Can First-Grade Writers Demonstrate Audience Awareness?

184

Reading Research QuarterlyVol. 36, No. 2

April/May/June 2001©2001 International Reading Association

(pp. 184–201)

A ttention to reading-writing relationships hasbeen a central concern of literacy researchand theory for at least two decades (Langer &Flihan, 2000). Not only are reading and writ-

ing similar processes of composing meaning, but practicewith one process contributes to knowledge about textthat facilitates learning the other process (Bartholomae &Petrosky, 1986; Flower, 1987; Kucer, 1985, 1987; Langer,1986; Langer & Flihan, 2000; Petersen, 1986). As writersgrow in their understanding of how texts are constructedand for what purposes, they become more skilled anddiscriminating readers, able to identify an author’s stanceand to transact with it to construct their own meaningsbased on their own purposes for reading (Rosenblatt,1978, 1988).

One important way in which the reading and writ-ing processes complement one another is around issuesof audience. Twenty years ago Elbow (1981) noted thataudience awareness is fundamental because writers needto convince their readers to keep reading. Since then, alarge body of research on writing as a sociocultural actand on the linguistic features of various text genres hashelped to elucidate how writers keep readers’ attention.This research reveals that audience is an important aspectboth of the social context and the cognitive processes ofwriters (Hayes, 2000).

Developing audience awareness is central to litera-cy learning because writing is a social process that iswidely used for communication in mainstream Westernculture, even by young novices (Cook-Gumperz &

Gumperz, 1981; Dyson, 1989, 1992; Hayes, 2000).Knowing the socioculturally valued forms and purposesof writing that are familiar to readers is essential to beingable to use writing to communicate effectively (Bakhtin,1986; Vygotsky, 1978). Children must learn to select andorder the language resources available to them, includingaudience cues and strategies, to develop texts that arerecognizable to readers and achieve the intended func-tions (Chapman, 1995; Christie, 1989; Cope & Kalantzis,1993; Kamberelis, 1999; Kress, 1999; Martin, 1999;Rothery, 1989, 1996). For example, when writing to per-suade they must employ the conventional discoursemoves of the persuasive argument genre if their writing isto work as social practice (Hays, Durham, Brandt, &Raitz, 1990; Kirsch & Roen, 1990).

Moreover, understanding how writers address andinvoke audience may simultaneously enhance children’sgrowth as readers. Such understanding not only allowsthem to recognize and appropriate text cues and strate-gies that make writing effective, but may also help themapproach reading with a sense of their role(s) and writ-ers’ intentions. Awareness of these intentions may con-tribute to children’s growth as critical readers who areable to both learn from and challenge texts. However,most research on student writers’ sense of audience hasfocused on secondary and college writers. This study ex-amines first graders’ development of audience awarenessin the context of Family Message Journal writing.

Family Message Journals are notebooks in whichchildren write a message to their families each day, and afamily member (or if necessary, another adult aside from

Can first-grade writers demonstrate audience awareness?

Julie E. Wollman-BonillaRhode Island College, Providence, USA

185

Understanding how writers address and invoke audience may si-multaneously enhance children’s growth as readers and writers. Mostresearch on student writers’ sense of audience has focused on sec-ondary and college writers. This study examines first graders’demonstrations of audience awareness in the context of FamilyMessage Journal writing. In Family Message Journals children write amessage to their families and receive a written family reply each day.These journals provide a fertile context for the study of audienceawareness because of the existence of an authentic, responsive au-dience for children’s messages. Four case-study students’ persuasivemessages were analyzed for rhetorical moves indicating audienceawareness. Textual analysis of children’s messages was comple-

mented by analysis of families’ replies, observation of classroom in-struction, and interviews with teachers, children, and family mem-bers. Evidence of audience awareness included the use of Naming,Context, Strategy, and Response Moves. There was growth over thecourse of the year in children’s use of multiple moves within a singlemessage and in their use of relatively sophisticated Response moves.Despite arguments that young children don’t have the sociocognitivecapacity to imagine or anticipate readers’ beliefs and expectations,findings show that these first graders can demonstrate a sense ofaudience when writing for familiar readers, to get something theywant, when prompted by their teacher to attend to audience needswhile writing.

Can first-grade writers demonstrate audience awareness?

¿Los escritores de primer grado pueden demostrar conciencia de la audiencia?plementó con análisis de las respuestas de las familias, observa-ciones del trabajo en el aula y entrevistas con docentes, niños y fa-miliares. La evidencia de conciencia de la audiencia incluyó recursosretóricos tales como Uso del Nombre, Contexto, Estrategia yRespuesta. Hubo un progreso en el curso del año en el uso por partede los niños de múltiples recursos en un mismo mensaje y en la uti-lización de recursos de Respuesta relativamente sofisticados. A pesarde los argumentos que postulan que los niños pequeños no tienenla capacidad sociocognitiva para imaginar o anticipar las creenciasy expectativas de los lectores, los hallazgos muestran que estos niñosde primer grado pueden demostrar sensibilidad a la audiencia cuan-do escriben para lectores conocidos, para conseguir algo que deseany cuando son estimulados por el docente a atender a las necesidadesde la audiencia mientras escriben.

Comprender la forma en que los escritores se dirigen e invocan a laaudiencia puede simultáneamente mejorar el crecimiento de losniños como lectores y escritores. La mayor parte de las investiga-ciones sobre la sensibilidad a la audiencia en las redacciones de es-tudiantes se ha centrado en escritores de escuela secundaria y ter-ciaria. Este estudio examina demostraciones de conciencia de laaudiencia en niños de primer grado, en el contexto de la redacciónde revistas de mensajes a la familia (Family Message Journal). En estetipo de revistas los niños escriben un mensaje a sus familias yreciben una respuesta escrita cada día. Estas revistas proporcionanun contexto fértil para el estudio de la conciencia de la audienciaya que existe una audiencia auténtica que responde a los mensajesde los niños. Se analizaron cuatro casos de mensajes persuasivospara investigar recursos retóricos que indicasen conciencia de laaudiencia. El análisis textual de los mensajes de los niños se com-

Können Schreiber der ersten Klasse Zuhöreraufmerksamkeit darbringen?Zu erkennen, wie die Schreiber Ihre Zuhörerschaft ansprechen undsich bei ihr Anklang verschaffen, kann gleichermaßen dieEntwicklung zu Lesern und Schreibern der Kinder steigern. Diemeiste Forschung über die Empfänglichkeit zur Zuhörerschaft vonSchülern als Schreiber hat sich auf Oberschüler und Studentengerichtet. Diese Studie untersucht Beispiele der Erstkläßler desErweckens von Aufmerksamkeit an die Zuhörerschaft imZusammenhang mit dem Schreiben von Tagebuchmitteilungen andie Familie. In Tagebuchmitteilungen an die Familie schreiben dieKinder eine Aufzeichnung an ihre Familien und erhalten jeden Tageine schriftliche Antwort der Familie. Diese Tagebuchmitteilungenliefern einen fruchtbaren Inhalt für die Studie über die Zuhörer-aufmerksamkeit aufgrund der Existenz von einer authentisch einge-henden Zuhörerschaft auf die Mitteilungen der Kinder. VierSchüleruntersuchungsfälle von überzeugenden Mitteilungen wur-den zwecks rhetorischer Reaktionen analysiert, die Zuhörer-aufmerksamkeit anzeigen. Die Textanalyse von Mitteilungen der

Kinder wurde ergänzt durch die Analyse der Entgegnungen derFamilien, Beobachtungen von Klassenraumanweisung, undInterviews mit Lehrern, Kindern und Familienmitgliedern. DasVorhandensein von Zuhöreraufmerksamkeit schloß die Nutzung vonBenennung, Inhalt, Strategie und Wiedergabereaktionen ein. Es er-gab sich ein Wachstum im Laufe des Jahres bei der Anwendung derKinder von mannigfachen Reaktionen innerhalb einer einzigenMitteilung und ihrer Nutzung von relativ anspruchsvollenAntwortreaktionen. Trotz Argumenten, daß junge Kinder nicht diesozio-kognitive Kapazität an Vorstellungskraft oder demVoraussehen von Überzeugungen und Erwartungen der Leserschafthaben, zeigen die Erkenntnisse, daß diese Erstkläßler ein Empfindenihrer Zuhörerschaft demonstrieren können, wenn sie für vertrauteLeser schreiben, um etwas zu erlangen, daß sie sich wünschen,wenn sie von ihren Lehrern angehalten werden, bei ihrem Schreibenauf die Bedürfnisse der Zuhörerschaft einzugehen.

