ENED+692+Action+Research

//**Context**: The action research write-up is the culmination of the proposal and data collection periods. It offers an analysis of the collected data as long as conclusions and implications for further research. //

Along with providing my action research write-up below, I have also provided a direct link to my paper via dropbox.com. Viewing it via the dropbox link will ensure the integrity of the format.

[|Action Research Final]

Discursive Moves: From Face-to-Face to Online Discussion in a High School English Classroom

Lorelei N. Futrelle Gardner-Webb University Summer 2012

**Introduction **

It was my first week of teaching Advanced Placement Language & Composition – a College Board sanctioned class that exposes high school students to the rigor and demands of a college-level class in a high school setting - last spring and in order to get my students to interact with each other outside the classroom, I set up an Edmodo account – a secure social networking site free to educators - for each of my two classes. Their first assignment: view Stephen Colbert’s “newscast” about the raid and subsequent death of Osama bin Laden in Pakistan and respond on a discussion thread. I set the assignment completion cut-off time to 10:00 p.m. that night so I could review the discussion board before I went to bed. When I started reading, the number of students who either did not respond in a constructive manner to the discussion questions and/or each other’s post, or simply did not complete the assignment astounded me. In the moment, I thought to myself, I either didn’t give clear enough directions or my students have no idea what they are doing when it comes to online discussion.

The next day when asked about the online assignment, my students claimed they didn’t know how to “work it” or that they didn’t know what my expectations were. I asked them about their responses – the one-word answers or the “I agrees” that littered the discussion board after the first person posted. I asked why they decided to write that way because I was puzzled. They gave a variety of answers: that is “all they could think to say”or didn’t know how to “have a conversation with the person when they aren’t directly in front of me.” These types of comments really baffled me. I thought, “They can have conversations over text messages or chat on Facebook but they can’t work a discussion thread?” “How can they not have anything else to add to an on-going conversation? Can they not think on their own?” These types of responses, and my own questions, remind me now of my first semester of graduate school in the fall of 2010 when I was introduced to the world of online education during my Literary Criticism class. I had never submitted any of my assignments through an online platform before, and to be quite honest, I wasn’t quite sure how to navigate it at all – not just the physical aspect but also the composition and rhetoric components of form, audience, purpose. Without me knowing it at the time, my students were repeating my own questions straight back to me. “What does the teacher expect out of this type of assignment?” “How should I be responding to this – the way I do in class or another manner?” “Who is my audience? Is it just the teacher?”

As the semester went on, my AP students began to use Edmodo more often for different types of assignments other than the discussion board thread, but despite the regularity (at least twice a week) that we used it, there still seemed to be some disconnect between my intentions as a teacher and my students’ execution of any online assignment. However, despite some of the issues that were still going on, it seemed that more students were engaged and learning in different ways. Because I saw the positive outcomes of my own “online education,” being able to extend my learning beyond the walls of the traditional classroom by utilizing the resources I had, I decided to start a Ning with the other AP English teacher in my school this school year in order to create a collaborative environment between the eleventh and twelfth grade AP classes. Ning is a social networking site that includes many features such as discussion threads, blogs, profile pages, sharing documents, and more. I chose to use Ning as a class website space to safely continue communication outside the confines of our classroom walls. The other teacher and I share the Ning, but my students had their own class groups and discussion board topics within those groups. Because of this addition, my students had a newer environment to adapt to. I center my classroom on collaborative, student-centered learning through round table discussions, small group work, Socratic seminars, face-to-face discussions, writing groups, writing and reading workshops, daybook writing, and portfolios. I’ve created this environment and these situations in order to foster student learning, and I knew that the Ning would be a great complement to this already existing way of learning and teaching. But I soon noticed that students had some of the same issues I did as a graduate student, as well as their AP predecessors.

The students who participated in this research were given a summer assignment – to read a choice novel and a required novel and respond to discussion board threads on Ning about those novels. Some students took the opportunity to “show off” their academic distinction by producing replies to their individual novels like Brenda* about her choice novel, A Long Way Gone by Ishmael Beah:

I think that Ishmael was fighting two battles. The battle that was at hand, and the battle within himself. He said several times that they joined the army to live, because that was the only way to get food and shelter, and to also get "pay back" on the rebles that were accused of killing his family. However, i think that in Ishmael's mind he was just like the rebles. He realized that he was not just killing the people how killed his parents but he was also killing someone else's parents. Maybe the reason why remembering his parents was so hard on his was not only that he missed them but he had also just put someone else in the same situation.

I think the ending of the story was a great way to end. Ishmael had trouble all throughout the story remebering his childhood and not wanting to bring it up, and i feel that when he ended the story with a spicific story from his past showed that is some way he accepted what had happened to him and what he had done. I think this particular story also sums up the book very well. He had a choice, he could either kill the monkey or not, but either way someone he loved would be taken way. He had a choice, he could either fight or not, but either way the damage was already done. Brenda’s response was essentially what I was looking for – a decent synthesis response to the novel, not just a brief emotional response to what they read and took away from the novel. But then I also had students who responded to the required novel, Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck, like Tiara*: “i do agree gerge would have been better iff by himself, but wen you care about some one you think about them first”. Tiara’s response was not up to the expectations that I had for my AP students: it was neither an in-depth synthesis of the novel, nor was it well thought out. Tiara seemed to have rushed through the assignment, as indicated by her severely careless errors. These stark differences in the discursive moves of these two students led me to want to research this type of occurrence.

I am planning on continuing to engage my students in this online space in the future, but because of the variance in responses, I saw the need to look deeper into exactly what my students were doing in this space and be able to look at how it differs from the traditional classroom environment. <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Based on my experience using an online space to enhance a traditional classroom environment, and some ideas and work about language from Vygotsky (1975) and Gee (2009), I became interested in seeing how my students are learning to navigate through these different types of rhetorical situations within my classroom. This interest led me to conduct research in my own classroom during the 2011-2012 school year, working with the same students presented in the samples above.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">There has been much research about the benefits of computer-based and collaborative learning in the English classroom as well as how people in general conceptualize and express language in either spoken or written forms (Vygotsky, 1975; Emerson, 1983, Holquist, 1983). However, there is a gap in the literature exploring the change in language in native English speakers within those rhetorical contexts. <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Therefore, my main research question and subquestions are as follows:
 * <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">What happens, if anything, within students’ language in multiple rhetorical situations in a high school English classroom setting?
 * <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">How, if at all, do students change their language according to different rhetorical purposes (daybook writing, Ning posts, reflections, essays, class discussions)?
 * <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">How, if at all, do students change their language according to different audiences (face-to-face encounters [small groups, student-teacher, round table discussion], online discussion boards, administrator presence)?
 * <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">How, if at all, do students conceptualize rhetorical concepts such as audience and purpose?
 * <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">How, if at all, do students conceptualize their knowledge of rhetorical concepts, such as audience and purpose, and utilize that knowledge to gain awareness of their own responses?

**<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Review of the Literature ** <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;"> In order to delve into the inner workings of a classroom centered in collaborative learning and the implications for students’ language because of this environment, we need to review the conversation going on between other researchers.
 * <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Why Is There a Need for This Research? **

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">The key questions guiding this literature review revolve around ideas, language and collaborative classroom, within two of my sub-questions: How, if at all, do students change their language according to different rhetorical purposes (daybook writing, Ning posts, reflections, essays, class discussions)? How, if at all, do students change their language according to different audiences (face-to-face encounters [small groups, student-teacher, round table discussion], online discussion boards, administrator presence? Defining terms such as language, discourse, discourse analysis and rhetorical situation are important in setting up this story. Therefore, there are four key questions that need to be answered. What does language look like in a collaborative classroom? In many instances as a classroom teacher, I have seen how a student’s language will change depending on the audience, subject, and text. Due to the nature of a collaborative classroom, the audience, subject, and text may shift or vary more often than in a strictly teacher-centered classroom. What do we mean when we talk about language? Language is used as a fairly broad term amongst students and teachers, so it’s important to understand language’s parts and pieces as well as its purpose according to researchers and linguists. What is discourse and how is it “different” from language? There have been movements in linguistics over the last 90 years that reevaluate how we look at the differences between language and discourse, especially contextual and social, behind how these function in society. What is a rhetorical situation? A popular term in rhetoric, I am going to challenge the “standard” definition of rhetorical situation by creating my own that also includes some of the language used by discourse analysts and linguists.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Collaborative education is nothing new, but yet it still not seen as the “traditional” way of educating students, nor is it a “normal” view of learning from a students’ perspective. Vygotsky (1962) stressed “collaborative learning, either among students or between students and a teacher, is essential for assisting each student in advancing through his/her own zone of proximal development” (Warschauer 1997, p. 471). As defined by Vygotsky (1987), zone of proximal development (ZPD) is known as “what the child is able to do in collaboration today he will be able to do independently tomorrow” (p. 211). Vygotsky posited that all humans are social learners; therefore, collaboration during learning is a key to all learners reaching their potential and going beyond their ZPD. Therefore, collaborative and collective learning is a feature of education that all teachers should be attuned to and utilizing in the classroom. Face-to-face collaborative activities that include different audiences - writing groups, writing conferences, round-table discussions, small-group activities (read-around, think-pair-share, Socratic seminars), and dialogue journals - are all utilized in my classroom on a daily basis. Using multiple collaborative techniques allows me to assess my students in various ways, accommodate for their strengths and weaknesses, and form a working relationship with them. Due to the variety of purposes for these techniques, varying language may be expected.
 * <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">What Does Language Look Like in my Classroom? **

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">As a writing tool for inside and outside the classroom, students are asked to keep a daybook in my classroom to “write about their lives, to keep track of their thinking, and to notice all the world around them with open eyes and ears and hearts” (Brannon et al., 2008, p. 3). Students are asked to use their daybook as a space to explore their thinking and writing, but also as a place to reflect. Therefore, each daybook reflects a particular student’s language choices, depending on the type of writing that is being done. Thusly, this daybook serves as an extension of each of my students – each student’s daybook is specific to that particular person. Not only are daybooks essential to my students’ daily interactions with literary and non-literary happenings, it also serves as a communication tool through dialogue journals and portfolios (process and showcase).

