View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

How Do I Want to Be Read? Embodied Autobiographical and Discoursal Selves in Preservice English Teachers' Feedback to High School Writers

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: How Do I Want to Be Read? Embodied Autobiographical and Discoursal Selves in Preservice English Teachers' Feedback to High School Writers
Language: English
Authors: Andrea R. Olinger (ORCID 0000-0001-7610-8040), Alison Heron-Hruby, James S. Chisholm (ORCID 0000-0002-0988-9315), Braydon L. Dungan, Hannah M. Conn, Julia P. Nitishin
Source: Reading Research Quarterly. 2025 60(1).
Availability: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 23
Publication Date: 2025
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
High Schools
Secondary Education
Descriptors: Autobiographies, Self Concept, Preservice Teachers, English Teachers, Feedback (Response), High School Teachers, High School Students, Writing (Composition), Teaching Experience
DOI: 10.1002/rrq.590
ISSN: 0034-0553
1936-2722
Abstract: Research on writing pedagogy highlights effective feedback as dialogic and student-centered. However, few studies have examined how preservice English teachers (PSETs) craft their feedback based on how they want their students to read them. Drawing on sociocultural approaches to writing, we examine the co-construction of these "discoursal selves" by studying PSETs' talk and embodied actions during focus-group conversations about their feedback to student writers. Data included videorecorded focus groups, transcripts, and written feedback. By navigating their life histories ("autobiographical selves") and the identities they sought to convey in their feedback ("discoursal selves"), PSETs struggled to contend with their internalized grammarians while projecting a peer identity that was encouraging even when they offered critique. We argue that reflection with PSETs on how they want to be read can empower them to make intentional instructional choices.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2025
Accession Number: EJ1458570
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwGwLrX_ttsw1JKw7U3la_plAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDK_dnGrXcbJ5NCTlkQIBEICBmwc8Iz6ceslfGzPHNnq_hQ7fSU0xutVWRHNxCgImf6868s-pgoVlSbLSbTUeGz3oQq3lBdKmc5IFX3uLpTlcMh4ybIlvjRxID5F4eo7rIhmj7om2QuMKM4_SuWzgYLzVEEQv0QCatloHZfEjYRRbzzW0s9VDpo1Ng_lECZrGNcH_W4KwAVc4JXeMroOgCikJj3XEY2c_C1tL3wl-
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0183756690;[nrnu]01jan.25;2025Apr04.08:23;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0183756690-1">How Do I Want to be Read? Embodied Autobiographical and Discoursal Selves in Preservice English Teachers' Feedback to High School Writers </title> <p>Research on writing pedagogy highlights effective feedback as dialogic and student‐centered. However, few studies have examined how preservice English teachers (PSETs) craft their feedback based on how they want their students to read them. Drawing on sociocultural approaches to writing, we examine the co‐construction of these "discoursal selves" by studying PSETs' talk and embodied actions during focus‐group conversations about their feedback to student writers. Data included videorecorded focus groups, transcripts, and written feedback. By navigating their life histories ("autobiographical selves") and the identities they sought to convey in their feedback ("discoursal selves"), PSETs struggled to contend with their internalized grammarians while projecting a peer identity that was encouraging even when they offered critique. We argue that reflection with PSETs on how they want to be read can empower them to make intentional instructional choices.</p> <p>Hannah's petting gestures (Figure 6, line 9). Note that the utterances occur at the same time as the images under which they appear.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/NRNU/01Jan25/rrq590-toc-0001.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="rrq590-toc-0001.jpg" title="." /> </p> <p></p> <p>In her 1998 book <emph>Writing and Identity: The Discoursal Construction of Identity in Academic Writing</emph>, Roz Ivanič articulated "writer identity" as involving both the "autobiographical self" (the writer's life history) and the "discoursal self" (the impression that writers convey through their linguistic and textual choices and their stance toward what they are writing about). For instance, in making "How do I want to be read?" the first part of our title, we are seeking to construct a discoursal self that is engaging, accessible, and creative. Our inclusion of hypothetical or actual speech from research participants is a practice we have used before, both together (Chisholm et al., [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref1">14</reflink>]; Heron‐Hruby et al., [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref2">25</reflink>]) and separately, and has also been informed by disciplinary trends in article‐titling (e.g., Nagano, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref3">41</reflink>]; Pearson, [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref4">47</reflink>]).</p> <p>Following this theory of writer identity, we conceptualize written language as informed by writers' autobiographical selves and indexing particular discoursal selves (Burgess & Ivanič, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref5">10</reflink>]; Ivanič, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref6">27</reflink>]). This conceptualization aligns with a sociocultural view of language, in which, as Bakhtin ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref7">5</reflink>]) put it, "[e]ach word tastes of the context and contexts in which it has lived its socially charged life" and "all words and forms are populated by intentions" (p. 293). Given the histories—and selves—indexed by even single words, it is valuable to study writing not just through analysis of textual artifacts but also by tracing how the artifacts were produced, or by following what happens as they circulate and are read and repurposed by readers. Whereas student, faculty, and professional writing has often received this treatment (e.g., Prior & Thorne, [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref8">52</reflink>]), a genre common to writing teachers, tutors, and mentors—written comments on students' writing—has received less focus from a sociocultural lens (although see, e.g., Evans, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref9">18</reflink>]; Woodard, [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref10">65</reflink>]). For new teachers of writing, especially, who are trying to figure out who they want to be in the classroom, written comments on student writing can be a useful place in which to study their developing identities as teachers. In this study, therefore, we asked, how do preservice English teachers (PSETs) contend with their autobiographical selves and construct their discoursal selves when providing written feedback to student writers?</p> <p>One important aspect of a sociocultural approach to writing is that language is not its exclusive purview. Given that written language is itself multisemiotic, and given that written genres are developed through not just writing but also talking, collaborating, gesturing, and interacting with the environment (e.g., Prior, [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref11">51</reflink>]; Rowe, [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref12">55</reflink>]; VanDerHeide, [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref13">61</reflink>]), a sociocultural approach to studying writing involves attending to a wide range of semiotic resources, including embodied actions of individual writers and collaborators—such as gestures, facial expressions, body position and movement, and paralanguage (nonverbal vocal resources like laughter, volume, and intonation). To study how PSETs want themselves—and their comments—to be read by their students, therefore, we must look not just at our participants' words but at their whole bodies‐in‐interaction.</p> <p>First, we examine literature focused on tensions in autobiographical selves, or experiences in PSETs' literacy histories that shape their writing teacher identities. Second, we zoom in to teacher written feedback and explore tensions that teachers experience in crafting their discoursal selves. Third, we examine scholarship on embodied actions of writing teachers in their classrooms that highlights the embodied ways in which teachers of writing convey their beliefs, and the material, to learners. Although we use Ivanič's ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref14">27</reflink>]) and Burgess and Ivanič's ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref15">10</reflink>]) terms in our theoretical framing of this study, the literature we review below does not always explicitly cite these scholars; nevertheless, these empirical studies are relevant to our conceptualization of writer identity because PSETs' literacy histories influence their autobiographical selves, which in turn shape the identities that PSETs seek to construct in their feedback to student writers—i.e., their discoursal selves.</p> <hd id="AN0183756690-3">Tensions in Autobiographical Selves and Writing Teacher Identities</hd> <p>"Writing is an act of identity," Ivanič ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref16">27</reflink>]) argues, "in which people align themselves with socio‐culturally shaped possibilities for self‐hood, playing their part in reproducing or challenging dominant practices and discourses, and the values, beliefs and interests they embody" (p. 32). The autobiographical self encompasses all of the socially constructed experiences—and the ways that people represent those experiences to themselves—that a writer brings to the act of writing, such as their "values, beliefs, and interests" at any given moment. These aspects of the autobiographical self are constantly changing over time and may even include "imagined or desired" possibilities (Burgess & Ivanič, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref17">10</reflink>], p. 239).</p> <p>PSETs' literacy histories—their contexts and their experiences—shape their autobiographical selves as future teachers (Izadinia, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref18">29</reflink>]; Norman & Spencer, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref19">43</reflink>]). These histories also inform how they approach teaching writing. Kohnen's ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref20">31</reflink>]) case study demonstrates how "the K–12 school system shape[s], and ultimately limit[s], preservice teachers' understandings of who they are (and who they can be) as teachers of writing, despite the efforts of the teacher preparation program" (p. 349). Further, PSETs' experiences as students of writing inform how they would approach teaching writing in their educator preparation programs (Premont et al., [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref21">49</reflink>]); if they experienced a process‐oriented approach to teaching writing as students, they may seek to replicate that approach with their own students even if that approach was met with resistance in the schools where they completed their student teaching and field experiences (Dutro et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref22">17</reflink>]; Findlay, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref23">19</reflink>]; Hebard, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref24">24</reflink>]; Smagorinsky et al., [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref25">58</reflink>]).</p> <p>Informing everything from policy documents to teaching and learning materials and classroom interactions are what Ivanič ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref26">28</reflink>]) called "discourses of writing and learning to write." Defined as "configurations of beliefs and practices in relation to the teaching of writing" (p. 220), the discourses are identified as skills, creativity, process, genre, social practices, and sociopolitical (p. 225). While contradictions exist between any two of these discourses, let alone across all six, Ivanič suggests that teachers not simply choose one over another; rather, multiple discourses "should be understood, and should be drawn upon in the light of an understanding of [others]" (p. 241). Because multiple discourses infuse PSETs' personal histories and experiences of learning, PSETs need to negotiate these tensions and contradictions to form a coherent practice (McCarthey et al., [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref27">36</reflink>]).</p> <p>Using Ivanič's ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref28">28</reflink>]) framework, McCarthey et al. ([<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref29">36</reflink>]) demonstrate such need. For instance, one teacher in their study used a combination of the skills, genre, and process discourses by emphasizing—in separate class periods—grammar skills specific to expository writing, picture books as creative writing examples, and time for drafting, feedback, and revision. However, this teacher's pedagogy did not reflect any of the discourses beyond a superficial level. Furthermore, during the research interviews, she did not consider how the discourses worked for or against each other in relation to her teaching goals. Teachers may know to use an array of discourses, but they might not integrate them coherently into their sense of what it means to be a teacher of writing.</p> <hd id="AN0183756690-4">Tensions in Discoursal Selves and Teacher Written Feedback</hd> <p>In a 2010 update to the concept of writer identity, Amanda Burgess and Ivanič refined the notion of "discoursal self" by describing that it is "constructed at the interface between the identity the writer brings to the writing, and the writer's anticipation of how she will be read" (p. 240). Essentially, it is "a set of interpretable signs from which readers will obtain an impression of the writer" (p. 240). The discoursal self is thus not static or controlled by the writer; it is co‐constructed by the reader (see also Olinger, [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref30">45</reflink>]); therefore, it can be contradictory, as there may be tension between how the writer wants to be perceived and how a writer thinks they might be read. Moreover, although the discoursal self is usually constructed in the moment of reading, it can develop or endure across longer timescales, and it interacts with other aspects of writer identity, such as the "subject positions...that are socially available" to the writer and that shape her autobiographical self (p. 241).