By Carolyn Shemwell Kaplan

In her book The Cultural Nature of Human Development, Barbara Rogoff relates the story of a white, middle-class Canadian child visiting an Inuit community in Quebec. While watching the Inuit children play, the white child approached an Inuit mother and asked to be told the rules of the game. The mother replied that the child should watch to learn. When the child replied that she did not “know how to learn by watching” (320), the mother insisted that indeed she would, and gave no further direct instruction. According to Rogoff, “Inuit children are expected to take the initiative in learning by observing closely, reasoning, and finding solutions independently with self-motivation as the impetus” (320). After reading this account, I immediately thought of a course I took during my first quarter as a Ph.D. student (First Year Doctoral Seminar), in which we were introduced to the metaphor of a game to describe the experience of academic writing. Christine Pearson Casanave frames academic writing as a game-like endeavor because it “consists of rule- and strategy-based practices, done in interaction with others for some kind of personal professional gain, and…is learned through repeated practice rather than just from a guidebook of how to play” (3). In our class discussions throughout the quarter, we considered whether academic writing was the only “game” of doctoral studies. The professor led us to explore the larger concept of literacy games as a descriptor for our new academic experiences, a term that encompassed the ideas of reading and speaking, in addition to writing, as games to be played and “won.” We came to recognize that not only must we learn to write as doctoral students, but also to read scholarly books and journals critically, deliver presentations articulately, and participate in the discourse of our classes in a thoughtful manner. These were not skills that would be acquired overnight, but rather through trial and error, and the game-like qualities of “repeated practice” and “interaction with others” of which Casanave spoke. Our class began to realize that some days we would be winners in these literacy games (e.g., when a conference proposal is accepted, and the ensuing presentation is delivered exceedingly well), and other days, we would lose (e.g., when established scholars, the “referees” of the game, find our written work or presentations unsatisfactory).  Therefore, the story in Rogoff’s book seemed to align perfectly with the experiences of a new doctoral student. Just like the child in a community that was foreign to her, I must attend to the games that are occurring around me, in order to learn to participate fully. Likewise, after observing closely, and reasoning through the rules based on my interpretations, I must take the initiative to become involved, and self-motivation will allow me to survive the difficult moments.

Although I spent a significant amount of time researching graduate schools and contemplating exactly what field to pursue, I was unprepared for the extent to which earning a Ph.D. would differ from my previous schooling endeavors. Prior to beginning a doctoral program, I never would have thought to frame the experience as a “game,” as games “tend to be associated with play and not work” (Casanave 3). One of my principal motives for pursuing a doctorate was to enhance my abilities to read, write, and present critically and I envisioned this development would occur along a straight trajectory, which while comprised of hard work, would not be deterred by interference. In viewing the experience of doctoral studies as a game, I now see that the process is less of a direct route, and that skill alone is not necessarily sufficient to achieve success. Instead, both doctoral studies and games incorporate elements of chance, and there are multiple players who impact the course of the game and the ultimate outcome; just because I hit the baseball (or in the realm of academics, submit a conference proposal) does not guarantee a home run (an acceptance of said proposal). I have organized this article categorically by the skills of reading, writing, and speaking/presenting in order to chronicle the realizations I had and the progression I made in the first quarter of doctoral study in relation to these elements that comprise the literacy games of graduate school.

Reading

During my undergraduate and master’s programs, I read very few of the assigned texts completely. However, I felt that doctoral studies were situated in a new arena, and partial reading would no longer be sufficient. To draw upon a sports metaphor – before, I had played the literacy games in a smaller gymnasium, where I was expected to play strictly by the rules, and mimic the plays others made before me. In doctoral studies, the stakes were higher; my actions, written and spoken, were on display, and I was expected to bring originality to the game.

When I began the first quarter, my strategy was to read all assigned pages thoroughly. I was certain that I needed to absorb every word and reread what I did not understand, until I did understand. After all, if that was the technique I had trained myself to utilize to be successful on the GRE, surely that was the technique that was necessary to be successful in graduate school. Therefore, I spent hours and hours absorbing the texts for class. I experimented with various reading techniques to increase my comprehension of the texts. I read the material slowly. I read the material slowly twice in a row. I read the material slowly one day, and slowly again the next day. I highlighted the text. Then, I highlighted and wrote notes in the margins. One day, I realized that I was not highlighting important concepts, but merely those lines that I did not understand, as though the yellow marker would transmit the information from the page directly to my mind. I was drowning in textbooks and articles, and feared the day when I would be required to read and write together. How could there possibly be enough time?

