History of Theatre Web sites: A brief history

of the writing process in a high school

ESL language arts class

Susan Parks *, Diane Huot, Josiane Hamers, France H.-Lemonnier

Universite Laval, Quebec City, Canada

Abstract

This article reports on how Quebec Francophone high school students, enrolled in a program which

featured an environment rich in information and communication technologies (ICTs), appropriated the

writing process over a four-year period (Grades 710) in the context of their ESL language arts courses.

Data for the study were obtained using qualitative research methods, including in-class observation (field

notes), videotaping, interviews, and collection of documents. Discussion of the issue of appropriation is

framed in relation to sociocultural theory, in particular Engestroms [Engestrom, Y. (1991). Non scolae

sed vitae discimus: Toward overcoming the encapsulation of school learning. Learning and Instruction,

1, 243259] version of activity theory and Tharps [Tharp, R. (1993). Institutional & social context of

educational practice and reform. In E. Forman, N. Minick, C. A. Stone, & M. S. Forman (Eds.), Contexts

for learning: Sociocultural dynamics in childrens development (pp. 269282). New York: Oxford

University Press] contention as to the relationship between innovative educational practice and nested

activity settings. Analysis of the way activities were structured over the four-year period, especially in

regard to the role of scaffolding, serves to foreground the historically transformative nature of the

learning process. As part of this analysis, the Grade 10 History of Theatre web site project is

presented as a telling case [Mitchell, J.C. (1984). Case studies. In R.F. Ellen (Ed.), Ethnographic

research: A guide to general conduct (pp. 237241). San Diego, CA: Academic Press; Putney, L. G.,

Green, J., Dixon, C., Duran, R., & Yeager, B. (2000). Consequential progressions: Exploring collective-

individual development in a bilingual classroom. In C. D. Lee & P. Smagorinsky (Eds.), Vygotskian

perspectives on literacy research: Constructing meaning through collaborative inquiry (pp. 86126).

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press] to demonstrate how by this point enacting the writing process

in an ICT-rich environment had become a highly self-regulated, routine cultural practice. Further

evidence of appropriation is provided by the fact that, by Grade 10, students had begun on their

own to transfer the use of the writing process to the completion of assignments in other school subjects,

thus suggesting that this cultural tool had come to be valued as a means of helping them achieve the

Journal of Second Language Writing 14 (2005) 233258

* Corresponding author. Present address: Departement de langues, linguistique et traduction, Pavillon Charles-de-

Koninck, Quebec, QC, Canada G1K 7P4. Tel.: +1 418 656 2131x6367; fax: +1 418 656 2622.

E-mail address: susan.parks@lli.ulaval.ca (S. Parks).

1060-3743/$ see front matter # 2005 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2005.10.003

personal goal of producing a better written product and not merely fulfill a course requirement. The

teachers proleptic stance in terms of the way he viewed this developmental process is also discussed.

# 2005 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Second language writing; Process approach to writing; Digital technologies; Information and communica-

tion technologies (ICTs); Multiliteracies; Project-based teaching; Sociocultural theory; Classroom-based research

Since the 1980s, a process approach to teaching writing,1 typically emphasizing strategies

related to the exploration of ideas, revising and editing, has been the object of substantive

research within second and foreign language contexts (Cumming, 1989; Krapels, 1990; Raimes,

1985, 1987; Zamel, 1982). Within this body of research the revising/editing aspect has been of

particular interest; drawing on both quantitative and qualitative modes of analysis, numerous

studies have illuminated the nature of the feedback given, the degree to which the feedback was

used in subsequent drafts, the impact of the feedback in regard to the final product, and the nature

of the mediational strategies resorted to during teacher conferencing or peer review (Fathman &

Whalley, 1990; Hedgcock & Lefkowitz, 1992; Mendonca & Johnson, 1994; Tang & Tithecott,

1999; Villamil & De Guerrero, 1996; Zamel, 1983). Although this research has also shed light on

many of the complexities involved in using a process approach to the teaching of writing

(Ashwell, 2000; Conrad & Goldstein, 1999; Ferris, 1999; Ramanathan & Atkinson, 1999;

Reichelt, 1997; Silva, 1993; Truscott, 1996, 1999; Zhang, 1995), on the whole it attests to its

pedagogical usefulness.

Nevertheless, despite the many insights provided, closer scrutiny reveals that the three

following areas have received relatively little attention. First, in most instances, analyses involving

writing processes have focused on data from a single assignment or assignments within a single

course. Apart from those longitudinal studies which have documented the efforts of second

language (L2) students to come to terms with their course work in North American colleges or

universities (Parks & Raymond, 2004; Prior, 1998; Raymond & Parks, 2002; Spack, 2004;

Sternglass, 1997; Zamel & Spack, 2004), research pertaining to high school or other contexts is

scant. Secondly, comparatively few studies (Conrad & Goldstein, 1999; Cumming, Busch, &

Zhou, 2002; Haneda, 2000; Parks & Raymond, 2004; Prior, 1998; Raymond & Parks, 2002;

Sternglass, 1997; Zamel & Spack, 2004) have sought to illuminate participant perspectives in

regard to their writing practices. The third point pertains to the appropriation and use of the writing

process in environments rich in information and communication technologies (ICTs). Although

innovative ICT uses involving both synchronous and asynchronous interaction have increasingly

been reported on (Belz, 2003; Furstenberg, Levet, English, & Maillet, 2001; Lam, 2004; Muller-

Hartmann, 2000; Sotillo, 2000; Warschauer & Kern, 2000), the writing process itself rarely

emerges as a focal issue (Carey, 1999; Spiliotopoulos, 2002, 2003; Sullivan & Pratt, 1996).

With the increased prevalence of ICTs in daily life, numerous educators (Cummins, 2005;

Hass, 1996; Hawisher & Selfe, 2000; Murray, 2000; Warschauer, 2003; Warschauer & Kern,

2000) have called for a re-envisioning of traditional notions of literacy as well as signalled the

S. Parks et al. / Journal of Second Language Writing 14 (2005) 233258234

1 Although we duly acknowledge that writing processes and specific process approaches to the teaching of writing vary,

the writing process in the singular is used to highlight the general shift in approach to research on and the teaching of

writing which, in opposition to a focus on product, first emerged and took shape in the 1970s and 1980s (e.g., Flower &

Hayes, 1981). Within the context of this study, as is frequently the case, the teacher profiled always referred to the writing

process.

need for schools to make relevant changes in curricula. To reflect this new reality, the New

London Group (1996), for example, distinguishes between mere literacy, centered on language

only, and a pedagogy of multiliteracies that, in addition to print, takes into account the

representational resources (visual, audio, hypertext, etc.) afforded by ICTs. As suggested by

Shetzer and Warschauer (2000), not only must language teachers be prepared to use ICTs to teach

language, they must also be prepared to engage students in these newer types of literacy practices.

To date, much of the L2 research has centered on the analysis of interactions generated within

such ICT environments as email, chat, MOOs, or electronic bulletin boards. Although such tools

are integral to evolving notions of literacy, little research, to date, has focused on L2 learners

involved in an active appropriation of tools with a more technical edge, as might be assumed in

the case of Web site construction, for example.

In response to the gaps in research identified above, the present article will focus on a group of

high school students who, throughout the duration of our study from Grades 7 through 10, studied

in an ICT-rich environment. Within this school, one of their teachers, Mark Miller,2 who had the

students in his English as a second language (ESL) Language Arts course in Grades 7, 8, and 10

stood out in terms of the emphasis he gave to a process approach to writing during these three

years. As this teacher was also very knowledgeable in ICT use, the present paper provides a

descriptive account of how the latter were integrated into the writing process. From a research

point of view, we will focus on the following three questions:

1. From Grades 7 through 10, what evidence suggests that students moved toward increased

appropriation of the writing process in the context of text production in an ICT-rich

environment?

2. By the time students were in Grade 10, how did they orient toward the use of the writing

process during text production?

3. How did the teacher perceive students ability to appropriate the writing process over time?

Prior to discussing these questions, a description of the high school and the History of Theatre

Web site project featured in the title of this article will be presented. The theoretical framework

used to interpret our results and the methodology will also be dealt with.