</p> <p>PSETs' own personal experiences as writers and writing students influence their approaches to teaching writing and, more specifically, to providing written feedback to student writers. Feedback that misses the mark by failing to balance suggestions for improvement with encouragement has resulted in PSETs' negative associations with writing. PSETs have described the written feedback they received as students as "discouraging" and a "personal blow to your self‐esteem" that "can really destroy you" (Kohnen, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref31">31</reflink>], p. 362; see also Yu et al., [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref32">67</reflink>], for other negative effects of poor teacher feedback). Further, approximately half of the 59 PSETs in Norman and Spencer's ([<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref33">43</reflink>]) study reported that even corrective feedback on their writing had a negative impact on their self‐concept as writers.</p> <p>Reviews of composition research agree that effective teacher feedback is dialogic, student‐centered, and situated within classroom purposes for writing (Beach & Friedrich, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref34">6</reflink>]; Spence et al., [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref35">59</reflink>]; Wilson & Post, [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref36">64</reflink>]). Three foci that teachers of writing use to position themselves in their feedback, as described by Anson ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref37">2</reflink>]), are dualistic (emphasis on surface‐level features), relativistic (emphasis on ideas, while neglecting grammatical and rhetorical issues), and reflective (emphasis on both the structural and ideational aspects of the writing without dictating what the writer must do). The latter reflective focus is itself tensioned by dualistic and relativistic emphases. Thus, enacting this approach requires a level of interactional complexity one might not find in the other two approaches. For example, in an effort to establish a discoursal self that is reflective (that is, one that strives to maintain positive relationships with students while also supporting the ongoing development of student writers), teachers of writing may respond to students with what is colloquially known as the feedback sandwich, in which criticism is flanked before and after by praise—or what Hyland and Hyland ([<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref38">26</reflink>]) describe as "praise‐criticism pairs ... linked by a contrastive connector" (p. 202). Hyland and Hyland demonstrate that the use of praise in such circumstances can serve to soften the critique of content that is coming; however, students are familiar with this feedback move and often don't read the praise as actual praise, just as a way for the teacher to repair any relational damage that might result from the direct criticism of the student writer's content (Hyland & Hyland, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref39">26</reflink>]).</p> <p>Further, teachers' criticism often contains hedges or indirectness, which can lead to miscommunication with student writers (Hyland & Hyland, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref40">26</reflink>]). In studying the experiences of undergraduate students serving as writing tutors for particular college courses, Corbett ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref41">15</reflink>]) and Nicolas ([<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref42">42</reflink>]) found similar miscommunication between tutors and students—if a tutor was nondirective in their feedback, students tended to feel the tutor was not doing their job. Written feedback between PSETs and student writers, as a result, is ripe territory for exploring PSETs' negotiations of identity and authority.</p> <hd id="AN0183756690-5">Embodied Actions in the Teaching of Writing</hd> <p>Embodied actions such as gestures have long been a source of data across a range of studies that draw on theories and methods from linguistics, semiotics, conversation analysis, multimodal discourse in education, and psychology (e.g., Flood, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref43">20</reflink>]; Matsumoto, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref44">35</reflink>]; Roth, [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref45">54</reflink>]; Rowe, [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref46">55</reflink>]; Tainio & Heinonen, [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref47">60</reflink>]). However, limited attention has been paid to the embodied actions of writing teachers in the classroom or in related pedagogical contexts.</p> <p>Studying embodied actions can allow researchers to explore, and elicit further reflection on, embodied knowledge of and stance toward participants' writing and teaching writing (e.g., Campbell & Fiscus‐Cannaday, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref48">12</reflink>]; Micciche et al., [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref49">39</reflink>]; Olinger, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref50">46</reflink>]). For example, Campbell and Fiscus‐Cannaday ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref51">12</reflink>]) used multimodal discourse analysis to explore the connections between composition teaching assistants' (TAs') disciplinary identities and orientations toward students and their embodied actions. After videorecording TAs teach a lesson on argument‐writing, the researchers selected clips in which gestures mediated classroom activity and communicated information, especially about argument; then, in interviews, they discussed these clips with the TAs, asking them to describe their embodied teaching practices and talk about their perception of the gestures' connections to their teaching goals as well as scholarly identities. One TA, for instance, underlined and boxed key words in student‐contributed comments that he had transcribed on the board to demonstrate the value of close reading, which is part of this TA's self‐identified disciplinary orientation (i.e., deeper analysis of everyday artifacts). Through this multimodal analysis, Campbell and Fiscus‐Cannaday ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref52">12</reflink>]) show how "beliefs about writing <emph>are</emph> embodied...and pedagogical performances can be a site for accessing these embodied ideologies and recognizing internal contradictions... where conflicting identities are made visible and negotiated" (p. 30, italics in original).</p> <p>As another example of how writing teachers might enact their conceptions about teaching writing, Rule (in Micciche et al., [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref53">39</reflink>]) identified a way in which her teaching performance (as represented in a videorecording she made) conflicted with her teaching philosophy:</p> <p>I knew to remain neutral towards comments, write down student responses on the board, and speak minimally between comments in order to respect and honor students' contributions. And while I did see myself enacting some of these strategies, overall, my body language challenged my supposed philosophy of leading discussion. I spoke much more than I thought I had, and often directly back to the student who had contributed. Also, as I slowed the video down, I was able to see that my hands gestured directly toward the contributing student, physically cutting the rest of the class off from the conversation. Essentially, my embodiment of leading discussion conflicted with my abstract sense of my teaching identity. (n.p.)</p> <p>With both this study and Campbell and Fiscus‐Cannaday ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref54">12</reflink>]), teachers' retrospective reflections on video clips of their embodied actions while teaching served to elicit useful information on their own beliefs about teaching writing as well as on the extent to which they perceived their own beliefs and practices to be aligned.</p> <p>This brief discussion of literature on the contexts and experiences that influence writing teachers' identities (autobiographical selves), the tensions around who they want to be in their responses to student writing (discoursal selves), and the benefits of studying writing teachers' embodied actions in the classroom to learn more about their beliefs points to the value of digging deeply into the texts and processes of teacher feedback. Whereas most studies of teacher feedback have relied on audio interview data or artifact collection, by using videorecorded text‐based interviews, we seek to understand how PSETs want to be read by their students—and, more specifically, how these discoursal selves look, sound, and feel.</p> <hd id="AN0183756690-6">Methods</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0183756690-7">Context for the Study</hd> <p>Our qualitative study emerges out of an ongoing partnership between an English Language Arts (ELA) methods course and a dual‐credit Writing II high school composition course in the U.S. In this partnership, called the Writing Mentors program, PSETs were paired with high school students and gave feedback on students' writing via Google Docs' commenting features. Students completed three major projects: a personal narrative to explore what can be learned from games; a rhetorical analysis of a game (e.g., a board game, video game, or game show); and an argument essay about a social justice issue. Students received feedback on each essay draft from PSETs in Alison's concurrent ELA methods course.</p> <p>The research for the present study was a collaborative effort between three university faculty (Andrea, Alison, and James) and three PSETs (Julia, Braydon, and Hannah) who participated as Writing Mentors. The PSETs became co‐researchers first out of logistical necessity during the participant‐recruitment stage of the study. Our (the three faculty members') intention was to pay the PSETs who were both Writing Mentors and study participants for their time and effort, and we had grant funds and IRB approval to do so. However, because of federal financial aid rules, the PSETs were not allowed to receive a stipend but were allowed to be paid as Undergraduate Research Fellows. We saw an interesting opportunity in this—to make the PSETs co‐researchers while honoring our commitment to compensate them. They completed CITI training, and we received IRB approval to include them as co‐investigators on the study: the procedure became that we would interview them for the study, but that they would join us in the data analysis and in composing the research report.</p> <hd id="AN0183756690-8">Methodology</hd> <p>Our theoretical framework conceives of writing as "chains of short‐ and long‐term production, representation, reception, and distribution" and texts as "parts of streams of mediated, distributed, and multimodal activity" (Prior, [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref55">51</reflink>], pp. 57–8). Instead of simply conducting textual analysis of PSETs' written feedback, we conducted focus groups with PSETs in order to understand why they worded their comments in the ways they did. Although we were not observing or recording the PSETs as they wrote their feedback—methods that would have allowed us to capture the moment‐to‐moment activity of writing (e.g., Mondada & Svinhufvud, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref56">40</reflink>]; Olinger, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref57">44</reflink>]; Prior, [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref58">53</reflink>])—our retrospective text‐based interviews (Prior, [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref59">50</reflink>]) helped us reconstruct what PSETs were thinking when they wrote.</p> <p>More specifically, in our text‐based interview protocols, we gave PSETs copies of their written feedback and asked them questions about their reasoning behind particular comments that they made. For instance, in our Focus Group 2 protocol, our text‐based interview portion of the questions began with the following prompt: "Ask each of them to choose (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref60">1</reflink>) their favorite comment and say why and (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref61">2</reflink>) the comment they feel most uncertain about or that was the hardest to write and say why." Text‐based interviews therefore encouraged PSETs to speak about particular comments rather than about their approach to feedback more generally. As we detail below, we also wanted these conversations to be part of focus groups, rather than individual interviews, in order to elicit multiple perspectives on the meanings of particular choices the PSETs made. Moreover, because we were interested in how PSETs' constructed discoursal selves beyond language, we broadened our scope to include the analysis of embodied actions during focus groups, requiring that we videorecord PSETs. We describe our data collection and analysis procedures in more detail below.</p> <hd id="AN0183756690-9">Written Data and Videorecorded Focus Groups</hd> <p>We used a focus group format so that we could learn how PSETs' understandings of feedback emerged in consideration with those of their peers: What knowledge did they take up from each other, if any? The focus group approach aligned with our theoretical framework because it showcased knowledge as social action, whereby PSETs enact their teacher identities and what it means to <emph>be a teacher</emph> in concert with others. A focus group provides a greater opportunity for collaborative knowledge on display than a single interviewer‐interviewee dyad. The format is meant to encourage diverse viewpoints through a nondirective interview style (Brinkman & Kvale, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref62">7</reflink>]), and the interviewer's role is to encourage discussion among participants, under the belief that stances do not form in a vacuum (Marshall & Rossman, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref63">34</reflink>]).</p> <p>The focus groups took place in spring 2020, the same semester when the PSETs were giving feedback to students in the Writing II course. Andrea, Alison, and James, along with the students in Alison's class, were given access to the Writing II course's Google Drive materials. These materials included links to Google Docs containing drafts of each Writing II student's essay, on which the PSET paired with that student could add feedback.</p> <p>Andrea conducted three focus groups over videoconferencing platforms, each one to discuss the PSETs' feedback on each major assignment. For the first two focus groups, the PSETs met in person, interacting with Andrea through one of their computers. For the third focus group, however, everyone met virtually via videoconferencing given the COVID‐19 lockdown.