This study examines the online writing practices of adolescent emergent bilinguals through the mediating lenses of dialogic interaction and intertextuality. Using a multimodal discourse analysis approach, the study traces how three students develop online academic texts through intertextual moves that traverse modal boundaries. The analysis reveals how cross-modal, dialogic interactions allow emergent bilingual students to pool linguistic resources, background knowledge, and writing expertise. Such collaborative interactions ultimately serve to support their academic writing. Findings suggest the importance of developing research methodologies and literacy pedagogies that bridge boundaries across social actors, spaces, modes, and languages.
BakerE. A.RozendalM. S.WhitenackJ. W. (2000). Audience awareness in a technology-rich elementary classroom. Journal of Literacy Research, 32, 395–419.
2.
BakhtinM. (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays (HolquistM.EmersonC.HolquistM., Trans.). Austin: University of Texas Press.
3.
BazermanC. (2004). Intertextualities: Volosinov, Bakhtin, literary theory, and literacy studies. In BallA.FreedmanS. W. (Eds.), Bakhtinian perspectives on language, literacy, and learning (pp. 53–65). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
4.
BloomeD.Egan-RobertsonA. (1993). The social construction of intertextuality in classroom reading and writing lessons. Reading Research Quarterly, 28, 304–333.
5.
BurnsT. J. (2001). Being “social”: Expanding our view of social interaction in writing workshops. Language Arts, 78, 458–466.
6.
DomingoM. (2012). Linguistic layering: Social language development in the context of multimodal design and digital technologies. Learning, Media and Technology, 37, 1–22.
7.
GarcíaO.KleifgenJ. (2010). Educating emergent bilinguals: Policies, programs, and practices for English language learners. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
8.
GoodwinC. (2007). Environmentally coupled gestures. In DuncanS.CassellJ.LevyE. (Eds.), Gesture and the dynamic dimension of language (pp. 195–212). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
9.
GoodwinC. (2013). The co-operative, transformative organization of human action and knowledge. Journal of Pragmatics, 46, 8–23.
IedemaR. (2003). Multimodality, resemiotization: Extending the analysis of discourse as multi-semiotic practice. Visual Communication, 2, 29–57.
12.
ItoM.BaumerS.BittantiM.boydd.CodyR.Herr-StephensonB.…TrippL. (2010). Hanging out, messing around, and geeking out: Kids living and learning with new media. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
13.
JeffersonG. (1984). Transcript notation. In AtkinsonJ. M.HeritageJ. (Eds.), The structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. ix–xvi). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
14.
KinzerC. (2000, 12). Exploring new technology applications in literacy education, Exploring new Internet applications for literacy growth (Double symposium). Papers presented at the National Reading Conference Annual Meeting, Scottsdale, AZ.
15.
KleifgenJ.KinzerC. (2009). Alternative spaces for education with and through technology. In VarenneH.GordonE. (Eds.), Perspectives on comprehensive education series: Vol. 2. Theoretical perspectives on comprehensive education: The way forward (pp. 139–186). Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press.
16.
KleifgenJ.KinzerC.HoffmanD.GorskiK.KimJ.AndreaA.RonanB. (2014). An argument for a multimodal, online system to support English Learners’ writing development. In AndersonB.MimsC. (Eds.), Digital tools for writing instruction in K-12 settings: Student perception and experience (pp. 171–192). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
17.
KressG. (2010). Multimodality: A social semiotic approach to contemporary communication. New York, NY: Routledge.
18.
KristevaJ. (2002). “Nous deux” or a (hi)story of intertextuality. Romantic Review, 93, 7–13.
19.
LeCompteM.PreissleJ. (1993). Ethnography and qualitative design in educational research (2nd ed.). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
20.
LeeS. (2006). Constructing anatomy literacy: Use of computer-based media in a dissecting laboratory. In RexL. (Ed.), Discourse of opportunity: How talk in learning situations creates and constrains (pp. 193–228). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
21.
LeuD.KinzerC.CoiroJ.CastekJ.HenryL. (2013). New literacies: A dual level theory of the changing nature of literacy, instruction and assessment. In AlvermannD.UnrauN.RuddellR. (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (6th ed., pp. 1150–1181). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
22.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2012). Common core of data: Local education agency universe survey, 2002-03 through 2010-11. U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved fromhttp://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d12/tables/dt12_047.asp
23.
ParkerL. L. (2008). Technology in support of young English learners in and out of school. In ParkerL. L. (Ed.), Technology-mediated learning environments for young English learners: Connections in and out of school (pp. 213–250). New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
24.
VološinovV. N. (1973). Marxism and the philosophy of language (MatejkaL.TitunikI.R., trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. (Original work published 1929)