ABSTRACTS

186

ABSTRACTS

Des enfants de première année peuvent-ils écrire en tenant compte du destinataire ?

l’analyse textuelle des messages des enfants nous avons ajouté uneanalyse des réponses des familles, une observation en salle de classe,ainsi que des entretiens avec les enseignants, les enfants, et desmembres de leur famille. Les preuves d’une prise en compte du des-tinataire comportent l’utilisation de la dénomination, du contexte,de la stratégie, et les changements de réponse. Il y a eu augmenta-tion en cours d’année de l’utilisation de plusieurs changements ausein d’un message unique et de leur utilisation de changements deréponse relativement sophistiqués. En dépit des arguments selonlesquels de jeunes enfants n’ont pas les moyens sociocognitifsd’imaginer ou d’anticiper ce que croit ou attend le lecteur, les résul-tats montrent que ces enfants de première année sont conscients dudestinataire quand ils écrivent à des lecteurs familiers et saventobtenir d’eux ce qu’ils veulent quand ils sont poussés par leur maîtreà faire attention aux besoins du destinataire quand ils lui écrivent.

Comprendre comment des enfants peuvent écrire en s’adressant à undestinataire et l’évoquer peut permettre de perfectionner à la foisles progrès des enfants en tant que lecteurs et en tant que scrip-teurs. La plupart des recherches sur la conscience du destinatairequ’ont les élèves portent sur des élèves de niveau secondaire ou uni-versitaire. Cette étude examine des manifestations de conscience dudestinataire chez des enfants de première année dans un contexted’écriture de journal de messages familiaux. Dans un journal de mes-sages familiaux, les enfants rédigent chaque jour un message à leurfamille et reçoivent une réponse de leur famille. Ces journaux four-nissent un contexte fertile pour l’étude de la prise en compte du des-tinataire du fait de l’existence d’un destinataire répondant authen-tique pour les messages des enfants. Nous avons procédé à l’analysede quatre études de cas de messages convaincantes de changementsrhétoriques manifestant une prise en compte du destinataire. À

the classroom teacher) writes a reply. Message topics areassigned to elicit reflection on curriculum-related activi-ties or to inform families about school events. For exam-ple, children write hypotheses and observations beforeand during a science experiment; they report informationfrom a lesson on local history; they design arguments forrecycling at home; they write personal responses to astory; or they request bag lunches and chaperones for aclass trip.

Because messages are related to classroom activitiesfamilies do not experience, they serve as genuine com-munication of ideas, knowledge, and needs unknown tothe intended readers. When children are writing aboutschool activities or events, the teacher or peers may notconstitute a real audience—they already know. Families,however, are a more authentic audience because they arenot in the classroom. Children carry full responsibility forthe communicative value of their messages; teachersnever write in these journals. Moreover, children may beprovided with feedback on message clarity and effectthrough family replies. Thus Family Message Journals arefertile ground for studying the development of audienceawareness.

Audience aw areness: What is it and how does it develop?A central debate in theories of audience awareness

is whether audience is addressed or invoked in writing.In classical rhetoric audience was framed as known anddirectly addressed in discourse. However, this view re-flected the historical fact that rhetoricians concernedthemselves with speaking to present audiences (Kirsch &Roen, 1990). The notion of audience addressed, thus,may not be sufficient to describe how audience functionsin written discourse. Writers may invoke audience byproviding text cues that indicate what stance a readershould take and how they want their work to be read(Ryder, Vander Lei, & Roen, 1999).

As Ede and Lunsford (1984) argued, it is overlysimplistic to believe that audience is either addressed orinvoked in writing. Audience awareness involves both un-derstanding (or trying to) the “experiences, expectationsand beliefs” of the addressed audience—those a writerimagines or knows will read one’s text—and also usingthe language of the text to cue readers as to the role thewriter envisions for them (Ede & Lunsford, 1984, p. 165).In short, theorists seem to recognize that audience aware-ness requires synthesis of the audience-addressed and au-dience-invoked stances (Kirsch & Roen, 1990). BecauseFamily Message Journals were written forms that audi-ences (families) often read with the child-writer present,

they represent a hybrid type of discourse. Readers’ re-sponses, also, were sometimes offered orally upon initialreading and followed by written replies. Thus, it seemsthat synthesis of the addressed and invoked views of au-dience is particularly fitting to this context.

Moreover, the nature of the audience for FamilyMessage Journals also suggests the value of a syntheticperspective. Children were writing for a real, known au-dience that they could directly address as well as invokethrough text cues. As Kirsch (1990) argued, the “per-ceived disposition of readers” can heighten a writer’s au-dience awareness, and it is certainly easier to know howreaders might react when they are very familiar to thewriter (p. 227).

Much inquiry into students’ sense of audience hasfocused on classroom assignments where there is no realreader except the teacher (Frank, 1992). However, theexistence of a realistic, specific, clearly defined audiencecreates a more authentic situation for studying audienceawareness. Research suggests that it may be more diffi-cult for students to demonstrate audience awareness in acontrived situation. Despite an assignment to write forhypothetical readers, these readers are unfamiliar andimaginary and will never actually see the text. It is theteacher who will evaluate its effectiveness (Frank, 1992;Rubin & O’Looney, 1990).

In the Family Message Journal context the teachersdid not evaluate children’s messages, though they didperiodically collect samples of them to create a portfoliodocumenting progress. Rather, the only form of evalua-tion children received came from their audience in theform of replies. Thus, the context for this study was un-usually authentic for school, where most writing is readonly by the teacher and perhaps peers (Frank, 1992;Ryder et al., 1999). At the same time, it is important to re-member that the rhetorical situation involved more thanjust writers and family-as-audience. The teachers werealso “listening in,” creating a triadic situation (Ryder et al.,1999, p. 55).

Another significant issue in audience awareness re-search and theory is the role of sociocognitive develop-ment. This may be particularly relevant to the presentstudy because of the writers’ youth. Competence as awriter has been linked to audience awareness at the col-lege level (Ede, 1984; Raforth, 1985), and the first graderswere far from proficient writers, being at the emergentand beginning stages of literacy. Moreover, research withcollege-bound writers suggests that even at that level,many lack the sociocognitive ability to imagine readers’perspectives and needs (Hays et al., 1990). Further, stud-ies of children’s writing demonstrate that it is natural forthem not to be aware of whether their writing will com-municate to others as intended (Britton, 1970; Temple,

Audience awareness 187

Nathan, Burris, & Temple, 1988). Thus it is often assumedthat children do not have the sociocognitive capacity tobe audience-aware.

However, research focusing on children’s sociocog-nitive development suggests that children may not be asconsistently egocentric as assumed. Rather, children seemto be capable of taking another’s perspective if they arein a situation that is not contrived, that seems reasonableand purposeful, and in which they understand what isexpected (Donaldson, 1978).

In light of these findings, it is important to remem-ber that much research on audience awareness involvescontrived writing for imagined audiences. Perhaps chil-dren can demonstrate audience awareness if they arewriting for a real purpose and an authentic and familiaraudience. Having a specific, known audience may helpthem better understand and anticipate their readers’needs and expectations, allowing them to stretch beyondtheir sociocognitive capacity as it might be displayed inother situations. Vygotskian theory supports this notion.

Vygotsky (1978) argued that through interaction,with proficient guidance, children can develop advancedmental processes such as awareness of audience andgradually internalize the ability to anticipate audienceneeds. Family Message Journals provide a situation thatmay extend children’s independent sociocognitive capaci-ty because they entail a purposeful dialogue with regularfeedback from families that provides Vygotskian guidancein expanding children’s perspectives. In keeping with thisview, recent research suggests that perhaps the contextfor writing is as important to audience awareness as anyparticular qualities of the writer.