About midway through the quarter, I had dinner with some college friends, one of whom is a lawyer. When I described to him how I felt overwhelmed by the quantity of reading in graduate school, he looked at me quizzically and said, “You aren’t reading everything, are you?”  I replied, “What do you mean?” He then advised, “Don’t read everything. It isn’t even possible. It is about skilled skimming. Decide what you need to learn from the text, look for those ideas, and study them well.” Skilled skimming. Could it work? I was skeptical, but then the following Monday in class, a professor spoke of the importance of “reading with a purpose,” which resembled the strategy my friend had described. These two perspectives confirmed that I should alter my approach to the reading game.

The advice from my friend and professor was life changing, or at the very least, lifestyle changing. Gone were the weekends spent entirely devoted to arduously reading texts. Until that point, reading for the courses entitled Foundations of Second Language Learning and Theoretical Perspectives on Learning, Teaching and Social Contexts, had been particularly challenging, due to the thick description of theories and experimental data. Upon reflection, I realized that I was approaching the task much in the same way that my former Spanish students sometimes approached second language reading; when a concept or word was difficult, they froze, and could not continue until they understood that one piece, whether it be a word, sentence, or section. I always encouraged my students to press onward in the text to find the overall meaning and then return to analyze the vexing detail. Why was I not doing the same with these complex readings that could possibly be considered a second language text, given the intricacy of their words and structure?

The first assignment I approached with this new perspective of “reading with a purpose” was an empirical journal article for Foundations of Second Language Learning. I began the reading with a more relaxed frame of mind. If I did not understand a concept after reading it twice (once silently, and once out loud), I annotated the margin with a question mark and pressed ahead. I focused my attention on elements such as the research question, the findings, discussion, and conclusions, and ascertained that I could explain these sections briefly in my own words. Once I finished reading the article, I revisited my question mark annotations, to see if they were clearer once I had an understanding of the big picture. Additionally, I modified my note taking procedures for the reading. Rather than highlighting large sections, I underlined a few key words or parts of sentences and attempted to rephrase the information in the margins. Reading changed from being an activity in which I was attempting to absorb information to one where I was attempting to synthesize information. I unknowingly was engaging in what Xiaoming Li described as “reacting” to the text. These techniques proved especially effective when reading articles for the literature reviews I was assigned to write in two of my courses. To absorb every word of the articles for the reviews would have been impossible, given time constraints. However, knowing what to look for in the articles made them much more manageable to digest.

I also found that my “reading game” improved after serving as a discussion facilitator for a journal article in Foundations of Second Language Learning. In order to present the article with my group, I felt I needed to know the content inside and out. It was in preparing for that assignment that I learned the value of rereading. My first read of the article occurred before my epiphany about reading described above; I attempted to absorb every word. In the second reading, however, I analyzed the article using the critical reading guide provided by my professor, a tool that will play a significant role in how I interact with empirical texts in the future. The guide not only requires that the reader dissect the methods and findings of the article, but also that she consider what new knowledge the article contributes to the field and how the new knowledge changes the reader’s perspective of the topic. This exercise encouraged me to consider the larger implications of the article. The types of questions posed by the critical reading guide allowed me to better synthesize the information in the article by contemplating the broader scope.

Reading was also a large part of the course Theoretical Perspectives on Learning, Teaching and Social Contexts. Not only were the articles and chapters filled with thick description, it was not uncommon to read 200 pages as a weekly assignment. Yet again, I began by reading every word, and underlining and annotating an excessive amount in the margins. Reading the assigned Rogoff text in this way was manageable, and I felt I understood the information. However, when the professor assembled groups in class to discuss the readings, she provided some difficult questions for consideration that caused me to realize I had not understood the text as well as I thought. This was one of the first clues that my approach to reading was not functioning effectively. Reading for comprehension at the doctoral level would require greater analysis of the text in order to be able to respond to the higher order questions in class. When the time came to read the theories of Vygotsky (Mind and Society), the challenge increased. Fortunately, by then I had learned the value of reading for key information rather than agonizing over every word. This method was particularly successful when reading about Vygtosky’s discussion of tools and signs. I studied certain sections of the readings very closely and when the professor lectured on the topic, I felt that I had processed the appropriate points that enabled me to understand the important concepts she highlighted in class.

