Popular in Professional

Culture and Society

The City as a Growth Machine: Toward a Political Economy of Place

New York University Harvey Moltoch

Education

The Role of Education in Reducing Racial Inequality

University of Southern California Pedro A. Noguera

Law

Diversity and Social Mobility in the UK legal profession

Law Society I. Stephanie Boyce

Internet Law

The Law of AI for Good

University of San Diego Orly Lobel

Pharmacy

Cytotoxic Activity and Anti-Migratory Effect of Berberine-Phytantriol Liquid Crystalline on Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer

University of Technology Sydney Kamal Dua

Human Rights Law

Transforming Restorative Justice for Transitional Settings

University of Nottingham Kerry Clamp

Education

Developing Academic Identities

View more insights in Professional - Education - Literacy, Language and Communication

View more figures from University of Southern California

View the page of Paula M. Carbone

Read the Study

Paula M. Carbone examines how writing samples produced by middle school students reveal their emerging academic identities through their rhetorical choices in writing.

Image courtesy of interviewee. March 12, 2024

Generating Workspace

Export as PDF

This video video discusses a research study co-authored by Marjorie Fick Ora and the speaker, focusing on the academic identities of bilingual youth and their writing skills. The study, part of a larger research project, examines how sixth-grade students adopt academic voices in their writing and how this impacts their development of academic identities.

Key points from the text include:

1. **Research Context**: The study analyzed data from a larger investigation that looked at bilingual students' academic literacy skills and their roles as translators for their families.

2. **Academic Voices**: The research focused on how students utilize different voices in their writing for distinct audiences, particularly in argumentative essays addressed to both close individuals and authoritative figures.

3. **Academic Identity Formation**: It emphasizes the importance of students believing in their academic capabilities to enhance their engagement and success in writing.

4. **Writing Analysis**: The analysis of students' writing samples revealed sophisticated uses of argument and voice, suggesting that standardized assessments often fail to capture students' true skills and identities.

5. **Teaching Implications**: The findings provide insights into effective writing instruction, highlighting the need to facilitate students' use of authentic voices and understand their rhetorical choices based on different audiences.

6. **Development Activities**: The study illustrated the importance of engaging students in activities that allow them to express their ideas freely, helping them recognize their potential as competent writers.

7. **Broader Understanding**: The conclusions stress the necessity for teachers to recognize and nurture the diverse competencies that students possess beyond the conventional metrics of writing assessment.

In summary, the text highlights a study aimed at understanding how bilingual students construct academic identities through their writing, advocating for instructional practices that empower student voices and reflect their true capabilities in academic settings.

Language:

Export as PDF

X-TIMESTAMP-MAP:LOCAL=00:00:00.000,MPEGTS=900000

00:00.375 --> 00:02.275
The research focusing on

00:03.075 --> 00:07.275
academic identities is co-authored by myself

00:07.335 --> 00:09.995
and Marjorie Fick Ora.

00:11.095 --> 00:13.515
We used data from a larger study

00:14.045 --> 00:16.515
where she was the principal investigator.

00:17.335 --> 00:20.435
The larger study looked at the relationship

00:20.615 --> 00:24.355
of bilingual youth's, academic literacy skills,

00:25.455 --> 00:28.515
and the skills as translators

00:28.935 --> 00:31.155
for their families that they used.

00:32.745 --> 00:35.685
The work I'm talking about here examined

00:35.945 --> 00:38.645
how sixth grade students attempted

00:38.825 --> 00:42.325
to take up academic voices in their writing

00:43.355 --> 00:47.245
with the goal of providing information for

00:47.385 --> 00:51.525
how teachers might build on students revealed capabilities.

00:53.025 --> 00:57.365
Within our current system of standardized testing,

00:58.205 --> 01:01.805
students are assigned a label by the institution,

01:02.945 --> 01:07.925
and this label may not reveal their true capabilities.

01:08.915 --> 01:13.045
Failing a standardized test may not

01:13.755 --> 01:17.925
show how literary concepts like argument,

01:18.105 --> 01:21.485
for example, are taken up

01:21.545 --> 01:24.965
by students in capable and sophisticated ways.

