This study describes how meaning potentials were constructed in the literacy event known as Morning Message. Morning Message provided teachers and students with opportunities to construct a written text around the experiences of one student. This discourse of writing allowed for the examination of how meaning was orchestrated and scaffolded between the teacher and her students. Three findings are discussed, including the function of a series of conversational involvement moves utilized by the teacher, the specific writing conventions and metamessages afforded in the Morning Message dialogue, and an examination of how the social dialogues of Morning Message may have come to guide independent action as internalized processes on several transfer measures.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Allington, R.L. (1992). The legacy of "slow it down and make it more concrete."Learner factors/teacher factors: Issues in literacy research and instruction, the Fortieth Yearbook of the National Reading Conference . Chicago: National Reading Conference .
2.
Bahktin, M.M. (1986). Speech genres & other late essays. Austin: University of Texas Press.
3.
Barnes, D. (1992). From communication to curriculum. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/ Cook-Heinemann.
4.
Bereiter, C., & Bird, M. (1985). Use of thinking aloud in identification and teaching of reading comprehension strategies. Cognition and Instruction , 2, 131-156.
5.
Burbules, N.C. (1993). Dialogue in teaching: Theory and practice. New York: Teachers College Press.
6.
Campione, J.C., & Brown, A.L. (1987). Linking dynamic assessment with school achievement . In C. S. Lidz (Ed.), Dynamic assessment: An interactional approach to evaluating learning potential (pp. 82-115). New York: Guilford Press.
7.
Cazden, C.B. (1988). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann .
8.
Davies, B., & Harre, R. (1990). Positioning: The discursive production of selves . Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior, 20(1), 42-63.
9.
De La Paz, S. (1999). Self-regulated strategy instruction in regular education settings: Improving outcomes for students with and without learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice , 14(2), 92-106.
10.
Edwards, D., & Mercer, N. (1987). Common knowledge: The development of understanding in the classroom. New York: Methuen .
11.
Eisner, E. (1985). Aesthetic modes of knowing. In E. Eisner (Ed.), Learning and teaching the ways of knowing (pp. 23-36). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
12.
Englert, C.S., Garmon, M.A., Mariage, T.V., Rozendal, M., Tarrant, K.L., & Urban, J. (1995). The early literacy project: Connecting across the literacy curriculum. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 18, 253-275.
13.
Englert, C.S., & Mariage, T.V. (1991). Making students partners in the comprehension process: Send for the reading POSSE. Learning Disability Quarterly , 14, 123-138.
14.
Englert, C.S., & Mariage, T.V. (1996). A sociocultural perspective: Teaching ways-of-thinking and ways-of-talking in a literacy community. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 11(3), 157-167.
15.
Englert, C.S., Mariage, T.V., Garmon, M.A., & Tarrant, K.L. (1998). Accelerating reading progress in early literacy project classrooms: Three exploratory studies. Remedial and Special Education, 19(3), 142-149.
16.
Englert, C.S., Raphael, T.E., & Anderson, L.M. (1992). Socially-mediated instruction: Improving students' knowledge and talk about writing. Elementary School Journal, 92(4), 411-450.
17.
Englert, C.S., Raphael, T.R., & Mariage, T.V. (1994). Developing a school-based discourse for literacy learning: A principled search for understanding. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 17, 3-33.
18.
Englert, C.S., Raphael, T.R., & Mariage, T.V. (1998). A multi-year literacy intervention: Transformation and personal change in the community of the early literacy project. Teacher Education and Special Education, 21(4), 255-277.
19.
Forman, E.A., & McCormick, D.E. (1995). Discourse analysis: A sociocultural perspective. Remedial and Special Education, 16(3), 150-158.
20.
Gallimore, R., Goldenberg, C.N., & Weisner, T.S. (1992). The social construction and subjective reality of activity settings: Implications for community psychology. American Journal of Community Psychology.
21.
Gallimore, R., & Tharp, R. (1990). Teaching mind in society: Teaching, schooling, and literate discourse. In L. C. Moll (Ed.), Vygotsky and education: Instructional implications and applications of sociohistorical psychology (pp. 175-205). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
22.
Gee, J.P. (1996). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses (2nd ed.). London : Taylor & Francis.
23.
Gee, J.P., & Green, J.L. (1998). Discourse analysis, learning, and social practice: A methodological study. In P. D. Pearson & A. Iran-Nejad (Eds.), Review of research in education (pp. 119-170). Washington, DC: American Education Research Association.
24.
Gee, J.P., Michaels, S., & O'Connor, M.C. (1992). Discourse analysis. In M. D. LeCompte, W. Millroy, & J. Preissle (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research in education (pp. 227-291). New York: Academic Press.
25.
Graham, S., & Harris, K.R. (1994). Implications of constructivism for teaching writing to students with special needs. The Journal of Special Education , 28, 275-289.
26.
Graham, S., MacArthur, C., & Schwartz, S. (1995). Effects of goal setting and procedural facilitation on the revising behavior and writing performance of students with writing and learning problems. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 230-240.
27.
Halliday, M.A.K. (1993). Towards a language-based theory of learning, Linguistics and Education, 5(2), 93-116.
28.
Halliday, M.A.K., & Hasan, R. (1989). Language, context, and text: Aspects of language in a social-semiotic perspective. New York: Oxford University Press.
29.
Harre, R., & Langenhove, L.V. (1999). The dynamics of social episodes. In R. Harre & L. Langenhove (Eds.), Positioning theory (pp. 1-13). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
30.
