This article treats the representations that are studied in situated literacy and an associated methodological approach based on semantic analysis that characterizes the representations in a systematic and principled manner. Application of the method is illustrated for four situated literacy examples: (a) mother-child word-naming games, (b) children's story writing, (c) journalistic writing, and (d) technical writing. The description of representations that is obtained constitutes an explanation of the literacy actions in that it reveals cultural, social, and cognitive influences on these actions.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Astington, J. W.
, Harris, P. L., & Olson, D. R. (Eds.). (1988). Developing theories of mind. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
2.
Bourdieu, P.
(1990). The logic of practice (R. Nice, Trans.). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. (Original work published in 1980 as Le sens pratique)
3.
(Reprinted with additional commentary in J. R. Hayes, R. Young, T. Hadjuk, C. Cochran, M. McCaffrey, & M. Machett (Eds.), Reading empirical research studies: The rhetoric of research, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1991)
4.
Bracewell, R. J.
, & Breuleux, A. (1994). Substance and romance in the analysis of think-aloud protocols. In P. Smagorinsky (Ed.), Speaking about writing: Reflections on research methodology (pp. 55-88). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
5.
Breuleux, A.
(1991). The analysis of writers' think-aloud protocols: Developing a principled coding scheme for ill-structured tasks. In G. Denhière & J.-P. Rossi (Eds.), Texts and text processing (pp. 333-362). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
6.
Breuleux, A.
, Bracewell, R. J., & Renaud, P. (1995). Cooperation, sharing, and support between specialists in producing technical documentation. Technical Communication: Journal of the American Society for Technical Communication, 42(1), 155-160.
7.
Crammond, D. G.
(1998). The uses and complexity of argument structures in expert and student persuasive writing. Written Communication, 15(2), 230-268.
8.
De Remer, M. L.
(1998). Writing assessment: Raters' elaboration of the rating task. Assessing Writing, 5(1), 7-29.
9.
Donin, J.
, Bracewell, R. J., Frederiksen, C. H., & Dillinger, M. (1992). Students' strategies for writing instructions: Organizing semantic information in text. Written Communication, 9(2), 209-236.
10.
Flavell, J. H.
(1963). The developmental psychology of Jean Piaget. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
11.
Frederiksen, C. H.
(1975). Representing logical and semantic structure of knowledge acquired from discourse. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 371-458.
12.
Frederiksen, C. H.
(1986). Cognitive models of discourse analysis. In C. R. Cooper & S. Greenbaum (Eds.), Written Communication annual: Vol. 1. Linguistic approaches to the study of written discourse (pp. 227-272). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
13.
Frederiksen, C. H.
, & Donin, J. (1991). Constructing multiple semantic representations in comprehending and producing discourse. In G. Denhière & J.-P. Rossi (Eds.), Texts and text processing (pp. 19-45). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
14.
Frederiksen, C. H.
, Donin-Frederiksen, J., & Bracewell, R. J. (1987). Discourse analysis of children's text production. In A. Matsuhashi (Ed.), Writing in real time: Modeling production processes (pp. 254-290). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
15.
Gunnarson, B.-L.
(1997). The writing process from a sociolinguistic viewpoint. Written Communication, 14(2), 139-188.
16.
Haas, C.
(1996). Writing technology: Studies on the materiality of literacy. Hillside, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
17.
Ninio, A.
, & Bruner, J. (1976). The achievement and antecedents of labeling. Journal of Child Language, 5(1), 1-15.
18.
Piaget, J.
(1963). The origins of intelligence in children (M. Cook, Trans.). New York: Norton.
19.
Senecal, L. (1998). The idea structure of students' written stories in grades 3, 4, and 5. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, McGill University, Montreal, Canada.