01:26.075 --> 01:29.245
This can be due to a lot of different reasons,

01:30.075 --> 01:32.565
including students' home language

01:32.825 --> 01:36.005
and linguistic variety that is being used,

01:37.035 --> 01:39.605
that it's other than standard English.

01:39.825 --> 01:43.325
And that was the case with the students whom we worked

01:43.395 --> 01:44.565
with in the study.

01:45.705 --> 01:50.165
The study looked at students emerging academic

01:50.765 --> 01:55.525
identity formation using academic voice as a means

01:55.905 --> 01:58.085
to reveal these identities

01:58.865 --> 02:02.725
and then to help them develop those

02:03.485 --> 02:06.165
academic identities for students.

02:06.475 --> 02:10.245
This is an essential component of academic success.

02:11.685 --> 02:14.525
Research has shown that academic identity

02:15.095 --> 02:18.205
where students have the belief that they're capable

02:18.505 --> 02:21.565
to perform a given task is crucial

02:21.905 --> 02:24.525
to their engagement with the task.

02:25.275 --> 02:27.845
This is especially true with writing

02:28.635 --> 02:32.245
because writing is a visible marker of

02:32.505 --> 02:34.885
how our thinking is expressed.

02:35.745 --> 02:39.165
So students without a sense that they'll succeed

02:39.905 --> 02:43.885
may not even attempt to write at all for fear

02:44.065 --> 02:45.925
of appearing as a failure.

02:46.855 --> 02:51.165
These factors make students use of academic voice in writing

02:51.465 --> 02:53.765
and important literacy to develop.

02:54.425 --> 02:58.285
In this study, writing samples were analyzed,

02:58.935 --> 03:01.205
Taken from the larger study

03:02.145 --> 03:06.015
within the larger study, how students

03:06.715 --> 03:09.135
use their voice while translating

03:09.995 --> 03:13.935
and how that voice was leveraged into writing,

03:14.915 --> 03:16.535
in the classroom.

03:18.035 --> 03:22.855
So for students, voice was modeled

03:22.995 --> 03:27.055
and students were asked to describe their translating voice.

03:27.925 --> 03:30.935
This activity was developed by one

03:30.935 --> 03:33.855
of the research team, Ramon Martinez.

03:35.615 --> 03:40.135
Students then decided on a topic for an argumentative essay,

03:40.755 --> 03:44.095
and they wrote two arguments on that topic.

03:45.315 --> 03:50.055
One, to someone they were close to using their authentic

03:51.225 --> 03:55.175
voice, how they would speak to that person,

03:56.315 --> 03:59.935
and one to someone who was in a position of authority

04:00.635 --> 04:03.775
who might be able to actually take action

04:04.555 --> 04:07.415
if they were persuaded by their argument

04:08.185 --> 04:10.135
while coding these essays.

04:10.135 --> 04:13.455
Within the larger study, an an

04:14.135 --> 04:18.735
analytic line emerged of how students' voice changed

04:19.635 --> 04:24.135
and how the essays to an authority figure showed evidence

04:24.715 --> 04:26.375
of academic identities.

04:27.195 --> 04:31.535
The work samples were then further analyzed for the study.

04:31.795 --> 04:35.655
I'm discussing using this as a focus

04:35.995 --> 04:38.855
to examine in more detail

04:39.635 --> 04:43.575
how voice was used across each student's two samples.

04:44.515 --> 04:46.975
The findings highlight the complexity

04:47.195 --> 04:49.335
of measuring student writing

04:50.715 --> 04:54.695
and the sophistication of student writing.

04:56.895 --> 04:58.695
Students who may be novices.

04:59.605 --> 05:03.015
When you go beyond surface level features,

05:04.535 --> 05:08.455
focusing on surface elements like mechanics, fidelity

05:08.595 --> 05:09.775
to a formula

05:10.955 --> 05:14.895
or counting, how many pieces of evidence might be used,

05:15.115 --> 05:18.055
for example, would not reveal

05:18.915 --> 05:21.495
the sophistication of the arguments.