Context for the study: the high school

The research reported on in this article involved a special program for high school students,

referred to here as the New Technologies (NT) Program, located in a Francophone high school in

an urban area in the Province of Quebec, Canada. As within the Province of Quebec, French, not

English, is the official language, English as a second language is taught as a compulsory school

subject in Francophone schools, starting in the elementary grades. The NT program was housed

in a high school along with the regular high school program. Students attending this high school

were primarily white, middle class students of French origin.

WithinanNTprogramclassroom,students, seated ingroups of threeor fourat largesquare tables,

worked with laptop computers, which were plugged into a central socket. As the school was

networked, students could submit assignments to the teacher electronically as well as access files in

the teachers or classmates computers. Students were individually connected to the Internet andhad

S. Parks et al. / Journal of Second Language Writing 14 (2005) 233258 235

2 The teacher wished to be identified. Names of students are pseudonyms.

access to a variety of resources including a laser printer, scanner, LCD projector (for PowerPoint

presentations), a digital camera, and CD-ROMS. Although students coming into the program had to

indicate an interest in working with computers, in most instances their knowledge was limited to

basic word processing skills. Continuity between the home-school environment was facilitated by

the fact that students owned their computers and had home access to the Internet. In addition to an

ICT-rich environment, the program featured project-based teaching with extensive work in teams

and ESL Language Arts classes, which, compared to the regular ESL classes, placed greater

emphasis on reading and writing. Starting off in the ESL Language Arts classes in Grade 7, most

students proficiency was in the elementary to low intermediate ranges.

The History of Theatre project

The History of Theatre project featured in the title of this article took place in the Grade 10

ESL Language Arts class during the second half of the school year. The teacher of this class,

Mark, had previously taught these students ESL Language Arts in Grades 7 and 8. Of particular

note in regard to this teacher is that he very much favored the use of the writing process, had first

introduced it to the students in Grade 7, and used it consistently since then as a component of all

his projects which involved writing. For the present project, students working in teams of 4 or 5

had to create a Web site which featured the History of Theatre in terms of how it evolved from

Antiquity to present day. Information for the project had to be mainly obtained via research on the

Internet. To focus the project, the teacher provided a list of topics which the team as a group had

to cover. The assignment, as it appeared on the teachers Web site for the course, is provided in

Appendix A.

From a research perspective, what we found of particular interest was the fact that for the first

time since Mark had had the students in Grade 7, he declared that, to carry out the project, they

would basically be on their own, notably in terms of how they dealt with the writing process. In

regard to revising, although they were expected to get feedback, he would not give them any

criteria or tell them when to do it. He suggested they could, if they wished, simply get feedback

on paper (instead of doing it in their usual manner on their computers). In terms of research, the

project as presented by the teacher provided a naturally occurring context a telling case

(Mitchell, 1984; Putney, Green, Dixon, Duran, & Yeager, 2000) in which to ascertain how and

to what degree students would actually make use of the writing process when left to their own

devices.

Theoretical framework

Within this paper, learning/cognition is more generally situated within Vygotskian and Neo-

Vygotskian theorizing, in particular Engestroms (1991) version of activity theory, Tharps

(1993) views on the relationship between curricular innovation and activity systems, and Coles

(1995) garden-as-culture metaphor (like culture, a garden is dependent on the larger ecological

system in which it is embedded). Within this perspective, schooling itself is viewed as a culturally

situated activity; the way schooling is enacted and what students might ultimately learn (the

outcomes) are specific to the milieu in which the learning takes place. (For more details

concerning the NT Program and teachers views on teaching, including those of the ESL

Language Arts teacher, Mark, featured herein, see Parks, Huot, Hamers, & H.-Lemonnier, 2003)

For the purpose of the present paper, we would like to focus on the following constructs: tools,

mediation, and individual agency.

S. Parks et al. / Journal of Second Language Writing 14 (2005) 233258236

Tools

Within Vygotskian theory (Vygotsky, 1978; Wertsch, 1998), the construct tools refer, on the

one hand, to material tools (e.g., hammers, pencils, computer programs) and, on the other, to

psychological tools (notably in terms of language/discourse). Within the present study, the

writing process is viewed as a psychological tool which is enacted, notably in conjunction with

the material tools as provided by the laptop computers, software programs, and Internet resources

available to the students. Depending on the shape tools take, they may variously enable or

constrain the activity being engaged in by an individual, a dual attribute characterized by van Lier

(2000) in terms of affordances. Within Engestroms (1991) version of activity theory (Fig. 1),

tools are selected by the individual (the subject) in function of the latters goals. However, the

availability of tools, as well as the affordances which may regulate their use, depends on aspects

of the broader social context (the lower part of the triangle in terms of the rules, the community,

and the division of labor). Thus, for example, the way and degree to which students might use

computers during text production may be very different in schools with computers located in

laboratories with limited access compared to the school featured in the NT program where the

technology was available at all times.

Mediation

Within a Vygotskian perspective, learning/cognition involves the appropriation of cultural

tools as neophytes interact with the more expert members of a particular community. As

neophytes become more able to perform the targeted activity, they are said to move from other-

regulated to self-regulated activity (Vygotsky, 1978; Wertsch, 1998). This process is facilitated

through scaffolding (Bruner, 1975; Cazden, 1988), which refers to the way the environment may

be structured in order to facilitate learning. In the context of the present study, scaffolding can

variously be provided by the particular way the teacher has structured the task at hand, the

support provided to students during interaction with teachers or more expert others (peers, adults

outside the classroom, etc.), or the support afforded through students interaction with cultural

tools in the form of artifacts (e.g., dictionaries, online resources such as electronic translators,

information on Web sites). In order to capture the complex relationship between individual

cognition and embodied experience, Lave and Wenger (1996) aptly refer to the person-in-

activity-with-the-socioculturally-mediated-world.

Individual agency

As suggested in Engestroms version of activity theory (Fig. 1), an important aspect in terms

of the nature of the learning (outcomes) which might emerge within the context of a given activity

pertains to how the individual (subject) orients to the activity, i.e., the degree to which he/she

S. Parks et al. / Journal of Second Language Writing 14 (2005) 233258 237

Fig. 1. Engestroms (1991) model of an activity system.

engages in or resists it (Gillette, 1994; Parks, 2000a, 2001; Parks & Raymond, 2004; Raymond &

Parks, 2002; Smagorinsky & ODonnell-Allen, 2000). With respect to the writing process, for

example, individuals, due to factors related to their personal histories and underlying

motivations, may vary in terms of the degree to which they may elect to use it. Such a stance may

be reflected in their words/discourse (what they say about it) as well as in observable actions.

Within a school context, it is also useful in this regard to refer to Coughlin and Duffs (1994)

distinction between a task and an activity, the former referring to the activity as blueprint, as

envisaged by the teacher, and the latter to the way an individual, in relation to his or her own

goals, might actually engage in it. In regard to engagement, Nortons (1997) notion of investment,

with its emphasis on the way individuals are positioned within specific social contexts, is also

instructive.

In considering the mediated nature of learning from within a sociocultural perspective, it is

further important to understand that tools are constructed by the members of a given community

of practice both individually and collectively across time and events. As tools are variously

introduced into the community, they become available as resources for future activities. As

Putney et al. (2000) point out, To understand both individual and collective development, it is

necessary to understand the historical dimensions of the group and the relationship among its

members, as well as historically developed opportunities for learning constructed by and

afforded members (p. 104). Viewed from this perspective, the analysis of the History of Theatre

project a telling case sheds light on the degree to which by Grade 10 enacting the writing

process within an ICT environment had become, as we will discuss below, a highly regulated,

routine cultural practice. However, to more fully appreciate the historically transformative

process involved in this appropriation, we will focus on activities involving the writing process at

earlier points in the students development in Grades 7 and 8.