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;"> Students are also a part of our class Ning, a safe, social networking site where my students can interact with or without my facilitation using discussion board threaded discussions or blogs. Students use Ning for online writing, something that is becoming more popular and inherently important in the educational field because “of their ability to foster interaction and communication between students” (Klopfer, et al., 2009, p. 1). This type of interaction between students, and also between students and teachers at times, tries to bridge the “sharp disconnect between the way students are taught in school and the way the outside world approaches socialization” (Klopfer, et al., 2009, p. 1). The utilization of Ning in my classroom allows my students to talk about their learning and discoveries in the environment they have been surrounded by since birth and because of that, they have “developed new ways of understanding, learning, and processing information” (Baird, 2005, p. 4). This type of space, much like the daybook allows, becomes a place where students make individual choices about language, mostly because students in the 21st century have grown up with social networking and the language used on those types of sites. Because of this blending between social and institutional, there are several questions about the language being used on sites like Ning. How are students utilizing language in these spaces? How does their language change from face-to-face interaction to online spaces? By using discourse analysis methods pioneered by James Gee (2009), this study will attempt to answer the questions of the influence of the change in language through different texts, contexts and audiences.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Katrina Meyer (2003) completed a study about the differences between face-to-face and online discussion boards in a graduate school classroom. Her findings revolve around five different trends in her data. The trends that are most important for this study are “experience of time,” “quality of discussion,” and “needs of the student.” In “experience of time,” Meyer saw that during face-to-face discussions, students “enjoyed its ‘speed,’ ‘spark,’ or ‘energy,’ the way they were able to build upon each others’ comments, collaborate on the spot, and benefit from the enthusiasm of others” (p. 61). However, Meyer also found that in reference to the “quality of discussion,” face-to-face discussions were not as beneficial as online discussions because some students found difficulty in asking for clarification and many didn’t feel like they were participating at a beneficial level for their needs (p. 61). Most importantly, Meyer’s data pointed to the importance of becoming an effective, skilled, and clear writer utilizing online discussions, but also how the lack of the performative acts of language such as body language and other non-verbal cues may influence a student’s ability to effectively participate in an online discussion. Therefore, it is necessary to look at the ways students use language in the digital or online learning environment in contrast to the language used in a face-to-face environment.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">“Language is man’s greatest tool; so it should be seen precisely as a tool, that is, as a means for communicating with and extracting from the outside world” (Emerson, 1983, p. 252). In the world of education, language is at the forefront of how teachers and students communicate with each other, whether it is spoken or written. Several linguists, specifically Mikhail Bakhtin and Lev Vyogtsky (1975), drastically changed how many teachers talk and think about language, specifically what they think of what language entails and how it creates meaning.
 * <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">What Do We Mean When We Talk about Language? **

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">As Michael Holquist (1983) discussed, Bahktin saw language as a “constant struggle” (p. 310) that consisted of what he called “utterances.” An “utterance” is the merging of the “linguistic system and speech performance” in a “space where they intermingle, the force that binds them and the arena where the strength of each is tested” (Holquist, 1983, p. 310). But as Holquist discussed, it is much more than just an utterance, because “any utterance is a link in a very complexly organized chain of communication” (1983, 311). The linguistic system of a language is the phonological and morphological production of spoken words. Speech performances entail all of the “extra” things that are connected to the actual words being spoken. Gee (2009) would go on to call these things “non-language stuff” (p. 355). For example, one of my former female students always greets me with the following two-word greeting, “Hey, Trelley!” This greeting is a shortened and slang version of the traditional, “Hello, Mrs. Futrelle” that I receive from the majority of my students. The student makes a choice to use the first greeting over the second due to the performance elements at work, which may include but are not limited to the length of our relationship, what context the language is occurring in, and the comfort level with me as her audience. Gee (2009) used these performance elements to discuss the “extra” things happening in language along with Bahktin’s idea of utterance. As seen here, like Bahkin would also notice, “if we closely analyze exchanges between two speaking subjects, it quickly becomes apparent that what each says to the other is difficult to describe in terms of language alone” (Holquist, 1983, 312).

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">As Emerson (1983) pointed out, Bahktin also “posited four social factors that make the understanding of speech and writing possible”: language and its effects occur outside of themselves; the “outside” of language must be organized in some sort of social idea, the effects of language must be studied in relation to other language systems and phenomena, not as independent actions, and redefining the Word in order to bring it back to its original Greek sense of logos (p. 347). Therefore, language does not simply exist in and of itself, but must be able to be related back to “the unique speech experience of each individual [that] is shaped through constant interaction” (Warschauer, 1997, p. 471). Although an online discussion seems to “exist in and of itself,” there are many outside influences and expectations at work within a student’s language in this production of language. Simply because language is not being created in a face-to-face environment does not take the social or cultural aspect of language out of the equation.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">In Thought and Language, Lev Vygotsky (1975) attempts to identify how language and thought are studied by linguists and psychologists. Vygotsky posits that those who see thought and speech as independent from one another only see “the relationship between them merely as a mechanical, external connection between two distinct processes” (p. 3). Throughout his study of language, Vyogtsky (1975) saw the danger in the “separation of sound and meaning” as it was “largely responsible for the barrenness of classical phonetics and semantics” (p. 4). Because there was no connection between the word and its meaning, there was no efficient or effective way to analyze language, because “a word without meaning is an empty sound, no longer a part of human speech” (Vygotsky, 1975, p. 5). Within this pairing of speech and thought, Vygotsky also included the “social intercourse” element of language, which includes the “expressive movements” of a person trying to communicate with another. Because of this social element, Vygotsky (1975) also brought the inside-out, outside-in idea to linguistics, which <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">…shows that every idea contains a transmuted affective attitude toward the bit of reality it refers…permits us to trace the path from a person’s needs and impulses to the specific direction taken by his thoughts, and the reverse path from his thoughts to his behavior and activity. (p. 8)

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Therefore, all speech and thought is social. Vygotsky’s work offers a way to discuss the sociolinguistic acts that occur within certain environments within my classroom because students’ language is influenced by the reality they are immersed in as well as how they know they should be performing using speech and thought. For example, during a whole-group discussion about how Ralph Waldo Emerson’s essay “Self-Reliance” is an example of good writing, Megan* responded to a student who said the elementary “hamburger way of writing” is “kinda like BSing your way through it.” Megan’s discursive choice to utilize an acronym like “BSing” may call into question her purpose and meaning of using such a language choice in a face-to-face classroom environment.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">In An Introduction to Discourse Analysis: Theory and Method, James Paul Gee (2009) describes “discourse” as “language-in-use” or “language [that] is used ‘on site’ to enact activities and identities” (p. 347) but that is also a “tool…to design or build things” (p. 437). Little “d” discourse simply deals with the actual language used during a specific language act.
 * <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">What is D/discourse? **

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">When “discourse” interacts with “non-language ‘stuff’ to enact specific identities and activities then… ‘big D’ Discourses are involved” (Gee, 2009, p. 355). “Big D” Discourse is what Gee (2009) refers when he talked about discourse analysis because “we are interested in analyzing language as it is fully integrated with all the other elements that go into social practices” (p. 413). In order to be considered Discourse, there has “to be a particular who and to pull off a particular what requires that we act, value, interact, and use language in sync with or in coordination with other people and with various objects (‘props’) in appropriate locations and at appropriate times” (Gee, 2009, p. 721). Essentially, this is question of “who you are when you speak or write and what you are doing” (Gee, 2009, p. 692) because we project different identities in different times and different situations through our language (Gee, 2009, p. 699).

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Gee (2009) explained that within our language-in-use, there are seven “building tasks” that “construct or build… ‘reality’” (p. 437), but that are also essential to analyzing D/discourse. The seven building tasks are significance, activities, identities, relationships, politics, connections, and sign systems and knowledge. Each of these tasks has an important part in discussing and analyzing language. Through these terms, Gee provides a way for me to look at how student language changes based on “who-is-doing-what” while they are engaged in different writing or speaking environments, specifically using his seven building tasks.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;"> Traditionally, rhetorical situation is defined as “any set of circumstances that involves at least one person using some sort of communication to modify the perspective of at least one other person” where each rhetorical situation has four components: “author, audience, text and context” (Sproat, et al, 2010). I believe this is a good, general definition that touches on the purpose of rhetoric, but for my research, this definition is a little too broad and does not enact some of the important aspects of Gee’s idea of “big D” discourse that is important to analyzing the discursive moves in student language.
 * <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">How Do I Define Rhetorical Situation? **

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;"> Lev Vygotsky (1975), as explained previously, understood that language does not occur in a vacuum and that there are sociocultural aspects of language that influence the actual language being used by individuals during a communicative act. Because my research was done within a high school classroom setting, this social aspect of language is not only important to the communicative acts going on, but it is also important as it is an implication for the type of language being used.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">James Paul Gee (2009) took Vygotsky’s ideas about language a step further and gave us the idea of “big D” discourse – “language-in-use” being “melded integrally with non-language ‘stuff’ to enact specific identities and activities (p. 355). Non-language events for Gee (2009) include “gestures, actions, interactions, symbols, tools, technologies, values, attitudes, beliefs, and emotions (p. 353). Discourse allows for other non-language events to be taken into serious consideration when discussing a particular rhetorical situation.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;"> From all of this information, the working and relevant definition of rhetorical situation being used for this research will refer to: the use of language between the speaker (or writer), its audience, and its subject, that includes the context and other non-language nuances that establish the speaker’s (or writer’s) Discourse, which establishes a relationship between all three elements of the communicative act. As referenced before, the student who acknowledges me with “Hey, Trelley” takes into account her audience (me), her subject (a greeting) and the context of the situation (in the hallway between classes) while also utilizing her facial expressions (normally a contagious smile and generally positive body language). She takes into considerations all of these elements to establish a relationship between her and I, and what the student deems an appropriate, whether consciously or subconsciously, language choice.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Because students make language choices every day in any type of rhetorical situation, utilizing Gee’s (2009) building task questions about Discourse will allow me to not only analyze concepts about students’ “language in use” (p. 237) but also see how those discursive moves build a sense of reality for students.

**<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Methodology ** <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">The type of research that this work lent itself to was qualitative and naturalistic in form with a hermeneutic paradigm. This project’s concern was “not with verification but with interpretation and analysis” (Falk & Blumenreich, 2005, p. 13). Because I am the researcher, the one who collected the data, it is important for me to “be upfront about [my] biases” within the research since it “utilizes a discovery process, often arrived at through the joint construction of meaning made by the many participants in the situation” (Falk & Blumenreich, 2005, p. 12-13). The sole purpose of this research was to “contribute useful understandings” that I was in the “best position to study, adapt and create” using the research that I collected and analyzed (Falk & Blumenreich, 2005, p. 14). Therefore, I conducted a 10-week, in-depth action research study to discover and analyze the changes that my students made within language depending on certain factors. I desired to better understand how my students used language in different situations, people, and venues in order to better my own teaching in those situations. I used the data I collected to analyze student’s language and how those language choices exposed their sense of reality.
 * <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Research Rationale **

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">The research was conducted at Maple Run High School. Maple Run is located in a suburban and rural part of the Southeastern part of the United States. Currently, there are 1209 students enrolled in Maple Run in grades 9-12. Of these 1209 students, approximately 4% are enrolled in “Advanced College Prep Courses,” which includes honors and AP courses (School Profile). For the 2008-2009 school year, 31% of students were eligible for the free lunch program through the United States Department of Agriculture. During morning hallway duty, it’s difficult to not notice the diversity amongst the students that attend Maple Run High School. Students represent every facet of the social and economical scale from around our district lines – and each student is just as unique as the next. Our African American students occupy almost 25% of our student population, white students occupy another 70% and other ethnicities make up the last 5%. While this may not seem very diverse, our students create a sense of diversity among themselves. We have students from every “social” group represented at our school, and almost every single student gets along with each other. Students communicate freely in the hallways in passing or in their groups around their classrooms. It’s rare to see a students not talking to someone else in their journey to class.
 * <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Context of the Research **

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">There is a clear sense of order and expectation that illuminates through the actions of the students; most students are in their classrooms before the tardy bell rings each period. Most of our students are “good” students – they are driven in their studies and are amiable with their peers and the school’s staff members. Teachers are at their doors to greet their students into each class and are encouraged to establish relationships with each student that walks through their door each class period. It is this type of supportive and learning-conducive environment that fosters a school community that will come together and support any one of its members.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">The participants of this study included my second period class, which consisted of 16 juniors who ranged in age from 16 to 17 years old. At the time that the research was collected, students were in their second semester of Advanced Placement Language and Composition. Within this class, there were 5 males and 11 females. Out of my 16 students, 4 were African American. In order to effectively analyze information, I gathered data from all of my students over the course of 10 weeks and then developed individual case studies for 3 students to utilize for my data analysis. By looking at a few students in detail, this enabled me to create a “holistic and in-depth examination that sheds light” on my research questions (Falk & Blumenreich, 2005, p. 18).
 * <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Participants **