05:21.605 --> 05:23.935
Constructed. Too often,

05:24.895 --> 05:28.215
teachers grade writing only at the textual level,

05:29.495 --> 05:30.615
focusing on errors

05:31.035 --> 05:35.015
and ignoring other evidence of competence.

05:35.795 --> 05:39.335
The students in the spelling had, sorry.

05:40.715 --> 05:44.215
The students in the study had spelling, grammar,

05:44.475 --> 05:47.535
and usage issues that are kind

05:47.535 --> 05:51.655
of the normed competencies expected in writing

05:52.275 --> 05:53.335
in our classrooms.

05:54.465 --> 05:58.685
Using the two work samples for each student

06:00.235 --> 06:04.775
to examine their literate repertoires allowed us to look

06:04.875 --> 06:07.215
beyond these normed competencies

06:07.965 --> 06:10.215
that impacted their writing assessment.

06:11.435 --> 06:15.415
We were able to identify distinctive uses

06:15.675 --> 06:20.455
of diction, rhetorical distance use of the elements

06:20.455 --> 06:24.655
of argument and evidence across their two essays.

06:25.595 --> 06:29.575
For example, in the essay to someone they were close to

06:30.695 --> 06:34.215
evidence was not as prevalent, presumably

06:34.565 --> 06:36.295
because their parents

06:36.595 --> 06:39.135
or friends would not question their claims

06:39.995 --> 06:42.375
or they already knew the evidence.

06:43.965 --> 06:48.865
One student Camila wrote on immigrant rights first

06:48.965 --> 06:51.945
to her mother and then to the government

06:52.005 --> 06:55.745
or precedent when writing to her mother.

06:56.485 --> 07:01.185
She used what Peter elbow describes as an audible voice

07:02.175 --> 07:05.395
making herself heard in her writing,

07:06.285 --> 07:09.875
using the first person with I and my,

07:10.535 --> 07:15.355
but widening the rhetorical distance when addressing

07:15.375 --> 07:18.675
the government by removing herself

07:19.055 --> 07:22.915
and eliminating the immediacy of the first person.

07:24.835 --> 07:27.955
Likewise, Alice, who wrote about the need

07:27.955 --> 07:32.115
to build more schools, showed an understanding

07:32.215 --> 07:34.795
of rhetorical distance through diction

07:35.815 --> 07:38.515
by using words like, Hey, kids

07:39.095 --> 07:42.915
and stupid when writing to a friend,

07:43.775 --> 07:46.115
but eliminating hey and stupid

07:47.215 --> 07:51.515
and replacing kids with people when writing

07:51.775 --> 07:53.315
to the school district.

07:55.295 --> 07:58.625
Both students included the elements of argument

07:59.315 --> 08:02.345
using persuasive appeals evidence

08:02.605 --> 08:06.305
and warrants revealing persuasive logic.

08:07.205 --> 08:11.505
The use of background knowledge was visible in how students

08:12.105 --> 08:13.785
selected and used evidence.

08:14.645 --> 08:19.265
For example, Camila spoke of the being the daughter

08:19.405 --> 08:22.305
of an immigrant to shore up her argument,

08:23.085 --> 08:27.825
and Alice used knowledge of the discourse of the institution

08:28.855 --> 08:33.265
talking about test scores improving as a reason

08:33.485 --> 08:37.465
to build more schools and decrease class size.

08:38.115 --> 08:41.585
While her persuasive logic was not developed in this

08:41.695 --> 08:46.145
instant, her use of evidence was apparent.

08:47.155 --> 08:48.785
These and other aspects

08:48.885 --> 08:52.225
of students' competency might well be missed

08:52.885 --> 08:55.805
if only reading at the textual level.

08:57.045 --> 08:59.725
Expected conventions of teaching writing

09:01.075 --> 09:05.725
usually mean a long explanation of the topic

09:05.985 --> 09:09.725
or the assignment modeling use

09:09.725 --> 09:13.125
of graphic organizers to marshal evidence,

09:14.185 --> 09:16.325
and those all have their place.

09:17.225 --> 09:21.445
Um, but those conventions also usually include

09:21.995 --> 09:26.725
pre-writing, rough drafts, peer review, and a final draft.

