Abstract
This design-based study occurred within a writing methods course in an urban teacher education program. We designed an intervention to develop student teachers’ meta-composing strategies, critical thinking, and justice-oriented reflexivity by revising a teacher-as-writer course assignment to achieve two pedagogical goals: (1) synthesizing antiracist and pedagogical content from curated source texts, and (2) explicating racial literacy as future writing teachers of K-6 students. Using discourse synthesis as both an instructional and research method, we analyzed the synthesis outputs of student teachers during a writing assignment designed to communicate their learnings to an intended audience. Outputs included graphic organizers, planning documents, and a range of final products. We employed discourse synthesis to analyze source and synthesis texts through propositionalization, template formation, and thematic categorization, identifying idea unit origins, progression, or omission. Additionally, content and thematic analyses evaluated instructional strategies and materials to assess whether pedagogical objectives were met. Results indicated discourse synthesis instruction facilitated student engagement with antiracism content, such as historical events, systemic trends, and awareness of racist practices in schools. Findings also highlighted areas for improvement, including modifying source texts, revising the teacher-as-writer assignment, and reevaluating assessment practices in antiracist writing pedagogy.
What does it mean to be an antiracist writing teacher? Antiracist writing pedagogy is a curricular methodology requiring that teachers understand language learning alongside specific instructional strategies for teaching writing in the historically racialized practices of schooling (Kendi, 2019). Antiracist writing teachers enact equity-oriented approaches to teaching all students as human beings and leverage understanding of systemic racial and economic injustices to change classroom policies, opinions, or instructional practices (Diab et al., 2013). Through justice-oriented strategies combined with reimagined pedagogy, antiracist writing teachers move beyond passive empathy (Sleeter, 1994) and toward specific understandings of racism and antiracism in connection with concrete decisions surrounding the processes and products of written communication (Condon & Young, 2016). As Paris (2012) explained, antiracist teaching means resisting assumptions embedded in the uses of dominant forms of language, communication, and cultural expression that are often deemed as the norm or standard in educational settings and society at large. These dominant discourses can also work against the inclusion of modalities or dialects that may be judged as non-standard.
In preparing future teachers, specifically in the context of urban teacher education, identifying racism as a form of oppression and intentionally centering equity, justice, and antiracist practices is pivotal in developing teachers’ critical consciousness and antiracist pedagogical practices (Kinloch & Dixon, 2017; Sealey-Ruiz, 2021). Yet, what does it mean to teach racial literacy in the context of one writing methods course? Teacher education is not value-neutral, and each student is oriented to pedagogies differently, especially when their lifetime experiences of school in the United States are standardized toward White language practices (Baker-Bell, 2020). For many student teachers, their first exposure to the concept of systemic racism occurs simultaneously with their acquisition of new knowledge about developmental factors, cognitive processes, and social elements of instruction. In attempting to teach pedagogical practices, we often overwhelm student teachers with a barrage of information about teaching strategies and the “how to’s” of teaching writing while simultaneously asking student teachers to critically question the practices they are attempting to acquire. For these reasons, we approached developing antiracist educators by engaging them in a process of ongoing self-reflection and active engagement in personal writing practices that challenged systemic racism (Sealey-Ruiz, 2021). We understood that student teachers must examine their own biases and privileges while critically analyzing educational structures and learning about culturally responsive and inclusive teaching methods (Gay, 2018). We knew that engaging with antiracist literature and listening to and learning from marginalized voices were important steps (DiAngelo, 2022). Additionally, we attempted to model equity-oriented pedagogies and create a classroom environment that supported all students (Ladson-Billings, 1995). Yet, we also had to teach specific literacy competencies and provide itemized documentation of achievement on state-approved assessment tasks. Therefore, our preparation of antiracist writing teachers was built around interdependent tensions targeted toward student teachers’ knowledge acquisition through specific literacy strategies.
The first tension was the inclusion of explicit antiracist content in a writing methods course. We were compelled to implement an unambiguous focus on antiracist practices that could enable Black, Indigenous, and People of Color to feel and experience safety and to thrive (Schneider et al., 2020; Willis & Smith, 2021). We were mindful of Milner’s (2020) argument that curriculum is not just the neutral delivery of knowledge but can be a tool of oppression, which he called curricular punishment; and we strove to implement a focus on equity in education for students of color through the teaching of writing.
Although our course previously included instruction on equitable writing practices, the murder of George Floyd (U.S. Department of Justice, 2022) was the impetus for more explicit antiracism instruction. Rather than using a gentle curricular push of modeling culturally responsive pedagogy (Gere et al., 2009; Ladson-Billings, 1995) or using “inclusive” instructional strategies, we added specific content about the effects of racism itself, and we embedded structured discussions about systemic racism in literacy education (Kinloch & Dixon, 2017). Guinier (2004) defines racial literacy as the “grammar that structures racialized hierarchies and frames the narrative of our society” (p. 100). Likewise, Skerrett (2011) sees racial literacy as the “structural, political, and economic circumstances that underlie racism and disadvantage” (p. 314). To recognize the impact of racism and racial inequity on teaching, Sealey-Ruiz (2021) suggests that “educators must have space to engage what they are thinking and interrogate their assumptions” (p. 285). Sealy-Ruiz outlines three tenets of racial literacy development (questioning assumptions, engaging in critical conversations, practicing reflexivity) as the groundwork for future pedagogical action. For our instantiation of these recommendations, we implemented microinterventions (Sue et al., 2019), which are concrete action steps and dialogues that individuals can perform in response to racism. In our context of teacher education, the microinterventions focused on making the invisible visible and educating (and pre-empting) future teachers from becoming potential offenders. As described by Pratt and Calderon-Berumen (2024) in their conceptualization of teacher futurity, our antiracist microinterventions made possible “the ability to leverage change through the smallest shifts in the curriculum and the drive to increase our awareness of those smallest of interventions” (p. 19).
This dilemma between awareness and action, between the explicit and the implied, is connected to our second tension—we needed a method to scaffold student teachers’ reading and writing strategies for the purpose of examining antiracist textual information as the basis for understanding racial content and developing critical stances. As Berghoff et al. (2011), wrote, “Being critical is a stance that involves internalized habits of seeing the complexity of urban schools, seeing one’s own assumptions and identity, and seeing the need for collaborative knowledge making practice that interrupts the dysfunctional and generates uncommon solutions” (p. 27). We chose discourse synthesis (Spivey, 1991) as a systematic approach for teaching student teachers the processes for interpreting, analyzing, and transforming text information. Through discourse synthesis and corresponding reading and writing processes of organizing, selecting, and connecting, we implemented pedagogies that would assist student teachers in defining racial literacies from critical analysis of texts as a first engagement (Accurso & Mizell, 2020; Suh, 2022).
