A reflexive analysis of five peer reviewed published papers reveals how socio-cultural and political discourses and individual agency compete to shape the identity of the learner-writer. It is posited that although hegemonic political discourses construct ‘schooling literacy’ (Meek 1988 ) which frame the socio-cultural contexts in which texts, authors, teachers and leaners develop; the socio-cultural standpoint of the individual makes possible conscious construction of counter discourses. Writer identity is integral to the compositional process. However, writer identity is mediated by, on the one hand, dominant discourses of literacy that inform current pedagogies of writing (Paper One) and on the other by socio-cultural narratives that shape identity (Paper Three). A synthesis of Gramsci’s notion of cultural hegemony and Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory is used to explain the constraining function of dominant discourses in literacy education. These works largely fall within a qualitative paradigm, although a mixed-method approach was adopted for the data collection of Papers Four and Five. The methods these papers had in common were the use of survey and documentary analysis of reflective journals. A semi-structured interview with a focus group was the third method used to collect data for Paper Five. Individual semi-structured interviews were used to collect partial life-histories for Paper Two and textual analysis of pupils’ narrative writing was the main method used for Paper One. Paper Three involved a rhizotextual auto-ethnographic analysis of original poetry. Findings suggest pedagogies which minimise or negate the identity of the writer are counter-productive in facilitating writer efficacy. It is suggested, the teaching of writing should be premised on approaches that encourage the writer to draw upon personal, inherited and secondary narratives. In this conceptualisation of writing, the writer is simultaneously composing and exploring aspects of self. However, the self is not a fixed entity and writing is viewed as a process by which identity emerges through reflexive engagement with the compositional process. The corollary is that pedagogy of writing needs to embrace the identity of the writer, whilst also allowing space for the writer’s ‘becoming’.

Drawing on Bakhtinian dialogism and interactional sociolinguistics, the author explored how young English language learners become writers over time. With a focus on the children’s dialogic writing processes rather than their products, the author aimed to trace the children’s journey in becoming writers and make evident the evolvement of their identity as writers. In this light, their interactive discourses within and across particular but connected literacy events were studied. Discourse analysis was undertaken on the video segments and transcripts of three literacy events selected from different writing units across an academic year. It was found that the young writers evolved from “others as authors,” to “self as an author,” and to “self as a reflective writer” and the process of becoming a writer was ongoing and actively engaged multiple voices of the children, their teacher, and others. Further, the findings suggested that the dialogic becoming processes opened possibilities for young writers to discover and bring their different voices and selves to their writing and enhanced motivation relative to learning to write and writing to learn.

Philosophiae Doctor - PhD / The purpose of this study is to investigate the writing identities constructed in the Further Education and Training (FET) Phase and the ways in which these identities either strengthen or impede academic writing at university. Success at university is predominantly dependent on students' ability to express their ideas through writing academic essays or assignments in most faculties. However, studies over the past decade highlight the inability of many South African learners, especially those for whom English is not a home language, to succeed at universities. The poor performance of such students is often linked to the lack of adequate preparation in the FET Phase, which is grades 10 to 12, the grades prior to entering first year undergraduate programmes. The significance of this study is that it sheds light on the discourse features of policy, texts, pedagogy and assessment in the FET Phase and the consequences of these for the construction of writers' identities. Further, it foregrounds the ways that policy positions teachers, learners and learning despite diversity in school cultures, identities and histories, and more importantly the ways that unique local pedagogical contexts construct writer identities as a bridge towards engagement in academic essays and the discourses valued at higher institutions. The intention was thus twofold: on the one hand to understand the writer identities constructed in the FET phase and secondly to shed light on the ways that these identities intersect with academic writing, in an attempt to inform first year writing programmes at universities. This was an ethnographic study that included participant observation, interviews with teachers and document analysis of national curriculum policies, grade 12 English Additional language external question papers and first year student texts. The participants were two grade 10 English classes from two schools with different profiles in terms of learner background, linguistic repertoire, and socio-economic circumstances. The rationale for focusing on grade 10 is that it is the first initiation point into the FET Phase and as such an important site to investigate the ways in which writing identities are activated. I thus ‘shadowed’ these learners for two years, up to the end of grade 11. Finally, I analysed first year student texts produced by learners from these two schools in their first year of study at a Cape Town university. In order to engage with my data, I first drew on Bourdieu's concepts of field, habitus and capital, to illuminate the ways in which national policies constructed theories and pedagogies of language teaching and learning, and positioned teachers, as well as the consequences of these policies and positionings for constructing sound writer identities. I then focused on the different organizing practices at the two schools, in order to foreground positionings enacted in local contexts. As a result, the study sheds light on the ways that writer identities were activated at two secondary schools in Cape Town, both of which served a previously disadvantaged population but with one classified as poorly resourced while the other enjoyed the status of a well-resourced school. My study centred on the visible and invisible curricula, the differing kinds of cultural capital they produce and the conversion of this capital into other forms of cultural and symbolic capital (such as access to university) which may eventually be converted to economic capital in the form of access to well-paid kinds of employment. Secondly, I drew on Systemic Functional Linguistics, with its conception of language as socially produced and politically situated and its development by the 'Sydney school' into genre-based pedagogy, as an analytical lens to unpack the language learning and teaching theories underpinning policy documents. This lens was also useful for evaluating the extent to which curriculum, pedagogy and assessment tools inducted learners into the key 'genres of schooling' (such as information report, explanation, and argument) that are necessary for success across the curriculum at school and university. Most importantly, it allowed for a rigorous linguistic analysis of first year student scripts and the extent to which writers managed the three metafunctions, ideational, interpersonal and textual. These metafunctions are the basis for coherent, well-structured, genreappropriate writing. The study found that mismatches between policy framing and the way that writing was taught and assessed in the FET Phase resulted in massive gaps between the writer identities constructed in the FET Phase and the first year writer identities valued at universities. Findings help to pinpoint some of the reasons why particular learners manage to make the transition into tertiary study and why a large number of learners studying through English as an additional language either fail to gain access into university or fail during their first year of study. Finally, findings pointed out the effects of post democracy curriculum shifts and national examinations on classroom discourse and pedagogy, especially in relation to constructing enabling writer identities, and more importantly on the ability of learners making the transition into university to produce academically valued texts in their first year of study.