The literature review analysis in this course was another assignment that enhanced my reading game. With this task, I began to understand what it meant to read as a writer. Not only did I discover that I found literature reviews to be very interesting and excellent resources, but the act of reading three different literature reviews, evaluating their content and style, and building a literature review template based on my findings, gave me confidence when writing my own literature review. As I wrote, I often returned to read and interact with the reviews I had studied in order to inform decisions about style and content in my review.

The First Year Doctoral Seminar was the final course in which reading played a significant role, and my approach to this reading game differed from other courses and remained consistent throughout the quarter. I often completed these readings in multiple 20-30 minute sittings in the evening before going to bed, when I felt reflective and could often relate the chapters to experiences I had throughout the day. When reviewing my notes to prepare to write this article, I realized that I interacted with these texts (Writing Games, by Christine Pearson Casanave and Learning the Literacy Practices of Graduate School: Insiders’ Reflections on Academic Enculturation, edited by Christine Pearson Casanave and Xiaoming Li) from the beginning. I had underlined quotes or points with which I readily identified, and made notes in the margins about any ideas or questions the text inspired. When preparing to write the assigned weekly reflections, these notes redirected me to the points of the chapter I found salient, and it was often formulaic to draft my reactions because I had previously rephrased the ideas and connections I interpreted.

Throughout my first quarter courses, I gradually began to read more as a writer. This outlook was not possible at first, when I was struggling to comprehend the new terminology and concepts in the texts. After becoming more confident in these areas, I was better able to consider the structure of the articles, the type of vocabulary that was utilized, and the way the material was cited. At the beginning of the first quarter, I ignored any of the details of citations included in parenthesis. As the names and theories became familiar, I spent more time noting “who writes about what” and how their theories interact with and build upon one another.  This became particularly apparent when preparing my literature review for the Foundations of Second Language Learning course. As I was investigating a specific topic in a subfield, I began to notice who were the top researchers because there was much cross quoting between articles. Returning to the sports metaphor – prior to beginning doctoral studies, I never anticipated that much of the game would involve recognizing other players, especially those in the “hall of fame.”  While I have yet to find one textual mentor among the “all-stars,” I have been taking greater notice of the writing style of the authors I read.

Writing

Throughout my first quarter of study, I was surprised that there were not many writing assignments given along the way. Most major tasks were reserved for the final weeks of the quarter. One ongoing assignment was the reading log for the First Year Doctoral Seminar, which I utilized as a warm-up writing activity. Before starting graduate school, my writing primarily involved drafting comments about student performance in the high school Spanish classes I taught. This writing style was straightforward and the vocabulary used was limited. By adding to the reading log each week, I took advantage of the opportunity to re-strengthen my academic writing muscles, which had atrophied. I often consulted the dictionary to remind myself of semantic nuances so that I would not misuse a word. As described in the previous section, I began the process of writing the logs by reviewing my margin notes for each chapter. Sometimes, I was able to launch directly into writing the response. Other times (when I was less confident about my discoveries in the text), I drafted an outline in order to identify major themes around which to organize ideas. Incidentally, as I prepared my end-of-quarter written assignments, I found that I drafted outlines to organize my thoughts and ideas for other courses as well. One writing game I am still learning to master is determining what constitutes a sufficient amount of information to appropriately address a topic within the allotted page count.

While the activity of maintaining a reading log was a familiar task from my master’s program experience, most writing assignments in the first quarter were in genres with which I was unfamiliar. Therefore, “trial and error” was my learning strategy. Literature reviews, critical article reviews, ethnographic observation notes, and data analyses were all new writing exercises and I decided to approach them as that – exercises. Because I was uncertain exactly what should be included in the final version, I committed to understanding the requirements to the best of my abilities, and used the process as an opportunity to practice the skill. I began to interpret these assigned tasks as “scrimmages” for the “big game” – the dissertation (e.g., literature reviews are vital because they are a component of the dissertation, and learning how to take observation notes will be essential when conducting research). Along the way, I employed different preparation strategies for different assignments. For example, for the literature review assignment, I prepared my notes on index cards that I could shift around to different groupings as I determined the headings and subtopics. As I wrote, I was aware of concepts we had discussed in the First Year Doctoral Seminar, such as author prominent vs. information prominent when citing work of others. Additionally, I struggled to balance my own voice with the voices of others (those of my sources), and attempted not to over quote, a method to which I often defaulted in the past to avoid misconstruing information or not granting appropriate credit. These are new elements of writing at the doctoral level that I am learning to incorporate. I am not entirely certain that I play the literature review game correctly, but I enjoy engaging in the decision-making process and anticipate my abilities will continue to improve in the future.

