I; .I

.\I

 

in... Ararat},

A! 3.
. an. ‘
an.

.
a ‘
w: %, flv
make; in u . @
“3...“?ng 4:
3n

. x.
. u

is!
.5. 4
3

an 99:.»

4

leftwwx.

.311 ‘V 32.
. - "l‘l
. u in
5
., v41

1...}
‘ 5.3.5....
‘9 if. T

“3.1.
IV IE. 3! l
1).th

..
thunk: to. .

l
u I... I»?
Lizbniv
. (_ K n .

gm...

. «D
vagina; n

masts

MICHIGAN STATE UN IERV

Hi fllll Ill” ’1! 1111111111111

293 01566 6906

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

I!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is to certify that the

dissertation entitled

THE CROSS-AGED LITERACY PROGRAM:
EXTENDING THE BOUNDARIES FOR ADOLESCENTS WHO STRUGGLE
WITH READING, WRITING, AND SCHOOLING

presented by

Fenice B. Boyd

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

 

 

 

Ph.D. degreein Teacher Education
Dr. Taffy E. Raphael
Major professor
Date_.lul)L_3_._19_9_§___

MS U i: an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771

_——__— ¢—~_._. __-—

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove thle checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or betore date due.

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

W315 [iii'
m
I 1::1—3
LJCZLJ
I IS

MSU le An Affirmative Action/Equel Opportunity Inetttwon
Wm:

      
   
  
 
  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A CROSS-AGED LITERACY PROGRAM: EXTENDING THE
BOUNDARIES FOR ADOLESCENTS WHO STRUGGLE WITH
READING, WRITING, AND SCHOOLING

By

Fenice Burnetta Boyd

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Teacher Education

1996

ABSTRACT
A CROSS-AGED LITERACY PROGRAM: EXTENDING THE
BOUNDARIES FOR ADOLESCENTS WHO STRUGGLE
WITH READING, WRITING, AND SCHOOLING
By

Fenice Burnetta Boyd

The purpose of this study was to investigate the experiences of
adolescents who struggle with reading, writing, and schooling as they
participated in an alternative literacy program. The study develops from criticisms
of decontextualized literacy instruction for low-achieving students. Grounded in
a social constructivist theoretical perspective, the study focused on four high
school adolescents who were poor readers and writers. Three broad questions
guided this study: How do the social interactions in an alternative literacy
program help us to rethink, reconstruct and redefine literacy learning for
adolescents who are poor readers and writers? What was the nature of
participation in the preparation seminar and small cross-aged discussion groups in
alternative literacy contexts? How do high school adolescents represent their
literacy knowledge when interacting with fourth and fifth graders?

To address these questions, I studied high school adolescents as they
participated in a series of literacy activities and tasks with a same-age peer group
and with fourth- and fifth-grade students for a period of five months. Field notes,
transcripts of discussions, students’ written documents, and interviews formed the
data sets. Since the high school students brought different background

experiences, and since they conducted cross-aged literary discussions with

different children, their experiences in the study yielded interesting comparisons.

From the analyses, three findings emerged: First, the nature of interactions
within each small group was contingent upon the roles and strategies that the
high school adolescents used to engage the younger students and themselves in
discussions about text. Second, the various literacy activities and the individual
contributions from students provided a rich context for constructing knowledge
within the small groups. Third, the study highlights the importance of oral
language and the social nature of literacy learning for adolescents who do not
read and write well. Contributing to the literacy field’s understanding of the role
of language in learning, the study supports rethinking and redefining what

counts as literacy learning in an alternative instructional program for adolescents

who struggle with reading, writing, and schooling.

Copyright by
FENICE BURNETI‘A BOYD
1996

To Averick and J amaal
The only thing that’s really worthwhile is change. It’s coming.
-- Septima Clark

 

 

\

  

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Writing this dissertation was not easy, but when the writing is coupled
with being a single mother, and working as a professional graduate student, it
could be impossible without the support and encouragement of family members,
colleagues and friends. I owe thanks to many wonderful people.

My deepest thanks and appreciation for understanding goes to my sons --
Averick and Jamaal. Without their support, encouragement, patience, love, and
pride, I would never have been able to make this dream a reality. My sons
became most involved throughout the entire graduate school process. Very
often, they gave up time with me so that I could study and write.

A very special thank you goes to Susan Melnick and Lauren Young who
were my first teachers, mentors, and friends at Michigan State University. They
taught me with their lives, and helped me discover that I had something worth
saying, but I had to learn how to say it. They will always be remembered for their
kind support, patience, and encouragement throughout my doctoral program.

A special acknowledgement and thank you goes to Taffy Raphael, my
major professor, colleague, and friend. She taught me not only through her
lectures, and one-on-one meetings, but with her life. I am grateful to have been
able to study with Taffy, and to have received her support, encouragement, and

mentoring.

vi

Additionally, I would like to thank these friends and colleagues who have
played a very special role in my life over the past several years and who have
especially “been there” for me:

My dissertation committee members -- Laura Roehler, Susan Florio-Ruane,
and Lauren Young. Their insight and support was valuable during this study.

Jim Gavelek, who always listened so that I could bounce off ideas;

Patricia Edwards, who always had confidence in me and became a valued
friend;

Stan and Maranda Trent; who became my good friends and provided
words of encouragement when I became frustrated;

Virginia Goatley, a valued friend who allowed me to “camp out” in her
basement for ten months, so that I could have a quiet place to write;

Karla Bellingar for transcribing cassettes and sharing her perspectives;

Sandy Gross and Jean Beland for reading and editing this dissertation;

The Department of Teacher Education, whose faculty and staff have
provided me with an academic Spirit, fellowship, and the nurturing necessary to
help me “grow up” academically and professionally;

Ruth Maness, Edith Powell-Hayes, Lorraine Brandon, and Molly Clark
who became my Michigan extended family and support group. In order to
ensure that I would have the time and space to study and write without

distraction, they loved and nurtured my sons throughout my graduate program at

if

an;
wt

*8”

.l:_:

"e .

vi. ‘

MSU, prepared delicious meals, and provided much fellowship and
encouragement for my efforts in pursuing a doctoral degree. All of you have
helped make this dissertation possible.

My grandmother, mother, brothers, all of my extended family, and
childhood friends who have always believed in me and my ambitions;

JBE for being my first “cheer leader” and encouraging me to pursue a
terminal degree;

The school community, principals, teachers, case-study participants and
their parents and guardians, who allowed me to invade their worlds day after day

for one academic year. I owe them all a dept that I can never repay.

4—.
f, .4
4-:

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................... xvi
LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................... xvii
CHAPTER 1

WHY DO WE NEED TO CONSIDER ALTERNATIVE LITERACY CONTEXTS
FOR ADOLESCENTS WHO STRUGGLE WITH READING, WRITING, AND

SCHOOLING? .................................................................................................................. 1
Behaviorist Theoretical
Perspective ............................................................................................................ 2
Establishing A Context For Literacy
Instruction ............................................................................................................ 3
Theory and Rationale for a Cross-Aged Literacy Program ......................... 5

The Cross-Aged Literacy Program: An Investigative Study of
Adolescents Who Struggle With Reading, Writing, and

Schooling .............................................................................................................. 8
CHAPTER 2
LITERACY LEARNING EXPERIENCES FOR LOW-ACHIEVING
ADOLESCENTS: INT RICACIES AND POSSIBILITIES ....................................... 12
Perspectives on the State of Teaching and Learning in American
Schools ................................................................................................................ 13
Critical Studies of Secondary Schools and Students’ Experiences .......... 17
Students’ Access to Knowledge .......................................................... 17
Critical Studies of Literacy Instruction and Learning ............................... 2

ix

Characteristics of Instruction .............................................................. 2

Instructional Characteristics and Social Interactions .................... 24
A Sociocultural Theoretical Perspective ...................................................... 28
Higher Psychological Functions are Social and Cultural in
Nature ..................................................................................................... 30
Knowledge is Constructed Through Interactions Among
Individuals ............................................................................................. 31
Learning is Fostered Through the Assistance of More
Knowledgeable Others ......................................................................... 32
Linking Sociocultural Theory to Literacy Learning ...................... 36
Research Perspectives on Language and Literacy Learning ..................... 38

The Role of Oral Language in

Classrooms ............................................................................................. 38
Classroom Functions for Oral Language Use ................................. 39
Communication and Learning in the Classroom ..................................... 42
Teacher and Student Talk In Classrooms ........................................ 43

Literature Discussion in the

Classroom ............................................................................................... 44
Conclusion ......................................................................................................... 50
CHAPTER 3
THE EVOLUTION OF ONE CROSS-AGED LITERACY
PROGRAM ..................................................................................................................... 52
Septima Clark High School ............................................................................ 53
Angelou Elementary School .......................................................................... 55
The Fourth/Fifth-Grade Classroom ............................................................. 56
Room 205 ................................................................................................ 56

The Cross-Aged Literacy Program ................................................................. 58

Overview of the Cross-Aged Literacy

Program ................................................................................................... 59
The Preparation Seminar ................................................................................ 59
Instructional Activities ........................................................................ 61
Literature Selection .............................................................................. 61
Reading ................................................................................................... 62
Writing ................................................................................................... 63
Discussion .............................................................................................. 65
Planning the Lessons ........................................................................... 66
Debriefing ............................................................................................... 66
Cross-Aged Literary Discussion Groups ....................................................... 70
Assessment Log Sheets ........................................................................ 72
The High School Students .............................................................................. 73
Selecting The Participants ................................................................... 73
The Four Case Study Students ....................................................................... 79
Teresa ...................................................................................................... 79
Michael ................................................................................................... 82
Mark ........................................................................................................ 84
Devon ...................................................................................................... 86
Data Collection .................................................................................................. 89
Observing and Recording Field Notes ............................................. 89
Audiotaping the Students .................................................................. 91

xi

Videotaping the Students ................................................................... 92

Formal and Informal Interviews ...................................................... 92
Reading and Reflection Logs .............................................................. 93
Analyzing and Interpreting Data ................................................................... 93
Initiating Analysis ................................................................................ 94
Setting Up ............................................................................................... 94
Exploring the Data for Patterns and Themes .................................. 94
Developing Cases of the Students ................................................................. 96
Microanalysis of the Preparation Seminar ...................................... 97
Microanalysis of the Cross-Aged Literary Discussions ................. 97

CHAPTER 4
THE PREPARATION SEMINAR: A CONTEXT TO RECONSTRUCT
MEANINGS OF SCHOOLING, LITERACY AND

STUDENT ....................................................................................................................... 99
Emerging Themes for Analysis ..................................................................... 99
Reconstructing Meanings of
Schooling .............................................................................................. 100
Reconstructing Meanings of Literacy ............................................. 102
Reconstructing Meanings of
Student .................................................................................................. 102
Placing the Preparation Seminar in Context ............................................ 103
Reconstructing Meanings of Schooling ..................................................... 105
Establishing a Sense of Commitment ............................................ 106
Commitment to Project Attendance and Participation .............. 110
Taking Responsibility for Collaboration ........................................ 113

XII

Taking Responsibility for Critiquing Emerging Challenges ...... 117

Reconstructing Meanings of Literacy ......................................................... 120
Spontaneous Engagement with Text .............................................. 120
The Role of Imagination ................................................................... 129
Engaging in Literate Thought .......................................................... 131
Making Intertextual Connections ................................................... 141
Reconstructing Meanings of Students ....................................................... 144
Perceptions About Collaboration .................................................... 144
Making Personal Connections ......................................................... 149
Striking Aspects of the Preparation Seminar ............................... 152
CHAPTER 5

RECONSTRUCTTNG MEANINGS OF LITERACY LEARNING EXPERIENCES
THROUGH CROSS-AGED DISCUSSION

GROUPS ........................................................................................................................ 154
Beginning A Day of Cross-Aged Interactions about Text ....................... 155
Devon .................................................................................................... 156

Mark ....................................................................................................... 157
Michael .................................................................................................. 157
Teresa ..................................................................................................... 158
Defining Teresa and Michael’s Role in Cross-Aged Discussions ......... 161
Themes in Teresa’s Cross-Aged Setting ..................................................... 162
Reconstructing Meanings of Learner ............................................. 163
Management and Rules ........................................................ 164

Instructional Procedures ....................................................... 170

Reconstructing Meanings of Literacy ............................................. 174

Questions Without Content ................................................. 175
Questions Without Excitement ........................................... 177
Integrating Background Knowledge
Into Discussions ...................................................................... 183
Integrating Personal Opinions ............................................. 189
What Might We Learn From Teresa’s Case? ............................................ 195
The Case of Michael ....................................................................................... 198
Themes in Michael’s Cross-Aged Setting .................................................. 200
Reconstructing Meanings of Learner: Asking Questions .......... 200
Seeking Information in Response to Questions .............. 201
Asking Questions to Probe For Understanding ............... 205
Asking Questions to Pose a Challenge ............................... 209
Reconstructing Meanings of Literacy: Connecting
Oral and Written Language .............................................................. 214
Michael’s Reading Log Responses for Tuesday ................ 215
Michael’s Reading Log Responses for
.................................................................... 217
Michael’s Reading Log Responses for
InumexldloijHg .................................................................. 222
What Might We Learn From Michael’s Case ........................................... 227
CHAPTER 6
LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE CROSS-AGED LITERACY
PROGRAM ................................................................................................................... 230
Rethinking Literacy Education for Low-Achieving High School
Students ............................................................................................................ 233

xiv

Sociocultural Theory and Literacy Learning ............................................ 237

Social and Cultural Contributions to Learning ........................... 237
Literacy Development Through Social Interactions .................. 239
Learning is Enhanced Through the Assistance of Others ......... 243
Theoretical and Pedagogical Implications .................................... 245
Theoretical Implications of Reconstructing Meanings
of Schooling ............................................................................ 245
Pedagogical Implications of Reconstructing Meanings
of Schooling ............................................................................. 247
Theoretical Implications of Reconstructing Meanings
of Literacy ................................................................................ 248
Pedagogical Implications of Reconstructing Meanings
of Literacy ................................................................................ 250
Theoretical Implications of Reconstructing Meanings
of Student ............................................................................... 252
Pedagogical Implications of Reconstructing Meanings
of Student ................................................................................ 254
Limitations of the Study ................................................................. 254
Suggestions for Future Research ................................................... 256
APPENDIX A Field Notes ............................................................................. 257
APPENDIX B Analytical Memo .................................................................. 260
APPENDIX C Preparation Seminar Lesson Plan #1 ................................. 268
APPENDIX D Cross-Aged Literacy Plan #3 ................................................. 270
LIST OF
REFERENCES .................................................................................................... 271

XV

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 - 15 Things 3 Good Tutor Does .................................................................... 68
Table 2 - Participant Information ............................................................................... 76
Table 3 - High School Students’ Statements ........................................................... 80
Table 4 - Research Questions and Data Sources ..................................................... 90
Table 5 - The Social Construction of Literacy Learning ...................................... 101
Table 6 - Preparation Seminar Timeline and Participants .................................... 104
Table 7 - Cross-Aged Literary Discussion Group Participants ............................ 15 8

xvi

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 - Diagram of Room 205 .................................................................................. 57
Figure 2 - The Cross-Aged Literacy Program Components ..................................... 60
Figure 3 - Reading Log Ideas ....................................................................................... 64
Figure 4 - High School Students’ Assessment Log Sheet ........................................ 74
Figure 5 - Elementary Students’ Assessment Log Sheet .......................................... 75
Figure 6 - Teresa’s Drawing of the Madam in W ...................... 190
Figure 7 - Michael’s First Reading Log Entry for Tuesday ................................... 216
Figure 8 - Michael’s Second Reading Log Entry for Them .............................. 218
Figure 9 - Michael’s First Reading Log Entry for W ................... 220
Figure 10 - Michael’s Second Reading Log Entry for Song of the Trees ............ 221
Figure 11 - Michael’s First Reading Log Entry for MEX—Em ............. 223
Figure 12 - Michael’s Second Reading Log Entry for Joumey To Jg’burg ....... 224
Figure 13 - Michael’s Third Reading Log Entry for Journey To Jo’burg ........... 226

xvii

CO.‘

the 5:
1:20;;

{Wim-

run-ell

'Y\~‘

T‘LM

U
eg‘

“:25 , I
wtl 1
U
1"
l g-fis
,\
\\U
5 s.
.4,
.,. -
. \kll‘i‘
2's ‘

CHAPTER 1
WHY DO WE NEED TO CONSIDER ALTERNATIVE LITERACY
CONTEXTS FOR ADOLESCENTS WHO STRUGGLE WITH READING,
WRITING, AND SCHOOLING?

The need to explore alternative literacy learning contexts for adolescents
who struggle with reading, writing, and schooling has never been greater.
According to the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), 48% of
students or 183,000 dropped out of Grade 12 in 1992. All the more disturbing is
the fact that many adolescents as young as 15 decide to discontinue their
schooling before Grade 12, at an alarming rate of 31.3% or 120,000 dropping out
of school in Grade 11, and 20.9% or 80,000 dropping out in Grade 10. These
dispiriting statistics suggest that our American high schools are failing to help
many of our students continue their education successfully. Having large
numbers of students who do not graduate from high school is a disservice to the
individual as well as to society. It is a disservice to individuals who drop out of
school because they will not have the adequate and sufficient literacy skills they
need and deserve to sustain themselves in our ever-changing advanced
technological society. Likewise, society will inherit many consequences due to
dropouts because, as a whole, the nation will not experience the benefits of the
potential and talent of many young adolescents.

Although students drop out of school for countless reasons, failure in
literacy learning and acquisition is most certainly an underlying cause for many
(Allington & McGill-Franzen, 1993). Researchers have documented several
predictors which account for unfortunate futures when students find it difficult to
learn to read during early years of schooling: (a) over 90% of the children placed

in the bottom-reading group in first grade are still poor readers in the upper

will

2

grades (Juel, 1988); (b) children labeled as poor readers and writers during
primary-grades are amongst those children most likely to be retained (Shepard &
Smith, 1989); (c) children who are retained are those who are most likely to be
classified as handicapped or learning disabled (Ysseldyke, Thurlow, Mecklenburg,
Graden, 1984); and (d) low-academic achievement, retention, and special-
education placement are all associated with dropping out of school, teen
parenthood, and unemployment or limited earning power in adulthood
(Edelmann, 1988).

Behaviorist Theoretical Perspective

Often, the type of instructional approaches provided to poor readers and
writers contribute to why these students do not achieve academically. Typically,
instruction for students who do not read and write well has been based on
behavioral theories. This perspective limits definitions of success to the products
of literacy activities (e.g., oral fluency, ability to answer literal comprehension
questions). More recently, theories of cognitive science have Shifted the focus to
individuals’ reading and writing processes. Yet these theories have ignored the
social nature of literacy learning. Both behavioral and cognitive theories pervade
instructional programs mandated to track individual progress through
decontextualized skills-based instruction. This is especially true for students who
read and write poorly.

In the last decade, literacy instruction based on behavioral and cognitive
theories has been criticized because of its reliance on practicing skills in isolation
(e.g., Allington & McGill-Franzen, 1989), tracking students into low-level literacy
experiences (e.g., Applebee, 1991), and not providing opportunities for working

with a variety of literary genres (Walrnsley & Walp, 1990). Many scholars have

O,

. T
«h;

1‘.

. 1

H"

3

noted the limited success of skills-based instructional programs (Carter, 1984;
Cooley, 1981; Glass, 1986), suggesting that there are consequences for the
students’ development of higher cognitive processes. The very nature of
traditional literacy instruction is narrowly focused because it does not encompass
strategies that might enable students to develop higher thinking skills. Because
many adolescents remain trapped in traditional skills-based programs (i.e.,
remedial reading, Chapter 1) throughout their high school years, we need to
change our thinking about approaches to literacy instruction for students who do
not read and write well and who, all too often, drop out of school.

This exodus from high schools due to lack of academic success presents
educators with an enormous challenge that must be addressed. The first step in
considering the dilemmas involved in academic achievement for low-achieving
adolescents is to identify reasonable options to encourage students to develop
their own literacy education and stay in school. This requires educators to think
about what we know about current conceptions of language, literacy, and
learning as well as what we know about the population of students about whom
we are concerned.

Establishing a Context For Literacy Instruction

Many scholars suggests that literacy learning is enhanced when students
have opportunities to engage in natural, meaningful context-embedded
interactions. For example, Wells (1992) argues that human development and
learning is intrinsically social and interactive. Therefore, to become literate
involves social interactions with other readers and writers, as well as individual
cognitive achievement. Presently, many educators are exploring the connections

between language and learning in context-embedded, goal-oriented literacy

um»

CO

mi

3.

.I.V«

PA.-

ha‘.

1

4

instruction in elementary classrooms (Pierce & Gilles, 1993). Such collaborative
modes of social interaction and learning acknowledge the central role of
language (Bakhtin, 1986; Gavelek, 1986; Vygotsky, 1978; Wells, Chang, &
Maher, 1990). Throughout the process, reading, writing, speaking, and listening
are means for communicating intentions and meanings between the reader and
text, and among people involved in the reading act. Background knowledge,
experiences, and multiple voices play a significant role in how all readers
construct meaning from what they read. Although this research has been
conducted with young children, it has potential to add much to literacy
instruction for high school students. However, much information is needed to
help us understand what benefit meaningful and purposeful interactions might
play on the literacy learning and acquisition of low-achieving adolescents who
are at-risk of school failure.

The importance of emphasizing the cognitive and social aspect of literacy
has direct implication for work with adolescents who struggle with reading,
writing, and schooling. Many scholars (e.g., Au & Mason, 1981; Cazden &
Leggett, 1981; Philips, 1983) document the differential treatment of diverse and
minority learners in school contexts and argue that such differential treatment
negatively affects students’ achievement in literacy learning. Other scholars note
the overrepresentation of students from diverse cultural and ethnic backgrounds
in traditional skills-based literacy programs (Kennedy, Jung, & Orland, 1986). For
example, Cazden (1988) provides evidence in which minority students from New
Zealand and the United States are discouraged from expanding upon their
thoughts. Similarly, Michaels (1981) reports that when the narrative styles of

minority children are at variance with the expectations of white teachers,

Eli:

i
LILL

>:
f
v, if

A

1M:

Ant

1!:
Hub

“‘5.

3‘3'
in

'IA

VA

\.

t‘.

‘H

5

interaction is often unsuccessful and, over time, may adversely affect school
performance and achievement.

Applebee describes the lack of opportunity of low-tracked Students to
initiate interactions with their teachers or peers, and that the pattern of interaction
follows one of teacher-controlled initiation, response, evaluation (I-R-E)
interactions (see Cazden, 1988), in which the teacher initiates the topic through a
question, a student is called upon to provide a response, and the teacher then
evaluates the response before moving to the next I-R-E sequence. Although
such procedures appear to work well among high-achievers and students who
are well motivated, they do not appear to benefit low-achievers (Applebee, 1989).
With such prescribed literacy activities from the teacher, these students have little
voice about what they read or write about in their literacy programs and few
opportunities for discussion. Their development in literacy learning is contingent
upon working on decontextualized basic skills in order to reach a specific level of
reading ability and involves little or no opportunity to develop the control or the
motivation they will need for their long-term literacy education.

Theory and Rationale for a Cross-Aged Literacy Program

Thus, the purpose of this Study was to investigate the experiences of

adolescents who struggle with reading, writing, and schooling as they
participated in alternative literacy learning contexts. The study links fundamental
principles of social constructivism to the literacy learning of adolescents as they
take responsibility for their own learning in a cross-aged literacy program.1

To study what low-achieving high school students learn about literacy

 

1Elementary students literacy development is a concern of the overall
study, but is not the focus of the dissertation.

r1 ‘

I}!

6

while participating in a cross-aged literacy program, I have adopted a social
constructivist perspective (Vygotsky, 1978; Bakhtin, 1986; Gavelek, 1986).
Social constructivism stresses the importance of language and social interaction in
learning and provides a conceptual framework to examine dialogue in cross-aged,
student-led discussion groups. In such groups, high school adolescents who find
learning to read and write difficult develop their own literacy skills while working
as partners with fourth- and fifth-graders. Social constructivism suggests that
cognitive development is formed in part through social interaction and that
language and social acts play an essential role in the organization of higher
psychological functions.

Three principles undergird social constructivist theories in learning: (a)
higher psychological functions such as reading and writing are both social and
cultural in nature, (b) knowledge is constructed through the interactions among
individuals within the social context, and (c) learning is fostered through the
assistance of more knowledgeable members of the community and culture.
Whether students are gifted or low-achievers, elementary or high schoolers, the
principles of social constructivism acknowledge the role of oral and written
language. These principles are useful when investigating psychological
processes such as literacy learning, and its relationship to the various ethnic,
cultural, linguistic, and academic abilities that all learners bring to the classroom.

The principles of social constructivism were essential to conceptualizing
and analyzing the process, interactions and discussions in this cross-aged literacy

program. In this study, adolescents who were Struggling readers and writers were
provided opportunities to use oral language and writing for learning and meaning

construction with fourth and fifth graders in goal-embedded, task-oriented

7

settings. All students engaged in literary discussions, responded and reacted to
their peers' ideas. Participants in this cross-aged literacy program who came from
different academic, cultural, ethnic and social backgrounds created rich contexts
where older and younger students could interrelate and generate meanings, and
transform and negotiate their own values.

Cross-aged and peer-teaching relationships among students in formal and
informal settings can be traced to the first century AD. (Wagner, 1982).
Historians record tutoring as the main source of learning, particularly for the elite
and wealthy (Bloom, 1988). Among the most renowned spokespersons for
tutoring was Comenius, a 17th century Moravian educator whose philosophy
was “He who teaches others teaches himself.” Similarly, Joseph Lancaster, an
18th century educator is noted for his inexpensive form of mass education for the
poor through peer and cross-aged tutoring (Bloom, 1988; Wagner, 1982). Within
the past three decades, peer and cross-aged teaching has reemerged in the United
States and Great Britain (Topping, 1988).

Research findings of cross-aged teaching programs identify positive
benefits for the students who teach in several general areas: (a) motivation
(Bloom, 1988; Dillner, 1971), (b) improved communication and social skills (Dollar,
1974), (c) increased opportunities for literacy learning (Allen, 1976; Cloward,
1967; Juel, 1991), and ((1) development of positive attitudes toward school,
teachers, literacy, and education (Dillner, 1974; Ellson, 1969; Granick, 1968; Paoni,
1971; Rosenshine & Furst, 1969; Snapp, 1970; Strodtbeck & Granick, 1972; and
Weitzman, 1965). While studies are mixed in reported benefits for tutors (Werth,

1 968; cited in Cloward, 1976), overall, the benefits outweigh disadvantages for

these students.

 

.‘e
11
I

’1‘.
m.

 

ea,

5‘...

if

L“

p.
Lb.

A‘-

8

The Cross-Aged Literacy Program: An Investigative Study of
Adolescents Who Struggle With Reading, Writing, and Schooling

In the following chapters, I will describe the study I created to explore the
potential benefits of an alternative literacy instructional program for low-
achieving adolescents. The study is a response to calls for changes in current
practices in reading instruction for students who struggle with literacy and
schooling. Many studies report the limitations of programs such as remedial
reading and special education for students who are “at-risk” of school failure in
several different areas. First, instructional emphasis in reading and writing centers
around activities other than reading books, and on goals other than
comprehension of texts (e.g., Allington, Stuetzel, Shake, & Lamarche, 1986;
Hiebert, 1983; Quirk, Trismen, Weinberg, & N alin, 1976). Second, reports on the
nature of the teacher’s instructional behavior during remedial instruction suggest
that there is often little teacher to student interaction beyond monitoring on-task
behavior and providing feedback on the accuracy of responses (e.g., McGill-
Franzen & Allington, 1990; Rowan & Guthrie, 1989). Third, time allocated in
programs such as Chapter I does not insure larger quantities of reading
instruction (e.g., Birman, B. F., Orland, M. E., Jung, R. K., Anson, R. J., Garcia, G.
N., Moore, M. T., Funkhouser, J. E., Morrison, D. R., Tumbull, B. J ., & Reisner, E.

R., 1987; Carter, 1984; Rowan & Guthrie, 1989; Stanley & Greenwood, 1983).
Fourth, instruction adapted for individual differences has meant skills-based
differential teaching within a reductionist framework (e.g., Gates, 1927; Kavale &
Forness, 1987). Fifth, the individual nature of instruction encourages
depersonalization (e. g., computer-based drill and practice, specific skillsheets

completed in the isolation of a study carrel, programmed texts, and other

it...

9‘

_-a

' i

(

i9“.
’M
J n-
p-J
. v\
I
inn.

I
,—

9

individual work, cited in Johnston & Allington, 1991). The findings suggest that
educators need to explore more creative and effective means of enhancing the
literacy development of our adolescents who find learning to read and write
difficult.

Using qualitative methods, I studied four adolescents participating in an
alternative literacy program that reflected transformations in instruction,
curriculum, and social interactions. Specifically, I designed the Cross-Aged
Literacy Program to offer adolescents who received traditional reading
instruction opportunities to engage in a different type of educative learning
experience (Dewey, 1938). Two major components make up the Cross-Aged
Literacy Project: (a) the Preparation Seminar, and (b) the Cross-Aged Literary
Discussion Groups. The Preparation Seminar supported cross-age activities of the
high school adolescents, helping prepare them to work with fourth- and fifth-
graders. The Cross-Aged Literary Discussion Groups enabled the adolescents to
facilitate and actively co-participate in literary discussion with fourth- and fifth-
graders. The curriculum materials consisted of tradebooks, recognized by
scholars who study children’s literature as well-written texts conveying plots and
characterization that kindle student response. The instructional methods entailed
(a) oral reading in a whole-class context, (b) using reading logs to record ideas for

sharing, and (c) interacting socially in both instructional contexts to intensify
literacy learning.

This study begins with questions that emerged from research conducted in

areas related to this topic. In Chapter 2, I review the literature in four broad areas
that most affected the development of this study, each of which considers a

different aspect of the investigation. First, I examine the appropriateness of

€131

‘{‘

‘1'

N

10

changing the way we think about literacy instruction for adolescents who are
frustrated readers and writers, reviewing research that explores the cultures of
high schools and how those cultures contribute to the failure of low-achieving
students’ literacy education. In addition, I explore research findings that criticize
programs which decontextualize literacy instruction. Second, I focus on the
theoretical perspective used in this study -- social constructivism, which
highlights the contextual and social nature of learning, emphasizing the role of
language. Third, I examine selected literatures of collaborative learning to make
the case that low-achieving adolescents need to participate in enriched literacy
contexts. Fourth, I examine the potential benefits of offering adolescents who
struggle with literacy learning and schooling the opportunity to engage in
dialogue in alternative learning contexts. This literature review provides a
justification for considering the potential of talk and learning for high school
adolescents who are frustrated readers and writers to understand the necessity of
changing the way we perceive literacy instruction and learning for these
students.

In Chapter 3, I focus on the methodology used for this study, including (a)
the context in which I conducted the study, (b) the participants, (c) the Cross-
Aged Literacy Program, (d) the methods of data collection, and (e) analysis and
interpretation. Chapters 4 and 5 present the analysis of the data collected over a
five-month period. Chapter 4 focuses on my work with four high school students
in the Preparation Seminar, while in Chapter 5, I focus on two high school
students as they worked with fourth and fifth graders in small literary discussion
groups. In Chapter 6, I discuss the theoretical and practical implications of the

study and recommendations for future research.

11

I conducted this study of four ninth-grade students from an urban high
school as they participated in an alternative literacy program to pursue three
different questions:

1. How do the social interactions in an alternative literacy program

help us to rethink, reconstruct and redefine literacy learning for

adolescents who struggle with reading and writing?

2. What was the nature of participation in the two alternative
literacy contexts?

3. How do high school adolescents represent their knowledge
about literacy when interacting with fourth and fifth graders?

In the next chapter, I present the review of the literature that guided the

development of this study.

CHAPTER 2

LITERACY LEARNING EXPERIENCES FOR LOW-ACHIEVING
ADOLESCENTS: INTRICACIES AND POSSIBILITIES

11W (Fader, 1968) was a guide written for teachers to “get
the most reluctant readers to read.” Fader’s observations of teaching and
learning in high school English classrooms prompted him to define students’
learning experiences as “poverty-stricken.” His definition of “poverty-stricken”
was beyond the meaning of one who may be deprived in matters related to
cultural, economic, and social conditions. Fader’s argument described “poverty-
stricken schools” as those in which there were “impoverished learning
experiences.” Impoverished learning experiences involve situations where
students do not participate in their own learning, but instead passively “receive”
knowledge from teachers and others who have been designated as more
knowledgeable. Fader argued that “poverty-stricken schools” may be found in
any community whether suburban, urban, or rural, and attention Should be given
to the needs of the students accordingly.

Today, we are still faced with similar, if not the same, Situations in which
adolescents do not participate in their own learning. This presents educators with
a problem in dire need of attention. We need to conceptually understand the
problems of literacy learning for adolescents who are frustrated readers and
writers. We must recognize the complex nature of this problem, not simply
attribute it to factors such as being economically disadvantaged or speaking non-
standard English. Issues of motivation, frustration and hope (National
Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983) play a role in what and how low-

achieving students experience schooling. The diversity of learners and the value

12

13

placed by each individual student on literacy learning play a significant role in
what and how knowledge is acquired. Literacy learning and acquisition, where
students’ environment, experiences, what they are exposed to, and the extent to
which that exposure and experience contribute to their learning, is embedded
within a sociocultural ecology.

This review focuses on literatures that address three questions: (a) What
factors contribute to creating impoverished learning experiences for adolescents
who struggle with reading, writing, and schooling? (b) What is the basis for
contextualized literacy learning for adolescents who do not read and write well?
and (c) What potential benefits may derive from having low—achieving
adolescents engage in discussions with younger students in alternative literacy
learning experiences?

Perspectives on the State of Teaching and Learning
in American Schools

In 1983, Secretary of Education T. H. Bell created The National
Commission on Excellence in Education to examine the quality of education in
the United States. The Commission paid particular attention to teenage youth
and their educational experiences in high schools. The results of the
Commission’s 18 months of study was reported in A Nader; at Risk: {The
Imperative For Edgcatigngl Refom (1983). The report cited alarming statistics of
risk indicators that pierced this nation as a whole, focusing national attention on
the complexities involved in the process and outcomes of public schooling. For
instance, testimony was documented by the Commission, making claims that
approximately 13% of all l7—year-olds in the United States can be considered

functionally illiterate. Moreover, functional illiteracy among minority youth may

5-5“
F».

35 81'

m:

(I)
l ’J

in fir
Ella“

mm

fsl
n

“14' ‘Ni

Kill;

I
4.
‘uu

.
‘7.)
.‘J

I IT

”‘9;

. . “n
N‘QitA
l": '
A» ‘
'-‘- a.
MD.“

.321»;
‘5‘ r3
.‘fit

"L- '
53:3.{11

14

be as high as 40%, while 23 million adults in the country are functionally illiterate
as evidenced by the inability to perform on simple tests of everyday reading,
writing, and comprehension (National Commission on Excellence in Education,
1983).
The Commission’s report provided compelling evidence to make quality
education a top priority for every student. Findings were reflected in four
important areas (i.e., content, expectations, time, teaching), highlighting the
“disturbing inadequacies in the way the educational process itself is often
conducted” (p. 18). The findings suggest a hodgepodge of dilemmas that face
educators at various institutional levels (e.g., high school, colleges, universities).
The Commission made detailed recommendations in each of the four areas of their
findings, calling for broad surface recommendations for each specific area.
The first recommendation put forth by the Commission suggests that state
and local high school graduation requirements be strengthened and that, at a
minimum, all students seeking a diploma be required to lay the foundations in the
Five New Basics (i.e., 4 years of English, 3 years of mathematics, 3 years of
science, 3 years of social studies, one-half year of computer science). This would
require students to take a specific curriculum during their four years of high
school in order to meet suggested requirements for content. The second
recommendation was in two parts. The first suggests that schools, colleges, and
universities adopt more rigorous and measurable standards, and higher
expectations for academic performance and student conduct. The second
suggests that four-year colleges and universities raise their requirements for
admission to meet criteria for standards and expectations. The Commission’s

third recommendation suggests that significantly more time be devoted to

15

learning the New Basics, calling for more effective use of the existing school day,
a longer school day, or a lengthened school year. The fifth recommendation
implies that teacher preparation programs improve, and create a situation where
teaching is more rewarding and respected as a profession. Finally, the sixth
recommendation suggest that citizens across the Nation hold educators and
elected officials responsible for providing the leadership necessary to achieve
these reforms, and that citizens provide the fiscal support and stability required to
bring about the reforms the Commission proposed.

Eight years after the Commission’s report and recommendations, another
government report called for a long-term strategy to transform a “Nation at Risk”
into a “Nation of Students.” AmeueLWmmtegy (1990) was
adopted by then President Bush and governors across the nation. This
educational strategy entailed six broad educational goals: (a) young children will
begin school ready to learn, (b) high school graduation rates will increase, (c)
students will demonstrate competency in various subjects at different levels of
their education, (d) science and mathematics achievement will increase among
American students, (e) the literacy rates will increase among adults, and (f) every
school in America will be drug and violence free, fostering a positive environment
that is conducive to learning. According to the report, goals would be
accomplished by a complex and strategic four-part plan over time.
Recommended strategies involved innovative procedures such as designing New
World Standards for core subjects (i.e., science, mathematics), establishing
Governors’ Academies for principals and teachers, and giving more leverage to

business leaders by setting up services for research and development through

private resources.

Excel.

‘;‘9
‘$'4 ,.
3 L

16

While the recommendations proposed by the National Commission on
Excellence in Education and America 2000 are admirable, they suggest surface
and “quick fix” solutions to complex socio-historical problems. Almost thirty
years ago, Fader (1968) called attention to many of the same problems that high
school adolescents faced. A key difference between Fader’s approach and that
of current government leaders is Fader’s emphasis on working from the inside, in
contrast to the government “outsider” bid for change. The rhetoric of both the
Commission and the America 2000’s educational strategy involved little
consideration of the “strengths” that many students bring to their education and
the classroom or how teachers and their students might build upon those
strengths. In contrast, by emphasizing students’ strengths, teachers have the
power and influence to help students help themselves, and in so doing, help
society as a whole.

With the current wave of criticism about students’ schooling experiences
and the “cafeteria style curriculum” (The National Commission on Excellence in
Education, 1984), many researchers have investigated the learning experiences of
teachers and students, focusing on how talk enhances those experiences in
literacy learning situations (e.g. Goatley, Raphael, Brock, 1995; Goldenberg,

1 993; Pierce & Gilles, 1993; Short & Pierce, 1988). Other researchers have
documented many internal dilemmas which complicate teaching and learning in
classrooms, specifically in high schools (McNeil, 1986; Powell, Farrar, & Cohen,

1 985; Sizer, 1984). For instance in Alvermann’s (1996) study of three middle
school students’ perspectives of peer-led discussions, she raised concerns
regarding issues of empowerment among young adolescents when they speak

their minds. This concern is significant to teachers when faced with coordinating

ill;

(.3
ill»

I
I
Y

.q. - ~

17

instruction such that students might have voice, and thinking about “whose
interests are served when students speak.” Such ongoing research characterizes
the complexities involved in the organization of secondary schools, and what the
implications are for teaching and learning. In the next section, I describe some
key studies that highlight some of the reasons why many low-achieving
adolescents struggle with literacy learning, and what impact organizational
structures bring to bear on those schooling experiences.
Critical Studies of Secondary Schools and Students’ Experiences
One of the most important ways to develop our understanding of the
current state of schooling is to examine the organizational structure of schools
and the nature of teaching and learning within them. Within the last decade, high
schools have been criticized by various policy makers, Boards of Trustees from
educational foundations (e.g., The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of
Teaching), and specially appointed commissions (e.g., The National Commission
on Excellence in Education). The criticisms of secondary education have resulted
in implications for what needs to be done to reform American education. Below, I
describe some key studies that critically analyzed the structure of American high
schools, and related suggestions for improving teaching and learning.
Smdents’ Access t9 Kngwledge
We can infer what students learn through schooling by exarrrining what is
taught in schools, the amount of time allocated to subjects in the curriculum, and
who has access to what knowledge. Goodlad (1984) and his colleagues
conducted an eight year study of American education to explore almost every
facet of school life. Findings were reported in Aflaeeganedfiehggl (Goodlad,

1984) which drew from an array of data sources, including a series of books on

18

the state-of-the-field in three areas of education (Becker, 1979; Davies, 1981;
Hausman, 1980), contributions from compendiums of student, teacher, and parent
data, curricula, content area subjects, demographics, and student experiences in
schools, as well as technical reports.

One finding from this massive study of schooling indicated that differences
in curricular emphases in elementary, junior, and senior high schools determine
students’ exposure to various areas of subject matter content. In junior and
senior high schools, curricular balance was strikingly different in terms of the
allocation of teachers to various content area subjects. More teachers taught
English than mathematics at the junior high level. However, there seemed to be a
balance among mathematics, social studies, and science teachers at the high
school level. Some high schools with large minority student populations, had a
large percentage of teachers devoted to teaching in vocational fields of study
(e.g., 42%), while in other high schools teachers who taught English, mathematics,
science, social studies, and foreign languages totaled 62%, and vocational
education teachers totaled 13%. One point made by Goodlad (1984) was that the
evidence suggested appreciable differences in the opportunities students had to
acquire knowledge in school simply because of where they happened to live.

In addition to the content taught and the time spent on content learning, a
third influence on students’ access to knowledge Stems from the organizational
practice in secondary schools known as tracking. Scholars have reported their

findings and implications when students are tracked into various ability groups
and classes (Goodlad, 1984; Oakes, 1985; Powell, Farrar, Cohen, 1985). Studies
(fig. , Schafer & Olexa, 1971) have shown that there tends to be lower self-esteem,

more school misconduct, higher drop-out rates, and higher delinquency among

19

students in lower tracks than in higher tracks. Other scholars (e. g., Alexander,
Cook, and McDill, 1978) note that tracking practices tend to determine the
degree to which students are prepared for a higher education, favoring students
placed in high track or advanced placement classes over those in lower tracks.

Applebee (1991) and Rosenbaum (1976) report that minority students and
those from lower socioeconomic levels have been found in disproportionate
numbers in lower-track classes, while students from upper socioeconomic levels
have been found to be consistently overrepresented in higher tracks. Oakes
(1985) asserts that curriculum tracking in secondary schools is a foundation for
the inequalities that poor, disadvantaged, and minority students experience
within the larger society. Actively teaching different types of knowledge to
students who are diverse in terms of ability, ethnicity, and language results in
students who are prepared to function only in particular economic and social
classes. Working-class students without access to high-status knowledge have
reduced opportunity for movement to higher socioeconomic levels.

Tracking practices create differences within as well as across high schools.
Goodlad (1984) and his colleagues pursued questions related to whether or not
there were marked differences in curriculum content, instructional approaches,
social relationships, and human interactions from track to track in various junior
and senior high schools. The general conclusions were that out of the 38 schools,

students who were ready for learning were received differentially, were educated
differentially in their classrooms, and they were graduated differentially. Thus,
students were differentially tracked for either higher education, various areas of
emponment, and presumably vocational and social mobility. Approximately

17,163 students in the sample had different opportunities to gain access to

20

knowledge during their years of schooling. As reported by Goodlad (1984), some
of the differences in opportunities to learn, appeared to be associated with
economics and race.