</p> <p>To prepare for the focus groups, Andrea reviewed PSETs' written feedback on their mentees' papers as well as any additional contextual information, such as curricular documents and field experience reflections that the PSETs had written for Alison's course after they gave feedback on the gaming narrative, some of which we quote below. In advance of each focus group, Andrea emailed the PSETs a PDF containing all three of the PSETs' comments on their mentees' papers. Tables 1 and 2 list the written and video data for this project, respectively. After the focus groups, the three faculty prepared rough transcriptions of the talk and embodied actions in the recordings.</p> <p>1 TABLE Written Data Sources</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><th align="left">Writing assignment</th><th align="center">Data sources</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left">Gaming narrative</td><td align="left">Braydon's feedback on mentee's paper</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Hannah's feedback on mentee's paper</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Julia's feedback on mentee's paper</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Paper written by Braydon's mentee</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Paper written by Hannah's mentee</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Paper written by Julia's mentee</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Written reflection on feedback experience by Braydon</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Written reflection on feedback experience by Hannah</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Written reflection on feedback experience by Julia</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Rhetorical analysis of a game</td><td align="left">Braydon's feedback on mentee's paper</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Hannah's feedback on mentee's paper</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Julia's feedback on mentee's paper</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Paper written by Braydon's mentee</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Paper written by Hannah's mentee</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Paper written by Julia's mentee</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Argument</td><td align="left">Braydon's feedback on mentee's paper</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Hannah's feedback on mentee's paper</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Julia's feedback on mentee's paper</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Julia's feedback on Hannah's mentee's paper (she offered to give extra feedback)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Paper written by Braydon's mentee</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Paper written by Hannah's mentee</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Revised paper by Hannah's mentee</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Paper written by Julia's mentee</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Totals</td><td align="left">10 papers (including 1 revised paper)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">10 sets of WM written feedback on those papers</td></tr><tr><td align="left">3 sets of WM written reflections on the feedback experience</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>2 TABLE Video Data Sources</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><th align="left">Data source</th><th align="center">Purpose</th><th align="center">Date</th><th align="center">Participants involved</th><th align="center">Length</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left">Focus Group 1</td><td align="left">Discussing their feedback on the gaming narratives</td><td align="left">2/25/2020</td><td align="left">Hannah, Julia, Braydon are together in person, connecting to Andrea via Zoom</td><td align="left">51:40, videorecorded using a camcorder (capturing Hannah, Julia, and Braydon only), videorecorded using Zoom, audiorecorded using Andrea's phone</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Focus Group 2</td><td align="left">Discussing their feedback on students' rhetorical analyses</td><td align="left">3/10/2020</td><td align="left">Hannah, Julia, Braydon are together in person, connecting to Andrea via Zoom</td><td align="left">54:10 videorecorded using a camcorder (capturing Hannah, Julia, and Braydon only), videorecorded using Zoom–although Andrea's computer crashed, so only the second half was videorecorded using Zoom; audiorecorded using Andrea's phone</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Focus Group 3—Hannah and Julia</td><td align="left">Discussing their feedback on students' arguments</td><td align="left">5/5/2020</td><td align="left">Andrea, Hannah, Julia are connected via MS Teams</td><td align="left">01:03:22 (videorecorded using MS Teams, audiorecorded using Andrea's phone; however, the video data are not usable—Julia's camera wasn't working and Hannah's screen showed only half of her head, which filled the entire screen</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Focus Group 3—Braydon</td><td align="left">Discussing their feedback on students' arguments</td><td align="left">5/8/2020</td><td align="left">Andrea and Braydon are connected via MS Teams</td><td align="left">35:02 (videorecorded using MS Teams, audiorecorded using Andrea's phone)</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0183756690-10">Data Analysis</hd> <p>Previous research has established how teacher identities and various discourses around writing and teaching writing shape PSETs' pedagogical beliefs and practices (Campbell & Fiscus‐Cannaday, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref64">12</reflink>]; Hebard, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref65">24</reflink>]; Ivanič, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref66">28</reflink>]; Land, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref67">32</reflink>]; McCarthey et al., [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref68">36</reflink>]; Smagorinsky et al., [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref69">58</reflink>]). As we describe below, the six of us engaged in collaborative data analysis to identify how the two coding categories—teacher identities and teaching writing discourses—were manifested in PSETs' embodied actions in focus group conversations. The three faculty members then did further coding of this work and identified how the examples discussed sorted into two main categories, autobiographical and discoursal selves.</p> <hd id="AN0183756690-11">Collective Analyses (Faculty and PSETs)</hd> <p>First, Andrea and Alison met with the PSETs (Braydon, Julia, and Hannah) for 2 h to discuss relevant theories—works by Ivanič ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref70">28</reflink>]) and McCarthey et al. ([<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref71">36</reflink>]) on discourses about teaching writing—as well as methods for qualitative data analysis (Merriam, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref72">38</reflink>]), the potential usefulness of examining contradictions in interview talk (Potter & Mulkay, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref73">48</reflink>]), and the value of analyzing embodied actions (Olinger, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref74">46</reflink>]). We also practiced coding a part of a transcript to identify teacher identities and discourses around teaching writing.</p> <p>After the meeting, all six of us (Andrea, Alison, James, Braydon, Julia, and Hannah) (re)watched the videos and (re)read the transcripts. The faculty provided prompts to facilitate our coding and synthesis writing: in addition to coding for discourses about teaching writing that PSETs expressed or attributed and teacher identities that PSETs expressed or attributed, everyone was directed to identify moments in which these discourses or identities were expressed through embodied actions, as well as to note any moments that seemed especially interesting or contradictory. For discourses, we used Ivanič's ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref75">28</reflink>]) categories, but for identities, we engaged in inductive coding (e.g., teacher as error‐hunter, teacher as encourager).</p> <p>The six of us met over videoconferencing platforms to discuss our respective analytic notes. At the first meeting (in November 2020), we discussed moments we identified in Focus Group 1 (e.g., a concern about over‐marking grammar, which is part of skills discourse); at the second meeting (in March 2021), we discussed moments in Focus Groups 2 and 3 (e.g., the teacher identity of being an encourager despite giving critique). At each session, we replayed (via screen‐sharing) and discussed a number of clips where embodied actions seemed to mediate teacher identities or discourses around teaching writing.</p> <hd id="AN0183756690-12">Faculty Analyses of Collective Analyses</hd> <p>The data analysis sessions were recorded, and Andrea, Alison, and James then watched and took notes on the recordings to facilitate the writing of this article.</p> <p>As the three faculty consulted our notes from the collaborative data analysis sessions and re‐read the focus group transcripts, we decided that the moments in which discourses and teacher identities were mediated by embodied actions were the most interesting to us, for that's when teacher identities and discourses were not merely referenced verbally but enacted through paralanguage, body position and movement, facial expressions, and gestures. These moments became our unit of analysis to address the research question in this study.</p> <p>With this refined focus in mind, we created a list of the eight data excerpts (moments) that all six of us had discussed and replayed during the data analysis sessions, moments in which embodied actions mediated enactments of selves that reflected teacher identities and discourses in the teaching of writing. We then re‐read the transcripts and looked for any additional moments, coming up with six more, for a total of fourteen moments. Appendix A contains our list of the fourteen, organized by theme. Our inclusion criteria for all of these moments were the following:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Are these moments linked to robust and interpretable selves reflecting teacher identities or discourses in the teaching of writing?</item> <p></p> <item> Do versions of these selves appear in more than one focus group, thus indicating PSETs' significant interest in or commitment to those discourses or identities?</item> </ulist> <p>With these criteria, we excluded many moments of embodied actions that seemed to mediate discussion of discourses or identities, but did not involve the construction of selves and/or did not appear in more than one focus group. For instance, when Braydon described that he liked to offer summative comments because he felt that without them, the feedback might "come to, like, a really blunt, just, end ((pinches thumb and forefinger together))," he used an iconic gesture to depict the quality of bluntness (Focus Group 3). His gesture helped convey his practice of avoiding bluntness in his comments, but it did not reflect a <emph>self</emph> related to a teacher identity or a discourse (criteria #1), nor did his point, or something similar, recur in other focus group conversations (criteria #2).</p> <p>As we assembled our list of moments (Appendix A), we used collaborative coding (Smagorinsky, [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref76">57</reflink>]) to group them into themes by discourses and teacher identities (see Table 3 for a summary). Our exchanges about each coding decision also helped us to refine our inclusion criteria, listed above. The 14 moments centered two main identities: projecting a peer identity, that is, not wanting to be perceived by their mentees as arrogant or as holding a sense of superiority, and being an encourager despite giving critique, that is, seeking to boost, and not deflate, one's mentees as one was providing critical feedback. In addition, resistance to skills discourse, or a perceived overemphasis on word‐ and sentence‐level correctness, was associated with helping Writing Mentors project a peer identity and be encouraging. Although Ivanič ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref77">28</reflink>]) identifies six discourses that shape the teaching of writing, it is striking that skills discourse was the only one indexed in the moments when PSETs were enacting particular embodied selves.</p> <p>3 TABLE Themes Identified across the 14 Moments</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><th align="left">Theme</th><th align="center">Teacher identity, discourse, or both</th><th align="center">Number of moments</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left">Projecting a peer identity</td><td align="left">Identity</td><td align="left">6</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Being an encourager despite giving critique</td><td align="left">Identity</td><td align="left">5</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Resisting skills discourse to project a peer identity</td><td align="left">Discourse + identity</td><td align="left">1</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Resisting skills discourse to be an encourager</td><td align="left">Discourse + identity</td><td align="left">2</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 <emph>Note</emph>: Appendix A includes all data excerpts.</p> <p>It was during this process that we realized that these moments could be conceptualized in terms of Ivanič's ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref78">27</reflink>]) and Burgess and Ivanič's ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref79">10</reflink>]) concepts of autobiographical selves (moments in which PSETs' feedback to student writers stemmed from their own life histories) and discoursal selves (moments in which their feedback projected particular identities). More specifically, we found that the moments where PSETs were enacting their embodied resistance to skills discourse were linked to the former, and the moments where they were enacting a peer identity or that of an encourager despite giving critique were linked to the latter.</p> <p>Once we had our list of themes, we selected representative moments for this article that we would transcribe in more detail. We were not seeking interactional patterns in the focus group talk, as conversation analysis would do; rather, we wanted to study the embodied selves that were being enacted in the moment. We chose moments for refined transcription and inclusion in this article based on the desire to be representative among participants, to not present redundant points, and to select moments with especially robust, multiple marked embodied actions (In Appendix A, the asterisks denote the moments chosen for discussion in this article).