The Current Study
The purpose of the current study was to revise a central course assignment to focus on two new pedagogical goals: (1) student teachers will synthesize antiracist and pedagogical content from a curated set of source texts, and (2) student teachers will explicate their understanding of racial literacy as future writing teachers of K-6 students. Our design-based intervention (Reinking & Bradley, 2008) featured explicit teaching of discourse synthesis strategies to support the student teachers’ abilities to synthesize antiracist content and to draw attention to their own writing processes as explicit and reflexive models for future students. The intervention included a new focus on antiracist content to help student teachers view every child as a multifaceted human, not a test score, and it drew from the research to include graphic organizers, collaboration, and instructor modeling.
In design-based research and similar methodologies, data are interpreted for the purposes of determining if the pedagogical goals were met and which conditions of the intervention inhibited or contributed to goal achievement (Howell et al., 2021; Reinking, 2024). To investigate the inhibiting and enhancing elements of this intervention, we used content analysis (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005) and thematic analysis (Saldaña, 2016; Xu & Zammit, 2020) to examine the strategies the instructor implemented. Furthermore, we assessed student teachers’ synthesized works created during their teacher-as-writer project.
Review of Relevant Literature
With a symbiotic focus on the student teachers’ reading/understanding of antiracist content and their exposure to explicit writing/synthesis strategies, we positioned this study within existing framing of student teachers’ writing preparation and effectiveness.
Student Teachers as Reflexive Writers
The assumption that effective writing teachers are “teachers who write” is a long-understood concept in composition research (Hairston, 1986). However, it is not necessarily the act of writing that makes teachers effective (Brooks, 2007); it is their ability to break down the processes of composing and to explain writing strategies to others (Casado-Ledesma et al., 2021; Wilder & Wolfe, 2009). Effective writing teachers understand how ideas are deployed in texts and how these ideas must be developed through specific schemes such as exploring and identifying arguments and counterarguments, contrasting positions, drawing integrative conclusions, and organizing and revising drafts (Mateos et al., 2020). For example, writing interventions in which students are taught step-by-step procedures intended to regulate their writing and thinking behavior, such as Self-Regulated Strategy Development (Cutler & Graham, 2008; Graham et al., 2013; Harris & Graham, 2009, 2018), often result in students using more genre elements, obtaining higher holistic quality scores, applying targeted strategies, and deploying knowledge across writing events (A. A. Collins et al., 2021; Graham, 2019).
During the act of modeling, effective teachers of writing acknowledge that their own demonstrated processes represent a personalized approach to composition and their students will adapt processes based on their language differences, idiosyncratic vocabularies, and personalized understandings of content. Effective teachers who serve as explicit models do not ask students to produce copycat products; instead, they encourage differential applications of a modeled process for creating compositions. Therefore, effective writing teachers understand that writing is composed of unique and individualized processes, and each student requires specific feedback to apply strategies (Schneider, 2003). Although teacher preparation programs often lack these explicit opportunities (Myers et al., 2016; Sanders et al., 2020), our writing methods course historically included specific assignments to develop student teachers as writers who could analyze their own processes/products and, through guided practice, develop modeling as an instructional strategy.
Writing to Synthesize Content From Source Texts
In teacher preparation programs, student teachers read a variety of source texts to understand child development, assessment practices, and instructional methods. They often acquire this knowledge through popular textbooks. In the field of writing instruction, Myers et al. (2016) conducted a survey of 63 writing methods instructors across 50 institutions and found that most of the literacy teacher educator respondents assigned one or more of four widely used writing methods texts: Writing: Teachers and Children as Work (Graves, 1983), Writing Essentials (Routman, 2005), Literate Lives (Flint, 2008), or Literacy for the 21st Century (Tompkins, 2014). Respondents to the Myers survey also indicated that they supplemented these methods texts with chapters and articles from other sources, and their student teachers were expected to synthesize information and apply it in both written assignments and in clinical practice. However, as Myers et al. (2016) pointed out, methods texts emphasize various approaches to writing across the K-12 spectrum, leaving inexperienced student teachers to decipher what is essential for teaching writing.
To help narrow the focus and to assess pedagogical content knowledge, writing methods instructors often assign writing tasks (e.g., journal entries, text summaries, chapter notes) to compel synthesis and to ascertain if student teachers have acquired the requisite knowledge. Popular course texts, curated by instructors, presumably hold the ideas and strategies that result in the goal of an effective writing teacher. But how do student teachers synthesize the information across the course text set?
Discourse synthesis (Figure 1), as originally conceptualized by Spivey (1984), serves as one model for writing from sources by explicating a process in which students read source texts and engage in the textual transformative operations of organizing, selecting, and connecting. Organizing represents the ways in which the reader/writer orients to the task by understanding and responding to the genre requirements and audience considerations. In selecting, the reader/writer evaluates and chooses information from source texts for possible use in their emerging synthesis composition. Connecting refers to the reader/writer’s rhetorical moves and cohesive ties to link the ideas chosen for the emerging text. Previous research on using informational texts demonstrated that writers learned content while writing from sources when they engaged in discourse synthesis (Nelson & King, 2023). Therefore, we selected discourse synthesis as a task structure for the designed intervention in our writing methods course.
Discourse synthesis.
Synthesis processes: self-regulation, collaboration and modeling
Synthesis writing can be challenging (e.g., Cumming et al., 2016; Lenski & Johns 1997; Solé et al., 2013). Consequently, many research studies have investigated specific protocols to support assigned writing from sources. Training in Segev-Miller’s (2004) discourse synthesis study with college students included the use of content mapping tools and of participants’ documentation of their self-regulation. In another study with college-aged students, Boscolo et al.’s (2007) intervention included explicit instruction, analyses of models, collaborative interaction with peers, and writing and revising of syntheses. These students showed improvement in the quality of their syntheses, especially in organization and cohesion. In an intervention with sixth-grade students, Martínez et al. (2015) included 15 sessions in which students were taught Strategies for Writing Syntheses to Learn (SWSL). The intervention included teacher modeling and collaborative learning in groups (with explicit teacher guidance), and a written guide developed by teacher and students. Additionally, Martínez et al. identified positive effects as participants moved recursively and flexibly between reading and writing, repeatedly returning to sources, and recalling information for elaboration.
Across these previous studies, synthesis tasks were supported through collaborative interaction among peers in the context of teacher modeling. Building on these studies, we designed our intervention to focus on teaching discourse synthesis as a process for analyzing selected antiracist source texts and as a method for developing meta-composing strategies for self-regulation that leads to transparency, accountability, and textual transformations.
