The Journal of Language and Literacy Education by Michelle Falter

"Urban Hope" photo by Matt Wilson, available under a Creative Commons Attribution-Generic license

Fall 2014 Issue -- Volume 10(2) The Journal of Language & Literacy Education (JoLLE, ISSN #1559-9035) is a peer-reviewed, open access journal housed in the Department of Language & Literacy Education in the College of Education at The University of Georgia. Since its inception in 2004, JoLLE has provided a space for scholars to engage readers in a broad spectrum of issues related to the field.

Table of Contents Editor’s Introduction:  Questioning Our Practices for a More Hopeful Future Michelle M. Falter Research Articles:  I Hope it Still Counts as Reading: The Cultural Production of Reading(s), Social Relations and Values in a Research Interview Lyndsay Moffatt  Funds of (Difficult) Knowledge and the Affordances of Multimodality: The Case of Victor Ava Becker  Social Justice through Literacy: Integrating Digital Video Cameras in Reading Summaries and Responses Rong Liu, John A. Unger, & Vicki A. Scullion  Labeled Reading Disabled and “Doing Reading”: One College Student’s Reading History Maryl A. Randel  “So, Like, What Now?”: Making Identity Visible for Pre-Service Teachers Laura M. Jiménez  Experiential Learning and Literacy: Preservice Teachers’ Perspectives Ramona T. Pittman & Theresa Garfield-Dorel  Experience is the Best Tool for Teachers: Blogging to Provide Preservice Educators with Authentic Teaching Opportunities Katie Stover, Lindsay Sheronick Yearta, & Rachel Sease  Literature Discussion: Encouraging Reading Interest and Comprehension in Struggling Middle School Readers Pamela K. Pittman & Barbara Honchell Voices from the Field Articles:  When Guided Reading isn’t Working: Strategies for Effective Instruction Heather Wall Academic Book Reviews:  Review of Text Complexity: Raising Rigor in Reading Joanna Anglin  Review of Best Ever Literacy Survival Tips: 72 Lessons You Can’t Teach Without Chelsey Bahlmann  Review of Educating Latino Boys: An Asset-based Approach Gabriela del Villar  Review of The Arts and Emergent Bilingual Youth: Building Culturally Responsive, Critical and Creative Education in School and Community Contexts Deavours Hall

51 68 87

118

134

142 146 149

154

Table of Contents Continued…

 Review of Talking sketching moving: Multiple literacies in the teaching of writing Elizabeth Howells 159  Review of Research Methods in Linguistics Nicole Siffrinn & Ruth Harman 162 Children’s & Young Adult Literature (CYAL) Book Reviews:  Review of The Smallest Girl in the Smallest Grade Chau Nguyen & Mattie Pittard  Review of Soccer Star Xiaoli Hong & Aidan Martin  Review of Golemito Helene Halstead, Ziraili Tenas-Balderas & Daisy Jacquet  Review of Playing Pro Football Helene Halstead & Joel Baker  Review of I Remember Beirut Yunying Xu & Anna Frances Julian  Review of Serafina’s Promise Margaret Robbins & Ashley Doss  Review of brown girl dreaming Jacqueline Martinez, Helene Halstead, & Dasani Baker  Review of I am Malala: How One Girl Stood Up for Education and Changed the World Yunying Xu & Sara Tonks  Review of If You Could Be Mine Devon Cristofaro & Tierra Hayes

166 168 170 172 174 177 179

182 185

Poetry and Arts:  “I Can Climb That” Sharon Verner Chappell 188  “/The clouds were pretending to be clouds/ and /Goat gone feral comes in where the fence is open…/ or How to Get Your Poem Published in The New Yorker” Janine Certo 191  “Thick” Terese Gagnon 193  “Rock Gold” Terese Gagnon 197  “What I Didn’t Learn about Reading in High School, I Try to Teach My Students Now” Dante Di Stefano 198  “My Canon” Dante Di Stefano 199  “Out of the Box” Jerome Harste -- “Reading Neruda” Melanie Swetz 201  “Communication in a Foreign Land” Tammy Cline 203  “The Border” Blanca Licona Miranda --Individual pdfs can be found at our journal website: http://jolle.coe.uga.edu/current-issue/

Editor’s Introduction: Questioning Our Practices for a More Hopeful Future Michelle M. Falter Albert Einstein reminds us that we must “Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope for tomorrow. The important thing is not to stop questioning.” Each author in this Fall issue of JoLLE follows Einstein’s lead in questioning the practices of students, teachers, teacher-educators, writers, and scholars, learning from what has occurred and is occurring in today’s classrooms, and highlighting encouraging and hopeful practices to solve some of language and literacy educator’s enduring questions. Our issue features a wealth of topics and themes, addresses various audiences, and tackles many pervasive questions around language and literacy throughout the Research and Voices from the Field articles. The first article, “I Hope it Still Counts as Reading: The Cultural Production of Reading(s), Social Relations and Values in a Research Interview,” by Lyndsay Moffatt helps to frame the rest of this issue in thinking through narrow understandings of reading and literacy. Moffatt’s research highlights the challenges of transforming unequal social relations and values by moving to a more egalitarian understanding of multiliteracies that recognizes and values historically marginalized literacies. The next two pieces, Ava Becker’s “Funds of (Difficult) Knowledge and the Affordances of Multimodality: The Case of Victor” and Rong Liu, John Unger, and Vicki Scullion’s “Social Justice Through Literacy: Integrating Video Cameras in Reading Summaries and Responses,” both tackle issues of social justice with refugee or immigrant populations. In Becker’s article, she discusses the affordances of multimodality and how it can open up spaces to engage with and understand difficult knowledge, particularly those not often recognized or acknowledged. Liu et al.’s article argues that the use of digital video cameras in reading summaries and responses helped ESL/EAP students who typically struggle with their reading engage in complex meaning, understanding, and sense-making processes around social justice topics. The fourth article, “Labeled Reading Disabled and ‘Doing Reading’: One College Student’s Reading History” by Maryl Randel helps us to reconsider the ways in which being labeled as reading disabled has long lasting effects on reader identity, no matter how successful the student might be. Randel’s work challenges us to remember the social and emotional aspects of lifelong reading challenges. The next three articles focus on the impact of hands-on experience in shaping preservice teacher perspectives related to challenging and understanding cultural identity/ies and White privilege, the teaching of reading in the early grades, and designing and implementing differentiated instruction through blogging opportunities. Journal of Language and Literacy Education Vol. 10 Issue 2 -- Fall 2014 Michelle M. Falter, Editor -- http://jolle.coe.uga.edu

Falter, M. M. (2014) / Editor’s Introduction The importance of providing authentic opportunities for pre-service teachers to interrogate and apply course concepts informs in each article. Laura Jiménez’s piece, “‘So, Like, What Now?’: Making Identity Visible for PreService Teachers,” introduces The Human Bean Activity that she used in a preservice teacher course as a tool to help students visualize their own identity/ies and communities they belong, along with helping them develop ways of talking and listening to each other as they struggle with issues of race, ethnicity, sexual identity and their choice of communities. Ramona Pittman and Theresa Dorel’s piece, “Experiential Learning and Literacy: Preservice Teachers’ Perspectives,” examines a community-based reading tutoring program that her preservice teachers engaged in and how hands-on experiences with real readers helped preservice teachers apply difficult and abstract course concepts in real ways, thereby building confidence in their own abilities to teach reading and to work with diverse readers. The final article related to experiential learning with preservice teachers is by Katie Stover, Lindsay Sheronick Yearta, and Rachel Sease, titled “‘Experience is the Best Tool for Teachers’: Blogging to Provide Pre-Service Educators with Authentic Teaching Opportunities.” In this piece, Stover et al. talk about an authentic teaching opportunity where preservice teachers and 5th graders engaged in a blogging pen pal project where they discussed a commonly read text. This experience allowed preservice teachers opportunities to develop as active metacognitive readers and writers and to provide more effective reading instruction for varying ability levels It also provided real opportunities to implement what they learned in their literacy methods courses. In addition, preservice teachers saw the value of using technology as a tool to facilitate learning. The final two articles help raise questions about how to best meet the needs of readers in middle and elementary level classrooms. Pamela Pittman and Barbara Honchell’s article, “Literature Discussion: Encouraging Reading Interest and Comprehension in Struggling Middle School Readers,” inquires about the role of literature discussion groups (LDGs) as a pedagogical construct for helping struggle readers. This research indicates that LDGs increase student enjoyment and understanding of texts when reading strategies, prior-knowledge, and connections are also incorporated. Heather Wall’s Voices from the Field article, titled “When Guided Reading isn’t Working: Strategies for Effective Instruction,” investigates and reflects on teachers’ guided reading practices in a school through the use of a coaching lab model where teachers interrogated and reflected on their practices in order to better assist struggling readers. Wall’s piece attests to the power of engaged reflective communities within schools to make small positive changes to instruction that had immense influence on student success. In addition, JoLLE’s Academic Book Reviews, edited by Xiaoli Hong, offer considerations of six titles that extend the discussions in this issue’s other sections. Both Joanna Anglin’s review of Text Complexity: Raising Rigor in Reading and Chelsey Bahlmann’s review of Best Ever Literacy Survival Tips: 72 Lessons You Can’t Teach Without offer suggestions and discussion around how to best meet the Common Core State Standards for literacy instruction. Additionally, Gabriela del Vilar’s review of Educating Latino Boys: An Asset-Based Approach and Deavours Hall’s review of The Arts and Emergent Bilingual Youth: Building Culturally Responsive, Critical and Creative Education in School and Community Contexts complement the articles dealing with marginalized voices and literacies, and offer discussion about counteracting deficit-view discourses around Latino boys and children who are learning English. Elizabeth Howell’s review of Talking, Sketching, Moving: Multiple Literacies in the Teaching of Writing considers the value of multiliteracies in writing pedagogy that foregrounds diverse ways of knowing such as: oral, visual, kinesthetic, spatial, and social. And finally, Nicole Siffrinn and Ruth Harman’s review of Research Methods in Linguistics describes a practical, comprehensive, and interdisciplinary approach to linguistic research and methods suitable for graduate students and linguistic scholars alike. Our fall issue also continues last year’s new feature, the Poetry and Arts section, edited by Margaret Robbins. The three pieces of art and eight poems depict the power of language in our everyday lives. Many of our poets and artists are also educators who convey the importance of learning both inside and outside the school

Journal of Language and Literacy Education Vol. 10 Issue 2 -- Fall 2014 walls. Sharon Verner Chappell’s poem and artwork titled “I Can Climb That” offers a hopeful picture of empowering students to see the potential they have to succeed. Janine Certo’s poem “/The clouds were pretending to be clouds/ and /Goat gone feral comes in where the fence is open…/ or How to Get Your Poem Published in The New Yorker” and Terese Gagnon’s two poems “Thick” and “Rock Gold” articulate how writing embodies the word and the world at the same time. The next three poetry and arts pieces all call into question what it means to be literate. Dante Di Stefano’s poems “What I Didn’t Learn about Reading in High School, I Try to Teach My Students Now” and “My Cannon” and Jerome Harste’s painting titled “Out of the Box” offer personal counter-narratives that disrupt and expand traditional notions of school literacy practices. The final two poems and one art piece offer commentary on the way language and culture affect our words and worlds. In Melanie Swetz’s poem “Reading Neruda,” she explores the intersections of language, culture, poetry, and humanity. Tammy Cline’s poem “Communication in a Foreign Land” offers a window into the world of struggling language learners. Finally, the art piece titled “The Border,” by Blanca Licona Miranda, highlights the struggle of undocumented students achieving their dreams within an unjust society. In addition to these wonderful thought-provoking articles, poetry, art, and academic reviews in our fall issue of JoLLE, we are excited to introduce several new features of our journal that we hope will help to expand notions of what language and literacy entails. First of all, to better make use of the affordances of our online open access journal, we have added podcast interviews with our authors of Research and Voices from the Field pieces. As a journal, we believe in the value of learning from one another, and hearing how researchers and practitioners endeavor to undertake research and writing. We hope you find these podcasts helpful, illuminating, and educative. Another new feature is our Children’s and Young Adult Literature (CYAL) Book Reviews, edited by Helene Halstead. We feel this is complementary to our academic book reviews, and provides educators with opportunities to preview books that they might wish to include within their classrooms. We have included two viewpoints on each book reviewed—one from an educator’s perspective, and one from a student’s perspective—so that we are always keeping in mind our students when choosing literature, and not only privileging adult perspectives. For this issue educators and students reviewed 9 children’s and young adult books. For elementary level books, The Smallest Girl in the Smallest Grade written by Justin Roberts and illustrated by Christian Robinson, Soccer Star written by Mina Javaherbin and illustrated by Renalto Alarčao, Golemito written by Ilan Stavans and Illustrated by Teresa Villegas, and Playing Pro Football written by Paul Bowker were reviewed. Middle grades books reviewed include I Remember Beirut by Zeinia Abriached, Serafina’s Promise by Ann Burgm, and brown girl dreaming by Jacqueline Woodson. I am Malala: How One Girl Stood Up for Education and Changed the World by Malala Yousafzai and Patricial McCormick and If You Could Be Mine by Sara Farizan round out our reviews of literature aimed at high school students. Our vision for JoLLE is one in which JoLLE readers not only consume content, but also produce new ideas through conversations. One way to do this is by joining us in conversation through Facebook (please “like” us and join in the conversation at https://www.facebook.com/JoLLE.UGA) and through Twitter (@jolle_uga). Over the past few months, we have posted resources and queries on these pages. We hope you will participate in this community, sharing your ideas about content read in JoLLE or other interesting literacyrelated topics. Furthermore, we are always interested in hearing our readers’ voices through our Scholars Speak Out feature, edited by Meghan Barnes (http://jolle.coe.uga.edu/scholars-speak-out/). Each month an op-ed is selected that highlights different, and typically current, concerns and/or interests in the field of language and literacy education. The topics are varied and writers often use Scholars Speak Out as a platform to talk more accessibly about their work, their concerns in education, and/or to make a call to action. We are always looking for more writers for this feature. If you are interested in writing, please email the Managing

iii

Falter, M. M. (2014) / Editor’s Introduction Editor, Meghan Barnes at meghan824@gmail.com. Finally, we invite all of you to continue the conversations started through this issue by joining us for the 3rd annual JoLLE@UGA Winter Conference, hosted in Athens, GA on February 7-8, 2015. This year’s theme is Embodied and/or Participatory Literacies: Inspire, Engage, Create, Transform. For more information on the conference and registration please head to our website: http://jolle.coe.uga.edu/ conference-2015/. In addition, our Spring JoLLE issue will be a themed issue based on the conference theme. For more information on our call for manuscripts and how to submit, please see: http://jolle.coe.uga.edu/about/submission-guidelines/. We encourage our readers to submit work that falls within any of the publication categories available in this issue: research articles, voices from the field, academic book reviews, CYAL book reviews, poetry and art, and Scholars Speak Out essays. As we head into our holiday celebrations, whatever they may be, I hope that this Fall issue of JoLLE has left you with much excitement and optimism about the future of language and literacy education. Albert Camus poetically wrote: “In the midst of winter, I found there was, within me, an invincible summer.” Particularly in a time in education when teachers are burdened with the brunt of educational reform policies, teachereducation programs are under increased pressure to graduate teachers through newly imposed standardized measures, and students are being tested at rates that seem out of control, each of the authors, poets, and artists in this issue offers positive suggestions and considerations for the future. JoLLE readers, I encourage each of you to find your own “invincible summer,” and continue to use that strength within to question language and literacy practices for a more hopeful future. Sincerely,

Michelle M. Falter Principal Editor 2014-2015 jolle@uga.edu

I Hope it Still Counts as Reading: The Cultural Production of Reading(s), Social Relations and Values in a Research Interview Lyndsay Moffatt

ABSTRACT: Using a form of analysis that sees talk as social interaction, this study examines how a teacher-librarian-researcher and a parent of elementary-aged children construct reading, readers and social in/equality in the context of a research interview. The analysis suggests that the participants produced equal and unequal social relations and values in and through their talk of reading and readers. Using ethnomethodological tools, this analysis illustrates some of the challenges of transforming unequal social relations through a change in the words we use. The study recommends a greater attention to identifying how we recognize and mystify differences in terms of access to resources and wealth in our talk, so that we can create new narratives of reading/readers that recognize and value marginalized literacies without pretending that all literacies are equally valued in the world. Key words: Multiliteracies, Literacies, Interview, Social Inequality, Ethnomethodology

Lyndsay Moffatt is an Assistant Professor at the University of Prince Edward Island in Charlottetown, Canada. Her research interests include K-6 language and literacy education, anthropological and sociological approaches to education research, socio-cultural theories of learning, discourse analysis, ethnomethodology, teacher-education research and literacies for environmental sustainability. She is grateful for the support of the Killam foundation and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, which allowed her to conduct the research and write the first draft of this paper. She can be contacted at lemoffatt@upei.ca

Journal of Language and Literacy Education Vol. 10 Issue 2 -- Fall 2014 Michelle M. Falter, Editor -- http://jolle.coe.uga.edu

Moffatt, L. (2014) / I Hope it Still Counts

Over the past decade, numerous scholars and educators have begun using terms like “readings”, “literacies” and “multiliteracies” in order to emphasize the broad range of activities that can be described as “reading” or “writing” and the situated nature of “being literate”. Talk of readings, literacies, and multiliteracies (Barton & Hamilton, 2000; Collins & Blot, 2003; Cope & Kalantzis, 2000; Lankshear & Knobel, 2006; Street, 2001a) have helped to raise questions about what counts as reading/literacy and who decides. In this body of research, there is often the latent suggestion that unequal social relations might be challenged, or changed, through the introduction of these new ways of talking about literacy. As argued by Gee (2000), moves towards speaking of literacy as plural, or talk of multiliteracies, can be seen as part of a broader movement that aims to create less elitist institutions. Similarly, many of the ethnographic accounts of literacy coming out of the New Literacy Studies (Street, 2001b) have focused on the everyday literacies that people use in their work and home lives, effectively elevating these practices by positioning them as worthy topics for investigation. As a literacy educator and researcher who cares about issues of social inequality, I have been attracted to the New Literacy Studies and a Multiliteracies perspective, in part because a commitment to thinking about issues of power seems to be evident in these bodies of work. However, after reviewing many studies associated with a New Literacy Studies/Multiliteracies perspective, I have found a lack of studies that investigate the social construction of terms like literacies, multiliteracies, reading, or writing in close detail. Similarly, I have found an absence of studies that examine how, or whether, broadening our definitions of literacy can actually work to produce egalitarian social relations and values in everyday interactions.

teacher-librarian-researcher and a parent of elementary aged children, this paper raises questions about whether, and/or how, social relations and values can be transformed through such changes in discourse. In doing so, I hope to contribute to the further development of critical scholarship in literacy education research. Constructing and producing reading/literacy In the past few decades, anthropological and sociological theories of literacy (Barton & Hamilton, 2000; Street, 2001a) and learning (Lave & Wenger, 1991; McDermott, 1993) have recommended an examination of how reading, writing, literacy and learning are socially constructed and produced. Socio-cultural theories of literacy and learning, as well as theories of cultural production (Willis, 1977, 1981) and cultural reproduction (Bourdieu 1976, 1997) suggest that current constructions of reading/literacy in schools and elsewhere, may well be related to the production of social in/equality. Reading these bodies of research together suggests that understanding the cultural production of literacy/ies might shed light on the cultural production of social structures, values and institutions. In the wake of this suggestion, a recent wave of scholarship has specifically investigated the relationship between reading/literacy and social inequality (see: Bialostok, 2004; Blackledge, 2001; Janks 2010; Jones, 2013; Moje & Lewis, 2007; Prendergrast, 2003; among others). Some studies have worked to explore how reading and literacy are socially constructed (see Cook-Gumperz, 2006) and other studies of literacy learning have drawn specifically on Bourdieu’s theories of social and cultural reproduction (see Rogers, 2003; ComptonLily, 2003; among others). However, very few studies have approached questions of literacy and social inequality with Willis’ theories of cultural production, or an understanding of talk as social action (See Baker, 1991; Freebody and Baker, 2003; Freebody and Frieberg, 2001; and Green and Meyer, 1991 for exceptions. See Davidson, 2012, for a very useful review). Similarly, very few, if any, have examined these questions within the context of research interviews about literacy, although many

This paper examines what happens when a teacherlibrarian-researcher and a parent sit down to talk about multiple forms of literacy or literacies. It illustrates some of the challenges of transforming unequal social relations through a change in the words we use. Through a detailed analysis of two excerpts from a research interview between a

Journal of Language and Literacy Education Vol. 10 Issue 2 -- Fall 2014 literacy researchers make ample use of interview data in their research (see for example: Bialostock, 2004; Brandt, 2001; Compton-Lily, 2003; Rogers 2003). This study specifically addresses these absences in the literature by analyzing research interview data via theories of cultural production and an ethnomethodological understanding of talk as social action.

words, that the study of the cultural production of literacy/ies can provide insight into the cultural production of larger social structures, values, or institutions such as gender, race, socio-economic class, print literacy, and schooling among other things. In coming to understand the cultural production of literacy/ies in local contexts, such as how literacy is produced in “a research interview”, we can learn how social structures, values and institutions, like those noted above, are created, maintained, challenged and changed.

Theoretical Framework

This study is informed by a number of theoretical frameworks including: socio-cultural theories of Theories of cultural production literacy (Barton & Hamilton, 2000; Street, 2001a) and learning (Lave & Wenger, 1991; McDermott, 1993), Theories of cultural production share with theories of cultural production (Willis, 1977, 1981) traditional Marxist, feminist and anti-racist analyses and ethnomethodology of schooling, a concern with (Francis & Hester, 2004; social in/equality. However, “In coming to understand Garfinkel, 1967, 2002). Used in theories of cultural production tandem, these theories focus specifically on the daythe cultural production of recommend an examination of to-day ways that social how reading, writing, literacy in/equality is created, literacy/ies in local and learning are socially maintained and/or challenged. contexts, such as how constructed, or produced, and In contrast to traditional how the production of these approaches to culture that literacy is produced in ‘a phenomena may be related to describe culture as a kind of the production of social research interview’, we can static property of various in/equality. groups, theories of cultural learn how social production describe “culture” Socio-cultural theories of as a “continual process of structures, values and literacy and learning creating meaning in social and material contexts” (Levinson & institutions…are created, Socio-cultural theories of Holland, 1996, p. 13). This maintained, challenged literacy and learning, conceptualization of culture sometimes known as “situated places focus on the processes and changed.” theories”, suggest that an through which social relations examination of the social and values are created, construction, or the cultural production, of literacy is maintained and challenged. Rather than attempting necessary for the creation of effective literacy to document what people with particular (prepedagogies. These theories assert that the social determined) identities or people from particular construction of particular phenomena/practices play (pre-determined) cultures might say or do in certain into the ways that people use specific tools and situations, this perspective recommends the participate in specific activities. In this way, socioinvestigation of how identities and cultures are cultural theories advocate an understanding of how produced locally in social interaction. This people construct literacy/ies as an essential step perspective also recommends viewing local towards effective pedagogies and practices. In productions of culture and identity in relationship to addition, this perspective of literacy/ies suggests that larger social, historical and political events and the cultural production of literacy/ies reflects and ideologies. creates specific social relations and values. In other

Moffatt, L. (2014) / I Hope it Still Counts In addition, in contrast to theories of cultural reproduction, associated with scholars such as Bourdieu (1976; 1997) which have emphasized the conservative nature of schooling, as well as other institutions, or the ways that these institutions reproduce social inequality, theories of cultural production associated with scholars such as Willis (1977, 1981) assert that institutions like schools, can also create, or produce, new social relationships and challenge traditional ways of being.

phenomena and identities. While some researchers have attempted to use the tools of ethnomethodology to look at visual representations (Goodwin, 2001; Lepper, 2000; Macbeth, 1999), for the most part, the existing research pays close attention to spoken discourse as data. Ethnomethodological studies have documented the myriad of ways that talk can be seen as social action. Scholars working with these tools are interested in showing how people perform specific identities through talk, or talk different phenomena into being.

This body of work reminds us that educators are cultural workers who are constantly creating culture through their interactions with their colleagues, students, curriculum documents, etcetera. Similarly, this body of work reminds us that children, curriculum leaders, directors of education, parents and researchers are also cultural workers and that we all produce, reproduce and challenge different ways of being, along with creating different cultures of schooling and education through our everyday interactions.

Of particular interest to researchers in education is the related work of applied conversation analysis that looks at talk in institutions, as talk that produces, reproduces and challenges the norms of that institution (Antaki, 2011; Heritage, 2005). Of interest to literacy education researchers is the work of scholars such as Baker (1991), Freebody and Frieberg (2001), and Heap (1980, 1985, 1990, 1991). These scholars have investigated topics such as how children are introduced to institutionalized ways of reading and talking about texts (Baker, 1991), what counts as reading in homes and schools (Freebody & Freiberg, 2001; Heap, 1980, 1985, 1990, 1991), and who might be considered “reading disabled” (McDermott, 1987). These scholars assert that during discussions of reading and literacy, children are simultaneously introduced to local literacy practices, social relations and social order. In this way, they offer a unique way of looking at literacy and literacy education. Approaching talk as social action allows us, as teachers, and as researchers, to slow down conversations and listen to how the people involved negotiate meaning and social relationships in moment-to-moment ways.

Approaching literacy with theories of cultural production opens up a range of questions about how literacy is produced in social interaction and how it is related to the production of un/equal social relations and un/egalitarian values. This study investigates one aspect of the cultural production of literacy – the cultural production of “reading”. While many researchers may not see “reading” and “literacy” as equivalent terms, many would see “reading” as part of being “literate”. In this way, talking about “different kinds of reading” can be seen as talking about “different kinds of literacies”. Ethnomethodology

Given the continued need for an understanding of how to challenge social inequality and create an egalitarian society, and given the slow progress towards this end, educators and researchers need to know more than just how social inequality is reproduced; we also need to know how it is challenged and transformed and how social equality may be produced in day-to-day social interactions. Theories of cultural production and the tools of ethnomethodology are well suited to these tasks.

Ethnomethodology is the study of “practical activities”, “common sense knowledge” and “practical organizational reasoning” (Lynch & Peyrot, 1992). Informed by the work of Garfinkel (1967, 2002), Goffman (1981) and Sacks (1992), ethnomethodological analyses focus specifically on how people produce particular identities, phenomena and activities in social interaction (Baker, 2000; Francis & Hester, 2004). In this way, ethnomethodology can be seen as a good fit for a study of the cultural production of specific

Journal of Language and Literacy Education Vol. 10 Issue 2 -- Fall 2014 Approaching reading/literacy with theories of cultural production and theories of talk as social action opens up a range of questions about how people produce literacy and how this production is related to the production of social hierarchy and power. For example, one question that presents itself is: does talk of reading/literacy as plural (readings/literacies) work to construct egalitarian social relations and values? And if it does, how does it do this? Similarly, we might ask, if it doesn’t, why doesn’t it? In order to investigate these questions, I analyzed data that I had generated with some adult research participants via one-on-one interviews. In the next section, I outline the data generated and my analysis. I then walk the reader through a brief analysis of two short excerpts of the data with these research questions in mind.

immensely valuable for tracing the production of reading, writing, literacy and literacies in talk.

Data Generation

Analysis for this study was greatly influenced by ethnomethodological forms of discourse analysis, including Conversation Analysis and Membership Categorization Analysis, that suggest talk, including talk generated during research interviews, can be analyzed as social action (Antaki & Widdicombe, 1998; Baker, 2000, 2002, 2004; Garfinkel, 1967, 2002; Holstein & Gubrium, 2004; Silverman, 2001a, 2001b; Talmy, 2008, 2009a, 2009b, 2010; Wooffitt, 2001). Like theories of cultural production, approaching talk as social action begins with an understanding of culture and identity as phenomena that are performed. This approach highlights the processes through which identities, cultures and phenomena are brought off and enacted between people. This approach is significantly different from most interview studies and most interview studies found in literacy education research. The majority of interview studies and interview studies in literacy education research tend to focus on the content of the interviewee’s responses without attending to the co-construction of meaning between the interviewer and the interviewee, and rarely include the interviewer’s questions, interjections, or back channels. In this way, most interview studies, as well as those in literacy education could be seen in Roulston’s (2010) terms, as grounded in a neopositivist, or romantic theory of interview data. In contrast, this study began with a constructionist/post-modern theory of interview data.

The analysis presented here focuses specifically on two excerpts from one interview: an interview with Michelle, a parent who was a long time resident in the neighborhood and was the mother of two elementary aged children. I chose this interview and these specific excerpts because they provide succinct illustrations of the cultural production of reading and the production of social relations and values. In addition, these excerpts directly speak to the research questions, as Michelle and I specifically discuss the idea that there may be many forms of reading, and multiple ways to be literate. Analysis

The data presented here represents a small part of a much larger study. The data for the larger study consists of eighteen transcripts of semi-structured individual interviews between myself, a teacherlibrarian-researcher, and parents and teachers living and working in an urban Canadian neighborhood. The parents and teachers in the study were all in some way related to a single school known as “Stony Creek”. Participants were teachers at the school, staff who worked at the school and had children, or parents who had their children at the school. All of the participants knew me as a former teacherlibrarian, as a graduate student and as a researcher. The interview protocol used to generate data for this study was based on a protocol created by PurcellGates (2003) for The Cultural Practices of Literacy Study (CPLS). Dr. Purcell-Gates designed her original protocol for adult participants and it focuses primarily on participants’ current and historical literacy practices via questions about reading and writing such as “When you were a child, what kinds of things did people in your family read regularly?” and “When you were a child, what kinds of things did your family write regularly?” All of the participants in this study completed consent forms prior to being interviewed. While I did not continue my involvement with Purcell-Gates’ study, I found the data I generated with the protocol to be

Moffatt, L. (2014) / I Hope it Still Counts Analysis for this study included transcribing the interviews using a simplified version of the notation system developed by Jefferson for Conversation Analysis (Woolfitt, 2001). This approach meant that the researchers’ questions and backchannels were as important to the analysis as the participants’ responses and were thus included in the transcription. In this way, I followed Baker’s (2002) suggestions, and transcribed the actual rather than the planned delivery of my questions (e.g., the interview protocol) as well as the interviewee’s answers. Baker (2002) suggests that one of the ways that researchers can analyze talk as social action is to create “actional” sketches of sequences of talk and to look at the kinds of accounts and categories that are available in this talk. Similarly, I followed Baker (2002) and repeatedly asked myself what function a specific feature of talk might serve, what accounts of reading were being mobilized and what kinds of reader identities and categories were being produced.

analysis here focuses specifically on how Michelle and I constructed “reading”, rather than on how we constructed “literacy” or “literacies”. While many contemporary researchers do not see “reading” as a synonym for “literacy”, given that reading is generally seen as part of being literate, and given that Michelle and I discussed various “kinds of reading”, I feel this focus is a useful one to help answer the research questions concerning Literacy/Multiliteracies and social relations. Negotiations about what counts as “reading” and who is a “reader” presented themselves throughout my interview with Michelle. Through a close examination of our talk, I saw that Michelle and I repeatedly proposed candidate descriptions of reading and readers for each other to affirm or refute. In addition, through analysis I found that Michelle and I repeatedly returned to ideas of reading as multiple, or as made up of various “kinds”. These moments provided useful data to examine what kinds of social relations and values were being produced when we spoke of readings/literacy as multiple. In examining these moments, I found we could often be heard to be both championing and undermining egalitarian social relations and values while we spoke of readings/literacies. In addition, I saw evidence of both Michelle and I positioning ourselves and positioning each other as specific kinds of people, enacting specific roles as we performed various social actions in and through our talk.

In addition, as part of my process, I participated in numerous peer and mentor debriefing sessions and reviewed my analysis with other scholars familiar with the tools of Conversation Analysis and Membership Categorization Analysis. After a particularly important mentor debriefing session, I also began to examine how the data could also be seen as “Institutional Talk” and to pay close attention to “recipient design”, or to how the utterances were designed for particular audiences, settings and interlocutors (Heritage, 2005; Lynch & Peyrot, 1992). Again, following Baker (2002), I asked myself what kinds of social relations and values were being assumed through this interview about reading and readers and what kinds of social relations and values were being created. In the following section, I illustrate some of the ways that talk of readings/literacies can be seen as a move towards egalitarian social relations and values in this instance, and yet, how unequal social relations and un-egalitarian values can also be reinforced even while speaking of readings/literacies.

In the following section, I examine some of the ways that Michelle’s and my talk of readings/literacies can be heard as trying to enact egalitarian social relations and values. I then examine some of the ways that Michelle and I worked to reinforce unequal social relations and un-egalitarian values, while we spoke of readings/literacies. I also include a few examples of how Michelle and I positioned ourselves, as well as each other, as different kinds of people, or how, as Goffman (1981) might put it, we shifted our footing. Literature and boxes of macaroni: Talk of readings/literacies as a move towards egalitarian social relations and values

Talk of readings/literacies In recognizing that Michelle and I frequently spoke of “reading” but almost never spoke of “literacy”, my

Journal of Language and Literacy Education Vol. 10 Issue 2 -- Fall 2014 One of the clearest examples of the cultural production of reading in my interview with Michelle exists in the first few turns of our interview. As can be seen below, Michelle and I began our interview with a series of conversational turns concerning how we were going to use the word “reading”. My analysis of this excerpt follows.

reads in a typical day. In her first turn, Michelle replies with a request for clarification. Following an affirmation from me, Michelle effectively rejects my candidate construction of reading and offers a re-cast of my inquiry as a question about the “literature” she reads. I then offer a reformulation of my question and attempt to clarify that my question about “reading” is not necessarily a question about “literature”. I suggest that “it” (something that Michelle might read) could be “anything”. Michelle offers a sign (hmm) that she does not entirely understand what it is I am interested in, and I attempt a repair by directly asserting “it” (something she might read) “doesn't have to be literature”. I then go on to elaborate that my question about “reading” includes an interest in activities like following “the directions” on a “box of macaroni”.

Extract 1 Michelle (6:31) (li 98-176) L: okay so the first part (of the interview) is about what kinds of things that you read in your life (.) right (.) now, um, and it can be for anything, like you know, in-at work, for the kids, for entertainment, for, you know, shopping, whatever, like the whole gamut of things (.) um, and I've only done one interview so far, I just did Jolene, and one of the things that seemed to help was if she just sort of, start at the beginning of her day and goes through her day, then she can get kind of a sense of all of the things that she would be reading in her day

L: yup

A range of accounts of reading, readers and my interests as a reading researcher can be seen in the first few turns of this excerpt. In examining my first question to Michelle, I present a variety of accounts of reading and readers. For example, I offer that reading is something used for a range of activities including work, parenting, entertainment and shopping. Embedded in this account of reading is an account of readers as people who engage in ordinary every day activities. In addition, through my initial question, I provide an account of myself as a “reading researcher” as someone who is interested in a “whole gamut of things”. In Michelle’s reply to this first question, she also provides an account of reading, readers and my interests as a reading researcher. In recasting my question about reading as a question about “literature”, Michelle provides an account of reading as an activity that involves “literature”, an account of readers as people who consume “literature” and an account of reading researchers as people who are primarily interested in what “literature” people read.

In terms of our interactions, this extract could be sketched as follows: In my first turn, I initiate the interview with a long elaboration about the kinds of things Michelle might “read” or what might be considered to be “reading”. I cast reading as an activity that might be used for a wide range of purposes such as “work”, “the kids”, “entertainment”, and “shopping”. I also invite Michelle to list what she

In examining our first few turns, Michelle and I can also be heard to mobilize a range of categories. Most notably, my question to Michelle contains a variety of categories of activities that I link to reading (work, parenting, entertainment, shopping) and in doing so I implicate a wide range of categories of people as potential readers (workers, parents, those who seek entertainment, and shoppers). In narrowing her

M: oh reading L: yeah M: oh what kind of literature I I read? L: It can be anything M: hmmm L: it doesn't have to be literature even, it can just be, like, you know, even the directions on, the-you know, the box of macaroni ((laughs)) okay, whatever, yeah M: right, and I go through my day, and think of all the things I've read?

Moffatt, L. (2014) / I Hope it Still Counts description of “reading” to something to do with “literature”, Michelle mobilizes a very different range of categories of people as “readers”. In essence, Michelle implies that reading is about consuming literature, which can be heard as a suggestion that those who consume literature are readers while those who do not consume literature are non-readers.

(2002, 2004) categories of people can be read off the activities they engage in, as well as by the ways that they are described. In other words, descriptions of activities include descriptions of kinds of people. Baker (2004) also notes that there are some activities that are routinely bound to some categories of people. For example, caring about children’s wellbeing is an activity generally bound to parents, While the word “literature” can be used broadly to evaluating children’s progress as readers is an activity refer to any printed material (e.g., pamphlets at the generally bound to teachers, and designing fun doctor’s office are sometimes referred to as outdoor activities for groups of children is an activity “literature”), it also has a common connotation as generally bound to summer camp counselors. being linked to high art, or culture. In this way, in Consuming “boxes of macaroni” is often heard as an suggesting that consuming “literature” is part of activity bound to non-elite people in North America, being a reader, Michelle could be seen as describing as it is known for being cheap and readily available. reading as an activity that is linked to a broad range In creating a contrast between reading “literature” of people, or as an activity that and reading directions on a is linked to a particular “box of macaroni” and in “The point of an analysis category of people – people attempting to re-categorize the who consume high art or latter as “reading”, I can be like this is not to attempt culture, in other words, people heard as attempting to counter with elite status. a description of reading as an to ‘mind read’ what it is elite activity, regardless of that Michelle meant by her whether this is what Michelle The point of an analysis like this is not to attempt to “mind meant to convey or not. reference to read” what it is that Michelle meant by her reference to Given that reading has ‘literature’…However, as “literature”, and given the historically been, and researchers using applied relative ambiguity of the word, continues to be, constructed as it is actually impossible to a social good, and that readers conversation analysis know how she meant me to have historically been, and hear her description of suggest, what is possible is continue to be, constructed as reading. However, as morally superior to nonto see how I apparently did readers (Brandt, 2001; Collins & researchers using applied conversation analysis suggest, Blot, 2003), this exchange hear her description.” what is possible is to see how I illustrates how moving talk of apparently did hear her reading/literacy to talk of description. My reply following Michelle’s question readings/literacies can be heard as a move towards about whether I was interested in the “literature” she more egalitarian social relations and values. In this reads suggests that I heard Michelle as making a exchange, Michelle and I work together to expand comment about reading and social class. In my the limits of who is considered to be a reader from a attempt to re-assert the possibility that reading could narrow group of people - those who consume be an activity that is used more broadly and that “literature” (quite possibly elite people) to a broad readers may be people who consume things other group of people - workers, parents, shoppers and than “literature”, I suggest that “even” following the others who seek entertainment in things beyond directions on “a box of macaroni” could be high culture (in other words, non-elite people). In considered to be “reading”. In doing so, I invoke a doing so, Michelle and I defined a social good/moral category of people who read, and likely consume in activity as the property of ordinary, rather than just other ways, “boxes of macaroni”. As noted by Baker elite, people. In other words, we promoted

Journal of Language and Literacy Education Vol. 10 Issue 2 -- Fall 2014 egalitarian social relations and values. However, the following section helps to illustrate how talk of readings and literacies can undermine such relations and values at the same time.

M: yeah?    L: yeah for sure so you'd read that kind of instruction

“Some form of reading”: Talk of readings/literacies as a move towards and away from egalitarian social relations and values

M: yeah that's right I spent a lot of time you know doing that kind of art stuff and I think that was the majority of my reading was that

The following exchange can be seen as another example of how Michelle and I negotiated the meaning of the word “reading” in our talk, and how talk of readings/literacies can promote egalitarian social relations and values. However, as I will outline below, this exchange can also be seen as an illustration of how, even while we expanded our definitions of reading, Michelle and I also reinforced unequal social relations and un-egalitarian values. When I asked Michelle to tell me about her memories of reading in elementary school she told me that she read “Judy Blume” and that she “did a lot of origami”. At that point, as shown below, I asked Michelle whether she “read” the instructions in her origami books or not. Her reply helped us to continue our negotiations about how we might define reading.

When looked at as an example of talk as social action, this excerpt could be sketched as follows: In my first turn, I present an account of reading as something that could take place while creating origami and of the child Michelle as a potential reader. In her reply, Michelle affirms this account of reading, origami and of herself as a reader. She then goes on to provide another account of herself, of reading and of origami. Michelle asserts, “after a little while you skip the instructions”. In this way, she provides an account of reading as something that “sometimes” happens while a person is doing origami, but often, or habitually, is “skipped” once a person has some experience with the process. In addition, Michelle provides an account of herself as “a normal reader” or as someone who “sometimes” skipped reading in the way that “you”, or people generally, often do. Michelle effectively shifts her position from speaking “as herself” to speaking “as a normal reader” through the simple insertion of the generic “you”.

Extract 2 Michelle (32:41)(li 390-416) L: and would you have to read the instructions on how to do the origami? M: oh yeah

Michelle then begins to provide a new account of reading as somehow different from “following pictures” as she contrasts following “instructions” with “following pictures”. However, by the end of her turn, Michelle has rehabilitated “following pictures” as “some form of reading” and in doing so she has rehabilitated herself from being a “sometimes reader” to being a reader even when she is “following the pictures”.

L: okay M: after a little while you skip the instructions L: yeah M: and you follow the picture, but I guess it’s some form of reading I hope

For my part, I affirm Michelle’s account of reading and of herself as a reader. I also offer an account of myself as a “reading researcher” who “absolutely” sees “following pictures” as “some form of reading” and who sees “people who follow pictures” as “readers”. Throughout our talk Michelle and I produce a multiliteracies perspective on reading. In

L: oh it is, absolutely it is M: (laughs) I hope it's still recognized as reading (laughs)  L: oh I recognize it as reading absolutely

Moffatt, L. (2014) / I Hope it Still Counts our discussion, reading expanded from “consuming literature” as seen in the previous extract, to reading instructions, to making meaning from pictures. Similarly, the category “readers” expanded from those who read novels or instructions to include those who may or may not have facility with alphabetic print, but use images to make meaning. In this way, Michelle and I effectively bring a huge range of meaning makers into the category “readers”. In light of the historical and contemporary connection between reading/literacy and social value, this move can be seen as another move towards sharing a positive identity amongst a wider range of people than it has historically been shared. In other words, Michelle and I are assuming and creating a world in which people who use images to make meaning are as much “readers” (read: good people) as are those who consume novels (read: “high culture”) or those who use alphabetic print for other purposes such as following instructions. However, a closer look at this exchange also provides insight into how Michelle and I worked to reinforce unequal social relations and values even while we spoke of readings/literacies. In the next section, I examine this aspect of the data.

follow the pictures”. In doing so, as noted above, Michelle begins to set up a dichotomy between “reading” and “following pictures”. She then suggests that “following the pictures” could actually be seen as “some form of reading”. At this point, it is interesting to note that Michelle offers a series of pleas that following pictures be seen in this way. The first sign that she is making a plea comes via the hedge “I guess” and the tag “I hope”. Both of these words work to weaken Michelle’s epistemic stance, and in doing so invite my confirmation. At her plea, I immediately provide this confirmation of her description of “following pictures” as a “form of reading”. Michelle then reformulates her plea as “I hope that it is still recognized as reading” and I provide another confirmation. Michelle provides a final request for confirmation (“yeah?”), and I provide it (“yeah”). We then continue our conversation about Michelle’s memories of “reading”. Michelle’s pleas that “following the pictures” could be considered to be “some form of reading” and my quick and repeated acceptance of these pleas suggest that we constructed reading as a social good and “being a reader” as a coveted identity. (It would be unlikely that Michelle would make such pleas for an undesirable identity, or that I would be so quick to assure her that an activity that she engaged in was “absolutely reading”, unless “reading” was generally considered as a “good thing”). However, Michelle’s pleas that “following pictures” could be considered to be a “form of reading” and my responses, also position me as a person who can tell Michelle what “counts” as reading and position Michelle as a reading subject open for my evaluation. In effect, Michelle has shifted her footing (Goffman, 1981), and I have responded in kind. Through her subtle insertion of these hedges, she took up the role of someone who can be evaluated as a reader, or as a non-reader, and she provided me with the role of evaluating her legitimacy as a reader.

Guessing, hoping and confirming: Talk of readings/literacies as a move away from egalitarian social relations and values When I began to look at this data more closely, I began to note specific features of our talk that suggested Michelle and I were not only promoting egalitarian social relations and values, but that we were also simultaneously undermining these ways of relating, and these values. In particular, I began to note how we interpreted our own and each other’s roles as evaluators of reading and how we assumed and created unequal social relations in our discussion of reading(s) or literacy/ies. When analyzed with an eye to evaluations of reading, this excerpt concerning Michelle’s fifth-grade reading practices could be sketched as follows: In my first turn, I offer that Michelle could be “reading” the instructions while she creates her origami and I offer a request for her to reflect on whether this was in fact what she was doing at the time. As can be seen in the transcript, Michelle offers that initially she did “read” the instructions and that later she would “just

In recognizing this aspect of our interactions, and in analyzing our talk as social action, I began to see that while our talk of readings/literacies could be heard as a move towards egalitarian social relations and values, it could also be heard as a move away from

Journal of Language and Literacy Education Vol. 10 Issue 2 -- Fall 2014 such relations and values. While Michelle and I were expanding the catchment of reading to create a broad category of potential readers, and while we were making a social good the legitimate property of a vast number of people, we were also maintaining and creating an unequal divide where some people are invested with the power to evaluate other people’s literacy practices as “reading” or “notreading” (me) and other people are subjects for evaluation (Michelle). This division between us makes perfect sense in the light of the history of reading and reading research. While theories of multiple forms of literacy have become commonplace in scholarly journals over the last few decades, the idea has yet to be fully embraced in school settings and remains extremely marginal in popular representations of literacy learning (e.g., news reports or popular media). This division also makes sense in the light of Michelle’s and my relationship to each other as a parent and a teacherlibrarian-researcher. Given our understandings of each other, it may feel perfectly natural for Michelle to ask me to evaluate her as a reader. However, regardless of why this division makes sense, ultimately it reflects an affirmation of un-egalitarian social relations and values. In these interactions, I am invested with a kind of authority that Michelle does not have to determine “what counts”. Within the current context of expanding understandings of reading(s) and literacy/ies, this division between us begins to seem more and more arbitrary. If, as it appears, reading is a term that is increasingly difficult to define, then my role as an arbiter of reading is highly suspect.

makers, may challenge the deficit thinking that has dominated talk of reading and readers for decades. However, this analysis also raises questions about how unequal social relations and values are maintained even in the face of new ways of speaking about literacy/reading. As illustrated here, by positioning each other and ourselves as different levels of authority on reading, Michelle and I easily managed to maintain unequal social relations and values even while we spoke of readings and literacies. While we agreed on the possibility that there were “different kinds of reading”, in important ways, Michelle took on and was positioned as a subject to be evaluated, and I took on and was positioned as an arbiter of reading. This aspect of the data highlights how difficult it is to avoid creating social hierarchies in research interviews about reading conducted between parents and teacher-librarian-researchers. However, it also alerts us to the possibility that these kinds of subtle negotiations concerning power, social relations and values may be omnipresent in other social interactions connected to teaching, reading, literacy, literacies and research, regardless of apparently positive relations or stated intentions. It bears noting that throughout our interview I had no intention of creating or reinforcing any social hierarchy between Michelle and I, and yet, when given the opportunity, that is exactly what I did. This study also adds to the findings of other ethnomethodological studies of literacy, such as those conducted by Baker (1991), Freebody and Frieberg (2001), and Heap (1980, 1985, 1990, 1991), as it provides another illustration of how people produce social relations and social order in and through talk of readings/literacies, albeit in a different setting.

Implications of this analysis for educators and researchers While this analysis examines only two small interactions between a teacher-librarian-researcher and a parent in an interview setting, it illuminates why educators and researchers concerned with new literacies and social justice may want to think about our roles as arbiters, or evaluators of reading/literacy, in our interactions with students, parents and other stakeholders. In some ways, the analysis presented here suggests that recognizing literacy as an ever-expanding term and suggesting that reading is an activity practiced by all meaning

Recognizing this undercurrent of my interactions with Michelle raises questions about how we want to proceed as literacy researchers and as literacy educators. It also raises questions about how we could proceed differently. Future educators and researchers may want to consider how their research choices contribute to, or contest, traditional ideas about reading/literacy, and what kinds of social relations and values they want to produce in their

Moffatt, L. (2014) / I Hope it Still Counts work. For example, we may want to ask ourselves how our definitions of literacy are operationalized within our research methods and whether, or how, we can we talk about literacy in ways that don’t invoke traditional hierarchies between different forms of literacy and different “kinds” of people. Can we do literacy research that produces more egalitarian social relations and values, and if so, what would it look like? Can we teach reading/literacy in ways that challenge traditional hierarchies, including those between teachers and parents or teachers and students? And how can we address issues of evaluation in this context?

particular interests are served by particular methods of producing reading. The challenge for those of us who would like to continue to conduct research and to talk about readings/literacies, and who care about issues of social inequality, is to think of ways that we can play a part in creating new narratives of reading/readers that include everyone as readers/literate (valuable people) without pretending that all literacies are equally valued. The work of scholars such as Brandt and Clinton (2002), Cameron (2000), and Collins and Blot (2003) can be particularly instructive in this regard. These scholars help remind us that the recognition of multiple forms of literacy and diverse ways of being readers cannot challenge social in/equality on their own. In order to address the production of social inequality in talk of reading/literacy we will need to consistently reevaluate how our talk is recognizing, or mystifying, differences in terms of access to resources and wealth, and whether, or how, accounts of reading are being used to justify unequal social relations or to challenge them. In doing so, we may learn better how to break down unequal social relations and build up more egalitarian values while we create and re-create our field of study and our work as literacy educators. In this way, our talk of readings and literacies will continue to deepen and will enrich our practices as educators and researchers.

Ultimately, this study reminds us that what we are doing as teachers, teacher-educators, teacherlibrarians, researchers and policy writers in “small seminar rooms at the back of the library”, in “empty classrooms” and full classrooms, in schoolyards, and in offices and libraries, is deeply connected to what happens outside those places, across the street and throughout the cities and countries where we live and work. Schieffelin (2000) reminds us “Every language choice is a social choice that has critical links to the active construction of culture” (p. 327). In doing so, she reminds us our definitions of reading/literacy are “language ideologies” or sets of beliefs that are “partial, contestable, contested and interest laden”(Woolard & Schieffelin, 1994). This study helps to substantiate these claims and recommends a deeper consideration of how

Journal of Language and Literacy Education Vol. 10 Issue 2 -- Fall 2014 References Antaki, C (Ed.). (2011). Applied Conversation Analysis: Intervention and change in institutional talk. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Antaki, C, & Widdicombe, S. (1998). Identity as an achievement and a tool. In C. Antaki & S. Widdicombe (Eds.), Identities in talk (pp. 1-14). London, UK: Sage. Baker, C. (1991). Literacy practices and social relations in classroom reading events. In C. Baker & A. Luke (Eds.), Towards a critical sociology of reading pedagogy (pp. 161-188). Philadelphia, PA: Johns Benjamins Publishing Company. Baker, C. (2000). Locating culture in action: Membership categorization in texts and talk. In A. Lee & C. Poyton (Eds.), Culture and text: Discourse and methodology in social research and cultural studies (pp. 99-113). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Baker, C. (2002). Ethnomethodological analyses of interviews. In J. Gubrium & J. Holstein (Eds.), Handbook of interview research (pp. 777-795). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Baker, C. (2004). Membership categorization and interview accounts. In D. Silverman (Ed.), Qualitative research: Theory, method and practice (pp. 162-176). London, UK: Sage. Barton, D., & Hamilton, M. (2000). Literacy practices. In D. Barton & M. Hamilton (Eds.), Situated literacies: Reading and writing in context (pp. 7-15). London, UK: Routledge. Bialostok, S. (2004). Literacy and risk: An analysis of one middle class parent's taken-for-granted understandings of independence and freedom. Journal of Early Literacy, 4(1), 65-83. Blackledge, A. (2001). Literacy, schooling and ideology in a multilingual state. Curriculum Journal, 12(3), 291-312. Bourdieu, P. (1976). The school as a conservative force. In R. Dale, G. Esland & M. MacDonald (Eds.), Schooling and capitalism: A sociological reader (pp. 110-117). London, UK: Open University Press. Bourdieu, P. (1997). The forms of capital. In A. H. Halsey, H. Lauder, P. Brown & A. Stuart Wells (Eds.), Education, culture, economy and society (pp. 46-58). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Brandt, D. (2001). Literacy in American lives. New York, NY: Cambridge. Brandt, D, & Clinton, K. (2002). Limits of the local: Expanding perspectives on literacy as a social practice. Journal of Literacy Research, 34(3), 337-356. Cameron, D. (2000). Situated literacies/multiliteracies/global literacies. Changing English: Studies in reading and culture, 7(2), 203-208. Collins, J., & Blot, R. (2003). Literacy and literacies: Texts, power, and identity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Compton-Lilly, C. (2003). Reading families: The literate lives of urban children. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Moffatt, L. (2014) / I Hope it Still Counts Cook-Gumperz, J. (Ed.). (2006). The Social construction of literacy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (Eds.). (2000). Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of social futures. London, UK: Routledge. Davidson, C. (2012a). Ethnomethodology and literacy research: A methodological “road less travelled”. English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 11(1), 26-42. Davidson, C. (2012b). Ethnomethodology and literacy research: A methodological “road less travelled”. English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 11(1), 26-42. Francis, D., & Hester, F. (2004). An Invitation to Ethnomethodology: Language, Society and Interaction. London, UK: Sage. Freebody, P., & Baker, C. (2003). Categories and accounts in literacy research and education: Changing targets. In G. Bull & M. Anstey (Eds.), The literacy lexicon (pp. 225-239). Frenchs Forest, Australia: Pearson Education Australia. Freebody, P., & Frieberg, J. (2001). Re-discovering practical reading activities in homes and schools. Journal of Research in Reading, 24(3), 222-234. Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall. Garfinkel, H. (2002). Ethnomethodology’s Program: Working Out Durkheim’s Aphorism. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Gee, J. (2000). The New Literacy Studies: From socially situated to the work of the social. In D. Barton, M. Hamilton & R. Ivanic (Eds.), Situated Literacies (pp. 180-196). London, UK: Routledge. Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of talk. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press. Goodwin, C. (2001). Practices of seeing visual analysis: An Ethnomethodological approach. In T. van Leeuewen & C. Jewitt (Eds.), Handbook of Visual Analysis (pp. 157-181). London, UK: Sage. Green, J., & Meyer, L. (1991). The embeddedness of reading in classroom life: Reading as situated process. In C. Baker & A. Luke (Eds.), Towards a critical sociology of reading pedagogy (pp. 141-160). Philadelphia, PA: Johns Benjamins Publishing Company. Heap, J. (1980). What counts as reading: Limits to certainty in assessment. Curriculum inquiry, 10, 265-292. Heap, J. (1985). Discourse in the production of classroom knowledge: Reading lessons. Curriculum inquiry, 15(3), 245-279. Heap, J. (1990). Applied ethnomethodology: Looking for the local rationality of reading activities. Human Studies, 13, 39-72. Heap, J. (1991). A situated perspective on what counts as reading. In C. Baker & A. Luke (Eds.), Towards a critical sociology of reading pedagogy (pp. 104-139). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Benjamins.

Journal of Language and Literacy Education Vol. 10 Issue 2 -- Fall 2014 Heritage, J. (2005). Conversation analysis and institutional talk. In R. Sanders & K. Fitch (Eds.), Handbook of language and social interaction (pp. 103-147). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Holstein, J., & Gubrium, J. (2004). The active interview. In D. Silverman (Ed.), Qualitative research: Theory, method and practice (2nd ed., pp. 140-161). London, UK: Sage. Janks, H. (2010). Literacy and Power. New York, NY: Routledge. Jones, S. (2013). Critical literacies in the making: Social class and identities in the early reading classroom. Journal of Early Literacy, 13(2), 197-224. Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2006). New literacies: Everyday practices and classroom learning (2nd ed.). Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Lepper, G. (2000). Categories in text and talk. London, UK: Sage. Levinson, B., & Holland, D. (1996). The cultural production of the educated person: An introduction. In B. Levinson, D. Foley & D. Holland (Eds.), The cultural production of the educated person: Critical ethnographies of schooling and local practice (pp. 1-51). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Lynch, M., & Peyrot, M. (1992). A Reader's guide to ethnomethodology. Qualitative Sociology, 15(2&3), 13-22. Macbeth, D. (1999). Glances, trances and their relevance for a visual sociology. In P. L. Jalbert (Ed.), Media Studies: Ethnomethodological Approaches (pp. 135-170). Lanham, MD: University Press of America, Inc. McDermott, R. (1987). Achieving school failure: An anthropological approach to illiteracy and social stratification. In G. Spindler (Ed.), Education and cultural process: Anthropological approaches (second ed., pp. 269-305). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press. McDermott, R. (1993). The acquisition of a child by a learning disability. In J. Lave & S. Chaiklin (Eds.), Understanding practice: Perspectives on activity and context (pp. 269-305). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Moje, E., & Lewis, C. (2007). Examining opportunities to learn literacy: The role of critical sociocultural literacy research. In C. Lewis, P. Enciso & E. Moje (Eds.), Reframing sociocultural research on literacy: Identity, agency, and power (pp. 15-48). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Prendergrast, C. (2003). Literacy and racial justice: The politics of learning after Brown v. Board of Education. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. Purcell-Gates, V. (2003). Cultural practices of literacy study (CPLS). Retrieved April 3rd, 2008, from http://educ.ubc.ca/research/cpls/ Rogers, R. (2003). A critical discourse analysis of family literacy practices: Power in and out of print. London, UK: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates.

Moffatt, L. (2014) / I Hope it Still Counts Roulston, K. (2010). Quality in qualitative interviewing. Qualitative Research, 10(2), 199-228. Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on Conversation. Oxford, UK: Blackwell. Schieffelin, B. (2000). Introducing Kaluli literacy: A chronology of influences. In P. Kroskrity (Ed.), Regimes of language: Ideologies, polities and identities (pp. 293-327). Oxford, UK: James Currey. Silverman, D. (2001a). The construction of 'delicate' objects in counseling. In M. Wetherall, S. Taylor & S. Yates (Eds.), Discourse theory and practice: A reader (pp. 119-137). London, UK: Sage. Silverman, D. (2001b). Interpreting qualitative data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Street, B. (2001a). Introduction. In B. Street (Ed.), Literacy and development: Ethnographic perspectives (pp. 117). London, UK: Routledge. Street, B (Ed.). (2001b). Literacy and development: Ethnographic perspectives. London, UK: Routledge. Talmy, S. (2008). Contrasting thematic and discourse analyses of interview data: The case of â&#x20AC;&#x153;fresh off the boatâ&#x20AC;?. Paper presented at the American Association of Applied Linguistics, Washington, DC. Talmy, S. (2009a). Forever FOB?: Resisting and reproducing the other in high school ESL. In A. Reyes & A. Lo (Eds.), Beyond Yellow English: Toward a linguistic anthropology of Asian Pacific America. . New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Talmy, S. (2009b). Resisting ESL: Categories and sequence in a critically "motivated" analysis of classroom interaction. In G. Kasper, H. Nguyen & (Eds.), Talk-in-Interaction: Multilingual perspectives. Honolulu, HI: National Foreign Language Resource Center/University of Hawai'i Press. Talmy, S. (2010). Qualitative interviews in applied linguistics: From research instrument to social practice. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 30, 128-148. Willis, P. (1977). Learning to labour: How working class kids get working class jobs. New York, NY: Columbia University Press. Willis, P. (1981). Cultural production is different from cultural reproduction is different from social reproduction is different from reproduction. Interchange, 12(2-3), 48-67. Wooffitt, R. (2001). Researching psychic practitioners: Conversation analysis. In M. Wetherall, S. Taylor, & S. Yates (Eds.), Discourse as data: A guide for analysis (pp. 49-92). London, UK: Sage. Woolard, K., & Schieffelin, B. (1994). Language ideology. Annual Review of Anthropology, 23, 55-82.

