This yearlong ethnographic case study investigated higher and lower track adolescents’ experiences with core content-area (social studies, science, and math) writing in one urban working-class district. Teacher, student, and administrator interviews; field notes; and students’ written work comprised the data set. The findings from this study, framed by sociocultural theory and Bourdieu’s theory of practice, suggest that higher and lower track students experienced disciplinary writing in distinct ways in terms of the expectations for the kinds and complexity of writing and the importance placed on writing in content learning. These contrasting experiences affected the quality of students’ preparation to engage in advanced disciplinary discourse as they progressed through secondary school. The findings from this study are discussed in light of the increasing emphasis on disciplinary writing at the secondary level.
AckermanJ. M. (1993). The promise of writing to learn. Written Communication, 10, 334-370.
2.
ApplebeeA. N.LangerJ. A. (2006). The state of writing instruction in America’s schools: What existing data tells us. Albany, NY: Center on English Learning & Achievement, University at Albany.
3.
ApplebeeA. N.LangerJ. A. (2009). What is happening in the teaching of writing?English Journal, 98(5), 18-28.
4.
ApplebeeA. N.LangerJ. A. (2011). A snapshot of writing instruction in middle schools and high schools. English Journal, 100(6), 14-27.
5.
Bangert-DrownsR.HurleyM. M.WilkinsonB. (2004). The effects of school-based writing-to-learn interventions on academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 74, 29-58. doi:10.3102/00346543074001029
6.
BaxterJ. A.WoodwardJ.OlsonD. (2005). Writing in mathematics: An alternative form of communication for academically low-achieving students. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 20, 119-135.
7.
BerieterC.ScardamaliaM. (1987). An attainable version of high literacy: Approaches to teaching higher-order skills in reading and writing. Curriculum Inquiry, 17, 9-30.
8.
BoscoloP. L. M. (2001). Writing to learn, writing to transfer. In TynjalaP.MasonL.LonkaK. (Eds.), Writing as a learning tool: Integrating theory and practice (Vol. 7, pp. 83-104). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
9.
BourdieuP. (1991). Language and social power. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
10.
BourdieuP. (1993). The logic of practice. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
11.
BrownR. S.ConleyD. T. (2007). Comparing state high school assessments to Standards for Success in entry-level university courses. Educational Assessment, 12, 137-160. doi:10.1080/10627190701232811
12.
CallahanR. M. (2005). Tracking and high school English learners: Limiting opportunity to learn. American Educational Research Journal, 42, 305-328. doi:10.3102/00028312042002305
13.
ChuyM.ScardamaliaM.BereiterC. (2012). Development of ideational writing through knowledge building: Theoretical and empirical bases. In GrigorenkoE.MambrinoE.PreissD. (Eds.), Writing: A mosaic of new perspectives. (pp. 175–190) New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
14.
CloseE.HullM.LangerJ. A. (2005). Writing and reading relationships in literacy learning: Theory and research in practice. In IndrisanoR.ParatoreJ. R. (Eds.), Learning to write, Writing to learn (pp.176-193). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
15.
Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2010). Read the Common Core State Standards. Council of State School Officers and the National Governors’ Association. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/the-standards
16.
Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSO) & the National Governors Association (NGA). (2010). Common core standards for mathematics and for English language arts and for literacy in history/ social studies, science, and technical subjects. Washington, DC: National Governors Association. Available at http://www.corestandards.org/the-standards
17.
D’AgostinoJ. V.BonnerS. M. (2009). High school exit exam scores and university performance. Educational Assessment, 14, 25-37. doi:10.1080/10627190902816223
18.
Darling-HammondL. (2010). The flat world and education: How America’s commitment to equity will determine our future. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
19.
DavisA.ClarkeM. A.RhodesL. K. (1994). Extended text and the writing proficiency of students in urban elementary schools. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 556-566.
20.
GibsonM.ThomasT. G. (2005). Quilting blocks: Writing in the geometry classroom. Mathematics Teacher, 99, 108-111.
21.
