20 Literacy Identities and Sponsors of Developmental Writers – Jessica Hale
Jessica Hale has a Graduate Certificate from IU in Language and Literature. She is working on completing her M.A. in English. This paper is part of a research study she wrote for Dr. Edwina Helton in her English W509 during fall of 2021.
Literacy Identities and Sponsors of Developmental Writers
A young male student in my developmental writing co-requisite course described his memories of writing in school as follows:
“…after we would write something, we would give it to one of our peers in the class for them to read it over before we would turn in the paper, and I always remember that being embarrassing for me because I was never confident with my work.”
This sentiment, embarrassment, echoes some of the findings of Deborah Brandt’s landmark study: Literacy in American Lives. In her chapter, “The Sacred and the Profane,” Brandt discusses the fact that for many Americans, writing is “recalled in the context of humiliation and anxiety” (154). As a community college instructor, I have witnessed the negative self-perceptions of students when it comes to both reading and writing for years. These beliefs seem to be particularly prevalent for students that are placed in my developmental courses, and they seem to be correlated with the student’s academic success. It has led me to question: “How do students see themselves as readers and writers?” and, as an instructor, “How can I help my developmental students be more successful?”
Brandt’s work in Literacy in American Lives highlights the fact that our literacy identities are not the sole product of our individual development, but rather, the result of larger social and economic forces (18). Brandt frames her discussion using the concept of sponsors: “any agents, local or distant, concrete or abstract, who enable, support, teach and model, as well as recruit, regulate, suppress, or withhold, literacy – and gain advantage by it in some way” (19). In the course of her research, Brandt found that sponsors commonly took the form of influential individuals, but the idea of sponsorship has been extended to include educational institutions (Webb-Sunderhaus 6), literacy narratives (Young 61), remedial courses (Kibler, qtd. in Gillilang 187), and essay prompts and pedagogy (Hollander, qtd. in Gillilang 187). These sponsors can be identified “through examination of individual’s retelling of their experience learning to read and write, in oral or written literacy narratives” (Gilliland 187). As such, the purpose of this study will be to explore the literacy identities of the students in my developmental English co-requisite course, as expressed in literacy narratives, and identify opportunities to improve student success through positive literacy sponsorship in the form of institutional practice, pedagogy, and coursework.
The purpose of this study was to learn how my students see themselves as readers and writers and how, as an instructor, I can help my developmental students be more successful. Ten students participated in providing written literacy narratives and had the ability to both edit their work (member check) and comment on the narratives of their peers (triangulation of data). While Reading and Writing with Peers and Writing and Reading in school emerged as the most popular topics in the initial content analysis, the narratives themselves provided insight into students’ literacy identities and sponsors.
The themes that emerged from the students’ literacy narratives demonstrate that negative self-perceptions are not atypical. This echoes the finding of Koch et al., who indicated that students placed in developmental courses may have negative self-perceptions (76). Although it is not clear from the narratives if the students’ beliefs about their abilities resulted in self-fulfilling prophecies (as Bandera’s work would suggest), but it is evident that negative self-perceptions exist. It is interesting that these negative perceptions were observed in responses from each of the male participants. This may be an example of negative parallel narrative construction among male participants (a possibility suggested by research conducted by both France and Bunting) or perhaps something even more complex.
Ecological theories of development, as discussed by Ainley and Buckley in their article, “Understanding Educational and Achievement Outcomes: Person, Process, and Context,” might explain how this might happen. This model discusses how individual traits (like gender) can interact with the process (in this case, writing about one’s development as a reader and writer) and the context (a peer group with only 3 male respondents in a developmental English course) (Ainley and Buckley 6). It is possible that once a single male student shared a comment indicating a negative literacy identity, it biased the other male respondents. Regardless of gender, the literacy narratives highlighted the fact that students are more confident in their reading skills than their writing skills, and this resonates with Brandt’s finding that while books were “the good stuff” (150), writing was “recalled in the context of humiliation and anxiety” (154).