09:27.585 --> 09:32.525
The writing process with no variations,

09:33.215 --> 09:36.205
accounting for individual approaches.

09:36.745 --> 09:37.885
And this was not

09:38.755 --> 09:43.755
what was intended when the writing process was developed.

09:44.385 --> 09:46.325
Uh, many decades ago.

09:47.345 --> 09:51.485
For this study, students chose their own topic,

09:52.415 --> 09:54.765
generating a level of anticipation

09:54.905 --> 09:57.125
and excitement in the classroom,

09:57.985 --> 10:00.645
and rather than a ladder like approach

10:00.785 --> 10:03.165
to writing one step at a time,

10:04.325 --> 10:07.365
students were engaged in activities to provide them

10:07.395 --> 10:10.605
with the confidence that they can

10:10.945 --> 10:14.965
and will succeed, such as the voice activity.

10:15.625 --> 10:18.405
To develop an academic ex identity,

10:19.885 --> 10:23.005
students have to believe they can succeed,

10:23.945 --> 10:28.725
and an academic identity formation gives them

10:29.365 --> 10:33.405
a sense of themselves as competent writer's.

10:33.405 --> 10:37.525
Voice is a way to provide students with that sense

10:38.725 --> 10:42.485
voicing their ideas in their preferred linguistic variety.

10:43.295 --> 10:45.765
Informally, they begin

10:45.785 --> 10:50.285
to realize they have the confidence to put pen to paper,

10:50.615 --> 10:52.245
paper, so to speak.

10:53.315 --> 10:58.285
It's also important to voice ideas as a way to develop them.

10:59.325 --> 11:03.645
Research has shown that more novice writers don't edit

11:03.985 --> 11:05.205
as they're writing.

11:06.185 --> 11:08.445
So as the pre-writing activity,

11:09.085 --> 11:11.845
verbally sharing ideas is also helpful

11:12.665 --> 11:16.965
to move novice writers into thinking through their ideas

11:17.825 --> 11:22.725
and re revising as they voice them to carry over

11:23.025 --> 11:27.725
to editing their writing while they're writing rather than

11:28.275 --> 11:31.325
backing in where it's le less effective.

11:31.745 --> 11:36.325
The implications of the findings point to the importance of

11:36.505 --> 11:40.965
how assessment is framed and measured for teachers.

11:41.405 --> 11:44.565
Framing writing, as we

11:45.145 --> 11:49.325
did in this study with briefly acting out

11:49.465 --> 11:52.285
of various voices that students feel

11:52.585 --> 11:55.805
as they engage in various literacy tasks,

11:57.005 --> 12:00.685
prepares them for the concept of different audiences,

12:01.395 --> 12:03.485
knowing that a voice they use

12:03.485 --> 12:06.605
with their parents is different from one they use

12:06.605 --> 12:10.965
with their friends is something any student can understand

12:11.845 --> 12:15.365
regardless of their academic literacy trajectory.

12:16.465 --> 12:20.525
And assigning the two writing products for one topic,

12:21.555 --> 12:26.125
each with a different audience as we did, might then be used

12:26.225 --> 12:29.685
to illustrate students understandings of

12:29.985 --> 12:34.285
how their audience impacts the rhetorical choices they make.

12:34.995 --> 12:39.885
This helped to instill in students their known competencies

12:40.385 --> 12:44.965
as they wrote to a known audience, using their literal,

12:45.235 --> 12:48.605
authentic voices and putting them in writing.

12:49.955 --> 12:53.485
Translating that to a more distant audience

12:54.235 --> 12:57.605
then reveals what their academic competencies are.

12:58.265 --> 13:02.605
Do they increase rhetorical distance, change the diction,

13:02.985 --> 13:06.765
use longer sentences, add discourse,

13:07.075 --> 13:09.005
markers like transitions.

13:09.735 --> 13:13.005
These aspects of competence are then visible

13:13.745 --> 13:18.005
and not lost in the surface Features of mechanics.

