumers, rather than producers, of knowledge. Teachers and students are able to formulate questions about language and learning, design and carry out inquiries, reflect on what they have learned, and tell others about it. “...Teachers are in an ideal position to observe, describe and learn from behaviors” (Atwell, 1982). Teacher researchers can provide the profession with information it simply doesn’t have. “They can observe closely over long periods of time, with special insights and knowledge. Teachers know their classrooms and students in ways that outsiders can’t.” (Goswami and Stillman, 1987) Jackson (1968) puts forth the idea that teachers must begin to speak as researchers in the academic community: 58

the growth in our understanding of what goes on in these environments need not be limited to the information contained in the field notes of professional teacher-watchers. In addition to participant observers, it might be wise to foster the growth of observant participators, and perhaps even students who have the capacity to step back from their own experiences, view them analytically and talk about them articulately, (p. 175- 176)

Key to this notion and that of teachers-as-researchers is the element of reflection. According to Dewey (1974), one must “throw himself’ into the research context “heartily” with and attitude of “whole-heartedness” and “open-mindedness” for the purpose of facilitating his or her own intellectual development. Once immersed, Dewey believed that an attitude of “open-mindedness, not empty-mindedness” should prevail and is a necessary component of reflection:

While it is hospitality to new themes, facts, ideas, questions, it is not the kind of hospitality that would be indicated by hanging out a sign: ‘Come right in; there is nobody at home’...It includes an active desire to listen to more sides than one to give heed to facts from whatever source they come; to give full attention to alternative possibilities; to recognize the possibility of error even in the beliefs that are dearest to us. (p. 224)

Reflection is informed by action and, in turn, informs action. There is a reciprocal relationship, between the two processes of action and reflection. Also known as reflexivity by liberation pedagogists, to be a teacher-researcher is to be a teacher and a learner. Friere (1985) discusses the impossible separation between teaching and learning — that teachers 59

are teacher-leamers. “It is really impossible to teach without learning as well as learning without teaching.” Although most action research undertaken by teachers in public schools and universities have emphasized teacher behavior, there are some notable exceptions that have shifted the focus to include children’s work and their reflections upon that work (Hickman, 1979; Hepler, 1982; Richardson, 1964; Armstrong, 1980; Carini, 1979; Paley, 1979, 1981; Calkins, 1983). The purpose of my study is not to improve my practice (although that was a natural outcome), but to describe and explore the relationship between students’ responses to literature and evaluations of their own writing. Implicit in this study is the assumption that children’s work and children’s words are worth studying in their own right. Implicit, too, is the position that the best way to view and describe children’s work and words is from a position of intimacy, — i.e., over time and through shared experiences. Reflective narrative of the participant observer can serve as a powerful tool for description of the thinking of children. This is very similar to the way that Van Maanen (1988) describes the writing up of ethnographies as confessional tales. “The confessional writings concern how the field worker’s life was lived upriver among the natives...Leaming from living in the culture is the predominant theme" (p. 75). Patricia Carini was one of the first to support teacher-research in this country, guiding detailed classroom observations, long term studies of individual children, and reflective conversations with teachers. Janet Emig, a pioneer of case-study research, stresses the importance of our 60 choice of paradigms. “What is involved is no less than how we choose to perceive the world and how we elect to define what is distinctly human about human life.” (p. 73) Certain aspects of learning can be studied only by people engaged in teaching as they research, argues British teacher and researcher Michael Armstrong (1980).

It is characteristic of classroom research, indeed of most research into the processes of intellectual growth, that it excludes the act of teaching from its techniques of investigation....It is often assumed that the demands of scientific objectivity force this exclusion upon us as researchers. Yet its effect is to deprive us of vital sources of information and understanding; those sources which depend upon asking children questions and answering their questions, exchanging ideas with them, discussing each other's opinions, chatting and joking, trying to probe their intentions and appreciate their problems, offering help and responding to appeals for help — those sources, that is to say, which depend upon teaching. It was for this reason that I felt I had to continue teaching children in order to investigate their learning. It seemed to me that the act of teaching was indispensable to the study of intellectual growth; that to refuse the opportunity to teach was greatly to diminish the prospect of understanding the understanding of children (p. 53).

Sum m ary The purpose of this chapter was to make explicit the beliefs and sources that influenced the design, implementation and interpretation of my study. Three areas of research formed the background in shaping this study: 1) the reading-writing relationship; 2) transactional theory and 3) 61 writing evaluation. While research does not exist on the phenomenon of the teacher-as-researcher, a rationale for this kind of methodology was discussed and will be discussed further in Chapter Three. I

CHAPTER UI

METHODOLOGY AND PROCEDURES

If you want to understand what a science is you should look in the first instance not at its theories or its findings, and certainly not what its apologists say about it; you should look at what the practitioners of it do. Clifford Geertz

In order to understand how children are reading and writing in classrooms, researchers must, as Geertz suggests look to those classrooms. Practitioners can provide the profession with information it simply doesn’t have. Teachers can observe closely over long periods of time, with special insights and knowledge about the children in the classroom and the context of that classroom. This chapter will describe how teacher research methods, including participant observation and interviews, were used to gain access to individuals' literature response and evaluative response to their own writing. A rationale and description of these methods will be presented as well as a description of data analysis methods. Included also are a description of the setting and students involved in this study as well as how the case study students were selected.

62 63

The Teacher as Participant Observer Any social event can be described on a continuum from the perspective of observers to the perspective of the participants. At one extreme is the complete observer who does not participate in activities in the setting. At the other end is complete involvement at the site with little discernible difference between the behavior of the observer and the participants. The terms £li£ and emic have been used by ethnographers to discuss the observer-participant distinction in terms of insider-outsider. (Pike, 1954) One way that researchers attempt to understand the participant's perspective is active participation in the every day activities of the social group under study — to become more of a participant (etic perspective) than an observer. This attempt to bring together the observer's perspective with the participant's perspective has been called participant observation. Participant observation can also be described on a continuum from passive participation at one end (being present at the site, but not interacting) to active participation (participating in the activity along with other people) to complete participation at the other end of the continuum (studying a situation in which the researcher is an ordinary participant). (Spradley, 1980) In the context of this study, the teacher was considered an active participant at the site. The teacher worked alongside the students daily. In addition, the teacher was aware of and participated in situations and events outside of class; a conversation in the lunchroom, a Held trip, a school dance, etc. As an active participant, the teacher also knows the larger 64 context of the school district and community better, perhaps, than as passive observer. In this instance the teacher knew something about the environment of the elementary schools from which these children came, what kind of philosophies or methodologies (i.e., whole language, direct instruction), had been used and the kinds of experiences the students had with books before attending the middle school (literature based reading programs, basal readers). As the teacher-researcher having taught in this school district before conducting the study, I not only knew the history of the development program in this district, I had lived it and written it. I had insider knowledge because I was an insider. Nancy Martin (1987) puts it this way:

The fact that ethnographic research is rooted in the experience of those who were actually there has profound implications for the classroom inquiry. Teachers and their students are the essential sources of information. They and only they, were present and engaged — deeply or perfunctorily-in the learning process. They are the people who can best ask the questions (springing from firsthand experience) about learning. They can, and should be the chief source of both the questions and the data from which the questions may be answered, (p. 21)

The concept of teachers as active producers of research knowledge is not a new idea. (Corey, 1953,1954; Wann, 1952; Shumsky, 1958; Mooney, 1975) More recently the idea of teacher participant as researcher is once again being discussed and debated (Goswammi, 1990; Daiker, & Morenberg, 1990). Teacher-researcher, Nancy Atwell (1982) asks, “‘How can classroom teachers acquire the background in language, theory and research procedures to enable them to conduct full, naturalistic 65 investigations of their students' writing processes?’ The answer is ‘By doing it.”' Teacher-researchers are natural informants of classroom practice, as well as research.

The School The middle school in which the data was collected was in a suburb of a large city in the midwestem part of the United States. This suburb, the fastest growing school district in Ohio, served a white, middle-to-upper middle-class community with a population of approximately 5,000 residents. At the time of this study, the academic year of 1988-89, this middle school had just opened and was one of two middle schools. At the opening of this school, enrollment was approximately 700 students, with about 240 students in the sixth grade divided between two teams of approximately 120 students on each team. Four years previous to the opening of this middle school, the school district adopted a middle school philosophy which utilized interdisciplinary teams, two per grade level (6th, 7th, and 8th), of five teachers: two reading/language arts teachers, one math, one science and one social studies teacher. These five teachers had their classrooms in pods which were in close proximity to one another and the students’ lockers. The students on each team traveled to another part of the building for art, music, physical education, library and lunch, but the five teachers on a team were primarily responsible for these students, even for setting up activity and counseling groups. 6 6

When the school district adopted a middle school philosophy, they also supported the transition to a literature-based reading program which was co-developed and piloted by this author. The goals of the program were to create lifelong readers and writers for students to enjoy reading and writing, and to enable students to use reading and writing more effectively as a tool in their learning, i.e. reading and writing across the curriculum and critical reading and writing. The components of the program were student self-selection of books and writing topics, student acceptance of responsibility for their own learning, learning, student response to literature, and instruction and support in comprehension, content area reading and writing, and study skills. It should also be noted that at the time of this study, this school district had a pull-out gifted and talented program in which those students identified as gifted (top 10% of the grade), attended a separate class for language arts, and were also academically challenged during this class period. Therefore, the students identified as the top 10% of the team in language arts were not present in any of the “regular” language arts classrooms. These students did, however, have one of the team teachers for reading class. Since they were grouped together for a “gifted language arts” class, they tended to travel together in terms of their schedule and were generally in other classes together. Consequently, although it is a strongly felt goal of the language arts program that students be heterogeneously grouped, it is misleading to say that they were. 67

It should also be noted that students who were identified as “deficient” in reading language arts and required special assistance were generally mainstreamed into the reading language arts classroom. In this way everyone could read and write at their own pace, on their own level, and individual needs were attended to. Ihis included Japanese students who had varying proficiency with English — some who spoke no English to those who were quite fluent.

The Classroom The sixth grade classroom in which the data was collected was assigned to me as the regular classroom teacher in the 1988-1989 school year. It had two magnetized walls and one wall of windows which looked out to the parking lot and elementary building next door. At the back of the room was a folding paneled wall which could be opened into the teacher’s room next door. This created one large classroom, big enough for the whole team of students to meet at one time. One of the magnetized walls contained two chalkboards. Furniture consisted mainly of tables in order to encourage collaborative efforts. There were six study carrels for students who liked more isolation for reading and writing (four of these contained Apple He or lie computers, two of which also were outfitted with printers). One area of the room was kept open so that students could sit on the floor to read or write. This was also used for read aloud and sharing time at the end of each writing period. The teacher's desk was usually up against a wall. The room arrangement changed periodically, but Figure 1 gives a typical plan of the physical layout. 68

N B M

1 i O D c ^ I 1 i i k l l

K N A J G \ H P

F igure 1 Room Layout 69

A • Study Carrels with computers I - Chalkboards B - Study Carrel without Computer J • Magnetic Wall where students work is displayed C-Trapezoid tables K - Folding WaD 0 - Rectangle tables L • Floor to Ceiling Wall of Windows E- Teacher's desk M * Rug area for sharing F-File Cabinet N - Dictionaries and Thesaurus’s G - Storage Cabinet O - Students Chairs H * Door to the haB P - Wall Clock and Pencil Sharpener

At the time of this study, a class session in this middle school was forty-four minutes in length. My schedule across the nine month study was:

Rrst period (8:10-8:54) Reading (23 students)

Second period (8:57-9:41) Language Arts (with the same group of students from period one)- therefore these two periods got blended into one language arts period with a break in between) (22 students -1 student left for LD tutoring In language arts)

Third period (9:44-10:28) Language Arts (Since there were five academic periods and five teachers, one group of students had to be split between two language arts teachers. This was an extremely small class due to the fact that they had reading with the "gifted language arts" class) (9 students)

Fourth period (10:31-11:01) Lunch

Fifth period (11:04-11:48) Reading (24 students)

Sixth period (11:51-12:35) Related arts for the students (Art, Home Economics, Industrial Technology, Computer Programming and Personal Development,taught by the guidance counselors)— team planning for the teachers

Seventh period (12:38-1:22) Language Arts • the same group of students from filth period (23 including 1 student who left for LD tutoring

Eighth period (1:25-2:09) P.EJMusic for the students,Individual planning for the teachers 70

Ninth period (2:12*2:55) Study Center (Each teacher monitored one group of students from the team .which gave students access to each teacher so that they could solicit help and complete homework.) (24 students)

A typical class period for reading began with a daily 10 to 20 minute period of silent reading. Hiis allowed time for the teacher to conference individually with students while the rest of the class was reading. Conferences consisted of “book talk" or “stoop talk" about books, as Calkins calls it. Students kept track of what they had read on book logs (See Appendix A) and the teacher also kept records on conference record sheets (See Appendix B). Students were asked to update the teacher on what they had read and talk about their understandings and responses to the books. Sometimes the student were asked to give a retelling of a book or a part of a book, or answer questions about a book to check for comprehension and challenge the reader. Strategies were discussed, struggles and successes, as well as the student's goals future plans with regard to reading. These conferences lasted from 2-20 minutes depending on the needs of the student and teacher. Bach student met with the teacher approximately every two weeks. After silent reading, I or a guest reader read aloud for about 5-10 minutes. Occasionally students read characters' dialogue aloud while I read the narration. Parents and teachers came in and read, and the assistant principal read every Friday to the fifth period class. For a complete listing of the read alouds for each class (See Appendix C). 71

After silent reading, time was spent on group projects, class projects, response activities and instruction in strategies. This was a kind of “flex time” which could spill over into language arts class or be used for writing if students felt the need. Language Arts time began with a 5-10 minute (longer if needed) mini-lesson on a particular skill or strategy, or the reading and/or discussion of a poem. This was followed by a “Status of the Class” (See Appendix D) report (Atwell) in which students reported what piece and what aspect of that piece they were going to work on that day. The bulk of class time students spent working on the writing of their choice. During the last five minutes of the class period, the students gathered together to share their writing and receive feedback from their peers. Books, magazines and other student writing were accessible to students for silent reading or to check out and read at their leisure. All student writing was displayed at some point unless a student chose not to have something hung up. Writing was displayed on the walls, hung from the ceiling and in the hallways of the 6th grade pod. Generally the writing was accompanied by artwork. At times, some of the writing was displayed inside the front doors of the school building near the office. Student writing was “published” in other ways. We often made class books in which every student wrote on a particular topic, in a particular form (i.e. poetry), or responded to something they read. These class books were assembled for other classes to read. Many students entered writing contests or sent their pieces to journals which published student writing. In this classroom, the teacher was not the only audience for the students' writing. 72

One of the critical aspects of a team philosophy was to integrate curriculum as much as possible. Reading/Language Arts were viewed as tools for learning the rest of the curriculum. At times the reading/language arts classroom was used to support and enhance instruction in other content areas. It was also not unusual for the two language arts/reading teachers to open the wall between their classrooms and work on projects together, respond to students’ writing and view the performance of plays written by published authors or students. Each team in the middle school integrated all subject areas at least once a year in an interdisciplinary unit. For this team (6-2), the theme of “Cruisin’ Through Time” took place February 26 through March 24. Each content area focused on a particular time period with the reading language arts classes focusing on the Renaissance. We concentrated on Shakespeare and read, viewed, discussed and performed “Romeo and Juliet”.

The Students I would like to interweave a discussion of some general information about adolescents and some more specific information about my sixth graders (N=53). Atwell (1987) says, “Surviving adolescence is no small matter; neither is surviving adolescents. It’s a hard age to be and to teach. The worst things that ever happened to anybody happen every day. But some of the best things can happen too, and they’re more likely to happen when junior high teachers understand the nature of junior high kids ” (p. 25). 73

Social, Emotional and Cognitive Development Sixth grade is the beginning of middle school. Students have "graduated” from elementary school and are beginning a new phase of their lives. Sixth grade is full of firsts: first schedule card, first school dance, first detention, first yearbook, first locker and locker combination. Sixth graders generally begin the school year eagerly and enthusiastically. School and school work are not the reason for this excitement, but rather the fact that they are once again with their friends and anticipate making new friends. Social relationships, primarily peer relationships, are the most important thing in their lives. Sixth graders are full of confusion, bravado, restlessness, and a preoccupation with peers. They shuttle back and forth between self-confidence and self-doubt, cruelty and kindness, responsibility and irresponsibility, childhood and young adulthood. This is apparent through their writing. Topics range from dreams of doll houses and soccer to friendships and fights to "making out” at the dance. Their writing is one way in which they can try to make sense of their ever- changing world. The development of formal reasoning in adolescents (Piaget, 1938; Elkind, 1984) allows young people to go beyond the here and now and to comprehend abstract subjects including philosophy, algebra, simile, metaphor and parody. Adolescents begin to understand that words have both literal and suggestive meanings. They begin to see the possibilities in language. Elkind (1984) suggests that the reason so many young adolescents enjoy Mad magazine is because they are beginning to understand parody and pun. They also begin to use simile and metaphor to 74

understand and explain their world. One student started a poem entitled “What Life is Like” like this: “Life is like a merry go round. It spins and spins like it does when life goes on.” Another student wrote a poem which started “School is like a learning flea maiket.” This metaphor is based on his experience with visiting flea markets, going from booth to booth and sampling of a variety of things. For a sixth grader, coming out of elementary school, middle school must feel like a flea market in which one moves quickly from class to class and samples a wide range of things. Erickson (1959, 1963, 1968) captures the schizophrenia that early adolescents feel in his theory about the stages of personality development. The two stages relevant to early adolescents are “industry vs. inferiority” and “identity vs. role confusion." In the industry vs. inferiority stage, children develop a sense of industry that leads to a feeling of competence. In early adolescence, basic skills such as walking, and dressing have given way to greater and more demanding skills including the increased ability to be productive. Consequently, a sense of inadequacy can develop if the child does not acquire the skills necessaiy to participate in society. In addition, early adolescents are concerned with others' perceptions of them as well as their place in the broader context of society. According to Erickson (1959), this concern with one's identity is the beginning of the identity vs. role confusion stage. Adolescents are attempting to resolve the identity conflict by establishing an identity or falling into identity confusion. In this struggle to detine themselves or redetine themselves, adolescents will often confront adults and challenge existing social structures. In addition, adolescents may temporarily over-identify with the 75 heroes of cliques and crowds. Prior to establishing their identities, adolescents often explore extremes. While the physical, emotional and social changes of adolescence are well known, even more dramatic are the mental changes. Elkind (1984) calls it “thinking in a new key.” He likens this change to a “Copemican revolution in the way young people see themselves, others, and the world in general” (p. 23). It is perhaps adjusting to new ways of thinking, also called “higher level thinking,” “higher reasoning,” or “formal operations,” in the words of Piaget, that create the most difficulty for adolescents and make them so unpredictable. The only thing I could predict about my sixth graders is that my classes would represent a wide range of abilities, problems, attitudes and levels of maturity. Because this age group is difficult to characterize, perhaps the young adolescents themselves can do it best. Towards the end of the school year, two girls decided to compile a guide about middle school for incoming fifth graders. This is how they describe middle school:

Well, when you first come here it’s kind of scary because you’re not used to a big school and such expensive clothes and just things you need. Middle school is a lot different than elementary school. You have a lot more responsibility and you should know what to do if people mess around with you like if seventh graders and eighth graders slam your locker just keep your foot in your locker every time you use it and if they pick on you just don’t mess with them. Because trust us, they can do a lot more harm to you than what you can do to them. We’re not trying to scare you or anything, but we just want you to be ready and not be surprised if people pick on you and be mean to you just because you’re a sixth grader. 76

This booklet goes on to describe the kinds of people new sixth graders will run into at middle school (preps, Gypsies, skaters, hoods and normals), nearby “hang outs,” current fashions for boys and girls including clothes, hairstyles and make-up. Their concern for the new sixth graders is also their own constant concern — how do I fit in? What is the right way to act, the right thing to wear, the right look so that I do not get picked on for standing out? Sixth graders are not only pre-occupied with fitting in, but with figuring out the opposite sex as well. Fitting in with friends is almost as important as fitting in with boys or girls to whom they are attracted. Teasing is the mainstay of trying to gain another’s attention and they can be cruel and merciless. One of the most popular pieces written by a boy on the team was a speculation about what was in a girl’s purse. This piece was also one of his first of many attempts at satire. In part it went like this:

Have any of you boys ever wondered what was in a girl’s purse? Well I’m sure you have so here is the list: 1. Mini curling irons 2. 5,000 barrettes 3. 2 Bic shavers 4. 5 different brands of eye shadow all the same color 5. Silver, gold and copper lipstick 6. 3 pairs of earrings 7. 12 tubes of Clearasil 8. 1 extra pair of shoes 9. 6 cans of hair spray 10.5 combinations of swirl nail polish 11.2 king size bottles of the most costly perfume 12.50 gossip notes 13. 10 mirrors 77

14.3 packs of Miss Lee press-on nails 15. One do -it -yourself face- lift kit 16.25 tubes of lip gloss 17. 5 brushes all of different widths 18. 3 rolls of breath mints

Now that all you boys know what’s in a girl’s purse you know that there’s only one thing to get a girl for a holiday — an I.D. bracelet.

Not only did this topic become popular, but so did the form. This piece also caused such a stir among the girls that one felt compelled to respond in kind:

Things in my purse. These items are actually in my purse. It might seem like a lot to you but it’s really not. 1 lipstick 6 lip glosses 1 eye shadow 1 little travel bottle of perfume 1 mirror money 1 ticket to the dance 1 camera for yearbook pictures markers 1 compass crayons index cards colored pencils scissors protractor 1 brush 4 pens 1 eraser 2 pencils

This piece actually confirms more than it denies the boys’ perceptions. 78

While early adolescents are a diverse group in terms of their physical, emotional, social, intellectual development, interests, activities, and family background, there are also many commonalties. This group is fairly homogeneous in socioeconomic status (middle class) and ethnicity (the majority of the students were white). Nine of the fifty three students were not Caucasian descent: three were of Asian-American (Vietnamese American) descent, one of Indian descent, one of African American descent and three were Japanese students who had arrived in America recently and would likely return to Japan at some point.

Reading and Writing Chall (1967) states that, at around the fourth grade, there is a shift from learning to read to reading to learn. By this time most children have mastered the necessary decoding skills to read comfortably. There is a shift in focus in the curriculum as well. Students are expected to gain more information from what they read than from any other source. In the middle school approximately 85% of what is learned is gained from reading and in the high school approximately 90-95% of what is learned is gained through reading. Therefore the burden of independent learning begins to be placed on the student in middle school. The role of reading in the school becomes one of extracting information. Little enough time is spent on reading for pleasure. Yet it is at this time when the child has begun to master reading that she can truly take pleasure in reading. 79

Nilson and Donnelson (1985) have devised what they call the “Birthday Cake Theory of Reading/* They suggest that readers do not go through stages of reading, but rather add on to what they have already learned as well as a new way to gain pleasure and understand the world. The bottom layers are not less important, but, rather, build the foundation for the upper layers. Ages suggested in this theory are approximations and signify about when the stages could take place. At the third level, which they suggest occurs at about the third to the sixth grade, is the golden age of reading. The world’s great children's books are available for the taking. Children derive pleasure from losing themselves in a book. Children at this stage will also find one kind of book they like and stay with it. They are undemanding in their reading and are, as Margaret Early has described it in a stage of “unconscious enjoyment.'' They are likely to turn to books which do not challenge their reading ability and gobble up series books. In my classroom the Babysitters Club and Sweet Valley High series books were popular with the girls, and the Choose Your Own Adventure and various science fiction/ fantasy series books as well as the Hardy Boys series were popular with the boys. Good readers begin developing a critical sense in literature about the same time they develop it in real life — at the end of childhood and the beginning of their teen years. Moving away from a simple interest in what happens in a story, they begin to ask why. They want logical story development and begin to move away from stereotypes. Reading has a real purpose to it and they are more demanding of what they read because they are reading to find out about themselves. 80

By middle and high school, students are reading to find themselves and others they know in books. It is at this point they are “trying on different selves," and what better way to do it than vicariously through a book. Margaret Meek (1982) claims that readers are made in adolescence as in childhood, that those who discover reading to be a sanctioned pleasure are readers for a lifetime. In upper high school and college, adolescents are trying to figure out how they fit into society and beginning to ask the big questions of life, like “What does it all mean?" and they seek answers in books. It is at this level that students are ready to begin to look at shades of gray rather than black and white. Teenagers are faced with the tremendous responsibility of assessing the world around them and deciding where they fit in. Writing can be thought of as a reflection of all language development. Carl Bereiter (1979) calls it an elaboration and refinement of earlier processes. This is the view that seems to be implicit in most school approaches to writing instruction — where pupils at all grade levels explore basically the same rhetorical types (stories, essays, poems, etc.) and the teacher attempts to help the students with all aspects of writing at once. As the writer moves into adolescence, he or she has attained a degree of mastery over stylistic conventions which lead to the discovery that writing can be used to affect the reader — that it can direct, inform, amuse, move emotionally, and so on. Thus emerges the communicative stage. Once students start writing for readers, it becomes a natural next step for them to start reading their own writing, which sets in motion the writing-reading feedback loop on which the stage of unified writing depends. Once this 81 feedback loop is functioning well it will be natural to discover that it leads not only to improved writing, but also to improved understanding — that the loop constitutes a kind of dialogue with oneself. As the writer refines his or her writing for the audience, she reads his or her own writing more critically and begins to read other texts more critically. Britton, et al.'s, (1975) study is the most thorough and ambitious attempt to identify qualitative changes in the writing ability of 11-18 year old students. The study was based on samples of writing done in all curriculum areas. One major finding stands out above all the complexities: the over-riding influence of school demands on student writing. Although there was some evidence of a developmental trend (presumably school- induced) toward writing to the teacher as examiner, the authors hypothesized a branching developmental trend from relatively undisciplined “expressive” writing to “transactional” and “poetic” writing. Bereiter says the disappointing message of this report is that, as soon as we begin to look beyond syntax, vocabulary and the like, and try to investigate functional aspects of student writing, we begin to find out more about the school system then we do about children. Moffet (1976), Bartholomae & Petrosky (1983), and King & Rentel, (1979) among others concur with these findings in the development of writing. They feel that writing should be sequenced developmentally by discourse type and not by grammar instruction. Moffet (1976) says that writing should be taught according to discourse types which include recording, reporting, generalizing, and theorizing. King and Rentel (1979) found that narrative appeared before expository or persuasive writing. 82

Mina Shaugnessy (1977) says that few can say they have finished learning to write, nor even that they always write as well as they can. Writing (and reading) is something writers (and readers) are always learning to do. When we speak of a student’s learning to write, we have in mind that student reaching a level of proficiency that seems appropriate for his age and situation but not the level he will be confined to for the rest of his life. As typical of any middle school classroom, my classroom was filled with a range of abilities and interests in reading and writing. In order to represent this diversity, case studies were chosen from a variety of ability levels and will be discussed in more depth in the data analysis.

Data Collection “An inquiry paradigm must first be informed by what I’ll call a governing gaze” (Emig, 1983). Lather (1991) often refers to the “politics of the gaze,” meaning, what we see is governed by how we view the world. Our gaze is governed by our expectations, which are governed by our experiences and what we have made of them. This inquiry was governed by an inteipretive perspective. A gaze governed by inteipretive inquiry is widened to include the context in which the phenomenon occurs. Mishler (1979) asks the question in the title of an article: “Meaning in context: Is there any other kind?" He answers it with an emphatic “No.” Classrooms have a governing gaze as well. Emig (1983) recommends that the methodologies of the context also be appropriate to the inquiry. For research to be as non-intrusive in the classroom as possible, a research paradigm must be found that is compatible with 83 classroom practice. The philosophy of this teacher-researcher is that a classroom should be a place teachers and students jointly construct curriculum (rather than curriculum being imposed), and where curriculum itself is inquiry (Harste, 1990). The curriculum should be a conversation where all voices are heard. The classroom is a place where inquiry occurs daily, enacted by students and teachers. This philosophy is most closely aligned with the interpretive paradigm which posits that there are “multiple, socially constructed realities which exist" (Guba and Lincoln, 1989). Reality is knowable in an infinite number of ways. Individuals create these mental constructs as they interact with nature and attempt to interpret their experience based upon their own prior knowledge (Guba and Lincoln, 1989). Although the interpretations are individually constructed, they are frequently shared within a community. The researcher, as a subjective individual and part of that community, interacts with participants in order to develop understandings of the ways in which they perceive their world. However, making explicit the convictions of the interpretive researcher ate important to the development of understanding in that suspending one's own beliefs and values in any situation is impossible (Peshkin, 1988). Inteipretive researchers generally engage in participant observation, collect recurring instances of multiple events, and look at these events in terms of their context (Erickson, 1986). Therefore, most of the data collection in this study was of a nature that was part of the daily routine of class. The students were generally not aware that data collection was 84 taking place except the typical kinds of data collection that teachers do on a daily basis.

Field Notes Field notes of observations (Bogdan & Biklen, 1982) of the students and of my thoughts and experiences were kept throughout the school year and during all academic periods. The field notes consisted primarily of general narrative and reflective observations. The narrative field notes, mostly descriptive of the classroom context, framed the reading and writing events of the students. These notes contained information about the process of reading and writing of individuals and groups. Most of the observational field notes capture the social nature of reading and writing. The field notes generally focused on the writing classroom. Reading class consisted mainly of silent reading at which time I held conferences with students individually about what they were reading, what their understandings were and their responses. For a sample of the record­ keeping of student conferences see Appendix E. Reading class also consisted of read-aloud time and time to work on projects related to the books they were reading or discussion groups. Some field notes and reflective notes were kept on student reading projects, but were not as complete as those kept during writing time. These were notes from a time when the students were working on extensions of the books they had just read (all names are pseudonyms): 85

Lots of the kids have decided to explore different media for this project. Chrissie is actually sketching Shakespeare. Working with clay is popular today. Kathy, Wendy, Carrie, Mindy, Jan and Lynn worked with clay. Joe also wants to work on clay, but Pm keeping a close eye on him so it doesn’t go flying around the room. Jan and Mindy left the clay to explore chalk with Anna. I don't know if a book suggests a particular kind of media so that the kids want to work in that media. However sometimes they do pay attention to tone and mood of a story or its illustrations when doing pictures for it. I’ll have to ask them why they choose the media they do. (3/9/89)

Field notes tended to focus more on writing than reading. The writing workshop environment is more social by nature and students often “checked” their in-process writing with the available audiences. Here Linda uses every audience available:

Linda continues to read her “Bubble” story to me every time she gets something else written . She reads it to Judy too (the other language arts teacher on the team). She says, “Listen and see if I’m still being descriptive” or “Tell me if I still have the flow of it.” She reads it to the class in group share every chance she gets, too.(field notes 2/23/89)

Often, when students discussed their writing with other students, it would turn into a collaborative piece.

Pete came up to me and said, “I thought of my story. It’ll be called ‘Private Eye’. It’s going to be all blood and guts." He’s thinking of a new story and so he comes up with the title first. Many students do this — think of a title first and write from that as if it is the central guiding idea. 86

(Same day, later in my field notes) Pete is preoccupied with Keith’s work. He talks to him a great deal about it Now he is on the floor with Keith asking about it and offering suggestions. Keith has the ability to keep Pete on task.