McNeil (1986) conducted a comparative analysis of four middle-class high
schools defined as “smooth running, good schools” (i.e., Forest Hills High,
Freeburg High, Maizeville High, Nelson High). The investigation centered on a
key difference among the schools; the tensions between administrative personnel
and policies, and the access to classroom knowledge. To understand how those
differences emerged, McNeil looked at the overt and hidden patterns of control
and resistance in the four schools, and documented the strategies by which
administrators and teachers set up patterns of autonomy or control to develop her
understanding of how schools mediate cultural content. In brief, her findings
suggests that there were contradictions between administrative policy, teaching,
and learning, and those contradictions resulted in the failure of students’ access
to knowledge.

The massive and meticulous study conducted by Goodlad (1984) indicated
a “sameness” across many of the schools he examined. However, those who
have observed, taught, and attended high schools know that they vary according
to the influence and choices made by the individuals who make up a high school
community (i.e., principals, teachers, parents, students, secretaries, guidance
counselors, custodial staff). Individual choices help shape school knowledge and
its credibility for students (McNeil, 1986). Thus, the four high schools McNeil
(1986) investigated showed uneven educational quality. Teacher ideology for

what knowledge they wanted their students to acquire suggested open-ended,

long-term learning, begun by broad-ranging, depth-seeking inquiry and

21

discussion. But, the content presented was often limited to brief “right” answers,
easily transmitted, easily answered, and easily graded. What teachers had
envisioned and expressed as “real learning” was contradicted by the uniformity
of student behavior and lesson content typical of most class sessions.

To understand the relationship between schools and the larger social
structure, Anyon (1981) examined fifth-grade classrooms in five elementary
schools in contrasting school communities in New Jersey. Data sources included
classroom observations, interviews of students, teachers, principals, and district
administrative staff; and assessment of curriculum and other materials in each
classroom and school. In all schools the art, music, and gym teachers were
observed and interviewed as well. Principals described all teachers in the study
as “good” or “excellent.” There was one new teacher in the study and all
others had taught for more than four years. The fifth grade in each school was
observed by the investigator for ten three-hour periods between September 15,
1978, and June 20, 1979.

Anyon reported findings that suggest there is a “hidden curriculum”
which prepares students from different socioeconomic backgrounds for class-
specific roles in the dominant society. Students in working-class schools
experienced knowledge as a series of rote, fragmented, low-level facts and
procedures. Teachers in working class schools emphasized the need to keep
students busy, and overtly Stated that teaching students to think for themselves
was ineffectual. But, teachers in the affluent professional schools had high
expectations for their students, practicing instructional approaches such as

learning from experiences, making sense of those experiences, and thinking for

themselves. Anyon’s analysis of differences in schoolwork, and how it relates to

22

the larger society suggests that the “hidden curriculum” of schoolwork is tacit
preparation for relating to the process of production in a particular way.

Critics who have investigated high school students’ access to knowledge
during their high school years seem to imply that there is a critical need for
educational reform such that all students might have access to different types of
learning experiences. Close interpretation of their criticisms reveals their
assumption that American secondary education should serve all students more
effectively, and that reconstructing public confidence and support among policy
makers, researchers, teachers, parents and students is long past due.

Critical Studies of Literacy Instruction and Learning

Research studies that report broad areas of schooling practices and
structural procedures provided evidence and reasons to do further investigations,
taking a closer look at the lives of teachers and students in classrooms, and the
nature of instruction, particularly for students who struggle with reading and
writing. Below, I describe some key studies which examined such issues in two
areas: (a) characteristics of instruction, (b) instructional characteristics and social
interactions. These studies are meant to help us understand factors which impact
the literacy education of low-achieving high school students.

Traditionally, commercial programs have been used to help improve the
literacy knowledge and skills of poor readers and writers (e.g., SRA, Distar). Such
instructional programs were designed from a reductionist framework, where
information is taken out of context across content areas, and presented in bits and

pieces of information. Many researchers argue that the curriculum content for

poor readers and writers primarily involve completing skills-oriented tasks, where

23

students fill out worksheets, and read brief sentences or paragraphs to develop
reading comprehension (Allington, et. al., 1986; Quirk, Trisman, Weinberg & N alin,
1976). The reading and writing tasks and activities were compressed into small
fragments of reading selections (i.e., brief paragraphs), and comprehension was
determined by what percentage of questions students answered correctly. The
goal of commercial literacy programs for students who do not read and write well
was to help them master the complexity of the whole of literacy learning through
an understanding of its parts (e.g., vocabulary development, phonic elements,
decontextualized Small reading passages). Scholars have documented findings
which revealed that much of the content used in programs and classes which
were specifically designed to improve reading and writing for students who
struggle with it, consisted of artificially constructed texts rather than authentic
literature such as children’s literature, magazines, and other books (Allington &
McGill-Franzen, 1989; Haynes & Jenkins, 1986; Thurlow, Ysseldyke, Graden, &
Algozzine, 1984; Ysseldyke, & Algozzine, 1982). Thus, the programs designed to
help students’ literacy development did not provide them with a means “to
engage in higher order thinking skills” (Birman et al., 1987, p. 114).

Curriculum content designed for students who struggle with literacy
learning has been well-intentioned. However, researchers have noted that to
develop students’ literacy learning and acquisition, active involvement in actual
reading and writing of texts is critical. Much evidence has been provided to
suggest that students who struggle with reading and writing are the ones who
are least likely to be asked to read or write - in any sustained form - during
instruction (Walrnsley & Allington, 1995). Rather, the areas of concentration for

students who read and write poorly are technical and mechanical considerations

24

such as accuracy of print detail, and the completion of worksheet tasks rather
than construction of meaning from text (Allington, 1983; Hiebert, 1983;
Stanovich, 1986).

Other evidence has documented the ineffectiveness of instructional
programs designed to enhance students’ immediate and on-going literacy
education. Carter (1984) and Slavin (1991) provided large-scale analyses of the
effects of programs such as Chapter I remedial reading. They conclude that
positive effects are at best small, even nonexistent in many cases. Walrnsley and
Allington (1995) suggest that instructional support programs such as
remedial reading and special education do not adequately meet the needs of
students assigned to them. This lack of effect may be due (in part) to the fact that
since the students’ needs are ostensibly met in another setting, the regular
classroom teachers excuse themselves from responsibility for the low-achieving
students’ education. Yet, under the “least restrictive environment” requirement,
low-achieving students spend more time in their regular education classrooms
than they do in their special service classrooms (i.e., special education and
remedial reading). The results tend to place the students in need of enhanced
instructional support in a precarious situation. Students may actually receive less
assistance in regular classroom settings, because classroom teachers do not
consider it their responsibility to support them (W alrnsley & Allington, 1995).
Below, I expand on some of the literacy activities and nature of interactions that
are generally practiced for students who find learning to read difficult.

I . 1 Cl . . 1 S . l I .
Research studies that investigate approaches to traditional reading group

practices demonstrate that students’ participation is restricted to responding. The

 

25

teacher, however, might exhibit an assortment of roles such as initiating, eliciting,
extending, and evaluating (Barnes, Britton, & Rosen, 1971; Bellack, Kliebard,
Hyman, & Smith, 1966; Bloome, 1981; Guzak, 1967; Mehan, 1979; O’Flahavan,
Hartman, & Pearson, 1988; Philips, 1983). Alverrnann and Hayes (1989)
conducted a study to examine discussions of assigned readings in content area
classrooms at the high school level. One purpose of the research was to attempt
modifications of entrenched patterns of discussions so that they might reflect
more higher-order thinking and critical reading. Results suggested that patterns
of classroom discussions resembled recitation versus an interactive dialogue
between teachers and students. In addition, the researchers were unable to
modify discussion practices although they worked with the teachers for a six
month period. The overall conclusions implied that it was difficult to alter
entrenched patterns of classroom discussion, and to ask teachers to reflect upon
those patterns was insufficient to change them.

Consistent with traditional reading-group practices in regular classrooms
are the instructional approaches and activities in “remedial” classes designed for
poor readers and writers. Basically, the instruction tends to focus on repetitive
skill-oriented workbook activities (Johnston & Allington, 1991). Such activities
focus more on procedures for completing assignments than on encouraging
teacher guidance or teacher/student interactions (Nist & Mealey, 1991). Cazden
(1988) argues that in the name of individualized instruction, “depersonalization”
has evolved, focusing reading and writing on computer-based drill and practice,

Specific-skill sheets completed in isolation in a study carrel, programmed texts, and
other individualized work. The emphasis that is placed on the performance of

poor readers is judged by standardized test scores and tends to decrease the

 

26

quality of instructional activities. Such assessment limits reading and writing as a
process as well as the social interaction between teachers and students who
struggle with literacy learning and schooling.

When the norm is individualized instruction for poor readers and writers,
social interactions between teacher and students and among students are not
typically practiced. Generally, students work alone on different skill sheets based
upon the students’ level of reading and writing ability. In specialized programs
(e.g., remedial and special education), the work of the teacher tends to involve
monitoring students for “time on task” behaviors. Exchange of dialogue for
sharing ideas and problem-solving between the teacher and students is rare.
Many researchers have documented the lack of instructional explanation,
modelling, or strategic prompts (Duffy, Roehler, Siven, Rackliffe, Book, Meloth,
Vavrus, Wesselrnan, Putnam, Bassirir, 1987) to assist students in development of
their literacy learning and acquisition (Allington, 1986; Allington & McGill-
Franzen, 1989; Haynes & Jenkins, 1986; Quirk, Trismen, Nalin, & Weinberg, 1975;
Rowan & Guthrie, 1989).

Alvermann, O’Brien, and Dillon (1990) conducted a study to describe and
characterize middle school teachers’ discussions following content area reading
assignments. Twenty-four middle school teachers participated in the study and
were asked to define and describe a good discussion. There were several overall
findings. The first finding suggested the discussions in middle school classrooms
range on a continuum from lecture/recitations, to recitations, to open forums.
Second, the researchers found that a teacher’s purpose for a lesson influenced the
type of discussion. For instance, if the purpose of a discussion was to review

reading assignments for a quiz or test, the discussion tended to be a recitation-

27

type discussion. Similarly, if the purpose of a discussion was to define terms or
label parts or fill in missing information, the discussion is usually either a recitation
or a lecture/recitation. Open forum discussions occurred when the purpose was
to enhance comprehension. Last, Alvermann, O’Brien, and Dillon (1990) found
that materials selected by teachers also influenced the type of discussions that
emerged. For instance, the use of worksheets and/or textbooks tended to result
in a lecture/recitations and recitations. However, materials such as videotapes,
films,“ and notes are more likely to be found in open-forum materials.

Schmuck and Schmuck (1990) documented that the talk in the classrooms
they observed was two-thirds teacher talk. Most classrooms were teacher-
centered, with teachers standing in front lecturing to rows of students. Out of
119 classes, they observed only ten where they saw student-to—student talk that
was planned by the teacher. Although the classes Schmuck and Schmuck
observed were not for students with special needs, their observations are typical.
Many classrooms (e.g., special education, remedial reading, regular education) do
not provide a context to enable students to engage in inquiry and discovery. The
instruction in the classrooms described above insinuate that it is not the students
who need “remedial reading instruction” but rather, the instruction and social
interactions that permeate classrooms designed for poor readers and writers that
need “remediating” (Johnston & Allington, 1991).

Although the nature of instructional programs such as Chapter I and
“remedial” reading were designed to promote literacy learning among students

who struggle with it, these special services (i.e., instructional emphases, social
interactions) have come under attack. Many researchers have questioned the

exclusive focus of lower-order academic skills and instructional approaches for

28

poor readers and writers (Botel, 1978; Allington, Stuetzel, Shake, & Lamarche,
1986). Their ineffectiveness in terms of enhancing reading and writing for
students who find it difficult is because students rarely reach the point where
they are encouraged to participate in more challenging content area subjects.
Many features of instructional support programs for students who struggle with
reading, writing, and schooling do not challenge them, and limit their
opportunities and progress (Calfee, 1986; Peterson, 1986; Romber, 1986).

These studies suggest that students have few opportunities to engage in
discussions with their peers or with the teacher, leaving students with
impoverished views of what it might mean to be able to read and write well.
Underlying much of the reproach about the process and outcomes of secondary
schooling, as well as the nature of instruction and interactions in instructional
support programs and other classrooms is frustration with how we might best
prepare students for the future. In the next section of this literature review, I
discuss one theoretical perspective which holds promise for reshaping the
language and literacy practices for low-achieving adolescents.

A Sociocultural Theoretical Perspective

Research concerned with language and literacy learning from a
sociocultural view provides an interesting theoretical approach to explore
alternative educative experiences for low-achieving adolescents. Theories of
learning from a sociocultural perspective are pioneered by Vygotsky (1978), and
extended by his colleagues and many scholars who have contextualized these
ideas within notions of language and literacy instruction (Bakhtin, 1986; Cazden,
1988; Gavelek, 1986; McMahon, 1992; Tharp & Gallimore, 1988; Wells & Chang-

Wells, 1992). Sociocultural theory stresses the importance of language and social

__". .5, .—

 

29

interaction in learning and provides a context to examine the nature of dialogue
use of low-achieving adolescents in alternative literacy contexts.

Sociocultural theory suggests that cognitive development is formed in part
through social interaction and that language and social acts play an essential role
in the organization of higher psychological functions (i. e., those functions that
are not biological or “natural” such as mathematical reasoning, reading and
writing). The development of those higher psychological processes related to
literacy that are the focus of the Cross-Aged Literacy Program relate to oral
reading, written responses to literature, and dialogue use for planning and
reflecting upon literacy activities. Scholars who hold this view reject a
reductionist view of cognitive development which places greater importance on
individual development. Vygotsky (1978) argued that one intemalizes higher
cognitive abilities when language and social interactions converge. Because he
viewed learning as a profoundly social process, this suggests that individuals
master their surroundings when emersed in dialogue.

Vygotskian sociocultural theory in literacy learning is guided by three
principles: (a) higher psychological functions are social and cultural in nature, (b)
knowledge is constructed through the interactions among individuals within the
social context, and (c) learning is fostered through the assistance of more
knowledgeable members of the community and culture. Whether students are
gifted, average, low-achievers, elementary or high schoolers, the principles of
social constructivism acknowledge the role of oral and written language. These
principles are useful when investigating such higher psychological processes as
literacy learning and its relationship to the various academic abilities, ethnic,

cultural, and linguistic backgrounds that all learners bring to the classroom.

 

3O
e‘l‘ ' 10 0°: .1 011.20; In. -r._-.,r,-.I

The first assumption of sociocultural theory underscores that higher mental
functions do not simply emerge within individuals. What higher psychological
processes individuals are able to engage in occur first on the social plane or
between people (interpsychological). Daily interactions, both formal and
informal, are conducted in spoken language. Within school settings, dialogue is
the means by which daily activities are conducted in classrooms, hallways, the
cafeteria, and the principal’s office. Students and teachers use language to
converse, negotiate, discuss, and debate the issues necessary in order to develop a
community of learners. In classrooms specifically, how we Structure literacy
instruction relates directly to how we perceive opportunities to enhance literacy
learning. This assumption emphasizes how language within sociocultural
environments fosters literacy learning and acquisition among students who find
learning to read and write difficult.

Classrooms need to be structured to create opportunities for meaningful
social interactions that promote higher order thinking. Although students bring
different social and cultural backgrounds to the classrooms, sharing their unique
experiences will be lost if they do not have opportunities to engage in dialogue,
raise questions, or debate issues. The lack of social interaction among Students
thwarts occasions to share what one knows with peers as well as the teacher,
resulting in missed chances to develop higher mental functions. Literacy
instruction for poor readers and writers often entails isolated approaches, where
students work at their desk alone with worksheets only. Classrooms that do not
promote a social environment hinder poor readers and writers in developing

higher order thinking because students do not share their thinking with others.

31

§_I.W,"" or .1- '0. ,'!-,,0-‘l ,r' or sir-1' rat 1.

The second assumption of sociocultural theory follows from the first. If
higher psychological processes are social in nature before becoming internalized,
it follows that knowledge is constructed through interactions among individuals.
Vygotsky (1978) suggested that an important aspect of developing higher mental
processes critical to literacy learning and acquisition is through interactions
among individuals within a social context, the background and characteristics
that acclimate human activity. The reconstruction of an external activity is
referred to as internalization, and is demonstrated through problem-solving,
voluntary attention, and memory. Intemalization is not a process of mirroring
external reality, but rather a process of reconstructing and negotiating meanings
through the social interactions that occur among people.

Vygotsky (1978) suggests that learning occurs first between individuals

(interpsychological), with the to-be-learned concepts eventually internalized as
the individual appropriates and transforms what was learned for his or her own
purposes (intrapsychological). This process recognizes the need to create social
situations in which meaningful purposes are established for interacting around to-
be-learned concepts. For example, imagine a situation where high school
students were expected to engage in a discussion about text. Students who
struggle with the texts written at a high school level need opportunity to read
and respond to texts at an easier reading level. Further, they need to be able to
read and respond to these texts in manners that parallel that of their more able
peers. Thus, it is critical to create an environment where these high school
students can engage in using language to promote literate thinking about the

content of the books they are able to read. The preparation seminar, a key

32

component in the Cross-Aged Literacy Program provides such a setting.

Within the preparation seminar, high school students work together using
both oral and written language as the basis for negotiating meaning. This phase
of the program provides an opportunity for students to see and hear their peers
respond to text, and to negotiate and reformulate emerging ideas, questions, and
issues. The social interaction enables students to internalize the language,
thoughts, and emotions of others as they begin to develop in their literacy
knowledge in response to texts that they ear; read. Such texts, in fact, must be
read to effectively participate in the upcoming component, the cross-age
discussion groups, in which the high school students serve as facilitators of
literary discussions among fourth and fifth graders. Through the public discourse
in the preparation seminar, the high school students have access to the thinking
of their peers as well as that of the more knowledgeable adult conducting the
seminar. They have access to a range of models of literate thinking, and they are
able to use language as a tool to engage in mature talk about text.

-.n..uo" o. T." L0 'r eA SSINCCO M - LIOW -. ~e. ol- 0 -r‘-

Vygotsky (1978) suggested that learning is developed when it is closely
linked to interactions among people. The concept, referred to as the zone of
proximal development, implies that within interactions, more knowledgeable
members of a culture influence what others learn. The “more knowledgeable
others” in most cases are adults (i.e., teachers, parents). However, “more
knowledgeable others” might also be more experienced peers who come from

diverse social and cultural backgrounds. Viewed in this perspective, when adults
and peers collaboratively work together opportunities exist to expand one’s

literacy education from a variety of human sources.

33

In an alternative literacy program for adolescents who struggle with
reading and writing, several opportunities exist such that they might interact with
“more knowledgeable others” and actually become “more knowledgeable
others” and thus foster their own literacy learning. First, an initial step would
entail an instructional situation where high school students might engage in
literacy activities (i.e., reading, writing, discussion, planning, and debriefing) with
a teacher. Through the process, students might be extensively immersed in
literacy events that would serve as a model for what they could do with younger
students. Then these adolescents who struggle with reading, writing, and
schooling could serve as the more knowledgeable other to younger children. By
being in such a position, the high school students would have numerous
opportunities to make visible their own literacy knowledge and to apply it in
assisting younger learners.

Bakhtin (1986), a Russian scholar, suggested that inner speech - a key
aspect to internalizing concepts and processes introduced within the social
context among individuals - is the result of various activities, interrelations, and
social discourse. Social discourse occurs within a context where individuals who
are part of a group join together in creating meaning. This notion is the
foundation upon which higher psychological functions become possible, and
provides an entry point for the learner. Individuals transform social discourse into
inner speech which serves to guide or control the individual’s learning.

Bakhtin and his associates identify four social factors that influence the

study and understanding of language and literacy learning (Emerson, 1986): (a)
language and its impact occurs within a social context, (b) that context is

organized so that individuals might become a part of a social group, (c) the study

 

34

of language requires that one consider the ideology that exists as a relation
between (or among) a social group, and ((1) words are rooted in experiences and
social interactions, thus, their meaning stems from some memory of a previous
usage in discourse.

The alternative literacy learning program described in this study
is a context for examining the theoretical principles of Bakhtin. Within the Cross-
Aged Literacy Program, adolescents who struggle with reading and writing
engage in dialogue for Specific reasons with a more knowledgeable other. The
communication involves dialogue among members of the preparation seminar,
where collectively group members orally read text, write responses, and share
responses in order to develop various aspects of literary knowledge. The social
nature of various activities with an adult provides the adolescents with
background knowledge and skills such that they might conduct cross-aged
literacy activities with elementary students. In addition, the actual cross-aged
literary discussion sessions (i.e., older and younger students interacting over text)
provide an additional context where dialogue is a Significant part of the social
context.

Bakhtin’s second factor suggests that the social context must be
organized socially in order that individuals be a part of a social group. The
literacy events involving reading, writing, and discussions in the preparation
seminar and the cross-aged discussion groups are examples of organized social
experiences where individual students might become part of a social group.
Within the settings, students work together, sharing insights about text,
observations of younger students, and comparisons of past and present literacy

learning experiences. When individuals willingly share their voices, and when all

il‘zL.;_ _ ._..__- *1‘.

35

group members respect those voices, there is the promise of creating a sense of
community among people.

Bakhtin’s third social factor suggests that when studying language,
consideration of the ideology that exists as a relation between or among speakers
and listeners, and between or among social groups should be given. Social
groups have features of their language that are characteristic to that group. That
is, each social group has its own dialect, which mirrors and includes a set of values
and a sense of shared experiences and understandings (Emerson, 1986).

Although social groups share ideology, values, and experiences, these factors are
not without complexity. Studying language within a social context where it
occurs could be a complicated process. The complexity often requires that
individuals who come together collectively as a group make attempts to negotiate
during the process of social interactions.

Students who participate in cross-aged literacy learning settings come from
different backgrounds both academically and socially. The collection of various
background experiences created a rich social setting. Within the social setting,
students interrelate and interact to construct meanings and to translate and
negotiate her and his own set of values. Through the interactions, the complexity
of the setting rises, presenting those studying language and interactions with a
more challenging experience to explain the nature of the interactions, the value
systems that emerge, and the ways in which members negotiate in order to make
connections for themselves as well as their peers.

Bakhtin’s fourth social factor emphasized that word meanings are rooted
in experiences and social interactions. Words cannot be realized apart from the

voices who speak them. Therefore, through the process of negotiation of

 

36

meanings, every word raises the question of authority. Students involved in a
cross-aged literacy program in which all members of the group contribute their
opinions and ideas about text learn that the experiences of different people help
shape meanings of words. A reductionist perspective in which one’s goal is to
absorb knowledge from text contributes to the misunderstanding that words in a
dialogic situation have only one meaning. Like high achieving students, low-
achievers bring a frame of reference to a social setting. The language use and
interaction of students who participate in a contextualized literacy learning
setting provides a site to investigate literacy learning and acquisition. The
different experiences of all students helps create rich and meaningful
interpretations about text.

i 1 co to Literac Learnin

The sociocultural perspective broadens the definition of literacy to
recognize the inherently social nature of literacy events and to emphasize the
contributions of social, linguistic, and cognitive processes to literacy learning
(Green, 1990; Bloom & Green, 1984). In this reconceptualization of literacy
learning, social contexts and language use and meaning depend on various social
dimensions within specific contexts (Beach, 1993). Such social dimensions might
include the participants’ perceptions of responsibility, roles, needs, status, and
motives. All of these factors contribute to meaning construction.

The significance of emphasizing the social and cognitive aspect of literacy
learning has direct implications for work with low-achieving adolescents. It is an
opportunity to negotiate a space for voices that are often silent to be heard.
Kennedy, Jung, & Orland (1986) note the over-representation of students from

diverse cultural and ethnic backgrounds in remedial and low-tracked programs.

 

37

Other scholars (e.g., Au & Mason, 1981; Cazden & Leggett, 1981; Michaels, 1981;
Philips, 1983) document the differential treatment of diverse and minority learners
in school contexts and argue that such differential treatment negatively affects
students’ reading achievement. For example, Cazden (1988) provides evidence
in which minority children from New Zealand and the United States are
discouraged from expanding upon their thoughts. Similarly, Michaels (1981)
reports that when the narrative styles of minority children are at variance with the
expectations of Caucasian teachers, interaction is often unsuccessful and, over
time, may adversely affect school performance and achievement. Such
encounters with learning in schools often frustrate students when they learn that
their background knowledge and experiences they bring to literacy learning is
not valued nor heard by teachers and peers (Florio-Ruane, 1994).

I chose a sociocultural perspective because I was interested in exploring
what potential the social nature of literacy learning might have for low-achieving
adolescents who... “do less reading and writing and get less instruction and less
personal interaction” (Johnston & Allington, 1991) than their peers who are
considered average or high-achievers. Specifically, I wanted to develop an
understanding of how low-achieving adolescents demonstrate and enhance their
literacy knowledge while working with elementary students. In addition, I
wanted to understand how they collaborated and negotiated with others in
holistic goal-oriented, alternative literacy settings. In the next section, I highlight
research literature that emphasizes the significance of providing students with
opportunities to engage in literacy learning through oral and written language

and social interactions.

38

Research Perspectives on Language
and Literacy Learning

Presently, researchers and teachers are exploring oral language use and
communicative development in learning, focusing on the potential of speaking
and listening in the social and cognitive growth of children and adolescents
(Cazden, John & Hymes, 1972; Cazden, 1988; Haroutunian-Gordon, 1991; King,
1984). This research provides impetus to explore new directions, and to pursue
more in-depth understandings about the role of language in literacy instruction
and learning for high school adolescents who struggle with reading, writing, and
schooling. In the following section, I discuss: (a) the role of oral language in
classrooms, and (b) literature discussions in the classroom.

The Role of Oral Language In Classrooms

High school adolescents live in a rich social world of language, and they
spend a considerable amount of time in school talking. As they change classes,
they engage in conversations with their peers, gossiping about friends, teachers,
and family members. During lunch time, the sounds of voices rising and falling
can be heard all across the cafeteria as students laugh and exchange secrets with
one another. High school students quietly whisper to a neighbor or friend, or
pass notes up and down a row of desks as the teacher lectures the class. In
addition to talk at school, high school students talk with family and friends
outside of school context, as they negotiate, debate, and discuss their positions
about personal matters. These discussions occur within a context, where
speakers and listeners share responsibility and negotiate turns. Research on
language in social settings must address questions about how we might build

upon what secondary students do well in order to better meet their literacy needs

39

in formal as well as informal settings.

Presently, research that is focused on language use acknowledges the
importance of oral communication in the social and cognitive development of
elementary students. Although much of the work has been concerned with the
literacy development of young children, the work defines competence in new
ways, emphasizing social interactions to enhance communication. Thus, this
research justifies the necessity to examine similar paths in literacy instruction for
adolescents who do not read and write well. The intent of this section is to
review pertinent research on the role of talk in learning, how students become
competent and effective users of language, and the implications for exploring oral
language as a tool for literacy learning. The framework for this discussion
includes: (a) classroom functions for oral language use, and (b) oral language and
learning in the classroom.

WW

Oral language is a medium that serves different purposes and functions in
the lives of adults and children. It is used at family gatherings, stores, banks, and
the YMCA. Talk is a special way in which people create meanings among
themselves. Seemingly, oral language in the classroom would serve a similar
purpose where teachers and students communicate with each other to explore
ideas, engage in inquiry, and construct meaning. Through talk, the classroom
community can establish meaningful and friendly relationships, ask questions, tell
stories, give information, and influence each other. Although oral language is
used to communicate, a sociocultural perspective underscores its role in learning.
Classroom functions for oral language use depend upon what teachers and

students do with language as they talk with each other. Barnes (1993) notes that

4O

talk allows human beings to share and communicate just as it enables them
consciously to inspect and reformulate (for themselves as well as for others) their
understandings of the world, both social and physical. The development of
higher psychological processes through language use can occur as teachers and
students communicate orally for purposes that make sense to them as they
interact with each other.

Scholars have used various methods to study oral language use in the
classroom, depending upon the researcher’s purpose and conceptual framework
for the study (Malinowski, 1923; Biihler, 1934; Britton, 1970; Morris, 1967).

For example, Halliday (1975) identified seven functions of language for young
children when they enter school. These seven functions or uses of oral language
evolve over time and include: (a) an instrumental function to satisfy basic needs,
(b) a regulatory function to influence the actions and behavior of others, (c) an
interactional function to negotiate relationships with others, ((1) a personal
function to express self, (e) a heuristic function to explore and find out about the
environment, (f) an imaginative function to pretend and explore an imaginary
world, and (g) an informative function to communicate information to others.
Halliday (1975, 1978) argued that the seven functions of language used by
children which tend to be utilitarian functions blend into three more general
functions that characterize oral language use for adults: (a) pragmatic or
interpersonal use to develop and maintain social relationships, (b) ideational use
that serves to reflect on personal experience and explore the environment, and (c)
textual function that concerns the use of language resources to construct oral
texts (e.g., stories, conversation) within the context of the situation. The various

functions of oral language as described by Halliday are useful when thinking

41

about the development of higher psychological processes. For instance, an
instrumental function of language can only occur for a young child when she is
capable of communicating to a “more knowledgeable other” what her needs are.
Other scholars have noted the potential of talk as a strategy for learning
within the classroom (Barnes, 1990; 1993; Wells & Chang-Wells, 1992). Short
and Armstrong (1993) conducted a classroom study referred to as the inquiry
cycle, designed to help children make links between hands-on science
experiences and literature. The process of the inquiry cycle became the
curriculum framework where the researchers developed a two-month focus with
second-grade students on the theme of ecology and interrelationships. The
inquiry cycle developed from the children’s own life experiences where they
explored common cycles in their daily lives such as getting ready for school.
With the open-ended nature of the project on ecosystems, talk had a primary
function (e.g., developing a inquiry-based cuniculum) and purpose which played
out in various ways to assist the children in learning. Short and Armstrong (1993)
suggest that teachers can design specific curriculum structures that would
support a wide range of exploratory talk in classroom inquiry. They found that
the second graders used talk for a variety of purposes which included connecting
with past experiences, sharing new experiences, exploring and re-considering
their own experiences and ideas, developing new perspectives, building on the
ideas of their peers, hypothesizing and exploring half-formed thoughts, asking
questions, developing a focus, reflecting on their inquiry process, and presenting
their understanding to others. The functions and purposes of talk in the inquiry

cycle highlights the significance of talk and children’s learning.

42

Different functions and purposes of oral language were prevalent in the
Cross-Aged Literacy Program. A pragmatic or interpersonal function was used in
cross-aged literary discussion groups to collaborate, negotiate, encourage
alternative views, and set standards for group norms. Personal language might
also serve as a function in each key component of the program. For instance, in
the preparation seminar, students might use their own agendas to move
interactions and discussions forward in the setting. Program participants might
share their personal opinions and beliefs about pieces of text. Structuring
discussions such that opinions and beliefs are respected might be likened to
language use as a personal function to express oneself and listen to others.
Integrating personal background experiences into the world of the text might be
viewed as an informative function, where older and younger students Share
information about themselves, friends, relatives, and make connections to
literature they read.

Communication and Learning in the Classroom

Much of the current research that focuses on classroom communication is
framed from a sociolinguistic perspective, and draws on methodologies and
interpretative frameworks from a variety of disciplines (Cazden, 1986; Green &
Smith, 1983; Green & Harker, 1988; Wilkinson, 1982). Within a sociolinguistic
framework, language is seen as a window to provide information on the
relationship between learning and social development (Pinnell & J aggar, 1991).
This perspective is useful to help researchers and teachers learn about how
teachers and students learn to communicate via oral language use within
classroom contexts.

Sociolinguistic studies of classroom communication and learning highlight

43

the distinctive discourse produced within the context of the classroom. In
addition the studies tend to focus on two kinds of relationships in grades K-12:
relationships between teachers and students, and between students and students.
WW

Research on communication between teacher and students has
emphasized that power relationships exist in classrooms based upon how
language is used, for what purposes and by whom. Edwards (1979) has noted
that within the classroom environment, knowledge is typically framed by the
teacher and communicated as the authority to the students, where the teacher
“owns” instructional talk, with the authority to direct speakership and to make at
least most of the decisions concerning tum-taking, duration, and content of the
talk. Research regarding teacher and student talk focuses on how many students
are perceived as disadvantaged and low-achievers, if they are not accustomed to
reconstructing their knowledge and expressing it explicitly. Bernstein (1964,
1975) suggests that some classroom environments consist of “elaborated codes”
where students must know and understand them in order to be able to function
effectively within the classroom. Several scholars have documented the need for
students to learn the behaviors and language functions of teachers as well as the
content of school lessons in order to be considered successful students (Cazden,
1988; Delpit, 1988; Edwards, 1981; Mehan, 1979).

Opportunities to use language in the Cross-Aged Literacy Program varied
for different purposes, at different times, and by different individuals. For
instance, in the preparation seminar, there was equal access for communication
between the researcher and students to make concerns, opinions, and beliefs

public. Every participant was perceived as an authority, and talk was “owned”

m-a‘u -

 

44

by anyone who wished to speak. Likewise, within the cross-aged group setting,
construction of knowledge through talk was equally shared by the older and
younger students. Language behaviors and functions served meaningful
purposes, and each group members’ contribution was considered to be valuable.

Michaels (1981) conducted a study in an ethnically mixed, first grade
classroom focusing on a discourse-oriented classroom activity called sharing time.
Sharing time is defined as an activity where children are called upon to describe,
object or give a narrative account about a past event to the entire class. One
purpose underlying sharing time is to bridge the gap between the child’s home-
based oral discourse competence and the acquisition of literate discourse features
required in written communication. In her analysis, Michaels provided a detailed
microanalysis of the sharing styles of the children. This analysis suggests that
children come to school with different narrative strategies and conventions for
giving narrative accounts during sharing time. When the child’s discourse style
matches the teacher’s own literate style and expectations, collaboration is often
synchronized. However, when the child’s narrative style is at variance with the
teacher’s expectations, collaboration is often unsuccessful and, over time, may
adversely affect school performance and evaluation.

This discussion on the functions of oral language use in classrooms
concerned how language is used as a tool to serve various purposes in
classrooms. In the next section, I advance this review to include a related
purpose for talk in classroom; literature discussions.

One of the most studied forms of discourse has been conversation.

Numerous scholars have investigated social interactions, language, and literacy

45

learning within the classroom context to develop our understanding about how
students develop their sense of the structure and design of talk in classrooms, and
how those structures and designs vary according to culture (Tannen, 1982, 1985).

Many scholars suggests that language should be the center of any
conception of learning (Barr, D’Arcy, Healey, 1982; Benill, 1988; Hickman &
Kimberly, 1988; Halliday, 1969, 1978, 1993; Tough, 1973, 1979; Vygotsky, 1978;
Watson, 1987). Others have worked within a sociocultural framework, shifting
from teacher-centered to student-centered activities so that students might have
opportunities to engage in inquiry through language.

Within the last decade, researchers and teachers have been exploring the
significance of having students engage in discussions in small groups, where the
teacher plays a less dominant role. The interactions often center around literature,
where children gather in groups to share ideas and talk about books. Raphael
and McMahon (1994) designed and implemented the Book Club program as a
collaborative study including university and teacher researchers (McMahon,
1992; Raphael, McMahon, Goatley, Bentley, Boyd, Pardo, & Woodman, 1992).
The study was a response to calls for reform in literacy instruction and learning
for upper elementary students of all ability levels to provide opportunities for
them to engage in meaningful and purposeful conversations about books. Book
Club consisted of four interconnected language and literacy components: (a)
reading, (b) writing, (c) discussion, and ((1) community share, which supported
student-led discussion groups, or book clubs. Book clubs were groups of 3 to 5
students in a heterogeneous group with respect to gender, reading ability, and

ethnicity.

46

Raphael & McMahon (1994) have documented the complexities involved
in understanding what it means to create an alternative model of literacy
instruction: (a) integrating reading within the language arts curriculum was
important because writing and discussion promoted students’ reading and
interpretation of texts, (b) alternative models of literacy instruction were
beneficial to students’ literacy development, and (c) time and patience is
important in order to give both teachers and students multiple opportunities to
understand their roles and development in an alternative literacy program.

Student progress in relation to literacy development in the Book Club
program has been reported (Goatley, Brock, & Raphael, 1995; McMahon &
Hauschildt, 1993; Raphael, et. al., 1992; Raphael, Boyd, Rittenhouse, 1993;
Raphael & Boyd, (in press); Raphael, Goatley, McMahon, Woodman, 1995;
Raphael & McMahon, 1994), highlighting their accomplishments in several
different ways. During book club discussions, students held harmonious thematic
conversations and encouraged all members of their book club to make meaningful
contributions to the discussion. Diverse learners (e.g., second language, Chapter
1, special education) participated actively and assumed leadership in discussions
regardless of the challenges presented by the text. The content, format, and range
of ideas written in students reading logs became more sophisticated over time.
Students in book clubs learned to value literacy, learned to talk about books
inside and outside of school, and were enriched in ways that may not have been
possible with more traditional approaches to school reading.

Often, when teachers decide to implement a context-based, alternative

model for literacy instruction in their classrooms, their students do not experience

the engaging literary discussions they read about in the literature. Roller and

 

47

Beed ( 1994) report their work in an article that helps us understand those less-
than-perfect discussions and the roles they can play in children’s literacy
learning. They studied the book sharing sessions of four groups of 8- to 12-year-
old children who received extra support for learning to read. Beed taught three
groups of Chapter 1 students during the regular school year, while Roller taught
one group of 15 children during a 6-week summer residential reading clinic.

Components of the book sharing sessions included reading workshops
(Hansen, 1987), individualized reading, teacher-student conferences, and mini-
lessons. Book sharing sessions were literature discussions conducted by children
about their self-selected books. Thus the children selected their own texts to read
from a library. Procedures for book sharing sessions involved the Sharer giving
the title, author, and a brief description of the book he or she had selected.
Children shared their favorite pages by either discussing them or reading them
aloud to their audience of peers. After the Sharer completed his or her
presentation of text, an invitation was extended to the responders, other children
and the teacher, to offer comments and ask questions. Goals for the children as
set forth by Roller and Beed (1994) included: (a) learning about ways to talk
about books, (b) constructing meaning from the texts they read and discussed, (c)
enjoying reading and discussion books, and (4) improving their self-concepts as
readers.

This study is Significant because Roller and Beed (1994) moved beyond
studying what seemed to be the “best” exchanges. They discovered that the
more ordinary exchanges (e.g., content-free enthusiasm, or substantive but lifeless
discourse) among the students served definite and important purposes as the

children developed ways to share and respond to pieces of text. Conclusions

48

were drawn from studying more ordinary versus exciting exchanges. The
teachers: (a) learned to respect the children’s enthusiasm; (b) gained confidence
in their decisions to return occasionally to more directive formats, because they
were useful for establishing a point; (e) learned that it is important for children to
pursue their own paths when involved in discussions about text; and (d) learned
that learning is most effective when ideas build upon the ideas of children. The
inferences drawn by Roller and Beed (1994) extends the research on literature
discussions in the classroom because they suggest that teachers should carefully
weigh what children are accomplishing in their discussions rather than focus on
what is not being accomplished. Further, their study shows positive ways of
giving children who have difficulty learning to read and write, an entry point into
literate conversations that may help launch them into the world of literacy,
expanding the boundaries of teaching moments when uncertainties belie teacher
expectations. Roller and Beed (1994) offer alternative viewpoints for thinking
about what counts as literacy learning for students who find learning to read and
write difficult.

Beds and Wells (1989) investigated the nature of interactions in literature
study groups composed of fifth- and sixth-grade students led by seventeen pre-
service teachers. The younger students were heterogeneously mixed in groups of
four to eight, and they met twice per week for 30 minutes each day, for four to
five weeks. The researchers (i.e., Beds and Wells) acted as participant observers
and took extensive field notes which included physical descriptions, participants
involved, and reconstructed dialogue. Leaders within the literature study groups
kept journals of their experiences and their feelings about these experiences

which were responded to weekly by one of the researchers.

49

Procedures for the study entailed transcribing fifteen literature study
groups, reading all the transcripts to get a general sense of the data, and selecting
four literature study groups for in-depth analysis - two (Natalie Babbitt’s (1975)
Wasting and Betsy Byars’ (1974) W) which seemed to
be extremely successful, and two (Louise Fitzhugh’s (1964) HanieLthaSpy and
Meredith Pierce’s (1982) M) which seemed less so. The researchers
judgment of “less successful” was based on the impressions they had when first
reading the transcripts that teachers had talked too much, jumping into pauses in
the conversation with nervous comments or questions. In addition, questions
aimed at initiating a conversation, missed “literary teachable moments,” or
students retelling the story or talking about the part they liked best were deemed
“less successful” as well.

In these literature study groups made up of readers of varying abilities,
children as young as ten participated in rich discussions of works of literature.
Findings Were revealed in several areas. First, the research study conveyed that
children were capable of articulating their construction of simple meaning, but
that changed as they heard alternative views. Second, it was learned that sharing
personal stories inspired by the reading or discussion in poignant and revealing
ways triggered identification among other group members. Third, children
participated as active readers as evidenced by the predictions they made, their
hypotheses, and confirming or disconfirnring their predictions as they read. Last,
the children showed that they had attained insights about how the author had
communicated her message to them. They supported their evaluations of the
communication with their interpretations of the text. The findings of Beds and

Wells (1989) supported those of Golden (1986) who asserted that talk helps to

50

confirm, extend, or modify individual interpretations and creates a better
understanding of the text.
Conclusion

One purpose for this literature review was to argue that the curriculum and
instructional programs designed to teach reading and writing to low-achieving
adolescents inhibit their academic success. For over a decade, scholars have
debated these issues and made claims that students who are placed in lower-
accelerated classes (i.e., tracking) very often remain in them throughout their
school careers. Likewise, students who receive “drill and skill” as a means of
literacy instruction rarely move beyond that level and engage in problem-solving
and critical thinking strategies. Many of the studies I cited in this review provide
evidence to support the claims made by the National Commission on Excellence
in Education, that there are alarming statistics of risk factors that contribute to
high illiteracy rates (e.g., functional illiteracy among minority youth may be as
high as 40%). From a sociocultural lens, when we look at the organization of the
curriculum (e.g., tracking) and how literacy instruction occurs for students who
find learning to read and write difficult, the system does not support a context for
the literacy development of low-achievers. The traditional way of constructing
meaning occurs between a student and worksheet, rather than among teachers
and students, and students and students. In fact, quite often when students talk
to each other in school about a lesson or a project, it is commonly referred to as
“cheating.” Such a position places low-achievers at a disadvantage and ensures
that the probability of them capitalizing on more advanced opportunities --
Whether in academics or the job market -- are diminished. Therefore, it would

seem that our educational system is failing to provide all of our students with a

 

51

quality education, where equal access to educational opportunities might be
offered to everyone.

Most of the research on oral and written language in classrooms has
focused on teaching, oral and written language use, and the literacy learning of
younger students. Much of this research has not examined what might be done
to enhance the literacy learning of high school Students who struggle with
reading, writing, and schooling. Principles of sociocultural theory (Vygotsky,
1978; Bakhtin, 1986) are useful for investigating the literacy learning of
adolescents who struggle with reading, writing, and schooling. Thus, the second
purpose for this literature review was to explore what potential these studies
might have for low-achieving adolescents. Taken together, the Studies I cited
explored innovative approaches to teaching children to read and write for
specific purposes (e.g., to develop an inquiry project), and within specific
contexts, where oral language was an enabler for learning. Oral language as an
enabler for learning was a consistent factor because students had opportunities
to develop their existing body of knowledge by relating to new ideas and
experiences to their existing ways of understanding and acting upon the world.
Barnes (1993) refers to this as “working upon understanding.” As social beings,
“working upon understanding” by talking with teachers and peers is a natural
way of communicating in daily life. It makes sense for low-achieving students'

talk to play a significant role to learning in an alternative literacy learning

program.

