• unlimited access with print and download
    $ 37 00
  • read full document, no print or download, expires after 72 hours
    $ 4 99
More info
Unlimited access including download and printing, plus availability for reading and annotating in your in your Udini library.
  • Access to this article in your Udini library for 72 hours from purchase.
  • The article will not be available for download or print.
  • Upgrade to the full version of this document at a reduced price.
  • Your trial access payment is credited when purchasing the full version.
Buy
Continue searching

Intertextual connections: The impact of interactive read alouds on the writing of third graders during writing workshop

ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, 2009
Dissertation
Author: Jennifer Amy Manak
Abstract:
Teachers frequently read aloud as a part of writing instruction so that children's book authors can serve as mentors for students' writing. Despite extensive anecdotal reporting of the significance of reading aloud children's literature within writing workshop, the intertextual connections students construct between interactive read alouds and their writing within writing workshop has received little attention. This descriptive, naturalistic study conducted in a third-grade collaborative learning environment examined how interactive read alouds at the beginning of writing workshop influenced students' writing. Specifically, this study examined how the dialogue occurring among the teacher, students, and the children's book authors during the interactive read alouds influenced students' writing. Over six months, multiple data sources were collected including observational field notes, transcriptions, informal and semi-structured interviews, and student and teacher artifacts. The data sources were analyzed according to the process of open coding, axial coding, and selective coding and by the constant comparative method. A grounded theory of reading like a writer and writing like a reader emerged from the data and addressed the social construction of intertextuality and literary understanding within interactive read alouds at the beginning of writing workshop. This grounded theory was composed of seven conceptual categories which included: noticing, examining, guiding, explaining, understanding, mentoring, and crafting. The literary understanding socially constructed by the teacher, students, and children's book authors during the interactive read alouds significantly influenced students' writing. Within each sentence of their writing, students made intertextual connections to multiple texts. The content and ideas within students' writing were intertextually connected to a wide variety of texts they had previously experienced; however, the students consciously crafted their writing based on the socially constructed understanding of the purpose of author's craft which intertextually connected their writing to the interactive reading and examining of the mentor texts. The teacher facilitated the social construction of literary understanding and intertextuality during the interactive read alouds by guiding the discussion and explicitly discussing the interconnected nature of reading and writing.

6 TABLE OF CONTENTS

page

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...............................................................................................................4 LIST OF TABLES ...........................................................................................................................9 LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................................10 LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................................10 ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................................................12 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................14 Introduction .............................................................................................................................14 Purpose and Research Questions ............................................................................................15 Rationale for the Study ...........................................................................................................15 Summary of Methodology ......................................................................................................19 Scope & Limitations ...............................................................................................................21 Significance of the Study ........................................................................................................22 Definition of Terms ................................................................................................................23 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE .................................................................................................25 Intertextuality ..........................................................................................................................25 Social Nature of Intertextuality ..............................................................................................26 Intertextuality as a Transactional Process .......................................................................28 Intertextuality in Classroom Learning Environments .....................................................31 Intertextuality-Informed Writing Research .....................................................................34 Interactive Read Alouds ..................................................................................................38 Integrating the Language Arts ................................................................................................43 Reading and Writing Relationships .................................................................................43 Nurturing Young Writers: Reading Aloud in Writing Workshop ...................................44 Summary .................................................................................................................................46 3 METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................................48 The Constructivist Research Paradigm ...................................................................................49 Description of the Research Site .............................................................................................52 The Research Site: Site Selection and Access .................................................................52 The School .......................................................................................................................53 The Classroom Teacher ...................................................................................................55 The Students ....................................................................................................................55 Data Collection Methods ........................................................................................................56