(same day,later in my field notes) Pete is now in full collaboration with Keith working on Keith’s bear poem. Most of Pete’s processing is out loud. Perhaps that is the nature of the collaborative process. They needed some words to describe bears so they went around the room and asked various members of the class.

(Same day, at the end of the period) Keith and Pete did not change the bear poem as I suggested. They wrote another one which didn’t make sense to me, but at sharing the rest of the kids said they liked it. It’s interesting, too, that Pete read Keith and Pete’s poem — Pete has totally appropriated it. (3/30)

This is part of one day’s field notes which also contained observations about what the rest of the class was doing. Some days, in order to keep up with what is going on, the field notes simply contained a list of who is doing what with whom, like this: 87

Ramey and Wendy are separately working with stencils designing the layout of the cover of their nonfiction pieces. Chrissie is alone at the table silently writing about her trip to Greece. Susie, James and John are also at the table working quietly alone. Jan and Kathy are under the table composing bedtime stories for their little sisters. Mindy and Lynn are at the computer working on Mindy’s story. Lisa and Shelly are redoing the cover for their guide for fifth graders. Leanne is close by, offering suggestions and getting little done on her own writing. Pete and Keith...(are described above) (3/20/89)

The reflective notes also focused on children's writing, although a few were about the extensions children did as a result of reading. Dewey (1974) recommended this kind of reflection and believed that “thought confers upon physical events and objects a very different status and value from those which they possess to a being that does not reflect.” Therefore, to reflect upon children’s writing is to give it meaning and significance. My reflective notes were made on the students’ processes as well as products. In addition, I made notes to myself about what I saw emerging and so was doing some ongoing analysis of my data. One example of my reflections was after a class discussion about how a particular report should be graded. Because the students chose to do very little nonfiction writing on their own, I asked them to choose a topic that interested them, research it, and write it up in an organized fashion. During this process we also discussed how these pieces should be graded and what was important when deciding grades. 88

The kids* view of grading reminds me of when I coached middle school volleyball. The kids who were good felt we should play to win. The kids who weren’t as good felt everyone should have a chance to play and winning was secondary. The kids who write well (in their minds, or due to feedback from me and others) feel their grade would be based on quality. The kids who don’t write well think their grades should be based on effort. The ones that baffle me are the kids like Lisa, who felt that what she wrote was good — publishable. I don’t know how truthful or honest she was being. Have I done these kids a disservice by allowing them, encouraging them to think of themselves as writers? Myra Cohn Livingston says we shouldn’t let every child believe she is a poet because not everyone is. I believe the first step to writing is to have the kids believe they are writers, see themselves as writers, but where do I draw the line? (4/6/89)

Other Sources of Pata During the first week of school, all students were asked to fill out a reading and writing survey (Atwell, 1987) (See Appendix F and G). These were the students’ first opportunity to express what they thought was good reading and writing. As mentioned above, records were kept of individual reading conferences and these were on-going throughout the school year. Near the beginning of each writing class, students reported what they were planning to work on for that day (the topic or title of the piece) and at what stage they were in the piece (drafting, planning, editing, etc.). At this time they also had the opportunity to ask for a conference with another student or with the teacher. This “Status of the Class’* (Atwell, 1987) (See Appendix D) was kept every day, every week throughout the 89 year. It provided information about how long students spent on a particular piece, what topics they abandoned and how long they worked on something before they abandoned it and so forth. This information was especially important to the student and to me when we conferenced at the end of each quarter about his or her writing. I sat down with each student at the end of each quarter and discussed his or her writing for the quarter — what he or she thought was best and why. It was at this time that we also negotiated what the student's grade should be for the quarter (See Appendix H for a sample outline of the writing conference). These end of the quarter conferences were audio taped, later transcribed and coded. Writing folders were kept of all the students' written work (Graves, 1983; Calkins, 1986) and maintained throughout the year. Each student had a folder in which to keep all drafts and final products. The students were asked to date everything that they wrote, drafts and final pieces. These folders were brought to each writing conference — formal and informal. At times I would also peruse their folders and jot down notes about their writing. This enabled me to plan for the class and to request conferences with individual students. Lesson plans also provided another written record of teacher and student interaction. The plans were a record of what different classes and individuals were working on. However, the class periods were fairly fixed as to the structure and the time allotted as described previously in this chapter. Plans could be and were modified according to the need and events of each day. For example, during the team interdisciplinary unit, a great deal of the reading and writing time was spent with the other 90 language arts classes and the day was divided up differently according to the needs of various teachers and the projects they were working on at the time. It was also during this time that we rehearsed and performed “Romeo and Juliet" so a great deal of reading and writing time was spent in preparation for the play performance. To illustrate the flexibility of planning: we as language arts teachers had not intended perform this play (or even read it), but because there was so much interest in plays and play production with this team we decided we must do something with drama that could be integrated with the theme. One other data source was collected but basically was not used in the analysis and that was the students* journals (Atwell, 1984; Shuy, 1987). Throughout the school year my students and I struggled with ways to make the journals meaningful to them. I wanted them to use their journals for talking about books, authors, reading and writing and I could respond to their thinking. However, because the students (and I) kept track of all their reading and writing in some way, the students found the journals unnecessary. They kept a reading log to record what they read, when they read, and how they felt about it. They kept writing folders to record what they were writing, dates of completed pieces, ideas for future writing, etc. I kept records of our conferences, both formal and informal. By the time they got to writing in their journals, they were dry. I was also struggling with ways to make the journal writing meaningful and different from their other writing, but was not entirely enthusiastic about reading and responding to their journals as well as all their other writing and I'm sure this attitude was communicated to them. In fact, I found it difficult to keep 91 up with all the record keeping, field notes, and response to written work that I wanted to do, so journals were the last thing I considered doing. Therefore, journals were not a good data source. Ethically it is important to note that the gathering of the research data did not adversely affect or disrupt the classroom or the educational process. In fact, conducting research in my own classroom served to enhance my own teaching. My own research informed my teaching while my teaching informed my research. There was reciprocity between the teaching, research, and learning.

Time Line Data collection covered the months of the academic school year from September 5, 1988 to June 12, 1989 (See Table 2). Some data collection was ongoing and some occurred at regular intervals. Ongoing data collection included reading conferences, journal writing, lesson plans, status of the class and field notes which were begun more intensively second semester (January 23,1989). Sporadic field notes were kept during the first semester. The quarterly writing conferences which were audio taped occurred at the close of each grading period. 92

Table 2 Timeline

DATA SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN SOURCE 1088 1088 1088 1088 1080 1080 1080 1080 1080 1080 Roading and • • wrhlna survovs Field notes Individual reading conferences Status of the class Student writing folders

Writing •• • 9 • conferences

The Case Study Students Several criteria were used for the selection of case-study students. First and foremost, the case-study students had to be responsive in the interviews. Secondly, I wanted to have a balance of girls and boys. In addition, in order to demonstrate that any relationship that might exist between students’ responses and self evaluation was not due to ability level, it was recommended that the case-study students be a good balance of strong and weak readers and writers. Therefore, I focused on five students who met these criteria: 93

One high reader, high writer One high reader, low writer One low reader, low writer One low reader, low writer. I then used the following criteria to select these case study students: 1. reading fluency which was determined by the number and range of books read 2. reading comprehension which included the use of a variety of strategies 3. writing fluency which was determined by the number and range of pieces 4. writing quality 5. teacher evaluation 6. student self-evaluation 7. California Achievement Test scores A brief description of the case-study students follows here. These students, as well as the criteria for their selection, will be discussed more thoroughly in Chapter IV. Jimmy was the low reader, low writer. He was Asian American, his American father having met his mother while serving in Vietnam. His mother was limited in her English speaking ability and his father was often away on business. He was the younger of two boys, very verbal, very outgoing and at times difficult to handle. His favorite activities were hunting and fishing. 94

The high writer, low reader was the most difficult student to identify. In fact, the difference between Max’s reading and writing skill was actually very slight. While Max was not a very enthusiastic student in general he was more enthusiastic about writing than reading. He was the oldest of two children of very supportive parents. While Max had the ability, he wrote and read reluctantly, but somehow managed to produce fairly good writing. Susie was the high reader, low writer. She was an avid reader and consumed books rapidly, sometimes reading the same book two or three times. She was very quiet, always worked alone and often complained about the noise of the writing workshop. She was an animal lover and always wrote or read about an animal. Her writing was often very short in length, with short, simple sentences and usually about the same subject. Rarely did Susie explore other topics or forms of writing unless assigned. Susie was socially very immature and was uncomfortable in a middle school setting. Mindy was more representative of the kind of high reader, high writer that existed in my classroom. Because the top ten percent of the team were in another class, Mindy was a high reader, high writer of this sample. She, like Max, had standardized test scores that were just above average. But, Mindy was also a reflective student and often said things that shifted my own thinking. She was a good, solid, consistent student, easy to have in class and willing to assist students. Her father died when she was very young and she and her mother were very close. At the time of the 95

study, Mindy’s mother was intending to get married and possibly move away. James was the best reader and writer I had in all my classes. He should probably have been placed in the gifted and talented class and, in fact, 1 initiated the procedure to have him tested for that class. He was the oldest of two children and was intellectually more mature than most students, but not very socially mature. He was a very serious student, very intense about his reading and writing, and often told me he intended to be an author.

Data..Analysis A significant number of social scientists now argue that all data is interpretive, and consequently no one will grasp the “true" meaning of another’s comments. Rosaldo has commented, “All interpretations are provisional; they are made by positioned subjects who are prepared to know certain things and not others.” (1989, p. 8) Donmoyer (1985) has argued that “meaning is not ‘drawn’ from data, but rather imposed on it." Questionnaires or concepts that interviewers, observers, survey researchers, and the like develop are inevitably their own concepts and questionnaires. The categories that a researcher creates to make sense of respondents’ comments are preconceived classifications developed from the researcher’s point of view. The difficulty is that the individuals participating in the study may not only hold different interpretations of similar concepts, but that they may not even conceptualize their terms in a manner akin to the interviewer. For example, I often disagreed with 96 student writers about the "sense” of particular pieces and found that they made perfect sense to peers I quickly discovered that as an adult teacher, I was not the intended audience. As Kant concluded long ago, it is impossible to talk of the nature of reality with any sense of certainty because we can never know reality independent of the cognitive structures which influence our perceptions, or the social context in which it occurs. In applied Helds such as education, counseling and social work, fields concerned with individuals, social science can never provide certainty. "In complex fields, in other words, research can only function as a heuristic which can never dictate action but only suggest possibilities.” (Donmoyer, 1988) The purpose of qualitative research or documentation, as Carini (1978) describes it, is not to exhaust the singular meaning of an event, "but to reveal the multiplicity of meanings, and it is through the observer's encounter with the event that these meanings emerge." (Mishler, 1979) However, even as certain possibilities are revealed, others are concealed, so a researcher can only act on the best information she has at the time in order to draw conclusions. In this study, data analysis involved personal theorizing (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). It involved comparing, contrasting, synthesizing and playing with ideas much like LeCompte's and Goetz's (1983) comparison of ethnographic analysis to children's play with building blocks. It was as Van Maanen (1988) describes, "one struggling to piece together something reasonably coherent out of displays of initial disorder, doubt and difficulty." (p. 75) 97

Analysis consisted of transcribing, sorting, coding and interpreting the data. I had collected 106 hours of audio taped interviews, as well as field notes and reading conference notes, and narrowed that down to transcribing the five case study students' audio tapes. All the tapes were listened to again and the conference notes of all the students were re-read. I also transcribed parts of other students' interviews in order to check them against my case-study students. Other patterns of the case-study students were also checked against the remaining students. Some organization and coding was done of Held notes and reading conference notes. During this analysis, my methods were guided by strategies suggested by Bogdan and Biklen (1982), Strauss and Corbin (1990), and Miles and Huberman (1984). In addition, my experience analyzing qualitative data as a research assistant at The Ohio State University was very helpful.

Codes While developing codes for my data I discovered two studies (Carter & Harris, 1982; Sammuels, 1989) conducted by librarians who categorized responses from middle school and junior high students about why they liked particular books. The comments by the students about the books they liked sounded remarkably like the comments made by my students about their own writing. Therefore I adopted the structure Carter & Harris and Sammuels used for their categories and grounded the categories in Applebee’s discussion of adolescents' evaluations of story to begin to 98 develop my own codes. In the beginning I based these two categories on Applebee’s characterizations of “subjective” and “objective.” I no longer believe this dichotomy is helpful for reasons which will be discussed in Chapter IV. The codes for how students evaluated books were set up identically to the codes describing their responses to writing. As I read the interviews over and over, the sub-categories of these codes emerged. I continued to cross-check what they said about books and what they said about writing to be sure that the codes for books and writing could remain identical. The only significant difference between book evaluation and writing evaluation was that students occasionally talked about their writing process when describing what was good about a particular piece of writing. Consequently codes were developed to describe their writing process. I set up book and writing comments according to the codes to examine whether or not this coding system would work 99

D DESCRIPTIVE/EVALUATIVE 1 Real, 0 DESCRIPTIVE/EVALUATIVE (Ritl, nil lilt. Iinlttl la Ik* a«t|aa la aaat* n*l Ilf*. Ia**t **4 1* tkt acllaa la aaaet pm ul aay, ti|a|tl, lalcmtlat. p*riaaxl way, tainted, laltrrillat, txtlllatl tttlllaal DD DllWR mi to upatal* fnyn tell nor toxeparaie (nun mi DOlt nartnlanflcd in lexi DOn nearmun|led with lexi DEP DEFil Painu ritual im*|et DEFvi Ckrdll tinol im»f« DGRau* ftwtre aukenae rcnxrae DET-nu* Rakttaufcencempiwe DBtoi- Neguirenuienoe roponie Dffai- NefuneaudMueiapme DEN OEMi M|hl|t cn|tfcd (enjoyed the DDJi N|My enpyed (enjoyed Hit expenenee id reaAnph* pm) experience of lha writing of die pmot) DfNI lo* level rf mgifoneni DM low level d efifafanrrx DEV DEN* Supauea raadenexpecuuona DGX* DEN- Dtiappanu etpeetakem dec- Ditappanu

D[ ln“M Hb honn| DI DU (MtoenvmRnalAnabre Hb borinf Die eiatinj DU ddTeremwnpfalu jcrtmn* nr run He exaiint Dll ttncxi* nr furwyiun DU tcnoui

DIE D3PA DSPR Jnr-nflc IVr* DSPOI SpecificBook-bookUn|ua|e DSPfl DSPOI Specific Book-book lanfuift DET Qlflfl/Time DC Cnllnbontivr It did ii wiih Mmmnrl DPL flinl DPI* Ocna DP1J LenjOi DPlpr ftxiU rt view DPU Subfocl Dlia Slyle/dmcca DPR DPRI (SJ.4I order in atuch ihmfi art dona DPKD Dm* DPRF Fcdinp.wnouqm DPRK Reviwan DPRT TtunU DTRli Tim* fnclor (under preeiurt, dewftne) DPRW JuMWrilc* DO Orade IMemiinaaai OOe Creauniy DQc nffarvtinwnvcMed DO* Sudani UCM fmttB

Figure 2 Codes 100

Figure 2 (continued)

BOOK EVALUATION BE______WRITING EVALUATION WE

ST STRUCTURE (Style,plot, ST STRUCTURE (Style.plot, theme, netting, lllnt Irallont, theme, telling, llluatrallona, nhlctt milltfi getire^r tablect matter) SlC______flU fM ff STO Genre STOad AdvenuntfActkm STOad AdvetturafAdksi STOm Myatoy STOm Myatery STOp roetry STOp roeuy STCrf Realistic Fiction STOrf Realistic Fiction STOaf Science FktkxvTintasy STO*r Sdenoe Bctkm/fantaty STO»h SuspenaefHono STOth Sutpente/HanD STOaa Short Story STOtt Short Story

STI Muatntioni

sn. 1 enrth STU Long STU Long STL* Short S T U Short

STP Plot STP Plot ST PS Subject ST PS Subject STPSa Animal done* STPSa Animal auxin STPSh HumotfFunny STPSh Humot/Funny STPSltp Kid* with probiena STPSkp Kid* with problems STPSn Natum STPSn Nature STPiu Summary STPau Summary STPiua Suapenae/Predkubility STPsus Suspensefftedictabiliiy

STPV IViiM of View STPV Point of View STPVI firat Pmon STPVI Fim Person STPV3 Third Fenon STPV3 Third Peraoo

STSR STSE Settine STSEP Place STSEP Place STSET Time STSET Tima STSETpa Paat STSETpa Pait STSETpr Proacm STSETpr Preaenl STSETt Future STS CTt Future STSP Stviirtte Feature* STSF Stvliafic Feature* STSFd Deecnptive STSFd Deecnpuve STSFdv Uae of device* (metaphors, STSFdv Uae of devioea (metaphor*. simile*, Jdlom.ct&) rimilca.idiomi.elc.) STSFo organized STSFo organized STSFr Rhyme* STSFr Rhyme* STSFrit Rhythm STSF Rhythm STSFdt Useofdctatli STSFdt Uae of detail*

SIT „ Theme S T J Theme

STD Dianlay fThe wav it I 00V1

pomputer. rt^l

STEa SpeUing STEg Good grammar 101

Reliability of Codes Coded transcripts were checked for reliability at the level of major categories by a colleague who was trained to discern the definitions of codes and to follow coding procedures. The colleague and I conferred on the application of codes for the first 20 units on the transcript of Jimmy’s second interview, then she proceeded on her own. The rate of agreement for book evaluation codes was 86%, and for writing evaluation codes was 84%. Guided by my research question: What relationship exists among students* evaluative responses to self-selected literature and their personal evaluations of their own writing? I was looking for those settings in which response to books and evaluation of writing intersected or overlapped. I then began a more systematic analysis of what comments about books and writing occurred the most among the case-study students and then checked these against the larger student population to see what themes were the most significant. I tallied the comments about books and the comments about writing. Through this frequency count I was able to see which themes about books and writing were most related to each other. 102

Summary Teachers are in an ideal position to observe, describe, and learn from the behaviors of children in a classroom setting. Teachers-as- researchers have access to insider knowledge that outside researchers do not. Therefore, participant observation and teacher-as-researcher methodology was utilized for this study. Data was collected in the form of field notes, reading conference notes, audio tapes of writing interviews and student writing samples during the academic school year of September, 1988 until June, 1989. Analysis which consisted of transcribing, sorting, coding, and interpreting the data, took place following data collection. This analysis was guided by strategies suggested by Bogdan and Biklen (1982), Strauss and Corbin (1990), and Miles and Huberman (1984). Data was further collapsed and analyzed through extensive analysis which involved further sorting and interpretation. The research findings are presented in Chapter Four and Five which discuss the individual case studies and the general themes which emerged from an examination of students' evaluations of the writing they did and that of other authors. CHAPTER IV CASE STUDIES

“Every child has a story to tell. The question is, will they tell it to us?” (Harold Rosen)

Graves states that beneath every research project, there are human beings, with stories to tell. Like Rosen, Graves believes children have stories to tell and they will tell them to teachers and researchers. By closely watching and listening to what children have to say about their reading and writing, we can leam about all children’s reading and writing. By understanding the relationship between the reading and writing of five children we can begin to understand and discern the relationship for other children. What one child or five children teach us about reading and writing gives us insight into the reading and writing of all children. “Although writing development is talked about ‘in general,’ it always happens ‘in particular.* In the end, we always teach unique children; all our children are case studies” (Calkins, 1983). However, case study examples may or may not indicate what groups of children will or should do. However that is not the purpose of this qualitative research. Qualitative case study research alters the ways in which students are

103 104 perceived, as individuals rather than as groups. An analysis of student response, then, is richer for the individual stories. This chapter will attempt to give the microscopic (case studies) and telescopic (themes) view of the relationship between reading response and writing self-evaluation. By pulling my chair in close, I will attempt to describe the nature of the relationship for individual students and then pull back to give a sense of the larger context and how their experiences correspond to the rest of the students. Psychological research, including educational research has its own tradition of case studies: the work of Piaget and Freud originated in case studies. Piaget’s first cases were his own three children, whom he observed as they played with household objects. Research with human beings requires a different perspective. In scientific study two atoms of the same kind are identical, but no two individuals are completely identical Traditional research, even on human beings has sought to make generalizations based on similarities in behavior. Large numbers of people are incorporated into studies in order to negate the effects of particular, potentially random individuals. By contrast, case studies allow the researcher to see individuals as individuals. As novelist Maijorie Kinnan Rawlings said, “A man may leam a deal of the general by studying the specific, whereas it is impossible to know the specific by studying the general” (p. 359). The process of observing a single individual sensitizes us that much more to other individuals. 105

While traditional research provides one way to view the world, there are others. Objectivity is not the only road to knowledge. While there are times it is useful to view our work from the eyes of an outsider in order to gain perspective, the notion that we come to know human beings by distancing ourselves from them is a strange one. In his book on research in the social sciences, Paul Diesing (1971) claims:

An observer who is not emotionally involved will be unable to empathize, to see things from the perspective of his subject and therefore will miss much of the meaning of what he sees. Consequently he will not know how to ask the right questions..and look in the right places, (p. 280)

Neither should our research tools and perspective hinder our view of what we are researching. Bissex (1987) points out that no single research design, no single vision or set of assumptions, will enable us to get the whole picture. “We need methods that will allow us to use our empathy and intuition while giving us the distance to look critically, as a writer alternates between the roles of involved creator and critical reader of his own work.” (p. 13) Scientist Evelyn Fox Keller has proposed the concept of “dynamic objectivity” in place of objectivity. Dynamic objectivity “aims at a form of knowledge that grants to the world around us its independent integrity but does so in a way that remains cognizant of, indeed relies on,our connectivity with that world. In this, dynamic objectivity is not unlike empathy, a form of knowledge of other persons that draws explicitly on the commonality of feelings and experiences in order to enrich one’s understanding of another in his or her own right" (p. 117). Rose (1990) 106 argues that the future of ethnography will include the “conversations, voices, attitudes, visual gestures, reactions, and concerns of daily life of the people with whom the author participates, observes, and lives will take form as a narrative and discourse in the text" (p. 57). Case studies can expand the range of interpretations available. They can allow the reader to see the world through the eyes of the researcher and, in the process, see things which might otherwise have been missed. Looking through a researcher's eyes does not necessarily infer a personal, idiosyncratic perspective, but rather the “intersubjectively shared theoretical perspective of a discipline or field of study" (Donmoyer, 1988, p. 28). Therefore, a case study can also represent a particular theoretical viewpoint to the uninitiated. “Well done case studies can add nuance and subtlety to the ideal typical perspective of theory” (Donmoyer, 1988, p. 28). Purves (1968) and Beach (1972) and others (Meek, 1988; Rosenblatt, 1985) have noted the need for in depth descriptions of the processes involved in response to literature. Although the nature of response have been studied extensively, as well as the nature of evaluation, little is understood of the interplay of the two. The following five case studies explore this interplay. The places that response of reading and self- evaluation intersect and overlap will be explored through the words of these five students. .While the elements of the classroom context described in Chapter III were similar for all students, they were obviously not the same for each participant. While it is difficult to describe exactly what was 107 different for each child, some description of the context supporting his or her reading and writing will be offered.

Jimmy (low reader, low writer) Jimmy was a very charming, outgoing, very outspoken, verbal young man. He often walked around with a mischievous smile on his face because he usually was into mischief. He was considered one of the cool kids in the sixth grade, not only by his peers, but by himself. His hobbies included hunting and fishing and he was very knowledgeable in these areas and about wild life in general. He told many stories of hunting and fishing with his dad, brother and uncle and some of these entered into his writing. Following is a field note about the construction of a hunting story that Jimmy wrote with Tom:

Tom came in and greeted me with, ‘Me and Jimmy wrote a whole bunch on our story last nigh on the phone.’ So Tom had to read it to the class first thing this morning — before silent reading. Tom said, “We need ideas. Tell us what you think".

Jimmy was dancing around saying, “I think we should .do such and such." and ,“I think it should be ‘fired rapidly” . Tom begins reading the story and says as an aside, “I decided to drop the ‘huskies’”. 108

The class listens enraptured. They discussed the logic of Tom and Jimmy's thinking on several points. This story sounds remarkably like Tom's book of Alaskan Bear Tales. Jimmy and Chris know a lot about guns and hunting and bears and they have brought this knowledge into their story. I questioned one thing — they had closed up a wound with duct tape in the story, and their response was, “We're just kids.” (4/24/89)

Jimmy was difficult to keep on task and often easily disrupt the class. He had not experienced much success in school and was retained in the second grade. The California Achievement Test was taken during four mornings in April, by all the sixth grade students in this district in their homeroom classrooms. Jimmy's scores were:

Table 3 California Achievement Test Scores - Jimmy

NATIONAL NUMBER NUMBER ITEMSTANINE PERCENTILE CORRECT OF ITEMS

Vocabulary 4 32 32 55

Comprehension 3 20 26 55 Language Mechanics 5 42 23 35 Language Expression 4 37 38 55

Word Analysis 2 8 8 24 109

The components of each of these tests are listed below in table:

Table 4 Subtests of California Achievement Test

L anguage L anguage Vocabulary Comprehension M ech an ics E x p re ssio n Word Analysts Includod: Included: In clu d ed : Included:Includod:

synonyms passage pronoun, 1, nouns consonant antonyms details noun, pronouns digraphs homonyms characlor adjedlves verbs variant affixos analysis beginning word adjectives, consonants words in central title adverbs diphthongs, contoxt thought period, sentence variant vowels Interpreting question patterns root words and events marks, sentence affixes forms ol exclamation combining writing marks topic sentence writing comma, colon, sentence techniques semi colon, sequence quotation marks proofreading

Jimmy often gleefully pointed out to me that he hated reading and liked writing only if it meant he didn’t have to do the physical writing. He liked to compose aloud. “I don't like writing it. I just like telling it” (5/15/89). Consequently, Jimmy did most of his composing outloud.

Jimmy is working on a spring poem — much of the work is done aloud. He repeats the lines he has composed over and over until something new occurs to him. (3/28) 110

Another way Jimmy had of constructing situations to accommodate his preferences was to work with someone else in the class. This saved him the exhausting task of having to write.

Jimmy and Brian were imitating Stevie Wonder and talking about last night's Grammy Awards/They had commented earlier that the reading of the “Fireflies” poem from Joyful Noise sounded like a rap. So they were joking around about writing a rap. I said,“Why not?”. So the two of them, still joking around, worked on one, totally aloud. Bret joined in and made up a quick one about Tom (2/23/89).

When he wrote alone, I often worked with him in editing and revising. In fact at the beginning of the year, when he claimed he could not write or write very well, I typed his work on the computer and so it looked good. I did this for one of the first poems he wrote and and hung it in the room. This attracted a lot of attention because Bobby wrote it and it was attractively mounted. His poem read as follows:

Raindrops in the Water Raindrops falling in the pond, are one of the most beautiful things you can see. When the raindrops hit the water, you can see rings that are round as the world. You feel like diving into the rings. But if you did, the rings would scatter, just like a bomb blowing up.(10/24/88)

Part of Jimmy’s concerns with writing had to do with the physical problems writing presented. His writing in draft form looked like this: I l l

C» Cx> UJr.V.r- CU

( b is n J . f t ’4* , ~ft.rce db^i a^Aer' nv>cl\S ■ftitor.f' cf>4d TknPhKite' -Vo ub dro0>3j (icccwx or h.j, fuii'xouc M.ul nr-.V tncsu.* afeofY ® PICNIC I of doy£ we'ii ova*. Vk9„y* V.e -^fTOb- .. lOpcod +0 P|i facAhc^jftjoE floto SAVYaA 10 See. naoce. and [*&'<, Chooa 4 ? U*fcf\P\a*VL* no^C**tJy^ Vo LOOoV- acAOJo^ WkiA-f $ -ScVOoli 005°- Q § Se<\id/s -foeWts* SP<6 if COulrt <>9a. \ 7j dcv>oS jxti S«^d/ .stv-rcd VdlM a t tot-orb'iif <\ ^soide- doft yen X s.&c. it°Q)u\d fc>e- X dlderot- >9 _ V ) b ^ q c k ’v jc 6 » ^ 4c ' OOfM£ a u ^ herv £.y€.^*$rvty 85^ 32\dfc I ‘^•0* i fl* Vj cpiCNft -V5 Q s h W*r»\ Checfittf, &cd I he-'11 M e- 0 O l v G m & j d Mm -arj* a)£^ r-h V6V3 c c ^ ^ A tutfv * d*.<£}\joo o-f cor* rr^ qjhef* ‘She,

. J f P ^ '^tafli^rodeo'oe*'V4:-o,*rV A'lhCs tWeod ooO Out. “ y ,S5^ (Vfttvid. got (Ovsc. onot ticsxea Vb<* ‘r*'e dotTj The-a f*t Q p in & J tfce, cter cs*na sanay too3 Otc.M'lt} c W - Sn^, ol'SO globed C^ar^ and t c i b c t f -Sc,*ck )o fcll tVe, dsoM * P^- riensocs c f df'Q/o^tVac . X*l> GcxM fids C T^c.tv ^/norfy/TfM'k t C'Pd Sot^ fcwc o t^ cr Tb^S\

Figure 3 Jimmy - Draft of Drug Story 112

In final form his writing was not much different. Therefore this early successful experience, due mainly to the response of his classmates, contributed to his future motivation to write. He often asked to write his final drafts on the computer, independently or with help. Most of his completed writing turned out to be poetry and these were always descriptive poems about nature (clouds, raindrops, the sun, moon, waterfall) This was a short, manageable form for him. When released from the requirement of rhyme, he was even more encouraged. Jimmy completed seventeen pieces of writing for the year, of which ten were poems, one was a play, two nonfiction pieces (assigned), four stories. Five of these pieces were done collaboratively. (For a complete list of Jimmy’s and all the case-study students’ completed writing see Appendix I) When asked (in the writing survey) what a good writer needs to do in order to write well, Jimmy replied “practes” (sic) (9/6/88). When asked how the teacher decides which pieces of writing are the good ones, he replied, “when ther slopy-bad. When ther nice it's good.” (sic) (9/6/88) At the end of each grading quarter, each student was asked to identify their three best pieces of writing for the quarter and explain why each was his or her best. Here are Jimmy’s comments: 113

Tables Jimmy - Writing Conference Comments

DATE PIECECOMMENTS November 11,1988 1. "The Treasure Hunt" ‘It was two pages long, listed how 1 finished IL It's a journey." 2. "Raindrops on the Water* 3. "Clouds* "They're descriptive, lean see It happen. 1 can picture It In my mind." January 23,1989 1. "What’s on my mind?" "1 usually don't write about myself but about nature. Hike poems. 1 like to tell people them and not have to write them down on paper. 1 put more effort Into this one."

2. "The Sun’ "1 like how H describes."

3. Drug Story "When 1 read it, it makes me feel weird. (Why) 1 don’t know, it gets out mv emotions. April 7,1989 1. "Waterfalls" "Cause me and Brian made it up and 1 just like poemB more lhan stories. (Why is this one good?) It sort of describes. 2. "Spring" "it just tells the story about spring and it starts to get warm and its Interesting." (What makes it interesting?) ")Cause they're (Waterfalls and Spring) both descriptive and they're both about things in nature." June 5,1989 1. Hunting story “cause wa just made it awesome. We made It sound like It was real life and like how we had to hurry up and get the cooking done."