Synthesis tools: graphic organizers
Graphic organizers are often included in the intervention and discourse synthesis training research as structured representations intended to guide writers’ compositions. For comparing two written sources, Kirkpatrick and Klein (2009) created a graphic organizer for seventh- and eighth-graders called IAPN (for Information, Aspect, Paragraph, and Number) to assist in selecting and organizing content. Similarly, Zhang (2013) developed a modeling and connecting guide for undergraduate multilingual students that was designed to help them identify problems and solutions. In another study, Sastry and Mohammed (2013) developed a summary-comparison matrix (SCM) that provided guidance for students’ categorization of information from sources, as well as a visual representation of interrelationships. A source evaluation integration matrix was developed by Barzilai and Ka’adan (2017) to help the students engage in “expert-like” writing practices when dealing with multiple sources making divergent claims.
As these studies indicated, writing synthesis improved by breaking apart the synthesis process and showing writers how to document sources within graphic organizers that assisted in the categorization and organization of information using the structure of specific genres. Therefore, in our designed intervention, we used graphic organizers to support student teachers’ synthesis of content from specific source texts. These organizers targeted the identification of evidential connections using citations of specific sources and the naming/knowing of dominant narratives with the intention that these narratives could be challenged through critical analysis.
Method
Initially created as an experimental research method, we adapted discourse synthesis for a design-based research intervention (Cobb et al., 2003; Reinking & Bradley, 2004) to study student teachers’ processing of antiracist content in a writing methods course. Design-based research is driven by and generates theory, using existing theories (in this case, cognitive, critical race, sociocultural), to shape interventions and develop new theories from emerging findings (Barab & Squire, 2004).
Study Team
Jenifer identifies as a White female and was the faculty lead of the writing methods course that serves as the context for this study. James identifies as a White male and previously conducted extensive research on discourse synthesis and brought methodological expertise to the design modification that targeted improving student teachers’ abilities to read and write from sources. Gretchen identifies as a White female, and she served as the course instructor.
After collaborating with Gretchen to embed antiracist content and writing pedagogy into the course syllabus and modules, Jenifer and James did not have further input regarding weekly delivery methods or content decisions. James observed Gretchen’s synchronous class sessions as a visitor (video off). After the completion of the semester, all members of the research team observed recordings of the synchronous sessions and engaged in data analysis and interpretation.
Participant Characteristics
The study participants included the course instructor and nine students/student teachers.
Course instructor
Gretchen, the course instructor, was a doctoral student in her fourth year as a graduate assistant. Gretchen had 10 years of experience teaching elementary and middle school language arts. This was her fourth time teaching the writing methods course, with two course sections occurring in person prior to COVID and two sections occurring post-COVID using hybrid/online delivery. Gretchen’s previous course evaluations, observations, and annual review materials documented her instructional expertise in teaching writing methods and in supporting student success.
Student Teachers
Twenty-two student teachers enrolled in the course and all student teachers received the same course instruction. Twenty-one students identified as female, and one identified as male. Of the female students, 1 identified as Middle Eastern, 1 identified as Asian/Indian, 9 identified as Latina, and 10 identified as White. The male student identified as White. Nine student teachers agreed to participate in this study. All student teachers who volunteered were accepted into the study. The study participants included nine student teachers who identified as female. One participant identified as Asian/Indian and was multilingual. Three participants identified as Latina and were multilingual. Five participants identified as White and were English-only speaking. All student teachers were born in the United States. The nine study participants signed IRB (Pro 37172) approvals in which we asked for permission to retain their materials from the course. We also obtained permission to retain recorded class sessions and to transcribe participants’ dialogue.
Data Collection
The Canvas LMS (learning management system) retained modules, and we extracted all participant data into password-protected cloud-based storage after the course ended. For analysis of instruction and course design, our data sources included instructor materials (e.g., syllabus, recorded synchronous sessions, module content, feedback on students’ products), observations of instructor strategies (e.g., video recordings of online course sessions), and three semistructured interviews with Gretchen prior to, during, and after the course. We engaged in a content analysis (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005) and thematic analysis (Saldaña, 2016; Xu & Zammit, 2020) to determine the structure and patterns of Gretchen’s enacted instructional strategies.
Designed Intervention: The Antiracist Teacher-as-Writer Project
Historically, this writing methods course used a textbook focused on writing traits (Culham, 2003) because it provided clear procedures for analyzing texts and helped new teachers grasp text construction and assessment strategies. Other typical course topics included identifying the developmental acquisition of writing, acquiring knowledge of K-6 genres, text structures, modes, assessment practices, and practicing effective instructional strategies. For the designed intervention, the textbook and topics remained the same, and we added antiracist writing pedagogy to the list of course topics and assignments. We added corresponding readings and module content, and we revised a teacher-as-writer project that included opportunities for the student teachers to examine their own writing practices. The teacher-as-writer assignment served as the focus of our intervention.
Rewriting the syllabus and module content to include racial literacy
We redesigned the course to include a recursive focus on racial literacy in relation to young writers’ developmental stages (e.g., emergent, transitional, fluent). We conceptualized the antiracist teacher-as-writer project to help student teachers grow as writers and child advocates. They were tasked with understanding systemic racism by synthesizing source texts, exploring advocacy group websites, and creating a personal writing project to share their findings.
Real-time instructional decisions to develop racial literacy
Previous iterations of the course included components of culturally responsive pedagogy but did not address racism directly. Dispositions around issues of equity fall along a continuum from “(1) raising awareness of inequity; (2) (re)examining assumptions about inequity; (3) positioning as agents of addressing inequity; (4) developing commitment to equity” (Liao et al., 2022, p. 9). Gretchen recognized that some student teachers required guidance to understand racism as an educational issue, while others were already aware of its effects. She altered her teaching methods to include antiracist practices and racial prompts (Maloney, 2023), explaining her strategies to build student teachers’ meta-composing awareness. She also guided the student teachers through drafting and revising to focus on their processes as they wrote to an audience of their choice. The ability to choose genres, select topics from the source texts, and focus on authentic audiences helps writers develop voice and a commitment to writing (Ruben & Moll, 2013). Gretchen provided choices because previous studies indicated that choice is a major factor in motivation and engagement (Deckard, 2021; Parsons et al., 2015). Table 1 provides a summary of Gretchen’s goals and instructional decisions, her strategies for selecting specific processes and applications, and the racial literacy rationale for her pedagogical decisions. These decisions are further elaborated below.
Summary of Racial Literacy Rationale for Instructional Moves.
Intervention component: Selecting source texts
With discourse synthesis as the intervention structure, Gretchen taught the student teachers how to engage with source texts for the purposes of selecting knowledge.
Initial text set about language bias, diverse mentor texts, and prohibited writing topics
The topic of antiracism in the writing classroom was introduced via pre-written module content posted in the second week. The module stated:
Racial biases are hard to recognize because they are engrained in our society, our school systems, and our educational practices. In this course, we will examine books, writing models, language practices, and curricular standards to understand how standardized expectations and instructional choices can inadvertently promote or deny access and power.