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">In order to abide by the National Research Act, I received informed consent from all of my participants in the data collection process through Gardner-Webb University’s Internal Review Board as well as through our county’s consent process. In order to collect the most viable and useable data, I used several collection points.
 * <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Data Collection **

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">The first collection point I utilized was my own field notes and observations. Because the nuances of conversation within a classroom cannot be recorded solely by a microphone, I took notes during face-to-face interactions that I had with my participants as well as my observations during “normal” classroom procedures and happenings. This ensured that I was able to contextualize my other data points after the data was collected.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;"> I also utilized student artifacts from Ning discussion thread posts and essay reflections. These data points allowed me to look at written language from two different purposes: students writing about others’ writing and students’ writing about their own writing. Ning was utilized for supplemental discussion concerning texts that were read in conjunction with in-class texts. Each prompt on Ning was designed in hopes of getting students to critically think about the text (asking them to use 2-4 specific ideas or quotes from the text) while discussing their opinion and/or reaction. Essays were collected twice during the collection period, in mid-March and in mid-April. Students were given the opportunity to choose their topic, purpose, and audience for each of the two essays. The only requirement was it had to be in essay form. Reflections were a part of the final draft of each choice essay. When students prepared to turn in a final draft, they were asked to write a thoughtful and thorough reflection about that particular essay, addressing their writing process, the composition’s movement, and any specific parts of the essay they wanted me to look at.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;"> I also utilized voice-recorded data in order to capture the spoken language going on during in-class meetings. These instances included teacher-student conferences, which occurred twice during my data collection, and small group discussions, which occurred on a daily basis. In order to record oral language, I used an application on my iPad called QuickVoice.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">In his aforementioned text, James Paul Gee gives beginning linguists a way in to discussing the implications of language. Gee (2009) proposed that the purpose of discourse analysis allows us “to be in dialog with ourselves, to think more deeply about what we mean and how others will interpret us” (p. 179), but he also explained that the implications and purpose of discourse analysis is a much more important one – a task “to think more deeply about the meaning we give to people’s worlds as to make ourselves better, more human people, and the world a better, more human place” (p. 190). At the heart of Gee’s discussion of discourse analysis is his idea about “D/discourse” as discussed earlier.
 * <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Method of Analysis **

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Therefore, when we talk about discourse analysis as a whole, we do not simply focus on the language, but also on the “tools of inquiry” that show “how people build identities and activities and recognize identities and activities that others are building around them” (p. 645). Gee (2009) defined activity as the use of language “to make clear to others what it is [we] take [ourselves] to be doing” (p. 450); he defines identity as the use of language to be “recognized as taking on a certain…role…here-and-now” (p. 455). Gee (2009) identified these “tools of inquiry” as social languages, Discourses, intertextuality and conversations. These tools work together with the seven building tasks in order to engage in two different types of discourse analysis: “form-function analysis” and “language-context” analysis.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;"> Form-function analysis deals with the “general correlations between form (structure) and function (meaning) in language” (Gee, 2009, p. 1447). Form relates to the actual structure of any language, including parts of speech and sentence parts (clauses and phrases) (Gee, 2009, p. 1449). Function relates to the “sort of meanings a given form can communicate or the sorts of interactional work (purposes) a given form can accomplish” (p. 1451).

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;"> Language-context analysis is associated with “situated meanings”, which Gee (2009) explained as the “associations with certain types of functions or meanings” which “arise because particular language forms take on specific or situated meanings in specific contexts” (p. 1512-20). In this instance, context includes “the ever-widening set of factors that accompany language in use” which include “the material setting, the people present…the language that comes before and after a given utterance, the social relationships of the people involved, and their ethnic, gendered, and sexual identities, as well as cultural, historical, and institutional factors” (Gee, 2009, p. 1520-24). Essentially, a language-context analysis looks at the “reflexive” relationship between language and context (p. 1526).

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">In order to complete this type of analysis, I decided to utilize Gee’s (2009) discourse analysis questions for 6 of his 7 building tasks. I used the building tasks to code my data and then used the questions related to them in order to analyze how the form and function of students’ language related to the situated meaning of the language.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">As I started collecting data, I realized that I was going to be saturated if I included some of the data points from which I initially thought I would collect. Instead of focusing on a broad range of collection points, I focused on 4 major sources for data: Ning assignments, essay reflections, small-group discussions, and individual teacher-student discussions/assignments. These 4 types of assignments allowed me to gather a focused type of data that I needed in order to prevent my data from becoming jumbled and inconsistent with my research questions.
 * <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Overview of Data **

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Ning assignments included student responses that were completed via directed prompts that I gave to students on differfent discussion threads in order to complete the assignment. I collected a total of five different Ning assignments – three asked students to respond to reading assignments, one asked students to reflect on an essay that was formally assessed, one asked students to reflect on a group activity that was completed in class. I collected this data via our class’s Ning discussion board by copying and pasting the entire discussion thread to a Word document.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Essay reflections were collected twice during the research period, once in mid-March and once in mid-April. Students were asked to write a final reflection on the writing process, composition movement, and any other details they deemed necessary whenever they submitted a final draft of an essay. For the two essays that were collected, students were able to write on a topic of their choice as well as choose their audience and writing aim. Reflections were handwritten by the students on notebook paper and then typed into Word documents in order to return the hard copy to the students.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Small group discussions and student-teacher conferences were recorded via the above mentioned method and then transcribed to Word documents. This process allowed me to not only review the discussions and/or conversations but it also allowed me to pick up on the small parts of discussion that I may have missed as an observer on that particular day. I collected two different types of small group discussions – writing groups based on responding to student writing and discussions based on a text that students were asked to read. For each type, I collected data from at least two different small groups in order to vary my data. For whole class discussions, I recorded and transcribed five different whole discussions that students participated in during class. These discussions focused on reading students were asked to complete outside of class be prepared to discuss the next class period. For student-teacher conferences, I recorded and transcribed one day of conferences with all of my students from the beginning of the data collection period.

**<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Data Analysis ** <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">In my analysis, I am concerned with specific instances of student language and the choices students made inside and outside of my classroom during the time I had them. However, as a member of this classroom within a learning institution, I realize that the influence of the teacher is ever present. While this came up in my data, I focus my efforts on discussing the four patterns coming up across my data – differences in the ways: written language students use concerning the writing of others (literature/non-fiction/poetry), written language students use concerning their own writing, students use of oral language to discuss the writing of others, and students use of oral language to discuss their own writing.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Because of the amount and the variety of data that I have collected, I have decided to complete case studies on three different students – two female, one male. Each student’s individual data will be compiled and analyzed separately to discover if there are any individual patterns between collection points and/or between students. I have chosen these students based on some observations that I have made post-data collection. I will discuss each emerging pattern through the language data of three students, which I will present as individual case studies within each emergent pattern. As noted before in the Methodology section, I will be analyzing each data point using several of James Paul Gee’s (2009) discourse analysis building tasks, specifically significance, identity, relationships, politics, sign systems/knowledge, and connections. Each of these building tasks asks specific questions about the language being used, but in general, it asks how language is being enacted in a certain instance to communicate certain ideas that aide in discovering how Discourse is working in language. Following this type of organizational pattern allows me to more thoroughly analyze how a student’s language may or may not change depending on the data point given as well as possibly be able to discover some patterns within a specific case study.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;"> **Students writing about other’s writing**. Toward the end of my data collection, the week of March 12 - 16, students were studying several different texts by different writers for different audiences: “Necessary to Protect Ourselves” by Malcolm X, “I Have a Dream” by Martin Luther King, Jr., “Vindication of the Rights of Women” by Mary Wollstonecraft,” and “On Women’s Right to Vote” by Susan B. Anthony. Earlier that week, students were asked to read the two texts by Malcolm X and MLK, Jr and analyze, compare, and discuss them in small groups in preparation for doing a similar comparative assignment on their own with the texts by Susan B. Anthony and Mary Wollstonecraft via our class’s Ning discussion board. Students were asked to respond to the following written assignment, which was prompted for them on their discussion board thread: <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Reflect/react to the essay written by Susan B. Anthony about women's suffrage by discussing 2-4 "take aways" from the text and discussing their importance OR discussing some commonalities between this and Wollstonecraft's "Vindication..." Remember to use specific quotes from the text to support your ideas/opinions. <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Reply to at least 2 classmates - remember to spread the love!
 * <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Written Language **

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">**//Case study 1 – Megan*//**. Megan was a white seventeen-year-old student who was a member of my class since August 2011. Unlike some of her classmates, she did not have to switch class periods at the end of the fall term due to scheduling conflicts. She was able to remain with some of her steadfast friends and continued to sit in proximity to them. During class, Megan was attentive. She participated in class discussions, asked poignant questions, and engaged herself with positive body language. However, she could also hedge her way to losing focus depending on the content of the class. During small group discussions, she could quickly digress into ideas that were sometimes not even remotely related to the content being presented in class. When choosing writing groups at the beginning of the fall semester, she chose those friends whom she knew she could trust and was able to keep most of that group intact after the semester change. Megan thrived on the power of her words. She was like a heart attack – a “silent killer” – the majority of the population underestimated her, yet she would lie in wait until the most opportune moment and she completely turned the heads of every person that was able to hear her thoughts and ideas. Below is an example of how powerful and thought-provoking her language could be.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Megan was the first student to respond to this written assignment on the Ning discussion board.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Pardon me, but I must say both Susan B. Anthony and Wollstonecraft are pretty bad ass! Both of them weren't afraid to address the men in charge. SBA really got to the point that the ones who run the government go against the constitution and everything their government SHOULD stand for. I loved where she said, **"It was we, the people; not we, the white male citizens; nor yet we, the male citizens; but we, the whole people, who formed the Union."** Both her and Wollstonecraft craft point out to their audience that there are indeed other people besides men in the country and they should all be treated the same. They both also had this "sassy" tone about them, a tone that is just kind of like 'look, here are the facts as I see them, and how everyone else should see them.' <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Typically I can't stand women's rights stuff, but these gals put a twist on it. I have new respect for them. [bold language added by student]