7 Participant-Observations .................................................................................................57 Field Notes and Transcriptions ........................................................................................60 Informal and Semi-Structured Interviews .......................................................................63 Collection of Student and Teacher Artifacts ...................................................................68 Data Analysis ..........................................................................................................................69 Issues of Credibility, Trustworthiness, and Generalizability ..................................................74 Summary .................................................................................................................................76 4 INTERTEXTUALLY CONNECTING READING AND WRITING: THE CONTEXT, THE TEACHER, & THE LITERACY ENVIRONMENT ....................................................78 Literacy Education in an Urban Charter School .....................................................................79 The School Context .........................................................................................................79 The Teacher .....................................................................................................................81 The Classroom Context ...................................................................................................85 Intertextually Connecting Reading and Writing: The Teacher ...............................................92 Expectations, Routines, & Procedures ............................................................................92 Literacy Instruction .........................................................................................................95 Pedagogical Choices, Resources, & Teacher Influence ................................................102 Intertextually Connecting Reading and Writing: The Literacy Environment ......................104 Summary ...............................................................................................................................106 5 FINDINGS ............................................................................................................................108 Reading Like a Writer & Writing Like a Reader .................................................................108 Henry the Dog with No Tail ..................................................................................................109 Summary of Reading Like a Writer and Writing Like a Reader ..........................................114 Categories of Reading Like a Writer and Writing Like a Reader ........................................119 Noticing the Author’s Craft ...........................................................................................120 Examining the Author’s Craft .......................................................................................124 Guiding Students’ Understanding of Author’s Craft .....................................................132 Explaining the Author’s Craft .......................................................................................137 Understanding the Purpose of Author’s Craft ...............................................................143 Mentoring Students’ Writing .........................................................................................148 Crafting Writing Purposefully for a Reader ..................................................................153 Summary ...............................................................................................................................157 6 CASE STUDIES OF FOUR THIRD-GRADE READERS & WRITERS ...............................161 Keith .....................................................................................................................................161 Nonfiction Research Unit: Reading & Writing About Sharks ......................................162 Sentence Structure Unit: Lost in New York ...................................................................170 Belkys ...................................................................................................................................178 Nonfiction Research Unit: Reading & Writing About Frogs ........................................179 Sentence Structure Unit: Sweet 16 ................................................................................187 Osarhu ...................................................................................................................................195

8 Nonfiction Research Unit: Reading & Writing About Bats ..........................................196 Sentence Structure Unit: The NY Book Thief ................................................................204 Samone .................................................................................................................................213 Nonfiction Research Unit: Reading & Writing About Penguins ..................................214 Sentence Structure Unit: The Prince & Dragon Who Saved the Princess ....................223 Summary ...............................................................................................................................233 7 CONCLUSION .....................................................................................................................235 Summary and Significance of the Findings ..........................................................................236 Reading like a Writer and Writing like a Reader ..........................................................236 Intertextual Connections within Students’ Writing .......................................................238 Intertextuality, the Teacher, and the Collaborative Literacy Environment ...................240 Implications for Literacy Teaching and Learning ................................................................243 Interactive Read Alouds within Writing Workshop ......................................................243 Literacy Instruction .......................................................................................................246 Future Research ....................................................................................................................248 Concluding Thoughts ............................................................................................................249

APPENDIX A INFORMED CONSENT AND ASSET FORMS .................................................................250 Parent Informed Consent Letter and Permission Form ........................................................250 Assent Script for Children ....................................................................................................253 Teacher Informed Consent ...................................................................................................254 B SAMPLE TRANSCRIPT OF AN INTERACTIVE READ ALOUD (EXCERPT) ............257 C SAMONE’S FAIRYTALE ...................................................................................................259 LIST OF REFERENCES .............................................................................................................262 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .......................................................................................................268

9 LIST OF TABLES Table page

3-1 Demographics of City, School District, and Project School ..............................................54   4-1 Ms. Daniels’ Third-Grade Schedule ..................................................................................88   5-1 Noticing the Author’s Craft .............................................................................................120   5-2 Understanding Nonfiction Text Features .........................................................................146   5-3 Understanding Author’s Craft..........................................................................................148   7-1 Guiding Students’ Understanding of Author’s Craft .......................................................245   7-2 Integrating Interactive Read Alouds within Writing Workshop ......................................248  