</p> <p>To refine our transcriptions, we adapted conventions of conversation analysis (e.g., Sacks et al., [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref80">56</reflink>]) and created figures that combined transcribed utterances with screenshots from the video data. (See Appendix B for transcription conventions.) This more detailed data presentation allowed us to further analyze how PSETs marshaled semiotic resources in discussing their autobiographical selves and articulating their desired discoursal selves. After we had completed a draft of the article, we shared the manuscript with Braydon, Hannah, and Julia to ensure it represented their perspectives, especially since we began to engage with the concepts of autobiographical and discoursal selves after the collaborative data analysis sessions.</p> <hd id="AN0183756690-13">Findings</hd> <p>In their written feedback, PSETs sought to craft discoursal selves that were encouraging, enthusiastic, and non‐hierarchical. Constructing these identities, however, involved contending with their autobiographical selves, which emerged over years of receiving feedback from teachers. Below, we first discuss the latter and then explore the former.</p> <hd id="AN0183756690-14">Contending with Autobiographical Selves</hd> <p>In reflecting on their educational and literacy histories, PSETs remembered teachers who would mark everything up as well as teachers who gave barely any feedback at all. They described having developed instincts that good feedback meant extensive comments on almost every line, usually about sentence‐level matters. This practice characterizes what Ivanič ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref81">28</reflink>]) terms "skills discourse," in which "what counts as good writing is determined by the correctness of the letter, word, sentence, and text formation" (p. 227) and in which writing teachers emphasize lexical, grammatical, and mechanical accuracy over such aspects as developing effective writing processes or authentic purposes and contexts for writing.</p> <p>Anticipating PSETs' internalization of and experience with skills discourse, Alison had instructed the students in her writing methods course to stick to providing three main suggestions in their feedback in order to resist their instincts to line‐edit. In her written instructions to students as they prepared to respond to the first paper, she wrote,</p> <p>In all cases, use the Rule of Three, which means try to keep your feedback to three suggestions. You don't want to overwhelm the writer. For longer drafts (more than two typed pages), more suggestions are fine, but try not to go over two suggestions per page. For longer papers, you may want to read the entire draft first to diagnose general areas for improvement and then choose a few places in the draft to call out those areas, so that you don't spend a lot of time typing comments.</p> <p>Stick to feedback that focuses on ideas, clarity, and organization. Do not edit for spelling or grammar, unless the writer is in the polishing/final draft stage and specifically asks for grammar assistance.</p> <p>Your goal is to respond as a curious, interested reader. Let the writer know when you are interested, when you want more information, and when you are confused. If you think the writing is too simple, challenge the writer to look at other perspectives.</p> <p>Some prompts to use, for example: ...</p> <p>PSETs discussed the fact that these guidelines constrained them from marking every error they saw and that they had to resist the instinct to do heavy intervention in the writer's draft. For instance, at the end of her field experience reflection, Hannah wrote:</p> <p>One small thing that frustrated me was not being able to comment on certain things about the student's draft. Grammar was one thing that I always comment on, and not being able to really go into depth about things here was like listening to nails on a chalkboard. Not that my mentee's grammar was bad! But certain things could have been commented on.</p> <p>The PSETs agreed throughout the research that it was difficult to <emph>not</emph> be hands on but that they worked hard to try. In the focus groups, both Braydon and Hannah illustrated what it felt like to restrain this natural impulse to do heavy editing.</p> <p>In Focus Group 1, discussing the constraints that Alison had imposed, Braydon said he was a "huge grammar nerd," a statement that both Hannah and Julia agreed with. Braydon then demonstrated what it felt like to read "some incorrect grammar." He rubbed his temples with his hand while saying "aww," generating laughter from Julia and a smile and a nod from Hannah. Unintentionally paralleling Hannah's written reflection, Braydon elaborated that "it was like nails on a chalkboard," and scrunched his right hand as if it were poised to screech. He then described his self‐talk: "I was like I can't ↑say any↓thing, but I really want to."; when he said "say anything" with a sing‐song pitch (rising, then falling), he shook his head and rolled his eyes while smiling, as if signaling an amused awareness at his pent‐up impulses, and Julia and Hannah laughed (Figure 1). Reading incorrect grammar creates a visceral, physical reaction that Braydon feels he needs to resist—and was taught to resist in Alison's class. Braydon then commented that resisting these impulses was "a little tough" (Figure 2, line 1), but he "kind of liked that too" (ibid., line 2) because he didn't want the student thinking, "oh like he's saying all this stuff because he thinks‐ he thinks he knows more than me he's an English major" (ibid., lines 4–7): As he voiced these hypothetical students, he swept his hand across his torso, possibly to enact students' dismissive view of his hypothetical edits, or to emphasize the sheer quantity of edits in "all this stuff," or both. Braydon continued to say that resisting these impulses allowed him and his mentees to "meet (.) in the middle a little bit" (lines 9–10), and as he said that, he flattened his hands in front of him and raised and lowered them, as if on different sides of a scale, until they were even. With these comments and embodied actions, Braydon showed the benefits of repressing his inner grammar nerd and not filling an essay with corrections: his mentees would not dismiss what he had to say and the distance between them would be leveled a bit. As we will discuss below, the identity of a nonauthoritarian peer was one that all of them desired to co‐construct through their written feedback.[<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref82">1</reflink>]</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/NRNU/01Jan25/rrq590-fig-0001.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="rrq590-fig-0001.jpg" title="1 Braydon's Response to Incorrect Grammar. Note that Blue Bracketed Utterances Occur at the Same Time as the Images Under Which They Appear" /> </p> <p></p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/NRNU/01Jan25/rrq590-fig-0002.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="rrq590-fig-0002.jpg" title="2 Braydon's Response to Holding Back on Correcting Grammar. Note that each Blue Italicized Gestural Description Is Paired with a Co‐occurring Image" /> </p> <p></p> <p>Later on in the focus group, as we began the text‐based interview portion where Andrea asked the PSETs to identify specific language in their feedback to exemplify particular points they were making, Hannah referred back to Braydon's comment and described how she had a similar reaction that led to her wanting to intervene heavily. Hannah embodied the internal struggle she experienced through gestures and posture: she described wanting to "reach in and like do my stuff," the phrase "do my stuff" emphasizing how naturally line‐editing came to her and also how intrusive it could feel to the writer. As she spoke, she reached her hands out and wiggled them without looking at them, as if indicating the automatic nature of this instinct and the writer's possible perception that she is "messing" with the text. Hannah then described, laughing slightly, how she counteracted that impulse: "but I instead I like pulled myself back, set my(h)se(h)lf do(h)wn, and was like I need to be very ge(h)ntle(h)". While enacting this, she sat back a little in her chair (and moved her raised hand back as well), and rested her flattened hands, palms facing each other, on the table, as if to get herself under control (Figure 3). For the PSETs, enacting a supportive teacher identity doesn't necessarily mean <emph>not</emph> noticing particular bits of language or not finding them jarring, but it <emph>does</emph> mean not acting on the impulses to "say something" or "do my stuff." This training to not overly edit aligns with common advice to writing teachers to sit on their hands when they read student papers (e.g., Vazquez, [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref83">62</reflink>]; Writing@CSU, [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref84">66</reflink>]).</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/NRNU/01Jan25/rrq590-fig-0003.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="rrq590-fig-0003.jpg" title="3 Hannah's Response to Her Desire to Intervene Heavily in the Writer's Text. Note that the Blue Bracketed Utterances Span all Images Under Which They Appear" /> </p> <p></p> <p>Interestingly, both Braydon's and Hannah's enactments of their resistance to skills discourse also involved depictions of teacher identities that they desired to construct in their feedback—i.e., discoursal selves. For Braydon, it was the identity of a peer with whom he could "meet in the middle"; for Hannah, it was the identity of an encourager who is gentle when offering critique. We will now turn to these two discoursal selves.</p> <hd id="AN0183756690-18">Constructing Discoursal Selves</hd> <p>PSETs contended with aspects of their autobiographical selves—resisting the skills discourse and the urge to line‐edit—as they sought to construct encouraging, reciprocal, nonauthoritarian discoursal selves in their feedback to their writing mentees. Specifically, they sought to project a peer identity by creating a reciprocal relationship with their mentee where they weren't an expert advising from "on high" and by using enthusiastic and encouraging words in their feedback to mentees, especially when offering criticism.</p> <hd id="AN0183756690-19">Projecting a Peer Identity</hd> <p>During the text‐based interview portion of Focus Group 1, Andrea brought up a point that Braydon had made in the reflection he had written for Alison's class. Braydon wrote:</p> <p>The most difficult thing for me was creating that connection with the student to where I didn't come across as "I'm in college, this is my major, so just listen to me because I'm an expert." Instead, I tried to say, "If it were me in this situation, I would go about this in a different way" and then describe how I would do it. I think she took that very well; I don't want her to just listen to what I say and assume I am always correct, because we may actually have different writing styles.</p> <p>Andrea paraphrased this point and asked for an example of where he did that in his feedback. Braydon gave the following examples from his comments on his mentee's gaming narrative. He pointed to a comment around a summative phrase his mentee used that begins the first sentence of the conclusion: "Maybe, instead, use "In final reflection," or, "in retrospect,"? I feel like that strengthens your argument more." This sentence shows him providing an explicit suggestion, what this "different way" would be that the writer could take; it also uses hedges ("maybe"; a sentence‐final question mark; "I feel like"). He then shared with the group that throughout, he used phrases like "I would do this" or "if it were me writing this essay, I would maybe think about putting this in here instead of this." An example of the latter is his fourth comment on his mentee's gaming narrative:</p> <p>I like the fact that you used another experience of your own; however, maybe it would strengthen your argument to include some type of fact/outside resource here? <bold>I personally would suggest researching</bold> how many card games exist and explain how much communication would be necessary to learn even just ten percent of those games. Or you could research the effects of playing cards and the development of friendships? Just an idea. (bold added)</p> <p>Braydon used the strategy of sharing what he, personally, would do in order to level any perceived hierarchy between him and his mentee.</p> <p>After Braydon gave this example, he went on to say the following (Figure 4): Here, Braydon contrasted what he wanted to imply with his feedback—that "I still write papers too, I'm still in school, and this is what I do for my papers"; "you may not think it's uh a good revision and that's okay" (lines 8–11)—a stance that puts him and his mentee on the same level—with the opposite, a condescending teacher who felt superior to the mentee and is "high up" and "looking down at you" (lines 3–5), a phrase he said while making an iconic gesture, lifting, dropping, and lifting his hand. The teacher that Braydon enacted gives directives and points their finger (line 6; "you need to do [this] [((<emph>points</emph>))], you need to do this [((<emph>palm out</emph>))] (line 7)).</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/NRNU/01Jan25/rrq590-fig-0004.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="rrq590-fig-0004.jpg" title="4 Braydon Enacted the Discoursal Self he Does Not Want to Construct. Each Blue Italicized Gestural Description Is Paired with a co‐Occurring Image" /> </p> <p></p> <p>This "high up" gesture became a kind of meme in the group. When Andrea asked a follow‐up question to Julia and Hannah—"did you try to strike a similar tone, or a slightly different tone? How did you approach your comments? What kind of persona did you want to create with your comments?"—Julia responded by picking up themes in both Braydon's response and what Hannah said earlier when she was describing "gentleness." Specifically, Julia commented that she tried to project a "nice" persona, "because if you feel like somebody's attacking you, you're not going to take their word, they're not going to help you with it." Hannah then answered by combining themes from Julia and Braydon. She said:</p> <p>I definitely didn't want them to think I was their ene(h)my, I wanted them to think I was their friend, I don't want them to think, like Braydon said, I'm someone like higher up [looking down on them] [((<emph>repeats Braydon's high‐to‐low gesture</emph>))] just because, you know they're (.) younger than me:: or they're like you know in [this] [((<emph>gestures in front of her with both hands</emph>))] class and I'm in [this] [((<emph>moves right hand to the side</emph>))] class.</p> <p>The idea she attributed to Braydon co‐occurred with a similar gesture, in which she lifted her hand up and lowered it (Figure 5): By emphasizing what they would do if they were the ones making these revisions to their own papers, PSETs sought to position themselves as equals or "friends" to their mentees, not as superior to their mentees, advising from "on high" or as "enemies" who are "attacking." In so doing, mentors hoped to create space for mentees to imagine themselves as writers with agency.