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">There are some interesting language choices going on in this response where students were asked to write about other’s writing. However, one choice that really stuck out to me was Megan’s decision to use the term “bad ass” in her response to describe Susan B. Anthony. This is not exactly the language that I was expecting from an online discussion thread – it surprised me – I actually laughed a little bit because it honestly shocked me that after an entire semester of participating in discussion threads and knowing my expectations for them, a student decided to use slightly offensive language. When I began using the online element, I made the assumption that students would use language that they would in the physical classroom – language based on their knowledge of school and the constructs that go along with being in a traditional classroom. Curse words, like “bad ass,” are not called for in the traditional classroom setting; therefore, students who utilize language like this are typically thought of to be going against the norm or expectation of the traditional classroom environment. In class, I had some reminder discussions with my students about my expectations of students’ posts (content of the post needed to coincide with prompt, audience awareness, connection to the text), so Megan’s post, the first one of the written discussion thread, caught me off guard, especially as it was assigned three-quarters of the way through an entire year of using this online element. Despite this surprise on my part, it seems that Megan is attempting to create an identity with the text. To James Paul Gee (2009), identities help show what is being enacted within the language for others to see as operational (p, 460). Megan seems to see herself within Anthony, as she “loves” some of the things she says and has a “new found respect” for Anthony through her reading and analysis of the text. Perhaps Megan also sees herself as a “bad ass” because like Anthony, she is “not afraid to address the men in charge,” or buck against a certain group’s expectations for her. Megan also seems to be forging a relationship with her classmates by calling Anthony a “bad ass.” When discussing relationships, James Paul Gee (2009) asked us to consider what type of relationship or relationships is being sought to enact with others that are either present or not present (p. 467). Not only does this comment indicate that she forward with her thoughts, like her classmates expect from her during traditional oral discussion in class, but she is also utilizing her sense of power to forge a relationship. Since students were technically not “present” for this response in a physical sense, utilizing language that is not “normal” language for this discussion could be seen as a way to exercise a dominant role in the relationship with her fellow classmates while also testing the boundaries of her relationship with me as the teacher. This may be the way which she talks with her friends outside of the classroom; however, she choose to enact this for an in-class, though online, discussion. Despite the fact she may be enacting a “normal” relationship with her classmates, she is using this type of language in a school-sanctioned rhetorical situation. My expectation as a teacher is that students will shift these types of relationships, whether I express that explicitly or not.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">As Megan continues through her post, her bolded language, a quote pulled from the text itself, (It was we the people; not we, the white male citizens; nor yet we, the male citizens; but we, the whole people, who formed the Union) attempts to further her connection and relationship to the text through the use of knowledge gleaned from the text itself. By quoting directly from the text, Megan is attempting to prove that not only can she utilize Anthony’s own words to support her argument, but she is also utilizing them to connect to the text itself. Gee (2009) relates connection to the ability of language to create connections or disconnections or the ability of language to make something relevant or irrelevant (p. 484). It is this statement that Megan seems to connect with as the essence of “everything their government SHOULD stand for” and that “they [all people] should be treated the same” as outlined in the Constitution. Her sense of equality for all being the correct and valued train of thought is one that she perceives as “’sassy’” but also well-thought out and educated – it is a part of Anthony’s essay that she connects to, and utilizing direct language from the text can be seen as her attempt to illustrate a direct connection. While Megan’s response supported this claim of Susan B. Anthony’s unrelenting persistence, Clay’s response furthers the pattern of students creating connections and relationships not only to the text but each other during written assignments about others’ writing.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">**//Case study 2 – Clay*//**. Like Megan, Clay had been in my class since August 2011. Clay was a mixed student (half black, half white) primarily raised by his mother and his grandparents. When I first met Clay in August, I knew that he was a different kind of student, one that could and would test the boundaries within the traditional classroom and inside of the virtual classroom. Clay switched class periods in the middle of the year and became separated from his best friend. However, this did not alter Clay’s adamant and eager participation in class. Clay was one of my “go to” people – a student I could count on to not only continue conversation but to perhaps prod at the status quo every once in a while and create a heated discussion when warranted. When I informed my students of this research, Clay was one of the first to ask if he could get “famous” if he ended up making an appearance in my write-up. Clay had a healthy sense of humor, and could sometimes cross the line, but he quickly recovered. He was quick to apologize when he felt he had done wrong and continuously expressed his love for learning..

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">In writing about Megan’s original response from above, Clay posted the following:

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">I completely agree with you Megan! Ya girl goes hella hard! I also have this new found respect for these women! One thing I don’t completely agree with in the replies you’ve been getting is that people are like, ‘I wish in today’s society people would be this bold and stand up for what you believe in.’ Well, I feel like they do, but people are so quick to scrutinize them. In today’s society, I feel as though people aren’t as blunt with their opinions, because they know they’re going to get bashed, but that’s just me. The cute baby rebel who disagrees with everyone. <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">#SteveGarrett*Swag <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">ps: Why did I just say that on here??? Pretty sure I’ll get cussed out, but who cares! :)

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">In his post, Clay also uses some language that as a teacher, I wouldn’t normally hear within the four walls of my classroom. Rather, he and Megan utilize a more slang-infused tone that would perhaps find itself more common in the hallways of a high school. Perhaps because Megan utilized this type of language, and as the first one to post, Clay felt comfortable conveying his thoughts in a similar tone and manner. Clay seems to make a connection not only with Megan’s post, as he “completely agrees with her,” but he also connects Susan B. Anthony to Megan as “ya girl,” putting Anthony and Megan in the same “clique” of women – those who go “hella hard.” Perhaps this comment also extends to Megan herself as the one who also has a “new found respect for these women.”

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">When Gee (2009) discussed connection, he also discussed the possibility of connection, or the ability of language to make something irrelevant (p. 484). Within the post as a whole, Clay seems to be disconnecting himself from the other “replies you’ve [Megan] been getting” as he doesn’t “completely agree” with them. He sees these comments as irrelevant while seeing his own comments and ideas as relevant because they are not connected. This is a pretty bold move, one that perhaps may not have occurred in this manner during an oral discussion about the two texts. In essence, he is able to disconnect himself from those with whom he doesn’t “completely agree” without having to directly name them. However, because he is disconnecting himself from those replies, he seems to be attempting to reestablish a connection with Megan as one that is not afraid to identify himself as “the cute baby rebel who disagrees with everyone.”

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">As Clay identifies himself in this way, he also signs off with a Twitter hashtag – also something I was not expecting to see on a Ning discussion board. While hashtags and other Twitter trends have infiltrated Facebook and e-mails, I was shocked that he would use this type of discursive move within our Ning discussion thread. In this instance, Clay appears to use this hashtag as a way to identify himself as “the cute baby rebel who disagrees with everyone.” “StevenGarrettSwag” is a reference to another student in my other section of AP – a student who is notorious for disagreeing on purpose, for being what Clay names “a cute baby rebel.” Hashtags are utilized on Twitter to track trends – ideas that are repetitious in the Twitter universe. Perhaps Clay’s utilization of this hashtag is a way to show that the idea of “cute baby rebels” should be a trend, not only in the literature that they are reading and analyzing but within a group of students as well.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">But what is even more interesting than the hashtag is Clay’s post-script at the end of his reply as a possible realization of his relationship to the audience, one that he seems to recognize as he writes his post-script question. He questions his intentions behind why he said “that on here” and that he may get “cussed out” because of his hashtag. Clay is an adamant member of the classroom, and in order for him to maintain the relationship with his classmates in an online environment, he may feel the need to look beyond the bounds of a more “traditional post.” I, as a member of the audience, did not see Clay’s overall post as offensive, but perhaps he perceived this and had some feelings of regret. Because this written response was completed online, Clay’s perception of audience and his relationship with them may have differed from another form of communication where he would use language. When posting on a discussion thread, once the post is sent, the person composing the response has a fifteen-minute window to continue editing the post. Clay could have used this option and simply edited out the hashtag and post-script. However, it seems that Clay left this intentionally, perhaps as a further attempt to establish a working relationship with the audience. This could also be an instance of his attempt to further his identity as a “cute baby rebel” who doesn’t seem to care if he gets “cussed out” by another person, even if it is not in a face-to-face encounter. While Clay seems to see getting “cussed out” as a negative action through his ending post-script, by “trending” this idea, Clay could actually be showing this trait as valuable and appropriate.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;"> Clay also posted an original response to the prompt that was given to students. In this written response, Clay also seems to mimic several of Megan’s rhetorical decisions in his reply:

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">So Susan B. Anthony is harajuku legit! I love how she uses the constitution/preamble, whatever you call it, as almost like a, "baha, got you there!" It's like she's just throwing blows at this country founding text, and dissing it in a classy manner. Like she goes line for line and just tells them how their wrong each time. **"It was we, the people; not we, the white male citizens; nor yet we, the male citizens; but we, the whole people, who formed the Union. And we formed it, not to give the blessings of liberty, but to secure them; not to the half of ourselves and the half of our posterity, but to the whole people - women as well as men."** This whole baby sentence just throws up a big F you to the founding fathers! Hate that! I feel as though she had to be so straight forward to get attention. No one wants to hear some quaint garbage. You got to be reckless to get the attention she was seeking, just take me for example. <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Peace, love and sophisticated black woman. <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;"><3 Clay <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">[bold added by student]

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Not only does Clay seem to mimic the slang-like tone of Megan’s reply, but he also made the decision to bold the quote that he used from the text to support his claim – one that firmly roots and connects his argument of Anthony’s “throwing blows at this country (sic) founding text and dissing it in a classy manner.” It seems that when given a model for a written response in an online environment, students will play “follow the leader.” In this particular instance, Megan was the leader and Clay made the decision to follow her in tone and conventional style of his response, perhaps in an effort to make a connection to her in addition to backing up her ideas in his previous reply to her. Perhaps the bolding of this quote – one that also falls in the midst of his analysis – is an indication of giving value to this section of Anthony’s essay over the others. The use of bold type makes this stand out from the rest of his post, making it the visual center of his post – it is the first thing that I noticed. By choosing to bold this quote, Clay seemed to “use the language” (Gee, 2009, p. 483) to connect not only with Megan but also the text itself. Making the quote stand out lends itself to think that Clay is “giving it meaning and value” (Gee, 2009, p. 440). In terms of his argument for the validity of Anthony’s ideas, he may be using the bold text to give the quote significance.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Clay’s acknowledging of Susan B. Anthony being “harakuju legit” by being upfront without getting into niceties while still being “reckless to get the attention she was seeking” seems to give off a tone of distinct polarities – one of seriousness and one of informality. His combination of formal language plus slang in this response may suggest that Clay firmly understands his audience, primarily his classmates as I did not enter into this discussion thread, and knows exactly what he is doing. It is beneficial to this analysis that responses like this are not uncharacteristic of Clay; rather, I would probably be alarmed if he didn’t respond in writing in this way. Like Megan with her initial written response, Clay’s classmates almost expect this type of response from him – it is normal behavior either in a face-to-face discussion with me or with his other classmates – it is a part of his identity. He may be attempting to convey that identity with his classmates, what he is perceived to be in a certain role (Gee, 2009, p. 455) through this written response as a way to connect with them. Clay’s discussion of Anthony’s need “to be so straight forward to get attention” can possibly be seen in the context of Clay’s own post as he is straight forward and forthcoming with his opinions and analysis of Anthony’s work. He uses language to “render certain things…relevant” (Gee, 2009, p. 479), specifically Anthony’s need “to be reckless” with his own manner of doing so, “just take me for example.” He sees himself as being “reckless” with his response just as Anthony was “reckless” by writing her essay on women’s rights during that particular time period. While Clay may see his written post as “reckless,” he may be seen as a conscientious and self-aware writer that understands the impact of his words on the audience to which he is writing.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">As with his previous written reply to Megan’s post, Clay “signs off” with a closing, one that seems to be breaking the previous connection in the written response. However, upon further review of the words involved in that closing, “Peace, love, and sophisticated black woman,” there could possibly be more of a connection than an initial reading may provide. Prior to this reading assignment, students read texts by Martin Luther King, Jr. and Malcolm X concerning the Civil Rights Movement of the mid-twentieth century. He may be clarifying that these texts “seem inherently connected” (Gee, 2009, p. 486) by using terms that may be related to Anthony, “sophisticated” and “woman.” However, Clay may also be identifying himself with the “sophisticated” and “woman” qualities where Anthony is able to “throw blows…in a classy manner.” The response that Clay composes for his prompt could be seen as him “throw[ing] blows…in a classy manner” at the traditional form and expectations for an online discussion board thread. The use of the adjective “black” could be viewed as a way for Clay to insert his race into the conversation, as he was one of three African-American students in that class. He may be attempting to establish a connection to Anthony’s declaration that ‘it was…not we, the white male citizens…but we, the whole people’ as reference to the power and identity of being black in a predominately white class. Like King, Malcolm X, and Anthony, Clay’s writing may be seen as an avenue for him to express that identity and make those connections with people whom he sees as “sophisticated” and “reckless.”