Funds of (Difficult) Knowledge and the Affordances of Multimodality: The Case of Victor Ava Becker

ABSTRACT: Drawing on semi-structured interview data, this paper examines one man’s multimodal engagement with the emotionally difficult aspects of his Chilean heritage. It builds on recent work (e.g., Marshall & Toohey, 2010) that has begun to unearth the intersection between funds of knowledge (González, Moll, & Amanti, 2005), difficult knowledge (Britzman, 1998, 2000), multiliteracies (New London Group, 2000), and multimodality (Kress, 1997) in an attempt to call attention to the shifting nature of what is considered “difficult” about difficult knowledge, and to the role of multimodality in both accessing and making sense of the difficult in one’s funds of knowledge. The analysis reveals that young people might be purposefully kept away from punctuations on their community’s semiotic chain that are deemed difficult (e.g., images, documentaries) not only by schools, but also by family members for whom such punctuations invoke painful memories. The paper concludes with a call to teachers to be ever mindful of reproducing knowledge hierarchies in their classrooms, which may be partly mitigated by discussing the affordances and challenges of drawing on students’ funds of (difficult) knowledge with families and communities. Key words: Multiliteracies, Multimodality, Difficult Knowledge, Refugees, Spanish

Ava Becker is a PhD student in the TESL program at the University of British Columbia, Canada. Her research has focused on heritage language development and maintenance in Chilean diaspora communities founded by political exiles. She can be contacted at ava.becker@alumni.ubc.ca

Journal of Language and Literacy Education Vol. 10 Issue 2 -- Fall 2014 Michelle M. Falter, Editor -- http://jolle.coe.uga.edu

Becker, A. (2014)/Funds of (Difficult) Knowledge

The repercussions of the coup are still felt and Chile, generally speaking, hasn’t faced its past. There are some who don’t want to relive the horror, others who have resolved to go on indifferently, and still others who decide to forget. But we must face the past, learn from it and seek out the truth. Now is the time to ‘overcome that dark and bitter time in which betrayal attempts to impose itself,’ and to live out the dream of Allende, which he articulated so eloquently in his final message to the Chilean people: ‘History is ours and it is the people who make it.’ (Aguilera & Fredes, 2006, p. x, my translation)

becomes possible to see how the affordances of multimodality can open up spaces to engage with and understand difficult knowledge, which is especially important when such knowledge is a defining feature of one’s cultural heritage and funds of knowledge (e.g., Marshall & Toohey, 2010). My aim here is to build on work (Kendrick & McKay, 2002; Marshall & Toohey, 2010; Pahl, 2004) that has begun, directly and indirectly, to unearth the intersection between funds of knowledge (González, Moll, & Amanti, 2005), difficult knowledge (Britzman, 1998, 2000), multimodality (Kress, 1997) and multiliteracies (Cope & Kalantzis, 2009; New London Group, 2000). In what follows, I hope to call attention to the shifting nature of what is considered “difficult” about difficult knowledge, and to the role of multimodality in both accessing and making sense of the difficult in one’s funds of knowledge.

On September 11th, 1973, the democratically elected socialist president of Chile, Salvador Allende, perished during the violent military coup that overthrew his government (Wright & Oñate, 1998). This event marked the beginning of Augusto Pinochet’s military dictatorship, a period of history in which hundreds of thousands of Chileans sought refuge in countries all over the world (Shayne, 2009; Wright & Oñate, 1998), and that resulted in a surge of growth in the Latin American community in Canada (Ruiz, 2006). Thus, instead of arriving in the diaspora with the kinds of dreams of more voluntary migrants, many Chilean exiles at the time carried with them a tremendous amount of grief. In Ariel Dorfman’s words, on the day of the coup, “when Chile lost its democracy… death entered our life in an irrevocable way and altered it forever” (2006, p. 1, my translation). This observation is not insignificant. As I will argue, the pain many Chilean exiles brought into the diaspora was very real (Shayne, 2009), and in the case of the focal participant of this study, Victor (a pseudonym), it presented a barrier to accessing the emotionally difficult aspects of his Chilean heritage while growing up—but it was a barrier in which he managed to overcome multimodally, particularly through the visual.

The Funds of Knowledge Tradition For over two decades, the concept of funds of knowledge (henceforth FoK) has been highly influential in educational research and practice. Since its inception, however, it has undergone much refinement. In its initial incarnations, it was defined in rather concrete terms, as an “operations manual of essential information and strategies households need to maintain their well being” (Greenberg, 1989, cited in Moll & Greenberg, 1990, p. 223); a few years later, Moll (1992) refined this definition to include more abstract dimensions of knowing, adding the “bodies of knowledge and information that households use to survive, to get ahead, or to thrive” (p. 21). In a more recent publication, Moll and his colleagues distilled the essence of FoK in general terms: “People are competent, they have knowledge, and their life experiences have given them that knowledge” (González et al., 2005, para. 3). In other words, FoK are generated through household and community practices, and these practices can include intergenerational storytelling. This conceptual breadth has allowed for the notion to be operationalized in ways not restricted to the quotidian household activities (e.g., Marshall & Toohey, 2010).

This paper draws on interview data from a larger study whose goal was to analyze the relationship between the leftist political ideologies of Chilean exiles and the heritage language development of their now-grown children (Becker, 2013). Applying a multiliteracies lens of design (New London Group, 2000) to the interview data of Victor Sandoval, it

Journal of Language and Literacy Education Vol. 10 Issue 2 -- Fall 2014 A common thread uniting the various events have been met with “critical skepticism” and conceptualizations of FoK over the years has been “dismissive suspicion” (Simon, Rosenberg, & Eppert, the emphasis on households and communities as 2000a, p. 1). In the late 1990s, Deborah Britzman rich intellectual resources that can be fruitfully taken (2000) coined the term difficult knowledge, which, in up in classrooms (González et al, 2005; Moll, 1992). broad brushstrokes, refers to the “stories that disturb Another central and related feature of the FoK one’s sense of cohesiveness” (p. 43), namely in literature has been the recognition that households curricular materials (e.g., stories about the exist and operate within a web of intersecting social Holocaust). But difficult knowledge can also reflect networks (e.g., Moll, 1992; Oughton, 2010); thus the the inner conflicts one might experience upon concept has provided the ideological groundwork for coming across certain kinds of knowledge in learning inroads towards a more democratic, anti-deficit (Pitt & Britzman, 2003). Thus, difficult knowledge model of knowledge sharing in educational contexts. stands in direct opposition to the knowledge with However, Oughton (2010) cautions teachers and which that one is most comfortable, and, as such, the researchers “not [to] allow the ideological inclusion of ‘the difficult’ within ‘controlled’ attractiveness of this concept to blind them to its environments such as classrooms (and perhaps to a potential pitfalls” (p. 75), such as inadvertently somewhat lesser extent, families) can be a disturbing reproducing a knowledge proposition. hegemony when determining “People are competent, In general, difficult knowledge which knowledges ‘count.’ has tended to be Others have convincingly they have knowledge, and operationalized from a topargued that, while FoK may down perspective; in other seem like a more equitable, their life experiences have words, scholars have asked: bottom-up model of learning, given them that What makes knowledge “some types of knowledge (e.g., difficult in literature (e.g., mathematical knowledge) are knowledge.” (González et Britzman, 2000; Eppert, 2000) more aligned with or in artistic productions (e.g., communities of practice that al., 2005, para. 3) Eppert, 2002; Heybach, 2012; hold more power” (RiosSalverson, 2000), and how can Aguilar, Kiyama, Gravitt, & educators help their students to learn “not only Moll, 2011, p. 171), and, as a result, not all ‘funds’ of about, but from past lives and events” (Simon et al., knowledge have the requisite social or cultural 2000a, p. 6) in order to build more affectivelycapital to translate into currency in educational or, grounded pedagogies (Britzman, 2000)? A recent, conceivably, in community contexts. more bottom-up orientation to difficult knowledge Funds of (Difficult) Knowledge has asked: “When the funds of knowledge of a community include difficult knowledge that cannot It can be argued that knowledge deemed difficult or be spoken or that is unfamiliar to teachers, what can problematic has very little capital in educational teachers do with it?” (Marshall & Toohey, 2010, p. settings (Zipin, 2009). As Marshall and Toohey (2010) 238). This paper examines elements of the latter have recently pointed out, not all of the knowledge question. In my examination, I propose the term children bring into the classroom conforms to funds of (difficult) knowledge to account for the “school notions of appropriate conflict resolution, emotionally difficult chapters of one’s cultural secularity, gender equity, cultural authenticity, and heritage or migration story (cf. Zipin’s discussion of sunny childhoods” (p. 237), which raises questions dark knowledge, 2009). I have placed ‘difficult’ in about what should be done with this knowledge, and parentheses in order to recognize the mutable, how schools should address students’ subjectivities constructed and subjective nature of what is (New London Group, 2000). considered difficult. Traditionally, educators who have attempted to make a space for engaging with traumatic historical

Multimodality and Design

Becker, A. (2014)/Funds of (Difficult) Knowledge The focus on multimodality in education seems to have emerged alongside a major reconceptualization of literacy, away from the traditional, autonomous model (i.e., literacy as a discrete set of text-based skills) to the understanding that literacy practices are culturally and socially shaped, and are located within complex webs of local and global ideologies (Street, 1984). Multiliteracies scholars have taken this revolution a few steps further, theorizing literacy as an inherently multimodal and dynamic semiotic process, in which individuals from all cultural and linguistic backgrounds move between modes (synaesthesia) and draw on semiotic resources from their life worlds to transform these semiotic resources, in turn transforming themselves (Kalantzis & Cope, 2012; Kress & van Leeuwen, 2001; New London Group, 2000).

semiotic activity, including using language to produce or consume texts” (New London Group, 2000, p. 20) and is central to the multiliteracies conception of meaning-making. The concept has been divided into three interrelated and cyclical stages: available designs (the semiotic resources at hand for sense-making and meaning-making), designing (the use and subsequent transformation of semiotic resources), and the redesigned (the result of the meaning-making process, the production of new available designs) (Kalantzis & Cope, 2012; New London Group, 2000). A key part of the meaning-making process involves how individuals initially engage with the signs embedded within patterns of communication (designs). When engaging in meaning-making within our semiotic environments, Kalantzis and Cope (2012) distinguish between three processes: representation (telling yourself), communication (telling others), and interpretation (telling yourself what you think others mean) (p. 177). Representation is a particularly useful concept for investigating how individuals enter into the design cycle, or the point of initial contact with available designs; indeed, not all sense-making is immediately discernable by others. Both representation and interpretation refer to internal sense-making, concepts upon which I draw heavily in the discussion of results.

In step with the FoK agenda, multiliteracies scholars have called for a more dialogic and democratic relationship between home, community and school (Cummins & Early, 2011; Jewitt, 2008; New London Group, 2000). In their examination of the pedagogy of multiliteracies’ evolution since the New London Group first published its seminal educational manifesto in 1996, Cope and Kalantizis (2009) indicate that despite changes to particulars (e.g., technological advances and increased movement across borders), the manifesto’s original pillars stand strong today: “the centrality of diversity, the notion of Design as active meaning making, the significance of multimodality and the need for a more holistic approach to pedagogy” (p. 167). While the linguistic mode has traditionally predominated in schools, social semiotic theories highlight the need to recognize the broad spectrum of modes available in the human meaning-making process. Of relevance here is the point that different modes have different affordances, and so what might be the most apt mode for interpreting and communicating meaning in one situation, might not be in another (Kress, 1997).

As alluded to above, designing is essentially an identity project: “through these processes of Design,…meaning-makers remake themselves. They reconstruct and renegotiate their identities” (New London Group, 2000, p. 23). Every stage of the design process is motivated by the interests of the signmaker (Kress, 1997; Kress & Jewitt, 2003) and as such, the identities and habitus of the designer become sedimented into the texts they produce (the redesigned) and made perceptible (Cummins & Early, 2011; Rowsell & Pahl, 2007). Beginning with the selection of available designs, multimodal text making allows for the simultaneous designing and development of identities—an activity that in turn becomes a “sign of learning, a material trace of semiosis” (Jewitt, 2008, p. 259) located along a semiotic chain that can stretch across time, space, and relationships (Stein, 2003).

In contrast with more static visions of pedagogical processes, the notion of design has been proposed to highlight the dynamic, creative, and agentive potential of teaching and learning relationships; it holds that teachers and learners are designers of their learning, rather than merely distributors and recipients of curricula. Design refers broadly to “any

Journal of Language and Literacy Education Vol. 10 Issue 2 -- Fall 2014 Multimodal Knowledge

Engagements

with

Difficult

during the noisy reading period with their grandparents. The stories that the students collected varied in terms of form and content, but, notably, a number of them contained “gritty” details of their grandparents’ involvement in the Partition of India and Pakistan. The bilingual, multimodal texts that were produced to tell these stories contained drawings with images of machetes being plunged into people’s chests, guns being fired, and tears being cried. As a result, the content was deemed inappropriate for younger children, and remarkably, what was initially intended to be a bottom-up celebration of multiculturalism and multilingualism that would serve as a grassroots, multilingual literacy resource for the school’s younger learners never left a box in the older students’ classroom. As the authors point out, the study raises important questions regarding the cultural relativity of what is deemed appropriate knowledge for children, as the grandparents clearly did not feel that the content of their memories was too difficult for their minor-aged loved ones to hear. It also raises questions about the affordances of the multimodal for communicating “difficult” topics: Would the written texts have been perceived as less problematic if they had not been accompanied by “gritty” imagery?

While there exists a growing body of literature documenting the implementation of multiliteracies pedagogies in schools (e.g., Cummins & Early, 2011; Giampapa, 2010), my focus in this section will be on studies that have examined the intersection of multimodal literacy practices and difficult knowledge. Relatively few studies have probed this relationship, and those who have did not set out to examine it explicitly, but rather it became a salient theme during data analysis. Indeed, my search for “multiliteracies” or “multimodality” and “difficult knowledge” retrieved zero results from the databases ERIC and ProQuest (April 28, 2014). This apparent gap in the literature might be due in part to the fact that “the school curriculum does not have an adequate grasp of conflict in learning, either the conflict within the learner or the conflict within the knowledge itself” (Britzman, 2000, p. 37). In other words, researchers and educators alike remain unsure, if not uneasy, about how to address the difficult knowledge that is interwoven in students’ FoK. In a small way, the studies reviewed here point to the current status of our grasp of conflict in learning.

Along similar lines, Kendrick and McKay (2002) analyzed one boy’s drawing of literacy for its strikingly unusual and potentially difficult content within the context of school. When asked to draw an image of himself involved in reading or writing, Dustin, a fifth grade student, drew a buck hanging by its hind hooves with blood dripping from its neck and a smiling hunter (presumably a self-portrait) standing to the left of it. Of the drawing he wrote: “I shot my first buck with a doble barel shotgut. It is at my grapernts farm. My dad Helped me” (p. 50, Dustin’s spelling). Classroom observations and indepth follow up interviews revealed that Dustin had been keenly aware of the school’s zero-tolerance policy regarding violence, and as a result had made the drawing (and a prior one, depicting a gopher being shot) furtively. Indeed, he needed verbal reassurance from the researchers that his teacher would not see the drawing without his consent, and that he was welcome to draw whatever he wanted. The authors suggested that Dustin’s experience of hunting with key male members of his family only became difficult knowledge once it entered the

Multimodality and funds of (difficult) knowledge in classrooms. The impetus for the present study arose from reading Marshall and Toohey (2010). In the article, the authors conduct a critical discourse analysis of a multimodal, multilingual, intergenerational storytelling activity that an Anglo-Canadian teacher assigned to her fourth and fifth grade Sikh students in Vancouver. The teacher had initiated the storytelling activity because she noticed that the grandparents of young students in the school (the children’s primary caregivers in many cases) had been reluctant to participate in the school’s “noisy reading period” (a time when students’ caregivers were invited into the school to read with their pre-school- and kindergarten-aged kin) and she was looking for a way to make them feel welcome. Thus, she supplied her students with MP3 recorders and sent them out to record their grandparents’ FoK in whichever language they felt most comfortable, which the students would then translate into picture books to be used by kindergarten and first grade students

Becker, A. (2014)/Funds of (Difficult) Knowledge school, and that by adopting an official no-violence stance, the school ultimately “restricted his identity as a writer [and multimodal meaning-maker] at school, and failed to acknowledge how he positioned himself as a member of his family” (p. 53). Together with Britzman (2000) and Marshall and Toohey (2010), Kendrick and McKay (2002) remind us that “the world is redolent with people and topics that teachers may not want children to think about, but children do think about these topics because they live them” (pp. 54-55)—be they experienced first- or second-hand (Baum, 2000).

others that have considered difficult knowledge from diverse perspectives. These studies also provide a valuable glimpse at how difficult knowledge is manifested and addressed in home and school settings. This short review suggests that what might be considered “difficult” about a particular fund of knowledge depends to a large extent on the context in which it is received, and possibly even on the mode of its representation (e.g., visual versus textual). Marshall and Toohey’s (2010) study demonstrates how what is perceived as “difficult” about a community’s FoK can change as it moves across modes, generations, cultures, and educational institutions. Kendrick and McKay’s (2002) analysis of Dustin’s drawing reminds us that “difficult” knowledge is not unique to homes or communities that have experienced war or collective trauma, and that what might be perceived as a threat to the school’s officially condoned knowledges may stand at the very core of a young person’s developing identity. And finally, Pahl’s (2004) examination of Fatih’s birds as knots in the semiotic chain running across his complex life worlds calls our attention to the affordances of drawing to express difficult knowledge by appropriating symbols that have multiple connotations, and perhaps even to offer a form of liberation from personally difficult knowledge.

Multimodality and funds of (difficult) knowledge in the home. In the two preceding studies, students’ FoK became difficult only upon entering the school context (primarily as drawings) where topics related to violence were overtly unwelcome. Pahl’s (2004) examination of one young Turkish-British boy’s drawings of birds offers an alternative way of understanding the role of the multimodal as a semiotic resource for mediating different knowledges, namely that of personally difficult knowledge. With the objective of capturing their communicative practices in the home, Pahl made regular ethnographic visits to two London homes over the course of two years, one of which was that of five-year-old Fatih and his mother, Elif. Pahl provides a rich description of the ways in which Fatih’s constant drawings of birds emerged as part of a semiotic chain that spanned geographic spaces (e.g., happy memories of chickens in his grandparents’ farm in Turkey) and time (e.g., his last name was the name of a wild bird). But perhaps of most relevance to our discussion here is the range of affective and symbolic meanings that the bird connoted. On the one hand, the bird represented warm memories in his grandparents’ village, but on the other hand, according to his cousin, the bird could be interpreted as a symbol of freedom from “feeling trapped” by a home in which Fatih had witnessed domestic violence as a young child, and from which he and his mother had fled.

These studies all point to the complex nature of the visual, where depth of interpretation and understanding of the links in the designer’s semiotic chain may depend to a great extent on how well acquainted one is with the designer’s life worlds: Fatih’s birds carried both knowledge that was and wasn’t difficult, but determining what the bird symbolized in a given text seemed to depend on the viewer’s knowledge about Fatih’s family life. Similarly, Dustin’s drawing, like the drawings made by the fourth and fifth grade students in Marshall and Toohey’s (2010) study, became less difficult (albeit not less problematic) to teacher- or researcher-viewers when they were understood within the prescriptions of an assignment or official task. Nevertheless, even with this understanding, the students’ drawings were not allowed to circulate freely among the other students in the school, which underscores the incipient nature of our understanding of what to do with difficult

Linking multimodality and funds of (difficult) knowledge. Far from being a comprehensive review of studies concerned with the intersection of multimodal literacy practices and difficult knowledge, the studies summarized here provide a useful way of situating the present study among

Journal of Language and Literacy Education Vol. 10 Issue 2 -- Fall 2014 knowledge in institutional settings once it has been identified as such.

between identity, mode, and cognition (Kress, 1997). Nevertheless, the interview data do offer certain insights that will hopefully inspire future work in this area.

Multimodal activities can offer a freer, “unpoliced zone” (Stein, 2003, p. 124) for sense-making and meaning-making, but as the studies reviewed here show, the type of knowledge that the redesigned represents can determine the extent to which gatekeepers police them. In the case of Marshall and Toohey’s (2010) participants, a “policed” intervention meant keeping the redesigned in a box in the designers’ classroom, preventing it from reentering school’s broader design cycle as a new available design.

Data Collection and Analysis

Over the period of approximately one month (December, 2011 to January, 2012), I interviewed Victor twice, with interviews ranging between one and two hours each. Questions centered on themes of ethnic identity construction, political ideology and activism, and (heritage) language development. Following other interview-based studies with related objectives (Kanno, 2003; Kouritzin, 1999; Poyatos Method Matas & Cuatro Nochez, 2011), the data from the original study (Becker, 2013) were transcribed for Consistent with the methods of the three studies content and analyzed in an iterative, ongoing reviewed above, most literacy studies considering fashion, allowing for themes to emerge (Bogdan & children’s multimodal productions have employed Biklen, 1998; Ryan & Bernard, 2003). Themes were ethnographic methods in order to be able to peel generally identified by recurrent patterns in Victor’s back the accretive layers of meaning that children discourse, although sediment into their occasionally I noted designing/ text-making “significant meaning in a “I always say I’m a human being processes (e.g., Cummins single instance” (Stake, & Early, 2011; Lytra, 2012; first, then I’m a Latin American, 1995, p. 78). For the Rowsell & Pahl, 2007). The present study, I reand then maybe I’m a Chileno, data upon which the examined Victor’s following discussion is interview transcripts, but I don’t necessarily identify based, however, are from a looking for themes that larger study whose with the Chilean state either reflected the difficult objective was to probe, via contained because of the role that it has had knowledge semi-structured within his cultural FoK. interviews, the connection The original study to play in our colonialist history.” between the politicallyfollowed a pilot study I charged history of the (Victor, direct quote) conducted with different Chilean community in a families in the same Western Canadian city community in 2008 (see and the heritage language development of four of its Guardado & Becker, 2013). My fluency in Spanish in now-grown children (Becker, 2013). The original addition to multiple long-standing personal and study did not include official ethnographic professional connections helped me to develop a observations or document collection, so it is not level of rapport with community members from possible to examine the focal participant’s textdifferent generations, which greatly facilitated making beyond what he reported in the interview recruitment in both studies. data. The gaps left by the original methodology highlight both the indispensability of ethnographic The Focal Participant: Victor Sandoval methods when studying human identity construction Victor Sandoval’s father was the first of his family to and meaning-making, and the insufficiency of a flee the dictatorship in Chile, and his mother single mode (in this case, the linguistic) to obtain a followed some time later with Victor and his three truly textured understanding of the relationships

Becker, A. (2014)/Funds of (Difficult) Knowledge older brothers in 1976. He was two years old when he arrived in Canada. Prior to this study, I had met Victor at different community events in a Western Canadian city. Victor caught my attention because of his high level of activism and involvement in the local Latin American community there, although he was also involved in social and political activism in other communities. I approached him to participate in my study because I was curious about the ways in which political ideology had become a cultural trait in his Chilean community and the potential implications of this characteristic for Spanish language development in the second generation.

knowledge. While the excerpts presented here offer no tangible examples of the redesigned, as in text making (Cummins & Early, 2011; Rowsell & Pahl, 2007), it is nevertheless possible to glimpse the dynamics of multimodality and difficult knowledge in his reports of the initial sense-making stages of his design process, and how they helped shape his developing sense of self. Synaesthesia: “In my mother’s womb” Not four minutes into the first interview, Victor delved into one of his first and perhaps most difficult memories. He explained that the anger and pain this memory caused him was a driving force in all that he did, and that he chose to channel this anger in positive ways through artistic expression. The curious thing about this memory was that it was not his—not directly, anyway. His mother had been pregnant with him at the time that this memory was made, and he felt that the outrage that she felt that day was transmitted directly to him:

Spanish had been Victor’s first and dominant language until he entered daycare at age five, where English quickly became his dominant language. At the time of our first interview, he was in his midthirties and reported Spanish as his dominant language. He had travelled to Latin America several times and had taken some Spanish courses during his undergraduate degree. My interactions with him indicated that he was a highly proficient speaker, reader and writer of his heritage language. Despite having travelled to Chile, though, Victor had a complicated relationship with the contemporary culture he found there due to the capitalist turn he felt the society had taken since the Allende government was overthrown in 1973. He described his identity as such:

One of the common stories that always was kind of, that’s always been ingrained in my brain from a young time is that when my mother, when the military coup happened on September 11th, 1973 I was still in my mother’s womb. My mom tells me the story that a couple of days after the military coup, she actually went down to El Palacio de la Moneda [Chile’s Presidential Palace where the bombing to which Victor refers took place] [voice cracks with emotion] and walking in amongst the rubble she saw a soldier and she just was consumed by this anger of what had happened. And that story sticks with me today because I still feel an anger. It’s an anger and it’s a pain that it’s very hard to explain to people. And it’s a driving force for me for all the things that I do. I would say that it’s more, it’s more of a pain than an anger, but they’re related.…And it’s a lot, it’s very hard for Canadians who haven’t gone through the experience of a military coup like we have to understand that pain. Or why we’re angry. So I get it a lot, “Why are you angry, Victor? Why are you angry?” And one of my goals is to explain that anger through art. Whether it be through

I always say I’m human being first, then I’m a Latin American, and then maybe I’m a Chileno, but I don’t necessarily identify with the Chilean state either because of the role that it has had to play in our colonialist history. Discussion of Results The multimodal resources that Victor drew on as he encountered and then began to make sense of his community’s funds of (difficult) knowledge form an intertextual, semiotic chain that becomes perceptible by analyzing his narrative accounts. Throughout these excerpts, we can see that what made his knowledge difficult was defined by his own emotional responses to the content as presented in (and intensified by) multiple modes, as well as by how other people (e.g., his parents) experienced this

Journal of Language and Literacy Education Vol. 10 Issue 2 -- Fall 2014 lyrics of a song or through art itself, but I really look for ways of expressing how all of this is related, like how it all has made me the person I am today.

In this excerpt, our attention is called to the specific ways in which connections to the available designs of one’s funds of (difficult) knowledge can be made multimodally along more global semiotic chains, and that certain extra-linguistic modes can become preferred for both representing and communicating emotionally difficult topics in particular. By contrast, the bird icon in Fatih’s (Pahl, 2004) semiotic toolkit did not appear to serve a communicative function in the sense of transmitting the pain of his difficult knowledge to others, but instead may have had more representational, or internal significance. The difference in their multimodal experiences might have had to do with the different degrees of sharedness of their difficult knowledges: Victor’s difficult knowledge was shared with millions of other people (Britzman, 2000; Marshall & Toohey, 2010), while Fatih’s experience of domestic violence was more direct, localized and personalized.

According to Kalantzis and Cope (2012), “synaesthesia is the process of expressing a meaning in one mode, then another” (p. 195), but in the above excerpt, we can see how synaesthesia was integral not only to expressing/communicating meaning (designing and redesign) in his story, but also to Victor’s interpretation of available designs. Victor remembered being told, through language, the details of his mother’s painful memory, yet in highlighting his own physical situation within his mother at the time the memory was made, he insinuates that her anger was transmitted to him in a more embodied way. For Victor, the linguistic mode

“Being able to access his funds of (difficult) knowledge multimodally, through a documentary which contains visual, gestural, auditory, and linguistic designs, seemed to have affordances that allowed Victor to go beyond merely learning about ‘that time,’ and to enter into a kind of experience of it.”

Exploring Emotion with Film and Image From Victor’s comments, it becomes possible to see how we can talk about “most apt mode(s)” for communicating emotionally difficult knowledge, but also for representing and interpreting it: It’s like when you watch a documentary about La Unidad Popular [a collective of leftist political parties led by Salvador Allende] and you begin to see the happiness in people’s faces as they were fighting for their own rights as people, during La Unidad Popular, and to see it all come crashing down with a dictatorship, there’s this sense of solidarity I think that some youth feel. They want that. They want to go back to that time, even though it doesn’t exist, it doesn’t exist, but that’s what they’re looking for. They wanna be part of something that feels like that solidarity being expressed through that video by that person’s smile or face or something. And that’s what I identified with when I was growing up, like as I had mentioned the last time we got together, the book of murals, or photographs.

did not transmit the emotional force that now motivates “all the things that [he does]”; while his mother’s verbal retelling of this memory allowed him to connect to his own pre-natal, kinesthetic experience of being carried across the ruins of his homeland in the belly of his anguished mother, for him, the linguistic mode was not the most apt mode with which to communicate this experience (Kress, 1997), especially to those who had not experienced it (i.e., “Canadians”). Instead, to translate this emotionally difficult experience to others, Victor preferred non-linguistic modes such as “art itself,” or the linguistic embedded in auditory modes, as in the “lyrics of a song.”

Being able to access his funds of (difficult) knowledge multimodally, through a documentary which contains visual, gestural, auditory, and

Becker, A. (2014)/Funds of (Difficult) Knowledge linguistic designs, seemed to have affordances that allowed Victor to go beyond merely learning about “that time,” and to enter into a kind of experience of it (Britzman, 2000; Eppert, 2002; Simon et al, 2000a). As we can see in this excerpt, multimodal points of entry to this difficult yet defining moment in his diaspora community’s history became points of personal and social identification for Victor. In other words, Victor was able to identify with the content of his cultural group’s difficult history because it had been represented multimodally, and in turn, he came to identify not only with the historical events themselves, but also with their mode of representation.

the main driver of the ideas, it became art, and photographs. Echoing the previous excerpt, here Victor highlights the influential nature of the visual in accessing the available designs of his diaspora community and his ongoing identity designing. If the book in which the Chilean coup d’état was represented had not been “more of a picture book,” Victor felt that he may not have accessed this difficult knowledge at the age of 13. Thus, again we see how not only is it important to consider the most apt mode for communication, but Victor’s memories raise questions about the most apt mode for the reception, representation and interpretation of available designs (Kress & van Leeuwen, 2001)—processes that preclude the (re)designing stage of meaning-making, and that influence how we store and create memories. It would appear that semiotic resources, especially if their content is deemed problematic by gatekeepers (e.g., parents, teachers), are not equally available to young meaning-makers.

Due to the tremendous emotional anguish surrounding their flight from their home country, Victor’s parents “would never really talk about [what had happened in Chile].” In this sense, his parents acted as gatekeepers of their family’s funds of (difficult) knowledge because, in Victor’s words: “They wanted us to grow up happy. They wanted us to grow up not sheltered or grow up naive, but specifically not wanting to share the immensity of that pain with us.” Nevertheless, the memory that Victor’s mother shared with him “at a young age” in the first excerpt gained momentum as Victor grew older and found fragments of it embedded in the semiotic chain of his family’s and his community’s difficult past, manifest in images contained in a book at the local library, for instance:

Making Discursive Connections through Song The issue of accessibility is a recurrent theme in this analysis: not only accessing materials outside of the home (e.g., Canadian library books), in which available designs could be located, but also the ways in which Victor felt that the multimodal gained him access to deeper levels of understanding of and involvement with the issues. Even within the linguistic mode, Victor was able to distinguish between manifestations of language that were more accessible to him:

I was 13 years old when my mother took me to the [public library] and I ended up picking up my first book on what had happened in Chile.…[On] the very first page of this book was Salvador Allende on the balcony of the presidential palace, and the very last picture of the book is that same balcony after the bombing. So it gave you the entire history of Salvador Allende’s presidency through pictures, murals, and short little blurbs. So it was much more of a picture book, and that’s probably why I ended up picking it up at 13, right? But that book changed my life, because at that point the art of La Brigada Ramona Parra [the official muralist brigade of the Chilean communist party] became such an important thing. So here I am, a young chileno or, however I identified at that time, chileno-canadiense [Chilean-Canadian], and rather than language being

I remember reading the Communist Manifesto when I was like 16 years old, but not really understanding it as much as I understood a song about Silvio [Rodriguez, see Fischlin, 2003; Nandorfy, 2003].…I think that language is a big thing, like the type of like, the discourse.…The discourse [in the song] is much more—it’s an everyday discourse. That is more accessible. Where the linguistic mode was present in Victor’s sense making, it was often complemented (or even overshadowed) by other modes.

Journal of Language and Literacy Education Vol. 10 Issue 2 -- Fall 2014 Jewitt (2008) has posited that “all modes are partial.…no one mode stands alone in the process of making meaning” (p. 247), and music is a common example of the confluence of modes (auditory, linguistic, and even gestural or spatial) to make up a whole (van Leeuwen, 1999). In the following excerpt we can see how the emotional weight of a particular song made it inaccessible to Victor’s father, and yet the difficult cultural knowledge that this song carried became an available design which Victor welcomed as he consciously engaged in the (re)designing of his community’s future:

emotion to inform our understanding of this choice here (West, 2009), it is not insignificant that Victor chose to sing these lyrics to me in the interview. Nevertheless, that he sang them and became visibly and audibly distressed in his performance suggests that the elements of melody and rhythm that carry the lyrics contributed to the affective weight of the linguistic components, corroborating Kress’ (1997) contention that different modes enable different forms of cognition and affect.

My family was more private than most families. We weren’t always involved in everything that the rest of the community was doing and I think that that comes with, that was a result of the incredible pain that I already explained that my father also felt. Like for example my father couldn’t listen to, for example, the Himno de La Unidad Popular [Hymn of the Popular Unity Party] in our house because it brought back too many memories [voice cracks with emotion]. And the fact that you know in that song it says [singing] “Venceremos, venceremos” right? “mil cadenas habrá que romper. [We will triumph, we will triumph…a thousand chains will have to be broken]” [Voice cracks as he begins to speak again] The reality is that we lost. We lost everything. So it’s hard to listen to that song. Even though it, you know like, you know, culturally speaking music and art and all of that contributes to this progressive political culture of who we are, sometimes it’s difficult to look at the murals [voice cracks]. It’s difficult to listen to the music. It’s difficult to hear the poems being recited. Because of that pain. But at the same time it’s a driving force to help us moving toward the future.

In the foregoing analysis, I employed the multiliteracies notion of design in a close examination of one man’s reported sense-making process while engaging with the difficult elements in the FoK of his family history as part of a Chilean diaspora community. Although Victor was no longer a student at the time of the interviews, his retrospective accounts shed light on (immigrant) students’ access to difficult aspects of their FoK. By combining the concepts of design and funds of (difficult) knowledge, this paper was able to uncover that individuals may have differential access to the range of available designs in their FoK—that they haven’t necessarily “lived with them since [they] were born” (Kalantzis & Cope, 2012, p. 183), but perhaps alongside them.

Conclusion

As concerns elements of cultural heritage that gatekeepers, such as Victor’s parents, find personally difficult, young people might be purposefully kept away from punctuations on the community’s semiotic chain that are deemed difficult (e.g., images, documentaries) until they are thought to be old enough to access these painful designs. Victor was 13 before he learned, primarily via the images in a book, about “what happened in Chile”—in other words, before he learned the full(er) story behind his family’s exile and gained access to a wider range of available designs related to it. Perhaps because of the official policies that schools purport, we often think of institutions and teachers as gatekeepers managing the flow of knowledge, but this paper suggests that parents, as other authority figures in children’s lives, also manage their children’s access to and engagement with certain available designs. This point raises questions regarding whose vision of

Although it might be said that the tragic irony of the lyrics was what made listening to this song too difficult for Victor’s father, it is worth asking what role the auditory played in intensifying the emotional difficulty of the song for Victor’s father, and in making it accessible to Victor (see Baum, 2000, for a discussion of second-generation witnessing). Although there exists little research on the relationship between sound (design) and

Becker, A. (2014)/Funds of (Difficult) Knowledge childhood schools should follow (Marshall & Toohey, 2010).

might want to highlight while attempting to make curricular content relevant for their learners. Just as we, as teachers, may no longer restrict ourselves to monomodal, text-based forms of meaning-making in schools, so too must we be critical of the ways in which hegemonic policies dictate which knowledges count (Oughton, 2010; Rios-Aguilar et al, 2011) and subsequently, the extent to which children and youth will be welcome to bring their multifaceted selves into their education (Kendrick & McKay, 2002; New London Group, 2000).

The findings of this study corroborate Pitt and Britzman’s (2003) contention that knowledge becomes difficult when it breaks with the knowledge with which one is most comfortable. Knowledge can become difficult at the personal level (e.g., Victor’s knowledge of the injustices that transpired in Chile and Fatih’s knowledge of violence in the family), but also at the institutional level (e.g., the zero-tolerance policy regarding violence in Dustin’s school). Advocates for incorporating students’ FoK in the classroom “perceive the students’ community, and its FoK, as the most important resource for reorganizing instruction in ways that ‘far exceed’ the limits of current schooling” (Moll & Greenberg, 1990, p. 345), but the question remains of how to include these FoK if they include difficult knowledge (Marshall & Toohey, 2010)—knowledge that parents and students alike may or may not feel comfortable about seeing represented at school.

This study’s findings also contribute to current work on multiliteracies and multimodality (Cummins & Early, 2011; Giampapa, 2010) by pointing to the potential value of multimodality to unlock difficult knowledge (e.g., Marshall & Toohey, 2010; Mutonyi & Kendrick, 2011), and thereby make it available for appropriation, as an available design, in students’ semiotic toolkits. Music and images in books, for instance, can represent elements of culture or cultural practices that contain difficult knowledge, and as such deserve serious consideration for their role in validating and deepening engagement with student subjectivities. Indeed, the effects of multimodal engagement can echo back to the child’s multiple life worlds, as we saw in Victor’s comments about his desire to build a better future as a result of coming into contact with this difficult knowledge multimodally.

While school policies have a clear role in policing which knowledges are deemed problematic in the classroom, critics of “sunny childhood” pedagogies (Britzman, 2000; Marshall & Toohey, 2010; Simon et al, 2000b) and also of FoK (Rios-Aguilar et al., 2011) have posited: “Teachers need to engage in critical thinking and participate in a constructive dialogue that challenges their misperceptions” (p. 171) in order for the truly democratic goals of FoK approaches to be realized. Oughton (2010) asks, pointedly:

Comparing the diminished synaesthetic ability of adults to that of children, Kress (1997) writes: “What is suppressed is not absent, of course” (p. 39)—a sentiment that echoes the suppression of difficult knowledge in classrooms (Kendrick & McKay, 2002), communities, and homes. The funds of (difficult) knowledge that children are obligated to suppress at school are not necessarily suppressed elsewhere (Marshall & Toohey, 2010)—but as the foregoing analysis shows, they might be. In the epigraph, Aguilera and Fredes (2006) suggest that in some cases, merely acknowledging this suppression might be the first step towards healing in/and learning (also see Simon et al., 2000b). Although this study was not conducted in a school setting with children, Victor’s retrospective accounts may serve as a window into the ways that youth whose FoK contain difficult knowledge might begin to engage multimodally with the difficult aspects of their

If we, as teachers or researchers, feel entitled to arbitrate what 'counts' as valid and useable funds of knowledge, are we not replacing one set of cultural arbitraries (the approved curriculum) with another (our own well-intentioned but value-laden judgments)?…The teacher or researcher who is committed to a funds of knowledge approach needs to be highly reflexive and (self)-critical as they attempt to arbitrate which funds of knowledge to draw on in the classroom. (p. 73) The issue of which knowledges ‘count’ is one of which educators will have to be mindful as they acquire more education surrounding the funds of (difficult) knowledge that their students and their students’ families bring to the classroom, or that they

Journal of Language and Literacy Education Vol. 10 Issue 2 -- Fall 2014 cultural heritage, as they “face the past” and begin to carve out resilient identities. It is hoped that this finding will be useful in raising awareness among teachers and researchers who seek to engage deeply with the emotional complexity inherent in students’ FoK.

spirit. The benefits of including funds of (difficult) knowledge in classrooms are, then, also for families, communities and schools to decide. Nevertheless, whatever their decisions may be regarding what to do with the ‘difficult,’ in the end, those FoK that remain hidden or inaccessible simply cannot be a resource for learning (Moll & Greenberg, 1990) or for designing social futures (New London Group, 2000). As teachers and researchers, it behooves us to take stock of which knowledges we privilege, which ones remain tucked away in libraries or in boxes at the back of classrooms, and to be ever cognizant of our reasons for including or excluding both.

There can be no fixed guidelines signaling whether or when to address the “difficult” in a student’s FoK. The FoK agenda was conceived in a spirit of collaboration between households and schools, families and teachers (González et al., 2005), and addressing the potentially difficult elements of students’ FoK should be conducted in the same

Acknowledgements I am deeply indebted to Dr. Maureen Kendrick for her encouragement and incisive comments on earlier drafts of this paper, and to Dr. Elizabeth Marshall and Dr. Kelleen Toohey for writing the article that inspired it. I would also like to thank the two anonymous reviewers and the editors of JoLLE for their thoughtful and constructive feedback. Lastly, I gratefully acknowledge the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada for their financial support of the larger study upon which this paper is based.

Becker, A. (2014)/Funds of (Difficult) Knowledge

References

Aguilera, P., & Fredes, R. (2006). Introducción [Introduction]. In P. Aguilera, R. Fredes, & A. Dorfman (Eds.), Chile: El otro 11 de septiembre [Chile: The other September 11th] (pp. vii-x). Melbourne, Australia: Ocean Press. Baum, R. N. (2000). Never to forget: Pedagogical memory and second-generation witness. In R. I. Simon, S. Rosenberg, & C. Eppert (Eds.), Between hope and despair: Pedagogy and the remembrance of historical trauma (pp. 91-116). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Becker, A. (2013). Political ideology and heritage language development in a Chilean exile community: A multiple case study. Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Full Text. (1319949546.) Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (1998). Qualitative research in education (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Britzman, D. P. (1998). Lost subjects, contested objects: Toward a psychoanalytic inquiry of learning. Albany, NY: SUNY Press. Britzman, D. P. (2000). If the story cannot end: Deferred action, ambivalence, and difficult knowledge. In R. I. Simon, S. Rosenberg, & C. Eppert (Eds.), Between hope and despair: Pedagogy and the remembrance of historical trauma (pp. 27-57). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (2009). “Multiliteracies”: New literacies, new learning. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 4(3), 164-195. Cummins, J., & Early, M. (Eds.). (2011). Identity texts: The collaborative creation of power in multilingual schools. Staffordshire, UK: Trentham Books. Dorfman, A. (2006). El último once de septiembre [The last September 11th]. In P. Aguilera, R. Fredes, & A. Dorfman (Eds.), Chile: El otro 11 de septiembre [Chile: The other September 11th] (pp. 1-5). Melbourne, Australia: Ocean Press. Eppert, C. (2000). Relearning questions: Responding to the ethical address of past and present others. In R. I. Simon, S. Rosenberg, & C. Eppert (Eds.), Between hope and despair: Pedagogy and the remembrance of historical trauma (pp. 213-230). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Eppert, C. (2002). Entertaining history: (Un)heroic identifications, apt pupils, and an ethical imagination. New German Critique, 86, 71-101. Fischlin, D. (2003). Human rights, resistant sounds, and the politics of music making. In A. Heble & D. Fischlin (Eds.). Rebel musics: Human rights, resistant sounds, and the politics of music making (pp. 10-43). Montréal, Canada: Black Rose Books. Giampapa, F. (2010). Multiliteracies, pedagogy and identities: Teacher and student voices from a Toronto elementary school. Canadian Journal of Education, 33(2), 407-431. González, N., Moll, L. C., & Amanti, C. (Eds.) (2005). Funds of knowledge: Theorizing practices in households, communities, and classrooms. [Kindle version]. Retrieved from http://www.amazon.ca.

Journal of Language and Literacy Education Vol. 10 Issue 2 -- Fall 2014

Guardado, M., & Becker, A. (2013). Fostering heritage languages and diasporic identities: The role of grassroots initiatives in Alberta and British Columbia. In C. Mady & K. Arnett (Eds.), Minority populations in second language education: Broadening the lens from Canada (pp. 55-70). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Greenberg, J. B. (1989, April). Funds of knowledge: Historical constitution, social distribution, and transmission. Paper presented at the annual meetings of the Society for Applied Anthropology, Santa Fe, NM. Heybach, J. (2012). Learning to feel what we see: Critical aesthetics and “difficult knowledge” in an age of war. Critical Questions in Education. 3(1), 23-34. Jewitt, C. (2008). Multimodality and literacy in school classrooms. Review of Research in Education, 32(1), 241-267. Kalantzis, M., & Cope, B. (2012). Literacies. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Kanno, Y. (2003). Negotiating bilingual and bicultural identities: Japanese returnees betwixt two worlds. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Kendrick, M., & McKay, R. (2002). Uncovering literacy narratives through children's drawings. Canadian Journal of Education/Revue canadienne de l'education. 27(1), 45-60. Kouritzin, S. G. (1999). Face[t]s of first language loss. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Kress, G. (1997). Before writing: Rethinking the paths to literacy. London, UK: Routledge. Kress, G., & Jewitt, C. (2003). Introduction. In C. Jewitt & G. Kress, (Eds.), Multimodal literacy (pp. 1-18). New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishers. Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (2001). Multimodal discourse: The modes and media of contemporary communication. London, UK: Hodder Education. Lytra, V. (2012). Multilingualism and multimodality. In M. Martin-Jones, A. Blackledge, & A. Creese (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of multilingualism (pp. 521-538). London, UK: Routledge. Marshall, E., & Toohey, K. (2010). Representing family: Community funds of knowledge, bilingualism, and multimodality. Harvard Educational Review, 80(2), 221-242. Moll, L. C. (1992). Bilingual classroom studies and community analysis: Some recent trends. Educational Researcher, 21(2), 20-24. doi:10.2307/1176576 Moll, L. C., & Greenberg, J. (1990). Creating zones of possibilities: Combining social contexts for instruction. In L. C. Moll (Ed.), Vygotsky and education (pp. 319-348). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Mutonyi, H., & Kendrick, M. E. (2011). Cartoon drawing as a means of accessing what students know about HIV/AIDS: An alternative method. Visual Communication, 10(2), 231-249. Nandorfy, M. (2003). The right to live in peace: Freedom and social justice in the songs of Violeta Parra and Victor Jara. In A. Heble & D. Fischlin (Eds.), Rebel musics: Human rights, resistant sounds, and the politics of music making (pp. 170-210). Montréal, Canada: Black Rose Books.

Becker, A. (2014)/Funds of (Difficult) Knowledge

New London Group (2000). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. In B. Cope & M. Kalantzis (Eds.), Multiliteracies: Learning and the design of social futures (pp. 9- 37). London, UK: Routledge. Oughton, H. (2010). Funds of knowledgeâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;a conceptual critique. Studies in the Education of Adults, 42(1), 63-78. Pahl, K. (2004). Narratives, artifacts and cultural identities: An ethnographic study of communicative practices in homes. Linguistics and Education, 15(4), 339-358. Pitt, A., & Britzman, D. (2003). Speculations on qualities of difficult knowledge in teaching and learning: An experiment in psychoanalytic research. Qualitative Studies in Education, 16(6), 755-776. Poyatos Matas, C., & Cuatro Nochez, L. (2011). Reluctant migrants: Socialization patterns among Salvadorian children. In K. Potowski & J. Rothman (Eds.), Bilingual youth: Spanish in Englishspeaking societies (pp. 309-330). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins. Rios-Aguilar, C., Kiyama, J. M., Gravitt, M., & Moll, L. C. (2011). Funds of knowledge for the poor and forms of capital for the rich? A capital approach to examining funds of knowledge. Theory and Research in Education, 9(2), 163-184. Rowsell, J., & Pahl, K. (2007). Sedimented identities in texts: Instances of practice. Reading Research Quarterly, 42(3), 388-404. Ruiz, W. (2006). Latin Americans. In The Canadian Encyclopedia. Retrieved from http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/latin-americans/ Ryan, G. W., & Bernard, H. R. (2003). Techniques to identify themes. Field Methods, 15(1), 85-109. Salverson, J. (2000). Anxiety and contact in attending to a play about land mines. In R. I. Simon, S. Rosenberg, & C. Eppert (Eds.), Between hope and despair: Pedagogy and the remembrance of historical trauma (pp. 59-74). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Shayne, J. D. (2009). They used to call us witches: Chilean exiles, culture, and feminism. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books. Simon, R. I., Rosenberg, S., & Eppert, C. (2000a). Introduction. In R. I. Simon, S. Rosenberg, & C. Eppert (Eds.), Between hope and despair: Pedagogy and the representation of historical trauma (pp. 1-8). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Simon, R. I., Rosenberg, S., & Eppert, C. (Eds.). (2000b). Between hope and despair: Pedagogy and the representation of historical trauma. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Stein, P. (2003). The Olifantsvlei fresh stories project: Multimodality, creativity and fixing in the semiotic chain. In C. Jewitt & G. Kress (Eds.), Multimodal literacy (pp. 123-138), New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishers. Street, B. V. (1984). Literacy in theory and practice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. van Leeuwen, T. (1999). Speech, music, sound. Hampshire, UK: Macmillan Press.

Journal of Language and Literacy Education Vol. 10 Issue 2 -- Fall 2014

West, T. (2009). Music and designed sound. In C. Jewitt (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of multimodal analysis (pp. 284-292), London, UK: Routledge. Wright, T. C., & OnĚ&#x192;ate, R. (1998). Flight from Chile: Voices of exile. Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico Press. Zipin, L. (2009). Dark funds of knowledge, deep funds of pedagogy: Exploring boundaries between lifeworlds and schools. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 30(3), 317-331.

Social Justice through Literacy: Integrating Digital Video Cameras in Reading Summaries and Responses Rong Liu John A. Unger Vicki A. Scullion ABSTRACT: Drawing data from an action-oriented research project for integrating digital video cameras into the reading process in pre-college courses, this study proposes using digital video cameras in reading summaries and responses to promote critical thinking and to teach social justice concepts. The digital video research project is founded on Vygotskian and semiotic theoretical approaches. A qualitative analysis of the method and a demonstration of its processes and benefits are provided using exemplar cases. Students practice critical thinking skills, including analysis, synthesis, and evaluation components, in multiple phases of the activity. Social justice issues are addressed through literacy as students analyze editorials from newspapers and respond to state a position and provide support. Synthesizing summaries and evaluating editorials in order to write a personal response can promote both critical thinking and awareness of social justice issues. Key words: Social Justice, Literacy, Digital Video Cameras, Critical Thinking, Reading Summaries & Responses, EAP/ESL

Rong Liu, Ph.D. is an Assistant Professor of English for Academic Purposes at Georgia Gwinnett College, in Lawrenceville, Georgia, USA. His research interests focus on language processing and using technology in second language reading and writing. He can be contacted at: rliu@ggc.edu.

John A. Unger, Ph.D. is an Associate Professor of English for Academic Purposes at Georgia Gwinnett College in Lawrenceville, Georgia, USA. His research interests revolve around integrating digital video cameras and other digital tools into the reading and writing process.

Vicki A. Scullion, Ed. S. is a specialist in curriculum and instruction and a certified K-12 English teacher. Her current research centers on designing effective literacy lessons that incorporate technology for adult English for Academic Purposes students.

Journal of Language and Literacy Education Vol. 10 Issue 2 -- Fall 2014 Michelle M. Falter, Editor -- http://jolle.coe.uga.edu

Journal of Language and Literacy Education Vol. 10 Issue 2 -- Fall 2014

“Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly affects all indirectly” (King, Jr., 1964, p. 79). One way educators can cultivate students’ awareness and understanding of social justice issues is through literacy, i.e., incorporating social justice into the reading and writing curriculum (Halcrow, 1990). This paper explores and presents findings on one method— social justice through literacy: integrating digital video cameras into reading summaries and responses.

a problem that they have learned about through literacy activities helps to make these experiences more authentic” (Duke, Purcell-Gates, Hall, & Tower, 2006).

Burden and Kuechel (2004) found that digital video creation improved students’ conceptual understanding of higher order thinking and critical discrimination skills. Moreover, the digital recordings and archived written summaries and responses allow teachers, students, and researchers to revisit specific moments in the process for a variety of assessments. Other benefits of using digital video are: enhanced motivation, development of Using digital video cameras in reading courses is a group work, media and visual literacy skills, critical potentially effective avenue for addressing social and reflective thinking and self-esteem benefits justice issues while at the same time emphasizing (BECTA, 2003; Greene & Crespi, 2012; Theodosakis, basic summarizing strategies and the use of 2001; Yildiz, 2003). Most of the findings, however, are transition words and primarily at the phrases for specific secondary or expository patterns, such as elementary level (Hofer the argumentation& Owings Swan, 2005). persuasion pattern taught Furthermore, although “Injustice anywhere is a threat in this study. For the data many studies have presented in this and other examined the potential to justice everywhere. We are related papers, students of digital video projects, caught in an inescapable were guided into writing no study has proposed network of mutuality, tied in a summaries and responses and analyzed as a part of academic integrating digital video single garment of destiny. writing objectives. As a first cameras into the Whatever affects one directly step toward meeting these production of reading objectives, students chose summaries and affects all indirectly” (King, Jr., and read editorials on social responses to address 1964, p. 79) justice topics, including social justice issues. drug issues as well as This study will describe lesbian, gay, bisexual, and a method in which transgender (LGBT) rights. students use digital video cameras in a pre-college reading course to To integrate the digital video cameras into the promote literacy, social justice, and critical thinking. summarization and response process, students video recorded their summaries and responses according Research Questions to customized guidelines (see Appendix A). The This case study is descriptive in nature. The focus is digital recordings and the entire process aimed at on the process features of interaction by following a providing opportunities for students to self-assess well-known fundamental of studying human their comprehension and develop their social justice interaction proposed by Russian psychologist Lev awareness. The response component grants students Vygotsky: a chance to voice their own opinions on the social justice topic they chose and to defend their positions with supporting details. “Taking action on an issue or

Liu, R, Unger, J. A., & Scullion, V. A. (2014)/Social Justice through Literacy To study something historically means to study it in the process of change . . . .To encompass in research the process of a given thing’s development in all its phases and changes—from birth to death— fundamentally means to discover its nature, its essence, for 'it is only in movement that a body shows what it is'. (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 64-65, italics in original).

2. What evidence does the data present for the development of participants’ social justice awareness? 3. What evidence does the data present for enhancing critical thinking among students during the procedure? Theoretical Approach

Because video data and digital resources are available to disseminate raw data, readers, students, teachers, other researchers, and readers from the broader general population can gain a more profound understanding of student interaction with text than when studies are presented with layers of interpretation without transparency. Although subjectivity and interpretation is built into any investigative endeavor, the least amount of interpretation can be promoted by sharing the data as with the current paper and other related studies (see Unger & Liu, 2013; Unger & Scullion, 2013); specifically, the video data shows language and thinking occurring as these communicative events unfold “right before one’s eyes” (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 61). This broad Vygotskian, qualitative, actionoriented research design has proved ideal, particularly for systematically integrating new tools into the reading and writing process, making adjustments based on empirical data and collaborative analyses.

This case study broadly follows case study and action research guidelines proposed by Stringer (2014) and Yin (2009). To understand the data and effectively apply an action-based case study approach to integrating digital video into the classroom, as mentioned previously, researchers use older as well as more current Vygotskian and semiotic theoretical approaches to investigate the development of sign systems across cases. Specifically, seven related accessible terms and concepts are available to describe and analyze the data. These are: signification, mediation, the act of pointing, (Kita, 2003; Tomasello, 2003; Vygotsky, 1978), the concepts of intention-reading and Joint Attentional Frames (Tomasello, 2003), and the idea of multimodal literacy with an emphasis on the quality of design (Kress, 2003). Signification and Mediation A place to start understanding the terms mentioned above is from the term signification and the oftencited reference to tying a knot in a piece of string to represent something (Vygotsky, 1978). Imagine an early sheepherder trying to count her flock. After she ran out of fingers and toes, she would have to use some part of her surroundings to count. To follow the Vygotskian example, suppose this sheepherder tied a knot in a piece of string to represent five sheep; she created a sign (see also Peirce, 1990; Eco, 1976). She is then able to use the knots as a tool for counting, which enables her to plan when to rotate pastures or show someone how many sheep she has without being physically present. The knot, as five sheep, becomes a part of a complex sign system that will become inseparable from her memory and planning. Signification, a process germane to human cognition and language (Peirce, 1991; van Lier, 2004) refers to the activity of assigning meaning to the world, as with the knots representing five sheep.

Qualitative research is for “research problems in which you do not know the variables and need to explore” (Creswell, 2005, p. 45). Because of the descriptive nature of this exploratory study, research questions often change and can be adjusted to reflect the data collected (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). One such question arose after students commented that the digital video activity deepened their critical thinking about many issues they read, which prompted the researchers to find more evidence. Because this paper’s focus is on documenting evidence of social justice awareness and critical thinking as students participate in the activity, the research questions in the study are: 1. What processes in video-making promote literacy (reading comprehension, language skills, writing responses)?

Journal of Language and Literacy Education Vol. 10 Issue 2 -- Fall 2014 A very important part of understanding this perspective on human learning and development, particularly in the adult literacy classroom and with the data presented here, is that once a sign has been created, as with the knot and sheepherder, the sign mediates mental activity affecting the mental states of self and others as human communication and planning unfolds. These signs and sign systems become resources for concrete and abstract interactions of human activity with the world (Davydov, 1999; Vygotsky, 1978; Wertsch, 1998; Wells, 1999; van Leeuwen, 2005).

adult might even say “time to change the diaper.” The baby reads the adult’s intention as “changing the diaper” and an expected sequence of events will follow. Tomasello contrasts this scenario with one in which the adult comes into the room with a toy, and as the baby follows the adult’s gaze to the toy, the adult might say “time to play,” and an expected series of events might follow that involve playing with the toy. A triadic is created as the adult and the child are focused on an object that is represented by a specific word and activity; the child reads the intentions of the adult through this sign creation process, and this intention-reading provides the foundation for the way humans collaborate in a more profound way than any other species. Humans read the intentions of others through these kinds of triadic events, and, through this process, internalize the mental states of others; in this way, humans can understand the perspectives and feelings of others more completely and intimately than other species.

For analyzing and understanding the data presented in this paper and for understanding how to most effectively position students, language, digital video cameras, and the visuals to create meaning, the interrelated process of signification and mediation are central to understanding how students are creating meaning. Most important for this study is how mediation and signification comprise the continual process of sign creation (i.e., semiosis see Kress, 2003; Robbins, 2003). However, to extend these older foundational ideas through more recent theories and findings on human activity with signs and to make these ideas more practical for instruction, the directions for students are to prompt them to create acts of signification for an audience. This process generates a triadic arrangement of speaker to audience that mimics an idealized version of a Joint Attentional Frame (Tomasello, 2003; see also Unger & Liu, 2013; Unger & Scullion, 2013).