2. Fishing story "Me and Brian did it. How wa drew the picture and everything. It's cool."

3." Moon’ (wasn't finished at the time of this conference) 114

When asked to identify his best piece of the year he indicated his poem, “Clouds”, which was completed fairly early in the school year (11/7/88). When asked why he had chosen it, he said, “Because I like how it describes like a big runner.” I asked, “You liked your metaphor?” and he said, “Yeah.” Here is “Clouds”:

Clouds When clouds are moving, it’s just like a big race, Running for miles nonstop. And when one cloud separates, it’s just like the runner quitting. Then when a jumbo jet - 747 flies right under them, it’s like a chipmunk interfering with their race. When it rains, the race is over. It’s just like the losers weeping.

On the reading survey when asked how he felt in general, about reading, his reply was, “I dislike it." When asked how he decided which books he'll read, he responded, “See if I like it,” and said that he did not like story books (9/6/88). He cited Beverly Cleary and Dr. Seuss as his favorite authors on this day. During this school year he began to read thirteen books and completed nine. This does not include the poetry books and magazines that he scanned or read. Of the nine books he completed, three were realistic fiction, two were fantasy, three were nonfiction, and one short story compilation. Most of the books he completed were not 115 over 100 pages and the thickness of the book was a criteria he used for selecting a book. (For a complete list of the books Jimmy and all the case study students read, see Appendix J) While Jimmy struggled with his independent reading he liked reading with me or with a buddy. With support, he was willing to struggle through a text he enjoyed.I often used his reading conference times and study center times to read with him and teach him various strategies. The difficulty was, he rarely chose to read on his own because he got frustrated and it took a lot of effort and concentration for him. However, his listening comprehension was excellent. During or after read aloud, he would ask questions or make pertinent comments, or later in the day he would talk about what we were reading. He had a good memory for details when he listened and when he completed a book independently. His favorite books, of the books he completed were three relatively short stories; a) The Acorn People (88 pages long), a true story about a college student who goes to work for the summer as a counselor in a camp for handicapped children (which I read with him side by side); b)Alaskan Bear Tales', and c) Be a Perfect Person in Just Three Days ,a kooky story, written in a highly engaging style, about a boy who finds a book in a library that gives him three strange tasks to do in three days which will make him perfect (76 pages), was also highly favored. When asked why he liked The Acorn People, he said it was sad and “you had to keep on reading to see how they (the campers) did it.” Alaskan Bear Tales was “adventurous and gorey. How they lived, it was amazing.” Be A Perfect Person in Just Three Days was “funny and it made you keep on reading. It 116 kept going day after day — ‘Don’t turn the page’. It made you want to see what happened”(5/18/89). A book he did not like and did not fmish was Conrad's War. He said the front cover made it look good, but the story disappointed him. “It makes you makes this hard decision — whether to believe the story was a dream or not and it was stupid. There was no action. It was stupid.”(5/18/89) When asked to identify the best author he ever read, Jimmy surprised my by replying that it was Cynthia Voight. I knew he had never read any books by her during the school year, but apparently an earlier teacher had read Homecoming and most of Dicey's Song to him and he liked the stories. He liked:

Jimmy: ...how she puts it and how they survive and like how she meets these people and how they have like little loaves of bread and because. Teacher: You like all the details? Jimmy: Yeah and the details, I thought it was a good story. We just read a little bit of Dicey's Song and like she almost finished the boat, I guess. Remember the boat she was making?(6/6/89)

In looking at Jimmy's book evaluations and composition evaluations there appear to be three features that he uses to distinguish good books and good writing. The three features he does mention are interrelated. TTiey are stories that are 1) realistic; 2) that the author brings it to life in the mind of the reader through the use of detail; and 3) descriptive. It is the 117 details of a story and the use of description that engage Jimmy in a story, and he felt his best pieces of writing were those that did the same.

Table 6 Jimmy - Book and Writing Evaluations

BOOK EVALUATION WRITING EVALUATION 'She made It like real Sfe In the car, at the mall." (Why Is that your best?) ‘Cause we just made It awesome. We a made It sound like it was real life and like how we had to hurry up and get the "Cause how she puts It and how they survive cooking done." (hunting story) like how she meets the people and how they have like little loaves of bread. 1 like the details, "They're both descriptive. 1 can see it happen. 1 thought It was a good story" {Homecoming 1 can picture It in my mind." (‘Raindrops on the Water* and 'Clouds")

'1 like how It describes.'.fThe Sun")

•It sort of descrlbes.TWatertalls"!

One of the difficulties in comparing Jimmy’s comments was that he read short books and short stories, but mainly wrote poetry. While he did read poetry in class, it was an oversight on my part not to ask him what made a good poem. It is clearly difficult to compare the elements of poetry and story. He did express a preference for rhymed poetry. One day during writing time, Jimmy picked up a poetry book and read some poems out loud. 118

Jimmy: I don’t consider those poems, they don’t rhyme. They’re not beautiful. Teacher: Seriously? Jimmy: No, I do think rhyme poems are better. (5/12/89)

When I asked him who he felt was the best student writer on our team, surprisingly he named Max (another case study student) and when I asked him why, he replied

Jimmy: I liked his Azoul poem Teacher: What did you like about it? Jimmy: ’Cause he made it into a long story, but it really was a poem. I loved how he made it riiyme and I thought it was cool. Teacher: He told the story in rhyme. Anything else about it you liked? Jimmy: Yeah, I thought it sounded real intelligent like. (6/6/89)

While Jimmy did not incorporate rhyme into most of his own poetry, he clearly felt it was important. He and some of the other boys would occasionally compose raps and perform them for the other students, but these were rarely written down. Jimmy also became enamored with metaphors and similes in the texts he read and in his own writing. In his class, the first theme we studied in reading was an author study on Betsy Byars. Because her books are so full of metaphors and similes, we read Eve Merriam’s “Metaphor” poem and others and wrote metaphor and simile poems. Jimmy’s simile poem, “Raindrops on the Water” was the first piece he completed during the 119 school year and with which he experienced success in his writing. This poem was quickly followed by “Clouds’* and so began his trend of writing metaphor and simile poems. It may be that Jimmy thought that because his earlier poems were full of metaphor and simile and he was pleased with them, his other poetry must follow suit. But this adventure into metaphorical writing increased his awareness of metaphors in his reading. Here is an example from my field notes:

Jimmy had been reading Acorn People aloud with me in study center and once while he was reading he paused and said, ‘Nice metaphor* (and it was), and continued to read. On Friday, I was recalling that event and trying to remember where it happened in the book. I asked him and he couldn’t remember, either. But after choir he brought me a song they were singing and said it's full of metaphors. The song is ‘The Cardinal, Stay With Me*. He said he had a hard time getting Mrs. K. (the choir teacher) to let him take it to show me. I looked through it and said, ‘You mean the one about the lamb?'and he said, “Yes.”

Because the works that Jimmy cited as his best were filled with figurative language, specifically metaphor and simile. I would add that Jimmy identified figurative language as important to a good piece of text, in addition to realism, detail, and description. I discovered, in reviewing my reading conference notes, that with the less-able readers, such as Jimmy, I discussed skills, strategies, and did comprehension checks in their reading conferences, but did not discuss their responses to books they read as much as I did with better readers. Jimmy was very articulate and talked quite a bit anyway. However, even he may have had fewer opportunities to respond to what he read and this 120 may have influenced his capacity to self-evaluate. Finding a low reader, low writer who was articulate for a case study was difficult. In writing and reading conferences, many were non -responsive. They said, “I don’t • know,” or nothing at all. While Jimmy had a great deal to say, little of it had to do with why he responded to the books and writing in the way that he did. Had I pressed him for the grounds for his responses, he might have been more articulate about his response to books as well as his own writing.

Susie (high reader, low writer) Susie is a very quiet, soft spoken, socially immature girl. She is the kind of student that parents point to when they say that sixth grade should be in the elementary school. Susie is not ready for the middle school and rarely participates in middle school activities. She is content to keep to herself at school and go home to hold onto her childhood a little longer. Susie is often teased by some of the louder, rowdier boys. The girls, except for the few friends she had left her alone. She felt that the other students thought she was stupid because she chose not to talk to them, but she felt she was not stupid and was a nice person. The most important thing to her is her family and her cats. Animals played a large part in her life. She loved her cats, loved reading and writing about cats and other people's animals as well. She said she wanted to be a veterinarian when she grew up. 121

Susie is an average student who quietly goes about doing her work, not causing any problems in class and largely going unnoticed by me and the rest of the class. I have very few field notes on Susi because Susie rarely attracted or asked for my attention. Every day she finds a quiet comer of the room to read or write alone. Although she has friends in the class she never write with anyone. Most of my field notes about Susie look like this:

Susie recopied a piece on the computer — not much revision, strictly a recopying. (2/23/89)

Susie works quietly, steadily , along. (3/28/89)

Susie is working on a poem about the planets based on the nonfiction book she read. She read some to me and we talked about it. She listens but does what she wants in her writing. (4/20/89)

Susie quietly sits at the back table by Chrissa and starts a new story. She says its about friends, but she's not sure what's going to happen yet. (5/5/89)

Susie asked, “Will you tell me how this sounds so far?" She reads her metaphor poem about a cat. I say it sounds more like a description than a metaphor and she goes back to work on it. (5/12/89) 122

Susie is an avid reader. On the beginning of the year survey she claimed that she had read 100 books in the last 12 months and that she often reread books. When asked why people read she responded, “to know things, to relax, to study and for fun” (9/6/88). The survey asked if she read at home for pleasure and she said, “Yes, all the time.” She said she felt good about her reading and in response to the final question that asked if there was anything else the teacher should know, she replied, “I love to read.” Susie seemed to be the kind of reader described by Nilsen and Donnelsen (1985).in the “golden age” stage of reading development She was an undemanding reader and read with “unconscious enjoyment” (38). She was the girl in the back of the bus on the way to a Held trip reading a book or sitting at the lunch table reading when she was finished with lunch. During the 1988-1989 school year, Susie read 39 books, including a rereading of Follow My Leaderx a fairly old book (I read it in grade school) about a young boy who goes blind and receives a seeing-eye dog. Susie often reads sequels (The Keeper of Isis Light and The Guardian of Isis by Monica Hughes), through a series (the Prydain cycle by Lloyd Alexander) or stayed with an author (Betsy Byars, Lloyd Alexander), until his or her books were exhausted. She read across genres including fantasy/science fiction, realistic fiction, nonfiction, and historical fiction. In one conversation about animals, I remarked that even though she read a lot of books, she didn’t 123 read that many animal books. She responded, “But the books have some kind of animal in them” (April 12,1989). Susie read fluently, monitored her own reading, and was able to retell a story with a great deal of detail. In reading conferences, our discussions generally centered around what she did or didn’t like about a particular book. She had strong opinions and reasons for why she did or didn't like each book. Following are my notes from reading conferences with Susie:

Susie says A Summer to Die was good because it wasn’t like any other book she read. Best Friends was interesting — it was an interesting idea — it seemed like it really happened, (conference 11/22/88)

She didn’t like Black Cauldron because she couldn’t keep the characters straight and she didn’t like it when he gave up the brooch. She wouldn’t have given it up. She didn’t like Taran Wanderer either.The beginning wasn’t that interesting. She didn’t like the fact that they stole Taran’s horse and that wasn’t right. She did like the High King. It was interesting. There were parts she expected and some parts she didn’t expect. She didn’t like the Alfred Summer that well. It didn’t make a lot of sense and some parts weren't that exciting. She had to figure it out by rereading it. (1/19/89) 124

To some degree the amount of reading she did is reflected in her California Achievement Test Scores:

Table 7 Susie • California Achievement Test Scores

NATIONAL NUMBER NUMBER ITEM STANINE PERCENTILE CORRECT OF ITEMS 7 84 49 55 Vocabulary 6 76 50 55 Comprehension Language 6 68 28 35 Mechanics Language 7 86 51 55 Expression 5 54 19 24 Word Analysis

(All the case study students took the same test and a summary of the items on these tests can be found in Jimmy’s case study) There is a slight variation between these scores, and, therefore, her reading and writing behaviors in class are more telling in terms of the difference between reading and writing. Even though Susie often appeared to be working on writing, she was not very productive. Writing took a long time and a lot of thought. Not very much revision took place on paper, although she said she did it in her head. She said when she writes she: Susie: ...thinks about something I’d like to write about and then I just sort of stretch it out. Teacher: what do you mean? Susie: I get a neat idea and then I start adding different things on to it. Then I change ideas that I don't like and then I just think about it for a long time to make sure that its coming out right and then its finished (April 12,1989).

All of her self-selected writing topics were about cats or her friends. This is a sample of how a friendship developed between her and her friend Heidi (10/31/88): 126

.W ("PieniaV/iT) P ) ^

; Y \ c y 6 '\ C^'Cnq W W

,On.e, Scvoaca^r ru ^ v (a TSu Uj t I. w a s jw^0iAK»rv^ dou)c^ bcN^C^W.C,otcr^jp. A- Vvto'S (o^- ?ft)o my b^-h-ver. vSIhe^ A- ro o ^ Itua. iboic h-^ .U)QJa playing UJi^ln m-C0' to eo^*'>C. Y\toKe a rooK Anc) .u^enb Vxame-. Lector he we Ou-to. dop\r\ ,_>-W)au)eA h\m fcxxoK n> +H .qiy>i ...W>VW ^vny_bU.ller.^\jV^ ^bece. -b.rofe.cxrcc^a 3 H\£ COAifpf.Jo t m galled irv e ., I ^ n + Jushbt l t b i s bov^d. 'h ^ . Air-Vs ^cl5 r t€ to '«

T K ^ b *rbc^^ c*xrn •£- OcxJr Agav n , -V-O. \€A.t?e \ o u ^ S ^ e c c ^ Q d . s a i ^

Figure 4 Susie - Draft of Heidi and Me 127

When asked what her best piece of the year was, she replied “Minner Moseby” and that was the piece that appeared in the class book at the end of the year containing everyone's best writing. Interestingly, “Minner Moseby’’ was the first piece Susie wrote during the school year. Here it is in its entirety:

Minner Moseby and Miss Kitty are cats. I call Minner Moseby ‘Minner’.Minner is 16 and Miss Kitty is 3. Minner has short, soft, fuzzy, gray fur and Miss Kitty has long, soft, tan-brown fur too. Minner is an American Shorthair cat. Miss Kitty is a Siamese cat.

Minner has a favorite rocking chair. On it, or on the bed is their covered with fur, blanket. When we play,we play: get - the- string, get-the- catnip toy and we also watch T.V. Then when there is nothing else on, we watch cartoons.

We like each other a lot. We miss each other too. (9/26/88)

Here is a summary of the comments Susie made at the end of each quarter about her best pieces: 128

Table 8 Susie - Writing Conference Comments

DATE PIECE COMMENTS November 9,1988 1. "Minner Moseby' 1. "It was more descriptive, ft was longer and more Interesting. *lt was Interesting and lun to write.*

2. Friendship paper "This was for my old babysitter. H you're interested In the pets of my 3. "Porky* babysitter and you like animals you'd like this,*

January 24,1989 1. "Search lor Catland" 1. *1 changed It a lot. 1 cut out a whole bunch of parts, ft was long. It was really the only thing 1 7L "Heidi and Me* worked on. It was pretty interesting,*

"It was long. Some was true and some was not.* April 12,1989 1. Two Twins "Because it's about something. 1 take the people and 1 picture them in my head and 1 just write about them.* (Ok, but what makes It 2. Untitled good?) Well 1 can choose what Cm going to say and 1 guess that's it.*

'Because it's of interest. If they like this kind of story." June 8,1989 1. Report on the solar system •It's more interesting. If the reader likes the solar system then It would be Interesting but if they don't then they wouldn't like It because it has lots of information on the solar system.*

*lt took a lot of work and 1 like It." 2. Metaphor poem "You have to be able to like cats. You have to be able to understand.,

*1 took less time to do this one and 1 just kind of explained it ft's 3. Betsy Byars paper interesting and its organized, ft has three parts (her tone of voice indicates that these are the elements 1 said they would be graded on) 129

When asked what her best piece of the year was, she replied, “Minner Moseby”. “Because it well, she’s my favorite cat, so is Miss Kitty, they're my two favorite cats outside of my family.” I said, “OK, that’s why you like Minner, but why does that make this your best piece?” Her reply was, “I just, I don’t know. 'Cause its about Minner and its true.” Susie identifies three features in her evaluations of books and her own writing. She names these features over and over and they are the ones she identifies the most in book evaluations and the most in writing self- evaluations. The first feature she identifies is whether or not a story, book or poem has an animal in it, more specifically a cat. The second is that a work is “interesting.” Here is a comparison of her comments: 130

Table 9 Susie - Book and Writing Evaluations

BOOK EVALUATION WRITING EVALUATION Teacher: You don’t road that many animal books, Teacher: ‘What is the best piece you've written his you road a lot of dffferont books. year?* Suslo: *Bul the books have some kind of animal In Susie:'Minner Moseby'. Because it, well she's my them* favorite cat, so is Miss Kitty, they're my two favorite Teacher: 'Like most of your writing .all of your cats outside of my family*. writing, You haven’t written anything without an Teacher: ‘OK, that's why you like Minner, but why animal In it have you?* does that make this your best piece?* Susie: 'No*. Susie: "Cause, 1 just, 1 don't know. ’Cause its about Minner and its true* Reading Conference notes: They had a cat* (T h e C ay >2/14/89) Because its about animals.,* (Two Twins • 4/12/88) 'My favorite book about a dog* (Follow M y Loader - 10/4/88) 'You have to Ilka cats* (6/6/89) *1 liked It because It was about a boy who doesn't' want the baby fox to die • like maybe a c&t.’lM kfnfaht F ox• 5/30/89) Teacher: "Why do you like the way they (Betsy 'More interesting” ('Minner Moseby* -11/9/88) Byars and James B. Garfield) write?* Susie: "Cause its interesting.” (6/6/89) ‘Interesting* (Friendship paper -11/9/88)

They put a lot of time Into it and make it sound 'Pretty interesting* f Search for Catland* • 1/24/89) Interesting.* (6/6/89) *1 guess as a report the solar system would be more Teacher: 'How does an author keep you going?” interesting* (Solar System Report * 6/6/89) Susie: "Well they have to sort of keep it Interesting an they add a lot of adventure parts.* (6/6/89)

Selected Reading Conference notes:

'interesting* (War With Grandpa - 11/22/88) 'Interesting* (flesf Friends • 11/22/88) *l didn't like it, it wasn't that interesting'.(7aran W anderer- 1/19/89) -Interesting* (T h e High King - 1/19/89) 'Real Interesting* (Roll ot Thunder, Hear My Cry - 1/19/89) *1 didnt like it it's not that interastlng*.(Ju//e o f th e W olves - 4/5/89) 131

Table 9 (continued)

*H its interesting to the reader* (6/6/39) Susla: *1 think its, well it an depends on the kind of person It is.* Teacher: ’Reading It. Whether they like it or not? •MmmHmmm.” Susie: So you're saying that if somebody tikes stories like th is, the/ll like this story?* Susie: *Yeah*(4/12/89)

*H you're interested in the pets of my babysitter and you like animals, you'll like ft.” (‘Porky ”• f 1/9/88)

"Well because It the reader Iftes the sotar system, then It would be interesting but if they don't then they wouldn't like it because it has a lot of information about the solar system.” (6/6/89)

Books about animals (Huck, Hickman, Helpler, 1987) are often identified as favorites of children and they are certainly important to Susie. “Interesting** was one of the most often used descriptive words in the Carter and Harris (1982) and Sammuels (1989) studies of why students like particular books, although such a general term gives little information as to whv a student thought a particular text was interesting. It could mean that the student lacks a more specific vocabulary to describe why she liked a book or story. Susie did realize that she wrote about animals a good bit of the time, that perhaps she needed to explore some other topics. Once I asked her what she would need to do to make her writing as good as some of the best books she’s read. She replied, “Well, I*m not sure but I guess not write 132

about animals all the time” (4/12/89). She realized that not everyone was as interested in animals as she was. Another interesting feature of Susie's responses is her expectations of a particular writer. Who the writer is plays into her evaluation of the writing. She believed that her own writing was judged by her peers primarily on the basis that she was the writer, so she, in turn, judged the quality of other writing by the identity of the writer.

Susie: My writing I just kind of decide if it’s interesting or not. Its real easy to decide if my writing is good. But with other people I have to actually look at the writing and if I like it or I don't then I think of the person who wrote it and then I try to figure out why its good or why it isn’t. Teacher: Does who wrote it have a lot to do with whether its good or not? Susie: Well if its not good and the person who wrote it is really goofy then I can understand it. Teacher: So you’re saying that the kind of person has something to do with the writing. So you’re saying you probably wouldn’t like something Kevin wrote no matter how good it was? Susie: (Susie nods) Teacher: Is that fair? Susie: For me it is. He’d probably be the same way.

This is similar to Purves’ evaluation of the author’s vision. In an attempt to interpret the author’s vision, the reader must know the author. In this case the work is judged by the writer. If the reader likes the author, she likes the work, if she doesn’t like the author, she doesn’t like the work. 133

The identity of the author is important to Susie when reading published texts and the texts of her peers. However, she identifies books and her own writing about animals, as the most important quality of a good text. The text must also be interesting or engage her interest 134

Max (high writer, low reader) It was most difficult identifying a member of the class who could be considered a “high reader, low writer.’' That in in itself is telling of the kind of impact that reading has on writing. Max’s reading skills are not actually very low, but he simply chooses not to read. His language skills are a bit higher than his reading skills, but he spends more time on writing and writes more and with fairly good quality. Therefore I chose Max as the student whose writing ability was better than his reading ability. Max is the kind of boy who would just like to have a good time in school all day and not have to be bothered with school work. He generally gets along well with his peers and has a good time with his friends. He is not necessarily socially immature, but still enjoys being a boy, and when he goes home from school, he enjoys playing hard. He is the oldest of two children and often talks about fighting with his sister. His parents are veiy supportive of him and the school and keep on top of his school work. Following are his scores on the California Achievement Test: 135 Table 10 Max - California Achievement Test Scores

NATIONAL NUMBER NUMBER ITEM STANINE PERCENTILE CORRECT OF ITEMS Vocabulary 5 46 37 55 Comprehension 5 46 42 55 Language 5 48 24 35 Mechanics Language 6 60 45 55 Expression Word Analysts 7 89 23 24

As stated before, these scores show some of the discrepancy, between reading and writing abilities, but do not give the total picture. Max said that he read seventeen books during the school year. Students were required to read four books a quarter (sixteen for the year) and Max read the bare minimum. A closer look at what Max was reading gives a better indication of his interests and habits. Hie books chosen were Choose Your Own Adventure, (two of these), N aria , Star Trek (three series-type adventure books), Ripley’s Believe it or Not, and two short story books; Scarey Stories and More Scarey Stories. As a sixth grade teacher, I would not consider these books particularly challenging or engaging. However, Max’s reading selections are typical of his age group in that he is reading series books and is interested in adventure and fantasy/science fiction. Although the genres he chose were mainly fantasy/science fiction, he did read some realistic fiction (Betsy Byars) and one biography which was assigned. 136

Reading conferences with Max were flat and lifeless. He was not much interested in discussing what he read and saw this time as a sort of quiz rather than a time to engage in talk about books as I had hoped. Max went through the motions with me, because it was required but did not seem to enjoy them. His reading was fluent and his retellings and comprehension good. Early in the school year, Max informed me that he did not like to read and had read no novels in the past twelve months. But later in a reading conference, he clarified that he enjoyed reading “when you find a good book, yeah" (10/13/88). On the reading survey, he said that there were many books in his home (500) and that he himself owned many books (100) but that he did not read that much. He said that the way he decides which books to read is to “guess." His writing did not contrast much with his reading habits. He enjoyed writing if he liked what he was writing about or enjoyed the topic. He completed thirteen pieces for the year, which was also just above the required three pieces a quarter. However, many of these were extended, thoughtful pieces. In his writing survey at the beginning of the year (9/8/88), he said, “It takes a long time for me to get going," and it did. But once he had an idea, he could pursue it. His writing topics were as varied as his reading genre and he wrote what he liked to read: science fiction/fantasy. 137

His writing was generally well-liked by his peers, especially his group of buddies who wrote together and enjoyed reading and writing fantasy/science fiction. His writing came in spurts; he wasn't a consistent, steady writer:

I'd like to know how students like Cory and Max, who don't work steadily everyday or write very much in class, suddenly come up with these long, sustained texts, like Max's ‘Azoul’ piece and Corey's ‘Space Camp’. They just seem to have break-throughs. (3/30/89)

Max and Brady talked the whole time about their writing. Max had a rush of inspiration and has been writing his poem. (4/5/89)

Max liked working with someone and often attached himself to projects already in progress that interested him. When Jimmy and Tom began the hunting story, Max decided to become involved.

Tom, Jimmy and Max are working on the hunting story. Max is doing most of the actual writing Tom and Max are very vocally writing their hunting story. Tom is telling die whole thing out loud while Max writes, (field notes 4/14/88)

Brady is working on another chapter of “Space Ace” and Max wanted to help until Tom reminded him he was supposed to help him(4/18/89) 138

Max viewed writing conferences as a mild form of torture and was pretty non-responsive. Even though all the students were aware of when conferences would occur and what the questions would be, Max always seemed unprepared. He either did not have much to say about his writing or did not want to say it to me. Here are his comments about his writing:

Table 11 Max - Writing Conference Comments

DATEPIECE COMMENTS Novombor 8,1980 1. "Three Inches Tall* "It was longer, more original. The Ideas flowed better. It sounded better." 2. Betsy Byars paper "It was neat."

3. Metaphor poem "1 wrote ‘Homework la like a punishment* and 1 think It is". January 26,1908 1, Chapter III of "Space Ace" "It was funny and 1 put a lot of thought into it* 2, Character description "1 Just like them."

"They’re better than others. 1 put 3, Umerick more time into it. It might be a little funny." April 4,1909 1. "Azoul" ‘1 liked it and its funny and 1 put some thought into it. Well 1 put more thought than usual

2. "Don't You Hate it When.." "They're good drawings and they're funny" 3. "Azoul's Revenge’ ‘1 out a lot of thouaht into it" June 0,1909 1. Azoul II "It's better because 1 spent more time on it. It's about what happens to Azoul,"

2. "The Day I Got My Turtle" *1 don't know, because 1 like it. It's about a turtle," 3. Chapter 1 of hunting story “It's about animals." 139

Max identified his best piece of the year as one completed early in the school year. It is also his longest piece. Chapter One of this piece is below and the entire piece can be found in Appendix K. 140

THREE INCHES TALL

CHAPTER ONE HELP I'M SHRINKING "Stephen, ere you In bed yet?" "No. Hon I" "Hell hurry up and pick up your chemistry set!" "Hold on. I need to go to the bathroom!" CRASH "What was that?" she yelled. "I tripped over my chemistry set and spilled everything on my pajamas." There I waa with colored powders and mixed liquids'all over me and my pajamas. I got cleaned up and went to bed. I woke up the next norning to the sound of sirens. I heard my mom say in a very sad voice, "I saw him go to bed but when I vent to wake him up, he wasn't there." I sat up. "Oh, my God!*, I yelled. "Everything turned big or did I turn small?" I jumped down from my bed which seemed like fifteen feet to the ground. I ran out of my room and stopped at the. top of the stairs. "How am I going to get down there?" I wondered. Just when I had jumped my way down twelve stairs, my Mom walked in crying and holding a handerkerchief. Oh no, I had to hide, I jumped Into a crack in the wall until my mom walked by. ■Whew", I sighed and sat down. Little did I know that it was the home of a big rat. When I turned around and saw it drooling at me, I was scared to death. "Oh no, what should I do?" He was staring at me with bulging eyes. Quickly I thought of a plan. I ran between his legs and behind my mom's plant but I was only safe for a moment before I'd be the rat's breakfast.

Figure 5 Max - Draft of 'Three Inches Tali' Story 141

I was surprised that he chose this piece because he was quite proud of his “Azoul” series. Azoul is one of his pet birds and he wrote a story poem about a right between his birds. These poems received a lot of positive attention from his peers. (This was also one of Jimmy’s favorite pieces by another student) “Azoul” was about a right between Azoul and Dwight which Azoul lost. Here is a sample of “Azoul’s Revenge”:

There he lay, the great champion Azoul, He looked like something out the “Dead Pool.” All the other birds had gone to celebrate This is something Azoul would hate.

The poem goes on about how Azoul recovers from the first fight and returns to the scene of the fight to find Dwight.

All of a sudden Dwight jumped him from behind, He said, “You must be out of your mind. Coming back for more fight to make you sore.” “Not so quick, Dwight, I will fight.” They started to roll and run into walls, It sounded like Niagara Falls.

Azoul wins this right and is returning home when he is stopped by another bird who says his name is Chiquita.

So they went out on a date to get to know each other Until Chiquita met up with her brother He took her away without a word to say Azoul stopped for a slushie It tasted all nice and mushie 142

Azoul gets another girlfriend by the name of Juanita, but when he sees Chiquita again, he knows she is the only one for him:

He showed up with a bouquet And went on to say, ‘Will you be my bride, with dignity and pride?* She said, ‘I have to confess, I must say yes.’ So they married and lived happily ever after, Their marriage was full of laughter. (4/27/89)

Max didn’t have much to say in reading and writing conferences and identified very few features which overlapped between writing and books.

Table 12 Max - Book and Writing Evaluations

BOOK EVALUATION WRITING EVALUATION "The detail, if it describes the characters and the scene, setting and everything.” (6/8/09) ‘Has to have detail.” (6/8/89) 'it's about what happens to Azoul.” (6/8/89) 'She makes it sound real.” (6/8/89)

While Max identified good writing as that which has humor, he never mentioned this about books and did not read books containing much humor. Humor for early adolescents is a relative phenomenon and perhaps contextual, so that what their peers think is funny may be funnier than what 143 happens in books. Max did read quite a bit of science fiction/fantasy/adventure, but never mentioned the subject of a book or piece of writing as a criteria for writing. For Max, the only criteria that overlapped about books and writing were that the use of detail and realism. These were also criteria that surfaced in many student interviews, as well as the Carter & Harris (1982) and Sammuels* (1988) studies.