The module stated that student teachers should consider the relationship between language-based educational practices and their potential for discrimination. The student teachers were assigned the following four source texts for the following reasons (See Table 1).
Mirrors, Windows, and Sliding Glass Doors (Sims-Bishop, 1990) explores the mediation of children’s literature in transforming human experience. This short text advocates for the inclusion of multicultural literature and explains the importance of readers seeing themselves represented in literature.
A video interview with Dr. Sims-Bishop (2015), in which she explained the concept of mirrors, windows, and sliding glass doors, represents the same content as the article, but in interview form.
No Blood, Guts, or Gays! focuses on censorship of students’ chosen writing topics (Schneider, 2001). In this full-length article, teachers described unwritten rules that exclude certain topics from their writing.
Everyone Has an Accent is a blog post describing biased assumptions about dialects. The post encourages teaching respect for the ways in which people use language (Wolfram, 2000). This text serves a primer on the limiting effect of teachers’ biases toward nonstandard dialects.
These preselected sources provided expansive views of how antiracist dispositions and pedagogies might be deployed in classrooms. In the Canvas course site, Gretchen also posted additional links to justice-oriented organizations, children’s literature book lists, and resources about teaching writing and advocating for children (see Table 1).
Additional source text to raise awareness about systemic racism
In the fourth week of the semester, Gretchen wanted student teachers to delve deeper into systemic racism. She assigned them a portion of The 1619 Project, a special issue of the New York Times, focused on the history and structure of racism in the United States and featuring essays, poetry, art, photos, and ads. Gretchen believed The 1619 Project showcased diverse voices and Black experiences. The student teachers read "The Idea of America" by Hannah-Jones (2019). Aligning with Hytten and Stemhagen’s (2023) recommendations for racially just learning, Gretchen aimed for student teachers to develop racial literacy by understanding this historical content.
Intervention Component: Instructional Protocol
Below, we describe key features of Gretchen’s instructional protocol outlined in Table 1. Her strategies included regularly occurring routines such as teaching key academic vocabulary, showing students how to select information within the source texts, modeling synthesis strategies, demonstrating the use of graphic organizers, and providing opportunities for student teachers to engage in the writing process.
Introduced key vocabulary
With a simultaneous focus on modeling writing instruction and engaging with antiracist writing content, Gretchen introduced key concepts of antiracist pedagogy during each synchronous session. The first page of each module included a list of academic terms associated with antiracist content as well as disciplinary vocabulary about writing (e.g., BIPOC, pedagogy, genre, structural racism, traits) (Harmon & Wood, 2018; Langer, 2011). During the live, synchronous class, Gretchen clicked on the links in the example column and discussed the terms (Figure 2), allowing student teachers to communicate clearly and effectively about race and racism (Moje, 2007). Learning specific vocabulary gave student teachers conceptual understanding of and labels for their “internal neocolonial condition and its possible transformation is fundamental to what teachers and students do in decolonizing pedagogical spaces” (Tejeda et al., 2003, p. 30).
Review of key vocabulary.
Created a graphic organizer to help students engage in synthesis operations
During a live synchronous class, Gretchen introduced the use of a graphic organizer (Figure 3) to collect information from source texts. She modeled how to read the text and isolate ideas:
This is an older article. It’s just two pages. And it talks about how students need to see themselves and others in books. . . . I’m going to be collecting information as I read as an example for you to know how to collect information as you read. I’m going to read the first three paragraphs and then show you my graphic organizer.
Graphic organizer modeling.
Gretchen added notes to her organizer while student teachers watched and engaged with her. She encouraged the student teachers to examine concepts, language representation, and critique the text from an antiracist perspective. This process helped the student teachers identify gaps, assess the authors’ credibility and biases, locate ideas, cite sources, and connect evidence.
Modeled reading and writing synthesis
To illustrate synthesis, Gretchen shared a video of Dr. Sims-Bishop and reviewed the article, highlighting structural features and key information. Inspired by Suh (2022), Gretchen annotated concepts and used a graphic organizer to help students. She did not grade these organizers but used them to gauge understanding. Realizing additional content was needed, Gretchen added The 1619 Project.
Used online, asynchronous, collaborative reading strategies
Gretchen used various methods to discuss the quality and authenticity of curated texts (see Table 1). After reading from The 1619 Project, student teachers made one-minute video responses on Flip (https://info.flipgrid.com/) and responded to each other’s videos. They also used Perusall® (https://perusall.com/) to discuss two other readings on writing pedagogy. Perusall® allowed students to annotate texts, ask questions, and interact with each other while reading. The student teachers commented on readings about a writing development continuum (Fountas & Pinnell, 2017) and English orthography (Bear et al., 2019).
Engaged student teachers in process strategies for writing to an audience
Gretchen guided the student teachers through a writing process that involved collecting and synthesizing information from sources, then planning, writing, and revising a project to express their understanding of racial literacy in their lives and in their future teaching roles. Here, we note that our project’s goal used Pratt and Calderon-Berumen’s (2024) ideas of teacher futurity as multiple, disputed, and contradictory, involving both the chance for teachers to change the world and the denial of their power by systems of control, violence, and cultural erasure. Gretchen told the student teachers that the project was intended to help them develop as learners, writers, and child-advocates. She directed them to choose a writing project that could be sent to their chosen audience with a goal of affecting change in other individuals and in unjust systems.
Note-taking to organize, select, and connect
Gretchen uploaded a graphic organizer in Google Docs for note-gathering, requiring citations, main ideas, five quotes, and paraphrased statements supporting the main idea (Figure 3). She offered feedback on their notes.
Drafting and sharing
Student teachers created rough drafts in their Google Docs, with instructions to include three to five sources, a thesis, arguments, and evidence in a two- to three-page draft. During a synchronous session, breakout rooms allowed small groups to share documents and give feedback.
Final submission and assignment criteria
As student teachers read texts and submitted drafts throughout the semester, Gretchen’s directions evolved. She guided their individual approaches for the teacher-as-writer assignment and used a generic traits rubric for final evaluations.
Participants’ data sources
The student teachers wrote in their preferred genres, and their final products included five letters (addressed to editors, parents, school boards), three position statements (with no specified audience or directed at the instructor), and one lesson plan for integrating antiracist pedagogy (with no specified audience or directed at the instructor) (see Table 2). Our qualitative content analysis of the final products revealed that all students wrote about their intention to take action against racism. Their awareness of racism was reflected in statements about accepting differences, recognizing racism, or acting as White allies. All students indicated their intention to include diverse books in their classroom libraries.
Overview of Participants and Their Written Products.
