Standardization discourse is dominantly linked to tests; yet standardization occurs in practices of everyday social life, too. This research seeks to understand standardization processes involved in the writing done by a class of seventh grade students, half of whom did not do well in school or on tests. Acting as participant observer in a classroom where a civics project resulted in the writing of an essay, the author collected audiotaped classroom and group discussions, student writing, field notes, and texts (a history booklet, a neighborhood-planning book, two videos, census data) students drew from to write a speech which their language arts teacher taught as an essay. One essay/speech was delivered to the school board. The author examined the exchange of ideas, across the 8-week project, to consider how standardization as a process of production, consumption, and distribution played in students' writing. The author found that standardizing forces involved direct teaching, genre memory, and several strategies employed to bring cohesion and unity to diverse ideas.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Appadurai, A. (1986). Introduction: Commodities and the politics of value. In A. Appadurai (Ed.), The social life of things: Commodities in cultural perspective (pp. 3-63). New York: Cambridge University Press.
2.
Applebee, A. N. (1981). Writing in the secondary school. Urbana, IL: The National Council of Teachers of English.
3.
Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The dialogic imagination. Austin: University of Texas Press.
4.
Baynham, M. (1993). Code switching and mode switching: Community interpreters and mediators of literacy. In B. Street (Ed.), Cross-cultural approaches to literacy (pp. 294-314). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
5.
Bourdieu, P. (1977). Distinction: A social critique of the judgement of taste. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
6.
Davies, B. (1993). Shards of glass: Children reading and writing beyond gendered identities. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
7.
Emig, J. (1971). The composing process of twelfth-graders. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
8.
Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change. London: Polity.
9.
Farr, M. (1993). Essayist literacy and other verbal performances. Written Communication, 10(1), 4-38.
10.
Fiore, K., & Elsasser, N. (1988). “Strangers no more”: A liberatory literacy curriculum. In E. R. Kintgen, B. M. Kroll, & M. Rose (Eds.), Perspectives on literacy (pp. 286-281). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
11.
Foucault, M. (1972). Archaeology of knowledge. New York: Pantheon.
12.
Foucault, M. (1984). Docile bodies (from Discipline and Punish). In P. Rabinow (Ed.), The Foucault reader (pp. 239-256). New York: Pantheon. (Originally published in 1977)
13.
Freire, P. (1973). Education for critical consciousness. New York: Seabury.
14.
Gee, J. P. (1988). The legacies of literacy: From Plato to Freire through Harvey Graff. Harvard Educational Review, 58(2), 195-212.
15.
Gramsci, A. (1973). Letters from prison. New York: Harper & Row.
16.
Grossberg, L. (1992). We gotta get outta this place: Popular conservatism and postmodern culture. New York: Routledge.
17.
Gutierrez, K., Rymes, B., & Larson, J. (1995). Script, counterscript and underlife in the classroom: James Brown versus Brown v. Board of Education. Harvard Educational Review, 65(3), 445-471.
18.
Heath, S. B. (1983). Ways with words: Language, life, and work in communities and class-rooms. New York: Cambridge University Press.
19.
Kamberelis, G. (2001). Producing heteroglossic classroom (micro)cultures through hybrid discourse practice. Linguistics and Education, 12, 85-125.
20.
Kamberelis, G. (in press). The rhizome and the pack: Liminal literacy formations with political teeth. In K. M. Leander & M. Sheehy (Eds.), Spatializing literacy research and practice. New York: Peter Lang.
21.
Kamberelis, G., & de le Luna, L. (in press). Children's writing: How textual features, contextual forces, and textual politics co-emerge. In C. Bazerman & P. Prior (Eds.), What writing does and how it does it: An introduction to the analysis of texts and textual practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
22.
Leander, K. M. (1999). “This is our freedom bus going home right now”: Producing and hybridizing space-time contexts in pedagogical discourse. Journal of Literacy Research, 33(4), 637-679.
23.
Lensmire, T. J. (1994). When children write: Critical re-visions of the writing workshop. New York: Teachers College Press.
24.
Miller, C. R. (1984). Genre as social action. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 70, 151-167.
25.
Milroy, J, & Milroy, L. (1985). Authority in language: Investigating language prescription and standardisation. New York: Routledge Kegan Paul.
26.
Miriage, T. V. (2001). Features of an interactive writing discourse: Conversational involvement, conventional knowledge, and internalization in “Morning Message.” Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34(2), 172-197.
27.
Morson, G. S, & Emerson, C. (1990). Mikhail Bakhtin: Creation of a prosaics. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
28.
Rosenblatt, L. (1989). Writing and reading: The transactional theory. In Mason, J. (Ed.), Reading and writing connections (pp. 151-176). Needham, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
29.
Scollon, R., & Scollon, S. B. K. (1981). Narrative, literacy and face in interethnic communication. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
30.
Shor, I. (1987). Monday morning fever: Critical literacy and the generative theme of work. In Shor, I. (Ed.), Freire for the classroom (pp. 104-122). Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Kook.
31.
Shuman, A. (1986). Storytelling rights: The uses of oral and written texts by urban adolescents. New York: Cambridge University Press.
32.
Street, B. V. (1993). Introduction: The new literacy studies. In B. V. Street (Ed.), Cross-cultural approaches to literacy (pp. 1-21). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
33.
Stuckey, J. E. (1991). The violence of literacy. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook.
34.
Trimbur, J. (1990). Essayist literacy and the rhetoric of deproduction. Rhetoric Review, 9(1), 72-86.
35.
Wells, G. (1993). Reevaluating the IRF sequence: A proposal for the articulation of theories of activity and discourse for the analysis of teaching and learning in the class-room. Linguistics and Education, 5, 1-37.