Mindy (high reader, high writer) As indicated earlier, Mindy is a better representation of a high reader, high writer for this sample than James. Mindy is a solid reader ad writer, is thoughtful in her discussions about her reading and writing, and she serves as a heuristic in my thinking. Therefore, I felt it important to describe her thinking about books and her own writing as well as James who is truly a high reader, high writer. Mindy is a cheerful, enthusiastic reader and writer. She is the kind of student who is always at my elbow wanting to know if she can help me with anything. If a new student is assigned to my class, 1 assign Mindy to her to act as her guide. She is very kind to everyone and considerate of their feelings. Mindy has many friends and is well-liked by her peers and teachers. Mindy is a conscientious student. She wants to do well in school, cares about her school work, and that attitude is reflected in her grades. Reading and writing are enjoyable activities and rarely frustrate her. While her California Achievement Test Scores do not reflect high reading and writing ability, other criteria for selection (mentioned in Chapter 144

Three) qualified her for this category. (I wanted a balance of boys and girls represented in the case studies. Because the two previous categories (of case studies) were difficult to identify in this sample, and because Jimmy was a particularly articulate low reader and low writer, it was necessary to find a girl for this category)

Table 13 Mindy - California Achievement Test Scores

NATIONAL NUMBER NUMBER ITEMSTANINE PERCENTILE CORRECT OF ITEMS 6 68 44 55 Vocabulary 5 58 46 55 Comprehension Language 6 63 27 35 Mechanics Language 6 60 45 55 Exoresslon 7 89 23 24 Word Analysis

When asked, in the survey, why people read, Mindy replied, “to leam or for pleasure” (9/6/88). She said that she owned about 200 books and read at home for pleasure. At the time of the survey, she said she liked “all kinds of books, none in particular.” However, at the end of the school year Mindy was interested in what she termed “serious” writers, (in part meaning realistic fiction) - stories about kids with problems. Mindy read three fantasy books, one historical fiction, one nonfiction, one poetry 145

collection and nine realistic fiction.books. In reading conferences she informed me she “liked reading things about me” (12/6/88), and “reading about kids with problems” (1/9/89). Mindy read smoothly with confidence. She retold stories well, in very global terms, occasionally remembering details. When she felt she was having trouble understanding a book, she “paid close attention to it. I think out the whole plot. I have a picture in my mind. If I have trouble I go over my thoughts” (12/6/88). She often talked in terms of imaging the book. This is what she has to say about The Talking Earth:

It’s like having a dream, like a faint little cloud. I can see everything the way it looks. I see what’s going to happen and it does. (2/22/89)

Mindy seemed to enjoy talking about her books in reading conferences and often made connections between what she was reading and her life, other books or movies. Mindy was a quiet writer. She did not compose out loud and rarely worked with a partner. Occasionally she got involved with some of the play-writing that went on in the room, but she had her own ideas about what she wanted to write and pursued them on her own. Mindy often sat beside her friends as they wrote to be able to participate in any conversation that might occur, but she did not work with them.

Leanne and Mindy are working side by side. Leanne is cutting things out of magazines for her report. Mindy is working on her story. She is not talking to Leanne, just listening or watching. (5/1/89) 146

She often composed or recopied on the computer. Once in a while she approached me for my opinion: “Would you read this?” or “Tell me what you think so far.” After I offered my opinion she would quietly go back to writing. I also observed her asking the same of friends in the class, but she was selective; she only asked the ones who she considered took their work seriously. Mindy primarily wrote stories or plays. Her topics consisted of things known to her or within the realm of realistic fiction. Once she ventured into fantasy because she liked the idea of a book I read aloud in class {Under Plum Lake by Lionel Davidson) and she wanted to imitate it. She wrote a poem when it was assigned and one poem for her mom on Mother's Day. She surprised and pleased herself with this one.

Melissa shares more of her mother's day poem with me. I say, Tt sounds good.’ I think she just wants some encouragement to keep going. She says, Tt's amazing how I just come up with this stuff.' (5/11/89)

Later, she informed me, “I don't know how to write poems. I'm not a poem person.” Mindy was also used as a consultant by her peers, partially because she was viewed as a good writer and partially because she was kind and they knew she would be kind in her response. In her writing survey at the beginning of the year, she said she felt good about her writing. Here is what else she had to say about her writing: 147 Table 14 Mindy - Writing Conference Comments

DATE PIECE COMMENTS November 10,1088 1. Hors# story "It has more expression. It's exciting. It's good how everything happens - it seems lo fall into place

2. "Halloween’ "It’s like an adventure.”

3. "Falling In a Hole" "It's an adventure • how everything happens In the journey, but in a weird way. It has lots of characters and Instead of everything happening to one person it happens to all these different characters. It's about how people work together to get thlnas done." January 2 6 19B9 1. "Munchklns" play "Because 1 think 1 put a lot of effort into It. It was fun. 1 usually don't write fantasy things. 1 usually write things that could happen."

2. "The Mall Story* 2. "Because it was fun to write for a party thing and its like what 1 do"

‘1 like having emotional scenes 3. "Christy" from friendships." April 4,1989 1. "A Friend at School" "Well, they're all things that have to do with kids my age and they all have a special message I'm trying to get across." "1 seem to put more energy into h to make it better." "This would be more of a serious reading.

2. "Falling In a Hole" "It's the funnest one to read and write because 1 had tun with that.. 1 would think because it had to do with lots of story books combined In it. 1 guess this one would be more for kids to enjoy." 148 Table 14 (continued)

May 30,1989 1. "Summer Vacation" ‘It's longer and has different ideas because 1 always like the Ideas of two friends thinking up things to do.*

2, 'Poems’ *1 think It expresses everything about everything. It speaks of eveythlng about writing and poems.*

3. Report on gymnastics 3. *1 liked reading the book and 1 always like reading books and writing assignments. 1 think it's kind of fun even. It helps me understand as 1 go along..This writing helped me figure out things about gymnastics because 1 never knew about Bruce Jenner.’

Mindy identified “A Friend at School” as her best piece of the year. This was the piece she submitted to our class book. The opening is typical of the kinds of stories and books she identified as good.

Her name was Christy Montgomery and she had a problem. She is really mean to everyone and I want to help her. Christy seems to want to have friends accept (sic) she thinks that everyone has to come to her if they like her.

Most of them don’t like her because she is kind of skuzzy looking and isn’t all that pretty. I don’t know why I’m going to help her accept (sic) I guess in a way I know how she feels. I guess that I’ve been through the same things.

Today is September 14, 1989 and I’m starting my new year’s resolution early. I am determined to help that girl yet and that’s a promise. Tomorrow I start my work. 149

The protagonist goes on to befriend this unpopular girl, playing fairy godmother; giving her the new hair style and make up treatment, and inviting her over to her house. Of course, in the tradition of good Cinderella stories, appearances make all the difference. Christy says;

‘Thank you thank you thank you, I look like a totally different person, but your (sic) right I should loose (sic) the glasses.’

The Next Day at School As I walked down the hall I saw Christy with a lot of friends that day, it seemed as if I did not have a best friend anymore, or any popularity.

I guess that’s what happens when you meet a nerd and make them into a beautiful popular person. I wonder if we will ever be friends again? (4/3/89)

This piece can be found in its entirety in Appendix L. Mindy felt the key to success in writing was simply coming up with good ideas. I often heard this from other students, that if a writer had a good idea to begin with, the writing would take care of itself. I often asked them if they thought their work could get published and they generally thought that it could (and some did). She, as well as others, felt that individual styles should be respected for what they were. When I asked Mindy if there was anything she needed to do to make “A Friend at School” publishable she said: 150

Mindy: I would think for right now it would be good enough for it Teacher: OK. So there’s nothing else that you need to learn about writing. Mindy: It's just a matter of putting your ideas into words, into order. Teacher: So do you think you don’t need to take anymore writing classes after sixth grade? Mindy: I could keep learning about what other people do, because everyone's different and so if I see something from Chrissie's writing that I like, then maybe I could go from that and start writing different things, something like she does. Teacher: That's true. You can always leam from other people. Mindy: 'Cause you can't always be right with yourself, thinking ‘This is the only way to do it,’ you can’t do it any way else. Teacher: What do you mean? Mindy: Say like this is the only way to do it. Mostly everyone's writing is right, I mean it’s all different, its all good. Teacher: It’s just their own style? Mindy: UmmHmm Teacher: So everyone in their own way is good at what they do?) Mindy: Yeah Teacher: Because it's their way. Mindy: ’Cause you can’t just judge things by yourself, like say, 'Well I think this is good, but it should be more like mine.’ You should never say that. (4/4/89)

In comparing her book and writing evaluations, Mindy again mentions that different people have different tastes and that writers must be attuned to that in making their evaluations. 151 Table 15 Mindy - Book and Writing Evaluations

BOOK EVALUATION WRITING EVALUATION Teacher: 'What do you think makes the difference Teacher: What was your best piece for the year? between people'a books who get published and Mindy: 'Maybe *A Friend at School* because 1 people's who don't ? ' guess the one about falling in the hole one would bo Mindy: "Well, they must be a spectacular book, that for kids to enjoy, but the more serious one is it has to do with probably things that people would probably the best one for a person to read. say what influenced people as In kids or grown ups, Teacher: 'So you're going more for informing than just Influences, like this book.for Instance, Fam ily for entertaining in your writing?” Secrets (Norma Klein) on high school kids from Mindy: Right, 1 want to be more of a person to give divorces about how kids should deal with that and advice because 1 know people like to enjoy things how its like to have a stepfather or step mother.* but that's more for Dr. Seuss than It is for me.”

Reading Conference Notes: ”1 usually don't write fantasy things. 1 usually write things that could happen.” (1/28/89) ‘1 like things that have to do whh friends or any sort of relationships.” (5/18/89) *1 like all things that have to do with kids. They all have a message.” (4/4/89) *1 like to read about kids with problems, 1 liked this (Homocoming), but Judy Blumo explains more. (12/6/SB)

*1 liked It ( P in ta ils) in a different way. It's sadder. All the kids are coping with different problems.” (5/25/890 Teacher; "How do you decide if a book is a good Teacher: ”So how do you decide II something is one?” better than something else? For example, you like Mindy: 'Well I'm the kind of person who likes your 'Friend at School” piece the best. Is It relationships between friends and parents and because its about relationships?* daughters or sons, family relationships.* (5/30/89) Mindy: *Ummmyeah.”

1 like having emotional scenes from friendships" *1 mean just ones that have a lot of expression and (1/26/89) feeling.” (4/4/69) *lt has more expression.” (Horse Camp) (11/10/88)

Mindy's criteria for books and writing focus on the subject matter. This is similar to Purves (1968) category of generic evaluation which uses the notion of genre. Her favorite books are those about relationships, between family members and friends and problems that occur within these relationships. While she experiences a good relationship with her mother and her friends, she is still, as Holland suggests, seeking herself in texts and 152 responds most favorably to those which discuss what she is seeking. She is looking for texts that express or evoke feelings in her. She is looking for that lived-through experience that Rosenblatt discusses and she is attempting to provide that for her readers. Mindy, like Susie, judges the writing of others, in part, by who they are. She thinks that, if a writer finds what works for him or her, it is not our place to judge its quality.

Mindy: Except I try and get to know the person’s writing more and then see if its totally off and different from the way they do it, its that would be a hard judgement to make. Teacher: You mean different from their normal kind of writing? Mindy: Right that would be a hard judgement to make. (4/4/89)

According to Mindy, the person writing a piece is as important as the writing. When she evaluates her own writing, she is taking into account what she is capable of and whether or not this is up to her own standards. She is speaking of internal criteria, which is difficult to know what is in the mind of another reader or writer, or how others make judgments about the quality of writing: “Its just their writing.” James discusses this as well. 153

James (high Reader, High Writer) James is a very serious, conscientious student who does well in school, but is not obsessed by grades, probably because schoolwork comes easily to him. Socially, he is not that mature. He occasionally attends the dances and school activities, but isn't quite sure why. Although some girls like him, he never responds to their attention. He is a good and loyal friend to those who have the same interests, but is easily disheartened by friends who do not take his writing seriously. James was somehow overlooked for the gifted and talented class and 1 was lucky enough to have him in my class. Although, as demonstrated by his California Achievement scores, he probably should be in the gifted and talented class:

Table 16 James * California Achievement Test Scores

NATIONAL NUMBER NUMBER ITEMSTANINE PERCENTILE CORRECT OF ITEMS 9 99 55 55 Vocabulary 9 99 55 55 Comprehension Language 7 85 31 35 Mechanics Language 9 97 54 55 Expression 56 61 20 24 Word Analysis 154

He is the best reader and writer of all my students. He loves discussing books and writing and often tells me he will be an author one day. In a writing conference he told me, “I think I have a chance of being an author if I keep it up” (6/5/89). He often signs his journal, “Your future author.” In a journal entry, he told me he was finally able to find his voice as a writer and explore it.

This class has done wonders for me. It's finally introduced me to what writing, really writing is. Therefore I feel like I've come out of this class like a traveller (sic) comes out of a deep and treacherous valley. With this class I feel for once, like I’ve actually learned something, not just reworked the same old thing. (4/27/89)

James is not one to give hollow compliments. He also often complains to me that he can’t get good feedback from his peers because they just thought everything he does is good and he is frustrated by this.

...its always like ‘oh gee that’s good James and they probably weren’t listening. I just kind of feel like they’re really not interested, you know. They just, they’re just too interested in their boyfriend or something like that, than the writing you know. When we exchange papers I give them a suggestion and I go through it and literally pick the thing apart. I get mine back and it’s clean. Maybe there was one little word scratched off, that they managed to recognize. They think, ‘Oh this is great James you don’t have to change a thing and then I take it and I have to literally tear it apart. (3/28/89) 155

We often search for other audiences, outside of class for James; work and he often uses his mom at home. However, he is ambivalent about this; he doesn't want feedback in the middle of a piece because it interrupts his flow. Also when he gets suggestions at the end he is reluctant to make changes. We talk a lot about being clear about what he wants from a reader when he hands a piece of writing to someone. James often works quietly off in a comer of the room somewhere. He seldom works collaboratively unless someone asks him to work on something with him and it is someone whose writing he respects. However, in this room, even those who work alone, work alone together.

The loner table has become a community of loners - James, Jeff, Greg and Brian sit together but work separately, occasionally sharing with each other. (4/14/89)

Even though his peers quickly recognize him as the best writer in the room, they seldom use him as a resource. If he thinks someone seriously wants his input, he really lets them have it, and it usually overwhelms them. Or he grumbles about taking time away from his own writing and is reluctant to give feedback. So eventually students stopped asking him. He has one or two trusted friends in the room with whom he likes to share his work while it is in process. But these are boys who are as interested in science fiction and fantasy as he is and enjoy discussing the possibilities with him. James is a thorough and careful reader. He does not consume books as Susie did, but rather chooses carefully and generally challenges himself. In the survey at the beginning of the year he said he read twenty books in 156 the last twelve months and owned 400 books. His favorite books to read are fantasy and science fiction, but he also enjoys mystery and spy novels. He said he often rereads books and “sort of’ liked being read to. His favorite authors (at the beginning of the year) were J.R.R. Tolkien, Ian Fleming, Issac Asimov and “much, much more." When I asked him how he felt about reading he wrote, “I love it.” James read thirty-three books during the school year. Science fiction and fantasy dominated his reading list with fourteen books. When James becomes intrigued with a subject or a series he generally reads right through it. In September, he became interested in mythology and read about Greek, Roman, Egyptian and Japanese mythology. In December he read four ‘James Bond* books by Ian Fleming, in January he read through the Namia books, in April he read the Douglas Adam’s series: A Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy and in May he read five Hardy Boys books. For me, reading conferences with him are like sitting around with a friend discussing books we have read. I thoroughly enjoy talking about books with him and I believe he does too. He reads as a writer (Smith, 1983). Many of his comments are about what he would do differently in a book and what he likes. He likes books that have a good entertaining plot and keep him guessing until the end (1/5/89), or books that he “can't put down” (4/17/89). Endings are also important and he often comments on whether or not he likes the ending. He doesn’t like “happily-ever-after- endings”. In describing Banner in the Sky, he says, “It was exciting. They didn’t all live happily ever after. I like the ending to be real, like the end 157 of a real war movie, more realistic” (2/21/89). Books with lots of details (4/17/89) that bring the story to life are also good. He likes to read “to get away from the world and I don't like to read about people's problems. I have enough of my own at home” (5/12/89). Stories that develop characters are good. He doesn't like Sword of Shanara because “it doesn't develop the characters” (11/30/88). “I write my characters first. I don’t like to be surprised by characters” (11/30/88). This could explain why he often reads series books like Namia, the Hardy Boys books, and the James Bond series, who have characters the reader can depend on. James often wrote many chapters of the same novel, keeping his characters constant and exploring different plot twists. Science fiction and fantasy also dominate James’ writing. Seven of his fifteen completed pieces are of this genre, five are realistic fiction, two nonfiction, and one is a play Many of his pieces are narrative poetry. This is one of my favorites:

Deep within the darkening night In the middle of the lawn, Two duelists stand prepared to fight With pistols cocked and drawn.

One is tall and slim A master of this art, The other short and grim, Not quite fit to play die part.

Says the short one to his enemy, ‘You know we can not fight.’ ‘Why not?’ says Slim confusedly, 4 Well for one there is no light.’ 158

‘We’ll fight in dark,' brave Slim exclaims, ‘I'll not,* says Short steadfastly. ‘Will too* ‘Will not’ ‘Will too’ ‘W ill-’

Bang! Bang!

Deep within the early dawn, In the middle of the lawn, Two duelists lay upon that lawn Both are dead, both are gone.(l/9/89)

James often receives his ideas full blown and can sit down and write them in their entirety. I often tell him he reminds me of Robert Frost, who prowled around at night and received his ideas full blown and wrote them down in the morning.

James came in today and said he was struck (literally) with an inspiration last night for a poem. He sat down today and wrote the entire thing. It’s uneven in places, but is narrative form like his other one - ‘The Duel.’ (3/14/89)

James writes what he likes to read and his reading heavily influences his writing.

James rewrote his poem and the end is different, but I can see the influence of his fantasy reading. (3/30/89)

I think I’ll write something about espionage or how about a cheap ‘Choose Your Own Adventure?’ (5/18/89) 159

Even his assigned writing is influenced by what he reads. This is his metaphor poem:

Mares'-Tails The lances of a thousand knights, lined up across the sky, Preparing to launch the thunderous attack, Below them from on high.

Riding the winds like warhorses, They raise a white cloud of dust, To launch the heavy artillery, That turns iron to rust, or Lightning is the sparks that fly, Thunder - the horses hooves, Rain - the warriors sweat that falls To dance upon our roofs. (5/30/89)

He couldn't decide which ending he liked better and always wanted to include them both. Even his report writing has a flair. Here is the beginning of his report on space colonies: 160

j u y , ev> i t t l l f f |1— m y || m X i f l i f v

M t y it* J K u *wu>£y i o M , (Uny “J» , jftfcv d t t i u m o OAk 0^» i t.u------

of* .ptepty, dt* JUm > and/ «/•&>

Mi£ AlMa^V O/ t lmil'w HOUMJ niut i/141 i.jt./,.

■“^ ,‘ AA** UttMy w t A j*w (y w .v L &*£•£ %ta/> (‘/L —-rinf

eMiM>6 t» iu toll flti' JUtHl *frl U« JttHv, 0/ J**»< ^-gnM- ^*v

|>>»P

JuU>)-JAu Jv -4m -l*h*L- ««tw WUMjXy Jlf^M JUV

JAX> A> >W«A «((/* flHjpMltflJl <«>/■>/> gv lAuMjirf-j L y t , ' lllJil l> •ly w b ^ >v

«y»d««li, i «lyw1» ^..m«y) «Uu. nyw> uU£> ^Ui PaX am»Jr~:/y -k fry,

1L > am6 ».y.wi>Y

(W.tl«lJ »iy Mil? -iit.l/ u j/ JI.py «3U* «m l» jltj . . .

^ IP *-1"1 A* ^*»»» i nfwv ■**

MiUi ■WiW^j lil *01 H i. 1U> «w y tiJUy. aJwfc am?. 0m ^ mtU, •£•

^ ihJU J>n"y igf of/ iym> i^w'h Xov XtMi ok

Ao*t* fni "Y"*1' JhihJi f .iii'i ifamr JLum/ dtuu ttfidu^U , xyi, m,

XpiW# •*Wh» ^i* 1 ia^i (wil^Ljp XA*I Udt JLuip gj PHleAHuU rfiv ov&ii/.

"GmL Y«HI 4 «tiW «*■

.IttlJj fry, *J AmL XA«/.VdL Yww toW w I yggylil MWIilii IjQW/ .HU.

C^—Jm UtibL attni/ •HMnt f twagfJUiiiJH fulW u.llUU., ^-^-i y—“[

..yfttri rwiVJi A / m i J,, **JU thd i/tjiyf uoaJ/ i p rtV ti

A ' ifcifel.liy ton Hi I olw i'm til rnw yW ■!*[.—-^-.| ^ w J f - rt ^ . . I a I » y . , . 1 -l

«*h M/ j|(/ i l l f f . l l fry, oUiW Hi# ■*«*!«tlj. •‘ ‘f(J-J ‘ y ^ U b .'iljL ' J L u « > jty

it j fi>mm; Mmxj Jult>^ XU y ip'Cifm yut()>v ok Cufti - — 7 - J ^ u

frJ 'i ***&, oJ< X1m« cXml1 ouyfU'w uimlii tM< iLtLp-Okt., MU*

^MhMy 0W XU Otliwji mX X oh / OiP |tU .IX mtty , *WfVw«Lw.(U. h U U y i A y f * m-1 m**, frJity, 0(4 |IoIimJ i«J i> * * UU ^h»i i m ii Hwwy X —‘-llnfr

I IMMiy, Jgno J*H' | 4^ 0»X yXlj.nl> -AlH* iJWwtl I'XHV {Q.U Oifc

^ itXi.ttt *ti*u* oni> iU -■--■•*•-» Xltyi — ^XL, . .

Figure 6 James - Draft of Space Colony Report 161

When asked, on the beginning-of-the-year survey, how he felt about his writing, he replied, “When I complete a writing, I am usually satisfied, but I always want to do better.” He added , “Give your students time. A masterpiece can not be done in a day” (9/6/89). Here is what he has to say about his writing at the quarterly writing conferences: 162 Table 17 James - Writing Conference Comments

DATE PIECECOMMENTS November 8,1968 1. 'Nightmare Under the Full "Well, the length, It's pretty long. Moon" {Chapter 1) 1 worked hard on H. 1 took the ideas and stretched It to Its fullest potential. The Idea and the wording are what makes it different.*

'It's not as Interesting as 2. Friendship paper 'Nlahtmare'.* January 25,1989 1. -foldnlght Duel* 'It's organized and It has a decent rhyme scheme. 1 think Its understandable. It came to me fast and 1 revised It and 1 was done,"

2. "Puzzling Case* *1 still need to work on that - its a little unrealistic. 1 overdid the helicopter part. 1 got a good start and then 1 ran into a wall. It's even though. It catches you in the beginning and keeps you going."

'It starts nine months after the 3. 'Star Wars'Sequel death star is destroyed. It's a Utile more realistic than some kids would have it. 1 didn't like the other sequels so 1 decided to do mv own.* March 28,1969 1. 'School Shoot Out' 'It's longer and more involved. I'm trying to make it as realistic as possible. 1 think that its the way the characters react to the sltuat!on..My mom told me, 'Let's see if you can think up a moral' and I'm just writing this to write it you know. The main thing that I’m writing this for is I'm trying to figure out how would 1 react if someone were gunned down In this room or 1 might find the teacher sprawled out on the floor and my best friend dead,*

2, “Giant* poem "It's good in its own way. It's good and Its a good idea. It was made to be humorous with a little quick plot and a little moral which everyone probably knows about anyway. 163 Table 17 (continued)

Juno 5 ,188B 1. "Choose Your Own Adventure" *t think that was the best idea 1 got this year. Something went and 1 just said, this Is good and 1 just wrote ft down"

2. "Space Colonies" (report) "1 liked that. 1 managed to get H done and make it Bomewhat interesting. 1 was afraid 1 was going to make It so boring. Just a statement of fact. 1 liked the style of that."

"i like that. I kind of did it with a 3. Metaphor poem point involved. 1 didn't feel like doing the assignment , so 1 thouoht uo something to do."

Although James often talked about his novel and discussed the chapters, the piece he chose as best of the year was “A Fairy Tale Lesson.” He thought the chapters of his novel were the best, but he was concerned about putting something in the class book that was only part of the picture. He was also unwilling to share the chapters with too many people until the entire novel was finished. Here is “A Fairy Tale Lesson”: Their (sic) once was a giant, As big as one can be, With a large, heavy club, Made from a pine tree.

He had a bristly beard His skin was unclean, He loved to smash castles, Boy, was he mean.

He charged through the forest, This big ugly lout, And with his mighty fist so strong, He knocked the trees about.

He charged upon the castle He kicked the great wall down, Then he charged upon the courtyard, And romped about the town.

And under the rumble of the giant’s feet, The buildings - broad and tall, Did shake and tremble - people screamed, And then they had a fall.

An hour did blow, arrows flew, The knight did give a charge. But stomp and squish and stomp again, The giant was too large.

The giant felled the towers, He smashed the old king’s court, He caught the people left and right, And ate them with a snort.

And then a jester leaped straightforth, From behind a tree, He juggled and whistled and hopped about, and laughed aloud with glee. 165

Then he became most solemn, He became as quiet as a mouse, Then he said, “Bool” and “Oh boy I scared you!” And the giant ran back to his house.

Then the people rebuilt the castle, And they made the fool a king, The people laughed and celebrated, And made the church bells sing.

And the giant ran on through the forest, For the brute was four of age, And so it proves again, to those who may still doubt- PEOPLE ARE NOT ALWAYS WHAT THEY SEEM.

And so I warn you reader - be wary of those around, The cheats, the braggarts, the rogues, the louts, For only together, if together we stand, Can we give these brats a rout.

James was very articulate about his writing and his reading, so I was able to get a very rich picture of his thinking about response and evaluation. 166 Table 18 James - Book and Writing Evaluations

BOOK EVALUATION WRITING EVALUATION Teacher: *What makes a good book?* Teacher; 'Do you use those criteria on yourself?* James: "Wall first of all If 1 lika the plot and It kept James: *Yes 1 do. 1 write the thing. 1 try to keep it me entertained, did 1 laugh a little bH?* somewhat entertaining but 1 don't want it to be to the point where they take two steps and draw their Reading Conference Notes swords, fight a thousand goblins and they they take *Uttle entertaining plot* {Computer Nut- S/12/89 two steps and fight a thousand trolls and then they laugh in the middle. You have to keep It going*

•Opens In action* (Douglas Adams series 4/17/89) •It catches you in the beginning and keeps you going.* (1/25/89) Ttept me guessing until the end* (/ce B r e a k e r - James Bond • 1/5/89)

Teacher: Who's your favorite author?)* ‘The idea and the wording are what makes it James; *Well, Richard Adams, 1 like his detail and different.* (11/8/88) his, umm the way he handled it, It wasn't ]ust a little baby rabbit who talked like humans and sat on rocking chairs and just like you and me. But every time humans came around, it was like whoosh and they're animals, you know.”

‘Very good description* (The Once and Future King - 9/26/88)

•What sets his writing apart Is his attention to detail* (about James Ramsey Ulman author of Banner in th e S k y *2/21/89)

•He has a great way of describing things.* (Douglas Adams author of Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy- 4/17/89)

•It's not the best book. He doesn’t develop the •I'm trying to make it as realistic as possible. 1 think characters.* (Sword ofShanara - 11/30/88) that its the way the characters react to the situation.*

*1 think his (Douglas Adams) purpose was to explain *1 liked that. 1 kind of did it with a point Involved.* life more to show that we're not the 6/5/89) center of the universe* (4/17/89) 167

While James loved to talk about books and about his writing, he was reluctant to say what was good about his writing and often sidetracked me in conferences or say “I don’t know why its good - you tell me.” In one writing conference (3/28/89) he said,

James: I feel like a hypocrite. I hate standing up here and talking about why my piece is good. Teacher: Do you think it is good? James: Yeah, I think its good. Teacher: Then why do you have trouble talking about it then? James: Well then everybody else, ’course I think its good, its my piece Teacher: Do you think anybody else thinks its good? James: I don’t know. That’s one thing about this class that I don’t like. (Here he goes onto complain about the lack of what he considers serious response from his classmates.)

James, like Jimmy, wrote a lot of poetry, though I asked neither boy what made a good poem. Implicit in James evaluation of his own poetry, is that good poetry rhymes because James always wrote in rhyme. However, it is again difficult to compare the elements of poetry and story. Implicit in James’ evaluations is the importance of genre or subject matter. While he does not say it directly in his writing evaluations, his choices generally have to do with science fiction or fantasy in writing and in literature. James chose science fiction /fantasy for both reading and writing. 168

James does mention several features of response and evaluation. An interesting or entertaining plot is important, especially one that grabs the reader’s attention and holds it. While he suggests that what is “interesting”or “entertaining” exists in the mind of the reader or writer, he uses these terms to evaluate both his reading and writing. James sees one feature of an interesting or entertaining plot as the author’s attention to detail. James often mentions the use of details in the books he has read which bring the story to life or “make it realistic” and pays close attention to detail in his own writing. This excerpt from a piece entitled “Me and Gaven” illustrate this attention to detail in his writing:

The kid was tall and pale, wearing some swimming trunks and dripping wet. His hair was brown and disheveled. His eyes were sunken and curious. His nose was flat and his mouth rather large. His cheeks were lined with freckles. One of his large, dark eyebrows raised slightly as he watched me go, then he turned and ran into his house. We were destined to meet again.

That evening I was out in the front yard when he and a young women carrying a baby came walking up the sidewalk. He was fully dressed now, with his hands in his pockets looking at the ground in a shy way. And so I met Gaven, one of my best friends (10/30/88).

He goes on to describe how the friendship developed, what kind of person Gavin was, and what they did together. This example also illustrates the importance James places on character development in his writing and the writing he reads. In book conferences he was disappointed if authors did not develop their characters 169

The last feature James discusses in writing and reading conferences is a moral or a point. Purves (1968) calls this the "criteria of moral significance." Occasionally James explicitly wrote a moral at the end of a piece. In “A Fairy Tale Lesson" he writes in the last stanza, "People are not always what they seem." When talking about the Douglas Adam’s Hitchhiker’s Guide series, he thought the author's intent was to explain that we (on earth) were not the center of the universe, and he cited the idea as one reason why he liked those books. James, like Susie and Mindy, discussed the importance of knowing the writer when making judgements about his or her work. He has certain expectations about writers, both student and professional, that he brings to the reading of a work:

James: Often times I judge it by the way I see the characters, especially a student’s writing. I mean how do they act and what do they write, what is their best way? Teacher: You mean the person who’s writing it? James: Yeah like what is he like and is this to his standards. Does it look like he copied it and he's really one of the most imaginative people you know know.. Teacher: Do you do that with published authors?..When you pick up a book sometimes you have certain expectations - especially when you get into a series like Douglas Adams’- Have you ever done that and been disappointed? James: Well I was a little disappointed with one of Douglas Adams’ books..It wasn’t that I didn’t like it as well, it wasn’t what I was expecting because he made at the end of Hitchhikers was that they were going to go and I was expecting something like the casino bar in "Star Wars," like how they spend most of their time in that restaurant but instead they get sidetracked. 170

Teacher: So when you’re reading students’ writing you're saying that the person who’s writing it is as important to the writing as the writing itself? James: Yeah Teacher: Do you think that's true for published authors? James: Well it depends how much I’ve read of the author if I just picked something up then I really don’t know how to judge it (6/5/89).

James has several criteria for evaluating the literature he reads and his own writing. He looks for entertaining plots, usually within the science fiction/ fantasy or action/adventure genre. He also wants this plot to draw him in quickly. The text must have well defined characters and he likes a point or moral to those texts he reads or writes. The effective use of detail and description are also elements of a good text.

