Thomas Laughlin teaches composition, literature, ESL, and Freshman Seminar courses at Massasoit Community College in Brockton. He also coordinates the Early Support System, a college-wide communication system aimed at reaching underprepared students, through the college's tutoring and resource center.

In her essay, "The Discovery of Meaning: Emerging Evaluative Structure in a Student Narrative," Eleanor Kutz (1988) suggests that "if we follow the first of Ann Berthoff's maxims [for writing teachers],'Begin with where they are... as language animals, endowed with the form-finding and form-creating powers of mind and language,' then we will begin with narrative." For it is narrative, Kutz emphasizes, which is "fundamental to our processing of human experience" (p. 138). Narrative expression is a complex mode of communication, yet one which students utilize daily and are highly skilled with by the time they enter our classrooms.

It was with these thoughts in mind that I decided upon beginning my freshman composition students with narratives of personal experience. Considering, though, ways of then encouraging students toward more critical reflection and critical writing, in Clifford Geertz's terms, "thicker" (1973, p. 6) writing, on those personal experiences, I recalled some of my own work as a graduate student with ethnographic analyses of my family's oral narratives. In this personally engaging work, using a few simple ethnographic tools for analyses, I was able to reflect on my own and my family's particular modes of communication, and to more fully realize the kinds of subtle techniques utilized, and complex understandings shared, among members of most communities in the telling of seemingly simple oral narratives. I decided, then, to use ethnographic research methods in the context of a classroom where we were collaboratively exploring language use. T would like to provide a sense of the major activities of this course sequence. It is a sequence which provides opportunities for students to realize and communicate the fuller significance of their personal narratives both for themselves, and in the context of some wider "human experience" (Kutz, 1988, p. 138).

For the semester's opening journal assignment, I ask students to record an anecdote about a family member or close friend. We read these first writings aloud in class, appreciating these stories without negative criticism, and hearing the many different voices, experiences, and lives of this new community of people. Students begin to feel safe and tend to become more serious and enthusiastic about their writing as a communicative act within this general audience of readers, rather than simply an audience of the teacher.' In subsequent assignments, students are asked to produce another anecdote about the same individual, and then, on a separate sheet, to list characteristics they see these two anecdotes together indicate about their main character. In class they pair up to exchange only their two anecdotes with another student, who reads the anecdotes and lists her own revelations about the main character. They then discuss and compare these findings with the author and later with the class.

Students' conclusions about the meanings of these narratives are generally quite similar overall. This is not surprising, for adult students are generally well versed in utilizing and interpreting complex narrative expression and the linguistic techniques effective for communicating their particular meanings. As William Labov (1972)notes from his sociolinguistic research on narrative:

it is clear that every child is in possession of the basic narrative syntax... [but]... there is a major aspect of development in narrative itself which takes place long after the basic syntax of the language is learned... [so that] [i]n reporting their own experience, adults have developed the ability to evaluate their own behavior with more complex linguistic devices. (pp. 393- 396)

Through their work with these anecdotes, students begin to see the complex meanings they express and complex strategies they employ in their telling of seemingly simple oral stories within their daily conversations.

Students in my classes, though, often find some differing interpretations of the same stories. This emphasizes something that is of continuing concern for freshman writers---simply that individual readers bring varying perspectives to their reading; and therefore, they, as writers, must find ways to account for these differing perspectives.

For their first paper, students must put together this work, producing an essay on their friend or family member which utilizes these anecdotes to tell readers about their main character. The first formal paper, then, becomes a transformation of their more comfortable, narrative mode of communicating. Their work is an expository piece of writing which utilizes anecdotes for exemplification--a rhetorical mode which is still more often expected in academic writing in most disciplines. Also, through our class discussions, students begin to reflect on the differences between oral and written language in different settings, and the process of translating oral stories, which flow fluently for them in their own communities, into writing in an academic community and setting.

Continuing with this focus on narratives of personal experience and then critical explorations of those narratives, students use ethnographic research methods to observe, describe, and reflect on language use in personal worlds outside of our classroom. Each week throughout the semester students make twenty- minute unobtrusive observations of language being spoken in an informal setting in which they find themselves regularly, and later they describe in writing the most interesting thing that they heard or saw.

In class, for fifteen minutes or so each week, we hear several of these brief narratives of their personal exchanges with family members at the dinner table, or friends at their favorite local bar, or co-workers on coffee break from work. As a class we then collaboratively explore more deeply what created the humor in the particular situation, or how people responded as family members to sad news, or why a disagreement escalated into a physical altercation among a group of friends. To provide a common terminology and speculative instrument for analysis, we use Deli Hymes' (1972) eight components of a speech act represented by the acronym S-P-E-A-K-I-N-G to help simplify and aid in memorization.