The purpose of this study is to explore the writer identity of four preservice teachers from a large midwestern University. I utilized the narrative inquiry methodology. I interviewed participants four times: Once in January 2019, January 2020, March 2020, and May 2020. I also asked participants to submit a visual metaphor and reflection. Additionally, I observed participants teach in the secondary classroom. Primarily, the findings reveal that participant writer identities largely influence their secondary writing pedagogy. The findings also indicate that participant writer identities were strongly influenced by their k-12 English teachers. Lastly, the findings suggest that participants experienced trouble navigating tensions in writing instruction. The implications suggest that teacher educators can highlight identity work in teacher education courses to strengthen writer identity. Similarly, I recommend in the Implications section that teacher educators design activities to strengthen preservice teachers’ writer identities so they can strengthen the writer identity of future secondary students. The implications also underscore how teacher educators can highlight the tensions that preservice teachers may encounter as a secondary writing instructor, and how to navigate such tension. This study complements the research on writing teacher education and provides new possibilities to effectively prepare writing instructors.

Since the 1975 publication of Newsweek’s article asserting that “Johnny” can’t write, many have continued to support the claim that students graduating from American high schools and universities can’t write. This criticism has led many students to believe the problem lies exclusively with them. Efforts to improve students’ writing have had little effect, as reflected in continually concerning scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress. Recently, researchers have begun to suggest that the problem should be addressed by working to change students’ identification as a bad writer. Two constructs have emerged from these efforts: writer and authorial identity. Research on these constructs, however, is relatively recent and therefore limited. Further, the constructs have been investigated in separate literature bases, divided almost exclusively between English composition studies (writer identity) and psychology (authorial identity). This study seeks to investigate students’ writer and authorial identities right at the entry point into college. Expectations for writing are different in college than they are in high school. College students, many of whom fall into the emerging adulthood phase of development, may experience difficulties writing in college if these different expectations aren’t made explicit. In addition, this study explores whether writer and authorial identity are two distinct constructs, or whether similarities between the two exist. Data were collected from a diverse sample of first-year undergraduates at a large, urban, public university in the southeastern United States. Using a mixed method research design, quantitative data on authorial identity were collected using a modified version of an existing scale to measure authorial identity; open-response questions provided the qualitative data. Mixed analyses of the quantitative and qualitative findings found areas of significant differences between the two constructs, but also areas of overlap. These findings suggest that authorial identity may be a more specific form of writer identity, one in which the writer’s authentic voice and knowledge are effectively represented in what is written. Although this study is a first step in trying to identify why “Johnny” can’t write, it provides evidence that viewing the problem through the lens of students’ writer and authorial identity warrants further investigation.

No description available.

No description available.

This research explores the identity reconstruction of graduate students in additional language (AL) contexts. It addresses not only the issue of language proficiency in self-representation, but also more complicated factors that influence self-positioning and perceived social positioning in an additional culture, as well as ways of establishing the self in academic writing. The research is grounded in language learning theories in second language education and identity theories in linguistics, sociology, and cultural studies. Eleven graduate students participated in the study, among whom five were international students at a Chinese university and six were Chinese students at a Canadian university. Data were drawn from a questionnaire, writing samples, interviews, and email correspondence. Commonalities and divergences were found between groups and within groups. I developed a framework of writer identity for AL graduate students prior to the study and modified it in the discussion. Based on the data, I elaborated on the connections of personal identity and writer identity, and conceptualized for AL speakers a mediated space incorporating home culture and host culture but going beyond the overlap of the two, as well as a mediated self that is achieved through negotiation with the available options in their respective social context. / Thesis (Ph.D, Education) -- Queen's University, 2008-04-24 23:24:36.208