The most salient sponsors in shaping literacy identities appears to be families and peers. This supports the New Literacy Studies’ assertion that “literacy is a social practice in which individuals’ learning and uses of literacy are integrally related to the contexts in which they live, work, and grow” (Gilliland 185). Acting as supportive sponsors, family members engaged them in early literacy behaviors, like reading, led formal and informal literacy instruction, and subsidized their literacy development through materials and connections. As inhibitive sponsors, family members shaped students’ literacy acquisition and identity by utilizing unfavorable instructional strategies and linking punishment to poor performance. Mothers were mentioned in a large number of narratives, identifying them as important sponsors for student literacy.
I think the perception is that once students reach college (at whatever age) families are no longer a strong influence, but this research suggests revisiting this assumption. Research conducted by Natasha Artemeva, in “Stories of Becoming: A Study of Novice Engineers Learning Genres of Their Profession,” showed that the social and cultural capital students bring with them to their studies is a big determinate of their ability to use the genre specific knowledge (163). Students like mine, many of whom are first generation college students, are thus at a considerable disadvantage.
Other research on the influence of families on college students addressed their nature of literacy sponsorship. “A Family Affair: Competing Sponsors of Literacy in Appalachian Students’ Lives” by Sara Webb-Sunderhaus examined the literacy lives of students in English Composition at two open-enrollment universities in Appalachia. This ethnographic case study involved classroom observations, class transcripts, surveys and interviews, but focused primarily on the stories of 2-3 students from each institution. Webb-Sunderhaus found that the biggest literacy sponsors (supportive and inhibitory) for these students were spiritual influences, immediate family, extended family, and parents. These findings comport with those of this study. Additionally, Webb-Sunderhaus reported that traditional female gender roles featured as inhibitory literacy sponsors for the students in this study. For women, academic literacy was linked to a failure to fulfill gender expectations (raising children, keeping a clean home, being subservient to one’s husband, etc.). This finding may also explain why mothers were featured so prominently in the literacy narratives of my students: Normative gender roles dictate that women are responsible for raising the children, which extends to include early literacy instruction.
In the literacy narratives provided by students in this study, peers were frequently mentioned as supportive literacy sponsors. Students established a link between literacy and personal connection, discussed the power of peer affirmation, and identified peers as a resource for improving writing skills. Peers functioned as inhibiting sponsors in that the thought of being perceived by peers as lacking literacy skills resulted in embarrassment and anxiety. In all of these accounts, the focus was on the written word, rather than reading skills. Further, no specific incidents of negative peer judgement were reported.
The negative emphasis on writing versus reading again supports Brandt’s previously mentioned findings. The influence of peer groups on educational outcomes (like literacy acquisition) has also been discussed by researchers. One study conducted by Marsh et al. showed that tracking students into courses based on ability had a negative effect on average student performance (qtd. in Ainley and Buckley 4). In another study by Buckley, researchers found that in schools that grouped students based on abilities, there were fewer help-seeking relationships among students and these relationships were less likely to be friendships (qtd. in Ainley and Buckley 5). These findings may be relevant for contextualizing the findings of this study because my institution uses ability based grouping (tracking) of students and students that score below a certain threshold (like the participants in this study) are directed to mandatory developmental courses in which they do not mingle with college level students, but rather, are isolated with other students that placed below college level. This peer grouping may have had an impact on how the students see themselves as readers and writers, but as students did not reference other students from class in their narratives, it is unclear what role they played.
A research study by Ann Dean, “Subsidizing Basic Writers: Resources and Demands in Literacy Sponsorship,” explored the idea that a subsidy system (resources like time, space, attention, emotional and financial support) might play a role in determining which students succeed and which fail. Using persistence data she collected over the course of six years, Dean stated that “the rate at which their resources outweighed their demands regulated their eventual performance and persistence” (21). If peers are used as resources (for emotional support, academic support, and social connection), as they were in this study, this might be the key to student’s ultimate success.
If family and peers are the most powerful sponsors for students, what does this suggest for my role as an instructor? If my goal is to create positive social change (a feminist perspective), what can I learn from this data to better support student success? While neither family nor peer, teachers, like myself, can strive to create a close personal connection with students, like those described with peers and family in this study. In “Against the Odds: Literacy Sponsorship in One Migrant Student’s Trajectory to College,” Betsy Gilliland, explored the experience of a migrant (pseudonym Ivan) student who was able to make a dramatic change in his life: Transitioning from gang member to college graduate and productive member of society. Gilliland found that the most powerful positive literacy sponsors for Ivan had “personalized, caring relationships” (188) with him, and the most restrictive sponsors were teachers that he perceived as not caring for him or liking him as a human being (191).