Methodology

Although our more comprehensive research project included other classes and schools, data

for the present article primarily draws on an ethnography involving students from Grades 710 in

the ESL Language Arts course of the NT Program. In conducting this research, general

guidelines were adapted from such researchers as Miles and Huberman (1994) and Merriam

(1988); however, in acknowledgement of the heuristic aspect of research methods (Parks, 2005),

specific strategies were also resorted to in function of the research questions and the affordances

encountered during field work. During each year of the project, a minimum of two projects were

observed from each grade. Data were obtained through in-class observation (field notes);

videotaping of work in teams; interviews, both formal and informal, with teachers and students;

and collection of various documents, including samples of students work. All interviews and

relevant video segments were transcribed. Data were analyzed in function of the research

questions. For the most part, this consisted of identifying relevant thematic segments. Depending

on the question focused on, various data sources could also be triangulated (e.g., accounts of

methodology which surfaced in field notes, videotaped segments, and examples of students

work; evidence of students commitment to revising as reflected in interviews, videotaped

segments of work in progress, written comments given during peer review on paper or in

electronic documents). The present paper was also provided to the classroom teacher for

comment and validation.

Of particular note for the History of Theatre project is that two teams were observed and

videotaped by two researchers, one for each team, during the entire project. The project, which

S. Parks et al. / Journal of Second Language Writing 14 (2005) 233258238

took place over a period of approximately three weeks, involved eight 75-min periods. The

teams were selected taking into consideration the following criteria: inclusion of one or more

focal students with whom we had worked with more extensively since Grade 7 and willingness

to be observed. Team A consisted of three focal students, Fernand, Pierre and Edouard, in

addition to Frederic, Jerome, and Marcel; of these, Marcel, did not wish to participate. Team B

involved two focal students, Georges and Michel, as well as Alexandre, Vivienne and Bernard.

During the project, students worked either in their classroom or in an adjoining smaller room

where the printer and scanner were located; as students had laptops, they could easily move

these to the other room. Students variously worked alone, in pairs, or small groups. In keeping

with the classroom rules, they were allowed to move around and consult with each other, as

necessary. Due to this more complicated mode of interaction, decisions had to be made by the

researchers in terms of where to focus their attention, especially in regard to videotaping. In

general, however, these decisions were based on team members activity, especially in regard to

focal students active involvement in the writing process. During the project, two students

Alexandre and Bernard were away during most of it on a class trip for English in Vancouver,

where they were paired with English-speaking peers and stayed with the latters families. In

addition to informal exchanges during the project, formal interviews were conducted with

four students from Team A (Edouard, Fernand, Frederic, Pierre) and three from Team B

(Alexandre, Georges, Michel).

Results

In this section we will address the three research questions previously evoked, the first one

pertaining to evidence which suggests that students moved over time toward increased

appropriation of the writing process in the context of text production activities in an ICT-rich

environment, the second focused on the issue of individual variation amongst learners in terms of

how they oriented toward the use of the writing process, and the third one dealing with how the

teacher perceived their ability to appropriate the writing process over time.

Research question 1: appropriation of the writing process (Grades 710)

As evidence of students increased appropriation of the writing process over time in an ICT-

rich environment, we draw on three data sources: 1. students descriptions of the writing process

(metalinguistic knowledge), 2. researchers observations of students ability to enact the writing

process in an ICT-rich environment in the context of the Grade 10 History of Theatre project, and

3. researchers observations of the way the teachers more careful structuring of such activities in

Grades 7 and 8 facilitated students participation and ultimate appropriation. With respect to the

last two data sources, we wish to show more specifically how the relatively high degree of self-

regulation exhibited in Grade 10 was, in fact, the outcome of experiences within this learning

community in previous grades where activities were more guided and where over time tools and

resources were individually and collectively developed and explored (Putney et al., 2000).

Students description of the writing process: evidence of metalinguistic knowledge

One form of evidence pertaining to students appropriation of the writing process concerned

their ability to describe the writing process. Students confirmed that prior to starting Grade 7 they

were not familiar with this process. However, as reflected in the excerpts below from interviews

S. Parks et al. / Journal of Second Language Writing 14 (2005) 233258 239

conducted with Georges and Michel in Grade 10, by this point in their program students were

typically very familiar with the steps and could readily describe them:

Georges: First you find your subject, if you have your subject you can do a brainstorming,this can be interesting, ah but for make your brainstorming, sometime you can go searchon Internet before to have an idea what is your subject, and after an outline, if you reallyneed to do an outline you can do it but sometime its not useful, after you start your roughcopy, you make your text but you dont care about the mistake and the structure de phrase(sentence structure), and after you can have a feedback, some correction of your friend. . . .And after its your rough copy 2 you can you start to correct your structure of the sentenceand your mistake and all that, and after you can show your text to another friend to have

feedback, what he think about, and its your final copy.

Michel: The writing process is to applies when you have to write a text, the first thing youhave to do is a brainstorming, thats something where you write all the ideas that comeinto your head, after that you have to do an outline, thats for planify (plan) your text, afterthat you have to write the rough copy 1 and you may take feedback from peers who mayhelp you to correct some mistakes or, or something on the content of your text and after you

may recreate your text with basing yourself on this feedback and after receive anotherfeedback from your peers that correct all your mistakes for correct your final copy after.Interviewer: And how about the teacher? Does the teacher have a role in there, in terms of

feedback?

Michel: Yeah, sometimes.

As evidenced in the excerpts, not only could students describe the steps, a form of declarative

knowledge, but the labels used to identify the steps (highlighted in bold in the excerpts, e.g.,

writing process, rough copy) are indicative of metalinguistic knowledge. It is further important to

note that the steps and terms evoked by the students echo the language and pedagogical practices

repeatedly enacted by their teacher, Mark, during the three years he had these students and thus

reflect students appropriation of the teachers discourse.

Students enactment of the writing process in an ICT-rich environment in the Grade 10

History of Theatre project: evidence of self-regulation

As reflected in Table 1, our observations of the two teams focused on during the History of

Theatre project suggest that, at this point in their schooling, students had become very adept at

integrating the writing process into their work in an ICT-rich environment. Of particular note in

this regard is the fact that ICTs were in evidence at each phase of the writing process and were not

limited to word processing. ICT tools resorted to included the teachers Web site for checking out

project requirements or resources, the networked environment for exchanging texts with peers or

sending them to the teacher, various Word functions for composing and revising, bookmarks for

saving Web site addresses, MSN messenger for exchanging Web site addresses or conferring

about the task, and software for the creation of Web sites.

In terms of the way the teams went about carrying out their projects, two further points are of

note. First, as had been observed on many previous occasions, faced with such a project, team

members first discussed amongst themselves how to divide up the work. As in this case, the

teacher had identified 11 topics which had to be covered in their final document (e.g., theatres

origins in Ancient Greece, the first performances), and team members negotiated how they could

S. Parks et al. / Journal of Second Language Writing 14 (2005) 233258240

S. Parks et al. / Journal of Second Language Writing 14 (2005) 233258 241

Table 1

The writing process and ICT tool use during the History of Theatre project

Writing process ICT tools

Allocation of tasks amongst

team members

Teachers Web site

Consultation to check out project requirements

Researching the topic MSN messenger (chat)

Exchange of Web sites within team or with students in other teams

Internet

Search engine (Google): use of key words to search for information

Notes taken from Web sites and saved in Word documents with two windows open

Copying/pasting of information/images

Use of translator, Babylone, to understand unknown words/phrases

while reading

Bookmarks for favorite sites

Composing/

revising/editing texts

Word

Creating documents

Revising/editing

Word function: statistics

Checking of number of words

Word function: grammar/spellchecker

Changing from French to English version, option Canadian English

Word function: tracking

Comments for editing/revising

Word function: hyperlink notes

Comments for editing/revising

Word function: formatting

Use of graphic resources during composing or to distinguish feedback from

authors text (e.g., different colored fonts, bold, italics, capitals, highlighting in

different colors, underlining, bullets)

Internet translator: Babylone

Translation of words/phrases

Publishing the project Web expert 5

Paint shop pro

Photoshop

Task management Windows operating system

Creation of files and folders

Network: sharing work with team members/teacher

MSN messenger (chat)

Questions/comments re: assignment

Diskettes

Copying/exchange of documents

Printer

Printing of documents

Emails

Messages

Attachments

be divided up, taking into account the workload of those in charge of creating the Web sites.

However, what is of particular interest is that once students had individually started doing their

research, they realized that some of the topics overlapped. Following this realization (Day 2 of

the project), each team in its own way met, discussed, and reallocated topics to avoid redundancy

in the final presentation of their work. In Team A, team members were quickly convened to a

meeting by Fernand where the problem was raised and the tasks redistributed. In the case of Team

B, two subteams were created, each responsible for a certain number of topics that the members

of the respective subteams then had to allocate amongst themselves. Such renegotiation of

content not only provided evidence of students sensitivity to the rhetorical aspects of their texts

but also the ability to collaborate and function within a team, aspects of their program which had

been stressed since Grade 7.