* Summary This chapter describes how five students in this study viewed the relationship between evaluative response to the literature they read, and self evaluation of their own writing. In order to be sure that a relationship existed between students’ response to literature and their self evaluations, that was not related to their reading and writing ability, students were chosen with a range of abilities. The criteria for the case study selections were: a low reader, low writer; high reader, low writer; low reader, high writer, and high reader, high writer. Descriptions of the five children and the reasons they were selected are included. Jimmy, the low reader, low writer, defined quality in books and writing, as texts that were realistic, full detail and description. Susie, the high reader, low writer, defined quality as those texts which were about 171 animals, more specifically cats, and those that were “interesting." Max, the low reader, high writer, had little to say about his reading and writing, but thought that texts which used detail in order to make the story sound real were good. Mindy, a high reader, high writer, for this sample of students, thought the subject of a text was the most important criteria. Those texts about kids with problems, or about some kind of relationship that express the feelings of that relationship and situation were the best in her mind. James, the exceptionally high reader and writer, evaluated literature and his own writing according to the following criteria: if the plot was entertaining and drew the reader in quickly, had well defined characters, used detail and description effectively and had a point or moral to it CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS: THE NATURE OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RESPONSE TO LITERATURE AND WRITING SELF-EVALUATION

Stories...are influenced, of course, by other stories — in this case the work of others who have thought and written about language development and its relation to education....But most important, a story is the expression of the present attempt by the teller to find meaning in those experiences. There can be no true stories. The evidence is never so complete or so unambiguous as to rule out alternative interpretations. The important criteria in judging the worth of a story are: does it fit the facts as I have observed them and does it provide a helpful basis for future action? (Gordon Wells, The Meaning Makers, p. xiii)

Chapter V is the story of my observations and interpretations. In Chapter IV I have described five student evaluative responses to literature and their own writing. However, as Lunsford (1989) has pointed out, “Any representation is an interpretation," and those interpretations have been influenced by the studies described in chapter two. In this chapter, I will tell the story of the entire population of students I observed and discuss the nature of the relationship between evaluative response and self evaluation of writing, in the form of major findings. The data used to

172 173 make these interpretations are provided so that the reader can make his or her own interpretations. This study set out to explore the nature of the relationship which might exist between students* evaluative responses to self selected literature and personal evaluations of their own writing. This chapter will discuss how students’ self evaluations relate to response. There will also follow a description of the commonalties of the relationship between response and self-evaluation as identified by the students in this study. A brief review of the literature suggests that a relationship could exist between reading response and writing self evaluation. In 1938, Rosenblatt proposed a transactional model of reading. Fifty years later, Rosenblatt spoke of a transactional model of reading and writing. Smith (1983) suggests that students read texts like writers. Shanklin (1981) proposed a transactional model of writing and Murray (1982) says that writers are their own first readers, that they have an inner reader “who continually reacts to what the writer has written and decides how well the reader as writer or writer as reader is achieving his or her goals“(140). Kucer (1983) has suggested that readers and writers draw from the same cognitive and linguistic pool. Probst (1989), Wamock (1989), Kucer, (1989) and Baumlin & Baumlin (1989), have discussed the notion that teachers respond to student writing. They posited a transactional model of teachers reading student papers. A natural follow up question to this proposal then is, do students transact or respond to their own papers and if so, what similarities exist between these two kinds of response? My findings suggest that there is a relationship between response and 174 evaluation, that response is one part of self-evaluation. It is not the whole story, but it is part of the story. The students in this study responded to the same elements in literature and their own writing to which students in Purves’, Squire's, and Hepler's studies responded. Squire (1968) identified four levels of response to a text including the patterns of events, roles, and worlds. He also suggests that children take up the role of characters in a story and reshape and improvise on that character. Helpler's (1982) response study in supportive contexts also found that students appreciated clear characters in the books they read. The role of character was also important to the students in this study in their evaluations of their own writing and the books they read. Purves' (1968) study discussed four ways that a student responds to a piece of literature, the most relevant of which is evaluation. Included in the discussion of this study in Chapter Two is a list of all the elements that the students mentioned in Purves' study that pertained to evaluation. My findings were very similar to many of Purves' sub-categories.

Major Findings The question guiding this study was: What relationship exists among students' evaluative response to self selected literature, and their personal evaluations of their own writing? Self-evaluation in writing was examined through sixth-grade students' reading and writing conferences as well as participant observation. This methodology was successful in capturing, in part, the nature of the relationship shared by response and evaluation. First, I will discuss two general principles that were characteristic of the 175 students* self-evaluations and response. The first indication of a relationship between self-evaluation and response was the blurring in the students* minds between what they liked and what they considered good. For the students in this study, these two concepts were synonymous. A second principle which will be considered is the aspect of distance between published texts and students own texts. Finally, a discussion of the specific features of the relationship between evaluation and response will follow. Evaluation, like response, is idiosyncratic. The students in this study responded to a variety of features in the books they read and in their own writing. However, there were many commonalties between writing and literature within students and among students. The case studies in Chapter Four pointed out the similarities between the response and evaluation within students. 'Hiis chapter will discuss the commonalties across students. The first indication of a relationship between response and evaluation was in how students responded to questions about their own writing and books. When asked, in reading and writing conferences, why a piece of literature or writing was good, the students would answer with, **I like it because...** I noted this in my Held notes:

I have to be careful how I word my questions, but what I’ve noticed is that there is little difference (in most kids* minds) between ‘What makes it good?* and ‘Why do you like it?* (4/6/89)

This would indicate that in the student’s mind there is little difference between “what is good”, and “what I like.” The student assumes that if he or she likes it, it is good, so the answers given are reasons why he or she 176 liked it. Between eighty-five and ninety percent of the students responded in this way in writing conferences. Applebee might consider this a less mature response, that the child has not reached formal operations in his or her thinking about the piece. Puives might call this a personal rather than an objective response. At this point in time, research does not exist regarding the development of a child’s evaluative criteria. This study suggests that evaluation develops as many other language functions in reading and writing develop, but it is difficult to make claims from these data about how that occurs. These data suggests that, as Applebee (1978) has described, evaluation of writing could develop simultaneously and in the same way that response to story develops. In A Child’s Concept of Story (1978), Applebee described response to story utilizing Piaget’s stages of development. Applebee claimed that evaluation does not become systematic until the concrete operational stage. At the early stages of evaluation, children responded to a piece according to how the text affected them as readers rather than more objectively (Applebee, 1978 ) considering the message and the structure of the text. As children mature, they do consider those elements as well as refine and extend the meaning of what they read beyond the text. It would appear that students do not have the same distance from their own texts that they do from published literature. The students in this study often wanted to choose their best piece as the one they were currently working on because they felt that it would be their best piece. However, they were only allowed to choose from completed pieces upon which they had had a chance to reflect over time, which created distance 177

from the piece. Students generally chose as their best the piece that I would have chosen and these choices were often confirmed by other students. But I also found that, even during the writing of a piece, students knew how that piece ranked against all their other work. When students started something exceptional, they knew it and remained committed to it, to be sure that it remained of high quality.

Jamie: I have this new story. It’s really cool. It’s going to be a blockbuster.

When Jamie was working on ’Bubbles’ at one point, she decided to send it to a magazine or contest, so we looked together at the list I have hanging in my room of places that publish student work. She had it in her head to send it to Seventeen. I thought it was too long.

From the beginning, she knew this story was different. I felt so, too. But what made it different and what made her decide to send it off? She felt it was better at the beginning and so was committed to it throughout, (field notes 3/17/89)

Students also knew when a piece wasn't going well and generally abandoned those pieces: ’’This story is going nowhere slow’’ (Collin: 5/10/89). Students were also able to sort through the stories they told of their experiences and decide which ones were worth writing about:

The kids have lots to tell. They come in everyday with stories. But when I say, ‘Write it down,' almost always they say, ‘It wasn’t that exciting. It’s not good enough to write down.’ (3/27/89) 178

For most kids, starting a new piece is a little like falling in love with someone. At first they love the new piece — its new, and its exciting, and they haven't known it long enough to see all its warts. Then as the relationship (with the person or the piece) continues they become more objective. But if it is a good one, it will stand the test of time. (5/15/89)

I do not believe any reader is totally objective about reading any piece of text, whether they wrote it or not. There is always some level of what some would term “subjective" response in any reading. Some might contend that writers are less objective about their own pieces than they are about the literature they read. My data suggests that students can also approach their own writing with some degree of objectivity through the distance of time. Through this study a richer understanding of how children evaluate their own writing was gained as well as how self-evaluation relates to response. Students identified twenty-one elements of what they considered good literature and when evaluating their own writing named twenty-three elements of good writing. Of these, eighteen were common to both writing and reading. Following is the list of comments which students used to describe a good book or good author and their own best writing The words of the students are used in order to show the remarkable similarity of what they commented on. 179 Table 19 Common Factors of Books and Writing

BOOKS WRITING 1. Creatlve/original/different 1. Creative/originat/dffferent/good Ideas/Used imaalnatlon 2. character/gels you into the 2. character character/thinking like the character 3. gets you into the story/il's like you're 3. gets into the story/felt like I was there there 4. real/realistic 4. real Bte/lrue S. subject (animals, sports, etc.) 5. subject (animals, nature, kids with problems, sports, etc.) 6. detail 6. detail 7. makes sense/explained clearly 7. makes sense 8. relates to me/about kids 8. relates to me 9. flows/doesnl jump around 9. flows/doesn't jump around/things fit toaether 10. full ol actlon/advenlures 10. action/adventure 11. genre: 11. genre: historical fiction poetry mystery mystery realistic fiction plays scary scary fantasy 12. lenoth (short) 12. length (Iona) 13. funny 13. funny 14. picture It In mv mind 14. picture it In mv mind 15. Interestina 15. interestina 16. bealnnina and endlna 16. endlna 17. effort— easy to read 17. elfort— time put into It/ took more time/thouaht about it more 18. point the author was trying to get 18. Moral/point I was trying to get across across 19. makes you want to keep 19. had fun writing It/enjoyed writing it reading/didn't want to put It down/held my attention 20. can't predict what's going to happens 20. experience new things by like surprises writina/leamed by writing 21. plot 21. write better with someone 22. liked the words/ different words/ big words 23. pictures add to it/drawings 180

Within this broad listing there were categories of response and evaluation to reading and writing that can be applied to these data. First, I will give an overview of the discussion of the findings and then outline the characteristics of the relationship. In reading and writing conferences students were always asked at least two questions: 1) Why is this book you have read good? 2) Why is this piece of writing good? These questions were a way of asking students: 1) What do you consider quality in the literature you read? 2) What do you consider quality in your own writing?

The features of quality that students identified in the books they read and in their own writing can be divided into two categories: 1) Text-based features and 2) Reader/Writer-based features. The text-based features included the subject, the characters, the craftsmanship of the writing (descriptive detail, flow, visual appeal and immediacy), a moral, and the length of the text. Reader/writer-based features included identification, the time and effort involved, descriptors of personal response (funny, original, exciting and interesting) and engagement. Following is a discussion of the students* view of the nature of the relationship between literature response and writing self evaluation as embodied in these features. 181

Features of the Relationship

Text-based Features These are features which reside more in the text than in the reader or writer. They are the elements a reader transacts with or evaluates in the reading or writing experience. These features include the genre and subject of a text, the craftsmanship of the text (including descriptive detail, visual appeal, flow and immediacy), the moral or point contained within the text and the length of the text.

T opics

Genre. Between books and writing, the most often mentioned feature was the genre and/or subject of the text. Genre was also one of the categories Purves (1968) identified in his study of students' written responses to literature which he called "generic evaluation, which uses as its criterion the abstract notion of genre” (p. 42). Reading conference comments generally reflected a knowledge of genre:

I liked Turn Home Hanalee the best. It was historical Action I like books from the Civil War the best. (Shelly 5/18/89)

I liked the Hardy Boys because I liked the adventure. (Keyoor) 182

While genre was a general topic which appeared in many students’ comments, there was little overlap in terms of the kinds of books the students liked to read and the writing which they thought was their best (see Table 20 for the breakdown). This reflected the variety of interests and personal experiences students brought to sixth grade.

Table 20 Genres of Books and Writing

BOOKS WRITING GENRES: GENRES: Historical fiction Poems Mystery Plays Realistic Fiction Mystery Fantasy Fantasy Horror (Scarv) Horror (Scaiv)

The two genres that overlapped the most were realistic fiction and fantasy. Students that liked to read realistic fiction liked to write it and students who read fantasy liked writing it. These students also often thought the realistic fiction and fantasy were their best pieces. Poems and plays were the most popular of the genres written by students because they enjoyed the experience of writing the play or poem. Some students simply liked poetiy. 183

I just like it better. It sounds better. I like poems better. Stories are different than poems. Stories explain more but poems, I like listening to them and writing them better. (Wendy 1/10/89)

For students like Jimmy, who struggled with writing, poetry seemed to be a more manageable form and he could complete a poem successfully. Many of the references to poetry had to do with rhyme (12 of the 20 references referred to the fact that a poem rhymed). Students felt this was an important feature in their own poetry. I believe this was also a feature in the poetry they read and chose to share with each other, but the only data I have to support that are a few field notes. Students often read poetry aloud to each other which had a pleasing rhythm or rhyme. Plays were the next most commonly mentioned genre in writing conferences (Of the sixteen responses, poetry was named eight times and plays were named five times). Every play that was written was written collaboratively, either with a partner or in a group and almost every play that was written was performed. Students who wrote plays anticipated them being performed and that was part of the play-writing experience. For many, the experience of writing the play was what made the play good. Plays were often written with the other members of the class in mind as the audience as well as the participants. Playwrights had to know who would portray their characters before they wrote them. Since, plays are not really meant to be read silently, alone, plays were never chosen for use within a literature theme, and only a couple of plays became available in the classroom for students to read as models for their own writing. Therefore, as readers, these students had only limited 184 access to plays unless they dug them out of the school library (which had limited resources) or the public library.

Subject. Students also expressed an interest in “the subject” without any mention of a specific subject. However, most students referred to a specific subject. Their interest in the subject itself or their response to it influenced their evaluation of it. If a student liked the subject, as evidenced by Susie's interest in cats, then the book or piece of writing was considered good. These are the subjects most often mentioned in reading and writing conferences:

Table 21 Subjects of Books and Writing

BOOKSWRITING Animals Animals Kinds of things 1 like to do Sports (soccer, football, hunting) Kids with problems Kids with problems Nature Friends Cars Motorcycles Airplanes Unicorns A trio to my dad's 185

Writing comments were of this nature:

I like airplanes and it's about airplanes. (Ramey 1/26/89)

If you like dolphins you'll like it. (Anna 11/10/88) Reading comments mirrored these:

It was about planes and I like planes. (David 5/18/89)

Students also had very strong opinions about authors they liked within the classroom and outside of it To some extent, favorite authors can also indicate a genre preference. These are the favorite authors in the order of most to least favorite:

1. Betsy Byars

2. Roald Dahl

3. Anne Martin (Babysitters* Club books)

4. Stephen King

5. (tie)James Howe Lloyd Alexander Francis Pascal (Sweet Valley High books) Shel Sllversteln Beverly Cleary Cynthia Voight S.E. Hinton Lois Duncan Paula Danzinger 186

6. {lleJE.B. White C.S. Lewis Mary Downing Hahn William Christopher Louise Sachar Ellen Raskin Matt Christopher V.C. Andrews Franklin Dixon (Hardy Boys books) Scott O'Dell

Roald Dahl and Betsy Byars were often chosen because they were funny or realistic — two features that occurred frequently in the data. Occasionally students mentioned attempting to write in a particular way that a favorite author did — not necessarily to imitate their style (although this did occur), but a particular feature that a student liked. For example, James tried to write with the same attention to detail that Richard Adams did and Jimmy tried to use realistic detail the way that Cynthia Voight did. James as well as Greg, Jeff and a few other students attempted to write their own Choose Your Own Adventure books. Mindy wrote about kids with problems because she liked to read authors who wrote about the same. One student was writing a script which he was going to send in to Fox television for their “Star Trek: The Next Generation” series. This same student often sent letters to Nintendo game magazines and imitated the style of letters and articles in those magazines in order to get published.

Craftsmanship These are stylistic features that were evaluated on an aesthetic level. How well does the piece do what the author intended? How well did the writer craft the piece? Applebee suggested that only mature readers respond to these kinds of features. He considered this response a more 187 objective consideration of the message and structure. According to Applebee, literary analysis begins as readers attempt to refine and extend the meanings of what they read. Students identified four stylistic features in their reading and their writing: description, detail, visual appeal, flow, and the ability to draw the reader in to the story.

Descriptive Detail. This was one of the most often-cited features of students* own writing. Students said the book or writing was “descriptive” or “it described" or “described what’s going on.” When asked what good writers do, students said, “they describe well.” Students identified this as a feature of good writing and attempted to utilize it in their own writing.

Linda: Listen to this and see if I’m still being descriptive. (2/23/89)

Julie: How could you describe thunder besides ’boomed’? Several students offer suggestions and she goes back to writing. (3/2/89)

Cara is drawing a chalk picture of a sunset and says she’s going to write a poem to go with it. She says,’I don’t know if this is a sunrise or a sunset, but I’m going to make it really descriptive.’ (3/9/89) 188

Often students used “description” and “detail” interchangeably to describe a piece of writing or a book. Details were often cited in reading conferences as ways the author brought a text to life.

I like the details, I thought it ( Homecoming) was a good story (Jimmy, reading conference 6/6/89)

Teacher: Who’s your favorite author? James: Well, Richard Adams, I like his detail and his, umm the way he handled it (Watership Down), it wasn’t just a little baby rabbit who talked like humans and sat on rocking chairs and just like you and me. But every time humans came around, it was like whoosh and they're animals, you know.” (writing conference 6/5/89)

Teacher: How do you decide if its a good one? Max: The detail, if it describes the characters and the scene, setting and everything.( reading conference 6/8/89)

In writing conferences, students simply cited “the detail” in their own writing, as the aspect that made the piece good. However, when they spoke of detail in the books they read, it was usually in reference to the way that the author was able to bring the story to life or make it realistic. I think the students were describing a phenomenon similar to the one that Garrison Keilor (1988) describes in his Lake Woebegone stories : 189

...because you believe if you get every detail right, absolutely right and every character in that story has exactly as many hairs on his or her head as he or she is supposed to have....If you get everything absolutely perfect you will be lifted up out of this life and set down in that wonderful place you've told stories about and all of your stories will be true, (audio tape, “Spring”)

Visual appeal. In this media age, it could be that students see books and texts in their minds the way they see movies and television. Comments about the reader's ability to picture the text, whether it was a published work or the students’ own, were made frequently. Edmiston (1990) described the importance of visual imagery in readers’ engagement with a text. “Imagery is a key feature of engaged reading. Images arise through the eyes of characters, from the various points held by the reader, and as readers scan the setting.” (p. 273)

Becky says, ‘If I ever make a movie out of this (her story). You know what I’m going to do while they show the credits?’ (She proceeds to describe the scene.) I say, ‘Write that at the end so you don’t forget. (3/29/89)

A great deal of the students* writing was illustrated, which may have facilitated the writer’s ability to mentally picture the story and therefore make it possible for the reader to picture the story. Sometimes, students would draw just to get the writing started. These early pictures were often not used to illustrate the final text. Sometimes the students drew just to picture their story or character, to clarify their thinking, work out details and get to know their characters. 190

Linda: (wants to write a picture book) Name an animal. Teacher: Raccoon. Linda: (Starts to write a story, well actually draw pictures about a raccoon.) Julie: (Sitting beside Julie drawing a chalk drawing of a bee on black paper.) Linda: I know, 1*11 write one about a bee named Honey. Julie: When I draw I think of a story to go with it. This bee’s name is Max. (later that period) Linda: (Has two pictures for which she has written the text. She’s changed the bee’s name from Honey to Tulip. The pictures of the bees are cute. She then explains what would happen in the story) ...and Tulip will come back with no honey and she comes back with her antlers all drooping. Julie: Antlers? Linda: (Has visualized the pictures as well as planned the text.) (field notes 4/14/89)

Matt drew a picture of a guy on the board with colored chalk. Right now there are two mermaids, two poems, a punk rocker and Matt’s guy on the board. Matt says it’s a character in his story. He finished drawing and sat down to write.(field notes 5/26/89)

Tom and Jimmy were talking about a car crash they saw this weekend and drew a diagram of the crash and then decided to write about it. (field notes 5/30/89) 191

Darby showed me a poem she'd written about flowers. It was pretty cliche. I asked what she wanted to say about flowers. She showed me a picture she had drawn and colored of a hand clutching a handful of flowers, so we talked about a couple of lines that described her picture, (field notes 5/31/89)

Some students simply liked the pictures that accompanied their writing. Often pictures enhanced a weak piece of writing.

I like how the pictures go with the writing. (Joe, writing conference 4/4/17)

Pictures from picture books often suggested pictures or pieces to the students. Early in the school year, I shared Chris Van Allsburg's The Mysteries of Harris Burdick. (1984) I suggested that they could use the pictures and/or the captions as ideas for stories. This book was constantly on display and available and many students took advantage using the illustrations to begin stories. This was a popular book, all year long and there was a lot of discussion about what could be happening in the pictures. In the fall I read the picture book In the Night, Still Dark (1988) which is a retelling of a Hawaiian creation chant. Illustrated by Ed Young, the pictures look like water color on black paper and suggest the mysteries of the deep sea. The text which accompanies it is very rhythmic. In part it goes: 192

In this the darkest night, in this the daikest sea, After the coral was bom, there came the mud-digging gmb, and its child, the earth worm. There came the pointed star-fish, and the rock-grasping barnacle, and its child the oyster, and its child, the mussel There came the moss which lives in the sea, And the ferns which grow on the land. In this the darkest night There came the fish, and all the creatures of the sea. There came the lurking shark and the darting eel, moving quickly through the high weeds.

The chant goes on to describe how each creature came into being: the stinging ray, the octopus, the moth caterpillars, the ants, the grasshopper, the duck, the crow, the rat, and the dog until

a great stillness came about. And in this time men and women began to be bom. Here on the ocean's edge, here in the damp forest, Here in the cold mountains, People spread over the land. People were here, And so it was:

DAY

In the winter (February) Julie wrote “Creatures of the Night” which, she told me was inspired by In the Night, Still Dark. Following is Julie's piece: 193

As the night falls a young fox runs from the cold into his warm den. A mother bat soars out of her cave on her nightly rounds of searching for food for her babies. A bright light attracts a lonely moth flying by. A frog lets out a soft croak before it dives into the ink colored pond. An owl perches above on a high branch scanning the grounds for her prey. A rat pokes his head out of the ground revealing his bright red eyes and down below on the river bottom, fish swim, swim, swim until morning comes into view. In the distance a coyote lets out a sharp and piercing howl. An opossum lurks behind a soft green bush, looking for trouble. And into this night, unknown to all the animals, the wolf stalks the forest waiting for the right moment to devour the unsuspecting. Which animal will be his next victim? A strong burst of wind rustles the leaves on the trees, and startles a sleeping bird. Hours pass and slowly the sun begins to appear from beneath the horizon. And for the night creatures who have escaped the wolves clenching jaw, another day dawns.

During the third quarter writing conference, Julie chose this as her best piece because,

It’s really descriptive. It told a lot about a lot of animals. You could picture it in your mind. (3/30/89)

Julie also chose this as her best piece of the year and followed it up with “Day Creatures.” She also drew chalk murals on large roll paper of both of these pieces. Student writing was also accompanied by magazine pictures for those who felt their drawings were inadequate. The “Guide to the Sixth Grade” described in Chapter Three was accompanied by magazine pictures of hairstyles, make-up and clothes that were necessary for survival in the middle school. 194

Magazine cut-outs are now sweeping the classroom after Shelly and Lisa put them in their booklet. Pete spent the period looking through pictures. He said he was “getting ideas.1* Leanne and Lynn cut out pictures to accompany their hairstyles poem. Michael and Ramey are looking for pictures for their stories. Lots of talk and silliness and comments on the pictures accompany this, (field notes 4/5/89)

Picture books were often shared with the students and were also available for independent reading. Illustrations were often discussed as a complement to a picture book text. Students also complemented their own texts with pictures and at some point in the school year, each class wrote and illustrated their own picture book. The classroom context may have contributed significantly to the students' mention of visual imagery. However, it is clear that this was important to a good piece of writing and a good book.

Flow. As students struggled to make themselves clear in their own writing, they valued clarity in the writing they read. I believe that students were at a point in their writing development when they could begin to appreciate what it takes to "make a story flow” and to “make sense”. Students occasionally described the “evenness” of a story. Many students would often approach me with comments like this:

'Miss Stowell, listen to this and see if I still have the flow of it.' 195

When they talked of a text which “doesn’t jump around” they were also realizing the difficulties in making smooth transitions between events in a story. Often we talked about how some of their stories sounded like one event after another, without anything really tying the events together. Students often expressed dissatisfaction and frustration with stories that were confusing or didn’t make sense.

I didn’t like it (The Alfred Summer) because it changed the point of view and it was confusing. (Chrisie, reading conference 9/22/88)

Immediacy. Similarly, a book or story that got the reader “right into it” was highly rated. Students often expressed frustration with books that took too long to set the scene. They rated most highly those books which immediately placed them in the action of the story. Comments were similar to this:

...but still somehow it takes you right into the action and then it jumps. That what I think a book should do.(John, writing conference 6/6/89)

It gets you into the story. (Bret 10/24/88)

Writing conference comments mirrored these:

It gets you right into the story (Gale writing conference 11/11/88 ) 196

They tried to imitate this in their own writing. They wanted the reader of their writing to be able to “get right into the story” (Bret, 11/10/88). Others commented that they wanted the reader to “feel like yoiTre there right from the beginning” (John, 2/30/89)

Moral Another of Purves’ (1968) evaluative criteria was moral significance: “the criteria of lessons. Has the work taught me anything?” (p. 42) Some students suggested that a good story had a “point” or a “moral.” James mentioned the importance of having a moral or a point to his stories. Other students also felt this was important:

Linda showed me the story that she began on Friday. She was concerned with the audience — she said, ‘That’s why I used honey instead of nectar.’ It sounded like she was more concerned with the pictures she was going to draw. She was thinking out loud. She said, 'But it has to have a moral. All those kids' stories have a message. Maybe, ‘Don’t be shy — you should go up and introduce yourself.’ My mom always tells me that.’ (field notes 4/17/89)

Students also mentioned this as an important feature in the books they read.

I like it when there’s a point involved. (John, reading conference 4/11/89) 197

Length There was an inverse relationship between the length of a book and the length of piece of their writing. If a book was short, it was considered good, while a piece of writing was good if it was long. Twenty-five students said pieces of their own work were good because they were long. Of the features cited in writing, this was the fourth most-mentioned feature (behind “descriptive", “funny” and the “time or effort” put into a piece). When choosing books for a theme, students often held two books up side by side to see which was thicker and chose the thinner one. They looked for a shorter book and some students (like Jimmy) cited “short” as a criterion for evaluating a good book. Writing conference comments in this study were variations of these listed below:

It was one of my longest pieces. (Michael, 6/12/89)

I feel like I’ve done more when it’s longer. (Jan, 6/7/89)

It looks like it took a lot of time. (Kevin ,11/10/88)

It was better because it was longer (Martin,! 1/10/89) 198

The children in Hilgers’ (1984) study of writing evaluation also focused on the length of a story. They also rated highly those pieces which were long. Hilgers also concluded that length may have been derived from some sense of the effort required to produce a lengthy text.

Reader/Writer-based Features These are features which reside more in the reader than in the text. They are more in line with what a reader brings to the evaluation of what is good about a book or piece of his or her own writing. These include identification with the subject or characters in the text, the time and effort involved in reading or writing the text, the reader or writer’s engagement with the text, and funny, original, exciting and interesting texts. These last descriptors are reader/writer-based rather than text-based, because they are idiosyncratic to the reader, i.e., what the reader considers funny, original, exciting or interesting.

Identification Texts which related to their own experience were highly rated by students. The Newkirk (1984) and Hilgers (1984) studies also showed that students responded most favorably to texts that reflected their own experiences or that students shared with the writer. In the Hilgers (1984) study, the more intensely the rater liked the experience he or she shared with the writer, the higher the rating. If he or she enjoyed the experience, he or she liked the piece. Hepler (1982) also observed that students respond to real situations in literature classrooms. Applebee (1978) claims 199 that children in the concrete operational stage respond to literary pieces according to how the work has affected a particular reader rather than the work’s style or structure. Reading conference comments were variations of these:

I like to read a book with a kid like me. (Erin 2/29/89)

It was good because it had stuff I could really relate to. (Erin 5/9/89)

The Middle School Blues was the best book I read this year. It is good because it is about what I am going through now and all of my friends. (Karen 5/18/89)

I felt like it was about me. (Linda 2/14/89))

I liked it because it was written from a kid’s point of view. (Carrie 4/26/89)

It was like me. The characters sounded like sixth graders. (Jan 5/31/89)

In reading conferences, students often talked about how the book they were reading related to their own experiences. They would go on to describe their own experiences. This was clear in Jimmy’s hunting story 200

and his response to reading Alaskan Bear Tales, a phenomenon which was repeated over and over. Girls who baby-sat enjoyed the Babysitters' Club books

I like these books because its like when I babysit and I like the characters (Karen 5/17/89)

Age appropriateness was important in an appealing character. Many of the Babysitters' Club books and Sweet Valley High books were about girls their age. However, the age of the characters did not supersede identification with the subject as illustrated in this comment:

Forever was more for high-schoolers. It didn’t appeal to me. But My Beautiful Fat Friend was more of something my age would read. It was meant for us and I understood it better. (Vanessa 5/18/89)

Writing conference comments were similar. However, students may have assumed readers knew many of their stories were about their own experiences. They did evaluate highly those pieces that were about experiences they enjoyed. One girl who wrote about a trip to Greece to visit her family said:

This is my best because it sounds more like real life, more believable because it's true. I knew what I was going to write about because I knew the subject well. (Chrissie -11/7/89) 201

One student wrote about his trip to visit his father and rated this his best piece because he was excited to see his father. Another student wrote about his experiences performing in a professional play production, and a third wrote about surgery to his knee. All of these pieces were chosen as “best” pieces Students also wrote about difficulties they were facing in an attempt to work through them.

I like to write about problems. I like to study them. I want to be a psychiatrist when I grow up. It helps me to get used to them. I put characters in situations and try to figure out what to do. (Lisa 1/23/89)

Another student summed it up this way:

This was pretty good (Hurricane story). I like to tell about stuff that really happened. (David 6/8/89)

Schlager (1974) discussed this phenomenon in her study about children's book choices and cognitive development. Books that reflect the child’s perception of the world are the books for which children clamor. Those books having main characters who reflect the complex psychological and emotional aspects of the reader gain wide readership. The students in this study support this claim in their book choices as well as their own writing. Closely related to “matching experience” was identification (or nonidentificaton) with characters. Hepler (1982) also observed students responding to literature with “clear characters". Squires' (1968) study of young children’s responses also indicated that readers took up the role of 202 the characters and replayed the world of the story. Book conference data recorded some students who spent time discussing the characters and the plausibility of their actions, whether they agreed with them or not. They wanted to keep reading a book to find out what happened to the characters.

It made you want to know what happened to the person. (Leanne 5/18/89)

It was about a normal family. I liked the characters. (Julie 5/18/89)

I didn’t like Milo (The Phantom Tollbooth). He acted strange. (Saundeep - 5/18/89)

Many of the comments about the books they read had to do with series characters, like those of the BabySitters’ Club, Sweet Valley High and Hardy Boys who they came to know and like over time. Characters were very important in their writing, also. The pre­ occupation with characters generally began with names. Names were very important. Madeleine L'Engle, among other authors, has spoken of the importance of naming. A name is part of a character and a person’s identity.