10 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page

4-1 Big Ideas for the Writing Workshop: Sentence Structure Unit .........................................95 5-1 The Interrelated Nature of the Conceptual Categories involved in Reading Like a Writer ...............................................................................................................................119 6-1 Cover of Keith’s Nonfiction Book titled Sharks! ............................................................163 6-2 Keith’s Nonfiction Book Sharks! .....................................................................................164 6-3 Keith’s Illustration Comparing the Size of a Whale Shark to a Bus ...............................170 6-4 Cover of Keith’s Book Lost in New York ........................................................................171 6-5 Keith’s Fiction Story Lost in New York ...........................................................................172 6-6 Cover of Belkys’ Nonfiction Book titled Frogs ..............................................................180 6-7 Belkys’ Nonfiction Book Frogs.......................................................................................181 6-8 Belkys’ Labeled Illustration of Life Cycle of a Frog .......................................................184 6-9 Cover of Belkys’ Book titled Sweet 16 ............................................................................187 6-10 Belkys’ Fiction Story Sweet 16 ........................................................................................188 6-11 Cover of Osahru’s Nonfiction Book titled Bats ...............................................................197 6-12 Osahru’s Nonfiction Book Bats .......................................................................................198 6-13 Osahru’s Diagram of a Little Brown Bat .........................................................................200 6-14 Osahru’s Divided Illustration ...........................................................................................201 6-15 Cover of Osahru’s Book titled The NY Book Thief ..........................................................204 6-16 Osahru’s Mystery Book The NY Book Thief ....................................................................205 6-17 Cover of Samone’s Nonfiction Book titled Penguins! ....................................................214 6-18 Samone’s Nonfiction Book Penguins! .............................................................................216 6-19 Samone’s Diagram of the Life Cycle of a Penguin .........................................................218 6-20 Samone’s Labeled Illustration of Penguins Underwater .................................................219

11 6-21 Samone’s Fairytale The Prince & Dragon Who Saved the Princess ...............................225 6-22 Samone’s Illustrations for Chapters 1, 2, & 3 ..................................................................226

12 Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

INTERTEXTUAL CONNECTIONS: THE IMPACT OF INTERACTIVE READ ALOUDS ON THE WRITING OF THIRD GRADERS DURING WRITING WORKSHOP By Jennifer Amy Manak

August 2009

Chair: Linda L. Lamme Major: Curriculum and Instruction

Teachers frequently read aloud as a part of writing instruction so that children’s book authors can serve as mentors for students’ writing. Despite extensive anecdotal reporting of the significance of reading aloud children’s literature within writing workshop, the intertextual connections students construct between interactive read alouds and their writing within writing workshop has received little attention. This descriptive, naturalistic study conducted in a third- grade collaborative learning environment examined how interactive read alouds at the beginning of writing workshop influenced students’ writing. Specifically, this study examined how the dialogue occurring among the teacher, students, and the children’s book authors during the interactive read alouds influenced students’ writing. Over six months, multiple data sources were collected including observational field notes, transcriptions, informal and semi-structured interviews, and student and teacher artifacts. The data sources were analyzed according to the process of open coding, axial coding, and selective coding and by the constant comparative method. A grounded theory of reading like a writer and writing like a reader emerged from the data and addressed the social construction of intertextuality and literary understanding within interactive read alouds at the beginning of

13 writing workshop. This grounded theory was composed of seven conceptual categories which included: noticing, examining, guiding, explaining, understanding, mentoring, and crafting. The literary understanding socially constructed by the teacher, students, and children’s book authors during the interactive read alouds significantly influenced students’ writing. Within each sentence of their writing, students made intertextual connections to multiple texts. The content and ideas within students’ writing were intertextually connected to a wide variety of texts they had previously experienced; however, the students consciously crafted their writing based on the socially constructed understanding of the purpose of author’s craft which intertextually connected their writing to the interactive reading and examining of the mentor texts. The teacher facilitated the social construction of literary understanding and intertextuality during the interactive read alouds by guiding the discussion and explicitly discussing the interconnected nature of reading and writing.