GrahamS.HebertM. (2010). Writing to read: Evidence for how writing can improve reading. Carnegie Corporation time to act report. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.
22.
GrahamS.PerinD. (2007). Writing next: Effective strategies to improve writing of adolescents in middle and high school. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellence in Education.
23.
GrenfellM.BloomeD.HardyC.PahlK.RowsellJ.StreetB. (Eds.). (2012). Language, ethnography, and education: Bridging new literacy studies and Bourdieu. New York, NY: Routledge.
24.
HandB. N.PrainV. (2002). Teachers implementing writing-to-learn strategies in junior secondary science: A case study. Science Education, 86, 737-755.
25.
HandB. N.WallaceC. W.YangE. (2007). Using a science writing heuristic to enhance learning outcomes from laboratory activities in seventh-grade science: Quantitative and qualitative aspects. International Journal of Science Education, 26, 131-149. doi:10.1080/0950069032000070252
26.
KeysC. W. (2000). Investigating the thinking processes of eighth grade writers during the composition of a scientific laboratory report. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 676-690.
27.
LangerJ. A. (2001). Beating the odds: Teaching middle and high school students to read and write well. American Educational Research Journal, 38, 837-880. doi:10.3102/00028312038004837
28.
LeCompteM. D.PreissleJ. (2003). Ethnography and qualitative design in educational research (2nd ed.). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
29.
MacArthurC. A.GrahamS.FitzgeraldJ. (Eds.). (2006). Handbook of writing research. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
30.
MetzS. (2006). Science literacy: Then and now. The Science Teacher, 73(2), 8.
31.
MilesM. B.HubermanA. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
32.
Monte-SanoC.De La PazS. (2012). Using writing tasks to elicit adolescents’ historical reasoning. Journal of Literacy Research, 44, 273-299. doi:10.1177/1086296x12450445
33.
MorganC. (1998). Writing mathematically: The discourse of investigation. London: Taylor & Francis
34.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2011). The condition of education (NCES 2011033). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
35.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2012). The Nation’s Report Card: Writing 2011 (NCES 2012-470). Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
36.
National Research Council: Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. (2005). America’s lab report. National Academies Press. Retrieved from http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309096715
37.
NewellG. (1984). Learning from writing in two content areas: A study/protocol analysis of writing to learn. Research in the Teaching of English, 18, 265-287.
38.
OakesJ. (1985). Keeping track: How schools structure inequality. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
39.
PageR. N. (1991). Lower-track classrooms: A curricular and cultural perspective. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
ReillyE. M. (2007). Writing to learn mathematics: A mixed method study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Indiana, PA: Indiana University of Pennsylvania.
42.
Salahu-DinD.PerskyH.MillerJ. (2008). The Nation’s Report Card: Writing 2007: National Assessment of Educational Progress at grades 8 and 12 (NCES 2008–468). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics.
43.
SteeleD. (2005). Using writing to access students’ schemata knowledge for algebraic thinking. School Science and Mathematics, 105(3), 142–154.
44.
VygotskyL. S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press.
45.
VygotskyL. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
46.
WatanabeM. (2008). Tracking in the era of high-stakes state accountability reform: Case studies of classroom instruction in North Carolina. Teachers College Record, 110, 489-534.
47.
WilcoxK. C. (2011). Writing across the curriculum for secondary English language learners: A case study. Writing & Pedagogy, 3(1), 79-112. doi: 10.1558/wap.v3i1.79
48.
WilliamsJ. (1977). Learning to write or writing to learn: A critique of the schools council writing research project. Windsor, UK: National Foundation for Educational Research.
49.
WineburgS. S. (1991). On the reading of historical texts: Notes on the breach between school and academy. American Educational Research Journal, 28, 495-451.
50.
WineburgS. S.MartinD. (2009). Tampering with history: Adapting primary sources for struggling readers. Social Education, 73, 212-216.
51.
WineburgS. S.MartinD.Monte-SanoC. (2011). Reading like a historian: Teaching literacy in middle and high school history classrooms. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
52.
YinR. K. (2005). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