Saundeep is starting another story and he says to the class, *1 need a name, a strange one,' Simon yells from the back of the room, ’Linda’ ( a girl in class). Names are a hangup. A lot of kids can’t go on until they have just the right name, (field notes 2/25/89) 203

Cara: ‘OK I need a name for my hamster/ Others: Everyone offers suggestions. Cara: (describes it) Its a girl, she’s brown and white and and she sleeps in her food dish. Linda: Call her ’Miss Piggy/ (3/10/89)

One interesting element of identifying with characters 'occurred in play writing. Students could not write the lines for a play until they knew who would play the character.

Michael, Pete and Ramey are also writing a play. This seems to happen every time — the writers are extremely pre— occupied with who will play what character before one word is written. Pete is even walking around asking people to bring in certain props. They work from characters before they ever consider plot and the characters in the play aia the people in the room. I don’t think they separate them. Another group of girls is doing a play and, as they write, they stand up and act out what they will do in the play (field notes 4/14/89) 204

Pete: (to me) I’m going to call my play ‘The Nerds vs. the Preps vs. the Hoods’. (He yells over to Michael) Michael, you want to be a hood? (he informs me), I’m going to go around and ask everybody what they want to be. Ramey, you want to be a nerd? (Later that day) Ramey: Pete what do you want your name to be? Pete (answers without batting an eye) Matthew. Michael: (to Joe), What do you want your name to be? Joe: (responds seriously) Michael. Perhaps this is a way for pre-adolescents to try on other selves, vicariously, though plays, (field notes 5/4/89)

Kevin: (brought me his finished play) I’m done. He shares it at sharing time. Carrie: Who wins? Pete: Preps. Carrie: Yes (and raises her fist over her head). Pete: (reads) ‘All the rest of the nerds drop dead to the floor.’ Michael: Was I a nerd Pete? Pete: Yeah Michael: Yeah (and raises his arms over his head). When the students write a play with the other students as the characters they gi£ the characters. Something else I noticed is they have narrators tell the action of the story — the characters don’t carry it. That way they can pretty much say what they want based on what the narrator says, (field notes, 5/25/89)

In fact, who played a part was so important to the part that if someone dropped out of a play before it was performed, the writers were angry and began to write up contracts like this one: 205

O m

- 0 v . + ( 0 JflOo JlI . . ( CONTRACT ' " " I will remain in this play until it has been performed and comepleted!!! My name is signed at th bo11om to confirm this.

Figure 7 Student Play Contract 206

When students were the characters in the play, they then feel free to offer input into the play-writing process and also to change lines they could not remember.

I hear Pete yelling to Kathy about being in her play. ‘And I better have more than one line.* Kathy's group ignores him and go on discussing the play, (field notes, 4/28/89)

Therefore the plays became even more collaborative than the writers anticipated in the beginning. Or perhaps that was what they anticipated. Play-writing was a social event and attracted a lot of attention from the other students in the class and on the team, from writing to production.

Effort Closely related to the length of a piece was the amount of time or effort put into a piece of writing. However, the amount of effort and time a writer or reader put into a piece was inherent in the person, not the text and so this is a reader/writer-based feature. This feature also had an inverse relationship between books and writing. A book which took less time or effort to read was good, while a piece of writing which took more time or effort was a good piece. Comments about books were generally about how easy the book was to read, that it did not require a great deal of effort or time. However comments about writing were about the amount of time it took to write. 207

I put more effort into it. It took up half of my time.(Keith,. writing conference 1/25/89)

I put more time into it. (Keith, writing conference 6/12/89 )

I worked longer on it (Leanne ,6/9/89)

It’s my best because its the one I spent the longest time on. I tried my hardest on this one. (Carrie, 11/12/88)

It took the most time (Wendy, 1/10/89)

In writing conferences, I often asked if a reader would be able to discern the amount of time or effort a piece took. They were generally convinced this was the case. They were also convinced that they would be able to choose which books took an author more time or effort. Attention to the amount of effort required is similar to the phenomenon Annie Dillard (1989) describes in A Writing Life:

Every year the aspiring photographer brought a stake of his best prints to an old honored photographer seeking his judgement. Every year the old man studied the prints and painstakingly ordered them into two piles, good and bad. Every year the old man moved a certain landscape print into the bad stack. At length he turned to the young man: ‘You submit this same landscape every year and every year I put it on the bad stack. Why do you like it so much?’ The young 208

photographer said, ‘Because I had to climb a mountain to get i t ’ (p. 6)

Descriptors The first element of evaluation Purves (1968) discusses is the “citation of criteria” (p. 41) which refers to statements defining the criteria without reference to the work. An example of a comment in this categoiy from Purves’ study is “These are good poems,” or “This novel is interesting.” Many students gave the same example that Purves did: "The piece is good.” The four most commonly used descriptors were; 1) funny; 2) original; 3) exciting and 4) interesting. Following is a discussion of each of these.

Funnv. The most popular descriptive term given for a book or story or poem was “funny.” Roald Dahl and Betsy Byars and their works were often mentioned as favorites because they were funny. More writing was described as funny than books read, but this descriptor appeared in many reading and writing conferences. According to developmental psychologists, it is during this formal operational period that children stop taking everything literally and begin to see the possibilities, not only in their world, but in their language as well. Class time was often taken up by joke-telling and students often experimented with the sound of language. They enjoyed writing nonsense poetry. 209

Wendy and Kathy are writing a nonsense poem about a cat named “Dog” and are having a grand time doing it. The nonsense seems to have freed-up Wendy. She was stuck writing about spring and couldn't think about what to write, (field notes 2/24/89)

Kathy and Jan are writing a poem about a monkey and they are rhyming everything with monkey — monkey, clunky, funky, plunky. They're laughing about the absurd possibilities, but they think its okay because it’s a nonsense poem, (field notes 3/3/89)

Wendy is writing a poem. She says out loud,‘What rhymes with things?’ Carol responds, ‘What rhyme with things? Things, hings, mings, flings, things.* Wendy jumps into this rhyming game and lists rhyming words out loud. They both laugh over the words that rhyme and don't make sense, (field notes 6/2/89)

Elkind suggests that is the reason Mad magazine is so popular, among children at eleven or twelve, is because they are beginning to understand puns and different kinds of humor. Shel Silverstein is one of the most popular authors among these students. His poems were often read aloud by the students. They wanted to imitate his style and be able to incorporate his type of humor into their poetry.

(About her poem, ‘Am I ready or what?’) It’s funny. I like to write funny sometimes. It happens to me in the morning. I like to write like Shel Silverstein. (Erin, writing conference, 3/31/89) 210

In an earlier writing conference (1/26/89) Erin indicated the occasional need for humor in order to hold the attention of her reader:

Sometimes you need a little humor if you come to the right point in the story. If the story is too dull you have to make it funny or no one will read it.

Students who identified humor as an important element of writing knew their audience. They enjoyed humor in literature and they knew their peers enjoyed it in writing as they enjoyed it in their own writing.

Original “Creative, original or different” were the second-most used descriptors in characterizing writing or books. Students generally cited the idea of their writing as original Originality was also a category identified by Purves* (1968) in students written responses to literature. Students also admired an author, or they themselves as authors who used their imagination to make the piece creative or different. For students “original** usually meant that the book stood out from other books they read — like an unusual fantasy or a piece or writing that was about a subject the author had not tried before and so stood out from their other writing. The students often expressed surprise in liking these pieces, so the fact that they were unusual might not have made them better, according to students, just different. The same was true of students’ writing. If the student thought that the piece was different from the kind of writing most students were doing, it was more highly rated. This is good writing. It was pretty original. Not many people would write about this. (David, writing conference 1/25/89)

I liked it better because I did something new. (Brady, writing conference, 6/5/89)

Exciting* Books and writing were also described as “exciting" or filled with “action” or “adventure”. Boys, more than girls, were interested in action and adventure.

He (Lloyd Alexander) puts a lot of action into it, suspenseful kind of writing, you just never know what’s going to happen next. (Martin, writing conference 6/6/89)

Well it usually has some adventure to it where something new always happens and I can’t predict what’s going to happen. (Erin, writing conference 6/7/89)

I kind of like action stories. It doesn't have to have action, but I like books that do. (Matt, writing conference 6/9/89)

Students who liked to read action/adventure stories generally liked to write action/adventure stories. 212

Its sort of exciting. (Martin, writing conference 6/6/89)

It has a lot of action in it (David, writing conference 6/8/89)

Interesting. “Interesting" appeared almost equally in reading and writing conferences. This term is so broad and general that it meant different things to different writers. “Interesting" could mean that the student didn’t have any more specific language with which to analyze the work (often the case). Many students fell back on the use of the word “interesting” when they could think of nothing else to say.

Engagement In this context I am using “engagement” to describe the lived- through experience of reading or writing that Rosenblatt uses to describe the aesthetic stance. Although I recognize that engagement is a complex phenomenon, it is used here to describe the experience of reading and writing. Students’ comments should make this clearer. In reading conferences students often talked about feeling like they “were there,” or “in the story” while reading.

Well, it’s got a little something that’s like it's true and real and it’s taking place in the room when you’re reading it. (Cara, 5/18/89 about In the Year of the Boar and Jackie Robinson) 213

I think it’s (The Acorn People) better than any other stoiy is that when you read it, it feels like you are in the stoiy. The other books feel like they are just telling it (Laura, 5/18/89)

It seems like you’re right along with them as they’re on the scavenger hunt (Remember Me to Harold Square) (Wendy, 5/18/89)

It seems like you’re walking right along with the characters. (Wendy, 1/25/89)

It (Sounder) was good and exciting, fun to read. (Jason, 5/18/89)

He (Stephen King) gets you into the book. He describes the character and makes you think you’re the character. (Matt, 6/9/89)

It made it like I was there. (Carrie, 5/18/89)

Students made similar comments about their writing — that they felt like they were in the story while writing it. They entered the world of their stories while writing. 214

Linda says she started calling her mom ‘Ma’ like in the story she is writing, (field notes ,2/24/89)

It feels like you’re in the spot watching it when you read it. (“Thunderstorm” poem Erin, writing conference, 3/31/89)

I had fun doing it. As I wrote it, I felt like I was there. It had lots of adventures and it’s fun to read. (“Stacey’s Dream” Jan, 11/ 11/88 )

Students talked about enjoying the experience of writing. Often the fun of writing had more to do with the enjoyment of working with someone, or illustrating, or working on the computer. But some students simply talked about the joy of writing.

Its fun to make up plays (Lisa, 1/23/89)

It was fun to write. (Jan, writing conference, 4/7/89)

I like to write about problems. I like to study them. I want to be a psychiatrist when I grow up. It helps me to get used to them. I put characters in situations and try to figure out what to do. (Lisa, 1/23/89)

Students also tried to create the lived-through or “aesthetic” experience that they experienced in reading for readers of their work. 215

I made it interesting, like you were there. (Carrie, Writing conference 11/12/88)

Students also attempted to recreate the “efferent" experience through writing. Topics were chosen because they wanted to leam more about the topic by writing about it. They embodied the experience described by C.S. Lewis: “We do not write in order to be understood, we write in order to understand."

Kathy wrote a brief story about the O’Shaugnessy dam. She says she wrote it because she's worried about the bridge collapsing. It ends rather abruptly and I said so. She said she thought it was good and I asked why. She said, “Because I think the dam is dangerous and people should know about it and it might save a life, (field notes 4/23/89)

I leaned a lot by writing about it. (Chrissie, 11/12/89)

I leam how to solve problems by writing about them. (Mindy, 3/30/89)

These responses indicate that students are perhaps less objective about evaluating writing that provided an enjoyable experience or that they learned from. However, something in the writing or something in the writer made it an enjoyable experience for that writer. Rosenblatt discusses the factors which influence any reading event including mood, environmental conditions, and personality, etc., that every reader brings to every reading experience. Writers bring the same characteristics and 216 environmental conditions to a writing experience. Response to literature cannot separate the reader from the reading experience and evaluation of writing cannot separate the writer from the the writing experience. In writing as well as reading there seems to be an interplay between cognitive and affective processes.

Discussion of Findings The question guiding this study is: What relationship exists between students* evaluative responses to self-selected literature and personal evaluations of their own writing? Reading response is a complex process with many facets. As demonstrated by Hickman’s (1980) exploration of response, it can be related to a range of behaviors such as listening, sharing books, actions and drama, making things, and writing. This study was primarily interested in the evaluative oral responses students made about literature. Purves (1968) has pointed out that evaluative response encompasses engagement, involvement, perception, and interpretation In fact, how a reader evaluates a text is probably derived from these other kinds of response. Writing self-evaluation also seems to encompass engagement, involvement, perception, and interpretation. My data suggests that a relationship does exist between literature-response and writing self- evaluation. I would suggest that evaluation and response interweave like a double helix: (see Figure 8). They are not separate parallel processes, but are interwoven at particular points. 217

Figure 8 Evaluation and Response Double Helix 218

Evaluation and response are integrated and interdependent Students may draw on the same cognitive structures to evaluate and respond to texts in the same ways throughout the reading and writing processes. Perhaps, as children leam the language of evaluation, they draw on the language they have for responding to literature. A supportive context may also be necessary, since this data suggests that evaluation is a socially constructed phenomenon. This will be discussed further in Chapter VI. Self-evaluation may be similar to Applebee’s (1978) description of adolescents* responses to story liking and Purves* (1968) description of response to literature. Readers varied in the extent to which they attended to particular features, but there was consistency across students regarding the evaluation of features in writing and literature. Many of the features identified by students in this study were identified in both response studies and writing-evaluation studies. The students in this study responded to and evaluated:

Text-based features: 1. Topics the reader and writer is interested in 2. Craftsmanship which includes descriptive detail, visual appeal, flow and immediacy 3. A moral 4 Length

Reader/Writer-based features: 1. Identification with a text 2. Effort or time involved 3. Funny, Original and Interesting texts 4.. How engaged the students were in the reading and writing experience (engagement) 219

Evaluation, like response, is, in part, a personal, idiosyncratic phenomenon. It’s like photography. Hand a camera to someone, he’ll focus it. Hand the camera to someone else, she'll focus it again. However, everyone see things differently and the focus and perspective taken fits one’s own vision. That’s how it is with the reading of literature and students’ own writing. Each focuses the text to his or her own vision. The students often described the idiosyncratic nature of evaluation. In one discussion of how nonfiction reports should be graded they said this:

I don’t like being graded. It's like being in a beauty pageant. It’s like being judged on your beauty and people see different things in you. (Janet, 5/4/89)

Grades are not as important. It's how hard you worked, what you learned. It depends on what people’s standards are — what each person can and can’t do. You can’t expect Tom to bring in four posters. (Linda, 5/4/89) 220

Mindy: Mostly everyone's writing is right. 1 mean it's all different, it's all good. Teacher: So everyone in their own way is good at what they do? Mindy: Yeah, because it's their way. 'Cause you can't judge things by yourself like say,'Well I think this is good, but it should be more like mine.' You should never say that. 'Cause I mean, just think of the way that they think and put it in their perspective...Except I try and get to know the person's writing more and then see if it’s totally off and different from the way they do it, that's a hard judgment to make. Teacher: You mean different from their normal kind of writing? Mindy: Right that would be a hard judgement to make. (Mindy, writing conference, 4/4/89) These students expressed the frustration I often feel in making evaluative judgements about writing. It is these frustrations which motivated me to conduct this study. According to Rosenblatt (1938, 1988) any transaction must begin with a consideration of stance. She says that readers move along a continuum between the aesthetic and efferent stance.

AESTHETIC s ______fc EFFERENT

Figure 9 Aesthetic to Efferent Continuum 221

Like Rosenblatt, I would like to suggest that writers move along continuums as they read and evaluate their own work. Several researchers (Flower & Hayes, 1977; Britton, et al., 1975; Purves, 1968; and Tierney & Pearson, 1983) have proposed various continuums to describe how readers and writers respond and evaluate. Each of these will be discussed. These continuums are in some ways similar to the ones that readers move across, but are also quite different. If one were to consider the student on a continuum ranging from reading “like a reader” to reading “like a writer,” it might be illustrated like this:

PUBLISHED WRITING STUDENTS AUTHORS OF PEERS OWN TEXTS Reading like a Reading like a READER ______WRITER

Figure 10 Reader / Writer Continuum

As students read texts, they move back and forth between reading “like a reader” and reading “like a writer." According to current thinking, students tend to read and respond to published authors more than they do to their own texts. However, Smith has pointed out that students read 222 published texts like writers, and the research on how children’s literature affects children’s writing also supports this. Flower and Hayes (1977) have discussed the other end of the continuum when writers read "like readers” and when they read “like writers.” Flower and Hayes make the distinction between reader-based prose and writer-based prose. They are referring to the kinds of readings writers conduct while composing and revising. Early drafts are writer- based prose in which the writer is attempting to make sense of the text so that the text makes sense to the writer. Later drafts are reader-based prose in which the writer considers the reader and revises so that the prose makes sense to the reader. Writers move between these two kinds of “readings” as they read their own work.

READER-BASED WRITER-BASED PROSE PROSE

Figure 11 Reader-Based Prose / Writer-Based Prose Continuum

In earlier drafts, writers tend to read like writers and in later drafts, writers tend to read like readers. Anyone who has written a text to be read by others has probably experienced this phenomenon. A colleague who 223 was finishing his dissertation said, “I haven’t had a chance to read it like a reader, so I don’t know how it sounds.” He had been reading like a writer and making revisions like a writer, but had not yet had a chance to read and respond to his work as a reader, drawing back and creating sufficient distance from his own text. While evaluating their own writing, writers read as readers and writers, and read for readers and writers. The reader’s stance has also been described as moving between other kinds of roles. Britton, et al. (1975) maintained that it is necessary for readers to approach a narrative text with a certain attitude which he labeled the "spectator stance." This stance involves the ability to approach a story as a valid depiction of possible' experience. Britton, et al. also discussed the spectator and participant role as ways that writers use language. When writers use language to recreate real or imagined experience in order to enjoy it, or represent it to someone else for their enjoyment, they are using language in the role of the spectator. When writers use language to get things done, they are using language in the role of the participant. Purves (1968) described four categories of response when reading. These range from engaged or involved which he describes as highly subjective and indicates the readers surrender to the literary work and the ways which s/he has experienced it to the role of the evaluator in which the reader describes why s/he thinks a literary work is good or bad. (A more thorough discussion of these categories can be found in Chapter II) In their composing model of reading, Tierney and Pearson (1983) describe alignment as the kinds of stances that writers adopt toward readers and readers adopt toward writers as well as the roles a writer or reader 224 adopts in the writing or reading process. These stances can range from intimate or personally very close to the text or subject matter to a stance which is more distant and critical of the text

Britton, et al., (1975) (Roles of the Writer):

SPECTATOR PARTICIPANT

Purves (1968) (Elements of Response to Literature):

ENGAGED/ INVOLVED EVALUATOR

PERCEPTION Inurpretuion

Tlemey & Pearson (1983) (Alignment):

INTIMATE CRITICAL

Figure 12 Reader / Writer Role Continuums

These continuums are one way of attempting to capture what is occurring while students read and write. However, Edmiston (1990) has suggested that general descriptors such as those named above, obscure the richness of activity readers employ when moving through the worlds of stories. The implications of the findings from this study also suggest that students respond to and evaluate their own writing in a very rich manner. 225

When students evaluate their own work, they move along a continuum between response and evaluation:

RESPONSE ______EVALUATION

Figure 13 Response Evaluation Continuum

When reading their own writing, there are times when student writers are responding more than evaluating and at other times, they are evaluating more than responding. But it is clear from the data in this study, that students respond to and evaluate the same kinds of features (text-based features) and respond and evaluate in the same kinds of ways (reader-based features). Evaluation and response are integrated, interdependent processes. Consciously or unconsciously, readers and writers use the same language and perhaps draw on the same cognitive structures to make evaluative responses. Future research is needed to further clarify the nature of evaluation, but it is clear that students do respond to their own writing and this needs to be accounted for in classrooms by in-process descriptions. 226

Summary When asked to evaluate their own writing, students are in fact responding to it. Data analysis suggest various facets of the response- evaluation relationship. Students respond to and evaluate features of a text (text-based features) like the length, the subject, the craftsmanship and the moral, or lesson to be learned. There are also features within the student reader (reader-based features) that are a part of the response-evaluation relationship which include the time or effort involved, personal identification with the subject of the plot or characters, engagement with the text and ever changing concepts of texts that are original, funny, exciting and interesting texts. This chapter has presented findings related to the nature of the relationship between response to literature and self-evaluation of writing. The next chapter will contain my reflections as a teacher-researcher, a discussion of the implications, and directions for future research. CHAPTER VI REFLECTIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

What the teacher does not achieve in the classroom cannot be achieved by anybody else. (Britton, 1983)

One aim of educational research is to better understand instructional events in classrooms (Strickland, 1988). Teachers and researchers hope that a better understanding of classroom processes can lead to better teaching. As Britton points out, the teacher is crucial in any classroom. The teacher is also crucial in research. The value of teacher research is that teachers become involved in their professional development and play an active role in answering their own questions. This can, in turn, lead to better teaching. Reflections on the teacher-as-researcher, as well as implications of the findings and directions for future research, will be discussed in this chapter.

227 228

Reflections I set out to conduct this study to develop my own understanding of how children evaluate their own writing; to determine what if any is the relationship between their self-evaluations and how they respond to the literature they read. As a classroom teacher, I wanted to make informed curricular decisions that would help the students in my classroom grow as readers and writers, and become more independent readers and writers. Conducting this study caused me to come to grips with several issues that many teachers struggle with day to day in their classrooms. I was able to see a shift in my own thinking through the course of the study. One tension that I struggled with was the developmental nature of learning. 1 based my study on a Piagetian model of the development of learning, reading and writing. Applebee (1978) and Britton (1975) based their studies on Piaget's work and my study was, in part based on theirs. While I do not base my teaching on a strictly Piagetian view of learning, reading and writing, this study portrays that view. My research pointed out to me the strength of the social context operating within the classroom and how strongly this impacts students' reading, writing and learning. As I was struggling to explore the relationship between response and evaluation, the social nature of these two phenomenon appeared again and again in my data which caused me to revisit the Piaget - Vygotsky debate about development. 1 came to realize that while there is some kind of innate development, as Piaget describes, the power of the social nature of learning 229 which Vygotsky describes cannot be ignored. This will be discussed further in the implications of the study. Upon reflection, I also realized that going into I had a couple of assumptions which shifted through the course of the study and subsequent analysis. Previously I have described my first assumption that I was biased toward a Piagetian developmental perspective. This influenced a shift in my second assumption which is that my view of response and evaluation were that they occurred at the end of the processes of reading and writing. Through my analysis and reflection I have come to realize that response and evaluation are occurring constantly throughout the reading and writing process. While realizing that evaluation and response were not objective, I did think it occurred after the fact. As a view of the social nature of text construction intruded upon my thinking more and more, and as I realized how that impacted evaluation, I realized that students were socially constructing evaluation as well. This will be developed further later in this chapter. When I set out to do the study, I thought it was possible to keep my biases in check, so I often responded to their questions of, “Is this good?** with “What do you think?” I wanted to create an environment in which students felt free to make their own judgements without concern for what the teacher thought. I thought my criteria for writing and response to literature could take a back seat to their own. What I learned was that no study is free of problems of reflexivity, or the presence of the researcher and/or teacher’s own views on the inteipretation and development of events (Hammersley & Atkinson, 1983). 230

Just as any reader (or writer) brings particular experiences, moods, knowledge, and culture to a reading, a teacher and researcher brings the same to a classroom. It is also impossible to separate the research from the researcher, the bias from the teacher. I learned that my biases found a voice in the classroom in subtle and not so subtle ways. One of the features I value in the texts 1 read is metaphorical writing, and it is clear from my students* responses that they quickly inferred this. As evidenced by Jimmy and other students who identified stylistic features such as metaphors and similes as what makes their poetry and other writing good, I knew I was influencing their developing models of evaluation. While it is possible that they valued metaphorical writing in their own right, it is more likely that my students felt that their success in my class depended upon agreement with whatever I considered successful writing. Unknowingly, I even influenced student responses. I didn’t realize this until 1 reread my field notes. Students identified character development, the enjoyment of writing, and being part of what they were writing as features of good writing and good books. I did not realize, until I reread my field notes, that 1 may have influenced this to some degree. 1 have often read and heard authors speak of entering the story themselves in order to write it. Or they say they set the character in motion and follow the character’s lead. I gave a version of this advice to students. 231

Janet is revising “Gumdrop Tree.” That is her most successful story yet. When Linda and Julie shared their very good stories* she decided to rewrite the ending of hers. So she pulled it out again. Last week she was satisfied with it. Now she wants to change it again. She read it to me and 1 suggested she put herself in the place of the characters in the story to see how she would react, (field notes 2/24/89)

While I pointed out particular features about writing and this may have influenced students in their own evaluations* this was not always the case. For example* we discussed “leads,” ways that authors got readers into a book* but students never used that language to describe books and their writing. They talked about “getting right into the action of the story,” but not about effective leads, which suggests to me that they were generally making their own independent evaluations, as well as incorporating some instructional views into their own. My influence was also noted in the features the students did not mention. In discussions of their writing, I often steered students away from discussing surface features such as handwriting, punctuation, and the like. Therefore, very seldom did any student mention this in a writing conference. Either they might have thought these surface features were unimportant features or they knew 1 thought those features unimportant and so didn't mention it. The fact that surface features and mechanics were missing from students’ evaluations might also support the relationship between response and evaluation because it is difficult to respond to surface features in literature. 232

Initially, I was dismayed by my influence on students' evaluative responses. I wanted students to develop criteria without worrying about what the teacher wanted. However, I have reconsidered that position. There is nothing wrong with a thoughtful, knowledgeable, professional teacher influencing the students in her classroom. As Britton suggests, if the teacher doesn’t do it, it won’t get done. However, there are caveats to this view. If teachers are to support students’ developing models of evaluation, they must, first of all, have well-articulated criteria and be up­ front with students about what he or she prefers in their writing and what makes a good piece of writing. However, that should not be the end of the discussion regarding evaluation. The interpretive community within the classroom must negotiate the criteria for good writing so that student preferences are incorporated. The teacher is a member of that community and therefore has a voice in the negotiation, and should not, as I initially believed, remain silent. The difficulty is maintaining a balance so that the teacher’s voice does not dominate, but supports what students are doing and saying. In the long run, this stand will not only guide students, but validate their independent contributions. All too often, the teacher’s role is to tell writers how to do a better job than they could do alone, thereby appropriating the writers’ texts. Teachers read and comment on student texts and “fix" them. But this correcting also shows students that the teacher’s agenda is more important than their own, that what they have to say is less important than the teacher’s impression of what they should have said. “Once students perceive this shift of agenda, their motives for writing also shift: the task 233 is not to match the writing to expectations ihat lie beyond their own sense of their intention and method...They are forced to concede the readers* authority and to make guesses about wli at they can and cannot say" (Brannon & Knoblauch, 1982, p. 159). Th: ?y are also powerless to make their own evaluations. Self - evaluation bec< omes, as has been suggested in the literature, a guessing game of what is in he teacher's mind, One of the teacher's roles is, as EIbo\ w (1973) describes in Writing Without Teachers, to enable students to understand for themselves what to keep and what to throw out.

When people tell me about good and bad writing it doesn't usually improve my writing at all, and when I try to tell other people it seldom improves their writing either. If you want a book to telll you the characteristics of good and bad writing, this if not it. Instead I try to ...help you improve your ability to make your own judgement about which parts of your writing to keep and which to throw away....Li ce advice, evaluation in itself has no value. (vi,77)

One way to support students in this endeavor is through the use of a variety of books. It is well-established jn the research literature that students write what they read. Literature ierves as a model for writing. “The writer studies literature, not the world. She lives in the world, she cannot miss it...She is careful of what she reads for that is what she will write" (Dillard, 1989). Literature can also be used to make distinctions between evaluation and response. Disci ssions of why students like particular features of literature and why particular features are effective 234 can be helpful. Then teachers can help students make these links in their own writing. Another effect this research had on me was that, because I was observing the students closely in order to collect data, 1 naturally knew more about these students* reading and writing habits, but I also knew them as students and as individuals better than any other class I have taught in fourteen years of teaching. The teacher-as-researcher is not less, but more effective as a leader in the classroom. My teaching informed my research and my research informed my teaching. Goodman (1988) and Pappas, Keifer and Levstik (1990), among others, have discussed the value of “kid watching”. Teacher-research is kid watching at its best and most effective. Observing children over extended periods of time is also crucial to informing curricular decisions and research. While 1 attempted to be as descriptive about my students in my field notes as possible, interpretations and judgments crept in. But over time, many initial observations changed as the students grew as readers and writers. I noted in my field notes that a student seemed to have a “breakthrough” piece of writing which he or she felt was especially successful, and it was this breakthrough which enabled the student to view him or herself as a writer. However, this doesn’t mean that they produced exceptional pieces of writing after that. Reading their writing over time taught them and me that time is required as Graves (1983), Atwell (1987), Murray (1985), Calkins (1986), and others have advised. Writers need time and multiple opportunities to produce their best work. My research reinforced what I had read in the literature. 235

I discovered, in reviewing my reading conference notes, that with the less-able readers I discussed skills, strategies, and did comprehension checks in their reading conferences, but did not discuss their responses to books they read as much as I did with better readers. Therefore, less skilled readers had fewer opportunities to respond to what they read and this may have influenced their capacity to self-evaluate. Finding a low reader, low writer who was articulate for a case study was difficult. In writing and reading conferences, many were non -responsive. They said, “I don’t know,” or nothing at all. Looking back on the study, I would have spent more time simply talking about the books they read. This kind of book-talk might have enabled them, not to only be more responsive to discussions of books but to their own writing as well. Teachers play an important role in helping children grow as readers and writers. Teacher-researchers, take an active role in learning about what takes place in their classrooms in order to make better informed curricular decisions. Through this study I became more aware of many aspects of my own students’ reading and writing and my own teaching.

Implications The present study set out to lay a descriptive foundation of the relationship between evaluation and response in order to build more accurate descriptions of the nature of evaluation and the relationship between reading and writing. The purpose was not to identify instructional strategies which might facilitate this relationship, but simply to explore whether a relationship existed. Therefore, the following discussion is not 236 intended to be prescriptive regarding this relationship, but merely to suggest area of further exploration.