Most important for the process of integrating digital video cameras into the adult writing/reading classroom is guiding this natural process to enhance acts of signification. Specifically, this enhancement is via the way students present concrete as well as abstract ideas and intentions to audiences through oral, written, and multi-modal text as they summarize articles on social justice issues and argue a specific position in response. The directions presented to the students intend to create this same kind of idealized triadic as an early, integral step in the writing process. An important part of creating this triadic where attention and intentions are shared is some manner of pointing, such as in the example where the baby follows the adult’s gaze to the diaper or the toy. The act of pointing appears in other areas of research on human learning and development and is an important part of the signification process unfolding in the data.

Joint Attentional Frames and Intention Reading Tomasello’s (2003) concept of a Joint Attentional Frame describes a frame of reference for communicative activity that is more contextually pronounced and profound than might be envisioned by students and literacy educators. For students, teachers, and researchers, the idea of a Joint Attentional Frame provides an accessible way to conceptualize interaction as a semiotically grounded triadic to evaluate the way that interlocutors enact communicative events.

The Act of Pointing In addition to the obvious importance of pointing in creating Joint Attentional Frames and enhancement of intention-reading, the act of pointing is an established part of research on learning, development, and communication (Kita, 2003; Goodwin, 2003; McNeill, 2005; Tomasello, 2003). Tomasello describes the situation of a person who

To paraphrase this explanation from Tomasello (2003), suppose an adult comes into a room with a diaper in her hand. The adult looks at the diaper, the baby follows the adult’s gaze to the diaper, and the

Liu, R, Unger, J. A., & Scullion, V. A. (2014)/Social Justice through Literacy does not speak the local language in a train station in a foreign country. If questions are asked far away from the ticket booth, the person asking for directions might be idly pointing in the general cardinal direction of one thing or another, but nothing specific. Now suppose the traveler stands next to a ticket booth with a clock and destination names clearly displayed. The traveler can point to specific concrete items in the immediate context. This example weaves pointing into a complex textual activity system of language and intentions; pointing becomes as inseparable as any other part of the interaction (i.e., signification and mediation). When this concept extends across different modes, such as speech and writing, and then connects to image, light, and sound, these ideas can be moved on the specifics of communicative events between speaker/writer/text designers, the audience, and sharing intentions to see the importance of multimodal literacy and the concept of communicative proficiency as a matter of design, which is salient in the data and in any 21st century communicative event. “The world of

Speech, the Visual, and the Act of Pointing: A Framework for Evaluation Initially, these three modalities of speech, the visual, with chunks of language on the visual (see Figure One), and the act of pointing, are positioned as follows: 1) speech—students create an oral, videorecorded presentation of their summaries; 2) a visual—students create a poster, often with specific graphic organizer styles such as tree diagrams, concept maps, matrices, or flow diagrams, to emphasize different reading paths (Kress, 2003). A parallel aim here is to prompt students to the awareness of white-space and the size and color of letters that frame chunks of language (averaging four to seven word chunks). And 3) the act of pointing— the teacher prompts students to use their hands or long twenty-four inch pointers to point to chunks of language on the visual.

By identifying speech, visuals, chunks of written text, and the act of pointing as communication is interrelated, accessible units of Literacy as Design now constituted in ways that reference for make it imperative to highlight According to Kress (2003), students, teachers, “The world of communication and researchers, the the concept of design, rather is now constituted in ways long-term objective than concepts such as that make it imperative to is to provide all acquisition, or competence, or highlight the concept of stakeholders with the design, rather than concepts ability to evaluate critique” (Kress, 2003, p. 36) such as acquisition, or precisely how to competence, or critique” (p. create meaning. 36). For these classroom Through these activities, three different accessible units of identifiable resources are reference observed emphasized for students, teachers, and researchers, during purposeful design, specific features and as reference areas to developmentally track the variables in the process can be linked to outcomes, creation of meaning. The ultimate goal for this part although any quantitative measuring of variables is of the ongoing research is to involve all stakeholders in the future. with accessible reference areas in the data that act as The Triadic, the Design Process, and Critical units of analyses. These tentative units of analyses to Thinking track the process of literacy as design are speech, the visual, and the act of pointing. These units are acting as reference areas for the initial sharing of raw data through hyperlinks.

During this process of arranging resources in a triadic manner, the teacher prompts the students to examine the precise meaning they want to create and

Journal of Language and Literacy Education Vol. 10 Issue 2 -- Fall 2014 convey, to synthesize salient information, and to evaluate their arguments (Kress, 2003; Unger & Scullion, 2013). These are all core processes in critical thinking, defined by Scriven and Paul (1987) as “the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action” (Defining Critical Thinking section, para. 3). The exemplar cases presented here illustrate students engaged in a disciplined, formal process that can teach and strengthen multiple critical thinking skills (Elder, 2007; Paul & Elder, 2005; Scriven & Paul, 1987).

Many of the participants are first generation immigrants who are underprepared for college and live at a low-income level. Generally, the overall context of these students’ lives is that they are truly living social justice issues: many have children and are working part-time, some work full time, and many are from war-torn places where formal academic schooling was not available. Overall, schooling and a basic critical thinking curriculum are not a part of many of these students’ backgrounds, though specifics of these issues are beyond the focus of the current study. Participants’ instructional needs overlap in two broad areas: they are generally English as a Second Language students, learning the dialect of academic English, and they are developmental students with regards to their formal schooling. Specifically, students develop critical thinking strategies, that is, the ability to follow direction, put together information, evaluate information, and use all of the specific features evident in the literature on developmental learners (Perin, Bork, Perverly, & Mason, 2013; see also Higbee, 2012).

One of Paul and Elder’s (2005) critical thinking principles focuses on “intellectual autonomy,” a process of independently deciding “what to believe and what to reject” (Standard Seventeen Performance Indicators section, para. 1). This aspect of critical thinking is important when people such as teachers present students with social justice issues. In this case study, students are challenged to “avoid passively or mindlessly accepting the beliefs of others” by responding to an editorial about a current world problem (Standard Seventeen Outcomes section, para. 2). Integrating the teaching of literacy and critical thinking skills about social justice issues with a digital video element has not been researched; the intent of this case study is to present one method of combining the two components.

The main textual prompts for the process and outcomes are newspaper editorials (opinion articles), which are ideal reading materials for emphasizing students’ social justice awareness because many articles focus on social justice topics and present authors’ perspectives and arguments; these arguments may or may not be in line with students’ views. The specific directions to produce the data:

Current Case Study

1. Find an editorial focusing on social justice (many topics are provided). Example topics are: poverty, unequal education funding, crime and incarceration, health issues, gambling, homelessness, illegal immigration, identity theft, juvenile crime justice, child abuse and sexual molestation, drug safety, mental illness, suicide, terrorism, toxic waste, unemployment, human trafficking, and others. See here for a comprehensive list: http://saintleo.libguides.com/content.php?pid=6475 2&sid=1515902

The next several sections will entail the details of the case study. The design of the study will appear first, followed by the two students who participated in the study along with their outcomes. Participants, Context, and Directions to Prompt Processes and Outcomes Participants are adult students whose native language is not English and who are taking English for Academic Purposes (EAP/ESL), non-degreebearing-credit courses to prepare for a higher education academic curriculum. The major focus of the EAP/ESL courses is to develop students’ academic language skills in reading, writing, listening, and speaking.

2. First create main idea statements using the following two questions as guides to produce one or two sentences that express the answers, but not the

Liu, R, Unger, J. A., & Scullion, V. A. (2014)/Social Justice through Literacy question stem (i.e., do not write: “The author wants me to know….”

this study can be accessed at: http://transitionalliteracy.org/?page_id=9928 The password is rabbit14. The data presented in this article is unedited; student errors in speaking and writing that are common to adult English language learners were not corrected in order to allow the original data to be presented accurately and authentically. The case study videos available on the webpage listed above have student faces blocked in order to preserve the privacy of the students. When used by the students in the classroom for evaluative purposes, the videos are unblocked.

What is the topic? What does the author want you to know? Then, find three supporting details for the main idea. 3. Create a poster using answers to step two: Main idea and supporting details 4. Use a digital video camera to record a video speech of approximately two minutes, pointing at the poster as you speak about each detail and explain how it relates to the main idea.

Case F, Frances Frances is a student from Colombia where drugs are a prevalent social problem. She chose this topic because of her personal experience; in her response she wrote, “I have lived closely to the drug problem.” She also wrote:

5. Watch the video and answer questions to prompt self-evaluation. 6. Write summaries and responses. Summarize the editorial and then respond to the article; defend your position.

I feel sad to see that Colombia's guerrillas are using Colombian people and their land for the cultivation of coca. These farmers have to work for long periods of 10 to 12 hours a day, just for the minimum wage. The wives of these farmers are used in household duties such as wash clothing and cook food for large crews of the FARC.

Class or pair discussion of the social justice topic often follows the videos before students write. 7. Revise and resubmit. See Appendix B for instructions that students receive for this project. See samples below.

The original editorial is at: http://www.nytimes.com/ 2008/07/02/opinion/02wed1.html

Classroom Examples Using Digital Video Cameras in Reading Summaries and Responses The following exemplar cases illustrate the process and the potential benefits of the overall digital video procedures and assessment as of the writing of this paper. These cases are part of an ongoing investigation to study effective positionings of literacy resources and specific procedures to integrate language and resources across modes. It is important for all stakeholders in the process to understand that the directions and outcomes may be adjusted as needed for adaptation to different educational contexts. In order to promote more direct reader and stakeholder access to making individual peeroriented decisions on the validity, reliability, and credibility of the findings and suggestions for instruction presented here, original data related to

Figure 1. Case F’s Poster on “Not Winning the War on Drugs”

Journal of Language and Literacy Education Vol. 10 Issue 2 -- Fall 2014 The following are some of the salient features of Frances’ data (recall that the video data can be viewed at http://transitional-literacy.org/ ?page_id=9928

transcript, the draft, and the final summary and response, can be accessed at the webpage http://transitional-literacy.org/?page_id=9928. The password is rabbit14. The editorial is at http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/29/opinion/opinionworld-aids-day-progress/.

Frances highlighted the metaphor “cut to the root” in her video presentation, which became the title of her summary and a theme of her response. She repeatedly used this language chunk, and this metaphor provides a glimpse into how she envisions the sources and avenue in solving a specific social problem. Furthermore, at each step of the process observed across different modes, she adds more information, expanding her ideas, making abstract intentions more concrete for the audience in the process. As always, these participant-students, as students do everywhere, deviated from the directions; however, these deviations are natural, positive, and effective, as can be seen as Frances expands her ideas and connections between supporting details and main ideas across modes. For example, the poster she used in the video had only one supporting detail, but in the final summary, she provides three. This result strongly illustrates the potential for students to use the time and space provided by this digital step in the process of experimenting with different language forms, observing themselves using these forms, and critically evaluating what is important information to highlight in final drafts. Additionally, Frances’ data illustrates how these procedures reveal patterns of errors found across different textual spaces and modalities. For example, Frances does not understand subject-verb agreement, which is evidence of literacy development potential because such error patterns can be corrected as a follow-up practice or in the revision process. This example is just one of the many avenues for a continuing, developmentally oriented view of communicative proficiency as digital design.

Figure 2. Case E’s Poster on “World AIDS Day 25 years on: It’s time to stop saying ‘AIDS in Africa’” As shown in her video (See http://transitionalliteracy.org/?page_id=9928) and in her overall summary and response, Elena wants to stop discrimination against her native continent regarding AIDS. “AIDS is not just a problem in Africa,” she writes. In her written response from the self-evaluation step in the process, she continues: One moment in the video the word I think I emphasized was stop saying Aids in Africa. People think that Africa is the poorest continent but is not. AID is not in the Africa but entire the whole world. We need to help those who have this sickness and try to find the treatment that will heal them.

Case E, Elena

The classroom discussion following this presentation demonstrates the merit of editorials as a way to raise students’ social justice awareness. Many students were surprised to learn of the improvement of AIDS treatment in Africa and the widespread nature of the disease around the world. AIDS is not just a problem in Africa; it is a global issue. This discussion inspired a classmate who did a subsequent poster about world AIDS problems for this class.

The social justice topic of this editorial is AIDS. Originally from Africa, this student has strong feelings about this problem—a social justice issue in her life. As with Frances, raw data from Elena, including the original editorial, the poster, the video, the video

Liu, R, Unger, J. A., & Scullion, V. A. (2014)/Social Justice through Literacy A prominent feature in the data is how Elena explicitly positioned speech, the visual, and chunks of language through the act of pointing, with all of these resources featuring a design initiated by the directions and guided by both her planned and spontaneous decisions to refer to the text on the visual. Elena and the audience were arranged in a triadic with the visual, like the baby and adult pointing at a diaper or toy, or a traveler pointing to relevant objects and cardinal or abstract directions in a train station. Elena created a rich context to make her intentions clear to an audience, prompted by the entire process to mimic a Joint Attentional Scene, assigning meaning to chunks of language, along with distinguishing between more-to-less relevant chunks (e.g., evaluating her own supporting details), and making abstract relationships between supporting details and main ideas more concrete for the audience and herself. Across all the data and participants, the emphasis is on these sense-making processes and identifiable reference areas; the speech, the visual, the chunks of words on the visual, and the act of pointing enhance students’ literacy skills and critical thinking skills and, for this series of lessons, social justice.

Teachers prompt students to understand the abstract relationships between the main idea and supporting details; these abstract relationships are essential in reading comprehension and critical thinking. One of the central questions students encounter on the selfevaluation form and throughout different iterations of a process that is undergoing continual adjustment asks students to decide which supporting detail is strongest and to explain why. This reflection guides students to locate the main idea and affirm their summarized statements. Students also learn to manipulate chunks of language across modes, for example, “cut to the root,” a phrase that Frances used. In working across modes while creating and answering questions about their videos, students can become more aware of how to shape complex semiotic systems to express specific intentions. Students learn literacy as design and address all kinds of literacy and critical thinking issues from a more dynamic, multi-modal perspective than is normally provided by paper, textbook, word processing programs, and static screens. With the two exemplar cases, as with many studentparticipants across multiple cases with slightly different iterations of the directions being applied, students are consistently adding more information at each step across modes.

Findings and Reflections Overall, the ongoing research follows research principles and guidelines laid out in Stringer (2014) and Yin (2009), and, as mentioned earlier, the researchers present the data using the Vygotskian idea of watching the process of signification and mediation unfold across modes and over time. Students’ videos, transcripts, draft summaries, and final summaries and responses illustrate the processes and potential for integrating digital video cameras into the process of creating reading summaries. Moreover, the integration of digital video with reading involves students’ metacognition, which can be realized as empowerment when students apply literacy skills and strategies to social justice issues.

2. What evidence does the data present for developing social justice awareness? During the entire reading, recording, and writing process, students reflect on the chosen social justice topic, voice their own opinion, and defend their proposition. As with Elena and Frances, most chose a topic related to their lives, understood the problems, and tried to find solutions. Through the videomaking process of the summaries and responses, students can take critical positions and question injustices. For example, Student E (Elena) questioned the justice of thinking that AIDS is in Africa only. Subsequent class discussions raised peers’ social justice awareness about the topic.

Recall that the research questions at the current time in the ongoing study are as follows:

3. What evidence for the enhancement of studentparticipant improvement and/or development of critical thinking during the procedure can be found in the data?

1. What processes in the video-making process promote literacy (reading comprehension, language skills, writing responses)?

Journal of Language and Literacy Education Vol. 10 Issue 2 -- Fall 2014 Overall, the digital video cameras and procedures create a setting supportive for interaction, idea sharing, and discussion. Students film each other and discuss in pairs or as a whole class. Students feel comfortable and safe in sharing their ideas and thoughts. Schuck and Kearney (2005) pointed out that incorporating digital video in classrooms creates opportunities for collaborative learning. For Frances and Elena and in the classrooms chaotic with students creating videos, making visuals, and talking and writing about their topics through all stages of activity, students collaborated and took charge of their learning. Another benefit is student engagement. Students actively involve themselves in the whole process. This level of profound involvement that digital video recordings can provide has been discovered in other studies (Miller, 2007, 2010; Yoon, 2013).

in editorials involves still-developing critical reading skills as well as unfamiliarity with the vocabulary, making this process difficult. As one student states, it is hard “to sepparate the author information from people's coments related to it.” Concluding Thoughts This paper has presented Tomasello’s (2003) concepts of intention-reading and Joint Attentional Frames, along with the act of pointing, mediation, signification and multimodal literacy, as the theoretical concepts for integrating digital video cameras into the reading and writing process. This study has found that speech, the act of pointing, and a visual can act as reference areas and mediational means for students to engage in the complex meaning, understanding, and sense-making processes involved in comprehending and creating academic text.

Challenges

The evidence in these case studies supports the idea that students through literacy activities can understand social justice. As shown by Frances from Colombia, editorials are effective resources for students to write summaries and respond because editorials detail many types of social justice issues from different viewpoints. Critical thinking as empowerment is another important feature of social justice. Students develop their critical thinking skills through the video creating and self-reflection process. In addition, students work with evidence and propositions, constructed as supporting details to main ideas; they actively decode and fully engage in the nature of argumentation by discussing their opinions. Reading and writing followed by pair and/or class discussions takes the students deeper into the topics and strengthens their understanding of social justice concepts. Reflection helps students develop critical thinking skills and prompts a deeper understanding of what it means to “live” social justice in the twenty-first century. Students’ writings reveal that they had a much deeper understanding of social justice than might be revealed through more traditional literacy instruction. One student’s final reflection provides evidence of this inspiration: “I'm not a perosn who check news but this influence me to check news. Summary and Respond now I get hangg of it.” “Social justice fosters human progress in the social, cultural and spiritual dimensions, and so

One challenge is that some traditional students need detailed instructions in order to use technology for class projects. The good news is that many students have smartphones and know how to use their phones to record a video. Some students chose to use their own familiar technology, which decreased the need for direct instruction on the use of the digital video cameras. Technology failure can be another challenge. As every educator who relies on technology in the classroom knows, there is always a chance that the video cameras will be low on battery, the connection cords needed to upload the videos to a file on a classroom computer are forgotten at home, or the computers in the classroom have been disabled for some unknown reason. Prior planning can eliminate some of these challenges; flexibility and a sense of humor are necessary to work through others. Also, be aware that video uploading may take some time and that students sometimes forget to copy and share their videos. Another challenge for students is that they do not know which topic to choose from because there are too many interesting topics that occur in this world. Possibly limiting the number of choices of social justice topics given to students would alleviate this issue. Moreover, locating relevant supporting details

Liu, R, Unger, J. A., & Scullion, V. A. (2014)/Social Justice through Literacy promotes human rights in the struggle for dignity and fundamental freedoms” (“Suggested Social and Environmental Justice Topics,” 2014). Social justice

through literacy is one way to promote awareness and prompt for social justice practice.

References BECTA: British Educational Communications and Technology Agency. (2003). What the research says about digital video in teaching and learning. Coventry, UK: BECTA ICT Research. Burden, K. & Kuechel, T. (2004). Evaluation report of the teaching and learning with digital video assets. Coventry, UK: BECTA. Creswell, J. W. (2005). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc. Davydov, V. (1999). The content and unsolved problems of activity theory. In Y. Engestrom, R. Mietten, & R. L. Punamaki (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 39-52). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Duke, N. K., Purcell-Gates, V, Hall, L. A., & Tower, C. (2006). Authentic Literacy Activities for Developing Comprehension and Writing. The Reading Teacher, 60(4), 344–355. Eco, U. (1976). A theory of semiotics. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. Elder, L. (2007). Another brief conceptualization of critical thinking. In The critical thinking community (Defining critical thinking section). Retrieved from http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/definingcritical-thinking/766 Greene, H., & Crespi, C. (2012). The value of student created videos in the college classroom-an exploratory study in marketing and accounting. International Journal of Arts & Sciences, 5 (1), 273-283. Halcrow, B. (1990). Bringing social justice issues into any curriculum area. Social Alternatives, 9(2), 42-43. Higbee, J. (2012). Commentary: Who is the developmental student? In R. Hodges, M. Simpson, & M. Stahl, Teaching strategies in developmental education: Readings on theory, research, and best practice (pp. 7180). Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin's. Hofer, M., & Owings Swan, K. (2005). Digital moviemaking—the harmonization of technology, pedagogy and content. International Journal of Technology in Teaching and Learning, 1(2), 102-110. King, Jr., M. L. (1964). Why We Can’t Wait. New York, NY: Harper and Row. Kita, S. (2003). Pointing: Where language, culture, and cognition meet. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum \ Associates Publishers. Kress, G. (2003). Literacy in the new media age. New York, NY: Routledge.

Journal of Language and Literacy Education Vol. 10 Issue 2 -- Fall 2014 Miller, S. M. (2007). English teacher learning for new times: Digital video composing as multimodal literacy practice. English Education, 40(1), 64-83. Miller, S. M. (2010). Towards a multimodal literacy pedagogy: Digital video composing as 21st century literacy. In P. Albers & J. Sanders (Eds.) Literacies, Art, and Multimodality, pp. 254-281. Urbana-Champaign, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. McNeill, D. (2005). Gesture & thought. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Paul, R. & Elder, L. (2005). Guide for educators to critical thinking competency standards: Standards, principles, performance indicators, and outcomes with a critical thinking master rubric. [Kindle Cloud Reader version]. Available at Amazon.com Peirce. C. S. (1991). Peirce on signs: Writings on semiotic by Charles Peirce. E. J. Hoopes (Ed.). Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina Press. Perin, D., Bork, R., Peverly, S., & Mason, L. (2013). A contextualized curricular supplement for developmental reading and writing. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 43(2), 8-38. Robbins, D. (2003). Vygotskyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s and A. A. Leontievâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s semiotics and psycholinguistics: applications for education, second language acquisition, and theories of language. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers. Schuck, S., & Kearney, M. (2005). Teachers as producers, students as directors: Why teachers use studentgenerated digital video in their classes. Proceedings of the Apple University Consortium Conference [Electronic version]. Retrieved from http://www.ed-dev.uts.edu.au/teachered/research/dvproject/ pdfs/auc05.pdf Scriven, M. & Paul, R. (1987). Defining critical thinking. In The critical thinking community (Defining critical thinking section). Retrieved from http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/defining-critical-thinking/766 Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Stringer, E. (2014). Action research (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Suggested Social and Environmental Justice Topics. (2014). Retrieved from http://saintleo.libguides.com/ content.php?pid=64752&sid=1515902 Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Theodosakis, N. (2001). The director in the classroom: How thinking inspires learning. San Diego, CA: Tech4learning Publishing. Unger, J. A. & Liu, R. (2013). Digital video cameras for main ideas, and supporting details: The process and potential. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 44(1), 105-113. Unger, J. A. & Scullion, V. (2013). Digital video cameras for brainstorming and outlining: The process and potential. The Journal of Language and Literacy Education, 9(2), 131-139.

Liu, R, Unger, J. A., & Scullion, V. A. (2014)/Social Justice through Literacy

van Leeuwen, T. (2005). Introducing Social Semiotics. New York, NY: Routledge. van Lier, L. (2004). The ecology and semiotics of language learning: A sociocultural perspective. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wells, G. (1999). Dialogic inquiry: Toward a sociocultural practice and theory of education. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Wertsch, J. (1998). Mind as action. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Yildiz, M. N. (2003). Teaching media literacy through video production. Proceedings of ED- MEDIA 2003, World Conf. on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia & Telecommunications. Waikiki, Hawaii. Yin, R. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Yoon, T. (2013). Are you digitized? Ways to provide motivation for ELLs using digital storytelling. International Journal of Research Studies in Educational Technology, 2(1), 25-34.

Journal of Language and Literacy Education Vol. 10 Issue 2 -- Fall 2014 Appendix A Instructions for making the video---Social Justice through Literacy: Integrating Digital Video Cameras in Reading Summaries and Responses As in the model video (http://transitional-literacy.org/?page_id=9928), introduce each Supporting Detail and provide an explanation by using the following general language forms. Do not worry about being too informal. Remember that we are actually producing an oral rough draft of a Summary and Response. 1. Read your original Main Idea Statement; then Introduce your supporting details in sequence by saying the phrases below that are in quotes; the capital letters below highlight the material on your poster paper that you should read: “The first supporting detail is”: READ THE SUPPORTING DETAIL “This supporting detail supports the main idea because”: SAY WHY YOU THINK THIS SUPPORTING DETAIL IS RELATED TO THE MAIN IDEA 2. “The second supporting detail is”: READ THE SECOND SUPPORTING DETAIL “This supporting detail supports the main idea because”: SAY WHY YOU THINK THIS SUPPORTING DETAIL IS RELATED TO THE MAIN IDEA 3. “The third supporting detail is”: READ THE THIRD SUPPORTING DETAIL This supporting detail supports the main idea because: SAY WHY YOU THINK THIS SUPPORTING DETAIL IS RELATED TO THE MAIN IDEA 4. Read your response statements; try to keep this only one or two statements (remember you want to write about a 4 to 7 sentence response on the final). 5. Choose the most appropriate supporting detail that you think supports your response: SAY WHY YOU THINK THIS SUPPORTING DETAIL IS RELATED TO YOUR RESPONSE 6. Conclude by saying anything you want, though if you are stuck with something today, say something like: “And that concludes my Main Idea and Supporting Detail Presentation about” SAY YOUR THEME HERE. 7. After the person concludes, the cameraperson should turn off the camera. 8. After your triad is complete, download the files from your camera to ONE COMPUTER to speed things up. Then each of you takes turns uploading to your Dropboxes or transferring to flash drives.

Liu, R, Unger, J. A., & Scullion, V. A. (2014)/Social Justice through Literacy

Appendix B Instructions---Digital Video Cameras and Reading Summaries and Responses Step 1: Find an editorial (see below for possible sources) related to social justice (see below for possible topics). Please choose the "Opinion" section or "editorial" section in news sites. Suggested sources: http://www.nytimes.com/pages/opinion/index.html; http://www.npr.org/sections/opinion/; http://www.usatoday.com/opinion; http://www.cnn.com/OPINION/?hpt=sitenav; http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/world/opinion.htm http://usa.chinadaily.com.cn/opinion/index.html/ http://chronicle.com/section/Opinion-Ideas/40/?eio=58977http://chronicle.com/section/OpinionIdeas/40/?eio=58977 Please give the source (url or an electronic copy) in the beginning of your draft so others can read the article. Possible social justice topics: Abortion Affirmative action AIDS Alcohol and drinking Animal rights

Civil rights Creation science vs. evolution Drugs and drug abuse

Capital punishment Censorship Child labor

Drunk driving Environmental protection Euthanasia and assisted suicide Famine Flag burning Gangs

Children's rights

Gender issues

Binge drinking

Genetic engineering Global warming

Organ/body donation Pledge of Allegiance

Government vs. religion Gun control Homelessness

Poverty

Homosexuality

Same sex marriage

Human Rights Immigration Legalization of marijuana Nuclear proliferation

Terrorism Tobacco Violence

Prayer in schools Racial profiling

Welfare

See a comprehensive list of Social and Environmental Justice topics here: http://saintleo.libguides.com/content.php?pid=64752&sid=1515902 Step two: Use two well-known guide questions that appear in many pre-college English language/literacy textbooks to create main idea statements: What is the topic?

Journal of Language and Literacy Education Vol. 10 Issue 2 -- Fall 2014 What does the Author want you to know? Use these two guide questions to create an original statement or two that expresses the answer to these questions; the answer is a main idea statement that is intended to be in your own words. Below the main idea statement, identify material quoted directly from the text that you can use to support the main idea. After writing the main idea statement, find three supporting details that support the main idea. Submit your word document with the source of the editorial; copy the whole article into your word document; create a main idea statement and three supporting details in your word document; Step 3: Create a visual/poster based on your step 2. Write it on a large piece of paper: create a poster and bring your visual to class and we will make a video. Also take a photo of your visual and upload it to our class website. Step 4: Make a video. See Appendix A for instructions. Step 5: Reflect on the video by using the following guidelines: You answer the following questions first: 1. Very briefly, describe one moment in the video in which you think you emphasized one word, phrase, or any chunk of information over the rest. To do this, you need to watch the video (download yours) and pick one moment in the video where you think you â&#x20AC;&#x153;highlightedâ&#x20AC;? or emphasized one specific piece of information or another, one word over another, something over everything else. 2. Which supporting detail is the strongest one that supports your main idea statement? 3. Which quote is the strongest to use in a response? Step 6: Write a summary and response (two paragraphs in total), following the Rubric below (use it for selfassessment), using a quote in the Summary, and a quote in the Response.

Liu, R, Unger, J. A., & Scullion, V. A. (2014)/Social Justice through Literacy Rubric: Band

Summary of Reading

Position Statement and Paragraph The position statement is studentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s (your) response to the reading, similar to taking a position in an argument.

Excellent

Summary indicates excellent comprehension of the main ideas and major details contained in the reading(s). The main idea statement must be written in the studentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s (your) original words (not copied directly). Specific examples and other details in the summary are of high quality, with at least one quote included. The summary should provide a comprehensive answer to these two questions: What is the topic of the reading? What does the author want you to know? 20 pts.

Sharp focus on the position is maintained throughout; position is well-developed; few, if any, digressions. Sound reasons are supported by specific examples and details and at least one quote; evidence of critical thinking (i.e., the quote is related to the position; this demonstrates analysis and synthesis) 20 pts.

Writer demonstrates consistent facility in language use; demonstrates syntactic variety and appropriate word choice; there may be some minor lexical or grammatical errors. 10 pts.

Fair

Summary indicates fair comprehension of the main ideas and major details contained in the reading(s). Specific examples and other details in the summary are of good or fair quality; quote is included but may be incomplete or not entirely appropriate.

Focus on the position is partially maintained; some digressions are noted. Position is somewhat developed; reasons are partially supported by some examples and details; quote is included but may be incomplete or not entirely appropriate; modest evidence of critical thinking

Writer demonstrates some facility in language use; some variety in syntax and word choice. Minor lexical and grammatical errors do not interfere with communication of most ideas.

Poor

Summary indicates poor comprehension of the main ideas and major details contained in the reading(s). Specific examples and other details in the summary are of modest or poor quality or missing.

Focus on the position is not maintained or position is never expressed. Digressions do not lead back to the main topic. Supporting examples and/or quote may be missing or of poor quality

Writer demonstrates inconsistent or poor facility in language use. Lexical and grammatical errors frequently obscure meaning or require more careful reading to understand.

Step 7: Revise and resubmit your final draft of the summary and response.

Accuracy

Labeled Reading Disabled and “Doing Reading”: One College Student’s Reading History Maryl A. Randel

ABSTRACT: In this work, the author analyzes how Mari, an undergraduate student labeled with a reading disability, describes her reading opportunities and texts throughout her K-16 schooling. Using a disability studies in education lens, the researcher investigated the role that experiences with texts played in Mari’s identity development as a reader. For this interpretive case study, the author analyzed multiple semistructured interviews and read numerous written responses to texts, using the constant comparative approach (Glaser, 1965). Mari identified several purposes for reading, including accomplishment, school success, and knowledge acquisition. Reading has been and continues to be a very time-consuming and stressful practice for Mari. As a result, initiating reading tasks became a challenging activity, as well as led to a general dislike of reading, and caused anxiety about being stereotyped because of her reading disability label. Key words: Reading Disability, Identity, Texts, Special Education, Labels

Maryl Randel is a Doctoral Candidate at Michigan State University in the Language and Literacy Education department. Her research focuses on improving access to high quality literacy learning opportunities for vulnerable literacy learners who have been underserved in instructional and intervention contexts. Maryl was a reading specialist and K-8 special education educator for ten years in the Chicago public schools. She can be contacted at randelma@msu.edu

Journal of Language and Literacy Education Vol. 10 Issue 2 – Fall 2014 Michelle M. Falter, Editor – http://jolle.coe.uga.edu

Randel, M. A. (2014) / Labeled Reading Disabled

“So I read, but it’s like not an activity that I enjoy doing.” – Mari

very narrow definition of reading research and viewed reading as an autonomous process, reducing reading to a set of discrete skills (Franzak, 2006; L. S. Fuchs & D. Fuchs, 2009; Wanzek et al., 2013). In order to continue to improve upon the educational experiences for individuals with reading disabilities, more research needs to be conducted utilizing more diverse theoretical and epistemological approaches, and in which the individuals themselves are viewed as more than a test score (Gallagher, Connor, & Ferri, 2014).

In our society, we are surrounded by printed and digital texts; however, many individuals experience tremendous difficulties reading these texts every day. In order to be successful in school and in modern life, strong reading abilities have been recognized as a crucial component. Yet, many students reach adulthood without having developed strong reading skills in school (Hock et al., 2009). Many potential barriers exist, both within and outside of a classroom, which may prevent an individual from being able to benefit fully from reading instruction in school, including what all students do to read and write with ease in school (Allington, 2002; 2007; Donmeyer & Kos, 1993; Hall, 2009; Harry & Klingner, 2006). Students who continuously do not meet reading achievement expectations based on standardized test scores are at risk for being assigned labels of “reading disabled.” A reading disability is the most common type of learning disability. In fact, individuals with reading disabilities make up approximately 80% of all students who are labeled with learning disabilities in schools (Alvermann & Mallozzi, 2009), accounting for as much as 4% of the school population (Valencia, 2011).

Defining Reading Disability Research in the reading disability field has focused historically on defining reading disability, as well as developing and measuring reading interventions designed to cure and/or eliminate reading disabilities (Connor, 2013). Prior to the early twenty-first century, students with reading disabilities in the United States primarily have been identified utilizing a medical model of disability. Using a medical model of disability, reading disability is viewed as a deficit or impairment that prevents an individual from typical reading development. The reading disabled label is assigned to an individual after a psychologist identified a discrepancy between the student’s intelligence and reading achievement based on norm-referenced intelligence and achievement tests (Friend, 2006; D. Fuchs, L. S. Fuchs, & Stecker, 2010). The controversy and critiques regarding both the definition and identification process of individuals labeled with reading disabilities continue today, as newer approaches, such as Response to Intervention, are considered and critiqued (Ferri, 2012; D. Fuchs, L. S. Fuchs, & Stecker, 2010; Schatschneider, Wagner, & Crawford, 2008).

Recent educational policy initiatives, including the No Child Left Behind Act, Reading First, and Response to Intervention, have been developed with a stated goal of improving reading achievement, often targeting improving support for intervention in early elementary school. More recently, a focus on improving reading instruction in school has expanded to include adolescents (students in 4th-12th grades). These reading initiatives require that teachers use “evidence-based practices” to teach reading, and have considered experimental or quasiexperimental research to be the gold standard of reading research (Shannon, 2007). Although the use of a variety of research methodologies is arguably the best way to build research in a field, these policies have led to funding opportunities privileging quantitative reading research. Alternate theoretical approaches and research methods often have been discredited as unproductive for building knowledge in the reading disability field (Ferri, 2012; Shannon, 2007). As a result, some recent research utilized a

In contrast to the medical model of disability, a disability studies in education (DSE) lens attempts to humanize reading disability research by recognizing that the individual is of particular importance and acknowledging the marginalization of individuals who have been given reading disability labels. DSE scholars recognize the natural diversity that exists among individuals, and suggest that all individuals have areas of strength and need, but it is society that positions individuals as “other” through labeling (Gallagher, Connor, & Ferri, 2014). Using a DSE lens,

Journal of Language and Literacy Education Vol. 10 Issue 2 – Fall 2014 researchers and educators can view students with reading disability labels as part of a group of students who are positioned in schools as othered, marginalized, stereotyped, and often segregated. As Rodis, Garrod, and Boscardin (2000) wrote, “There is a person to go along with every learning disability, and we err in imagining that we have understood the person if we have described his or her learning disability” ( p. xiii). Since individuals with reading disabilities historically have been silenced in the research conducted about them (Connor, 2013), utilizing interpretivist approaches to reading disability research can improve understanding of the issues involved in particular aspects of their lives (Alvermann & Mallozzi, 2009).

accumulation of skills and information, but a process of becoming—to become a certain person or, conversely, to avoid becoming a certain person” (Wenger, 1998, p. 215). Learning to read is tied closely with an individual’s identity, and I situate this study within a sociocultural model of reading (Alvermann, 2001; Gee, 2008; Trent, Artiles, & Englert, 1998). In this model, reading is viewed as a cultural practice in which individuals make meaning from texts through participation in certain situated discourses, social norms, and practices (Cole, 1998; Gee, 2008; Street, 1987). Failure is assumed when a student’s ability to navigate texts consistently is considered to be below “normative performance” (Dudley-Marling, 2004; McIntyre, 2011). Within a sociocultural model, reading Although not common, “failure” in school is based on interpretive research, which is a learner’s history, culture, “Being considered a poor focused on learning from institutions, instruction, and informants who have been reader—or having a interactions with texts. In fact, labeled with reading universal schooling reading disability—became until disabilities, can help us became available in the U.S., researchers to gain important illiteracy was actually the a way to categorize and insights and enhance our norm for many children and understanding of reading label certain students who adolescents (Allington, 2010; disabilities (Alvermann & 2007). Without had been long stigmatized” Shannon, Mallozzi, 2009). For example, expecting all children to learn we researchers have learned to read, the construct of a that many individuals with this label have high reading disability based on failing to learn to read motivation to improve as readers (Kos, 1991; McCray, did not exist. Toward the end of the twentieth Vaughn, & Neal, 2001). We have also learned about century, however, literacy expectations changed, and the large role that social factors may play in these it became apparent that all students did not learn to students’ reading experiences, which can prevent read easily. Being considered a poor reader—or them from benefitting fully from “evidence-based” having a reading disability—became a way to reading instruction (Collins, 2013; Hall, 2009; Kos, categorize and label certain students who had been 1991; McCloskey, 2012). This body of work, often long stigmatized, placed in separate classes, given including small numbers of participants, has given different curricula, and for whom expectations had voice to individuals labeled with reading disabilities been often lowered (Allington, 2007; Connor, 2008; who are the true experts of their experiences. By Ferri, 2012; Rodis, Garrod, & Boscardin, 2000). listening to them, we researchers can learn about the experience of living with a reading disability, as they Sociocultural theories also acknowledge that reading are best positioned to inform us about the numerous disability is socially constructed, and once assigned, ways that their needs have been neglected, and allow a reading disability becomes one part of an us to better meet their needs, particularly in individual’s identity along with the individual’s educational contexts. history (Gee, 2008; Wenger, 1998). Gee (2000) goes on to define identity as “being recognized as a Reading Disability & Identities certain type of person within a given context” (p. 1). He acknowledges that each individual has multiple Using a sociocultural model of literacy learning, I identities, which allow her to be perceived as a acknowledge that, “Learning is not just an certain kind of person in certain situations (Gee,

Randel, M. A. (2014) / Labeled Reading Disabled 2000; 2008). Using Gee’s (2000) four-category analytic lens for identity, we researchers can identify which identities are taken up for individuals labeled with reading disabilities, and when they choose or prefer not to disclose reading disability, specifically during and surrounding the reading of texts. When one looks at reading disability from a nature point of view, a reading disability is a fixed identity that an individual was born with, and this nature identity is aligned with a medical, or deficit, model of reading disability. From an institutional point of view, an individual is recognized as having a reading disability when a psychologist—or school documentation—has determined that the individual is reading disabled. Gee also describes discursive identities as occurring when one is recognized as being part of an affinity group. For example, when grappling with reading a complex text, one might be identified as an individual who struggles with reading, or has a reading disability; yet in a non-reading situation, this identity may not be recognized. Finally, affinity identities can be taken up when individuals are part of a distinct group even if they are geographically distant. This group could be based on a social practice, such as being an avid reader or a Harry Potter fan. In alignment with sociocultural theories of reading and reading difficulties, Gee’s identity framework is helpful to understand the multiple situational differences in how one chooses to be identified and/or when identities may position students in certain ways.

While we researchers have learned about some of the reading and school experiences of individuals who have reading disabilities, we have very limited information about the role of specific texts and how they might contribute to the identity of individuals with reading disabilities. Few researchers have sought to investigate the role that specific texts may have played in the identity development of individuals who have been labeled with reading disabilities. Two informants from larger studies that foregrounded the voices of individuals who have reading disabilities identified specific texts and acknowledged the way that a specific genre or text stood out in their memory, and how it was related to their lives as readers. In David Connor’s (2008) Urban Narratives, Chantal mentioned her love of poetry and the important role it played in her life. In Scars of Dyslexia (Edwards, 1994), John noted that he “read Roderick the Great six times during two years. [He] knew it off by heart. [He] chose it. It was the only easy one there (Edwards, 1994, p. 27).” His statements suggest that he read the same book repeatedly because it was the only book at his school that he could read. For both Chantal and John, texts played distinct, but opposing, roles in their lives. Individuals with reading disability labels may have had limited access to appropriate and accessible texts both in and out of school. Additionally, the texts themselves may be particularly relevant, since it is, in fact, difficulties with reading texts themselves that occur before an individual can be identified by a reading disability label. We researchers know that students who are members of non-dominant groups based on race, language, and socioeconomic status can easily be marginalized in schools based on a failure of classroom texts and curricular materials to meet their diverse needs (Enriquez, 2011; Harry & Klingner, 2006; Hill, 2009; Kirkland, 2011; McCloskey, 2012). Research suggests that reading meaningful texts can particularly be useful in helping individuals who are members of groups that have been traditionally oppressed in schools, and can be useful in building a curriculum to support positive identity development (Alvermann, 2001; Hill, 2009; Kirkland, 2011; Paris, 2012; Winn, 2011; Woodcock, 2010).

For many years, reading researchers and educators have discussed the numerous difficulties that students with reading disabilities face in school: where they are likely to be positioned in certain ways when given texts that are too difficult for them to read independently, when reading instruction may not accelerate their reading achievement, or when a desire for social acceptance is above and beyond their desire to improve their reading abilities (Allington, 2002; 2007; Connor, 2008; Hall, 2009; McKloskey, 2013). Although graduation and postsecondary education rates are improving, after years of experiencing reading difficulties in school, many students with reading disabilities do not graduate from high school or enroll in postsecondary education (Wagner, Cameto, & Newman, 2003).

According to Torres-Velásquez (2000), “We can no longer afford to ignore the histories, cultures, and experiences of learners if we expect those learners to

Journal of Language and Literacy Education Vol. 10 Issue 2 – Fall 2014 play an active role in constructing their future” (p. 69). Ignoring the reading histories and role of reading disability in identity formation is not only a mistake, but continues to position individuals with reading disabilities as objects. In order to provide better support to individuals with reading disabilities so that they construct positive identities, we researchers can begin by finding out how they view themselves in order to try and ensure that they develop positive relationships with literacy (Greenleaf & Hinchman, 2009).

particularly when doing research with individuals who are members of groups that have historically been marginalized in research conducted about them. I utilized an instrumental case study approach (Barone, 2011) in order to develop nuanced understandings of complex situations based on the experiences of one person. Interviewing utilizes dialogue to gain understanding about a topic with the hope of raising consciousness for both my informant and for myself (Paris, 2011; Paris & Wynn, 2013). In alignment with a disability studies in education approach to reading disability and sociocultural theories of literacy learning, I attempted to provide a detailed portrait of one individual’s reading history experiences with reading and texts by positioning her as an expert and using her own words as data sources. Prior to beginning data collection, the university’s Social Science Institutional Review Board (SIRB) approved this project (#i040744).

Present Study The purpose of my current study is to examine closely—and learn from—the experiences, opportunities, and identities related to the reading of texts for an individual who has a reading disability label. This study is important for several reasons. First, in contrast to a medical model of reading disability focused on reading disability definitions or instructional intervention, I utilized a disability studies in education lens and an interpretivist perspective to guide this work. This process required listening closely to one individual who had been given a reading disability label, and how she identified herself as a reader both in and out of school contexts. In addition, understanding reading as a social and cultural practice, I focused her multiple situated identities around reading and on the role(s) that specific texts may have played throughout her life. My focus on the specific texts that she read, was asked to read, and currently reads also provides an opportunity to begin to understand the role texts can play within the identity formation of one individual labeled with reading disabilities. The following questions guided this work:

Participant Mari (pseudonym) was a 21-year-old college student studying elementary education at a large, public Midwestern university at the time of this study. Mari described herself as a White, Jewish female from a middle class family who has a reading disability. Mari grew up with her brother, mother, and father in a medium-sized city in the Midwest, and attended public schools throughout her educational career. She was also a member of the university honor society, and had a 3.9 grade point average when she consented to participate in this project during her senior year. Having excelled academically in college, she had also recently received several academic and need-based scholarships.

1) What role has a reading disability label played in the K-20 reading experiences of a college student? 2) How have texts affected the individual’s identity development as a reader with a reading disability label?

Mari and I had known each other for just over a year when I contacted her and she agreed to participate in this project, for which she was given a $25 gift card. The previous year, she was enrolled in a foundational, undergraduate education course I taught, which focused on diverse learners in schools. After the first class, Mari privately identified herself as an individual with a reading disability, and shared her university-issued list of accommodations with me. During the semester, although two of her classmates publically discussed their disabilities during class discussions about disability, Mari did

Methods A humanizing stance (Paris & Wynn, 2013) toward the research process guided the design of this interpretive study. This stance is important

Randel, M. A. (2014) / Labeled Reading Disabled not. She did, however, write about her reading disability in weekly reading response assignments, which were read by me, alone.

observing her in class. As an alternative to class observations, Mari provided copies of the course syllabus and texts in addition to five reading response papers that she wrote for the children’s literature course. Additionally, I used eight reading responses and a course paper—book critique—that Mari wrote in her disability through diversity course, for which I was her instructor. The interviews and written reading responses allowed me to learn about Mari’s experiences with reading and texts both in and out of K-12 schooling and as a college student.

Researcher Positionality I approached this project as a White, able-bodied female, former special education teacher, teacher educator, and doctoral student studying literacy and special education. I consider myself a “bookworm.” Learning to read print came easily to me, and I recognize that I will never truly understand the experiences of individuals for whom reading has been particularly challenging. As a former K-12 special education teacher, most of my students were labeled with reading disabilities. Regardless, I attempted to foster a love of reading and books in all of my students through access to authentic texts of interest from a variety of genres, and by providing autonomy and choice related to text selections. As her former instructor, I knew Mari in a classroom setting, and after the semester ended, she periodically asked me to write recommendation letters for her. Since we remained in contact, and I knew that she identified herself as having a reading disability, I contacted her to see if she would be interested in participating in this project.

Data Analysis The primary data used for this analysis were three interviews about reading, texts, and Mari’s school experiences. I listened to each interview twice before transcribing it in its entirety. I used open coding to identify initial themes to answer each research question (Glesne, 2006), and utilized the constant comparative approach (Glaser, 1965) to look for data in order to confirm or disconfirm initial hypotheses. I coded the interviews before I coded Mari’s written reading responses and papers. Her written texts were examples of responses to required course readings, submitted to two different instructors, and provided an additional layer to my analysis. Next, I returned to Gee’s identity lens and analyzed my coded data, paying attention to Mari’s nature, institutional, discursive, and affinity identities. In addition, by applying Gee’s four identity categories to the situations that Mari mentioned during our interviews, the numerous and frequent tensions that existed among Mari’s various identities became apparent to me. This process allowed me to gain understanding about the contexts in which Mari took up her identity as an individual with a reading disability. It also allowed me to recognize the situations in which she did not disclose it. After completing my analysis, I shared my findings with Mari. She found my analysis to be interesting, was in agreement with my conclusions, and looked forward to sharing the findings with her family. She also hoped that others would be able to benefit from her decision to share her reading experiences through this project.

Data Sources For this project, I interviewed Mari on three occasions during a three-week period in the spring semester of her senior year. Each semi-structured interview (Glesne, 2006) lasted 60-90 minutes. The first interview was focused on the children’s literature course that she was enrolled in during that semester. We discussed the books that she was reading, and her feelings about the class, which was a required course for her elementary education major. Two additional life story interviews (Shacklock & Thorp, 2005), which are personal accounts of truths as known to the individual, focused on her school experiences with reading, texts, and the impact of a reading disability label. Although Mari initially agreed to allow me to observe her during her children’s literature class, she emailed me to tell me that she changed her mind shortly after our first interview. She told me that her group members were often unfocused during class discussions, and that she did not feel confident or comfortable with me

Findings

Journal of Language and Literacy Education Vol. 10 Issue 2 – Fall 2014 In this section, I will discuss the findings that came out of this study in order to continue and expand the conversation about identity and reading disabilities in relation to texts and school experiences.

reading disability label that allowed her to continue to receive accommodations at the college level through her university’s disability center. Although she believed that her reading abilities improved over time, her reading disability remained a part of her identity. Mari’s reading disability primarily only affected her in educational settings, or when she was working on school-related tasks. However, reading continues to be extremely time-consuming for her, and is a particularly unpleasant activity.

Background: School Experiences and Reading Disability Mari stated that her parents first became aware of her struggles with reading during a conference with her second grade teacher. Shortly after the meeting, Mari recalled that she and a classmate started being pulled out during their reading class for extra reading instruction. This small group reading instruction continued throughout elementary school. Although she felt isolated and self-conscious about having to leave class, she didn’t recall discussing her feelings with anyone. In middle school, she was placed into a remedial reading class along with other students who had also been identified as “struggling readers.” Mari didn’t recall the class being particularly helpful, and believed that it may have actually caused her to fall further behind her peers who were in regular English/language arts classes. At that time, Mari’s parents had a private psychologist evaluate Mari, and he labeled her with mild dyslexia. Dyslexia is a type of reading disability that is indicated by severe difficulties with phonics and word recognition. Although many students with reading disabilities are placed in special education, Mari’s parents opted for her to receive accommodations from a 504 plan. A 504 plan is a legal document referring to Section 504 of the Rehabilitation and Americans with Disabilities Act, which ensures that medical conditions or impairments do not prevent students from being able to participate fully in school. Mari’s 504 plan provided her with certain accommodations in general education courses, such as extra time on exams and access to audio versions of texts so that her reading disability would not keep her from being successful with school-related reading tasks.

Why Read? My analysis of Mari’s experiences with texts found that she has both positive and negative reading experiences. I identified several themes related to the purposes reading served for Mari, including reading for accomplishment, reading for school success, and reading for knowledge development. Reading for accomplishment. When initially asked about memorable books that she read during school, Mari told me that her first positive experience with reading was during middle school. Reading Tuck Everlasting (Babbit, 1975) stood out for Mari because she recalled that she “actually read the whole book that time.” This comment was the first of many in which Mari identified feelings of accomplishment upon reading an entire text. On several additional occasions during our interviews, Mari stated that she had read the “whole book” when referring to pieces of literature that she read in their entirety. Although she didn’t specifically recall many texts that she read during elementary school, Mari shared her personal strategy for selecting books to read during her elementary school’s Drop Everything and Read (D.E.A.R.) time. I would probably always pick simpler books to read… You know, something that was easy for me to finish.

Throughout high school, Mari continued receiving necessary reading accommodations, including extra time to take tests and read assignments, and she was eventually able to be very successful in school without receiving special education services. In addition, she was reevaluated after graduating from high school, and was again found eligible for a

I can read this in the 30 minutes and when it is over I accomplished that. I don’t really remember…reading through any chapter books.

Randel, M. A. (2014) / Labeled Reading Disabled Again, responses like this identify Mari’s feeling of accomplishment after reading an entire book. She sought out books that she knew she could finish in the allotted school reading time in order to have a more pleasurable reading experience.

Reading for school success. Success in college is often related to reading and writing tasks. Mari excelled in her university coursework, despite the associated heavy reading load. Her reading responses collected for this study suggest that she is able to engage with multiple genres of text (e.g. literature, autobiography, journal articles). They also suggest a thorough understanding of each text, as well as thoughtful reflection, insights, and evaluations of the books she read. Mari’s reading responses demonstrated her ability to respond to texts in ways that were likely to be recognized by her instructors as meaningful, and allowed her to demonstrate her reading competence and avoid looking less competent than her peers by meeting or exceeding their expectations.

During high school, reading East of Eden (Steinbeck, 1952) was memorable for Mari. It was particularly noteworthy because her older brother, who she described as “really into reading,” claimed it was his favorite book by his favorite author, John Steinbeck. Although she admitted that she hadn’t really connected with the book on a personal level, Mari was especially proud to be able to tell her brother that she read it. Mari identified The Hunger Games (Collins, 2008) as the best book she read in the children’s literature course she was taking. Mari was particularly proud that she finished reading The Hunger Games novel before she went to see the movie version. She knew that her mother would be pleased that she read a book before seeing the movie, a practice her mother encouraged her to do. Having a stronger personal connection with two other books she read in that course was less relevant to selecting a favorite book—in Mari’s opinion—than was engaging in a reading practice that she knew was valued by her mother.

Mari shared numerous ways in which reading supported her academic success. During our second interview, she discussed taking two challenging high school courses: advanced English and humanities. She recalled that both courses required extensive reading of a number of particularly challenging texts. For example, she remembered reading work by Freud in the Humanities class. Although Mari did not enjoy either class at the time, her parents encouraged her to complete them, and she did so successfully. She believed that persevering and completing two challenging, text-heavy high school courses helped her develop both skills and strategies that contributed to her ability to persevere and succeed in her college coursework.

In contrast, Mari admitted that she often abandoned books—or even series—that she started. Several years ago, she wanted to see the movie version of Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone (Rowling, 1997). Her mother insisted that she read the book first. After her entire family listened to the audiobook during a car trip, she “never made it through the series.” Mari also discussed the difficulties that she experienced in college managing and completing the heavy reading load assigned each semester. She felt that it was impossible for her to read the assigned readings for each class thoroughly. When she didn’t have enough time to finish an assigned text, she possibly resorted to reading an online summary instead. Being able to read something carefully and in its entirety—whether it was a piece of literature, a textbook, or an article for class—seemed to be something Mari valued highly. When she was unable to finish a text, she felt disappointed in herself.

Throughout our interviews, Mari mentioned using reading strategies such as highlighting, outlining, and taking notes to summarize and learn the material that she read for her college courses. She stated that her roommates typically read in their apartment living room, in front of the television. In contrast, she intentionally read in a quiet place so that she could read purposefully and without distractions. For example, when she knew that she would be tested on material, she would read it very carefully. In contrast, Mari was more likely to skim a course reading if she believed that less thorough knowledge would be sufficient in order to meet the instructor’s expectations. Reading with a purpose in mind allowed her to identify the reading strategies that best permit her to succeed.

Journal of Language and Literacy Education Vol. 10 Issue 2 – Fall 2014 One month before I started interviewing Mari, she was awarded a fellowship to complete a project within the disability center at her university. Her goal was to connect the knowledge about reading instruction that she acquired through her education program with her own personal experiences and successes navigating reading tasks in college. She believed that she could contribute to improving services for others with reading disabilities. Her project resulted in her working closely with several undergraduate students throughout an academic year in order to increase their ability to utilize strategies that she found effective herself, and that she learned could support individuals who were having difficulties with reading comprehension. She worked to organize several sessions for other university students with reading disabilities. She worked closely with several undergraduates who were interested in additional reading support as they navigated their text-heavy college coursework—such as setting a purpose for reading, highlighting, and note-taking—and using assistive technologies that they believed were useful. She believed that as an individual who had a reading disability, she was uniquely positioned to improve upon the reading support that the university disability center could provide to others with reading disabilities.

During her children’s literature course, Mari and her classmates read One Crazy Summer (WilliamsGarcia, 2010). She led her group’s discussion of the book. Mari appreciated having read the book because it helped her learn about the Black Panther movement in California, which was not something she knew much about. The middle grade novel provided a very different perspective, countering her earlier beliefs that the movement had been a violent one. During her group’s discussion, other classmates also identified this book as being an informative and useful text for their future students to read. Finally, although she preferred reading paper texts to e-texts, Mari occasionally read news from Google’s homepage—or social networking sites, like Facebook. She found reading to be a valuable way for her to learn about important events so that she could legitimately participate in discussions about current events with peers. She appreciated being able to say, “Oh yeah, I read about that online.” Anxiety and Reading The emotional side of reading and reading disability was evident throughout my meetings with Mari, as well as in some of her written responses from the diverse learners course. During each interview, Mari described the anxiety and stress she regularly experienced because of her reading disability. It typically manifested itself in three ways: anxiety about classroom reading assignments, choosing not to disclose her reading disability, and an overall dislike of reading.

Reading for knowledge development. At the time of this study, more of Mari’s course readings were related to her elementary education major. She noted that she had a lot of required reading, but that she was generally motivated to read the material. She stated:

“I would get nervous.” During elementary school, Mari specifically remembered hoping that she would be able to read all of the words correctly if her teacher called on her to read aloud in class. These feelings of anxiety reappear when she is required to read an entire book. She said:

It’s not like I need to do this to do well in a course But it’s like I need to learn this if I want to be a teacher, you know. I need to read it to know, and that’s definitely more motivating than in the past.

When I have [entire] novels to read [for homework]

Sometimes I’d have courses and am like ‘Why am I reading this?’

that will be very stressful for me… That is like 300 pages in less than one week.

This conversation was the first and only time during our interviews that Mari acknowledged how the majority of her reading in college seemed unrelated to her future goals.

She stated that her anxiety about reading often felt overwhelming. When this feeling occurred, she

Randel, M. A. (2014) / Labeled Reading Disabled would “dread” completing the assigned reading and often procrastinated before eventually opening the book.

situations. On several occasions during college, after telling a peer that she had a reading disability, he or she expressed disbelief or confusion after her disclosure because she was academically successful in college and a member of the honors college. She then had to explain to her peer that she was not less intelligent, but that it took her a little longer to read and to process things.

“I don’t like reading.” In contrast to informants in previous research who identified reading as a positive activity (Connor, 2008; McCray, Vaughn, & Neal, 2001), Mari was very clear about her dislike of reading. A consistent pattern throughout the interviews was that, although she had some positive experiences with specific texts, she stated that she couldn’t ever remember enjoying the act of reading. In fact, the last words of her final interview were, “Reading is always just…it just seems too dreadful.” Although she stated that she enjoyed being a part of a weekly book discussion group, a requirement in her children’s literature course, she did not believe that she would participate in a book club in the future. She does, however, believe that the reading and discussion of books will be an important part of literacy instruction in her future elementary school classroom.

Mari generally preferred to be identified as an honor student, another part of her identity, which has a positive status, and an identity that many assume to be incompatible with a reading disability label. Mari regularly volunteered at her university’s disability center, activities that were sponsored by her honor society, which included reading books for people with reading disabilities and/or vision impairments. During her service, she again chose not to disclose her reading disability to staff or other honor society members so that she would not be perceived as less competent or subordinate as a volunteer. Her decision not to take up her reading disability has allowed her to see how others view disability, making some of her university service experiences more complex. She recalled the first honor society meeting in which she learned about the plan to do volunteer work with the student disability center. She and the rest of the group of honor society students were asked if they knew anyone with a disability. Mari was unsure how to respond and said nothing. The question itself supported a stereotypical view that students with disabilities could not also be honor students. As part of this volunteer work with the disability center, she read tests to students with disabilities, and read books aloud for students who were entitled to these accommodations based on their recognized need. Interestingly, through the disability resource center, she was also entitled to these very same accommodations.