For the Foundations in Second Language Learning course, participating in a round table discussion prior to drafting the assigned literature review was a helpful prewriting activity. In order to prepare for the discussion, I created an outline, which I eventually used to write my paper. Preparing the annotated bibliography for this course was also extremely challenging. The professor stated that she expected us to “analyze, reflect, and summarize” each of our 10 sources in 50-100 words. It felt impossible to accomplish all three in such a limited word count! I estimate that I spent approximately 10 hours writing the bibliography. However, by spreading the work out over a few days, I found that I was able to make small adjustments daily that allowed me to achieve those three verbs by the time the assignment was due. In general, my strategy for most writing assignments was to revisit the paper over a period of a few days, rather than completing the document in one sitting shortly before it was due, as had been my practice in the past.

Although reading was not a large part of my Foreign Language Teacher Education course, writing and presenting were, and we were required to develop our own teacher education program as the final project. I thoroughly enjoyed working on this assignment, as teacher education is one of my passions. The challenge was determining when to stop working! As we discussed in the First Year Doctoral Seminar, part of being a successful doctoral student (and researcher) involves knowing how to make good decisions, and this open-ended assignment was an opportunity to practice that writing skill. The professor only provided an outline of topics to include, and I needed to be judicious when deciding how to incorporate the required information. As I worked on the assignment, I found myself spending a great deal of time on the areas that interested me and that I felt I understood fully. I kept rereading and tweaking what I had written in those sections, and avoided other sections that I was not as confident about how to approach or did not find to be as interesting. As a result, I rushed to complete those portions in the final hour before the paper was due. My strategy in this writing game was to perfect my skills in a select few aspects of the game, but it may not have been wise not to focus on the holistic view.

In all of my writing endeavors throughout the first quarter, I kept the concept of academic writing as “storytelling game” in mind. Whether in my reading log, research observation notes, or literature reviews, I attempted to practice the skill of telling a compelling story. Ultimately, I am working toward becoming an academic writer who can successfully play the variety of games (i.e., write appropriately in the genres of academic literacy, such as conference presentations and journal publications). All of these “games” possess individual rules determined by their purpose, intended audience, and the number of “players” (e.g., different rules are involved when writing a paper independently versus with a co-author); it is my hope that practice with these genres will yield a consistent winning record.

Speaking and Presenting

I feel that public speaking is one of my strengths, and look forward to giving class presentations. Fortunately, this was my first graded assignment as a doctoral student, to present a book review in the Foreign Language Teacher Education course. I was very interested in, and had some previous experience with, the topic of my chosen book. These factors contributed to my confidence when building the presentation. In order to prepare, I took copious notes while reading, and then organized the key points onto slides. In addition, I prepared index cards of notes with the facts I wished to intersperse when speaking about the PowerPoint. The most challenging element of this game was determining the correct quantity of information for a 10-15 minute presentation. Therefore, I categorized the facts on my cards (noted with symbols) as ‘essential’ or ‘supplementary.’  While speaking, I was certain to mention the essential facts and included the supplementary facts as time allowed. I anticipate this “timing game” will become easier as I gain more experience with delivering presentations, just as new teachers learn the importance of timing when delivering their first lessons.

Preparing the facilitation session for Foundations in Second Language Learning was a more challenging presentation exercise, but as I discussed in the reading section of this article, it was a turning point assignment for me because it helped me refine my reading and analytical skills. In order to prepare this presentation, I met with my fellow group members two times. As with writing activities, it was helpful to have a “percolating period” between meetings in order to reflect on what we had discussed and gather more ideas. Presenting in a group can sometimes be more difficult, as one must balance when to participate fully, and when to allow others to “run with the ball.”  Working in groups to develop presentations is a literacy game that I hope to practice further in the future.