Rubin and O’Looney (1990) found that an identifi-able audience, and prompts to keep that audience inmind, aided basic college writers who otherwise had diffi-culty thinking of their audience while writing. In a studyof fifth graders, Frank (1992) also found that when chil-dren wrote with a sense that they were truly communicat-ing to real (though unfamiliar) readers who wouldevaluate their texts, they were able to use a number ofrhetorical moves to address their audience’s perceived be-liefs, including adjusting the length, language, and strate-gies of appeal in their texts. The fifth graders successfullyrevised advertisements for an adult audience and for athird-grade audience so that readers in each group wereable to identify the intended audience of each text.Although these students received no “coaching” in how“to accommodate their audience’s varying interests, needs,and expectations” their teachers did prompt them to con-sider their audience while writing (p. 290).

As in the studies by Frank (1992) and Rubin andO’Looney (1990), audience awareness has most oftenbeen studied as an aspect of revision, and researchers

have suggested that writers must get their ideas down ina draft first before they can be expected to revise towardaudience needs and expectations (Roen & Willey, 1988).In the present study, however, the first grade writers didnot revise their messages. They were encouraged to readthem over when complete to see if anything needed tobe added, but their messages were first drafts, and theyvery rarely made any additions or changes to their workupon rereading. In fact, classroom observation showedthat the children often did not even reread their complet-ed entries. Research in such a context may expand ourunderstanding of what factors affect writers’ audienceawareness as demonstrated in their writing.

Purpose of the studyAlthough there is wide agreement that a sense of

audience plays a central role in communication throughwriting, audience awareness has been given little atten-tion in the study of emergent and beginning literacy. Thisstudy explores whether four case-study first gradersdemonstrated audience awareness in their persuasivemessages.

Persuasive writing, in which the author makes anargument to readers, has been the focus of previous re-search on writers’ sense of audience because it is a typeof writing that “presupposes an audience” and “entails astronger focus on audience than other genres.” In persua-sive writing, it is inherent that the readers may hold a dif-ferent view from the writer and that the writers’ job is totry to change that view (Hays et al., 1990, p. 249).Although “any form of writing can have an argumentativeedge... [and] in one sense every form of writing is work-ing to persuade other people to see the world as thewriter does,” persuasive writing is by nature audiencefocused (Ryder et al., 1999, p. 61; also see Ede, 1984).

This is not a study of Family Message Journals as apedagogical strategy. Rather, the journals provided a fruit-ful context for the study of audience awareness becauseof the known, authentic audience that children could ac-tually persuade to believe, provide, or do specific things.The children’s messages were genuinely intended to “[get]work done in the world” (Ryder et al., 1999, p. 61).Additionally, as part of Family Message Journal writing,the teachers provided prompting to attend to audienceand sometimes offered explicit instruction in what thatmight mean. Finally, there was an authentic family reply,a form of evaluation and guidance in that replies generallyindicated whether a message had worked to persuade thereader(s). This study addressed the following questions:

1. Can first graders demonstrate audience aware-ness in their persuasive writing, in a context characterized

188 READING RESEARCH QUARTERLY April/May/June 2001 36/2

by an authentic and responsive audience, writing for realpurposes, and teacher instruction to consider audience?

2. Are common patterns of audience awarenessidentifiable across cases?

3. Did students’ audience awareness grow over thecourse of a school year?

Method

ParticipantsThe four case-study students came from two first-

grade classrooms in a suburban Boston elementaryschool. At my request, children were nominated by theirteachers to represent a microcosm of the entire first gradein terms of writing ability, sociocultural background, andfamilies’ attitudes towards involvement in school learning.My yearlong participant observation in one classroomconfirmed that the suggested children were indeed repre-sentative of their peers in terms of literacy ability and in-terest. These three girls and one boy, Kristen, Kyle,Maryanne, and Sara (all names are pseudonyms), rangedin age from 5 to 7 over the course of the school year.Two were emergent readers and writers (precommunica-tive spellers, uncertain of conventional letter symbols),and two were beginning readers and writers (semipho-netic spellers) as the school year opened.

Also representative of their classmates in terms ofsociocultural background, three of the case-study chil-dren were Anglos of European descent (one, Maryanne,was a daughter of recent Polish immigrants) and onechild was Anglo and Latino. Maryanne’s family was bilin-gual; only she and her older sister were proficient inEnglish. All of the children lived in families with twoworking parents in occupations ranging from construc-tion work to investment banking; they reflected the so-cioeconomic diversity of their classrooms. Each of thecase-study children had at least one sibling; an older sib-ling served as occasional writer of replies in two of thefour Family Message Journals.

SettingBoth first-grade teachers emphasized classroom

community, sharing, and helping others. Families wereconsidered an essential part of the community, and fami-ly involvement was part of the classrooms’ culture. Nearlyhalf of female parents and guardians served as regularvolunteers in the classroom, homework usually involvedfamilies, and Family Message Journals were central to theliteracy curriculum. The teachers explained to families thevalue of writing back to children in these journals andused frequent letters to remind families that their partici-pation was important and that a nightly response to the

content of the child’s message was expected. They reas-sured families that mastery of written English wasn’t nec-essary, and some wrote in nonstandard English or in adifferent home language. The teachers’ clear expectationof involvement, regardless of families’ educational back-grounds, was effective. Only 2 families of 48 failed to re-ply regularly in the journal. The four case-study familiesreplied to nearly every message written, with fewer than5% of messages going unanswered.

The classroom instructional contextThe first-grade teachers assigned persuasive mes-

sages to introduce the children to ways that writing mightempower them and to provide them with the responsibil-ity for purposeful writing. For example, when a specialprogram was being held at school, it was the first graders(not their teachers) who wrote home about it, encourag-ing families to attend. Or when a change in routine ne-cessitated that families do something (e.g., provide a baglunch for a field trip), it was the children who communi-cated this information. The children were also regularlyasked to write messages about what they had learned inschool. When a lesson or unit focused on issues that af-fected the children’s home lives, they often chose to turnthese into persuasive messages. For example, when theylearned about recycling, some children wrote factualmessages about the topic, but others used their messagesto try to persuade families to recycle or help with a child-designed recycling effort (e.g., a poster campaign or yardsale). Thus there were two sorts of persuasive messages:those the teachers explicitly assigned to be persuasive,and those in which the children used the teachers’ as-signed topic to write a persuasive message. The teacherswelcomed children’s efforts to integrate informationlearned with their own purposes.

Additionally, the teachers worked to develop chil-dren’s audience awareness through direct instruction andprompting. These forms of instruction were used acrossmessage types, not only in conjunction with persuasivemessages. One form of direct instruction was demonstra-tion through the joint construction of a model text. At thebeginning of the year, before the children wrote, theteachers composed messages in front of them, with theirinput, to make public the decision making that writing in-volves. For example, one teacher asked herself, “Whatare all the things I could write about the experiment wedid?” The children brainstormed ideas, discussed eachsuggestion, and, with teacher guidance, decided uponwhat might be “most important to tell someone whowasn’t in the classroom.”

Other brief lessons were devoted to specific genresand what makes them work. For example, studentswatched and listened as their teacher thought about the


best way to word a message in which she was trying toget something. Should she simply ask, demand, per-suade, or state why it’s needed? Which was likely to bemost effective? The teachers also wrote messages thatwere missing crucial information and asked the studentsfor help with improving them so they would better com-municate to readers.

A second approach to direct instruction took theform of instructional tips that were reviewed frequently.One tip was to read over a message before taking ithome, to be sure it was clear and complete, and makeneeded changes. Another tip, introduced midyear, wasthat every message should include “at least three specificpieces of information,” as opposed to general statementssuch as “it is cool.”

A third form of direct instruction was one-on-onefeedback both as children were writing and afterward.Using their sense of children’s readiness, the teachersprompted the first graders to think more about their audi-ence, asking questions such as “What does your familyhave to know about the book we read? Is it okay if youforget to tell them it involved recycling, and why it’s im-portant to recycle? Will your message still be clear?” Theyalso encouraged elaboration, saying, “You can writemore to help your family understand.”

Finally, the teachers provided direct instructionwhen each day one or two children shared a message andthe family reply in the classroom. Where appropriate, theteachers used these as examples for discussion of howclear, convincing writing can influence others and getthings done. For example, when a student wrote homeasking to purchase some books and included a promiseto help “pay” for them by doing household chores, a fam-ily member wrote back: “Yes, I will help you buy thebooks you want. I’m glad you realize you have to con-tribute also to get the extra things you want. That showsme how much you care about those books.” During shar-ing, the teacher highlighted the strategy the first graderhad used to persuade her family to buy the books.