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">**//Case study #3 – Annie*//.** Like Megan and Clay, Annie started class with me in August 2011. The first day I met Annie, she noticed the small bookshelf of my personal library in the back of my classroom. She put her stuff down and came back outside. She asked if those were my books; I told her that they were. I told her she could borrow as many books as she wanted as long as I got them back. Within the first two weeks of school, Annie devoured my entire personal library of books. It was from this moment on that I knew I had a kindred spirit amongst my students – another voracious reader. On top of her side, “for pleasure” reading, Annie completed all of her assignments with seriousness, authenticity, personality, and scholarship. She was an avid participant in every aspect of class, even when she had to switch class periods. However, she had an ally in Clay – many times they were the students that propelled discussion or questions in a whole-class discussion. Unlike many students that enroll in AP, Annie is not grade driven; rather, she desires to learn as much as she can. She has always expressed an innate love of reading, but will be honest if something was difficult or confusing for her as a reader and/or a writer.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;"> Annie posted the following original written response prior to Clay’s original response:

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">I personally think women’s rights is a big deal and might be slightly feminist. It’s all good. But reading texts about women’s rights? Not so much. But Susan B. really surprised me. She just came out and said what needed to be said, didn’t go on and on (which is how I felt about the other text; it was confusing) and really kinda put a middle finger up to the government. Love that. Susan B. pulled from the Constitution to make her point and turned their own laws against them – them being the government. Also, she throws in the issue of civil rights with her argument on women’s rights. I mean, as long as she’s got the public’s attention, why not advocate another just cause, right? **“Hence, every discrimination against women in the constitutions and laws of the several states is today null and void, precisely as is every one against Negroes.”** So that quote was pretty big to me. Over all, I thought it was a just argument. And calling the government an oligarchy/aristocracy? Nice. [bold added by student]

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">On first glance of this response, it only seems that Annie has played “follow the leader” in the fact that she has bolded the quote that she pulled from the text in order to make a connection to the text and to the other students who say the bolding of the quote as a way to “build…relevance” (Gee, 2009, p. 479). However, looking deeper into the response shows some other similarities between Megan and Clay, and some differences, in the way that Annie responded to this prompt.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">The first thing that Annie does in her text is recognize the fact that she believes “women’s rights is a big deal” and that she may be “slightly feminist.” As a seventeen year old that is cognizant and willing to identify herself with this group of people could be seen as a bold move, something she recognizes with her added statement that “it’s all good.” Here, Annie seems to recognize that she may catch some flack for calling herself “slightly feminist,” but she is not afraid to state that and attempt to get others to “recognize [it] as operative” (Gee, 2007, p. 467) in her writing and ideas. However, in the next sentence, she states that texts on women’s rights are not on her priority list, perhaps “mitigat[ing] such a connection” (Gee, 2009, p. 483), specifically the idea of being “slightly feminist.” Her question, “but reading texts about women’s rights?” and answer “not so much” can be construed in a couple ways. One, it can be seen that women’s rights texts are not “all good” – she attempts to make the connection with the texts that she seems to relate to as being “slightly feminist” as irrelevant. Or, it can be thought that Annie does not believe that women’s rights texts are “a big deal” – separating herself from the idea that women’s rights are “a big deal.” Her next statement seems to clarify this idea slightly, as she says that “Susan B. really surprised me.”

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Perhaps then, it is the thought that the texts belonging to the women’s rights camp wasn’t seen as important until Annie read “Susan B’s” work. Annie states her surprise and appreciation for Anthony’s text. Here, it seems that Annie is making a connection to Anthony’s message, as she “kinda put up a middle finger to the government” and the fact that Anthony “throws in the issue of civil rights.” Both of these seem to be “inherently…relevant” (Gee, 2009, p. 481) to Annie’s thoughts about Anthony. Annie appears to commend Anthony for this by pulling a quote from the text, “Hence, every discrimination against women in the constitutions and laws of the several states is today null and void, precisely as is every one against Negroes,” that exemplifies how Anthony is able to “advocate another just cause” on top of her own, creating a “just argument” in Annie’s opinion. Because of Anthony’s willingness to “put up a middle finger to the government” and discuss “the issue of civil rights,” Annie may be trying to signal the relationship she is trying to have with the text and the audience (Gee, 2009, p. 460). While connecting and forming a relationship with the text based on Anthony’s content, Annie also seems to make a connection to Anthony’s writing style, specifically the fact that “she just came out and said what needed to be said, didn’t go on and on.” Annie seems to privilege this type of writing – writing without frills that can confuse, like her feelings about the “other text” [Wollestonecraft’s “Vindication of the Rights of Women”]. Overall, Annie’s written response seems to model this simplistic yet powerful writing style – short, simple, and straight to the point.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">//Summary.// When writing about others’ writing, specifically utilizing the Ning discussion thread element, students’ language seems to illustrate Gee’s building tasks in order to build identity, create connections, establish relationships, and show significance with the writing to which they are responding. However, students also seem to be more willing to take bolder risks with what is seen as “normal” language for a school-sanctioned assignment, as with Megan’s language choice to deem Susan B. Anthony a “bad ass” and Clay’s indication of Anthony being “harajuku legit.” Students also seem to be more apt to follow a pattern in their responses, specifically in the way they utilize textual information and the tone in which they compose their responses. All three students not only pulled specific quotes from the text but also formatted those language choices the same way by bolding them. In an online space used for writing, students seem to want to identify themselves the way they would be in an oral discussion, perhaps to break the barrier between written and spoken word.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">**Students writing about own writing**. In addition to writing about others’ writing via Ning discussion board threads, I also asked students to write about their own writing. Throughout the school year, I asked my students to write letters of reflection for their essays at several points in the composition process. There was always at least one during the revision process, which allowed students to look at their writing critically and analytically while still drafting and reworking their essays, and there was always one when students turned in their final draft. In the following data, I asked students to look at the movement of their essay from invention to final draft and discuss their writing process at any or all stages. I also asked students to call to my attention anything they felt necessary for me to specifically look at in their final draft. The one thing that I asked students not to do in their letters of reflection was to “vent” about the writing process in general or how the writing process was viewed in our classroom. For this specific set of case studies, I will be utilizing the final letters of reflection for students’ first or second choice essays. These are essays where students were given the freedom to choose the topic, audience, and writing aim. The only thing I requested of my students was that the composition be in essay format. The first choice essay was completed in mid-March, midway through my data collection. The second choice essay was completed in mid- April, right at the end of my data collection.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">**Case study #1 – Megan**. For her first choice essay, Megan chose to write an argumentative essay on the continuing existence of Harry Potter fanatics, or “Potter heads” despite the fact that the series is now officially over with the culmination of the final movie. Megan reflected on her essay in the following letter: <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;"> Futrelle, <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;"> I’m not afraid to say my first draft was legit crud! Why? Well, for one i [sic] was unorganized and i [sic] needed to brain vomit, so i [sic] did. But my writing group took that jumbled up mess and found bits and pieces that were indeed usable, and offered VERY (emphasis added by student) good suggestions! I think i [sic] used them all too. So by the time draft 2 was done, i [sic] was on my way to a pretty average paper. But i'm [sic] glad my group found problems with that, making it loads better. In the beginning i [sic] had no clue. Actually, June* gave me the idea to write about this topic. <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">I REALLY (emphasis added by student)like having Chelsea* in my group. She’s not afraid to say something in your paper stinks, not only that but she gives great (emphasis added by student) solutions on how to fix things that stink! Like in one of my drafts, i [sic] had a lot of questions in it & she said “i [sic] don’t really like that.” So she told me what i could do to reword it out of being a question. My writing gets by with a little help from my friends. <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;"> Stay beautiful, <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;"> Megan

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">In her reflection, Megan seems to be making some significant connections to things of relevance she is trying to convey (Gee, 2009, p. 484) in terms of the writing process. She recognizes that her “first draft was legit crud” because she was “unorganized” and “needed to brain vomit [putting thoughts on paper without thinking].” Her use of “crud” to describe her first draft harkens back to her use of “bad ass” in her Susan B. Anthony post on Ning. Perhaps Megan is not only testing the boundries “outside” of the traditional classroom environment, but perhaps also within it. However, her acknowledgement that her first draft as “legit crud” does seem to propel her to identify her writing process. She states that she knows she “needed to brain vomit,” something she became aware of after meeting with her writing group and discovering that they were able to take “that jumbled up mess” and were able to find “bits and pieces that were indeed usable.” Perhaps this also leads to an acknowledgement that Megan not only needs, but utilizes the feedback that she receives from her writing group members, specifically Chelsea.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">In this instance, Megan may be creating a sense of politics within her writing and her writing group. Gee (2009) discussed politics as a way to discover what social goods a piece of language is communicating, in this specific instance, what is being communicated as being valuable (p. 475). Megan appears to value her writing process as she is not afraid to say that her “first draft was legit crud” and how in the end, thanks to her writing group, her essay is “loads better.” However, in this letter, it seems that Megan values the work that she does with her writing group more than she does her own writing process, as much of her reflection is about the assistance that they gave her on this specific essay. Despite the fact that her writing group consists of three people, Megan apparently specifically values Chelsea’s input and feedback, privileging her input over others in the group by specifically discussing how Chelsea is “not afraid to say something in your paper stinks” and her “great solutions on how to fix things.” However, in the end, Megan gives her entire group a “thank you” by putting a spin on a Beatle’s hit. She says that her “writing gets by with a little help from my friends.” Here, Megan seems to not only be relating herself and her writing group to a popular Beatle’s song, but also the message that it sends. Without the “help from her friends,” Megan seems to think that her writing could not “get by.” Perhaps Megan’s awareness of this element of her writing process is why it is so predominant in her reflective letter. However, it could also be that she is recognizing the value that I placed on writing groups and reflection in class as I directed students to discuss their writing process in their reflective letters.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">//**Case study #2 – Clay**//. Clay’s second choice essay was inspired by the cliché phrase, “Everything happens for a reason,” which he believes is overused in our society that actually enables a lack of responsibility. Clay’s final reflection not only discusses this particular essay, but his writing process in general. <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;"> Dear Lorelei Janae, <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;"> This essay <<<< <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;"> So I guess I’m not feeling this essay because from day 1 I was tryin’ to holla at creative writing. This topic/essay was second hand garbage. I’m not as proud of this one as my last essay. I’m assuming because I could care less if people misuse a cliché. I’ve learned for me to write my best I need conviction. Once I have an urge for the pencil to meet the paper, I evoke emotion. I pour my heart. I become a good writer. I simply didn’t have that with this essay. I want to thank you for not giving up on me when I’ve given up on myself. I know I’m reckless af, but you tolerate it! I <3 you, Lori! <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;"> Peace, love, and magenta velvet lapels. <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;"> <3 Nicholas “Trina Monae” Hastings