 

CHAPTER 3
THE EVOLUTION OF ONE CROSS-AGED LITERACY PROGRAM

This study is based on methods and procedures of what Bogdan and
Biklen (1992) call qualitative research, what LeCompte and Preissle (1993) call
ethnography, and what Florio-Ruane (1987) identifies as the sociolinguistic
tradition. A particular assumption of these methods is that to understand the
nature of cross-aged interactions and discussions, the researcher must observe
and spend time within the setting regularly examining the interactions as the
participants perceive them. I have chosen to work within a qualitative research
paradigm because it is consistent with my theoretical perspective and my interest
in both the meaning that high school adolescents make of their experiences in an
alternative literacy program, and the nature of their literacy learning.

Within the qualitative tradition, a case study (Merriam, 1988) approach met
my goals at three levels. First, a case study examines a Specific phenomenon
such as the nature of social interactions within each context of the study. For
instance, in my study there are two interrelated but distinct settings. Within each
setting, literacy events and discussions comprise social interactions that enable
the student participants and me to engage in literacy learning activities. I
examined the activities to determine the nature of the events within each setting.
Second, a case study can illustrate the complexities of the social nature of literacy
learning. For example, discourse and written language were central tools for
instruction and learning in the preparation seminar. Similarly, discourse and
written language were the principle means of instruction and learning in the
cross-aged student-led discussion groups. Both instructional settings occurred in

cultural locations -- schools and occasionally at Pizza Hut or McDonalds -- and

52

53

are conducted by members of the culture, students and me. A case study allows
the exploration of the nature of social interactions within individual settings and
across contexts. Finally, case study methods place an emphasis on the human
instrument. As a regular participant observer in this study, I was a primary
instrument in the data collection. This enabled me to conduct a thorough
investigation of social interactions and dialogue in both instructional contexts, to
integrate data across instructional contexts, and to compare and contrast data
across the cross-aged discussion groups.

In this chapter, I describe the neighborhood setting of the high school, the
elementary school, and the fourth/fifth split classroom. This general description is
followed with a look at an alternative literacy learning program, the Cross-Aged
Literacy program. I will describe the components of the program, and the literacy
activities and tasks that comprised the program. Finally, I describe the participant
selection process, data collection and analysis.

Septima Clark High School

Residential streets within the neighborhood of Septima Clark and
Angeloul schools form a maze which leads to major streets that spread across a
midwestem city. Houses are Tudor and ranch styles, single-family dwellings with
well-manicured lawns. Some neighbors share paved driveways with separate-one
and two-car garages located in their back yards. Other families have individual
driveways with attached one and two car garages on either side of their homes.

A major factory is located within the neighborhood and is a branch of the

auto industry. The factory consumes approximately four city blocks and sits

 

lThe names of schools and all participants are pseudonyms.

 

54

between Septima Clark High and Angelou Elementary schools. A local bar and
grill is located across the street from the factory. Other businesses include fast
food restaurants, convenience stores and service stations.

Septima Clark is a 9-12 high school and is composed of students from
families representing various racial backgrounds and cultures. The present
building of Septima Clark High School was opened in 1942. The style of the
building is a reminder of some of the historical influences of this society. Greek
and Roman deities are represented in cement molds which line up across the front
of the school. A clock tower hovers over the entire structure. Situated at each
end of the building is a rotunda, adding to the architectural splendor of the
building.

The building has three floors. Where the hallways intersect, there are
mosaic tiles with symbols representing the fields of study that are taught in that
particular area of the building. For example, on the second floor at the southeast
end of the building, mosaic tiles with scientific scales, flasks, beakers and test
tubes represent the science being taught in that area. The halls are clean and
well-kept. The tiled floors shine from continued and on-going maintenance.

The student population is approximately 1,500. The percentage of low-
income students is 22%. The high school has a range of ethnic and cultural
groups, including 4% Asian, 6% Hispanic, 46% African-American, 42%
Caucasian, and 2% Native American. Septima Clark is one of three high schools
in the district and reports the lowest dropout rate and the smallest percentage of
minority students who leave school early. This high school is located
approximately four blocks from Angelou Elementary. Below, I briefly describe

the elementary school.

 

55

Angelou Elementary School

Angelou Elementary is a K-5 building and is located north of Septima
Clark. A two-story brick structure, the building was constructed in 1930.
Angelou is a physical reminder of schools of the past. Square shaped, one is
reminded of a small factory with a tall round chimney lingering over the building.
The grounds are beautifully landscaped with trees, shrubs, and flowers.

The school sits on half a city block. While Angelou is a 65-year-old school
building, renovations contribute to the pleasant environment. Modern energy-
efficient windows have replaced the original ones. Conveniently located next to
the school is a playground which was recently furnished with new colorful
equipment. Blacktop paves another area of the playground, which includes a
basketball court.

Many special features contribute to the warm and inviting environment of
Angelou Elementary. The walls shine with ceramic tiles. Throughout the facility
are terrazzo floors and wood trim, carpeted classrooms, colorful lockers along the
hallways, and high ceilings.

The building has 11 classrooms on two floors. Hallways and classrooms
are clean and well-kept. There are 33 computers available for students use. This
provides students with access to new technology and enhances the basic
curriculum requirements.

Children from various racial backgrounds and cultures attend Angelou.
During the 1993-94 academic year, the student population was 236, representing
ethnic and cultural diversity: 2% Asian, 14% Hispanic, 41% African-American,
44% Caucasian, and less than 1% Native American. Angelou Elementary is one

of 33 elementary schools in the district. The building has 12 teachers, with a

 

56

student-teacher ratio of approximately 20 to 1. Approximately one third of
students qualify for free or reduced breakfast and lunch.
The Fourth/Fifth-Grade Classroom

In this section of the chapter, I describe the classroom at Angelou
Elementary where the high school Students facilitated cross-aged literary
discussions with small groups of fourth- and fifth-grade students.

RQQIILZQE

Room 205 at Angelou Elementary School is on the second floor, at the
south end of the building, on the left side of the hallway. The classroom was a
fourth/fifth split and upon entering the room, one might be reminded of a
traditionally organized classroom (see Figure l). The teacher had the desks
organized to reflect the different grade levels that were present in the room. On
the east side of the classroom, the fourth graders’ desks were organized in rows
of two to three on the left and right ends of the classroom. The teacher’s desk sat
approximately in the rrriddle of the fourth graders’ desk. The fifth graders’ desks
were on the west side of the classroom near the back in rows of two to three
desks as well.

The north wall at the back of the classroom included a chalkboard and
bulletin board. The bulletin board was always decorated by highlighting a theme.
For example, during February pictures of famous African-Americans were posted
on the bulletin board with boarders and bright colored construction paper. Two
semi-circle tables sat in front of the chalk board with three computers on each. A
printer was on another small desk next to the computers. A roll-away bulletin
board was in the back of the room near the computers. The bulletin board

consisted of the children’s art work and graded Spelling tests.

57

 

”WEED

 

File Cabinet

0000 a
0000 a

 

 

 

 

nook-urn I

 

 

COO

O
O
O

1:]
OOO

Built-in Well Cabinets

BookCue

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

000 D
000 D

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DDDDDUDU

 

 

Cl

 

D

 

O D

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

C

Overhead j,
“01°C”? e
l

k

b

VCR and 1’
Monitor r
d

B

U

l

l

C

r

i

n

s

—

Bookcase

 

O
Ffii

 

 

 

Figure 1. Diagram of Room 205.

 

58

The south wall at the front of the classroom included a chalkboard and
bulletin boards at each end of the chalkboard. The bulletin board at the left
included a poster of classroom rules. To the left of the bulletin board was a door
which led to another classroom. The bulletin board at the right changed from
time to time. The themes reflected depended upon what the students were
studying at the time. For example, when the children and their classroom teacher
planned, rehearsed and performed W, the bulletin board consisted
of pictures of past performances of the same play. Above the chalkboard on the
south wall was a corkboard that contained charts illustrating how to form the
alphabet in cursive letters.

The east wall consisted of large built-in storage cabinets. One was a closet
where the teacher stored her personal belongings. The others cabinets were in
five rows with three separate doors in each row. They were made of wood and
stained with a beautiful glossy finish. Storm windows were on the west wall.
The teacher’s large wooden desk sat in front of the windows between the fourth-
graders desks. Students’ desks were large and wooden with storage space for
books and other personal belongings beneath the top of the desks. The floors
consisted of indoor/outdoor carpet in a natural but dark tone.

The Cross-Aged Literacy Program

I designed and implemented the Cross-Aged Literacy program to offer
low-achieving adolescents opportunities to engage in an alternative educative
experience (Dewey, 1938) that involved literacy learning within interactive social
contexts. My aim was to enhance and encourage the literacy development of
adolescents who are frustrated and poorly motivated to read and write. The

Cross-Aged Literacy program is comprised of two inter-related components. In

 

59

the section below, I present an overview of the project followed by a description
of the activities and tasks that made up the preparation seminar and then the
cross-aged discussion groups. Figure 2 is a model of the interrelated components
of the program.

The Cross-Aged Literacy program draws on the Book Club Program
(Raphael, McMahon, Goatley, Bentley, Boyd, Pardo, Woodman, 1992) and peer
tutoring (Bloom, 1988; Topping, 1988; Wagner, 1982), extending and modifying
both concepts. From Book Club, the Cross-Aged Literacy program’s language
and literacy components are derived (e. g., reading, writing, book clubs); from
peer-tutoring, I developed the cross-age nature of the program.

The preparation seminar supported cross-age activities of the high school
and elementary school students, which helped prepare the high school students
to work with the younger children. The cross-aged discussion groups consisted
of a high school student leading, facilitating and actively co-participating in a
conversation about a piece of literature with four to six children.

I] E . S .

The first component of the program was the preparation seminar. The
purposes of this component were threefold: (a) to facilitate literacy learning
activities and tasks with the high school participants one to two times per week
in a small group, (b) to plan the literacy activities and tasks that the high school
students would do with younger children, and (c) to conduct debriefing sessions
with the high school participants after each session they conducted with the
younger students. The intent underlying the preparation seminar was to prepare

the high school students to engage in literacy learning activities before meeting

 

60

The Cross-Aged Literacy Program Components

 

Figure 2. Cross-Aged Literacy Program Components

 

61

with younger children. In addition, I wanted to monitor and assess the nature of
the social interactions and their overall experience as participants in an alternative
literacy program.

The preparation seminar was part instructional, and part collaborative
learning between the high school students and me. Instructionally, my
overarching goal was to help them develop much-needed skills and strategies
related to fluency and expression in oral reading, comprehension, and responses.
Learning centered around these three literacy areas as students collaborated to
prepare for their upcoming work with the fourth and fifth graders, work that
would parallel our activities in the preparation seminar. In this section, I first
explain my instructional activities and decisions. Then I describe the
collaborative activities the students engaged in to prepare for the cross-age
literacy events.

s . 'v' 'e

My instructional responsibilities spanned from selecting the literature to
creating contexts for the high school students to read, respond to, and discuss the
selected texts. There were four instructional foci: (a) select and read children’s
literature together orally; (b) write personal responses in reading logs; (c) Share
and discuss written responses among members of the group; (d) plan and prepare
the agenda before meeting with the elementary children; and (e) conduct a
debriefing session to reflect and analyze.

Literagrre selectian. I selected the literature for our cross-aged literacy
program. For this project, we read two picture books: (a) Iaeglay (Wiesner,
1991), and (b) lane_22,_1222 (Wiesner, 1992). In addition, we read two novels:

(a) was (Taylor, 1971), and (b) Journey to Jo’Biag (Naidoo, 1986).

62

Some scholars suggest several determining factors (e.g., emotion, story
understanding and liking, empathy with a certain character) that influence how
students engage in a piece of literature (Black & Seifert, 1985; Golden & Guthrie,
1986; Hansen, 1986; Jose & Brewer, 1984; Mosenthal, 1987). I selected these
novels because I wanted the students to read literature that addressed
multicultural issues and themes. I believed that these novels would encourage
rich discussions between the adolescents and me, and between the high school
students and pupils. In addition, since the high school participants for this
program were minority students, I selected literature that might raise some issues
of personal relevance and interest to them (Purves & Beach, 1972; Sims, 1983).
Reading. In our preparation seminar, the high school students read on a
voluntary basis. If students did not wish to read, I did not push them. If they
refused to read, I read orally to them, using the occasion as an opportunity to
model fluency, intonation and expression. Sloan (1991) suggests that when
adults read orally to young children, this assigns a special role to reading,
signaling to the child that adults find reading worthwhile and enjoyable. This
notion is of similar concern for young adolescents who are less motivated to read.
As our project and relationships progressed, the high school students eventually
began to take risks and read orally. In fact, they reached a point where they felt
comfortable enough to either tell me that they would read, or ask me if they
might read. The procedure they established was to take turns, using a pause or
end of a section or chapter to change readers. An exciting time of the study
occurred when students showed initiative to read. It appeared that they had
gained enough confidence in themselves to be willing to take risks and read

orally to their peers and me.

 

 

63

17.1111118- In relation to writing responses to literature, I wanted to provide a
context that would give students an opportunity to express themselves
personally. That entailed providing a means to respond that was more than fill-in-
the blank answers to questions. To do that, students wrote entries in their
reading logs in response to: (a) questions that either I or their peer raised, (b) a
key issue or event in the story that she or he wanted to discuss, or (c) an idea
selected from the Reading Log Ideas response sheet (Raphael & McMahon,
1994). The response sheet enabled them to write their reactions from a broad
range of ideas, giving them opportunities to choose and make decisions about
what and how they wanted to share their ideas (Goatley & Raphael, 1992). I
modified the log sheet to include ideas that high school as well as elementary
students might find interesting to write about (Figure 3).

Reading logs were based on the ideas proposed by researchers who
suggest that journals are a significant tool for students to reflect about their
reading, to encourage close reading, and to prepare for later sharing of their ideas
(Atwell, 1987; Blatt & Rosen, 1982; Fulwiler, 1982; Gambrell, 1985; McNeil, 1988;
O’Sullivan, 1987; Reed, 1988). I modified the reading log think-sheets designed
by McMahon & Pardo (1992) which contained specific prompts (e.g., a “Section
[from book that] I would like to read to my small group and/or high school
buddy: Why do I want to share this? Other ideas I’d like to talk about in my
small group discussion”). I asked students to write a response to a particular
piece of the text they wanted to share in the preparation seminar as a way to
prepare for our discussion. Over the course of the study, I changed the type of
reading log response sheet students used. The new log page had a blank space

for students to record their names and date, pictures of books lined across the top

 

64

n 2:»:

 

             
   

.38. 2.20:6 .o .oEum 2: .a__E.m 2:... x05
.08 2 295295.... .225 3 :22. 2 Bo:
._ .95.» »E .o no. 05 5.3 nee—£5 E __ .23.

        

.mk
boa
E 9:. as 2.2: s 2.. as... us as...
38% co BEES.» 2t; :3 _ .uo_ >E

                    
      
               

       

.LBEqu. o. .5382: on E8;

: Eases _ .23 9:55.30 .95.» »E 5.3 ._
22“ Ea no. .AE E 55 3:359. - BEE ea...—
dozoEE .35 52o 9: LBEOEE 9 ESEQE
on ESE 5.03 05 E 953 8E=qum

  

  

mmuszOm—m

 

5.05:. J<_.Un..:m nz<
man—(mu m 13.25%. .

«Eta. vised: «SSS: 3x Sis.

  

 
 

      

Sums g 9.... 5
_ $5 8 2:03 9: 958 _ 223 595:. omen 2.:
. 3:3 2 Eu; 83 ESE _ .85 LBEoEoL :3 _ a...
8 .293 05 .8qu _ .33 33a So: :2? a 2:3
9 .5; EEE. .ezoLm 2:0 goon aE .33 E2:
25.” e5. 85? 5 =5; 2: :33 2.55 .8535:
8 .3335... Di :5 3.5 .955: :30 »E E

. 3: 9 :33 ESE _ 8:0 63.3.83. 8.36 .5 50»
A 9 32. pa .9: “=53 -- 8.53 953.25 0E3 new.

            

      
          

E 355 Co :55 2: SEE .55 ea ..

9.92.3.3 - 30% “.3. _ an; 8E=oEom mam—um ”OJ Mai—=99”—

:33: ”2:. on MS

 

O

£53 on 2 :53
are 2” s 2. as... as. 53 £3. 9... as...
05 3:2. 52- 0:5 :3 _ no. as E .i—Eobti
25 on 2.53 83 1.55: 05 293 _.=.. Suan 2
use: _ BE: 350 ..:F<m¢o £828;- : 2:1.
58»... 2 :55 1563. E._ :23 ”usuoEom

         

.383 8 mean—8:.
33 z 2955 1:353. 8.:3 each .935

9 Eu; _ .23 .BEoEv. =8 _ on 383 39.. .3.
2: Ea .. . .. 55 .853 38 E... 05 of? a. E...
o. 22.; SEER: e8 _ 8 SEE. on... 05 x32

          

             

:23 32.... :5 9E 2F .953.ng
as 29.2. a .3: :5... £3.

.e 3.... £3. _ .3830 . as. ea:
E555 nuts—ciao“.

 

.535 >¢Ohm J<—Ummm

 

k

 

65

of the page, and blank lines (Raphael & McMahon, 1994). Students wrote a
response to prompts (open-ended questions) which I wrote on the chalkboard.
In addition, they had the option to use the back of the reading log think sheet
which was unlined, to draw an event or character they wanted to represent.
Students used these logs once or twice per week as a means to prepare
themselves to have a discussion in our preparation seminar.

Discussion. The discussion component of the preparation seminar
promoted two goals: (a) focusing on key issues or events in the literature, and (b)
preparing students to engage in a literary discussion with younger children. For
example, when reading the picture books, Mg and June 22, 1222, I decided
to focus on helping students to learn more about creating meaning using picture
books (Galda, 1988). Since mm was wordless, I asked students to
concentrate on creating their own story using the illustrations in the books as a
means. Since the illustrations in My were very detailed, this provided an
opportunity to orchestrate the reading experience closely, focusing on what
students observed in the illustrations, and how they talked about them (i.e.,
describe the illustrations, make interpretations about the illustrations). My role
during the discussion component was that of facilitator, where I provided the
students with an opportunity to personally respond to the text, and experience
open-ended discussions with their peers and me before going to the elementary
school. As we participated in our discussion together, I modeled with them what
their role and interactions might look like with the fourth- and fifth-graders as
they discussed their novels.

After, the students had an opportunity to read, write, and personally

respond to the literature, we reflected on it to brainstorm and plan literacy

 

66

activities they might do with the fourth- and fifth- graders. This resulted in
another phase of discussion designed to plan literacy activities and tasks for the
younger children.

W. The high school students were expected to conduct
discussions with the children in their small groups in similar ways as the
discussions in the preparation seminar. In order to do so, we planned the lessons
and procedures to guide them in facilitating a literary discussion with the fourth-
and fifth-graders. The planning component of the preparation seminar began by
talking about the reading, writing and discussion activities we engaged in (e.g.,
who read, what was read, what key issues were raised, what they might talk
about with younger children) as a model to help us develop lesson plans.
Therefore, planning for the cross-aged literary discussions centered around: (a)
who would read orally at Angelou Elementary, (b) what chapter(s) or section(s)
would be read, and (c) what key questions, issues, and events would be raised. A
variety of ideas emerged, specifically related to what key issues and events
students might talk about in their small groups. After debating what would be
discussed and developing questions, we made final decisions. I typed the lesson
plans for the high school students to use as a guide when they worked with the
younger children in their individual groups.

mugging. A fifth focus of the preparation seminar, the debriefing, was
concerned with analysis and reflection to assess the nature of the cross-aged
interactions and discussions. I planned the debriefing phase of the preparation
seminar to talk with the high school students about: (a) their roles and
responsibilities in their small groups, (b) the strengths and weaknesses of the

cross-aged sessions, and (c) what they learned about themselves as facilitators of

 

 

67

cross-aged discussion groups with fourth- and fifth-graders.

To discuss roles and responsibilities as participants in the study, I gave
students a list of guidelines that briefly outlined what “good tutors” do when
they work with other students. The guidelines were set within the context of
what “good tutors” do when they work with young children. Together, the
high school students and I read and discussed the guidelines. I explained to them
that they were role models for the children at Angelou Elementary, and to use the
guidelines as a reference in consideration of appropriate behavior that role models
should display (see Table 1). Over the course of the research study, discussions
about students’ roles and responsibilities emerged based on the experiences that
students encountered in their small groups. For example, if a high school student
had one child who dominated discussion time during the cross-aged session, we
brainstormed ideas as a group to help that student handle the situation in an
appropriate manner. Students stored the guidelines for “good tutors” in their
folders and used it as a reference source over the course of the study.

Roles and responsibilities were related to academic encounters as well as
social interactions and role modeling. In order to study and learn about
themselves as facilitators and co-participants in cross-aged literary discussions,
students viewed “snipets” of videotape, to observe themselves as they worked
with the fourth- and fifth-graders. To assess what we thought was going on in
the videotape, either a student or I would pause the tape whenever we saw an
event that we wanted to discuss. The student or I would describe the event to
the group focusing on whatever he or she wanted to talk about from the

videotape. After rendering a description, we talked about the events,

 

10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.

68

Table l
15 Things a Good Tutor Does

. Smiles often and is friendly at all times

Asks friendly questions before each session
Is on time

Is prepared for the tutoring session

Uses time efficiently

Gives clear instructions

Keeps correct, up-to-date records
Remember to praise partner, never criticizes

Says things like: “Very good,” “Right,” “You are doing very well,” “Nice
job”

Thinks of other ways to praise so (s)he doesn’t always say the same thing
Never says, “That’s wrong” or “No”

Never does or says anything to make the partner(s) feel bad

Helps partner(s) feel s/he is doing well so s(he) will enjoy being tutored
Gets the job done

Has a good time

 

69

highlighting the strengths and weaknesses. We discussed strengths to reinforce
the positive things that all students (i.e., older and younger) did, and how the
high school and younger students worked together in order to have a productive
discussion. We discussed weaknesses in order to brainstorm ideas about what
might be done differently when the students met for another cross-aged session.
For example, if a student encountered a dilemma within her or his group, we
discussed the problems, what they believed the source(s) of the problems were
(e.g., a disagreement between students), and how things might be done
differently. Occasionally, the high school students thought a literature discussion
was not done very well. Thus, we used debriefing sessions to discuss ways to
help them engage the younger children in a discussion about text.

Finally, students discussed how the various oral and written responses that
the younger children had about the literature immersed, extended, or shortened
discussions. For instance, the high school students observed occasions when
children responded to a question, and how that response sometimes influenced
how and what another group member said (e.g., a similar response, a completely
different response). Debriefings related to this aspect of the cross-aged
discussions enabled the high school students to learn strategies and skills they
might use to help the children as well as themselves have productive literary
discussions. Further, the debriefings in relation to oral and written responses
enabled the high school students to consider some ideas made by the younger
children about which they had not thought. A reflection and analysis of others’
ideas helped students to consider what the activities, tasks and discussions meant
for their own literacy learning and development socially and cognitively.

The instructional and debriefing focus of the preparation seminar gave the

70

high school students an opportunity to develop their oral communication skills
by discussing the literacy activities (reading, writing, discussion), tasks, lesson
plans, and the debriefings. The debriefings gave them a chance to reflect and
critique themselves as learners and as “teachers.” It gave the students an
opportunity to receive responses from each other as well as from me. Debriefing
sessions also allowed the high school students to rethink and reformulate their
literacy activities before their next visit with the elementary children. Overall, the
preparation seminar component offered opportunities for low-achieving
adolescents to engage in literacy-learning tasks and activities for meaningful
purposes, and to develop their planning, organizational and decision making skills
within a social setting.

C _ i I I . E. . 3

Twice per week, the high school students went to Angelou Elementary
school to conduct literacy-learning activities with pupils in a fourth/fifth split
classroom. The small groups consisted of one high school student facilitating and
co-participating in literacy activities with four to six elementary students. Three
interrelated literacy activities comprised the cross-aged literary discussion
sessions: (a) oral reading, (b) writing, and (c) discussion. The high school
students conducted the cross-aged sessions, modeling the interactions we
experienced in the preparation seminar.

Oral reading was shared among the older and younger students, where
they took turns, changing at a pause or at the end of a chapter or section of the
text. On occasion, I read to all of the students (i.e., older and younger) at
Angelou Elementary to continue working with them on fluency, intonation and

expression.

71

After reading orally, a high school student (from his or her lesson plan
guide sheet) wrote questions on the chalkboard so that all students could read
them. Then that same student read the discussion questions that were prepared
during the preparation seminar. After reading the questions, the high school
student asked the younger children to write their responses to questions in their
reading log. Students were given the option of responding to two to four
questions. The high school students wrote responses in their reading logs as well,
continuing to model the process as well as providing additional drinking to their
ideas about the literature. During some sessions of the cross-aged discussions,
students were given an opportunity to write a response using the Reading Log
Ideas response sheet as opposed to questions. The high school students and
younger children alike kept records of their personal responses and reactions to
the literature in their reading logs. Thus, written responses occurred in a range of
ways: (a) a response to specific question(s); (b) a response or reflection to a
comprehension strategy; (c) a response to a specific literary element such as a
critique of the book; and (d) a personal response about something that the book
reminded students about.

When all students completed their personal responses, they assembled in
their individual small groups. In the small groups, the high school student began
the session by reading a question or questions, and asking one child to share his
or her response with the group. If students had selected an idea to write about
from the Reading Logs Ideas think sheet instead of a question, they read that
personal response. Likewise, the group facilitator (i.e., high school student) read
her or his response, contributing ideas to the group as well. Each high school

student facilitated the discussion in his or her small group by: (a) asking the

72

children if they had questions or comments to make about a group members
response, (b) asking questions to clarify ideas, (c) making comments about shared
ideas, (d) initiating new topics, (e) offering alternative views, and (f) taking critical
positions. In turn, the elementary children assisted in facilitating the discussion
by responding and commenting to each other as they talked about a piece of
text.

The cross-aged literary discussion group sessions provided several features
that are significant for the literacy education of the high school students. First,
this component of the project placed the students in a literacy-learning context
where they had to make informed and spontaneous decisions during interactions
with the children. Second, the social context of the project was designed such
that high school students had an occasion to enhance their leadership strategies
and skills. Finally, the cross-aged setting provided the high school students with
a double occasion to deepen their social and cognitive literacy education in a
context designed to read, write and have conversations about literature that
involved meaning and purpose.

W. Probst (1988) suggests that the pattern for
evaluation when using literature should grow logically out of the teacher’s
concern for student’s responses to the literature and their analysis of their
response. Questions which ask students to evaluate their own interaction with
the text might focus on the experience of reading and discussion as opposed to
the text. In addition, questions which ask students to assess their interactions
might direct them to watch for changes, suggesting that growth in thinking is far
more significant than correctness (Probst, 1988). For this study, assessment log

sheets were created to reflect the notion of alternative ways of evaluation

 

73

(Figures 4 and 5). The assessment log sheets were based on ideas of Raphael and
Englert (1990) who suggest that students benefit from having prompts that serve
as a basis for drinking and for dialogues about text, to provide culmination of the
reading experience. The assessment log sheets requested specific information
from the high school and elementary students. However, the specific information
requested was different for the two groups of students. For example, for the high
school students, I wanted to understand their perceptions of the nature of
interactions with the students in their small groups, and what they were learning
from those interactions. From the fourth- and fifth-graders, I wanted to develop
my understanding of how younger students perceived literacy tasks and
activities with older students.

The High School Students

Four high school students participated in The Cross-Aged Literacy
program and are the focus of this study. The group consisted of three males and
one female. All of the students participated in the project over the course of five
months. In the section below, I describe the process for selecting the students
and a brief biography of each student (see Table 2).

S l . l E . .

The Cross-Aged Literacy program was designed to provide an alternative
literacy learning context for students who struggle with reading, writing, and
schooling. One setting to observe these students is in a pull-out program such as
“remedial reading.” However, the district where I conducted my study
eliminated the program due to budget cuts. Although the program no longer
existed, the students who had trouble still existed and were mainstreamed into

regular content area classrooms. Therefore, I conducted my observations of “at

74

'I' 'I‘i I‘V‘. u'c - .‘c o . c'n'.' .......

YOUR NHME

 

 

4133-; SM;

‘ “3,339,.- ,,,,, 9._°;.-__-_-,-,-,-,.-‘,.'.."."P’!"""'?‘.".".".' om

 

1. Old you enJoy readlng the story? Can you say why you dld or dld not enJoy the story?

2. Did the story otter any new Inslght or polnt of ulew? If yes. In what way?

3. Old the story support thoughts or oplnlons you already held? If yes. In what way?

4. old the dlscusslon wIth your tourth-grade peers tell you anythlng about
the story? It yes. what dld It tell you?

5. Old the dlscusslon wIth your fourth grade peers tell you anythlng about yourself?
It yes, what dld It tell you?

"all" 4. "In“ SCHDOI INIUII'HS' 88808801.!" log Shlflt.

adapted trorn Proust. IDIS. II. 225

 

   

WW

readlng and wr n bud . The to low ng sentences starters ve been prepared tor me. wIlI com e or
thoughts In my own words.

Thls week we read

The story was about
My tavorlte part at the story was
o rt ot the story because

In our small group we talked about

Figure 5. Elementary students' assessment log sheet.

76

Table 2. Participant information

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Studefi’s Name Ethnicity/Gender Age Grade
Teresa African-American Female 15 9
Michael African-American Male 15 9
Mark African-American Male 15 9
Devon African-American Male 15 9

 

 

 

 

77

risk” students in a regular subject area classroom.

The study began in Mrs. Carol Foster’s ninth-grade English classroom in
September. Upon meeting her, I explained my research study and the principles
underlying it. She was supportive of the project and the ideas underlying it in
relation to the potential benefits for some of her low-achieving ninth-graders.
Mrs. Foster believed that the project rrright benefit some of her students who
were less motivated to be successful in school, and students who were distracted
from engaging in academic activities. Therefore, Mrs. Foster was willing to allow
four of her students to go to a fourth/fifth classroom, to work with children two
days per week between January and June. Mrs. Foster supported and assisted
me in selecting the students by: (a) talking with me about students she had
observed and believed would benefit from the program, (b) talking to guidance
counselors to re-arrange students’ schedules, (c) sending information about the
project home to parents, and (d) filling out the necessary paperwork.

I began observing students in Mrs. Foster’s classroom on September 21,
looking for potential participants. Twenty-five students were enrolled in the
class. On my first visit, Mrs. Foster introduced me to her class by telling them my
name, and that I was from Michigan State University. During my initial visit, I
began to observe students who appeared to be resistant toward Mrs. Foster and
class activities. In order to observe such behavior, I looked for instances where
students appeared to be disengaged in class activities (i.e., heads down on desks
during instruction), and when students made inappropriate comments at
inappropriate times. I recorded such instances in my field notes if they were
frequent in any given class session. For example, on September 21, I wrote in my

field notes:

78

After introducing me to the class, Carol took up some papers from

students and read one of them, I think as an example of what they're

supposed to be doing. Before Carol started reading one of the

papers, she told the students that she liked reading them. One

student said, “Well we don‘t like listening.” Carol's response to him

was manners.
My purpose for paying particular attention to students who appeared to be
resistant to the teacher as well as some class activities was to investigate further
whether these students might be considered students who were “at risk” of
academic failure. This would help me make decisions about asking for
participants for my research study.

After six observations, I provided basic information about the project, and
the expectations I would have of those who participated. For example, I
explained that I was interested in working with a small group of high school
students, to prepare them to work with fourth- and fifth-graders at Angelou
Elementary. The work that they would do with the children involved reading,
writing and talking about children’s literature. Also, I explained to the high
school students that they would be officially dismissed from their class two days
per week. However, they would be responsible for completing the class
assignments they missed when we were at Angelou Elementary.

After informing students that I would need the services of 4 students only,
I asked for volunteers. Surprisingly, 17 out of 23 volunteered. A sheet of
notebook paper was circulated and each volunteer was asked to write her/his
name and grade point average on it. Grade Point Average (GPA), teacher
judgment and my observations and interest in certain students were used to make

decisions about narrowing the pool of volunteers. Mrs. Foster and I discussed

the students I was interested in, as well as students whom she believed would

79

benefit from the project. We consulted the list of volunteers to determine if any
students whom we had considered had volunteered to participate. Her criteria for
selection included students who were less motivated to participate in her class
activities, and students whom she considered to be “headed for trouble.”

Since the premise of the study was to provide an alternative literacy
learning context for low-achievers, the first procedure for eliminating students
who volunteered were those with high GPA’s. For purposes of this study, a high
GPA was 3.0 or higher. Realizing that there was a possibility that some students
volunteered because they would be excused from their English class two times a
week, I decided to ask students to write a brief statement explaining why they
wanted to participate in this research study. Students’ statements enabled Mrs.
Foster and I to make further elirninations. We looked for statements which
implied that they had interests in the program, as well as ideas about how they
thought the program would contribute to their on-going literacy education (see
Table 3).

e as tudents

Ier_esa_. At the time of the study, Teresa was a 15-year—old, ninth grade,
African—American female. She was petite in size, of average height, with black,
shoulder-length hair. Teresa lived with her mother in a three-bedroom house on
the south side of a midwestem city. When we first met, for her pre-interview, she
anxiously told me that she did not see her mother very often during the week,
because of her mother’s work schedule. Her mother worked at a plant factory
during second shift (i.e., 3 - 11 PM). Each afternoon when Teresa arrived home
from school, her mother had already left for work. Because of conflicts in mother

and daughter’s work and school schedules, Teresa was usually asleep by the

I —.

 

80

Table 3
High School Students’ Statements

November 5, 1993

 

Name

Statement

 

Michael

I would like to be a volunter becuse I think It would be fun.
And it would help me mouve Because I have a Job at B. C.
F. I [Black Child and Family Institute]. And I have to would
[work] with youger kids then me for so may hours And This
will help me do so. And This might help me in the future.

 

Teresa

I would like to volunteer with your students because every
time something well in other words a project like this I never
get pick I don’t know why I guess Irn just the odd one out
the crowed. but I wouldn’t mind doing my work here. So if
you have someone else in mind I will under stand it always
happen like this.

 

Devon

Well the reason why I wanted the job was because. During
the summer I work with kids and the extra experience will
help me for next summer. Plus I have alot of energy and
when I work with the kids I give off positive energy. I also
work really hard when someone give’s me a challenge. So
I’m ready to give the job all I have. Thank you

 

 

Mark

 

Statement not available

 

 

' .

81

time her mother arrived home. She had a twenty-one year old sister, and a
nineteen year old brother. However, both of her siblings lived outside of the
home she and her mother shared. Teresa’s father lived in the same midwestem
city, and worked at the factory next to her high school. But, she reported that
she did not see him on a regular basis.

Teresa had two dogs and a cat. One of her dogs has been in her family
since Teresa was one year old. She did not say how long she had had the second
dog, but her cat had just joined the family two weeks prior to the interview.
Teresa said that her pets were her companions, especially during the evenings
when her mother was working.

Teresa participated in extracurricular activities after school hours. She was
manager of the boy’s basketball team. Also, she ran track. Teresa’s beliefs about
participating in activities after school were that they were something she enjoyed
doing because of the company she received from being around other people. But
even more than the companionship she received, she claimed that participating in
extra-curricular activities after school were a means to keeping her “busy to stay
out of trouble so it won’t come back” to her. Since Teresa’s mother worked on
weekends as well, she spent most of her time doing things with one female friend
who attended another high school.

Non-school related activities Teresa enjoyed doing were listening to music,
talking on the telephone, spending time with her animals, visiting people, talking
and laughing with friends, jogging, and exercising. She described listening to
music as her “main priority.” Her favorite board games were Clue and Big
Boggle. Also, Teresa liked to play card games such as Tunk and Speed.

Teresa has been labeled as Learning Disabled (LD) and diagnosed as

82

dyslexic. Throughout elementary school, she participated in Special Education
services until she entered middle school. Her favorite content area subject is
science. She especially liked biology. Teresa reported that she did not
particularly like school, but realized that getting an education was an important
thing for her to do. She plans to become a veterinarian.

Mighael. At the time of the study, Michael was a lS-year—old, ninth grade,
African-American male. He was approximately 5’ 4” tall and stocky. Michael
had black hair that he always kept short and neat. He usually wore fashionable
styles in clothes sporting the loose fit jeans, and matching shirts tucked neatly
inside his pants. He wore the classic black Nike tennis shoes and a black and rust
starter jacket.

Michael lived with his mother, stepfather, two younger brothers, and his
older sister, in a two-story house on the west side of a Midwestern city. His
mother worked as director of a local day care center, and his stepfather worked at
a plant in a city 20 miles away. Michael’s biological father owned a paint
company in a large city in the northeast. Michael referred to his brother’s as his
“little brothers” and seemed protective of them. For example, his brother
Andrew often caused trouble in school (i.e., starting fights) and Michael
participated in the fights to defend his brother. In addition, to protecting his
brother, Michael often spent time with both of them, babysitting, cooking and
seeing to it that they did their homework while his parents worked.

Michael had a variety of extracurricular activities he enjoyed doing. He
played in the tailback position with the junior varsity football team, and proudly
talked about the 16 touchdowns he scored, as well as the 1300 yards he ran.

Michael seemed proud of his record because he was just beginning to play

83

football on the high school level. In addition, Michael ran track and made the
junior olympics earlier during the year. He made the relay team, which held the
position of ninth in the country. Michael was proud to be a part of the junior
olympics team as well, as he did not hesitate to tell me that the team was on
television. In addition to his athletic accomplishments, Michael was the first
freshman to ever make the Septima Clark High School Fashion Show program.
That was a big school event where students prepared themselves to model the
latest fashions.

A favorite pastime of Michael’s was to listen to music. His favorite types
of music included rhythm and blues, jazz and rap. He liked the “old music” that
his mother listened to. Michael said that when his family lived in another
Midwestern city, his mother played that “old music” (i.e., sounds of the 1970’s)
all the time, so he became accustomed to listening to the same type of music she
listened to. In addition, he likes to play checkers, Monopoly and the UnGame.
Michael described the Ungame as a hard “thinking game” where you get to
know people and their families.

During his freshman year in high school, Michael applied to participate in a
community youth service program. He had to submit a resume, a statement about
why he was interested in the program, and what he believed he could contribute
as well as get out of the program. Out of 60 applicants, Michael was chosen to
serve as a peer education counselor. To prepare for the role, Michael participated
in a training program at a local university for two weekends in one month.
Michael chuckled when he told me that he thought that the youth group would
go to the university, stay in the dormitory, and just have “fun.” However, he

soon learned that they were at the university to study about the consequences of

84

engaging in unsafe sex (i.e., AIDS and other venereal diseases), and how they
could communicate such information to their peers without judging them.
Michael added that he learned that they were there to work and learn as he
described the weekend preparation session as a “lockin and a lot of hard work!”

I became intrigued with Michael when I observed him sucking his thumb
with a football jersey on during his English class. On several occasions, I saw
Michael put his thumb in his mouth to suck on it, seemingly not ashamed to do so
in the presence of his classmates and teacher. The thumb-sucking intrigued me
because it seemed rather uncommon for a fifteen year old male to suck his thumb
in public. At the same time, the thumb-sucking seemed to depict a nurturing
gentle spirit in Michael, even though he was an infamous junior varsity football
player.

Michael was in a “remedial” reading program when he was in third grade.
He described it as a good experience because he “worked his way out” of the
program. Michael was retained in fifth grade, and thus was a year older than most
ninth graders.

MAX. At the time of the study, Mark, a 15-year-old African-American male
was tall and slender. He kept his hair cut close and in a faded neat style. Mark
wore his clothes the loose fit style clothes, sporting his shirts and jeans neatly.
Many teenagers at his school wore NBA style starter jackets, and Mark was no
exception. The style he wore was pull-over, and the colors were black and
turquoise.

Mark lived with his mother, stepfather, and three younger brothers in a
two-story house on the west side of town. He lived within one mile of his school.

His mother worked at the local university in one of the health centers. His

 

85

stepfather worked for a construction company. Mark said his stepfather was laid
off from work during the winter months due to weather conditions. His
biological father had a carpentry business, where he worked on roofs and
insulation for houses. Mark’s biological father lived a few blocks away from his
home, and he often took he and his two older brothers bowling. His brothers’
ages were fourteen, nine, and one year old at the time of the study.

According to Mark, his family did not go places and do things together
other than going to church. During many conversations we had, he often talked
about how his mother read the Bible and wanted him and his brother to read the
Bible “all of the time.” When I asked Mark about the types of things he liked to
do for himself when he was not in school, his response was that he liked to play
basketball in the summertime. He played football on the junior varsity team
during football season. When Mark visited his friends, they would rent movies
and watch them. His favorite board games were Checkers and Monopoly. The
family owned a computer, where Mark and his brothers played games on it as
well.

Mark had a TV, VCR, and a telephone with his own number in his room.
He spent time watching television or movies alone in his room. His favorite TV
shows were Martin, Living Single, Married with Children, Rap City, and
Roseanne. His favorite movies were Menace to Society, Boomerang, and m
Mood. Mark and his brothers owned a Nintendo, Super Nintendo, and Sega
Genesis systems. It seemed that Mark entertained himself with the video games
and television because he said that he did not like to be around a lot of people.
He claimed that if he did not have to deal with individuals, he avoided them.

According to Mark, he would rather “stay at home.”

86

When I asked Mark what his favorite subjects were and what he liked
about school, he responded “lunch time.” His next statement was that he liked
all of his classes (i.e., math, English, gym, US history, life management skills,
science). Mark said that none of his classes were really boring. His favorite thing
to do during lunch hour was talk to the girls. Although Mark claimed he liked all
of his classes, before the end of the interview, be defined school as a place to “sit
and be bored.” This comment was elaborated upon where talked about how he
“despised and hated school.” He recalled that he was on punishment during 7th
and 8th grades “forever” because he never did his school work, even though he
attended school regularly. Mark could not tell me why he hated school. He only
knew that school was not something he enjoyed, and that he “pushed” himself
to go to school because he wanted to “do somthing” with his life. Mark argued
that if it were not for the fact that he wanted a “good job” for the rest of his life,
he would “skip every day.”

Mark made reference to a reading class he remembered having to attend
“down the hall” when he was in fourth and fifth grades. However, he did not
say that he took “remedial” reading classes. I was intrigued with Mark because
he talked to me and Mrs. Foster with such respect (a seemingly rare feature for
many teenagers today). Mrs. Foster referred to him as a “sweetheart” and
appeared to like him despite the fact that he did minimum work, and skipped her
class occassionally.

2610.3. At the time of the study, Devon, a ninth-grade lS-year-old
African-American male referred to himself as “the class clown” and a “nice kind
of guy.” He was approximately 5’ 4” tall and stocky. Devon’s hair was black

and he wore it in a style called flat top. His hair was high on the top of his head,

87

but his sides and the lower back was bald. He wore clothes that were extra-
extra-large, with shirt tails worn outside of his pants which were always
“sagging.” Instead of a starter jacket, Devon wore a bulky down-filled one.
Occasionally, he wore colorful bandanas that were tied around his head.