14 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Introduction When we write, we compose a written text that consciously and unconsciously embodies traces of the many texts we have previously experienced during our lives. Our writing not only reflects literary and written texts experienced in the past but also the texts of our previous conversations, popular culture, and life experiences. This interrelated nature of texts is referred to as intertextuality (Kristeva, 1980). Fairclough (1992) asserts that all written texts and spoken utterances are “inherently intertextual, constituted by elements of other texts” (p. 270). Therefore, a text is never simply the product of a single writer or speaker but is interwoven with traces of many previous texts that have been borrowed, adapted, appropriated, and transformed (Hartman, 1992; Kamberelis & McGinley, 1992). In composing a text there are a multiplicity of textual voices available to a writer. According to Hartman (1992), a writer is a “multidimensional space through which the utterances of others speak” (p. 300). Intertextuality is a social construction located in the social interactions between individuals (Bloome & Egan-Robertson, 1993). Short (1992a) suggests that intertextuality is “situated in the dialogue between participants, even if one of the participants is not physically present (such as when one reads a book)” (p. 316). With these views in mind, intertextuality is socially constructed as students, teachers, and children’s book authors with differing sociopolitical and cultural histories interact within a particular learning environment. Furthermore, intertextuality can be considered a transactional process between a reader and a text in a particular sociocultural environment when students make connections to previous textual experiences to actively construct meaning from the text they are reading (Rosenblatt, 1938/1995, 1978/1994). Moreover, Lemke (1992) claims that the social and cultural practices of a learning environment

15 determine the intertextual connections recognized and available in that particular social context. Collaborative learning environments that provide opportunities for social interaction and dialogue influence the intertextual connections students are able to construct (Short, 1992a). Purpose and Research Questions In order to gain a broader understanding of how children socially construct intertextual links among integrated reading and writing events, this study naturalistically investigated intertextuality within a third-grade collaborative learning environment. This six-month descriptive, qualitative study focused on examining how interactive read alouds including reader response and discussion of author’s craft at the beginning of writing workshop influenced students’ subsequent writing. This study employed a broad definition of text including linguistic and nonlinguistic signs intended to communicate meaning with others such as an utterance, an oral story, a conversation, a life experience, a thought, a gesture, a movie, a work of art, or a poem (Bloome & Egan-Robertson, 1993; Hartman, 1992; Short, 1992; Sipe, 2001). My broad research question was: How do the texts within interactive read alouds at the beginning of writing workshop mentor children’s writing? Three research questions guided this study: 1. How do children appropriate and transform texts from the context of an interactive read aloud into their own writing? 2. What are the characteristics of a literacy environment that encourage intertextual connections between reading and writing? 3. How does a teacher facilitate intertextual connections between reading and writing? Rationale for the Study During the past two decades, intertextually-informed writing studies have illustrated that students’ writing reflects traces of the many written, conversational, and popular culture texts they have previously experienced (Bearse, 1992; Cairney, 1990; Dyson, 1993, 1997; Kamberelis

16 & McGinley, 1992; Pantaleo, 2006; Short, 1992a; Sipe, 1993). Furthermore, these studies demonstrate the multiplicity of textual resources available to young writers. While some studies have focused on the influence of a written text on students’ writing (Bearse, 1992; Cairney, 1990; Pantaleo, 2006; Sipe, 1993) others have addressed the impact of a wide variety of texts on students’ writing (Dyson, 1993, 1997; Kamberelis & McGinley, 1992; Short, 1992a). Cairney (1990) examined the impact of sixth-grade students’ prior experiences with written texts on their writing and found that a majority of students are aware of intertextual links between the texts they read and the texts they write. Bearse’s (1992) study of third-graders found that students consciously and unconsciously borrow elements and language from the fairy tales they read and blend them into their own stories. Also focusing on the fairy tale genre, Sipe (1993) described the connections sixth-grade students made when reading traditional and modern fairy tales and writing transformative fairy tales of their own. Pantaleo (2006) examined how reading children’s literature with Radical Change characteristics influenced one fifth-grade student’s writing. Pantaleo found that the student made intertextual links in her writing to books used in the study as well as to other texts. Studies conducted by Dyson (1993, 1997) and Kamberelis and McGinley (1992) employed a broader definition of text including literary and written texts and the texts of previous conversations, popular culture, and life experiences. Dyson’s (1993, 1997) research with primary grade children demonstrated how students’ complex social worlds and popular culture texts significantly shape their writing. Kamberelis and McGinley’s (1992) case-study examined the textual voices dialogically interacting within five 4 th graders’ writing. Kamberelis and McGinley (1992) reported that writers synthesize the textual voices they experience including the language of their parents, teachers, peers, books, television, and movies as they

