24:I[63208,["8920","static/chunks/8920-efbff8517d590b7e.js","9097","static/chunks/9097-7e60ff382fede0de.js","5914","static/chunks/5914-356082358a498a0b.js","9903","static/chunks/9903-11222066602aad8e.js","5438","static/chunks/5438-cfc6cd3ec63ed58c.js","3851","static/chunks/3851-d9d99b9df58ccefb.js","4621","static/chunks/4621-60797c2425663d2a.js","6871","static/chunks/6871-85cb03c97585f46a.js","6736","static/chunks/6736-932312a004c99faf.js","4550","static/chunks/4550-0bf059e3050c08b3.js","688","static/chunks/688-a6a2ac7bff269cd3.js","3984","static/chunks/3984-063c0b62f32133c7.js","7038","static/chunks/7038-4f87670d4e55ef18.js","9039","static/chunks/9039-75366c62dc7d0d0e.js","4563","static/chunks/4563-ad980d1babbf7b0b.js","6761","static/chunks/6761-0c10d1446de7ae1c.js","744","static/chunks/744-1e76229abb9e297b.js","7342","static/chunks/7342-1586df78600bf911.js","3617","static/chunks/3617-1f62a097637f4747.js","5895","static/chunks/5895-caa6c774914eb108.js","7481","static/chunks/7481-3b84c503a2ebfb3f.js","3668","static/chunks/3668-7dab69e4121c33af.js","39","static/chunks/39-e93a27d0920e6d92.js","2881","static/chunks/2881-445cc2384af2c6f9.js","2364","static/chunks/2364-e83d52fb21729d99.js","3208","static/chunks/3208-e65462d166bd3688.js","7582","static/chunks/app/toc/%5Btla%5D/%5Bvolume%5D/%5Bissue%5D/page-694a0e465c2c1334.js"],"default"] 25:T43e,

Student writing in history courses, graded evaluation of that writing, and faculty interviews all reveal a contradiction between the stated and implicit aims of historical discourse. The explicit definition of writing in history is “argumentation”; the implicit expectation, however, is for narrative. This apparent contradiction highlights what the author argues is the central function of academic historical discourse: the establishment of an autonomous subject of meaning who is always speaking from outside history about a distant and objectified past. Students are rarely aware of the importance of this voice, even at an unconscious level, because faculty themselves fail to articulate for students the distinctive nature of their genre or the function of historical discourse generally. This project thus builds on previous studies in rhetoric by using the work of theorists of history to identify more precisely what it is in historical discourse that is hidden from student view—the autonomous, transhistorical voice.

26:T479,

Vygotsky's and Bakhtin's theories of social interaction are so general that they are not always useful guides for classroom practice. This study of secondary school classrooms in Great Britain and the United States reveals that when teachers apply similar theories to everyday practice, important pedagogical contrasts remain—both in terms of the ways in which instruction is organized and in terms of what students produce. The theories need elaborating. In everyday practice, social interaction is not binary, that is, either there is interaction or there is not. Rather, participants position themselves along a continuum of involvement—from highly involved to relatively uninvolved. Learners occupy different points within classrooms, from one classroom to another, and for the same student at different times. Also, the social space within the classroom affects student involvement and the teacher's ability to track it. This study found that in classrooms with the most highly involved interactions, students participated in curriculum making and belonged to a close-knit community.

27:T477,

Social theories of language (e.g., Vygotsky and Bakhtin) implicate instruction that promotes spoken interaction during the writing process. Such interaction is said to make explicit for students the dialogic relationship between writers and readers that underlies written text. This case study of a “prewriting” class discussion and student writing in a secondary English class suggests that, more than establishing a relationship with readers, students t