Devon lived with an extended-family in a two-story house, with his
mother, stepfather, four cousins (i.e., two girls and two boys), and three brothers.
He lived on the west side of town not far from Michael and Mark. Devon’s
mother had an associate’s degree, and worked at a local hotel in the business
office. His stepfather worked in the northern part of the state. Devon did not
know what type of work his stepfather did. His older brothers were twenty-year
old twins. They worked at a warehouse for a midwestem supermarket chain.

One of his female cousins had a part-time job at a pizza restaurant. Devon

worked during the summer months at a day care center. The child care facility
was one that was designed to provide care for infants and children whose parents
were employed with the company. Devon said that the children’s ages ranged
from four to nine years, and he found the job difficult at times. He claimed that
because he was a teenager, the children tended to take advantage of the situation
occasionally. It was only when adults talked that the children listened. Although
Devon found his responsibilities difficult at times, he seemed to like working with
children.

Devon had a variety of interests and hobbies. He loved to listen to rap
music, and rhythm and blues. In fact, listening to and writing “hard core” rap
music was one of his favorite past times. He explained to me that there was a
difference between hard core and mainstream rap music. He defined the

difference; hard core rap music included a lot of “foul language” in the lyrics. He

 

88

chose to write and listen to music versus watching television. In addition, Devon
had an extensive rap music collection. His collection included many cassette
tapes that had parental advisory stickers stuck on them. He had been building his
music library since 1989.

Devon liked to play sports such as basketball, baseball, and football. He
played on his high school junior varsity football team before his knee injury.
During the spring season, Devon ran track.

Another interesting hobby of Devon’s as well as is of many teenagers was
talking on the telephone. He claimed that he spent approximately two hours a
day talking to his friends. Devon did not like to “stick around the house.” To
“hang out” with his friends was more appealing. When he was around his
friends, he liked to tell jokes, be funny, and ask questions. In fact, Devon said that
he often asked a lot questions. Devon liked to read adult novels. His favorite
genre was realistic fiction. He had read Disappearing Acts by Terry McMillan
(1989), and talked about his interests in the struggles of the characters in the
book. He also liked to read humor, or as he put it, “books that make you laugh.”

Devon’s favorite thing to do at school was disrupt the class. He disrupted
the class by asking questions that were funny in order to get the class laughing.
In this context, Devon described himself as a “smart aleck.” He said that
sometimes, it is “just in me” to say something that will interrupt the teacher, and
“goof off” in class.

Mrs. Foster described Devon as the “brightest” out of the four case-study
students. However, Devon never did any of his school work. In fact, he was
failing all of his classes. He asked me why was he selected to participate in the

project given that he had the lowest grade point average of all of the students in

5‘...

F]

L.
T

89

the English class. It appeared that Devon assumed that this study was meant for
students with high GPAs, or at least students with better grade point averages
than his own. I explained that he had other qualities that I believed would
benefit him and the younger students he would work with. In addition, I was
intrigued with his written statement where he explained that he worked hard
when he was presented with a challenge.
Data Collection

Qualitative researchers, including ethnographers, deal with empirical data,
or potentially verifiable information obtained from the environment and accessed
via human senses (LeCompte & Preissle, 1993). The complex instructional
interactions of The Cross-Aged Literacy program required a collection of rich and
diverse data sets in order to facilitate answers to my queries. To examine the
experiences of the high school participants in this study, I collected multiple
sources of data, including: (a) field notes, (b) audiotaped preparation seminars
and cross—aged discussion groups, (c) videotaped cross-aged discussion groups,
(d) formal and informal student interviews, and (e) reading and reflection log
entries (see Table 4). Below, I describe the data sets I collected.
0] . l E 1. E. l 1 N t

One to two times per week, beginning in January and ending in June,
1994, I met with the high school students for the preparation seminar. As a
participant observer, I wrote field notes during the meetings. I used time after the
meetings of the preparation seminar to expand my field notes, by reconstructing
the social interactions, themes and issues raised by the students and me.

Twice per week, I observed and recorded field notes of the cross-aged

 

90

Table 4

Research Questions and Data Sources

 

Research Questions

Data Sources

Information Analyzed from
Data Source

 

. How do the social
interactions in an alternative
literacy program help us to
rethink, reconstruct and
redefine literacy learning for
adolescents who struggle
with reading and writing?

a. Field notes
b. Response Logs

c. Audiotapes

. Written records will record observations

made by the researcher.

. Response logs will reveal what topics

were initiated by students via written
language.

. Audiotapes will reveal what topics were

initiated by students via oral language.

 

. What was the nature of
participation in the two
alternative literacy contexts?

a. Field notes
b. Response Logs

c. Video/Audiotapes

. Written records will enable the researcher

to document students’ interactions.

. Response logs will provide information

to explore the content of discussions
during each component of the research
study.

. Video and audiotapes will be used to

support researcher observations.

 

 

. How do high school students
represent their knowledge
about literacy when inter-
acting with fourth- and fifth-
graders?

 

a. Formal/Informal
Interviews

b. Video/Audiotapes

 

. Formal/Informal interviews will enable

the researcher to have conversations about
the nature of interactions.

. Video/audiotapes will help support

information from informal interviews.

 

 

 

91

discussion groups.2 During each session, I targeted a specific small group to
observe and record the dialogue and interactions. In addition to keeping record
of a group, I frequently monitored the students’ interactions, keeping track of the
interactions in other small groups. After the cross-aged discussion sessions, I
expanded my notes on the computer by listening to the audiotapes and viewing
the videotapes of targeted groups. I added my comments on patterns and themes
I saw emerging in student interactions and behaviors.

Aydigtaping the Smdents

I audiotaped formal and informal preparation seminars I conducted with

 

the high school students. Audiotapes for each formal and informal preparation
seminar were transcribed by me and a professional transcriber. I edited and
reviewed the transcripts to check for accuracy of the speaker’s voice, and to give
proper credit of comments to the speaker who made them.

In addition, I audiotaped each cross-aged group discussion each time we
visited Angelou Elementary. Audiotapes were randomly selected from the
beginning, the middle, and the end of the cross-aged discussion groups for
transcribing. The same professional transcriber and I transcribed the audiotapes
from the selected cross-aged discussion groups. I followed the same procedures
for editing and reviewing transcripts of the cross-aged discussion groups, as I
followed for the preparation seminar. This process enabled me to characterize

how the students responded to the agenda we set forth in the preparation

 

2Writing field notes for four separate cross-aged discussion groups proved
to be an enormous task for one individual. During the middle of the study, I
announced that I was looking for a graduate student who was interested in
participating in a school-based research project. I would like to express my
sincere appreciation to James Erekson for helping me with my field notes. His
observations and recordings were invaluable.

92

seminar, and to get a sense of the themes and issues raised by the students and
pupils alike in their cross-aged discussion groups.
1:. l . l S 1

In addition to audiotaping, I videotaped the cross-aged discussion groups
twice per week: Prior to going to Angelou Elementary, I decided which cross-
aged group I would videotape. Videotapes provided detailed information about
the social interactions and behaviors of the cross-aged discussion groups.
Occasionally, videotapes were used as a source of study in some preparation
seminars. The purpose for these sessions was to have the high school participants
critique their interactions in their small groups with the pupils. The videotape
critiques provided the high school participants with detailed information of their
own interactions and behaviors with the younger children.

Fmal and Informal Interviews

To understand students’ interests outside of school and their perceptions
about literacy learning and acquisition, I conducted a pre-interview with each
high school participant, and six elementary participants. Two cross-aged groups
were interviewed together at the end of the project. For the other two groups,
the high school students and the pupils were interviewed separately. The
interviews were open-ended questions.

On-going informal interviews were conducted with the high school
students during the preparation seminar. For example, students often talked
about what happened in their groups as we were in transit from Angelou
Elementary to Septima Clark High School. I capitalized on their reflections by
participating with follow through questions. During some of the transit

reflections, I simply listened to what they said. All interviews (with the exception

 

 

93

of what students talked about in transit), both formal and informal were
audiotaped.
B 1' 1 E E] . I

All students kept reading logs to write free responses to the literature they
read. The high school students wrote in their reading logs during the preparation
seminar. In addition, they wrote responses in their reading logs during the cross-
aged discussion sessions. Students’ logs enabled me to keep track of their
personal written responses to the literature we read.

The high school students kept a reflection log. The purpose of the
reflection log was to help them keep track of their interactions with the younger
children. In addition, the reflection log enabled me to have a record of how the
students perceived their experiences in the Cross-Aged Literacy Project.

Analyzing and Interpreting Data

The process of analyzing the data I collected for this research study might
be likened to assembling a jigsaw puzzle (LeCompte & Preissle, 1993). The edge
pieces are located first and assembled to provide a frame of reference to begin the
interior work necessary to complete the puzzle. However, more striking aspects
of the puzzle pieces emerge, thus providing another frame to work on separately.
Having stolen some clandestine peeks at the complete picture on the box, the
puzzle worker places the assembled parts in their general location within the
frame, and finally locates and adds the connecting puzzle pieces until no holes
remain visible. The analysis of the data for this qualitative research study might
be viewed as a staged process, by which a whole occurrence was divided into its
components and then reassembled under various new categories to make sense of

the overall project.

 

94

W

I began the frame for this study by organizing all of my data sets after
concluding the fieldwork. The organization procedures involved labeling and
filing documents (e.g., interview transcripts, preparation seminar transcripts), and
cataloging audio- and videotapes. Also, in addition to filing papers, I filed various
categories of information on my computer (e.g., interview transcripts) in order to
keep multiple and permanent records. After organizing the various data sets, I
sorted data to compile information collected for each individual high school
student. Below, I explain the procedures I used for this method.
Muslin

To begin, I created a notebook for each high school student as a means of
helping me to see what and how much information I had on each high school
participant. The notebooks included: (a) field notes, (b) analytical memos, (c)
transcripts from preparation seminar sessions, (d) transcripts from cross-aged
discussion sessions, (e) reading log entry copies, and (f) transcripts from formal
and informal interviews. The notebooks were a means to the first step to
analyzing the raw data, where I made notes and observations of what I saw.
These observations led me to compare and contrast my original research
questions to the raw data, thus generating new questions, insights, and pieces of
the puzzle to ponder.

t e e

I used three questions to begin my exploration of the data for patterns and
themes: (1) What literacy strategies and skills develop through students'
participation in a cross-age multicultural literature-based literacy program? (2)

How do students' knowledge of literary elements and responses to literature

 

 

95

influence their ability to comprehend and interpret literary texts? (3) How do
students' attitudes and beliefs about themselves as literacy learners evolve when
given a more active and responsible role for their literacy learning?

An initial attempt at exploration entailed an examination across transcripts
of the first session of the preparation seminar (i.e., January 11), the first session of
each high school students’ cross-aged discussion group (i.e., February 4), and the
second session of the preparation seminar (i.e., February 12). As I read the
transcripts from the preparation seminars and the individual cross-aged discussion
groups, I conducted a macroanalysis of events in each instructional context. I
established five broad categories: (a) managerial procedures and rules, (b)
instructional modeling, (c) instructional procedures, ((1) instructional
conversations, and (e) analysis and reflection of interactions in small groups.

Given the role of language and social interactions to sociocultural theory, I
decided to note the content of students’ comments, thus conducting a
microanalysis of details to discern and define the five categories. In defining
these five categories, I noted strategies and skills students used to facilitate and
actively co-participant in their small groups as readers, writers, and discussants. In
addition, I noted the discourse patterns of the high school students to develop an
understanding of how they drew on various information sources to engage the
younger students and themselves in a discussion centered around text.

Although the five categories were present in each student’s cross-aged
discussion group, they were different for different students. This convinced me to
take a closer look at more transcripts from preparation seminars and individual
sessions of cross-aged discussion groups that were conducted throughout the

study. I reexamined transcripts from the beginning sessions of the preparation

 

96

seminars. Transcripts from the cross-age discussion groups were exarrrined from
the beginning, middle, and end of the study for each high school student. Several
over-aching questions guided the second phase of my analysis: What is the
nature of oral language use in the preparation seminar? What influence might the
activities and tasks in the preparation seminar have on students to help them
conduct a discussion with fourth- and fifth-graders? How do the high school
students assume a leadership role in their small groups? How do the high school
students facilitate and actively co-participate in a discussion about literature with
younger students? What do students seem to be drawing on in order to expand
and facilitate their discussions?

Within a sociocultural frame, cognitive development and learning are social
and interactive. This might occur through cultural learning (Rogoff, 1990) where
novices and experts work together collaboratively in a meaningful activity to
achieve a goal. A microanalysis of data from each instructional contexts revealed
that each high school student facilitated and actively co-participated in unique
ways in their small groups as well as the preparation seminar. This investigation
of differences in the interactions, activities, tasks and personal responses of each
high school students’ small group enabled me to develop another frame for
analysis.

Developing Cases of the Students

The different patterns that emerged from my analysis of the preparation
seminars, and each case study students’ small group activities, and discussions
about text prompted me to continue with a third phase of analysis. In this phase,
I drew on Lofland (1971) who proposed using six units to analyze qualitative

data from social settings in order to make sense out of what one is learning during

97

the process of analysis. Below, I describe how I used Lofland’s suggestions to
continue building a frame for the two instructional settings.

W. The final phase of analysis for
the preparation seminar was developed by using Lofland’s third analytic unit -
meanings. This analytic unit helped me sort and classify observations I made from
the previous phases of my analysis, and to sort and classify my observations. I
raised two broad questions about this instructional context to help me
understand the nature of the interactions between the four case study students
and me: (1) What situationally-specific meanings do the participants and the
participant observer employ in the preparation seminars? (2) What phases of
meanings seem to occur among the participants and the participant observer in
the preparation seminar?

With these questions, I read and reread transcripts from three preparation
seminars. Using these two questions, I developed a semantic map to answer each
question. The semantic maps were used to enable me to discern the content of
contributions made by each case study student and me. After developing a
semantic map for each of the four preparation seminar sessions, I looked at
transcripts across the selected preparation seminars to see what patterns and
themes were consistent for each student. The semantic maps assisted me to
compare and contrast the topics initiated by the students and me in order to
discern how we negotiated and positioned each other in the first instructional
context of the study. Based on the content of topics raised, I chose two focus
students.

WES The final phase of

analysis for the cross-aged literary discussion sessions were also developed by

98

drawing on Lofland (1971). To begin, I looked at cross-aged discussions from the
beginning, middle, and end of the study using five of the six units (i.e., acts,
activities, meanings, participation, relationships). To develop my understanding
about the nature of inteactions in the groups, I adapted questions suggested by
Lofland to assist in making orderly sense of what I was learning. For each unit, a
two-part question was raised. For example, for the unit of analysis referred to as
acts, my questions were: (a) What static acts seem to recur and to have some
importance among all or various types of participants in this cross-aged
discussion setting? (b) What are phases of recurring acts among various
participants in this setting? For the unit of analysis referred to as meanings, my
questions were: (a) What situationally-specific meanings are employed by the
participants in this cross-aged discussion setting? (b) What phases of meaning
seem to occur among participants in this cross-aged discussion setting? This
micro-level of analysis assisted me in understanding more about the overlap in the
focus students roles, ways of facilitating and actively co-participating in literary
discussions with fourth- and fifth-graders, and patterns and themes that were
present in the content of the discussions.

Having described the participants, the contexts, and the methods of data
collection and analysis, I continue with the analysis of the data. In Chapter 4, I
explore the discussions and patterns of interactions for six preparation seminars.
Chapter 5 examines the work of two focus students as they interact with fourth-

and fifth-grader students in small group discussions about text.

CHAPTER 4

THE PREPARATION SEMINAR: A CONTEXT TO RECONSTRUCT
MEANINGS OF SCHOOLING, LITERACY, AND STUDENT

This chapter describes the discussions and patterns of interaction in the
preparation seminar under the broad theme of the social construction of literacy
learning. Three subthemes underscore how the high school students and I
socially constructed a context for literacy learning: (a) reconstructing meanings
of schooling, (b) reconstructing meanings of literacy, and (c) reconstructing
meanings of student.

The work of Lofland (1971), specifically his analytic unit of “meanings”
strongly influenced my analysis of the preparation seminar. As defined by
Lofland, “meanings tend to be transbehavioral in the sense that they define,
justify, and otherwise refer to behavior and are not simply a description of it; that
is, meanings interpret behavior among participants in a social world (e.g.,
preparation seminar), even though they may also describe it” (p. 24).

Emerging Themes For Analysis

To capture the flow of meanings in the preparation seminar, the first issue
for analysis involved understanding emerging content and the patterns of
interactions in this instructional context. For each meeting, I had a specific
agenda (i.e., reading, writing, discussion, planning cross-age literacy activities,
debriefing) I wanted to pursue encouraging students to assume increasing
responsibility and become deeply involved in the instructional context.
Consistent with a sociocultural perspective of learning, the four case study
students brought their own histories of schooling to the preparation seminar

meetings, raising challenges such as lack of attendance and participation,

99

100

which had to be addressed in order to move the program forward. It was critical
that this setting be a context where students’ voices be heard. Thus, it was
necessary to socially construct particular understandings among participants of
what is involved when developing an alternative literacy learning environment.
These themes became apparent during data analysis as key concepts for
understanding how teaching and literacy learning content developed in the
preparation seminar (see Table 5).
Reeenstpyeting Meanings ef Schoeling

Analysis of meanings often center on the question of how members
perceive problems in a given situation. That which is perceived as problematic
may be so defined by the observer, the members, or both (Lofland, 1971). As a
participant observer, the first subtheme for analysis centered on addressing the
meaning of “volunteering to participate” since it reflected a problem that
emerged due to differences in my and the students’ definitions of participation in
school-related activities. Behaviors such as avoidance and lack of attendance
among the students in the preparation seminar became opportunities to address
issues of schooling, focusing on attendance, commitment, and responsibility. The
case study students willingly volunteered to participate in the study. However,
this willingness was without recognizing that the Cross-Aged Literacy Program
involved more than simply getting out of their regular English class. Students
were not aware initially of what “preparation” and “planning” meant when
asked to work with fourth- and fifth-grade students. The problem of meanings

99 6‘

we each brought in terms of “volunteering to participate, preparation” and
“planning” resulted in the initiation of various topics related to commitment and

responsibility by all participants, including me.

101

Table 5

The Social Construction of Literacy Learning

Themes

. Reconstructing Meanings of Schooling Establishing a sense of commitment
Commitment to project attendance and
participation
Taking responsibility for collaboration
‘ Taking responsibility to critique emerging .
challenges

Spontaneous engagement with text
The role of imagination
Reflections on what was learned
Making intertextual links

 

102

B . I I . El i

The second subtheme for analysis focused on how the students’
reconstructed meanings of literacy. The various ways that their perceptions
emerged were based upon the social accomplishments of the participants in the
preparation seminar. This analysis builds upon previous research which proposes
that teachers and students socially construct the norms, expectations, roles and
relationships that define what counts as literacy in the events of classrooms
(Baker & Luke, 1991; Bloome, 1986, 1988; Cochran-Smith, 1984; Golden, 1988,
1990; Santa Barbara Classroom Discourse Group, 1992; Weade & Green, 1989).
This subtheme emerged as the participants expressed their overall views of text,
and their observations of interactions and behavior in their small cross-aged
discussion groups. Categories for conceptualizing how the students
reconstructed their meanings of literacy included: (a) spontaneous engagement
with text, (b) the role of imagination in literary discussions, (c) reflections on what
was learned about literary response from interacting with younger students, and
(d) making intertextual links between the literature they read, social issues, and
personal background experiences.
Went

The third subtheme for analysis focused on how the participants evolved
as students in the Cross-Aged Literacy Program. As they became active
participants in each component of the program, they developed alternative views
about the contributions and purposes that the project made to their literacy
development and overall perceptions of learning. Data analysis revealed that
students discussed connections between the information and ideas they acquired

in the preparation seminar, and how those played out in the cross-aged discussion

103

groups. In addition, selected participants used ideas they collected from the
program to assist them in their high school classes.

I selected six preparation serrrinars (i.e., January 11, February 12, February
17, March 1, April 1, April 12) for extensive analysis as a means of developing my
understanding about the ways in which the participants’ behaviors, voices, and
their overall experiences helped to socially construct the literacy content in the
setting. To provide a context for understanding the three subthemes, the
following description outlines key pieces of the preparation seminar.

Placing the Preparation Seminar in Context

The time and setting for the preparation seminars occurred after school
hours, from 3 to 4:30 pm, one to two times per week at Septima Clark High
School. Occasionally, the high school students and I met at Pizza Hut or
McDonalds to conduct the preparation seminars when we were unable to meet in
the classroom, or when we agreed that we needed a different type of ambience
(see Table 6).

I was the facilitator for the lessons. Part of my responsibility involved
developing the curriculum and an agenda for each session (explained in detail in
chapter 3). The agenda was my guide to discuss logistical procedures, literacy
learning activities (reading, writing, discussion about text), and to analyze the
nature of the older students interactions with the fourth and fifth graders. Each
part of the preparation seminar lessons was designed to provide students with
meaningful and purposeful literacy learning experiences; that is, while the
logistical procedures were necessary in order to make sure that students knew
how to facilitate a discussion about text with the younger students, engagement

in literacy activities such as reading, writing responding to the literature, and

104

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TABLE 6
PREPARATION SEMINAR
TIMELINE AND PARTICIPANTS
DATE PREPARATION PARTICIPANTS

SEMINAR
i January 11, 1994 \/ Teresa, Michael, Devon ,
E January 23, 1994 ‘1 Teresa, Michael, Devon, Mark
January 24, 1994 \/ Teresa, Michael, Mark II
February 8, 1994 «1 Devon
1 February 12, 1994 x! Teresa, Michael, Mark
[ February 17, 1994 \/ Michael, Mark, Devon
f February 22, 1994 «1 Michael, Mark, Devon ]|
i March 1, 1994 \1 Michael, Mark, Devon ]|
1 March 15, 1994 x/ Michael, Mark, Devon
: March 20, 1994 x! Mark, Devon
‘ April 1, 1994 \1 Michael
April 12, 1994 \/ Devon
l April 21, 1994 «J Teresa, Michael, Mark
f April 22, 1994 \/ Michael, Mark

 

 

105

talking about written responses with peers and with me was also a necessary part
of each lesson.

Within the procedures and activities of the preparation seminar, I also
viewed my role as an active co-participant for this setting. As the high school
students read literature, I read with them. When they wrote responses to the
literature, I did also. The students discussed the selected pieces of children’s
literature, and I guided and participated in the conversation by raising questions,
and sharing opinions. We planned the instructional activities to be conducted
with the fourth and fifth graders, and reflected upon and analyzed their
interactions of previous cross-aged literary discussion sessions. I believed that all
of the activities created for the preparation seminar would serve as a model to
help the high school participants envision their roles as facilitators and active co-
participants in their cross-aged literary discussion groups.

With an agenda, activity plans, and reasons for my decisions in place, I had
a curriculum, materials, ideas, and participants who had willingly volunteered to
take active roles in this alternative literacy program. However, early in the study,
I saw patterns that helped me understand that my agenda and intent for them did
not necessarily parallel their agendas and intent for themselves. Having briefly
described the context for the preparation seminar sessions, below I describe how
we actually socially negotiated the content for the setting.

Reconstructing Meanings of Schooling

Even though alternative programs might be designed to enhance literacy
learning opportunities for adolescents who struggle with reading, writing, and
schooling, students bring histories which must be addressed in order to create a

different space for understanding schooling, teaching, and learning. Within this

106

setting, a lack of attendance and lack of active participation within the
preparation seminar disrupted the flow of activity and conversation that I had
envisioned. Analysis of transcripts, field notes, and observations for the early
preparation seminar sessions revealed that issues of commitment and
responsibility played a major role in the development of teaching and literacy
learning content in the overall project.

se f C itrnent

The first preparation seminar was scheduled for January 10 at 3 pm at
Septima Clark High School. I had consulted each student about the time and
place to see if the chosen time would fit their schedules. Arriving early on
January 10, I set up the audio cassette recorders and the folders that we would
use for our first session. Teresa arrived shortly after 3 pm, and we chatted (e.g.,
about her day and plans for after school) while we waited for Mark, Devon, and
Michael. They did not attend the session.

Thus, our first meeting, while scheduled for the 10th, actually occurred on
January 11. The students who did not attend presented a dilemma which needed
to be worked through by all of us. On the 11th, I was tempted to ignore the fact
that the three had not appeared the previous day, focusing instead on the
logistics and planning that felt quite urgent to me. However, I forced myself to
begin by addressing the situation in terms of my disappointment and exploring
with them why they had decided that they need not attend. The following

transcript illustrates the approach I took to force a conscious decision on their
part: asking each student, beginning with Devon, to comrrrit now to full

participation or abandon the project so I could select one of the other volunteers.

l Fenice:
2 Teresa:
3 Fenice:
4 Teresa:
5 Fenice:
6 Devon:
7 Fenice:
8 Devon:
9 Fenice:
10 Devon:

11 Fenice:

107

just, you need to let me know because this is
important. Speak now or forever hold your peace.

You need to go [inaudible]
Hrnm?

You need to go Michael.
Devon?

Hmm? What?

If you don’t want to participate, you can just let me
know now.

No, I do.

Okay, and you’re making a commitment to meet with
me on Monday and go to Angelou on Thursdays and
Fridays, during second hour?

Yeah.
Okay.

I chose to tell them directly and assertively that they needed to commit to

working on the project and make clear that the choice was theirs. At the same

time, I wanted to make clear that in making the choice to continue, I would

expect them to commit to all parts of the project, making clear the terms of

participation (i.e., attendance). This series of exchanges set the stage for making

clear to the students that there were responsibilities that came along with leading

literacy activities with younger students.

Time was passing quickly and I was thinking ahead about logistical and

instructional procedures that students needed to know. In turn 5, I turned to

Devon and I specifically stated that if he did not want to participate in the project,

he should let me know at that point and time. Devon responded by saying “No, I

do.” To be certain that we had a clear understanding, I asked him another direct

108

and specific question which was whether he was committing himself to go to the

meetings on Monday afternoons after school, and then go to Angelou

Elementary every Thursday and Friday morning. In turn 10, Devon responded by

saying, “Yeah.” Teresa then asked a legitimate and relevant question. In the

next segment of transcript, notice how I answered Teresa in line 15, and then

abruptly moved the conversation to other very important matters related to

planning, rather than continuing to ask the remaining two students (i.e., Michael,

Matt) about their intentions.

12

13
14
15

16
17

Teresa:

Fenice:
Teresa:

Fenice:

Michael:

Fenice:

What if you had, you have something to do on one of
the days, if we’re not gonna be here for a doctor's
appointment?

After school?
After school.

I mean, that's a legitimate excuse. But saying I forgot
is not. It's not. It's no excuse. I mean, you can
remember what you want to remember. Right? Okay.
Now, let me explain a little bit about what we're gonna
do. Every Tues..., Thursday and Friday when we go
to Angelou, you will be responsible for um basically
conducting whatever we do in reading and writing,
with the fourth graders. It's a fourth/fifth split. It's
about 24 students in a classroom. So um each one of
you will work with a group of six...

Six...six or four...

Maybe four to five. Okay. Um, do you think you
would feel comfortable working 1n pairs with each
other, or would you feel better working like with a
group by yourself? How would that, how do you
think that would, you would feel about that?

In turn 12, Teresa raised an important question for clarification of the

boundaries for missing preparation seminar sessions. I explained that rrrissing

sessions due to scheduled appointments (i.e., doctor appointments) was

109

acceptable. After the explanation, there was an interesting move in the flow of
the discussion. While I had felt that I needed to confront the students about their
irresponsible behavior, I was eager and ready to get the project “off the ground.”
Therefore, after answering Teresa’s question, I moved into explaining the
instructional and logistical procedures of the project, and the students followed
my lead. As I explained the number of younger students each of them would
have in their small groups, Michael spoke, echoing what I was about to say. My
abrupt change in the focus of the discussion, and the move on Michael’s behalf
to assist me seemed to give us all permission to discontinue the much needed
“verbal contract” of their commitment and responsibility to attend the
preparation seminar. There was tacit agreement that they were interested in
remaining involved in the project.

I proceeded with three different but interrelated statements: when, where,
and what they would be doing with younger students; the configuration of the
classroom; and the number of fourth and fifth graders in the class. Thus, by the
end of this segment, the students clearly understood my position and the
importance of their participation in ALL aspects of the project. Given their
histories in schooling and other pull-out programs, it was not surprising that they
may have defined “participation” in a way that was more consistent with past
behaviors than with the level of commitment that I had expected. When
confronted, they positively responded and all students agreed, whether explicitly
or tacitly, that they would become full participating members who attended all
activities unless an emergency (e.g., doctor’s appointment) prevented them from
doing so. Yet, despite their suggestions that they were committed to

participation, further challenges presented themselves over the next month.

o'c

110

tte c ic' t' n

The February 12 preparation seminar was held at Pizza Hut. Analysis of

transcripts and fieldnotes for this session provided information and insight about

how the students viewed their roles as participants in the Cross-Aged Literacy

Project.

I started this session by asking the students if they knew what I would do

with the information I collected from the project. My purpose was to stress the

purpose and the importance of attending both components of this project. Both

Michael and Mark seemed to have discussed this between themselves, because as

we talked, Michael shared the conversation that he and Mark were having as

they saw me driving into the parking lot of the restaurant.

18

19

20
21
22
23
24
25

26
27

Fenice:

Michael:

Fenice:
Michael:
Fenice:
Mark:
Fenice:

Teresa:

Fenice:

Teresa:

I know Devon already knows. Do you guys know
what I’m doing, I mean, what I'll do with the
information from this project?

Yeah. You told us the other day at the beginning of
the thing. You’ll be taping it and it’s like a research
project. Tellin’ how kids study, kids learn, and maybe
take what we learn, what we do, [inaudible]

Okay. That’s part of it.

Okay, we, I don’t know the rest.

Mark?

I just know what Michael know.

Teresa?

I just knew it was a project and we’d get a grade for
it.

Who gets a grade?

You. Or you get somethin’ for it.

111

28 Fenice: Yeah, okay. I do. I have to write what’s called
dissertation it is really a book.

29 Mark: I heard about that.
30 Michael: A book. Uh huh.

31 Mark: So we helpin’ you and you helpin’ us out.
32 Fenice: You’re helpin’ me out a lot.
3 3 Fenice: So, I just wanted you to know how important this is.

Okay. And that the dissertation is gonna be about
each one of you.

34 Michael: We were talkin’ about it while you weren’t here. I
was like when you drove up I was like man she
gettin’ pissed at us. And ah, Joe said yea, we gotta
start comln’.

Seemingly, Michael and Mark had discussed the lack of attendance
between themselves because they could see that I was frustrated. What is
interesting to note is that, apparently, their decision to make a commitment to
attend the preparation seminar was to “please me.” Their comment required a
reaction to the obvious change in their thinking about attending and actively
participating in this instructional context.

I was honest with Teresa, Michael, and Mark about how stymied I felt
about this dilemma I had to face for each session. I told them that I had concerns
about their lack of attendance for many reasons. I was concerned that they
would not receive adequate preparation for their sessions with the younger
students and would not have sufficient time to interact socially with me and with
each other in order to learn about what was going on in each small group.
Moreover, I explained to the students that I had to write a major paper about their

work and services in this project. If I made the students feel guilty, that was not

my intent. However, I did intend to let them know that they should assume

112

responsibility and make a commitment to participate fully in the first instructional
context of this study.

During this brief lecture about the purposes underlying the project, and the
significance of attendance at the preparation seminar, students interrupted me to
ask questions about my dissertation. Michael asked “How long is a
dissertation?” A noteworthy point in this series of exchanges was that Michael
seemed to realize that this program might work to his advantage. He
acknowledged what his role in the project might mean for his future, because he
said that he would be able to use it as a reference. Teresa stated that she knew I
would get a “grade” for it [dissertation]. Mark’s comment was related to the
advantages of this research study on both sides, stating that they were helping
me out, and I was helping them out.

35 Fenice: Yeah. One of my friends was surprised. You
remember the first day I asked for volunteers and I
think it was like 17 students out of Mrs. Forest’s class
volunteered that day. And I said well, he said, why

wouldn’t they volunteer. They get to participate in a
research project. I said, well ]

36 Michael: [We ain’t know it was a research project. We just did
it ‘cause you said we get out of class.]

37 Teresa: I know. That’s what, yup.

38 Fenice: I knew that was part of it.

39 Mark: But now we, but now we see it’s not all about gettin’

out of class. We see we have home work and we
workin’ wit’ kids. See that’s why I like it.

I had considered that the reason so many students volunteered was to get
out of going to their English class. As Michael openly shared his personal
reasons for participating in the project, Teresa concurred. It is interesting to note

that Michael spoke for all of the students as evidenced by his use of “we.”

113

Mark did not explicitly acknowledge that he had ulterior motives for
volunteering his services. However, he did move the conversation to a different
level. That is, Mark accentuated the advantages Teresa, Michael, the younger ,
students, and he received as a result of participating in the Cross-Aged Literacy
Program. Mark acknowledged that “home work” needed to be done before one
can facilitate discussions with younger students implied that he was developing
his understanding of what it means to take responsibility in “teaching” younger
students (i.e., preparation and planning).

It is interesting to explore how Mark refocused the value of attendance in
the preparation seminar. As he spoke, his comment seemed to suggest that
cooperation and participation was necessary in order that the project be
successful. In making this assertion, Mark expressed a sense of personal identity
in connection to the project. His assertion appeared to move the discussion away
from the negative series of occurrences as far as the lack of attendance was
concerned. Rather, Mark appeared to be highlighting the potential benefits for
all involved, by publicly expressing his unique point of view. Noting Mark’s use
of the term “we” in his response in turn 39, it is clear that Mark has changed his
thinking such to accept responsibility for becoming involved in various literacy
activities before he can facilitate cross-aged discussions with younger students.
flfm'pg Resmnsibilig for Collaberetion

A second topic which emerged in the preparation seminar focused on the
students’ observations from collaborating with the younger students in their
small groups. This topic emerged early in the study, as they shared their thinking
after three 30-minute sessions of cross-aged meetings (i.e., February 4, 10, 11).

The transcript below provides examples of increasing responsibility to participate

114

in the preparation seminar sessions.

40
41
42
43
44
45
46

47

48
49
50

51
52

Michael:
Mark:
Michael:
Teresa:
Mark:
Michael:

Teresa:

Michael:

Teresa:
Fenice:

Michael:

Fenice:

Michael:

I like my group, too. They, they’re all right.

I got, I got a little ...]

[I ain’t know they was that smart.

I know.

I got a little [inaudible]

Smart kids.

I know. I’m thinkin’ that they act like they’re
[inaudible]. You know they don’t know nothing and
everything. I was like ]

Them two the only one I like the only one who acts
his age is, um, I think it’s Joshua.

None of my kids act their age.
In your group?

I know Sandy, Daniel, Marcus, Alice, Robert and the
one that, the other little, the chubby one.

James.

James. Yeah. James.

There are several noteworthy points in this exchange. Michael’s

comments (i.e., turns 40, 42, 45, 47, 50) reveal that he had gathered information

about the fourth- and fifth-grade students in his group. He had made

observations about behavior, both socially and intellectually, and he had

remembered several of the younger students’ names. Michael’s observations are

examples of his involvement in both components of the program: first in actively

constructing meaning about the younger students with whom he worked and

then in sharing those observations of them with his peers in the preparation

seminar.

 

115

Like Michael, Teresa’s comment conveyed that she was beginning to
gather information about the younger students in her group as well. She agreed
with Michael, commenting in turn 46 that she had assumed that the younger
students would not know anything, but that she had changed her opinion after
working with them. These comments from Michael and Teresa show that they
were making important observations in order to learn about the fourth and fifth
graders in their small group. In doing so, it provided evidence that the students’
levels of commitment were increasing as they began to see their responsibilities in
working with a group of, in their view, sharp and interesting younger students.
Mark showed concern for one of his students, suggesting he had begun to feel
responsible for altering the less-appropriate behaviors of students within his
group. When Mark found a point to enter the conversation, this is what he said.

53 Mark: I just know one of mine. In my group. I know their
names if I see ‘em, but I just can’t but it’s this one
little bad kid in my group that used to be in Devon’s
group but now he in my group. The boy is foul He,
they, I gotta in my group.

54 Fenice: Oh, Brandon. Is that who you’re talkin’ about?

55 Mark: Little one? Yup. BAD! The boy is BAD! And then
we was talkin’ about them uh, about them “lilly
pads” [instead of lily pads] and stuff. He was sayin’
all kinds of stuff. When the girls went by us, he’d say
somethin’ to the girls. He was like, hey, girl when you
gonna let me m-m-m-m-m!

Mark’s dramatic description of Brandon reflect a personal opinion and

values he held. Mark’s tone and expression suggested that he did not think
Brandon made apprOpriate responses to the illustrations in Iyesd9y. This was

important because when Brandon rnisbehaved, it affected the dynamics within

the group. During the session that Mark worked with Brandon, he had not

116

disrupted the entire class. But, Brandon had called enough attention to himself
such that Mark analyzed his behavior and had strong reactions about it.

What appeared to be especially troublesome to Mark as he spoke about
Brandon, were the sexual overtones the younger boy made to the fourth- and
fifth-grade females, as well as the responses written in his reading log. Mark had
made reference to the inappropriateness of Brandon’s behavior on several
occasions. Once, when I was driving the students from Angelou Elementary back
to Septima Clark, Mark engaged in a monologue about Brandon. He appeared to
be distressed about an incident that transpired in his group. I wrote down
Mark’s comments in my fieldnotes after the students went into the building.

I wanted to put my hands on Brandon so BAD! That dude talks

about big lips and this and that. He’s BAD! He’s a HOODLUM!

Little boy will think about stuff I aint NEVER thought about! I try

not to laugh. I tell him to chill man. Nonkonzo and Brandon were

at each others throat all day. Brandon kept messing with

Nonkonzo. The story the boy wrote, oh my GOD! He was talking

about Annette, and said Annette always be saying Brandon you

look nice today. Brandon said that Annette say this just to get the

ball. I think the boy has problems. (Fieldnotes, February 28, 1994)

The details about Brandon that Mark referred to communicate how and
what he paid attention to. First, Mark noticed that Brandon made inappropriate
comments, both orally and in writing (i.e., talks about...., the story the boy
wrote...). Second, Mark conveyed that Brandon’s comments were directed
toward specific girls in the group (i.e., N onkonzo, Annette). Third, Mark made an
inference about the reason Brandon behaved inappropriately (i.e., the boy has
problems). In addition to facilitating a discussion with younger students, Mark
made a critical analysis about the social nature of interactions around him. This

was a distinct change from earlier stances Mark had taken, from not showing up

for the preparation seminars to minimal participation. The shift in his attitude that

117

began with his conversation with Michael about the need to show up more
consistently continued as he became more involved in the substantive activities
in preparing for and working with the younger students, and in the challenges
associated with them.

e si" rC"' ' llnes

The seventh preparation seminar was held at McDonald’s restaurant on
March 1. Although I had a written agenda, the students began the session by
initiating their own topics. The students’ early contributions to the meeting
agenda was typical of the more recent preparation seminars, where they had
assumed more responsibility, claiming opportunities to voice their opinions. This
revealed how we had moved from my setting the agenda and asking for their
contributions, to their active participation from the moment we arrived. This
situation enabled us to negotiate the logistical, planning, and debriefing topics I
needed to address in addition to their own.

The students began the afternoon session by talking about a school rule
which they referred to as “ridiculous.” The rule stated that students were not
allowed to wear a coat inside the building for security reasons; that is, school
administrators wanted to be able to control the possibility of weapons coming
into the school. According to Michael, Mark, and Devon, weapons and violence
were not a problem at their school. They considered the atmosphere to be safe
which explains their opinions about the no-coat policy as “ridiculous.”

In addition to the dialogue about the school coat policy, Michael and
Mark talked about key aspects of their work in the Cross-Aged Literacy Program,
demands that emerged with specific children in their group. Michael had trouble

with Marcus, a fifth grader in his group, while Mark continued to have difficulty

118

with Brandon. As they expressed their frustrations, I encouraged them to
continue as they had been, handling the situations as they emerged. For example,
when I listened to the audiotape of Michael’s group from the previous cross-aged
discussion, he told Marcus that if he were having a bad day, he could ask to be
excused rather than talk to him in a disrespectful manner. Mark had taken
Brandon out in the hall to talk with him in private. Both seemed to be
responsible in handling the problems, which I had encouraged them to do from
the beginning of the project. While I wanted to bring closure to these issues so
that we could discuss Sengeflhejreee and plan for the next cross-aged session,
Mark and Michael continued to assert their roles in this preparation seminar by
venting their frustrations about the fourth and fifth graders who were disrupting
their small group discussions.

56 Michael: But I’m tellin’ ya, I did wanta hurt Marcus.

57 Mark: Now, you ain’t wanting to hurt Marcus like I wanted
to hurt Brandon. I kinda like to just put my hand over
the [undecipherable]

5 8 Michael: I grabbed, I said Marcus, I was like come here, let me
tell you somethin’. I walked over there, I put my hand
right here (?) around him like this...]

59 Fenice: [You did that?

60 Michael: Well Miss Black wasn’t there. I said let me tell you
somethin’ man. I was squeezing (laughing)

61 Fenice: I was... I was...

62 Michael: And he was like okay, okay. Just leave me alone.

63 Fenice: Michael, I was praising you for the way you handled
the situation. See, I didn’t know all this. I was just
listening to the tape.

64 Michael: Man. I just, I said it, I knew what I was gonna do.
See, I couldn’t take no more of that.

fifi

I'M

P—l

119

65 Mark: That dude was bad, yo.
66 Devon: I don’t really have any bad students since Brandon
got out.

The first topic I wanted to discuss in this session was related to what
Michael, Mark, and Devon considered to be important issues to discuss from
Sepg ef the Trees. Although their topics were not related to what I wanted to
talk about, it was a very important topic nevertheless. There are three significant
points about Mark and Michael’s dialogue: (a) they initiate an agenda for this
session which is related to their small groups, (b) they acknowledge that they
want and need to do something about the students who were frustrating them,
and (c) they talk to each other about the dilemmas. Devon’s comment (i.e., turn
66) implies that some of his challenges were passed on to Mark, making Devon’s
group easier to coordinate.

In addition to talking about younger students who gave them trouble,
Michael raised an issue related to his brother. One of his younger brothers was in
middle school and was kept in isolation during school hours. He described the
room where his brother was kept as a “closet where ain’t nothin’ but just one
window.” Michael continued by describing his brother’s behavior, and how he
reached the point where he had to be isolated from his peers. Mark and Michael
were friends and neighbors, so they knew each other’s family very well. As he
talked, Mark chimed in, supporting Michael’s assertions about his brother (i.e., he
has emotional problems). It appeared that Michael was exploring problem-
solving strategies, or making general connections between the situation he was
having with Marcus (i.e., the student in his group) and the difficult situation that

his brother had to encounter at the middle school.

120

Reconstructing Meanings of Literacy

Analysis of transcripts of four preparation seminars (i.e., January 11,
February 12, February 12, March 1) convey how students and I constructed
topics related to their views on literary response which included: (a) spontaneous
engagement with text, (b) the role of imagination in constructing meaning, (c)
interacting with fourth and fifth graders about text, and (d) making intertextual
links between text and political issues.