Teachers can also use assignments as literacy sponsors. I plan to design writing assignments that require reflection and pull on themes of family, friends, and positive self-theories for my future courses. This practice was found to be effective by Gilliland, who showed that school assignments and curriculum allowed Ivan to “develop his new identity” (193) and Bunting who used reflective writing assignments as a part of mindset and belonging interventions (36).
Composition instructors can also consciously create classroom peer groups as a means of subsidy for students. Collaborative work, and opportunities for connection and interaction (like wikis), can provide students with connection, affirmation, and support. Creating feedback or response guides that promote affirmative feedback amongst peers can also reduce anxiety about literacy skills or peer judgement.
Teachers and institutions can also work to subsidize resources for students. Dean concluded her work on subsidizing basic writers by recommending instructors utilize peer review, resource assessments, and writing environment journals as well as metacognitive work to support students’ ability to succeed in developmental English courses (29-30). She also advocates for building programs to support existing subsidies, for example, helping students with transportation, housing, tax preparation, healthcare, and food (32-3). By considering the “conditions of the community” (33), I may be able to support student persistence.
While this study provided some insight into how students see themselves as readers and writers, and suggests ways to how support developmental student success, there is more work to be done. Even though the findings of this study suggest that college instructors do not play a pivotal role in how students see themselves as readers and writers, my hope is that this research and these suggestions will make a positive difference. Moving the needle on developmental student success cannot happen soon enough.
Works Cited
Ainley, Mary and Sarah Buckley. “Understanding Educational Achievement and Outcomes: Person, Process and Context.” Using Analytical Frameworks for Classroom Research: Collecting Data and Analysing Narrative, edited by Susan Rodrigues, Routledge, 2010. EBSCOhost, https://proxyeast.uits.iu.edu/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nlebk&AN=311472&site=ehost-live&scope=site
Brandt, Deborah. Literacy in American Lives. Cambridge University Press, 2006.
Bunting, Bryce. “The Implications of Learning Mindsets for the First-Year Experience and Other Key Transitions.” Promoting Belonging, Growth Mindset and Resilience to Foster Student Success, edited by Amy Baldwin, Bryce Bunting, Doug Daugherty, Latoya Lewis and Tim Steenbergh, National Resource Center for The First-Year Experience and Student in Transition, University of South Carolina, 2020, 31-50.
Dean, Ann. C. (2019). “Subsidizing Basic Writers: Resources and Demands in Literacy Sponsorship.” Journal of Basic Writing, vol. 38, no. 1, 5-37. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1266005.pdf
France, Bev. “Narrative Interrogation.” Using Analytical Frameworks for Classroom Research: Collecting Data and Analysing Narrative, edited by Susan Rodrigues. Routledge, 2010. EBSCOhost, https://proxyeast.uits.iu.edu/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nlebk&AN=311472&site=ehost-live&scope=site
Gilliland, Betsy. (2018). “Against the Odds: Literacy Sponsorship in One Migrant Student’s Trajectory to College.” L2 Journal, vol. 10, no. 2, 183-197. http://dx.doi.org/10.5070/L210235249 Retrieved from https://escholarship.org/uc/item/7960t0fz
Koch, Bevan, John R. Slate and George Moore. “Perceptions of Students in Developmental Classes,” Community College Enterprise, 2021, 62-80. https://home.schoolcraft.edu/cce/18.2.62-82.pdf
Webb-Sunderhaus, Sara. “A Family Affair: Competing Sponsors of Literacy in Appalachian Students’ Lives.” Community Literacy Journal, vol. 2, no. 1, 2007, 5-24, doi:10.25148/clj.2.1.009502. https://digitalcommons.fiu.edu/communityliteracy/vol2/iss1/2/
Young, Morris. “Writing the Life of Henry Obookiah: The Sponsorship of Literacy and Identity.” Literacy, Economy, and Power: Writing and Research after Literacy in American Lives, edited by John Duffy, Julie Nelson Christoph, Eli Goldblatt, Nelson Graff, Rebecca S. Nowacek, and Brian Trabold. Southern Illinois University, 2014, 61-78.