17 develop their own voices as writers. Although we know that students consciously and unconsciously borrow, appropriate, and transform aspects of various texts they have previously experienced (Bearse, 1992; Cairney, 1990; Dyson, 1993, 1997; Kamberelis & McGinley, 1992; Short, 1992a; Sipe, 1993), studies have not examined how the texts within a classroom reading event, such as a read aloud, are appropriated and transformed into students’ writing. Studies need to determine how dialogic interactions between participants within a read aloud are reflected in students’ writing. Read alouds, particularly interactive read alouds, appear to be intertextually-rich collaborative learning environments (Oyler & Barry, 1996; Sipe, 2000a, 2000b, 2001). Fisher, Flood, Lapp, and Frey (2004) suggest that during interactive read alouds, teachers select interesting and developmentally appropriate books that they have previously previewed and practiced. Teachers set a clear purpose for the read aloud, model fluent oral reading with expression, and stop periodically to discuss the text asking both efferent and aesthetic questions. Furthermore, teachers make connections between the read aloud and students’ independent reading and writing (Fisher, Flood, Lapp, and Frey, 2004). During interactive read alouds, students are encouraged to interact with the book, their peers, and their teacher throughout the book reading (Barrentine, 1996); thus, facilitating the social construction of intertextual connections between and among texts as well as the social construction of literary understanding. Intertextually-informed studies on read alouds have identified characteristic types of oral responses (Sipe, 2000a, 2008), the importance and various uses of intertextual connections during read alouds (Sipe, 2000b), and how intertextual connections facilitate literary understanding and schema-building for traditional stories (Sipe, 2001). As students dialogically interact with one another, their teacher, and the text during interactive read alouds, students are

18 immersed in a language-rich environment filled with texts that they can borrow, appropriate, and transform into their subsequent writing. Although research has shed light on the significance of oral responses and intertextual connections during interactive read alouds in the development of students’ literary understanding and meaning making, none of these studies have addressed how these responses during read alouds might impact students’ writing. Furthermore, future research needs to address how interactive read alouds emphasizing particular types of responses, such as personal or analytical responses, may influence students’ writing. Read alouds are frequently becoming integrated into the literacy curriculum for instructional purposes. Writing scholars suggest that integrating children’s literature read alouds into writing instruction, particularly writing workshop, provides students with opportunities to experience exemplary writing models, study the craft of professional authors, and read like writers (Calkins, 1994; Harwayne, 1992; Ray, 1999, 2004; Smith, 1983b). In addition, writing scholars suggest that as children listen to and discuss literature during read alouds, they internalize the features of quality writing and begin to use these features in their own writing (Harwayne, 2001; Ray, 1999, 2004). Book discussions help students focus on aspects of the authors’ craft including the authors’ techniques, style, and language as well as the content and themes within the literature (Harwayne, 1992; Ray, 1999, 2004; Siu-Runyan, 1996; Smith, 1983). Despite extensive anecdotal reporting of the significance of reading aloud children’s literature within writing workshop, surprisingly no empirical studies have been conducted on the intertextual connections students construct between read alouds and their writing within writing workshop. Empirical studies need to determine how dialogic interactions between participants within a read aloud event impact students’ subsequent written texts, particularly when read