Mari also expressed a general displeasure with alternative ways to read, including using text-tospeech programs, audio text, or having someone read exams to her, although they are optional accommodations for all of her courses through the university disability center. Although she tried several audio test options, she typically found reading along with electronic texts to be an unhelpful reading support. She didn’t like the voices, and typically the reading speed on audio books was too fast for her to be able to follow along in the book. “If they don’t ask, I won’t tell.” Mari usually chose not to disclose her reading disability in order to prevent being stereotyped or considered less intelligent by others. In two course assignments with readings including disability themes, she referred to her reading disability as a “secret identity.” During our interviews, Mari discussed several situations in which she decided not to disclose her disability to university instructors and other students. She has only self-identified as an individual with a reading disability to close friends and family members. Although she doesn’t remember experiencing overt discrimination related to her disability, she often chooses not to take up her identity as an individual with learning disability in many social and classroom

Discussion In this work, I focused on identifying the roles that reading and texts played throughout the life of a college student who had been labeled “reading disabled” when she was in middle school. A successful honor student who also identified with a reading disability, Mari navigated her academic life at the intersection of these two identities, which are typically considered to be incompatible. Often,

Journal of Language and Literacy Education Vol. 10 Issue 2 – Fall 2014 reading researchers and educators assume that individuals with reading disabilities use limited cognitive strategies when reading, and would benefit from reading strategy instruction (Gersten, Fuchs, Williams, & Baker, 2001). Mari, however, specifically described how she used a variety of cognitive strategies when she read, based on her reading purpose, the context, and the text itself. In fact, not only did she develop cognitive strategies in order to comprehend texts, but similar to individuals with reading difficulties profiled in recent, related research (Collins, 2013; Hall, 2009; McCloskey, 2012), Mari developed strategies that enabled her to be recognized as competent by her classmates, instructors, family, and friends. Additionally, for Mari, it seemed that certain texts served as identity markers with multiple purposes. Reading a specific text can allow an individual to pass as a “good” reader (Connor, 2008; Edwards, 1994; Kos, 1991; McCloskey, 2012), and has helped Mari to gain social capital, most often from her family, peers, and instructors. By reading texts in certain sociallyacceptable ways (e.g. reading the book before seeing the movie), Mari was able to take up the identity of a successful reader. Reading specific texts allowed Mari to feel a sense of personal accomplishment, seemingly leading to professional success in the education field.

struggling reader. Perhaps it was the potential risks to her preferred identity that made reading especially unpleasant. Looking only at Mari’s course reading responses, one might conclude that Mari enjoyed reading a variety of texts, connected personally with texts, and was an avid reader. Her written reading responses for her children’s literature course suggested that she valued many texts and connected to several of them personally. When written responses to texts were required for a course, she was able to participate in ways that allowed her to be recognized, and identified as an individual who was a good reader. However, my interviews with Mari suggested that these reading experiences were less relevant to her than my analysis of her written coursework alone might suggest. Pope (2001) suggested in her work that the academically-successful teen informants in her study were “doing school,” and it seemed likely that Mari was “doing reading.” Mari was able to code switch effectively based on the task, audience, and context of reading activity. By that statement, I suggest that Mari was aware that her instructors, myself included, expected her to engage with and respond to texts with a certain tone, and to utilize certain practices in order to demonstrate competency. Knowing these expectations, Mari made sure that her written work demonstrated attributes that allowed her to be recognized as a capable student who was a successful reader. Society, educational institutions, and/or individuals do not place equal value on all identities. Mari strategically took up a “good reader” identity— aligned with being an honor student—in reading responses for her children’s literature course, and likely in her book discussions with peers. Individuals with reading disabilities are likely to be perceived as less intelligent and less capable (Collins, 2013; May & Stone, 2010), and Mari typically chose not to disclose her reading disability in order to avoid being discriminated against or stereotyped. Those types of reactions can result in individuals with reading disabilities feeling ambivalent about themselves, as well as having an overall sense of self-fragmentation (Valle, Solis, Volpitta, & Connor, 2004).

Even though, at the time of this study, Mari was a successful student at a large research university with a very high grade point average, reading continued to be a challenging and anxiety-provoking activity. In contrast to the middle school-aged participants in McCray, Vaughn, and Neal’s (2001) study who all enjoyed reading, Mari did not. Although she was able to use reading successfully in order to suit her needs, not even a strong personal connection with a text could make the act of reading an enjoyable experience for her. A common goal of many reading teachers is to foster a love of reading (Kittle, 2013), and it was a goal that Mari, as a pre-service teacher, also had for her future students. Throughout our interviews, Mari made it clear that all reading activities were time-consuming, and that many caused her tremendous stress, which forced her to self-identify as a disabled reader, and could potentially lead to others to recognize her as a

Randel, M. A. (2014) / Labeled Reading Disabled In contrast to viewing reading disabilities as being incomplete understanding of a diverse group of problematic and as individual deficiencies that must individuals. This project gives voice to the reading be cured by clinicians and/or specialists, Mari views experiences of a single individual whose voice is her reading disability as being a continuous part of rarely heard—a highly successful female honor her identity. She also believes that the label and student with a reading disability—and helps accompanying reading challenges may have had researchers to recognize and attend to the several positive effects on her. She stated that the idiosyncratic nature of reading disabilities. Mari’s many reading challenges she faced made her into a experiences with reading and texts serve as a hard-working, empathetic individual who is counternarrative, which challenges outsiders to successful. Mari and I discussed the possibility that reconsider what it means to be labeled with a she might have been as successful as she was in reading disability, and functions to combat the college because of her reading disability. Since deficit focus and negative stigma associated with reading was such a reading disability difficult task, she became (Collins, 2013; Connor, used to spending a great 2013; Donmeyer & Kos, deal of time on reading 1993). As only a select few assignments during researchers have done in middle and high school. the past decade (Collins, “Mari’s experiences with By the time she entered 2013; Connor, 2008; 2013; reading and texts serve as a college, she had already Hall, 2009; McCloskey, developed strong 2012), continuing to counternarrative, which outlining and note-taking produce interpretivist challenges outsiders to skills to meet the reading research about reconsider what it means to be demands of her high individuals labeled with school courses. These reading disabilities can labeled with a reading skills seem to have help grow the field, and disability” supported her well in allow us researchers and college, as she ended her educators to gain a more freshman year with a 4.0 thorough understanding grade point average. of the roles that reading Mari’s success as a college and texts play in these freshman is particularly noteworthy, as many firstindividuals’ identity development (Alvermann & year college students with and without reading Mallozzi, 2009). disabilities struggle to manage the increased reading U.S. educational policy initiatives narrowly focus on load and higher course demands of postsecondary academic achievement in high school and college coursework successfully. Her strong work ethic and matriculation as measures of success. If one looks diligent reading practices may have actually allowed only at these measures, Mari’s story is a successful her to develop the additional identities of successful one. Although she struggled with reading college student, honor roll student, tutor of college throughout school, she earned good grades in high students with reading disabilities, and even a school, was awarded several scholarships, and was volunteer who reads to others who have text to admitted into the honor society at her university. speech accommodations at her university’s disability However, at what cost has this success come? It center. seems troubling that in order to achieve at Mari’s Implications level, reading turned into something she considers “dreadful” and avoids when possible. One of the foci As Chimamanda Adichie (2009) reminded listeners of the Common Core State Standards is to ensure in her speech, “The Danger of a Single Story,” having that all students are reading complex texts (National a single story of a group of people, such as those Governors Association, 2010). This rhetoric suggests labeled with reading disabilities, allows for an that a curricular change is necessary to ensure that

Journal of Language and Literacy Education Vol. 10 Issue 2 – Fall 2014 students don’t lag behind their peers in reading because they don’t read complex texts. In contrast, Mari described her ability to read a variety of complex texts successfully during high school and college; however, she included very few positive reading experiences in her descriptions. She also repeatedly stated a general dislike for reading.

research, interpretive research can promote the benefits of listening to students with reading disabilities when trying to improve instructional programming, which can be particularly helpful to practitioners as well as family members (Davis, 2000). As educators are encouraged to use data for instructional decision-making, I argue that listening to students can provide a different form of data—one that may be particularly valuable when used to reconsider practice in ways that more commonly used reading assessment data cannot. Listening to students’ experiences may be particularly valuable so that researchers and educators can expand their understanding of the effects of persistent reading difficulties and that certain students may be positioned by texts, reading activities, and assignments in their classrooms.

Although intrinsic motivation, self-efficacy, engagement, and positive identities are all important aspects for literacy instruction, these factors are notably absent from the Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts (Troia & Olinghouse, 2013). In her theoretical work on undermining aspects of motivation, Coddington (2009) cautions that avoidance and perceiving reading as a difficult practice can also undermine achievement. If we educators really want to design inclusive educational spaces that foster a love of reading, it seems unlikely that the Common Core State Standards’ focus on close reading and complex printed texts alone will be the optimal solution. As more students with reading disabilities are college bound, maybe stakeholders should reconsider the text-centric nature of school learning—particularly in secondary and post-secondary schooling—and consider broader definitions of texts from which content can be learned. Instead of a textbook chapter, having students watch an online podcast or interview could reposition individuals who have been marginalized by consistently narrow views of school texts.

Historically, a reading disability has been considered a deficit within an individual that can be fixed or cured when given appropriate instruction. Mari’s experiences allow us researchers to recognize that reading disabilities can be lifelong, and that being able to read complex texts and achieve academically does not mean that an individual’s reading difficulties have disappeared. In addition, we researchers have been reminded about the emotional toll of reading disability, even for an individual who is considered successful and high-achieving. Why, then, do schools continue to focus only on reading interventions and curricular modifications to support individuals with reading disabilities? Researchers cannot continue to ignore the social and emotional aspects of lifelong reading challenges. If we really want to increase the success of individuals with reading disability labels, we need to acknowledge and support them personally, socially, emotionally, and academically.

Telling the stories of individuals with disabilities can identify injustices that may encourage professionals in the education field to take action and remedy these undesirable situations (Pugach, 2001). In addition to expanding the role of people who have been historically silenced individuals in reading

Acknowledgements Thank you, Mari, for sharing so much of yourself. I am glad to know you, and have learned more from you than you will ever know. Thank you to Django Paris and Carol Sue Englert for supporting and encouraging this work.

Randel, M. A. (2014) / Labeled Reading Disabled References Adichie, C. (2009). Chimamanda Adichie: The danger of a single story. [Video file]. Retrieved from http://www.ted.com/talks/chimamanda_adichie_the_danger_of_a_single_story.html Allington, R. L. (2002). You can’t learn much from books you can’t read. Educational Leadership, 60(3), 16-19. Allington, R. L. (2007). Intervention all day long: New hope for struggling readers. Voices from the Middle, 14(4), 7-14. Alvermann, D. E. (2001). Reading adolescents’ reading identities: Looking back to see ahead. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 44(8), 676-690. Alvermann, D. E., & Mallozzi, C. A. (2009). Interpretive research. In McGill-Franzen & Allington (Eds.), Handbook of reading disability research (pp. 488-496). New York, NY: Routledge. Barone, D. M. (2011). Case-study research. In N. K. Duke & M. Mallette (Eds.), Literacy research methodologies (2nd ed., pp. 7-27). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Coddington, C. S. (2009). The effects of constructs of motivation that affirm and undermine reading achievement inside and outside of school on middle school students’ reading achievement (Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (ProQuest document ID 1974135421). Cole, M. (1998). Cultural psychology: A once and future discipline. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press. Collins, K. M. (2013). Ability profiling and school failure (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. Connor, D. J. (2008). Urban narratives: Portraits in progress: Life at the intersections of learning disability, race, & social class. New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc. Connor, D. J. (2013). Who “owns” disability? The cultural work of critical special educators as insider-outsiders. Theory and Research in Social Education, 41(4), 494-513. Davis, J. M. (2000). Disability studies as ethnographic research and text: Research strategies and roles for promoting social change. Disability & Society, 15(2), 191-206. Donmeyer, R., & Kos, R. (1993). At-risk students: Portraits, policies, programs, and practices. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Dudley-Marling, C. (2004). The social construction of learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37(6), 482-489. Edwards, J. (1994). Scars of dyslexia: Eight case studies in emotional reactions. London, England: Cassell. Enriquez, G. (2011). Embodying exclusion: The daily melancholia and performative politics of struggling early adolescent readers. English Teaching: Practice & Critique, 10(3), 90-112.

Journal of Language and Literacy Education Vol. 10 Issue 2 – Fall 2014 Ferri, B. A. (2012). Undermining inclusion: A critical reading of response to intervention (RTI). International Journal of Inclusive Education, 16(8), 863-880. Franzak, J. K. (2006). Zoom: A review of the literature on marginalized adolescent readers, literacy theory, and policy implications. Review of Educational Research, 76(2), 209-248. Friend, M. (2006). Special education: Contemporary perspectives for school professionals. Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc. Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., & Stecker, P. M. (2010). The “blurring”of special education in a new continuum of general education placements and services. Exceptional Children, 76(3), 301-323. Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (2009). Creating opportunities for intensive intervention for students with learning disabilities. Teaching Exceptional Children, 42(2), 60-62. Gallagher, D. J., Connor, D. J., & Ferri, B. A. (2014). Beyond the far too incessant schism: Special education and the social model of disability, International Journal of Inclusive Education, 18(11), 1120-1142. Gee, J. P. (2000). Identity as an analytic lens for research in education. Review of Research in Education, 25, 99125. Gee, J. P. (2008). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis. Gersten, R., Fuchs, L. S., Williams, J. P., & Baker, S. (2001). Teaching reading comprehension strategies to students with learning disabilities: A review of research. Review of Educational Research, 71, 279-320. Glaser, B. G. (1965). The constant comparative method of qualitative analysis. Social Problems, 12(4), 436-445. Glesne, C. (2006). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Pearson. Greenleaf, C. L., & Hinchman, K. (2009). Reimagining our inexperienced adolescent readers: From struggling, striving, marginalized, and reluctant to thriving. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 53, 4-13. Hall, L. A. (2009). Struggling reader, struggling teacher: An examination of student-teacher transactions with reading instruction and text in social studies. Research in the Teaching of English, 43, 286–309. Harry, B., & Klingner, J. (2006). Why are so many minority students in special education?: Understanding race & disability in schools. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Hill, M. L. (2009). Beats, rhymes, and classroom life: Hip-hop pedagogy and the politics of identity. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Hock, M. F., Brasseur, I. F., Deshler, D. D., Catts, H. W., Marquis, J. G., Mark, C. A., & Stribling, J. W. (2009). What is the reading component skill profile of adolescent struggling readers in urban schools? Learning Disability Quarterly, 32, 21-38. Kirkland, D. E. (2011). Books like clothes: Engaging young black men with reading. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 55(3), 199-208.

Randel, M. A. (2014) / Labeled Reading Disabled Kittle. P. (2013). Book love: Developing depth, stamina, and passion in adolescent readers. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Kos, R. (1991). Persistence of reading disabilities: The voices of four middle school students. American Educational Research Journal, 28(4), 875-895. May, A. L., & Stone, C. A. (2010). Stereotypes of individuals with learning disabilities: Views of college students with and without learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 43(6), 483-499. McCloskey, E. (2012). Taking on a learning disability: At the crossroads of special education and adolescent literacy learning. Poughkeepsie, NY: Information Age Publishing. McCray, A. D., Vaughn, S., & Neal, L. V. I. (2001). Not all students learn to read by third grade: Middle school students speak out about their reading disabilities. Journal of Special Education, 35, 17-30. McIntyre, E. (2011). Sociocultural perspectives on children with reading difficulties. In A. McGill-Franzen & R. Allington (Eds.), Handbook of reading disability research (pp. 45-56). New York, NY: Routledge. National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers (2010). Common Core State Standards: English Language Arts/Literacy Standards. Washington DC: Authors. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/ELA-Literacy/ Paris, D. (2011). “A friend who understand fully”: Notes on humanizing research in a multiethnic youth community. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 24(2), 137-149. Paris, D. (2012). Becoming history: Learning from identity texts and youth activism in the wake of Arizona SB1070. International Journal of Multicultural Education, 14(2), 1-13. Paris, D., & Winn, M. T. (2013). Humanizing research: Decolonizing qualitative inquiry with youth and communities. Washington, DC: Sage Publications, Inc. Pope, D. C. (2001). “Doing school”: How we are creating a generation of stressed out, materialistic, and miseducated students. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Pugach, M. C. (2001). The stories we choose to tell: Fulfilling the promise of qualitative research for special education. Exceptional Children, 67(4), 439-454. Rodis, P., Garrod, A., & Boscardin, M. L. (2000). Learning disabilities and life stories. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Schatschneider, C., Wagner, R. K., & Crawford, E. (2008). The importance of measuring growth in response to intervention models: Testing a core assumption. Learning and Individual Differences, 18(3), 308–315. Shacklock, G., & Thorp, L. (2005). Life history and narrative approaches. In B. Somekh & C. Lewin, (Eds.), Research methods in the social sciences (pp. 156-163). Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Shannon, P. (2007). Reading against democracy: The broken promises of reading instruction. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Journal of Language and Literacy Education Vol. 10 Issue 2 – Fall 2014 Street, B. V. (1987). Literacy in theory and practice. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Torres-Velásquez, D. (2000). Sociocultural theory: Standing at the crossroads. Remedial and Special Education, 21(2), 66-69. Trent, S. C., Artiles, A. J., & Englert, C. S. (1998). From deficit thinking to social constructivism: A review of theory, research, and practice in special education. Review of Research in Education, 23, 277-307. Troia, G. A., & Olinghouse, N. G. (2013). The common core state standards and evidence-based educational practices: The case of writing. School Psychology Review, 42(3), 343-357. Valencia, S. W. (2011). Reader profiles and reading disabilities. In A. McGill-Franzen & R. L. Allington (Eds.), Handbook of reading disability research (pp. 25-35). New York, NY: Routledge. Valle, J. W., Solis, S., Volpitta, D., & Connor, D. J. (2004). The disability closet: Teachers with learning disabilities evaluate the risks and benefits of “coming out.” Equity & Excellence in Education, 37, 4-17. Wagner, M., Cameto, R., & Newman, L. (2003). Youth with disabilities: A changing population: A report of findings from the National Longitudinal Transition Study (NLTS) and the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2). Menlo Park, CA: SRI International. Wanzek, J., Vaughn, S., Scammacca, N. K., Metz, K., Murray, C. S., Roberts, G., & Danielson, L. (2013). Extensive reading interventions for students with reading difficulties after grade 3. Review of Educational Research, 83(2), 163-195. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Winn, M. T. (2011). Girl time: Literacy, justice, and the school-to-prison pipeline. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Woodcock, C. (2010). “I allow myself to feel now…”: Adolescent girls’ negotiations of embodied knowing, the female body, and literacy. Journal of Literacy Research, 42(4), 349-384.

Literature Cited Babbit, N. (1975). Tuck everlasting. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus, & Giroux. Collins, S. (2008). The hunger games. New York, NY: Scholastic. Rowling, J. K. (1997). Harry Potter and the sorcerer’s stone. New York, NY: Scholastic. Steinbeck, J. (1952). East of Eden. New York, NY: The Viking Press. Williams-Garcia, R. (2010) One crazy summer. New York, NY: Harper Collins.

“So, Like, What Now?”: Making Identity Visible for Preservice Teachers Laura M. Jiménez

ABSTRACT: Drawing on Vygostky's zone of proximal development this study explores the ways preservice teachers engage with The Human Bean Activity that was designed to make visible the abstract idea of identity and community. This qualitative narrative analysis explores the talk produced by 47 predominantly White, straight, and female preservice teachers as they talked with each other about race, ethnicity, sexual identity, and their own identity in a multicultural literature class. Findings show students’ use of song lyrics, humor, and shared laughter to relieve tension, build solidarity, and avoid stress. In addition these students challenged themselves and each other to better understand their own identities and communities. Some students were able to connect the activity to their own reading and begin to enact a new awareness and appreciation of diversity.

Key words: Multicultural Literature, Preservice Teachers, Diversity, Teacher Education

Dr. Laura M. Jiménez is a lecturer at Boston University in the Language and Literacy program. She earned her PhD in Educational Psychology and Educational Technology from Michigan State University in 2013. Her research focuses on the literacy-literature divide using children’s and YA literature, especially graphic novels to explore how students read as well as what students read. She has a special focus on issues of race, ethnicity, and heteronormativity in educational settings and how literature can impact students’ understating of themselves and others. She also writes a blog (http://booktoss.wordpress.com/) in which she brings her understanding of graphic novels, YA literature and representation to a wider audience. She can be contacted at jimenez1@bu.edu

Journal of Language and Literacy Education Vol. 10 Issue 2 -- Fall 2014 Michelle M. Falter, Editor -- http://jolle.coe.uga.edu

Journal of Language and Literacy Education Vol. 10 Issue 2 -- Fall 2014

Teacher educators who focus on aspects of multicultural education strive not only to improve the school experience for underrepresented students, but also challenge the established White, middleclass power structure embedded in the American education system (Castagno, 2013; Johnson & Atwater, 2014). Taking on the role of teacher educator has made me aware of the delicate and dubious tension of working with preservice teachers who reflect and, often unknowingly, reify a White, middle-class, heteronormative power structure (Sleeter, 2001). Many educators share the same frustration with preservice teachers’ hesitancy to talk about difficult topics such as race, ethnicity, and sexual identity. It is imperative to provide experiences that encourage preservice teachers to stop avoiding these issues and do the hard work of engaging with ideas and people that do not align with long held beliefs or familiar settings. Experiences such as reading multicultural literature that reflects authentic representations, watching movies made by underrepresented people, going to galleries or museums that feature underrepresented artists, or attending public events such as Pow Wows and Pride parades are such opportunities. But, simply having the experience as a protected outsider may not be enough to challenge long held views. Instead, we as teacher educators must encourage our students to talk and intellectually engage with these issues.

Prior to developing the activity, I taught a multicultural literature class designed to acquaint students with a sampling of literature by and about underrepresented races, ethnicities, and cultures. The goals of the course were stated in the syllabus: “The course provides authentic literature that respectfully represents the experiences of underrepresented peoples in the United States of America. We will guide student responses to the reading, and allow them to discover and appreciate the literature for diversity of experience” (Children’s Literature Team, 2006). Although the stated goals were clear, I was often frustrated with what I perceived to be the students’ disengagement with the literature, their inability to see outside their lived experiences, and their insistence that race no longer mattered in the United States of America. More precisely, I was mystified by the energy the students put into resisting the characters and events in the books used in the course. The books themselves reflected an array of races, cultures, abilities, and sexual orientations (see Appendix B). At the end of the semester, I saw no evidence of growth in the students’ written responses, and class discussions. I only saw an unwillingness or inability to read the literature from anything other than a Eurocentric, heteronormative view of the world that reflected their lives and experiences. For example, a typical student response from the beginning of the semester to Bronx Masquerade (Grimes, 2003) read, “I don’t see race. All I ever see is human beings.” And here is one from the end of the semester in response to Becoming Naomi Leon (Ryan, 2005): “In the end after all of the running the judge saw the truth of the matter, we are all just human beings no matter what. Age, language, heritage does [sic] not matter as much as love.” Students often relied on this colorblind or humankind ideal, perhaps believing that recognition of differences of color leads inexorably to racism. Beach (1997) found similar responses to multicultural texts, but as most research in multicultural education has found, this color-blind view of the world often shelters students from seeing and appreciating difference and diversity (Thein, Beach, & Parks, 2007).

Sleeter (1993) asserted the importance of Whites talking about race in the following excerpt: “We semantically evade our own role in perpetuating White racism by constructing sentences that allow us to talk about racism while removing ourselves from discussion” (p. 14). In response to the wellestablished problem of preservice teachers avoiding difficult conversations (Gomez, 1996; Terrill & Mark, 2000; Walker-Dalhouse & Dalhouse, 2006), I developed The Human Bean Activity (see Appendix A). The activity is designed to help students realize their own identity/ies, their communities, and, most importantly, to help them develop ways of talking and listening to each other as they struggle with issues of race, ethnicity, sexual identity, and their own communities of choice.

Jiménez, L. M. (2014) / “So, Like, What Now?” Considering why this color-blind stance was preferred by the students in my class when addressing issues of race, ethnicity, language, and even sexual identity, I realized that they perceived recognition of difference as an act of racism/ethnocentrism/homophobia. It was as if the act of speaking about differences had become synonymous with being racist. I cannot know if this was a conscious choice on their part, or if it was a subtle lesson they had learned over time; but I did know that not talking about these issues was not going to change anything.

There is a growing body of existing research around teaching (mostly) White preservice teachers to function and thrive in ever-changing, complex, and diverse classrooms. The current study was built upon the important work around White teachers recognizing their own identity, the importance of reading and contemplating challenging texts, and group thinking in classrooms.group thinking in classrooms. White Teachers in America The experience of teaching a multicultural literature class to a predominantly White student body is not unique. The research on preservice teaching programs showed that diversity, multiculturalism, or anti-racist curriculum often conceptualizes White, middle-class identity as a deficit or as a problem to be solved (Castro, 2010; Lowenstein, 2009). The solution often entails degrading Whiteness and White students by claiming that White students “bring exactly the wrong stuff” to the dialogue (Lensmire & Snaza, 2010, p. 414). Whiteness is often portrayed as an insurmountable problem (Lensmire & Snaza, 2010), a problem to overcome (Conklin, 2008), or a danger (Gomez, 1996). There is no doubting the negative effects White privilege has in education but all the blame and shame may merely serve to unintentionally perpetuate the problem (McCarthy, 2003). Blaming these preservice students for being White and not providing them with ways to engage with these difficult topics makes them more likely to disengage and avoid these topics (McCarthy, 2003; Ullucci & Battey, 2011).

The failure of the students to connect with, discover, or even to recognize the alternative realities presented in multicultural books was my failure as an instructor. Many teachers recognize the failure of students, but it is imperative for educators to recognize when we have failed our students. Upon reflection, I realized that I entered into the semester harboring unreasonable and, more importantly, unexplored expectations. The students were supposed to enjoy the challenge of literature that was new and unfamiliar, but I had not provided a point of departure for the readings. By having these students read particular books, I was sending them into the wilds of literature where they would experience a multilingual/multiethnic urban high school one week, a high school with openly gay and transgender teens the next, followed by a junior high filled with American-Indian kids trying to make their way along with openly racist White kids. After that, they read novels featuring families dealing with disabilities, addiction, and adoption. I also gave them novels where the instigators, bullies, misunderstanding teachers, and unhelpful friends were predominantly White. In short, these preservice teachers were not only being asked to reflect on very different life experiences, but also they were being asked to see their own culture (White, middle-class, and straight) as at fault for traumatic experiences in these novels. These preservice teachers were expected to take all of this in and then reflect on it without first having a working understanding about their own Whiteness and their own communities. This was an unreasonable expectation on my part.

Because taking a deficit view of White preservice teachers may not help with the underlying problems that multicultural education seeks to remedy, it is necessary to change the ways we view White, middle-class, straight preservice teachers. With that in mind, Sleeter’s (2008) meta-analysis of the views that White preservice teachers tend to hold is especially informative: (a) a lack of recognition of the “pervasiveness of racial inequity”; (b) “deficit views about and lower expectations for students of color”; (c) “a colorblind approach to teaching, denying the very significance of race in their practices”; and (d) a lack of “a sense of themselves as cultural beings” (p. 198). If teacher education scholars wish to ameliorate

Literature Review

Journal of Language and Literacy Education Vol. 10 Issue 2 -- Fall 2014 these very real issues, we must investigate how specific experiences within teacher education programs provide or deny opportunities for these students to critically examine and engage with issues of race, Whiteness, and sexual identity.

One major issue often cited by scholars is a reticence by students to engage with their own identities, and the false security of color-blind worldviews (Gay & Howard, 2000; Villegas, 2008). According to Barst (2013), teaching literature that highlights issues of diversity, power and privilege can often be a significant challenge because students often resist open and honest discussions. This reluctance can develop for a variety of reasons, including preconceived stereotypes, lack of previous instruction, and students’ personal beliefs, experiences, or family backgrounds. In order to avoid the uncomfortable subjects in class discussion, students often express an ideal best described as “color-blind,” but this view also excludes recognitions of differences in class, ability, culture, sexuality, and all manner of social constructs.

Engaging with Challenging Texts

Pressley and Afflerbach (1995) suggested that prior knowledge, emotional connections, and knowledge monitoring all contribute to a reader’s comprehension and understanding of a text. A reader’s engagement with text is often mediated either by the way she makes connections to the text, or by the way she relates to the characters, the story, or other elements perceived as part of the overall context of the act of reading (Smagorinsky, Considering why this color-blind 2001; Turner, 1995). When a reader interacts with a text stance was preferred by the students in a multitude of complex in my class when addressing issues ways, the reader gains more from the text, and it of race, ethnicity, language, and becomes more likely that even sexual identity, I realized that the reader will utilize new knowledge in future they perceived recognition of reading experiences. It also difference as an act of becomes possible that the reader may bring the racism/ethnocentrism/homophobia. experiences of reading that It was as if the act of speaking about particular text into other differences had become environments (Stanovich, 1986).

Group Thinking Classrooms

Scholars in multiple fields of study observe that conversations have an established flow with predictable beginnings, expected responses or turn taking, and foreseeable end points (see Bakhtin, 1986; Schegloff, 1999; Wortham, 2005). Mercer (2000) and his colleagues (Rojassynonymous with being racist. Drummond & Mercer, Literature is often used as a 2003) found common tool in multicultural education to encourage conversational processes when they observed students to explore and consider events, cultures and participants thinking and problem solving in groups. histories that fall outside the students’ normative The research found that when individuals partake in experience (Beach, 1994, 1997). Dewey (1938/1997) group thinking or problem solving activities, they argued that experiences that activate critical shared responsibility for the progress by referring engagement with difficult subjects is an effective way back to common experiences, eliciting information, for students to build schema, make meaning, and offering new information which then becomes a develop understanding. In my own practice, I tried to shared resource, evaluating contributions to the create a safe classroom environment where the conversation, and repeating or reformulating students explored and critically engaged with statements (Rojas-Drummond & Mercer, 2003). A difficult topics such as racism, homophobia, ableism, key to the design of The Human Bean Activity and and their own role in supporting or changing the this study was Mercer’s (2000) view of individuals education system. thinking together to scaffold and challenge each

Jiménez, L. M. (2014) / “So, Like, What Now?” other. It became clear that Mercer’s ideal could only take place in a truly collaborative classroom.

Vygostky’s zone of proximal development (1978), this study explored whether providing individuals with questions that challenged them would assist in making visible the abstract idea of identity and community. Vygotsky emphasized the ways in which we learn by engaging in talk with people around us— by doing so we clarify our own understanding and influence each other’s understanding. The orchestration of the activity acted as a reciprocal scaffold for these students in the following way. The cues (see Appendix A) acted as mediators for a talk about difficult subjects such as race, ethnicity, and sexual orientation. The talk acted as a way to mediate and challenge the ways these students think about their own identity and others’ life experiences. Together the talk, the interaction, and the objects acted as a scaffold to promote meaning making around difficult subjects.

When considering how to create a collaborative classroom where the process of constructing knowledge was as valued as the products associated with learning, Forman and Cazden (1994) stated, “When we try to explore Vygotskian perspectives for education, we immediately confront questions about the role of the student peer group” (p. 156). Education often enacted with a teacher delivering content to a passive group of students. Forman and Cazden explained that peer collaboration is made difficult because collaboration requires a different kind of classroom environment. A collaborative classroom values academic products created by the group as well as those created by individuals. Perhaps more important to the current study, the process of thinking and talking together is a valued commodity. The teacher in a collaborative classroom must be willing and able to encourage students to speak, to ask each other questions, and to do the work involved in answering those questions. The teacher in this kind of environment must listen to students, monitor miscues, wrong answers, or mistakes but refrain from immediately stepping in to correct. The students in a collaborative classroom must be engaged and empowered enough to challenge and work through conflicting ideas together as a community (Forman & Cazden, 1994).

Perhaps more exactly, the study relies on critical sociocultural theory (Lewis, Enciso, & Moje, 2007), which encompasses the tradition of sociocultural theory along with the power dynamics at work in “issues of power, identity, and agency” (Lewis, Enciso, & Moje, 2007, p. 2). The current study was directly situated within this intersection, where these preservice teachers were invited to actively engage in examining their own place of privilege, either known or unknown, within society as a whole, but especially within the classroom. This theoretical lens helped frame the importance of issues of identity such as race, ethnicity, and sexual orientation as these preservice teachers reflected on the ways they experienced their own culture in the past and how they might imagine experiencing it in the future.

The current study was designed to address both what is possible when preservice teachers are given the opportunity to explore and talk about difficult topics, and to provide an activity that can be used and replicated to encourage this kind of talk in other spaces. Georgakopoulou (2006) provides a structure for reporting the data in what she referred to as “small stories” (p. 122). Using small stories as a method to show how these preservice teachers talked about issues of identity helps to illustrate the flow of conversation seen across multiple classes.

By taking a critical sociocultural stance, I was able to design the activity with the students’ meaning making as the focus. In turn, I functioned as a guide but not an intermediary or focal point during the activity. This teaching experience was not about me leading the class to the knowledge, or transmitting the knowledge to a set of passive students. Instead, it was a way to engage and scaffold students in their own individual meaning making process.

Theoretical Framework Sociocultural theory (Vygotsky, 1978) provided the lens for the development of the activity and for the methods used to consider and examine the talk produced by the students. Drawing specifically on

Method Participants

Journal of Language and Literacy Education Vol. 10 Issue 2 -- Fall 2014 Researcher Positionality Students from two sections of the multicultural literature classes that I taught (a total of 47) agreed to be included in this qualitative exploration of student talk (see Table 1). The class was an elective offered in the college of education for elementary or secondary preservice teacher candidates. The majority of the students were juniors in elementary teacher education, with the remaining sophomores and seniors (no freshmen in either class). Each class met once a week for three hours during the fall semester and the activity took place at the beginning of the second meeting.

I am also a participant in the current study, and my positionality is an aspect that needs to be addressed in order to understand when and how my own biases impacted the students and this activity. During this study, I was a graduate student instructor pursuing a PhD in Language and Literacy. I identify myself to my students as a lesbian, a Latina, and the mother of two young boys on the first day of class. These selfdisclosures are purposeful on my part as I am aware that without laying claim to these identities, the assumption is often that I am White, middle-class, and straight. I choose not to be complicit in perpetuating assumptions about my own race, culture, or sexual identity.

In addition, I watched two other multicultural literature classes taught by two different instructors complete the activity during the second meeting of the spring semester of the same academic year. I interviewed these instructors and relied on them to review the data and the findings. I was also able to interview a third instructor at length about her experience using the activity with her other multicultural literature class. These different perspectives on the same phenomena provided the opportunity for triangulation (Denzin, 1970) of the data. This article reflects the small stories (Georgakopoulou, 2006) told and the work these students produced when given the chance to speak, to be heard, and to hear each other.

Data Analysis The primary data sources used were (a) the separate audio recordings from small groups and a master audio recording from the whole class discussion that followed, (b) field notes taken by an observer during the activity, and (c) my own analytical memos written following the activity. By using constant comparative method (Glaser & Strauss, 1967), an initial coding scheme was realized. This initial coding identified keywords in the student talk and the utterances in which these keywords occurred. Further analysis within these themes resulted in a

Table 1 Student Demographic Information Race

3 African American or Black

1 Latina

1 Mixed-race (Asian and White)

Gender

43 Female

4 Male

Sexual orientation

1 Bisexual

2 Gay or lesbian

Motherâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s level of education

8 Some college, no degree

20 Completed BA or BS

Year in program

27 Junior

11 Senior

44 Straight or heterosexual 8 Some graduate, no degree 9 Sophomore

Note. All demographic information is self-identified by the students.

42 White

11 Completed graduate degree or better

Jiménez, L. M. (2014) / “So, Like, What Now?” more nuanced coding scheme (see Table 2) in which talk about race, culture, identity, similarity and difference was explored. The themes found in the student talk across groups included race, culture, sexual orientation, judgment, quotations, paralinguistic productions such as sighs or other sounds, emotive, and question.

data were analyzed for evidence of the themes realized in the initial analysis. This process was iterative in nature, and a few additional codes were realized from the written data and were reapplied to the transcripts. There are many ways to display and report qualitative data in narrative analysis. Using small stories (Georgakopoulou, 2006) is fairly new. Small stories offer immediacy to the emotions and realizations explored by these preservice teachers as they talk to each other. Giving an account of the activity in this way reflects the chronological unfolding that occurred across the small groups, as well as the ways students reacted, reflected, and showed fleeting glimpses of the tension they experienced.

In addition, isolated transcripts were created to focus on specific elements across groups or classes. These transcripts offered a way to isolate specific facets of the data. For example, a transcript that tracked one individual’s utterances across the entire activity was compared to another’s isolated transcript to find common discussion elements and keywords. Another set of transcripts was made isolating nonverbal sounds such as rustling of objects, tapping fingers, laughter, sighs, and humming. These nonverbal transcripts were synchronized to match the timing of the activity and then were compared across groups and classes.

The Human Bean Activity As It Unfolds The classroom was already set up; each table had an audio recorder, see-through bags that held different kinds of beans or candy, and a small pile of empty plastic bags for the students. Displayed on the screen in the front of the room were the instructions: “Please sit at a table with people you do not know well. The first person should press record on the tape recorder. When a table is full (4 to 5 students) introduce yourselves to each other.” Some students

A third analysis explored if the talk these students engaged in during The Human Bean Activity was in evidence in the work they produced after the activity. This student work included individual essays, responses in blog posts, in-class discussions, and short written reports on extracurricular activities that centered on different races and cultures. These Table 2 Selection of Coded Words Heard in Student Talk Race words

Quote

Paralinguistic production

Judgment

Emotive

Question

White

Song lyrics

Racist

Feel/feelings

Authentic asked/no answer

Black

Movie/TV title

HA!

Horror/ Horrible

Depressing/depressed

Authentic asked/answered

Asian

Named movie/TV character

BAM!

Bad, really bad.

Happy

Rhetorical

Brown

Movie/TV dialogue or reference

Stupid

Scared

Direct (to a specific other)

<sigh> Huh

Yeah! Great!

Race

Journal of Language and Literacy Education Vol. 10 Issue 2 -- Fall 2014 began predicting the nature of the activity before any other instructions were given, saying, “Then we’ll have to fill our bags with what we think classes typically are, or what an ideal classroom would be,” or “Oh man, we did something like this is TE 250 [Human Diversity, Power, and Opportunity in Social Institutions] and I felt like crap for days.” Although all groups hypothesized what the supplies were for, none predicted the activity was about themselves or their own identity. Predictions were based on other experiences in the college of education and were about how the students might see the world, not themselves.

as the teacher, I could not be the one to answer their questions. This may not appear like a pedagogical move on my part as the instructor, but I knew it was crucial for the students to realize that they were responsible for making sense of their own cultural experiences. They could not see me, the teacher, as the person in the room holding the knowledge, even though this structure contradicted normative student and teacher roles. The third, but least prevalent, strategy was to purposefully not fall into nor push against the perceived notions of matching visual characteristics of the objects to people, “I think we should pick randomly,” and “Maybe one person closes her eyes and just picks one from a pile.” This was an interesting approach that proved to be worthy of much discussion later on in the activity. Without the visual cues to remember the connection, each of the groups that elected to use this particular strategy realized that they could not remember what object stood for which group of people.

The room was filled with a flurry of activity as the students found seats, read the instructions, turned on audio recorders, introduced themselves, and asked questions. Several students voiced assumed knowledge about the activity, saying, “This is obvious, everyone here knows what’s supposed to happen.” In response another student said, “Yeah, time to talk about race.” In addition, one student complained, “Oh! Again? Why does it always come down to this?” These utterances illustrate the familiarity these students had with this kind of classroom activity and their reluctance to waste time on something they already know. This kind of reluctance might be attributed to the blameful messages these students had already encountered during other classes or, perhaps, fatigue from hearing the same message.

Each group eventually decided on a method, and the class moved on to the second phase. One important note on this stage of the activity—the method each group decided on was less important than the process of students engaging in discussions about what it means to place a label or to assign objects to represent people. The specifics of their decisions were not as important as the active, engaged conversation, in which they were asking questions, considering ramifications, and deciding together.

My role during the activity was to redirect questions back to the group, to take notes, and to move them forward to the next category. When disagreements around procedure arose within the group, they would look to me for guidance. Each time a student or a group asked me to make a decision or solve a dispute, I responded, “I don’t know. What does your group think?” This cycle was repeated until the class understood that I was not going to help them make decisions. It was important that the results of the activity, including the choices, the discussions, and the eventual product, could only be attributed to the students. If I answered their questions, it would have been as if I knew more about their personal experiences than they knew. It was crucial for the students to do their own discovery; they needed to trust themselves to do the work, and that meant that

Making Community Identity Concrete The second phase, using the assigned objects to represent 14 people that make up part of the individuals’ community, began with more trepidation across groups. Some common sentiments were, “I’m scared about this” and “I guess … I mean, like, I guess this is what we do a lot anyway, right?” The first person on the list to be represented by an object was “yourself.” Some students were uncomfortable with representing themselves: “This is sort of shitty. I mean, I’m more than a big white blob, right?” and “Oh my god, I’m huge and white and a total pudge.” Each of these groups selected dried lima beans to represent White people. This mention

Jiménez, L. M. (2014) / “So, Like, What Now?” of the visual properties of the large white bean and the way it dominated the visual aspect of this activity was also seen as the activity progressed.

encouragement, and sameness” (p. 43) instead of engaging in the uncomfortable work of challenging commonly held views.

This second phase also saw a shift in student attitude. There was more laughter heard throughout all the groups as compared to the first phase. When asked to consider a boyfriend or girlfriend (the second person on the list) students asked, “What if I’m not dating?” or stated: “Depressing! I just broke up.” Or, “Yup, single for too, too long, ladies.” In several different groups someone sang Beyoncé’s lyric: “All the single ladies, all the single ladies,” with a quiet but easily heard chorus of, “Now put your hands up!” At that, the groups laughed, sharing a moment of common levity. These students used a popular cultural icon to express their dating status, and in doing so, demonstrated their shared musical culture. This kind of shared laughter, almost selfdeprecating, can be interpreted in many ways.

The ways the students in the current study used shared laughter is more reflective of this protective move. They sought a relief from the tension of the activity. However, this raises the following question: Why did they need to defuse tension? Haviland’s statement provides one possible explanation: “The behavior of laughing also interrupted the flow of difficult discussions, diffusing tension and preventing questions or challenges from being taken up” (p. 48). These students used a community building technique—laughter—as a way to avoid the uncomfortable feelings that the activity was bringing up for the group. Inter-Group Disagreements Disagreement emerged early on in the activity, often over the issue of how to deal with multiple best friends. One student (White) suggested, “I think we should just choose the most dominant culture of your best friends, like if you have four best friends and three are White, and one is Black, then you’d use a white one.” Another student (African American) in her group refused, stating, “I have a best friend who’s White, and if I didn’t put her in, she’d have a heart attack if I didn’t put her in. So, I put a White one and three itty-bitty black beans.” The rest of the group evaluated the solutions, and after a short discussion the second solution won out. They agreed to use multiple objects to represent multiple people when needed. This short discussion is important because of conversation around dominant. The students had to engage with the idea that using the dominant representation might not be the best method. In a larger context, these students were considering the representation of nondominant people within fairly homogeneous communities. This is a difficult topic to broach in general, and these students were discussing it with relative strangers in a classroom context.

There are a few notable scholars who researched how and why White men and women laugh when talking about race, ethnicity, or issues of sexual identity. Lensmire’s (2011) work exploring the ways male subcultures reward scapegoating and subversive storytelling is one such piece. His findings indicate that some White men tell stories wherein nonWhites and lesbians are the butt of the joke in order to reify their own superiority at the expense of others. Although the laughter heard was shared laughter, it did not appear to be at the expense of any underrepresented group. It did serve as a way to calm and mollify built up tensions. The ways these students used commentary to elicit laughter seems more in line with Haviland’s (2008) observations of one teacher’s 8th grade language arts classroom and her university seminar. Haviland (2008) found that although White teachers stated their desire to upset the status quo around race and racism, they used a series of intricate rhetorical moves to avoid and protect themselves and each other using “White educational discourse” (p. 43). She points out that the use of “joking, agreeing and supporting, and praising and encouraging” are all ways of maintaining White power by “creating classroom feelings of closeness, comfort, safety,

Seeing the Community At the midpoint of the activity, the students had been asked to consider seven out of 14 people in their

Journal of Language and Literacy Education Vol. 10 Issue 2 -- Fall 2014 lives. For many, it had become clear that their communities were predominately monochromatic. The visual effect of seeing their community represented as the clear plastic bag sitting on the table in front of them, which was overrun with a single color and shape, cannot be overstated. These students saw the people they surrounded themselves with represented in concrete terms. Overall, the mood shifted in the room, and much less laughter could be heard. The visual representation of the beans in the bag was difficult to deny or excuse.

As the activity progressed, some students begin to show genuine frustration at the results, as demonstrated by the following sampling: “I should just make up some shit,” and “Man, I cannot believe this. I look like a freakin’ skin head.” One student expressed her realization by singing Frenzal Rhomb’s song lyric: “Oh baby, it’s a White, White world” but in contrast to the reaction elicited by the Beyoncé song reference earlier, there was no laughter in response. Although they were sharing the experience and again calling on pop culture to express their feelings, they were no longer making light of the experience. Instead, the concrete representations they were confronting and seeing others confront impacted them. They were not happy or comfortable with the ongoing results.

At this midpoint, several students begin to select people solely based on their ability to provide diversity to the bag in front of them. Some examples of this selection process were: “I’ll pick Kelly. She’s Columbian,” or “Oh, one guy I work with is like Chinese, but not really Chinese, but I’ll pick Chinese for him,” or “I know I know someone who isn’t straight. I mean, even if I don’t KNOW-know, I bet I know someone, so I’ll pop a skittle in there to liven things up a bit.” These students’ life experience, media experience, and college experience afforded them the knowledge that diversity should be embraced, but they saw direct evidence to the contrary within the plastic bag in front of them. This is an interesting phenomenon and one that has been repeated each time this activity has been used. The participants wanted to distance themselves or deny the reality of their own community, and so they changed the representations of the people they knew in order to confirm the image they wanted to emerge. By enacting a personal quota system, they were avoiding representing and confronting their lived experiences.

Wrap-up as a Beginning After all 14 categories were listed (see Appendix A), I asked the students to take a moment and look at their own community representation and consider what it meant. This was a way to begin the whole class discussion. Within this transition from small groups to whole class, many students spoke about their dissatisfaction with the activity. One student spoke up to defend her representation (which was predominantly White): “If there were guys, I would be way ahead. I have a lot of guy friends.” Another student responded to her statement, saying, “But they’d still be White.” One group in particular typified the kinds of talk that emerged at this point: “I think, though, like a lot of it isn’t really our choice necessarily. Like, I don’t get to choose my doctor, I don’t feel like.” A group member extended this idea: “Like the fact that my dentist is White is just the way it is, that’s not really my choice, or the same thing with my hairdresser, or whatever.” A third chimed in to support these statements, “I’m White, so yeah, all my friends are, like, White, too. That should be okay.” At this point there was a pause, and the first student sighed, “Yeah, but it kind of isn’t okay, is it?” These students were doing the hard work of wresting with ideals that were in direct opposition to their reality. These students elected to take a class on multicultural literature, and they wanted to be culturally responsive teachers, but the reality of their lives was that they were sheltered and isolated in their racial, ethnic, and heterosexual communities.

As an instructor, I was happy to see the obvious discomfort with the activity and the resulting everincreasing monochromatic bag of beans. The students were fishing for diversity, and they were talking about their realizations. They expressed frustration with the results in front of them and told each other their solutions. These students realized that the lack of diversity in their lives was a real issue that was shared with most of their peers. This was a point of growth for these students. It became harder and harder for them to ignore or excuse the landscape in which they lived.

Jiménez, L. M. (2014) / “So, Like, What Now?” members of her groups were all White) except it’s all black.” Another student extended this observation: “Yeah, and to realize we…no, I mean me… I am really, really White.” Students agree and she continues: “So there is a whole bunch of us who probably aren’t comfortable with a lot of people.”

When asked to reflect about the first phase of the activity, assigning objects to represent different groups of people, student responses were varied, but eventually, the idea that a system was needed inserted itself into the conversation: It seemed, like, really obviously [sic] … this group is this and that group is that (she picked up bags of beans from the middle of the table). But then he (motioning towards a male group member) said, “Why don’t we just grab a bag and go with it, like, random. Which was, like a radical idea because we felt like you or the assignment or whatever wanted us to assign things based on stereotypes.”

In order to draw them out, I asked again, “Okay, but why this class?” More quiet talking, and finally another student stated, “Being cognitive, like really thinking, about us and who we are … or who I am … and the stereotypes we have and stuff, as we are reading these different books might make us read the books, like, differently.” These students had begun to think of themselves as individuals and to take an active and critical stance. The discussion ended with a White student saying, “This makes me feel pretty bad, it caused all of us to, like, accidentally stereotype without even knowing it … So, like, what now?”

A few groups considered using the same “random” method. One group admitted they considered the method but concluded it was easier to stereotype: “Yeah, we thought of that too, but if we had made them random it would have made the sorting activity harder because we would have had to think about it, so stereotyping them made things easy.” This confession by one individual, shared with the whole class, provided an important opportunity for these students to understand how easily the status quo was upheld and highlighted why stereotypes are so persistent.

Discussion What these students accomplished while talking with each other in small groups was to realize their own community and to begin to be aware of the culpability of White privilege in education. This collection of small stories (Georgakopoulou, 2006) about race, ethnicity, and sexual identity reflect one event from a Midwestern college campus. This work provides three points of discussion for teacher educators: (a) the need for teacher educators to conscientiously resist a deficit view of the overwhelmingly White teacher population; (b) the need to provide time in class for preservice teachers to talk through difficult issues with each other; and (c) the empowerment that is possible within this kind of supportive environment that students take with them into the world. It is my belief that teacher educators must provide multiple opportunities for preservice teachers to construct an awareness of their own ideas about race, ethnicity, and culture in order to facilitate a change in awareness or behavior.

In each class, at some point during the whole-class reflection, one or two students voiced what many students were thinking: It’s uncomfortable to say these things to other people, but it’s easy to do. Humans love to categorize, this whole process was so natural. To say them out loud to other people … that was hard. Like, you don’t want other people to think the same thing about you, that you stereotype. After this revelation a female student said, “You know, I’m Black…” she paused and there was laughter, “but my bag looks just like theirs (the other

Resisting a Deficit View of White Teachers

Journal of Language and Literacy Education Vol. 10 Issue 2 -- Fall 2014 The population in this study reflects the population students would be able to use their academic and of teachers in the United States of America: literary skills and engage with issues of race, culture, predominantly White, middle-class, female, and and sexual identity that were embedded in the class. heterosexual (Gay & Howard, 2000; Lawrence, 1997; Lowenstein, 2009). Again, it is important to point Valuing Time, Valuing the Task out that these preservice teachers elected to take a multicultural literature course and may be more Students participating in this activity were given a likely to engage in these topics. Brown (2004) place and time to begin the process of challenging studied the implementation of different instructional their own and each other’s assumptions about race, methods with the same stated message in four ethnicity, culture, and heteronormative identity. separate multicultural Beach (1994, 1997) college courses, all in the showed evidence of same college of disconnect between education. Brown students’ perceived need measured students’ to discuss issues of race, It is my belief that teacher educators exhibited resistance and power, and privilege and must provide multiple opportunities cultural diversity the availability of forums awareness. The students for these discussions to for preservice teachers to construct in Brown’s study were take place. These an awareness of their own ideas White, predominantly preservice teachers were about race, ethnicity, and culture in female, and much like the directed to build a visual, order to facilitate a change in students in the current concrete representation study, elected to take the of their community that awareness or behavior. class. Brown (2004) was not easy to ignore, concluded that although nor keep private. They the message was the same were also given the across the four courses, opportunity to engage the methods used were with the meaning behind quite different. The most effective instructional their own monochromatic communities and to method included an early focus on providing challenge each other’s perceptions. The classroom opportunities for self-examination while respecting environment for this kind of open and potentially the students’ frame of reference. Multicultural vulnerable kind of discussion, where students teacher educators must balance a consciousness of collaborate to build meaning, is not normative the stated and unstated goals of a course and a (Forman & Cazden, 1994). The need for students to respect for students’ cultural identities and hear from peers and to develop and be challenged in experiences in order to achieve cooperation from this way is one method that shows promise in students on talking and engaging with difficult multicultural education. issues. Outside the Classroom In other words, teacher educators cannot expect preservice teachers to come into the class with the The pedagogical decision on my part to openly knowledge and understanding of an expert on any challenge the existing deficit model of White subject. The students in this study brought a wealth preservice teachers as incapable or unwilling to of knowledge into the course. They all successfully engage with, examine, or even challenge themselves completed a children’s literature course as a led to the development of The Human Bean Activity. prerequisite, were students in a good standing in a For many, this activity was a starting point that high ranking elementary teacher education program, enabled them to recognize their own and were committed to the work. It was as if I misconceptions. More importantly, these students expected, through the magic of transfer, that these began to recognize their own lack of knowledge as

Jiménez, L. M. (2014) / “So, Like, What Now?” not simply an insurmountable truth, but rather as a gap in their knowledge that could be remedied. After implementing the activity, I saw a strong commitment on the part of these preservice teachers to engage with the literature but beyond that I saw some students take charge of their own learning. These students went into communities in which they were the outsiders in order to understand issues that were brought to their attention through literature. In order to provide a context for this kind of empowerment, I will outline two very different student responses.

He’s a brave, brave man.” Megan’s interest and pursuit of knowledge was met with kindness and respect from her peers and from the community. The most important aspect of her growth was her pursuit of knowledge coupled with humility. Sarah. A White, working-class student from a suburban area, had a gay brother and an African American roommate. She was aware of her own White privilege and was often a voice of challenge for the rest of the class. For example, a discussion about Bronx Masquerade (Grimes, 2003) brought about by a classmate asking “How is this diverse when there are hardly any White characters?” Sarah respectfully but forcefully challanged the student to notion of balance or equal treatment. But, after reading Heart of a Chief (Bruchac, 2001), she was more than a little defensive about the central message of the book. She wrote, “I just can’t accept what Bruchac says about native logos and mascots being disrespectful. At my high school, we meant it as a way to honor the Indians that used to live in the area, and we felt pride flying the colors!” After the book discussions and written reflections, she still felt torn on the issue.

Megan. She was White, middle-class, and straight from a rural town with a small high school. She had never knowingly “even talk[ed] to a gay person” before attending college and did not have any friends who were “anything other than 100% straight.” After reading Boy Meets Boy (Levithan, 2003), participating in a book discussion, and researching issues of gay history such as the Stonewall Riots, she was still very confused about transsexuals, cross-dressers, and drag queens. Although there was no extra-credit or class assignment involved, she and a group of students decided to attend a local drag show. After the show, she wrote in a response for the class: “I just don’t get it. I know why I love to get dressed up, wear pumps, and a LBD [little black dress] but why would a man want that? Just why?” She took it on herself to contact one of the performers from the drag show, Audrey Hemp-Burn (Both Audrey Hemp-Burn and Andy are pseudonyms chosen by the participant). Megan met Andy who performed as Audrey HempBurn for coffee, and went out with Audrey after her show.

I received an email from Sarah almost six months after the course was over. She included an email exchange she had with a nationally known book leveling company about their website. In part Sarah’s email read, “On your … [web] page you reference the text Alligators All Around as a nonprose text. I find the image of alligators ‘imitating Indians’ offensive because it is my impression that Indians are much more than the images of them during Pow Wows or other celebrations. I feel this image continues a stereotype that children hold that all Indians always dress this way all the time.” The image was from Sendak’s 1962 alphabet book showing a young alligator dressed in stereotypical feathered headdress with a tomahawk in his hand. A representative from the company wrote back to Sarah, thanking her for bringing the image to their attention, expressing regret at any unintended offence, and most importantly, included a link to the page with a different Sendak image. Sarah recognized the issue of using an outmoded and offensive representation of Native Americans and felt personal agency to act.

Eventually Megan wrote, “I’m not sure I’m ever going to really understand how Andy discovered Audrey, but I am happy he did. She is amazing when she sings, and she does her own vocals! She still respects good lip-syncing. Andy is a great guy, and he’s dating a guy from engineering which is good because neither one of them have a ton of time or money.” She went on to detail the differences between drag queens, cross-dressers, and especially transsexuals, stating, “It has got to be frightening to finally find the courage to live a true life. Although Andy isn’t trans, his roommate is and he (FTM) is progressing with his transition without his families [sic] support.

Journal of Language and Literacy Education Vol. 10 Issue 2 -- Fall 2014 The ripple effect of these preservice teachers’ actions as they took ownership of their own place in education as change agents cannot be measured. Primarily this study contributes a new way for teacher educators to re-imagine guiding the predominantly White, middle-class, and female preservice teacher population to better understand their own identity and to value diversity. Future

research should investigate how educational experiences can affect classroom practices. My own research will continue to focus on developing and carefully examining pedagogical decisions made with the intention of providing preservice teachers ways to address issues of race, ethnicity, and sexual identity in education.

References Bakhtin, M. M. (1986). The problem of speech genres (V. W. McGee, Trans.). In C. Emerson & M. Holquist (Eds.), Speech genres and other late essays (pp. 60-102). Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. Barst, J. M. (2013). Pedagogical approaches to diversity in the English classroom: A case study of global feminist literature. Pedagogy, 13(1), 149-157. Beach, R. (1994). Adopting multiple stances in conducting literacy research. In R. B. Ruddell, M. R. Ruddell, & H. Singer (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (4th ed., pp. 1203-1219). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Beach, R. (1997). Students’ resistance to engagement with multicultural literature. In T. Rogers & A. O. Soter (Eds.), Reading across cultures (pp. 69-94). New York, NY: Teachers College. Brown, E. L. (2004). What precipitates change in cultural diversity awareness during a multicultural course: The message or the method? Journal of Teacher Education, 55(4), 325-340. Bruchac, J. (2001). Heart of a Chief. New York, NY: Puffin Books. Carter, K. (1993). The place of story in the study of teaching and teacher education. Educational Researcher, 22(1), 5-18. Castagno, A. E. (2013). Multicultural education and the protection of Whiteness. American Journal of Education, 120(1), 101-128. Castro, A. (2010). Themes in the research of preservice teachers’ views of culteral diversity: Implications for researching millennial preservice teacehrs. Educational Researcher, 39(3), 198-210. Charmaz, K. (2004). Grounded theory. In S. Hesse-Biber & P. Leavy (Eds.), Approaches to qualitative research: A reader on theory and practice (pp. 496-522). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Children’s Literature Team. (2006). TE 448 Diversity in children’s and adolescent literature [Course Syllabus]. Michigan State University. Choldenko, G. (2004). Al Capone does my shirts. New York, NY: Penguin Young Readers Group.

Jiménez, L. M. (2014) / “So, Like, What Now?”