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/NRNU/01Jan25/rrq590-fig-0005.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="rrq590-fig-0005.jpg" title="5 Hannah Re‐enacted Braydon's "High Up" Gesture. Note that Blue Bracketed Utterances Occur at the Same Time as the Images Under Which They Appear" /> </p> <p></p> <hd id="AN0183756690-22">Being an Encourager Despite Giving Critique</hd> <p>One strategy that PSETs used to construct a peer identity was to take on the role of an encourager, especially when they were offering critique. During Focus Group 1, Julia described that she and the PSETs had tried to follow a "compliment sandwich" model in their written feedback, in which critique is "sandwiched" by praise. This led Hannah to share how she sought to control how her critique was received (Figure 6): Hannah offered only "a tiny little bit" (line 1) of critique, using three hedges to emphasize how she sought to minimize the amount and impact of the critique; she also made air quotes when she said the word "critique" (lines 2–3), further destabilizing the status of her written feedback as a critique. She contrasted this with what she did <emph>not</emph> do: say things like "this is totally wrong" (line 6), a phrase that she spoke briskly while she opened her palms out abruptly, as if to indicate the harshness of the feedback. She then described that she was "very gentle" (line 9), embodying that gentleness by quieting her voice and stroking the air in a petting motion, as if soothing something or someone (Figure 7): In her paralanguage (quieter speech) and gestural contrasts (petting motion versus abrupt palms‐out gesture), Hannah enacted the soothing effects that she wanted her feedback to create.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/NRNU/01Jan25/rrq590-fig-0006.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="rrq590-fig-0006.jpg" title="6 Hannah Described How She Sought for Her Critique to be Received" /> </p> <p></p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/NRNU/01Jan25/rrq590-fig-0007.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="rrq590-fig-0007.jpg" title="7 Hannah's Petting Gestures (Line 9). Note that Utterances Occur at the Same Time as the Images Under Which They Appear" /> </p> <p></p> <p>Andrea then asked for an example of this gentle critique (line 15). Hannah suggested a sentence from the beginning of her 338‐word summative comment on her mentee's gaming narrative. (Note that the Google doc permissions prevented her from writing anything in the margins.) Specifically, Hannah targeted the sentence "This is not wrong, but I would consider revising these sentences!" as an example of how she was being "gentle":</p> <p>Firstly, I agree with the other comments on your draft! I love how personal your overall theme is and how you have connected yourself to this piece. One thing that I have noticed, however, is that you tend to begin certain sentences with 'And‐'. <bold>This is not wrong, but I would consider revising these sentences!</bold> This would make your sentence structure and the points that you are attempting to portray to come off much stronger within your draft! Another thing that I would like to see you revise is your paragraph structures.... [bold added]</p> <p>She offered this critique, about how the student tends to begin sentences with "and," after two sentences of praise. She softened it by explaining that what the student is doing "is not wrong" and by using the hedges "would consider" and an exclamation point.</p> <p>As we were wrapping up Focus Group 1, Andrea asked if there was anything else they wanted to share about their approach to the comments. Hannah noted, to laughter, that she used "a lot" of exclamation points. She said that she knew that some people say to not use a lot of them when writing emails, but "I wanted to come off friendly, I wanted to come off as, you know, excitable about reading their draft" and "I wanted them to see how, I don't know, happy I was to help."</p> <p>Julia and Braydon agreed that they use exclamation points a lot, too, and Julia offered a second function of them: "Criticism can just be taken so badly so easily, so I try to make it as light as possible even though I'm critiquing what they're saying. I'm doing it in a nice manner but I'm still telling them to fix something."</p> <p>Andrea pointed to one of Julia's comments that used exclamation points—"The essay was very good! And if you keep them [long quotes], it will not mean your work is bad! Removing some may just help strengthen the piece."—and asked about the effect if she had used periods instead of exclamation points. Julia replied that using periods wouldn't have changed things too much, but she thought the exclamation point added helpful emphasis. She then voiced the perceived differences between the two versions (Figure 8), reading it as if it had a period (image A), reading it with its current exclamation point (image B), and then reading it again as if it had a period (image C):</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/NRNU/01Jan25/rrq590-fig-0008.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="rrq590-fig-0008.jpg" title="8 Julia Performed a Sentence with a Period and with an Exclamation Point. Note that Blue Bracketed Utterances Occur at the Same Time as the Images Under Which They Appear" /> </p> <p></p> <p>When she voiced the sentence with the hypothetical period, she used falling intonation and looked down at her paper (image A). When she voiced the intended effect she hoped for with the exclamation point, she looked up, raised her eyebrows, stressed both words (really good), and lifted her upturned left palm in the air with her left hand for emphasis (image B). She then repeated the contrast with the period‐appended compliment, lowering her eyes, furrowing her brows, and again using falling intonation (image C). Julia's enactment of how the two different versions read or sound demonstrates the way in which a period, in certain contexts, can signal unwillingness, formality, and emotional distance (Androutsopoulos & Busch, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref85">1</reflink>]).</p> <p>The PSETs' enactments of these discourses and identities reveal how they used semiotic resources like exclamation marks to shape how their mentees read their feedback, especially feedback that they felt unsure about delivering. In Focus Group 2, when Andrea and the PSETs were talking about how they used exclamation points, Hannah brought up an example of a comment she made on her mentee's rhetorical analysis of the game Candy Land. Hannah had highlighted the two paragraphs before the conclusion and wrote,</p> <p>This is such a great point. It has been years since I have touched a game of Candy Land, and I had forgotten that color recognition was such an important factor of the game. You tying this into the many different aspects of development that children go through is so astonishing. I love it! Just a tiny little suggestion here, I would consider combining these two paragraphs and rearranging them to fit into one another! Their topics are very similiar [sic], and I think that it would make your draft even stronger and allow it to flow more nicely!</p> <p>Hannah described that after she wrote this comment, she began to write a summative comment about her overall impression of the paper. But she stopped and wondered if her mentee might not know how to revise based on that suggestion, because following it would leave her without a fourth paragraph. So, Hannah added the following comment:</p> <p>If you decide to follow my advice about combining these paragraphs, perhaps you could include a paragraph of your own experiences with playing Candy Land when you were younger to work as your third or fourth paragraph. How did Candy Land make you feel while you played it? Did it distract you from any occuring [sic] problems within your life, as it had distracted children from a very gloom [sic] reality? I think that this would fit so nicely into your piece and would definitely round out your ideas! Just a tiny suggestion! :)</p> <p>This comment provided several prompts for development, praised the effect the proposed revision would have on her paper, and then softened the suggestion by downplaying it as minor ("just," "tiny") and showing her warmth and sincerity with an exclamation point and smiley face.</p> <p>When Andrea asked what inspired her to put the smiley there, she explained, "I didn't want her to feel that I was, I don't know, nitpicking, or being mean with the suggestion, or make her feel like (0.8) I didn't like what she was doing." So, she implied, a smiley face would counteract those possible interpretations (Figure 9): Hannah's desire to be an encourager despite critique can be seen in Figure 9 when she described why she added a smiley face: she extended her right hand out, making an offer and (and indicating some vulnerability), while keeping her left hand close to her. This sequence illustrates the embodied identity that Hannah saw as wrapped up in the deployment of a smiley face that follows "a tiny suggestion."</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/NRNU/01Jan25/rrq590-fig-0009.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="rrq590-fig-0009.jpg" title="9 Hannah on Why She Added a Smiley Face. Note that the Utterances Occur at the Same Time as the Images under Which They Appear" /> </p> <p></p> <p>About 10 min later, when Andrea asked if any comments were particularly tricky to write, Hannah brought up this example again. Hannah shared that her goal for this second comment was to avoid making the student feel like Hannah was telling her what to do (Figure 10): Hannah said she "didn't want her to be like, this is what you need to do" (images A–C). As she said "I didn't want her to be like," she furrowed her brows (image A), which may either construct her negative stance or may perform the role of student who is rankled by the directive to come. Then, as she said "this is what you need to do," she jabbed her index finger down at the table as if giving an order (images B–C). Hannah contrasted this framing with her own approach, using parallelism to highlight the differences:</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/NRNU/01Jan25/rrq590-gra-0001.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="rrq590-gra-0001.jpg" title="." /> </p> <p></p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/NRNU/01Jan25/rrq590-fig-0010.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="rrq590-fig-0010.jpg" title="10 Hannah on What She Didn't Want Her Mentee to Think. Note that Blue Bracketed Utterances Occur at the Same Time as the Images Under Which They Appear" /> </p> <p></p> <p>While saying "this is what I would do.", she leaned back, as if to anticipate and avoid the writer's agitation (image D). Her jabbing hand then reached out to make an offer: "Here's a little advice." (image E). Through facial expressions, gestures, and body position, Hannah performed the imposing directives she hoped to avoid as well as the gentleness that she was seeking to construct in her written feedback.</p> <p>Hannah and Julia both sought to be read as mentors who encouraged their mentees despite the critique they offered to push their mentees forward, and exclamation points were part of their strategies to add helpful emphasis (Julia) and to project friendliness (Hannah) in their written feedback. Hannah used hedges and embodied actions (e.g., "petting" gesture) to depict what she hoped was the inoffensive effect of her criticism on her mentee. Further, both Hannah and Julia hoped that offering a "compliment sandwich" (e.g., praise‐critique‐praise) would make the criticism easier to take.</p> <p>In the above sections, we have shown how PSETs, contending with their autobiographical selves by restraining their inner "grammar nerds," sought to project a peer identity as well as an identity of an encourager despite offering critique. In conversations about their feedback, PSETs' facial expressions, gestures, body movement and position, intonation, and other embodied actions and paralinguistic cues depicted these autobiographical and discoursal selves—selves that they enacted in their written feedback through semiotic resources like hedges, exclamation points, and smileys.</p> <hd id="AN0183756690-29">Discussion</hd> <p>Our findings illustrate the value of conducting focus group research <emph>with</emph> PSETs, not only "on" or "about" them. In the focus group conversations, Hannah, Braydon, and Julia were asked to reflect on how and why they wrote their feedback the way they did—conversations that brought tensions between beliefs and practices to the fore. And in the data analysis sessions where we discussed the focus group data, they analyzed their own embodied actions and reflected on the multiple semiotic resources available to them to support their mentees' and future students' writing.</p> <p>Our collaborative analysis found that, when engaged in the work of providing feedback to high school writers, the PSETs were challenged to resist the impulse to line‐edit students' papers—an impulse that, as part of their autobiographical selves, had developed over years of being a student and receiving feedback from teachers in classrooms infused with skills discourse. Their characterizations of the need to resist these urges were visceral, such as Braydon's scrunching his right hand to indicate screeching as he compared mentees' incorrect grammar to "nails on a chalkboard." Yet by resisting these impulses, the PSETs felt that they could construct discoursal selves that were nonauthoritarian and encouraging, even when they were offering critique. They enacted these selves with a range of embodied actions, from gestures (e.g., Hannah's petting gesture) to paralanguage (e.g., Julia's voicing of the effects of an exclamation point). These embodied actions provide valuable access to the tensions PSETs experience when crafting feedback that supports their mentees' writerly identities and agency.</p> <p>Although Ivanič ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref86">28</reflink>]) identified six discourses of writing and teaching writing, such as sociopolitical and social practices discourse, skills discourse was the primary discourse in our study. This is likely because it is so deeply ingrained and because grammar instruction is a key element of standardized test preparation in our state's K‐12 public school language arts curriculum, which uses standardized test scores to measure college and career readiness. However, as mentioned above, our data also indicate that the PSETs' approaches to the skills discourse were mediated by affective variations: they were uncertain in their desire to police the students' grammar; they wanted to <emph>go easy</emph> on the students, so to speak. We recognize that there could be regional, racial, gendered, or other aspects of the PSETs' selves factoring into their approach to the skills discourse, beyond their awareness of college and career readiness mandates. For example, Hannah and Julia, as white women, may have been raised to enact niceness as a part of white femininity (Galman, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref87">22</reflink>]; Gardiner et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref88">23</reflink>]).