19 alouds are integrated within writing instruction. Specifically, research needs to investigate how dialogic interactions within interactive read alouds are reflected in students’ writing during writing workshop. Furthermore, research is needed in classrooms where students flourish as readers and writers in order to better understand the characteristics of literacy environments which facilitate students’ to make intertextual connections between reading and writing. Summary of Methodology This qualitative, naturalistic study, situated in the constructivist research paradigm, examined the intertextual influence of interactive read alouds at the beginning of writing workshop on students’ writing. The study was conducted in a third-grade classroom in a predominantly low-income, multicultural school that is committed to academic excellence and collaborative learning. The teacher implemented a balanced approach to literacy and integrated language arts instruction. Although the teacher read aloud to her students several times each day, this study focused on the interactive read alouds of mentor texts and literature-based mini- lessons at the beginning of writing workshop. My stance as a researcher ranged on the continuum of participant observation from a participant as observer to an observer as participant (Glesne, 1999; Spradley, 1980). During the course of this six-month study, I observed two writing workshop units: a Nonfiction Research Unit and a Sentence Structure Unit. The Nonfiction Research Unit included the reading of two mentor texts, Spiders (Gibbons, 1994) and Bicycle Book (Gibbons, 2001). The Sentence Structure Unit included the reading of three mentor texts, Henry the Dog with No Tail (Feiffer, 2007), Scarecrow (Rylant, 1998), and Animal Dads (Collard, 1997). Multiple data collection methods used in this study include participant observations, field notes and transcriptions, informal and semi-structured interviews, and the collection of student and teacher artifacts in order to better understand how children’s writing reflected the texts within interactive read

20 alouds at the beginning of writing workshop. Interactive read alouds, literature-based mini- lessons, and semi-structured interviews were digitally recorded and transcribed verbatim. Participant observations were recorded in field notes and used to annotate observation transcriptions. Student artifacts, included students’ completed writings, planning sheets, and published writings from each unit, and teacher artifacts, included writing workshop lesson plans, unit overviews, and the third-grade curriculum plan, were collected. Informal and semi- structured interviews were conducted with all 14 students focusing on the purpose of their writing, the content of their writing, and how they decided to craft various aspects of their writing. In addition, the teacher was informally interviewed throughout the study. Detailed case studies of four students’ writing (2 males and 2 females) gained an in-depth understanding of the intertextual connections students constructed within their writing to the interactive read aloud events. The multiple data sources were analyzed recursively and iteratively according to Strauss and Corbin’s (1990) open coding, axial coding, and selective coding and Glaser and Strauss’s (1967) constant comparative method as a means to better understand how students’ writing was mentored by the various texts within the interactive read alouds at the beginning of writing workshop. Additionally, analysis of multiple data sources provided insights into the characteristics of a literacy environment and the teacher’s instruction that encouraged intertextual connections between reading and writing. A grounded theory (Glaser and Strauss, 1967) of reading like a writer and writing like a reader, specifically the social construction of intertextuality and literary understanding within integrated reading and writing events, emerged from the conceptual relationships I constructed from my data. A detailed description of the research methodology is discussed in Chapter 3.

21 Scope & Limitations The social construction of intertextuality and literary understanding within integrated reading and writing events, such as interactive read alouds at the beginning of writing workshop, are best studied in a collaborative learning environment with an integrated literacy curriculum where authentic reading and writing are an integral part of literacy instruction. The purpose of this study was to examine how interactive read alouds influenced students’ writing within an established literacy curriculum. The selection of this school and classroom was an instance of intensity sampling (Patton, 1990, 2002) because the site was likely to intensely manifest the phenomenon that I was studying, the social construction of intertextuality and literary understanding within integrated reading and writing events. Patton (2002) suggests that purposive intensity sampling can help researchers “learn from those who are exemplars of good practice” (p. 234). The school was selected for its academic focus on literacy, particularly the philosophy that reading and writing were a combined literacy process. The classroom teacher was selected because of her commitment to effective literacy instruction, her strong belief in the integration of reading and writing, and her pedagogical knowledge. The students in this study were from low-income families as indicated by 93% of the students qualified for the school’s free or reduced-price lunch program. The 14 students in this classroom, from culturally diverse, urban backgrounds, included 1 Asian, 3 Hispanic, and 10 African-American students. The multiple data sources collected in this study demonstrate rich examples of how interactive read alouds conducted at the beginning of writing workshop can influence young writers. Together, these factors enabled the researcher to examine how students from diverse backgrounds socially constructed intertextuality and literary understanding within a literacy curriculum focused on fostering purposeful, critical thinking readers and writers.