The Teachers Role Reflecting upon my own responses to what I read and my own evaluations of what I wrote gave me insight into what my students might also be doing while they read and wrote. As a teacher of reading and writing I was able to understand the value of engaging in reading and writing myself and the kinds of insight Reflecting upon my own reading and writing and reviewing the literature also enabled me to understand my own criteria for student writing, and about what I respond to in literature and in student papers. I became aware that I (and the literature suggests that other teachers) are responding to students papers and not giving “objective readings” and “objective evaluations.” I realized the importance of inviting my students into the negotiation regarding evaluation. We talked together about what we respond to and value in texts. If I was are the only person in the classroom who did this, only I benefited. My students were then powerless to make their own evaluations. Self-evaluation becomes, as has been suggested in the literature, a guessing game of what is in the teacher’s mind. In addition, students are doing little reflection on their own writing. Johnston (1983) describes it this way: 237

If I am right that many students do not reflect, conceptualize and deliberately experiment in English lessons, we should be asking ‘Why not?* Part of the answer is that when teachers are expected to grade or mark each piece of work, then THEY do the reflecting and conceptualizing for the students. In many classes, there is a gaping hole in the learning cycle: students do the work, the teacher assesses it, the students look to see how the assessments compare with what they hoped for, and go straight on to the next experience without even rereading their work, let alone reflecting on it.” (p. 2-3)

I had to relinquish control of my students' writing and return it to the writers'. I had to become simply another audience to my students' writing, perhaps a more informed audience than other readers in the classroom, but perhaps not. My data suggested that, as I relinquished control over their writing, they no longer wrote for me; their audience was their peers or a magazine editor or whoever they identified.In my field notes from February, I noted that acrostic poems had become quite popular in the classroom, especially those illustrated with glitter. Two girls wrote one using the word “Shamrocks*’ (which is the team name). Their “poem” read Shamrock Have A Marvelous Rad Overall £ool Kid's School.” This was the third draft and I contended that it made no sense to me. The girls and I argued back and forth about the meaning (or lack of) and we finally decided to put it to a class vote in group share. Most of the class said that it made sense to them. We again discussed the audience for their writing, and I said that, in this case, I supposed I was not the audience. Eventually, I came to realize that, by relinquishing control of their writing, I was also relinquishing my authority as a reader of their writing. My job in the classroom shifted to one in which I attempted to “attract their 238 attention to the relationship between intention and effect, enabling a recognition of discrepancies between them, even suggesting ways to eliminate the discrepancies between them, but finally leaving decisions about alternative choices to the writer.1’ (Brannon & Knoblauch 1982, p. 162) If our goal as teachers is to enable students to become independent decision makers the authority to make those decisions as writers is theirs.. Teachers can respond to how well those choices enabled the writer to communicate effectively and include other audiences (peers, etc.) as equal partners in meaning making.

Response in the Classroom Hickman (1981), Hepler (1982), Huck (1987) among others have discussed the value of response in literature-based classrooms. Children should certainly have many opportunities to respond to literature in rich and unique ways, but I found that it can not end there if response is to facilitate evaluation. While discussing books with my students in individual reading conferences, many had difficulty moving beyond a discussion of what the book was about and saying “This is a good book” or “I did not like this book”. An understanding of why they responded in the ways they did would serve them better when making critical evaluations of their own reading and writing. Purves (1968) has said, “It is the discussion of grounds that is educational not the discussion of conclusions” (61). I found that discussing a student's grounds about a their response or evaluation of a book or their writing gave me more insight into their thinking than comprehension questions or a multiple choice test. I would spend more 239 time with all my students, discussing their reasons for their responses and evaluations

Idiosyncratic Evaluation One view of the purpose of evaluation of writing is to determine benchmarks in writing. Many who hold a stage view of development would like to be able to point to what students of a particular age are capable of and hold all students of the same age accountable for those skills or abilities. This view also holds that evaluation is objective and tied to the text only. My data suggests that evaluation is not only tied to each piece, but to each student as well. Students' self evaluations were idiosyncratic to the piece. In order to understand evaluation and self-evaluation it may be necessary to look at how a student changes from piece to piece. Not only is the evaluation tied to the piece of writing, but it may be tied to the writer as well. Knowing the writer and the history of the writer may be as important to evaluation as the text. The research literature and my study suggest that the context in which the writing occurred is vital to understanding the writing and the writer and his or her frame of mind, experience, etc. are part of that context. Therefore, evaluation may need to consider the idiosyncratic nature of the written text and the writer. This view also supports the notion that writing evaluation as well as response is subjective, not objective. Therefore, it is the interpretive community; the participants within a social context, (in most cases teacher and students) who negotiate the criterion for evaluation and these will be idiosyncratic to that context. 240

Writing as Aesthetic Experience Literature offers vicarious experiences to its readers, but my findings indicate that writing can also offer vicarious experiences to the writer. Writers not only leam from writing (the efferent experience), they also engage in the “lived through" experience. I reported several instances of this in Chapter V. Students often described their best pieces as ones which were “fun to write". Students also described instances in which they “felt like they were there" in their own pieces. One student reported calling her mother “ma" because that's what the character in her her story called her mother, (field notes, 2/24,89) School reading and writing have a tendency to focus on the efferent stance — what can be learned from the experience, and forget the value of found pleasurable, interesting reading and writing experiences. Rosenblatt (1982) suggests that the efferent can come from the aesthetic — that students can leam if they are engaged. For the same purposes, teachers use literature in the classroom: enjoyment, vicarious experiences, language development, development a sense of story, development of fluency, insight into human behavior, social insight, understanding of the universality of experience, development of imagination, aesthetic experiences and insight in the creative experience (Purves, Rogers & Soter, 1990; Huck, Hepler & Hickman, 1987), writing can be used. These are the kinds of purposes that will help to develop independent thinkers and prepare students for reading and writing in their lives beyond school. 241

Social Context As previously stated, the social context had a larger impact on my students' response and evaluation than I initially thought. Here 1 would like to discuss various aspects of how the social context impacted the study. This discussion will include the interpretive community created in this classroom, the social nature of play writing, borrowing and improvising from other writers and other texts, and collaboration. I would first like to point out that social context can also mean the world that the text creates (see Edmiston, 1990). Even students like Susie and James who appeared to be quietly working alone were working within a social context. They were a part of and involved with their texts. . A writer or reader is not separate from the text s/he is reading or writing. Therefore students who read and writer alone and quietly are also involved in a social context. Geertz (1974) asserts that through interaction “man is an animal suspended in webs of significance he has spun.” Fish (1980) suggests that there is . not meaning in a text, but that we all read in much the same manner because of the culture of our interpretive community. Understanding is specific to that community, which can be as general as a nation and as specific as a classroom or two readers reading the same text.. Meek (1980) concurs and states it this way: “Response is a product of the context in which it occurs. It is a collaborative process in which teachers and children help each other come to know what they are reading in ways they help each other define.” Fish can be interpreted to include the texts that students write within the interpretations of the community in which 242 they are created and read. If the students interpretations and responses are influenced by the community in which they occurred, then their evaluations are also influenced by that community. An interpretive community exists within the classroom as well as the school and the community. By learning to interpret critically, to evaluate the quality of writing in themselves and others, students reflect the shared community of readers and writers and apply these senses in subsequent acts of reading and writing. Several examples from field notes, reading, and writing conferences illustrate, in part, how this community contributes to students* evaluations of their own writing.

I‘stopped in the library ninth period today and Linda was reading her story to Mrs. C. (the librarian) who smilingly listened and nodded and occasionally commented but I couldn’t hear what she said, (field notes, 2/26/89)

Saundeep, (rereading James story on the wall):’Has James finished the next chapter of that story? I like it.' Teacher: Ask him. (field notes, 2/12/89)

The writing community sets its standards and evaluation criteria. ‘This is good, its better than ...* ‘It's not as good as James'.' (reflective field notes 4/27/89).

Kids liked this story, but teachers don't. I'll sell it to kids.(Matt,writing conference 4/4/89) 243

Because so much sharing, both formally and informally, took place, students had many opportunities to gauge audience reaction to their work. Students received a lot of feedback before a work was completed. This was a factor in how they evaluated their own work. While it is impossible to capture all the comments students made to each other both inside and outside the classroom about their writing, evaluation went on constantly. A good example of this was the drama phenomenon. Almost everyone on the team at some time in the year wrote a play, generally with a partner or a group. These became very popular partially because we decided that the success of a play is determined by its reception by an audience. Plays were written for a student audience and this student audience gave immediate response to their writing, like, “When are you going to write another play?” or (at lunch I overheard), “Your play was awesome.” These kinds of responses could have led to student play writers to view those works more favorably and so when self evaluating, rate those plays more highly. The writing of the plays points to the social nature of all writing and a keen awareness of audience. They were writing for a well-known audience. As a part of the interpretive community, the writers knew what worked for that community. They knew what the criteria of evaluation for that community were because they helped create it. Another interesting aspect of the play-writing was that the writers could not write a part until they knew who was going to play it. They even went so far as to draw up contracts, because when it came time to perform the plays, many actors backed out. Strict penalties were outlined. They 244 were creating social demands, not unlike those in the work place or the adult world. Another component of the social nature of writing and evaluation was the “borrowing and improvising” (Burton, 1985) of the stories others in the classroom wrote. The sample of Jack's list of what is in a girl’s purse and Debbie’s response to it is an example. Students often borrowed from the work of other students. Because other student writing was available and accessible, they often used it to get ideas or referred to it when they were stuck. At times this borrowing turned into collaboration as students would rather work on pieces written by others, and simply “homed in” on the writing of it. A large amount of collaboration took place. Many of the pieces done collaboratively were identified as a student's best, primarily because they enjoyed the experience of writing with a friend and because some students felt another person’s input increased their chances for an effective piece of writing. Interestingly, though, very few asked the better writers to work with them. Most worked with their friends, as is typical of adolescents. The nature of most collaborative writing is done orally and evaluative comments are made throughout the process: “This works,” “This doesn’t make sense,” etc. Collaboration meant there was a built-in responder/evaluator and this collaboration influenced the texts that were produced. evaluation - piece by piece teacher change, not just student change. 245

Directions For Future Research The present study set out to explore the ways in students evaluate their own writing and whether it is related to the way they read literary texts. The findings invite researchers and teachers to examine how students develop their own models of evaluation and what the nature of those evaluations are which might lead to a more cohesive theory of evaluation. 1. Further Development of the_Nature,of the RelationshipJBetween Evaluation and Response. This study set out to explore whether or not a relationship existed and so was not prepared to thoroughly describe the nature of that relationship. The findings point out that a relationship does exist and may be richer than is described here. It is important that teachers understand the process of self evaluation, so that it can be facilitated and supported in classrooms. 2. Correlational Studies. Correlational studies could further determine the extent and nature of the relationship between evaluation and response and also between reading and writing. These kinds of studies could also serve to describe the relationship between evaluation and response in a different light. The critical variables of the relationship could be identified; those which have the most substantial correlation might be useful in making curricular decisions in the classroom. 3. The Study of Different Participants. Very few studies exist regarding the nature of self-evaluation. This study was an exploration of the nature of a relationship between self evaluation and response. It was important to limit this first effort to a relatively small group. However, as portfolios begin to take on importance, and students are asked to evaluate 246 their own work, it becomes vital to understand what is occurring when students do that. Therefore it becomes important to understand what other students beyond this study understand about evaluation. Replicating this study with different children of various ages and cultural backgrounds should extend the understanding of evaluation and its relationship to response. 4. The Study of Different Texts. A few studies are currently underway at The Ohio State University (Arrowsmith, 1992; Kerper, 1992) to investigate the nature of response to informational texts. If the nature of response to informational texts is different, then perhaps students evaluate expository texts differently than they do narrative text. Different texts contain different features. I suggested in my findings the difficulty of comparing response to story and evaluation of poetry. McClure (1985) examined the responses of fifth and sixth-grade students to poetry. The students’ poetry preferences in her study differed both quantitatively and qualitatively from those previously described by researchers. McClure describes their responses to the poetry they read and how this impacted the poetry they wrote. However, this study could have been taken one step further in describing how they evaluated the poetry they wrote. Other studies could be conducted on various genres to explore whether or not the relationship is stronger. 5. The Study of Different Contexts. Because of the social nature of response (Fish, 1980; Hepler, 1982) and my data suggests that evaluation is socially constructed, further investigation of what and how much the context contributes to evaluative responses is needed. What kinds of 247 contexts are most supportive in facilitating this relationship and developing models of evaluation.is critical to understanding these processes. 6. The DevelopmentaLNature of Evaluation. Applebee’s (1978) research suggests that response is developmental. As students mature cognitively, they develop more sophisticated responses to what they read. If response is developmental, perhaps evaluation is developmental. Perhaps particular evaluative responses are age-related, as Hickman (1982) suggests in her study of response to literature in supportive classroom contexts. 7. The Relationship Between_Audience and Evaluation. As student- writers mature, they develop a sense of audience (Kroll, 1885; Flower & Hayes, 1981; Rubin & Piche, 1979; Roen & Willey, 1988). Perhaps as a writer comes to consider audience, they become more reflective and evaluative about their own work. As a writer realizes that the text must be understood and appreciated for someone outside of him or herself, he or she may value particular features such as sense or flow, more than others. 8. The Relationship Between Revision and Evaluation. Given the extensive nature of research about revision, it is possible to describe the nature of revision and so seek the links between evaluation and revision. Both processes require looking again at one’s own writing and making evaluative responses. Do students who make more extensive revisions make more mature evaluative responses to their own writing? How does the process of revision contribute to the process of evaluation? Are the processes reciprocal? Flower and Hayes (1979) discuss the different kinds of stances writers adopt in making revisions. Understanding the nature of 248 the relationship between revision and evaluation would be useful for student writers and teachers. 9. Engagement in_the_Writing Process. Edmiston (1990) has indicated the complex nature of engagement in reading. She also indicated in her study that the same complexity exists in writing. Given the wealth of research and writings about the connection between reading and writing, it is reasonable to expect that the same complexities exist within the writing process. The data from this study points out that students do adopt stances while writing and employ some of the same engagement strategies such as imagery. Engagement in writing seems to be a rich area for further study. 10. Further Teacher_Research Studies. If research and knowledge in education is to be of worth to practitioners, then alternative paradigms must be explored to guide educational inquiry. Traditional ideas about educational research have not only failed to connect with teachers* understandings, but have actually alienated them. Classroom teachers must collaborate and initiate classroom research. Teachers-as-researchers may help bridge the gap described by Eisner (1979) and others, between universities and public schools. Teachers as researchers could also help to close the gap between theory and practice. “The institutional gap may begin to close as teachers begin to accept that all good teaching requires research and as members of university faculties accept that all researchers are teachers ( or should be)” (Burton, 1985). 249

Summary The teacher-as-researcher methodology offers a teacher an opportunity to observe, reflect, and interpret behaviors in the classroom more closely than she might otherwise. Research conducted in the classroom informs and enhances teaching and teaching informs and enhances research. This chapter offers my reflections as a teacher- researcher in the form of what I learned through the study, what the implications from the study are and what directions research in this area could take. Understanding student thinking during writing has been closely examined for several years. However, student self-evaluation is a rich, fairly untapped area of the writing process. A more thorough understanding of this process is crucial, if teachers are to facilitate and support self evaluation, thereby enabling students to be independent learners. APPENDIX A

READING LOG FORM

250 251

READ1DDB LOS FOR DATE Bo o k AUTHOR FINISHED RATING APPENDIX B

READING CONFERENCE FORM

252 M o te to o k

evaluation

a ttitu d e

s tr a te g i e s

com prehen.

u 0 %d re te llin g * g «£ • O£ re a d aloud

•H 13 dote *m A

B ooks APPENDIX C

READ ALOUD LIST

254 255

[ FIRST PERIOD READ ALOUDSI FIFTH PERIOD______READ ALOUDS Swimmy (Leo Uonni) Swimmy (Leo Uonni) The Trouble With Jenny's Ear (Butterworth) Under PlumLake The Stranger (Van Allsbuig) The Stranger (Van Allsburg) The King Who Reigned (Gwyn) Alan and Naomi Chocolate Moose(Gwyn) Inth Night Still Dark Phantom Tolbooth The Lorax (Seusa) The Best Christmas Pageant Ever Sonora Beautiful (Clifton) There's a Boy in the GlrTs Bathroom The Two of Them (Alld) Killer Annie and the Old One Goodnight Mr. Tom The Beat Christmas Pageant Ever Who Needs a Hero Anyway There's a Boy In the Girl's Bathroom Jim and the Beanstalk "In the Presence of my Enemy* Sleeping Ugly Goodnight Mr. Tom Revolting Rhymes (Dahl) Who Needs a Hero Anyway I'm In Charge of Celebrations TV Kid Alaskan Bear Tales The King Who Reigned Chocolate Moose Sixteen Hands Call It Courage Be A Perfect Person in Just Three Days

POETRY AND PICTURE BOOKS NONFICTION READ READ DURING WRITING TIME DURING WRITING TIME 'Eat It All Elaine* Mike Harden Tips for Writers* Hailstones and Halibut Bones (O'Neill) Yolen The Eagle and the Hummingbird* (article Greens (Adoff) from The Writer) Casey at the Bat (and various versions) From Writer's to Students Poems: Nightmares to Trouble your Sleep Where do you get your ideas from (Prelutsky) The Ghost Eyed Tree Spelling poems T o Look at Anything* Guess Who My Favorite Person Is (Baylor) Four on the Shore (Marshall) If You Were a Writer The Mysteries of Harris Burdick Stopping by the Woods on a Snowy Evening (Frost) Dance of the Thirteen Skeletons (Prelutsky) *F6ul Shot* Two Bad Ants (Van Allsbuig) *Mtaphor* {Merriam) COB. CDC (Stelg) Cats (ed. Larrlck) Valentine poems Joyful Noises Plgericks (Lobe!) Romeo and Juliet (Miles < Well Loved Tales from Shakespeare) Tick Axes* (Merriam) Caretakers of Wonder C.LO.U.D.S. A Snake Is Totally Tall •Cliches* (Merriam) APPENDIX D

STATUS OF THE CLASS

256 257

status or the Class

Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday

O , v->u,u7J cA*

{) 0> UMvur^ UJWJ v,«W d Ot*M v (ULw *i^V> Aj lA/ut nke*\

ti ttnfl'n

^ns>C -Y4V 4**J ,*p»- t i s k *>*b * t\ir*+ t A w *

0< o • **#*«■•

01 jlowi •ft* U>txT^ D'wlw* ** ■°' udo-t^ ,vcA< rtUvku-H O' ^ cJ&CpW /VkAV *|Aj^ . T /fOU/ 'O' TCo*rW Q» £DUf •» '’rojW *7^tU ^ % f\vyi)n 3vu>* \ '**0 » V n i r / t uJ>9u^ ul 'tY.v**'' T>>c^ O ^ ^ Jr J &V**" X x l O'flnM&jtio D' 6iittUti*>i t> y0«l* -V^Ki c>' ^ •^-jfa**' 4,“ "" o> o»*/^D > ^ . L } Vvny } > ’ ? du&'S' ) st* u “ £ 3 iw f c £ I /*•« v* H.Y 4** '• jT ^ J

READING CONFERENCE SHEET WITH NOTES

258 yttbook

strategies comprenen

retelling

m read aloud

m H APPENDIX F

READING SURVEY FORM

260 261

Reading Survey

Your Name:.______Dzte t. if you hao to guess... How many ooofcs would you say you owned? How many books would you say there are in your house? h o w many novels would you say you've read in the last 12 months?

2. How did you learn to read ?

3. Why do people read?

4. What does someone have to do in order to oe a good reade-7

5 How does a teacher decide which students are good readers?

6. What (ones of books do you like to read?

7. How do you decide which books you'll read?

8. Have you eve re-read a book? .If so, can you name It/them here? APPENDIX G

WRITING SURVEY FORM

262 263

Writing Survey

v ;. t N a ^ e ______Date

' Areyou a w r'te r7 {if yc,j' answef :s YES. answer question 2a. if your answer is NO, answer 2b; 2a. how c;d you learn to w rite7

2d. how os people learn to write?

3. wny c: people write?

•s. What d: youp m * a good w riter needs to oo in crder to w rite wel'?

5. Hove does your teacher decide which pieces of wr;t'r.g are the goo: ones"

6. in gererai, row ce you fee' about what you write?

7. is there anyth'ng you would I ike me to know Bbout writing in general or accut your writing in oarticular7

tcaciMMivwiDw s m w m w VBrniA«dzfew flMWMQHPlBSWP. CH"Cc riuiicn iFWUldSj 264

9. Do you ever read novels at home for pleasurej f ?_so, now often oo you read at home (for pleasure?)

10. wno are your favorite authors? (List as many as you like)

11. Do you like to nave your teacher read to you’ ,J f so, is there anything soeciat you'd like to hear?

12. in genera!, how do you feel about reading?

13. is there anything else you fee! t should know?

r HUTtf M V"nrAMMMV,^OU n m w r v i n i c m w , wmv xu.atrivm WUCWW OOW f X tM M U rA u i . b o o k * , . Metewr.m*! haauANOMvaveu '•! x x a Z A ■*« M weiaevi AHpMi flfoCUlLMW/ ttfu Y V tiHOO U m o c # - It o o * y Ar 4SX o r.^ ‘ *r APPENDIX H

WRITING CONFERENCE FORMS

265 266

WRITING CONFERENCE WITH PATE,

P o e m s dmire paper .Conversation S Topics .Book Packet Someone you should know .Working Days rold e r FINAL GRADE: 1. What is your best piece of writing from this quarter? Title: Why is it your best?

2. What are your next 3 best pieces of writing? Title: Title: Title: Why?

3. What does one have to do in order to be a good writer7

4. How do you think you worked during writer's workshop time?

5. What did you learn about writing this quarter?

6. What are your goals for next quarter? What do you want to do as a w riter?

7. What grade do you think you earned/deserve? Why?

8. Anything else you want to say about your writing? APPENDIX I

STUDENT WRITING LIST

267 268

STUDENT WRITING LISTS JIMMY First quarter (end-November 1 1 ,19B8) The Treasure Hunt Raindrops on the Water (Poem) Clouds (Poem) Second quarter (end - January 23,1989) What's on my Mind (Poem) The Sun (Poem) The Fight (Collaborative play) Drug Story Character Description Snow (Poem) Xhlrd-Quartflf (end April 7,1989) Waterfalls (Collaborative poem) Spring (Poem) Drug Story -new version Fall (Poem) Fourth Quarter (end - June 5,1989) Hunting story (collaborative Fishing Moon (Poem) Mushroom Cloud (Collaborative Poem) Submarine (Expository) MINDY First Quarter (end - November 9,1988) Mlnner Moseby Friendship Porky Second Quarter fend - January 24,1989) Search for Cattand Held) and Me Third Quarter (end • April 12,1989) Twins Fourth Quarter (end - June 8,1989) Report for social studies Betsy Byars paper Metaphor poem Katie's Trip 269

MAX First Quarter (End November 8.1988) Three Inches Tall Betsy Byars paper Metaphor poem Second Quarter (End: January 26,1989) Chapter II Space Ace (collaborative) Character description Limerick Chapter one of mystery story Third Quarter Azoul(P) Don’t You Hate It When files (collaborative) Azours Revenge (Poem) Fourth Querler Azoul II (poem) The Day I got my turtle Chapter I Hunting Story Report MINDY______First Quarter fend * November 10,1988) Horse Story Halloween Falling in the Hole Second Quarter (end - January 28,1989) Munchkins (play) The Mall Story (collaborative) Christy Third Quarter (end * April 4,1989) A Friend at School Fourth Quarter fend - May 30.1989) Sumr.:er Vacation Olympic report Metaphor poem Writing (Poem) Rainbow (Poem for Mother's Day) 270

JAMES First Quarter (and Novembers. 1988) "Nightmare Under the Full Moon" - Chapter One of Stormy Happenings Friendship paper Second Quaner (end January 25,1989) Midnight Duel (Poem) Puzzling Case Chapter II Star Wars Sequel Fairy Tale book Started a play started "Harry" Third Quarler_(end March 28,1989) School Shoot out Gant (Poem) Fourth Quarter (end June 5,1989) Space Colonies (Expository) Space (Poem) Dark (Poem) Llghtnlng/Thunder ( Poem) Choose Your Own Adventure APPENDIX J

STUDENT BOOK LOGS

271 JIMMY

Sepember 22,19B8 The Cartoonist

October 7,1988 Summer of the Swans

November 9,1988 Journey Outside (Didn't finish)

December 8 ,19B8 Durango Street (Didn't finish) Ralph and the motorcycle Mouse (Didn't Finish)

January 23,1989 The Alfred Summer (Didn't finish) The Acorn People

March 29,1989 Conrad's War (Didnt finish) Be a A Perfect Person In Just Three Days

April 26,1989 Every Living Thing (Short Stories)

May 25,1989 Alaskan Bear Tales Fishing book Tucker Mouse and Harry Cat SUSIE

September 15,1988 Tlie Keeper of Isis Ught Guardian of Isis

October 4,1988 Follow My Leader Watership Down

November 22,1988 Bridge to Tereblthia War wftti Grandpa A Summer to Die The Return of the Indian The Book of Three

December 21,1988 The Black Cauldron Castle of Uyr Taran Wanderer

January 19,1989 The High King The Alfred Summer In the Year of the Boar and Jackie Robinson Roll of Thunder, Hear My Cry

February 14,1989 Finshed Roll of Thunder The Cay The Foundling The Ghost in the Picture The Talking Earth

April 5,1989 Island of the Blue Dolphins Stormy The Year Without Michael Julie of the Wolves The Haunted School My Mother the Mayor Maybe Half Magic (Self Selected) Follow My Leader

May 8,1989 The Cat who Came for Christmas Somewhere a Cat Is Waiting The Nine Planets The Animal, Vegetable and John D. Jones

May 30,1989 The 2,000 Pound Godfish The Night Swimmers The 18th Emergency After the Goatman Cracker Jackson CybilWar The Midnight Fox 274

MAX September 13,1988 CybilWar

November 8,1988 2000 LB, Goldfish The Computer Nut DragonSong (Didn't finished) Journey Outside

January 9.1989 Scarey Stories Grail Quest (Choose your own Adventure) Mystery of the Fiery Eye (Alfred Hitchcock teen series) Alfred Summer (Didn't finished) Inside Out

February 22,1989 More Scarey Stories Abel's Island

April 6,1989 Narla books (2) Choose Your Own Adventure Quest Leap of the Uon (Narla) Return of Death Water (Narla) Ripley's Believe it or Not Star Trek book

April 18,1989 Mark Twain

May 16,1989 Mark Twain Return of the Indian MINDY

September 12,1988 Into the Dream

September 28,1988 Bunntcula Celery Stalks at Midnight

October 31,1988 Divorce Express A Summer To Die

December 6,1988 Are You There God, It's me Margaret Homecoming

January 9,1989 Roll of Thunder, Hear My Cry

February 1,1989 Still reading Roll of Thunder

February 22,1989 The Talking Earth

April 5,1989 Family Secrets

May 4,1989 Random House Book of Humor (Short stories) Modem Olympic Superstars

May 25,1989 The Plnballs The Not Just Anybody Family The Random House Book of Poetry JAMES

September 26,1988 Watershtp Down The Green Book Greek Mythology Roman Mythology Egyptian Mythology Japanese Mythology The Once and Future King

November 30,1988 Sword ol Shanara

January 1,1989 Elfstones of Shanaraa Ice Breaker Fever - Jam es Bond For Special Services - Jam es Bond License Renewed - Jam es Bond Dogs of War

January 31,1989 The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe Prince Caspian Voyage ot the Dawn Treader Silver Chair Sounder

February 21,1989 Island of the Blue Dolphins Banner in the Sky Call it Courage

April 17,1989 Dune A Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy The Restaurant at the End of the Galaxy Ufe the Universe and Everything So Long and Thanks for the Fish Space Colonies

May 12,1989 Hardy Boys books (5) The Computer Nut APPENDIX K MAX’S 'THREE INCHES TALL’ STORY

277 278

THREE INCHES TALL

CHAPTER ONE HELP I'M SHRINKING "Stephen, are you In bad yet?" ■No, Mon I" ■Hell hurry up and pick up your chenlstry set I" ■Hold on, I need to go to the bathroonl" CRASH •Hhat was that?" aha yelled. ■I tripped over my chenlstry set and spilled everything on ny pajamas." There I was with colored powders and nixed liquids-all over me and my pajamas. I got cleaned up and went to bed. I woke up the next morning to the sound of sirens. I heard my mom say in a very sad voice, "I saw him go to bed but when I want to wake him up, he wasn't there.” I sat up. "Oh, my God I*, I yelled. "Everything turned big or did I turn small?" I jumped down from ny bed which seemed like fifteen feet to the ground. I ran out of my room and stopped at the. top of the stairs. "How am I going to get down there?" I wondered. Just when I had Jumped my way down twelve stairs, my Mom walked in crying and holding a handerkerchief. Oh no, I had to hide. I jumped into a crack in the wall until my mom walked by. 'Hhev", I sighed and sat down. Little did I know that it was the home of a big rat. Hhen I turned around and saw it drooling at me, I was scared to death. "Oh no, what should I do?" He was staring at me with bulging eyes. Quickly I thought of a plan. I ran between his legs and behind my mom's plant but I was only safe for a moment before I'd be the rat's breakfast. 279

CHAPTER TWO WHAT ARE BROTHERS FOR? Just then my brother walked by and the rat took off in the other direction. "Brett", I called. He stopped and looked. "Ahhhhhhh", he yelled. "Shut up, Brett, you're going to get mother in here.” I’ had to yell for Brett to be able to hear me. "Who are you?" "I'm your brother, dum dum." "How did you get so small?" "I don't know. I think it's when I spilled my chemistry set all over myself. Listen you have to promise not to tell a soul." "Well, Z'm'not sure." "Brett", I said firmly. "O.K., but how are you going to gat back to normal size?" "I don't know. Oh, by the way, how tall am I?" "Well, let's find out." he said. He took a ruler out from the cupboard and set it up next to me. "You are ...three Inches tall." "Oh great,"! said, "three Inches tall." Just then, we heard mom. "You've got to hide." ho said. He picked me up and put me in his pocket. " What are you doing Brett?"she asked. "Nothing. I'm Just feeling down about how much I miss Stephen." he said. "Yes, I know, ve all miss him," she sobbed as she walked away, "Mmmmmmmmmm", came a muffled noise from Brett's pocket. "I can't breathe...pant pant... in there." "Oh, sorry, Steve. That was close." "Pant pant pant. Yeah, Z know." "Are you O.K.?" Brett asked. "Yes, I'm fine." "We've got to figure out a way to find an antidote for you. First I have to eat breakfast." "I'm hungry too. Save me some." 280

Bratt got a thimble and when he was done with his oatmeal, he put a little bit In it for me. I gobbled It down with delight. When I was done, we spent most of the day making tiny little shirts and pants for me. He even made a little drawer. By the time we were done we had a miniature house cut out of an old cardboard box that Brett put his junk in. That night Brett vent out for chicken because mom didn't want to cook. I decided to explore the house. I jumped in all the elec­ trical appliances to see what made them work. I wanted to watch TV but I had some trouble jumping on the buttons to change the channels. After a while my mom walked in and I quickly hid under the couch. I didn't even get a chance to turn off the TV. "Who left the TV on?" she asked. "1 don't know," Brett said looking around. "What are you looking for?" Mom asked Brett. "Oh nothing," Brott answered. "Weil I'm going upstairs," she replied. I jisnpod out from under the couch an asked "Did you bring ma some chicken?" "Yes," he said and tore a little piece of the chicken in his hand and gave it to me a piece at a time. After that we watched TV and vent to bed. I was glad we had fixed the box for me to sleep in. 281