These site locations always provide a variety of language settings, and class discussions on these personal observations generally lead us to discussions of conventions, norms, diction, and effects of audience in a speech situation. These narratives, then, become humorous, or sad, or strange stories to share and appreciate with peers in the classroom, as well as field data of language in a variety of natural environments to reflect upon as ethnographers of language. As the semester progresses, in addition to recording their brief narrative of what they found most interesting, students must also analyze in writing why the instance struck them as interesting in sociolinguistic terms. In this way they begin to move toward telling what Geertz might call "thick" (1973, p. 6) narratives, narratives which present some of the multiple readings and meanings of a particular narrative expression.

The following is an example of a student's (Ted's) weekly site observation report. The initial site report for the semester requires a detailed description of the setting and participants; this sample report from approximately mid-semester, therefore, does not provide complete details of the setting. Ted's site was a break room at a hospital cafeteria where he worked. The participants, who varied slightly from week to week, were generally coworkers who performed similar jobs at the hospital.

At work in the break room.

"Tina, are you going to Chris's party this Saturday," Marlene asked.

"No," Tina replied.

"Why not," Marlene asked.

"Because the last party I went to over Chris's house everyone completely ignored me and my boyfriend Tony because he is black," Tina replied.

"Chris is an ass hole anyway, Tina," I said.

"This Saturday get Tony and a bunch of friends and I'll get some of my friends and we will party together," Marlene said.

"Sounds good to me," Tina said.

I think the "norm" her[e] is that prejudice is out. Chris is the type of person that will say & do anything to impress his "good" friends, even if he treats other people badly. Not to many people I know, actually no body I know is prejudice and me, Tina, and Marlene, would like to keep it that way. Another Norm here I think is that none of us confronted him about this, I think its because he is not a real friend and we would just assume ignore him than be his lousy friend.

In class we explored this interaction, noting that the norm, "racial prejudice is 'out' or unacceptable," was shared and reinforced by each of the three participants in this speech act. It seemed Tina's awareness that these three participants shared this norm, allowed her to communicate in the ways she did. Ted concurred with this suggestion from the class and added his belief that had other, less intimate co-workers been present, Tina would not have spoken in the same way. It was also noted that there seemed another norm shared here by the three participants, that friends care about each other and change behavior and plans in order to help friends in need. Part of the "ends," or intended purposes (Hymes, 1972, pp. 61-62) within Tina's answer to Marlene's question seemed to the class to be a request by Tina for sympathy and perhaps help. Following that norm about helping friends, Ted and Marlene responded with words that provided sympathy and help, thereby further reinforcing those norms among this group. Points were raised about the norms of language use, including acceptability of slang, "a bunch of friends," and levels of profanity appropriate for this group. We also discussed the norms that Ted referred to about "confronting" people and their level of importance or intimacy. It was said that if Chris had been a closer friend to Ted, it would probably be expected that he communicate that his behavior was unacceptable.

In discussion, while trying to help Ted fully articulate this particular norm, students commented on their own individual social groups; and we explored the variations among individuals and particular groups of friends in regard to this norm. This norm that was collaboratively constructed ultimately for Ted's site observation seemed common for many individuals, although they had never consciously articulated it for themselves before. It went something like the following: "Among closer, more intimate friends, when a social norm has been violated and a friend or friends have been offended, it is generally expected that one of the offended friends communicate in a serious, constructive manner that the behavior is unacceptable; among acquaintances or less intimate friends, it is usually less appropriate to address the violation of a social norm through serious, careful communication" (here it was noted that a facial expression, a nasty aside, or a decrease in the amount of communication might be more likely, depending on the relationship).

By recording, sharing, and collaboratively exploring these brief narratives and analyses of site observations, students observe their worlds more closely, reflect on their own and others' complex use of language and the rich texture of oral communication which is often impossible to convey in written communication. They hear the diversity of home and community languages and cultures described by their peers in the classroom. Students therefore tell narratives more complexly, more "thickly" (Geertz, 1973, p. 6), in order to explain what might be self- evident among the participants present at the site location to this more general audience of readers who may not share their norms or personal histories.

An assignment I move toward later in the semester asks students to reflect upon both oral and written communication, and their experiences with language in their early development. Again, they begin with the telling of a personal narrative. They are asked to write an informal journal assignment about their first day of school, or their earliest memory of school, including their reactions and feelings at the time. Several of these are read in class, as we hear varying perspectives and feelings about early school years.

We then read and discuss "Aria: A Memoir of a Bilingual Childhood," a chapter from Richard Rodriguez's book of autobiographical essays, Hunger of Memory (1981), where, in arguing against bilingual education, Rodriguez discusses differences between his home language environment and his school language environment. The formal paper assignment ultimately asks students to discuss the distinctive qualities of the language spoken at their home when they were a child, how this differed from their school language environment, and how the differences have mattered to them.