The family instructional contextWe know that involving families in flexible, conve-

nient, and respectful ways boosts children’s academicdevelopment and school performance (Epstein, 1991;Epstein & Dauber, 1991; Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler,1997; Quint, 1994; Rosenholtz, 1989), and that regardlessof income, ethnicity, or culture, most families are interest-ed in their children’s educational success (Barone, 1999;Baumann & Thomas, 1997; Delgado-Gaitan, 1990;Mulhern, 1997; Paratore, Melzi, & Krol-Sinclair, 1999;Quint, 1994; Taylor & Dorsey-Gaines, 1988). Nevertheless,it is rare for teachers to deliberately create conditionswhere students and the teacher can learn from children’s

families. Family participation that involves learning fromfamilies capitalizes on their knowledge and reflects faiththat they can contribute substantively to the curriculum(Cairney & Munsie, 1995; Delgado-Gaitan, 1990; Moll,1992; Rosenholtz, 1989; Shockley, Michalove, & Allen,1995). Family Message Journals invite families to becomepart of the instructional context.

Like the teachers’ instruction, families’ replies alsoencouraged development of audience awareness. First,they indicated attention to what the children wrote andstated that messages had affected their thinking and be-havior. Many replies included comments like “Thanks forthe information. I did not know that,” or “Yes, we can dothat.”

Second, replies often included questions or requestsfor elaboration, such as, “I would like to know moreabout spelling baseball.” Such replies suggested ways inwhich the first graders might better satisfy readers’ curios-ity. These replies were rarely written in response to per-suasive messages, but the implied advice, that writers areexpected to meet readers’ needs, may have affected all ofthe children’s writing.

Finally, most family replies modeled how to includeenough information to satisfy readers and achieve the in-tended function. For example, responding to a requestfor a diary, Maryanne’s mother wrote the reply in Figure1 (Maryanne is nicknamed Mania). This reply demon-strates how to write an argument that provides back-ground information at the start and enumerates andexplains reasons for an action taken.

All four case-study families regularly wrote repliesencouraging audience awareness. However, it is impossi-ble to determine how such replies actually affected chil-dren’s sense of audience. All that can be said is thatfamily replies had the potential to do so. In any case, themere existence of the families as an authentic and re-sponsive audience for children’s messages encouragedaudience awareness.

Researcher stanceAs a researcher I brought a sociocultural perspective

on literacy to this study. I believe that literacy learning is asocial process and that the goals of literacy teaching areshaped by sociocultural norms and expectations. Thus,children learning to read and write are, more precisely,learning to appropriate the particular genres and purposesfor literacy that are valued in their particular socioculturalcontexts (Bakhtin, 1986; Christie, 1989; Martin, 1999;Rothery, 1989, 1996). From this perspective, a teacher’srole is to guide children to recognize and try out sociocul-turally valued forms of and uses for literacy and to pro-vide feedback on their efforts. Families, too, are a centralpart of the social contexts in which children learn.


Though relatively little is known about exactly what rolesthey play once children enter elementary school, my ownexperiences as a teacher educator, a teacher, and a parenthave convinced me that families’ support for literacylearning (support that may take varied forms) is an impor-tant factor in children’s school success.

In the present study I focused on a situation inwhich learning was socially supported in the classroomand at home, and in which children were writing for au-thentic social purposes. I gathered data from both theclassroom and home, contexts to elucidate how interac-tion within these contexts might shape children’s learn-ing. My attention to audience, in particular, reflects myconcern with social aspects of written communication. Byfocusing data analysis and interpretation on children’sdevelopment of conventional rhetorical moves reflectingaudience awareness, I tried to capture the learning thatoccurred through a dialogic writing situation and to de-scribe how children appropriated sociocultural conven-tions necessary to become effective persuasive writers.

Data gathering and analysisI chose to focus on all of the persuasive messages

written by four case-study children to permit a close lookand rich description of how these typical students demon-strated audience awareness, how audience awarenessmay have differed across cases, and how it may have de-veloped over time. The primary source of data was thefour case-study students’ yearlong corpus of 59 persuasivemessages (11% of the 524 journal messages they wrote)and their families’ replies to these messages. Secondarydata, used to describe the setting and corroborate mysense of children’s and families’ intentions in certain mes-sages, include field notes from weekly participant obser-vation in one classroom from October through May;interviews with the two teachers, four students, and foursets of parents; and related artifacts from the classroom,including letters sent home to parents regarding FamilyMessage Journals and other activities and expectations, aweekly class newsletter, and materials used in conjunctionwith the study of message topics.

As my focus was textual analysis of children’s abilityto demonstrate audience awareness, the children’s 59messages formed the key pieces of data. In keeping withprevious research, persuasive messages were identified asthose that were intended to make families believe, pro-vide, or do something they otherwise might not have. Inshort, they were intended to convince families of some-thing (e.g., the importance of not caging wild animals)or, most often, to get something from families that thefirst grader desired (e.g., new books or pets).

Persuasive messages could also be consistentlyidentified by the type of reply they received. With the ex-

ception of just one out of 56 total replies, families’ re-sponses contained an answer: a promise to do what wasrequested (e.g., “YES, i WiLL ViSiT YOUR SCOOL TO-MORROW. i CAN’T WAiT TO SEE YOUR TEACHER,FRiENDS, AND THE CLASSROOM.”); an indication thatthey had been convinced (e.g., in response to an auto-mobile safety message that ended “Don’t drive when thewether is bad,” a parent concluded her message: “It is go-ing to snow on Wednesday night and Thursday morning.If it looks bad, I will not drive to work. I’ll stay home andbe safe”); or very occasionally an explanation of why thewriter could not have what s/he wanted (e.g., “To have apuppy seems like a lot of fun!... But it is also a lot ofwork.…”). The one reply that did not answer the child’squestion was deliberately evasive; the parent later ex-plained that she had not wanted to do what was asked(attend a school play) but had not wanted to say “no” ei-ther, because she felt guilty about it. Instead she wrote:“The play sounds wonderful from what you’ve told me


Figure 1 Maryanne’s mother demonstrated how tocompose an argument for writing in a diary

about it.… Being in a play lets you pretend you are adifferent person.… It’s fun!”

The children’s 59 persuasive messages were ana-lyzed by coding for rhetorical moves, text features thathave been established as evidence of audience awarenessin previous research (Hays et al., 1990; Long, 1990; Ryderet al., 1999).

1. Naming Moves that position the audience and writer byaddressing readers (e.g., “You can help”) and cuingthem as to their expected stance (e.g., “As we who careknow...”).

2. Context Moves that provide background information thewriter believes the audience needs (and leave out whatthe writer presumes the audience already knows).

3. Strategy Moves that keep the readers’ interest and appealto their emotions, circumstances, concerns, or sense ofhumor.

4. Response Moves that may simply state or may also ex-plain or accommodate readers’ potential concerns orobjections.

Although Frank (1992) did not code according tothese moves in her study of fifth graders’ audienceawareness, her codes can be easily matched to these. Forexample, her category for text adaptation labeled “formsof address” entails Naming Moves, her categories “length”and “adjectives” reflect Context Moves, and her categories“voice,” “price,” and “appeal to audience” involveStrategy Moves. The difference in her labels may be at-tributed to the fact that she was analyzing a particulartype of persuasive text, an advertisement, and thus spe-cific categories like “price” were appropriate, rather thanthe more general “Strategy Move” that a change in priceexemplifies.

It is important to point out that the children werenot explicitly taught the rhetorical moves used as analyti-cal categories. However, at the beginning of the yearwhen the first persuasive message was assigned, a modelwas constructed for all of the children to follow. Sara’sexample is nearly identical to the messages written by theother students that day:

Squeak mom and Dad

We are learning about mice in our first grade room. I.have. a mouse fact to research Will You help me Please?Love sara

The teachers’ closely followed model included Naming(“will you help”), Context (“We are learning about micein our first grade room. I have a mouse fact to research”),and Strategy (“please”) Moves. After this initial closecopying by the first graders, other persuasive messageswere more individual, with no two alike, and many quitedifferent in terms of content and moves used. The teach-ers continued to prompt audience awareness as thechildren wrote, suggesting the use of all four types ofmoves with questions like “What does your family needto know?” or “How could you convince them to do whatyou want?”