5 e w' x

Spontaneous engagement with text in the preparation seminar involved
instances where students talked about a piece of text by retelling and recalling
events of a story, asking questions, asking for clarification of an idea or opinion,
and making comments drawing on personal background experiences. The
instances of spontaneous engagement occurred beyond a superficial level, where
students stated positions drawing from other information resources (i.e., cross-
aged discussions). The spontaneous talk involved open-ended discussions, as
students developed their ideas along with peers. As students actively discussed a
piece of text, they raised complex conceptual issues, where all learners shared
responsibility for constructing meaning together.

In my analysis, the four students spontaneously involved themselves with
the literature we read for the preparation seminar. For example, on January 1 1,
spontaneous engagement began when I told the students that they were going to
begin reading, writing, and discussing literature with the younger students using
a wordless picture book. I held My up and asked them if they were familiar
with the book. Michael was the first to comment saying that he was not familiar

with that particular book, but that he remembered those “kind of books.” He

 

conllnl
tanscr

Mlcha

Explr
Woul

Clea!

121

continued by asking me if they were going to read it. In the next section of
transcript, I describe the exchange of dialogue that occurred after my response to
Michael’s question.

67 Fenice: Um, it’s not a lot in there to read. So we have to
create some other kind of activities.

68 Devon: Man, [inaudible]

69 Teresa: You have to use your imagination and stuff.

70 Michael: Ohhhh! Is this where you go like It’s Tuesday
evening around eight. It was a still night

71 Fenice: Make up a story? Is that what you’re saying?

72 Michael: Yeah, about the pictures.

7 3 Teresa: (laughs)

74 Fenice: Yeah. All right. lsaw... I got areaction there. What’s
that about Michael?

My response to Michael’s question set a context for the students to
explore the contents of the pictures. It seemed that Michael thought that there
would be words to read, and I responded by suggesting that we would have to
create activities. Devon responded to a picture he observed as he turned pages,
and blurted a loud “Man” to a picture. In turn 69, Teresa’s comment
demonstrated that she had knowledge about constructing meaning from text,
because she suggested that they would need to use their imaginations.

Michael also demonstrated that he had some understanding about
constructing meaning from a wordless picture book. He modeled what he was
thinking by reading the story starter and then continued to create an oral
narrative for the pictures. As Teresa flipped through the pages of the book, she
obviously saw something humorous, because in turn 73, there was a loud burst of

laughter. Their comments suggest that for these students, what initially counted

CO.

CO.

U8

QU

 

122

as literacy was the understanding that words were present to be read. As the

conversation evolved, they engaged in literate activity around text that

contained no words. Thus, their spontaneous engagement with the text helped

to underscore that literacy involves text of many kinds, not simply words.

Michael then made a comment (see line 75 below) that I thought important

and I responded by asking him to share what he was thinking. I return to the

transcript and present Michael’s response, or actually leek of response, to my

question, “Why?” in line 78 and my request for clarification in line 80.

75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86

Michael:

Matt:

Michael:

Fenice:
Teresa:
Fenice:

Devon:

Michael:

Matt:

Michael:

Teresa:

Michael:

It’s gonna’ be hard.

Lily pads.

It might be kinda hard.

Why?

Right!

To look at the picture and make up a story?
Yeah, frogs chasin’ birds.

Man, this is crazy! Look! Boy!

They’re taking people now.

Yup.

That’s a cute house.

It’s flyin’ frogs. (Laugh) He got a cape on (laugh).

Woo, they messin’ wit’ ‘dat lady’s TV (laugh). Man,
this is a funny book.

Michael’s comment, “it’s gonna be hard,” initiates a discussion that

involved Teresa, Matt, and Devon. All had interpretations about exactly what

would be hard. Since “it” is an unclear referent, this is not surprising. I asked for

clarification, while Teresa agrees (though her tone indicated that she spoke

sarca
[0 ill:
“craz
studs
Whicl
than 1
nonet
sloryl

literac

123

sarcastically), Devon points to the absurdity of “frogs chasin’ birds,” Matt points
to the frogs “taking people” and Michael continues by saying the whole thing is
“crazy” raising specific examples from the text. In short, the text prompted
students to identify a range of things that might make discussion difficult, most of
which centered around the oddity of the plot, conveyed through pictures rather
than print. At the same time, while agreeing that it would be “hard,” they
nonetheless demonstrate that there is much that can be discussed related to the
storyline conveyed through the pictures, underscoring that what counts as
literacy may be more complex than words alone.

Further, Michael’s comment that “it’s gonna be hard” suggests that he
had given thought to their reasons for exploring this text, that their purpose for
doing so involved their later responsibilities in working with younger students.
Thus, Michael conveys in a short phrase his views of the text, the upcoming work
with the younger students, and a recognition that what counts as literacy in this
context involves social interactions beyond the individual and the same-age peer
groups in which he had been involved. I will return to this point later in the
chapter when I talk about Michael’s reflections on his collaborative group work
with the fourth- and fifth-grade students using I_u_e_§d_9y.

On March 1, the students lunged into another spontaneous discussion that
centered on Seng ef the Tgees. One purpose for this session was to set a context
for developing their own questions to be used in their small groups. Analysis
revealed that while the students believed that they had “covered” all of the
significant ideas in their discussions, what they said they talked about with the
fourth and fifth graders and the themes and issues they raised within the context

of the preparation seminar were different. As students clarified what they meant

124

by “going over everything” they naturally talked about characters and events in
W, making public their views and opinions about what counts as
literacy in a discussion with peers. Placing the exchange in context will assist in
clarifying this point.

During the cross-aged literary sessions on Sepg ef the ilfrees, the students
had been working on characterization. The idea underlying characterization was
that the students pay particular attention to a character or characters they liked or
disliked in the story. Students had to specify reasons as to why they did or did
not like the character they selected. Michael seemed to think that because he
and the younger students in his group already “went over everything” such as
making predictions and whether the younger students liked or disliked the book,
there was not much more to discuss. Mark supported Michael’s opinion, adding
that they needed to talk about what sections of the story they would read the
next day. Mark concluded his comment by saying that was the only “real” thing
left to discuss.

The comments made by Michael and Mark regarding significant issues to
discuss, suggested that their views about what constituted a discussion about
mm were at a surface level. They did not appear to be thinking
about underlying issues (i.e., dignity, power, poverty) that they could discuss
with the fourth and fifth graders. Concerned that they did not comment about
more complex issues in the text such as control and power, I raised a specific
question which I thought should be addressed.

87 Fenice: Okay, now what about, um you don't think this, you

tell me what you think. You remember the part in the

story where um Mr. Anderson offers the mother and
grandmother the $65]

88
89

90
91
92
93

94

95
96
97

Michael:

Fenice:

Michael:

Devon:

Michael:

Fenice:

Michael:

Mark:
Devon:

Fenice:

125

[$65.

To sell the trees, I mean, to um let him cut as many
trees as he want, wants to cut. What do you thrnk
about that?

I think she bully, he’s a bully.
He was cheap.
He was cheatin’ her first of all.

He was cheap? Is that the only thing you think? He
was cheap?

He was cheating her first of all. Second of all, the little
threats, like he said he would hurt David. I think it
was all, I mean, to me, I think he coulda got over
without payin’ anything. He had to kept making
them there idle threats and ]

Broke his jaw. He wouldn’t left that porch.
He was cheap.

That’s the only thing you think, that he was cheap?

The first point to note is that I focused on a specific character and situation

in the story that I wanted the students to explore, making public a salient point in

the story. Michael and Devon’s description of Mr. Anderson shows that they

recognized some features of the character’s personality as evidenced by their

comments to demonstrate why they thought Mr. Anderson was a “bully.”

Despite Michael’s earlier comment that there really was not anything else

about the story to discuss, he made a strong assertion about the character I was

thinking about (i.e., Mr. Anderson), providing details to show that he had made

some assessment of that character. Likewise, Devon indicated that Mr. Anderson

was cheap and explained why he had drawn this conclusion. In my attempt to

help him consider other matters, I asked Devon the same question I asked

126

Michael, if the only thing he thought was that he was cheap. At that point, Mark
responded (line 98). Notice how he was in agreement with the others, that Mr.
Anderson was trying to cheat the Logan family. But then he moved the
conversation so that we were all able to consider other perspectives in relation to
the part of the story we were discussing.

98 Mark: I think he was a rip off. I wonder how much money
he woulda got for them trees. He really got for them
trees.

99 Michael: I say about 2.230.

100 Fenice: Well, it would depend on how many he cut, right?

101 Mark: He was gonna cut down all of ‘em.

102 Devon: Well, see he shoulda um

103 Michael: Except them baby ones.

104 Mark: He said that he was gonna cut down the baby ones if
he had to.

105 Michael: Yep.

The question Mark raised suggested that he was thinking about other
money-making possibilities for Mr. Anderson, “I wonder how much money he
woulda got for them trees, he mfly got for them trees?” As he talked, Mark
placed an emphasis on the word really, suggesting that he did not think that Mr.
Anderson would sell the trees for the same amount of money he paid the Logans
for them. His question was insightful and implied that Mark was “reading
between the lines” of the printed page, raising a question related to capitalism. In
this response, Mark made an inference based on what he had remembered about
the story and drew on personal background knowledge about the possibilities of

capitalism.

127

As the discussion continued to progress, the students explored more issues

that helped them to think about the story from various perspectives.

Occasionally, I raised questions to redirect the discussion. In the next section of

transcript, notice how I attempt to guide the students to think about this same

situation, but from a different perspective.

106

107
108
109

110

111

112
113
114
115

116
117

118

Fenice:

Michael:

Devon:

Michael:

Mark:

Michael:

Fenice:

Michael:

Mark:

Fenice:

Michael:

Mark:

Michael:

What do you think about the way the mother and the
grandmother handled it? I mean ...]

[I thought the grandmother handled it too hasty]
[But they did need the money though.

I think she handled it too hasty. I think she oughta,
she shoulda waited for David to get back or
somethin’. If they knew they was gonna send for
David, I think she shoulda waited.

But they ain’t know until that, remember, they didn’t
know until that night I think, after they had made the
deal. But they ...]

As soon as he woulda came, I woulda called you
know]

Did they make, did they make a deal?
Yeah. $65.
$65

That’s what he offered them. Is that what the mother
and the grandmother settled for?

Nah, that's

Yup, that’s what they settled, that’s what they settled
for.

They couldn’t do nothin’ else about it. That’s the
final offer. And then after he tried to give them $35,
to make it a even 100, but that wasn’t nothin’.

128

The point to note in this segment of transcript was the counter argument
Devon raised. Michael was the first student to respond to my question, stating
that he thought the grandmother (i.e., Caroline) acted too hastily in making her
decision. Devon attempted to get Michael to think about the situation from
another angle; that is, if the grandmother acted to fast, perhaps it was in their best
interest because the family needed the money that was offered to them. A second
point to note is how Michael viewed the “hastiness” of the grandmother in the
story. His argument was that the mother and grandmother should have waited
for the father to return before giving Mr. Anderson an answer about the offer.
Michael did not expound upon Devon’s comment, but chose to continue arguing
his own point. Even though Michael and Devon slightly disagreed, what is
noteworthy about this segment of transcript is that they were having a
discussion, presenting their own views, rationalizing why they had those views.

I noticed that at one point I needed to clarify an idea (i.e., the Logan family
did not accept the offer of $65 for their trees). Mark argued incorrectly that they
accepted the $65 offer and Michael was in agreement with him. Michael
elaborated by stating that the Logan women could not do anything about the
situation because Mr. Anderson made a final offer when he said that he would
give them $35 more in order to make the contract worth an even $100.

In this interaction, it is interesting to note that Michael, Mark, and Devon
discussed fundamental issues from W. Michael understood that
there was some wrongful intent going on in the story on the part of Mr.
Anderson (i.e., attempted to cheat the Logan family, made idle threats). Mark and
Devon understood the same idea, even though Devon argued that the character

was only cheap. Mark was especially insightful in bringing out a point that dealt

129

with issues of capitalism, when he stated that he wondered how much money Mr.
Anderson would [e911y get for “them trees.”

The preceding analysis of discussions between the four students illustrated
the potentially empowering nature of talk among low—achieving adolescents, and
highlighted the salient points they raised about Iu_eedg and S_or_rg_ef_the'l_‘;ee§.
If we look at features of their talk (i.e., modeling, making interpretations, asking
questions, exploring counter arguments), we see that these students
spontaneously engaged in talk about text with peers. Their discussions were
beyond a general and literal level of discussion, and highlighted their perceptions
of what counted as literacy during discussions about a piece of literature. These
students spontaneous engagement with the text provide examples to suggest
that we might refocus our thinking about teaching and learning, bringing
alternative perspectives on what counts as literacy for low-achieving adolescents.

le i 'o

In my role as facilitator, I wanted to understand what Mark, Teresa, and
Michael learned after working with the younger students using a wordless
picture book. Even though each student had the same text, the nature of
interactions, and M19; and m topics emerged in discussing the text varied.
Mark began by raising a topic he had mentioned previously, how the younger
students used their imaginations. The idea of using one’s imagination pervaded a
series of discussions about successful literacy activities, emphasizing students’
perceptions of what counts as literacy learning in alternative settings.

119 Mark: I know this is because you remember when you said
ask them questions about the book?

120 Fenice: Uh huh.

130

121 Mark: We asked them questions about the book. I noticed
some, some, some kids, they will say, they will say the
same thing as another person. About like, about the
frog book. But these kids have their own
imagination. Everybody thought something different
about that page, or whichever page we was on.
Nobody had the same, same thought. Everybody had
their own thoughts.

122 Michael: Yup, even if it was good one, different people are like
when old ladies in TV, they, some of them said she
would just watch TV. Then I had some sayin' she's
watchin' Geraldo. Watching Arsenio Hall. You know.

123 Mark: Yup, everybody had their own imagination. Own
thought

124 Michael: Then they gave my man with the sandwich the
different name, Bill, Tom. And uh Sandy, I think she
gave, his name was, uh,uh Christopher Williams.

In his first two turns (i.e., 119, 121) Mark’s assertion revealed two points.

First, Mark had followed my suggestion about how they might facilitate a
discussion about text with the younger students, when he noticed that when he
asked the students questions, they used the pictures to share their thoughts.
Second, Mark had paid close attention to what the younger students said about
the text. Taking into consideration Mark’s observations of his groups’
responses, his comments suggest that he had considered what counted as the
younger students used their imaginations to highlight features of a wordless
picture book.

Michael followed Mark’s lead, stating how the students in his small group

expressed themselves. As Michael talked, he described details that the younger
students in his group mentioned, For example, Michael observed how the

students’ used their imaginations to name a character and a familiar television

show. Mark and Michael’s observations were noteworthy because they shared

131

what and how the fourth and fifth graders discussed what counted as literacy,
using their imaginations while developing a narrative about the story.
E . . I . II I
The phrase “engaging in literate thought” seems appropriate for
describing ways in which the high school students critiqued cross-aged
interactions (i.e., Tuesday) and previous schooling experiences that were based
on (i. e., classes in middle school). Analysis of the preparation seminars on
February 12 and 17 provided information on ways in which students engaged in
literate thought, emphasizing features of the talk to underscore what counts as
literacy learning from the various sources they drew on. For example, during the
February 12 session, students spoke of the difficulties they had with Lie—sdg and
why. However, during the cross-aged interactions, what and how older and
younger peers talked about the text assisted them in critiquing it from an
alternative point of view.
125 Michael: And another thing good about ‘em is they young.
You know how young kids tend to, now you give
this to a older crowd, they’re like the book was flat
out stupid. And I don’t have nothin’ to say it was

so dumb.

126 Mark: Yeah, that was a good one Michael.

127 Michael: And that’s the same thing that’s what I was
wanting to say but I just didn’t say it because it was
part of the project.

128 [ loud burst of laughter]

129 Mark: But I mean, yeah, that’s another thing. When he said
the older kids thought it was so stupid, we thought it
was stupid. But when we got around them, they
brought out, they helped us bring out what they really
thought about the book. It helped us see that the
book could be what we want it to be because they
thought it was fun. And we thought it was stupid,

132

they thought it was fun. They, and they found, they
found the fun parts in it that which we didn’t see.
And that’s the good thing about it.

As Michael and Mark engaged in literate thought, they spoke of an
advantage to being “young” and reading a wordless picture book with
elementary students. Underlying Michael and Mark’s comments are how the
students in their small groups helped them to rethink and refocus on Inesdey
differently, focusing on hidden features and details in the illustrations which made
the activity “fun.” As the discussion progressed, Teresa, Michael, and Mark
continued to engage in literate thought by investigating their own reactions to
the text. Notice, how they recall specific details in lyeLday, which they had not
seen prior to working with the younger students.

130 Teresa: Like the cat. I didn’t see the cat.

131 Michael: Yeah, I never saw the cat neither [laughter] and I
never saw the swan the, the frog swinging on the
thing]

132 Mark: [That’s the one only thing I seen, was the cat.

133 Michael: Was the frog swingin’ on the fence...

134 Mark: Nope. I didn’t see the frog.

135 Teresa: I didn’t see the frog. I seen the one with
the...[inaudible]

136 Michael: No, the frog was swingin’ it and stuff it was funny. I
was crackin’ up. I ain’t noticed it.

This segment of transcript illustrates that Michael, Mark, and Teresa were
developing their literate thinking as they engaged in a conversation with fourth
and fifth graders. They recalled details in the illustrations of My that the
younger students pointed out which they had not previously paid attention to

(i.e., cat, swan, frog). Underlying the discussion was the credit that Mark,

133

Michael, and Teresa gave the younger students for assisting them in making
observations of hidden details. This reflection seemed to imply that the high
school students had not realized what impact a wordless picture book might have
on their literacy learning, in relation to the significance of noticing details and the
role of imagination in making sense of text.

I now turn to specific examples that the students gave in relation to what
they learned from engaging in dialogue about a wordless picture book with
younger children. Moreover, their explanations explore the role of imagination
in working with text without words, emphasizing the potential of socially
interacting with others.

137 Fenice: This is good. Okay, now, tell me, tell me more about

Let’s digress a minute and tell me more about your
experience with this particular book. I think cause we
kind of beat this book to death a little bit. We had
three sessions on it. And it’s really not a long book.
Just what it was like for you, having to read a picture
book. A wordless picture book, no less.

138 Teresa: I thought it was cute. I’m sick of readin’. All we do is

read. We don’t have picture books in high school or
anything. It was something different.

139 Mark: Yea, that’s, that’s one thing where I think we kinda
lose track. Just reading.

140 Michael: Yep, we can’t use our imaginations.

141 Mark: You can’t use your imagination.

142 Michael: Sometimes it’s good to use your imagination.

143 Mark: ’Cause the books we’re reading don’t have pictures.

We use our imagination in, with just readin’ a book
but we, when we’re reading a book, that’s all, that’s
all we do.

144 Michael: And therefore, sometimes we don’t even have to, in
the book we read, you don’t have to, you don’t have
to ...]

134

145 Mark: You don’t even imagine.

146 Michael: You don’t have to imagine ‘cause the words, I mean,
the author paints the picture for you.

147 Mark: But in this ...]
148 Michael: You can imagine what it’d look like but ...]

149 Mark: But when we read the book without the words, we
imagined, we seen the, we seen the pictures but still
we imagined, we imagined words and we imagined
everything that was goin’ on. We didn’t imagine, we
didn’t imagine just the words. Or how do I say ...]

150 Fenice: What with Tyesday you imagined everything that was
going on?
151 Mark: Was goin’ on. Like, like we seen the pictures like but

still we got to imagine like what the, what the people
would really say, or what we think they would really
say. Even what they, even what the people in the
picture were thinkin’. That’s the, that’s another thing
we had, we got to do.
I specifically asked the students to talk about their experiences with the
book (i.e., turn 137). While waiting for comments from the students, I
acknowledged that when I looked back, we spent perhaps more time than
necessary on the book. In turn 138, Teresa makes a comment that is interesting to
discuss. In an interview with her (January 5), I asked her if she liked to read.
Teresa described reading as a “struggle,” due (in part) to her learning disability.
Her tone as she comments, “I’m sick of readin” seemed to reflect her frustration.
Therefore, Teresa suggested that the wordless picture book provided her with a
different and less-frustrating reading experience.
Mark’s support of Teresa’s assertion seemed to be based on a specific

frame of reference. On several occasions, I had observed these students during

their English class. I noticed that during the first five rrrinutes of class, they wrote

135

in journals based on a topic that Mrs. Foster had written on the chalkboard, even
though they had the option to choose a topic of their own. Students never
shared or read what they wrote in their journals. Nor did Mrs. Foster. She
checked the number of entries during a grading period to ensure that students
had the number of entries that they had been assigned to do.

Beyond having few opportunities to talk about their journals, Mark’s
comment, “just reading,” seems to suggest that he rarely experienced sharing his
ideas about what he has read. When I observed the students in their English
class, students read orally. Mrs. Foster stopped them at certain points to ask
questions about the literature, usually calling on students to answer the
questions. Mrs. Foster then asked the next student to read. I never observed the
students and Mrs. Foster in text discussions. Mark’s comment was consistent
with the events in his English classroom. Essentially, reading was the end, not the
means to related literate activity.

There are several significant points in this series of exchanges. First, both
Michael and Mark used their background experiences in schooling and literacy
learning in general to make assertions about the benefits they gained from
reading Iyeedey. Underlying their perceptions were that in reading ngday,
they were allowed to use their own imaginations to engage in meaning
construction. They talked about how there were few opportunities to use their
imagination with the books they read in their high school classes. Second,
Michael and Mark provided details about how they thought the interaction with
Tuesday was different. As they explained their observations, a sense of
interaction between a reader and text overshadowed their explanation.

Specifically, in turn 149, Mark made reference to how he imagined interaction in

136

the text (i.e., ...we imagined everything that was going on). He was supported in
this assertion by Michael, when he suggested that he interacted with the text to
“imagine like what the people would say, or what we think they would really
say.” These comments illustrate that Teresa, Michael, and Mark considered
1m to be a different type of literacy learning experience, where they made
comparisons between various literacy learning opportunities (i.e., regular school
and cross-aged discussions).

Beyond the general comment Teresa made earlier (i.e., turn 138), she
explored deeper opinions about reading in general and 1mm specifically. In
the next segment of transcript, I asked her to share her thoughts about Ipesdgry,
and what she meant by “I’m sick of readin.” Notice how she connects her
background experiences with literacy learning as she reflected on her interactions
around the picture book.

152 Fenice: Now what were you sayin’ Teresa? You haven’t

talked too much. You said um something about “I’m
sick of reading. That's all we do.”

153 Teresa: Yeah. That’s all we do. We don’t get to look at

picture books and do our own imagination or

anything We have to do the we have to um

154 Michael: (inaudible)

155 Teresa: You feel under pressure when you read it.
156 Fenice: Huh?
157 Teresa: You feel under pressure when you read it. Like

Michael said. But um when you’re doing a picture
book, you can think of what you want. You don’t
feel any pressure. It’s your imagination. I mean,
nothin’s wrong. You can’t get nothin’ wrong. You
can’t just say a word or III anything.

158 Fenice: You say you don’t feel the pressure?

137

159 Teresa: Cause when you’re reading you’re like, everybody’s
gonna see, see if you messed up so they can laugh or
somethin’. When you’re doing a picture book, it’s
not like that. You can see your own words. You
won’t mess up on the words.

Teresa’s underlying ideas were both the ability to imagine and the ease
and freedom she encountered as she read a wordless picture book with the fourth
and fifth graders. Teresa stated that [high school] students do not get to look at
picture books and use their imagination. Apparently, “reading pictures” in a
wordless picture book relieved Teresa from such pressures, because she followed
up her comment by saying that when reading a picture book, the text is whatever
one’s imagination says it should be.

In turn 157, Teresa explained an issue about the struggles students
encounter in schoosl--being right or wrong--while reading text. In her argument,
the differences between being right and wrong relate to pronouncing words
accurately while reading, based on her experiences as a reader, as indicated by
her comment in turn 159. She stated that while “you’re reading like,
everybody’s gonna see, see if you messed up so they can laugh or somethin’.”
She eloquently summarized her opinions by stating that people cannot judge
word-decoding when using wordless picture books because the reader uses her
or his own words which nullifies the chance of “messing up” on the words
written by the author.

Teresa’s statements reveal her thoughts about herself as a literacy learner.
As detailed in chapter three, she had been labeled as Learning Disabled (LD) and
diagnosed as dyslexic. In an interview with Teresa, I had asked her about her

experiences with reading. She described reading as a “struggle,” drawing upon

her background experiences and learning disability. In this conversation, she said

138

“yep feel under pressure” and “everybody’s gonna see if y9_u messed up.” The
m she was referring to was herself, a position consistent with her interview.

Also, as part of this conversation, Teresa’s comments suggest that during
this experience, what counted as literacy learning was not “decoding” but rather
engagement in a successful experience with younger students. Teresa was able
to be imaginative and creative without feeling that she would be ridiculed if she
did not articulate a word correctly. Being imaginative and creative enabled her
to use her own words and share her own voice, without feeling compelled to read
what another had written. For Teresa to have voice in the discussion was an
important step for her, to see herself as a potentially literate person and move
forward in her literacy development. Reading a wordless picture book with
fourth-and fifth-grade students provided her with an opportunity to reconstruct
meanings of what counted as literacy. As she explained earlier “it was something
different.” Above, Teresa explained why the experience was different for her.

During the February 17 session, I wanted to develop my understanding of
how the students worked with texts in the past. Analysis of transcripts and
fieldnotes from the preparation seminar provided information about their opinions
of those experiences, where Devon, Mark, and Michael engaged in literate
thought by critiquing past literacy activities from some of their classes during
their middle school years.

160 Fenice: Okay. I don’t know a lot about how you used...
stories or books um prior to this class.

161 Michael: All we do is read stories in here and have tests on the
stories we read.

162 Fenice: What about you, Mark? What can you remember
about your reading and writing experiences prior to
coming to Septima Clark?

163
164

165
166
167
168
169

170
171

172

173
174

Mark:

Devon:

Mark:
Devon:
Mark:
Fenice:

Mark:

Michael:

Mark:

Michael:

Mark:

Michael:

139

Last year in English we never read nothing!

[laugh] You had Mr. Wayne... didn’t you? Yeah, we
didn’t read.

We did a whole bunch of writin’ and stuff like that.
And grammar.

and grammar.

What kind of writing?

Like we did like adverbs. We had, we learned how
to write proper sentences and

That sounds boring.

This was just, this was just regular I mean, it wasn’t
boring but, that’s what we did. He

Like in sixth grade, a book, adv... pronouns, singular,
adverbs

Yeah, we got into all that stuff.

....Just A + B, go to Y, makes the Y silent. Stupid stuff
like that!

In this segment of transcript, the students focus on types of literacy

learning activities they had experienced or 51111191 experience during previous

school years. Michael’s reference was to his current English class, where he

suggested that students typically read stories and answer questions about them

without talking with their peers or teacher about what they have read. Mark and

Devon’s experience was quite the opposite during Grade 8, where there

appeared to be a lack of “reading.” They referred to the literacy activities as

opportunities to work on “grammar.” What is interesting to note is how Michael

characterized the literacy activities of Mark and Devon, referring to them as

boring and “stupid stuff” while Mark defended what he had learned to do in his

work at school.

140

Devon recalled a different learning opportunity, by retelling a story he had

read. In the next segment of transcript, he narrates a story and Michael chimes in

to assist in recalling details about a story they had read two years earlier.

175

176
177

178

179

180
181

182

183

Devon:

Fenice:

Devon:

Michael:

Devon:

Michael:

Devon:

Michael:

Devon:

Well, seventh grade we didn’t really do anything
neither ‘cause I had Miss Jones. We didn’t really do
nothin’ in her class.

What do you mean, you didn’t do anything?

Like, like we read some stories but like we read outta
like um, it’s kinda hard to remember, um, we didn’t
really do that much. She would read stories to us
about weird stuff. We had she told us this one story
about, oh, this lady and she had died. No she played it
on a tape. It was a tape, she played it and she let us
listen to it. And it was talking about how this lady
had died and they had buried her. And then, they
buried her, over this gold right?

No, they buried....she had like some jewelry....

Yea, some gold rings....and then they, the people....the
grave robbers, they dug her up and like they took all
her jewelry and stuff and it was a ring stuck on her
finger. So then they cut her finger off and (laughs)
and then they got the ring.

So the lady was screaming. She wasn’t dead.

Then the lady had woke up ‘cause she wasn’t really
dead. So then the two robbers ran off, and she had,
came home and was knocking on the door, on her
door and then her little daughter opened up the
door and she was like tellin’ her dad that it was her
mom, and it was like ain’t she dead? (laugh)

He was like go back to the grave, you’re dead, you’re
dead. Go back to the grave.

It was like, and like we didn’t read. Like she would

play tapes to us that we listened to, instead of reading
a book. And we did a lot of English.

141

As Devon recounted a story from Grade 7, he received confirmation and
assistance from Michael, who helped him clarifiy ideas as he narrated the story.
Devon laughed at one point (i.e., turn 179), signaling the humor in the story.
Michael added a line to the story assisting Devon in the narration. This segment
of transcript illustrates how the students engaged in a moment of literate thought
as they recollected an earlier literacy learning experience.

In these transcripts, the discussions convey that the four students work
with the fourth and fifth graders influenced their views of what counts as literacy.
Their comments about the work in their small groups took into consideration an
expanded definition of literacy learning. Since their comments conveyed broader
features, they were more likely to consider what plays a role in meaning
construction such as the ability to use one’s imagination and paying close
attention to details. In addition, Mark, Michael, and Devon contrasted earlier
literacy learning experiences which suggest that the lack of engagement in
discussion with peers and the teacher results in a “boring” experience or lessens
the opportunity to construct meaning from text or engage in literate thought. In
contrast, reading stories or listening to humorous stories on tapes provided a
chance for them to interact with the storyteller (tape) as they listened. This is a
noteworthy point because students did not talk explicitly about the stories that
they read to answer questions for tests. However, they talked more explicitly
about stories they remembered reading for enjoyment.

M9_king Intertextual Connections

The literature I selected for use within the Cross-Aged Literacy Program

had to meet a range of criteria, from being reading-level appropriate for the

elementary students to content that was significant to both the younger and

142

older students. Not surprisingly, the content of the unit thematically connected
by the broad theme of human and civil rights elicited responses from students that
invited connections to their own experiences as well as intertextual connections
across the literature (see Hartman, 1991). By the March 1 preparation seminar,
students had read and discussed Taylor’s (1975) W and were
beginning to prepare for the literacy activities related to Naidoo’s (1986)
W. During the March 1 session, I introduced the book and
provided a brief synthesis of the plot: the story of a sister and brother in South
Africa who had to walk hundreds of miles to get their mother because their baby
sister was ill. I explained to the students that one reason I chose Jeyrney to
113mg was because there were parallels between its contents and Song ef me
Irees, specifically the struggles for civil rights of black people in South Africa and
America. The students responded to my general comments as they raised
questions about the book itself and the potentially related issues.

184 Michael: Can I see the back? [back cover of Lgppneyje
Je’ByrgI

185 Mark: [Somethin’ about Bobby someone he knows from
school]. Okay, alright, we sorry, we sorry, we sorry.

186 Michael: My mma [reading the back cover of the book]. Oh,
they’re about to go get their mom for their little baby
sister.

187 Fenice: It’s a lot of the stuff that, that’s goin’ on in South
Africa right now is similar to what um African
Americans went through in this country when we um
were //trying to...]

188 Mark: I wonder what they were doin’ down in California
about that time?]

189 Fenice: [...abolish segregation. So it’s a lot of parallels. In
California? The same thing?

143

190 Mark: Huh?
191 Fenice: You think things weren’t segregated in California?
192 Mark: I don’t know. I mean, I wondered what did they go

to Compton and tell them black people that they
couldn’t ride on the bus?

193 Mark: Compton ain’t always been like Compton is now.

194 Mark: I wonder did they go to Watts and South Central? I
bet you they didn’t.

195 Michael: Black folks ain’t crazy nowadays you know they bet’
not go to a black person and be like wash my shoes
BOY! (Laugh)

As Michael read the cover of the book, he read aloud. While I continued
to explain my reasons for choosing the text, Mark raised an interesting query in
line 188. In an area called South Central Los Angeles (LA), there had been a
great deal of publicity related to human rights and race relationships during the
year in which this study occurred, much of which centered around the Rodney
King beating and subsequent trials. South Central LA has a large minority
population (i.e., African-Americans, Latino). Similarly, Compton (LA) (i.e., turn
192) has a large minority population too. Thus, Mark made a connection
between my setting the context in America and South Africa and specific events
that had happened here in recent memory. Mark wondered if black people in
“Compton” were told that “they couldn’t ride on the bus?” He raised a social
and political issue linked to literature from this project.

A few days earlier, I had given Mark a different book entitled Missiseippi
Bridge by Mildred D. Taylor (1990) because he told me how he loved to listen to

his grandfather “tell ‘dem old time stories from down South.” One political issue

raised in the text was that in the South during the 19308, African-Americans were

144

designated back row seats on public buses. If white people filled all of the front
seats that were designated for them, then African-Americans were forced to give
up their seats in the back rows. Seemingly, Mark raised his questions to make
connections between the lives of people in California (i.e., Compton) historically,
and what he read in W.

Michael’s assertion in line 195 that black people would not accept being
told “nowadays you bet’ wash my shoes boy” reflect his perceptions of the
differences in time both socially and politically. Further, Michael’s remark implies
that he recognizes some of the injustices and oppression that occurred in the past.
Therefore, Michael was making links between issues raised in W,
and what is presently happening among people in this society.

Reconstructing Meanings of Student

Analysis of transcripts from the preparation seminar conducted on March
1, informal interviews conducted on April 1 and 12, and observations of
participation provided information and insights into students’ perspectives of
developing an understanding of how the program contributed to their ongoing
literacy education. Views about the purposes of the preparation seminar and the
roles that the high school students played in it emerged from the initial lack of
attendance and participation to an evolving understanding of how their voices
and leadership skills played a part in the overall program. Categories that
emerged from their perceptions were related to their perceived notions of (a) the
value of collaboration and (b) making connections to their high school classes.

tion Co r ' n

The preparation seminar held on March 1 centered on a variety of

instructional activities (i.e., reading, writing) as well as debriefing. During the

145

debriefing, I asked students how they viewed their time and effort in the

preparation seminar.

196

197
198
199
200

201

202
203

204

205

206
207
208
209
210

211

Fenice:

Devon:

Michael:
Fenice:

Devon:

Michael:

Mark:
Michael:

Devon:

Michael:

Fenice:
Mark:
Devon:
Michael:
Mark:

Michael:

I have some questions to ask. Tell me what you think
the purpose of the preparation seminars ...]

To get prepared for the next session you go to.
To get prepared for the next session.

Is that the only thing you think this is about?
No, and it’s to communicate and get closer to my
fellow work mates...it’s to communicate with my

fellow work mates.

And to see how everything else is going in our
groups.

Oh man. Michael, you just, look at that car!

We gotta stay focused. Shhhh! Stay focused. Stay
focused.

And to answer questions that we've been stuck on for
the last...]

[To talk about how everything’s goin’ within our
groups and stuff and get the problems out in the open,
you know, so we can address them so we won’t have
them problems the next week, from here on.

Mark?

Yo, what’s the question?

What do you think the purpose is...]

[of the preparation seminar?

Oh, oh, okay. To um... ah um ...to understand and
get ideas from each other and to help, to answer,
further help us on our way of helpin the kids.
Because we can get ideas from each other that can
help us help somebody else that, you know...

Yuh, yuh, yuh. Somethin’ like that. Yuh.

146

212 Fenice: Anything else?

213 Michael: Nope.

Based on two interrelated components of the program, Devon’s idea of the
“next session,” in this case, was to prepare and plan the lessons for the fourth
and fifth graders. A point to be made about Devon’s response is that he had
some notion about what impact collaboration with peers might have in a small-
group setting. In addition, Devon’s comment implied that he understands the
magnitude of collaborating with others (i.e., get closer). Michael agreed with
Devon. That is “to see how everything else is going in our groups” would be
opportunities to communicate and perhaps to “get closer” as students interacted
socially about the problems and possibilities in their cross-aged literary discussion
sessions.

Devon and Michael comment about the debriefing feature of the
preparation seminar, focusing on putting challenges out on the table so that all
group members could engage in problem-solving collectively. Mark’s description
of the purposes of the preparation seminar draws on Vygotsky’s (1978) principle
which assumes that knowledge is constructed through interactions among
individuals. From Mark’s perspective, the preparation seminar assisted him in
gathering ideas from his peers through the reading, writing, and discussions
which made up the preparation seminar. The ideas that Mark collected from the
preparation seminar were reconstructed and meanings renegotiated through the
discussions and interactions that he facilitated with his small group of fourth and
fifth graders.

Michael expanded upon the notion of the value of collaboration in an

informal one-on-one interview held on April 1. His description characterized

147

collaboration as meaningful, drawing on his observations of how talk and

interactions played out over time in his small group.

214

215

216

217

218
219

220
221

222

Fenice:

Michael:

Fenice:

Michael:

Fenice:

Michael:

Fenice:

Michael:

Fenice:

Can you explain to me out of the whole complete
picture [of the program], what’s important and why is
it important, to you? Or is it important? If there's not
anything that’s important, just tell me that too.

It’s important for me to um, for our discussions
because when I discuss with them [younger students],
I feel like the more I talk to them, the more they feel
that they can talk to me. Like ‘cause when I first
started, they really didn’t talk much because I felt
that they did’t know me. But the more we had our
discussions, the more I talked to them, the more they
talked back and that made so that made like the
next time we read a book or their discussion, when the
discussion part came around, that made our
discussions more, you know, interesting, because they
were able to talk to me.

Now, it sounds like you’re saying the talk and the
level of talk ...that you do in the small groups is
important, right?

Uh huh.
Why?

It’s important to me because I feel so that they like me
and they’re not just doing this because they have to.
They’re gonna get, it’s important to, you know, it’s
important to me to know how they feel and what, you
know, they wanta’ do.

Why?

Because, you know, if I’m sittin’ here and we’re
makin’ them do somethin’ that they don’t wanta do,
that’s not gonna make it, not gonna get anything out
of ‘em because they don’t wanta do it.
Communication is important to me and that without
that communication then I won’t be able to write
what I’m supposed to write. You know. Get it?

What’s the communication is important, the discussion
15 Important, but why is it important to you?

148

223 Michael: Um, it’s important to me because, I want a relationship
with the kids... and it’s important to me because it
helps me to know what to write and what to, you
know, and for me to be able to understand where, you
know, my group is coming from when they talk about
different things it’s helping me in terms of getting, I
mean, it’s helping me in terms of wanting to read more
because I know I’m not gonna read more as, you
know, I go on further in school in terms of books and
everything. And the reading in this program is helpin’
me a lot cause it’s not, I don’t, I used to think reading
was really boring but you know, it’s I liked reading
but now it’s like I like it even more. And I kinda owe
that to all of that. ‘Cause I just started really reading
books on this start, when this group thing, this
project... Now I’m reading more. ‘Cause to me,
sometimes it relaxes me, helping me take my mind off a
lot of different things when I go there. So it helps me
in that sense cause when I’m there, you know, it’s like
I know what I have to do and I know why I’m there
and I can have fun while I’m doin’ it. You know,
there’s no sort of specific way to how I’m supposed
to go about doing things.

Michael defined collaboration in two areas. First, he saw discussion as a
tool for establishing a line of communication among members of a group. Second,
he described building relationships with students as important, and noted one
way to do so was through discussion. Michael also viewed collaboration with
the elementary students as a way of helping him to read more and to develop
alternative perceptions of reading and some of its purposes (i.e., reading for
relaxation). His last comment regarding “no sort of specific way to how I’m
supposed to go about doing things” suggests that sharing and building upon the
ideas of others through collaboration places merit on what others contribute in
group situations. Thus, acknowledging the contributions of individual group
members is developed as they share and collaborate about their ideas.

This section of the preparation seminar and informal interviews suggested

that the three students had an understanding of the significance of collaborating

149

with others. Topics underlying their comments related to the value of
collaboration and social interaction; that is, they seemed to understand that peer
interactions granted them assistance in working with the fourth- and fifth-graders
in the cross-aged literary discussion setting. This seemed to be important for
working to solve dilemmas, to develop ideas for literacy activities and tasks, and
to establishing positive lines of communication among group members.
on n cti 11

Analysis of the March 1 group preparation seminar and one-on-one
seminars held on April 1 and 12 suggest that students found the instructional
components useful for fostering ideas to help them with various literacy activities.
Categories that seemed important to the students in terms of what they were
getting from the overall program (i.e., preparation serrrinar, cross-aged discussions)
related to how their contributions helped me accomplish my graduate degree,
how they use information to enhance literacy activities in their high school
classes, and how they used information to develop personal hobbies.

224 Fenice: Okay, now how do you feel about the time and the -
effort that you put into the prep sems? Not the time
we go to Angelou but just this?

225 Michael: I think it’s helping but you know, I think we need to
get more serious about the thing. I think we need to
realize that this is your job that we’re messin’ wit’....
I’m tellin’ you the truth. This stuff we gotta realize,
honest to God. Don’t you? I mean, she gotta write
her dis-o-tation

During the March 1 session, Michael started this phase of the discussion

by commenting on an issue which emerged at the beginning of the program (i.e.,

establishing a sense of commitment and responsibility). His suggestions regarding

“get more serious about the thing” [preparation seminar] mirror some of the

150

“lectures” I had made since our first session on January 11. What seems most

significant to Michael were the connections he made between the groups’ efforts

and contributions and how that would enable me to finish my project. His

argument about the necessity to put more effort into the preparation seminar

represents a recurring change in his thinking about the purposes and value of

working together in this setting.

In this same session, Mark told us how he drew on information he acquired

from the program to assist him in writing a creative story in one of his high school

classes.
226
227
228
229

230
231

232
233

234
235

Fenice:
Mark:
Fenice:

Mark:

Fenice:

Mark:

Michael:

Mark:

Michael:

Mark:

Okay, Mark, what do you get out of the prep sems?
Knowledge.
What kind of knowledge?

Out of the prep sems, it does, it helps me not only just
in my little groups, it helps me in school too. ‘Cause
you know most of the time I just have one idea or
whatever, but you know ever since I started comin’ to
the prep sem they make me get more ideas like in
my classes and stuff.

Okay, give me an example.

Like today, I had to do, like in fifth hour, you heard
my story? [asking Michael]

Sure you right. I heard it.

I ain’t yesterday I didn’t have not one idea
whatsoever and I I had to write my last reflection
thing, in my reflection log. And I was thinkin’ to
myself these kids always come up with these good
ideas, and I was just, you know, I was thinkin’ about
the little kids’ book, and I had to write a story, a short

story.
Oh, yea. He did, he did.

I had to write a short story ....]

151

236 Michael: [Grasshopper and an ant.

237 Mark: No, it was setting goals. And I was like, I could use a
little kid’s story and it won’t be so hard. My kids
helped me. Show me right!

Mark communicated how he drew on ideas he acquired from the fourth
and fifth graders to assist him in writing a piece of text for one of his classes at
Septima Clark. As Mark talked about this experience, Michael confirmed his idea.
Mark’s commentary implied that in addition to being a facilitator and active co-
participant in his small group, he was making some assessment of what might be
useful for him to adapt for his own literacy learning activities at the high school
level.

Devon made personal connections between the literacy activities in the

program and a hobby he liked, writing lyrics to rap songs. In a one-on-one

debriefing session on April 12, Devon shared how he drew on Tuesday , to write a

different type of rap song.