22 This study is limited, similar to all descriptive case studies, since it examines how 14 students and one teacher within a particular classroom socially construct intertextuality and literary understanding between reading and writing events. This qualitative study seeks to provide readers with sufficient detailed, concrete descriptions or “thick descriptions” (Geertz, 1973) of the students, teacher, and the classroom setting in order for readers to “understand the phenomenon studied and draw [their] own interpretations about meanings and significance” (Patton, 2002). Therefore, it is the reader’s responsibility to determine how this study can be generalized to other students, teachers, and classroom contexts (Ruddin, 2006). Researcher subjectivity is another limitation of qualitative, descriptive studies since it plays an important role in the methodology. Chapter 3 addresses the measures taken to satisfy issues of credibility, trustworthiness, and the generalizability of the findings in this study. Significance of the Study This study is significant because it broadens current understandings about the social nature of intertextuality and literary understanding by describing the characteristics of a collaborative third-grade literacy environment that integrates reading and writing, particularly interactive read alouds into writing workshop. This study simultaneously intertwines and extends intertextually- informed writing and read aloud research by describing how third-grade students socially construct intertextual connections between interactive read alouds and their writing during writing workshop. This study not only extends intertextuality research but also provides empirical evidence to support the integration of children’s literature read alouds into writing workshop. Additionally, this study extends current understandings of how integrating the language arts (i.e. reading, writing, speaking, and listening) impacts students’ writing. Finally, the educational significance of this study is demonstrated in its implications for literacy teaching and learning discussed in Chapter 8.

23 Definition of Terms In order to facilitate the reader’s understanding, the following terms used throughout the study are defined below: Author’s Craft: The particular way an author writes including their special skill and techniques (Ray, 1999)

Conversational Turn: “Individual turns taken by one participant or another in a conversation” (Glasswell & Parr, 2009).

Interactive Read Aloud: Reading aloud a book for instructional purposes by engaging students in natural interactions with the story, their teacher, and their peers. Instruction and conversation are interwoven during the reading of the book (Barrentine, 1996).

Intertextuality: The interrelated nature of current and past texts (Kristeva, 1980).

Mentor Text: An author’s published writing that is read aloud several times and carefully examined in order to learn how the author crafted the language and structure of the text (Ray, 1999).

Mini-Lesson: A short, whole group teacher-directed lesson conducted on the reading carpet at the beginning of writing workshop. Lessons were instructive and part of broader writing workshop units of study (Calkins, 1994; Ray, 2001).

Social Construction: A phenomenon constructed by participants in a particular sociocultural environment. Within this study, intertextuality and literary understanding were constructed during the read alouds and literature-based mini-lessons as the participants, including the teacher, students, and children’s book author, interacted through the use of dialogue.

Teachable Moment: An unplanned moment during instruction when a teacher takes advantage of an authentic opportunity to teach students a particular concept, skill, or strategy.

Teaching Point: A concept that is being taught and reinforced over multiple lessons as part of the overall goals of a particular unit.

Text-to-Text Connection: When readers are reminded of texts they have previously read and connecting ideas and themes across texts (Keene & Zimmerman, 1997; Harvey & Goudvis, 2000).

Turn & Talk: During read alouds, the teacher asked the students to “turn and talk” to their partners about a particular aspect of the story. During “turn and talks” the teacher listened to several conversations between partners and then led a whole group discussion briefly sharing what was discussed during the “turn and talks” between partners (Collins, 2004). During the interactive read alouds and mini-lessons within this study, turn & talks were employed as a collaborative learning strategy in order for students to share their thinking with their peers. The

24 conversations between partners during turn and talks focused on discussing what they noticed about how the author crafted his/her writing within the mentor text.