Conklin, H. (2008). Modeling campassion in critical, justice-oriented teacher education. Harvard Educational Review, 78(4), 652-674. Connelly, F. M., & Clandinin, D. J. (1990). Stories of experience and narrative inquiry. Educational Researcher, 19(5), 2-14. Denzin, N. K. (1970). Sociological methods: A sourcebook. Chicago, IL: Aldine Publishing. Dewey, J. (1997). Experience & education (20th ed.). New York, NY: Touchstone. (Original work published 1938) Elbaz, F. (1990). Knowledge and discourse: The evolution of research on teacher thinking. In C. Day, M. L. Pope, P. Denicolo, & I. Conference (Eds.), Insights into teachers’ thinking and practice (pp. 15-42). London, England: Falmer Press. Forman, E. A., & Cazden, C. B. (1994). Exploring Vygotskian perspectives in education: The cognative value of peer interaction. In R. B. Ruddell, M. R. Ruddell, & H. Singer (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (4th ed., pp. 155-178). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Gay, G., & Howard, T. C. (2000). Multicultural teacher education for the 21st century. The Teacher Educator, 36(1), 1-16. Georgakopoulou (2006). Thinking big with small stories in narrative and identity analysis. Narrative Inquiry, 16(1), 122-130. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago, IL: Aldine. Gomez, M. L. (1996). Perspective teachers’ perspectives on teaching “other people’s children”. In K. Zeichner, S. Melnick, & M. L. Gomez (Eds.), Currents of reform in preserice teacher education (pp. 109-132). New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Grimes, N. (2003). Bronx masquerade. New York, NY: Dial Books. Gumperz, J. J. (1999). Sociocultural knowledge in conversational inference. In A. Jaworski & N. Coupland (Eds.), The discourse reader (2nd ed., pp. 78-85). New York, NY: Routledge. Haviland, V. S. (2008). “Things get glossed over”: Rearticulating the silencing power of Whiteness in education. Journal of Teacher Education, 59(1), 40-54. Johnson, N. H., & Atwater, M. M. (2014). The impact of beliefs and actions on the infusion of culturally relevant pedagogy in science teacher education. In M. M. Atwater (Ed.), Multicultural science education (pp. 81102). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer. Langer, J. A. (1995). Envisioning literature: Literary understanding and literature instruction. New York, NY: Teachers College. Lawrence, S. M. (1997). Beyond race awareness: White racial identity and multicultural teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 48(2), 108-117.

Journal of Language and Literacy Education Vol. 10 Issue 2 -- Fall 2014

Lensmire, T. J. (2011). Laughing White men. Journal of Curriculum Theorizing, 27(3), 102-116. Lensmire, T. J., & Snaza, N. (2010). What teacher education can learn from blackface minstrelsy. Educational Researcher, 39(5), 413-422. Lewis, C., Enciso, P., & Moje, E. B. (2007). Introduction: Reframing sociocultural research on literacy. In C. Lewis, P. Enciso, & E. B. Moje (Eds.), Reframing sociocultural research on literacy: Identify, agency, and power (pp. 1-11). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. Levithan, D. (2003). Boy meets boy. New York, NY: Knopf Books for Young Readers. Littman, S. D. (2004). Confessions of a closet catholic. New York, NY: Dutton Childrenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Books. Lowenstein, K., L. (2009). The work of multicultural teacher education: Reconceptualizing White teacher candidates as learners. Review of Educational Research, 79(1), 163-196. McCarthy, C. (2003). Contradictions of powert and identity: Whiteness studies and the call of teacher education. Qualitative Studies in Education, 16(1), 127-133. Mercer, N. (2000). Words and minds: How we use language to think together. New York, NY: Routledge. Neville, H. A. , Yeung, J. G., Todd, N. R., Spanierman, L. B., & Reed, T. D. (2011). Color-blind racial ideology and beliefs about a racialized university mascot. Journal of Diversity In Higher Education, 4, 236-249. Nye, N. S. (1999). Habibi. New York, NY: Aladdin Paperbacks. Park, L. S. (2007). Project Mulberry. New York, NY: Yearling. Pressley, M., & Afflerbach, P. (1995). Verbal protocols of reading: The nature of constructively responsive reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Rojas-Drummond, S., & Mercer, N. (2003). Scaffolding the development of effective collaboration and learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 39, 99-111. Rosenblatt, L. (1994). The reader, the text, the poem: The transactional theory of the literary work (2nd ed.). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. (Original work published 1978) Rosenblatt, L. (1995). Literature as exploration (4th ed.). New York, NY: Modern Language Association. Ryan, P. M. (2005). Becoming Naomi Leon. New York, NY: Scholastic Paperbacks. Schegloff, E. A. (1999). Talk and social structure. In A. Jaworski & N. Coupland (Eds.), The discourse reader (2nd ed., pp. 86-97). New York, NY: Routledge. Schegloff, E. A., Koshik, I., Jacoby, S., & Olsher, D. (2002). Conversation analysis and applied linguistics. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 22, 3-31. Sleeter, C. E. (1993). Advancing a white discourse: A response to Scheurich. Educational Researcher, 22(8), 13-15.

Jiménez, L. M. (2014) / “So, Like, What Now?”

Sleeter, C. E. (2001). Preparing teachers for culturally diverse schools: Research and the overwhelming presence of Whiteness. Journal of Teacher Education, 52(2), 94–106. Sleeter, C. E. (2008). Preparing White teachers for diverse students. In S. Feiman-Nemser & D. J. McIntyre (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education: Enduring questions in changing contexts (3rd ed., pp. 559-582). New York, NY: Routledge. Smagorinsky, P. (2001). If meaning is constructed, what is it made from? Toward a cultural theory of reading. Review of Educational Research, 71, 133-169. Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 360-407. Terrill, M., & Mark, D. (2000). Preservice teachers’ expectations for schools with children of color and second language learners. Journal of Teacher Education, 51, 149–155. Turner, J. C. (1995). The influence of classroom contexts on young children’s motivation for literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 410-441. Ullucci, K., & Battey, D. (2011). Exposing color blindness/grounding color consciousness challenges for teacher education. Urban Education, 46(6), 1195-1225. Villegas, A. M. (2008). Diversity and treacher education. In M. Cochran-Smith, S. Feiman-Nemser, & D. J. McIntyre (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education: Enduring questions in changing contexts (3rd ed., pp. 551-558). New York, NY: Routledge. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Walker-Dalhouse, D., & Dalhouse, A. D. (2006). Investigating White preservice teachers’ beliefs about teaching in culturally diverse classrooms. The Negro Educational Review, 57, 69–84. Wagner, D., & Herbel-Eisenmann, B. (2008). “Just don’t”: The suppression and invitation of dialogue in mathematics classrooms. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 67(2), 143-157. Wortham, S. E. F. (2005). Socialization beyond the speech event. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 15(1), 95112.

Journal of Language and Literacy Education Vol. 10 Issue 2 -- Fall 2014 Appendix A Prompts for Bean Activity Getting Started 1. Please sit in groups of 5 with people you do not know. When you are settled, start the recorder and introduce yourself. 2. Take a bag, write your name on it. 3. It is important for your group to come to all decisions as a group. Groups to objects 1. Please consider the list of races, ethnicities and cultures. 2. Assign one object (bean, etc) to stand for each group. 3. Make sure you write down which object is standing in for which group of people. Groups to Objects African-American/African Asian-American/Asian Gay, Lesbian, bisexual, transgender Latino/a Middle Eastern Multi-racial Native American White People 1. Please consider the list of people that follows. 2. Place a bean that represented the personâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s racial/culural identity in your bag. Remember, all questions should be addressed by the group. 3. List of people to consider Yourself Boyfriend/Girlfriend Best-friend Roommate(s) Favorite co-worker Boss Next door neighbor Hair dresser/barber Academic advisor Favorite teacher Dentist Doctor Favorite singer Favorite actor/actress Discussion Questions How did it feel to assign groups of people to the objects? What was the decision process like? What does your bag not represent about you? Why did we do this activity, in this class?

Jiménez, L. M. (2014) / “So, Like, What Now?”

Appendix B Class Novel List

       

Heart of a Chief by Joseph Bruchac (2001) Habibi by Naomi Shihab Nye (1999) Bronx Masquerade by Nikki Grimes (2003) Becoming Naomi Leon by Pam Muñoz Ryan (2005) Project Mulberry by Linda Sue Park (2007) Al Capone Does My Shirts by Gennifer Choldenko (2004) Confessions of a Closet Catholic by Sarah Darer Littman (2004) Boy Meets Boy by David Levithan (2003)

Experiential Learning and Literacy: Preservice Teachersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; Perspectives Ramona T. Pittman Theresa G. Dorel

ABSTRACT: In this study, we sought to determine preservice teachersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; perceptions about participating in an experiential learning literacy program. A total of 86 preservice teachers participated in two hours of training and then tutored elementary students for a total of eight hours. The preservice teachers engaged in 10 hours of experiential learning through a community-based reading tutoring program. Following their experiences, the preservice teachers completed a survey and answered three open-ended questions that solicited their views about their training and tutoring. Overall, the preservice teachers perceived the experience to be positive to their literacy knowledge and skill development. Key words: Literacy, Experiential Learning, Preservice Teachers

Dr. Ramona T. Pittman is an assistant professor in the School of Curriculum and Kinesiology at Texas A&M University-San Antonio. She has seven years of teaching experience in PK-12. Dr. Pittman teaches undergraduate and graduate courses in literacy and currently serves as program coordinator. She can be contacted at ramona.pittman@tamusa.tamus.edu

Theresa Garfield Dorel, Ed.D., earned her doctorate from the University of Texas at San Antonio and completed post-doctorate work in special education at Northcentral University. She currently serves as an assistant professor in special education and program coordinator at Texas A&M University San Antonio. She can be contacted at theresa.dorel@tamusa.tamus.edu

Journal of Language and Literacy Education Vol. 10 Issue 2 -- Fall 2014 Michelle M. Falter, Editor -- http://jolle.coe.uga.edu

Pittman, R. T., & Dorel, T. G. (2014) / Experiential Learning and Literacy Experiential learning is traditionally used for field experiences in the latter part of a teacher candidate’s program. Novice teachers reflect that they need more guided field-based opportunities working with specific populations (Smeaton & Waters, 2013). A community-based volunteer reading tutor programs provides an excellent avenue through which preservice teachers may gain one-on-one experience with students and develop personal skills for future teacher-student interactions.

According to the 2011 National Assessment of Educational Progress at Grades 4 and 8 (NAEP) report, 67% of fourth graders were not reading at a level of proficiency (National Center for Education Statistics, 2011). NAEP is the only assessment used to determine how well students perform nationally on a literacy measure. Sixty-seven percent is an alarming number considering that when students reach fourth grade, they should move from Chall’s (1983) stages of learning to read to reading to learn. At this time, many students become aliterate (also known as the fourth grade slump), which is when students’ literacy scores decrease from third grade to fourth grade (Chall & Jacobs, 2003). Aliterate students are those students who can read, but choose not to. Being aliterate is different from being illiterate. Illiteracy is not being able to read and/or write. Because aliterate students are choosing not to read, they do not increase their vocabulary through reading (Nagy & Herman, 1987), and a strong vocabulary is essential for reading comprehension. It is pivotal, therefore, that students master the foundational literacy skills prior to fourth grade so that they become critical readers.

Recent research has also found that many teachers do not have the foundational literacy skills to teach literacy effectively (Bos, Mather, Dickson, Podhajski, & Chard, 2001; Joshi et al., 2009; McCutchen & Berninger, 1999; Moats & Lyon, 1996; Spear-Swerling & Brucker, 2003). These studies have demonstrated that primary teachers have difficulty determining the most basic literacy skills, such as phonological and phonemic awareness tasks. The teachers’ lack of basic literacy knowledge affects students’ overall literacy performance. Phonological awareness refers to the way in which spoken language can be broken down and manipulated. It consists of a continuum of literacy skills from easiest (determining rhyming words and alliteration) to hardest (phonemic awareness).

This study attempts to address teachers’ lack of literacy preparation and their perceptions of assisting a struggling reader, in order to better prepare preservice teachers to enter a classroom with solid literacy skills that will help them cultivate a solid literacy base in their future classes.

Phonemic awareness refers to the way individual sounds can be broken down and manipulated. For example, the word dog has three sounds (/d/ /o/ /g/). A thorough understanding of phonological awareness and phonemic awareness can assist preservice teachers with developing students’ decoding abilities. When teachers do not have a grasp of this knowledge, however, it makes it difficult to teach this skill to their students. Moats (1999), for example, argued that teachers should be able to count syllables, phonemes, and morphemes in words in order to provide effective literacy instruction. Research has shown that many university instructors are not equipped with the foundational literacy knowledge, such as the knowledge of phonemes and morphemes, to assist preservice teachers in learning these foundational skills (Joshi et al., 2009).

The Experiential Learning Component Preservice teachers enrolled in a foundational literacy course participated in a community-based reading tutoring program. This program, one of several community initiatives geared towards increasing literacy, was established to address the needs of struggling readers in Kindergarten through third grade at two inner city school districts. During the semester, the preservice teachers tutored two struggling students for 30 minutes each, once a week. The experiential learning commitment lasted for 10 weeks, giving the preservice teachers a total of 10 hours of hands-on intervention with struggling readers.

A teacher’s lack of basic literacy knowledge will affect a student’s overall literacy performance.

Journal of Language and Literacy Education Vol. 10 Issue 2 -- Fall 2014 In the foundation literacy course, preservice teachers experiential learning component would be vital to learn to teach reading through a bottom-up preservice teachersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; understanding of the basic approach. The bottom-up approach requires literacy skills. The experiential learning component students to begin with the letter-sound uses the 2005-2008 Student Center Activities created correspondences (bottom) and continue to build by a team of educators at the Florida Center for phonics-based skills that lead to extracting meaning Reading Research (2014). The activities focus around from the text or comprehending (up) based upon the five pillars of literacy: phonemic awareness, their initial ability to decode words (Gough, 1972). phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension. The bottom-up approach requires reading to be The Student Center Activities, therefore, provided taught systematically and explicitly. Teachers must the students an excellent opportunity to practice learn to recognize that oral language is a prerequisite bottom-up literacy approaches. to reading instruction. It is important for young children to build their oral language so that when During class, the instructor taught the preservice they begin to decode, they know the meaning of the teachers about the five pillars using lectures, words which they decode. For preservice teachers to demonstrations, and in-class activities. In addition, be successful in the class, and ultimately become the preservice teachers had to complete lesson plans more effective teachers, they must understand how on each pillar to demonstrate their understanding of to teach students using the bottom-up approach, the five components to effectively teach a child to thus teaching a child to be read. The knowledge from phonologically and skills learned in class and Teachers must learn to recognize phonemically aware of the from developing effective that oral language is a prerequisite various ways that spoken lesson plans allowed the language can be broken preservice teachers to to reading instruction. It is down and manipulated. devise strategies to assist important for young children to their assigned struggling In addition, preservice readers with literacy build their oral language so that teachers must learn how to acquisition alongside the when they begin to decode, they teach students to map use of the Student Center phonemes (smallest unit of Activities. The focus of this know the meaning of the words sound) to graphemes process was twofold. First, which they decode. (written representation of a the faculty members sound). For example, /k/ is a wanted to give the phoneme that can be represented by various preservice teachers an opportunity to practice graphemes or spellings (cat, kite, duck, ache). The literacy strategies with struggling readers in a way mapping of the phoneme with the grapheme is called that was nonthreatening, thus allowing the alphabetic principle. Once preservice teachers have preservice teachers an opportunity to practice on an understanding of the alphabetic principle, they their own. Second, faculty members wanted to must understand how to teach word analysis and provide tutors for the community-based tutoring decoding to students. Instruction using the bottomprogram to help with the overarching goal of up approach is designed to teach students to improving literacy in youth, as outlined in the eventually recognize words automatically. Automatic premise for the community-based tutoring program word recognition is required for students to be able mission. to comprehend (Laberge & Samuels, 1974), and the ultimate purpose for reading is to be able to The goal of this study, therefore, was to determine comprehend. the preservice teachersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; perceptions about the practical application of foundational literacy skills in The emphasis on the bottom-up approach to an experiential learning environment. We teaching reading led the instructors of the hypothesized that the preservice teachers would foundational literacy courses to agree that the perceive the community-based tutoring program as a

Pittman, R. T., & Dorel, T. G. (2014) / Experiential Learning and Literacy positive and beneficial experience in learning to assist struggling readers. Method Participants A total of 86 preservice teachers attending a university that consists of predominately nontraditional students were enrolled in a junior level foundational literacy course. A total of 77 students identified themselves as female, while one student identified himself as male. A total of eight students did not select either male or female for this question. A total of 60% of the students were in the Early Childhood-Sixth (EC-6) Certification Program, 25% of the students were in the EC-6 Bilingual Generalist Certification Program, 11% of the students were in the EC-12 Special Education Certification Program, 2% of the students were in an 8-12 Content Area Certification Program, and 2% of the students were enrolled in the Bachelor of Applied Arts and Sciences (BAAS) Program.

Figure 2. This figure illustrates years of experience in education. Lastly, 37% of the students were between the ages of 20-24, 27% of the students were between the ages of 25-29, 10% of the students were between the ages of 30-34, 6% were between the ages of 35-39, 8% of the students were between the ages of 40-44, 4% were between the ages of 45-49, and 2% were 50 or older. Six percent of the students chose not to respond to this question.

Figure 1. This figure illustrates certification areas of the preservice teachers. Figure 3. This figure illustrates the preservice teachers’ age.

A total of 52% of the preservice teachers had 0-1 years of experience in education, while 37% had 2-4 years’ experience in education, 10% had 5-7 years’ experience, and 1% had eight or more years’ experience.

Our convenience sample was purposeful, as we were able to conduct the study with the preservice teachers enrolled in the targeted course. Procedure Throughout the semester, undergraduate preservice

Journal of Language and Literacy Education Vol. 10 Issue 2 -- Fall 2014 teachers were required to complete 10 hours of experiential learning with two students in the community-based tutoring program. The requirement constituted 10 % of their course grade. Prior to being placed in either of the participating two school districts, the community-based tutoring program provided two hours of training to the preservice teachers. The training, provided by the community-based tutoring program, familiarized the students with what the weekly 30-minute sessions with each student should entail. The preservice teachers were shown the curriculum, which consisted of scientifically based research activities on literacy skill development and leveled, authentic literature. The training took place at the university in each preservice teacher’s course. Through the training, the preservice teachers learned that they would be working with a site ambassador, a teacher or reading specialist designated by the school to assist in implementing the community-based tutoring program into the school. Finally, in order for the preservice teachers to tutor the students, they had to complete a background check and be fingerprinted. Both are necessary to ensure the safety of the school-age children. Once preservice teachers passed their background checks, they were matched to second graders in a school within two of the participating school districts, to begin tutoring during the semester.

experience aligned with the course content, to ensure they are prepared for the teaching profession. Questions 4-8 were defined as statements about the preservice teachers’ perceptions of the impact of the community-based tutoring program on the student. The final two questions (9 and 10) were defined as statements about the preservice teachers’ perceptions of themselves as a tutor for a struggling reader. Students rated the following statements regarding SA Reads, the community-based tutoring program: 1. The experience with the community-based tutoring program reinforced the content covered in my course. 2. The experience with the community-based tutoring program (training and tutoring) has/will help me to understand how to help a struggling reader in the teaching profession. 3. The community-based tutoring program’s curriculum matched what was covered in my courses. 4. I feel that my tutoring the community-based tutoring program’s students will make an overall impact on the students’ overall reading ability. 5. I feel that my tutoring the community-based tutoring program’s students has helped the student in the affective domain (motivation, etc.). 6. The community-based tutoring program’s students were confident readers prior to my tutoring of the student. 7. I feel that my tutoring the community-based tutoring program’s students has helped the student gain confidence in reading. 8. My experience with the community-based tutoring program has had a positive impact on the student. 9. The community-based tutoring program experience has had a positive impact on me. 10. I am glad to have gained the knowledge and experience in working with a student in the community-based tutoring program.

Data Collection At the end of the participating semester, the preservice teachers completed a survey regarding their experience with the community-based tutoring program. Using skip logic in the survey program, the preservice teachers selected whether they consented to or chose not to participate in the study. Skip logic provides for this opportunity to opt in or exit the study on the first page of the consent form. There was no penalty for the preservice students choosing not to participate in the survey. Demographic data were collected. The survey consisted of 10 Likert Scale statements, in which students rated as: strongly disagree, disagree, not applicable, agree, and strongly agree. Questions 1-3 were defined as statements about the preservice teachers’ perceptions of the community-based tutoring program curriculum and experience, and whether the curriculum and

In addition to 10 Likert Scale statements, the students completed four open-ended questions about their experience. The first open-ended question pertained to “Impact on Learning.” The preservice teachers were asked, “What thoughts would you like to share regarding the impact of the experiential component to concepts learned in your

Pittman, R. T., & Dorel, T. G. (2014) / Experiential Learning and Literacy course?” The second open-ended question pertained to “Tutoring Experience.” The preservice teachers were asked, “What thoughts would you like to share regarding the overall tutoring experience and how it has influenced your decision to be a professional educator?” In addition, the preservice teachers answered a third opened-ended question about “Campus Climate.” The preservice teachers were asked, “What thoughts would you like to share regarding the impact of the campus climate and support of your community-based tutoring program tutoring experience?”

teachers agreed or strongly agreed that the community-based tutoring program experience reinforced the content covered in their course. The percentage is high because the community-based tutoring program offers preservice teachers the opportunity to receive full-hands on training by assisting a struggling reader. The course content alone cannot fulfill this obligation. Other courses, such as special education and child development, in which the preservice teachers were enrolled may also have been a contributing factor to the high percentage for Statement 1. More importantly, the preservice teachers were able to trust that the content covered in class was necessary to learn, so they may fully understand struggling readers and provide needed interventions to their tutees.

Results The researchers used descriptive statistics to determine the percentages of the statement responses from the preservice teachers. Each preservice teacher rated 10 Likert Scale statements based upon her perceptions of the experiential learning experience. Some participants chose not to answer some questions. Therefore, the responses included are only those of the preservice teachers who responded, which means the sample size fluctuates for each statement. For each statement, the mean and standard deviation is reported in Figure 4. For a complete list of each Likert Scale statement’s result, see Table 1.

Next, on Statement 2, 86.8% of the preservice teachers agreed or strongly agreed that the community-based tutoring program experience would help them in the future to assist a struggling reader in the field. This percentage may be high because this was the preservice teachers’ first literacy course, and some may have not built the total confidence in being able to assist a student who is severely struggling in the learning to read stage. During their class time in the foundations of literacy course, some preservice teachers expressed their astonishment at the low skill levels of either one or two of their tutees. The researchers believe that this opportunity allowed the preservice teachers to develop a frame of reference for future education courses and in their future classrooms because of the variety of reading levels observed in the students tutored. On Statement 3, 85.7% of the preservice teachers agreed or strongly agreed that the curriculum used during tutoring was aligned with what was covered in class. The percentage is high because the community-based tutoring program used scientifically-based, reading research activities from The Florida Center for Reading Research (FCRR) (2014) at Florida State University. The FCRR activities gave the preservice teachers the opportunity to apply their knowledge of the aforementioned concepts through experiential learning. Throughout the semester, some preservice teachers, however, may have had the opportunity to

Figure 4. This figure illustrates means and standard deviations of the preservice teachers’ perception statements. Statement Analysis Regarding Statement 1, 91.6% of the preservice

Journal of Language and Literacy Education Vol. 10 Issue 2 -- Fall 2014 Table 1 Percentages from the Preservice Teachers’ Perception Statements _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Statements n Strongly Not Strongly disagree Disagree applicable agree Agree _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1. The experience with 83 7.2% (6) 0.0% (0) 1.2% (1) 49.4% (41) 42.2% (35) the community-based tutoring program reinforced the content covered in my courses. 2. The experience with the community-based tutoring program (training and tutoring) has/will help me to understand how to help a struggling reader in the teaching profession.

7.2% (6)

6.0% (5)

0.0% (0)

41.0% (34)

45.8% (38)

3. The community-based tutoring program’s curriculum matches what was/is covered in my course.

6.0% (5)

3.6% (3)

4.8% (4)

51.2% (43)

34.5% (29)

4. I feel that my tutoring the students will make an impact on the students’ overall reading abilities.

4.8% (4)

8.3% (7)

3.6% (3)

35.7% (30)

47.6% (40)

5. I feel that my tutoring the community-based tutoring program’s students has helped the student in the affective domain (motivation, etc.).

6.0% (5)

3.6% (3)

41.0% (34)

45.8% (38)

6. The community-based tutoring program’s students were confident readers prior to my tutoring the students.

14.3% (12)

27.4% (23)

16.7% (14)

22.6% (19)

19.0% (16)

7. I feel that my tutoring the community-based tutoring program’s students have helped the students gain confidence in reading.

4.9% (4)

7.3% (6)

47.6% (39)

35.4% (29)

8. My experience with the community-based tutoring program has had a positive impact on the student.

4.9% (4)

1.2% (1)

4.9% (4)

51.2% (42)

37.8% (31)

9. The community-based tutoring program experience has had a positive impact on me.

6.0% (5)

0.0% (0)

3.6% (3)

36.9% (31)

53.6% (45)

10. I am glad to have gained the knowledge and experience in working with a student in the community based tutoring program.

6.0% (5)

0.0% (0)

4.8% (4)

35.7% (30)

53.6% (45)

Pittman, R. T., & Dorel, T. G. (2014) / Experiential Learning and Literacy develop only one skill, such as alphabetic principle, to assist a student who had not mastered graphemephoneme correspondence, even though the course taught a plethora of literacy concepts. The preservice teachers, however, did provide the community-based tutoring program tutees with ample opportunities to orally read an authentic literature book on their level, with or without assistance.

needed to be strengthened and select books to read for enjoyment. On Statement 8, 89% of the preservice teachers agreed or strongly agreed that the community-based tutoring program experience had a positive impact on the student. Some preservice teachers even asked their site ambassadors if they could continue tutoring the following semester, although the course in which the experiential learning was embedded was over.

In the next cluster of questions, the emphasis was on the communityThe last two questions based tutoring program pertained to the impact If the United States wants to students. On Statement 4, that the experiential improve the reading proficiency 83.3% of the preservice learning had on the levels of fourth grade students, teachers agreed or preservice teachers. On teachers must be provided with strongly agreed that Statement 9, 90.5% of the tutoring the communitypreservice teachers many opportunities to understand based tutoring program agreed or strongly agreed how and why a reader struggles. students made an impact with the statement that on the students’ overall the community-based reading ability. Again, the tutoring program had a preservice teachers rated positive impact on them. this statement as high. Some preservice teachers On Statement 10, 89.3% of the preservice teachers believed that due to the severity of some of the were glad to have gained the knowledge and students’ reading abilities, coupled with the experience in working with students in the preservice teachers’ newness to teaching, students community-based tutoring program. The high may have needed more than five total hours. percentages indicate that the preservice teachers felt that the experiential learning experience was On Statement 6, only 41.6% of the preservice valuable to them. Based on the data the preservice teachers agreed or strongly agreed that their teachers indicated that they were properly equipped community-based tutoring program students were with the applicable knowledge and the experience to confident readers prior to the preservice teachers assist a student who struggles to read. tutoring the students. On Statement 5, however, 86.8% of the preservice teachers agreed or strongly Text Analyses agreed that the community-based tutoring program has helped the students in the affective domain, and Text analysis was used to analyze the preservice on Statement 7, 83% of the preservice teachers teachers’ open-ended responses. The researchers felt agreed or strongly agreed with the statement that the preservice teachers should have the pertaining to the community-based tutoring opportunity to express their thoughts openly. The program helping the students gain confidence in researchers structured questions that they thought reading. These percentages may be high due to the would aid the preservice teachers to reflect upon fact that students were engaged in creative lessons their tutoring experience. The major themes were: through the use of games and center activities, Impact on Learning, Tutoring Experience, and whose purposes were to strengthen students’ skill Campus Climate. Through data analyses features in development. Students were also were able to read SurveyMonkey, an online survey clearinghouse, the books of their choice. Book choice is a motivating researchers were able to run analyses to determine factor in reading (Marinak & Gambrell, 2008). the major themes of the preservice teachers’ openStudents, therefore, were able to reinforce skills that ended statements. The themes are the key words

Journal of Language and Literacy Education Vol. 10 Issue 2 -- Fall 2014 and/or phrases that preservice teachers used the most. The larger the printed word in the analyses, the most often it was cited by multiple students. The text analyses are reported in Figures 5, 6, and 7.

any thoughts that they had regarding the overall tutoring experience, and how it had influenced their decision to be a professional educator. In their responses, the preservice teachers responded with statements that included words such as Great Experience, Teaching, Tutoring, Realized, and Decision (see Figure 3). One preservice teacher stated, “It was good practice learning how to effectively communicate with struggling readers,” while another stated, “I still want to become a teacher. This experience only solidifies my decision.”

Figure 5. Impact on learning: What thoughts would you like to share regarding the impact of the experiential component to concepts learned in your assigned class?

The final question asked the preservice teachers to share their thoughts regarding the impact of the campus climate and the campus willingness to support the community-based tutoring program. The preservice teachers used words such as Organized, Campus, Friendly, Environment, and Great Place to describe the campus climate. One preservice teacher stated, “The community-based tutoring program together with the reading specialist, on campus at the school, were both very involved in the experience,” while another wrote, “The support was really good. The site ambassador was always there to help make sure I was doing everything correctly.”

Figure 6. Tutoring experience: What thoughts would you like to share regarding the overall tutoring experience and how it has influenced your decision to be a professional educator?

On all three open-ended responses, the preservice teachers made positive statements about their experience with the community-based tutoring program and the knowledge they gained. The preservice teachers also believed that the experience had made a positive impact on the students and a positive impact on their understanding and application of literacy skills.

Figure 7. Campus climate: What thoughts would you like to share regarding the impact of the campus climate and support of your community-based tutoring experience?

Discussion

Question 1 asked the preservice teachers to share their thoughts regarding the impact of the experiential component to concepts learned in class. In their responses, the preservice teachers used words such as Experience, Reading, Learned, Concepts, and Students as a recurring theme (see Figure 2). One preservice teacher stated, “I like that the activities matched up with what was being taught in class,” while another stated, “The experiential component helped me within the class by using what I learned in my course to help the students, such as sight words, concepts about print, et cetera.” Question 2 asked the preservice teachers to share

The goal of this study was to determine the preservice teachers’ perceptions about the practical application of foundational literacy skills in an experiential learning environment. The results show that the preservice teachers perceived the community-based tutoring program as an overall positive tutoring experience. The results suggest that preservice teachers were able to use the alignment of the course concepts, in conjunction with the community-based tutoring program curriculum, to better assist struggling readers. Preservice teachers also felt that the community-based tutoring program

Pittman, R. T., & Dorel, T. G. (2014) / Experiential Learning and Literacy experience had a positive impact on the students, and the community-based tutoring program experience had a positive impact on them.

students with these skills. This unique experience added to their knowledge base of how best to assist a student who is struggling to read.

Limitations

Secondly, the preservice teachers were able to build confidence in their students. The preservice teachers were able to build rapport with the students by being friendly and nonjudgmental of the studentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; reading abilities. The preservice teachers, also, attended the session each week, which built a trust for the student, in which the student knew his tutor would be present to help him with reading. This trust allowed students to read with the preservice teachers without possibly the need of feeling embarrassed. Each of the aforementioned implications may have allowed the students to build confidence in their reading. In conclusion, this study has real implications that can be implemented into any literacy teacher preparation course. Preservice teachers can practically apply the sometimes difficult concepts in literacy with a struggling reader. This connection between the preservice teacher and the student will allow the preservice teacher to develop her literacy skills and will allow the student to receive instruction as he is trying to move from the learning to read stage to the reading to learn stage.

The present study served as a pilot and has several limitations. First, the preservice teachers were administered the survey after their experiential learning experience. A presurvey was not administered due to time constraints. Using the data from this pilot study, the researchers will design a more rigorous methodology using pretest and presurvey data from the preservice teachers. Second, we do not truly know how each tutee felt about the tutoring experience, as no survey data were collected from the students. Last, the researchers did not have access to the studentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; testing data. The site ambassadors determined which students needed tutoring in reading, although many of the students did not fare well on their state assessment test in literacy. The site ambassador determined the literacy level, which served as a starting point for the preservice teachers to tutor the students. Despite the limitations of this study, the data show that students enrolled in a foundational literacy course perceived an experiential learning component as a benefit to their literacy knowledge.

We hope this study will spur other studies on preservice teachers and literacy learning through experiential learning. We believe that preservice teachers need many experiences assisting struggling readers in order to be effective teachers. If the United States wants to improve the reading proficiency levels of fourth grade students, teachers must be provided with many opportunities to understand how and why a reader struggles. Experiential learning provides preservice teachers with experiences that will enable them to better assist struggling readers, thus improving the reading proficiency of elementary students.

Implications This study has great implications for teacher preparation programs. First, in foundational literacy courses, terms such as phonological awareness and phonemic awareness can be difficult for some preservice teachers to grasp. When these skills are taught, preservice teachers are exposed to the textbook, lectures, in-class activities, and projects. However, through an experiential learning component, such as the community-based tutoring program, the preservice teachers were able to assist

Journal of Language and Literacy Education Vol. 10 Issue 2 -- Fall 2014 References Bos, C., Mather, N., Dickson, S., Podhajski, B., & Chard, D. (2001). Perceptions and knowledge of preservice and inservice educators about early reading instruction. Annals of Dyslexia, 51(1), 97-120. Chall, J. S. (2003). Poor children’s fourth-grade slump. American Educator, 14-15. Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential Learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall. Chall, J. S. (1983). Stages of reading development. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Gough, P. B. (1972). One second of reading. In J. F. Kavanagh & I. G. Mattingly (Eds.), Language by ear and by eye (pp. 331-358). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Florida Center for Reading Research. (2014). Student Center Activities (2005-2008). Tallahassee, FL: Florida State University. Retrieved from http://www.fcrr.org/for-educators/sca.asp Joshi, R. M., Binks, E., Hougen, M., Dahlgren, M. E., Ocker-Dean, E., & Smith, D. L. (2009). Why elementary teachers might be inadequately prepared to teach reading. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42(5), 392402. LaBerge, D., & Samuels, J. (1974). Towards a theory of automatic information processing in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 6, 293-323. Marinak, B. A., & Gambrell, L. B. (2008). Instrinsic motivation and rewards: What sustains young children’s engagment with text? Literacy Research and Instruction, 47(1), 9-26. McCutchen, D., & Berninger, V. (1999). Those who know, teach well: Helping teachers master literacy-related subject-matter knowledge. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 14(4), 215-226. Moats, L.C. (1999). Teaching reading IS rocket science: What expert teachers of reading should know and be able to do. Washington, DC: American Federation of Teachers. Moats, L.C., & Lyon, G.R. (1996). Wanted: Teachers with knowledge of language. Topics in Language Disorders, 16(2), 73-86. National Center for Education Statistics (2011). Reading 2011: National assessment of educational progress at grades 4 and 8. (The Nation’s Report Card, NCES 2012–457). Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/ nationsreportcard/pdf/main2011/2012457.pdf Nagy, W., & Herman, P. (1987). Breadth and depth of vocabulary knowledge: Implications for acquisition and instruction. In M. McKeown & M. Curtiss (Eds.), The nature of vocabulary acquisition (pp. 19-35). Hillsdale, NJ: Erbaum. Smeaton, P.S., & Waters, F. H. (2013). What happens when first year teachers close their classroom doors? An investigation into the instructional practices of beginning teachers. American Secondary Education, 41(2), 71-93.

Pittman, R. T., & Dorel, T. G. (2014) / Experiential Learning and Literacy

Spear-Swerling, L., & Brucker, P. O. (2003). Teachersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; acquisition of knowledge about English word structure. Annals of Dyslexia, 53, 72-103.

â&#x20AC;&#x153;Experience is the Best Tool for Teachersâ&#x20AC;?: Blogging to Provide Preservice Educators with Authentic Teaching Opportunities Katie Stover Lindsay Sheronick Yearta Rachel Sease ABSTRACT: Considering the digital landscape of the 21st century classroom, it is paramount that teacher education programs prepare preservice teachers to incorporate technology into their classrooms to engage in communicative and collaborative acts as readers and writers. This collective case study was conducted to explore what happened when nine preservice teachers, in a literacy methods course at a small liberal arts university, blogged with the fifth graders about a commonly read text. Over a period of 11 weeks, various types of qualitative data including pre- and post-interviews, blog exchanges, and reflective papers completed by the preservice teachers were collected and analyzed. Data analysis procedures included a holistic in-depth exploration of the recurring themes and patterns in the data. The findings revealed that the preservice teachers designed and implemented differentiated instruction as they gained practice engaging the students in real world 21st century reading and writing activities. Additionally, the preservice teachers developed as active readers and writers, which allowed them to foster deeper thinking and metacognition with their elementary pen pals. These findings have important implications for the ways teacher preparation programs consider enriching and meaningful experiences for preservice teachers. Key words: Preservice Teachers, Blogging, Differentiated Instruction, Reading, Writing

Katie Stover is an Assistant Professor and Coordinator of the Literacy Graduate Program at Furman University in Greenville, South Carolina. Katieâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s research interests include digital literacy, critical literacy, writing for social justice, and teacher education. She can be contacted at Katie.stover@furman.edu.

Lindsay Sheronick Yearta is an Assistant Professor of Literacy at the University of South Carolina Upstate in Spartanburg, South Carolina. A former elementary school teacher, her research interests include digital literacy, vocabulary acquisition and retention, and critical literacy. She can be contacted at LYearta@USCUpstate.edu. Rachel Sease is from Waynesville, North Carolina. She participated in this project as an undergraduate research assistant at Furman University and has since graduated with a degree in Elementary Education. Rachel has presented at the state and national levels on technology use in the classroom. She can be contacted at Rachel.sease@furman.edu.

Journal of Language and Literacy Education Vol. 10 Issue 2 -- Fall 2014 Michelle M. Falter, Editor -- http://jolle.coe.uga.edu

Stover, K., Yearta, L. S., & Sease, R. (2014) / Experience is the Best Tool for Teachers Authenticity, engagement, and purpose are universal principles of effective instructional approaches. In the same way that elementary-aged learners need real-world experiences, preservice teachers also benefit from direct interaction with students and their work. With the diversity of today’s 21st century classrooms, teacher education programs have an ever-increasing responsibility to provide pedagogically sound, authentic, digitally based learning opportunities for preservice teachers. In order to meet the needs of a diverse range of students, it is necessary for preservice teachers to develop knowledge and pedagogy of effective reading and writing instruction to meet the wide range of learners’ needs through authentic teaching opportunities. It is essential that preservice teachers learn how to create meaningful classroom practice where authentic literacy interactions can flourish (Darling-Hammond, 1998; Moore, 2007; Moore & Seeger, 2009). With the changing nature of literacy, it is equally important that preservice teachers explore ways to integrate new literacies (Gee, 1991; Street, 1997) in their future classrooms.

pals to discuss literature influenced the preservice teachers’ understandings about teaching reading and writing with a diverse group of students. Additionally, the study explored how the preservice teachers developed their understanding of the use of technology to foster socially mediated literacy practices in the classroom. The results of this study have the potential to inform teacher education programs about engaging and purposeful instructional experiences for preservice teachers in 21st century classrooms. Literature Review Grounded in the work of Vygotsky (1978), sociocultural perspectives suggest literacy as a social practice (Gee, 1991; Street, 1997). In this way, writing is a tool used to communicate for a variety of purposes and with an authentic audience. Various research studies have informed the design of this study. Studies exploring social interaction through the use of pen pals in the classroom and beyond, 21st century technologies, and teacher education were examined. In the literature review that follows, the authors discuss the use of pen pals to foster social interaction and enhance writing. This type of reader response provides writers with an authentic audience to engage in purposeful and meaningful communication. Secondly, the use of new digitally mediated forms of pen pal communications is explored. Specifically, the authors examine the use of blogs to foster online communication. Finally, the benefits of incorporating pen pal projects with preservice teachers are examined.

With increased technology, the nature of reading, writing, and communication is constantly evolving (International Reading Association, 2009). Considering the digital landscape of the 21st century classroom, it is paramount that teacher education programs provide preservice teachers with ways to incorporate technology into their classrooms to provide students with opportunities to engage in communicative and collaborative acts as readers and writers. In fact, the Common Core State Standards Initiative (National Governors Association & Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010) requires students to “use technology, including the Internet, to produce and publish writing and to interact and collaborate with others” (p. 18).

Rather than an emphasis on an autonomous model that supports literacy as discrete skills, researchers suggest the use of an ideological model that views literacy as a social practice (Perry, 2012; Street, 1997). An ideological model focuses on authentic real-world literacy practices. Graham and Harris (2013) have posited that “writing is a social activity involving an implicit or explicit dialogue between writer(s) and reader(s)” (p. 8). Pen pal partnerships provide writers the opportunity to engage in dialogic correspondence with an authentic audience. A number of studies have shown benefits of establishing pen pal relationships for both elementary students and preservice teachers (Burk,

Purpose of the Study This study used blogs as a forum for written discussion of commonly read text between preservice teachers and elementary learners to address a need for additional research on effective practices for preparing future educators to provide authentic, engaging, and purposeful literacy instruction. This study aimed to determine how the use of digital pen

100

Journal of Language and Literacy Education Vol. 10 Issue 2 -- Fall 2014 1989; Ceprano & Sivret, 2007; Crowhurst, 1990; Gall, 1999). Teachers can support, guide, and Moore, 1991; Moore & Seeger, 2009; Rankin, 1992; challenge students as readers and writers within Teale & Gambrell, 2007; Wollman-Bonilla & their zone of proximal development (Wollman-Bonilla Werchadlo, 1999). Research reveals that pen pal & Werchadlo, 1999) which is the area that students relationships support increased engagement find themselves successful with the added support of (Bromley, Winters, & Schlimmer, 1994; Rankin, 1992; a teacher or more proficient peers (Vygotsky, 1978). Teale & Gambrell, 2007), enhanced comprehension A more capable pen pal who can read and respond to (Moore, 1991; Teale & Gambrell, 2007), and improved students’ posts could work within the parameters of writing skills (Ceprano & Sivret, 2007; Crowhurst, each student’s zone of proximal development with 1990; Moore, 1991). Both sets of participants engage the intention of fostering growth in the areas of in an immersive literary process by activating reading and writing. multiple cognitive processes, including reading comprehension, formulating a response, anticipating In an age where the definitions of literacy are audience perception, and written composition constantly evolving, it is increasingly necessary that (Gambrell, Hughes, Calvert, Malloy, & Igo, 2011). new teachers learn ways to prepare students for the Participation in the aforementioned processes demands of new literacies (International Reading heightens the writers’ level of intellectual Association, 2002; International Reading Association, engagement. Similar 2009). “As literacy “authentic and challenging instruction continues to literacy experiences” have change, teachers should been successful in respond by offering furthering development of students new opportunities In an age where the definitions of literacy skills even in and expand their learning historically underachieving community beyond their literacy are constantly evolving, it students (Teale & classroom walls into virtual is increasingly necessary that new Gambrell, 2007, p. 7) and learning spaces” (Larson, teachers learn ways to prepare students with exceptional 2009, p. 646). In addition students for the demands of new needs (Rankin, 1992). to offering students the chance of capitalizing on literacies. A powerful component of diverse learning pen pal exchanges is the opportunities that reach far opportunity to interact beyond the classroom with an authentic audience walls, they might also to create a more meaningful and purposeful practice consider the work of Leu, Kinzer, Coiro, and for young writers that increases enthusiasm and Cammack (2004) in an attempt to incorporate motivation to produce quality work (Barksdale, opportunities for students to immerse themselves in Watson, & Park, 2007; Bromley, Winters, & the new literacies. Leu et al. (2004) have posited that Schlimmer, 1994; Crowhurst, 1990; Day, 2009; encouraging students to think critically, read, Marshall & Davis, 1999; Moore, 1991; Moore & Seeger, construct and deconstruct multiple texts, and engage 2009). New meaning is created when students in collaborative learning opportunities are all discuss texts with others as additional connections components of new literacies that can be augmented and experiences are added to their existing by digital tools. A discussion platform that might understanding (Day, 2009). Using a theoretical lens allow teachers to better meet the increasing digital of sociocultural learning (Vygotsky, 1978), pen pals needs of their students is a blog. create and recreate their thinking as it relates to their written responses within a community of A blog, or web log, can be used in a variety of ways in readers and writers. The social interaction and the classroom. As blogs enable users to generate scaffolding helps students construct their own content on the Internet for an authentic audience understanding when reading and writing (Berrill & who can offer responses and engage in online

101

Stover, K., Yearta, L. S., & Sease, R. (2014) / Experience is the Best Tool for Teachers conversations, they can serve as a digital reading response journal that students can access from home or school. Blogs can also provide students with a platform in which to discuss important events or even their most recent writing pieces. The use of technology such as blogs promotes social interaction, collaboration, and an infrastructure for digitalized peer support (Andes & Clagget, 2011). Multiple studies have revealed enhanced motivation and improvement in reading and writing abilities when engaged in digital literacies (Andes & Clagget, 2011; Mills & Levido, 2011).

experience teaching literacy skills to an individual or a small group of students. Acquiring and applying instructional skills through pen pal exchanges increases preservice teachers’ confidence in teaching children (Bromley, Winters, & Schlimmer, 1994). Placing responsibilities in the hands of preservice teachers elicits autonomy, empowerment, and self-efficacy signifying “progress towards development of professionalism” (Parrott et al., 2013, p. 6). This empowerment enables teachers to navigate the “complexity of the teaching process” (Liakopoulou, 2012, p. 2) with confidence. A high degree of self-efficacy is linked to strong commitment to teaching (Parrott et al., 2013). Preservice teachers who feel confident and are adequately prepared are more likely to be dedicated and effective classroom teachers.

Pen pal projects are equally beneficial in preparing preservice teachers. A study from Michigan State University has reported that the majority of preservice teachers are underprepared to teach critical reading skills (Michigan State University, 2012). Preservice teachers placed little emphasis on addressing and teaching meaning in literacy skills when describing their teacher education program. Preservice teachers need meaning-making experiences to develop comprehensive understanding of how to create meaningful experiences for their students (Parrott, Da RosVoseles, & Eaton, 2013). Teacher education programs that offer authentic teaching opportunities can enhance preservice teachers’ capacity to provide future students with meaningful literacy experiences.

Method A collective case study design (Stake, 2005; Yin, 2002) was used to explore the following research questions: (1) How does the use of electronic pen pals to discuss a commonly read text enhance preservice teachers’ understandings about reading and writing instruction and meeting the needs of diverse students? (2) How does this experience better prepare college students as future teachers? (3) In what ways does technology enhance the participants’ experiences as they take part in a pen pal project to discuss commonly read text?

Preservice teachers gain practical knowledge from authentic interactions with developing readers and writers (Marshall & Davis, 1999). Letter correspondence presents an opportunity to begin refining their abilities to assess and monitor student growth. They learn to “think like teachers” (WalkerDalhouse, Sanders, & Dalhouse, 2009, p. 340) when analyzing student writing, offering constructive feedback, and providing both direct and indirect modeling (Moore, 1991; Moore & Seeger, 2009). The pen pal exchange is mutually beneficial as preservice teachers individualize responses to provide students with feedback specifically tailored to their needs (Ceprano & Sivret, 2007; Walker-Dalhouse, Sanders, & Dalhouse, 2009). A pen pal exchange can be a scaffolded experience in that preservice teachers are not responsible for the literacy needs of an entire class. Each preservice teacher is able to gain

Using a collective case study, the researchers aimed to explore the development of nine preservice teachers through a partnership with 21 fifth graders to discuss commonly read literature in the online space of a blog. Specifically, they hoped to develop a deeper understanding of how the participants considered the role of differentiation in teaching, effective literacy instruction, and the use of technology in the classroom. Setting and Participants The study occurred within two settings both in the same southeastern state in the United States. The preservice teachers were enrolled as undergraduate students studying to become teachers at a small

102

Journal of Language and Literacy Education Vol. 10 Issue 2 -- Fall 2014 private liberal arts university. The fifth graders attended a diverse public elementary school with 45% of students receiving free or reduced lunch. The study took place during the spring of 2013. Participants included nine White female undergraduate junior elementary education majors and 21 fifth graders (nine White, 11 Black, and one Hispanic). Pseudonyms were used to maintain confidentiality. The preservice teachers were enrolled in one of two mandatory literacy methods courses. Prior to taking this course focused on reading and writing instruction in intermediate grades, the preservice teachers completed another required literacy methods course focused on teaching reading and writing in the primary grades. In the current course, the preservice teachers studied effective reading and writing instructional practices, learned how to use ongoing assessment to be responsive to the needs of individual learners, and developed as reflective practitioners.

Phase 1. Before communicating with their pen pals, the preservice teachers were interviewed using a semi-structured protocol (Spradley, 1980) (see Appendix B). These interviews were audio recorded for transcription purposes. Phase 2. The preservice teachers were assigned 2-3 fifth grade students to communicate with individually through the use of a blog. A minimum of eight letters and responses posted on the blog including an introductory pen pal letter and subsequent letters to discuss A Long Walk to Water were exchanged over the course of the study implementation (see Appendix A). Initiated by the fifth graders, a “get to know you” post began the pen pal exchange. Each week, the fifth graders read three chapters of the book, A Long Walk to Water, and then individually posted a written response to the book. The students were encouraged to summarize and share their personal reactions to characters and story events. They were required to post by Friday of each week. In the meantime, the preservice teachers read the same chapters and responded to their pen pals using the comment feature of the blog. Their responses included sharing their own reactions to the story events, modeling of their own reading processes through written think-alouds, and asking questions to probe for deeper thinking.

Katie, the first author, taught the undergraduate literacy methods course. The second author, Lindsay, taught the fifth grade students that were partnered with the preservice teachers to blog about the book, A Long Walk to Water (Park, 2010). Both Katie and Lindsay were participant observers and acknowledged their positions as insiders in the role of researchers and classroom instructors. As participant observers, Katie and Lindsay had an advantage of being insiders within their own classrooms respectively. The third author, Rachel, participated as a student researcher at the university where the study was conducted to assist with the data collection and analysis process.

The pen pal exchanges became an online discussion in which the preservice teachers practiced stimulating deep thinking and engagement, experienced informally assessing the students’ work, and explored strategies for providing individualized reading and writing instruction. The preservice teachers were encouraged to respond to the students’ needs and interests in a way that promoted comprehension and writing development through informal differentiated instruction through careful analysis of the individual students’ blog posts. Course readings and class discussions provided the preservice teachers with support and direction to foster explicit and implicit instruction to each of their pen pals. Additionally, the preservice teachers were encouraged to read their peers’ responses to the fifth graders to examine other examples.

Data Collection and Analysis Data were collected over a period of 11 weeks. Various types of qualitative data were collected and analyzed as part of this study including pre and post semi-structured interviews, pen pal blog exchanges, and reflective papers completed by the preservice teachers after participating in the project. The data sources and implementation of the study in three phases are described below. A timeline highlighting week-by-week procedures is included in Appendix A.

Phase 3. At the conclusion of the blogging exchange, the follow-up semi-structured interviews were

103

Stover, K., Yearta, L. S., & Sease, R. (2014) / Experience is the Best Tool for Teachers conducted with the preservice teachers (Appendix B). Additionally, the preservice teachers completed a reflection paper as a course assignment where they described their experiences communicating with the fifth graders about literature through writing in a digital space. The preservice teachers were asked to address the following questions in their reflective papers: 1. Describe each of your students as readers and writers and how they have grown throughout this project. Cite specific examples from the letter exchange. 2. Describe how you have grown as a teacher of reading and writing as a result of this experience. 3. In your opinion, what are possible benefits of engaging in this type of project for both elementary and preservice teachers? Cite specific examples from the letter exchange where applicable.

possible codes and categories to use in analyzing the data (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). Once agreement was reached, the researchers began the second phase of data analysis. After determining codes, the corpus of data was reread to categorize and determine emerging themes. Results were compared and consolidated into broader categories. Data analysis continued until the researchers arrived at a consensus regarding the findings. Findings In this study, the researchers explored how a pen pal project, in which the preservice teachers discussed a common text with the fifth graders in a digital space, prepared the undergraduate education majors for their future work as classroom teachers. Specifically, they were interested in how this experience enhanced the preservice teachers’ understanding about reading and writing instruction and meeting the needs of diverse students. They also examined the role of technology as a medium for this type of interaction. Findings revealed the following themes: development as active readers and writers, individualized instruction, and the use of technology.

Trustworthiness was maintained through the triangulation of multiple data sources, member checks, and peer debriefing. Member checks were conducted to ensure that information obtained through data collection was accurate (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Specifically, the participants were given copies of their transcribed interviews to determine accuracy. Ongoing peer debriefing to regularly discuss the data and emerging themes helped the researchers gain an in-depth understanding of the cases being explored.

Theme 1: Development at Active Readers and Writers Findings revealed that the preservice teachers developed as more active readers and writers, which allowed them to provide more effective instruction for their fifth grade pen pals. The preservice teachers enhanced their metacognitive awareness as readers and gave more consideration to their audience as writers. Before participating in the pen pal project, the preservice teachers articulated components of effective literacy instruction, such as the use of readaloud, integrating reading and writing, and a process approach to writing. However, their previous experiences with writing instruction focused solely on correcting student errors. The digital pen pal exchange increased the preservice teachers’ awareness of their own reading processes and deepened their engagement with proficient reader strategies.

Data analysis procedures included a holistic in-depth exploration of the recurring themes and patterns in the data. Ongoing thematic analysis was conducted to code, categorize, synthesize, and interpret the data (Glesne, 2006; Merriam, 1998; Patton, 2002). Using an interpretivist approach (Erikson, 1986), the strongest themes that emerged from the data became the basis of the findings. This approach allowed the researchers to delve into the nuances of the pen pal exchange and the professional development of the preservice teachers. The large amount of data were systematically examined and reduced through several stages. First, each researcher independently read and coded the data. Next, the researchers came together to discuss

In Mollie’s reflective paper she wrote, “I quickly realized that in order to teach [my pen pals] how to

104

Journal of Language and Literacy Education Vol. 10 Issue 2 -- Fall 2014 read and write thoughtfully and critically, I myself had to read and write thoughtfully and critically.” During her interview, Faith reflected on her improved metacognitive awareness: “I normally make pictures in my head but at the same time I don’t particularly notice like ‘oh I was questioning about this’ or ‘oh I made this specific connection to this.’ Having to talk to someone about it helped me notice it more.” In her interview, Tara described how her perspective changed from a passive to active reader. She shared, “I caught myself reading as a teacher and a reader... thinking oooh what strategies can I share.” Ashley also noted in her interview that she became more aware of when she used proficient reader strategies, such as prediction, in order to talk to her pen pals about the book.

Caroline provided the students with several opportunities to practice through the blog posts. Hillary noted in her reflective paper that she observed her pen pals making changes in their responses as a result of her modeling. Hillary’s implicit modeling showed when her pen pal began using the letter format in her blog posts similar to Hillary’s. Erika explained in her reflective paper that “young students will see how the teachers model how to effectively read, write, and engage with the texts and may begin to mimic these strategies themselves.” The preservice teachers carefully crafted their responses to ensure clarity and comprehension. They modeled good spelling and grammar and intentionally selected appropriate language and sentence structure for their fifth grade audience. Consideration of audience fostered a balance between asking meaningful questions without overwhelming their pen pals. Caroline shared in her reflective paper that “the whole idea of using [her] writing as a model for these students made [her] much more aware of what [she] was writing and the teach them reason why [she] was writing those particular ideas.”

The preservice teachers provided explicit and implicit instruction via blogging to increase the fifth graders’ metacognitive abilities. Modeling and assistance allowed the fifth graders to extend their thinking and deepen comprehension. Ashley described the importance of gradually releasing responsibility to teach students to monitor their reading processes in her reflective paper. “By writing “You have to back and forth with my pen pals, I have had the opportunity these reading strategies... to show my students how to properly use the rules of The pen pal blogging project [if not, it’s] like capitalization and punctuation provided the preservice withholding a good gift as well as how important it is to teachers with real reflect on the text and think opportunities to implement from someone.” aloud about what you are what they had learned in their reading.” literacy methods courses. As Tara explained in her interview that she felt more Realizing that this learning does not occur instantly, confident to teach reading strategies after this Caroline reflected that teaching is an ongoing experience, commenting, “Experience in general is process and requires scaffolding. In her interview, the best tool for teachers. I realized I need that too.” she explained, “I felt like I was doing a lot of the She added, “You have to teach them these reading things slightly each time I felt like I was kind of strategies... [if not, it’s] like withholding a good gift getting a little more out of them. So, I’d keep doing it from someone.” but try to use different techniques each time.” Caroline modeled reading strategies, such as making Theme 2: Individualized Instruction predictions, the use of correct grammar and sentence structure, as well as proper letter format. Through In the initial interviews, the preservice teachers direct instruction and probing questions, she discussed the importance of individualized encouraged students to implement the skills in instruction to meet the wide variety of student needs future posts. Before introducing new techniques, but offered no specific approaches for doing so. They

105

Stover, K., Yearta, L. S., & Sease, R. (2014) / Experience is the Best Tool for Teachers observed a range of ability levels in previous field experiences, but had limited opportunities and understanding about how to differentiate for these learners. Interestingly, with prior experience only in a primary setting, Steph noted in her interview that she believed that students in intermediate grades were all on the same ability level. Hillary was surprised at the low ability levels of students in her field experience classroom. She recalled in her initial interview, “I started to wonder, how do you get that one-on-one time? You always say that’s what you should do, but then you get in there and you’re like, wow, there’s kids everywhere!” Hillary’s comments revealed the challenge for beginning teachers to balance a classroom full of students with unique instructional goals and learning styles.

‘oh, just you’re doing all these things wrong.’ Let me list them.” In her interview, Kate suggested complimenting and encouraging the student. Tara explained in her interview that she complimented her pen pal when he “came up with this beautiful compelling theme at the end [even though] it was only a sentence and was a run-on with lots of mistakes.” As Tara noted in her reflective paper, “by expanding on what my students do best, I build their self-confidence, making them more willing to take risks as readers and writers.” Tara noted in her reflective paper that this experience helped her “examine different students’ strengths and weaknesses as a means of determining individualized instructional suggestions tailored specifically for them.” Mollie shared in her interview that the pen pal correspondence “helped [her] develop good critical teaching skills because [she] looked for strengths and what could be worked on and how to say it in an appropriate way for the age level of the kids.” After participating in this project, Erika explained in her reflective paper that “now [she] knows how to provide constructive criticism and challenge students with their work in a way that does not discourage them from continuing to write and engage in a conversation about the book we are reading.” The preservice teachers learned that by valuing the students’ ideas and voices as opposed to solely focusing on their deficits, the elementary learners were more motivated and invested in the reading, writing, and blogging experience.

As a result of being assigned multiple fifth grade pen pals to communicate with via blog increased the preservice teachers’ awareness of the wide range of ability levels of the students within a class setting and ways to tailor instruction to support them individually. This is evident in the following comments from the preservice teachers’ reflective papers: My students were about as opposite as they could have possibly been... the things I would say and suggest to one student were totally different from the other. (Hillary) In any classroom, I had to be able to focus on the individual student I was working with instead of just lumping together a generic response and hoping it worked for both of them. (Mollie)

The pen pal blogging project provided the preservice teachers with a bridge between working with students one-on-one, common in the field experience placements, and working with an entire classroom of students. Oftentimes in field experience settings, preservice teachers have opportunities to observe whole group and/or work one-on-one with students who need additional support. Within this dichotomy, preservice teachers have limited opportunities to engage with a range of students to assess their abilities as readers and writers and design/tailor instruction accordingly. Faith explained in her interview that “when I’m a teacher, I will have a classroom with twenty or more kids who are diverse and have different needs. It’s such a difference working with one kid or twenty kids. I

This experience gives preservice teachers a better idea of what it's like to conference with readers and writers and individualize instruction based on the diverse setting of the classroom. (Faith) The preservice teachers also learned to avoid a deficit view when evaluating the students’ work. Although several stated that it was their natural reaction to find errors, they continuously reminded themselves to emphasize the students’ strengths. For instance, during her interview, Ashley stated, “it’s not all about

106

Journal of Language and Literacy Education Vol. 10 Issue 2 -- Fall 2014 think this is cool because I had three people. So, working with a group of three and still having to individualize between all of them and work with them to come up with what they needed help on and what they're doing well... was more than what I’ve done with one [student].” This experience fostered their development as future teachers by introducing them to a wide range of ability levels where they were responsible for offering differentiated and meaningful support.

not consider classroom application prior to this experience. After engaging in the pen pal project, the preservice teachers found value in technology as an effective tool to facilitate and enhance learning. As Kate noted in her reflective paper, “instructing and getting to know students through an online blog is a great example of embracing technology and using it as a tool for success.” In her interview, Erika commented, “It was fun to see that you can use technology and you can use that form of communication to teach and to help [students].” Several preservice teachers discussed the importance of student interaction with technology through real-world applications so they develop alongside of the ever-changing growth and advancement of the 21st century society. As Steph suggested in her interview, proficiency of technology use is essential for overall success. She explained that technology is part of today’s students’ daily lives as digital natives and this project therefore matches their real world digital reading and writing activities. Tara declared in her interview that “People actually blog!” The use of blogs to communicate and connect with a wide audience is an example of real-world out-of-school literacies. Therefore, this experience allowed the preservice teachers to practice engaging students in real world 21st century reading and writing activities.

