Our Reflections on Writing for Publication

More documents

Recommendations

Info

• A reflection on personal struggles orpassions. Some authors reflect on tensionsor interests in their lives that ledto the focus of their article. Foss (2002)begins with her passion for teachingmiddle school kids and the spaces ofpowerful possibility that theirtransitions into adolescence provide.Bomer (2005) immediately takes readersinto the personal struggle that ledto her decision to resign from teaching.• A reflection on tensions provided bybroader societal/political issues.Sometimes, authors introduce theirwork as a response to tensions growingout of societal issues or political policies.Blair and Sanford (2004) raise theissue of boys’ literacy as a societalissue to frame their research, whileShelton and Fu (2004) discuss the contextof high-stakes testing to introducetheir focus on the differences inchildren’s responses to writing promptsand writing workshop.• A statement of purpose and howthat purpose emerged. This type ofintroduction often places the studywithin the broader scope of theauthor’s work and/or of the field.Rowe, Fitch, and Bass (2003) discusschildren’s need for play and how theirinterest in dramatic play and literacyled them to develop toy stories as astrategy within writers workshop.• A metaphor that frames the focus.We found that the metaphors used toorganize a manuscript often seemedtrite and forced, leading to “cute”introductions that were not effectivein focusing on the central tension. Inaddition, plant, seed, weaving, andjourney metaphors were overused andoften seemed more like a crutch forsomeone who wasn’t sure how to startan article. When metaphors did work,it was because they clarified the theoreticalfocus and were integratedthroughout the manuscript. Foss(2002) uses the metaphor of “peelingan onion” to provide insights into theway she and her students readcritically to peel away layers of meaningin books.• A quotation from a scholarly or literarysource. Quotations wereoverused but worked when they wereshort and easy to understand as astand-alone and when the authorimmediately used that quotation toframe the central tension of the article,as in Baskwill (2006) and Cadiero-Kaplan (2002).One key issue related to all of theseintroductions is that the particularvignette or reflection needs to leadthe reader to the tension that is thecentral frame of the manuscript.Some manuscripts began with aclassroom story that was engagingbut that did not relate to the centralfocus and so was misleading andconfusing.Many authors makethe mistake ofincluding a lengthyliterature reviewimmediately after theintroduction, as istypically found incourse papers andresearch reports.Theoretically Ground the Manuscriptin the Professional LiteratureMany authors make the mistake ofincluding a lengthy literature reviewimmediately after the introduction,as is typically found in course papersand research reports. These synthesesare not particularly engaging andhinder the reader from getting to theheart of the manuscript. We foundthat it was more effective to providea short, focused theoretical frame atthe beginning of the manuscript andthen weave the rest of the theoryinto relevant sections and concludingreflections, such as in Nickel (2001),Jennings with O’Keefe (2002), andLaman (2006). Not only did thisincrease the readability of a manuscript,but it also increased the likelihoodthat readers would engage with thetheory. It’s easy as a reader to skip awhole section of literature review, butwhen the professional literature isintegrated into discussions of thedata and classroom experiences, thetheory gets more attention andprovides for deeper insights intothe data.The suggestions we most commonlymade related to the professional literatureincluded:• Use a short initial theoretical frameand interweave the rest of the theory.Start with the broad theoretical baseand define key terms, but integrate theother theoretical points within reflectionson the data.• Use the professional literature to discussthe data and provide deeperinsights into interpreting the data,instead of just listing it as citations.• Select the theory and professional literaturethat is most significant to thecentral focus of the manuscript; don’tincude everything that framed the study.• Select one or two key referencesrather than comprehensively citingmany people on a point. Multiple referencesinterrupt the reader’s flow andcan be seen as pretentious.• Include seminal references andcurrent work. Connect your work toseminal theoretical references and tocurrent research to show that you havetaken relevant work in the field intoaccount.One final comment: consider possiblealternative sources for theoreticalsupport in discussing data. Bisplinghoff(2002) uses literary referencesand the reflections of authors ofadult literature to support the discus-537Writing for Language Arts