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">While this reflection is much shorter in length and seems to be less complex in comparison to Megan’s final letter of reflection, Clay addresses several important aspects of his relationship with me as a teacher, his writing process, and his identity as a writer.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;"> Clay’s opening of his letter could be said to show what type of relationship is being enacted between him and me (Gee, 2009, p. 467). Clay’s use of not only my first name, Lorelei, but also a fictitious middle name, “Janae,” appears to establish a relationship with me with an equal, something that would not traditionally be seen as appropriate or “normal” within a traditional classroom setting. I have lightly scolded Clay for calling me by my first name in the hallways; however, I nearly glossed over this usage in his letter to me. Addressing me by my first name may be further clarified through his statement at the end of the letter where he thanks me for “not giving up” on him even when he has given up on himself or the fact that he recognizes that he is “reckless af” but I “tolerate it.” Perhaps this is indicative of him not simply seeing me in the traditional teacher/student relationship, but more as a mentor or fellow writer. If this is true, his opening address to me would be seen as appropriate and “normal,” as well as his other abnormal language, “reckless af.” If he is identifying our relationship as one of equality, his discursive moves of abandoning the expectations of a “traditional” student/teacher relationship is warranted.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;"> Along with making the choice to name me as an equal, Clay also connects his letter of reflection to Twitter, as he did in his response to the Anthony Ning response analyzed earlier. In the Twitter world, the more “<” signs present, the less appealing/liked/desired the stated thing is to the person tweeting. Clay’s use of the “<<<<” signs after “this essay” apparently shows his utter dislike or disdain for his own work. Perhaps this is a way for Clay to lessen the connection (Gee, 2009, p. 483) of formally naming his essay as something of which he is not particularly proud. <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Along with his seeming dislike for his essay as a whole, Clay claims that his lack of “feeling this essay” comes from his attempt to “holla at creative writing” from the first draft. Clay feels that “this topic/essay was second hand garbage.” With these statements combined, it appears that Clay is creating what Gee (2009) would label as politics by placing value and privileging creative writing over the more formal writing that this essay was required to be. Despite his lack of enthusiasm for this essay in general, Clay seems to be making some connections to his writing process and his identity as a writer. <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Clay acknowledges the fact that he has figured out that in order for him to write to his full potential, he needs “conviction.” This seems to be an important realization for him as he goes on to notice that once he feels “an urge for the pencil to meet the paper,” he “evokes emotion” and “become[s] a good writer.” Here, Clay seems form Gee’s (2009) idea of identity by recognizing this part his writing as a functional part of his relationship with the writing community (p. 467), but only when he is able to write with “conviction.” The fact that he assumes his writing is not good because he could “care less if people misuse a cliché” and that led to him not having “conviction” when he wrote could possibly show his relationship not only with writing, but his writing process. When he knows he doesn’t write with “conviction,” Clay does not identify himself as being a “good writer.” Even though he says he “learned” that this about himself, he may be offering a conflicting sense of identity as a writer. Despite Clay’s negative self-image as a writer for this particular piece, the fact that Clay identifies himself as a “good writer” when he writes with “conviction” can be seen as awareness of what Clay values as part of the identity of a writer as a whole.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">//**Case Study #3 – Annie**//. For her first choice essay, Annie asked if she could write a memoir. She wrote about her experience moving her sophomore year of high school to North Carolina from Texas, something she said she had wanted to write about for a while. Her final reflection below is not only telling of her self-awareness as a writer, but the way her writing impacts others and herself.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Mrs. Futrelle, <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">When you said “choice essay,” I immediately knew I wanted to write something personal, something through which I could have creative freedom. I have all these experiences floating around in my head, and I have to write them down; I have to lessen their space in my head. I know that I waffled on topics, but this one, while seemingly less eye-opening, is more personal and real. <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Starting the paper was easy – the words just came and the story was there. There were no huge/significant changes; the rawness of the first draft was an aspect that I felt didn’t need/merit/deserve changing. Without it, you lose the feel of the characters and of my voice while writing it. I did add the song lyrics as an afterthought. That song fits perfectly with the situation, I feel, and it plays in my head when I think of this event, like a movie soundtrack. Also, I think it adds to the paper, taking you out of the story for a minute, preparing you for what’s coming. It let me show my creativity slightly more too. Other changes that were made were simple and diction based, putting a different word in or subtracting words. <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">I think this paper showed me that imagery is a big deal. My group said they felt like they were watching the event unfold, and that really makes it. Imagery allows you to connect with the reader in their mind, grabbing their attention. I learned that writing a story requires some form of drama. I did learn that people choose random topics for choice essays. But that’s cool. I did too. <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">I would like for you to check out my dialogue usage – too much? Too little? Is the paper showing or telling? Was there enough backstory? Does it flow? Do the lyrics actually add or just seem out of place? <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Writing this paper satisfied my need for creative writing for a while. And it just seemed so easy to put on paper. That’s all. <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;"> <3 Molly <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">PS – I hope this was thorough and specific enough. And thank you for letting me write on this topic.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Unlike Clay and Megan’s address to me as their audience, Annie chose a more normal way of acknowledging me as a teacher – as the authority figure within the classroom. It seems that Annie has a clear sense of her role – strictly a student to be learning from the teacher. She begins her letter by acknowledging that I, the teacher, gave the assignment for the ‘choice essay’ and that she was to complete that assignment, albeit with a sort of sense of urgency, as she “immediately knew [she] wanted to write something personal, something through which I could have creative freedom.” It’s interesting to note that while Annie saw this ‘choice essay’ as an assignment to be completed, she also acknowledges her stance with her own writing. The fact that she was able to have “creative freedom” while being able to be “personal and real” in her writing could be an act of privileging and putting value on this “personal and real” type of writing over something more formal and limiting. However, Annie’s explanation here could also be a way to show her privileging of a sign system within language: real vs. not real (Gee, 2009, p. 476). It seems that Annie places value on writing that connects to her not only as a person, but as a writer. She explains that she has “all of these experiences floating around” and she has to “write them down…to lessen their space in [her] head.” Her identity and relationship with writing here could be seen as a way for me, her audience, to understand the purpose of why she chose to write her essay about this specific moment in her life. What Annie does in this next paragraph may be the connective tissue to explaining her personal identity as a writer.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">In the second paragraph of her reflective letter, Annie addresses some of the editorial decisions that she made in her essay. Because “the words just came” while Annie was composing this essay, she shares “there were no huge/significant changes” made in her subsequent drafts. The fact that Annie is able to recognize the “rawness of the first draft” as an “aspect that…didn’t need/merit/deserve changing,” could be considered a testament to her self-identification as writer. She sees that the changes she did make “adds to the paper” and that they were “simple and diction based” in order to enhance what she deems as important – the value of “personal and real” writing. With this self-awareness, Annie is entering into the discourse of the writing community. Writers are cognizant of their audience; Annie discusses how the audience would “lose the feel of the characters” and her “voice while writing it” if she had made “huge/significant changes” to her draft. Annie not only recognizes her audience, but she also seems to be placing value (Gee, 2009, p. 475) in its opinion of her composition.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">However, it seems that at the end of her letter, Annie disconnects herself from the value that she placed in the audience to evaluate her writing as they see fit. She questions her “dialogue usage,” her paper’s quality of “showing or telling,” the amount of “backstory,” the essay’s “flow,” and the lyrics ability to “add or just seem out of place.” The questioning that Annie does here is not necessarily negative; rather, it calls into consideration Annie’s true identity as a writer. Despite that Annie’s editorial choices were made for the good of the essay, it could be argued that Annie is looking for confirmation of these from me, the teacher – the authority figure, instead of sticking to her conviction that her writing is of value because it is “personal and real.”

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">//Summary//. When students write about their own writing, they seem to move away from what Gee (2009) would classify as identifying and creating connections/relationships. and appear to move into making more complex language choices to show what they value and why in their writing. All three students discuss the importance and value of their individual writing processes and why specific parts of their process is valued. Students also seem to choose to express what sign system is privileged; for Annie, it is the ability to write something that is real to her versus writing something that is not. In writing for this purpose, along with writing about others’ writing, students appear to be just as bold as their Ning discussion board posts with language choices, perhaps desiring the same effect with the teacher as the sole audience member. For example, Clay choosing to address me as “Lorelei Janae” and how he is “reckless af.” It may be that the students desire to show the teacher how they view their relationship (student/teacher), or it may be to simply offer up more insights into their view of their own writing and their view of themselves as writers. It seems that students who challenge the traditional relationship between student and teacher in reflective writing choose more non-traditional school language, like Clay, while students, like Annie, who hold true to the traditional student-teacher relationship choose more formal language.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;"> **Students talking about others’ writing.** At the end of my data collection in April, I assigned my students to read the short story “The Lottery” by Shirley Jackson. Once students read the story, they were given two non-fiction pieces to read independently that concerned the same topic of “The Lottery” - an essay by playwright Arthur Miller titled “Get it Right: Privatize Executions” and an article by reporter and editor Martin Gansberg titled “Thirty-Eight Who Saw Murder Didn’t Call the Police.” In order for students to make the connection between the two non-fiction pieces and the fiction piece, students were asked to think critically and analytically about the purposes of the three texts. Once all students had read the texts, they were asked to form small groups and discuss their readings of the text, either utilizing the questions that they had while reading or simply starting conversation organically.
 * <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Oral Language **

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">//**Case study** **#1 – Clay and Annie**//. Annie and Clay, who were also in a writing group together all semester, chose to be in a small discussion group with two other students – one male and one female. Despite the presence of two other classmates, Annie and Clay dominated the conversation that I witnessed while observing their discussion.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Clay: So, okay. What I basically got out of it was like that he’s [Miller, the writer] <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">like he’s being so ridiculous kinda with the stuff because like you know and like I think it was towards the middle he’s like how but eventually they’ll get bored with that because like Americans get bored with everything so like and that’s how it was in the past too so I think that’s what he was trying to show <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Annie: that we get bored <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Clay: Yeah, and even though its soo like like that’s so violent and like so like just <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">not like not even like you wouldn’t even think that happened ever <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Annie: Right <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Clay: But the fact that we would probably get bored with it <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Annie: Well, and I think it’s not just that we would get bored with it but I think <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">he’s trying to say that he wants us to get bored with it so we won’t do it anymore <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">…. <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Clay: And I thought it just showed that like we were desensitized to the whole <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">thing because even like because like throughout the whole thing, you didn’t realize he was joking until the end and for us to not realize that was a joke, you know what I’m sayin? <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Annie: Yeah <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Clay: That just seems like a big deal. <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Annie: So yeah, I think he’s against all executions just you know especially when <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">he says “then perhaps then we might be able to consider the fact that in executing prisoners we merely add to the number of untimely dead without diminishing the number of murders committed” because he said it’s like murder –it’s like another murder. <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Clay: It’s murder <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">… <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">At the beginning of their discussion, Clay opens up by attempting to make a connection to one of the texts. Someone who walked into the conversation, however, would not know which text due to the vague references that Clay gives concerning the idea that “he’s being so ridiculous.” He is attempting to show how these ideas connect to him as a reader and as an American who “get[s] bored with everything.” Once Clay shares this bit of information, I can assume that he is discussing the Arthur Miller essay, as he goes on to discuss how we “wouldn’t even think that happened ever” because it’s “so violent.” While connecting to these ideas, he’s also identifying himself with that group – Americans – who “would probably get bored with it.” Because Clay is willing to place himself in this group, he urges his group to also form this relationship with the text – to see themselves as a group of people who are “desensitized to the whole thing.” He even asks his group if they agree with this connection and relationship by asking if they “know what [he’s] saying.”