Analytic Strategies: Discourse Synthesis as Research Method
Discourse synthesis served as a reliable task structure for modeling how to read and synthesize from sources (see Figure 1). We also used discourse synthesis as a research method to document the students’ processes of organizing, selecting, and connecting specific content from sources into written synthesis texts (Nelson & King, 2023; Spivey & King, 1989). We traced what the students selected from the source texts and how they transformed that content into their own compositions. Table 3 outlines our methodological procedures for analyzing the content of source texts, the content of student teachers’ synthesis texts, and conducting a comparative analysis. These procedures are further elaborated below.
Summary of Discourse Synthesis Methodology.
Source text propositionalization
To ascertain a more fine-grained analysis of students’ use of content from the source text materials, we prepared a representation of the semantic content of each of the assigned articles by forming a list of propositions using Turner and Greene’s (1977) and Bovair and Kieras’s (1981) adaptations of Kintsch’s (1974) procedures for proposition analysis. According to Bovair and Kieras (1981), the proposition list can be used as “a relatively rigorous characterization of the material, and so serves as a basis for evaluating and analyzing readers’ performance in comprehension experiments” (p. i). Bovair and Kieras analyzed rules for constructing propositions in technical prose, using a simple verb frame where the predicate precedes its arguments.
The following example demonstrates the way we identified basic idea units by isolating the proposition and modifiers in the first sentence of Mirrors, Windows, and Sliding Glass Doors (Sims-Bishop, 1990): “Books are sometimes windows, offering views of worlds that may be real or imagined, familiar or strange.”
1. Are, books, windows (In this propositional statement, “are” is the predicate, sometimes collectively labeled “isa,” “books” is the agent, “windows” is the object or complement.)
a. Offer, windows, views (In this propositional statement, “offer” is the predicate, “windows” is the agent, “views” is the object.)
b. (modify), views, world (In this propositional statement, “modify” is the predicate, “views” is the subject, “world” is the modifier.)
c. (modify) world, real
d. (modify) world, imagined
e. (modify) world, real
f. (modify) world, strange
2. (next sentence)
Source text template formation
We propositionalized every sentence of each source text by breaking sentences into predicates and complements. We counted the total number of propositions (i.e., idea units). The length of the source texts ranged from 122 to 674 idea units with a mean of 330 idea units and a median of 242 idea units. We combined the propositions from each source text into an aggregated template of 1,320 total topic-related propositions.
Thematic categorization of idea units from source texts
We categorized the 1,320 propositions from the source texts into themes. We reviewed the proposition lists, grouping similar ideas and related concepts (Ryan & Bernard, 2003). Seven themes were identified across the source texts: (1) information about slavery, (2) accomplishments of Black individuals, (3) legal history of the Constitution and racism, (4) current examples of racism, (5) understanding dialects and language variation, (6) literacy/language teaching methods, and (7) writing topics in elementary classrooms.
Template formation and thematic categorization of idea units from synthesis texts
To examine the content of the student teachers’ synthesis texts, we prepared a representation of the semantic content of each of their documents by forming a list of their propositions (Bovair & Kieras, 1981, Kintsch, 1974, Turner & Greene, 1977). The length of the student teachers’ final compositions ranged from 50 to 226 idea units with a mean of 118 idea units and a median of 111 idea units.
We combined the propositions from each student’s text into an aggregated template of 1,058 total topic-related propositions. These topic-related propositions were then grouped into thematic categories (Ryan & Bernard, 2003). The eight resulting categories across the student teachers’ texts were (1) celebrating achievements, (2) understanding language differences, (3) developing diverse book collections, (4) recognizing acts of discrimination, (5) addressing the effects of discrimination, (6) accepting differences, (7) addressing biased behavior among colleagues, (8) advocating for students.
Matching idea units from synthesis text template to the source text template
We compared the student teachers’ synthesis texts to the thematic content of the source texts. Following Ryan and Bernard (2003), we calculated the percentage use of template ideas from the source texts and their presence in the compositions. This matching involved interpretation, accepting close synonyms between template ideas and those in participants’ compositions. The match between template and composition idea units was examined for a .74 agreement between two trained raters.
Across the student teachers’ synthesis texts, 478 of 1,058 total propositions used by student teachers matched the aggregated source text template. The student teachers did not use a large portion of what they encountered in the source texts. Between the aggregated source texts and the student teachers’ combined synthesis texts, there were three direct matches of thematic content: (1) recognizing current examples of racism, (2) understanding dialects and language, and (3) celebrating Black achievements. Overall, the 1,320 idea units that researchers analyzed from the source texts were minimally used, with an average of 7.5% of the idea units appearing in the student teachers’ compositions.
For content units included in the student teachers’ final compositions, the number of ideas that matched the source text template was uniform, with a range from 31 to 102 idea units and a mean of 39 idea units matching the template. These matched units constituted an average of 48% of the ideas that student teachers used in their compositions. The remaining 52% of student teachers’ ideas came from the suggested Internet websites or other sources. Participants with longer compositions tended to add more content from outside the template of source text ideas. Participants with the shortest compositions had the highest percentage of mapping to the source text template.
Results
In this section, we examine the factors that both hindered and facilitated the intervention, which aimed to achieve two pedagogical goals: teach student teachers how to synthesize antiracist and pedagogical content from a curated set of source materials and explicate their understanding of racial literacy as prospective K-6 writing educators.
Factors Contributing to Pedagogical Goals
Our analysis of data across the study identified both planned and unplanned elements of the intervention that affected student outcomes.
Graphic organizers supported content selection and connection to source texts
When Gretchen assigned the antiracist source texts, she introduced a graphic organizer to capture her think aloud. Student teachers observed Gretchen’s process and then completed their own organizer. As revealed in Table 4, Vicki (all student names are pseudonyms) recorded one basic idea from each source text, followed with a quote and a connection. Her reframing of the quoted content, focusing on the importance of books in her life, indicates minimal transformation of the source text information which focused on the need for diverse people to have the same experience.
Reading Synthesis Chart (Vicki).
In contrast, Macy used the graphic organizer to develop more elaborated ideas, quotes, and connections from the source texts (Table 5). Macy’s explanations of the quoted content included superordinate themes that characterized ideas from the source texts and provided a deeper transformation of the source text information.
Reading Synthesis Chart (Macy).
These two samples represent the range of length, content, and complexity of the students’ responses to the source texts as captured in a graphic organizer. Vicki’s selections from source texts and connections are text related (Table 4), and they are generalized, nominal statements about books and discrimination. Macy’s comments on the same texts (Table 5) reveal her understanding of the underlying issues embedded in accepting dialects and using multicultural books to represent diverse students.