13:19.115 --> 13:22.965
This also revealed to us how students were moving between

13:23.575 --> 13:25.925
identities as they wrote,

13:26.035 --> 13:29.405
literally wrote themselves into their texts.

13:30.425 --> 13:34.165
Rather than teaching the elements of argument

13:34.725 --> 13:38.965
didactically, teachers might consider asking students

13:39.185 --> 13:43.285
to work in small groups, review their writing

13:43.825 --> 13:47.205
for the elements in order to engage

13:47.315 --> 13:50.725
with their own work metacognitively, discover

13:50.835 --> 13:53.285
what they know, what they included,

13:53.785 --> 13:55.965
and what they might want to add.

13:56.945 --> 14:00.405
And because revision is one of the strongest ways

14:00.465 --> 14:02.005
to develop writing

14:03.065 --> 14:06.125
and activities such as this would ensure revision

14:06.465 --> 14:08.285
beyond simplistic editing.

14:09.375 --> 14:12.645
Developing an academic identity through use

14:13.385 --> 14:18.125
of a competent academic voice allows students

14:18.185 --> 14:22.045
to enter into the rhetorical transaction,

14:22.875 --> 14:26.445
that relationship between author,

14:27.315 --> 14:28.725
text, and audience.

14:29.385 --> 14:33.645
And as Aristotle said, to persuade by any means,

14:34.435 --> 14:38.365
this should be a reminder of the traction transactions

14:38.945 --> 14:43.725
we enter into with students as educators

14:44.265 --> 14:47.085
and to offer any means possible

14:47.625 --> 14:49.405
for their ultimate success.

00:00 - The research focusing on academic identities is co-authored by myself and Marjorie Fick Ora. We used data from a larger study where she was the principal investigator. The larger study looked at the relationship

00:20 - of bilingual youth's, academic literacy skills, and the skills as translators for their families that they used. The work I'm talking about here examined how sixth grade students attempted to take up academic voices in their writing with the goal of providing information for how teachers might build on students revealed capabilities. Within our current system of standardized testing, students are assigned a label by the institution,

01:02 - and this label may not reveal their true capabilities. Failing a standardized test may not show how literary concepts like argument, for example, are taken up by students in capable and sophisticated ways. This can be due to a lot of different reasons, including students' home language and linguistic variety that is being used, that it's other than standard English. And that was the case with the students whom we worked

01:43 - with in the study. The study looked at students emerging academic identity formation using academic voice as a means to reveal these identities and then to help them develop those academic identities for students. This is an essential component of academic success. Research has shown that academic identity where students have the belief that they're capable to perform a given task is crucial

02:21 - to their engagement with the task. This is especially true with writing because writing is a visible marker of how our thinking is expressed. So students without a sense that they'll succeed may not even attempt to write at all for fear of appearing as a failure. These factors make students use of academic voice in writing and important literacy to develop. In this study, writing samples were analyzed,

02:58 - Taken from the larger study within the larger study, how students use their voice while translating and how that voice was leveraged into writing, in the classroom. So for students, voice was modeled and students were asked to describe their translating voice. This activity was developed by one of the research team, Ramon Martinez. Students then decided on a topic for an argumentative essay,

03:40 - and they wrote two arguments on that topic. One, to someone they were close to using their authentic voice, how they would speak to that person, and one to someone who was in a position of authority who might be able to actually take action if they were persuaded by their argument while coding these essays. Within the larger study, an an analytic line emerged of how students' voice changed and how the essays to an authority figure showed evidence

04:24 - of academic identities. The work samples were then further analyzed for the study. I'm discussing using this as a focus to examine in more detail how voice was used across each student's two samples. The findings highlight the complexity of measuring student writing and the sophistication of student writing. Students who may be novices. When you go beyond surface level features,

05:04 - focusing on surface elements like mechanics, fidelity to a formula or counting, how many pieces of evidence might be used, for example, would not reveal the sophistication of the arguments. Constructed. Too often, teachers grade writing only at the textual level, focusing on errors and ignoring other evidence of competence. The students in the spelling had, sorry.

