In this article, we analyze one coauthor's 12th-grade English class, focusing on a small group of students who interpreted the character of Gertrude in Hamlet through a body biography, a life-sized human outline that students filled with words and images that represented their understanding of the character. We analyze the body biography production as a function of the social context of activity and then analyze the processes of composition involved in their production. Analysis of the data reveals that (a) the students exhibited different degrees of commitment to and involvement in the group task, (b) the degree of equity in productivity and social relations varied within the group in accordance with these different degrees of engagement, and (c) the inequity in social relations and contributions to the group product belied the degree to which the final interpretive product met the teacher's assessment criteria. We conclude with a reconsideration of the notion of engagement that includes attention to both the immediate social relations within the classroom and the histories of engagement that students bring to class.
References
1.
AllenP. G. (1983). Studies in American Indian literature: Critical essays and course designs.New York: Modern Language Association.
2.
ApplebeeA. N. (1993). Literature in the secondary school: Studies of curriculum and instruction in the United States (NCTE Research Report No. 25). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
3.
AtwellN. (1987). In the middle: Writing, reading, and learning with adolescents.Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
4.
BarnesD. (1990). Language in the secondary classroom. In BarnesD.BrittonJ.TorbeM. (Eds.), Language, the learner, and the school (4th ed., pp. 9–88). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
5.
BarnesD. (1992). From communication to curriculum (2nd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
6.
BazermanC. (1994). Systems of genres and the enactment of social intentions. In FreedmanA.MedwayP. (Eds.), Genre and the new rhetoric (pp. 79–101). London: Taylor & Francis.
LensmireT. J. (1994). When children write: Critical re-visions of the writing workshop.New York: Teachers College Press.
26.
Leont'evA. (1981). Problems of the development of mind.Moscow: Progress Publishers.
27.
MarshallJ. D.SmagorinskyP.SmithM. W. (1995). The language of interpretation: Patterns of discourse in discussions of literature (NCTE Research Report No. 27). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
28.
McWhorterP.Hudson-RossS. (1996). Student-centered literacy instruction in high school: I want to, but how? (Instructional Resource No. 29). Athens, GA: National Reading Research Center.
29.
McWhorterP.JarrardB.RhoadesM.WiltcherB. (1996). Student-generated curriculum: Lessons from our students (Instructional Resource No. 30). Athens, GA: National Reading Research Center.
30.
NystrandM. (1997). Opening dialogue: Understanding the dynamics of language and learning in the English classroom.New York: Teachers College Press.
31.
O'Donnell-AllenC.SmagorinskyP. (in press). Revising Ophelia: Rethinking questions of gender and power in school. English Journal..
32.
OldfatherP.DahlK. (1994). Toward a social constructivist reconceptualization of intrinsic motivation for literacy learning. Journal of Reading Behavior, 26, 139–158.
33.
PeirceC. S. (1931–1958). Collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce (Vols. 1–6, HartshorneC.WeissP., Eds.; Vols. 7–8, A. W. Burks, Ed.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
34.
RosenblattL. M. (1978). The reader, the text, the poem: The transactional theory of the literary work.Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
35.
RoutmanR. (1996). Literacy at the crossroads: Crucial talk about reading, writing, and other teaching dilemmas.Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
36.
RussellD. R. (1997). Rethinking genre in school and society: An activity theory analysis. Written Communication, 14, 504–554.
37.
SalomonG. (Ed.). (1993). Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations.New York: Cambridge University Press.
38.
SizerT. R. (1992). Horace's compromise: The dilemma of the American high school.Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
39.
SmagorinskyP. (1995). Constructing meaning in the disciplines: Reconceptualizing writing across the curriculum as composing across the curriculum. American Journal of Education, 103, 160–184.
40.
SmagorinskyP. (1996a). Appropriating tools for teaching and research through collaborative independent study. English Education, 27, 127–142.
41.
SmagorinskyP. (1996b). Multiple intelligences, multiple means of composing: An alternative way of thinking about learning. NASSP Bulletin, 80 (583), 11–17.
42.
SmagorinskyP. (1997). Personal growth in social context: A high school senior's search for meaning in and through writing. Written Communication, 14, 63–105.
43.
SmagorinskyP. (1998). Thinking and speech and protocol analysis. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 5 (3), 157–177.
44.
SmagorinskyP.CoppockJ. (1994). Cultural tools and the classroom context: An exploration of an alternative response to literature. Written Communication, 11, 283–310.
45.
SmagorinskyP.CoppockJ. (1995a). The reader, the text, the context: An exploration of a choreographed response to literature. Journal of Reading Behavior, 27, 271–298.
46.
SmagorinskyP.CoppockJ. (1995b). Reading through the lines: An exploration of drama as a response to literature. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 11, 369–391.
47.
SmagorinskyP.O'Donnell-AllenC. (1998). Reading as mediated and mediating action: Composing meaning for literature through multimedia interpretive texts. Reading Research Quarterly, 33, 198–226.
48.
SmagorinskyP.O'Donnell-AllenC. (in press). Idiocultural diversity in small groups: The role of the relational framework in collaborative learning. In LeeC. D.SmagorinskyP. (Eds.), Constructing meaning through collaborative inquiry: Vygotskian perspectives on literacy research.New York: Cambridge University Press.
49.
TulvisteP. (1991). The cultural-historical development of verbal thinking.Commack, NY: Nova Science Publishers.
50.
UnderwoodW. (1987). The body biography: A framework for student writing. English Journal, 76, 44–48.
51.
ValsinerJ. (1998). The guided mind: A sociogenetic approach to personality.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
52.
VygotskyL. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (ColeM.John-SteinerV.ScribnerS.SoubermanE., Eds.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
53.
VygotskyL. S. (1987). Thinking and speech. In VygotskyL. S., Collected works (RieberR.CartonA.MinickN., Trans., Vol. 1, pp. 39–285). New York: Plenum.
54.
WertschJ. V. (1981). The concept of activity in Soviet psychology: An introduction. In WertschJ. V. (Ed. & Trans.), The concept of activity in Soviet psychology (pp. 3–36). Armonk, NY: Sharpe.
55.
WertschJ. V. (1985). Vygotsky and the social formation of mind.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
56.
WertschJ. V. (1991). Voices of the mind: A sociocultural approach to mediated action.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
57.
WilhelmJ. D. (1997). You gotta BE the book: Teaching engaged and reflective reading with adolescents.New York: Teachers College Press.
58.
WitteS. (1992). Context, text, intertext: Toward a constructivist semiotic of writing. Written Communication, 9, 237–308.