25 CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE This chapter reviews a variety of theoretical perspectives and empirical findings that are relevant to this study. This review of research can be envisioned as a series of concentric circles moving from the broad concept of intertextuality to a more focused study of theory and research relevant to the phenomenon of intertextual connections students construct between interactive read alouds and their writing during writing workshop. It begins by describing and discussing the understandings of intertextuality, then more specifically the social nature of intertextuality, which forms the theoretical basis for this study. Based on a sociolinguistic view of language (Bakhtin, 1981, 1986), this review of theory and research addresses how intertextual connections are socially constructed within dialogic, collaborative literacy environments. The review considers intertextuality a transactional process and therefore reviews reader response theory (Rosenblatt, 1938/1995, 1978/1994). The review continues with an overview of intertextuality research in the areas of writing and oral discourse and discusses the relationships between reading and writing and the significance of integrated reading and writing instruction on intertextual connections. In the last section, the study is situated within the current literacy research employing the construct of intertextuality and demonstrating the importance of building upon current conceptions of intertextual connections that students construct between integrated reading and writing events. Finally, this study not only contributes to research regarding intertextuality but also enables further consideration of how students’ writing reflects their overall literacy environment. Intertextuality When writing about the work of Bakhtin in the late 1960’s, Kristeva (1980) coined the term “intertextuality” to refer to the interrelated nature of current and past texts. According to

26 Kristeva (1980), a text “is a permutation of texts, an intertextuality: in the space of a given text, several utterances, taken from other texts, intersect and neutralize one another” (p. 36). Kristeva (1980) suggested texts may include literary and visual texts, which include works of art, as well as texts of an individual’s life experiences. Therefore, all written texts and spoken utterances are “inherently intertextual, constituted by elements of other texts” (Fairclough, 1992, p. 270) and interwoven with traces of many previous texts that have been borrowed, adapted, appropriated, and transformed (Hartman, 1992; Kamberelis & McGinley, 1992). Within scholarship on intertextuality, texts have been broadly defined. Although we typically consider a text to be printed language that can be read, we need not limit our notion of texts to simply literary or written texts. A text can be comprised of both linguistic and nonlinguistic signs intended to communicate meaning with others such as an utterance, an oral story, a conversation, a life experience, a thought, a gesture, a movie, a dance, a work of art, or a poem (Bloome & Egan-Robertson, 1993; Hartman, 1992; Short, 1986, 1992; Sipe, 2001). With this more inclusive conception of text, the concept of intertextuality extends to the interrelated nature of the many linguistic and nonlinguistic texts an individual has previously experienced during their lives. With this broad definition, Short (1992a) proposed that intertextuality can be viewed as a metaphor for learning—“a central process of making meaning through connections across present and past texts constructed from a wide variety of life experiences” (Short, 1992a, p. 315). Social Nature of Intertextuality Intertextuality is a social construction located in the interactions between individuals within a particular social context (Bloome & Egan-Robertson, 1993; Lemke, 1992). Based on Bakhtin’s sociolinguistic view of language and Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory, intertextuality is socially constructed as individuals act and react to each other through the use of language or

Full document contains 269 pages
Abstract: Teachers frequently read aloud as a part of writing instruction so that children's book authors can serve as mentors for students' writing. Despite extensive anecdotal reporting of the significance of reading aloud children's literature within writing workshop, the intertextual connections students construct between interactive read alouds and their writing within writing workshop has received little attention. This descriptive, naturalistic study conducted in a third-grade collaborative learning environment examined how interactive read alouds at the beginning of writing workshop influenced students' writing. Specifically, this study examined how the dialogue occurring among the teacher, students, and the children's book authors during the interactive read alouds influenced students' writing. Over six months, multiple data sources were collected including observational field notes, transcriptions, informal and semi-structured interviews, and student and teacher artifacts. The data sources were analyzed according to the process of open coding, axial coding, and selective coding and by the constant comparative method. A grounded theory of reading like a writer and writing like a reader emerged from the data and addressed the social construction of intertextuality and literary understanding within interactive read alouds at the beginning of writing workshop. This grounded theory was composed of seven conceptual categories which included: noticing, examining, guiding, explaining, understanding, mentoring, and crafting. The literary understanding socially constructed by the teacher, students, and children's book authors during the interactive read alouds significantly influenced students' writing. Within each sentence of their writing, students made intertextual connections to multiple texts. The content and ideas within students' writing were intertextually connected to a wide variety of texts they had previously experienced; however, the students consciously crafted their writing based on the socially constructed understanding of the purpose of author's craft which intertextually connected their writing to the interactive reading and examining of the mentor texts. The teacher facilitated the social construction of literary understanding and intertextuality during the interactive read alouds by guiding the discussion and explicitly discussing the interconnected nature of reading and writing.