These student papers are all copied together as a class booklet, which we then use as our next text, reading and discussing these essays by student authors in the class. In treating their work as we have previous texts by published authors discussing the ideas, methods of expression, style and form we emphasize the similarities between their efforts to communicate in writing and the concerns of all writers. And in looking closely at many other students' styles of writing and their methods of addressing similar concerns, students consider ways of making their own writings more effective. Students also write a letter to at least three student authors with their responses to the student-author's paper.

During this time, we also read and discuss a section of Paulo Freire's book, Pedagogy of the Oppressed (1970), in which he discusses his metaphor of the "banking concept" of education, with the teacher as the "depositor" and the students as the "depositories" (pp. 57-74). Again students are asked in a journal assignment to make personal connections through a narrative, writing about their personal experiences with "banking" style teachers. This encourages further thought and discussion about the kinds of communication which take place in classrooms. They also observe and reflect on teaching styles, and the kinds of communication that happen within classrooms they are currently attending at the college.

Students must then revise that paper, developing further their findings about their own language experiences, and additionally bringing another of the class' essays from our booklet of student essays into their discussion in some way. The paper below, in response to this assignment, came from a student named Jim. Like other students' efforts on their previous paper, Jim had begun with a wholly personal narrative of his first day of school. But having spent nearly a semester carefully listening and reflecting critically on communication around him, and having been engaged in a number of activities, such as: reading, writing about, and discussing both Rodriguez's personal essay and the chapter from Freire's book; receiving oral and written feedback on his earlier paper; and reading and discussing a great variety of other students' personal narratives; he was then better able to write what Linda Brodkey (1987) might call a "critical ethnographic narrative" (pp. 67) of his personal experiences moving between home and school language environments.

Jim's paper, titled "Lessons in Language and Life," suggests he is still struggling to fully understand his own story as it relates to others. But he is working to simultaneously make sense of his story and its meaning for his own life, while wrestling with how his feelings and experiences may be representative, in a more general sense, of others in his culture. Jim's Paper:

"Line up and be quiet until I call your name' The teachers voice sternly echoed through the classroom. I don't believe I was alone in thinking that this was the beginning of a very long day. Looking back, it all seemed so impersonal. The commands that teacher's were barking out reminded me of cattle being herded out to pasture. I began to realize that language at school was very formal and structured. Home was different. I felt comfortable, more relaxed. There were no commands at home, rather suggestions. In the early years, I resented everything that had to do with school, the teachers, the principal, the homework and the whole idea of it. We had to ask permission to do everything from going to your locker, to going to the bathroom. Maybe, I was just overly independent? who know's. One thing I did know was that I enjoyed my home life very much. My parent's did everything in their power to make sure we had a good life. We went on vacations and bought a summer home in Rhode Island. In a lot of way's we probably had it better than most. As I grew older, things began to change. Fighting between my parents became a nightly occurrence. Every time I came through the door it seemed the fighting would start, even though I know they started well before I came in. I no longer felt relaxed at home. Even a common question asked of my parents would bring a quick harsh response. I don't believe that they wanted it that way, but the constant fighting between themselves was now taking it's toll on the kids. The whole atmosphere had changed forever. School now began to take on a different meaning to me. Once I had viewed it as a pain and a waste of time, now I saw it as a place to escape the constant battles at home. I began to embrace the way my teacher's spoke to me. When I asked a question, I got a relaxed, easy going response. The regimented style of discipline that 1 hated earlier was actually helping me now. I actually began to apply myself more now, than I ever had before. As I began to feel more comfortable in school, I did better.

It took me along time to become comfortable in school, looking back I wonder if a different home environment might have change things. A reading that comes to mind is an essay that was written by Paul ----- entitled "Without Love Change Is Impossible." Paul's essay on home and school, life and language, was completely different than mine. Paul's home life was very stable, he had complete harmony in his family. His parent's spoiled him to the point that he got away with what ever he wanted. This had a profound affect on him when he entered school. He writes "It was difficult for me when I first started school, actually it was a shock. Here at school if I did something wrong, 1 actually got punished. There was actually rules there which people had to go by." Like myself, Paul had a definite problem with authority, but the reasons behind them were very different.

In the end, I feel that the experiences that both myself and Paul went through helped mold our live's. Although they were very different the end's were the same.

In describing his personal reactions, in the opening paragraph, upon moving from the "comfortable, more relaxed" familiarity of his early home environment into the "formal and structured" school environment where "teachers were barking out... commands," Jim presents his feelings as representative of those that many children face when entering the educational system. He reflects: "I don't believe I was alone in thinking this was the beginning of a very long day." And although, in the second paragraph, he suggests his discomfort at school's "regimented style of discipline" may have been because he was "overly independent," his tentative "Maybe," and the question mark with which he ends this sentence, emphasize his continued questioning of this perhaps simplistic conclusion.