Harris, K.R., & Graham, S. (1996). Making the writing process work: Strategies of composition and self-regulation. Cambridge, MA: Brookline.
31.
Harris, K.R., & Pressley, M.E. (1991). The nature of cognitive strategy instruction: Interactive strategy construction. Exceptional Children, 57, 392-404.
32.
Heap, J.L. (1991). A situated perspective on what counts as reading . In C. Baker & A. Luke (Eds.), Toward a critical sociology of reading pedagogy (pp.103-139). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
33.
Heath, S.B. (2000). Linguistics in the study of language in education . Harvard Educational Review, 70(1), 49-59.
34.
Hicks, D. (1995). Discourse, learning, and teaching. In M. W. Apple (Ed.), Review of research in education (Vol. 21, pp. 49-95). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
35.
Jacob, E. (1992). Culture, context, and cognition. In M. D. LeCompte, W. Millroy , & J. Preissle (Eds.), The handbook of qualitative research in education (pp. 293-335). New York: Academic Press.
36.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation . New York: Cambridge University Press.
37.
Lemke, J.L. (1989). Using language in the classroom. New York: Oxford University Press.
38.
Mariage, T.V. (2000). Constructing educational possibilities: A sociolinguistic examination of meaning-making in "sharing chair." Learning Disability Quarterly, 23(2), 79-157.
39.
McCarthey, S.J. (1991). Authors, text, and talk: The internalization of dialogue from social interaction in writing. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI.
40.
Minick, N. (1987). Implications of Vygotsky's theories of dynamic assessment. In C. S. Lidz (Ed.), Dynamic assessment: An interactional approach to evaluating learning potential (pp. 116-140). New York: Guilford Press.
41.
O'Connor, M.C. (1996). Managing the intermental: Classroom group discussion and the social context of learning. In D. I. Slobin, J. Gerhardt, A. Kyratzis, & J. Guo (Eds.), Social interaction, social context, and language: Essays in honor of Susan Ervin-Tripp (pp. 495-509). Mahwah, NJ : Erlbaum.
42.
O'Connor, M.C., & Michaels, S. (1993). Aligning academic task and participation status through revoicing: Analysis of a classroom discourse strategy. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 24(4), 318-335.
43.
Palincsar, A.S. (1986). The role of dialogue in providing scaffolded instruction . Educational Psychologist, 21(1&2), 73-98.
44.
Palincsar, A.S., Collins, K.M., Marana, N.L., & Magnusson, S.J. (1998, December). Methodological choices in the design and conduct of case-based literacy research. Paper presented at the National Reading Conference, Austin, TX.
45.
Raphael, T.R., Englert, C.S., & Kirschner, B.W. (1989). Students' metacognitive knowledge about writing. Research in the Teaching of English , 23(4), 343-379.
46.
Reid, D.K. (1998). Scaffolding: A broader view. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31, 386-396.
47.
Roehler, L.R., & Duffy, G.G. (1991). Teachers' instructional actions. In R. Barr, M. Kamil , P. Mosenthal, & P. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 2, pp. 861-883). White Plains, NY: Longman.
48.
Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. New York: Oxford University Press.
49.
Salomon, G., & Perkins, D.N. (1998). Individual and social aspects of learning. In P. D. Pearson & A. Iran-Nejad (Eds.), Review of research in education 23 (Vol. 23, pp. 1-24). Washington, DC : American Educational Research Association.
50.
Santa Barbara Discourse Group. (1992a, Nov./Dec.). Two languages, one community: An examination of educational possibilities. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Reading Conference, San Antonio, TX.
51.
Santa Barbara Discourse Group. (1992b). Constructing literacy in classrooms: Literate action as social accomplishment . In H. H. Marshall (Ed.), Redefining student learning: Roots of educational change (pp. 119-150). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
52.
Stone, C.A. (1989). Improving the effectiveness of strategy training for learning disabled students: The role of communicational dynamics. Remedial and Special Education, 10(1), 35-42.
53.
Stone, C.A. (1998). The metaphor for scaffolding: Its utility for the field of learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities , 31(4), 344-364.
54.
Tannen, D. (1989). Talking voices: Repetition, dialogue, and imagery in conversational discourse. Great Britain: Cambridge University Press.
55.
Tarrant, K.L. (1998). The collaborative implementation of an early literacy curriculum in a full-inclusion classroom: Teachers and students working together to accomplish literacy goals. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, East Lansing.
56.
Trent, S., Artiles, A.J., & Englert, C.S. (1998). From deficit thinking to social constructivism: A review of theory, research, and practice in special education. In P. D. Pearson & A. Iran-Nejad (Eds.), Review of research in education (pp. 277-307). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association .
57.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
58.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1988). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
59.
Wells, G. (1996). Using the tool-kit of discourse in the activity of learning and teaching. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 3(2), 74-101.
60.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. New York: Cambridge University Press.
61.
Wertsch, J.V. (1985). Vygotsky and the social formation of mind. Cambridge, MA: The Harvard University Press.
62.
Wertsch, J.V. (1991). Voices of the mind: A sociocultural approach to mediated action. Cambridge, MA: The Harvard University Press.
63.
Wong, B.Y.L. (1992). Contemporary intervention research in learning disabilities: An international perspective. New York: Springer-Verlag.
64.
Wong, B.Y.L., Wong, R., & Blenkinsop, J. (1989). Cognitive and metacognitive aspects of learning disabled adolescents' composing problems. Learning Disability Quarterly, 12, 300-322.