238 Devon: I’ve written a song called “Upside Down” because
well, usually I write like songs about the streets as
they say. When I, you can kinda say that the book
inspired me and I’ve written a song, it’s called,
“Upside Down.”

239 Fenice: What book inspired you?

240 Devon: Tuesday.
241 Fenice: Okay. What’s “Upside Down” about?

242 Devon: It’s about there’s really no point to it but it’s just
about how there’s all different kinds of people in the
world and there’s not anything, I mean, there’s
somethin’ special about everything. And creativity, it
has a lot of stuff about creativity in a way

243 Fenice: What do you mean by in a way?

 

152

244 Devon: ’Cause when I was sittin’ down with my brother,
right, and I was, um like tryin’ to figure out a song to
write, right? And then I had the book laying on the,
urn, bed right next to me and he asked me what the
book was and I was like it’s somethin’ I’m doing for a
project. Then he said what’s it about? I was like it’s
about these frogs and he was said what about the
frogs and I was like talking about how he was flyin’
and stuff, right, then he said wouldn’t it be a good
idea for a song. And I was like nah, I’m not gonna
write about no flyin’ frogs but he said, try somethin’ a
little different. So then I was yeah, I can do somethin’
different. That’s how we usually get started.

As this transcript illustrated, Devon made personal connections between
the project and a hobby he enjoyed by drawing on a piece of text we used in the
program (i.e., II yesdey) to write lyrics for a rap song. In making personal
connections between flfyesdey and writing a rap song, Devon found a
worthwhile way to construct meaning from a wordless picture book. Further,
through the process, Devon initiated use of various skills and strategies which
were context based (i.e., thinking, creative writing, reading).

In this section, Michael, Mark, and Devon told how they had made
personal connections between the overall program and the various literacy
activities they encountered. Underlying concepts in their comments related to (a)
taking the preparation seminar more seriously, (b) drawing on literacy activities
from the program to incorporate them in high school coursework, and (c) drawing
on literacy activities from the program to develop personal hobbies.

S .1 . i E I E . S .

At the beginning of the Cross-Aged Literacy Program, the four high school

adolescents volunteered to participate in this alternative instructional program

which entailed two interrelated components, the preparation seminar and cross-

aged discussions. Initially, there were struggles that centered on problems of

153

attendance and participation. The problems developed as content for the
preparation seminar, resulting in working to establish a sense of commitment and
responsibility among all members of the group. Developing a sense of
commitment to the overall program led students to take more responsbility in
areas such as sharing ideas and critiquing the challenges they faced in their small
literature groups. As students were enabled to have a voice, they assisted in
socially constructing the literacy content in the preparation seminar. Three broad
themes developed within the preparation seminar; reconstructing meanings of
schooling, reconstructing meanings of literacy, and reconstructing meanings of
student. These themes emerged from the students’ voices, and their voices
created much of the content for the preparation seminar.

The second component of the Cross-Aged Literacy Program involved the
high school students’ work with the fourth and fifth graders, where they
separated into small groups with four to six younger students. As they facilitated
and actively co-participated literary discussions with their students, they drew
from the literacy activities in the preparation seminar as well as other information
sources to assemble a context for developing literacy. This is the focus of the

next chapter.

CHAPTER 5

RECONSTRUCTING MEANINGS OF LITERACY LEARNING
EXPERIENCES THROUGH CROSS-AGED DISCUSSION GROUPS

In this chapter, I focus on the second component of the study and
highlight the cross-aged literary discussions that were facilitated by two students:
Teresa and Michael. These two students elected to participate in the preparation
seminar in different ways, and - perhaps not coincidentally — had different
approaches to their interactions with the younger students during the cross-aged
literacy discussions. Their contrasting interactions with the younger students
related to the moment-to-moment decisions they made, the strategies they used to
develop discussions, and the different themes and issues that evolved throughout
the process of each literacy lesson. Together, they represent contrasting
examples of how roles were constructed to talk about books with fourth and fifth
graders.

While collaboration through the preparation seminar was available to all
the high school students, Michael attended and participated in the seminar on a
regular basis while Teresa’s seminar attendance and participation was limited
(discussed in chapter 4). As a result, she did not receive the full benefit of the
social interactions, literacy activities, suggestions from peers, and overall
collaboration and community relations of the preparation seminar. My analysis
describes the differences in the way the two high school students’ interactions
with the younger students occurred and traces potential explanations for these
differences to the differences in their participation in the preparation seminar.

Teresa and Michael’s work with the elementary students provide

researchers and teachers with a forum to rethink, redefine and reconstruct

154

e1

lv‘
5!

tr:

lite
“‘11
the
boc
11'] V;

35t

Clar
Stud.
heter
01‘ [ht
“’Ord

0113 C

155

meanings of alternative literacy experiences for students who struggle with
reading, writing and schooling. To explore these two cases, I have organized the
chapter into the following three sections. I begin with an overview that provides
a window into Mrs. Brody’s fourth/fifth split-grade classroom at Angelou
elementary school, the site of the cross-aged literacy discussions led by Teresa,
Michael, Devon, and Mark. In the next two sections, I present Teresa’s and
Michael’s cases, respectively. I present each case in terms of emerging themes,
supported by a description of the talk and patterns of interactions reflected in
transcripts of the cross-age discussions. In Michael’s case, I also drew upon his
written responses for further support of my analysis and interpretations.
Beginning A Day of Cross-Aged Interactions about Text

During the preparation seminar on January 11, the students decided upon a
literacy activity that they would do when they read Iyes_d_ay (Wiesner, 1991)
with the fourth and fifth graders. Overall, the high school students agreed that
they would create a narrative text based upon the pictures in the wordless picture
book. The story would be developed in round-robin style, where they would
invite each of the younger students to talk about the details and make-up a story
as they interpreted Ipe§d9y.

On February 4, I picked up Michael, Teresa, Mark, and Devon at Septima
Clark High School to drive them to their second meeting with their younger
students at Angelou Elementary. The fourth- and fifth-grade students had been
heterogeneously grouped for the cross-aged literacy discussions, each led by one
of the four high school students. The text for the literacy activity was m, a
wordless picture book by David Wiesner (1991). Each high school student had

one copy of the text. One goal the high school students had identified during the

 

156

preceding preparation seminar was to involve the younger students in the
development of a narrative to accompany the illustrations in this wordless picture
book. After they entered the room, each student selected their group of students
with whom to work and sat down. Since Michael and Mark had missed the first
session, they began by introducing themselves to the students in their group,
asked the children their names, and then began the literacy activities. Devon and
Teresa simply began with a focus on the text. The classroom buzzed with the
hum of students in each of four cross-aged discussion groups, spread out across
the four comers of the classroom. As I observed the older and younger students
interacting around Tm, I noticed variations in how each of the high school
students initiated and facilitated the discussion.
Dunn

On the Northeast side of Room 205, Devon worked with five children -
four males and one female. He modeled how to make up a story as he “read the
pictures” and made interpretations about them. While reading the pictures, he
held the book so that the children could see them as he made interpretations.
Since written text did not accompany the illustrations, Brandon (i.e., a fourth-
grader) appeared confused. He asked Devon, “You readin’ the story or
somein’?” Devon responded by explaining that for each page in the book, they
should look at the pictures and make up their own story by describing the details
in the pictures. After Devon finished modeling what the children were to do, he
told them to do what he had modeled. Devon listened as the fourth and fifth
graders tried to create their story. He encouraged the children to draw on literary
elements such as character by giving names to the people and the dog in the

illustrations. In addition, Devon supported the children by making the point that

the
nee
his
stud:
the b

ashes

33%st

D"allied l

157

there were no right or wrong answers to what they said, and that they did not
need to feel shy about doing the activity. As Devon and the younger students in
his group talked, they constructed an oral narrative. They laughed whenever
students made humorous interpretations about the pictures. After they finished
the book, Devon asked the children what they thought about the story, and then
asked each child to write individual stories in their reading logs.

Marl:

Mark was located on the Southwest side of the classroom with a group of
four female fifth graders. Like Devon, Mark began the activity by making
interpretations about the illustrations in the story with enthusiasm and
expression. He “read the pictures” and commented on what he thought was
happening with the frogs and people in the illustrations. As the four students
responded to Mark, he encouraged them to place themselves in various events
and situations that occurred throughout the text. Mark did this by asking the
fifth graders how they thought they might feel if they were in the same situation.
As Mark discussed the pictures, he analyzed them and created an oral narrative of
Imesdey. The students in his small group laughed throughout their discussions,
and followed Mark’s lead as they pointed out their own observations and made
interpretations.

Mlnhnnl

Michael was in a Northwest comer of the room with a small group of five
students — four males and one female (see Table 7 for names of students). Like
Devon and Mark, Michael made interpretations about the pictures as well. As I
eavesdropped on Michael’s discussion, I noticed that he modeled what he

wanted the students to do by zooming in on specific details in the illustrations.

158

Table 7

Cross-Aged Literary Discussion Group Participants

   
 

{
!

Names of High School Names of Fourth- and Fifth-
: Students , Grade Students

   
     

f

Teresa

159

As Michael narrated the story, he concurrently made interpretations about the
pictures. For example, Michael said “One day, there was this turtle in the pond.
He knew something was gon’ happin’ that’s why he had that funny look on his
face.” After Michael created an oral narrative for Tuesday, he encouraged the
children to write a group story that was based upon each child’s description of
details in the pictures. To facilitate this group activity, Michael called on each
student. In turn, they elicited a description of the picture or an event to add to
their groups’ story.

Teresa

Teresa sat on the Southwest corner in a circle with four females and two
males (see Table 7). In contrast to Devon, Mark, and Michael, Teresa started her
group discussion by telling the younger students wha; she wanted them to do,
rather than modeling m she wanted them to interact with the book. Teresa
explained to Brad, Cathy, Chaucey, Edith, Janet and Stanley that they had to
create their own words for the book. She elaborated by stating that each
student’s contribution must follow from the previous student’s “description” of
the illustration, rather than beginning a new storyline.

Frustration surfaced over confusion among the younger students between
“describing the pictures” as they were doing and “telling a story” as Teresa
wanted them to do. After approximately four nrinutes of the fourth and fifth
graders simply describing the pictures, Teresa decided to actively participate and
model what she wanted them to do as she spontaneously began creating an oral
narrative of the text: “There’s a man sitting at the table [undecipherable] about
11:21. All of a sudden he looked out the window, and he seen these flyin’

frogs.” After Teresa finished, she explicitly told the children what she wanted

160

them to do by saying “You have to put it like that - in a story.” Teresa’s turn
provided an example for the students of both telling a story related to the
illustrations and of being expressive as they talked. While they continued to
describe the pictures rather than tell a story, their tone of voice changed from
simply describing, to making an effort to be more expressive. However, Teresa
continued to struggle with conveying the difference between description and
storytelling and did not model any further examples of how one might construct
an oral narrative. Thus, Teresa had experienced one tension that her peers did
not: inconsistency between her goals for the activity and the way the event
unfolded.

In addition, Teresa encountered another struggle that Devon, Mark and
Michael did not experience since she had an “experienced” cross-aged literacy
project fifth-grade student. Stanley had participated in the first study of the
Cross-Aged Literacy Program during the previous year (Boyd, 1995: Boyd &
Raphael, in preparation). Since Stanley had had prior experience in discussion
groups with older students, he seemed confident about what was going on, and
did not hesitate to let the other students (including Teresa) know that he had
participated in the previous project.

In summary, the cross-aged discussions at Angelou Elementary School
were characterized by all four high school students’ active participation with the
elementary school students as they met in small groups to create narratives as a
basis for discussing the story. While adults were present during these discussions,
they did not intervene, instead allowing the high school students to assume
leadership and responsibility for the discussion. There were similarities across

groups in terms of number of participants, text used as the basis for discussion,

161

and length of discussion time. However, there was a marked contrast between
the approach and focus of the three high school students who had participated in
the preparation seminar and their ability to handle the groups’ discussions, and
Teresa’s approach, focus, and ability to handle the small group discussion.
Qefiaipg Ilferesa and Miehael’s Rule in Cruse-Aged Discussions

In the next two sections, I present the cases of Teresa and of Michael.
These two cases provide interesting contrasts in terms of their leadership roles
which I describe as facilitator and co-participant. I define facilitator as one
who models and guides the fourth and fifth graders through literary discussions
by inviting students to participate through raising questions, making comments,
and orchestrating turn-taking among the younger students (Raphael & Goatley,
in press). The role of co-participant is defined as one who is actively engaged in
the discussions with the younger students, by reading written responses orally,
interweaving strategies and skills into discussions, stating personal opinions,
displaying values (e.g., animal rights), background knowledge, and integrating
personal experiences. Teresa and Michael were both facilitators and co-
participants, and they enacted their roles differently at different times during the
literacy activities. For instance, as a facilitator, Teresa used her typewritten
suggestions from the preparation seminar and the younger students’ responses to
orchestrate the discussions. As a co-participant, she included her personal
opinions and beliefs within the context of the discussions, thus mediating the talk
in her existing and less constructivist views of teaching -- a “teacher” managing
her students and looking for the right answers. Therefore, what Teresa tended to
focus on was order and logistics, telling rather than modeling, and what she tells is

to describe rather than construct meaning with the younger students. In contrast,

162

Michael was a facilitator when he followed the suggestions made at the
preparation seminar sessions and incorporated his knowledge as an “apprentice
observer.” Lortie (1975) refers to this as the "apprenticeship—of-observation" to
describe the ways that general schooling prepares students for work, especially
with public school teachers. Students have sustained face-to-face and
consequential interactions with established teachers for approximately 13,000
hours by the time they graduate from high school. Michael appeared to
incorporate his background knowledge of teaching, schooling, and the
preparation seminar to assist him with the activities in his small group. As a co-
participant, Michael was involved in the cross-aged discussions by orchestrating
the flow of the conversation, taking no more responsibility than the younger
students (Raphael & Goatley, in press), and reading his written responses from his
reading log.
Themes in Teresa’s Cross-Aged Setting

Analysis of the transcripts revealed that Teresa conducted the discussions
in her cross-aged group as a facilitator and co-participant. In this case, I argue
that since Teresa did not participate in the preparation seminar on a regular and
consistent basis, her discussions with the fourth/fifth graders were less-than-
perfect (Roller & Beed, 1994). This resulted in Teresa’s reliance on traditional
ways of conducting literary discussions (e.g., management and rules). In order to
understand how Teresa’s case provides a context for reconstructing notions of
literacy learning for low-achieving students, I discuss the cross-aged interactions
and the roles they can play in low-achieving adolescents’ literacy learning and

acquisition.

163
B . I l . E I

The first issue for analysis was how Teresa organized the group to
establish her role as a learner, “teacher,” and leader to guide the cross-aged
discussions. When she met the younger students to discuss the literature, two
features consistently emerged: (a) management and rules, and (b) instructional
procedures. Management and rules were the brief statements Teresa made to the
fourth and fifth graders to get them organized before and occasionally during
discussions. Instructional procedures were instances where she described literacy
activities. The nature of her descriptions included literacy content. Although
occurrences of these two features (i.e., management, instructional procedures)
were temporary and short, they emerged consistently during the cross-aged
literary discussions that Teresa conducted with the younger students.

A second issue that emerged during the cross-aged discussion groups was
the methods that Teresa used to develop literary discussions. As I examined the
transcripts of the cross-aged discussions, I was initially attracted to the ways in
which Teresa appeared to be assisting the younger students to make personal
connections with the text. However, further analysis revealed that she was more
or less “winging it” versus drawing on the discussions and planning from the
preparation seminar, and her sense of literary knowledge. Thus, rather than
giving the discussions an appearance of framing and assembling pieces of a
puzzle, often times it appeared that Teresa was trying to force pieces of a puzzle
together that should not have been attached.

Teresa’s strategies for conducting cross-aged literary discussions included
asking questions based upon the younger students’ responses and comments.

Simultaneously, the activity strategies used to develop discussions reinforced

164

Teresa’s organizational strategies, and her role as facilitator. The activity
strategies assisted Teresa and the younger students to “keep a conversation
about text going” although they were less-than-perfect.

The fourth and fifth graders in Teresa's small group were Brad, Cathy,
Chaucey, Edith, Janet, and Stanley. In this section of the chapter, I focus on how
Teresa interacted with the students, drawing on transcript data from February 4,
25, March 3, April 15, 28, and May 5 and 19. I explore the strategies she used in
attempts to frame and assemble puzzle pieces that did not necessarily connect,
then concentrate on the analysis of the transcripts of her cross-aged discussions.
I will critique the transcripts in sections, then summarize the findings.

To discuss Teresa as a learner by teaching a small group of fourth and fifth
graders, I continue with the description of how the students interacted with
Tuesday on February 4. The first session gave Teresa an opportunity to explore
the literacy activities we worked on and talked about in our preparation seminar
on January 11.

To begin the literacy activities, Teresa helped the students to get organized
for discussion simultaneously establishing her role within her group. Patterns for
setting the context to begin a discussion emerged in two different ways;
management and rules, and giving instructional procedures. Below I discuss this
phase.

ManagemenLandmles. An alternative literacy learning program designed
for low-achieving students requires new ways of looking at how a low-achieving
student develops as a learner through teaching. However, we must understand
that historical, social and experiential background definitions of schooling,

teaching and learning remain with adolescents who have been labeled even

165

though they might participate in programs designed to offer alternative
experiences.

Keeping within a sociocultural theoretical perspective, oral language was
the principle tool for enhancing the social interactions and literacy activities
among all students. Norms for interaction shaped the way Teresa perceived her
dual roles as learner and teacher, and the ways in which she saw her relationship
with the younger students in her group. How language was used, and for what
purposes, provided opportunities for knowledge construction and literacy
learning for Teresa as well as the younger students. The dual role of learner and
“teacher” not only provided Teresa with an opportunity to participate in her
own learning by interacting with others, it elevated her status, and gave her
permission and authority to make decisions about the group dynamics and norms.
How she presented herself and treated matters that emerged contributed to her
own learning regarding leadership, organization, and making immediate decisions.
Therefore, it was important to understand how Teresa established managerial
procedures and group norms in order to move the group forward in reading,
writing, and discussion.

Teresa organized the fourth and fifth graders in her group to prepare for
discussions by embedding various managerial procedures and rules within the
context of discussions and interactions. For example, having students begin their
group discussion after each group member finished writing a response in their
reading log was one norm that was shared and understood by all of the younger
students and was common throughout the study. A second norm related to tum-
taking, in contrast to students talking simultaneously. This enabled Teresa to hear

the voices of each student individually, as well as avoid her potential loss of

166

control of the small group. At the same time, such methods resembled
“traditional” ways of interacting in a classroom. The management and
procedures that were prevalent in the cross-aged setting suggested that Teresa
used her own experiences and information about schooling and teaching to assist
her as she worked with the cross-aged group.

The managerial procedures and rules were temporary and short term and
emerged for different purposes at various times throughout the discussions. For
instance, sometimes Teresa stated managerial instructions as a response to a
question or comment made by students in her small group. At other times, the
norms established for management and rules surfaced as a result of tensions that
emerged during interactions among students. The moment-to-moment
interactions in the group required that Teresa make immediate decisions. As
learner and “teacher” this enhanced her role as facilitator and co-participant
within the context of her small group.

In general, Stanley's actions and behavior seemed to create conflict with
Teresa. Recall that Stanley was the fifth-grade student who had had prior
experience in working with high school students during my first study of the
Cross-Aged Literacy Program. For Teresa, this was a first and new experience'in
working with a small group of fourth- and fifth-graders in a literary discussion
group. Below, I present an excerpt from the beginning of the February 4 session
which appeared to be the beginning of the tension between Teresa and Michael.
She responded by establishing implicit norms taken from background information
from the initial meeting of the preparation seminar, prior knowledge, and a sense
of schooling.

1 Stanley: You have to speak up louder.

167

2 Cathy: I had an interview (??).
3 Stanley: I think it’s about an animals now....??
4 Teresa: Not yet, you gotta wait until we go through the whole

book and then ....??

[Approximately one rrrinute allowed to browse through Malay]

5 Teresa: Alright, you ready?
Edith: Yea.
7 Teresa: Okay. You wanna be the first one?
8 Edith: It’s about frogs.
9 Teresa: I know but we gotta match, it’s like, you gonna say,

like for instance, if I was supposed to do this page,you
gotta say what’s going on and it’s like, it’s like you’re
creating your own words for the book. And I’m
gonna pick, you gotta match the other person’s
description. You can’t just write somethin’wild like,

pink frogs.
10 Stanley: Anyway, that’s not a frog it’s a toad.
ll Teresa: Oh, well whatever. Okay, we’ll start with you. What

do you think is going on in this picture?

In this exchange, Stanley began the discussion by telling Cathy she had to
speak louder. Stanley’s directions to Cathy to speak louder might have been due
to several purposes: for audio taping reasons, so that the rest of the members in
the small group could hear her, or to speak louder for both of these reasons. Even
though Stanley spoke to Cathy, he offered all of the group members a managerial
procedure to follow, suggesting that in order for others to hear, the speaker had
to speak louder. Consequently, Stanley implicitly gave himself permission to set a
standard for the group before Teresa had an opportunity to speak.

As Stanley spoke and made a prediction about the story (i.e., turn 3),

Teresa immediately responded by telling him that it was not time to talk about the

168

book, because everyone had to “go through” [look at] all of the pictures in the
book before the discussion could begin. After giving the students approximately
one rrrinute to look at all of the pictures in Idesday, she asked them if they were
finished. Instead of giving Stanley the opportunity to go first as he had given
himself permission to do earlier, Teresa asked Edith if she wanted to start. Edith
responded and proceeded to tell Teresa and the children what she thought the
book was going to be about by predicting the obvious, “it’s about frogs.”

In turn 9, Teresa explained 11% she wanted the students to go about
discussing the book, emphasizing that they should match the description of the
previous speaker in order to create a narrative text structure for the pictures in
heyday. She suggested that the next speaker had to be logical about the story:
“you can’t just write somethin’ wild like, pink frogs.” In turn 10, Stanley spoke
out to correct Teresa, asserting that the pictures were not those of frogs, but
toads. She acknowledged Stanley’s intervention by saying “whatever.”

At the beginning of the first session, Stanley rather than Teresa started the
discussion, but not about the picture storybook, thus creating an opportunity to
manage and establish norms within the group. The other fourth and fifth graders
were familiar with Stanley because they all had been in the same classroom
together since the beginning of the school year. However, this was Teresa’s first
opportunity to interact with the small group in a social and intellectual setting. If
the students recognized Stanley as an organizer, such instances might raise issues
in connection to Teresa’s status within the group, even though they knew Teresa
was the group leader. Consequently, this situation set a context for Teresa to
explore ways to control the younger students as opposed to constructing

meanings from text.

169

On February 25, students were reading, writing about, and discussing
W. Teresa was in the process of asking the fourth- and fifth-grade
students questions about their favorite character in the story. Like the February
4 session, Teresa embedded managerial procedures and implied norms within the
discussions and interactions. In the transcript below, notice how Teresa interjects

specific directions to the students simultaneously as she attempts to facilitate the

discussion.

12 Teresa: Christopher. Now, if you um say Cassie, raise your
hand. Now um you said Cassie didn’t you? So tell all
of you guys, well one at a time, tell a little bit about
Cassie.

l3 Cathy: Um

14 Teresa: Your ideas.

15 Edith: Cassie, she, she didn’t she has three brothers. She

lived with her grandmother, her mother, and her dad
and her brothers.

16 Stanley: And her grandfather.

Initially in turn 12, Teresa asked the students to talk about a character they
liked by making it public. In a traditional manner, she directed them to do so by
telling them to raise a hand when she called a students’ name. Perhaps such
reasons might be due to potentially losing control of the group if everyone were
to speak at once. It should be noted that Teresa directed the younger students to
raise a hand one at a time, and they complied with her request.

In this section, I have described the ways in which Teresa managed and
organized the students simultaneously as she facilitated the discussion. It is
important to note that the group norms that Teresa requested (i.e., raise your hand

one at a time) were not discussed in the preparation seminar. Nor did we talk

170

about embedding rules within a context. Therefore, it seems feasible that the
means in which Teresa set norms in this cross-aged setting were based upon her
previous schooling experiences as a student.

Coupled with establishing various norms related to rules, Teresa used
instructional procedures that were content related, contributing to the
development of her role as a facilitator and co-participant. In this phase of my
analysis, Teresa’s role as a co-participant is enacted as a “teller” rather than
actually doing. In the next section, I describe Teresa’s instructional procedures as
she worked with the younger students.

W. I define an instructional procedure as instances
where Teresa explained, described, and asked the fourth and fifth graders to do
various literacy activities. The nature of her explanations included literacy-
related content (e.g., take out your reading logs) as opposed to classroom
management (e.g., raise your hand). The experience of directing younger
students for literacy activities and tasks endowed Teresa with the dual
responsibility to maintain group norms, while creating the potential for literacy
learning among all students. In the February 4 session, the discussions in the
small group prompted Teresa to respond by stating the instructional procedures
she wanted the students to follow for the next phase of their discussion. In the
transcript below, notice how Stanley involved himself in the discussion and how

Teresa responded.

l7 Teresa: Alright um
18 Edith: Is that it?
19 Teresa: Um, no. This time we’re gonna describe what’s in the

picture. We’re only gonna do some pictures. Like
what’s all the details you see about the pictures?

A:

CO
f0!

355

20

21
22
23

24
25
26
27

28

29

30

31

32

33

Cathy:

Stanley:

Teresa:

Stanley:

Teresa:

Stanley:

Cathy:

Stanley:

Teresa:

Edith:

Stanley:

Edith:

Teresa:

Edith:

171

Um, the turtles are looking around um, seeing if
everything’s okay...[??]

[What do we have to do?
Details about this picture? What do you see?

Um, I see a turtle, it looks like it’s from a further
distance and a lot of grass...and the moon is still up
and stars and that’s it. And the urn turtle is on a log.

Do you notice anything about the flower?

Yea, there’s two more, and they're like one is
opened out and one is ...]
[...they’re closed because it’s summer time...[??]

Well thanks a lot Cathy, just take my ...[??] (some
mumbling)

Alright now, describe this picture. What are some of
the details that you see about this picture?

Well there’s ...[??]
Edith speak up.

Oh. I see a frog and in the window...[??] and there’s
a branch over one of the frogs and there’s trees in the
background and [inaudible]

Do you see anything different about the trees? What

do you think how does the tree looks normal, or
does it look old or what?

It looks old.

There are two points to note in this transcript. The first point is that in turn

28, Teresa explained the instructional procedure that the students should follow,

thus, lessening the potential of conflict between Stanley and Cathy. As Teresa

continued to turn the pages of the book, she posed specific questions to the

fourth and fifth graders in her group. Through these interactions, Stanley was

assertive. However, the message underlying Teresa’s response spoke to Stanley

172

specifically and the group overall. Her reactions to Stanley suggest that she was
attempting to avoid tensions, and thus maintain her status as the group leader and
facilitator. Intervening with explanations of an instructional procedure was a
strategy which refocused the nature of the discussion, and organized and
managed the group without calling attention to inappropriate behavior, or to any
individual student.

On March 3, there was another occurrence in which Teresa strategically
embedded an instructional procedure within the norms of her small group during
a discussion that centered on W. In this example, the instructional
procedure was incorporated in the literacy activities to develop the interactions
and discussion among the group, rather than as intervention of potential tensions.
In the transcript below, notice how Teresa gave instructions to students in order

to move them into another phase of discussion.

34 Teresa: Um, so when do you think the father is corrrin’ back?
35 Stanley: Tomorrow.

36 Teresa: In the book?

37 Brad: Two more days?

3 8 Stanley: No tomorrow.

39 Brad: Where is he at?

[Notez children guess when father will return in number of days]

40 Teresa: Alright, we’re about to write in our logs. Write what
you write what you um, what’s the most thing that
sticks out from what we’ve read. And what do you
want to talk about that? Write it in your log.

[Teresa waits for children to write a response in their log and she writes in
her log also]

41 Stanley: What are we supposed to write in our reading logs?

173

42 Cathy: Everything that’s happened.

In turn 34, Teresa asked the students to make a prediction about the story.
As Stanley and Brad predict when they think the father in W will
return to his family (i.e., David), Teresa strategically moved the interactions into an
instructional procedure by asking the students to write in their reading logs (i.e.,
turn 40). She continued to expand upon the instructional procedure she
expected the students to follow by explicitly stating what they should respond
to. After describing the procedure, Teresa offered the students an option by
asking them what they wanted to discuss which should be written down in their
logs. These exchanges reveal how Teresa strategically organized and managed
the fourth and fifth graders by providing them with instructions that included
literacy content.

But the nature of Teresa’s question in turn 34 also suggest that she is
looking for “the right answer” from the younger students. I support my
interpretation of her question by the directive she gives the students in turn 36.
There she tells them to look in the book. What appears to be happening is that
Teresa understands the book to be the authority for finding “the right answer.”
Therefore, they should focus their attention in the book and get the answer she
seems to be looking for.

Teresa managed to reinforce traditional methods of classroom management
in this alternative literacy program. The expectation was that all students would
make contributions to the literary discussion by using text and their ideas
collectively to construct meaning. The notion of using traditional means of
classroom management as a tool to frame literary discussions was not addressed in

the preparation seminar, however other problem-solving strategies were discussed

174

(i.e., helping younger students make personal connections to the text). Since
Teresa was not a regular community member of the preparation seminar setting, it
is not surprising that she chose to practice common and traditional ways to
conduct the literacy activities. Although these interactions were ordinary and
not what I had anticipated, it is important to understand that Teresa pursued some
of her own paths to facilitate cross-aged discussions (Roller & Beed, 1994). The
moment-to-moment decisions that Teresa made provided her with an entry point
for learning about how to develop leadership skills and literary discussions.
Further, upon reflecting on the opportunity that the overall experience of the
cross-aged program provided Teresa, there was the potential to launch her into
the world of literacy and enhance her self-esteem.

B . I ‘ . EI .

The second theme for analysis that emerged in Teresa’s case study entailed
how she integrated questions, personal opinions, prior knowledge, and
background experiences into her small group discussions. This theme featured
the following ideas: (a) questions without content, (b) questions without
excitement, (c) integrating background experiences into discussions, and (d)
integrating personal opinions. On one hand, these features of Teresa’s case study
provide examples to introduce an awareness of some contextual functions of
literacy development and learning for students who struggle with reading,
writing, and schooling. On the other hand, some of the discussions as facilitated
by Teresa sounded like traditional teacher/student interaction where she asked
questions to get the “right answers” from the younger students.

The anticipation of comments made by younger students provided entry

points for Teresa to emphasize details and facts, and to develop elaborate

175

discussions about text. However, the comments and features of the text that
Teresa called the younger students’ attention to raised some concerns because of
the surface level of the discussions. Analysis and reflection of the cross-aged
conversations suggest that Teresa made attempts to develop conversations by
asking questions that were without content, and by making points that were
based upon personal challenges that she was experiencing in her life. Often the
content and topics that Teresa introduced into the discussion were irrelevant and
inappropriate. Therefore, her role as facilitator and co-participant often suggested
that she had not planned and made adequate preparations to engage in a literary

discussion with the younger children. Below, I return to the discussion that

centered on Tuesday.
W. As the students reached the end of Tuesday,

they noticed the illustration of pigs flying in the air. The moon peeked above the
top of trees with its light reflecting on a weather vane which sat on top of a barn.
As the fourth and fifth graders paid close attention to the switch in the story from
frogs to pigs, they commented on their observations. In the next section of
transcript, I return to a section discussed previously where Teresa asked the
students to describe all the details they observed in the pictures. Notice how
Teresa listened to the students' responses and took opportunities to explore their
observations by asking questions that did not have content.

53 Cathy: Next Tuesday at 7PM, ??

Note: Everyone talks at once, making it difficult to understand what they
are talking about. But students are saying something about the flying

pigs.

54 Stanley: Man think about it as pigs could fly. Think about if it
fall in you windshield and stuff.

176

55 Teresa: Okay, what do you think is gonna happen with the
pigs?

56 Stanley: Um, I think it’s gonna just repeat. It’s
gonna...everything is gonna go like it did when the
frogs came.

57 Cathy: Except nothin’ is gonna be like..’cause ??

5 8 Edith: ??

59 Stanley: They’re gonna fly you never know they may have to

60 Teresa: Alright, um...

61 Edith: Is that it?

62 Teresa: Um, no. This time we're gonna describe what’s in the

picture. We’re only gonna do some pictures. Like
what’s all the details you see about the pictures?

In turn 53, Cathy read the last page of the story which showed a picture of
a pig flying. All of the students started talking at once, apparently commenting
on the switch in the text, moving from illustrations of flying frogs to a flying pig.
Stanley initiated an interesting issue in turn 54. As he asked his peers to think
about alternatives for the text, he implied that there was the potential for chaos if
pigs could fly and then fall. Turn 55 is an example of how Teresa took an
opportunity to explore Stanley's observation, using his idea to ask the students to
make a prediction about the pigs entering the story at the end. Stanley,
continued to share his thoughts, stating that he believed that the events in the
story might repeat, but instead of frogs, the story would consist of pigs. Even
though Teresa responded to Stanley’s idea, she does not develop or initiate any
ideas that were related or different on her own.

After listening to the students debate Stanley's prediction, Teresa re-

entered the discussion. She stated that they were not done, and that they move

177

to highlighting the various details they noticed in the picture. Another example
from the February 4 session will help illustrate how Teresa asked the students a
question without substance and neglected to help develop the observations

made by the younger students.

63 Teresa: Alright, is there anything you would like to discuss
about the book? Anything you would like to
discuss?

64 Cathy: Is there gonna be another book about ??

65 Teresa: Hmrn?

66 Cathy: Do you think there’s gonna be another book about
flyin’ pigs?

67 Teresa: I don’t know there could be.

68 Edith: What did she say?

69 Teresa: If there’s gonna be another um book about flyin’
pigs. Did you like it?

70 Cathy: ??

71 Teresa: Do you think they’re gonna um move up and start

with flyin’ cows year after year? What do you think
will be next? After the pigs?

72 Edith: Um...birds [laugh].

In turn 63, Teresa asked the students a rote question without interest or
enthusiasm. Her question is one that is content-free and lifeless (Roller & Beed,
1994), where there is no issue put forth for younger students and her to struggle
with. Thus, she asked a question and left it open for the younger students to raise
topics and issues they might want to discuss without providing adequate input to
help them.

MW. By March 3, we were well into We

flees. Teresa and the younger students discussed the issue of the contract that

178

Mr. Anderson offered the Logans to cut down an unlimited number of trees from
their forest. The excerpt below is an example of how Teresa initiated a probing
question to one students’ response, taking an opportunity to develop the
conversation.

73 Teresa: Anybody else?

74 Cathy: If they want more trees, I think they should give them
more money. But if they don’t wanna give them more
money they should ??.

75 Brad: I think he was trying to cheat her in just saying no,
but he really was gonna take ‘em all. But she didn’t
know that. And so that’s how he was gonna cheat
her out of the trees.

76 Teresa: Okay Brad um /// why do you think that they should
pay more? I mean back in them days that was that
was a lotta money.

77 Brad: Well that that was like um all they had was like a
house, and the land and stuff and the trees. And so
they didn’t like, they didn’t have kids didn’t have
stuff ?? so um I don’t know, it was just like that was
all the trees that they had, it’s not like more would just
pop up or something.

78 Teresa: Okay, Edith?

In this example, Teresa asked the students to explore issues related to the
text, initially asking Brad a question, then inviting others to respond (line 73).
Cathy offered her opinion, stating that she thought Mr. Anderson should give the
Logan family more money if he wanted more trees. Cathy’s comment suggested
that she had some notions about what entailed the Logan’s getting full value for
their money. It is interesting to note that Brad’s interpretation of this situation
was that he did not think the mother and grandmother knew that they were
being cheated, as he said “but she didn’t know that” in line 75. His

interpretation gave Mr. Anderson the economic advantage over the women in

179

the Logan family. Brad’s comment also suggests that he understood the strategy
that Mr. Anderson was using to maintain his economic standing. Even though
Cathy and Brad dealt with critical issues that were directly related to the story,
Teresa did not become engaged in the exchange other than to acknowledge that
the offer Anderson made seemed reasonable given the times in which the story
was written. In turn 77, Brad explained why he believed that the Logans should
not sell the trees for the offer Mr. Anderson made. His suggestions imply that he
supported the Logans because they had limited assets, and that the trees were not
such that they would instantly grow again. Further, Brad specified that the “kids
didn’t have stuf .” Brad was not specific about what he meant by “stuf .”
However, his response showed that he appeared to have empathy for the Logan
family’s economic situation.

Teresa continued to ask questions without enthusiasm while the students
in her small group continued to discuss the unfair contract that Anderson offered
the Logans in Sengeflhejnees. Continuing with my analysis and
interpretations of the March 3 session, below I present another instance of how
Teresa took an opportunity presented by students to ask them questions to
engage them and not herself in the discussion.

79 Teresa: I wish they woulda’ went to another um forest. Do
you think they woulda’ got more money or would
they have to give up more money?

80 Brad: Well I think.

[tape is turned off]

81 Teresa: So um what would you do if you were in Ma’s
situation?

82 Edith: I wouldn’t take the money. I would wait.

180

83 Teresa: Alright, um..um...]

84 Stanley: [1 think... I think that they um she should just take the
money well, make stop it right now don’t let ‘em take
it, don’t let em cut down any more trees and make him

pay extra.
85 Fenice: Why?
86 Stanley: Because he took just about all her trees. That left

them with nothing. ‘Cause if you look at the pictures
look... all.... most of the trees are gone.

87 Brad: I would of said um, I’d have to think about it until a
week. And then send Christopher John, or [yea...

8 8 Edith: [Stacey?

89 Brad: Yea ah to go get their dad like right away that night.
And so he might be back with the dad so then he
could like....]

In this excerpt, I begin where Teresa made her opinion of Mr. Anderson
and his workers public, and where she asked the younger students to make a
prediction from a hypothetical situation. It is unclear as to why Teresa raised this
question. Therefore, it appears to be one that she simply raised to keep the
students talking.

In turn 81 however, Teresa raised a different sort of question to invite the
students to share their thoughts about the situation Big Ma faced. Edith began
by saying she would not take the money right away, but wait. Stanley
commented that he thought that the mother and grandmother should prevent
Anderson from cutting down more trees, arguing that Anderson had taken almost
all of the trees from the forest. As Stanley talked he used a picture of the forest in
the book to provide support for what he argued. Teresa’s question provided the
students with an issue to explore, and encouraged them to place themselves in

the position of a character. As they publicly expressed various perspectives and

181

points of view, they collaboratively constructed knowledge about binding issues
which underlie contracts between people.

As Brad entered the discussion, he suggested one way that the Logan
family might stall Anderson, while Christopher John traveled to get the father,
offering the group another way of thinking about the text. Edith provided clarity
and support for Brad, stating that it was Stacey who should go to Louisiana
rather than Christopher John. As Brad started to explain why he thought the
family should get the father to return to Mississippi, Teresa suspended Brad’s
response, initiating an opportunity to ask another question. Below, I present her

question, and the interchange that emerged as a result of it.

90 Teresa: But don’t you think at night if um... if Mr. Anderson
wants he could go cut down the trees for free?

91 Brad: Well...]

92 Teresa: [How could you prevent that?

93 Brad: Well they could call the cops. If was gonna just go

cut down the trees they could call the sheriff.

94 Teresa: You think sheriffs were back then?

This example illustrates how Teresa invited Brad to think about the
situation from another perspective. The nature of her question seemed to imply
that Anderson was the type of man who would do whatever he needed to do, to
get what he wanted regardless of the actions of the Logan family. At the same
time, Teresa’s question offered some insight and suggest that she had some
notions of her own as to what might occur. This series of exchanges is different
because the question Teresa raised resulted from story content.

The second part to her question (i.e., turn 92) asked Brad to think about

the consequences of the problem-solving strategies he had suggested earlier -

182

“How would you prevent that?” In turn 93, Brad suggested that the family
could call the sheriff. This comment is interesting to ponder, because Brad
answered Teresa based upon influences of modern times and the world in which
he knows, rather than the situation for African-Americans in the 1930’s, in the
rural South. In this respect, Brad has merged his knowledge and understanding
of the world in 1994, to the world of the Logan family in the 1930’s, thus making
interpersonal connections to the text.

Teresa asked Brad if he thought there were sheriffs “back then.” Like
Brad, Teresa’s question is interesting because it implies that Teresa did not think
there were sheriffs during the setting of the story. This statement raises a
question about the thinking underlying Teresa’s question - did Teresa believe
that there were no sheriffs during the 1930’s, or did she believe that there were
sheriffs, but not to protect the Logans? Based on Brad’s comment, Teresa took
an opportunity to help him explore his reflections within the context of when the
story was written.

The heterogeneous mix of this cross-aged group (i.e., ability, gender,
ethnicity), and the individual background experiences was a rich context for
enhancing the literary knowledge of the students. However, the discussions in
this section were not as rich as the physical setting. I provided evidence to
support my claims that the questions Teresa raised were often without content. I
discussed how she participated but without engagement and excitement.
Whereas she took opportunities to explore their observations and comments, she
neglected to actively become involved in the conversation. In these examples,
Teresa did not do much talking. Rather, her questions were posed so that the

younger students might develop the discussion about text. Her skills as a leader

183

enabled her to strategically manage the dynamics of the group, attempting to
engage them in the content of the literature. However, her lack of skills for
engaging in literary thought as a reader and writer limited the possibilities for
developing the discussions among all student. “The experience of enthusiastic
involvement with books is an important one” (Roller & Beed, 1994). The nature
of these cross-aged discussions were not as rich an experience for Teresa as I had
envisioned. Nevertheless, the experience itself provided her with an entrance to
the world of literate thought, and an alternative to simply working on strategies
and skills to strengthen literacy development. In the next section, I explore my
third theme for assisting us to reconstruct meanings of literacy learning and
acquisition for Teresa.

Wm Evans (1996) notes
that how language is used in literature discussions influences how students
position themselves and others within the contexts. Often, there might be
potential consequences for such positioning where the stances that the
participants take bring some bearing on how ideas are received. The concept of
positioning as explained by Harré and Van Langenhove (1991) suggest that
positioning is based on the premise that people position themselves - take up a
position in relation to other people - through discourse. Described in this way,
the concept of positioning is more dynamic than a role which is perceived as
static and unmoving.

In the next section, I illustrate how Teresa integrated her personal
background experiences into the discussions. As she blended her knowledge of
her world into the world of the text and the discussions, she positioned herself as

an authority on various topics and issues. Consequently, as she took a stance,

lllO

que

ques
“Hm
Cath
mist
the s;
Edith

“Dull

184

she positioned the students where they often acquiesced to Teresa’s ideas.

Here, I return to the February 4 session where the students discussed
Tuesday. They finished describing details they noticed in the illustrations as
Teresa had asked, and then the discussion moved from descriptions about the
pictures, to reflection and analysis. Notice how Teresa allowed the students to do
most of the talking, but then intervened to ask a question. Underlying her
question, was her own background knowledge about the care of animals.

95 Stanley: Um, I think next it will probably be ..... pigs, I mean not
pigs but um maybe um, um, chickens, maybe chickens

or cows.. ]
96 Edith: It’ll be people...]
97 Cathy: Raining cats and dogs...]
9 8 Edith: [... or people
99 Cathy: Or um cats and dogs flying in the rain ]
100 Teresa: But wouldn’t that hurt ‘em?
101 Edith: Hurt what?
102 Teresa: See you say the pigs the frogs [??] wouldn’t you

think they would hurt the dogs and cats?