538Writing for Language Artssion of her self-study as a teacher.Edelsky (2004) uses references outsideof education from political scienceto develop her discussion ofdemocracy.Establish the Classroomand Curricular ContextReaders need to have some sense ofthe school and classroom contextbefore moving into a reflectiveanalysis of the examples from thatsetting. The major goal is to providethe reader with enough descriptionof the context and curricularengagements to adequately understandthe examples without takingover the space needed to expand onthose examples. The context comesbefore the main body of the article,so an unnecessarily detaileddescription of the context delaysthe reader’s grasp of the actualfocus. Keep in mind that the writerhas lived in that context for a longtime, so must carefully select theinformation essential to clarifyingthe specific points of the article.The context can be short, as inGoodman (2005) where in one paragraph,she quickly establishes theschool context, describes her role inthe school, and introduces the children.She puts more focus on thetheoretical context and the beliefsthat guided her work. In contrast,Rowe, Fitch, and Bass (2003)provide a lengthy description of theengagement of Toy Stories and howit emerged over time before goinginto an analysis of the data fromthat engagement. They brieflydescribe the school and writersworkshop, since this classroomstructure is familiar to readers, butthe Toy Stories engagement is unfamiliarand represents a key part oftheir work, so it needs more extensivediscussion.An additional aspect of the contextfor studies is a description of theresearch methodology. In general, weencouraged writers to keep thisdescription brief—a paragraph ortwo—because our readers’ mainfocus is the authors’ reflectionsabout their findings, not a researchreport typical of a research journal.Jennings with O’Keefe (2002)indicates in one paragraph whatdata was gathered and how it wasanalyzed because the methods arefamiliar ones. Laman (2006), in contrast,has a whole section on usingcultural models for analysis, a lessfamiliar form of analysis that framesher classroom data and discussion.Many of our lettersasked authors toselectively choosewhich key points toinclude related to thecentral focus.Develop Key Points and Argumentsthrough Rich ExamplesThe heart of the article—and thereason the reader has perseveredthrough the earlier sections—is thediscussion of the key points relatedto the central tension established inthe introduction. These pointsdevelop the arguments that theauthor wants to make in discussingand providing new insights relatedto this tension. A major writingdecision is which key points tomake within an article. Includingtoo many points leads to none ofthem being developed in enoughdepth; too few points can result innot revealing the complexity of theissues around the central focus.Many of our letters asked authors toselectively choose which key pointsto include related to the centralfocus and to exclude other pointsthat were interesting, but notdirectly part of that argument.Once those key points have beenselected, providing examples todevelop and support those pointsmakes the difference between an articlethat seems to be based on personalopinion or that asks readers to justaccept what the author is arguing andan article that comes alive and effectivelycarries the reader into the argument.We found ourselves continuallyoffering these suggestions:• Be selective in choosing several examplesand present them in depth. Makesure they provide different perspectiveson the same point, not the same view.The range of examples should demonstratethe complexity of the issues.• Discuss each example; don’t just presentit and move on. Since authorsknow the children and context in muchgreater depth than readers, readersneed the author’s interpretation tounderstand the points. Reflecting onthose interpretations through insightsfrom professional literature can deepenthat discussion.• Mention alternative interpretations.When appropriate, we asked authors tonote other possible interpretations ofparticular data, instead of only presentingtheir perspective.• Be careful about over-interpreting thedata. Authors have strong beliefs thatgrow out of their broader work in thefield, and it’s tempting to bring thosebeliefs into a manuscript, even whenthe data do not directly support thatbelief. Other times, authors feel thatthey need to make big claims abouttheir findings to establish their worth.Over-interpreting endangers credibility.• Keep transcripts short. While there aretimes when long transcript excerpts areessential, we found that readers oftenskip long transcripts and have difficultyknowing what to focus on within thatexcerpt. Transcripts are more effectivewhen the author uses a narrative summaryof the discussion along with shortfocused excerpts.Language Arts, Vol. 83 No. 6, July 2006
Page 2 and 3: DECIDING TO WRITEAN ARTICLEAlthough
Page 6 and 7: • Use real examples. This may see
Page 8: eshape. Although reviewers tried to

Our Reflections on Writing for Publication

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?