A second point pertains to the composing and revising process. Although Table 1 provides

insight into the resources generally resorted to, a finer breakdown of how individual team

members used the latter to produce their texts is provided in Table 2. The analysis presented in

this table features a taxonomy of four types of mediational processes: joint collaboration, parallel

collaboration, incidental collaboration, and covert collaboration (Parks et al., 2003).3 These

mediational processes, with identification of the way they emerged in the context of the students

project, are defined as follows:

1. Joint collaboration. This refers to two or more writers working on the same text who assume

equal responsibility for its production in terms of official authorship, although individual

contributions to the finished product may vary. In the present project, the feedback provided by

team members on each others drafts was considered as joint collaboration, as all students were

co-authors of the final project and evaluated by the teacher as a group.

2. Parallel collaboration. This refers to two or more writers who, although working on the same

text, do not assume equal responsibility for its production in terms of official authorship,

although, as in Joint Collaboration, individual contributions to the final product may vary. In

terms of the History of Theatre project, of particular note in this regard is the feedback on a text

given by those who were not part of the team (e.g., the teacher or a family member).

3. Incidental collaboration. This refers to generally brief, spur-of-the moment requests for help

directly related to the writing task at hand. Within the present project, such requests for help

were frequent; they were facilitated by the physical arrangement of the class, especially the

fact that students were seated four to a table, at times side by side, with laptops with screens to

display texts, flexible classroom rules which allowed students to talk to each other and move

about, and a pedagogical approach which encouraged sharing.

4. Covert collaboration. Covert collaboration primarily refers to the writers use during text

production of artefacts (e.g., documents, visuals). In the present project, covert collaboration

was, for example, involved when, for purposes of initial composing or revising, students had

recourse to information from Internet sites, electronic translators (e.g., Babylone), spelling

checkers, dictionaries (paper or electronic), notes, or a computer graphic. On occasion,

artefact use could be quite complex, as illustrated by the computer graphic of a stage in a

theatre that ultimately appeared in Team As Web site. Observation of the team revealed that

this graphic, originally created by Alexandre based on notes from the teachers mini-talk, had

been handed on to Georges, who used it to guide his description of the stage.

S. Parks et al. / Journal of Second Language Writing 14 (2005) 233258242

3 The four processes identified were adapted from Witte (1992); for changes, see Parks et al. (2003).

As can be observed in Table 2, the texts produced by individual students, in addition to being

mediated by more than one type of collaborative process, also varied in the way their authors

made use of the tools/resources available to them. More specifically, with respect to revising,

students were observed to have variously obtained feedback on their drafts from peers, the

teacher, or more expert others outside the classroom. In this regard, the case of Alexandre is

particularly noteworthy. Due to the availability of computer and Internet resources, while away

on his student trip, he was able to continue working on his part of the project. Not only did he seek

out feedback from his host family, but also, via email, obtained it from one of his team members

back home and even a Francophone uncle living in the US.

In terms of the way students gave feedback, despite the fact that the teacher mentioned they

could give it on paper, a practice he was at times prone to, the students for their part all opted to do

so electronically, using tools and strategies which the researchers had previously observed in

other projects. In this regard, all the students, except Edouard, inserted comments directly into

the text itself and at the end. To distinguish their comments from the writers, they resorted to a

variety of resources available in Word, including colors and fonts of different types, italics, bold,

underlining, and highlighting. At times, a text would first be sent to one peer for feedback, then,

S. Parks et al. / Journal of Second Language Writing 14 (2005) 233258 243

Table 2

Types of collaboration engaged in during the History of Theatre project

Student Type of collaboration

Jointa Parallela Incidental Covert

Particular All students

Edouard Teacher #1 Yes Task on teachers

Web site

Fernand Teacher #1 Yes

Pierre Edouard #1 Teacher #2 Yes

Frederic Edouard #2 Yes Internet Web sites

Michel Georges #1, #2 Yes

Georges Michel #1, #2 Yes Alexandres

stage graphic

Internet translator Babylone

Vivienne #1, #2

Alexandre Vivienne #1 Uncle in US #1,

#2 (email)

Yes Notes from

teachers

mini-talk

re: stage

Word spelling checker

(Canadian English)

Host family in

Vancouver

(school trip)

Paper dictionaries

Vivienne Michel #1 Marc/student #2 n.d. n.d. n.d.

Georges #1, #2

Bernard Georges #1 Paul/student #1, #2 n.d. n.d. n.d.

Jerome Edouard #1 Father n.d. n.d. n.d.

Marcel #1 & #2b n.d. n.d. n.d.

n.d. = not determined.a #1 and #2 refer to rough copies 1 and 2, respectively. Feedback in the first instance generally pertained to content and

in the second to language.b Although Marcel did get feedback on his drafts, the process part of his assignment was not submitted to the teacher.

replete with the formers comments, to another for more feedback. In such instances, subsequent

peers would distinguish their comments through the use of a different colored font or other

strategy. In the case of Edouard, who had given feedback to three peers, the Word tracking

function had been resorted to for editing (errors crossed out in red, corrections written in blue),

with comments pertaining to content typed in at the end of the draft. As revealed by the comments

on their drafts, all students had received at least some feedback for both content and language and

made use of it to varying degrees.

Students enactment of the writing process in an ICT-rich environment in Grades 7 and 8:

evidence of other-regulation

In the previous section, the way students went about completing the History of Theatre project

demonstrated that by the second half of Grade 10 they were able to engage in the writing process

in an ICT-rich environment in a highly regulated manner. However, to more fully appreciate how

individual learning evolved over time as tools were collectively introduced and explored (Putney

et al., 2000), it is instructive to retrospectively examine how tasks from previous years were in

fact structured by the teacher to provide scaffolding for learners who were less autonomous. To

this end, we will briefly focus on one team project from Grade 7 involving the production of a

pamphlet on how to use the dictionary in English and another from Grade 8 involving the

organization of a trip to Vancouver.

The Grade 7 dictionary project was the first one involving the integration of the writing

process. As a prelude to writing, the teacher first engaged students in a series of activities to help

them develop skill in looking up words and interpreting dictionary entries (e.g., abbreviations for

parts of speech, selection of the meaning of words in function of their context of use). To facilitate

the creation of the pamphlet from an organizational perspective, the teacher provided them with

an outline of the topics, which students copied off the board and stored in a computer file; as at

this point the teacher was also explicitly focusing on the organizational aspects of computer files,

he told students how to label them for ease of access. To ensure that all team members contributed

to the actual writing of the pamphlet, the topics had to be divided up amongst them. During the

composing of their initial first drafts (referred to as rough copy 1), they were encouraged, as

necessary, to consult with and help each other. Once the first draft was completed, students

printed out their individual parts, assembled them, and handed in a complete team paper version

that was submitted to the teacher for feedback.

For this first round of feedback, the teachers comments pertained to content (e.g., requests for

examples, clarification) and were written on the draft by hand. By way of additional support, the

teacher also met with each team for a conferencing session to ensure that his comments had been

understood. Following this, students worked both individually and collaboratively to make the

required revisions. In contrast to rough copy #1, rough copy #2 had to be deposited in the

teachers computer via the network as a single file with a header, a technical challenge for the

students at this point on both counts. For rough copy #2, the focus of the feedback was language.

As students were not familiar with the Word tracking function which the teacher wished to use to

give feedback, he first instructed them in its use. With their laptops open, he had students locate it

in the Tools menu, then explained the various options. After having them set the color to red for

deletions and blue for additions, he had them practice using it on an e-pal letter they had been

working on. As in the practice session, feedback for rough copy #2 was given with errors crossed

out in red and corrections written in blue. Although to obtain the final copy students merely

needed to click to make all the recommended changes, they were asked individually and in teams

S. Parks et al. / Journal of Second Language Writing 14 (2005) 233258244

to read them over and make an effort to understand them. Along with the final copy, students

had to place all the drafts and other documents related to the text production process in a single

file (a technical and organizational challenge at this stage) and deposit it in the teachers

computer via the network. Following this, students were also further guided in terms of how to

make columns and publish their text as a brochure. At each stage of the process, the teacher

explicitly told students what labels to use to refer to the writing process (rough copy #1, final

copy, etc.).