The issue to note in this series of exchanges is the relevance of Teresa’s
questions in turns 100 and 102. Previously, she had asked the students if they
wanted to discuss anything about the text. As ideas for a sequel to Tuesday,
Cathy, Edith, and Stanley offered a random selection of names of animals one
might use in another wordless picture book. Their suggestions are in sync with
the same genre in which Wiesner wrote Tusday. After several turns by Stanley,
Edith, and Cathy, Teresa made one move to ask a different question, “But

wouldn’t that hurt ‘ em?” This question is inappropriate given the nature of the

in

185

younger students’ conversation. They were engaged in a discussion of ideas for
constructing a fantasy. But the content and tone of Teresa’s question implies
that she was thinking about real animals falling from the sky versus imaginary
animals, because cats and dogs cannot be hurt in a story created as a fantasy.
Seemingly, the question Teresa posed to the students is drawn from her personal
background experience as the owner of a cat and two dogs. In this example, she
changed the nature of the discussion by raising a question that positioned her as
an authority on animal care. Consequently she positioned the younger students
as well, where they were placed in a situation to address the unrelated question
Teresa raised.

On April 15, the students were discussing Jeumey Te Je’Burg. An
additional instance emerged in which Teresa blended her background knowledge
into the cross-aged discussion, thus, positioning the students to consider

alternative views. Below, notice how she encouraged them to proceed.

103 Teresa: Are you done? Okay, Cathy, go on.

104 Cathy: I think um um...Naledi and Tiro are um ...]

105 Teresa: [I can't hear you.

106 Cathy: I think the two of ‘em are very, very brave and um

they've met a lot of friends on the way. The boy at
the orange orchard, the truck driver ??. I don’t think

??]

107 Teresa: [Do you think that was kinda brave of them, goin’ up
to that man and what, what woulda happened if ...]

108 Cathy: [No, I mean like the, urn, brave to go all the way to
Johannesburg.

109 Teresa: [Yeah, but I was talkin’ about, askin’ a question about

the man. Do you think it was pretty brave of them to
ask for a ride? Or would you hada’ done that if you
were out there on the roads?

186

110 Cathy: No. Um, um...]

111 Teresa: [Would you had kept on walkin?

The question Teresa asked Cathy in turn 107 might be considered a
challenge in several ways. First, Teresa might be challenging the plot of the story
itself, where she questions Cathy as to whether or not it seems realistic for two
young children to hitch-hike a ride from a stranger. If Teresa was challenging the
plot of the story, one might say that she had considered a possible flaw in the
text. If Teresa was considering a flaw in the text, that raises another question;
from what context was she drawing this idea?

Another way to interpret Teresa’s question might be whether or not she
was positioning Cathy to think deeper about the consequences of two children
“hitch-hiking” a ride from a stranger. In posing the question to Cathy, Teresa
positioned herself as a more mature thinker about the potential aftermath of
accepting rides from strangers. This interpretation raises an issue of whether there
are underlying concerns behind her question. It appeared that she wanted the
students to consider the potential danger of accepting a ride from someone whom
one does not know. At the same time, Teresa was moving the discussion to
consider issues that were beyond the text. Reflected upon in this way, Teresa
seemed to be considering issues related to fear and what it means to be safe. If
Teresa was challenging Cathy’s response to what it might mean for two children
to be brave, it could be possible that she was bringing her own culture and
background into the context of the story. In order to understand my second
interpretation of this interchange, it is important to revisit Teresa’s background
and consider some of the reasons she might ask the younger students to consider

other points of view as she takes a critical stance to Cathy’s response.

187

In chapter 3, I wrote a brief biography of Teresa where I explained that she
spent a lot of time alone at night because of her mother’s work schedule. Teresa
often talked about how she was “scared” when she was home alone at night.
Also, she shared how she was unable to fall asleep because she was constantly
listening for “noises.” If Teresa was looking at Cathy’s response from her
personal world versus the context of the written text, then it seems that she was
thinking about what it might mean to accept a ride from a stranger from her
modern day, American teenager’s point of view. Assuming that this is the case, it
appeared that Teresa had stepped into the world of the text (Langer, 1992),
where she used her previously constructed knowledge about safeness, and
W to further create meanings from the text. Barthes (1985)
might argue that Teresa was in the process of “rewriting the text of humeylp
Jd’Burg within the text of her life.” In so doing, she drew two texts together, the
literature and the text of her own personal life and background knowledge.
Consequently, in posing her question, Teresa positioned herself, Cathy and the
other students in her group and raised some awareness that there might be other
interpretations to consider.

On April 28, Teresa integrated background knowledge into the cross-aged
discussions about Jeumey Te Jo’ng again. However, in this session, she used
her artistic ability, and encouraged the fourth- and fifth-graders to do so as well.
In the transcript below, we enter the lesson where Teresa is developing the
content for discussion by asking the fourth and fifth graders to share their
drawings with the group members. Notice how she gives several students

opportunities to share their drawings, and then offers to include her illustration.

acti
dfita
lead
“her

[0 as.

112

113

114

115

116

117

118
119

120

121
122
123
124

Teresa:

Brad:

Cathy:

Brad:

Teresa:

Brad:

Teresa:

Brad:

Teresa:

Brad:

Teresa:

Brad:

Teresa:

188

What are we um writin’ about? What did we do?
What was our assignment today?

Uh, we were supposed to write something or draw
something.

Like what we draw]

[...um that didn’t really tell about, well it didn’t have a
picture so we’d know what it looked like and write
about it.

Okay. And are you done with yours?

I did ......

First, first read what you wrote.

I did I’m writing about how the police looked and
how the train looked while people were tryin’ to get
out at the same time.

Okay. Show us. Are you payin’ attention Jasmine? //
Now tell us a little bit about that. Um, what color
would you have that? What color do you think it
would be?

The train ah.... red, green.

And were there people inside?

Yeah. That’s Grace, [inaudible] and that’s the bridge.

There was only one policeman?

Teresa began the lesson by asking the students to clarify the literacy

activity for the April 28 session, and proceeded by guiding Brad through specific

details in his drawing. Features that Teresa asked Brad to focus on included

reading the caption he wrote to describe his drawing, colors he might include, and

whether or not there were people in his illustration. After going around the circle

to ask others to share their drawing, Teresa moved to share her own. In the

transcript below, notice how she describes features of her illustration, modeling

Pets

Sludc

189

what she had asked Brad to do.

125 Teresa:
126 Janet:
l 27 Teresa:
128 Janet:
129 Teresa:

Well, I’ll show mine. I drew the boss, the uh mother’s
boss, the woman she works for. And how she looked.
(inaudible) [the children laugh] That’s how I pictured
her. Old lady, kinda lookin' mean. White hair. Red
shirt on.

Actually I don’t think she’s mean. She let their mom
off of work.

Yeah, but she didn’t really, she like hesitated. Well, I
need you for this and this.

Yeah.

What about yours? Are you done?

As Teresa shared her drawing, she shared a different type of literacy skill,

her ability to draw (see Figure 6). In an interview with Teresa on January 5, she

talked about how she often used her talent to express herself when she could not

recall the words to say what she needed to say. In this example, Teresa expressed

what she wanted to say about the boss lady in MM, highlighting

features she considered to be indicative of power and authority. For example,

Teresa used adjectives such as “old” and “kinda lookin’ mean” as a way of

helping the students understand what she thought about the character. When

Janet questioned her about the picture, Teresa defended her position by arguing

that even though the boss lady let Naledi and Tiro’s mother off from work, she

did not without attempting to instill guilt feelings into the mother. In arguing for

her position on instilling guilt, Janet was positioned and capitulated to Teresa’s

argument as evidenced by her response in turn 128.

W. From analyzing how Teresa integrated her

personal opinions into cross-aged discussions, she often positioned the younger

students such that they were swayed to consider alternative points of view. In

190

 

 

Figure 6. Teresa’s drawing of the Madamin Journey To Jo’burg.

191

many instances, the alternative points of view were argued strongly by Teresa

and resulted in the younger students searching for ideas that Teresa wanted. In

the next section of transcript, I return to the April 15 discussion where the

students were discussing LomeyTLJrL’bJug. I begin where Brad responded

after Teresa asked the question “Would you had kept on walkin’?

130

131

132

133
134

135
136
137

138

139

Brad:

Stanley:

Teresa:

Brad:
Cathy:

Brad:
Cathy:

Teresa:

Cathy:

Teresa:

Well, I think it’s, it would be like different there than it
is here.

Yea, ‘cause here....like you never know. You could
probably get kidnapped then if you do it in
Johannesburg.

You have anything else to say on this?
Well, it’s, I think it’s...it would probably be dangerous.

But I mean, if they were in Johannesburg it might be
probably would be. But since they were out there on
the road...

Yeah. It would be.
Since they were out in the country and everything.

But still, in Johannesburg, if somebody woulda picked
you up, somebody would at least have seen you if
you had a got kidnapped. This is out on a road,
nobody would a known you got kidnapped for a long
time. Right? So would you rather get a ride in
Johannesburg or out in the boon docks where
nobody knows where you are?

Well, I think what I woulda’ done is I woulda’ asked a
few questions just to make sure.

Okay. You done, Stanley? M // Anybody have
questions about anybody else’s comments?

Brad made the first move to respond to Teresa’s question stating that he

believed that things in a rural area of South Africa would be different than here

(i.e., the United States). Brad takes a critical stance, arguing that living in a safe

S.

of
con
com
Tere
Afnc
595ml
and m
Cathy
and Til

Guilds”

and qUes

192

place in his own country is questionable. Stanley supported Brad’s response (i.e.,
turn 108), explicitly stating that there is the potential of one being kidnapped in
this country, but less likely in Johannesburg. In turn 132, Teresa asked a follow-
up question and positioned the students to make further comments. Brad
responded to Teresa in turn 133, acknowledging that it might be dangerous for
Naledi and Tiro to ask a stranger for a ride. At that point, it appeared that Brad
was positioned to capitulate to Teresa’s challenging opinion, even though he was
the student who initiated a critical stance against the notion Teresa had spoke out
on; it would be dangerous to hitch-hike in rural South Africa.

Seemingly, Cathy sensed that Brad was giving in to Teresa’s argument
because she reentered the discussion, stating that if one were to hitch-hike in
South Africa, then the experience would probably be different between rural and
large urban areas. It is interesting to note the differences in comparisons that all
of the students seemed to be making in their discussion. When Cathy entered the
conversation, she kept the issue of safety in hitch-hiking. However, she made
comparisons between hitch-hiking in rural and urban areas in South Africa, while
Teresa made comparisons between hitch-hiking in the United States and South
Africa. The way in which Teresa positioned herself and the younger students
seemed to persuade them to reconsider the critical stance that they had initiated
and think about the story from Teresa’s point of view. Therefore, Brad and
Cathy were persuaded to change their perspectives about the trip that N aleido
and Tiro took from the country into Johannesburg.

In positioning the students in turn 137, Teresa was continuing to draw her
criticism from her personal opinions and experiences. Underlying her comment

and question is the notion of fear and uncertainty (i.e., out on the road nobody

unc
cnt
ire
and

hsu

fine

and

ques

educ

193

woulda known you got kidnapped for a long time). The issues of fear and
uncertainty Teresa raised implied that she was making assumptions, and raising
critical issues based upon her world and experiences. This notion relates to a
previous statement I made regarding Teresa’s experiences of being independent
and alone. In the preparation seminar discussions about W and
issues of fear and uncertainty in relation to the trip that N aleido and Tiro took to
Johannesburg were not raised.

During the interactions on May 5, another instance arose where Teresa
integrated her personal opinions into the discussion. As she positioned the
students to expand their perspectives on the story, she asked them a question:
“And why did Grace say that in black schools they taught rubbish?” This
question underscores some thinking about various social and political issues in

education. Below, I continue with their discussion of Joumey Te Jo’Bugg.

140 Edith: Because because it was only about um um ...]

141 Janet: [... about being a maid.

142 Edith: [about, um, um, um white people’s history and they
don’t didn’t teach um black people’s history.

143 Teresa: Do you guys think they still do that today?

144 Janet: Because they were teaching women how to be maids.

145 Brad: No.

146 Cathy: Yes, they do.

147 Edith: In the book they didn’t say that.

148 Teresa: I know, but do you think, no not in the book, in real

life. Do you think they only teach white, only white
people about white people?

149 Edith: No.

194

150 Janet: No.
151 Teresa: How many, how many times do you guys talk about
black Americans?

Teresa asked the fourth and fifth graders two questions which positioned
them to think about the learning experiences of students in the United States and
the learning experiences of children in South Africa (i.e., not teaching about the
experiences of African-Americans) as presented in the text. Teresa integrated this
issue into the discussion by asking the students a question about the text first
(i.e., why did Grace say that in black schools, they taught rubbish). As she
proceeded to develop the discussion, she positioned herself and the students in
her group to make the question applicable to the context of their own schools.
As illustrated in the transcript, the younger students voiced different opinions
about what they thought they were taught. For instance Brad did not believe
students in the United States are taught “rubbish” while Cathy seemed to think
students United States schools are taught “rubbish.” Teresa continued to help
the students to push their thinking by asking them a clarifying question removed
from the text to “real life” (i.e., do they only teach about white people’s history).
Janet and Edith disagreed with Teresa’s underlying personal opinion. After they
answered Teresa, she continued to push the issue, asking Janet and Edith “how
many times they talked about black Americans.” For Teresa to question the
students about the amount of time they studied “black Americans” shows that
she included her personal being and opinion into what gets left out of the school
curriculum.

In the May 19 cross-aged discussion, another personal opinion emerged

for Teresa, drawn from the literature. The students were concluding their work by

195

comparing and contrasting, Sung of the Trees, Joumey Te Jo’btu'g, and the

movie “Sarafina.” Teresa shared what she had written in her reading log with
the younger students, and then requested that they share their work as well.
After sharing what they had written in their reading logs, Teresa asked a question
which seemed to appear out of nowhere, yet suggested that a personal opinion
was behind it. In turn 152 below, Teresa positioned herself and the younger
students to think about the world of schooling, teaching, and learning.

152 Teresa: All right. I have a question to ask you guys. Is, have
you ever heard of such a teacher that has like a lot of
authority? You know, they’re high ranked and they
take advantage of their position?

153 Edith: What do you mean?

154 Teresa: Just like the police in all these um stories. They like
took advantage of, it’s like they went overboard with
their job. It’s like, okay, if we put .....

155 Edith: Are they nice or mean?

156 Teresa: Edith....Listen. If we put Brad, like if he was like //// if
he was like //I a teacher or somethin’, he told you kids,
like clean your room all the time and do the chores for
him. Isn’t that taking advantage of his job? He’s
supposed to be teaching you guys.

157 Edith: Yeah.

158 Teresa: Wasn’t that the same case in these stories? That was
takin’ advantage of him. I mean, he didn’t have to go
overboard like that.

A close interpretation of this exchange will provide insight about how the

question emerged. First, it is important to note that Teresa embedded her question
within the context of the literature (i.e., W), thus making a

private concern public for students to debate among themselves. In so doing, she

positioned herself as the individual with a specific issue related to teachers,

fl

196

power, and authority; an issue that Teresa obviously wanted to explore with the
students. Given that Teresa stressed “such a teacher” as she asked her question
implies that she was thinking about a particular teacher. It shows how she
positioned herself to vent obvious frustrations about a teacher into the context of
a literary discussion

In this episode, Teresa positioned herself as the authority for taking a
critical perspective on how teachers exert their authority in the classroom.
Consequently, she positioned the students in her cross-aged group to take a
critical look at how teachers display authority in the classroom and to what end.
Even though Teresa attempted to relate her question to the story, it was raised
completely out of context. Therefore, it was intended to position herself and the
students to explore issues with which she was struggling.

What Might We Learn From Teresa’s Case?

There are several significant points about Teresa’s case. First, Teresa’s
participation in the Cross-Aged Literacy Program rendered a new experience to
reconstruct meanings of her as a literacy learner who had been labeled as a low-
achiever. Reconstructing meanings of Teresa as a literacy learner were provided
through the two components of the study, where multiple ways of interacting
with different people existed (i. e, Fenice, high school peers, fourth- and fifth-
grade students). This context was conceptualized as the core of the study for
enhancing her literacy education.

Although Teresa generated her own strategies to establish her leadership
role (i.e., embedding managerial rules and instructional procedures as norms
within the group), they were based upon her preconceived notions and

experiences of teaching and schooling, or what Lortie (1975) refers to as the

197

“apprenticeship of observation.” During earlier sessions of the cross-aged
discussions, she did not hesitate to strategically organize the group by embedding
implied norms. It should be noted that the ways in which Teresa established
managerial rules and instructional procedures was not an emphasis in our
preparation seminars. Since Teresa opted to limit her participation in the
preparation seminar for various reasons (i.e., extra-curricular activities after
school; excuses) her options for developing an understanding of how she might
use strategies to solve problems when she encountered them (i.e., Stanley
dominating the discussion) were very limited. Thus, relying on traditional notions
of teaching seemed appropriate for her.

Second, as the group facilitator, Teresa employed various strategies during
discussions. As the fourth and fifth graders engaged in literary response, Teresa
took opportunities to draw on their responses to develop the discussions.
Through the process of developing discussions, students moved beyond the text
to make connections to other information resources. Although Teresa was able to
support the cross-aged discussions such that topics and issues were extended
beyond the text, there was a concern of how Teresa positioned herself and thus
the students to take stances that seemed to be based upon the personal
challenges that she was encountering in her own life. Taken from this
perspective, the cross-aged discussions were a place for Teresa to “vent
frustrations” about personal matters rather than enhance her literary
understanding. Moreover, since Teresa’s participation in the preparation seminar
was limited, she did not have the opportunity to engage in literary response with
Michael, Devon, Mark, and me. Therefore, as she attempted to facilitate the cross-

aged discussions, she made personal connections where she deemed necessary

198

and drew upon what was familiar. In so doing, she integrated her personal

opinions, background knowledge and experiences into the discussions. Yet, she

inhibited the younger students and their potential to make contributions to

discussions based upon their prior knowledge and background experiences.
The Case of Michael

Michael’s case provides an interesting contrast to Teresa’s. Unlike Teresa,
Michael attended and actively participated in the preparation seminar on a
consistent and regular basis. He read the literature during the preparation seminar
sessions. When we did not finish reading the stories during those sessions,
Michael often took books home to finish reading them. Michael asked questions
about the literature for various purposes such as to clarify ideas and to explore
concerns and critical issues about the text. He offered suggestions to his peers
and me concerning what the nature of cross-aged literacy activities might entail.
As conversations in the preparation seminar emerged, Michael talked about the
text and linked them to his schooling experiences (for example, see chapter 4).
The activities in the preparation seminar, and the contributions Michael and his
peers made to the group provided him with rich sources of information.

However, Michael’s interactions in his cross-aged discussion group were
far different from how he interacted and engaged himself in the preparation
seminar. His role as facilitator with the younger students was very structured. I
saw several distinctions between the ways Teresa and Michael participated in the
preparation seminar and conducted their cross-aged group discussions. For
instance, as described in chapter 4, Teresa was not an active and consistent
participant in the preparation seminar. She conducted the cross-aged discussions

by employing traditional means, yet she included much of her personal

199

background experiences into the interactions and discussions with the fourth and
fifth graders. On the other hand, while Michael brought his personal opinions in
the preparation seminar, he did not do so in the cross-aged discussions. While he
engaged the younger students in conversations about the text, his personal
contributions within the cross-aged group were limited. Teresa’s focus was on
telling students what to do, then sharing her personal response. In contrast,
Michael followed procedures for completing the planned activities for the day by
inviting the fourth and fifth graders in his group to participate, and by reading his
log responses as he has asked them to do. However, after completing what he
had planned, he often initiated unrelated activities with the fourth- and fifth-
grade students. For example, he played a game called “Hang Man” or he
engaged them in conversation about extra-curricular activities. Games and
discussions of extracurricular activities may be viewed as “non-school” in
content but, playing “Hang Man” is school-like for many students who do not
participate in their own learning. Thus, Michael was a co-participant in a variety
of ways that were both traditional (e.g., asking questions) and non-traditional
(e.g., playing Hang Man).

In this case, I illustrate how Michael enacted his roles as facilitator and co-
participant in the cross-aged literary discussions as he raised questions to guide
the discussions, how he linked written and oral language, and how he drew on
both to elicit and encourage discussion among the students. I trace his strategies
back to the preparation seminar to suggest that his interactions with the younger
students were based upon both the alternative literacy learning experiences and

his “apprenticeship of observation” perspectives of teaching and schooling.

200

Themes in Michael’s Cross-Aged Setting

The cross-aged discussions in Michael’s group are presented under two
broad themes: (a) reconstructing meanings of learner, and (b) reconstructing
meanings of literacy. First, I focus on the theme of reconstructing meanings of
learner and feature Michael’s strategies for asking questions to describe the
manner in which Michael’s role as facilitator emerged. Then I turn to
reconstructing meanings of literacy. In that section, I describe how Michael made
connections between oral and written language, making contributions by
modeling reading log responses to the younger students. The examples I use
show how Michael’s role and interactions serve as a co-participant of literacy
learning.
B . I l . [I _ i l . Q .

Commeyras (1995) notes that the asking of questions is and has been a
pillar of teaching in western cultures since the time of Plato and Socrates (355
BC). Socrates, a Greek teacher, used questions to engage students in a question
and answer dialogue with the intent of leading them to the “right” answer.
Boydston (1981) has noted that John Dewey wrote about the pedagogical
virtuosity of asking questions, arguing that “a question will force the mind to go
wherever it is capable of going, better than will the most ingenious pedagogical
devices.” Still others have made observations in classrooms throughout the
United States and repeatedly found that teachers ask hundreds of questions of
their students each and every day (Dillon, 1988; Gall, 1970).

Consistent with how questions are used for teaching and learning, Michael
asked questions in his cross-aged discussion group to stimulate participation

among the students. The primary source for the questions he asked were those

201

we developed in the preparation seminar. A secondary source for Michael’s
questions stemmed from the younger student’s responses used to elicit
discussion. Over the course of the literacy lessons, he modified the questions he
asked based on the fourth and fifth graders reactions to text. Michael’s role as a
facilitator and the questions he asked to enhance the discussions encouraged the
group’s communication and meaning construction. Michael’s questions
appeared to serve three purposes: (a) to seek information in response to
questions, (b) to probe for understanding, and (c) to pose a challenge to prompt
further discussion.

Seelg'ug iufeduatien in response te guestieus. Burbules (1993) asserts that
during dialogue, questions are asked for a variety of different purposes. The
simplest questions serve to seek a specific piece of information, but rarely promote
ongoing discussion. Yet, simple questions are often the first step in ongoing
instructional discussions to collaboratively construct knowledge. Such was the
case in Michael’s group.

During the cross-aged discussions on February 4, 10, and March 3, the
students read and discussed Tuesday and Song ef the Trees. Analysis of
transcripts and field notes revealed that Michael encouraged students to talk by
initiating questions to seek specific pieces of information about the text. The
questions Michael asked were those of the simplest sort; to seek information to
determine if the younger students wanted to share their ideas from the reading
logs, and if students understood his instructional procedures. Unlike Teresa who
structured and organized her group’s discussion around conversational rules,

Michael moved his group directly to the content of text.

202

On February 4, Michael asked the students about sharing their ideas to

give them a choice as to whether or not they might participate.

159 Michael: One day there was this // turtle in the pond. He knew
something was gon’ happin’ that’s why he had
that funny look on his face. Now which way are
you gonna say now?

160 Zee: The turtles are really [inaudible] so they went back
into the shell. And on the lilly pads were flying frogs.

161 Michael: Okay. Naw,don’tmove that. You it’ll pick it up.
It’ll pick it up.

The point to note in this excerpt is how Michael facilitated the discussion
by sharing his ideas about the illustrations in the story with the students; in doing
so, be modeled what he expected members of his group to do. The modeling and
role playing were the basis for others to create an oral narrative.

When the students finished “reading the pictures” orally, Michael
requested that they write their own narrative about the story in their individual
reading logs. Because they had only one book, Michael turned the pages of the
book so that all students might see the illustrations, asking students if they were
finished so as to move on to the next page. When reading log entries were
completed, Michael modeled how the students were to share what they had
written by reading his own log entry. Then he asked for a volunteer.

162 Michael: By the time the sun was coming up, the lily pads were
losing power, and the frogs began to fall off the lily
pad back into the pond. But back in the city there
was a lot of questions to be answered. Now who
would like to read theirs?

In this example, Michael’s question invites students to share what they

had written. This transcript segment illustrates how Michael enhanced his group

members’ participation by modeling what he expected of them. His questions

203

were simple ones, seemingly to elicit students’ participation. However, such
questions were a necessary first step, beginning a line of communication and
engagement with the fourth and fifth graders. Further, Michael is following
suggestions generated during the January 11 preparation seminar. The high
school students had talked about creating a story by talking about the pictures in
Tuesday. During the preparation seminar, Michael had suggested that they tell
the younger students that they would be making up the story themselves.

Analysis of the February 10 session revealed that Michael asked students
questions to seek information about their understanding of detailed illustrations
in the wordless picture book. Michael’s questions tended to follow the
participation structure described as I-R-E: initiation, response, evaluation (I-R-E).
Cazden describes this basic pattern and related modifications such as I-R-I-R-E.
Michael initiated a question to seek specific information. When the student to
whom he was speaking responded, he turned to the next student, asking him or
her a question to seek additional responses.

163 Michael: Okay, we gonna talk about the pictures we gon’ go
around [tape stops] What do you see?

1 64 Sandy: [inaudible]

165 Michael: What do you see Alice?

166 Alice: Um, stars.

167 Michael: Stars? What do you see?

1 68 James: [inaudible]

169 Michael: [inaudible] little flags flying. Hold on guys. Oh,

naw, that it’s still recording. So, um, what do you
guys think this, I mean, um don’t turn that. And this

page?
170 Daniel: It’s weird.

204

171 Michael: It’s weird? What do you think?

Michael moved around the circle of students in round robin style, asking
each student what she or he saw in the pictures. He repeated his question (line
167) “What do you see?” or restated a students response (line 171). Michael’s
procedures for engaging the students appear to stem from his tacit knowledge
about what constitutes interactions between teachers and students. Researchers
have documented the presence and frequency of I-R-E exchanges as
characteristic of schooling across grade levels. Therefore, this is an example of
how Michael practices “apprenticeship-of-observation.”

The simple questions Michael asked and the style in which he asked them
in these examples limit possibilities of advancing to an ongoing, interactive
discussion. Yet, as noted by Burbules (1993), the questions Michael asked were
a necessary prerequisite to identifying conditions that would promote a
discussion among members of the group. Michael used questions so that he and
the students could work together to construct knowledge. For example, to
embellish a discussion about details in the illustrations of My, Michael
needed to understand what the students noticed and their thoughts about the
pictures. Thus, he asked students to share their thinking as he simultaneously
opened the potential for students to introduce new issues and topics.
Straightforward, simple questions may help create an interactive discussion
(Burbules, 1993), where all participants in the group can contribute. However,
the drawback to asking simple questions is their potential to deaden
opportunities for enthusiasm and spontaneity when a question simply is raised
and a response provided. More elaborate questions might probe for

understanding (Burbules, 1993, p. 87). In the next section, I describe how

205

Michael learned to ask more elaborate questions.

WWW. Burbules (1993) defines
probing questions as open-ended requests for opinions, beliefs, evaluations,
interpretations, and elaborations. The purpose underlying probing questions is to
seek information in some detail about what another thinks, knows, or feels about
a topic or issue.

Burbules (1993) suggest that there are a variety of reasons why one rrright
ask probing questions. The questioner might want to understand something
better than she or he presently does. One might ask probing questions to learn
more about the person whom she is questioning. Still further, probing questions
might be asked to encourage others to seek out concerns and issues from a
different point of view. However, the above stated purposes are not mutually
exclusive within the context of a real discussion.

Analysis of transcripts on March 3 and 17 reveal that Michael asked
students probing questions at different times for different purposes. In the first
example, Michael appeared to ask probing questions in an effort to help students
sort out alternative points of view about the text. During the March 3 cross-aged
discussion, students discussed Wm. During the preparation seminar,
I had provided Michael and his peers with a set of questions to guide the cross-
aged discussions. He expanded upon the set showing how he had learned to use
questions to develop the literacy activities as he asked younger students to
expand upon their previous responses.

172 Michael: I need everybody’s attention. Hey um, Matt you can

sit right there. Alright. Alright, Mr. Anderson said um

that he has a good contract with the Logan family
trees. What do you suppose he meant by that?

206

173 Students: Money!
174 Michael: He meant money?

175 Sandy: He probably meant that he was gon’ make a lot of
profit out of the trees.

176 Michael: What else do you think he meant by ‘dat? Can I have
some more input? What do you what do you
suppose not just money, I mean money and what else?
Do you think that maybe he had a contract with
somebody else, and he was gon’ make a lot of money
than what he offered the family for their trees?

The question Michael asked the students in turn 172 was a question we
developed in the preparation seminar. The content of the question was such that
the fourth- and fifth-graders might offer a response based upon their opinions,
beliefs, or interpretations about what Mr. Anderson meant when he told the
Logan family that his contract was a good offer. All students seemed to agree
that the underlying meaning of “good contract” in this situation was “money.”
Sandy elaborated as she stated that Anderson would probably make a profit from
the trees. Since Sandy offered another point of view, Michael sought to get more
information or to have the students elaborate upon what they meant by the word
money, just as Sandy had done. Thus, Michael initiated a probing question in an
effort to receive “more input” from other students in his group. In addition to
asking the students probing questions, Michael modeled how they might respond
by sharing his thinking with them (i.e., turn 176). That is, after asking the
students for more input, he asked another probing question in the form of offering
his opinion about the situation -- that Mr. Anderson had intentions of making a
big profit off of the Logan family’s trees.

On March 17, the students continued to discuss W. The

literacy activity for the session included several procedures: (a) the students

207

would select a character they liked or disliked, (b) write a description about that
character, and (c) talk about why they liked or disliked the character they
selected. Analysis of the transcript showed that Michael initiated a question to
encourage students in his group to ask their peers probing questions about the
character they selected to write about. Simultaneously, he sought information to
develop his understanding about why students made their choices.

177 Michael: So who wants to talk first guys? You wanna read
yours first? Alright Sandy.

178 Sandy: I read this page?

179 Michael: Yea, just yea we gonna we gon’ everybody listen
to Sandy so we can ask her questions you know and
have a conversation about what she thinks about
hers? Alright you wanna, um alright go ‘head
Sandy.

180 Sandy: [inaudible]he couldn’t run that fast. He was always
eatin’, and he um, and I asked him why he like corn
bread. And what other foods he like.

181 Michael: What made you pick um him ?

182 Sandy: Because he was um he was just funny.

183 Michael: He was funny? You like funny people?

184 Daniel: Who did she pick?

185 Michael: Christopher, um she picked ChristOpher John. Alright,
who’s next?

Notice how Michael asked Sandy a probing question, and how the
information was shared as a result of the probe. First, in turn 177, Michael called
the students’ attention to Sandy. Michael made an open-ended request, inviting
the students to make a contribution to Sandy’s description of her character. He
continued by modeling what he wanted the students to do by asking Sandy why

she had chosen her particular character (i.e., turn 181). Sandy’s response to

208

Michael’s probing question was given in such a way that he was able to ask her

yet another probing question (i.e., turn 183), which would tell Michael something

about Sandy -- she likes people who are funny.

As the discussion continued, other instances emerged where Michael

initiated more elaborate probing questions. In the next example, he asked James

about the reasons behind his response.

186 James:
187 Michael:
188 James:
189 Michael:
190 James:
191 Michael:
192 James:
193 Michael:
194 James:
1 95 Michael:
196 Sandy:

My person is Little Man. He is real funny. I like the
part where he hit Mr. Anderson with a big old stick in
the leg. And Mr. Anderson yelled A-h-h-h-h! and
Little Man laughed he-he-ha—ha macaroni
[inaudible].

Is that the only reason you like Little Man?

No.

‘Cause he’s bad?

Yea.

Um .. that’s the only reason you like ‘em?

Nope. I just like ‘em.

Why you like ‘em?

I just like ‘em.

You just like ‘em. Does anybody have any questions
to ask James about why he likes Little Man?

In the last sentence he said he-he-ha-ha macaroni?

Note the probing questions Michael asked James. James focused on a part

of Seug ef the Trees that described how Little Man (character) kicked Anderson

(character) during the time when he was taking trees from the Logan family’s

forest. As James talked, he seemed to admire the violence that occurred in the

story, and even made a joke about the incident. In Michael’s first probing

209

question (i.e., turn 187), he wanted to understand if his violence (i.e., bad) was
James’ only reason for liking the Little Man character. After several attempts to
encourage James to expand on the character of Little Man, Michael asked other
students in the group if they had questions for James (i.e., turn 195). Therefore,
Michael initiated two probing questions for different but related purposes; first as
an attempt to get more information from James about his character selection; and
second, to ask other students in the group to get involved by asking James to talk
about his selection and comment.

Askmguuestreustdpeseajhfllenge. Burbules (1993) defines a third
type of question as one which proposes a challenge or criticism to the partners
engaged in dialogue. A challenge question is not necessarily adversarial, hostile,
or unsympathetic. However, the intention or feeling with which it is asked (or
perceived to be asked) can influence the type of response one might receive. In
Michael’s case, he posed challenging questions to the fourth- and fifth-graders as
a tool to develop their discussions and patterns of interactions in the group. My
analysis of cross-aged discussions on March 17 and April 15 revealed that
Michael asked the students challenging questions by building upon their
responses. Michael’s questions were challenging in a positive sense; they were
intended to develop discussions of issues that emerged from the students’
responses. Moreover, in the preparation seminar sessions, I modeled asking
challenging questions in an effort to prompt their thinking about various issues
and topics that emerged through the course of our conversations. In turn,
Michael modeled what he had observed in the preparation seminar sessions.

In this section, I continue with the development of the discussion on

March 17 which centered on Song ef the Tuees. Michael had been assisting the

210

students to interact through probing questions based on various issues that
emerged via responses. As the discussion continued, there was a point where he
pushed his inquiry of James to develop the discussion, to learn more about what
James was saying, and to help James reflect on his own behavior. Below, I
present a segment of the discussion where Michael asked James a personally
challenging question.

197 Michael: ‘Cause he said he’s just like him.

198 Daniel: Just like him for what?

199 Michael: Just like ‘im...in what ways are you just like him?

200 James: Um...bad.

201 Michael: You’re bad? What kinda bad stuff do you do like
him?

202 James: At home, I um...at home I do yelling in the basement

when my mom is taking a nap.

203 Michael: Yelling in the basement?

204 James: And I be hittin’ my sisters for no reason.
205 Michael: Why you hit your sisters for no reason?
206 James: Um mm. [negative]

In this dialogue, Michael used James’ response to ask him challenging
questions about himself. James had identified himself with a character in the story
commenting that he liked the character (i.e., Little Man) because he was like him.
However, James did not say how he thought he was like Little Man. Therefore,
Michael asked James to be more specific (i.e., turn 199). As James answered
Michael’s questions, he simultaneously provided information which helped
Michael understand why he believed that he was like Little Man, emphasizing

features of his personality. Further, as James talked about the things he did at

211

home, Michael challenged him more in an attempt to understand what stood
behind J arnes’ comment, and perhaps to help James think about why he did the
things that he did to his sister, and to help him think about himself and his actions.
In this sense, Michael was challenging J arnes to reflect upon moral issues that he
faced during conflicts with his sister. Therefore, Michael posed a series of
challenging questions to James for three purposes; to develop a dialogue, to learn
more about James, and to help James think about himself when he encountered
conflicts with his sister.

During a cross-aged discussion on April 15, Michael andthe younger
students were discussing W. The literacy activity entailed
making a selection from the Reading Log Ideas sheet, and writing a response in
their reading logs. Students used the reading log entry to develop the discussion.
Analysis of the transcript showed that Michael raised challenging questions at
two different points during the discussion. The first question focused on helping
students reflect upon making connections between one of their parents (i.e.,
mom) and the parent in the story. Michael raised the question after he read his
log entry to the group.

207 Michael: All right. Oh, I’ll read what I wrote. I put today we
read about the part in the book where they met a girl
by the name of Grace McBeth, whatever. They said
that their mom never spoke up like she did, ‘cause
remember she was like, no, it’s not your fault. It’s
their fault. You know. So I said so did that mean that
their mom was afraid to speak up and ask questions
and why the things they, why things were the way
they were. So what do you guys think about that?
‘Cause you know how Grace spoke up. They said
their mom never spoke up like that. So you think their
mom, you know, just sits around, and lets everybody

tell her what to do? You think she’s like that?
208 Sandy: Maybe.

209 Michael:

212

’Cause Grace say, you know, she’s not like that.
She’s a student and everything, and she, she wants to
change a lot of different things. So would you rather
your mom be like Grace or be like their mom?

As Michael read his log entry to the students, he explained some of the

pieces of the story he was referring to (e.g., ‘cause remember she was like, no, it’s

not your fault). When Michael finished reading, he asked the students what they

thought about Naledi and Tiro’s mother (i.e., turn 209). Michael raised the

question again in turn 211 where he challenged the students to consider whether

they would like for their mother to be like Grace (the one who was willing to

speak out for what she believed in) or like N aledi and Tiro’s mother.

Michael raised another question during the session on April 15 to pose a

challenge. In contrast to the previous example, Michael asked the students to

consider a significant person in their lives. He raised this question after Zee read

her log entry which conveyed why she liked Grace in Jnnrnnfldlribnrg.
210 Michael:

211
212
213

214
215
216

217

Zee:
Michael:
Zee:

Michael:
Zee:
Michael:

Zee:

You done? You don’t have to write about just words
[vocabulary words]. You can write about anything
that you read. Done, Zee? Alright. Go ahead.

I’m [inaudible]. She is

Their?

She is their new friend. They meet, they met on the
bus. She is very nice, kind, and helpful. Grace’s
mother works in the same place as Naledi’s mother.
When N aledi and Tiro got on the white bus, Grace
stood up for them. Grace is not afraid to speak up.
So you like um Grace?

Yes.

Is there a Grace, do you have a Grace in you life? A
good friend like that?

No.

213

218 Michael: You don’t have a grace in you life? Someone who’s
a good friend and will stand up for you and your
mom’s not your Grace?

219 Zee: Yea, my mom is.

Early in the session, Michael encouraged the students to choose a topic to
write about which included vocabulary words. In addition, Michael reminded
them that they could write about anything that they wanted. Zee decided to
write about Grace (character) and included positive qualities of her personality.
As Michael listened, he inferred that Zee liked Grace, and made that public to the
whole group. Michael’s follow-up question posed Zee with a challenge, to make
links between the kindness of Grace, and a similar person who might be in her life
(i.e., 220). Michael’s insight into Zee’s response prompted him to challenge the
students to make links between important characters in the stories and important
people in their own personal lives. This transcript illustrates how he developed a
question that was developed from Zee’s response.

In this section of chapter 5, I have discussed the first theme in Michael’s
case -- Reconstructing Meanings of Learner: Asking Questions. Through
analysis and interpretation, I provided examples of the various levels of questions
that Michael asked, and the purposes behind them. I have demonstrated that he
learned about multiple ways of using literature and children’s responses to ask
questions about text. Michael drew on multiple sources to assist him as a
facilitator and co-participant in interacting with the fourth- and fifth-grade
students; his knowledge from interacting with his peers and me in the preparation
seminar; his knowledge about schooling and teaching as an “apprentice-
observer”; and his keen insight from listening to the topics and issues that the

younger students raised in his cross-aged discussions about the various pieces of

214

text. As a facilitator and co-participant in cross-aged literacy activities, Michael’s
active and consistent participation in the preparation seminar sessions, and his
enthusiasm to make his work with the younger students a success is revealed. As
a student who had been labeled as a “low-achiever,” evidence has been
provided to call into question the assumptions behind labeling students as “low-
achievers” and to begin reconstructing our perceptions of these students to
focus on their strengths and figure out ways to build upon those strengths. In
this section, evidence has been provided to portray that Michael learned how to
ask questions that were beyond typical literal level questions. I-Iis strength in this
area needs to be addressed as a vehicle for enhancing his literacy education and
development.
{‘ or ll- r' U‘ill' I ' ‘ -_ ' try I‘ la. 1.... WJI‘I a."

In this section, I draw on data from Michael’s reading log responses to
illustrate how he made connections between his written responses as a resource
to share his ideas with the younger students. Drawing from the literacy activities
in the preparation seminar, Michael wrote ideas in his reading log just as he
required the younger students to write down their ideas. In addition, he read his
response orally to the group just as the younger students read their responses.
These were features of modeling that were consistently prevalent in his cross-
aged discussion group.

Michael’s reading logs were examined for the ideas he shared to stimulate

discussion among the younger students. The reading log entries I examined

included: (a) two written responses for Tuesday, (b) two responses for Sangef
theTLees, and (c) three responses for kWh—“£8-

215

Miehael’s teadiug leg tespenses fot Tuesday. Michael’s reading log entry

written on January 25, was written as a creative piece of text about Tum.
Like the fourth and fifth graders, Michael used the illustrations in the wordless
picture book to create a story. The content of his story included two features: (a)
interpretations of underlying details in the pictures, and (b) descriptions of what
he saw in the pictures (see Figure 7). Michael used the text he created as a tool
to develop his discussion with the younger students (McMahon, 1992), and to
help the group develop their literary understanding and knowledge about what
and how one might engage in literacy learning activities using a text such as
Insane):-

Within his written text, Michael included several interpretations about the
illustrations in Tuesday: how the frogs sensed their surroundings (e.g., there was
a lot of commotion), how the animals were “frantic” (e.g., they knew that
Tuesday was the night that the frogs would ride), and how the lily pads had
power (e.g., it [power] was revoked at the end of the story). His interpretations of
the story convey how he moved beyond simply commenting on the obvious
details, to using his imagination to create meaning from the pictures.

Michael’s description of the pictures reflect a narrative style rather than
detailing the chronicle of events that the pictures convey. For instance, in his
description regarding the journey of the frogs, Michael stated the route, including
brief statements about the frogs’ mischievous behavior as they traveled on the
lily pads. This example of Michael’s written response illustrates how he
connected reading, writing, and oral language as a tool for sharing his ideas with
the younger students. In addition, Michael enacted his role as a facilitator with

the younger students by modeling literate behaviors (i.e., reading, writing, oral

216

 

dd fl l?

T185 d0 [j kl I DA Mid we I. she I"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 7. Michael’s first reading log entry for Tuesdav.

217

language) to reenforce some reactions, responses, and behaviors from the
younger group members.

Michael’s second log entry about Tuesday focused on why he enjoyed
the book (see Figure 8). The features of the literature that Michael found
personally appealing included humor and the ability to construct a personal
literary experience with the story. This written response illustrates how Michael
reflected on his engagement with a wordless picture book, and he publicly
acknowledged what he learned by talking about it with the fourth and fifth
graders. In addition, by reading his written response to the younger students
orally, Michael shared responsibility and enacted his role as a co-participant.

It is important to understand Michael’s perspective on his experience with
Tuesday as we consider alternative literacy learning experiences for students who
struggle. Underlying his written comments about engagement with text were
implications for exploring a variety of genres to redefine literacy learning
experiences for low-achieving students. Michael’s comments can assist
educators in developing an ideology for low-achieving adolescents that extend
beyond traditional experiences of written language (e. g., filling in worksheets).
Rather, what seems appropriate would be literature and activities that would
enable students to construct personal meanings about text through oral and
written language. Through the process of interacting with others, and making
connections between written and oral language, the context is set such that low-
achieving students might heighten their awareness about the ways in which text
can assist them in exploring their academic and literary potential.