</p> <p>Furthermore, our research took place at a regional university located in rural Appalachia; two of the three PSETs were local to the area, and one was from a mid‐sized midwestern city within the state. Being from (or working in) an area strong in a marginalized dialect (i.e., Appalachian English) could influence PSETs' uncertainty about how far to go in correcting students' grammar. Previous research demonstrates the way PSETs want to be read will vary depending on how they identify (including race, class, gender, sexuality, age, language background), what they know about their students, and how they expect their students to see them. Stylistic forms are co‐constructed and dynamic (Olinger, [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref89">45</reflink>]) and may index a range of identities depending on the interlocutor's or readers' perceptions (e.g., Baker‐Bell, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref90">4</reflink>]; De Vincenti et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref91">16</reflink>]; Flores & Rosa, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref92">21</reflink>]; Kiesling, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref93">30</reflink>]). Future research, then, could examine how race, gender, and regional norms factor into how PSETs embody approaches to providing writing feedback.</p> <p>Given the largely nondirective nature of the PSETs' comments, it would be especially valuable to explore how mentees interpreted these comments and what kinds of revisions they made, if any. As Lee ([<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref94">33</reflink>]) wrote in her framework for writing teacher feedback literacy, "Feedback is a process during which students, instead of being passive receptacles, are active agents responding to and interpreting the feedback provided. Thus, students' needs, preferences, and reactions have to be factored into teachers' choice of strategies or modes of feedback" (p. 1050). Britton's ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref95">8</reflink>]) self‐study provides a good example of how analyzing student uptake of teacher feedback can inform teachers' development of their own feedback literacy. In one case, Britton reflected on how a nondirective comment that she hoped would inform a student's revision did not in fact lead the student to revise, and she wondered if a more directive statement would have been more helpful (p. 11). In addition, a number of other researchers have found that students can misunderstand or misread nondirective comments (e.g., Corbett, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref96">15</reflink>]; Hyland & Hyland, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref97">26</reflink>]; Nicolas, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref98">42</reflink>]). A variety of factors may affect student uptake of teacher feedback, including cultural background (Delpit, 2006) and students' own feedback literacy, or "ability to evaluate and use feedback, and to self‐regulate their cognitive and affective reactions" (Yu & Liu, [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref99">67</reflink>], pp. 1–2). The development of both teacher and student feedback literacy is an area for future research.</p> <p>The discourse functions of PSETs' "internet gestures" (McCulloch, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref100">37</reflink>]), such as exclamation points and smiley faces, would also be interesting to explore in more depth. Researchers have found that periods can indicate "finality" or "insincerity" (Androutsopoulos & Busch, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref101">1</reflink>], p. 1); exclamation marks rarely indicate excitability, but rather show friendliness (Waseleski, [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref102">63</reflink>]); and smileys can "soften ... harsh statements" (McCulloch, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref103">37</reflink>], p. 186). Given the speed with which language and other digital semiotic resources are changing, it would be useful to explore more systematically the situated meanings of this kind of written paralanguage, especially in a genre in which PSETs are seeking to be nonauthoritarian but are also trying on the role of a writing teacher.</p> <p>In terms of classroom practice, we encourage teacher educators and PSETs to examine PSETs' autobiographical and discoursal selves through analyses of written, audiorecorded, and videorecorded interactions with students. For example, they might conduct teacher action‐ research in field experience on methods for providing feedback. To study how the body matters in teaching, they might examine the function of free video tools, such as Flip (formerly FlipGrid), as a feedback platform—asking the question, how do I arrange or use my body as I provide my feedback? Butler ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref104">11</reflink>]) captures the significance of such an endeavor: "Our bodies are multimodal and our compositions are multimodal: we juxtapose, arrange, or disarrange modes to compose meaning" (p. 74).</p> <p>Through reflecting on their feedback on student writing and other student interactions, teacher educators and PSETs alike may be able to illuminate the contradictions writing teachers encounter when responding to student writing: "the (un)conscious negotiation teachers experience between what they <emph>feel</emph> they should do (mostly driven from a pedagogical perspective) and what they are <emph>expected</emph> to do (mostly driven by an institutional perspective)" (Caswell, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref105">13</reflink>], p. 71; italics in original). Previous research has demonstrated that such contradictions exist among PSETs as they learn to teach writing (Avalos et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref106">3</reflink>]), but also points to the complex ways that teacher practice develops over time (Broemmel et al., [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref107">9</reflink>]). In fact, Broemmel et al. ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref108">9</reflink>]) argue that teaching practice can be said to catch up to teachers' beliefs with increased time and experience in the classroom. Rather than imploring teachers to recognize these contradictions as problematic and in need of reconciliation, PSETs could be encouraged to see them as natural processes involved in becoming a teacher (Hebard, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref109">24</reflink>]). Our data demonstrate that the contradictions can be intricate, implying that they cannot be easily uprooted toward a pathway of success and should, instead, be treated as sites of learning and decision making.</p> <p>As PSETs try on the roles of writing teacher in their feedback on student writing, their autobiographical and discoursal selves encounter each other in dialogic interaction. Engaging PSETs as co‐researchers and taking deep dives, together, into rich written, video, and audio data that represent these interactions can yield important insights for teacher education and research on the teaching of writing. This approach underscores the value of embodied actions to illuminate how we want to be read, and, perhaps equally important, reminds us of the power of co‐researching to learn about writing from and with our students.</p> <hd id="AN0183756690-30">Acknowledgments</hd> <p>This study was funded through a Morehead State University research grant.</p> <hd id="AN0183756690-31">A Appendix Moments for Analysis</hd> <p>***Analysis of moment included in the manuscript.</p> <hd id="AN0183756690-32">A.1. Identities</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0183756690-33">A.1.1. Projecting a Peer Identity (6 moments)</hd> <p>***"And just throughout I use words like 'I would do this,' or "if it were me writing this essay, I would maybe think about putting this in here instead of this." And so I just think that helps the writer be a little more comfortable with me, and think that, like I said, I'm not this high up and looking down at you ((points finger/hand down)) saying 'you need to do this, you need to do this,' I'm more just saying, 'I still write papers too, I'm still in school, and this is what I do for my papers. And you may not think it's okay, or a good revision and that's okay, but that's what I personally would do,' And I think that helps create that connection that we talked about earlier between tutors or teachers and students." – Braydon, FG 1, p. 12.</p> <p>***"I definitely didn't want my student to feel like I was their enemy; I wanted them to think I was their friend. I don't want them to think, like Braydon said, I'm someone higher up looking down on them, ((repeats Braydon's gesture)) just because, they're younger than me or in this class and I'm in this class. I didn't want them to feel like I was attacking them." – Hannah, FG 1, p. 13.</p> <p>"I always try to make a point to connect with my reader on a personal level about the topic they are writing about. so my comment #1 I tried to do that in a way that wasn't like, "oh I know so much about this topic I'm so glad you're writing about this" ((bobbing head arrogantly here)) I just wanted to be like, I'm super excited about this ((reaches hand out)), I'm really interested in how you perceive the show and how you relate it to reality. if the reader is interested in what the writer is writing about, they're so much more likely to enjoy writing, and take that energy into the next paper they have to write. I felt like that was something I wanted to do, just to kind of make that connection, and be like, "I love the topic you're writing," so that way she could try to, I don't know, just be really excited about what she was writing on next time." – Braydon, FG 2, p. 12.</p> <p>"Once again, just, like the other essays that I've done with her, um, really just trying to, um, approach, maybe, just any other comments, really, in, like, a positive light. Uh, and just saying, if there's something that I think she can improve on, giving what I personally would do to ((points to self)) if I were the one making the changes to the essay. So, just really doing it on, like, a personal level instead of just, like, ((reaches up)) being on my high horse, like, looking down on her, like I've done with the past." – Braydon, FG 3, p. 6.</p> <p>"I didn't really ask questions, just because I feel like that doesn't really go along with what I do as... when I give feedback ((cups hand)) I give more what I would do if I were in their position ((sweeps hand from his chest forward)), because once again I think that creates‐ more of, like, I'm on the same level you are ((shakes head from side to side as if to dispel any notion of a hierarchy)), like‐ I've been in your situation multiple times." – Braydon, FG 3, pp. 7–8.</p> <p>"the most important part of my teaching style, I feel like, is just making the connection with the students. And so I would wanna improve, um, like, in person feedback. I feel like I've really improved my, uh‐. like, virtual feedback, like this. But I never met with [mentee's name]‐ and talked with her, and, like, heard her opinion, or anything like that. So I definitely think that's something I would wanna improve‐ and just learn more about, is, uh, just, like, person to person feedback. Um, and just being able to actually communicate with the writer and see what they think their strengths are. See what their weaknesses are. And when I give feedback ((moves hand out)), hear their perspective as well ((points to self, as if taking in the feedback)). 'Cause I think feedback should be, um, between two individuals. Like, just back and forth, back and forth ((gestures back and forth)). Bouncing off each other's ideas. Instead of just me giving it to her, giving it to her, giving it to her ((repeatedly gestures with hand to imagined partner)). If that makes any sense. So, I definitely think that's something I would wanna, um, explore and practice, for sure." – Braydon, FG 3, p. 17.</p> <hd id="AN0183756690-34">A.1.2. Being an encourager despite giving critique (5 moments)</hd> <p>***"I inserted a tiny little bit of critique in my feedback to my student, but I did it in a way that wasn't, 'this is totally wrong' ((jerks hands out)). ' I was very gentle ((speaks in soft, gentle tone and moves hands down fluidly as if petting the air)). ((laughs)) But I feel like it's still followed up with the compliment, and don't make them feel overwhelmed." – Hannah, FG 1, p. 8.</p> <p>***[Andrea points out to Julia that she also uses exclamation points] "I do that noooo matter what. ((laugh)s) In text messages, in emails—I do that because I think periods, with this type of writing, when I'm sending a harsh text message, I don't want it to come off as harsh as it is. Criticism can just be taken so badly so easily, so I try to make it as light as possible even though I'm critiquing what they're saying. I'm doing it in a nice manner but am still telling them to fix something. [Andrea points to a particular comment and asks her what if she had put periods there] Um, for 'this essay was very good,' I don't think it would have came across as—it <emph>was</emph> a very good essay. I didn't have many comments on it because she did just ask that one thing. I wasn't able to‐ She just asked about the quotes. So I was like this essay was really good. It wouldn't have affected it too much, but this essay was <emph>really good</emph>. I would hope that she would read it more like that, than 'this essay was really good.'" – Julia, FG 1, pp. 13–14.</p> <p>***"I didn't want her to feel I was nitpicking or being mean with the suggestion, or make her feel like I didn't like what she was doing. so I was like, ((touches hands, then extends one out to her while holding the other protectively closer to her)). 'if you decide to follow my advice, here's what I would do.' And then I just put a smiley face." – Hannah, FG 2, p. 8.</p> <p>***"I found it tricky [referring to a particular suggestion she made related to organization] because I didn't want to be like, 'This is what you <emph>need</emph> to do ((jabs pointer finger down at the table)),' I was just like, 'This is what <emph>I</emph> would do ((holds one hand close to her body as if defensively and the other hand extends out to make the suggestion)), Here's a little advice. Just be gentle about it." – Hannah, FG 2, p. 11.