For the Grade 8 project, students in teams of three or four had to plan a 14-day trip to

Vancouver aimed at students their age. To complete the project, each team member had to be

involved in doing research for and in writing up a part of the report, which had to obtain a

description of activities for each day of the trip as well as the itinerary and information pertaining

to transportation, lodging, meals, and cost. Using the Internet, students had to ensure that the

information in the report was factual (e.g., real hotels with actual prices for rooms, real

restaurants, real places they could visit). In terms of the first draft (rough copy 1), feedback

focused on content with students explicitly asked to check whether the information requested for

the report had been included and whether they judged it adequate. To give feedback, teams were

asked to exchange their texts (on a diskette or via the network) and each team member wrote

comments directly into the twinned teams Word documents. The resulting comments were

inserted within the body of the text and/or at the end with different colored fonts and graphic

resources such as bold or italics used to distinguish various respondents feedback (who also gave

their names). Following this, a team document with the peer feedback was forwarded to the

teacher who added his own (in a distinct color with his name). The combined feedback for a given

document was subsequently returned to the team, who then worked both individually and

collectively to revise it and produce a new version, labelled rough copy 2.

For the second round of feedback which dealt primarily with language, rough copy 2 was sent

directly to the teacher via the network. Feedback on this draft was given by the teacher using a

combination of the Word tracking and the Word hypertext note function for comments. In

contrast to the Grade 7 project, however, in most instances only hints were given as to the nature

of the problem (e.g., verb, preposition, article). For the purpose of editing, teams were explicitly

instructed to work together with the text displayed on one laptop computer screen, to discuss the

feedback, and to make the changes collectively. As the teacher announced to the students in class:

one computer, four people doing the correction together, four heads together is much more

intelligent than one head. While doing the editing, tools students resorted to included on-line

dictionaries, the translator Babylone, and paper dictionaries (EnglishFrench bilingual and

EnglishEnglish dictionaries). The edited version, labelled final copy, was submitted to the

teacher via the network in a single file along with all other documents (prior drafts,

brainstorming, etc.) related to the text production process. As a final step in this project, students

were invited to vote on the best trip. To this end, teams moved from one table to another reading

over the reports displayed on the laptop screens, discussing each in turn, and taking brief notes to

justify their choices. Based on the results of this vote, the two class favourites were featured on

the teachers Web site.

Although for the trip to Vancouver project scaffolding was provided by the teacher in a

number of ways (e.g., guiding students through the various steps of text production, providing for

both peer and teacher feedback on content, etc.), compared to the Dictionary Pamphlet project,

students also had to assume more responsibility and autonomy. As reflected in Table 3, which

highlights selected aspects of the review process, over time students moved toward increased

self-regulation. This discussion of writing activities from various grades also suggests how,

S. Parks et al. / Journal of Second Language Writing 14 (2005) 233258 245

S.

Pa

rkset

al./Jo

urn

al

of

Seco

nd

La

ng

uag

eW

riting

14

(20

05

)2

33

2

58

24

6Table 3

Overview of selected aspects of writing process in ICT-rich environment as students moved over time to increased self-regulation

Writing process Type of regulation

Other-regulation (high) Other-regulation (moderate) Self-regulation

Grade 7 pamphlet Grade 8 trip to Vancouver Grade 10 History of Theatre

Steps Told by teacher when/how to proceed Told by teacher when/how to proceed Decided themselves

Labels (e.g., rough

copy #1)

Told what labels to use Used labels without difficulty Used labels without difficulty

Revising (content) Team paper version handed in to teacher Teams exchanged documents on diskettes or

via network; team document sent to teacher

via network

Individual team members responsible for taking

initiative to get comments from peers, teacher

or others outside class via various means

(diskettes, network, email).

Comments written in by hand Collective comments given in Word document

using variety of graphic resources to

distinguish each respondent

Comments given on individual basis in Word

document using graphic resources, Word

tracking, or hyperlink notes

Teacher conferencing with each group

to ensure comments understood

Teacher available as resource, but encouraged

use of other resources

Teacher available as resource

Students worked individually and

collectively to revise text

Students worked individually and collectively

to revise text

Students responsible for revising their own parts

Editing (language) Word tracking functionstudents shown

by teacher how to use it step-by-step

Comments given by teacher only Comments given by teacher only Individual team members responsible for taking

initiative to get comments from peers, teacher or

others outside class via various means (diskettes,

network, email)

Means: Word tracking function Means: Word tracking in combination with

hyperlink notes

Means: comments typed into Word document

using graphic resources, Word tracking,

hyperlink notes.

Students worked individually and

collectively to understand the comments

Teams worked collectively to understand

and edit text

Individual team members responsible

for editing their parts

To create final copy, students clicked to

accept or refuse comments

Errors cued (could not simply click)

within this particular school setting, opportunities to use the tools required to enact (and re-enact)

this cultural practice were in evidence and gradually appropriated across time and events.

Research question 2: orientation to use of the writing process (Grade 10)

Although the seven students interviewed at the end of the Grade 10 History of Theatre project

all emphasized the fact that their basic understanding of the writing process in terms of the steps

(brainstorming, outline, rough copies, etc.) had not changed since it was first introduced by Mark

in Grade 7, their ease in implementing it and personal investment had. Whereas initially students

may have carried out the steps merely to comply with the teachers requests, with greater

experience they came to more truly appreciate how this tool could enable them to achieve a better

final written product. Thus, as noted, for example, by Edouard, even though his understanding of

the steps had not changed since Grade 7, by Grade 10 he felt more at ease with the process: now

I know the writing process by heart. More importantly, however, was his acknowledgement that

beyond a level of technical mastery, what had changed was his personal commitment to it (. . . toagree to do it has changed). As for Alexandre, he reported that initially he would engage only

superficially. Not seeing the usefulness of the brainstorming and outlines, he would skip over

them and start in with the first draft; whereas previously, he would be negligent in keeping track

of items related to the process, he now made sure everything was placed in his (electronic) folder.

In addition to the above comments, however, another and perhaps more important indication

of their level of investment pertained to the fact that these students were using and adapting

aspects of the writing process in other courses in instances where the teachers had not asked them

to do so. In discussing this issue, Michel, for example, replied as follows:

Interviewer: Ah ok in other classes do you do the writing process like you do it in Marks

class?

Michel: Ah a little in French, but not on paper. I do that in my head. The brainstorming isin my head, the outline is in my head and the rough copy number 1 and 2 are on paper.Interviewer: The teacher doesnt tell you to do these things?

Michel: No.

Interviewer: But you do it because youve done them in Marks class?Michel: Hm no. Because it is useful to write (for writing) a text, if you want to write agood text, you have to create a rough copy number 1 and correct it so it comes to rough

copy number 2.

Interviewer: (checking again) But youre not told to do this in French class.

Michel: No.

Interviewer: But youve taken this from English class and youve kind of transferred it.Michel: Kind of.

Interviewer: Ok. Ah do you ever inthe teachers I take it they dont ask you to exchange

copies, do you do that anyways, do you get feedback from other people?

Michel: Sometimes. That depends on the importance of the project or the text, if its reallyimportant I will get feedback from others but if its not I dont use that.Interviewer: And when you get feedback from others, lets say for something important,

how do you do itdo you write comments or?

Michel: Yeah, he gave me his comments on my text and I gave him my comments on his

text.

Interviewer: Do you do it verbally or in writing?

S. Parks et al. / Journal of Second Language Writing 14 (2005) 233258 247

Michel: Verbally.Interviewer: Just verbally. But you still use some of these strategies in other classes. Ok.

Why do you think the other teachers dont do the writing process?Michel: Cause its not too useful. What they want is the final text, how we do it they dontcare about how we do it, they just want the final product.

Interviewer: But you find doing the process helps you get a better final product?Michel: Yeah.