In his second page, Jim describes how later in childhood his parents' "fighting ... became a nightly occurance," changing his "comfortable" home environment and making the "regimented style of discipline" of school take on a "different meaning" for him, so that feeling "more comfortable in school, [he] did better."

Though not fully explaining the references he makes to another student writer's text in the final paragraphs of his paper, Jim has begun here to articulate some of the connections he has made to another's personal story. More importantly, though, in this section, Jim invites the reader to observe his personal questioning as he "wonder[s] if a different home environment might have changed things" for him, to what degree home environments "mold [children's] lives, and whether different school environments might influence children's adjustments to school." Here he begins to question the pedagogical practices he has been subject to, offering, in Brodkey's (1987) terms, a "negative critique" of the educational system, "at once a story of cultural hegemony and an argument for social change" (p. 69).

Although Jim hasn't completely come to understand the issues he has raised for himself in this paper, he has challenged and revised his previous views of his experience, and stirred significant questions about different atmospheres for communication, and their effects upon learning, both for himself personally, and for children in general.

For the final paper of the semester, I have students again use personal narrative as a way in. This time they must reflect on their semester's work in English Composition, telling their own personal stories of their semester's experience. They are encouraged to articulate for themselves the most significant things they have realized about communication, to reflect on what they have come to feel about their own writing and writing process, and to explore their values and expectations about effective writing, chronicling any changes that might have occurred. Having been pushed throughout the semester to think and write critically about their personal experiences, students are now better able to tell "thicker," more complex, and thoughtful narratives of their semester's experiences.

And to put their personal explorations in a cultural context, we again use ethnographic methodologies, reading and discussing a variety of materials over the final weeks of the semester--including college entrance criteria, professors' grading policies, college handbooks, authors' descriptions of their composing processes, and an article about a rock groups' composing process--in order to hypothesize what values and expectations people inside and outside academia have about written work.

In Jim's final paper, he wrote that the kind of personal writing required throughout the semester was "not simple for me, [but] I got more out of it and felt better because I was writing something that mattered, something that was intelligent and not just 'see spot run'." He also indicated that he had "never had a class that has challenged [him] in this way."

I believe these types of sequenced assignments, which do "challenge [students] in this way," provide opportunities for students to develop, what Freire would call, their "critical consciousness" (1973). Ira Schor (1992), interpreting Freire's work, emphasizes that "critical consciousness ... allows people to make broad connections between individual experience and social issues, between single problems and the larger social system" (p. 127). These kinds of assignments "begin with where they [students] are" (Berthoff, 1981, p. 9), with personal narrative, eliciting individual experience in a comfortable, fundamental mode of expression (Kutz, 1988, p. 138), and then challenge students to look more critically at the deeper significance of those personal narratives for themselves, and, in a wider context, for the worlds around them.

And for me, as a teacher in this classroom, these assignments also 'begin with where I am,' that is, as someone who has worked on my own, and my own family's personal narratives and what they communicate, and as someone who is fascinated by other people's stories, how they tell those stories, and what their tellings communicate to, and about, their social communities. And particularly in a community college setting, I find these assignments are also extremely informative, helping me to understand the kinds of language and school environments my students come from so that I may address some of their particular needs. For me, then, these assignments create an exciting and lively classroom where I continue to listen, to enjoy, to observe, to reflect, and to learn.

I would like to thank Judith Goleman and Neal Bruss, both of the University of Massachusetts/ Boston, for introducing me to Deli Hymes' work and the practice of sociolinguistic observation sites respectively.

Berthoff, A. E. (1981). The making of meaning. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook.

Brodkey, L. (1987). Writing critical ethnographic narratives. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 18. (2), 67-76.

Freire, P. (1973). Education for critical consciousness. (M. B. Ramos, Trans.). New York: The Seabury Press.

Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. (M. B. Ramos, Trans.). New York: Continuum Publishing Company.

Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic.

Hymes, D. (1972). Models of the interaction of language and social life. In J. J. Gumperz and D. Hymes(Eds.). Directions in sociolinguistics: The ethnography of communication (pp. 35-71). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Kutz, E. (1988). The discovery of meaning: emerging evaluative structure in a student narrative. In L. Z. Smith (Ed.). Audits of meaning: A festschrift in honor of Ann E. Berthoff: (pp. 138-145). Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook.

Labov, W. (1972). Language in the inner city: Studies in the Black English vernacular Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Rodriguez, R. (1982). Hunger of memory. Boston: D. R. Godine.

Schor, I (1992). Empowering education. Critical teaching for social change. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

BACK	SPRING 1997 T H E S C H O L A R