To determine if first graders can use the rhetoricalmoves that indicate audience awareness, each messagewas analyzed by coding for as many of the four moves aswere evident. Each child’s use of moves in all messageswritten in a single month was then calculated in order toreveal differences over time. Next, data on moves wereconsidered in light of message type to see if there weredifferences depending upon whether the message was ateacher-assigned persuasive message or a message on anassigned topic (intended by the teacher to be factualwriting) that the child turned into a persuasive message.Individual results were then compared to determine com-mon patterns, and finally data on all four students’ moveswere combined to determine group patterns in the typesand frequency of moves over time.

Results

Frequency and type of movesWithin-case data showed that first graders’ persua-

sive messages did reflect attention to audience. AfterSeptember (when 10% of the year’s messages were writ-ten) and October (when no persuasive messages werewritten), each child used multiple moves in every mes-sage. Over the entire school year, each child averagedfrom two to three moves per message. With the excep-tion of the six messages written prior to November(when persuasive writing was first demonstrated and dis-


Table 1 Average number of moves per message

Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May1 0 3* 2 2 3 3 2.1 2.5

*All messages written in November were copied from the teachers’ first instructional model, which included three moves. Thus the number ofmoves per message this month was inflated by direct modeling.

cussed by the teachers), every child used at least two andup to four moves in each message written. Table 1 com-bines data across cases to show how the number ofmoves per message grew over time. The fact that therewere three moves per message in November reflectsskewing brought about by all four children copying,nearly word for word, the three moves the teachers madein their first persuasive message model. With these fourmessages eliminated, the average number of moves permessage from September through December was 1.5 andfrom January through May it grew to 2.5.

With respect to move type, each child most oftenused Strategy Moves, then Context Moves, then NamingMoves, and least often Response Moves, and they all be-gan to use these moves at around the same time.Because the data were so consistent across cases, it isuseful to look at group patterns. Table 2 presents the pat-tern of types of moves for the group, mirroring individualdistribution patterns in terms of moves used most fre-quently. The Table shows that as a group the first graderswere able to use all four types of moves and used thefirst three regularly from February on. Throughout theyear, Strategy Moves were used most often (36%), thenContext Moves (29%), and then Naming Moves (25%).Response Moves, requiring the writer to at least statereaders’ potential concerns or objections, first appearedin January and only became more frequent in April, ac-counting for 11% of all moves. Except for one Februarymessage, the only messages using all four moves werewritten in April and May.

Although Table 2 reflects an overall trend toward ahigher percentage of moves late in the year, this is due tothe fact that two thirds of the persuasive messages werewritten in April and May. Table 1 compensates for thissituation by representing average moves per messageover time.

What the moves looked likeOnly 1 of the 59 persuasive messages included no

rhetorical moves with respect to audience. It was written

in September and simply read: “WeN CEN We Go APPLEPEKiNG AT ANDROOS HOeS.” Unlike this simple re-quest, which nevertheless received a positive reply, allother messages included at least a Strategy Move.Following I provide close analysis of patterns of changein sample messages to complement and give meaning tocounts of frequency and change over time.

The development of Strategy MovesEarly messages included primarily Strategy Moves,

and these were often indirect appeals to readers’ emo-tions. For example:

September 27, 1996

Hello Mommy,

MaryAnne is HaPPy SHe BekoS SHe Got A Noo Dogee!

Love, MARyANNE

Despite its obliqueness, Maryanne’s family recognizedthis as a persuasive message and was moved by it, re-sponding: “We would all like to have a dog. And we willtry to get it next year. Mommy and I hope that all ourhouse projects will be done. So, there will be enoughtime to care for a dog….”

As the year went on, all of the children began torely on more direct Strategy Moves that appealed not justto audience emotions but also to audience interests. Thefirst move to appear across all four students’ messageswas the use of basic politeness rules they had beentaught. From November on they all used “Please” as afrequent Strategy Move, appealing to their readers’known interest in asking politely, and modeling theirteachers’ demonstration of this move.

Still working on getting a dog, in mid-JanuaryMaryanne wrote:

I thinck a puppy would mack a nice pet bcose it is fun toplay with it. It is fun to exersighs with it. Well you can tri-


Table 2 Percent of moves in each category by month*

Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May TOTAL

Naming 1 0 4 0 0 2 3 9 6 25

Context 1 0 4 2 2 2 3 9 6 29

Strategy 3 0 4 2 5 2 3 9 8 36

Response 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 7 2 11

Overall 5 0 12 4 8 7 9 34 22

* Percent of 82 moves in 59 messages by all four students. Overall sum equals 101% due to rounding.

an it thats fun. It can sleep with you. Ther nice and furytoo I love dogs and puppys. Love Maryanne

Here she used a Context Move, introducing her topic (“apuppy would make a nice pet”) before launching into aseries of Strategy Moves. She appealed to audience emo-tions (“It is fun to play with it,” “Ther nice and fury,” “Ilove dogs and puppys”), suggesting that she would be ahappier child with a pet dog. Additionally, Maryanne ap-pealed to audience interests; her mother likes her to getoutside and exercise and a puppy would make her dothis, she explained. She also addressed the potential con-cern about training a puppy, which might be considereda nascent Response Move as well, though as worded it ismore accurately a Strategy Move, yet another example of

things she would be able to do with a puppy that mightbe among her family’s concerns.

Later in the year, it was common for the firstgraders to use even more types of Strategy Moves. Forexample, in the message shown in Figure 2, Kristensought her family’s help with a school spelling activity forwhich the children were asked to suggest words.

Not only did Kristen appeal to her family’s inter-ests by promising “it will be fun [to help me],” she alsomade it easier for them to help by drawing four linesupon which they could write suggested words. Theselines structured their reply and also made it more difficultfor them to decline by leaving four blank spaces. Oftensuch messages received replies from both parents in afamily, as when Sara explained that “we are having acontest to name the bull dog [school mascot]” and asked“can you think of three names.” As Figure 3 shows, shefirst drew just three lines and then signed her name, butwhen both parents wanted to reply she made three extralines.

A similar Strategy Move, used by many of thechildren from January on, was to create a forced choiceresponse by writing “YES ___ NO ____” at the bottom ofa message requesting something. This move was nottaught by the teachers but was introduced by the chil-dren; it made it difficult for families to ignore the need tomake a choice.

Awareness of the need for Context MovesLike Maryanne’s pet message and Kristen’s spelling

baseball message, the children’s messages regularly be-gan to include Context Moves after the need for contex-tualizing a message was taught in November andreinforced regularly by teacher questions such as “Howwill your family know what you are writing about?”Whereas early messages tended to launch into persuasionwith no background: “MAY I PlEeSe GeT THE BOOKMAWSPANTE [Mouse Paint] LOVE, MARYANNE,” byDecember Context Moves were established and appearedin all but 10% of the messages written thereafter. Thischange is exemplified in Maryanne’s January message,also trying to persuade her mother to order from theBook Club flyer the teacher had distributed:

January 10, 1997

Dear Mommy

I have a book ortor. Theys are the books Ied like ples. 101dalamaicions Krats creetures and little polar bear finds afrend. Love Maryanne


Figure 2 Kristen’s Strategy Moves to get help with aspelling activity

The added background information “I have a book ortor”is an important move in terms of clarity, showing sensi-tivity to audience needs.

Growth in the number of moves used in a messageTracking changes in the “book order” messages that

appeared monthly also reflects the first graders’ growth inthe use of an increasing number of move types within amessage. For example, in April Maryanne wrote anothersuch message, which appears in Figure 4.

Here Maryanne used attention-getting StrategyMoves in the greeting and closing sections of her message(“R-R-R-R-Read” and calling herself “Little Reader”). Themessage itself includes several Context Moves, explainingwhat she’s writing about and then describing exactly whatshe wants most and why. This background information iscomplemented by Strategy Moves including offering tohelp pay for some of the cost and begging (“pritty prittypleas with sugar on top”) to indicate just how much shewants the diary, tapping her audience’s emotions. ANaming Move, “[I have] some pritty pivet things youknow,” addresses her reader directly as someone who un-derstands the need for a private place to record thoughts.Finally, Maryanne included a Response Move; she ac-knowledged that her family was spending a lot of moneyto take a Florida vacation and recognized this might makeit difficult to afford other unnecessary items.