In terms of Michels personal investment in the writing process, what is of particular note in

this excerpt is that he actually rejected the interviewers assertion that he was integrating the

writing process into other classes because he had done it in the English teachers class and

insisted that, on the contrary, he was doing so because he found it useful to achieve his personal

goal of producing a better final product. In terms of adaptations, students, as reported by Michel,

typically gave each other feedback orally. In this regard, as he pointed out, they would simply

exchange seats and read over each others texts on their laptop computer screens. Although in

Marks course students were asked to keep track of documents related to the writing process and

hand them in at the end of a project, such was not the case in other classes. Thus, as indicated by

Michel, a more flexible approach to the writing process emerged (e.g., deciding to use it or not,

doing brainstorming or the outline in ones head). Although Michel here explicitly mentions

keeping two distinct drafts (rough copies 1 and 2), other students more typically simply did

revisions on the same text, a procedure facilitated by Word processing. In Michels comments, his

reference to how other teachers only valued the final products suggests how the actions of

teachers implicitly shape students perceptions of what is important in learning. The fact that in

view of such perceptions students on their own incorporated aspects of the writing process into

their production of texts in other classes further underscored their personal investment in it.

Research question 3: the teachers perception of students appropriation of the writing

process over time

In terms of students appropriation of the writing process, their teacher, Mark, was keenly

aware that the latters personal investment in it was an important factor and that this investment

could change over time. Although from a pedagogical point of view, Mark had students engage in

the whole process from Grade 7, his expectations as to the way they engaged in it varied in

function of their grade level. Whereas in Grades 7 and 8 students initial investment could be

quite superficial (students might be merely going through the motions), with repeated practice

and involvement, he anticipated that they would eventually come to understand how this process

could be personally useful to them. As reflected in the following excerpt, this confidence in how

students might ultimately invest more deeply in the writing process was borne out and confirmed

by his own observations as to how students evolved over time through high school, including the

cohort under investigation in the present study:

In secondary 1 (Grade 7) and 2 (Grade 8), its very much for them, from the student point of

view or from my point of view, its them going through the motions (. . .) I havent tailoredit (the writing process) or tapered or saved elements until secondary 4 (Grade 10), it was

pretty much all there in secondary 1 or 2, the extent to which they need to develop it is what

changes, like in secondary 1 (Grade 7) and 2 (Grade 8) feedback is like basically did they

respond, did they answer the question properly in their text so you know if the kids off

base then the other one tells them so, hopefully hell correct it, but then its kind of like

S. Parks et al. / Journal of Second Language Writing 14 (2005) 233258248

youre going through the motions and I think thats where, somewhere inside them, they see

that its kind of futile in secondary 1 (Grade 7) and 2 (Grade 8) or that it doesnt (imitating

in French what students might say) ca sert a` rien a` faire le processus decriture, mon final

est pareil et puis [the writing process is a waste of time, my final (draft) is the same and so]

but basically as a teacher you kind of stick to your guns because as a teacher you know

that further down the line is where it actually comes and Ive had some of them actually say

(in Grade 10) that they use it now in their other subjects and any time they have to write

theyre using some or all of it because theyve started to realize that their final version is

much better.

As Mark also pointed out, his efforts to get students to engage more deeply in the writing

process could be fraught with tensions; as he put it, he at times had to fight with them in this

regard. Specifically, in regard to Grade 10, one of these points of tension pertained to students

attitudes toward feedback in terms of whether or not they were contenting themselves with

merely getting feedback in a perfunctory way to comply with the task, or whether they were

challenging themselves to seek out and make use of substantive feedback in ways which could

lead to significant changes in the quality of their writing. As reflected in the excerpt below, this

more substantive feedback was what he referred to as legitimate feedback, a term which he also

used with the students:

. . . the thing I have to get them to understand at this age or in secondary 4 (Grade 10) is thatfeedback is not your friend writing that he likes your text, you know ah feedback is ideas,

suggestions, and suggestions basically means you know suggestions for corrections, so

when somebody underlines a word for you its your responsibility to take that as Im not

sure that this is the good word ah you know and if they write something new thats fine but

youve got to verify both and pick the right answers (. . .) so when say you know weve gotto get two feedbacks, look two people signed at the bottom of my sheet and they both wrote

comments and the comments are like your text, I cant find anything, I dont have any

suggestions thats not feedback I have to fight with them basically through November

and December, saying no you didnt get it, its your responsibility to get two (feedbacks)

and its worded exactly like that on the evaluation form to get legitimate feedback and I said

that this isnt legitimate feedback, this is useless, this is somebody saying you know, giving

you a little pat on the back, you know your text isnt any better for it, and you dont have

any chance to make your text better for it, you know if they get a ton of feedback and they

dont use any of it, thats fine, then Ill sit down and I look at it and maybe my comment

might be well you should have used some of it or maybe youre not open to feedback but

you know thats another battle for later on sort of thing.

Although Mark confirmed that the students in the teams we observed were amongst the

better students and considered both teams as having been generally successful in completing

the assigned projects, differences in regard to the way individual students sought out and used

(legitimate) feedback as a means of improving their writing (in terms of content and

language) appeared to the researchers as an important indicator in terms of whether the focal

students, whom we had greater contact with, could be classified as fully engaged or engaged

more at the level of task compliance. Taking into account this factor as well as information

about the participants from other sources (interviews, observations, teachers comments), we

classified four of the students (Fernand, Edouard, Pierre, Frederic and Alexandre) as fully

engaged and two (Michel and Georges) as engaged but more at the level of complying with

S. Parks et al. / Journal of Second Language Writing 14 (2005) 233258 249

the task. Thus, for example, Fernand, who had solicited feedback from Mark, was observed

by one of the researchers to systematically deal with each and every comment indicated on his

draft. In so doing, he variously resorted to a bilingual dictionary, the translator Babylone (at

times in combination with a dictionary), the teacher (for additional clarification), and on one

occasion the researcher who was observing him. Although in this particular instance Fernand

did not ask a student for help, this was due to time constraints and the fact that, in order to get

feedback from the teacher, he had to hand in his draft by a certain time. As for Mark, he

considered that due to Fernands high level of English, most of the students in the class were

not able to give adequate feedback and resorting to the teacher was essential to helping him

move forward.

In the case of Frederic and Pierre, their desire to obtain substantive feedback was reflected by

the fact that they had asked Edouard, the most advanced student in the class, who took this task

seriously and responded with points related to both content and language. With respect to Pierre,

after attending to Edouards feedback (in his two page, single-spaced document 40 items

primarily involving grammar, word choice, and word order had been identified), he then sought

out additional comments from the teacher. As previously noted, Alexandre not only asked one of

the more conscientious students, Vivienne, for feedback but also sought out feedback from his

host family in Vancouver and his bilingual uncle via email. The attempts by these students to

maximize the feedback they could get stood in contrast to those of certain other students. Despite

the fact that Michel acknowledged his commitment to the writing process and declared he was

proud of the text he had written for this project, he did not appear to take maximum advantage of

the opportunities afforded him to get legitimate feedback. Although he did get feedback on

content and language, in both instances he relied on his friend, Georges, whose ability to give

feedback, despite his goodwill, remained limited due to his level of language proficiency. During

an interview, Michel further acknowledged that his decision not to ask the teacher for feedback

was not due to time constraints but by choice; if given a choice, he generally would not ask the

teacher. Thus, although Michel considered the writing process important, his decision to eschew

opportunities for more substantive feedback suggested a more limited engagement at the level of

task compliance. Indeed, it is noteworthy that his teacher, although acknowledging Michels

investment in the writing process, had nonetheless also pointed out to him the need to seek out

feedback from stronger students.4

Discussion

In this section, we discuss the results reported on from our study in relationship to the

following issues: 1. the development of multiliteracies, 2. the appropriation of the writing

process as a psychological tool, 3. individual differences, and 4. the implications for teaching.

S. Parks et al. / Journal of Second Language Writing 14 (2005) 233258250

4 In terms of the students observed in the two teams, the one student who stood out as being minimally engaged in the

writing process was Marcel. Although Marcel did get feedback from two students and met the deadline for the project in

terms of providing his team with a text for the Web site, he was the only student who failed to hand in the items related to

the process (drafts, feedback, etc). In commenting on the team, the teacher remarked the only weak one is Marcel, but

only weak in work methods, not English, hes very good in English, but hes more of a work fast get it done, not a lot of

investment. As the teacher suspected, he joined that group, I dont think they went and got him; within the program

students were encouraged to seek out team members with complimentary expertise. Indeed, one of the students in his

team explicitly commented on his relative lack of involvement in the project and characterized him generally as a student

who did not wish to work.