Tara shared in her reflective paper that she “feel[s] more confident in [her] ability to take on a classroom full of students, each with their own learning needs.” While the diverse range of ability levels can be “scary” according to Hillary’s comments from her interview, this experience prepared her to differentiate instruction for a classroom of individual learners. The pen pal project provided the preservice teachers with a meaningful experience that proved to be an effective transition to designing and implementing differentiated instruction in the whole classroom setting. As Mollie noted in her interview, “it definitely helped me to realize how to balance between different levels.” Kate’s reflective paper revealed that she now thinks more about being a teacher of reading and writing to the individual students within the larger classroom context. This experience was good preparation for teaching a whole class of students with a range of ability levels.

The preservice teachers recognized cyber collaboration as an engaging way to encourage the students to interact with text in more meaningful ways.

Theme 3: Use of Technology At the onset of the study, the preservice teachers shared their awareness of the need to integrate technology in the classroom but had little familiarity with it. During a study away program to New Zealand the previous year, four of the preservice teachers observed an expansive use of technology with one-to-one access in the schools. While they recognized the importance and endless possibilities of technology in today’s classrooms, they demonstrated little familiarity and comfort with it. As Tara stated in her interview, “I think technology is great, however I barely know anything about it… I’m kind of nervous, like, I’m a junior and this is the first time I’ve ever blogged.” Others have blogged but did

The preservice teachers recognized cyber collaboration as an engaging way to encourage the students to interact with text in more meaningful ways. In her interview, Caroline explained, “it’s not just a textbook or here’s a book, now read it.” The use of a blog to communicate with pen pals about the book increased the students’ engagement and motivation to read and respond to the text through

107

Stover, K., Yearta, L. S., & Sease, R. (2014) / Experience is the Best Tool for Teachers written exchanges. The fifth graders looked forward to reading and writing within the blog space and were therefore more actively engaged in their learning. Kate shared in her interview that “the shear fact that they were excited to read and write was number one!”

Technology in the classroom offers endless possibilities for collaboration, publication and continued learning. According to Ashley’s interview, “There are lots of ways [technology] could be incorporated to make learning more meaningful and more fun and get [students] engaged.” The use of technology can provide students with opportunities to conduct research to increase their knowledge and understanding of a range of topics. For instance, many of the fifth grade students demonstrated interest in Salva’s cause and researched his story and his non-profit organization online. The students explored the inspiration for the book as well as the broader implications related to the content of the story and how to get involved to take action. As Erika shared in her interview, “[technology] makes education more at your fingertips.”

The use of an online space for communication provided the participants with an authentic audience. The fifth graders were able to share their ideas and respond to their college pen pals and their peers. According to Mollie’s interview, “they’re not just writing it in a daybook for the teacher... someone is going to read it and respond.” Faith shared in her interview that “it’s not just writing for the sake of getting a grade. It’s actually something other kids might read.” The blog provided a wider audience and therefore students had a greater sense of responsibility as readers and writers. Kate believed that “the students are pushed to take themselves more seriously as readers or writers. You could call it publishing.” Faith continued in her reflective paper, “Since all their classmates can read what they post, this also gives them a sense of authorship. People are reading what they are writing, which makes them feel like their voice is being heard.” In her interview, Mollie discusses how the students felt like their writing mattered because they were blogging with college students. Additionally, the blog presented the preservice teachers with access to and involvement in the original work of the students with whom they had established relationships. The role of writing for an authentic audience made the experience more meaningful and purposeful for both sets of participants.

Limitations Some preservice teachers suggested that a balance between the blog and face-to-face interaction such as Skype as a way to virtually meet their pen pals would enhance the experience for both sets of participants. According to Faith in her interview, “the technology was in some ways harder to deal with just because we didn’t know our students. We didn’t know what they looked like, their background or anything like that.” Additionally, others believed that the lack of proficient and fluid typing skills may result in additional spelling and grammatical errors and could possibly interfere with the writer’s stream of consciousness and ability to record their thinking without losing their ideas. However, with increased practice, several preservice teachers noted that the fifth graders could develop their typing skills over time. In her interview, Hillary suggested that the lack of access to technology could have been a limitation to this approach making it more difficult for students to regularly monitor and interact in the blog space. Furthermore, both the fifth graders and the preservice teachers suggested that the posts needed to be within one thread so conversations were more dialogic and continuous. In her interview, Caroline expressed her belief that this would create a more supportive collaborative learning space and enhance the students’ comprehension.

While the context of the pen pal exchange was more authentic for both participants, it was also noted that the collaborative nature of the online space allowed the preservice teachers to access their peers’ blogs as examples. Access to the peers’ responses extended the possibilities for teaching ideas and professional learning. Typically isolated within one classroom during their field experience, the pen pal blogging project gave them access to a wider network of fellow preservice teachers through social interaction in a digital space.

108

Journal of Language and Literacy Education Vol. 10 Issue 2 -- Fall 2014 Finally, although the preservice teachers demonstrated growth in their own reading and writing practices, awareness of the need for individualized assessment and instruction, and an appreciation of technology, the study does not clearly indicate how much of this new understanding can be attributed to the pen pal experience itself. Other factors including course readings, class discussions and field experiences may have influenced the preservice teachers’ development.

student learning and helped them feel valued as a member of a literate society outside of the four walls of the classroom (Bloem, 2004). Through explicit instruction, responsive teaching and differentiated instruction, the preservice teachers learned how to build a “literate community” (Harvey & Goudvis, 2007, p. 35).

Through this firsthand experience, the preservice teachers learned a practical way to incorporate technology in the classroom to encourage reading, Discussion writing, communication, and collaboration. Initially they had little familiarity with specific use of Interaction with the technology in an elementary age learners educational context but through electronic pen pal learned the value of exchanges provided the matching out-of-school preservice teachers with an literacies with in-school As Harvey and Goudvis (2007) authentic experience to literacies for today’s have noted, “One size does not fit develop their professional digital natives. identities. The findings of this According to Larson all... We design our instruction to study revealed that the (2009), “It is the support students with varying preservice teachers developed responsibility of all reading proficiencies, learning as active readers and writers, teachers to orchestrate which allowed them to foster learning opportunities in styles, and language backgrounds” deeper thinking and which students can (p. 36). metacognition with their collaborate and elementary pen pals. By communicate within a merging their thinking with technology-rich the text, both sets of environment” (p. 648). participants were able to construct deeper The use of blogs increased the students’ engagement comprehension (Harvey & Goudvis, 2007). This and interest in reading and writing experiences. The project further developed the preservice teachers’ online forum served as a window into their thinking, understanding of the need for individualized which enabled preservice teachers to better instruction. As Harvey and Goudvis (2007) have individualize instruction. As Harvey and Goudvis noted, “One size does not fit all... We design our (2007) have stated, “It is impossible to know what instruction to support students with varying reading readers are thinking when they read unless they tell proficiencies, learning styles, and language us through conversation or written response” (p. 28). backgrounds” (p. 36). Additionally, using blogs allowed the preservice teachers to expand their instructional toolbox by Throughout this project, the preservice teachers viewing other posts and responses. provided individualized guidance and feedback to support the child’s reading and writing development These findings have important implications for the through their blog responses. When discussing ways in which teacher preparation programs commonly read literature, the preservice teachers consider enriching and meaningful experiences for offered a model for discussion, posed and answered preservice teachers. The results of this study can questions, and elicited student thinking about the have the potential to inform teacher preparation text both explicitly and implicitly. The preservice programs and 21st century reading and writing teachers modeled literate behavior to scaffold instruction in K-12 settings and beyond. This study

109

Stover, K., Yearta, L. S., & Sease, R. (2014) / Experience is the Best Tool for Teachers provides support for preparing preservice teachers through exposure to authentic experiences with developing readers and writers and through individualized assessment and instruction. Just like elementary learners, preservice teachers benefit from opportunities to construct their own meaning through purposeful experiences and application of in-course content (Parrott et al., 2013). The preservice teachers were able to see technology integrated in a purposeful context, and as a result, felt more confident about using it in their future classrooms. Preservice teachers with a higher sense of self-efficacy and autonomy are more likely to be committed, effective classroom teachers (Parrott et al., 2013). Incorporation of these findings in preservice teacher preparation programs can develop more empowered and dedicated teachers.

The preservice teachers learned essential strategies for fostering this growth and development through effective literacy teaching in and beyond the classroom. This study can serve as a catalyst for future research. In fact, future studies could be conducted with a larger sample size in order to examine the results on a more significant scale. Research questions to consider might include: How does the number of elementary students that preservice teachers work with influence preservice teachers’ learning? Specifically, what are the results of one preservice teacher working with an entire elementary class? Additionally, future studies could explore a similar type of online interaction between preservice teachers and students from more diverse populations and across different grade levels.

Conclusion Finally, a possibility includes conducting a similar study at a school where each elementary student has personal, one-to-one access to a laptop, iPad, or tablet. In this case, research questions may include: How does increased access to technology enhance the dialogic nature of the online conversation? While this study was conducted on a small scale, it has potential to inform teacher education programs by demonstrating the importance of providing preservice teachers with authentic experiences to utilize technology and provide individualized instruction for a range of learners.

As Keene and Zimmerman (2013) have posited, the goal for active readers is to “awaken the ‘voice in their minds’” and engage in “ongoing, inner conversation with themselves and the text” (p. 604). Through the pen pal experience, both sets of participants developed a deeper sense of the communicative and transactional nature of their reading and writing processes through hearing this inner voice. This scaffolded process fosters a greater likelihood that the fifth graders will develop the literacy skills needed for overall academic success.

110

Journal of Language and Literacy Education Vol. 10 Issue 2 -- Fall 2014 References Andes, L., & Claggett, E. (2011). Wiki writers: Students and teachers making connections across communities. The Reading Teacher, 64(5), 345-350. Barksdale, M., Watson, C., & Park, E. (2007). Pen pal letter exchanges: Taking first steps toward developing cultural understandings. The Reading Teacher, 61(1), 58-68. Berrill, D. P., & Gall, M. (1999). On the carpet: Emergent writer/readers’ letter sharing in a penpal program. Language Arts, 76(6), 470-478. Bloem, P. (2004). Correspondence journals: Talk that matters. The Reading Teacher, 58(1), 5462. Bromley, K., Winters, D., & Schlimmer, K. (1994). Book buddies: Creating enthusiasm for literacy learning. The Reading Teacher, 47(5), 392-400. Burk, J. (1989). Pen pals: A beneficial partnership. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Reading Conference, Austin, TX. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED319065 Ceprano, M., & Sivret, P. (2007). Overcoming obstacles posed by NCLB: When preservice teachers and special needs children pen pal with each other (Research report). Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED495784 Crowhurst, M. (1990). Sixth-graders learn from letter writing (Research report). Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED315776 Darling-Hammond, L. (1998). Teacher learning that supports student learning. Educational Leadership, 55(5), 6-11. Day, D. (2009). “A taste of college”: Children and preservice teachers discuss books together. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 23(4), 421-436. Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In M. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 119-161). New York, NY: McMillan. Gambrell, L. B., Hughes, E. M., Calvert, L., Malloy, J. A., & Igo, B. (2011). Authentic reading, writing, and discussion: An exploratory study of a pen pal project. The Elementary School Journal, 112(2), 234-258. Gee, J. P. (1991). Social linguistics: Ideology in discourses. London: Falmer Press. Glesne, C. (2006). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

111

Stover, K., Yearta, L. S., & Sease, R. (2014) / Experience is the Best Tool for Teachers Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (2013). Designing an effective writing program. In S. Graham, C. A. MacArthur, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Best practices in writing instruction (2nd ed., pp. 3-25). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Harvey, S., & Goudvis, A. (2007). Strategies that work: Teaching comprehension to enhance understanding, second edition. Portland, ME: Stenhouse. International Reading Association. (2002). Integrating literacy and technology into the curriculum: A position statement of the International Reading Association. Retrieved from http://www.reading.org/downloads/positions/ps1048_technology.pdf International Reading Association. (2009). New literacies and 21st-century technologies: A position statement of the International Reading Association. Retrieved from http://www.reading.org/general/aboutIRA/positionstatements/21stcenturyliteracies.aspx Keene, E. O., & Zimmerman, S. (2013). Years later: Comprehension strategies still at work. The Reading Teacher, 66(8), 601-608. doi:10.1002/TRTR.1167 Larson, L. (2009). Reader response meets new literacies: Empowering readers in online learning communities. The Reading Teacher, 62(8), 638-648. Leu, D. J., Jr., Kinzer, C. K., Coiro, J., & Cammack, D.W. (2004). Toward a theory of new literacies emerging from the Internet and other communication technologies. In R. Ruddell & N. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (5th ed., pp. 1570-1613). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Liakopoulou, M. (2012). The role of field experience in the preparation of reflective teachers. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 37(6), 42-54. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Marshall, C., & Davis, R. A. (1999). Beginners learning together: Literacy collaboration between preservice teachers and first-grade students. Early Childhood Education Journal, 27(1), 53 56. Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Michigan State University. (2012, January 30). TEDS-M and the study of teacher preparation in early reading instruction: Implications for teacher education policy and practice. (Working Paper No 25). Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED537155.pdf Mills, K. A., & Levido, A. (2011). iPed: Pedagogy for digital text production. The Reading Teacher, 65(1), 80-91. Moore, M. A. (1991). Electronic dialoguing: An avenue to literacy. The Reading Teacher, 45(4), 280-286.

112

Journal of Language and Literacy Education Vol. 10 Issue 2 -- Fall 2014 Moore, R. A. (2007). Taking action: Assessing the impact of preservice teaching on learning. Action in Teacher Education, 28(3), 53-60. Moore, R. A., & Seeger, V. (2009). Dear sincerely: Exploring literate identities with young children and preservice teachers through letter writing. Literacy Research and Instruction,48(2), 185-205. National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of State School Officers. (2010). Common core state standards for English language arts & literacy in history/ social studies, science, and technical subjects. Retrieved from http://corestandards.org/ assets/CCSSI_ELA%20Standards.pdf Park, L. S. (2010). A long walk to water. New York: Clarion Books. Parrott, M. Y., Da Ros-Voseles, D., A., & Eaton, P. (2013). A picturesque view of dispositions, autonomy, and efficacy during the educational preparation of early childhood educators (Research Report). Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED540356 Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Perry, K. H. (2012). What is literacy? A critical overview of sociocultural perspectives. Journal of Language and Literacy Education, 8(1), 50-71. Rankin, J. L. (1992). Connecting literacy learners: A pen pal project. The Reading Teacher, 46(3), 204-214. Spradley, J. P. (1980). Participant observation. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Stake, R.E. (2005). Qualitative case studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 443-466). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Street, B. (1997). The implications of the ‘new literacy studies’ for literacy education. English Education, 31(3) 45-59. Teale, W., & Gambrell, L. (2007). Raising urban students’ literacy achievement by engaging in authentic, challenging work. The Reading Teacher, 60(8), 728-739. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: Development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Walker-Dalhouse, D., Sanders, V., & Dalhouse, A. (2009). A university and middle-school partnership: Preservice teachers’ attitudes toward ELL students. Literacy Research and Instruction, 48(4), 337-349.

113

Stover, K., Yearta, L. S., & Sease, R. (2014) / Experience is the Best Tool for Teachers

Wollman-Bonilla, J. E. & Werchadlo, B. (1999). Teacher and peer roles in scaffolding first gradersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; responses to literature. The Reading Teacher, 52(6), 598-607. Yin, R. (2002). Case study research design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publication.

114

Journal of Language and Literacy Education Vol. 10 Issue 2 -- Fall 2014 Appendix A Implementation Timeline Phase One Week 1 –Preservice Teacher Pre-Interviews Phase Two Week 2 – Pen Pal Introduction Blog Posts Week 3 – Long Walk to Water Chapters 1-3 Pen Pal Blog Exchange #1 Week 4 - Long Walk to Water Chapters 4-6 Pen Pal Blog Exchange #2 Week 5 - Long Walk to Water Chapters 7-9 Pen Pal Blog Exchange #3 Week 6 - Long Walk to Water Chapters 10-12 Pen Pal Blog Exchange #4 Week 7 - Long Walk to Water Chapters 13-15 Pen Pal Blog Exchange #5 Week 8 - Long Walk to Water Chapters 16-18 Pen Pal Blog Exchange #6 Week 9 – Pen Pal Final Blog Posts Phase Three Week 10 –Preservice Teacher Post-Interviews Week 11 –Preservice Teacher Final Papers Due

115

Stover, K., Yearta, L. S., & Sease, R. (2014) / Experience is the Best Tool for Teachers Appendix B Preservice Teachers’ Pre/Post Semi-Structured Interview Protocols Establishing Rapport 1.

Tell me a little about yourself in general, as a reader, as a writer, and as a future teacher.

Pre Interview Questions 1. Describe your own experiences with learning how to read and write. 2. Describe your experiences thus far with teaching children how to read and write. 3. What are some things teachers can do to help students with their reading and writing development? 4. How important is it for teachers to get to know students as individual learners? Explain. 5. What are some ways teachers can get to know students as individual learners? 6. How do you feel about teaching students about diversity and various cultures from around the world? 7. What are some ways we can teach students about diversity and various cultures from around the world? 8. How do you feel about the use of technology in the classroom? 9. What are some ways to utilize technology in the classroom? 10. Have you ever participated in a pen pal project before? Please explain. Post Interview Questions 1. What are your overall thoughts about this project? Please explain. 2. How would you describe yourself as a reader and a writer after participating in this project? 3. How would you describe yourself as a teacher of reading and writing after participating in this project? 4. What have you learned about effective reading and writing instruction as a result of this project? 5. How has reading and discussing the book, A Long Walk to Water with your pen pal influenced your thinking and understanding of other cultures and diversity? What helped you develop this new understanding? 6. How do you think reading and discussing the book, A Long Walk to Water with your pen pal influenced your student’s thinking and understanding of other cultures and diversity? 7. Why is it important for students to learn about diversity and other cultures from around the world? 8. How has this project prepared you as a future teacher? 9. What did you learn about your student as a reader? 10. What did you learn about your student as a writer? 11. How has this experience enhanced your student’s reading and writing abilities? What factors do you attribute to this growth? 12. How has this experience enhanced your student’s view of himself/herself as a reader and writer? What factors do you attribute to this change?

116

Journal of Language and Literacy Education Vol. 10 Issue 2 -- Fall 2014 13. How did the use of blogging enhance the pen pal experience for yourself and your student? 14. If you had hand-written your letters to the student, what do you think would have been different about your overall experience? 15. How does the use of technology improve the learning experience for our students? Conclusion 16. What have you enjoyed most about this project? 17. Do you have any suggestions for how we might improve this project in the future? 18. Is there anything else youâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;d like to tell me before we finish?

117

Literature Discussion: Encouraging Reading Interest and Comprehension in Struggling Middle School Readers Pamela Pittman Barbara Honchell ABSTRACT: The purpose of this qualitative study was to explore how literature discussion affects middle school struggling readers. The focus was on 16 middle school struggling readers in a rural Title I school in the southeastern United States. Findings indicated that (a) literature discussion increased student enjoyment of reading, and (b) students understood a text better during literature discussion when they used reading strategies along with prior knowledge to make connections between a text and their own lives. The discussion focused on the practice of literature discussion. The authors explored how this learning activity positively influenced middle school studentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; learning, particularly among struggling readers.

Key words: Middle School, Struggling Readers, Reading Strategies, Literature Discussion

Pamela Pittman, M.Ed. is currently a doctoral candidate at North Carolina State University writing her dissertation on the development of novice middle school English language arts teachers through participation in professional learning communities. Her research interests include teacher development and adolescent literacy with a particular focus on middle school struggling readers. She can be contacted at pkpittma@ncsu.edu

Barbara Honchell, PhD. (University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill) is an Associate Professor of Language and Literacy and the Director of Reading Recovery at the University of North Carolina Wilmingtonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Watson College of Education. Research interests include: early literacy, effective classroom instruction, and diverse literacy learners. She can be contacted at honchellb@uncw.edu

Journal of Language and Literacy Education Vol. 10 Issue 2 -- Fall 2014 Michelle M. Falter, Editor -- http://jolle.coe.uga.edu

Journal of Language and Literacy Education Vol. 10 Issue 2 -- Fall 2014



Because national and state reading standards are changing through the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers [NGA Center], 2010) alongside a more heterogeneous student population than ever before, teachers must adapt their teaching repertoire to help diverse learners become proficient readers. The information age demands critical skills such as gathering information from various sources and analyzing, evaluating, summarizing, and synthesizing that information (Allington, 2001; Keene & Zimmerman, 2007). As teachers, we know that students must extend these skills by creatively using the information to solve challenging new problems presented by our changing world. Teachers must differentiate instruction in order to meet the individual needs of the students they teach; one way to accomplish this task is through literature discussion groups (LDGs) utilized with diverse student groups. We prefer the term LDGs over other terms for talking about books such as book clubs or literature circles because we consider the talk or discussion to be the important element, with the text as the venue for the talk.



deepen their comprehension and restructure their understanding of the text (Schlick-Noe, 2004); and speak and be heard (Routman, 2000).

LDGs promote community in our diverse classrooms (Short & Pierce, 1990), establishing a culture of cooperation and collaboration (Allington & Cunningham, 2007) and building an atmosphere of trust, an important factor in the sharing of thoughts, ideas, and feelings during discussion (BowersCampbell, 2011). Consider the diversity of students in every classroom. Teachers manage a wide array of racial and ethnic differences, other languages, various learning styles, and a broad range of learning abilities. Students come from a variety of situations, including  students from low socio-economic homes;  students with various disabilities;  students who are gifted athletes and artists but who do not read on grade level; and  students who, for various reasons, have fallen behind their peers but are in classrooms with academically gifted students.

For the purposes of this article, we define LDGs as small discussion groups who meet together to talk about literature in which they have a common interest (Short & Pierce, 1990). These conversations can be about book content, specific strategies used to comprehend the text (Allington, 2001), personal stories about real-life connections, or any combination of these (Keene & Zimmerman, 2007; Daniels, 2006). Students guide these discussions in response to literature they have read. They might also talk about plot, characters, and the author’s craft, but the significant outcome is that students collaborate in order to make meaning from the reading (Schlick-Noe, 2004).

This diversity creates an environment for collaborative practices such as literature discussion groups, which capitalize on student diversity, encourage varied thinking, and extend understanding of reading material in a socio-cultural context. Vygotsky’s (1978) socio-cultural learning theory promotes collaborative learning practices, recognizing that people learn from each other, not in a vacuum, and that they learn from more knowledgeable others such as teachers, other adults, or even peers. Since young adolescents, students between ages 10-15 who are in grades 6-8, are becoming more social individuals (Atwell, 1998; Manning & Bucher, 2012), and because they benefit from more collaborative learning engagements in which to build proficient reading skills (Association for Middle Level Education [AMLE], 2010), LDGs can be used to customize individual learning for this age group. In LDGs, the group constructs meaning from the text they read together so that the individuals in

Additionally, research shows that literature discussion, through this collaboration, affords students opportunities to  think critically about text;  reflect as they read, discuss, and respond to books and other reading materials (Keene & Zimmerman, 2007);

119

Pittman, P., & Honchell, B. (2014) / Literature Discussion the group learn and benefit from the collaborative talk promoted by Vygotsky. Not only does literature discussion build a sense of community in a classroom (Peterson & Eeds, 2007; Short & Pierce, 1998), but it also benefits diverse learners, especially struggling readers (Routman, 1991; Clay, 1991). Through LDGs, students  engage in collaborative learning opportunities (Allington & Cunningham, 2007; Bowers-Campbell, 2011; Clay, 1991; Vygotsky, 1978);  cooperatively create meaning from texts (Bowers-Campbell, 2011; Peterson & Eeds, 2007; Rosenblatt, 1995);  increase their interest in and enjoyment of reading (Allington & Cunningham, 2007); and  negotiate different viewpoints and thoughts on text (Routman, 1991; Short & Pierce, 1998).

2007). We wanted to explore how literature discussion groups would affect these middle school struggling readers. A qualitative research method best suited the purpose of this study because we as researchers wanted to understand how struggling middle school readers experienced literature discussion groups. This action research was conducted in a classroom setting in order to assess student learning in a new context—LDGs—while observing students at work (Hubbard & Power, 1999). The qualitative approach also allowed the participants’ interactions to direct the research study and allowed the teacherresearcher to be immersed in the research setting in order to observe those interactions (Gerdes & Conn, 2001). Participatory action research involves varying levels of collaboration between the teacherresearcher and the student-participants in order to bring about a desired change (Hesse-Biber & Leavy, 2011). Through the process, the teacher-researcher is directly involved in the research setting, interacting with participants in order to understand more about her own practice and how it affects students. In this way, teacher research differs from traditional research because the teacher becomes a participant in her own research process rather than acting as an outside observer (McNiff & Whitehead, 2010).

These activities compliment Rosenblatt’s (1995) reader response theory, which states that readers bring their own experiences and knowledge to texts while reading. As researchers, we assert that the meaning that is created through individual reading experiences becomes richer when shared with others in the group because of the individual background, experiences, culture, and knowledge students bring to a text (Clay, 1991; Rosenblatt, 1995). They collaboratively create more meaning during literature discussion because the shared knowledge and shared experiences of the group contribute even further to the literate community (Vygotsky, 1978). This collaboration is especially valuable to struggling readers because they have the opportunity to share their thoughts and opinions on a text and be heard by others (Routman, 1991).

In this study, we were interested in implementing a teaching-learning methodology (LDGs) and in how a particular group of students would respond to and learn from the method. We decided that if student experiences with LDGs were positive and if students felt they could learn by participating in LDGs, then teachers could implement the method as a form of instruction that could benefit both struggling readers and proficient readers. The primary focus of this study, however, was on the struggling readers.

Method

Setting and Participants

This study developed as a result of the lead author teaching two language arts classes of middle school students, some of whom were struggling readers— students who were not proficient or on grade level in reading according to state and national standards. We knew other professionals who had implemented literature discussion in their classrooms, and we had read research about the positive effects of their implementation (Daniels, 2006; Peterson & Eeds,

This research study was conducted at the school and in the classroom of the lead researcher who is a middle grades English language arts teacher. Therefore, the setting for this research was a rural, K8, Title I school in the southeastern United States, which served approximately 930 students; 61% of the students qualified for free and/or reduced lunch

120

Journal of Language and Literacy Education Vol. 10 Issue 2 -- Fall 2014 (Public Schools of North Carolina, 2009). The school whom were identified as academically gifted, and had not met Federal Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) one African American female who was not identified standards in five years and, consequently, had been as academically gifted. This was an academically under state sanctions for the past three years. School high-achieving group with 100% of them passing the demographics included: 67.4% White, 12.4% Black, 2009-2010 EOG tests in reading according to school 19.1% Hispanic, and <1% Other (Public Schools of EOG data. Even within the context of this North Carolina, 2010) with similar demographics homogeneously grouped class, variations in areas of present in the classroom where the research study strength still existed. took place. The three subgroups of students consistently falling short of The focus of this study was on AYP standards were: Limited 16 struggling readers from the Teachers must differentiate English Proficient (LEP), Black, two classes described—14 from instruction in order to meet and Students with Disabilities the first class and two from the (SWD). second class—because of the the individual needs of the challenges they were facing in students they teach; one way Participants in the study were a becoming successful readers. diverse group of 45 seventh The 14 students from the first to accomplish this task is graders who were in two class class were identified by the through literature discussion sections that the lead school as having learning researcher taught. They were disabilities, and the two from groups (LDGs) utilized with from varying socio-economic the second class were selected diverse student groups. levels, racial backgrounds, and for participation in the study academic abilities, reflecting based on teacher observations the overall population of the of their classroom reading school. practices. We were particularly interested in how these struggling readers would be impacted by LDGs. The first class section was an ethnically diverse class of eight Caucasian males and nine Caucasian Research Questions females, five African American males and three African American females, one Hispanic male and With an unusually high number of struggling readers one Hispanic female (both LEP), and one male from embedded heterogeneously in one class, we the Philippines, also LEP, who entered the study at wondered how engaging in literature discussion week two. They were also academically diverse with would affect these students. In addition, we six students on Individual Education Plans (IEPs) wondered how the two academically gifted students including various modifications for reading observed as struggling readers in the other class disabilities, nine students in the National Junior Beta would be affected as well. Therefore, the key guiding Club because they had high academic standing question became: although they were not identified as academically  How does engaging in literature discussion gifted, and 13 regular education students. Overall, affect struggling middle school readers? this was an academically low-achieving group with Other questions we developed as researchers only 43% of them passing the 2009-2010 End-Ofaddressed implementation issues: Grade (EOG) test in reading according to school  How will we introduce literature discussion EOG data. to these seventh grade students?  How will the students monitor their The second class section was specifically grouped by behavior? the principal to participate in the school’s Algebra I  What will the students read? class based on previous EOG math scores and results Guiding sub-questions related particularly to the from the Algebra placement exam. They were six focus group included: Caucasian males and 10 Caucasian females all of

121

Pittman, P., & Honchell, B. (2014) / Literature Discussion  

there were seven groups of four students each, with a mix of learning abilities and diverse language and ethnicity. The students who had trouble working together were not placed in groups together. In the second class section, there were three groups of four students and one group of five students. In this gregarious group, social butterflies were mixed with reluctant talkers. The teacher-researcher solicited student input on behavior protocols and group discussion protocols. The student-generated list of behavior protocols included  Everyone participates.  Be kind, helpful, and respectful to everyone.  Listen to others.  Take care of the novels.  Stay on task. The students decided their groups should talk about  the novel;  characters, setting, plot;  questions that we have about the reading;  our favorite parts and our not favorite parts;  words we don’t know; and  what the characters do and how we connect with what they do.

What will the teacher observe during literature discussion, especially among the struggling readers? Will students engage in the discussions or will they be apprehensive?

Data Collection In qualitative research, primary data collection tools can include interviews, observations, and document analysis (Merriam, 2002). Therefore, the primary tools used by the researchers were pre- and postreading interest surveys, student-made booklets, audio recordings of student conversations, and student interviews (to clarify responses on the surveys). Researcher observations were used as well but became secondary, as we were interested in student responses of their experience with LDGs. To begin, the students answered a teacher-made reading interest pre-survey (see Appendix A) about concepts related to literature discussion. The questions were designed to assess student prior knowledge, experience, understanding, and thoughts about LDGs via true-false questions such as “I spend time reading outside class,” “I would spend time reading my choice of books outside of class, if I could talk with my peers in class about what I have read,” and “I would like reading the same book as my peers in my class, if we could talk about the book.” Other open-ended questions were included such as “What could happen to help you more enjoy reading,” “Where do you prefer to read? (What location?),” and “What has influenced your reading pleasure up until this point in your life?” Follow-up interviews were conducted with some students in order to clarify meaning for some of the open-ended questions. The initial data revealed that the students had no knowledge of LDGs per se but were familiar with the term book club, a variation of LDGs.

The following four days, students engaged in two practice sessions, the first one (three days) guided and the second one (one day) independent, in order to help them understand the concept of LDGs and to give them working knowledge of how groups should operate. The students created booklets made of four 8.5 x 11 in. (215.9 x 279.4 mm) sheets of copy paper, folded in half and stapled down the middle in which to write thoughts, questions, feedback, new vocabulary, connections, and other observations they made while reading so they could use the booklets as a springboard for discussion. The booklets had construction paper covers decorated by the students. Since these booklets would be primary data tools, we included them in order to gather primary data directly from the students about their experience with LDGs.

Introducing Literature Discussion Groups. During one 90-minute class period the next day, the teacher-researcher introduced the concept of literature discussion through practice sessions and created heterogeneous student groups based on reading EOG scores, individual education plans (i.e. modifications, learning disabilities, etc.) and teacherobserved social behaviors. In the first class section,

The guided practice session lasted three days so the students could learn how to conduct literature discussion. The students listened to the short story “Rikki-Tikki-Tavi” by Rudyard Kipling (2006) on CD. The story was broken down into six 10-minute sessions so that the students could stop after each

122

Journal of Language and Literacy Education Vol. 10 Issue 2 -- Fall 2014 reading section and write thoughts, ideas, and questions for discussion in their booklets. After each 10-minute reading session, the students engaged in 10 minutes of talk about what they had read so they could practice both the content of literature discussion and their behavior during LDGs. On the fourth practice day, the students conducted independent literature discussion groups with the short story “Aunty Misery” by Judith Ortiz Cofer (2006) and said they felt confident to try the process with a novel.

the recorded conversations would capture the students’ experiences in LDGs as they occurred. Again, the students wrote in their booklets. After two days, the first class section asked the teacherresearcher to read the novel to them because they had difficulty reading and did not have time to discuss the book afterwards. This occurred in the class in which half of the students (14) were identified as struggling readers. The second class section of academically gifted students preferred to read the book alone and then engage in discussion without the teacher’s help with the actual reading.

Conducting the Study. For the actual LDG experience, the students read the novel Jeremy Fink and the Meaning of Life (Mass, 2006) because the teacher felt that these particular students would connect with the characters and enjoy the plot. This is a novel about 12-year-old Jeremy Fink and his same-age friend Lizzy Muldoun who live in New York City: Jeremy with his widowed mom and Lizzy with her single, divorced dad. Jeremy is quite eccentric, eating only peanut butter sandwiches and collecting mutant candy, while staying close to his neighborhood and familiar surroundings. Lizzy, on the other hand, is adventurous and free-spirited, but has a naughty habit of stealing things. The conflict in the novel is that Jeremy’s dad died when Jeremy was eight years old, and Lizzy and Jeremy honestly believe his dad’s death was the result of an amusement park gypsy’s curse on him when he was 13 years old. Prior to his own thirteenth birthday, Jeremy receives a wooden box in the mail from his dad. The box has four intricate locks that require four different, unique keys in order to open it. On the bottom of the box, Jeremy’s dad inscribed, “To Jeremy Fink. The Meaning of Life.” The box cannot be destroyed or altered in any way without destroying the contents, and to make matters worse, the Dad’s lawyer-friend who sent the box, also lost the keys that open it. This sends Jeremy and Lizzy on an adventure around New York City to find the keys that will open the mysterious box, and for Jeremy, reveal the meaning of life to him.

At the end of the three-week study, the students answered a teacher-made post-survey (see Appendix B) with questions designed to solicit information about their reading interest, motivation to read, and their interest in literature discussion now that they had experienced LDGs. Questions such as “Literature discussion has changed how I feel about reading. (a lot, a little or not at all)” and “If I could read social studies, science or math and talk about it with my friends like in literature discussion, I would enjoy reading in those subjects more. (a lot, a little or not at all” were used to understand students’ thinking about LDGs. Questions were always followed up with “Why?” to understand more about the students’ thinking. Because of the nature of the research design, topics that were not relevant at the beginning became so as the study evolved. Therefore, the post-survey was not identical to the pre-survey because the explicit purpose of the research was to understand these struggling readers’ experience with LDGs. Data Analysis and Results We collected data from three primary sources: surveys, student-made booklets, and audio-recorded conversations. Because the study focused on struggling readers, we used only the data for the 16 struggling readers, even though data was collected from all participants in the LDGs. For this analysis, we organized the data starting with the initial survey, color-coded any topic that was noted more than once in the three data sources, identified the patterns that emerged as each data source was studied, and examined them to address the research question (Hubbard & Power, 1999). Organizing data

We decided the students would all read this same text as a part of the control for the research, knowing that choice of text is typically a part of LDGs. Audio tape recorders were placed in each group to record student conversations about the literature because

123

Pittman, P., & Honchell, B. (2014) / Literature Discussion and then coding themes allowed us to see patterns that surfaced in more than one data source, which is important for triangulation. Upon analysis, the following two themes emerged: 1. Students enjoyed reading more when they engaged in LDGs. 2. Students understood the text better through the use of LDGs when they used their prior knowledge and experiences to make connections between the story and their own lives.

in other classes, reading would be much more enjoyable. The post-survey revealed that 11 of the 16 struggling readers enjoyed reading more as a result of LDGs than at the beginning of the study. In fact, on the post-survey 13 students said they liked reading, whereas on the pre-survey 12 indicated they did not like reading. In a subject-by-subject response analysis from pre- to post-survey, we found that of the 16 struggling readers, 10 indicated a “high change” in reading enjoyment, while four indicated “some change” in reading enjoyment, and only one indicated “no change” in reading enjoyment. One student did not participate in the post-survey because he was absent.

We will now discuss each theme that emerged from the data analysis. Student Enjoyment of Reading The first identified theme was that the students enjoyed reading more when they were engaged in literature discussion. The reading interest surveys and student-created booklets provided valuable insight into the students’ enjoyment of reading and best informed this part of the analysis. On the presurvey, 12 of the 16 struggling readers reported that they neither liked to read nor enjoyed reading. They wrote statements like, “I hate reading. Reading is boring.” and “My interest has gone down in middle school.” Researcher observations in the classroom confirmed that during reading time, these students were often disengaged from reading, choosing to either skim the text pictures and captions or spend large amounts of time “finding” a book. Guthrie, Alao, and Rinehart (1997) confirmed, “Less motivated students avoid the effort of complex thinking. They simply read the information over and over again, if they read at all” (p. 439).

It appears that literature discussion made a considerable, positive impact on these middle school struggling readers and their feelings about reading. Strommen and Mates (2004) said, “Readers learn, through social interaction with other readers, that reading is entertaining and stimulating” (p. 199). Routman (1991) has suggested that students’ social relationships change when struggling readers are given the same respect as others in their group when they engage in discussion about the text, which in turn boosts their self-confidence. Increased Comprehension The second theme that evolved from the data analysis was that the students understood the text better during LDGs when they used their prior knowledge and experiences to make text-to-self connections and then shared those connections and understandings with the group during discussion about the reading. The surveys and the audiorecorded student conversations best informed this theme.

After the practice sessions in which the students were introduced to literature discussion, they were asked to respond in their booklet to the question: “Now that you know what literature discussion is and now that you have participated in a literature discussion group, how do you feel about it?” After writing their responses, the students answered an additional question: “If you could engage in literature discussion in your other classes, how would you feel about reading?” Eleven of the struggling readers wrote that literature discussion was fun and that if they could engage in the practice

Peterson and Eeds (2007) called this type of reading Intensive Reading (p. 12), “the mindful reading that makes up a deeper kind of meaning-making” (p. 12). Keene and Zimmerman (2007) called these schema connections (text-to-self, text-to-world, and text-totext connections) and affirmed that proficient readers use schema, or their relevant prior knowledge, to understand new information, linking

124

Journal of Language and Literacy Education Vol. 10 Issue 2 -- Fall 2014 it to related information in memory in order to remember and apply the new information. They define text-to-self connections as memories and emotions from specific experiences that illuminate events, characters, and other elements of a story or text. Text-to-world connections are made when readers have specific knowledge about a topic, or general world knowledge they have gathered through other reading or life experiences. Text-totext connections use specific knowledge about text structure, themes, content, and organization of information. The three types of schemata aid readers’ understanding of new reading material (Keene & Zimmerman, 2007) as asserted by Rosenblatt’s (1995) reader response theory.

meaning from a text. Burns (1998) agreed that it is the “social interaction that takes place in a literature circle [that] is a key component of its success” (p. 125). The power of conversation in increasing comprehension. Other students indicated on the pre-survey that their understanding of text was impacted by talk. Two responses were: “If we did more group work, I would enjoy reading more because sometimes I find out things from other students that I didn’t know” and “It [reading] has gotten better b/c [because] when we work as a class, I can understand what I read.”

By far, content area reading of nonfiction text was The power of a more knowledgeable other in cited by the students as being the most difficult text increasing comprehension. One of the students in to read. When asked if literature discussion could this study is dyslexic, and, in her words, she sees “a impact their enjoyment of reading in their content bunch of letters on the page” when she reads. classes, the students responded with a resounding Through literature discussion, this student found a “Yes.” The students seemed to blame the complexity new love of reading because of the focus on of texts and unfamiliar vocabulary as their main meaningful talk in the teacher-researcher’s reasons for disliking reading in middle grades classroom. In a private conversation with the compared to reading in primary grades, but agreed exceptional children’s that when they could teacher after a parentdiscuss the text and teacher conference the unfamiliar words, with the student’s they liked reading mother earlier in the more and understood LDGs could potentially increase reading school year, the more about the student stated that meaning of the text. engagement and enhance learning of this discussion, both The students said that nonfiction materials such as science and classroom discussion they are “confused by and literature it [content area text],” social studies magazines, world news discussion, helped her that they “don’t get articles, health pamphlets and brochures, understand more it,” that they “get to about reading and the point that I barely and current event articles from gaining meaning from understand it,” and newspapers. texts. For the first that “some of the time in her school words are hard.” career, she did not have testing The postsurvey accommodations (i.e. revealed that the extended time, testing in a separate room, modified students valued talk because discussion aided their shorter test, etc.) on her end-of-grade reading test, understanding of reading materials. In fact, when the yet she scored above average in reading proficiency. students were asked why they enjoyed literature This confirms Vygotsky’s (1978) assertion that by discussion, many of their written responses linked to practicing alongside more knowledgeable others, better understanding of the text. Some responses teachers or peers, students learn more about making were: “’Cause I find out things I didn’t know,” “You

125

Pittman, P., & Honchell, B. (2014) / Literature Discussion can express ideas and find out what others are thinking,” and “b/c [because] it cleans my head out because if we don’t do it [literature discussion] then I have a lot of stuff in my head that I don't know what it means.” Even the students who said their interest in reading was the same as before learning about literature discussion indicated that they understood more and enjoyed reading better because they understood what the books were about. These young adolescents are typical of their age group because they enjoy social interaction with their peers, but discussing the books they read contributed to their understanding of what they had read and enhanced their enjoyment of the reading experience.

Lizzy. In this group, Charlie, Ashley, and Dillan are academically gifted students, but as a struggling reader, Dillan reads at an excruciatingly slow pace. An excerpt from their discussion follows. What was up with the tape thing on the wall ‘cause like I’ve never heard of that before? (Charlie) What tape thing? (Ashley) Well, we live in Bellville, if you haven’t noticed. <laughs> (Dillan) I know but, like, I’ve been to Baltimore before and like the big towns and all like Washington, DC, and I’ve rode the Metro like nine times. (Charlie) Yeah, maybe they only have it in New York City. (Dillan) What was it? Was it like…tape…on the wall…that you press? (Charlie) No, I guess…I think… (Dillan) Oh! No! Oh! I think I know! (Ashley) I think it was a bar… (Dillan) It was like…a strip that you press? (Charlie) I’ve seen movies before like these people…it was kind of like this yellow wire that hangs out from the ceiling, and people who stand up, like, there are these black lines that they hang on to so they don’t fall down ‘cause sometimes all the seats are taken up…and then when they want the bus to stop, they pull on the…it ooks like a rope, it’s not really a piece of tape. (Ashley) Yeah, he [Jeremy] said it kinda looked like a piece of tape. (Charlie)

From audio recordings of conversations while the students were in the LDGs, we discovered that the students had meaningful engagements with each other about the novel. Earlier in the school year, the teacher-researcher had explicitly taught the students how to use reading comprehension strategies to help them understand what they read, and we were pleasantly surprised to discover that these struggling readers had internalized these strategies and used them to get meaning from the novel they read together. Specifically, the transcripts that follow show that the students used prior knowledge, or schema, and made important text-to-self and text-toworld connections in order to aid their understanding of and gain meaning from the novel. As the students discussed what they had read in the novel, they tape-recorded their conversations. During the data analysis of this study, we listened to the tapes of the recorded conversations to learn what the students talked about and to discover how they experienced LDGs and created meaning from the text. Portions of the transcripts of the LDG conversations follow. These conversations include at least one struggling reader’s responses.

In this conversation, Charlie began with his question about something he did not understand in the reading—the tape on the wall of the city bus. Ashley asked for clarification of what he meant by “tape,” and Dillan playfully interjected with his background knowledge about living in a rural community that has no city buses to remind the group that they would not see that where they live. Charlie continued to push for understanding of the particular bus he had read about by making the textto-self and text-to-world connections of riding the Metro in big cities he had visited. After a slight lull in the conversation, Ashley suddenly remembered seeing movies in which people used the “tape” or

In one discussion group, the students had read a chapter in the novel in which Jeremy and Lizzy experienced riding the city bus alone for the first time on one of their many quests to find the missing keys. These students used text-to-self/text-to-world connections and their own background knowledge to make meaning and understand how the tape on the wall of the bus made the bus stop for Jeremy and

126

Journal of Language and Literacy Education Vol. 10 Issue 2 -- Fall 2014 “rope” on the city bus, using her schema and text-toworld connections to create meaning for the group. The students worked together, using reading strategies to create an understanding of the text they had read. Peterson and Eeds (2007) confirmed this practice saying, “Comprehension of a text requires that the reader re-create its meaning, constructing in the light of his or her experience the author’s intended meaning” (p. 12).

the box from the mailman, who also knew about the box and played his part in the scheme to give Jeremy an adventure for his thirteenth birthday. At first, Jennifer questioned Jeremy’s mother’s motives to be sure she understood what was happening in the chapter since her schema had to readjust and adapt to new information from this chapter. Ray and Donnie helped her adapt this new schema to the new information by explaining the characters’ motives to her. In readjusting her thinking, Jennifer recalled a previous chapter they had read about Mr. Oswald, another character in the book who was friends with Jeremy’s dad, and attempted to conjecture and possibly dispute Donnie and Ray’s assertions. However, Ray helped her realize the impact of the chapter they had read by linking it to the beginning chapter in the book. Through this thinking process and talking with the boys, Jennifer understood the mailman’s motives behind giving Jeremy the box at the beginning of the story, despite needing an adult’s signature for the package, thus giving her insight into the author’s purpose for setting the tone of the story. It is through these thoughtful interactions surrounding text that “literature study [moves] from an individual act of creating meaning to a social act of negotiating meaning among students” (Burns, 1998, p. 126). Allington and Cunningham (2007) explained, “The goal [of conversation about text] is to share understandings and through this to gain an even better understanding of the material read” (p. 116).

In another literature discussion group, Jennifer, a struggling reader, and Donnie, a student who dislikes school reading but reads a variety of texts at home, were discussing with Ray, an honors student, about characters’ motives in the novel. At the beginning of the novel when the mailman delivered the box to Jeremy’s house, he (the mailman) did not want to leave it since the package required a signature, and Jeremy’s mom wasn’t home. Later in the novel, students found out that Jeremy’s quest to find the keys to the box was a “setup” by the significant adults in his life because Jeremy’s dad wanted to make his thirteenth birthday memorable. In the excerpt that follows, students used information from the novel to draw a conclusion about characters’ motives. By examining character motives, the reasons characters do what they do, students gained deeper meaning and understanding from the text. Did the mom really want Jeremy to have the box? (Jennifer) Yeah, they just wanted him to have it on his thirteenth birthday. (Ray) They’re making him have a vision of his life. (Donnie) Yeah, but Oswald said that, um, that mail dude was following along with it because he… (Jennifer) So he could make sure that his mom wasn’t home so Jeremy could be the one to get the box. (Ray) Oh, and he [the mailman] could be sneaky about him [Jeremy] trying to find out what it [the box] was. (Jennifer)

Summary This study adds to the existing research on literature discussion and the importance of collaborative talk, especially for young adolescents and those who are struggling readers. LDGs are developmentally appropriate for middle school students, as they need social interaction, peer validation, and substantive ways to build identity (AMLE, 2010; Manning & Bucher, 2012). Data from this study provided insights into why students enjoy reading more when they engage in LDGs. The data also indicate how students’ reading enjoyment and understanding of texts can be positively influenced by the practice. Additionally, the data provided an understanding of the processes

In this discussion, the students had just found out that all of the adults in Jeremy’s life knew about the box and the keys. They linked this discovery back to the beginning of the novel when Jeremy first received

127

Pittman, P., & Honchell, B. (2014) / Literature Discussion that these students used to better understand text, including text-to-self, text-to-text, and text-to-world connections and schema, or prior knowledge. When students use these and other important reading strategies to make connections between story and their own lives while engaged in literature discussion, their understanding of text deepens and grows. As a result, students, especially struggling readers, can become more motivated readers and learners who can enjoy a text, engage in literate conversation with others about what they read, and gain deeper insights into a wider variety of reading materials.

content area standards require students to read and comprehend nonfiction text independently and proficiently. Therefore, LDGs can segue from collaborative reading and comprehension to independent reading and comprehension, providing a scaffold for all students but perhaps most importantly for struggling readers. Additionally, LDGs could potentially increase reading engagement and enhance learning of nonfiction materials such as science and social studies magazines, world news articles, health pamphlets and brochures, and current event articles from newspapers. Since some of the struggling readers in this study said they like and understand nonfiction text, they could help others in their groups understand this type of text through collaborative engagement. In turn, their social relationships would change because these struggling readers would be seen as more knowledgeable others (Vygotsky, 1978) on topics they have explored, studied, and read as Routman (1991), Short and Pierce (1998), and Daniels (2006) have suggested.

Conclusion The findings presented here have implications for schools and for both English language arts/reading teachers and content area teachers alike. Since many of the students in this study said directly that they found literature discussion to be fun and reading more enjoyable when they engaged in LDGs, teachers could use literature discussion as a motivational tool for reading both fiction and nonfiction texts of various kinds. Any type of text is appropriate to use for LDGs as long as the text has enough complexity to generate varied thought and ideas and is of interest to the reader. LDGs might prove especially useful in middle grades since students are becoming more social and need more collaborative engagements as the Association for Middle Level Education (2010), Atwell (1998), Manning and Bucher (2012) and other researchers have suggested.

The data presented in this study coincides with data from other studies (Allington & Cunningham, 2007), showing that studentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; interest in reading increases when they have choice about the topics they discuss. For teachers, this may mean giving up control in their classrooms and embracing a more openminded view of teaching and learning, making students more responsible for their choice of texts, for their choice of discussion topics, and for their own learning. Responsibility and choice reflect the skills and knowledge students need to succeed in college, careers, and in life (NGA Center, 2010). LDGs can build a community of readers and learners as Peterson and Eeds (2007), Allington and Cunningham (2007), and Bowers-Campbell (2011) have found. Teachers can and should capitalize on the benefits that will surely come from using LDGs in the classroom. Higher interest and more engagement will directly impact the classroom environment because engaged learners are on task, which inherently decreases behavior problems. Teachers certainly should teach students how to choose good books, how to engage in meaningful talk, and how to manage their own behavior in LDGs, but teachers should also provide support while students learn to

Because the students in this study cited content area nonfiction text as the most difficult to understand due to the text complexity and vocabulary, using LDGs in the content areas could have substantial positive consequences for students, particularly struggling readers. The CCSS (NGA Center, 2010) English language arts document emphasizes key shifts from previous standards. These shifts include reading complex texts containing academic language, carefully analyzing both literary and informational texts, and building knowledge through content-rich nonfiction. The skills obtained in the English language arts classroom can and should be integrated into the content areas as well. The CCSS

128

Journal of Language and Literacy Education Vol. 10 Issue 2 -- Fall 2014 conduct literature discussion on their own. By building a trusting and open environment, teachers can foster positive reading experiences in the classroom using literature discussion as suggested by Short and Pierce (1998) and Peterson and Eeds (2007).

to learn how to implement LDGs in their classrooms since the Speaking and Listening Strand of the Common Core State Standards explicitly addresses comprehension and collaboration through “a range of collaborative discussions” (NGA Center, 2010). Various resources are available about how to conduct literature discussion in different ways. As well, it is important to understand Vygotsky’s (1978) theory of the social construction of knowledge and Rosenblatt’s reader transaction theory as the driving forces behind LDGs.

Perhaps the most compelling finding of this study was that the students understood the text better during LDGs when they used their prior knowledge and experiences to make connections between the story and their own lives. As stated earlier, teachers must differentiate instruction in order to meet the individual needs of the students they teach; one way to accomplish this task is through literature discussion groups (LDGs) utilized with diverse student groups and thus providing a broader context for understanding of the text. The students said they understood more about text when they could talk about it with their teacher and with each other creating this broad context for thinking. Teachers would also find it beneficial to teach reading comprehension strategies, the thinking that facilitates the construction of text-to-self, text-totext, and text-to-world connections, as well as help build students’ schema through LDGs and other collaborative talk as suggested by Keene and Zimmerman (2007). Positive engagements with reading and literature discussion could lead to more interest in reading, increase reading comprehension, and even foster positive classroom behaviors. Further, these engagements reflect the college- and career-ready goals of the CCSS (NGA Center, 2010).

This research study allowed us to explore how engaging in LDGs affected struggling middle school readers in one classroom. Two themes demonstrated positive experiences for the focus group of students: 1. Students enjoyed reading more when they engaged in LDGs. 2. Students understood the text better through LDGs when they used their prior knowledge and experiences to make connections between the story and their own lives. The vast majority of students enjoyed the practice for various reasons, and all benefitted in some way from engaging in literature discussion during this study. This kind of positive literacy experience is not common for older struggling readers so for this reason alone teachers need to consider implementing LDGs in the classroom. In conclusion, literature discussion is a valuable classroom practice that fits with the goals of the CCSS (NGA Center, 2010). LDGs can be implemented by any teacher in any subject area or grade level and, as this study indicates, is especially beneficial for middle grades struggling readers.

Schools and administrators can and should offer professional development opportunities for teachers

129

Pittman, P., & Honchell, B. (2014) / Literature Discussion

References Allington, R. (2001). What really matters for struggling readers: Designing research-based programs. New York: Longman. Allington, R., & Cunningham, P. (2007). Classrooms that work: They can all read and write. Boston: Pearson Education, Inc. Association for Middle Level Education. (2010). This we believe: Keys to educating young adolescents. Westerville, OH: Author. Atwell, N. (1998). In the middle: New understandings about writing, reading, and learning (2nd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Bowers-Campbell, J. (2011). Take it out of class: Exploring virtual literature circles. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 54(8), 557-567. doi:10.1598/JAAL.54.8.1 Burns, B. (1998). Changing the classroom climate with literature circles. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 42(2), 124-129. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/40016796 Clay, M. M. (1991). Becoming literate: The construction of inner control. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Cofer, J. O. (2006). Aunty Misery. In K. Beers et al. (Eds.), Elements of literature: First course (pp. 727-729). Orlando: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston. Daniels, H. (2006) Literature circles: Voice and choice in book clubs and reading groups. York, ME: Stenhouse. Gerdes, D., & Conn, J. (2001). A user-friendly look at qualitative research methods. Physical Educator, 58(4), 183-190. Guthrie, J., Alao, S., & Rinehart, J. (1997). Engagement in reading for young adolescents. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 40(6), 438-446. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/40015517 Hesse-Biber, S., & Leavy, P. (2011). The practice of qualitative research (2nd ed.). Los Angeles: Sage Publications, Inc. Hubbard, R. S., & Power, B. M. (1999). Living the questions: A guide for teacher-researchers. Portland, ME: Stenhouse. Keene, E., & Zimmerman, S. (2007). Mosaic of thought: The power of comprehension strategy instruction. Portland, NH: Heinemann. Kipling, R. (2006). Rikki-tikki-tavi. In K. Beers et al. (Eds.), Elements of literature: First course (pp. 14-29). Orlando: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston. Manning, M. L., & Bucher, K. T. (2012). Teaching in the middle school (4th ed.). Boston: Pearson. Mass, W. (2006). Jeremy Fink and the meaning of life. New York: Little, Brown Books for Young Readers.

130

Journal of Language and Literacy Education Vol. 10 Issue 2 -- Fall 2014 McNiff, J., & Whitehead, J. (2010). You and your action research project (3rd ed., Kindle DX version). London: Taylor & Francis e-library. Merriam, S. (2002). Introduction to qualitative research. In S. Merriam & Associates (Eds.), Qualitative research in practice: Examples for discussion and analysis (pp. 3-17). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common Core State Standards for English language arts and literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/ELA-Literacy/ Public Schools of North Carolina. (2009). Financial and business services: Data and reports [Facts and Figures]. Retrieved from http://www.ncpublicschools.org/fbs/resources/data Public Schools of North Carolina. (2010). Financial and business services: Data and reports â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Student accounting [Grade, Race, Sex]. Retrieved from http://www.ncpublicschools.org/fbs/accounting/data Peterson, R., & Eeds, M. (2007). Grand conversations: Literature groups in action. New York: Scholastic. Rosenblatt, L.M. (1995). Literature as exploration (5th ed.). New York: Modern Language Association of America. Routman, R. (1991). Invitations: Changing as teachers and learners K-12. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Routman, R. (2000). Conversations: Strategies for teaching, learning, and evaluating. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Schlick-Noe, K. (2004). Overview of literature circles. Retrieved from http://www.litcircles.org/Overview/ overview.html Short, K., & Pierce, K. (1990). Talking about books: Creating literate communities. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Short, K., & Pierce, K. (1998). Talking about books: Literature discussion groups in K-8 classrooms. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Strommen, L., & Mates, B. (2004). Learning to love reading: Interviews with older children and teens. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 48(3), 188-200. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/40009180 Vygotsky, L. S. (1978) Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

131

Pittman, P., & Honchell, B. (2014) / Literature Discussion Appendix A Reading Interest Survey One 1. I like reading if I can choose what I read. True 2. I spend time reading outside class. True False

False

3. I would spend time reading my choice of books outside of class, if I could talk with my peers in class about what I have read. True False 4. I like reading materials that my teachers select for me. True False 5. I like reading the same book as my peers. True False 6. I would like reading the same book as my peers in my class, if we could talk about the book. True False 7. I have used an online wiki before. True False 8. I would like reading the same book as my peers in class, if we could use an online wiki to talk about the book. True False 9. I am sometimes overwhelmed when I read social studies, science, and some other non-fiction text. True False 10. Do the reading activities your teacher chooses for you during class affect how you feel about reading? Yes No How do these activities affect your feelings about reading?

11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16.

What other things affect how you feel about reading? Please list. What could happen to help you more enjoy reading? What has influenced your reading pleasure up until this point in your life? How has your interest or attitude toward reading changed since you first learned how to read? Where do you prefer to read? (What location?) How do you like to read? You may choose more than one. A. silently by myself B. with a partner C. in a small group D. in a classroom setting with the whole group E. when someone reads to me F. other, please explain 17. I like to read and then write about what Iâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;ve read. True False 18. Since youâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;ve begun middle school, what, if anything, has caused you to lose interest in reading? Explain. 19. I like to read just because I enjoy reading. True False 20. Please write any other thoughts you have about your interest in reading.