Another example of a message with all four typesof moves was also written (on the same day but in theother classroom) to request books:

4/11/97

Dear Family

I want to get lots of books from the bookorder and I wantto clean the dishes for you only if you pay me I don’t carehow much I get because I have lots of alouens money butI don’t mind if I can’t get any how many will I get if youcan by me some I want it to be two sets of books I wantthe prary ones can I they come in a pack there are ninebooks in the set Love Sara

Like Maryanne, Sara used Context Moves to providebackground information, stating that she had a book or-der flyer and explaining exactly what she wanted, a setof nine books about prairie life. She also used NamingMoves to speak directly to her reader (“you”), offering to“clean the dishes for you” and asking “how many will Iget if you can by me some.” Strategy Moves included heroffer to work to earn money to buy what she wanted,asking her family to commit to “how many” they willbuy, and offering to use her own allowance money, aswell. Finally, Sara used a Response Move when she

wrote “I don’t care how much I get because I have lots ofalouens money but I don’t mind if I can’t get any,” sug-gesting that she understood that the answer might be“no” and that she realized her family might also expecther to contribute when she was asking to buy so much.

Recognition of potential audience objections, as ex-emplified in the Response Moves by Maryanne and Sara,tended to be very effective. Families often replied as didSara’s father, that they were glad their children were “be-ginning to appreciate how much time and work it takes


Figure 3 Sara created blank spaces for both her motherand father to reply to her message seekinghelp with mascot names

to be able to have the things you want,” and they usually

agreed to the child’s request. The reply to Maryanne’s re-

quest is shown in Figure 1. When families did not agree

it was because of genuine problems that the children had

cited in their Response Moves. For example, in one mes-

sage Kristen stated that her mother probably would not

let her have the cat she wished for because of her aller-

gies; her mother replied: “You’re right, you can’t because

of your allergies.” In short, despite the relative infrequen-

cy of Response Moves, families’ replies suggested that

when these moves were used the first graders were right

on target with their understanding of possible audience

objections or concerns.

Naming MovesThe children used Naming Moves within their

messages regularly from February on. Sometimes thesemoves were like those in the book order requests above,directly addressing the audience (“you”) with a question,or positioning the audience as people who would under-stand the request. Sometimes Naming Moves were usedin the first sentence of a message to get readers’ attentionand interest. For example:

4/8/97

Dear Mom

did you know that a ear Bag cums tow hundrit miles anower and alwaes sit in the Back seat incaes your mom ordad crash... never take off your seat Belt and if you wontoBe cool Bukle you seat belt...

In this message Kyle also used a Naming Move to indi-cate that if his readers wanted to “be cool,” they wouldtake his advice. Thus, he invited his audience to be partof what he saw as a desired group and suggested that re-jecting his advice would position his readers outside thedesirable group.

The Family Message Journal is an unusual contextwith respect to Naming Moves because the children werewriting for a small, clearly delineated audience of imme-diate family members who had ultimate authority overthe writer. The children could address this audience di-rectly, request help or action from them, and get a tangi-ble and quick response. Thus, in general their NamingMoves were informal and involved direct requests to thereader, as in “let’s go to the play” or “can you think ofthree names.” There were fewer more sophisticatedmoves cuing readers as to their expected stance, asMaryanne did when she implied that her mother shouldunderstand her need for privacy or Kyle did when imply-ing that his audience would want to “be cool.”

Another aspect of Naming Moves was to whommessages were addressed. Because the messages were aform of letter, each one opened with a greeting, namingthe audience. The greeting most often read “Dear Family”or named all family members (“Dear Mom, Dad, andMelissa”), but when requests for money were beingmade, some children consistently addressed only “Mom”or “Mommy,” implying that they knew who might bemaking the decision about the expenditure or who mightbetter understand and be sympathetic to their requests.Perhaps this also reflects a sort of Strategy Move indicat-ing awareness of who might be more likely to be swayedby the appeal. Though greetings were not coded asNaming Moves because they were ubiquitous and maynot have reflected audience awareness as much as close


Figure 4 Maryanne’s message requesting a diary in-cludes all four move types

following of the letter format taught at the start of theschool year, the deliberate shift in recipients may be aform of Naming Move indicating growing audienceawareness.

The type of message and the number of movesAlthough the first-grade teachers deliberately de-

signed Family Message Journal assignments to introducestudents to many functions of writing including persua-sion, the children were able to use their messages fortheir own purposes as well as those their teachers intend-ed. After their teachers introduced the use of writing topersuade and showed students how to write a persuasivemessage, the children appropriated what they had beentaught. As a result, there were two types of persuasivemessages, with about 50% in each category. These weremessages the teachers assigned as persuasive texts (e.g.,write a message convincing your family to recycle athome) and those the teachers intended to be factual writ-ing (e.g., write a message telling your family what welearned about cats today) that the child turned into a per-suasive message.

Those messages the children chose to make persua-sive and those that the teacher assigned as persuasive butwhich had the potential to provide special rewards to thechildren (e.g., new books) were the only messages inwhich all four types of moves were found. Moreover,even when only two or three moves were identified inthese texts, they were the only types of messages toinclude Response Moves. A look at several messagesKristen wrote just a month apart exemplifies the differ-ence in audience awareness reflected in different mes-sage types. The first message was the outcome of anassignment to try to make families come to the school’sholiday concert:

12/16/96

Dear Family

Please come To The concert tomorrow at 1:15 FormKristen

This message includes a basic Context Move giving mini-mal background information on the concert, and a verybasic Strategy Move, “Please,” appealing to her family’sappreciation for politeness norms.

A month later Kristen’s class began a series of unitson animals, and her teacher invited students to write amessage about an animal they would like for a pet.Though assigned, this message seemed to touch a nervefor some first graders who desired pets they had neverbeen allowed to get. Kristen wrote:

1/16/97

Dear mom And dad can I Have a kitten for a pet I willtake cear of her I will feed her I will woke her I will playwhith her And I will Love her I promis Love Kristen psPlees may have a kitten

She again used the Strategy Move of appealing to her au-dience’s interest in politeness (“Plees may [I]”) and theiremotions “I will love her”). She also used ResponseMoves. Aware that her family would be concerned aboutwho will care for, feed, and entertain the kitten, she ad-dressed what she anticipated they might worry about, in-cluding walking the kitten, a task she knows dog ownersperform!

Several weeks later Kristen’s class happened tolearn about newborn animals including kittens. The as-signment was to “tell your family what you learned aboutkittens.” Some children did write a factual message, butKristen only began that way:

[Not Dated, written in February]

Meow mom And dad

a kitten stase with thier mother for 6 manths after thierborn And a kitten do not open thier eyes intill thier tenmonse old that’s why I wont a kitten I’ll die for one LoveKristen p.s But I Know I’m algec [allergic] to them Mom IDon’t mind if i’m lirgeck To them I gest [just] wont onePlese Plese with a chere on top I wont one I beg youplese plese plese I wont one so much beaus they are socyoot [cute] Plese mom I love you

I wont a kitten so Bad if you say no I’ll die But I Bet Iknow you wont care arent I rite you are the Best mom ifyou say yes so plese say yes I’ll Do ene [any] Thing Ipromis I Bet your tirD of reDing so I’ll stop

This message was one Kristen chose to turn into apersuasive text, and she used all four move types, pro-viding background information on kittens’ needs and herdesires (Context Moves) at the start. Strategy Moves in-clude appeals to her readers’ emotions (“I’ll die for one”and “Plese Plese with a chere on top I wont one I begyou plese plese plese I wont one so much beaus they areso cyoot [cute]”) and to readers’ interests, using flattery(“you are the Best mom if you say yes so plese say yes”)and a promise to reciprocate (“I’ll Do ene [any] Thing”).Naming Moves include direct address to readers (“Plesemom”) and positioning readers as hard-hearted if theyaren’t persuaded (“I love you I wont a kitten so Bad ifyou say no I’ll die But I Bet I know you wont care arent Irite”). Finally, Kristen used Response Moves by acknowl-edging the allergy problem but saying that the problemcan be tolerated (“I Don’t mind if i’m lirgeck To them”)and also recognizing how tiresome her begging must be


from her family’s perspective (“I Bet your tirD of reDingso I’ll stop”).