05:40 - The students in the study had spelling, grammar, and usage issues that are kind of the normed competencies expected in writing in our classrooms. Using the two work samples for each student to examine their literate repertoires allowed us to look beyond these normed competencies that impacted their writing assessment. We were able to identify distinctive uses of diction, rhetorical distance use of the elements

06:20 - of argument and evidence across their two essays. For example, in the essay to someone they were close to evidence was not as prevalent, presumably because their parents or friends would not question their claims or they already knew the evidence. One student Camila wrote on immigrant rights first to her mother and then to the government or precedent when writing to her mother. She used what Peter elbow describes as an audible voice

07:02 - making herself heard in her writing, using the first person with I and my, but widening the rhetorical distance when addressing the government by removing herself and eliminating the immediacy of the first person. Likewise, Alice, who wrote about the need to build more schools, showed an understanding of rhetorical distance through diction by using words like, Hey, kids and stupid when writing to a friend,

07:43 - but eliminating hey and stupid and replacing kids with people when writing to the school district. Both students included the elements of argument using persuasive appeals evidence and warrants revealing persuasive logic. The use of background knowledge was visible in how students selected and used evidence. For example, Camila spoke of the being the daughter of an immigrant to shore up her argument,

08:23 - and Alice used knowledge of the discourse of the institution talking about test scores improving as a reason to build more schools and decrease class size. While her persuasive logic was not developed in this instant, her use of evidence was apparent. These and other aspects of students' competency might well be missed if only reading at the textual level. Expected conventions of teaching writing usually mean a long explanation of the topic

09:05 - or the assignment modeling use of graphic organizers to marshal evidence, and those all have their place. but those conventions also usually include pre-writing, rough drafts, peer review, and a final draft. The writing process with no variations, accounting for individual approaches. And this was not what was intended when the writing process was developed. many decades ago.

09:47 - For this study, students chose their own topic, generating a level of anticipation and excitement in the classroom, and rather than a ladder like approach to writing one step at a time, students were engaged in activities to provide them with the confidence that they can and will succeed, such as the voice activity. To develop an academic ex identity, students have to believe they can succeed,

10:23 - and an academic identity formation gives them a sense of themselves as competent writer's. Voice is a way to provide students with that sense voicing their ideas in their preferred linguistic variety. Informally, they begin to realize they have the confidence to put pen to paper, paper, so to speak. It's also important to voice ideas as a way to develop them. Research has shown that more novice writers don't edit as they're writing.

11:06 - So as the pre-writing activity, verbally sharing ideas is also helpful to move novice writers into thinking through their ideas and re revising as they voice them to carry over to editing their writing while they're writing rather than backing in where it's le less effective. The implications of the findings point to the importance of how assessment is framed and measured for teachers. Framing writing, as we did in this study with briefly acting out

11:49 - of various voices that students feel as they engage in various literacy tasks, prepares them for the concept of different audiences, knowing that a voice they use with their parents is different from one they use with their friends is something any student can understand regardless of their academic literacy trajectory. And assigning the two writing products for one topic, each with a different audience as we did, might then be used to illustrate students understandings of

12:29 - how their audience impacts the rhetorical choices they make. This helped to instill in students their known competencies as they wrote to a known audience, using their literal, authentic voices and putting them in writing. Translating that to a more distant audience then reveals what their academic competencies are. Do they increase rhetorical distance, change the diction, use longer sentences, add discourse, markers like transitions. These aspects of competence are then visible

13:13 - and not lost in the surface Features of mechanics. This also revealed to us how students were moving between identities as they wrote, literally wrote themselves into their texts. Rather than teaching the elements of argument didactically, teachers might consider asking students to work in small groups, review their writing for the elements in order to engage with their own work metacognitively, discover what they know, what they included,

13:53 - and what they might want to add. And because revision is one of the strongest ways to develop writing and activities such as this would ensure revision beyond simplistic editing. Developing an academic identity through use of a competent academic voice allows students to enter into the rhetorical transaction, that relationship between author, text, and audience.

14:29 - And as Aristotle said, to persuade by any means, this should be a reminder of the traction transactions we enter into with students as educators and to offer any means possible for their ultimate success.

Faculti AI can make mistakes