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Throughout Clay’s contributions to the group discussion, Annie seems to establishing a relationship to Clay’s ideas and thoughts through her confirmations – “yeah,” “right” – and her completion of Clay’s first thought – “that we get bored.” Through these confirmations by Annie, it could be assumed that she places positive “value…to build significance” (Gee, 2009, p. 443) on these statements. That significance gives him the assurance and positive feedback to continue with his thoughts and ideas. Along with her feelings of agreement with Clay’s ideas, Annie also adds to Clay’s connection to the text by showing the inherent relevance (Gee, 2009, p. 481) of Clay’s thought about Miller’s message of “trying to say that he wants us to get bored with it so we won’t do it anymore.” Directly after this connection, Clay affirms his understanding and relationship with Annie’s thoughts with an affirmative “yeah,” placing significance on her ideas, just as she did earlier in the discussion. This pattern of connection/affirmation/significance could be seen as the establishing of the “normal” and “appropriate” behavior and language in a group setting. Both students are actively involved in discussion while building off of each others’ formed relationships and connections with the text by interacting with each other and the language.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">While Clay makes personal connections to the text, Annie brings her connection to the text relevant by quoting from the text itself as she discusses why Miller is “against all executions.” This inclusion of this quote from the text could indicate further knowledge of the text, Annie’s ability to privilege this idea of Miller’s, while continuing to prove a relationship between her thoughts about the text and the text itself. The significance of Annie repeating the concept that “executing prisoners” is “like another murder” could be seen as the most significant of Miller’s thoughts that Annie is absorbing. Clay’s affirmation of this repeated idea could also acknowledge Clay’s connection to this idea as well as one that is valued and significant to him as a reader, also.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">//**Case study #2 – Megan**//. Megan also chose to be with the other members of her writing group for this discussion. While the other members of the group - June, Chelsea, Lynn, and Patrick - are all a part of this group’s discussion, I would like to look deeper into Megan’s participation because of its uniqueness. This excerpt is from the beginning of this group’s conversation about the three texts.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">June: I guess one thing is like the eye for an eye thing – you kill somebody and <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">they kill you. I guess people are still in that mindset. <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Megan: Why eye for an eye? Cause you could do somethin’ else and not get <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">killed. <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">June: Like what? <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Megan: I don’t know. Something else. <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">June: Like I don’t think embezzling like 10 million dollars would get you killed – <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">maybe for like those kind (makes obscene hand gesture) of crazies. <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Chelsea: What does that mean? <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Megan: Anyway. <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Chelsea: That’s gross Mallory! What? <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Megan: Anyway. <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Chelsea: That gesture. I’m appalled. <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">June: I don’t want to say it. <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Megan: So don’t. Let’s move on. <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">… <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">June: This is like the modern-day French thing that happened like you know how <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">… <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">June: It’s like the reign of terror and like when they had the [slight pause] it’s like <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">that. He’s just basically bringing that like back except he’s making it like more modern day and sing the national anthem and then make it all dramatic and stuff. And then, I don’t know. But he has a point. The other one is just people being stupid. <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Marla: The other one, June, is in this situation

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">While I was observing this group’s discussion, it seemed that Megan was attempting to distance herself from the group, specifically in the connections that June was making to the text when she brings up the “eye for an eye thing.” Almost immediately after concluding her remarks, Megan questions June’s thoughts, “Why eye for an eye?” She rationalizes this question by mentioning someone “could do somethin’ else and not get killed.” It seems as though Megan isn’t making the connections to the text that June is, and she is being vocal about that lack of a connection. When June asks Megan to provide her with another example, Megan quickly responds, “I don’t know. Something else.” This lack of conviction about her disagreement with June could be seen as a meager attempt to simply disagree, or it could be a significant attempt to disconnect with the group, especially as she goes on to redirect the conversation soon after this with the repetition of “anyway” twice to “move on” from the digression in the conversation from June’s obscene gesture to the group. It appears that Megan wishes to not only disconnect herself from the group, but also disconnect herself from the conversation. Perhaps this is because she doesn’t agree with the connections that June makes with the texts, specifically as she makes a jab at June’s opinion about how “the other one [Gansberg text] is just people being stupid.” In Megan’s response that “the other one, June, is in this situation” could be seen as an attempt to give herself some authority over June in regard to the opinions and connections that June made earlier on in the conversation and to attempt to show her ‘the way things ought to be’ in terms of what is ‘correct’ and ‘valuable’ (Gee, 2007, 476).

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;"> Later on in the discussion as the group discussed the short story itself, Megan offers her own attempt to create connections, only to be called into question by her fellow group mates.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Megan: And you know that kinda goes back to like, that kinda goes back to like <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">the Hunger Games. Are they really entertained by it because they do it, they do it m, because um, because they wanna like show them that they can’t defy us, they can’t go against us <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Lynn: I thought the Capitol people were really entertained by it. <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Megan: Were they? <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">June: Cause they’re in charge! They’re like, look what we can do! <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Patrick: They’re rich people. <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Megan: But were they REALLY [all capitals used for emphasis] entertained by it <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">or is it just like um <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;"> …. <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Megan: I don’t know if it’s just like I don’t know.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Megan offers up a connection to the popular young adult novel by Suzanne Collins in this part of the discussion. She discusses how the lottery in the short story is “like the Hunger Games” in that she is questioning whether the Capitol’s citizens – the wealthy elite class within the novel’s social class structure - are “really entertained by it because they do it…because they wanna…show them that they [the people of Panem] can’t defy us.” Once this question is voiced, Lynn speaks up and questions Megan’s authority on the novel and its connection to “The Lottery” by stating that she “thought the Capitol people were really entertained by it.” In response to this, Megan questions Lynn’s authority, possibly attempting to privilege her own connection by disagreeing with Lynn’s statement. June, in apparent agreement with Lynn’s perspective, places significance on Lynn’s ideas by bringing up the fact that the people of the Capitol are “in charge” and flex their power by making examples of the people of Panem. Again, Megan seems to question June’s authority, asking if they were “REALLY entertained by it.” Megan’s emphasis on “REALLY” could be taken as a question of the degree in which the two texts were connected along with her adamant disagreement with her group members.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">//Summary//. Perhaps because of the conditions surrounding small group discussion – familiar group members, small number of participants – students seem to desire to have their opinions voiced, even though they may be less than popular or simply not affirmed by the rest of the group. Students, however, seem to be less bold and take less risks in their discursive choices concerning language when it is being spoken. For example, they use a good deal of hesitant language (“like,” “um,” “kinda”) instead of making statements as they do in an online discussion. Perhaps this hesitancy is their desire to acquire the reassurance of the group in terms of their spoken words. It seems that the students who push the limits of “normal” language use depending on purpose and audience in writing (Megan’s use of “bad ass” in her online discussion and Clay’s use of “Lorelei Janae” in his reflective letter ) stay fairly closely within the lines during spoken language. Through these choices, students seem to utilizing Gee’s (2009) building tasks of making connections, creating identity, and establishing connections/relationships with the writing they are discussing orally.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">**Students talking about their own writing**. During the writing process, I met with my students individually at least once during the drafting process. The data from these teacher-student conversations presented here, which took place on Friday, February 3, concerned the students’ first literary analysis essay that was completed the second week of February. When I met with students during teacher-student conferences, students directed our conversation. I was not looking for a specific time frame, but rather I wanted students to feel comfortable letting me in during their writing process. I approached students by rolling myself up to their desks in my old doctor’s chair. Students initiated and ended conversation, giving them full control over the conference. When students were not in conference with me, they were working on their essays or talking quietly with a member of their writing group if the need arose. While these conversations may seem abrupt and meaningless, they can sometimes reveal issues or create dialogue that may not have occurred in a small group setting.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;"> //**Case Study #1 – Megan.**// Megan was the ninth student that I had a face-to-face conference with that day. <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;"> Megan: So my main thing was fixin’ my beginning ‘cause I kinda just jumped <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">right in to talkin’ about his purpose and everything and (laughing while talking) didn’t really, like, start with anything <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Me: Okay. <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Megan: So I went back and did that <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Me: Okay <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Megan: And just elaborate more on everything else. <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Me: Okay. <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Megan: And not be so ranty and such.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">This conversation lasted approximately forty five seconds; not exactly an ideal time frame for discussing a composition with me as a teacher. Despite the brevity of the conversation, I found very early on that poking and prodding students during drafting was unfruitful. The only time I ask for clarification is when I feel it will help me understand the student’s process. What is important to note is the apparent value and knowledge that is coming through in this conversation between me and Megan.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;"> The “main thing” with her draft that Megan acknowledges needed “fixin’” was her “beginning ‘cause [she] kinda jumped right in…and didn’t really, like start with anything” so she “went back and did that.” While this may seem insignificant or a simple matter of common sense, it can be an indication that Megan is becoming critical of her work and creating an identity as a writer. Megan could have simply glossed over this issue with her essay, but she chose to fix it and share this with me, perhaps showing me that she is attempting to take on an identity as a writer (Gee, 2009, p. 460). The fact that she utilizes “writer’s language” – purpose and elaboration – could be further evidence of her attempt to carve an identity for herself as a writer.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Megan, in her conversation with me, also seems to be showing me what she values in writing as a whole – having a beginning that starts with something, elaborating on the points being made, and not “be so ranty.” For Megan, it seems that these three things encompass what she perceives as ‘appropriate,’ ‘right,’ and ‘the way things are’ in writing as a whole (Gee, 2009, p. 476). The choice she makes to share these things with me places significance on them. Because they are significant to her, they are also valued as what writing should be.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">//**Case Study #2 – Annie.**// Annie was the final student I met with during writing conferences that day.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Annie: Well, I’m like done. <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Me: You’re like done? Or are you done, done? <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Annie: I have one more sentence. <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Me: Okay. <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Annie: Um, I just kinda went through and reworded some stuff and then added <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">a little bit in one place. I don’t know. <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Me: Can you kinda point to where that is in here so just so I can see it? <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">(student laughs) <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Annie: I changed this paragraph – some. <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Me: Entirely? <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Annie: Um, eh, yeah. <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Me: A good bit? <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Annie: Not like the tone changing, but the content, kinda. It didn’t make sense. <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Cause like I put like the tone was like critical-surprise and then like <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">towards the end it gets kinda mocking. <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Me: Mmhmm <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Annie: And so I put that that supports the purpose not by like um like adding to <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">what he’s saying but by like gaining the audience’s support. <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Me: Good. <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Annie: And then, the syntax paragraph I made it make more sense cause it was <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">just… <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Me: Gobbly-gook. <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Annie: That’s about all I did.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">At first glance, it is easy to assume that Annie had much more to discuss about her writing with me than Megan did. However, once a more critical eye is used to look at this conversation, there are many similarities between the two conferences.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Annie seems a little unsure of how she “reworded some stuff” and “added a little bit in one place” when she closes her statement with “I don’t know.” This disconnect (Gee, 2009, p. 483) to her own thoughts about her writing may seem surprising and unwarranted. Perhaps it is because she is attempting to come up with something to say after I do not prompt her with a question after her declaration that she only has “one more sentence” until she is done with that draft. Whatever the case may be, when I asked Annie to “point to where that [the changes] are,” she indicated a paragraph in her essay that seemed much different from her first draft that I read earlier in the week. The changes that she discusses next could be considered a reconnection to her identity as a writer, one who utilizes the language English teachers hope their students will use and one who knows her strengths and weaknesses.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">In her response to my question if she changed that paragraph a “good bit,” Annie launches into a discussion of the edits that she made in which she utilizes writers’ language, language that we had utilized in class on almost a daily basis. This could be viewed as an indication of Annie’s connection to the discourse that writers use to talk about their writing. As she discusses her changes to the “content” because “it didn’t make sense,” she discusses how her changes helped her discuss the “tone [that] was like critical surprise” and how it “supports the purpose…by gaining the audience’s support.” Annie’s usage of rhetorical terminology in reference to her own composition could be seen her transferring the knowledge, showing her “claims of knowledge” (Gee, 2009, pg. 495) that she has gained over the course of the year. It could also be a testament to her starting to identify herself as a writer, one that takes into consideration that things in her essay needed to “make more sense ‘cause it was just...”

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">//Summary//. In contrast to their written reflections, both Megan and Annie appear to be less telling about their writing orally; the conversations were not as in-depth or thorough as the letters of reflection were. Their responses seem to be limited to making connections to the discourse of writers, showing identity as a writer, and establishing what is ‘appropriate,’ ‘right,’ and ‘the way things are’ in writing as a whole (Gee, 2009, p. 476) in their writing. It is interesting, however, that students did not seem to attempt to establish a relationship with their own writing. Megan or Annie did not seem to attempt to signal a relationship between themselves and their writing (Gee, 2009, p. 460). Perhaps this is because of the lack of structure given to the students, or the fact that the conferences were strictly student-driven. It may also have to deal with the timing of this set of data – it was gathered a month before the first choice essay reflection was composed. Therefore, students may have been able to see their relationship with their writing after going through the entire drafting process with the essay before their first choice essay. However, it seems that while students may be hesitant to share about their own writing orally, it is possible for students to transfer ideas and concepts about writing into their face-to-face conferences like when Annie discusses her need to “reword some stuff.”

