The Literacy Games of the First Quarter ofDoctoral StudiesBy Carolyn Shemwell Kaplan

In her book The Cultural Nature of Human Development, Barbara Rogo� 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 Rogo�, “Inuit children are expected to take the initiative in learning by observing closely,

reasoning, and �nding solutions independently with self-motivation as the impetus” (320). After reading

this account, I immediately thought of a course I took during my �rst 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, �nd our written work or

presentations unsatisfactory). Therefore, the story in Rogo�’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 di�cult moments.

Although I spent a signi�cant amount of time researching graduate schools and contemplating exactly

what �eld to pursue, I was unprepared for the extent to which earning a Ph.D. would di�er 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

su�cient 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 �rst 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

su�cient. 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 �rst 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

con�rmed 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 re�ection, 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 di�cult, 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 �nd 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 �rst 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 �ndings, discussion, and conclusions, and ascertained that I could explain

these sections brie�y in my own words. Once I �nished 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

modi�ed 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 e�ective 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 �rst 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 signi�cant role in how I interact with

empirical texts in the future. The guide not only requires that the reader dissect the methods and �ndings

of the article, but also that she consider what new knowledge the article contributes to the �eld 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 �lled 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 Rogo� 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 di�cult questions for consideration that caused me to

realize I had not understood the text as well as I thought. This was one of the �rst clues that my approach

to reading was not functioning e�ectively. 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 di�erent

literature reviews, evaluating their content and style, and building a literature review template based on

my �ndings, gave me con�dence 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 �nal course in which reading played a signi�cant role, and my

approach to this reading game di�ered 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 re�ective 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’ Re�ections on Academic Enculturation, edited by Christine Pearson Casanave and Xiaoming Li)

from the beginning. I had underlined quotes or points with which I readily identi�ed, and made notes in

the margins about any ideas or questions the text inspired. When preparing to write the assigned weekly

re�ections, 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 �rst quarter courses, I gradually began to read more as a writer. This outlook was not

possible at �rst, when I was struggling to comprehend the new terminology and concepts in the texts.

After becoming more con�dent 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 �rst

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 speci�c topic in a sub�eld, 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 �nd 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 �rst quarter of study, I was surprised that there were not many writing assignments given

along the way. Most major tasks were reserved for the �nal 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 con�dent

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 su�cient 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 �rst 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 �nal 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 di�erent preparation strategies for di�erent assignments. For example, for the literature

review assignment, I prepared my notes on index cards that I could shift around to di�erent 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, re�ect, 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 �nal

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 con�dent about how to approach

or did not �nd to be as interesting. As a result, I rushed to complete those portions in the �nal 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 �rst 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., di�erent 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 �rst 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 con�dence 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 �rst 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 re�ne 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 re�ect on what we had discussed and gather

more ideas. Presenting in a group can sometimes be more di�cult, 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 di�cultly

imagining that I would be able to �ll a full 15 minutes describing my �ndings. Moreover, I was concerned

that since my knowledge of second language acquisition was limited, I would be unable to o�er 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 o� my tongue. I �lled 13 minutes of the suggested 15. For the remaining 17 minutes, my peers

made suggestions about ways the information I presented might be connected di�erently, and I veri�ed

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 o�er 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 �nding new

connections between research and con�rming 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 re�ect

on the ideas that were being presented and spoke only when I felt strongly about a theme. For the �rst

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 �nd 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 con�dent 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 signi�cant 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 re�ective 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 signi�cant amount about the importance of developing relationships with

faculty and working with our advisors in the �rst 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 �rst quarter of doctoral study a�orded 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’ Re�ections on Academic Enculturation. Ed. Christine Pearson Casanave

and Xiaoming Li. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press, 2008. 46-57. Print.

Rogo�, 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’ Re�ections 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.