As the comparison of these three messages demon-strates, when children had a personal investment inpersuading their families of something, their messagesreflected a greater degree of audience awareness thanwhen they were simply trying to persuade their familiesof something the teacher told them to. Moreover, self-chosen persuasive messages tended to have more movesthan teacher-assigned ones, even when the topic washeld constant. Table 3 represents these findings andshows that although the teachers assigned broad topicsfor all messages, the children’s texts were most conven-tionally effective as persuasive arguments when theyidentified their own purposes for writing on their teach-ers’ topics.

DiscussionResults of this study suggest that even very young

emergent and beginning writers can demonstrate audi-ence awareness in their persuasive writing, in a contextcharacterized by an authentic and responsive audience,writing for real purposes, and teacher instruction to con-sider audience. The first graders addressed their audiencedirectly, drawing on their understanding of their readers’“experiences, expectations and beliefs,” and also invokedtheir audience through text cues signaling what readersshould think, believe, and want to be like (Ede &Lunsford, 1984, p. 165; Ryder et al., 1999). In short, theirmessages reflected the theoretical argument that audienceawareness involves synthesis of the audience-addressedand audience-invoked stances (Kirsch & Roen, 1990).

Findings were fairly consistent across cases; grouppatterns mirrored individual demonstrations and growth.Regardless of their writing ability, over time all four case-study children wrote an increasing number of persuasivemessages (many self-chosen), and they used more movesin their persuasive messages as the year went on. Kristen,for example, was an emergent writer (one of the weakestin the group) as the year began, and her messages in-clude many letter reversals and invented spellings, yetshe was relatively skilled at writing persuasive messages.Thus, neither writing proficiency nor sociocognitive de-

velopment seemed to play as definitive a role in audienceawareness as previous researchers have suggested (Ede,1984; Hays et al., 1990; Raforth, 1985). Young childrenenvisioned their readers’ needs, concerns, and objections.

Perhaps the key to why these findings differ fromthose of previous studies lies in the constellation of con-textual factors. First, the children were writing for a real,familiar audience, and previous research does indicatethat having such a determinate and authentic audiencecan make a difference in students’ demonstration of audi-ence awareness (Frank, 1992; Rubin & O’Looney, 1990;Ryder et al., 1999). Moreover, this audience provided rel-atively immediate response, reinforcing the sense that themessages were reaching real readers. The FamilyMessage Journal was, in some ways, similar to a situationin which audiences are addressed orally because the textswere dialogical, reaction was quick (within a day), andresponse was often offered orally upon reading a mes-sage, as well as in writing.

Additionally, the first graders were writing for real,concrete purposes, to “[get] work done in the world”(Ryder et al., 1999, p. 61). Their messages were aimednot so much at changing readers’ minds as at affectingtheir behavior. If their messages were successful the chil-dren would be tangibly rewarded with homework assis-tance, a visit to school, a safer home environment, andnew possessions. They could see the value of persuasivewriting because the topics they were writing about madea personal difference in their lives and their audienceclearly had the power to grant their requests.

As other researchers have suggested (Frank, 1992;Rubin & O’Looney, 1990), this situation may have moti-vated them in a way that the imaginary persuasive writ-ing characteristic of previous research could not. The factthat the more likely they were to achieve a personally de-sired outcome the more moves they used in a messagereinforces this hypothesis. Moreover, messages that thechildren deliberately chose to frame as persuasive werethe ones that most often featured Response Moves, re-quiring sophisticated anticipation of the audience’s possi-ble objections.

Finally, the first graders were working in a contextcharacterized by teacher support in the form of initial in-struction and ongoing prompting to consider audience


Table 3 Average number of moves per message type*

Teacher-assigned Teacher-assigned with Self-chosen persuasive message child-desired outcome persuasive message

2.0 2.5 3.0

*These data include all messages written after November (n = 52), when persuasive writing was introduced by the teachers and first assigned.

needs. Only one of the case-study students wrote anypersuasive messages (and these were very simple, includ-ing only one move) prior to the first time the teachers in-troduced, modeled, and assigned a persuasive message.After that, however, all four began to choose to makemessages persuasive in addition to writing the assignedpersuasive ones.

Rubin and O’Looney (1990) found that “even mini-mal audience cuing” may be powerful (p. 290). The first-grade teachers in the present study provided considerablegroup and one-on-one cuing through general statementsand questions like “Make sure you tell your family every-thing they need to know” and “What are some goodways to convince them to do what you want?”

In summary, the social context for message writingincluding the teachers’ guidance, children’s sense of be-ing able to use writing to communicate desires, and theopportunity to interact with an attentive, responsive audi-ence, seems to have created a zone in which first graderscould stretch beyond the limits of their independent so-ciocognitive capacity as might be demonstrated in a situa-tion involving contrived writing not supported byauthentic interaction and feedback (Vygotsky, 1978).

Limitations This study looks at the work of only four children,

comprising just 59 persuasive texts. Although case studiesprovide depth and descriptive richness, the findings aremerely suggestive; further research on a larger scale isneeded. However, the results across cases are quite con-sistent and imply that we may need to reconceptualizeour understanding of how audience awareness developsand how contextual factors shape the demonstration ofaudience awareness.

Because this study focuses on textual analysis, andwhen interviewed later none of the children were able toarticulate their decision making during composing, I can-not say whether they were metacognitively aware of therhetorical moves they were making. Nevertheless,whether or not they were conscious of what they weredoing, they did use all four types of moves indicatingaudience awareness.

In addition, it is impossible to determine what thefirst graders might have written in a context without areal, known audience that provided feedback indicatingthe effectiveness of the messages and had the power tofulfill the requests therein. Further research is also need-ed to determine whether the same level of audienceawareness would be demonstrated by young children ifthey were doing writing with less tangible, personal re-ward tied to it.

The growth over time in children’s use of multiplemoves in a message may be linked to their growingrecognition of the power of writing to achieve desiredoutcomes, but this is difficult to establish. Natural devel-opment may also have played a role, as well as exposureto good text models. Although the children saw no mod-els of persuasive texts in their classrooms other than thefew they jointly constructed with their teachers, they didread a great deal of children’s literature that may havehelped them develop a sense of what writers need to tellreaders to make a text of any genre clear.

This study did not focus on family replies, butreplies were a central aspect of the context and, as noted,may have motivated audience awareness. Moreover,some responses were made orally before families evenwrote a reply, and families reported that it was in theseoral exchanges that children were most likely to get re-sponses like “I don’t understand” or “What do you wantme to do?” or “Why is this so important to you?”Sometimes families needed this type of clarification be-fore they could reply. But such questions also implied theneed for better audience cuing within a message andmay, over time, have helped children develop awarenessof how to better meet their readers’ needs. Because Ihave no data on these immediate oral responses offeredin each home, I can only suggest that they, too, mighthave been an important, unexplored contextual factor indeveloping children’s audience awareness.

Finally, the families of the four case-study studentsmay not be typical. They were selected to be typical ofthe suburban classrooms in which the study was done,but we know that families from the full socioeconomicspectrum whether urban, suburban, or rural may not con-sider it possible or appropriate to become substantivelyinvolved in their children’s school learning, despite theirdesire that the children succeed in school. Not all familieswould provide a responsive audience for messages orwould believe it important or feasible to show childrenthe power of writing by granting their written requests. Inthis sense then, the context for this study illuminates keyissues in audience awareness but may be somewhatunusual.

ConclusionsThis study contributes to what we know by extend-

ing audience awareness research to a younger group ofstudents. The results reveal what audience awarenessmay look like in young children’s writing by describinghow four emergent and beginning writers effectively ad-dressed and invoked audience. Despite arguments thatyoung children don’t have the sociocognitive capacity toimagine or anticipate readers’ beliefs and expectations,


findings show that first graders can demonstrate a senseof audience. Viewing these results against the backdropof previous research suggests that the social context inwhich the first graders were working may have been cen-tral to their demonstration of audience awareness. Havinga familiar, responsive audience, the support of teacher in-struction and prompting to attend to audience needs, andwriting to get what they wanted seemed to facilitate thesefirst graders’ development as audience-aware writers.

As their writing demonstrates, over time the chil-dren seem to have developed awareness of how authorsaddress and invoke audience to persuade their readers.Recognizing author intention as an aspect of the reader-writer-text transaction may, in turn, enhance the readingprocess, aiding the children’s understanding of why a textwas written and supporting a critical awareness of an au-thor’s stance and goals. This study suggests the need tocreate instructional contexts that will help build the textknowledge that is important to children’s growth as read-ers and writers.