</p> <p>"I just feel like it, it, uh, it makes more of an impact when I'm saying, like‐ these praises, I guess, that I'm saying it definitively instead of just, like, "Oh, I feel like this is really good."If that makes sense. And I feel like doesn't necessarily, uh, take away from the personal aspect, uh, when I s‐ in, like, a high praise like that. Whereas, if it were‐ if I was saying, like, "Oh, this isn't very good, right here. This doesn't make sense." Like, I've had professors‐ Like, I had a professor this semester who is‐ he, he would comment on my essay ((draws a line in the air)) and be like, "This makes no sense." ((looks up, lolls head a bit)) Something like that. And I would be like, "That doesn't, like..." I don't like‐ I don't know, that just makes me feel like, oh, like, this just sucks. Like, I need to, like, reword all of this, or something like that. To where, if it's something where, like, "Oh, I personally feel like this sentence was a, um, little confusing," like, I feel like that's more approachable, and, like‐ it's not as, like, belittling, I guess. And it, um, encourages the student to, to, um, to make those changes." – Braydon, FG 3, page 12.</p> <hd id="AN0183756690-35">A.2. Discourse and Identity Combinations</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0183756690-36">A.2.1. Resisting Skills Discourse to Project a Peer Identity (1 moment)</hd> <p>***So I'd be going through and would read some incorrect grammar ((pinches air)) and I'd be like aww ((rubs head with hands)), nails on a chalkboard ((scrunches fingers)), but I was like I can't say anything ((Julia laughs)), but I really want to...I didn't want the students to think, he's saying all this stuff because he thinks he knows more, he's an English major, so I liked that aspect of it, because we were able to meet in the middle a little bit ((balancing gesture with hands))." – Braydon, FG 1, p. 2.</p> <hd id="AN0183756690-37">A.2.2. Resisting Skills Discourse to be an Encourager (2 moments)</hd> <p>***"I really try my best because like Braydon said, the freak about certain stuff that people write where I just want to reach in and do my stuff ((reaches hands out and wiggles them)), but I pulled myself back, sat myself down, and was like 'I need to be very gentle ((pulls self back/restrains self))' ((laughs)) that was my approach." – Hannah, FG 1, p. 9.</p> <p>"There was a lot I wanted so desperately to go in and point out, but I felt I wasn't able to do that, that we weren't allowed, so I was just 'let it go' ((moves hands up toward her chest, as if being asked to show she doesn't have anything in her hands))...there were a few sentences that threw me off and I wanted to point out but felt like I probably shouldn't nitpick at it." – Hannah, FG 2, p. 8.</p> <hd id="AN0183756690-38">B Appendix Transcription Conventions</hd> <p></p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><th align="left">Symbol</th><th align="left">Gloss</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>(in line‐numbered transcripts)</p><p>A: [Hi]       how are [[you]]</p><p>B: [Hello]                          [[What?]]</p><p>***</p><p>(when talk is quoted in a paragraph)</p><p>[How are you?] [(<italic>waves</italic>)]</p><p>***</p><p>(in multimodal transcripts)</p><p>bracketed text co‐occurs with the action in the image</p></td><td align="left">Brackets (single, double, or triple) indicate overlap</td></tr><tr><td align="left"><italic>(description of embodied action)</italic></td><td align="left">Italicized text within parentheses indicates embodied actions like gestures</td></tr><tr><td align="left">(2.0)</td><td align="left">Numbers in parentheses indicate the duration of a pause in seconds</td></tr><tr><td align="left">(.)</td><td align="left">A period within parentheses indicates a micropause, about one‐tenth of a second</td></tr><tr><td align="left">°word°</td><td align="left">Degree signs around an utterance indicate that it was spoken at a lower volume</td></tr><tr><td align="left">like >this is totally wrong<</td><td align="left">Greater‐than and less‐than signs around an utterance indicate that the utterance was rushed compared to the surrounding talk</td></tr><tr><td align="left">wor‐</td><td align="left">A hyphen indicates cut‐off speech</td></tr><tr><td align="left">wor:d</td><td align="left">One or more colons indicate a sound stretch—the more colons, the more prolonged the sound</td></tr><tr><td align="left">word?</td><td align="left">A question mark indicates rising intonation, not necessarily a question</td></tr><tr><td align="left">word.</td><td align="left">A period indicates falling intonation</td></tr><tr><td align="left">I was like I can't ↑say any↓thing</td><td align="left">Up and down arrows indicate rising, then falling intonation (a sing‐song pitch)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">word,</td><td align="left">A comma indicates rising‐falling ("continuing") intonation</td></tr><tr><td align="left">word</td><td align="left">Underlining indicates a stressed syllable</td></tr><tr><td align="left">hah, heh, hih</td><td align="left">Hah, heh, and hih mark laughter</td></tr><tr><td align="left">wo(h)rd</td><td align="left">H's within parentheses mark utterances infiltrated by laughter</td></tr><tr><td align="left">.hh</td><td align="left">A period plus one or more h's indicate that the speaker has inhaled. The more h's, the louder and longer the in‐breath</td></tr><tr><td align="left">hh</td><td align="left">One or more h's indicate that the speaker has exhaled. The more h's, the louder and longer the out‐breath</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ref id="AN0183756690-39"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref60" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> An anonymous reviewer wondered how much of Braydon's repression of his inner grammar nerd was done simply to meet Alison's expectations for the assignment. Given the extent of Braydon's desire to project a peer identity, and his concern that marking grammar and embodying skills discourse might undercut that, we would argue that his resistance to skills discourse here is more than just doing what Alison wanted her students to do.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0183756690-40"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibtext> Androutsopoulos, J., & Busch, F. (2021). Digital punctuation as an interactional resource: The message‐final period among German adolescents. Linguistics and Education, 62, 100871. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2020.100871</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref37" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Anson, C. (1989). Response styles and ways of knowing. In C. Anson (Ed.), Writing and response (pp. 332 – 365). NCTE.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref106" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Avalos, M. A., Perez, X., & Thorrington, V. (2020). Comparing secondary English teachers' ideal and actual writing practices for diverse learners: Constrained professionalism in figured worlds of high‐stakes testing. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 36 (3), 225 – 242. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2019.1635056</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref90" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Baker‐Bell, A. (2020). "We been knowin": Toward an antiracist language & literacy education. Journal of Language & Literacy Education, 16 (1), 1 – 12.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref7" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). In C. Emerson & M. Holquist (Eds.), Trans. The dialogic imagination: Four essays. University of Texas Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref34" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Beach, R., & Friedrich, T. (2005). Response to writing. In C. A. McArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 222 – 234). Guilford.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref62" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Brinkman, S., & Kvale, S. (2015). InterViews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing (3rd ed.). SAGE.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref95" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Britton, E. R. (2023). Developing teacher feedback literacy through self‐study: Exploring written commentary in a critical language writing curriculum. Assessing Writing, 56, 100709. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2023.100709</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref107" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Broemmel, A. D., Swaggerty, E. A., Rigell, A., & Blanton, B. (2020). "I felt like my practice was catching up with my beliefs:" a longitudinal cognitive study of seven early career literacy teachers and their praxis. Action in Teacher Education, 43 (3), 285 – 300. https://doi.org/10.1080/01626620.2020.1756528</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Burgess, A., & Ivanič, R. (2010). Writing and being written: Issues of identity across timescales. Written Communication, 27 (2), 228 – 255.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Butler, J. (2017). Bodies in composition: Teaching writing through kinesthetic performance. Composition Studies, 45 (2), 73 – 90.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Campbell, L., & Fiscus‐Cannaday, J. (2021). Multimodal analysis and the composition TAship: Exploring embodied teaching in the writing classroom. In W. Macauley, et al. (Eds.), Standing at the threshold: Working through liminality in the composition and rhetoric TAship (pp. 31 – 59). Utah State University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Caswell, N. I. (2018). Affective tensions in response. Journal of Response to Writing, 4 (2), 69 – 98.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chisholm, J. S., Olinger, A. R., & Heron‐Hruby, A. (2019). "I didn't want to make them feel wrong in any way": Preservice teachers craft digital feedback on sociopolitical perspectives in student texts. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 19 (4), 605 – 639.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Corbett, S. (2015). Beyond dichotomy: Synergizing writing center and classroom pedagogies. The WAC Clearinghouse. Parlor Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> De Vincenti, G., Giovanangeli, A., & Ward, R. G. (2007). The queer stopover: How queer travels in the language classroom. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 4 (1), 58 – 72.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dutro, E., Cartun, A., Melnychenko, K., Haberl, E., & Pacheco Williams, B. (2017). Partnership literacies in a writing methods course: Practicing, advocating, and feeling together. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 60 (5), 585 – 588. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.630</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Evans, K. (2003). Accounting for conflicting mental models of communication in student‐teacher interaction: An activity theory analysis. In C. Bazerman & D. R. Russell (Eds.), Writing selves, writing societies: Research from activity perspectives (pp. 393 – 427). WAC Clearinghouse.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Findlay, K. (2006). Context and learning factors in the development of teacher identity: A case study of newly qualified teachers during their induction year. Journal of In‐service Education, 32 (4), 511 – 532.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Flood, V. J. (2021). The secret multimodal life of IREs: Looking more closely at representational gestures in a familiar questioning sequence. Linguistics and Education, 63, 100913. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.LINGED.2021.100913</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Flores, N., & Rosa, J. (2015). Undoing appropriateness: Raciolinguistic ideologies and language diversity in education. Harvard Educational Review, 85 (2), 149 – 171.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Galman, S. C. (2019). Nice work: Young white women, near enemies, and teaching inside the magic circle. In A. E. Castagno (Ed.), The price of nice: How good intentions maintain educational inequality (pp. 70 – 88). University of Minnesota Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gardiner, W., Hinman, T. B., Tondreau, A., Degener, S., Dussling, T. M., Stevens, E. Y., Wilson, N. S., & White, K. (2023). When "Nice" isn't: Confronting niceness and whiteness to center equity in teacher education. Action in Teacher Education, 45 (2), 90 – 106. https://doi.org/10.1080/01626620.2022.2158390</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hebard, H. (2016). Finding possibility in pitfalls: The role of permeable methods pedagogy in preservice teacher learning. Teachers College Record, 118, 1 – 42. https://doi.org/10.1177/01614681161180070</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Heron‐Hruby, A., Chisholm, J. S., & Olinger, A. R. (2020). "It doesn't feel like a conversation": How digital field experiences disrupt preservice teachers' conceptions of writing response. English Education, 53 (1), 72 – 93. https://doi.org/10.58680/ee202030922</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hyland, F., & Hyland, K. (2001). Sugaring the pill: Praise and criticism in written feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10 (3), 185 – 212.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ivanič, R. (1998). Writing and identity: The discoursal construction of identity in academic writing. John Benjamins.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ivanič, R. (2004). Discourses on writing and learning to write. Language and Education, 18 (3), 220 – 245.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Izadinia, M. (2013). A review of research on student teachers' professional identity. British Educational Research Journal, 39 (4), 694 – 713.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kiesling, S. (2001). Stances of whiteness and hegemony in fraternity men's discourse. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 11 (1), 101 – 115.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kohnen, A. M. (2019). Becoming a teacher of writing. English Education, 51 (4), 348 – 375. https://doi.org/10.58680/ee201930190</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Land, C. L. (2022). Recentering purpose and audience as part of a critical, humanizing approach to writing instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 57 (1), 37 – 58. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.371</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lee, I. (2021). The development of feedback literacy for writing teachers. TESOL Quarterly, 55 (3), 1048 – 1059. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.3012</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (2006). Designing qualitative research. SAGE Publication.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Matsumoto, Y. (2018). Challenging moments as opportunities to learn: The role of nonverbal interactional resources in dealing with conflicts in English as a lingua franca classroom interactions. Linguistics and Education, 48, 35 – 51. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.LINGED.2018.08.007</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McCarthey, S. J., Woodard, R., & Kang, G. (2014). Elementary teachers negotiating discourses in writing instruction. Written Communication, 31 (1), 58 – 90.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McCulloch, G. (2019). Because internet: Understanding the new rules of language. Random House.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. Jossey‐Bass.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Micciche, L., Rule, H. J., & Stratman, L. (2012). Multimodality, performance, and teacher training. Computers and Composition Online. Retrieved from: <ulink href="http://www.cconlinejournal.org/cconline%5fSp%5f2012/Multimodality%5fRev‐2011‐12/tdm.html">http://www.cconlinejournal.org/cconline%5fSp%5f2012/Multimodality%5fRev‐2011‐12/tdm.html</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mondada, L., & Svinhufvud, K. (2016). Writing‐in‐interaction: Studying writing as a multimodal phenomenon in social interaction. Language and Dialogue, 6 (1), 1 – 53. https://doi.org/10.1075/ld.6.1.01mon</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nagano, R. L. (2015). Research article titles and disciplinary conventions: A corpus study of eight disciplines. Journal of Academic Writing, 5 (1), 133 – 144. https://doi.org/10.18552/joaw.v5i1.168</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nicolas, M. (2005). A cautionary tale about "tutoring" peer response groups. In C. Spigelman & L. Grobman (Eds.), On location: Theory and practice in classroom‐based writing tutoring (pp. 112 – 125). Utah State University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Norman, K. A., & Spencer, B. H. (2005). Our lives as writers: Examining preservice teachers' experiences and beliefs about the nature of writing and writing instruction. Teacher Education Quarterly, 32 (1), 25 – 40.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Olinger, A. R. (2011). Constructing identities through "discourse": Stance and interaction in collaborative college writing. Linguistics and Education, 22 (3), 273 – 286.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Olinger, A. R. (2016). A sociocultural approach to style. Rhetoric Review, 35 (2), 121 – 134.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Olinger, A. R. (2020). Visual embodied actions in interview‐based writing research: A methodological argument for video. Written Communication, 37 (2), 167 – 207.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pearson, W. S. (2021). Quoted speech in linguistics research article titles: Patterns of use and effects on citations. Scientometrics, 126, 3421 – 3442. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192‐020‐03827‐5</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Potter, J., & Mulkay, M. (1985). Scientists' interview talk: Interviews as a technique for revealing participants' interpretative practices. In M. Brenner, J. Brown, & D. Canter (Eds.), The research interview: Uses and approaches (pp. 247 – 271). Academic Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Premont, D., Kerkhoff, S., & Alsup, J. (2020). Preservice teacher writer identities: Tensions and implications. Teaching/Writing: The Journal of Writing Teacher Education, 8 (1), 1 – 19.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Prior, P. (2004). Tracing process: How texts come into being. In C. Bazerman & P. Prior (Eds.), What writing does and how it does it (pp. 167 – 200). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Prior, P. (2006). A sociocultural theory of writing. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 54 – 66). Guilford.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Prior, P., & Thorne, S. L. (2014). Research paradigms: Beyond product, process, and social activity. In E.‐M. Jakobs & D. Perrin (Eds.), Handbook of writing and text production (pp. 31 – 54). Walter de Gruyter.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Prior, P. A. (2010). Remaking IO: Semiotic remediation in the design process. In P. A. Prior & J. A. Hengst (Eds.), Exploring semiotic remediation as discourse practice (pp. 206 – 234). Palgrave Macmillan.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Roth, W.‐M. (2001). Gestures: Their role in teaching and learning. Review of Educational Research, 71 (3), 365 – 392. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543071003365</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rowe, D. (2018). Pointing with a pen: The role of gesture in early childhood writing. Reading Research Quarterly, 54 (1), 13 – 39. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.215</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn‐taking for conversation. Language, 50 (4), 696 – 735. https://doi.org/10.2307/412243</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Smagorinsky, P. (2008). The method section as conceptual epicenter in constructing social science research reports. Written Communication, 25 (3), 389 – 411. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088308317815</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Smagorinsky, P., Cook, L. S., Jackson, A. Y., Moore, C., & Fry, P. G. (2004). Tensions in learning to teach: Accommodation and the development of a teaching identity. Journal of Teacher Education, 55, 8 – 24. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487103260067</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Spence, L. K., Costa, P. J. B. M., & Cullars, A. (2021). "They're killing our imaginations": Dialogue and reflexive writing development in historically marginalized students. Reading Research Quarterly, 57 (3), 847 – 862. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.449</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tainio, L., & Heinonen, P. (2021). Student‐to‐student hand‐on‐shoulder touch as an embodied response to reproach and critical teacher evaluation. Linguistics and Education, 66, 100982. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2021.100982</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> VanDerHeide, J. (2017). Classroom talk as writing instruction for learning to make writing moves in literary arguments. Reading Research Quarterly, 53 (3), 323 – 344. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.196</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vazquez, N. (2011). Taming "the stack.". Retrieved from the University Writing Center, Texas A&M University, https://writingcenter.tamu.edu/Faculty‐Advisors/Resources‐for‐Teaching/Feedback/Grading‐Commenting/Taming‐The‐Stack</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Waseleski, C. (2006). Gender and the use of exclamation points in computer‐mediated communication: An analysis of exclamations posted to two electronic discussion lists. Journal of Computer‐Mediated Communication, 11 (4), 1012 – 1024. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083‐6101.2006.00305.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wilson, E., & Post, J. (2019). Toward critical engagement: Affect and action in student interactions with instructor feedback. In A. R. Gere & N. Silver (Eds.), Developing writers in higher education: A longitudinal study (pp. 29 – 55). University of Michigan Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Woodard, R. (2015). The dialogic interplay of writing and teaching writing: Teacher‐writers' talk and textual practices across contexts. Research in the Teaching of English, 50 (1), 35 – 59. https://doi.org/10.58680/rte201527425</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Writing@CSU. (n.d.). Myth #1: "Grading" papers means marking all the grammatical errors. Retrieved from: Teaching Guide: Teaching In The Margins—Commenting On Student Writing, https://writing.colostate.edu/guides/teaching/commenting/myth1.cfm</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yu, S., Geng, F., Liu, C., & Zheng, Y. (2021). What works may hurt: The negative side of feedback in second language writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 54, 1 – 15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2021.100850</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Andrea R. Olinger; Alison Heron‐Hruby; James S. Chisholm; Braydon L. Dungan; Hannah M. Conn and Julia P. Nitishin</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author</p> <p></p> <p>Andrea R. Olinger is Associate Professor of English at the University of Louisville, Louisville, KY, USA. email:</p> <p>Alison Heron‐Hruby is Associate Professor of English Education and Director of the Faculty Center for Teaching and Learning at Morehead State University, Morehead, KY, USA. email:</p> <p>James S. Chisholm is Professor of English Education at the University of Louisville, Louisville, KY, USA. email:</p> <p>Braydon L. Dungan is a PhD student in English at the University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, USA. email:</p> <p>Hannah M. Conn is an Independent Scholar. email:</p> <p>Julia P. Nitishin is an English Teacher at Pleasure Ridge Park High School, Louisville, KY, USA. email:</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref72"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref73"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref76"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref80"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref83"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref84"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref87"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref88"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref91"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref92"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref93"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref94"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref100"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref102"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref104"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref105"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1458570
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: How Do I Want to Be Read? Embodied Autobiographical and Discoursal Selves in Preservice English Teachers' Feedback to High School Writers
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Andrea+R%2E+Olinger%22">Andrea R. Olinger</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7610-8040">0000-0001-7610-8040</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Alison+Heron-Hruby%22">Alison Heron-Hruby</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22James+S%2E+Chisholm%22">James S. Chisholm</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0988-9315">0000-0002-0988-9315</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Braydon+L%2E+Dungan%22">Braydon L. Dungan</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Hannah+M%2E+Conn%22">Hannah M. Conn</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Julia+P%2E+Nitishin%22">Julia P. Nitishin</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Reading+Research+Quarterly%22"><i>Reading Research Quarterly</i></searchLink>. 2025 60(1).
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 23
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22High+Schools%22">High Schools</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Secondary+Education%22">Secondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Autobiographies%22">Autobiographies</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Self+Concept%22">Self Concept</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Preservice+Teachers%22">Preservice Teachers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22English+Teachers%22">English Teachers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Feedback+%28Response%29%22">Feedback (Response)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22High+School+Teachers%22">High School Teachers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22High+School+Students%22">High School Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Writing+%28Composition%29%22">Writing (Composition)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teaching+Experience%22">Teaching Experience</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1002/rrq.590
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0034-0553<br />1936-2722
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Research on writing pedagogy highlights effective feedback as dialogic and student-centered. However, few studies have examined how preservice English teachers (PSETs) craft their feedback based on how they want their students to read them. Drawing on sociocultural approaches to writing, we examine the co-construction of these "discoursal selves" by studying PSETs' talk and embodied actions during focus-group conversations about their feedback to student writers. Data included videorecorded focus groups, transcripts, and written feedback. By navigating their life histories ("autobiographical selves") and the identities they sought to convey in their feedback ("discoursal selves"), PSETs struggled to contend with their internalized grammarians while projecting a peer identity that was encouraging even when they offered critique. We argue that reflection with PSETs on how they want to be read can empower them to make intentional instructional choices.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1458570
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1458570
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1002/rrq.590
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 23
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Autobiographies
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Self Concept
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Preservice Teachers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: English Teachers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Feedback (Response)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: High School Teachers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: High School Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Writing (Composition)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teaching Experience
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: How Do I Want to Be Read? Embodied Autobiographical and Discoursal Selves in Preservice English Teachers' Feedback to High School Writers
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Andrea R. Olinger
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Alison Heron-Hruby
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: James S. Chisholm
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Braydon L. Dungan
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Hannah M. Conn
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Julia P. Nitishin
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0034-0553
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1936-2722
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 60
            – Type: issue
              Value: 1
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Reading Research Quarterly
              Type: main
ResultId 1