Writing process and multiliteracies

Although still relatively inexplored, studies, which attempt to understand why, in specific

educational environments, innovative ICT use may or may not take root, point to a complex

interplay between contextual factors and individual agency as displayed by teachers (Cuban,

1986; Murphy, 2000; Murray, 2000; Sandholz, Ringstaff, & Dwyer, 1997). Thus, for example, in

a rare study which investigated ICT use in an ESL college writing class, Warschauer (1998)

observed that the teachers limited use of the technology at her disposal was influenced by both

her own pedagogical knowledge as well as constraints related to institutional values. By contrast,

as discussed elsewhere (Parks et al., 2003), the high degree of ICT integration observed in the NT

program was supported more broadly by educational values within the Quebec Ministry of

Education, as well as institutionally within the school and the program itself. In view of this, the

case of the ESL Language Arts teacher provides an interesting demonstration of how personal

agency enters into the picture. In this regard, as depicted within Engestroms model of an activity

system (Fig. 1), personal agency (indicated by the inclusion of a subject position) may be

constrained or supported by contextual factors. As a teacher within the ICT program, Mark

distinguished himself in terms of his highly structured and systematic approach to the writing

process, which in students eyes set him apart. However, as a psychological tool introduced into a

larger community of practice favoring ICT use and socioconstructivist/sociocultural pedagogical

approaches, the writing process fit in well.5 As suggested by Tharp (1993), such nested activity

settings favour the successful implementation of curricular innovation.

With regard to the present study and current research involving multiliteracies, two additional

pointsare ofparticularnote.First,despite the innovativenature ofonline exchangesafforded bysuch

media as email and chat, in terms of technological expertise these latter basically situate individuals

within a consumer relationship. By contrast, the NT program involved students in a more active

appropriation of ICT resources, as demonstrated, for example, by their knowledge of Web site

production. Through the building and design of Web sites, students explored, both individually and

collectively, the multimodal potential for meaning-making afforded by these tools (e.g., home page,

hypertext documents and links, graphics). Secondly, the present study contributes to a reenvisioning

of how ICTs can bevariously integrated into thewriting process (Carey, 1999; Spiliotopoulos, 2002,

2003; Sullivan & Pratt, 1996). Although previous studies have tended to focus more on revising and

editing and involve individualwriting assignments, the present studyprovidesa rare exampleofhow

high school students within an ESL Language Arts class developed ability in using ICT resources

throughout all phases of the writing process in the context of a team Web site project. As

demonstrated herein, the final product, which was authored by all members of the team was, in fact,

complexly mediated by four types of collaboration: joint, parallel, incidental, and covert.

Appropriating the writing process: from other- to self-mediated regulation

As in previous research involving adults (Fathman & Whalley, 1990; Hedgcock &

Lefkowitz, 1992; Mendonca & Johnson, 1994; Tang & Tithecott, 1999; Villamil & De

Guerrero, 1996; Zamel, 1983), the present study suggests that L2 high school students can also

S. Parks et al. / Journal of Second Language Writing 14 (2005) 233258 251

5 During the Grade 10 interviews, some of the students retroactively acknowledged that their Grade 7 French L1 teacher

had, in fact, involved them in the writing process to a certain degree. For this teachers views on teaching, see Parks et al.

(2003).

use the writing process to their advantage during text production. However, in contrast to much

of this research, where discussions of mediational processes typically involved a single course

or assignment, the present study focused longitudinally on a four-year time span as students

progressed from Grades 7 to 10. Drawing on Vygotskian and Neo-Vygotskian theory, we

suggest that during this period students appropriation of the writing process was mediated by

the teachers structuring of tasks which allowed for various degrees of scaffolding and guided

participation. Whereas the History of Theatre project demonstrated that by Grade 10 students

engaged in the writing process in a highly self-regulated manner, tasks from Grades 7 and 8

typically required more extensive other-regulation. In terms of a heuristic for conducting

qualitative research (Parks, 2005), this retrospective focusing on activities from different

grades provided insight into how tools were constructed by members of this particular

community of practice both individually and collectively across time and events (Putney et al.,

2000). As educational values, including the writing process, are culturally constructed

(Reichelt, 1997), the present study also sheds light on how students within a North American

school context came to value such a cultural tool.

Individual differences: investment

As suggested by previous research (Conrad & Goldstein, 1999; Coughlin & Duff, 1994;

Gillette, 1994; Haneda, 2000; Parks, 2000a, 2001; Parks & Raymond, 2004; Raymond & Parks,

2002; Smagorinsky & ODonnell-Allen, 2000), regardless of the pedagogical goals articulated

by teachers, another important factor in terms of outcomes for learning pertains to how students

themselves orient to and invest in the task at hand. Although all 11 students completed the two

projects in a satisfactory manner, a closer observation of the focal students revealed that

differences in level of personal investment were in evidence, notably in terms of the degree to

which they sought out and used substantive feedback to improve the content and language of their

texts, what the teacher referred to as legitimate feedback. In this regard, four of the students were

considered fully engaged whereas two were viewed as functioning more at the level of task

compliance. However, beyond the completion of one specific project, as in the case of a limited

number of studies involving adults (Parks & Raymond, 2004; Prior, 1998; Raymond & Parks,

2002; Spack, 2004; Sternglass, 1997; Zamel & Spack, 2004), this study sheds light on the

complex issue of the appropriation of writing processes and engagement when viewed

longitudinally across different contexts for writing and/or time frames of a year or longer.

In respect to the present study, three points are of particular note. First, as a measure of deeper

engagement, the transfer of the writing process to new activity settings (Tharp, 1993) is

noteworthy. Interviews with students and reports by the teacher suggested that by Grade 10 at

least some of the students had begun to adapt and use various aspects of the writing process on

their own in courses other than their English Language Arts class. This more autonomous use of

the writing process suggested that these students had come to understand how the writing process

could be of personal value as a tool in helping them achieve better final written products. In other

words, from an activity system perspective (Engestrom, 1991), in relation to the goal of writing,

students had come to value the writing process as a tool (i.e., resource/strategy) which could be

used to this end. More generally, this study lends support to those who have argued for the need to

understand strategy use and appropriation in relation to how individuals formulate goals within

specific social and institutional contexts (Cumming et al., 2002; Haneda, 2000; Parks, 2000a,

2000b, 2001; Parks & Raymond, 2004; Raymond & Parks, 2002; Spack, 2004; Sternglass, 1997,

2004).

S. Parks et al. / Journal of Second Language Writing 14 (2005) 233258252

The second point which this study illuminates is the time and sustained involvement in activity

settings requiring the use of the writing process which may be necessary in order to get students

to move toward deeper, personal engagement. As the ELA teacher of this study pointed out,

trying to bring high school students to the point where they were personally persuaded of the

usefulness of the writing process could be fraught with tensions. In this regard, the experiences of

this teacher confirm previous research which has suggested that developing competencies within

the zone of proximal development cannot be merely viewed as a simple transfer of knowledge

(Matusov, 1996; Tocalli-Beller, 2003). As suggested by the present study and others (Gillette,

1994; Parks, 2000a; Parks & Raymond, 2004), knowledge of a strategy may be but a first step;

getting the learner to understand the relevance in relation to a social motive/goal may be a far

greater challenge. From the perspective of Bakhtinian (Bakhtin, 1986) theory, such a stance

implies a move from authoritative discourse (what the teacher says, for example) to persuasive

discourse (the degree to which the learner may find the discourse personally meaningful). Finally,

a third point pertains to the teachers stance and his long-term expectations. Although fully

acknowledging the difficulties involved in getting students to appropriate the writing process

more deeply, the teacher held out (stuck) to his guns, as he put it in the anticipation of

students future success, a stance which within sociocultural theory is referred to as prolepsis

(Cole, 1996).