CHAPTER THREE SBOOL DAYS The next morning I woke up to Brettfe alarm.It was Monday and time for school. Wegot up, ate breakfast, got dressed and went to school. That morning Mr.Lube our teacher called roll. Evan though Brett was my twin-not Identical-they decided to keep us in the same class. He got down to Bretti name and said,"Brett Martinez?" " Here" " Stephen Martinez?" No answer, "Stephen?"he asked again. Brett raised his hand. "Stephen is not coming.He think he ran away."he said in a low sad voice. " Oh I'm sorry to hear that." Mr. Lube said. Jufst then I sneezed. "Ouzuntlte."Mr.Lube said to Brott. Brett said"! didn't sneeze" "Then who did?" "I don't know." Mr. Lube turned around. "Achoool"! sneezed again. " All right!"Mr. Lube said "Who sneezed this time?" No antf6r. "All right,Brett you get two demerits for that!" "Thanks ateve,"whispered Brett,as he nudged his pocket I tickled him. "HA HA HA HE HE HE HO HO HO!!" "Tha£s three more demerits,Brett."said Mr.Lube Brett nudged his pocket even harder. "Ouch"X yelled at the top of my tiny lungs, •'thatls two more demerits.I guess that means I'll be seeing you at Saturday school." When the bell rang Brett vas the first one out and the only one in the bathroom .He pulled me out of his pocket and asked,"\fhy did you sneeze?" "I coddn't help it." 282

"Why did you tickle me?" "Why'd you nudge me?" I replied. "How come you yelled ouch7” "Because you hurt met" "I'm aorry I hurt you." "I'm sorry about your Saturday school. By the way, thanks (or cutting those holes In your pocket so I could breath. Finnaly after a long day ve both rushed home.' 283

CHAPTER FOUR GAMES When Brett and I got home Brett did hia home work. Even If X had wanted to do my homework, X was to small to push a pencil(Some excuse,huh?)After that, I wanted to- play Monopoly so we got out the game board and the money and deeds. I was the car and Brett to be the shoe. After a while mom came home.! hid under the couch and mom asked "Who are you playing with Brett?" "Oh nobody, I'm Just playing." ho said. Mon had a puzzled look on her face. "You've been acting strange since Stephen disappeared." She walked over to Brett and gave him a hug. As she walked out of the room she heard Brett say "You can come out now Steve." "Who are you talking to Brett?" she asked. Brott whirled around and looked like he had seen a ghost. ■Uh, nobody. I'm Just talking to myself." he stuttered. "Oh, I thought you were talking to Stephen." "No mom Stephen is gone.” Brett said. " Are you feeling ok?" She asked. "Who me?" "Yes you." "Uh yea."he said. "X guess you just miss him like X do."she said. ' With that she left the room I jumped out from under the couch and said "You almost got us caught." "Yeah I Know that was really close.Well we might as well finish the game I think it was my turn."said Brett.'* 284

CHAPTER FIVE SPELLS AND SMELLS After the game, ve sat down and thought about an antidote. An hour later Brett had a solution. "I got it. He'll go to the library and look for a spell book." "Good idea," I said. "Hell then, what are we waiting for? Let's got" Hhen we got to the library, we found two books. They were Snells for Kids and The Best Magic Spells. He went to the wscond one and looked under miniaturization. There it was! Quickly we looked for the antidote. "Oh yuckl" He said. "What is it? I asked. "You have to drink spinach juice with raw eggs and a bottle of tabasco sauce." "OH YUCK!*. I said. When we got back to the house mom asked were Brett had been. "To the library." he said. "Oh." she said vithwAeE3ok. "Well it's almost time for dinner what do you want to drink?" Brett froze. "Uh, well, I well ,can I have spinach juice with raw eggs and tabasco sauce?" "Ha ha ha ha ha . No you silly,what do you really want to drink?" "No Mom,I'm serious, I want to try it." Brett Insisted. "Yeah right."she said. "Mother, I'm serious!" Brett said firmly. Mom looked shocked. After a long argument, she gave in and fixed Brett his drink. That night at dinner we had spaghetti. Every time Brett took a drink Mom stared at him. Even I could smell the horrible concoction from behind the bread baket where I was hiding. When dinner was done, Brett had left a little bit in his glass for me. Luckily mother went upstairs and Brett got out a thimble and poured it in. 285

CHAPTER FIVE SPELLS AND SHELLS After the game* we sat down and thought about an antidote. An hour later Brett had a solution. "I got it. We'll go to the library and look for a spell book." "Good idea," I said. "Well then# vhat are we waiting for? Let's got” When we got to the library# we found two books. They were Snells for Kids and The Best Maole Snells. We went to the second one and looked under miniaturization. There it was! Quickly we looked for the antidote. "Oh yuckt" He said. "What is it? I asked. "You have to drink spinach Juice with raw eggs and a bottle of tabasco sauce." "OH YUCK I*# I said. When we got back to the house mom asked were Brett had been. "To the library." he said. "Oh." she said wlthwA*£&ok. "Well it's almost time for dinner what do you want to drink?" Brett froze. "Uh, well# I well «can I have spinach juice with raw eggs and tabasco sauce?" "Ha ha ha ha ha . No you silly,vhat do you really want to drink?" "No Mom,I'm serious, I want to try it." Brett Insisted. "Yeah right."she said. "Mother, I'm serious!" Brett said firmly. Mom looked shocked. After a long argument, she gave in and fixed Brett his drink. That night at dinner we had spaghetti. Every time Brett took a drink Mom stared at him. Even I could smell the horrible concoction from behind the bread baket where I was hiding. When dinner was done# Brett had left a little bit in his glass for me. Luckily mother vent upstairs and Brett got out a thimble and poured it in. 286

"This la strong stuff are you sure you vant to go through with this "YeB I'm sure." "Hell than hare." He handed me the thimble. Slowly I put It to my mouth andl drank It spilling half of It all over me. Brett was watching Intently. When I was done, nothing happend. Then little by little, centimeter by centimeter, inch by inch, I was grovlngt when I got back to my normal size I started jumping up and down yelling,"I'm back I'm back." Just then I realized that I didn't have a stich of clothing onl It disintegrated as I grew Horn eamo runningdovn and when she saw me she started Jumping up and down yelling "Your back your back! But vhat happened to your clothes?" When we all settled down we explained my story to mom and we were all relieved that It was over. The next morning, I was looking forward to everything being back to normal. I opened my eyes and looked over to Brett's bad. I was shocked to seethat his head was out the door and his feet were out the window! He had grown from drinking the spinach juice! Back to the library. APPENDIX L MINDY'S 'A FRIEND AT SCHOOL' STORY

287 288

A FRIEND AT SCHOOL Her name was Christy Montgomery,and she has a problem, she is realy mean to everyone,ano I want to helo her. Christy seems to want to have friends accept she tnink that everyone has to come to her if thev like her. . most of them ju st don't lik e her* oeacause she is kind of sku*:v looking and isn't all that pretty. I don't kow why I'm going to help her acceot I guess I In a way know how she feels. I guess that I've oeen through the same things. Tooav is September 14, 1969, and I'm sta rtin g my new years resolution early. 1 am determalned to help that girl yet,and that's a promise ! Tomarrow I s ta r t my work. Now today is a new day for me 1 have all ready planned my strateg y , I am going to go over to her a fte r 3rd period andask to s it with her and then we will become the best of friends with a lot of work th at is . Ok there sne is just as I planned I'm going to ...... " Hey Stacey wait up ! Its me Amy." Oh no alt I need to mess up my strategy, Amy Mcferin. "Hi ya Stacey !" “ Manna eat together?" "Not today Amy mabey tomarrow, I have to meet someone.* "On ya who!" • "Not now Alsv!" "01: fin e I 'l l make sure th at you never have any friends. And you'll regret It, for sure!" I thought that, that girl would never leave me alone to get my work done! Now I 'l l Just have to go and s i t sown next to her and i t might ruin everything for me ! Put here goes nothing. Oh tnere she is ,1 didn't know that she sat all by her self. Now I'm approching the victom, she does not know who lam. I slide in next to her ano ...... “Hi there.* "I know who you are, your're Christy Montgomery, can I sit with you? -Well I know who I am but Mho and the heck are you?!" "My name is Stacey Stevenson and I want to be your friend." “Why me every body hates me they think I'm skuzsy and ugly." "Hey I'll bet I know who sent you here, the school counseler!* "No that's not it at all!" "I just want to be your friend!" "Ok 1 guess I believe you accept if you were lleln g 1 would never forgive you." "1 promise." "Well ok sit down make yourself comfortable," "I guess since I sit alone that we won't have any over croudtng." "Why do you like me?" "I'm Just an ugly unfun person to be around." "Besides your a cool girl,and I'm the most unpopular person in the whole school!" “I know how you feel .because where I come from no bodv wanted 289

to :# iritM either.ano t oroaisao that if I aver 6ki»» pooular tn*t ■ would always ano fo rarer bo met to *11 oI tn* ptoolo that •ra n t to oocular." "Baaidta I think that vou aro vory orottv.* * Accept that you never anow It with anything." *Do you think that i t would help?"

’Oh tura.I wan that at ay houta I have alot of aakauo and I'* aor* that it would b* ok if vou cant how* with ae,*nd atayad for dinner." ’Mall you don’t hava to do that for a*.’ “It a no prob1ea,in fact I bat that If you com pom with aa that you’ll go hOM a now carton!" "Alto I'm certain that Mian you go to tchool toaarrow that avaryona will notice you!" "Mall...... ok I'll do It!" "Great aaat aa after tchool in front of the aaln building." "Sea you than Stacey!" "Bye Chriaty!" Ok 5.4,3,2,1. BLAST OFF! t'a out of harel" I can't wait until 1 can work on her. I'll bat that thli will be ay boat work yet. "STACETI* (thinking to hertalf and running toward 6t*cey) " t'a gonna ba the beat friend aver,and ahow her ay dearest gratitude." "HI Chriaty, I "a glad you aada It on tlw .l didn’t know if you i d coaa or not." •Why did you think that? "Oh, I gueaa that wa Just aat and all that you alght decide to not be ay friend." "Chriaty I'a really sorry for doughtlng you." "Its ok" "Now lets git to ay house before ay aoa gets worried." Really I waa worried that aha w ouldn't com because of the fact that I heard th at aha aoM ttaes aha can taka people for a rid e . As In naming soM tlaea aha aakee people bellve that aha la her frlano. "Stacey are we to your house yet?" ‘Huh what, oh it'e right around the corner, on the left." "Its the third house down." "Oh ay god that'a a beautiful house you have." "Why thank you." "Mali lets go In and I 'll introduce you to ay aoa, and then we can get a snack." "Ok with you?" "Tea that would be fine with aa." Cat she opens the door). "What 'should I say to your aoa, I wan how should I act?" "Just be your self." "She'll like for the way you are,l should know we are slot alike." "Oh hi aoa sorry I didn't get hare sooner,accept that I invited Christy over for dinner tonight." "Is that ok?" "Sum honey,if she asks her aoa or dad first." "Ok aoa she'll call now." "By the way,nice to a n t you Christy,just call m Holly." "Niee to sect you to." "Com on Chriaty,you can use the phone in ay rooa," CONVERSATION BETWEEN CHRISTY ANO HER NON

"Hello." ■Hi aoa I t's m Christy." 290

‘Don't worry In at a friend's house, her name is Stacey Stevenson,we net at school," "Is it alright for me to stay for dinner,ner non said that it Has fine with her." "W ell....I guess so,be good honey, 1 love you.." "t love you to non." "I'll call you later and give you directions." "Ox?"

"Ok,see you after a while."

"Ok Stacey 1 can stay." "Great we can s ta r t now!"

“Now then, all of «y make-up and things are over threre on the dresser." “First of all I'll do your hair,second your outfit,.third your nails and toenalls.and finally fourth of all the MAKE-UP!!" "Slow down Stacey l'

AFTER THE WORKS "Oh Christy you look—- — --GREAT!!!!!!!!!* "»ou are so b e a u tifu l!" " Ic a n 't-w a it for the kids to see you at school." "But there is only one'problem,your glasses,] can fix that though." "How?" "Well my mom gave me an "American Express"card,so I 'l l buy you contact lenses!" "Stacey your the best friend anyone could have!" "But first can I look in the mirror and sea what I look like?" "Oh I forgot about that Christy,I'm so sorry!" "Go ahead." "Thank you thank you thank you I look like a to ta lly different person but your right 1 should loose the glasses."

THE NEXT DAT AT SCHOOL As I walked down the hall 1 saw Christy with alot of friends that day,it seemed as if 1 did not have a best friend anymore,or any popularity. I guess t h a t 's what happens when you help a nerd and make then into a beautiful popular person. I wonder if we will ever be friends again? BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ackerman, J. (1989). Student's Self-Analyses and Judges' Perceptions: Where do they Agree? UCLA, Center for the Study of Writing. Technical Report No. 23.

Applebee, A. (1978). The Child's Concept o f Story. Chicago: University of Chicago.

Anson, C. M. (Ed.). (1989). Writing and Response Theory, Practice and Research. Urbana, III: NCTE.

Atwell, N. (1987). In the Middle. New Jersey: Boyton Cook. Atwell, N. (1989). Workshop I: Writing and Literature. New Hampshire: Hcincmann.

Atwell, N. (1984). Wridng and reading from the inside out. Language Arts. Vol. 61, No. 3, 240-253.

Baumlin, J. S. & Baumlin, T. F. (1989). Paper Grading and the Rhetorical Stance. In B. Lawson, et al (Eds.) Encountering Student Texts, Urbana, 111: NCTE.

Beach, R. (1979). The Effects of Between-Draft Teacher Evaluation Versus Student Self- Evaluation on High School Students' Revising of Rough Draft Research In the Teaching o f English. 111-119,

Benton, M. (1979). Children's Responses to Stories. Children's Literature in Education. Vol. 10, No. 1, 68-85.

Berthoff, A. (1981). The Making o f Meaning. NJ: Boynton/Cook Publishers, Inc.

Bissex, G. L. & Bullock, R H. (1987) Seeing for Ourselves: Case-Study Research by Teachers o f Writing. Portsmouth, New Hampshire: Heinemann.

Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S.K. (1982). Qualitative research for education: an introduction to theory and methods. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Brannon, L. & Knoblauch, C.H. (1982). Or. Students' Right to Their Own Texts: A Model of Teacher Response. College Composition and Communication, 157-166.

Britton, J. (1987). A Quiet Form of Research. In D. Goswammi and P. Stillman (Eds.) Reclaiming the Classroom, Portsmouth: Boynton/Cook.

291 292

Britton, J., et al. (197S). The Development of Writing Abilites (11-18). London: Macmillan..

Britton, J. (1968). Response to literature. In J. Squire (Ed.) Response to Literature. Urbana, IL: NCTE.

Britton, J. (1984). Viewpoints: The distinction between participant and spectator role language in research and practice. Research In the Teaching of English, Vol. 18, No. 3, pp. 320*331.

Bruner, J. (1986). Actual Minds, Possible Worlds. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Burton, F. (1985). The Reading-Writing Connection: AOneYearTeacher-As- Researcher Study ofThird-Fouth Grade Writers and their Literary Experiences. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. The Ohio State University.

Burton, F. (1989). Writing What they Read: Reflections on Literature and Child Writers, Stories To Grow On. Jensen, J. (Ed). Portsmouth, N.H.: Heinemann, 97-116.

Butler, A & Turbill, J. (1984). Towards A Reading-Writing Classroom. Primary English Teaching Association.

Calkins, L. M. (1986). The Art of Teaching Writing. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Calkins, L. M. (1983). Lessons From A Child. Melbourne: Heinemann.

Carini, P. (1979). The Art of Seeing and the Visibility o f the Person. Grand Forks: ND: University of North Dakota Press.

Carlsen, R. G. & Sherrill, A. (1988). Voices of Readers How We Come to Love Books. Urbana: NCTE.

Carter, M. (1990). The Idea of Expertise: An Exploration of Cognitive and Social Dimensions of Writing College Composition and Communication. Vol. 41, No. 3, 265-287.

Chall, J. (1967). Learning to Read :The Great Debate. New York: MGraw-Hill Book Co.

Coles Jr., W. E.& Vopat, J. (1985). What Makes Writing Good. Lexington: D.C. Heath and Company.

Cooper, C„ et al. (1984) Studying the Writing Abilities of a University o f Freshman Class: Strategies from a Case Study, New Directions in Composition Research. New York: The Guildford Press, 19-52.

Cooper, C. & Odell, L. (1977). Evaluating Writing: Describing, Measuring and Judging. NCTE, 1977. 293

Corcoran, B. & Evans, E. (Eds.). (1987). Readers, Texts, Teachers. New Jersey: Boyton/Cook Publishers, Inc.

Crowhurst, M. (1980). Syntactic Complexity and Teachers: Quality Ratings of Narrations and Arguments. Research in the Teaching o f English. Vol. 14, No. 3, 223*231.

Daiker, D. & Max M. (1990).77te Writing Teacher as Researcher Essays in the Theory and Practice o f Class-Based Research. Portsmouth: Boynton/Cook Heinemann. DeFord, D. (1981). Literacy: Reading, Writing and other Essentials. Language Arts,, 38, 652-658.

Dewey, J. (1974). Why reflective thinking must be an educational aim. In R.D. Archambault (Ed.), John Dewey on Education, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Dillard, A. (1989). The Writing Life. New York: Harper and Row.

Donaldson, M. (1978). Chltdren's minds. W.W. Norton & Co.

Donmoyer, R.. (1988). Generalizability and the Single Case Study. Stanford University Conference on Qualitative Research Issues, Stanford, CA.

Duffy, Gerald G. (ed.) 1990). Reading in the Middle School. Delaware: IRA.

Dyson, A. H. (1988). Negotiating among multiple worlds: The space/time dimensions of young children composing. Research in the teaching o f English Vol. 22, No.4, 355-390.

Dyson, A.H. (1986). Transitions and tensions: Interrelationship between the drawing talking and dictating of young children. Research in the teaching o f English. Vol. 20, No. 4., 379-410.

Dyson, A. H. and S. W. Freedman, (1990). On Teaching Writing; A Review o f the Literature. UCLA, Center for the Study of Writing,Occasional Paper No. 20.

Eckoff, B. (1983). How Reading Affects Children's Writing. Language Arts. Vol. 60, No. 5.

Egoff, S., G.T. Stubbs and L.F. Ashley (Eds.). (1980). Only Connect. Toronto: University Press.

Elbow, P. (1986). Embracing Contraries; Explorations in Learning andTeaching. New York: Oxford University Press.

Emig, J. (1971). The Composing Processes o f Twelfth Graders. Urbana, 111: NCTE.

Emig, J. (1983). The Web O f Meaning. New Jersey: Boynton Cook. 294

Enciso Edminston, P.. (1990). The Nature of Engagement in Reading: Profiles of Three Fifth Graders' Engagement Strategies and Stances. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. The Ohio State University.

Erickson, F.(1990). Qualitative Methods in Research on Teaching. In M.C. Wittrock (Ed.) Handbook of Research on Teaching (3rd ed.) NewYork: Macmillan, 119-161.

Faigtey, L. (1987). Judging Writing, Judging Selves. College Composition and Communication. Vol. 40, No. 4, 395-414.

Fish, S. E (1980). Is There a Text in this Class?: The Authority o f Interpretive Communities. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Flower, L.S. & Hayes, J.R. (1977) Problem Solving Strategies and the Writing Process. College English.. Vol. 39,449-461.

Freedman, S. W. (1984). The Registers of Student and Professional Expository Writings: Influences on Teachers' Responses. New Directions in Composition Research New York: The Guilford Press, 334-347.

Freedman, S. W., et al. (1987). Research in Writing: Past, Present and Future. UCLA, Center for the Study of Writing. Technical Report No. I . .

Freedman, S. W. (1987). Response to Student Writing. Urbana, Illinois: NCTE. 1987.

Galda, L. (1983). Research in Response to Literature. Journal of Research and Development in Education. Vol. 16, No. 3,1-7.

Galindo, L. R..(1990). Young Bilingual Children's Appropriations o f Dialogue Journals as a Literacy Event: A Study of Literacy Socialization. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University.

Gardner, J. (1985). The Art o f Fiction Notes on Crqftfor Young Writers. New York: Vintage Books.

Gere, A. R. (1980). Written Composition: Toward a Theory of Evaluation. College English. Vol. 42, No. 1,44-58.

Goodman, K. S., Y. M. Goodman & W.J. Hood. (1989). The whole language evaluation book. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Goodman, Y. (1978). Kid watching: An alternative to testing. National School Principal. Vol. 57. pp. 41-45.

Goswami, D. & P. R. Stillman.(1987). Reclaiming the Classroom. Teacher Research as an Agency for Change Portsmouth: Boynton/Cook Publishers.

Graves, D. H. (1989). Research Currents: When Children Respond to Fiction. Language Arts . Vol. 66, No. 7„ 777-783. 295

Graves, D. (1991). Trust the Shadows. The Reading Teacher, .Vol. 45, No. 1,18-24.

Graves, D. (1983). Writing: Teachers & Children at Work . NH: Heinemann.

Guba, E. & Y. Lincoln. (1981). Effective Evaluation. San Fancisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Hansen, J. (1983). Authors Respond to Authors. Language Arts. Vol. 60, No. 8,970- 982.

Harrison, B. & G.Macguire. (1987). Innocence and Experience: Essays and Conversations on Children's Literature. New York: Lothrop, Lee &Shephard.

Harste, J., Woodward, V. & Burke, C. (1985). Language stories and literacy lessons. Portsmouth: Heinemann.

Heath,S.B. (1983) Ways with Words: Language, life and work in communities and classrooms. Cambridge University Press.

Heins, E. L. (1982). 'Go and Catch a Falling Stari: What is a Good Children's Book? Theory into Practice, 247-253.

Hepler, S, (1982). Patterns of Response to Literature: A One-Year Study of a Fifth and Sixth Grade Classroom , The Ohio State University: Unpublished doctoral dissertation.

Hetherington, E.M. & R.D. Parke. (1979). Child Psychology: A Contemporary Viewpoint .New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.

Hickman, J. (1983) Everything considered: Response to literature in an elementary school setting. Journal of research and development in education. Vol. 16, No,3,8-14.

Hickman, J. (1981). A New Perspective on Response to Literature Research in an Elementary School Setting. Research in the Teaching o f English. Vol. 15, No. 4, 353-354.

Hilgers, T. (1984). Toward a Taxonomy of Beginning Writers' Evaluative Statements on Written Compositions Written Communication .Vol. 1, No. 3,365-384.

Holland, N.. (1975). Five Readers Reading. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1975.

Holland, N. (1980). Unity Identity Text Self, in J.P. Tompkins (Ed.) Reader Response Criticism. Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press, 118-133.

Hornsby, David and Deborah Sukarina with Jo-Ann Parry. (1986). Read-On: A Corference Approach to Reading. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Huck, C.S. Hepler & J. Hickman. (1987). Children's Literature in the Elementary, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. 296

Irwin, Judith W. & Mary Anne Doyle (Eds.) (1992). Reading/Writing Connections: Learning from Research. Delaware: IRA.

Iscr, Wolfgang. (1978). The Act o f Reading A Theory o f Aesthetic Response. Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press, 1978.

Johnston, Brian. (1983). Assessing English: Helping Students to Reflect on Their Work. Sydney: S t Clair Press, 1983.

Johnston, Peter. (1991). Constructive Evaluation and the Improvement of Teaching and Learning. Teacher's College Record

Johnston, Peter. (1987). Teachers as Evaluation Experts. The Reading Teacher, p. 744- 748.

Jose, P. E. & Brewer, W. F. (1983). The development of story liking: Character identification, suspense, and outcome resolution. University of Illinois, Center for the Study of Reading, Technical Report No. 291.

Karl, J. (1982). An Editor's View: Recognizing the Best Theory into Practice. Autumn, 1982, 254-261.

Karl, J. (1970). From Childhood to Childhood. New York: The John Day Company, 1970.

Kirby, D. and T. Liner. (1981). Inside Out. New Jersey: Boyton Cook.

Kline, C. R„ (1976). Jr. I Know You Think You Know What I Said. College English. March 1976,661-662.

Kucer, S.B. (1989). Reading a Text: Does the Author Make a Difference? in B. Lawson, et al (Eds.) Encountering Student Texts. Illinois: NCTE, 1989.

Langer, J. and A. Applebee.(1987) How Writing Shapes Thinking. Urbana, Illinois: NCTE, 1987.

Lawson, B. S.,S. Ryan and W, R. Winterowd (Eds.). (1989) Encountering Student Texts. Urbana, Illinois: NCTE.

L'Engle, M. (1985). Trailing Clouds of Glory: Spiritual values in children's books. (Brooke, S. anthoglogist). Philadelphia: TheWestminster Press.

Lewis, C.S. (1982). On Stories and Other Essays on Literature. San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Lincoln, E. & Y. Guba. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.

Livingston, M.C, (1984). The Child as Poet: Myth or Reality? Boston: The Horn Book. 297

Lurie, A (1990). Don't Tell the Grown-Ups Why Kids Love the Books They Do. New York: Avon Books.

McClure, Amy. (1985). Children's Responses to Poetry in a Supportive Literary Context. The Ohio State University. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.

Meek, M., A. Wariow & O. Barton. (1977). The Cool Web. London: The Bodley Head.

Miles, M.B. & A.M. Huberman. (1984). Drawing Valid Meaning From Qualitative Data: Toward a Shared Craft. Educational Researcher., 20-30.

Miller, J. (1989). Evaluating Student Poetry. English Journal. February, 35-39.

Miller, S. (1984). The Student's Reader is Always a Fiction. Journal o f Advanced Composition. Vol. 5,15-29.

Mishler, E.O. (1979). Meaning in Context: Is There Any Other Kind? Harvard Education Review. Vol. 49, No. ,11-19.

Moffett, J. (1968) Teaching the Universe o f Discourse. Portsmouth: Heinemann.

Moffett, J. &Wagner, B.J. (1978). Student -Centered Language Arts and Reading, K-13: A Handbook for Teachers. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co.

Murray, D, (1991). All Writing is Autobiography. College Composition and Communication. Vol. 42 Number 1,66-75.

Murray, D. (1985). A Writer Teaches Writing. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Murray, D. (1982). Teaching the Other Self: The Writer’s First Reader. College Composition and Communication. 140-147.. Murray, D. (1979). The Qualities of Good Writing. English Journal. 79.

Newkirk, T. (1984). How Students Read Student Papers. Written Communication. Vol.. 1, No. 3, 283-305.

Nilsen, A. P. and K. L. Donelson. (1985). Literature for Today's Young Adults. Illinois: Scott, Foresman and Co.

Pappas, C.C., B.Z. Keifer & L.S. Levstik. (1990), An Integrated Language Perspective in the Elementary School. New York: Longman.

Paterson, K. (1981) Gates o f Excellence, New York: Elsevier/Nelson.

PiagetJ. (1952). The origins of intelligence in children. New York: International University Press.

Piaget. J. (1960). The child's conception o f the world . London: Routiedgc. 298

Pirsig, R. (1974). Zen and the Art o f Motorcycle Maintenance. New York: Bantam Books.

Probst, R.E. (1989). Transactinal Theory and Response to Student Writing In C Anson (Ed.) Writing and Response: Theory Practice and Research, Illinois: NCTE. Purves, A. (1968). Elements of Writing About a Literary Work. NCTE Research Report No. 9.

Purves, A. & Beach, R. (1972). Literature and the Reader: Research in response to literature, reading interests and the teaching of literature. Ill: NCTE.

Purves, A. C., T. Rogers and A. O. Soter. (1990). How Porcupines Make Love //: Teaching a Response-Centered Literature Curriculum. New York: Longman.

Purves, A.C. (1972). Literature and the Reader. Ubana, 111: University of Illinois.

Richards, L.(1990). Writing Strategies Reaching Diverse Audiences. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.

Rose, D. (1990). Living the Ethnographic Life. London: Sage Publications.

Rosenblatt, L. (1982). The Literary Transaction: Evocation and Response. Theory into Practice, 268-277.

Rosenblatt, L.. (1938). Literature as Exploration. New York: Noble and Noble, Publishers, Inc.

Rosenblatt, L. (1988). Writing and Reading: The Transactional Theory. Technical Report No. UCLA 13 Center for the Study of Writing.

Rylant, C. (1990) .The Room in Which Van Gogh Lived Workshop 2: Beyond The Basal. Nancy Atwell. (Ed). Portsmouth: Hcineman, 18-22.

Searle, D, and D. Dillon. (1980). The Message of Marking: Teacher Written Responses to Student Writing at Intermediate Grade Levels. Research in the Teaching o f English. Vol. 14, No.3, 233-242.

Schlager, N. (1978). Predicting children's choices in literature: a developmental approach Children's Literature in Education, Vol. 9: 136-142.

Schriver, K. (1990). Evaluating Text Quality: The Continuum From Text -Focused To Reader-Focused Methods. Technical Report No. 41, UCLA, Center for the Study of Writing.

Shanklin, N. (1982). Relating Reading and Writing: Developing a Transactional Theory of the Writing Process, Indiana University: Monographs in language and reading studies, No. 5.

Shaughnessy, M. (1978). Errors and Expectations. New York: Oxford Press, 299

Shaw, M. L. (1991). What Students Don't Say: An Approach to the Student Text College Composition and Communication, Vol.42, No. 1,45*55.

Smith, F. (1983). Reading Like A Writer. Language Arts. Vol. 60, No. 5,558-567.

Strauss, A. and J. Corbin. (1990). Basics o f Qualitative Research. Newbury Park: Sage Publications, 1990.

Squire, J. (1964). The response o f adolescents while reading four short stories. NCTE research report No.2 NCTE.

Squire, J. (1968). Responses to Literature. NCTE. Urbana, 111.

Tierney, R.J. (1992). Studies of Reading and Writing Growth: Longitudinal Research on Literacy Development in The Handbook of Research in Language Arts, New York: Macmillan.

Tierney, R.J., R. Caplan, L. Ehri, M.K. Healy & M. Hurdlow.. (1988). Writing and Reading Working Together. UCLA,Center for the Study of Writing. Occasional Pater No. 5.

Tierney, R. J., M. A. Carter and L. Desai. (1991) Portfolio Assessment in the Reading- Writing Classroom. Norwood, MA.: Christopher Gordon Publishers, Inc.

Ticney, R. J. and P. D. Pearson. (1983). Toward a Composing Model of Reading. In Jensen, J. (Ed.) (1984 ).Composing and Comprehending. NCRE, ERIC.

Tierney, R J. &T. Shanahan. (1991). Research on the Reading-Writing Relationship: Interactions, Transactions, and Outcomes, in The Handbook o f Reading Research, Volume II. R. Barr, M. Kamil, & P. Mosenthal (Eds.), New York: Longman, Inc.

Tierney, W. (1992). Minorities in Academe-The Navtive American Experience. Ablex,

Tinberg, H. B. (l991).An Enlargement of Observation;: More on Theory Building in the Composition Classroom. College Composition and Communication. Vol. 42, No. 1, 36-45. Thompson, R..(1981). Peer Grading: Some Promising Advantages for Composition Research and the Classroom. Research in the Teaching of English. Vol. 15,172- 175. Tucker, N.. (1972). How Children Respond to Fiction," Children's Literature in Education. November, 1972,48-56.

Wamock, T.(1989). An Analysis of Response: Dream, Prayer and Chart in B. Lawson, et al (Ed.) Encountering Student Texts, Illinois: NCTE, 1989,59-72.

Van Maanen, J. Tales o f the Field. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988.

Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in Society. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. 300

Vygotsky, L.S. (1986). Thought and Language. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.

West, J. K. (1985). Thirty Aides in Every Classroom. In A. R. Gere (Ed.) Roots in the Sawdust. Urbana, III.: NCTE, 1985.

White, Edward.(1985). Teaching and Assessing Writing. San Francisco: Josscy-Bass Publishers.

Wolcott, Harry F. (1990). Writing Up Qualitative Research. Newbury Park: Sage University Paper.