Although the student teachers completed graphic organizers in their own ways, the process of segmenting the readings facilitated content processing for all participants. For example, eight of the participants addressed the main idea of Sims-Bishop’s article as a call for representation of diverse identities in children’s literature and the ninth participant, Tracy, represented the article by stating, “we are doing a disgrace to our students.” Tracy did not mention books as the main idea; instead, she referenced books in her evidence column and elaborated with a higher-level interpretation and connection to the source text: “I can only remember reading books about white characters throughout my school years. I am ashamed to admit that I didn’t realize that until the age of 20. How did that make my classmates feel?” She provided a personal reaction, without directly quoting Sims-Bishop’s text content. The act of breaking apart the readings contributed to the processing of content and allowed Gretchen to glimpse the student teachers’ strategies for comprehending and synthesizing text.
Interactive digital platforms supported content selection and connection to source texts
Interactive digital platforms allowed students to independently and idiosyncratically engage with the content of the source texts. For instance, Gretchen utilized Flip videos to gather students’ verbal/video responses to The 1619 Project (Hannah-Jones, 2019). We transcribed the student teachers’ recorded statements and documented their specific references to content. Table 6 includes transcripts of Vicki’s and Macy’s commentary. Bold font indicates similarities between their interpretations of the source text, and the remaining unhighlighted portions show how the majority of their synthesis commentary differed. In other words, students read the same sources but took away different messages as mediated by their personal connections.
Flip Transcript.
Through digital tools, we also documented students’ connections to antiracist source texts when they used Perusall® while reading about other course content such as the writing developmental continuum (Fountas & Pinnell, 2017) and English orthography (Bear et al., 2019). For example, in responding to a chapter about spelling (Bear et al., 2019), Audrey wrote, This makes me think back to the Everyone Has an Accent article for this week that I read. It is eye opening to have an understanding of the structural pattern of your own dialect and how it is still proper English.
This excerpt demonstrates how the student teachers were acquiring knowledge and simultaneously learning to critique this new knowledge alongside their own language practices.
In particular, Audrey’s use of proper is an interesting data point that demonstrates she is grappling with antiracist perspectives on language learning but not yet understanding that measuring language for its propriety is precisely what may work against speakers of dialects and creoles. Responses, such as Audrey’s, provided Gretchen with significant information about the student teachers’ understanding of antiracist content and cued Gretchen for her next instructional move.
In Macy’s Perusall® response to a reading assignment about writing development (Fountas & Pinnell, 2017), she demonstrated the ways in which student teachers were beginning to apply concepts from the source texts to other readings. In this case, Macy sought advice for working with a language learner through her informal notes in Perusall®.
In my internship class last semester there was a student who’s [sic] first language was Mandarin. He was very reserved and did not like to talk to the CT or I at all. What can we as educators do to better the classroom environment for students like this, to ensure that they are learning the writing skills necessary to them?
Across digital platforms, we observed the student teachers’ attempts to organize their thoughts, select relevant ideas, and connect their learning about racist practices to antiracist teaching when possible. Interactive digital tools and response tasks required student teachers to select details and gather key insights that they applied to learning across the course. In these ways, incremental and segmented components of the synthesis tasks slowed down reading and thinking, allowing rumination and understanding of racial literacy.
Explicit modeling of synthesis strategies and selected content from source texts
Gretchen’s discourse synthesis instruction was a primary factor prompting student teachers’ antiracist content synthesis. In particular, her in-class discussions about source text content and reviews of key vocabulary gave student teachers access to the language and concepts of antiracism discourses. She showed the student teachers how to read across sources and demonstrated how to integrate the content of those sources using graphic organizers as a structural guide.
While providing instruction in reading antiracist content from source texts, Gretchen taught student teachers to attend to their own writing processes and to connect their personal lives and school experiences to the task. She taught them how to read curricular standards and lesson plans from the vantage point of knowing that racism exists, and it is less frequently as violent or recognizable as the murder of George Floyd. Racism is often invisible and imbricated in language practices, assessments, and expectations. Gretchen asked the students to look for it and actively work against it.
Factors Inhibiting Content Synthesis and Modeling as Prospective K-6 Writing Teachers
Through our analysis of the data, we documented both designed and unplanned elements of the intervention that inhibited student outcomes and the achievement of pedagogical goals.
An open-ended final product constrained organization and selection of content
To meet the pedagogical goals of this design-based study, the writing task was open-ended, allowing the student teachers to choose their purpose, content, and audience. Although writing choice is valuable for some writing tasks, in this discourse synthesis task, we found the open choice to be a constraint. When the student teachers approached the synthesis task, many did not have clear end-goals in mind. Without a clear rhetorical goal for their writing, most of the student teachers could not fully frame their final product’s organizational structure as a guide when they attempted to select key information from the source texts to synthesize. Instead, these students searched for generic main ideas within the source texts so they could complete the graphic organizer rather than searching for specific data points or locating supportive content that could help them construct rhetorical arguments. The lack of a clear writing goal also made writing difficult for Gretchen to teach. As Nelson and King (2023) noted, In organizing, writers disassemble the structure of the source texts and supply their own organizational patterns as they incorporate material from different sources. For some tasks, organizing may be a matter of only recombining and reordering, but, for many tasks, it entails generating a different pattern. (p. 770)
Moving forward, we plan to implement discourse synthesis within specific parameters of a particular genre and to outline a concrete rhetorical task that connects to practicing micro-interventions (Sue et al., 2019) and documenting antiracist stances.
The scope, depth, and genre of source texts constrained synthesis
Different genres and different levels of information density in the source texts required different ways of reading and processing information. The student teachers read the assigned texts, and they engaged in a process of organizing, selecting, and connecting. Yet, they required various types of scaffolding to assist in understanding how to read across various genres to comprehend antiracist content and its application to teaching practices.
For example, some source texts led to straightforward processing. Our analysis of the student teachers’ final synthesis texts documented how they consistently revealed a disposition to challenge the status quo. Most often, their ideas focused on the inclusion of diverse children’s literature, which we traced to their reading of Sims-Bishop’s article (1990) or the Sims-Bishop YouTube video (Reading Rockets, 2015). In addition, the student teachers frequently indicated dispositions to accept language differences and to advocate for all children, which we traced to the Wolfram (2000) article on accents.
The student teachers also stated that they would discuss racism if the topic came up with colleagues or to share resources with parents. Two student teachers indicated their willingness to hold other teachers accountable as antiracist/pro-humanity teachers and to “speak up.” They also demonstrated knowledge of historical events (slavery, racism, economic impact, the impact of systemic racism), which we traced to The 1619 Project (Hannah-Jones, 2019).