Writing process and implications for teaching

Within the marketplace, the success of the writing process has been such that virtually all

present day textbooks pay homage to it. However, a closer inspection of textbooks, at least those

aimed at academic contexts, largely present a vision of the writer as an individual in charge of

producing a text of which he/she is the sole author. In view of this, it is important to recall that the

process approach to writing, which emerged in the 1980s, is theorized within cognitively framed

paradigms of learning (Flower & Hayes, 1981). In such models, the social, primarily reflected in

regard to the importance accorded to peer and teacher review/conferencing, is still quite limited.

In view of the present study, we consider that a revisioning of both the writing process and text

production in school contexts is called for. First, a notion of authorship which extends to multi-

authored texts needs to be more widely acknowledged. In contrast to traditional approaches to

schooling, which almost invariably involve students in producing single authored texts, teachers

with more socioconstructivist/sociocultural approaches to pedagogy, such as those in the NT

program, may more readily promote pedagogical practices involving collaborative writing or

team projects. Secondly, whereas most textbooks on writing still view text production in terms of

products on paper, greater emphasis needs to be given to multimodal forms (New London Group,

1996; Shetzer & Warschauer, 2000), as demonstrated herein in regard to the team Web site

project. Thirdly, in terms of the writing process, the repertoire of strategy instruction needs to be

expanded to more explicitly provide advice on the use of ICT tools. In particular, more guidance

needs to be given in terms of the ways that such tools can be integrated into all phases of the

writing process (exploring ideas, research, revising, etc.). Finally, as projects are frequently

multi-authored, greater attention needs to be given to strategies for managing work in teams.

Conclusion

In this article, we have discussed how high school students appropriated the writing process in

an ICT-rich environment during their ESL Language Arts courses over a four-year period.

S. Parks et al. / Journal of Second Language Writing 14 (2005) 233258 253

Evidence of this appropriation was reflected in students knowledge of terms and procedures

(metalinguisticknowledge)aswell as in theirability toenact the processduring the Grade10History

of Theatre project, presented as a telling case (Mitchell, 1984; Putney et al., 2000). Retrospective

analysis of the way activities involving the writing process were structured in earlier grades,

especially in regard to the role of scaffolding, served to foreground the historically transformative

nature of the learning process; over time, students ability to enact thewriting process with ICT tools

became increasingly self-regulated. Further evidence of appropriation was provided by the fact that,

by Grade 10, students, on their own, had begun to transfer the use of the writing process to the

completion of assignments in other school subjects, thus suggesting how this cultural tool had come

tobeviewed,notmerelyasacourse requirement,butpersonallyvaluedasameanstoachievethegoal

of producing a better written product. With respect to the teacher, his proleptic stance further

suggested that students appropriation of thewriting processwasmediated notonly at the level of the

type of task but also in terms of his own expectationsas to the nature of their participation. In termsof

future research, more attention needs to be generally given to research involving writing in

longitudinal contexts as well as the way the writing process is being integrated into various ICT

environments, especially in regard to project-based and multi-authored texts.

Acknowledgments

We wish to extend our thanks to the students, teachers and administrators of the school where

this study was carried out. Funding was provided by a joint grant from the Ministry of Education

of the Province of Quebec and the Fonds pour la Formation de Chercheurs et lAide a` la

Recherche (reference 98-NT-0035).

References

Ashwell, T. (2000). Patterns of teacher response to student writing in a multiple-draft composition classroom: is content

feedback followed by form feedback the best method? Journal of Second Language Writing, 9, 227257.

Bakhtin, M.M. (1986). In V.W. McGee (Trans.), C. Emerson, & M. Holoquist (Eds.), Speech genres and other late essays.

Austin: University of Texas Press.

Belz, J. A. (2003). Linguistic perspectives on the development of intercultural competence in telecollaboration. Language

Learning & Technology, 7(2), 68117. Retrieved January 23, 2004, from http://llt.msu.edu/vol7num2/belz/.

Bruner, J. (1975). From communication to language: A psychological perspective. Cognition, 3, 255287.

Carey, S. (1999). The use of WebCt for a highly interactive virtual graduate seminar. Computer Assisted Language

Learning, 12, 371380.

Cazden, C. (1988). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning.. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Cole, M. (1995). Socio-cultural-historical psychology: Some general remarks and a proposal for a new kind of cultural-

genetic methodology. In J. V. Wertsch, P. D. Rio, & A. Alvarez (Eds.), Sociocultural studies of mind. New York:

Cambridge University Press.

Cole, M. (1996). Cultural psychology: A once and future discipline. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Conrad, S. M., & Goldstein, L. M. (1999). ESL student revision after teacher-written comments: Text, contexts, and

individuals. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 147179.

Coughlin, P., & Duff, P. (1994). Same task, different activities: Analysis of SLA task from an activity theory perspective.

In J. P. Lantolf, & G. Appel (Eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second language research (pp. 173191). Norwood, NJ:

Ablex.

Cuban, L. (1986). Teachers and machines: The classroom use of technology since 1920. New York: Teachers College

Press.

Cumming, A. (1989). Writing expertise and second language proficiency. Language Learning, 39, 81141.

Cumming, A., Busch, M., & Zhou, A. (2002). Investigating learners goals in the context of adult second-language

writing. In S. Ransdell, & M.-L. Barbier (Eds.), New directions for research in L2 writing. Dordrecht: Kluwer

Academic Publishers.

S. Parks et al. / Journal of Second Language Writing 14 (2005) 233258254

Cummins, J. (2005). Using information technology to create a zone of proximal development for academic language

learning: A critical perspective on trends and possibilities. In C. Davison (Ed.), Information technology and

innovation in language education (pp. 105126). Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.

Engestrom, Y. (1991). Non scolae sed vitae discimus: Toward overcoming the encapsulation of school learning. Learning

and Instruction, 1, 243259.

Fathman, A., & Whalley, E. (1990). Teacher response to student writings: Focus on form versus content. In B. Kroll (Ed.),

Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp. 178190). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Ferris, D. (1999). The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to Truscott. Journal of Second

Language Writing, 8, 111.

Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). The cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication, 32,

365387.

Furstenberg, G., Levet, S., English, K., & Maillet, K., (2001). Giving a virtual voice to the silent language of culture: The

Cultura project. Language Learning & Technology, 5(1), 55102. Retrieved October 15, 2004, from http://llt.msu.edu/

vol5num1/furstenberg/default.html.

Gillette, B. (1994). The role of learner goals in L2 success. In P. Lantolf, & G. Appel (Eds.), Vygotskian approaches to

second language research (pp. 195213). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Haneda, M. (2000). Negotiating meaning in writing conferences: An investigation of a university Japanese-as-a-foreign

language class. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Department of Curriculum, Teaching and Learning, University of Toronto.

Hass, C. (1996). Writing technology: Studies on the materiality of literacy. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Hawisher, G. E., & Selfe, C. (Eds.). (2000). Global literacies and the World-Wide Web. London: Routledge.

Hedgcock, J., & Lefkowitz, N. (1992). Collaborative oral/aural revision in foreign language writing instruction. Journal of

Second Language Writing, 1, 255276.

Krapels, A. R. (1990). An overview of second language writing process research. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language

writing: Research insights for the classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lam, W. S. E. (2004). Second language socialization in a bilingual chat room: Global and local considerations. Language

Learning & Technology, 8(3), 4465. Retrieved April 30, 2005, from http://llt.msu.edu/vol8num3/lam/default.html.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1996). Practice, person, social world. In H. Daniels (Ed.), An introduction to Vygotsky (pp. 143

151). London: Routledge.

Matusov, E. (1996). Intersubjectivity without agreement. Mind, Culture, and Activity: An International Journal, 3(1), 25

45.

Mendonca, C. O., & Johnson, K. E. (1994). Peer review negotiations: Revision activities in ESL writing instruction.

TESOL Quarterly, 28, 745769.

Merriam, S. B. (1988). Case study research in education: A qualitative approach. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Miles, M., & Huberman, A. (1994). An expanded sourcebook: Qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Mitchell, J. C. (1984). Case studies. In R. F. Ellen (Ed.), Ethnographic research: A guide to general conduct (pp. 237

241). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Muller-Hartmann, A. (2000). The role of tasks in promoting intercultural learning in electronic learning networks.

Language Learning & Technology, 4(2), 129147. Retrieved September 27, 2000, from http://llt.msu.edu/vol4num2/

muller/default.html.

Murphy, E. (2000). Strangers in a strange land: Teachers beliefs abo