132

Journal of Language and Literacy Education Vol. 10 Issue 2 -- Fall 2014 Appendix B Reading Interest Survey Two 1. I like reading. Why?

a lot

2. I like literature discussion. Why?

a little

not at all

a lot

a little

not at all

3. Now that I know about literature discussion, I like reading the same book as my friends. a lot a little not at all Why? 4. Literature discussion has changed how I feel about reading. Why?

a lot

a little

5. I enjoy reading more since I learned about literature discussion. a lot Why? 6. I enjoy reading less since I learned about literature discussion. a lot Why?

not at all

a little

not at all

a little

7. I enjoy reading about the same since I learned about literature discussion. Why? 8. I enjoy literature discussion more when we can â&#x20AC;&#x153;talkâ&#x20AC;? on the wiki. a lot Why?

not at all

True

a little

False

not at all

9. I like using the video camera to record our conversation during literature discussion. a lot a little not at all Why? 10. I like reading in social studies, science, and/or math. Why?

a lot

a little

not at all

11. I am sometimes confused by what I read in social studies, science, and/or math. a lot a little not at all Why? 12. If I could read social studies, science, and/or math and talk about it with my friends like in literature discussion, I would enjoy reading in social studies, science, and/or math more. a lot a little not at all Why?

133

When Guided Reading Isn’t Working: Strategies for Effective Instruction Heather Wall

ABSTRACT: Guided reading is widespread as a small group reading instructional approach, and yet in some cases the original intent of guided reading as a method for encouraging readers’ independent strategic thinking has been lost. This article describes one group of teachers’ discoveries as they searched for a way to improve their instruction by engaging in coaching labs and thereby turned what had been “private” teaching into “public practice.” By entering this vulnerable space they came to some key realizations about the need to focus on student behaviors over skills, and the power of language to influence instruction. Key words: Guided Reading, Gradual Release of Responsibility, Strategic Reading, Coaching

Heather Wall is currently a doctoral student at the University of Georgia in the department of Language and Literacy Education. She works full time as Professional Development Specialist in Literacy for Hall County schools in Gainesville, Georgia. Her publications include: “Courage to Love: Coaching Dialogically Towards Teacher Empowerment” (in press) in The Reading Teacher; “Interactive Writing Beyond the Primary Grades” (2008) in The Reading Teacher; and “How Do Authors Do It?: Using Literature in a Writer’s Workshop” (2000) in The New Advocate. She can be contacted at Heather.Wall@hallco.org

Journal of Language and Literacy Education Vol. 10 Issue 2 -- Fall 2014 Michelle M. Falter, Editor -- http://jolle.coe.uga.edu

Journal of Language and Literacy Education Vol. 10 Issue 2 -- Fall 2014

“Jose has been stuck in the same text level for weeks now,” Janet laments as she picks at her salad in the staff lunchroom. “I really don’t know what else to try – he’s in guided reading every day with the other three who’ve also plateaued, but we’re running out of books at that level and they still don’t seem to apply any strategies on their own. That low group is just so quiet –I feel like I’m dragging them through the books sentence by sentence. I’m just so frustrated!” Janet’s fellow teachers nod sympathetically. They each have a group of students in a similar situation, and are equally as frustrated. It is past the midyear point and, just like last year, there is a group of students who simply are not making enough progress despite consistent, continual instruction in guided reading.

many teachers disappointed by their students’ lack of progress in reading, and I witnessed numerous frustrated students struggle through guided reading sessions. Several years ago the primary grade teachers at our school came to me having reached a breaking point – despite having almost daily guided reading sessions with students and various support teachers aiding their instruction, many students had stagnated at the mid-year point. The teachers were exhausted and wanted answers. Why were students not making more progress when teachers were working so hard? The teachers and I decided to find out. Optimal Guided Reading In its optimal form, guided reading is small group reading instruction designed to teach students to apply strategic reading behaviors independently (Fountas & Pinnell, 1996; Johnson & Keier, 2010; Schulman & Payne, 2000). A small group of four to six students meets with the teacher to read a carefully chosen, appropriately leveled text. The focus of the lesson is on guiding students to apply reading strategies that have been previously taught and modeled by the teacher. The groups are formed flexibly according to similar reading levels and demonstrated needs, and students are never sentenced to a specific group for an indefinite, lengthy period. In a typical lesson the teacher chooses a small group of students with similar reading strengths and needs who are reading approximately the same level text. S/he chooses a book for the group to read that supports the intended teaching point of the lesson. The goal is to provide a delicate balance of instruction at the beginning of the guided reading session – just enough to clarify any potential misconceptions, while leaving enough words and concepts for the students to solve on their own.

The above conversation could have taken place at the elementary school where I was an instructional coach for years. Ours was a high-poverty, majority English Language Learner setting where few students attended preschool before enrolling, and teachers were urgently aware that their efforts in the classroom comprised most, if not all, of the yearly academic support their students would receive. Teachers were working just as hard as those in other, more financially secure schools, and yet test scores and reading levels often did not reflect the effort. Inconsistent progress in reading is not a problem unique to our school. Many teachers in the United States spend large segments of their literacy blocks conducting guided reading sessions with their students only to find that some students, particularly English Language Learners, minority, or underprivileged students, make minimal progress over the course of the year (Allington, 2001). Students may continually repeat the same reading errors, stall in their progress through textual reading levels, and often develop passivity in the face of difficult texts that contributes to their ongoing lack of progress. Oftentimes these students are then shuttled into intervention programs to practice skills in isolation while experiencing very little reading of actual books (Allington, 1983; Allington & Walmsley, 2007).

During an ideal guided reading lesson, students independently read the selected texts silently and apply word-solving decoding strategies. The teacher looks on and listens in, providing support through prompting of specific strategies, while the majority of the problem-solving is carried out by the students. As s/he watches and listens to the students read, the

In my role as a literacy coach I worked alongside

135

Wall, H. (2014) / When Guided Reading Isn’t Working teacher is noting behaviors, misconceptions, and successful or unsuccessful strategies used by the students. After they have had a chance to read the story, possibly several times, the teacher then reconvenes the students to focus on one or two teaching points based on her/his observations.

periods. Over a series of weeks we co-planned and co-taught sessions, debriefed after school, closely examined running records, and analyzed videotapes of guided reading from our classrooms. We created a community of public practice, causing teachers to comment on the power in being able to see each other teach for the first time, and having the freedom to sit back and intently watch the results of instruction on the core students.

While the above description outlines an optimal guided Too often reading lesson, the reality is that day-to-day instruction behaviors that underlie may vary widely. For instance, Over time we came to some successful reading become guided reading sessions can key realizations about our become dominated by excess work during guided reading obscured by the list of instruction on isolated skills, and the occasionally misplaced leaving little or no time for energy we had been putting phonics and fluency students to read connected forth. Two big discoveries standards teachers are text. In other cases, teachers resulted: might “automate” sessions by 1. Guided reading instruction tasked with teaching. teaching identical skills to needed to focus more on successive groups of students changing student behaviors rather than differentiating instruction based on and less on their mastery of skills. observations (Burkins & Croft, 2010). With these 2. Subtle changes in the language we used potential pitfalls in mind, the teachers in my school with students had an immense influence on and I decided to examine our own guided reading student success. instruction more closely. We found that we were able to help our students When Guided Reading Isn’t Working make more progress in reading by keeping these questions at the forefront of our instruction: What The teachers with whom I worked had received are students doing with what they know? Are they plenty of professional learning on the structures and actively problem-solving text? Who is doing the purposes of guided reading during previous years, majority of the reading work? The following sections and thus were determined to figure out why our describe our findings for each. guided reading sessions were not supporting our struggling readers. We decided to begin coaching What Do Students Do With What They Know? labs similar to those conducted by Boston public schools (Cohen, Guiney, Lineweaver, & Martin, Too often the core behaviors that underlie successful 2002), in which teachers meet during school hours to reading become obscured by the list of phonics and discuss common problems of practice, and then cofluency standards teachers are tasked with teaching. plan lessons to teach as colleagues observe. In the The temptation is to cover isolated skills within Boston public schools’ coaching labs, participants, small group reading by teaching sight words, vowel over a series of weeks, revise lessons, reteach, notice sounds, the silent e rule, or specific vocabulary. On the immediate effects on students, turning what is occasion I have seen 15 minutes of a 20-minute usually “private” teaching into “public practice.” For guided reading session taken up by instruction on our coaching labs on guided reading we chose to apostrophe use or sight word games. While phonics meet during school hours while students were and grammar rules are important, a student can available, and to enter a vulnerable space with each understand one or all of these skills without being a other by conducting guided reading sessions proficient reader. The reality is that the act of together in a laboratory setting during planning reading is a strategic endeavor requiring readers to

136

Journal of Language and Literacy Education Vol. 10 Issue 2 -- Fall 2014 think actively and problem-solve their way through texts (Clay, 1991). Decisions must be made constantly, misunderstandings must be clarified, and new knowledge must be contrasted with existing understanding. Readers must have a tool-belt of strategies available and a firm grasp on how to use them when challenges arise.

opportunity to apply their constructed knowledge of strategic reading practices in the context of authentic reading experiences. Proficient readers often fall back on several proven decoding strategies when they encounter difficult words: checking the picture for confirmation or clues to unknown words, rereading when text does not make sense, breaking longer words into recognizable chunks, keeping the overall meaning of the story at the forefront of their minds, and constantly checking to be sure their reading is making sense (Clay, 2001). Oftentimes, when faced with a struggling reader, teachers see the need for more instruction in skills such as sight words, the silent e rule, or blends and digraphs. While it is true that these students may benefit from additional instruction in these skills, it should not replace the opportunity to learn the decoding strategies and self-monitoring behaviors used by proficient readers (Allington, 1983; Burkins & Croft, 2010).

Take, for instance, the student who reads, “Milk cans from cows” when the text says comes instead of cans. Teachers would expect a proficient reader to listen to herself as she reads, to instantly recognize that what she read did not make sense, and to go back to use both textual clues and the meaning of the sentence, and most likely the picture, to self-correct quickly. If the reader does not go back to self-correct that does not necessarily mean the student needs more isolated sight word drills on the word come, though many students would be sentenced to that fate after such an error. Instead, the use of cans rather than comes should be a signal that this reader is not aware that reading should make sense. She is not actively thinking and comprehending as she reads, or what is commonly known as self-monitoring (Burkins & Croft, 2010; Clay, 1991; Fountas & Pinnell, 1996).

This misplaced focus on skills was evident in our work with struggling students during coaching labs as the teachers and I noticed that we had focused too much on covering what we felt were the missing skills our students needed rather than the behaviors they failed to exhibit. To help us focus on these behaviors, we found it easier to discuss what our successful students were doing rather than what the struggling ones were not. When faced with that question we could see that proficient readers seemed to read with an understanding that a story should make sense, and they usually self-corrected when it did not.

Guided reading sessions should be focused on teaching readers the strategies they need in order to think their way through texts (Burkins & Croft, 2010; Fountas & Pinnell, 1996). Constructivist theory forms the basis of guided reading instruction and states that learners understand deeply and more effectively those ideas which they construct on their own or with the support of others (Vygotsky, 1978). Students truly own knowledge they construct for themselves. As an example, in classroom A, students memorize sight words, write spelling patterns, and learn to sound out words in isolation. Conversely, in classroom B, students listen to and read many books a day and understand books to be the source of powerful messages and fascinating information. Students in classroom A are being delivered requisite skills while students in classroom B are constructing a deeper understanding of reading with purpose. While students in classroom B may also study sight words and spelling patterns, they have constructed their own understandings of reading and can more flexibly apply skills and strategies because of this understanding. Guided reading provides students the

As we observed each other coaching students during our guided reading labs, we also began to notice a pattern in the prompts we used with students. More often than not, we guided students to use more graphophonic cues than meaning cues (Burkins & Croft, 2010) by saying such things as, “What sound does the first letter make?” or “Look for a chunk that you know.” While these prompts may be helpful, they should not be used to the exclusion of asking students to think about what makes sense or to use the picture, both of which turn the student’s attention to the meaning of the story. We realized

137

Wall, H. (2014) / When Guided Reading Isn’t Working that our prompts were pulling students further Figure away1: from the text and turning what should have been an engaging reading experience into an exercise of meaningless skills that made little sense to our young readers. We began a focused effort to balance our responses to student errors to include both phonic and meaning prompts by first listing the meaning prompts for ourselves and then creating visual reminders for our own use during guided reading.

behaviors, correcting students, and redirecting miscues. In these cases, teachers have taken over much, if not all, of the responsibility of reading from the students. Students, in turn, become passive and develop learned helplessness, allowing the teacher to continue doing much of the work (Allington, 1983).

Over time we began to find that the success of guided reading had less to do with student knowledge of skills and more to do with our own behaviors as teachers. We had been striving to provide students with standards and skills in order to have them “do” reading well, but we found instead that the answer had more to do with what we, as teachers, chose to do or not do during the lesson. We also came to realize that, rather than needing to work harder at teaching reading, perhaps we had been doing too much.

Figure 1. Gradual release of responsibility. Adapted from “The Instruction of Reading Comprehension,” by P. D. Pearson and M. C. Gallagher, 1983, Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8, and “Reading to, with, and by Children,” by M. E. Mooney, 1990.

Who Is Doing the Work?

In our coaching labs we found that we could do much to improve guided reading sessions by becoming very intentional about the language prompts we used with students as we released responsibility. We found that the prompts fell neatly along the gradual release continuum, with some prompts providing a high level of teacher support while others handed over a majority of responsibility to the student. Over time, we collected the prompts we typically used and categorized them according to the level of student responsibility they required (see Figure 2). Prompting by telling the student their error or chorally reading with students provides a great deal of support and does not allow them to problem-solve. The student and teacher can equally share the decoding work, however, if the teacher provides the strategy and allows the student to apply it by prompting, “Look at the picture – did that make sense?” the student is required to problem-solve the word after receiving minimal support from the teacher. This response is particularly effective with students who tend to have one “favorite” strategy and need reminding to combine multiple strategies. The teacher can remind them of an alternate strategy, but it is up to the students to put it to use and solve the word.

Guided reading is based upon a framework of reading informed by Pearson and Gallagher’s Gradual Release of Responsibility model (Pearson & Gallagher, 1983). The model (see Figure 1) states that instruction should occur along a continuum beginning with the teacher modeling the desired behavior, followed by the teacher and students engaging in shared activities as the teacher gradually allows the students to gain increasing responsibility, and finally the students independently reading without support. This approach is commonly referred to as “I do, we do, you do” (Routman, 2008). In many models of balanced literacy, reading instruction follows the gradual release framework and progresses from modeled reading to shared reading, then guided reading, and finally independent reading (Burkins & Croft, 2010). Key here is the placement of guided reading just before the independent reading stage, with students holding a majority of the responsibility for reading during guided reading sessions. In reality, however, many guided reading sessions seem to take place much higher on the continuum, with the teacher constantly prompting reading

138

Journal of Language and Literacy Education Vol. 10 Issue 2 -- Fall 2014 requires, students to independently put into practice all that has been taught. Sometimes students’ strategies will not be successful, but if we, as teachers, are smart, we will let them struggle, allow them to evaluate the effectiveness of their attempts, and apply different strategies if necessary. In our work with students we found it best to begin at the low support (right-hand) end of the prompt continuum (see Figure 2). We know that during ideal guided reading sessions, if we are working with the appropriate level texts and readers have been taught It’s all about who’s doing the work. problem-solving strategies, students should be able Figure 2. Prompting students towards independence. to do a majority of the reading work. Our work with students in the coaching labs allowed us to practice On the other hand, prompts that require the most this release of responsibility with the support of our responsibility from the student tend to be very vague peers while also and open-ended. The allowing us the luxury teacher might simply ask of observing the direct the student, “What can results as students you try?” when a difficult began to feel word is encountered. This empowered as readers. Sometimes students’ strategies response requires that the On occasion we noticed student choose a strategy, will not be successful, but if we, a reader’s behavior apply it, and evaluate its quickly change during as teachers, are smart, we will let effectiveness entirely on the course of reading his/her own. The teacher them struggle, allow them to one book – as the could even wait and say teacher simply evaluate the effectiveness of nothing at all, putting the prompted, “What can student fully in control of their attempts, and apply you try?” the student the decisions around soon stopped appealing different strategies if necessary. decoding. Teachers I for help and began worked with commented rereading and selfthat this feels correcting on her own. uncomfortable and Donna (pseudonym), a awkward – “After all,” they explained, “our job is to first grade teacher who was applying our work in her teach, and saying nothing or giving vague prompts own guided reading sessions, reported to the group feels as if we’re not doing our job.” Burkins and Croft of teachers that one of her students asked, “How (2010) respond, “This does not mean that a teacher come you’re not helping me with the words more?” does not support students; it means that we support We chuckled at her story and the sensible response them in learning to support themselves, and we do she gave the student, but realized that many of our this systematically across instructional contexts” (p. students might be feeling for the first time the 12). What this support looks like has everything to do healthy pressure of being solely responsible for their with how successful students will be at breaking the own reading. In our previous efforts to protect and reading code. It is helpful to keep in mind the lowsupport our students, we had created dependency, support position guided reading fills on the gradual passivity, and much more work for ourselves. release continuum. Guided reading sessions are the optimal time for students to demonstrate the Overall, our coaching labs provided us with the strategies they have internalized from previous chance to focus more closely on our instruction than instruction. The silence of teachers allows, and even

139

Wall, H. (2014) / When Guided Reading Isn’t Working we ever had before. We found that by concentrating more on student behaviors rather than on simple skills we were able to help struggling students reproduce the methods used by more proficient readers. Just as importantly, we found that becoming more intentional in our own language usage when prompting students had an immediate, noticeable influence. Flexible movement up and down the gradual release of responsibility scale was vital for responsive teachers. By beginning with a low level of teacher support and providing more support only if needed, we developed more independent student behaviors and our readers became more confident in their abilities.

phonics rules in isolation. Teachers can also use this method to remember to work at the “low support” end of the prompting continuum (Figure 2). Teachers might write, “What else can you try?” on a sticky note as a reminder to resist the temptation to follow up too quickly with more support. Once students realize we expect and believe they can solve unfamiliar words, passivity can begin to turn into growing confidence. Many teachers printed the continuum and kept it on a clipboard at the guided reading table to remind them to start with low support and only provide more support if needed. Another way for teachers to be more intentional about their support for students during guided reading is to spend time beforehand examining running records for each student in their flexible reading groups. Running records serve as a transcript of the act of reading and allow teachers to see into students’ heads as they read, illuminating the strategies they use and the decisions they make. Examining the running record can help teachers plan specific prompts for particular readers, such as, “Does that sound right?” for the student reading nonsense words without self-correcting or “Do you see a chunk?” for the student having difficulty with multi-syllable words. Targeting prompts directly to student behaviors is highly effective practice, and by examining running records and pre-planning these prompts teachers can ensure that instruction meets readers’ needs.

Guided Reading Success Current pressures on teachers to improve student achievement continue to rise, and teachers everywhere are searching for ways to support students as they learn to become proficient readers. For teachers who feel frustrated and exhausted after unsuccessful guided reading sessions, honest selfevaluation may be in order. Teachers I work with have found that video-recording guided reading sessions with students allows them to capture their instructional decisions for later review and can slow down the lesson to let them evaluate the effectiveness of their prompts. It can also be a very positive exercise when done with an honest colleague, one who will give feedback and suggestions on ways to improve what might feel like unproductive guided reading sessions.

If guided reading isn’t working, we as teachers need to examine our instruction and determine where the problem lies. Too often, ironically, fixing the problem requires that the teacher do less work, rather than more. But while we may do less of the actual reading work with students, we still must work hard to teach students a problem-solving mindset and restrain ourselves from prompting too early or with too much support. Teaching reading means teaching students to think, and guided reading can be one highly effective method for creating thinking, confident readers.

It can be hard to make the change from skill-focused prompts to a problem-solving mindset. Reminding students to use specific decoding strategies requires that the teacher be intentional and keep the strategies at the forefront of his/her mind. One method that many teachers find helpful is to preplan the prompts they will use with students. By writing, “Did that make sense?” and “Look at the picture” on sticky notes kept in plain sight nearby, teachers are much more likely to remember to prompt students to apply strategies rather than ask that they use

140

Journal of Language and Literacy Education Vol. 10 Issue 2 -- Fall 2014 References Allington, R. (2001). What really matters for struggling readers. New York, NY: Addison-Wesley. Allington, R. (1983). The reading instruction provided readers of differing reading abilities. The Elementary School Journal, 83(5), 548-559. Allington, R., & Walmsley, S. (2007). No quick fix, the RTI edition: Rethinking literacy programs in America’s elementary schools. New York, NY: Teacher’s College Press & International Reading Association. Burkins, J. M., & Croft, M. M. (2010). Preventing misguided reading: New strategies for guided reading teachers. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Clay, M. (1991). Becoming literate: The construction of inner control. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Clay, M. (2001). Change over time in children’s literacy development. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Cohen, M. A., Guiney, E., Lineweaver, L., & Martin, R. (2002). Getting started with CCL. Retrieved from: http://www.bpe.org/node/1017 Fountas, I. C., & Pinnell, G. S. (1996). Guided reading: Good first teaching for all children. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Johnson, P., & Keier, K. (2010). Catching readers before they fall. Portland, Maine: Stenhouse Publishers. Mooney, M. E. (1990). Reading to, with, and by children. Katonah, NY: Richard C. Owen. Pearson, P. D., & Gallagher, M. C. (1983). The instruction of reading comprehension. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8, 317-344. Routman, R. (2008). Teaching essentials: Expecting the most and getting the best from every learner, K-8. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Schulman, M. B., & Payne, C. D. (2000). Guided reading: Making it work. New York, NY: Scholastic Professional Books. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

141

Review of Text Complexity: Raising Rigor in Reading Joanna L. Anglin Rockdale Career Academy, Conyers, GA

Fisher, D., Frey, N., & Lapp, D. (2012). Text complexity: Raising rigor in reading. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. ISBN: 9780872074781 Pages: 212

Journal of Language and Literacy Education Vol. 10 Issue 2 -- Fall 2014 Michelle M. Falter, Editor -- http://jolle.coe.uga.edu

Journal of Language and Literacy Education Vol. 10 Issue 2 -- Fall 2014

The adoption of the Common Core State Standards, a state-led effort coordinated by the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices (NGA Center) and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO), by more than forty-five states and US territories, has brought the discussion of text complexity to the foreground of the conversation about what is taught in the classroom. The increase in the level of reading required by the Common Core has raised concerns about how exactly to implement the new expectations and how to support students as they interact with such rigorous texts. In Text Complexity: Raising Rigor in Reading, Douglas Fisher, Nancy Frey, and Diane Lapp (2012) provide a thought-provoking discussion of how to identify an appropriately complex text for individual students and how to scaffold the reading of such a text to ensure that all students are successful in meeting the increase in cognitive demands required by the Common Core.

themselves as readers” (Fisher, Frey, & Lapp, 2012, p. 11). The bulk of the book is devoted to fully explaining the multiple measures that can, and should, according to the authors, be used in determining a text’s complexity. In Chapter 2, Quantitative Measure of Text Complexity, the authors provide an overview of the various quantitative methods of determining text complexity; however, even at the beginning of the chapter, they caution that “To fully understand a text and its complexity, both [quantitative and qualitative] are needed” (p. 22). Educators will be familiar with many of the quantitative measures discussed in this chapter, such as the use of Lexile measures, but the explanation of each method’s limitations are worth reading. For example, while the Advantage-TASA Open Standard (ATOS) readability formula, used with Accelerated Reader software, measures the frequency of words within a text, providing a grade level suggestion for texts, the suggested grade level is often misleading. Using an excerpt from Suzanne Collins’ (2008) The Hunger Games, the authors argue that while the book receives a 5.3 grade level recommendation from Scholastic, the publisher recommends that the book be used with 7th and 8th grade students due to the content. The authors view other quantitative measures, such as the Fry Readability Graph, as a more accurate method for determining a text’s complexity than ones, such as the ATOS formula, that rely on word-level analysis. The Fry Readability Graph involves selecting three 100-word passages and counting “the number of sentences and syllables in each passage,” then averaging the number of sentences and the number of syllables (p. 26). These two averages are then plotted on the Fry Readability Graph to determine an approximate grade level. The authors argue that this method is relatively easy to use, though not as easy as computer-generated text levels, and seems to provide a slightly more accurate rating than the ATOS measurement. They caution readers that even with a quantitatively-calculated readability level, there are other factors that impact a student’s ease with a text, which they address in Chapter 3.

Fisher, Frey, and Lapp (2012) begin with an overview of the components of text complexity, arguing that there are three components to text complexity— qualitative dimensions, quantitative dimensions, and reader and task considerations (p. 2-3). Chapter 1, Text Complexity is the New Black, provides readers with a discussion of how all three components are needed to provide insight into the success of a given text with a reader. They also argue that readability, “the ease of comprehension because of style writing” (Harris & Hodges, 1995, as cited in Fisher, Frey, & Lapp, 2012, p. 3), impacts text complexity. The authors resist an easy definition, arguing that the style of a work and its intended audience impact the readability as much as quantitative measures, such as word length and sentence length. In this introductory chapter, the authors hint at the main issue surrounding the text complexity requirements of the Common Core Standards, which is how the more rigorous texts are used in classrooms. They argue that “more difficult texts with scaffolded instruction should become part of the classroom equation” (Fisher, Frey, & Lapp, 2012, p. 5), not simply assigning difficult texts for independent reading. They repeatedly make a case for struggle, arguing that “students should be provided with opportunities to struggle and to learn about

143

Anglin, J. L. (2014) / Review of Text Complexity Chapter 3 outlines the various qualities of texts that make them either “considerate texts” or inconsiderate ones (p. 42). A reader who has encountered a considerate text probably was not aware of the ways in which the text worked to help the reader—headings and subheadings, “signal words that convey the structure” (p. 43), text coherence, and reliance on readers’ background knowledge. The authors argue that inconsiderate texts are, by nature, more complex and require teachers to guide students through the processes of reading such a text. Fisher, Frey, and Lapp (2012) provide readers with a “rubric for qualitatively analyzing narrative and informational texts” (p. 46). This chart addresses text features of purpose, narration, graphics, register, and many others, none of which are accounted for by the popular quantitative measurements. Educators will find Fisher, Frey, and Lapp’s chart helpful in making sense of the confusing world of text measurements. This chart, which allows an educator to rank a text on a scale of 1-3 in various categories, provides clear guidance as to how to judge the elusive qualitative measures of a text. For example, the authors ask educators to rate texts in categories such as organization, figurative language, narration, etc. The authors summarize their argument for multiple measures of text complexity with a quote from Hiebert (2011): “Once quantitative data establish that particular texts are ‘within the ballpark,’ the hard work of qualitative analyzing the demands of texts in relation to different readers and tasks begins” (as cited in Fisher, Frey, & Lapp, 2012, p. 67).

argument from Chapter 1: “If teachers want students to access more complex texts, teachers have to teach the texts” (p. 83). More specifically, teachers have to teach students how to access such difficult texts through modeling strategies for “comprehension, word soling, text structures, and text features” (p. 83). The authors provide a helpful chart that showcases examples of teacher modeling. For teachers who are unfamiliar with this practice, this chart provides a helpful resource, including both the teacher dialogue during the modeling process as well as the strategies used in those sessions. The authors also explore the importance of questioning in guiding students’ comprehension of difficult texts. They make a solid argument against recall questions, choosing to focus instead on the emphasis in the Common Core State Standards on having “students to provide evidence from the text and justify their responses” (p. 95). This signals a major shift away from knowledge-based multiple choice questions where there is a single correct answer. For educators who have already begun working with the Common Core State Standards, this delineation of questioning, and the shift in emphasis, will not come as a surprise. Chapter 5 attempts to make good on the promise of the subtitle of the text—Raising Rigor in Reading. While the majority of the book reads as an argument for multiple measures of text complexity, it is in the final chapter that the authors provide readers with suggestions for how to scaffold rigorous texts for students. The authors argue that close reading, which they describe as being a combination of New Criticism and reader response theory, is “what is required for critical literacy” (p. 107). In order for readers to achieve critical literacy, they must assume four roles: code breaker, meaning maker, text user, and text critic (p. 107-108). Teachers can model these roles through the use of teacher-led, close reading exercises using short pieces of text. Here, the authors hit upon one of the pieces of confusion plaguing the Common Core State Standards— whether or not students should read entire texts. The authors are not suggesting here that students only read excerpts; rather, they are arguing for having students “read [a text] more than once” (p. 108).

Most difficult for readers wanting an easy answer to the question of text complexity is the authors’ argument in Chapter 4 that readers need to be matched to texts because “a reader’s transaction with the text becomes the place where meaning is created” (p. 77). While most educators would agree with this quote from Rosenblatt (2003), the actuality of practice is more often whole groups of students reading the same novel at the same time. The authors spend a good deal of time in Chapter 4 arguing against such as practice. They argue that individual factors, such as background knowledge, prior experiences, and motivation, can impact comprehension as much as the skill of the reader. The authors return in this chapter to their main

144

Journal of Language and Literacy Education Vol. 10 Issue 2 -- Fall 2014 Although this final chapter provides two examples of how to scaffold the reading of difficult texts, this final discussion feels incomplete. After such a lengthy discussion of the definition of text complexity, this final chapter feels almost like an afterthought. While the book holds promise, especially in terms of clarifying how to determine the complexity of a text for use in the classroom, a more detailed discussion of comprehension strategies would have made the book more useful for educators.

Overall, Fisher, Frey, and Lapp (2012) provide a detailed discussion of how to define text complexity and the limitations of using a single measure in determining what text to use with students. They provide readers with easy-to-use charts and rubrics for better determining a textâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s match with specific readers. Teachers who are struggling with the increased rigor required by the Common Core State Standards will appreciate the authorsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; suggestions for using modeling and text-specific questions for scaffolding instruction.

References Fisher, D., Frey, N., & Lapp, D. (2012). Text complexity: Raising rigor in reading. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. National Governors Association Center of Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). About the standards. Washington, D.C: Authors. Retrieved September 8, 2013, from www.corestandards. Org/about-the-standards.

145

Review of Best Ever Literacy Survival Tips: 72 Lessons You Can’t Teach Without Chelsey Bahlmann The University of Georgia, Athens, GA

Oczkus, L.D. (2012). Best ever literacy survival tips: 72 lessons you can’t teach without. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. ISBN: 978-0867095708 Pages: 192

Journal of Language and Literacy Education Vol. 10 Issue 2 -- Fall 2014 Michelle M. Falter, Editor -- http://jolle.coe.uga.edu

Journal of Language and Literacy Education Vol. 10 Issue 2 -- Fall 2014

“Americans are reading a lot less. An increasing number of adults do not read even one book a year. Nearly half of Americans ages 15 to 24 do not read for pleasure. The trend is similar for 9-year-olds, with only 54% claiming to read “for fun” (p. 8).

Have you ever found yourself looking for that one book full of literacy resources for your classroom? And not just any old resources, but resources that are motivating, engaging, and ones that will help to achieve optimal literacy growth for younger readers? In Best Ever Literacy Survival Tips: 72 Lessons You Can’t Teach Without by Lori D. Oczkus, provides just this, a practical guide for teachers looking for the perfect literacy resources. Oczkus is a literacy coach, author, and popular motivation speaker for teachers across the United States. She acknowledges that “the amount of information that educators must know to teach literacy today is overwhelming.” In this book, her intent is to provide teachers with the “greatest hits” that are research based and tied to the Common Core Standards. Timothy V. Rasinski, a professor of literacy at Kent State University also emphasizes this point in the books foreword:

At the heart of this book is how we, as educators, can get kids to view reading as a pleasurable experience. All it takes is one book to ignite that spark for a child to love reading, and it is through the tips that Oczkus delivers that have the potential for students to find that spark. Reading aloud may be the first to go on a teacher’s lesson plans if there is a time crunch, but in chapter 2, Oczkus reinforces that in fact, reading aloud is a “research-based, proven way to motivate your students to read on their own, model good reading, promote critical thinking, and create a sense of community in your classroom” (p. 21). This chapter provides teachers with a variety of ways to extend read alouds to be more enriching for students. Some of the examples provided include: having student be on the lookout for sentences, words, and phrases that peak their senses and having students partner talk before or after the read aloud using the provided discussion starters.

…the link between what researchers find and what teachers do is sometimes missing. In short supply are those scholars who are able to take research and scholarly findings and translate them into practical and engaging strategies that can be implemented in classrooms and clinical settings. My friend and colleague Lori Oczkus is one of those rare and gifted scholars (p. xiii). Oczkus begins with an introduction to the reader, explaining how the book is organized, along with tips on how to read the book. In each of the chapters she includes the following features: “Best Ever Advice” from literacy leaders and classroom teachers, Lori’s Top 5 Surefire Strategies, a “Q & A” section, recommended online resources and professional books to study, a before- during- and after-reading Professional Development Guide, scaffolded lesson plans for small groups or whole-class instruction with Common Core connections, formative assessment tips, and classroom-ready bookmarks and other reproducibles.

Chapter 3 addresses independent reading, which tends to be a practice that has mixed reviews by teachers due to issues such as students spending too much time selecting books or students staring blankly at the pages. This chapter provides strategies to ensure students are spending the maximum amount of time with their eyes on a text. Starting from day one, Oczkus points out ideas for organizing a classroom library, how to obtain books for classroom use, and how to hold students accountable. Improving student’s comprehension skills is addressed in Chapter 4 and Chapter 5. Oczkus introduces readers to the “Super Six” which is a kidfriendly term that she ensures will stick with students to help them self-monitor during their independent reading. Reciprocal teaching, which is a technique used to increase comprehension skills, is described as “a scaffolded discussion technique that invites

In chapter 1, Oczkus offers pointers for how to motivate readers. Highlighted in this section is disturbing news from the National Endowment for the Arts study, To Read or Not to Read, that established the notion that,

147

Bahlmann, C (2014) / Review of Best Ever Literacy Survival Tips students to work cooperatively using four strategies: predict, question, clarify, and summarize” (p. 61). Oczkus labels this technique as the “magic bullet teachers have been wanting” (p. 61). Narrative examples written by reading specialist, principals, and other literacy experts are scattered throughout the chapter to help illustrate how to exactly execute techniques, such as reciprocal teaching.

For some teachers, writing can be a challenging subject to teach, especially if they don’t feel they are writer’s themselves. Chapter 12 opens with quotes from teachers about their concerns for teaching writing. These quotes include concerns about students not being able to organize their writing, having trouble using voice, and even thinking of ideas to begin writing. One way to help teachers feel more at ease with teaching something out of their comfort zone is by being able to view step by step directions. This is just what Chapter 12 provides; to assist in improving students’ writing. Oczkus also emphasizes the importance of writing for authentic purposes and how to encourage students to selfassess in this chapter.

Oczkus asserts that the new U.S. Common Core Standards include more content area reading and writing throughout the grades and require that more informational texts be incorporated. Chapter 6 contains ways to help students better understand informational texts, which is very helpful for teachers looking for ways to ramp up their informational text use in the classroom.

At the end of Oczkus’s book, she provides a bibliography of children’s literature to tie in with each teaching topic explained throughout the book, including suggested books to read aloud. I believe that type of work that Oczkus delivers would be very useful to teachers just entering the field and even for teachers who feel that they need to revive their teaching strategies. Many of the strategies are ones that veteran teachers may already be familiar with, but there are also additional engaging strategies that are more innovative, such as “Book Idol and Flash Mob.” The one criticism I have of this book, is that the layout isn’t your traditional left-to-right format, there are columns, bullet points, quotations, and resources splattered on each page, which some readers may find hard to follow.

Many teachers feel overloaded with assessment and wonder how assessment can be completed without making each one such a formal affair. Chapter 7 contains advice on this information. The Top 5 ways to formatively assess during lessons are included to help ease the stress of traditional assessments. Thumbs up/Thumbs down, individual conferencing, and running records are a few the examples she provides. In Chapter 8 we are reminded by Allington (2006) that “All students benefit from a variety of grouping formats. Researchers inform us that our struggling readers need frequent, quality instruction in small groups” (p. 103). Oczkus encourages social learning through these small group interactions and offers an assortment of ways students can be grouped to “maximize instruction.”

Throughout this text, Oczkus emphasizes that the strategies provided are not only for engaging students, but are also designed to meet each students literacy needs. Based on my former experience as an elementary school teacher, I would recommend this book especially for new teachers who may feel overwhelmed at the beginning of their careers. This book provides new teachers with a place to begin in literacy instruction and is truly helpful because this text is essentially a “make and take” it into the classroom resource.

Strategies for the foundational skills for reading (vocabulary, phonics and phonemic awareness, and fluency) are highlighted in Chapters 9 through 11. Kinesthetic strategies are highlights of these chapters along with strategies that make learning seem more like a fun game rather than a daunting task. The instructions for these tasks are clearly laid out for teachers to immediately replicate in their classrooms.

148

Review of Educating Latino Boys: An Asset-Based Approach Gabriela del Villar The University of Georgia, Athens, GA

Campos, D. (2012). Educating Latino boys: An asset-based approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. ISBN: 978-1452235028 Pages: 272

Journal of Language and Literacy Education Vol. 10 Issue 2 -- Fall 2014 Michelle M. Falter, Editor -- http://jolle.coe.uga.edu

del Villar, G. (2012) / Review of Educating Latino Boys

There is a crisis with the underrepresentation of Latinos at U.S. institutions of higher education given the high school dropout rate and low college retention among Latino males (National Center for Education Statistics (NCES, 2014). Therefore, in his book, Educating Latino Boys: An Asset- Based Approach, Campos urges U.S. K-12 teachers and academic personnel to take action. Action is imperative given the steep growth of the US school age Latino/a population during the past decade. Campos counteracts the deficit-view discourse of Latino boys in U.S. schools and demonstrates Latino boys have many assets that teachers and school personnel can build upon by becoming culturally knowledgeable and responsive.

(U.S Census Bureau, 2010). Therefore, Latinos are critical to the architecture of the future in the US and much “depends on how Latino youth progress in schools” (p. 5). However, Latino high school dropout rates are the highest of any ethnic group in the United States (NCES, 2014). Campos believes the failure of Latino boys in the US educational system is directly related to cultural illiteracy. Teachers and educational systems with insufficient cultural knowledge serve as decision makers for Latino boys’ lives and circumstances. This lack of sociocultural and linguistic knowledge connects with spurious assumptions about Latino boys. Thus, teachers and educational systems fail to respond to the needs of Latino boys with appropriate policies and programs. As Campos describes, and many other researchers have found, Latino boys have many assets: they are bicultural—they have learned to balance and to shift between two cultures (Moll, Amanti, Neff & González, 2005; Nieto & Bode, 2012); they are bilingual (Baker, 2011); they are respectful of their parents, teachers and peers; and their parents support and value education (Valdés, 1996).

Campos’ goals are “to establish a sense of urgency for meeting the needs of Latino boys and to draw attention to how some Latino boys can clash with school practices” (p.1). In this regard, the author argues that school leaders and teachers often assume middle-class and dominant-culture frames of reference to appraise Latino boys, and these frames can create a deficit point of view (Ogbu, 1987; Vogt, Jordan & Tharp, 1987; Marx, 2008). Campos outlines this problem with personal cases, teacher selfreflective questions, practical resources, and recommendations that appear throughout the text. Campos describes specific issues that particularly affect the lives of Latino boys in the US and offers practical strategies. Educating Latino Boys is comprised of eight chapters and divided into four parts. Part one frames the scope and purpose of the book with critical attention to Latino boys within the US educational system. Part two describes the circumstances and trends of contemporary Latino boys with orientation to cultural background. Part three depicts the social forces and stresses that affect Latino boys and the role of schools in their educational achievement. Part four offers strategies for teachers and schools to promote Latino boys’ academic success with a review of programs that support Latino youth.

In chapter 2, “Cultural Conflict between Latino Boys and School”, Campos reviews the existing literature about gendered developmental and cognitive differences (Cleveland, 2011; Tyre 2008), and he identifies behavioral patterns and attitudes associated with boys in schools. The author includes this literature review to demonstrate that there are intrinsic differences between boys and girls and in addition cultural differences between Latino boys and other children. These case studies not only allow us to see how cultural differences are often disregarded or undervalued but also reveal how teachers commonly approach Latino students from a normative European-American point of view, in other words, through a dominant cultural perspective. As a result, Latino boys become academically disengaged and become apathetic toward education. Next, in the “What I Can I Do Next” section there are strategies to create more inclusive classrooms.

In chapter one, Campos positions the importance of education for Latino boys. Demographic statistics reveal Latinos are the nation’s largest minority group

“Circumstance of Contemporary Latino Boys” and “The Cultural Background of Latino Boys” are chapters 3 and 4 of the book. Campos suggests

150

Journal of Language and Literacy Education Vol. 10 Issue 2 -- Fall 2014 questions for critical self-reflection about teachers’ assumptions, values, beliefs and questions how perceptions of Latino students influence their success. These real cases offer a holistic view of Latinos that help readers understand the associated demographic and academic trends. Some of these demographic trends are the rapid growth of the Hispanic population (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010), the poverty rate of Latinos in U.S. (U.S. Census Bureau, 2012.), and the high dropout rate of Latinos that results in their underrepresentation in U.S. colleges (NCES, 2014). Teacher effectiveness is a critical variable that determines educational success for Latino boys, but more urgently Latino boys need ‘cultural knowledgeable’ teachers to bridge cultural mismatches and to accommodate core Latino cultural values in their instruction. Therefore, in the final section of this chapter, Campos offers ideas on design and implementation of curriculum to enhance Latino boys’ schooling.

describes how physical, human, cultural and social capital influence Latino boys’ long-term outcomes. In a first instance, Campos explains the poverty of many Latino families in the United States. Latino boys have limited physical resources (i.e., food, clothes, a computer, and books). The examples illustrate a lack of physical resources can prevent Latino boys from relating to class discussions. About human capital, Campos points out that although a Latino boy may know or have in his family a wide range of persons with talents, skills, and rich backgrounds (i.e., mechanics, bakers, faith healers, gardeners), the valuable attributes of these persons are not oftentimes recognized by the dominant culture. The limited cultural capital—especially regarding the workings of the US educational system—is perhaps one of the biggest obstacles teachers and researchers have found among Latino parents (Valdés, 1996; Moll et al., 2005). As Campos explains, this is due to the parents’ modest education, limited English proficiency, and recency of immigration. Finally with regard to social capital (Bourdieu, 1986), Campos points out that Latino boys have multiple levels of social interactions in their community, dependent on unique social resources.

In chapter 4, Campus describes the characteristics of the diverse Latino culture. By describing the heterogeneous characteristics of Latino culture Campos not only hopes to provide a better understanding of the values, beliefs and behaviors that contribute to Latino boys’ performance in schools, but also to caution teachers in their classification of all Latino boys as “the same”. Researchers like Moll and others (Moll, et al., 2005) have emphasized the wide range of traditions, language practices, and values of Latino boys that are shaped by family background, immigration status, degree of acculturation, location and level of education, socioeconomic status, and other factors. At the end of this chapter, Campos not only proposes some strategies for teachers to use when meeting with Latino parents, but also in a section called “What Can I Do Next”, Campos list a set of strategies to incorporate Latino students’ lives in the classroom. Some strategies include a multiliterate print environment, the use of Spanish literature, and learning Spanish phrases.

In Chapter 6, “The Balancing Act That Latino Boys Perform”, Campos describes the conflicting circumstances that Latino boys experience living in two distinct sociocultural domains: their Latino culture—at home and in the community—and the mainstream culture that they are exposed to in school and in the media. Campos says that this balancing act is clearly perceived in three aspects: the challenge of acculturating, the worry over immigration, and the stress of learning English. All these issues as other researchers have documented (Harman & Varga-Dobai, 2012) put Latino boys at risk for school failure as well as other conduct and psychological problems. With the challenge of acculturation, Campos explains that the pressure to conform to two cultural standards can be immense for Latino boys; on one hand, Latino parents want their boys to retain their culture and native language, and on the other, Latino boys feel compelled to conform to the dominant culture transmitted in school. Campos adds that keeping the balance between two cultures is magnified all the more if

In Chapter 6, the authors look specifically at In the third section Chapter 5 and 6 Campos describes some social issues that affect Latino boys’ schooling. In chapter 5 suitably titled, “The Different Kinds of Capital in the Lives of Latino Boys”, Campos

151

del Villar, G. (2012) / Review of Educating Latino Boys they (or their family members) are undocumented persons, but also if their English proficiency, more specifically academic English is limited. About the latter, Campos points out that academic English is particularly important for Latinos to achieve higher academic levels. Thus, in the final section of this chapter, Campos offers teachers a resource list to develop Latino boys’ academic English.

earning a degree. They range from early intervention programs (i.e., Head Start, AVANCE, etc.), to programs that target college students who need support to earn their degrees (i.e., Upward Bound, TRIO). As is true in several other chapters, Campos also includes in a chapter “What Can I Do Next?” and a final thoughts section. In Educating Latino Boys: An Asset- Based Approach, Campos not only describes thoroughly the circumstances that affect Latino boys within the US context, but he also provides a plethora of simple strategies that could be immediately put into effect by K-12 teachers. In this book, Campos has the advantage of an emic perspective from his Latino boyhood and as an educator, and with this background he demonstrates the many assets of Latino boys on which teachers and school leaders can build. However, Campos argues that not only do they need to be culturally aware of these assets, but they also have to be able to incorporate them into teaching and curricula. By doing so, Campos says K12 teachers will enhance Latino boys’ success in US education system. Finally, although Campos does an excellent job in providing strategies and practical resources for immediate use, it would have been more beneficial for K-12 teachers if he included information or chapters related to the benefits of bilingualism (Bialystok, 2001; de Groot, 2010; Grosjean, 2010) and multicultural education (Nieto & Bode,2012).

Part fourth of Campos’ book consists of chapter 7 and 8. These chapters provide K-12 teachers and educators with resources for Latino boys’ success throughout their school years. Chapter 7 specifically offers instructional practices to foster a positive classroom climate so that Latino students become intellectually engaged. Some of these practices include building strong relationships and trust with students (Marx, 2008). Campos described several ways to achieve trust like inviting students to share about their lives, having lunch together, and organizing after school activities. Other ideas to create a warm, supportive classroom environment and a school community include the structuring of lessons for responsive learning, the recognition of Latino culture in teaching, building relationships with parents, and building of partnerships with the community. In chapter 8, Campos lists local and nationwide K-12 programs available outside of the traditional school curriculum. These programs seek to help Latino youth graduate from high school and increase the likelihood of entering college and

152

Journal of Language and Literacy Education Vol. 10 Issue 2 -- Fall 2014

References Baker, C. (2011). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism. Tonawanda, NY: Multilingual Matters. Bialystok, E. (2001). Bilingualism in development: Language, literacy, and cognition. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Cleveland, K.P. (2011). Teaching boys who struggle in school: strategies that turn underachievers into successful learners. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. De Groot, A. (2010). Language & cognition in bilinguals and multilinguals. New York, NY: Psychology Press. GonzĂĄlez, N., Moll, L.C. & Amanti, C. (2005). Funds of knowledge: Theorizing practices in households, communities, and classrooms. Mahwah, N.J.: L. Erlbaum Associates. Grosjean, F. (2010). Bilingual: Life and reality. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Harman, R. & Dobai-Varga, K. (2012). Critical performative pedagogy: Emergent bilingual learners challenge local immigration issues. International Journal of Multicultural Education, 14(2), 1-17. Marx, S. (2008). Popular white teachers of Latina/o kids: The strengths of personal experiences and the limitations of whiteness. Urban Education, 43(1), 29-67. National Center for Education Statistics. (2014). The condition of education 2014 (NCES 2014- 083) Washington, DC: U.S. Department of education. Nieto, S. & Bode, P. (2012). Affirming diversity. Boston, MA: Pearson. Ogbu, J.U. (1987). Variability in minority school performance: A problem in search of an explanation. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 18(4), 312-334. Tyre, P. (2008). The trouble with boys: A surprising report card on our sons, their problems at school, and what parents and educators must do. New York, NY: Three Rivers Press. U.S. Census Bureau. (2010). The Hispanic population: 2010 census briefs. Retrieved June 11, 2014, from www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-04.pdf U.S. Census Bureau. (2012). Income, poverty, and health insurance coverage in the United States. Retrieved June 11, 2014, from www.census.gov/prod/2012pubs/p60-243.pdf ValdĂŠs, G. (1996). Con respeto: Bridging distances between culturally diverse families and schools: An ethnographic portrait. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Vogt, A.L., Jordan, C., & Tharp, R.G. (1987). Explaining school failure, producing school success: Two cases. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 18(4), 276-286

153

Review of The Arts and Emergent Bilingual Youth: Building Culturally Responsive, Critical and Creative Education in School and Community Contexts Deavours Hall The University of Georgia, Athens, GA

Chappell, S. V., & Faltis, C. J. (2013). The arts and emergent bilingual youth: Building culturally responsive, critical and creative education in school and community contexts. New York, NY: Routledge. ISBN: 978-0415509749 Pages: 220 Journal of Language and Literacy Education Vol. 10 Issue 2 -- Fall 2014 Michelle M. Falter, Editor -- http://jolle.coe.uga.edu

Journal of Language and Literacy Education Vol. 10 Issue 2 -- Fall 2014

In The Arts and Emergent Bilingual Youth: Building Culturally Responsive, Critical and Creative Education in School and Community Contexts, Sharon Verner Chappell and Christian J. Faltis provide a muchneeded guide to both researchers and practitioners who are seeking ways to incorporate creative pedagogies in America’s rapidly changing classrooms. The term “emergent bilingual youth” (Garcia and Kleifgen, 2010) in the title is an indication of Chappell and Faltis’s orientation to the students at issue here: the authors emphasize the strengths, rather than the limitations, of children who are learning English. The phrase “community contexts” is also intentional, as the book addresses both classroom learning and out-of-school learning: in after-school programs, at home, and in social interactions. This asset-based, holistic approach to creating inclusive curriculum guides the authors’ exploration of the enormous potential of the arts as a basis for cross-cultural teaching and understanding.

practitioners pointing to the value of both multilingualism, and of having children in the classroom who represent the “other” to children who may be accustomed to being “the mainstream.” In a narrative about a photography project with 7-yearolds, a teacher writes that using images along with words created a safe place for children getting to know each other, and provided latitude for storytelling that a text-only project might not have. At the end of the introductory chapter and each following chapter, the authors include various useful “Questions to Consider.” Chapter 2 addresses teacher understanding, and considers beneficial ways to respond to exponentially increasing cultural and linguistic diversity among American students. Chappell and Faltis assert that the arts are a natural conduit for expression of the culturally-acquired “funds of knowledge” (Moll et al., 1992) unique to emergent bilingual youth. When children describe their unique funds of knowledge, the authors write, they not only engage and inquire more about social and cultural issues; they also educate their teachers and peers. As an example of such teaching, Dafney Blanca Dabach describes using “shadow photography” with undocumented youth, in which students photographed shadows of themselves that incorporated their dreams about the future. In pictures representing potential occupations as divergent as hip-hop dancing and military service, the undocumented students showed both instructors and classmates that they had distinct hopes and dreams, some of which were the same as their peers’.

The arts-based teaching and research methods in The Arts and Bilingual Youth include approaches as diverse as photography, poetry, drama, gardening, puppetry, and digital storytelling. These methods, as well as more commonly-used curricular tools such as painting and writing, are explored from two points of view: first, as channels through which students can express some of the complexities of becoming duallanguage speakers; and second, as modes with which teachers and researchers can tell stories “outside the box” of traditional research. Each chapter of the book works toward both of those ends, in that each includes discussion of the data behind using the arts with English Language Learners, while also providing examples from practitioners who have complied the data by doing the hands-on picture-, story-, and play-making (and more) with students.

In Chapter 3, the authors focus on community and family involvement in schools, and in emergent bilinguals’ learning in general. Here, teacher Shannon Burgert makes a case for including parents, siblings and community members through her yearly “Matter Party,” during which students represent what they’ve learned about matter through various media: storytelling, songs, demonstrations, and even an ice sculpture. In her classroom, the arts are particularly beneficial to ELLs because visual media usually relies on little or no text. Chappell and Faltis elaborate, writing that many of the arts naturally involve the community, through events such as dramatic performance and art exhibitions.

Chappell and Faltis begin with some explanation of ELLs in America, emphasizing sociocultural phenomena such as the high dropout rate among this population, the erroneous but common belief that the native language of all or nearly all ELLs is Spanish, and the fact that emergent bilingual youth represent a majority of the students in America who are living in poverty. Their introduction, though, also includes poetry and narrative writing by

155

Hall, D. (2014) / Review of The Arts and Emergent Bilingual Youth Involvement of the community and families, in turn, informs schools about how to incorporate relevant cultural practices, and builds bridges between curricular, extra-curricular, familial, and community assets.

narrations can integrate content areas – one person’s narrative may touch on issues of language, geography, science, and the arts in ways that conventional curricula do not. In Chapter 6, the authors look specifically at literature in the classroom. The chapter begins with some basic reading theory by Rosenblatt (1978) and Keene and Zimmerman (1997), both of which include the idea that meaning is made when we read and then co-construct ideas with others. This leads to the logical idea that emergent bilingual students are constructing ideas about the books they read with other student—students from very different places and cultures. True to their strengths-based foundation, Chappell and Faltis present this concept as an asset for both minority and non-minority students, and as a teaching opportunity for instructors who can encourage reading and writing that presents new ideas to each group, through practices as diverse as creating graffiti and deconstructing concepts of assimilation in children’s books.

The title of Chapter 4 is “Playing with language, Playing through the arts,” and the chapter lives up to its name. The authors describe play as the basis of meaning-making, and therefore as the basis of learning. Chappell coins the term “libratory play” (p.61) to describe playing with language and art as ways to alleviate some of the rigidity of the conventional classroom. Both authors state that the arts, often viewed as play by students, can help foster connections between home experiences and school experiences while simultaneously encouraging expressions about social justice. Here, the authors also specifically cite sociodramatic play as an optimal place to observe the concepts of Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development – as children, particularly ELLs, act out scenes, they are teaching and being taught by both peers and instructors. In this chapter and throughout the book, Chappell and Faltis encourage readers to re-envision their own feelings of being “inside” and “outside” of groups in their own childhoods. In doing so, those of us who teach nonmainstream children may gain multiple perspectives that lead to empathy with, rather than sympathy for, children who feel that they’re on the “outside.” It may also lead to an ability to teach students to create “everyday acts of playful resistance,” (p.77) works of art that may nudge them toward feeling that they are on the “inside,” or that may change what the “inside” is.

World events, and ways to include them in a diverse classroom, are the focus of Chapter 7. Here the authors examine timely ideas such as holidays and traditions that are celebrated in schools, popular culture and who gets to be deemed a “hero” or “heroine” in the contemporary classroom, and ways in which service learning can integrate heterogeneous groups of students. This chapter, along with several others, includes vignettes that include teaching methods along with vignettes examining research methods. There is a particularly powerful description of a Youth Participatory Action Research project in Chapter 7, in which journalism, poetry, and drama were all incorporated in an ESOL classroom.

Chapter 5 is centered on the concept of story, and the ability of all the arts to relay “what we know, who we are, and how we live” (p.83). The chapter emphasizes the idea that many non-mainstream children may not have heard stories about children like themselves before they come to school; therefore schools are responsible for both presenting those stories, and encouraging children to tell them. Three vignettes written by teachers describe the power inherent in letting students describe both their cultural and linguistic selves – through storytelling, community art, and puppetry. Faltis and Chappell also make the often-overlooked point that personal

Youth involvement with media is addressed in Chapter 8, and Chappell and Faltis begin the chapter with two fundamental points. First, the authors write that many technological spaces, particularly the internet, provide a place for boundaries of both geographical space and language to be crossed. Second, they say, technology often allows students to voice their concerns in way that cannot be “corrected” by instructors, and/or incorporates self-

156

Journal of Language and Literacy Education Vol. 10 Issue 2 -- Fall 2014 correcting programs such as SpellCheck. Digital modes are often geared toward the creation of local or personal narratives; Chappell and Faltis cite digital storytelling as one mode that has frequently been used by students to tell personal, family, or community stories. The vignettes in this chapter also emphasize the fact that digital communication is ideal for building alliances within communities – in one case, student films were shown in a community center and then a local theater; in another, instructors examined the use of PowerPoint-based stories in an after school setting, and the ways those stories could be translated to the classroom.

and Faltis assert that one key is attention to the ethics of creating with youth: How will they be represented? What influence will adults have? Who stands to benefit from the production of art? Another key, the authors say, is a deep regard for the fact that youth-produced art can contribute to both “community memory” (p.186) and “community dialogue” (p.187). Poetry, photography, painting, rap and other media stand to educate the world outside the emergent bilingual’s local circle, both in and out of school. What is taken for granted by one group can be an unknown to the other, which can lead to misunderstandings and even conflict. Melisa Cahnmann-Taylor’s poem “Language Lessons 1”, at the end of this chapter, artistically exemplifies this point: “There’s no word for lend in Spanish, only borrow”…..”errors of translation differ from mistakes.” (p.194). Like each of the other chapters, this one addresses both the possible trajectories of future research, and the ways in which classroom teachers can integrate research and community practices within schools.

In Chapter 9, the authors take us back into the classroom, looking at best practices for building counter-narratives in traditional settings. They base their suggested methods on two theories: first, that the “experiential knowledge” (p.163) of emergent bilingual youth is foundational to teaching them; and second, that an interdisciplinary approach is necessary if teachers are to incorporate and appreciate all the resources of students and communities. The first vignette here involves teacher education that candidly confronts the biases and prejudices that lead to oppression from even the most well-intentioned teachers. In the ethnodrama described in this chapter, teachers develop understandings from multiple points of view (both protagonist’s and antagonist’s), which may help them feel what their non-mainstream students feel, as opposed to merely observing from a position of “authority” in the classroom. A second vignette embodies the principles of both experience and interdisciplinarity: a joint effort between New York University and the Museum of Modern Art transports teachers and students to the museum for a personal taste of works they may not otherwise see; the art, in turn, addresses topics from advocacy, to geography, to social status and beyond.

Appendix A is a hands-on guide for the instructor aiming to create inclusive curriculum with three guiding principles: knowledge of the community, knowledge of participants, and self-awareness. Appendix B is a list of useful resources, including arts, literacy, social justice, and community nonprofits. The Arts and Emergent Bilingual Youth is such a comprehensive guide to the power of expression because it lays out theoretical rationales for using the arts with ELLs, provides language researchers with new data, and gives practitioners examples of teaching methods that worked. The book accomplishes all of this while speaking a language accessible to all three audiences, a rare feat in academic texts. One reason to incorporate the arts with language learners is that the arts can often show, rather than tell. Similarly, good writing is made up of examples rather than explanations. By incorporating primary research, practitioner vignettes, and artwork in this volume, Chappell and Faltis show us all the examples we need.