In our analysis of the student teachers’ graphic organizers and responses on digital platforms (e.g., Flip and Perusall®), we found that the student teachers generally provided similar interpretations of content from the Sims-Bishop, Wolfram, and Hannah-Jones texts even though they selected different quotes and used unique language to represent their points. In contrast, it was clear that most student teachers did not fully read Schneider’s (2003) article, “No Blood, Guts, or Gays: The Silencing of the Elementary Writer.” Instead, they surmised content from text features, or they extrapolated the main idea from the abstract. Schneider (2003), which was a full-length journal article, provided an analysis of interviews with practicing teachers who discussed how they handled controversial writing topics in their classrooms. In the article, the practicing teachers revealed that they occasionally limited or censored what students wrote, disregarding students’ interests, and subsequently, ignoring the students’ complex identities. Melissa summarized the article by stating, “children write about taboo topics” and Tracy wrote, “A teacher does more than teach academics,” both glossing over the central issue of censorship. Through our analysis, we now recognize that the students may have benefited from using a different graphic organizer in reading a full-length article, the longest and perhaps most difficult of the source texts. They may have needed more scaffolding for reading a complex text, or they may have benefited from the interactivity of using Perusall®.
Using the discourse synthesis methodology for analyzing both source and synthesis texts through propositionalization, template formation, and thematic categorization, we also made important realizations about the content of the source texts. For example, we found that only 7.5% of the template’s 1,320 idea units appeared in student teachers’ compositions. On average, 48% of the ideas in their final compositions matched the template, ranging from 31 to 102 units. The remaining 52% came from other sources. Clearly the source texts contained extraneous information that was either ignored or not necessary.
We concluded that university professors who select source texts need to carefully analyze source text content, structure, and length to determine how much of the text is directly tied to learning goals. We are not suggesting stripped down texts with minimal content, but we do see the need to audit the content, scope, and density of source texts to determine if the texts contain the information we expect students to learn. And we must help them locate key information and scaffold their reading through instructional strategies.
The Generic Rubric Constrained Discourse Synthesis Output and Racial Literacy Content
Across the data, we documented how Gretchen’s modeling and instructional decisions resulted in the student teachers’ explication of racial literacy as revealed in their synthesis texts. However, the use of a generic traits-based rubric (Table 7) represents an antiracist pedagogical problem. Gretchen used a traits-based writing rubric (ideas, organization, word choice, sentence fluency, conventions, and presentation) as the evaluative criteria for the project because (1) the course was built using a traits textbook (Culham, 2003), and Gretchen felt that consistency and familiarity with one rubric would support the student teachers’ learning and application; (2) the student teachers used the same rubric during their subsequent field experiences in local schools; and (3) the projects were so diverse that Gretchen felt the generic rubric would provide an opportunity to focus on text construction as common ground to assess student learning.
Rubric.
However, the rubric did not reinforce the synthesis processes (organize, select, connect) nor did it explicitly outline racial literacy development. In addition, generic rubrics can reinforce racist language practices by promoting a uniform approach that overlooks the diverse linguistic, cultural, and experiential backgrounds of students (Inoue, 2015; Inoue & Poe, 2012). These rubrics often embody the cultural norms of the dominant group, marginalizing nonstandard dialects and expressions. Implicit biases can lead teachers to favor students whose work aligns with their own cultural norms (e.g., Schneider, 2003), resulting in unfair assessments. Furthermore, generic rubrics fail to account for the specific contexts and purposes of different writing tasks, stifling creativity and critical thinking, especially among students challenging dominant narratives.
As evidence for the problem of generic rubrics, in her final product, Jessenia stated a willingness to confront curriculum and to cajole colleagues into overcoming their limited knowledge and learning about antiracist teaching (Table 8). However, she does not offer specific strategies for modeling, such as those she observed when Gretchen modeled antiracist teaching (Table 1). As recommended by Inoue and Poe (2012), we could have considered a more valid writing assessment that would measure constructs of writing as taught and expand the student teachers’ conceptions of documenting their efforts and processes.
Excerpt from Jessenia’s Final Synthesis Text (Page 1).
Reading about historical content and actions of others provided context for student teachers to understand their own school experiences as shown in their postings. Yet, we found that the historical content in the 1619 text was not directly related to pedagogy. While student teachers actively responded to the historical content in the Flip assignment, they needed to infer connections to make the 1619 content relevant for their synthesis. As developing educators, they did not yet have the knowledge and experience necessary to make those links.
Modifications and Discussion
In this study, we designed an instructional intervention to achieve two pedagogical goals (1) student teachers would synthesize antiracist and pedagogical content from a curated set of source texts, and through the synthesis process, (2) student teachers would explicate their understanding of racial literacy as future writing teachers of K-6 students. Our goals for the student teachers’ futures were developed with the following understanding.
The normed curriculum of the classroom is not a monolith and by no means is inevitable. It is constantly negotiating a conflict between the expectations of the students and their cultural knowledges, the teacher and their knowledges, and the larger structural systems and bureaucracies within which the classroom exists. (Pratt & Calderon-Berumen, 2024, p. 16)
And in this space of curricular impossibility and continual negotiation, we attempted to guide student teachers’ futures through their application of specific literacy strategies for critical reading and reflexive writing with the intention that these micro-interventions might help them understand the underpinnings of antiracist writing pedagogy. In the context of one writing methods course, we cannot predict our student teachers’ futures. However, we have data showing how student teachers gained knowledge from the assigned source texts and activities, which can be used to foster their racial literacy (Sealey-Ruiz, 2021). Additionally, our study’s evidence suggests ways to enhance student outcomes by modifying the intervention.
Modify source text selection by evaluating the content, authorship, and focus
The findings from this study made us reconsider the content we assembled through source texts. The intervention was designed to provide specific information about writing pedagogy and the topic of antiracist teaching through the selection of four source texts. Gretchen added The 1619 Project (Hannah-Jones, 2019) because it provided direct information about racism in America. Shortly after we initiated our study, The 1619 Project was targeted by conservative politicians and banned from curricular reading lists (Grice, 2022; Strauss, 2021). Never to cave into book bans or political edicts that perpetuate racism, we faced a conundrum. As literacy teacher educators and researchers, we thought carefully about the impact of The 1619 Project to determine if it contained relevant content and if it developed pedagogical knowledge for our students. The 1619 Project provided historical content knowledge that was helpful for student teachers’ understanding of systemic racism; however, it did not provide explicit content to support writing pedagogy. On the other hand, reading The 1619 Project provided the exact evidence of systemic racism that legislative bans were/are attempting to erase. We debated the inclusion of this text in future iterations of a writing methods course in a state that explicitly prohibits “woke indoctrination” and “CRT” content. Ultimately, we followed the data and our pedagogical goals, and we decided to replace The 1619 Project with another source text, a podcast conversation with Carol Lee (Persohn, 2021) that provided explicit information about racism with a focus on antiracist teaching. This new modification adds a specific antiracist voice to the conversation, the mode provides options for listening to the podcast or reading the transcript, and the content ties in directly with teaching.