REFERENCESBAKHTIN, M.M. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays (V.W.

McGee, Trans.). Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.BARONE, D. (1999). Resilient children: Stories of poverty, drug exposure,

and literacy development. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.BARTHOLOMAE, D., & PETROSKY, A.R. (1986). Facts, artifacts and coun-

terfacts: Theory and method for a reading and writing course. Upper Montclair,NJ: Boynton/Cook.

BAUMANN, J.F., & THOMAS, D. (1997). “If you can pass Momma’s teststhen she knows you’re getting your education”: A case study of support forlearning within an African American family. The Reading Teacher, 51, 108–120.

BRITTON, J. (1970). Language and learning. Hammondsworth, England:Penguin.

CAIRNEY, T.H., & MUNSIE, L. (1995). Beyond tokenism: Parents aspartners in literacy. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

CHAPMAN, M. (1995). The sociocognitive construction of written genres infirst grade. Research in the Teaching of English, 29, 164–192.

CHRISTIE, F. (1989). Language development in education. In R. Hasan &J.R. Martin (Eds.), Language development: Learning language, learning culture(pp. 152–198). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

COOK-GUMPERZ, J.J., & GUMPERZ, J. (1981). From oral to written cul-ture: The transition to literacy. In M.F. Whiteman (Ed.), Variations in writing(pp. 89–109). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

COPE, B., & KALANTZIS, M. (1993). The powers of literacy: A genreapproach to teaching writing. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.

DELGADO-GAITAN, C. (1990). Literacy for empowerment: The role ofparents in children’s education. New York: Falmer Press.

DONALDSON, M. (1978). Children’s minds. New York: Norton.DYSON, A.H. (1989). Multiple worlds of child writers: Friends learning to

write. New York: Teachers College Press.DYSON, A.H. (1992). The social worlds of children learning to write in an

urban primary school. New York: Teachers College Press.EDE, L. (1984). Audience: An introduction to research. College Composition

and Communication, 35, 140–154.EDE, L., & LUNSFORD, A. (1984). Audience addressed/ audience invoked:

The role of audience in composition theory and pedagogy. College Compositionand Communication, 35, 155–171.

ELBOW, P. (1981) Writing with power. New York: Oxford University Press.EPSTEIN, J.L. (1991). Effects on student achievement of teacher practices

of parent involvement. In J.B. Silvern (Ed.), Advances in reading/language re-search: Vol. 5. Literacy through family, community, and school interaction (pp.261–276). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

EPSTEIN, J.L., & DAUBER, S.L. (1991). School programs and teacherpractices of parent involvement in inner-city elementary and middle schools.Elementary School Journal, 91, 291–305.

FLOWER, L. (1987). Imperative acts: Cognition and the construction of dis-course (Occasional Paper No. 1). Berkeley, CA: University of California &Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Mellon University, Center for the Study of Writing.

FRANK, L.A. (1992). Writing to be read: Young writers’ ability to demon-strate audience awareness when evaluated by their readers. Research in theTeaching of English, 26, 277–298.

HAYES, J.R. (2000). A new framework for understanding cognition and af-fect in writing. In R. Indrisano & J.R. Squire (Eds.), Perspectives on writing (pp.6–44). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

HAYS, J.N., DURHAM, R.L., BRANDT, K.S., & RAITZ, A.E. (1990).Argumentative writing of students: Adult sociocognitive development. In G.Kirsch & D.H. Roen (Eds.), A sense of audience in written communication (pp.248–266). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

HOOVER-DEMPSEY, K.V., & SANDLER, H.M. (1997). Why do parents be-come involved in their children’s education? Review of Educational Research,67, 3–42.

KAMBERELIS, G. (1999). Genre development and learning: Children writ-ing stories, science reports, and poems. Research in the Teaching of English,33, 403–460.

KIRSCH, G. (1990). Experienced writers’ sense of audience and authority:Three case studies. In G. Kirsch & D.H. Roen (Eds.), A sense of audience inwritten communication (pp. 216–230). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

KIRSCH, G., & ROEN, D.H. (1990). Introduction: Theories and research onaudience in written communication. In G. Kirsch & D.H. Roen (Eds.), A sense ofaudience in written communication (pp. 13–23). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

KRESS, G. (1999). Genre and the changing contexts for English languagearts. Language Arts, 76, 461–469.

KUCER, S.L. (1985). The making of meaning: Reading and writing asparallel processes. Written Communication, 2, 317–336.

KUCER, S.L. (1987). The cognitive base of reading and writing. In J.R.Squire (Ed.), The dynamics of language learning (pp. 27–51). Urbana, IL: ERICClearinghouse on Reading and Communication Skills and the NationalConference on Research in English.

LANGER, J.A. (1986). Children reading and writing: Structures andstrategies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

LANGER, J.A., & FLIHAN, S. (2000). Writing and reading relationships:Constructive tasks. In R. Indrisano & J.R. Squire (Eds.), Perspectives on writing(pp. 112–139). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

LONG, R.C. (1990). The writer’s audience: Fact or fiction? In G. Kirsch &D.H. Roen (Eds.), A sense of audience in written communication (pp. 73–84).Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

MARTIN, J.R. (1999). Mentoring semogenesis: “Genre-based” literacy ped-agogy. In F. Christie (Ed.), Pedagogy and the shaping of consciousness (pp.123–155). London: Cassell.

MOLL, L. (1992). Bilingual classroom studies and community analysis.Educational Researcher, 21, 20–24.

MULHERN, M.M. (1997). Doing his own thing: A Mexican-American kinder-gartner becomes literate at home and school. Language Arts, 74, 468–476.

PARATORE, J.R., MELZI, G., & KROL-SINCLAIR, B. (1999, December).What should we expect of family literacy? Paper presented at the annualmeeting of the National Reading Conference, Orlando, FL.

PETERSEN, B.T. (1986). Convergences: Transactions in reading andwriting. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.

QUINT, S. (1994). Schooling homeless children: A working model forAmerica’s public schools. New York: Teachers College Press.

RAFORTH, B.A. (1985). Audience adaptation in the essays of proficient andnonproficient freshman writers. Research in the Teaching of English, 19, 237–253.

ROEN, D.H., & WILLEY, R.J. (1988). The effects of audience awareness ondrafting and revising. Research in the Teaching of English, 22, 75–88.

ROSENBLATT, L.M. (1978). The reader, the text, the poem: The transac-tional theory of the literary work. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois UniversityPress.

ROSENBLATT, L.M. (1988). Writing and reading: The transactional theory(Tech. Rep. No. 416). Champaign, IL: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Center for the Study of Reading.

ROSENHOLTZ, S. (1989). Teachers’ workplace: The social organization ofschools. New York: Longman.


ROTHERY, J. (1989). Learning about language. In R. Hasan & J.R. Martin(Eds.), Language development: Learning language, learning culture (pp.199–256). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

ROTHERY, J. (1996). Making changes: Developing an educational linguis-tics. In R. Hasan & G. Williams (Eds.), Literacy in society (pp. 86–123). NewYork: Longman.

RUBIN, D.L., & O’LOONEY, J. (1990). Facilitation of audience awareness:Revision processes of basic writers. In G. Kirsch & D.H. Roen (Eds.), A senseof audience in written communication (pp. 280–292). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

RYDER, P.M., VANDER LEI, E.U., & ROEN, D.H. (1999). Audience consid-erations for evaluating writing. In C.R. Cooper & L. Odell (Eds.), Evaluating writ-ing (pp. 93–113). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.

SHOCKLEY, B., MICHALOVE, B., & ALLEN, J. (1995). Engaging families:Connecting home and school literacy communities. Portsmouth, NH:Heinemann.

TAYLOR, D., & DORSEY-GAINES, C. (1988). Growing up literate: Learningfrom inner-city families. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

TEMPLE, C., NATHAN, R., BURRIS, N., & TEMPLE F. (1988). The begin-nings of writing (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

VYGOTSKY, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psy-chological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Received October 13, 1999Final revision received June 15, 2000

Accepted July 18, 2000


Documents

Can First-Grade Writers Demonstrate Audience Awareness?