Framed as an epilogue, Chapter 10 looks toward the future, and asks: What is the likelihood that diverse communities can sustain productive practices for bilingual youth once they initiate them? Chappell

157

Hall, D. (2014) / Review of The Arts and Emergent Bilingual Youth

References Garcia, O., & Kleifgen, J. (2010). Educating emergent bilinguals: Policies, programs and practices for English language learners. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Keene, E., & Zimmerman, S. (1997). Mosaic of thought. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Moll, L., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & Gonzalez, N. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory into Practice, 31(2), 132-41. Rosenblatt, L. (1978). The reader, the text, and the poem. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

158

Review of Talking, Sketching, Moving: Multiple Literacies in the Teaching of Writing Elizabeth Howells Armstrong State University, Savannah, GA

Dunn, P.A. (2001). Talking, sketching, moving: Multiple literacies in the teaching of writing. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook Heinemann. ISBN: 978-0867095708 Pages: 192 Journal of Language and Literacy Education Vol. 10 Issue 2 -- Fall 2014 Michelle M. Falter, Editor -- http://jolle.coe.uga.edu

Howells, E. (2014) / Review of Talking, Sketching, Moving

Every year as a new semester dawns, teachers in higher education exchange, post, and discuss the Beloit College Mindset List. The list for the class of 2017 reminds us of the frames of reference of our current students. #1 tells us Eminem and LL Cool Jay could show up at parents’ weekend. According to #7 and #13, while the students in our classrooms won't have had chicken pox and they won't have known pen pals, they will know Chicken Run and PayPal. The intent of the list is to help us traverse the evergrowing distance between our students and us as teachers. Pedagogically, this list of 60 touchstones should give us some common ground on which to better understand them and reach them. But how would that look in the classroom? What would we do with this information to reach student writers?

So far as I write this and think about my composition classes from a mid-career vantage point, I feel anxiety: Anxiety that I am not doing this right… Not doing comp justice or not my students justice. In the preface to Dunn’s text, Stephen North diagnoses the anxiety and irony we must face as we, the successful products, of previous education systems inculcate students who are not as successful and, therefore, meet an impasse when they don't succeed in a system we conquered. He suggests "If I am to help them learn to write, therefore--and not, say, confirm for them (again, probably) that my world of printbased writing simply isn't their kind of place--then I need to devise a pedagogy that not only recognizes those inclinations and aptitudes, but seeks to harness them." The argument of the book is that we can alleviate that anxiety and overcome that impasse when multiple literacies are incorporated into the teaching of writing.

Last fall, as I was working with my first year composition classes, we explored the question of the value of higher education prompted by Graff, Birkenstein, and Durst’s composition textbook They Say, I Say. We spent some time exploring a set of TED talks by Robinson, Gates, and others that were pretty persuasive in arguing for the need to revise higher education or education in general to meet the needs of current students and future generations. But as I plan my composition course, what should I be doing?

Dunn begins by critiquing the tunnel vision that has prevented multiple literacies from being explored and the ironies revealed there. Many great thinkers developed their ideas (Darwin, Einstein, and countless mathematicians and physicists) through conceptualizing visually. However, certain commonplaces prevail about the primacy of the written word and about the nature of intelligence. Meaning making does not have to happen through language, but of course, as the field of composition has defined itself, in part out of self preservation and self definition, it has defined itself through how knowledge is constructed linguistically. Other fields have recognized other ways of knowing. The situation of Temple Grandin offers one such example: “[a]n autistic person who thinks in vivid pictures, Grandin uses her visual thinking to reform the cruel, stress-inducing physical path cattle take on their way through a slaughterhouse… While her extreme form of visual thinking has hindered has hindered her in other areas of her life, it enables her to ‘see’ every image each animal sees on its way through the process” (25). In taking a page from Grandin’s book and other fields of study (even driver’s education as Dunn shows us in Chapter 2), compositionists have an opportunity to broaden their visions.

It was a relief to read Patricia Dunn's Talking, Sketching, Moving: Multiple Literacies in the Teaching of Writing because she offers the practice to address the theory we know to be true—we need to meet students where they are--and helps to alleviate some of that anxiety. Her work diagnoses the problem and limitations with our current theories of composition but doesn't stop there. She not only addresses the problem and contextualizes the origin of the problem but also proceeds to offer us solutions just when we find ourselves outdated and out of synch. The developments in technology since this book's 2001 publication only make it more relevant--as the evolution only argues more forcefully for the need for these literacies. However, the developments in education in assessment make that need and this solution that much more difficult to measure.

160

Journal of Language and Literacy Education Vol. 10 Issue 2 -- Fall 2014 Interestingly, our discipline has buried or overlooked this latent opportunity. The work of Paulo Freire offers an excellent example of our field's predilection for cherry picking. His multiple channels of communication are an essential part of his notion of praxis and have been overlooked and undervalued. His use of dialogue and dialectic and culture circles demonstrates the use value of alternatives to writing in literacy development. And he is not the only “lost thread” Dunn teases out as she pulls from the WAC movement, Emig, Vygotsky, Britton, and others. As we broaden our vision to disciplines beyond composition, her recommendation is we look with new eyes, re-vision, voices of our own.

depending on the play, and its success depends on its debut city and sophistication level of its audience. Instead of simply being given a list of which lights to dim or which curtains to draw, students should be given “a backstage tour of the whole production, as well as a peek at the financial backers” (p. 126). Students should be invited to understand the “culture of power” that underlies “propriety.” In order for students to be able to envision what they write and why, Dunn reminds us to open reading up as an avenue for access. Her Chapter 5, “Using NonWriting to Analyze Reading,” relies on the work on multi-modal strategies already done at the secondary level by Smagorinsky in Expressions and Kirby, Liner, and Vinz in Inside Out: Developmental Strategies for Teaching Writing. She calls to mind the English Journal issues on multiple intelligences to outline her recommendations for companion pieces, parallel stories, six-headed debates, talk shows, sketching or mapping a reading, acting out scenes, multi-modal rounds, and sketching as exams.

After establishing the context for valuing “talking, sketching, and moving,” Dunn offers strategies for doing so in Chapter 3. This first set of recommendations helps us re-imagine the prewriting process to generate and organize text. The sections on Rhetorical Proof Cards, Sketching-to-Learn, Oral Outlining or Previewing, Oral Journals, Moving-toLearn, and Peer Responding outline the practice through classroom examples. Dunn allows us to see how these practices work through figures and illustrations of her own students writing.

While the technologies described in this edition may come across as dated, more current technologies such as Siri and Google Docs may make the ideas behind the recommendations more current than ever. Ultimately, the assessment conversation should also become a part of the “Handling Professional Issues” discussion in Chapter 6. How can the efficacy of these practices be accounted for or measured as we participate in these challenging conversations?

The next set of recommendations is for revising: at the heart of the idea is that essays are made of moving parts. Dunn encourages us to demonstrate that or embody that for our students through cutting and pasting paragraphs, sketching and crossing out drafts, hunting for padding, padding with a purpose, listening to drafts, and considering metaphors. She asks, “How do we really revise?” But this practical discussion is grounded in the larger context of the “revising/editing/grammar/correctness debate.” Dunn recommends that when we talk about revising and editing with our students, we situate this discussion rhetorically so understanding how to revise becomes a matter of audience or appropriateness and not just a matter of class or taste. This discussion may also need to take place with constituencies beyond our individual classrooms: “Editing and revising is a drama about power. It has simple or elaborate costumes,

I used this text in a composition studies course a few years back. Students were assigned to book clubs and were to create a workshop inspired by one of five books they had read to allow the class to experience in practice the theories espoused in each text. Dunn’s work was the most exciting for these aspiring teachers: their energy and expertise has given my own composition classes a new direction. Their work learning to teach in that course, using Dunn’s book, showed this teacher she had something to learn.

161

Review of Research Methods in Linguistics Nicole Siffrinn Ruth Harman The University of Georgia, Athens, GA

Podesva, R. J., & Sharma, D. (Eds). (2013). Research methods in linguistics. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. ISBN: 978-1107696358 Pages: 541 Journal of Language and Literacy Education Vol. 10 Issue 2 -- Fall 2014 Michelle M. Falter, Editor -- http://jolle.coe.uga.edu

Journal of Language and Literacy Education Vol. 10 Issue 2 -- Fall 2014

The scope of research methods available to linguists is prodigious. As Sharma and Podesva (2013) explain at the outset of their new research guide, linguistics “represents a single discipline to the extent that it broadly shares a single object of analysis, but little else can be said to be uniform in terms of epistemology and method” (p. 1). Indeed, the field’s heterogeneity is complex, split not just by theoretical, descriptive, and applied approaches, but also by divergent research interests related to form, meaning, and context. To compile a volume on linguistic methods seems an understatedly difficult task and most likely the reason why this book, meant for advanced undergraduate and graduate students, is one of the first of its kind.

research practices will have an advantage in reading the volume given the breadth of methods covered (e.g., knowledge of Universal Grammar that posits all languages as sharing particular structural properties). Indeed, the methodological range of this collection is admirable. In 22 chapters, Podesva and Sharma take readers from practices involving the collection of single syntactic and phonological variables to practices involving the collection of complete sets of discourses embedded in social and cultural contexts. The book is consequently multi-voiced, highlighting very different research methods, some of which lie in stark contrast with one another epistemologically and ontologically (e.g., generative practices which involve hypothesizing about underlying linguistic structures versus functional practices which involve examining language as a system of choices). Most of the chapters, however, contribute to a larger conversation about interdisciplinary applicability, which is what we will focus on in the remaining paper.

In Research Methods in Linguistics, Podesva and Sharma, along with their selected 29 contributors, provide readers with a much-needed glimpse into the prevalent methodologies used by linguists across the field. Their interdisciplinary approach, which should prove most appealing to those interested in linguistics but not yet established in a specialized area of study, is both practical and timely. With a recent surge in method-borrowing within the field and a heightened advocacy for establishing partnerships beyond the field (see ISLE Conference, 2014), the book certainly has a place in modern language study. While the bulk of the book caters to those interested in variationist sociolinguistics, any language researcher, novice or not, will benefit from its discussions about design, collection, and analysis. Following a general introduction by the editors, the book is divided into three sections that follow the stages of a research project: Part I: Data Collection, Part II: Data Processing and Statistical Analysis, and Part III: Foundations for Data Analysis. This organization draws attention to issues that may surface across the field while simultaneously introducing users to methodologies they may not normally encounter once working within a particular school of thought. It is important to note, however, that while Podesva and Sharma remind readers of the epistemological differences across the field, this volume is not meant to address the various intellectual traditions within linguistics. Readers with previous theoretical and methodological understandings of where to situate particular

While some chapters are too specific to their subdiscipline for non-specialist readers (e.g., Ch. 2 “Judgment Data,” Ch. 8 “Experimental Paradigms in Psycholinguistics,” Ch. 11 “Using Historical Texts,” the majority of Part III), most chapters serve to expand readers’ methodological knowledge and skills “by sharing best practices relevant to shared challenges” (p. 4) across linguistic disciplines. For example, Part I, the largest section of the volume, is devoted entirely to a discussion of the most common types of linguistic data and the design and collection practices associated with each. Before delving into data types, however, Eckert very fittingly opens the section in Chapter 2 with a powerful discussion of research ethics. Instead of offering a set of guidelines for piloting a study with human subjects as one might expect in a how-to guide, Eckert adopts a critical lens and challenges readers to examine the effects their own research practices might have on not just the language of study, but the participants who produce it. The relationship between knowledge and power is thus a predominate theme of this chapter, as is self-reflection, which comes as little surprise considering several references to

163

Siffrinn, N., & Harman, R. (2014) / Review of Research Methods in Linguistics Cameron et al. (1992), whose book on institutional inequity in sociolinguistic research is foundational for those working in the social sciences. Drawing attention to these themes from the start is important, as respect for participants and reflexivity should be a prominent part of every research project regardless of methodology.

processing and statistical analysis, and integral in upholding the volume’s interdisciplinary approach. Young researchers may wonder why a quantitative aspect is included in the section given that the analytic phase is reserved for Part III, but it should become clear by the section’s end that to process data, whether qualitative or quantitative, one must organize and manipulate it. Only once this has been done can researchers begin to make inferences about what that data might mean. This tightly knit section is thus an asset to the volume as the featured chapters are undoubtedly useful and applicable to a wide array of scholarly endeavors.

Chapters 5 and 6, “Population Samples” and “Surveys and Interviews,” also have interdisciplinary clout. Buchstaller and Khattab provide clear definitions of foundational terminology (e.g., population sampling, representative sample, sampling frame), integrating quotes from major resources (e.g., Tagliamonte, 2006) to help readers comprehend different sampling types and subdisciplines. Graduate students using sociolinguistic methods, for example, could be encouraged to use a stratified random sample when distributing email questionnaires about dialectal variation. Chapter 6, on the other hand, speaks to the challenges of gathering data on natural speech, ending with Schilling contending “it may be better to dispense with the Observer’s Paradox rather than trying to overcome it, and to admit that there is no such thing as non-observed language data … or any one ‘best’ method for obtaining it” (p. 112). In other words, language use under scrutiny by researchers is just as valid as it is in a non-research setting where it is also, in its own way, always observed, always contingent on the situation, a view that many researchers should find useful.

To begin Part II, Nagy and Sharma offer their insights on the transcription planning process, which is often a necessary step across the field for mining data to analyze. Chapter 13, on the other hand, is concerned with the creation and use of corpora, an increasingly popular practice in linguistics research, and again, applicable to many areas of inquiry. While Gries and Newman are careful to note differences in range and type of corpora, the strength of their chapter is saved for last, as they explain how to study premade corpora, which is a much more likely scenario for the book’s targeted audience. The following three and final chapters of Part II are quite dense and may prove difficult to those without a background in statistics. However, the authors are effective in introducing key terminology, bearing in mind that not all readers have a working knowledge of quantitative analysis, yet assuming they have taken away information from the relevant discussions in Part I. All three chapters would serve as excellent supplementary readings in any research course designed around quantitative analysis, which is a regular and often foundational practice in many branches of linguistics.

In addition to dealing with the Observer’s Paradox, many linguistic researchers, regardless of epistemological alignment, will need to gain entry into a community, or at least establish working relationships with their participants. Informed by a critical perspective, Chapter 10 is appealing because it explores field collection methods such as participant observation, field notes, and artifact accumulation while simultaneously considering the ethical implications of these methodological decisions. Since Levon’s chapter helps bring Part I full circle, a recommendation would be to place the final Chapter 11 elsewhere as it is specific to studying historical data.

The third and final section of the text deals with data analysis and is equally as short as the previous section. The difference, however, is that the chapters are dissimilar from one another and must be paired with supplementary readings in order to be fully understood. In fact, the volume would not have suffered if the third section were excluded. While Podesva and Sharma make the claim that “the analytic process is itself a method that should be

Part II, which is half the size of the previous section (5 chapters as opposed to 11), is geared towards data

164

Journal of Language and Literacy Education Vol. 10 Issue 2 -- Fall 2014 taught systematicallyâ&#x20AC;? (p. 4), the accompanying chapters detract from the interdisciplinary nature of the text as there is not enough discussion about how the analytic methods inform design, collection, and processing practices. Certainly, their reasoning is sound in that they select analytical methods in major areas such as speech acoustics (Ch. 17), argumentation (Ch. 18), computational modeling (Ch. 19), variation analysis (Ch. 20), discourse analysis (Ch. 21), and language change analysis (Ch. 22), but the link to chapters in previous sections is not always clear or even available. Omitting this section and going into more depth in the first two parts would have resulted in a more cohesive text.

texts, or at least none that cover such a wide range of methods. One major benefit of this volume is the extensive list of references at the end of each chapter available for follow-up reading. An index of subjects can also be found, which should prove especially useful given all of the cross-referencing that takes place. Any graduate student in linguistics wanting a basis for designing and collecting data will certainly profit from studying this text, especially the first two parts, making the volume as a whole a must read for researchers who have yet to find their niche in the field. However, our overall recommendation is that the volume be used one or two chapters at a time to supplement other readings since most linguistics programs do not feature a research course that is as methodologically comprehensive as this text. More expert linguists would benefit from traversing the bookâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s contents in succession, if not on the first read, the second, as it is quite impressive to see how coherent the volume actually is.

A book that claims to be comprehensive, however, is, by default, unguarded against criticism, but Podesva and Sharma, as well as the 29 other contributors, leave little room for grievances with their interdisciplinary approach and organizational tactics. The shortcomings mentioned sporadically above are minor, especially when compared to the volumeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s merits. Currently, there are not any comparable

References Cameron, D., Fraser, E., Harvey, P., Rampton, B., & Richardson, K. (1992). Research language: Issues of power and method. London & New York: Routledge.

165

Children and Young Adult Book Review Elementary School The Smallest Girl in the Smallest Grade Educator Reviewer: Chau Nguyen Student Reviewer: Mattie Pittard

Roberts, J. (2014). The smallest girl in the smallest grade. Illus. by Christian Robinson. New York: NY: Putnam Juvenile Press.

Journal of Language and Literacy Education Vol. 10 Issue 2 -- Fall 2014 Michelle M. Falter, Editor -- http://jolle.coe.uga.edu

Journal of Language and Literacy Education Vol. 10 Issue 2 -- Fall 2014

Educator Review: When reading this book, I really appreciated how thoughtful the author was in depicting the harsh reality of bullying, teasing and excluding others in a gentle manner and in kid-friendly language. Rather than directly exposing K-3 students, the potential and target readers, to these undesired incidents, the author tactfully portrays school life through the “super extra special” observations of the smallest girl in the smallest grade: Sally McCabe. Through reading or listening to this story, children are encouraged to take a closer look at life in order to realize the true value of actions that may have been taken for granted. Characters in the story are applauded for raising their voices against unjustifiable actions. Additionally, the lesson behind Sally McCabe’s story can successfully inculcate a strong belief in children’s minds that no matter how small, common or unnoticed they may feel, they can still make a difference by “fighting” for justice. This lovely story by Justin Robert (2014) and illustrations by Christian Robinson efficiently collaborate in engaging and surprising readers. Readers, young and old, will surely enjoy the pleasant moments of exploring every corner of the page to find our little heroine or of humming along with the rhythmic rhyming words of little Sally. As a result, this book can fit both one-on-one and out-loud class story reading. Students will want to hear this story again and again.

Xiaoli Hong The University of Georgia, Athens, GA

Through reading or listening to this story, children are encouraged to take a closer look at life.

Student Review: Listen to Mattie’s Review by clicking the audio link. Mattie Pittard Hull Sandford Elementary, Hull, GA 1st Grade

167

Children and Young Adult Book Review Elementary School Soccer Star Educator Reviewer: Xiaoli Hong Student Reviewer: Aidan Martin

Javaherbin M. (2013). Soccer star. Illus. by Renalto Alarcao. Somerville, MA: Candlewick Press

Journal of Language and Literacy Education Vol. 10 Issue 2 -- Fall 2014 Michelle M. Falter, Editor -- http://jolle.coe.uga.edu

Journal of Language and Literacy Education Vol. 10 Issue 2 -- Fall 2014

Educator Review: Soccer Star, written by Mina Javaherbin (2013) and illustrated by Renalto Alarcao, is another great book to add to teachers’ collections of multicultural children’s books. With the story set in a Brazilian favela, or slum, this book introduces a boy named Paulo who dreams of being a soccer star but can only practice soccer after a day’s work. His teammates, who share Paulo’s passion and situations, also have to work during the day before their practice. Through the narration from Paulo, readers see his daily life—sending his sister to school, greeting his teammates at their different working sites, spending the day helping on a fishing boat with Senhor da Silva, who is also his coach, and playing a soccer game after work. Despite the adversities, readers can clearly feel Paulo’s enthusiasm for soccer and dream for his neighborhood team. The promise of hope increases as Paulo’s sister scores the winning goal for Paulo’s team with her stunning bicycle kick. Although this book is set in a Brazilian favela, the author and illustrator did a perfect job showing that poverty does not stop dreamers of achieving their dreams. The boys’ love of soccer is infectious, and their energy toward daily life exudes throughout the book. The illustrator Alarcao, who is from Brazil, used sepia ink with digital coloration to display the beauty of Brazilian favela houses stacked on a hillside facing the ocean and the danger of Paulo’s work with lurking storms. This book, published in 2014 by Candlewick Press, is an excellent resource for lower grade students to learn about another culture. The poetic text and scattered Portuguese words add to the appeal of the book. Teachers will probably need to introduce some background information about favelas in Brazil for students to better This book is an excellent understand the story. Teachers can also use this book to guide discussions of poverty and stereotypes of relating resource for lower grade people living in slums with drugs, crime and degeneration.

students to learn about another culture.

Xiaoli Hong The University of Georgia, Athens, GA

Student Review: I read the book Soccer Star. The story is about a boy named Paulo playing soccer in Brazil. He dribbles the ball around his neighborhood helping people around the way. Paulo wants to become a soccer star, so then his mother won’t have to work long hours. My favorite part of the book is when Paulo teaches his sister Maria a bicycle kick and she scores a point in the soccer game. I would recommend this book to other children that love soccer. Aidan Martin Chase Street Elementary School, Athens, GA 5th Grade

169

Children and Young Adult Book Review Elementary School Golemito Educator Reviewer: Helene Halstead Student Reviewers: Ziraili Tenas-Balderas and Daisy Jacquet

Stavans, I. (2013). Golemito. Illus. by Teresa Villegas. Montgomery, AL: New South Books.

Journal of Language and Literacy Education Vol. 10 Issue 2 -- Fall 2014 Michelle M. Falter, Editor -- http://jolle.coe.uga.edu

Journal of Language and Literacy Education Vol. 10 Issue 2 -- Fall 2014

Educator Review: Golemito (Stavans, 2013) does a superb job of uniquely blending two cultures while dealing with the topic of classroom bullies. Our two protagonists, Sammy and Ilan, attend a Jewish school in Mexico City. While Ilan spends his free time reading and learning Nahuatl, a language of the Aztec people, Sammy designs inventions that show off his scientific abilities. Sammy is also the object of the class bullies, Berle Shapiro and Benny Burak, who are known as the duo: ShaprioandBurak. As one, they steal Sammy’s lunch and his homework. Sammy takes revenge, but when his revenge causes even more problems, he enlists the help of his best friend Ilan. In telling this tale of courage, Stavans (2013) will pique young readers’ curiosity about different alphabets, golems, and Aztec warriors. The beautiful two- color, woodcut style illustrations complement the story without distracting from the message, all the while lending an air of authenticity to the text.

Golemito does a superb job of uniquely blending two cultures while dealing with the topic of classroom bullies

Because there is some language that may cause younger readers to pause (i.e., furious, agitated), and potentially new ideas (i.e., golems and the Dead Sea), this is a great read-aloud book. There are plenty of opportunities to stop and make predictions, relate to the characters, and reflect on the strength Sammy discovers within himself. The story also provides opportunities for brief class research projects as well as for discussion about the power of poetry to give voice to your feelings.

Helene Halstead The University of Georgia, Athens, GA

Student Review: Golemito, a wonderfully written book by Ilan Stavans with beautiful illustrations by Teresa Villegas, is a terrific example of how learning and studying can really help people. In the story, two Jewish boys have to face two bullies who steal their lunch. As a solution, they conjure up a “mythical” beast that is an Aztec warrior version of an old Jewish folktale character named Golem. Golem tells the principal that the bullies were going to cheat on their bible test. Then that night the Golem grows to be a big warrior. Our favorite part of the story is when one of the Jewish boys named Sammy reads a poem that inspires him to make a poem of his own. Our recommendation is for people to read this book to help answer their own life questions and mysteries. Ziraili Tenas-Balderas and Daisy Jacquet Chase Street Elementary School, Athens, GA 5th Grade

171

Children and Young Adult Book Review Elementary-Middle School Playing Pro Football Educator Reviewer: Helene Halstead Student Reviewer: Joel Baker

Bowker, P. (2014). Playing pro football. Minneapolis, MN: Lerner Publishing Group.

Journal of Language and Literacy Education Vol. 10 Issue 2 -- Fall 2014 Michelle M. Falter, Editor -- http://jolle.coe.uga.edu

Bowker, P. (2014)/Playing Pro Football Educator Review: In the classroom, I had a full bookshelf standing at the ready should students need or want a book to keep or borrow. Most of the books remained on or were returned to my bookshelf; however, there were always some titles I had to replace each year. While Playing Pro Football (Bowker, 2014) had not yet been published while I was in the middle school classroom, it would have been one of those books replaced at the end of the school year. Playing Pro Football was reviewed by NFL veteran Michael Lehan and is part of the Playing Pro Sports kit by Lerner Publishing. While books can be purchased separately, the kit includes books on basketball, baseball, hockey, and, of course, football. While some educators shy away from books published in kits or as part of a series, I find that they appeal to many young readers. Each book is format similarly, which allows students to easily navigate the graphics, headings and text. While the books have a similar format, within each book, students will find unique pages containing graphics, tables, charts and text. The visual differences between the pages allow students to skim through the book in order to revisit specific pages and reread information. This high interest book is appropriate for students from the fourth through the eighth grade; it is labeled as being on a fifth grade reading level with interest levels from nine to fourteen years old. The text includes aspects of the sport that touch on math and science as well as sports. For example, page 12 explains that there are 32 NFL teams and each team can have up to 53 players per season. This means, explains Bowker, that there are only 1,696 jobs available as an NFL player at any one time. Students also read about the skills needed for playing pro-football, about the nutritional and strength needs of NFL players and about the injuries common to professional athletes. The book, however, is not all numbers and statistics. Personal stories about players fill the pages and engage readers. Students who follow the sport will recognize players such as the Manning Brothers and learn about how they became interested in the sport as well as how they got their starts. Educators working with learners who love sports and whose motivation to engage in reading could use a boost will not go wrong with Playing Pro Football (2014) or the other books in the Playing Pro Sports series. The photographs are bright and detailed, the bookâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s organization supports students who read for information, and the book provides realistic information on playing professional sports for students considering this career choice.

Educators working with learners who love sports and whose motivation to engage in reading could use a boost will not go wrong with Playing Pro Football

Helene Halstead The University of Georgia, Athens, GA

Student Review: Listen to Joelâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Review by clicking the audio link. Joel Baker Whitehead Elementary School, Athens, GA Grade 4

173

Children and Young Adult Book Review Middle School I Remember Beirut Educator Reviewer: Yunying Xu Student Reviewer: Anna Frances Julian

Abirached, Z. (2014). I remember Beirut. Minneapolis, MN: Lerner Publishing Group.

Journal of Language and Literacy Education Vol. 10 Issue 2 -- Fall 2014 Michelle M. Falter, Editor -- http://jolle.coe.uga.edu

Journal of Language and Literacy Education Vol. 10 Issue 2 -- Fall 2014

Educator Review: This graphic novel was written by Zeina Abirached (2014) who lived through the 1975 to 1990 Lebanese Civil War. The novel was written from Abirachedâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s ten year-old self and provides readers with vivid stories of how the war affected the lives of the Lebanese people. The book touches on three primary themes: school, family and life after war. Zeina shares her experiences through text and black and white graphics. Her stories of going to school will make readers hesitate before they think about taking school for granted. Zeina had to travel to a different neighborhood to ride the school bus because her neighborhood was too dangerous for the school bus to travel. Sometimes the school was destroyed by the war, or soldiers blocked the road to the school. She relates stories of her father turning up the volume of the music to mask the chaotic sounds of war outside. Spending a day with family to celebrate a birthday was precious; the family never knew if they would have the chance to celebrate the next birthday together. The author also discusses how her life changed after the war. Freedom and peace were valuable and cherished by the family. Zeina describes the luxury of a comfortable shower and the first time she went downtown after the war. While there was still fighting downtown, after the war, towns-people braved Her stories of going to the violence simply because the downtown area was finally open. school will make readers audience, the first dollar she had She remembers, for her after the war and how she dare not spend it. Everything she hesitate before they had was hard-won.

think about taking

This book targets the late elementary to middle school school for granted. student. Students who come from countries who have not experienced war on their soil will learn about the experiences of children who live through wars in which countries are fighting for freedom and peace. Students will gain perspective about living in a society where many goods and services are accessible as compared to living in a country where products simply are not available. Reading this book can provide them with a new way to think about their lives. This book can also be used in cross-curricular settings, especially social studies. There is bountiful information on the geography and history of Lebanon. For example, teachers and students can explore the route of how the author and her family escaped Beirut or discuss the history of the Lebanese Civil War. While this book is interesting and accessible for most readers, there may be concerns for educators who plan to use this book in the classroom or recommend this text to students. First, the graphics in the book are in black and white, so may be overlooked for more colorful graphic novels. Second, the order of the dialogue bubbles are not always clear; occasionally I had to re-read dialogue to understand what was going on. With support, however, students will enjoy this autobiographical graphic novel. Yunging Xu The University of Georgia, Athens, GA

175

Abirached, Z. (2014)/ I Remember Beirut

Student Review: The book I Remember Beirut is about a girl whose family is affected by a war in the Middle East. I think this book is important because it shows how war affects everyday people. It affects how they live and it affects everything. Why would I recommend this book? It has beautiful illustrations; the art is great! It’s a really quick read. It’s thought-provoking and makes you think and that’s a good thing in a book. The type of people who would enjoy this book? Anyone really. I think younger children might not want to read it because it talks about war. But middle grade, young adult, even adults would like it. It’s for almost everyone. What did I like best about this book? I really liked the illustrations and I loved the setting of Lebanon. It was a very, very beautiful book and it made me think about war in a different way.

Anna Frances Julian Clarke Middle School, Athens, GA Grade 7

176

Children and Young Adult Book Review Middle School Serafina’s Promise Educator Reviewer: Margaret Robbins Student Reviewers: Ashley Doss

Burg, A (2013). Serafina’s promise. New York: Scholastic Press

Journal of Language and Literacy Education Vol. 10 Issue 2 -- Fall 2014 Michelle M. Falter, Editor -- http://jolle.coe.uga.edu

Burg, A. (2013)/Serafina’s Promise Educator Review: Serafina’s Promise (2013) is a middle grades novel, primarily appropriate for grades 4-8, written in beautiful poetic verse. It tells the lyrical story of Serafina, a young girl who lives on the outskirts of Port-au-Prince, Haiti. Serafina has aspirations to be a doctor, in spite of obstacles that stand in her way, such as family obligations and lack of finances. However, as her father advises her, “Love always finds a way. /The important thing/ is to never give up” (p. 139). Finally, Serafina gets to attend school and faces the challenge of learning French when she is accustomed to speaking Creole. She perseveres, yet the true test comes when an unexpected natural disaster hits Haiti, and many people around her are hurting and lost. Through her determination and love from family and friends, Serafina learns that dreams can come true through honesty, courage, and hard work. This book was reviewed because it is an example of high quality multicultural children’s literature. The author clearly did research about Haiti and the country’s customs and languages. Serafina expresses both a desire to hold onto her This book was reviewed cultural heritage and to work hard in her French language based because it is an example of school to achieve her dream of becoming a doctor. One of her mentors, a doctor named Antoinette Solaine, tells Serafina “Haiti high quality multicultural needs people like you. / People who believe in us, /who respect children’s literature. our culture/and our language” (Burg, 2013, p. 257). Serafina realizes that she can achieve her goals while holding onto her cultural identity. Serafina’s Promise (2013) would be particularly of interest to children who have to overcome obstacles, such as family expectations and lack of financial resources. It will also appeal to those who love poetry. In addition, this novel would be a good choice for instruction in a late elementary or middle school classroom. The author is a former middle school teacher and has a page on her website about relating Serafina’s Promise (2013) to the Common Core Standards: http://www.annburg.com/SerafinaTheCommonCore.html Margaret Robbins The University of Georgia, Athens, GA

Student Review: I could not put this book down! I loved the storyline and the way the author made Serafina a strong, resourceful, persistent and optimistic character. Even though she was going through hard times, and everyone said it was impossible for her to become a doctor, she made it. She persevered, she stayed strong and worked hard to achieve her goals. With everyone telling her she could not make the money for school, or couldn’t do it all, she did. Even in the darkest hours, she held on to her dream and followed it all the way though. I love the message itself: never give up and follow your dreams no matter what. This book is a great reminder that no matter how hard something is, we can always achieve it if we try. Ashley Doss Burney Harris Lyons Middle School, Athens, GA 8th Grade

178

Children and Young Adult Book Review Middle School brown girl dreaming Educator Reviewers: Jacqueline Martinez and Helene Halstead Student Reviewer: Ashley Doss

Woodson, J. (2014). brown girl dreaming. New York, NY: Nancy Paulsen Books. Journal of Language and Literacy Education Vol. 10 Issue 2 -- Fall 2014 Michelle M. Falter, Editor -- http://jolle.coe.uga.edu

Woodson, J. (2014)/brown girl dreaming

Educator Review: brown girl dreaming is one of Woodson’s (2014) finest novels. Written in lyrical prose, Woodson describes her own life growing up in both the North and the South during the changing country in midst of the Civil Rights Movement. Woodsen’s word choice is careful and deliberate; she is able to convey vivid details about family, education and her growing understanding of racism as a young child. By the end of the story, you will be amazed that you have learned not only about Woodson’s personal experiences, but also about the climate of America during Woodson’s family’s history through the 1970s. William Woodson the only brown boy in an all-white school You’ll face this in your life someday my mother will tell us over and over again. A moment when you walk into a room and no one there is like you.

Winner of the National Book Award for Young People’s Literature 2014

It’ll be scary sometimes. But think of William Woodson and you’ll be all right. (Woodsen, 2014, p. 9)

This book is a perfect fit for students who enjoy poetry, history, and personal narratives. While this novel is well suited for upper elementary and middle school students, high school students and adults will also devour the beautiful words on each page. brown girl dreaming is also a strong fit for the classroom. The poems can be read independently of each other, by chapter or the entire book can be read fairly quickly. Although a hefty 336 pages, each page contains approximately the amount of words in a general paragraph, and students may feel a sense of accomplishment when they complete the story. In addition, this novel can be coupled with social studies classes in order to discuss historical references or the many different cultures Woodson so beautifully describes

Jacqueline Martinez Athens Technical College, Athens, GA Helene Halstead The University of Georgia, Athens, GA

180

Journal of Language and Literacy Education Vol. 10 Issue 2 -- Fall 2014

Student Review: brown girl dreaming is about a young girl’s childhood and about the Civil Rights Movement. It shows how the Woodson family grew up. It shows how history was made. This book is a great and big deal. It shows a lot of personal and important history. One part of history that was great was that Martin Luther King Jr. was a part of it. On page 441, it also tells how Brooklyn, New York was a part of Jacqueline’s family’s history. brown girl dreaming is one of the best books to read. It tells history behind a history. What I liked best about this particular book is that it made sense. It explains how the North and the South got into a big fight about racism and the importance and value of family. The author writes her life in poems. Her life is so sad and sobering. During hard times she was tough with her family and stuck by her family’s side. I would recommend this book because it tells about a history that extraordinary. Sixth graders and up can read this book. I am pretty sure that they will love it and could write a great paper that everyone would love.

Dasani Baker Burney Harris Lyons Middle School, Athens, GA 6th Grade

181

Children and Young Adult Book Review High School I am Malala: How One Girl Stood Up for Education and Changed the World Educator Reviewer: Yunying Xu Student Reviewer: Sara Tonks

Yousafzai, M. & McCormick, P. (2014). I am Malala: How one girl stood up for education and changed the world. New York, NY: Hachette Book Group. Journal of Language and Literacy Education Vol. 10 Issue 2 -- Fall 2014 Michelle M. Falter, Editor -- http://jolle.coe.uga.edu

Journal of Language and Literacy Education Vol. 10 Issue 2 -- Fall 2014 Educator Review: This straightforward autobiography chronicles the life of Malala Yousafzai and her family’s life in Swat Valley of Pakistan. Yousafzai writes chronologically about her peaceful life in the beautiful Swat Valley before the Taliban entered. She depicts her life during that time “as free as a bird” because she was able to attend school and learn along with the boys in her community. However, one day, the peace in Swat Valley had been disrupted. Maulana Fazlullah, nicknamed the Radio Mullah, campaigned against anything he deemed un-Islamic and Western. This included the idea that woman should rarely venture from the home; when they do, they should wear a veil and be accompanied by a male relative. Women’s educational rights came under threat. In addition, Taliban entered the Swat Valley and was at war with the Pakistani Army. They bombed the town and most girls remained at home in order to be safe. Malala heard stories of girls who continued going to school and were targeted and bombed by the Taliban. Gradually, Malala started to speak out by writing, “A Schoolgirl’s Diary” and she entered the public sphere to fight for girls’ rights to receive a public education. Her bravery made her a target of the Taliban who sent her death threats. However, these threats did not stop her fight. She said, “I am not scared of anything.” One day on the way home the Taliban shot her, but she survived and was sent to Birmingham for surgery. Through her book, she continues the fight. This book provides a voice for marginalized youth from the Middle East, who have different religious beliefs and different cultural backgrounds. These young people often do not see themselves represented in children’s and young adult books. By reading this book, these young people can find representation of their voice. The book also offers a chance for U.S. students to know what it means to live in a Middle Eastern country by presenting them the true story of Malala. This can help remove the label of “weird” or “different” of Middle Eastern students who may dress in traditional clothing, such as wearing a veil. Students will understand the culture of Middle Eastern students and gain respect for these students rather than marginalizing them.

This book provides an option for teachers to foster discussion among students about sensitive issues. It is a great book to illustrate the complex historic, economic, geographical and political issues of the Middle East.

Additionally, this book provides an option for teachers to foster discussion among students about sensitive issues such as war and religion. Teachers can bring up topics such as what do you think about the Taliban and Why did the U.S. government send armies to Pakistan by applying a critical lens to these culturally sensitive issues. Finally, this book can be used in cross-curricular settings in content areas such as history and geography. It is a great book to illustrate the complex historic, economic, geographical and political issues of the Middle East. There are, however, several issues educators should be aware of when using or recommending this book. First of all, the book is not a “fun” read because it discusses the tragedies of war, being deprived of education and the suppression of women’s rights. It may be difficult for young adults to remain patient while reading a book that has so many sad topics. In addition, it may be difficult for young males to connect to this story due to its focus on the life of a young girl and her fight for the right to her education. Yunging Xu The University of Georgia, Athens, GA

183

Yousafzai, M. & McCormick, P. (2014)/ I am Malala

Student Review: The young adult version of I am Malala by Malala Yousafzai is important because it is real and it is now. Events such as Malalaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s fight for education for girls are not part of history books yet because the have happened within the past ten years. These issues may not be present in America right now, but they are still occurring in certain parts of the world. This book gives a first-hand account of someone actually involved in the reform movement whose life has been changed by it. I loved the truth and how it is possible to relate to the book. I also admire Malala who is brave enough to stand up for what she believes in, which I think is a very noble purpose. I would recommend this book to anyone I come across because it is real. This is not a story to be only known by second-hand information or a vague recollection of a newscast from several years ago. I believe that people who support the social reform movement as well as the fight for equal rights for women of the world will enjoy this book. It is a hard truth to read that a young woman could be considered a thread to the Taliban and would be treated as such, but it is the truth. People who wish to learn about the world around them would enjoy the book. Sara Tonks Clarke Central High School, Athens, GA 11th Grade

184

Children and Young Adult Book Review High School If You Could be Mine Educator Reviewer: Devon Cristofaro Student Reviewer: Tierra Hayes

Farizan, S. (2013). If you could be mine. Chapel Hill, NC: Algonquin Young Readers.

Journal of Language and Literacy Education Vol. 10 Issue 2 -- Fall 2014 Michelle M. Falter, Editor -- http://jolle.coe.uga.edu

Farizan, S. (2013)/ If You Could be Mine

Educator Review: Growing up in Iran, a country with strict religious beliefs and emphasis on the maintenance of traditional gender roles, best friends Sahar and Nasrin have been hiding their passionate love behind the façade of friendship since they were children. They balance each other out; Sahar is smart, soft spoken, submissive, and always looking out for others. Nasrin is a bold fashionista, who tends to be to be a tad self-absorbed but passionate about life. However, Sahar’s life is turned upside down when Nasrin gets engaged to a 30-something handsome doctor, and the wedding plans begin immediately due to the excitement of her kind-hearted mother. Sahar frantically searches for a solution to what seems to be their dying romance when she stumbles across the world of transexuality and its legality in the eyes of the Iranian government and the Islamic faith. The wheels begin to turn. Can Sahar make the sacrifice of the body she has grown up in in hopes of saving her relationship and creating a “normal happy” life for her and Nasrin? Or is Nasrin even interested in leaving her fiancé if Sahar makes this sacrifice for them? I found this novel completely enrapturing, despite the fact that I am neither Iranian, nor questioning whether or not I should change my gender for the one I love. However, I still found bits of myself in Sahar’s desperate urge to cling to her best friend and soul mate; I could still understand Nasrin’s decision to continue into her marriage. Sometimes I think we as readers mistake a lack of commonalities for an inability to understand or relate. This opened a new door for me into a world I had never quite explored before and never in quite this way. I think that If You Could be I still found bits of Mine (2013) allows readers to understand a perspective that may or may not be like their own. Isn’t that what reading is all about? myself in Sahar’s Aren’t we asking ourselves to explore the minds of all kinds of desperate urge to readers? When you approach the text in this way with your students, you can begin really rich conversations about diversity, cling to her best experience, challenges, and and start to push back on friend and soul mate. choices, the idea of what a “typical’ story should sound, look, and feel like. The only concern I would have about reading this novel in a classroom is the mature subject matter. Sometimes students are not quire ready to discuss identities that may differ from theirs or those around them. Sometimes the novel is a bit graphic when talking about the procedure behind gender transitions, but is never presented without purpose or taste. I believe that it would be important for all educators considering teaching this text to have a conversation about these topics and let their students know up front that they will be discussed within the novel, but I do not think that it should deter anyone from sharing this story with their students. Let a multitude of stories be told in our classrooms and show our students that valuable stories can be written from any perspective.

Devon Cristofaro The University of Georgia, Athens, GA

186

Journal of Language and Literacy Education Vol. 10 Issue 2 -- Fall 2014

Student Review: Sara Farizanâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s If You Could be Mine looks into the love story of Sahar and Nasin that is more complicated than one might imagine. The gay couple must deal with their considered taboo actions in Afghanistan, the constant fear of getting caught, and then the impending marriage of Nasin to an older man. In the end, both girls must make a decision that they feel is right for themselves. This universal theme will resonate with all readers. This book would especially appeal to any advocates of the LGBTQ community. It places the homosexual teenagers in harsh circumstances that may apply to teens anywhere. Readers who are willing and interested in diving into the world of two teenage girls in love would enjoy this book. They will learn about the choices young adults are forced to make to survive in the strict social regime of Afghanistan. Tierra Hayes Clarke Central High School, Athens, GA 11th Grade

187

I Can Climb That Sharon Verner Chappell From the rearview mirror, I watch Her eyes stare out the window the plastic and glass framing a girl I know and don’t know my daughter. As we drive away She watches daddy stand at the curb, leaning against the wind his feet cemented to the sidewalk Her lips are drawn, eyes downcast She is not happy about this Gazing out the window She focuses on other things, hoping for distraction. The buildings and trees pass Street upon street Hands held in sidewalk hugs She watches from a distance Can I do this, mommy? The sun catches a glint on the window A narrow opening into another day The fields in patchwork colors She rolls the knob down, brave against the cold, reaches out with open palm, An unfettered wing catching air She rides the wind undulating motion and bone— Fingers, wrist, arm, elbow The new light travels across her face Wind tickles her lashes She can’t help but smile She can’t help but laugh out loud I can do this. Her words come at me so fast I lose my grip on the wheel for a second: Journal of Language and Literacy Education Vol. 10 Issue 2 -- Fall 2014 Michelle M. Falter, Editor -- http://jolle.coe.uga.edu

Journal of Language and Literacy Education Vol. 10 Issue 2 -- Fall 2014

I can climb that brick wall I can jump that gutter I can squeeze through that hole in the fence I can hop to that roof, no problem. I can… She hesitates. I mean I could… if I wanted to. She looks at me in the mirror. I could. But I won’t, not today. She smiles and scans the objects as they whir by. I can climb that, And that And that. Where’s daddy? Will I see him tomorrow? She continues to look out, wriggling her fingers Her shoes kicking the air between the seats: I want to tell him all the things I can do. She can’t remember even though it was fifteen minutes ago. “It’s only a couple of weeks,” I say and smile. So glad she will never know a longer separation, like me. Small steps Persistence through pain The body learning In and through surroundings Against loss To see what it can do, what it means to be “I” Tell me again, my daughter What you can do. If you tell me, maybe I will know more about me.

Can I climb that?

189

Chappell, S. (2014)

This poem was inspired by the “Stubborn Love” video by The Lumineers. It was also inspired by my autoethnographic analysis of my childhood experience with divorce and my daughter’s everyday insistence that she can do anything. I am fascinated by language’s power to create reality, and by the necessary shift the world requires—that adults must listen to children if we are going to grow and heal as people and as a society. The dignity of children needs to be nourished beyond the superficial assertion that we leave no child behind. Children are marginalized rather than empowered, left to the whims of those enfranchised to make decisions. As a parent, my goal is to pay attention to my child and learn from her, what she is saying and what she sees as potential in herself and the world. That potential is our hope, and our closest connection to what is possible.

Sharon Chappell is an assistant professor in the department of Elementary and Bilingual Education at CSU Fullerton. She specializes in diversity and curriculum issues, English language learning, bilingual education, and arts education. She also is interested in building communities of learners in online instruction. Dr. Chappell earned her Ph.D. in curriculum studies from Arizona State University. She can be contacted at schappell@exchange.fullerton.edu

190

“I Can Climb That”

by Sharon Verner Chappell

/The clouds were pretending to be clouds/ and /Goat gone feral comes in where the fence is open…/ or How to Get Your Poem Published in The New Yorker Janine Certo

I’ve heard that, first, you must be a famous poet, a Big- name poet, but submit the shoddy stuff---a lyric illumination peppered with derivations of the words “water”

and “light.”

You best scale down the literariness, appeal to the broad New York audience, a sizable literary nation. Add whimsy and exclamation. As example: Franz Wright’s Wheeling Motel:

The vast waters flow past its back yard. You can purchase a six-pack in bars!

If that’s not your thing, write a poem about a reader reading (but not a poem), like Robert Bly’s Sunday Afternoon: I am reading/Longinus while the Super Bowl is on. The snow is falling, and the world is calm. Keep it casual, or about death. Submissions should be lively, but not overly literate---and listen: Elizabeth Bishop had problems with this, so concede to commas, and keep it brief. Wait eight weeks. You might storm the cream of the Midtown office, slick as an infiltrating spy, be an intern, an acquaintance, a staffer, someone’s lover. You could be featured more than Robert Creeley

in his whole life.

Journal of Language and Literacy Education Vol. 10 Issue 2 -- Fall 2014 Michelle M. Falter, Editor -- http://jolle.coe.uga.edu

Certo, J. (2014) The New Yorker is sublime arrival: word breaks and line breaks that give pause to readers at home who may not “read poetry, but they read The New Yorker poems.” They loll on gray winter Sundays, mug and magazine, crossing a leg expectedly toward the pintsized form fitted tight in the feature text of:

“Squid Hunter: Can Steve O’Shea Capture the Sea’s Most Elusive Creature?”

They glance up from the poem, tilt their heads, smile vaguely and think: “I don’t understand this. . .but maybe I should?” Then window--

light

streams in from the

“No, this is quite good.”

Janine Certo is an associate professor of language and literacy in the Department of Teacher Education at Michigan State University’s College of Education. Her interests include poetry and creative expression in public schooling, poetic language theory and writing instruction. Her poems have been published in a number of journals, magazines and anthologies including Burningword Literary Journal, Illya’s Honey, The Endicott Review and Muddy River Poetry Review. She can be contacted at certo@msu.edu

192

“Thick” and “Rock Gold” Terese Gagnon Thick Dwell dwell dwell Within the worn spine Of a world

Bound together By the cohesion Of sense and memory

Here the earth is tender And exists to be known As you, to it

Here the tulip poplar’s branches Are couplets For the mind

Their arch stitched To the hem Journal of Language and Literacy Education Vol. 10 Issue 2 -- Fall 2014 Michelle M. Falter, Editor -- http://jolle.coe.uga.edu

Gagnon, T. (2014) Of history

The sound of the Kati-did, kati-did, kati-dids In the August night

Is a well That the soul Settled into

From whence It will never Climb out

The taste Of sour blackberries And knowing where to find crawdads

Are love letters That stretch backward And forward

Splitting logs In the cold

194

Journal of Language and Literacy Education Vol. 10 Issue 2 -- Fall 2014 For a woodstove

Is both a rising And falling Action

From a bedroom window Watching the decay Of a blue plastic tarp

-across years Is sensory detail Etched in the bones

When the sparks Fly From the bonfire

And become lightning bugs Mount To the star-speckled sky

And the creek Rumbles full

195

Gagnon, T. (2014) From the rains The magic Is So thick You can almost

See the hand Of the writer -almost

And tomorrow We will board The yellow bus

To count plastic kangaroos And dream with our eyes Out the window

But for tonight, Ours is the Truth

That is published Only in the whisper Of the pines.

196

Journal of Language and Literacy Education Vol. 10 Issue 2 -- Fall 2014

Rock Gold To tell a story Is to mine the quarry, Of life.

And come back With a little chunk, Of that

Which made the mountain.

Terese is a poet and anthropologist from the woods of northeast Georgia. She is a graduate of the University of Georgia. Among many things, Terese is interested in landscape, memory and the rich world of sensory experience- forms of literacy and a language all their own. She can be contacted at terese@uga.edu

197

What I Didn’t Learn about Reading in High School, I Try to Teach My Students Now Dante Di Stefano That meaning rests in the margins and waits to waylay you, that music is a verb and verbs waltz like the Russian debutantes in a Tolstoy novel, that all reading is misreading and re-reading what’s been misread, that misreading is the highest form of writing, that words are more akin in their couplings to a Chagall painting than to a Jackson Pollack—see them fly above the thatched cottages with the angels, the lovers, and the livestock—that your ears read more than your eyes ever could, that smell, touch, and taste might help you to navigate the page, that your heartbeat when you’re reading a line of Whitman does more work than eyes and mind together, that all gerunds are bicyclists in the Tour de France, that nouns are dollhouse cathedrals without bishops, that a word spoken lives eternities in air before it alights on paper again, that all print is a form of braille and all readers are more blind than Milton or Borges, that conjunctions are the stems the sap shoots through, that a gap in the text presages resurrection or works like a flock of doves in the belly, that I am not the I who reads this line, but have become a cardinal in these branches, that conversation is the most ignored form of reading—listen to the moonlight discourse on the pasture fence and talk to the stray cat meowing around your front step— that stories have warbled us all into being, that being requires retelling the sorrows of the locust tree, the joys of the ladybug, and the constancy of the sparrow showering in the dirt, that a book is a lullaby the wind ricochets off tombstones, that a poem is a canoe—paddle with me—we will brush the leaf off, the web off, decay off, this ink, our commerce, this meaning, the page.

Journal of Language and Literacy Education Vol. 10 Issue 2 -- Fall 2014 Michelle M. Falter, Editor -- http://jolle.coe.uga.edu

Journal of Language and Literacy Education Vol. 10 Issue 2 -- Fall 2014

My Canon Dante Di Stefano When I was a kid my grandmother read me Don Quixote and Treasure Island, Robert Frost and Carl Sandburg, Beautiful Joe and Captain America comic books. Although she never learned to drive and only had a high school education, the Sierra Morena and the high seas unfolded from her porch stoop as she read about pirates, pastures, and Chicago in the fog. When she read, the yellow and brown house surrounded with Hosta plants on Linden Street seemed less than a leap from Frost’s Hyla Brook. I laughed when Sancho got tossed in the blanket by the innkeeper and his patrons. I cried when the evil milkman in Beautiful Joe cut off the dog’s ears. I wished I could throw a shield like Steve Rogers in Captain America, winging it off the Red Skull’s head and catching it on the fly. Curled on her lap, on the porch swing, I loved the way those comics leapt from panel to panel in bright blues, deep reds, and beiges. I wanted a life that flew like that shield, narrated in her sweet soft tones, or that turned like the pages of those big old books, whose faded sheets smelled of attic, and where enchanters, cool tombs, and crossbones jumbled together with magic boats, dappled horses, and crumbling stone walls. When Sancho called Don Quixote a word vigilante and Don Quixote called Sancho a language butcher, I didn’t know what either meant, but I had already decided to be both, had already decided that reading is an act of love and that books belong on a front porch where the wind can ruffle their leaves and words can drift into the street.

199

Di Stefano, D. (2014)

Dante Di Stefano teaches tenth- and twelfth-grade English in Endicott, New York. He has won the Allen Ginsberg Poetry Award, The Ruth Stone Poetry Prize, The Phyllis Smart-Young Prize in Poetry, and an Academy of American Poets College Prize. He currently serves as a poetry editor for Harpur Palate and he was recently nominated for a Pushcart Prize. He can be contacted at dantedistefano@gmail.com

200

â&#x20AC;&#x153;Out of the Boxâ&#x20AC;? by Jerome Harste

Jerome Harste, Professor Emeritus of Indiana University, has been an advocate for art as an integral part of reading and language arts education. This piece entitled "Out of the Box" reflects his belief that working in arts both expands and strengthens our notions of what it means to be literate. He can be contacted at jerry.harste@gmail.com

Reading Neruda Melanie Swetz

Canto I: Machu Picchu

Canto II: Fugitive Time

Que Bueno! Once again your “likes” Fill the spaces between my senses To take me back to Machu Picchu’s Verdant stonework so high up In the thinnest air of Peru’s soul Further rarified by your words like Embraces pulling me closer to you.

A Todos! For all, Neruda, you speak aloud Of time’s furtive, soulless march forward How there’s no forgetting about its proud

There on the terraced steps llamas Wonder at lovers curled like commas Around themselves as their cheeks Rest on grassy tufts, as they seek In tandem - each other’s bodies sleek With the night wetness of orgasmic Lusty breathing in the thin air so cosmic.

“My most full love” Neruda’s words Fall to encircle the woman who like A sword runs through his veins towards His heart as the thinnest air holds her Scent long after she leaves his bed, her White belly was on his white sheets Long ago now, alone and up high in Peru.

Face as it appears in everyone’s mirror To mock us senseless with complete terror At its endless passing on, but backward Never – a more vain hope cannot be found. But, in the fugitive’s defense , a voice speaks Out loud to offer an alternative to its vast Uncaring, how time is like us, an actor cast In a cosmic theatre piece its entrances sleek And sultry, an Eve with an apple at her breast, Its exits sneaky and bleak, a snake at the feast Of mankind’s failure to embrace the beast.

There is no explanation of why or how Possible, everything has a voice of its own Everything has a glimmer of a shadow Everything leaves a footprint on the sea’s Floor, the flower’s dependence on the bee Is like time’s magnet for all of us as we Stagger from innocence into lustful cocoons.

Journal of Language and Literacy Education Vol. 10 Issue 2 -- Fall 2014 Michelle M. Falter, Editor -- http://jolle.coe.uga.edu

Swetz, M. (2014)

Canto III: Fruit Politics

Envoi: Humanity’s Bread

Entre Las Moscas! The fruit flies enter after Being called by the conglomeration’s laughter At the ridiculous hegemony of their power As seen by the workers hoping for treasures From the cola nut bosses, the juicy cheaters Of lives left over, re-conquered under brand Names that spell slavery in their homeland.

Nosotros, los poetas! We the poets knead Words into a salty dough in order to plead Our case for humanity’s ears to be open To the sounds of itself, the aboriginal ocean Within, silently pulsing through veins heavy With memories forgotten among the wavy Currents of explanations, which like kisses

Free will paid for by bloody fists and hands Chopping the banana stalks into pulpy wet Mash with machetes steely and unfettered Rapid strokes like a cockroach’s scuttle, can This cosmic joke ever be silenced from land So sweetly innocent of its rape, can justice Ever be served in coffee cups just like lust is?

Wet, leave the cheek coldly alone to miss The warmth of another’s arms in that sea Where drifting souls alike are like lilacs white On branches bent double with desire heavy For something more than longing, to be freed From the weights and measures of our daily

The fruit flies linger on the rotting flesh Of dead bananas stripped open –a mesh Of yellow and green skins torn and left To decay like the wet souls of those kept By poverty, the working dead without Names, without the words of confession For sins committed in the absence of doubt.

Bread, to rise up like warm currents of airy Breathing, to be flooded over by humanity’s Ocean of sounds which will arise from the poet’s Throat like a bouquet of bundled forget-me-nots A gift of simple words presented metaphysically For all to share in simple reverence and thankful Prayer for partaking in those common ingredients Which form the cosmic wholeness of us all.

Melanie Swetz began writing poetry while living in The Gambia, West Africa. She is a Norman Mailer Writers Colony Fellow and has had her poetry published in High Tide, the English Journal , and Vallum Magazine of Contemporary Poetry. She currently teaches for Bilkent University as Head of English at the Laboratory School in Erzurum, Turkey. She can be contacted at swetz.melanie@gmail.com

202

Communication in a Foreign Land Tammy Cline Language weaves through the air all around me, yet I hear no words. Only deafness made of sound. It comes at me, repeating louder, slower. Eyes search my face directing, willing me to understand. I don’t, though I want to. Hands move, gesturing punctuating, underlining. Drawing pictures in the air. The images are ghosts, appearing, fading. A momentary hint of something. I grasp at meaning. Desperate for comprehension. Holding tightly to nothing, a residue that evaporates. “Ok,” I nod and smile. A return smile, satisfied with their success. They turn, leaving me with their tapestry of misperception. But the threads are still loose, fluttering out of my reach.

Journal of Language and Literacy Education Vol. 10 Issue 2 -- Fall 2014 Michelle M. Falter, Editor -- http://jolle.coe.uga.edu

Cline, T. (2014)

Tammy Cline is a PhD student in Art Education. Her research focuses on creativity in teacher education. For the past two years, she lived in China teaching English and conducting educational research. During this time, speaking very little Mandarin, she learned what it is like to be illiterate, to be in the presence of language while understanding nothing. It was a shocking revelation and engendered a new compassion in her for our immigrants here in the United States who do not speak or read English. This poem is her window into their world. She can be contacted at tcatc@uga.edu

204

“The Border” by Blanca Licona Miranda Achieving my dream comes with many challenges. Not having a family who supports or understands the importance of school due to language differences or the differences between our home and American cultures is just a start. Then there’s being undocumented, looking for a way to pay for college on my own, living in a state that seems totally against immigrants -- all of these reasons create the border between me and my dreams. However, I am still determined and continue to work hard to make them a reality

Blanca is a recent high school graduate and a lover of the arts. Her inspiration stems from her desire to bring to light injustices and her desire to achieve her dreams in the United States. She wants society to understand that just because she doesn’t have a “Social Number” doesn't mean that she’s different; She still has a heart and blood running through her veins and the desire to work hard and become someone important in life. Blanca can be contacted at blanca.licona@gmail.com

SAVE THE DATE! n o EC

e c n fere

es : i c a r ite L y r ato rm p o i f c s i t n ar ra P T , d e n t rea ed a i C , d e o g Emb re, Enga i 15 0 2 Insp , -8

L L o J

7 y r a u Febr

The JoLLE conference is an annual conference attached to the Journal of Language and Literacy Education housed in the Department of Language and Literacy Education at The University of Georgia. This year's theme: "Embodied and Participatory Literacies: Inspire, Engage, Create, Transform" invites teachers and researchers to examine ways in which literacy concerns how students and teachers construct and participate in the world through our bodies. JoLLE conference is a unique conference where all presentations are hands-on, rather than the typical "talking heads."

Look for updates on the conference at:

http://jolle.coe.uga.edu and information to come on registration at:

www.coe.uga.edu/events University of Georgia • College of Educa on Oﬃce of Outreach & Engagement • G10 Aderhold Hall Athens, GA 30602 • www.coe.uga.edu