The most intimidating speaking activity of the quarter was preparing for the aforementioned round table discussion. We were required to speak about the topic of our literature review to two peers for 15 minutes. Then, the peers would have an opportunity to ask questions about the information for another 15 minutes. As I did not yet feel that I was an expert on my literature review topic, I had difficultly imagining that I would be able to fill a full 15 minutes describing my findings. Moreover, I was concerned that since my knowledge of second language acquisition was limited, I would be unable to offer valuable advice in the 15 minutes I was expected to ask about my peers’ work. If I barely understood my topic, how could I ask about theirs?  In order to prepare, I reread the notes that I had taken on the articles I selected for the review and made a detailed outline about my topic that I distributed to my group members. I then jotted down individual notes (supporting evidence) in the margins of my outline to include when speaking. As I spoke in my group, my mouth felt full of cotton, as the unfamiliar vocabulary did not roll easily off my tongue. I filled 13 minutes of the suggested 15. For the remaining 17 minutes, my peers made suggestions about ways the information I presented might be connected differently, and I verified with them that particular wordings and concepts were clear. Providing feedback about their topics was less daunting than I anticipated. After listening to their explanations, I was able to offer suggestions about restructuring their content so that the themes would overlap to a greater extent. This speaking game demonstrated to me that articulating the concepts verbally to others can be very useful for finding new connections between research and confirming the interconnectedness I have already found.

In regards to class participation, my level of involvement depended upon the class. In Foreign and Second Language Teacher Education, I was highly interested in the material, had some background knowledge, and therefore felt comfortable leading some small group activities and asking questions when I was uncertain about a topic or was curious to know more. The size of Theoretical Perspectives on Learning, Teaching and Social Contexts (45 doctoral students in all disciplines from across the College of Education) made it intimidating to participate in the large group and I did not have a strong enough grasp of the theory to articulate my reactions publically. In the First Year Doctoral Seminar, I chose to internally reflect on the ideas that were being presented and spoke only when I felt strongly about a theme. For the first half of the quarter in Foundations in Second Language Learning, my brain felt “locked.”  Whenever the professor asked a question of the class, I either could not access an answer in my mind to speak up, or I meekly squeaked out an idea that usually missed the mark. I did find that my ability to participate in this class increased once I altered my approach to reading the texts as previously described in this article.

In the situations when I felt less confident about displaying knowledge through speaking and presenting, I kept the advice of Xiaoming Li in mind. She asserted that in order to enter the community of practice, one must pretend to be a master when she really is an apprentice (50). This was the “make believe” game in which I chose to participate when speaking about unfamiliar topics, and it assisted me to gradually increase my involvement in the community of practice.

Conclusion

Although the Inuit child described in the introduction was told to watch and learn without instruction, I feel fortunate to have had the First Year Doctoral Seminar to provide some direction for my participation in these new literacy games. I sense that I am making progress in regards to reading, writing, and speaking as a novice member of an academic community. Re-learning to read as a doctoral student was the most significant change that I believe will impact my future studies and I look forward to making continued progress in this area. Likewise, continued practice with writing and speaking, and continuing to be observant and reflective of the work of experts will increase my ability to participate in the literacy games of academia. There is one game that I feel I have not yet begun to practice, and that is interacting with faculty. While we spoke a significant amount about the importance of developing relationships with faculty and working with our advisors in the first year seminar, I have been hesitant to do so. I would like to have a bit more understanding of the theoretical concepts and vocabulary before approaching faculty to request assistance and interact about academic topics. In Simpson and Matsuda, Matsuda advises that “a mentoring relationship does not just happen,” and “[i]nitiating the mentoring relationship may be one of the most formidable challenges for graduate students” (93). I agree with this idea, and one of my goals moving forward will be to initiate more conversations with faculty in order to learn as much as possible in an apprentice relationship. The first quarter of doctoral study afforded many opportunities for introduction to academic literacy games, and I look forward to becoming acclimated to additional nuances in order to further enter the foreign language education community of practice.

Works Cited

Casanave, Christine Pearson. Writing Games. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2002. Print.

Li, Xiaoming. “Learning to Write a Thesis with an Argumentative Edge.” Learning the Literacy Practices of Graduate School: Insiders’ Reflections on Academic Enculturation. Ed. Christine Pearson Casanave and Xiaoming Li. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press, 2008. 46-57. Print.

Rogoff, Barbara. The Cultural Nature of Human Development. New York: Oxford University Press, 2003. Print.

Simpson, Steve and Paul Kei Matsuda. “Mentoring as a Long-term Relationship: Situated Learning in a Doctoral Program.” Learning the Literacy Practices of Graduate School: Insiders’ Reflections on Academic Enculturation. Ed. Christine Pearson Casanave and Xiaoming Li. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press, 2008. 90-104. Print.

Vygotsky, L.S. Mind and Society. Ed. Michael Cole, et. al. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 1978. Print.