**<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Conclusions ** <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;"> Reviewing the data and analysis from the three case studies that I chose for this research, I have found that student language changes in different ways depending on the use of written or oral language. All three case studies revealed patterns that allowed me the opportunity to analyze in great depth the form, function, and conceptualization of language in both of these forms. Not only can student language change depending on the form, but it can also change depending on different rhetorical situations and audiences. I am going to discuss these findings based on the two broad patterns in which I organized my data analysis: written and oral language.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;"> While contrary to what some people may think, this study seems to point to the idea that students are willing to take more risks with language and rhetorical choices in their writing, whether it is concerning the purpose of the composition or the audience to whom it is written. For example, Clay and Megan were both willing to write a response to their classmates on Ning that utilized language that is not normally used or anticipated in a “traditional” classroom. However, their sense of audience, despite the purpose of the assignment given in the prompt, seems to have been made even more prominent. Clay and Megan both appear to use language like “bad ass” or “reckless” in order to connect to their audience, which seems to strictly be the rest of the class that is on the Ning discussion thread, and contextualize what they are attempting to explain through written language. This change could also be attributed to the formation of a relationship with the text. When Annie recognizes the significance of Anthony pulling “from the Constitution to make her point,” she is attempting to explain how this text enacted a positive relationship with her; it helped her be “surprised” by Susan B. Anthony.
 * <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Written Language **

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">When writing about their own writing, this awareness of purpose and audience is likely seen to be more prominent because I, the teacher, was the only audience member. In their reflective writing, students chose to strictly utilize language that they deemed appropriate and relevant for me in terms of their relationship with me. For example, Clay seemed to test the boundaries of the student/teacher relationship with his address to me as “Lorelei Janae” while Annie addressed me formally as “Mrs. Futrelle,” holding up the standard and “normal” association of teacher as authority figure. With this establishment of audience, it could also be acknowledged that this leads to an assumption that not only do students contextualize rhetorical concepts, but they also utilize them to gain self-awareness in their own written responses. Perhaps this can be attributed to the appearance of the use of identity and connection in the language data for all three participants. Megan, Clay, and Annie all identify themselves differently with me, as shown in their addresses to me in their reflective letters – they chose these openings on the basis of being aware of how they identify themselves with me as the audience. These openings are the connective tissue between the students’ relationship and identity with the respective audience. Perhaps it is because of this strong, individualistic connection that students are more likely to share their views of what is important and valued in their own writing. All three students addressed the value of their writing process, including the utilization of their writing group, in their reflective letters. Perhaps this is because they know what language to use when discussing the politics, or what they deem as ‘appropriate,’ ‘right,’ and ‘the way things are’ (Gee, 2009, p. 476) in their own writing, specifically when the purpose is reflective in nature.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Along with discussing what is ‘right’ or ‘appropriate’ (Gee, 2009, p. 476), it also seems to become evident that students are choosing to embody the discourse of writers. Within their reflective letters, all three students discussed their writing process. Megan wasn’t afraid to say her “first draft was legit crud;” Clay referenced his need to have “conviction” in order to “be a good writer;” Annie discussed her editorial decision to leave the “rawness of the first draft” in her subsequent drafts. While these three things embody different elements of the writing process – drafting, invention, revision – these three students still chose to enter into the world of writing by discussing these things. Not only can these ideas point to students utilizing the language of writers, but it can also point back to the things about writing that they value.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Teenagers are social, so it was not much of a surprise when put into groups to discuss a text that it would generate language that could possibly generate ideas about how student language changes according to audience. However, the assumption that students’ language wouldn’t be as relevant in a non-structured small-group discussion scenario seemed to be an ill-founded and hasty one. Because of language’s social nature, students seem to put their opinions and ideas at the forefront in the means of the expression of those ideas, perhaps because creating identity and making connections with a text requires some amount of personal reflection on purpose and audience. Students must be aware of what the goal for the discussion is and who their audience is. For example, Clay identifies and connects himself as an American who “get[s] bored with everything.” This leads to Clay asking if his group “know[s] what he’s saying,” asking for their agreement illustrates his desire make a connection to his classmates which in turn is an effort to seek affirmation about his identity because our language is a reflection of ourselves (Vygotsky, 1975, p. 8). The students’ desire to continue to make connections and establish an identity with their group mates during small-group discussions may show their awareness of purpose and audience like when Megan makes a connection from “The Lottery” to The Hunger Games. She assumes that all of her group members not only read the assigned short story, but also read the novel. When students are aware and comfortable with purpose and audience, students also seem to be willing to share what was significant to them, perhaps because of the advantage of oral communication: instant feedback. For Clay in his small group discussion, it was his recognition that Arthur Miller saw that “we were desensitized to the whole thing [public execution]” and Annie’s affirmative belief of “yeah.” It may be that students only wanted to share what they deemed significant when they could receive any type of feedback (positive, negative, or neutral), as Megan did when she questioned the entertainment value of the Hunger Games to the people of the Capitol in connection to the short story, “The Lottery” and received feedback from her group which was contrary to her opinion.
 * <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Oral Language **

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">While students’ language during student-teacher conferences did not seem as rich as small group discussion, students continued to identify themselves with the audience, make connections and show significance. The utilization of the language of writers, like Annie knowing she needed to “reword some stuff” and that she “added a little bit in one place” in order to “add to what he’s [the author] saying,” may be evidence of her identifying and connecting with the audience (the teacher) and showing the significance of the text to her own writing. Annie is utilizing this type of language to show her knowledge of writing, which helps create connections to the audience. The audience knows what she means by “reword[ing] and “add[ing].” This choice of language also highlights decisions students make concerning their revisions, which shows that they value this part of the writing process. For example, Megan talked discusses what she lacks in her writing – the need to “elaborate more on everything else” and “not be so ranty” – these two things appear to be what she places value on in writing in general.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;"> Overall, students seem to be aware of rhetorical concepts such as audience and purpose based on the language and rhetorical choices they make in both written and oral language. The evidence of six out of seven building tasks being used in student language could be considered evidence of the depth and complexity of the awareness that students have, consciously or subconsciously, about audience and purpose. This awareness could also be an effect of students being exposed to these two rhetorical concepts for upwards of 24 weeks before this study was conducted. Regardless of its genesis, it appears that students do make significant discursive moves within multiple rhetorical situations within a high school classroom.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">One of the most rewarding things about teaching English is the moment when we hear our students talking with one another or when we read a reflective letter that uses those terms we have attempted to teach them that help them explain what they are doing in their writing and why. From the first day of school during the 2011-2012 school year, I attempted to talk to my students in my AP Language and Composition classes like writers. I believed that this would do more good than simply drawing the rhetorical triangle on the board, leaving it up, and praying that one day the light bulb would turn on and they would “get it” on their own. As a result of this research and the subsequent data analysis, I am seeing positive evidence of this in my classroom through students’ language choices in both written and oral language. It seems that students are not only able to learn these terms but also conceptualize them in ways that impact their language choices. While this seems to be cause for minute celebration, I wonder how deeply embedded these concepts are in students’ language and whether their choices to talk like writers will stay a part of their own discourse after the summer months have passed as they enter their senior year of high school. Perhaps a study that follows a group of students during all four English classes in high school would be a better way to gauge students’ awareness of the discourse of writers and their ability to conceptualize that knowledge in their own writing.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Regardless of the brevity in which students may utilize the language of writers, it is still a small success to how, regardless of audience or purpose, students’ choice in language may differ. While this may not be evident to the students themselves, it may be further proof of Vygotsky’s (1975) tenant that language is not only a reflection of “the path from a person’s needs and impulses to the specific direction taken by his thoughts, but also the reverse path from his thoughts to his behavior and activity” (p. 8). Students may not always be aware of the discursive moves they are making due to their surroundings; however, it is in our power as teachers to observe these happenings and continue to build relationships between the language of writers and our students.

**<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">References **

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Baird, D. (2005, Nov 1). The promise of social networking. Retrieved from http://www.techlearning.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=172302903

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Brannon, L., Griffin, S., Haag, K., Iannone, T., Urbanski, C., & Woodward, S. (2008). Thinking out loud on paper: The student daybook as a tool to foster learning. Portsmouth: Heinemann.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Emerson, C. (1983 Dec). The outer word and inner speech: Bahktin, Vygotsky, and the internalization of language. Critical Inquiry, 10(2), 245-264.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Falk, B., & Blumenreich, M. (2005). The power of questions: A guide to teacher and student research. Portsmouth: Heinemann.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Gee, J.P. (2009). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method. Britain: T&F Books.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Holquist, M. (1983, Dec). Mikhail Bahktin’s trans-linguistics. Critical Inquiry, 10(2), 307-319.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Klopfer, E., Osterweil, S., Groff, J. & Haas, J. (2009). The instructional power of digital games, social networking, simulations and how teachers can leverage them. Education Arcade. Creative Commons.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Meyer, K. (2003). Face to face versus threaded discussions: The role of time and higher-order thinking. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(3), 55-65.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">School Profile (2011). NC School Report Card. Retrieved from[| http://www.ncreportcard.com/src/schDetails.jsp?pYear=2010-]2011&pLEACode=23pSchCode=324

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Sproat, E., Driscoll, D., & Brizee, A. (2010, Apr 17). Rhetorical situation. Retrieved from http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/625/01

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Vygotsky, L.S. (1975). Thought and language. Cambridge: MIT Press.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Warschauer, M. (1997). Computer-mediated collaborative learning: Theory and practice. The Modern Language Journal, 81(4), 470-481.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Appendix A  <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Informed Consent Letter <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">January 24, 2012

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Dear Parents/Guardians,

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">I am currently a graduate student in the English Education program at Gardner-Webb University. In order to meet and fulfill my requirements for graduation in August, I will be conducting a research study with my spring-semester, second period AP English students that examines language inside and outside the classroom. I will be voice-recording class on a daily basis for ten weeks starting at the beginning of the semester while also making notes on my observations during that time. I may also be utilizing some of your student’s work as artifacts. These things include, but are not limited to: daybook entires, Ning blogs, discussion/comment posts on Ning, portfolios (process and showcase); essays (including process work and assessments), informal writing assignments (such as process work not brought through the entire writing process or reflections), assessments and reflections.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">I do not anticipate any problems or issues to emerge as a result of the data collection methods I plan to employ in my classroom throughout my research study; however, in order to conduct my research, I need your permission to observe, photocopy, photograph and record your student’s participation and work in class and to include in my research any notes I make regarding his or her involvement in my classroom. I will be using pseudonyms for my district, school, and students I report on in my final analysis; thus, if any information about your student, including samples of his or her work, is included within my research, you can be assured of his or her privacy remaining intact.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Please fill out, sign and return the attached permission form and have your student return it to class by within one weeks. Participation in this research is completely voluntary – refusal to participate in the research will not be held against you or your student, nor will it affect his/her performance in this class. There are no incentives being used in this research study. If you have any questions, you may contact me by e-mail at xxxxxxxx@xxx.org or by phone at xxx-xxx-xxxx before 8:00 or after 1:30. Thank you for your time and consideration.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Sincerely,

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Lorelei N. Futrelle <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">AP Language & Composition Teacher

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Appendix B  <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Principal Consent