We also debated the inclusion of the Schneider (2003) article that specifically relates to inclusive writing pedagogy, but which some students did not fully read nor synthesize. Following the same process for evaluating the inclusion of 1619, we decided to retain the No Blood, Guts or Gays article as a source text because it provides content to help student teachers understand their own biases and it directly addresses writing pedagogy. We plan to provide students with instructional scaffolding to support their comprehension of the text (Suh, 2022) and to show them how to integrate content from a practitioner article in their subsequent synthesis.
Our analysis of source texts led us to additional modifications for future iterations. Our first recommendation is focused on content and purpose. In previous discourse synthesis studies, the content was immaterial. In other words, the writers synthesized information about various topics including rodeos, armadillos, or octopi (Spivey, 1984, 1991; Spivey & King, 1989, respectively). These previous studies examined the writers’ cognitive processes and not their acquisition of source content for course-related purposes. In our current study, the content of the source texts was significant and intentional. Antiracist advocacy was nonnegotiable and enmeshed in the discourse synthesis procedures. We chose articles that were important and relevant to big ideas that we wanted students to learn, but we did not carefully consider the impact of each text’s organizational structure or the source text authors’ rhetorical moves. With these considerations in mind, source texts should be rhetorically focused with a strong thematic message tied to clear objectives for learning—in this case, racial literacy content.
Our second recommendation for source text selection echoes Chávez-Moreno’s (2022) observation that decisions and actions (in this case, curricular ones) can be both hegemonic and counterhegemonic, depending on the circumstances. And, similarly, we would add that text curation focused on content can be productive, provocative, and equity-based, and still not be effective relative to the instructional purpose. We had no expectation that Sims-Bishop’s text would resonate so well with the student teachers. In contrast, we thought the students could easily connect historical examples of racism from The 1619 Project and infer the impact on schools over time. Therefore, in addition to considering the density of information, the selection of source texts should prioritize voices from diverse authors and capture underrepresented experiences to ensure that student teachers comprehend direct, connected messages from different perspectives.
Modify assessment practices to reflect antiracist writing pedagogy
One of the powerful assets of design-based research is that it establishes a process for improvement to achieve pedagogical goals. Our analysis of the data documented previous claims about the ways in which generalized rubrics reify racism as part of the status quo (Inoue & Poe, 2012; Poe et al., 2014) and led us to identify targeted areas for improvement in assessment practices. Generic rubrics fail to account for the specific contexts and purposes of different writing tasks, stifling creativity and critical thinking, especially among students who may be challenging dominant narratives. In our study, formative assessment occurred throughout and informed Gretchen’s knowledge about the student teachers’ evolving understanding of racial literacy. Gretchen used a traits rubric at the end of the process, and although she expected students to make connections to other field experiences, the rubric was disconnected from the goals of the project. Therefore, the assessment did not match the assignment, nor did it add value to the process. To counter these issues, we considered strategies for antiracist assessment that emphasize flexibility, inclusivity, and responsiveness to student teachers’ diverse backgrounds. Inoue (2015, 2022) advocates for labor-based grading contracts that prioritize student effort and engagement over conformity to standardized norms, promoting equity in assessment. Poe et al. (2014) argue for assessment practices that consider the historical and social contexts of students’ writing, advocating for a more nuanced understanding of student work that moves beyond traditional metrics.
Moving forward, our modifications include integrating antiracist assessment practices that are more equitable and inclusive. This involves using collaboratively developed rubrics that are flexible and context-specific (Kilgour et al., 2020). Such a process would provide space to deconstruct the synthesis process and examine the genre, audience, and purpose for synthesis. We also plan to modify the assignment by engaging in ongoing reflection and dialogue about biases in assessment by integrating rhetorical genre studies and opportunities to investigate teacher responses (Wood, 2020). Discursive approaches not only promote fairness but also empower student teachers by supporting their ongoing reflection and dialogue about assessment.
Modify synthesis outputs and genres
In addition to modifying assessment practices, we also plan to modify the genre of synthesis output. When Gretchen offered the students an open-ended choice in genre, the flexibility also gave students unlimited options for audiences as well. Student teachers wrote letters to superintendents, letters to future parents, op-ed articles, and recommendations for libraries. However, many student teachers wrote position statements to Gretchen, rather than an intended audience outside of the class space. Our intention was to encourage student teachers to take up the rhetorical moves of public engagement to encourage their ability to share their learning with broader audiences, fostering dialogue around antiracist issues. And within the course space, the goal was to use writing as a tool for promoting understanding and emphasizing the importance of ongoing reflection as student teachers continue to develop racial literacy.
We believe we erred on the side of too much choice for product outcomes, and these choices disconnected the assignment from a synthesized and cohesive approach to antiracist pedagogy. We now recognize that refining assignment parameters could scaffold student learning through genres and give them access to discourse communities without removing all choice and authenticity. Going forward, we plan to consider Accurso and Mizell’s (2020) approach to antiracist genre pedagogy which claims that genres often maintain dominant practices and position multilingual students of color as deficient. We plan to choose a specific genre with modal options, which should provide opportunities for students to pay more attention to interpersonal meanings. We also plan to use genre-based positioning analysis (Yu, 2024) to explore genres as social action within an antiracist writing discourse community. Through elaborated discussions and demonstrations, we would explore how texts racialize and encourage student teachers to transform genres for antiracist aims.
Next steps
Our study acknowledges and interrogates the implicit and explicit racial and raciolinguistic inequities that impede culturally relevant instruction for all students (Skerrett, 2011; Smith, 2019). Our intervention resulted in student teachers who examined their assumptions about literacy learning, their beliefs about overzealous goals for accuracy and children’s orientations to writing, their knowledge of students’ families and social cultures, and their understanding of issues of equity and access, especially those guarded by linguistic imperialism. And yet, as part of the regular course objectives, the student teachers were also taught how to explicitly and systematically teach K-6 students how to process the written code (e.g., orthography, letter formation). Student teachers were taught specific strategies of self-regulation, collaboration, and using graphic organizers. As is standard in writing methods courses, these explicit, orthodox writing skills formed the basis of the course. But then, the addition of antiracist content threw every one of these research-based and standardized practices into question.
Based on our findings from this study, and in systematically writing about it, we have much to consider about this assignment and other components of the course. In future iterations, we will implement modifications that strike a balance between the explicit and the culturally responsive to include the nonnegotiables in the instructional options. We remain committed to the quotidian of general writing pedagogy because competency with the written code affords access to power discourses (Cope & Kalantzis, 1993). We also maintain steadfast in our commitment to racial literacy and corresponding pedagogy in a time that seeks to silence such ethical and urgent practice.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Author Biographies
The primary focus of