W. Michael wrote two
reading log entries for Sung ef the Trees (e.g., March 3 and 17). For each entry,

218

Mic:a;l

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 8. Michael’s second log entry for Tuesday.

219

he focused on David (a character) to explore his reasoning behind protecting the
Logan family’s forest. Two significant features emerged in both of Michael’s log
entries: (a) an explanation of David’s personality, and (b) raising questions to
seek further information about David that was not explained in the text.

In Michael’s log entry for March 3, he explained why he thought David’s
actions against Anderson and his workers in the forest were aggressive (see
Figure 9). According to Michael, David was thoughtful and protective of the
environment and his family. It is interesting to note that Michael included a
personal reaction to David’s actions, stating that if he were in the same situation,
he would have accepted the money. His opinion reflects a young teenager’s
modern day point of view. As Michael ended his log entry, he brought his
comment back to David, stating that his assertiveness resulted in keeping his self-
respect. This example illustrates how Michael engaged in personal response as he
made links between the text and his own beliefs.

Michael’s log entry for March 17 also focuses on the character, David,
highlighting what Michael learned as a result of reading the text (see Figure 10).
Like his entry on March 3, he continued with the theme of David’s self-respect.
His comment “David was not a man you could just puch [push] around”
suggests Michael’s admiration for David. Michael also raised a question in his
March 17 log entry, asking for clarification: “Why he works so far away from
home?” The question reflects Michael's contrast between the world of work in
modern times versus the political, social, and economic challenges that African-
Americans faced in the rural South in the 1930’s. A second question was raised
as if he were actually asking David: “Why he cared more about his self-respect

versus his life?” This question is interesting to note because at the same time that

220

NAME Mel DATE 34,744

m Iill IiII Iill
,2 .7377! W .

99:91 alol- rrhou-l- film. +reeLM

Nit rfl' - I fljmgyfl would
(we tn be real ale vampire,

your Arie Jar $3M %¢CS.BM AL

   

 

 

 

(xé gap/n 1 m2. 1 married Laue, Turk
m a lawn T— wmw My
\N'Al‘je Elk} Q [Lp§ S 12 sag 36% 4/5

/ w
th‘rrVQgrnjg-4zgm‘k at! 'm a.\\ jail-me

“Flank 4x194} 0L1L Lats£ [ha-Liens,

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 9. Michael’s first log entry for W.

221

NAME Maurie! uni/7704!

fl [1' Ill/1111' Ili'

mm (jam/{Fm Ls Day}!
lobed: Utt- FM 0-4134 abauat
fining lunch ‘iimjlj l’tL Illa):

mt (L Moo/L war, @5an Ana-r:

331559vame in 7i’m '%im__ei,
Lgnl tin-L {DAL'JL x2)“ “mm W

1mm» M LDM LL LON/[4A Jgflég
QImJ-l ./]{7 [tr/HQ... J/mwflmf

@21dean 41,064 lab/mif—

timing /l‘7AJ‘—.WKAWL

\l/le:fbdmm jC/D/L .\’\\:\\/T IWUUL
id A W he.” '

Figure 10. Michael’s second log entry for W.

 

 

 

 

222

Michael seemed to admire David’s dignity, he questioned it. It also illustrated
how Michael continued to raise questions in his writing as well as in dialogue in

the cross-aged group discussions to make sense of what he read.

WW I examined three
of Michael’s reading log entries for Jducueyjdlgy’btug where he made inquiries

to develop discussions in his group: (a) integrating personal opinions, and (b)
asking questions.

Michael’s first log entry for W included his personal
opinion and what he wanted to see happen in the story (see Figure 11). For
instance, one personal opinion reflected on how Michael viewed Naledi and Tiro
(characters), stating that they were brave [for trying to help their baby sister].
Michael does not expand upon the actions that motivated Naledi and Tiro to be
brave, but rather moves his written response to a different level. His second
reaction to the story involved himself, where he placed his world into the world
of the text. He suggested that if he were in the same situation as Naledi and Tiro,
he would have done whatever he needed to do to save his baby sister or brother.
Michael’s third reaction in response to the story involved making a prediction
about the story. He acknowledged that he hoped that Naledi and Tiro made the
long journey to their “Mma” so that their baby sister might live. Here, Michael
shows a range of reactions for the characters in his written response (e.g.,
personal opinion; a sense of concern), continuing to develop and create meaning
from the story in lieu of retelling facts.

The second log entry for J eumey Te J o’hu;g included a commentary
about the section of the story students read on April 15. His beginning

commentary leads into a question (see Figure 12) where he highlights an event in

223

NAME Mick ave! DATE 3/2 5/?

m m rill m m
...; TQM: ”Hui ‘2‘!th

JUTU 0W dim; fat/12
- _ r

l 3.6% ii .5 [E

_a£ All W/wfiflymrtm
“h {Meme-4W
Mme—22¢

l)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 11. Michael’s first log entry for leumev Te Je’hutg.

224

NAME Mel DATE 6‘ #5173

m m m m Ill”!

%1 [L20 Jen’sg 4. M
___p;_> 72L Ira-ah glow m}.- L

SinL hit 71... Irma ‘3/ «27% 075414.:
1424.0 tabs? 771% mm. mm mm

Aerie Man: he 4h rte
ML mm MAI—W72

grim/half,“ fig 616? 0/1 flmehilfig 2;

than.»
a T0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 12. Michael’s second log entry for W.

225

the story -- when Naledi and Tim met Grace after arriving in Johannesburg (e.g.,
they met a girl). The second part of Michael’s response “they [Naledi and Tiro]
said that there [their] mom never spoke up like that” is related to an observation
that Naledi and Tiro made of their mother after they met Grace while they listened
to her speak out about the oppression of black people in South Africa. The third
part of Michael’s response was a question which included two insightful
concerns necessary to move the discussion from the literal level to a level of
interpretations and comparisons. The question was posed to make the younger
students look at the differences between a young South African woman and an
older woman who worked as a maid (e.g., “so did that mean there [their] mom
was afraid to speak up and ask why things where [were] the way they are.”).
This question that Michael raised is insightful in that it was one that could evolve
into an interactive conversation about the opinions that Naledi and Tiro had of
their mother, and why the mother chose to exclude herself from political
concerns.

The third reading log entry Michael wrote (e.g., April 29) was also in
response to on To J ’bur . At the time that the students were completing
the text, the citizens of South Africa were electing a new President. Michael
decided to include the current event in his group activity for April 29. He asked
each student to pretend to be the President of South Africa, and that two years
had passed since the election. The content for the log entry was to include the
changes that had been made in the country as President over a two year period.
Each student wrote the entry, and then shared what changes they had made as
President. As the younger students wrote, Michael wrote a response and read it

(see Figure 13). He then used his entry to start the discussion.

226

NAMEMnhaeL - DATE #31???“

IIII l/ll lill I'll l/II l/ll

WMAAMAMM

W544
4% Mm mic/MAL

[m1 lli'm [1353,44 SEE ¥flg Qg¢£ @fil

W Ave/V \XDM
A—Frtaat. 7" W50 gal-ha gz &

K01”?! AMA fl/‘ny‘rSrlrna. KIQ CaM/
_c39 +2 fly, gCh’loA—Q. 6W7:
ego-(9“ 7t), 14ml 5&de 105%. wM w

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 13. Michael’s third log entry for W.

Wt
3111

PIC

bec
Und
kno
be“
in as

[0 nc

227

The three themes that emerged from Michael’s text were creating
employment, stopping the violence in the country, and making all schools
accessible to all children. The themes regarding violence and unequal schooling
were themes which also emerged in W. In the text, the story
highlighted the random social violence, and that in segregated schools, blacks
were taught “rubbish.” Michael’s log entry illustrates how he connected an
international current event to the literature and his writing. The written text also
conveys that Michael viewed all positive changes in a country that was in
turmoil.

What Might We Learn From Michael’s Case?

Michael’s role as facilitator of a cross-aged discussion group was a striking
contrast to Teresa. As group facilitator of the cross-aged discussion group,
Michael’s contributions consisted of asking thoughtful questions, and reading his
written log responses to the group. Even though Michael was not as active a
participant in his cross-aged group as he was in the preparation seminar, there
were several important points to note about his case to help us rethink, redefine
and reconstruct literacy learning experiences for older students who find the
process difficult.

First, in our initial interview, Michael informed me that he wanted to
become a teacher. This program allowed Michael opportunities to develop his
understanding about some of the necessary processes, procedures, content,
knowledge, skills, and dispositions teachers need in order to assist others to
become participants in their own learning. Second, Michael learned to be skillful
in asking questions to develop a conversation about text. This point is significant

to note because given Michael’s history with schooling as an “apprentice

228

observer” and his experiences with traditional curriculum and teaching, Michael
showed a willingness to take risks and venture into non-traditional strategies to
engage in literary discussions with younger students. Third, Michael modeled
what he expected the younger students to do. Therefore, he moved beyond
simply telling students what to do, but showing them how they might proceed
with the necessary literacy lessons.

The strategies Michael used to conduct the literacy activities in his small
group warrant an advanced dialogue among researchers on reconstructing
meanings of literacy learning for low-achieving adolescents. This case study
offers means to explore the principles of sociocultural theory, and to delve into
deeper understandings about what is necessary to begin reconstructing meanings
of learner and literacy for students who struggle with reading, writing and
schooling. For instance, the questions Michael asked were not with the intent of
leading the fourth- and fifth-grade students to the “right” answer. And given his
experiences with schooling and the concept of “apprenticeship of observation”
as defined by Lortie (1975), his questions were not those often asked of students
who struggle with reading and writing (e.g., Who was the main character? What
happened in the story first? Second?) Rather, Michael was able to progressively
develop difficult questions for his cross-aged learners through the preparation
seminar, and from listening and reacting to the comments made by the younger
students. In so doing, he set the potential context in his cross-aged group for
stimulating literary understanding among cross-aged peers.

The activities and content of Michael’s cross-aged setting were those that
might be developed by a social group. They were very necessary to develop

Michael’s higher psychological functions as well as those of other students.

Soc

3ng

and

 

atmd
a for
lean
and '
com
strut
of hi
This

assis

229

Social relations were embedded within the very nature of the process of cross-
aged interactions, conducted as an exchange between a high school adolescent
and six elementary students. This alternative cross-aged setting and the social
atmosphere that comprised it offer researchers and teachers a context to develop
a forum to discuss the potential of talk, writing and learning for students who find
learning to read and write difficult. In addition, the differences in Michael’s roles
and how he participated in each component of the study offer a perspective to
complement the concept of reconstructing meanings of learner and literacy for
struggling readers and writers. Michael’s case study highlighted the complexity
of his capabilities and the ways in which he represented his literacy knowledge.
This case study is one that warrants further investigation as to how we might

assist low-achieving adolescents to learn how to learn.

CHAPTER 6
LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE CROSS-AGED LITERACY PROGRAM

The purpose of this study was to explore the experiences of low-achieving
high school adolescents who struggle with reading, writing, and schooling as
they participated in the Cross-Aged Literacy Program. To develop my
understanding of the students’ literacy learning experiences, I framed the study in
terms of three broad questions: (a) How do the social interactions in an
alternative literacy program help us to rethink, reconstruct and redefine literacy
learning for adolescents who struggle with reading and writing? (b) What was
the nature of participation in the two alternative literacy contexts? (c) How do
high school adolescents represent their knowledge about literacy when
interacting with fourth and fifth graders?

To explore these questions, I focused on four ninth graders (i.e., Teresa,
Michael, Devon, Mark) as they participated in two interrelated components of the
Cross-Aged Literacy Program. The first component was the preparation seminar,
which was part instructional and part collaborative learning between the four
students and me. We participated in this setting together to create a variety of
literacy learning activities including reading, writing about, and discussing
children’s literature. The high school students and I discussed and planned the
literacy activities they would conduct with the elementary students. To
understand the nature of interactions in their groups, we debriefed their
interactions with the younger students. In the second component - the cross-
aged discussion groups - Teresa, Michael, Mark, and Devon read, wrote about,
and discussed children’s literature with fourth and fifth graders in small groups.

The high school students facilitated the cross-aged interactions by modeling and

230

231

extending the literacy activities and interactions we experienced in the
preparation seminar. I was a participant observer in each component of the study,
and I collected data in each setting of the program from January through early
June, 1994. Data sources included field notes, formal and informal interviews,
audiotapes, videotapes, and written documents.

Analysis of the data from the preparation seminar demonstrated that a
sense of commitment and responsibility was critical for the students to effectively
participate in the instructional component. With both commitment and
responsibility, they were able to contribute to the settings in ways that fostered
their literacy education (e.g., developing an understanding of connections
between reading and writing, reflecting and critiquing the social interactions in
small groups). From the second component of the study, I developed two case
studies. Data analysis revealed that the two case study students facilitated the
literacy activities and social interactions in their individual groups in different
ways and for various purposes.

For instance, Teresa was not a regular and consistent participant in the
preparation seminar, but she did attend and participate in her cross-aged group
discussions. Teresa facilitated the cross-aged literary discussions and drew from
her background knowledge and experiences of schooling and teaching. This is
not surprising given that Teresa was not familiar with the kinds of discussions and
interactions I modeled and promoted in the preparation seminar. At times, the
conversations that Teresa facilitated among the students seemed intriguing.
However, a close analysis revealed that Teresa was seeking the “right answer” to
the open-ended questions she asked. Those questions and ideas tended to be

based upon Teresa’s personal challenges which she interwove into various topics

232

and issues that emerged from the discussions. Given that Teresa was the only
individual who knew “the answers” she was seeking, the fourth and fifth graders
tended to either guess what was in Teresa’s head or they capitulated to her
personal thoughts and opinions. Therefore, Teresa’s cross-age interactions were
exemplary of the I-R-E patterns that occur in many classrooms.

In contrast, Michael was an active co-participant in the preparation
seminar. Consequently, Michael appeared to have learned strategies to facilitate
a cross-aged literary discussion. Michael systematically asked challenging open-
ended questions to probe for understanding and to construct meanings from
texts. Moreover, he modeled various reading and writing activities by making
connections between oral and written language, and sharing ideas to enrich the
learning opportunities for all students in his small group. These examples suggest
that he had developed an understanding about how to read text, and how to
engage with authentic literature. The findings from Michael’s case study suggest
that he benefited from the preparation seminar. What he learned about reading,
writing, discussing text, and planning literacy activities in the preparation seminar
became apparent in his responses and reactions to the younger students. Yet,
Michael exhibited instances of “apprenticeship of observations” as well. This is
not surprising given the number of years and hours he had had observing
teachers. However, Michael was able to integrate traditional and alternative
ways of interacting around text. Both Teresa and Michael’s experiences warrant
examining our assumptions about literacy learning and acquisition of students
labeled as “low-achievers.”

In this chapter, I return to the theoretical framework that underlies this

study, exploring the conclusions in terms of the development of students’ literacy

233

education in an alternative literacy program. I discuss this issue in two areas: (a)
rethinking literacy education for high school adolescents who struggle with
reading, writing, and schooling, and (b) examining the exploratory power of
sociocultural theory for literacy learning. Then I explore the theoretical and
practical implications for the study. Last, I discuss limitations of the study and
suggest questions for future research.

Rethinking Literacy Education For Low-Achieving
High School Students

In Chapter 1, I argued that this country can no longer afford to condone
the huge numbers of students dropping out of school because they do not
succeed in learning how to read and write. When students fail to deve10p in their
literacy education, they are not the only people who fail; educators fail as well.
High school adolescents are not completely responsible for learning how to
develop their literacy education; we have a responsibility to help them learn how
to learn. Helping our low-achieving adolescents succeed in school is the
responsibility of a community of leaders including researchers, teachers,
administrators, parents, the students, and all others who care about our citizens of
tomorrow. This issue demands our attention, and one place we might begin is
with the students.

I suggested that decontextualized instructional approaches used with
students who read and write poorly is one contributing factor that inhibits
success in literacy learning. Much research has been conducted that documents
the ineffectiveness of drilling-and-skilling students who find learning to read and
write difficult (e.g., Allington & McGill-Franzen, 1989). Teresa and Michael had

previously participated in pull-out programs such as special education and

tore

drc

Op!

Cit]

Ci

234

“remedial reading.” Devon and Mark might be characterized as “in school
dropouts” where socializing with peers was the main focus of the school day as
opposed to participating in academics. At some point during their schooling
careers, they had learned that reading and writing meant filling in worksheets
(e.g., through language games such as Hang Man), and reading short brief
paragraphs to check for comprehension (e.g., as seen in Michael’s highly focused
questions about story content). But when low-achieving students reach high
school and still struggle with reading, writing, and schooling, as educators we
need to rethink, so that we might redefine what the nature of their literacy
education might entail. A dialogue among us is critical for the advancement of
struggling readers and writers, because contemporary conceptions of literacy
seem to be about the knowledge and skills of the individual (Keller-Cohen, 1993).
Such notions make a revealing statement about the central focus that reading and
writing occupy in American life today.

Many scholars suggests that literacy learning is enhanced when students
have opportunities to engage in natural, meaningful, and purposeful, context-
embedded instructional interactions (Wells, 1992). Presently, educators are
investigating these assertions by exploring connections between language and
learning in goal-oriented literacy instruction with younger children (Pierce &
Gilles, 1993). In spite of the research studies which examine contextualized
literacy learning for elementary students, we have much to learn about the social
nature of literacy for high school adolescents who find learning to read difficult.
The findings from this study contribute to the dialogue within the literacy field to
develop further understandings about the potential benefits of assisting low-

achieving students to participate in their own literacy learning through

235

alternative literacy programs.

Teresa had been labeled as Learning Disabled (LD) and diagnosed as
dyslexic. Her learning disability was apparent whenever she decided to “take a
risk” and read orally in front of her peers and me. But, literacy learning viewed
through a sociocultural lens means much more than whether or not students who
are frustrated readers and writers can or cannot read fluently. Teresa’s voice and
contributions in this program were invaluable in assisting us to rethink, so that we
can redefine what literacy instruction might entail for students who struggle with
it. Teresa’s boundaries for literacy learning were extended in this study, where
there was the potential to expand her beliefs about herself as a literate being as
well as her knowledge, skills, and dispositions about constructing meaning from
text and collaborative learning. However, she relied upon her preconceived
notions of teaching and schooling, and used multiple frames of reference (e.g.,
personal experiences) and sources (e. g., older and younger students within small
group settings) to assist her in facilitating her cross-aged discussion group. Even
though it was apparent that Teresa often moved the students responses in her
direction, it was the sociocultural context of the study that provided her with an
opportunity to engage in collaborative learning.

One way in which Teresa was able to participate in her own learning was
in her role as leader in the cross-aged discussions. To be responsible for the
learning of younger students forced her to use her skills, literacy knowledge, and
personal frames of reference to develop cross-aged literary discussions with
elementary students successfully. A second way in which Teresa was enabled to
participate in her own learning was through opportunities to reflect, critique, and

discuss what she learned about the nature of interacting with the elementary

236

students over children’s literature. For example, when I initially introduced the
high school students to Tuesday (Wiesner, 1991) in the preparation seminar,
Teresa assertively explained to her high school peers and me that the role of
imagination was significant to constructing meaning from the text. In a
debriefing session of the preparation seminar (i.e., February 12) Teresa explained
how “reading the pictures” was important for her, because there were no words
and she could not “mess up” and did not have to worry about people listening
and “laughing” at her when she mispronounced words. These powerful
assertions made by Teresa provide insight into how one student viewed her own
success in literacy. Teresa’s comments are worthy to note for several reasons: (a)
she suggested that low-achieving high school students can be successful at
literacy learning opportunities when the boundaries are extended to include
creative alternatives, and (b) she raised questions with the potential to refute
behavioral theories of literacy learning that suggests success depends upon the
products of literacy activities (e. g., oral fluency, the ability to answer literacy
comprehension questions). In these comments, it is obvious that Teresa had
developed some understanding about the significance of meaning making during
the act of reading.

Michael was also a low-achieving student, but had not been labeled with a
learning disability. Michael participated in a “remedial” reading program in
elementary school, and described it as a successful learning experience because
he “worked his way out of it.” Like Teresa, Michael’s contributions to the
Cross-Aged Literacy Program were an invaluable resource for helping educators
rethink the nature of literacy for our low-achieving high school adolescents.

First, Michael raised interesting questions both within the preparation seminar,

237

and in his cross-aged discussion group. The questions he raised in the
preparation seminar were often the result of thoughtful reflection to push the
thinking of his peers and himself to discuss critical concerns and issues (e.g., text,
behavior of younger students, problem-solving strategies). In his work with the
younger students, he learned to use questions as a strategy for communicating
with them about text. Second, Michael took responsibility for gathering
information, both socially and intellectually, about the younger students with
whom he worked. Then he shared that information with his peers and me in the
preparation seminar.

Sociocultural Theory and Literacy Learning

A sociocultural perspective on language and literacy learning stresses the
importance of social interactions among individuals. In this study, the high
school students’ literacy development was influenced by the social interactions
in each component of the program, where oral and written language were tools
for communication among all participants. In this section, I discuss the
conclusions of this study in relation to the high school students’ literacy
experiences in three areas: (a) social and cultural contributions to learning, (b)
literacy development through social interactions, and (c) learning enhanced
through the assistance of others.

The first assumption of sociocultural theory suggests that higher
psychological functions are social and cultural in nature. Two key functions to
higher psychological processes that are essential to learning are the use of oral
and written language. The high school students in this study had multiple

opportunities to engage in dialogue and written language to help them

238

participate in their own learning. First, they talked with me and with each other
about various aspects of the program. This form of communication presented
situations such that the students and I were able to develop our understanding
about how the patterns of interaction and group dynamics played out in their
small groups when they critiqued the voices and actions of the younger students
as well as themselves. Also, in the preparation seminar, the students and I read,
wrote responses to, and discussed the children’s literature that I selected for the
program. We listened to each other’s suggestions for planning literacy activities
to conduct in the cross-aged groups. The nature of the preparation seminar was
such that a social and cultural environment was formed over time, building upon
the academic strengths that the students brought to the setting, and
strengthening their weaknesses for purposes of preparing to help others and thus
help themselves.

Like the preparation seminar, the cross-aged discussion group component
of this study was a second sociocultural setting to develop students’ higher
psychological functions through oral and written language. In the preparation
seminar setting, the high school students interacted with peers, albeit younger
ones, who brought multiple ways of knowing to the setting. The cross-aged
groups included a heterogeneous mix of students with respect to ethnicity,
culture, gender, and ability. The nature of the literacy activities in the cross-aged
component were such that students read different text genres (e.g., wordless
picture books, realistic fiction). The various texts that students read required
them to think about responding in unique ways, and the end results were
contributions from multiple perspectives. Thus, the interactions and group

dynamics between the ninth, fifth, and fourth graders was a rich sociocultural

239

context with resourceful minds working to construct meanings from text. These
examples emphasize how various opportunities to enhance learning through oral
and written language existed in two sociocultural settings (i.e., preparation
seminar, cross-aged discussion group), and how the content of the discussions
fostered literacy learning among all group members involved.

Literacy Development Through Social Interactions

The second assumption of sociocultural theory grows out of the first, and
suggests that if higher psychological functions are social and cultural in nature,
the knowledge that individuals acquire is constructed through interactions
among individuals. Vygotsky (1978) suggested that an important feature of
knowledge acquisition is through the interactions among individuals within a
social context. The process known as internalization is necessary for individuals
to reconstruct and negotiate meanings through the social interactions that occur
among people. Because of the multiple layers of social and cultural learning
opportunities in the Cross-Aged Literacy Program, the various opportunities that
existed to interact embodied the second assumption of sociocultural theory.

The preparation seminar exemplified Vygotsky’s principle that knowledge
is acquired through interactions among individuals. The high school students
and I engaged in many social interactions, and the findings of the study illustrated
how the students reconstructed meanings to contribute to their own learning and
the learning of others. For instance, after I established my expectations for
commitment and responsibility to the program, the high school students (with the
exception of Teresa) gradually took responsibility for attending and actively
participating in the preparation seminar on a regular and consistent basis.

Intemalization of my expectation fostered commitment and responsibility among

240

the students in other areas, such as taking responsibility for collaboration where
they shared information about the patterns of interaction in their individual
groups. If the patterns of interactions they talked about in the preparation
seminar involved a dilemma, then the literacy activity emerged into listening and
problem-solving where everyone made suggestions to assist each other. As a
result of sharing perspectives on problem-solving strategies, the students learned
about multiple ways of managing challenges whenever they surfaced.

Similarly, the preparation seminar was a sociocultural setting where
knowledge was constructed about children’s literature through the interactions
among us as well. The experiences of Teresa, Michael, Mark and Devon as they
engaged in talk about books with fourth and fifth graders were reconstructed in
the preparation seminar where they reflected and critiqued the content of the
discussions and the patterns of interactions. As such, they internalized new
meanings of talk about books which resulted in multiple perspectives of what
counts as literacy learning when interacting with younger students. For example,
the high school students enthusiastically talked about the role of imagination as
significant to making sense of Tuesday, after realizing that the elementary
students helped them to see details in the illustrations that they had not
previously noticed (i.e., cat, swan, frog swinging on a fence). Moreover, they
discussed how they could make the book (i.e., Tuesday) be what they wanted it
to be because they could use their own thoughts rather than rely on words
written by an author. These comments from high school students who were
marginalized suggest that their experiences in interacting with younger students
over a wordless picture book helped them learn more about themselves as

learners. The preparation seminar was an important social and cultural forum for

241

them to reflect and share what they learned; where there was a gradual
development of their literacy education.

In the case of Teresa, we saw Vygotsky’s second assumption of
sociocultural theory in literacy learning enacted. As discussed in detail in chapter
4, Teresa did not actively attend and participate in the preparation seminar for
various reasons (e.g., extra-curricular activities after school, multiple excuses).
Yet, she was always present during the cross-aged discussion settings, and she
facilitated and guided the fourth and fifth graders through literary discussions.

As such, Teresa engaged in language learning opportunities with the younger
students about text, resulting in knowledge construction and negotiation among
a small group of diverse learners. One example of how knowledge was
constructed and negotiated in Teresa’s case was when tensions emerged in her
group. Rather than call everyone’s attention to Stanley, Teresa decided to embed
management and group norms within instructional procedures. Consequently, all
students, through implicit interactions, learned Teresa’s expectations and group
norms.

Teresa constructed and re-negotiated her own knowledge about the text
and she engaged in conversations with the fourth and fifth graders in her group.
When Teresa and the students in her small group discussed Tuesday (Weisner,
1991), Teresa integrated her personal experiences into the discussion. Recall that
the fourth and fifth graders generated ideas for a sequel to 'T_uesd_2_ry by calling the
names of different animals that might replace the frogs. While the students were
thinking of the story in terms of an imaginary fantasy, Teresa was thinking
differently as she assertively asked the students about whether or not cats and

dogs might be hurt if they fell from the sky. Since Teresa owns a cat and two

242

dogs, her question suggested that she was thinking in terms of real animals falling
from the sky versus animals in a fantasy. Although it was obvious that her
question resulted from a mistake and confusion of text genres, the experience
opened an opportunity for Teresa to integrate her world into the world of the
text.

Michael was fully cognizant of how to initiate literacy activities and tasks
based upon what was discussed in the preparation seminar. Moreover, he drew
upon his “apprenticeship of observation” background which he had come to
know for the past ten years of his schooling career. Michael learned how to ask
questions as a strategy for cultivating a literary discussion. He did so by listening
to students, and he developed a way of becoming insightful about their
responses. This was apparent in both the oral and written literacy strategies
Michael used to enhance the social interactions and learning opportunities
among the individuals in his group.

The ways in which Michael chose to facilitate his cross-aged discussions is
an important case for developing our understanding about how teachers might
go about working with students like Michael. Since it was clear that Michael
was actively engaged in the preparation seminar, but not in the cross-aged
discussion groups, this raised a question about how Michael perceived his role in
each component of the study. For example, since I was the “teacher” in the
preparation seminar, did Michael see himself as a traditional “student” and
therefore participated in student-like ways to make contributions to discussions?
If Michael perceived himself as a “student” in the preparation seminar, and a
“quasi-teacher” in his cross-aged discussion group, how might teachers go about

assisting students to understand themselves as learners in order to continue to be

243

a part of constructing knowledge within other group situations? These questions
are two of many that need to be addressed in order to understand the type of
support teachers might provide for helping low-achieving students to learn how
to learn in alternative literacy programs.

is r

The third assumption of sociocultural theory suggests that learning is
fostered through the assistance of more knowledgeable others. Within the
preparation seminar, the language opportunities and social interactions among the
high school students and me resulted in situations where I worked closely within
their zones of proximal development (Vygotsky, 1978) to support them in literacy
learning: (a) the meaning of volunteering to participate in a project, (b) emerging
perspectives on what counts as literacy learning, and (c) developing perspectives
of what was learned as a result of participating in the overall program. Each of
the areas involved social interactions, and oral language was the principle tool for
communication among the students and me.

I took opportunities to work with the students to help them understand
the significance of their voices in the program. Consistent with a sociocultural
perspective, they brought their knowledge of “going through the process of
school” to this program which frequently reflected their low motivation and
passivity. The visions they had for themselves were in direct conflict with my
high expectations of them. This dilemma raised concerns which resulted in my
working within their zones of proximal development to establish a conscious
sense of commitment and responsibility among all of the high school participants.
Also, the nature of the work in the preparation seminar enabled the students to

reflect upon what they learned about literacy and patterns of interactions as

244

discussion leaders of small groups of children. For example, Mark, Michael, and
Teresa were especially surprised to learn that the fourth and fifth graders brought
out details in the wordless picture book that they did not see initially.

In the cross-aged discussions, the heterogeneous groups were such that
the older and younger students’ learning was enhanced through the assistance of
knowledgeable members of the group. The students brought different social,
cultural, and intellectual experiences to the setting, thus each student was
knowledgeable about different things. The open-ended nature of opportunities
to discuss literature presented the “more knowledgeable others” a chance to
assist each other as they talked about books. One such instance occurred when
the students in Teresa’s group discussed W. Brad, a younger
student in Teresa’s group, voiced his opinion about the notion of safety in
hitchhiking. He made comparisons between hitchhiking in the United States and
Johannesburg, South Africa. Cathy, another fifth grader in Teresa’s group talked
about safety in hitchhiking as well. However, Cathy made comparisons between
rural and urban areas in South Africa. The conversation on hitchhiking illustrates
how students pushed each other to think about what it means to be safe in
different societies.

Although Michael’s cross-aged discussions tended to be structured such
that he did not encourage the fourth and fifth graders to move beyond the text
when engaging in literary talk, instances did occur where the concept of “more
knowledgeable other” was reinforced within the group. Michael learned how to
ask questions for purposes of teaching and learning, and to stimulate discussions.
He drew upon this strategy from the way I modeled asking questions in the

preparation seminar, and then using students’ responses to probe further. Over

ti

245

time, Michael learned to ask questions that served different purposes. In doing
so, his questions tended to result in engaging the younger students in higher
order thinking skills. Consequently, in asking questions that encouraged the
fourth- and fifth—grade students to think deeper, Michael was also in a situation
where he had to think more in-depth about issues and topics that emerged from
the text.

I] . l 1 E l . l I l' .

Scholars (e.g., Gavelek, 1986; Hiebert, 1992; Wertsch, 1985) who subscribe
to a sociocultural theoretical perspective argue that this theory provides a means
to better understand literacy learning within social contexts. This study has
several theoretical and pedagogical implications. In the following sections, I
juxtapose the sociocultural theory with the three broad themes from the findings
from this research: reconstructing meanings of schooling, literacy, and student.
These themes are not mutually exclusive, but overlap in many respects and for
various purposes.

'0’0' 1.1.2.911 o ‘n 4 -r' H‘le' L in '1. Forthe
past decade, high schools have taken the brunt of criticism in regards to their
organizational structure. Many researchers (e.g., Goodlad, 1984; Oakes, 1985)
have argued that the structure of high schools and the practice of “tracking”
have direct impact on students’ access to knowledge and learning opportunities.
This notion is especially true for students who have been labeled as low-
achievers at the high school as well as the elementary level. Yet, most of the
reform movements and research on pedagogy and literacy instruction for poor
readers and writers has been addressed at the elementary level. This study

advances the literacy field by addressing those same issues, but focuses on what

246

we might do to promote more holistic literacy learning experiences for high
school adolescents who struggle with reading, writing, and schooling. In this
study, I created a context in which the structure of the learning environment
changed from a transmission model of learning to one in which the high school
students were given not only the permission, but the support, to reconstruct their
views about what it means to go to school. In doing so, students were also asked
to reconstruct their notions of what it means to be a student and what their
responsibilities and commitments were within the alternative program.

As educators, we must reconstruct our notions of what school might mean
to adolescents who struggle with reading, writing, and schooling. In order to do
this, students must be included in the dialogue to understand themselves and the
process of schooling. Low-achieving adolescents must play a key role in
reconstructing their definitions of schooling. This study assisted the students to
reconstruct their notions of schooling by understanding commitment and
responsibility. A key element in promoting dialogue about issues regarding
schooling was to foster an environment where learning opportunities were
created and meanings constructed at various levels. The oral discussions in the
preparation seminar at the beginning of the study were a necessary prerequisite
for the students to explore their attendance patterns and their patterns of
participation in their own learning. In doing so, they began to alter long-standing
patterns of NOT attending classes and NOT actively participating in the learning
process. The first component of the study -- the preparation seminar -- was a
forum for the high school participants to engage in self-reflection and critique of
their behaviors. Within the discussions and interactions of the preparation

seminar, students identified patterns of their behavior that were inappropriate for

247

this particular study, and, more generally, inappropriate for settings designed to
provide alternative literacy learning experiences. Therefore, this study suggests
that a context for learning must support student exploration into what it means to
go to school and increase student responsibilities.

.'Q1'.'Cal!':.! o ‘ o _ -1 ...77-1J!. o H 'i°. In
addition to developing our theoretical understanding of reconstructing meanings
of schooling for low-achieving adolescents, this study provides insights into
future directions for what must be done to help educators rethink schooling for
these students. First, as educators, we must reconsider where we place students
in the educational setting. Researchers have provided much evidence to suggest
that the practice of “tracking” does not lend equal access to learning
opportunities for all students (Oakes, 1985). Moreover, when students are placed
in “tracks” the practice limits their possibilities for the future opportunities. The
findings from this study suggest that the practice of tracking should be
discontinued because it limits the overall potential of low-achievers. Devon,
Mark, Michael and Teresa were heterogeneously mixed with respect to academic
ability and gender. They assisted each other in the preparation seminar as they
struggled with ideas for planning, preparation, and literacy activities. Moreover,
the fourth and fifth graders with whom they worked were heterogeneously
mixed in terms of ethnicity, gender, age, and ability. The high school students
talked about the benefits they received from working with younger children in a
cross-aged literacy program. These data suggest that the cross-aged setting
provided equal access to literacy learning opportunities and strengthened all of
the students’ chances to acquire knowledge from knowledgeable peers as well as

content.

248

A second pedagogical implication is that students need the support of their
teachers to begin to reconstruct meanings of schooling. Students and teachers
must be given opportunities to explore problems and issues. This study suggests
that whenever issues became public, students were encouraged to consider
alternatives and then move into generating problem-solving strategies. These
strategies helped them to take academic responsibility seriously and to better
understand what it meant when they “volunteered to participate” in a program
that was designed to give them support, voice, and choices in the schooling
process.

Consequently, as the high school participants internalized positive
understandings about commitment and responsibility for attending and actively
participating in the preparation seminar, they fulfilled their responsibilities in other
areas of the study. Students took responsibility for collaborating and critiquing
the challenges that occurred in their cross-aged discussion groups, and exercised
their roles as leaders and facilitators.

Thus, my role in the preparation seminar and the context served as a
colloquium for assisting the students to understand how they might progress in
learning about multiple situations and ideas. The pedagogical implications of all
these data suggest that in an alternative literacy learning program, teachers must
have reasonable yet high expectations for low-achieving students and make them
public when attempting to assist students to take different perspectives.

'1‘. '--.-.tr-_-.Ii 0 7011 -r: ll.‘-.-L_ ° 0
Sociocultural theory provided a lens for identifying what “counted” as literacy
learning activities in the preparation seminar and the cross-aged discussions. The

findings from this study suggest that researchers and teachers must develop

249

theoretical models of literacy instruction that successfully move low-achieving
adolescents from a narrow definition of reading and writing to one that promotes
critical reflection and critique about issues that moved beyond the literal level of
understanding text. Further, findings suggest that the social nature of the study
broadened the students’ perspectives about learning, noting that they could
draw upon the ideas of their peers and the younger students to develop an
understanding about what it means to engage in literacy learning activities.

I modeled ways of engaging in literature through discussion, writing, and
language play for the high school students. Mark, Michael, Devon and Teresa
were placed in positions to not only participate in the literacy activities of the
preparation seminar, but they were encouraged to actively participate in critique
and reflection of the literature, group dynamics, and the social nature of the
preparation seminar. Such moments of relection were valuable for how the high
school students would facilitate the literacy lessons they engaged in with the
fourth and fifth graders. Moreover, it is important to note that during times of
debriefing in the preparation seminar, the older students were able to see some
value in what they learned about literacy through their interactions with the
younger students. The high school students discussed how the fourth- and fifth-
grade students enabled them to see details in the wordless picture book that they
hand not noticed prior to working with the younger students. Also, they noted
that they learned ways of expanding beyond the text to construct meanings.
They described how creating their own words for the picture book, rather than
reading the authors’ words empowered them to make sense and meaning. Thus,
in the story of flying frogs, their “readings” helped to create a text that gave

them voice. Further, Teresa displayed her talent and skill in drawing pictures as a

250

tool for responding and sharing pieces of text. For Teresa, drawing was a tool for
expressing her knowledge when she was unable to find the words to say what
she needed to say. Michael made connections between written and oral
language and modeled how one might use a reading log entry as a tool for talking
and sharing ideas in cross-aged literary discussions. In addition, Michael learned
about the asking of questions, and how such a procedure impacts conversations
about written texts. Students were able to interact with their same aged peers,
younger students and me to share their ideas and to seek assistance when
needed. These examples suggest that support for literacy learning and language
opportunities enabled students to construct sophisticated meanings about what
counts as literacy within their context of the alternative program, and therefore
broadened their perspectives of literacy and learning.

"090' all 9' in o_ _‘ n r 9 ’1-.. ° 0 ‘ , . Beyond
reconstructing meanings of literacy as this theme relates to theoretical
implications, there are pedagogical implications as well. First, it is necessary for
teachers to be sensitive to the strengths and the frames of reference that low-
achieving adolescents bring to the classroom. This means that educators need to
be cognizant of both the traditional as well as the non-traditional strengths, and
students’ traditional as well as their non-traditional frames of reference. When
students’ views are made public, then teachers will be in positions to respond
accordingly. Teachers can encourage and support students’ perceptions about
literacy learning that are social, cultural, and historical in nature, or they can
address issues that might help students deve10p alternative perspectives or

different understandings and thus expand their knowledge about various issues.

In their cross-aged discussion groups, Teresa and Michael drew on their

251

experiences as apprentice observers (Lortie, 1975) to help them develop their
literary discussions. This practice became a challenge for me, for the high school
students were drawing upon what they knew as students to “teach” the fourth
and fifth graders in their groups. The pedagogical challenge became to
encourage and support them in their interactions with the younger students. But
at the same time, it was important to help Teresa and Michael learn about
alternative strategies for engaging in interactive discussions about text as they
actively participated themselves. This struggle called into question Teresa and
Michael’s traditional perspectives of what it meant to “teach” and their previous
experiences as students of literacy learning. Modeling and then reflecting and
critiquing the social nature of discussions in the preparation seminar was fruitful
for internalizing alternative pedagogical strategies. Over time, the high school
participants developed strategies for integrating their personal background
knowledge and experiences into the discussions to make connections with the
literature. Teresa was inspired to exercise her skills in drawing as a tool for self-
expression and to respond to text. Michael learned to reflect and analyze his
literary experiences by discussing the value of using wordless picture books to
create stories so that his voice might be heard. Encouraging these students to
make intertextual connections resulted in their literate interactions contributing to
our understanding about literacy: when provided with alternative opportunities
and perspectives, low-achievers can develop comprehension of text and literacy
that move beyond literal levels of engagement with texts.

A second pedagogical implication for this study is that it is necessary for
teachers to allow low-achieving students to explore literate behaviors for genuine

purposes and in more holistic ways. In this study, students who struggled with

252

reading, writing, and schooling benefitted from receiving literacy instruction that
had meaning and purpose. The activities in the preparation seminar served as a
tool for students to participate in their own learning by reading, writing about,
and discussing the literature. In addition, critique and analysis of the interactions
in the preparation seminar were conducted so that students might understand
themselves as readers and writers to think about how they might adjust the
activities to work with fourth and fifth graders. Thus, the preparation seminar had
multiple literacy learning experiences and purposes that were context specific
and holistic. These activites in the preparation seminar integrated reading,
writing, speaking, listening and thinking skills and they were conducted
reflectively and critically.

Theoretical implications of reconstructing meanings of student. The
findings from this study suggest that in order for researchers and teachers to
broaden approaches to teaching and literacy learning opportunities for low-
achieving adolescents, we must reconstruct and broaden our perspectives of
what it means to be a student. Students’ roles are multifaceted and complex --
not simply because of what they do and learn, but how they learn as well. The
multiple and complex ways of learning are not just about the curricula they
encounter (e.g., literacy), but the performance of low-achieving students plays a
part in what and how knowledge is acquired throughout the learning process.
As educators we make judgements about low-achieving students based on these
issues, and our judgements and perspectives have some bearing on these
students’ futures.

In each component of this study, students used oral and written language

to reconstruct meanings about their roles, perspectives about schooling and

253

literacy learning, and group interactions, to plan and prepare for cross-aged
literary discussions, and to develop their ideas and ways to talk about children’s
literature. As the students became active participants in each component of the
program, they developed their thinking and alternative views about the purposes
of the study, and what it contributed to their literacy education and overall
perceptions about learning. In our preparation seminar debriefings. Michael,
Devon and Mark acknowledged how they learned the value of planning for the
upcoming literacy activities they would conduct with the younger students.
They also acknowledged how taking the Cross-Aged Literacy program seriously
fostered a sense of commitment and responsibility to help me complete my
dissertation. These data suggest that over time, through discussions, planning
and studying themselves as literacy learners, these students saw more strengths in
themselves, and consequently contributed to my own learning about the
capabilities of low-achieving students.

Within their cross-aged discussion groups, Teresa and Michael developed
as students by studying and critiquing their roles as participants and facilitators of
cross-aged discussions. This component of the research study was a setting for
the high school participants to learn how to learn using multiple voices and group
interactions as tools for study. All these data show that being a student is
complex, and that the participants’ behaviors, voices and their overall
experiences contributed to how they reconstructed what it means to learn about
oneself as well as the literacy content in each component of the study.

"0.1:“ , m, -..o o .' n-1, J‘ "‘11 ' 0.. l-" . The
findings from this aspect of the broad themes suggest that teachers must help

students build upon what they know about being a student to help them become

254

better students. This means that educators must make use of the knowledge and
experiences that students bring to the classroom, and use traditional and non-
traditional ways of knowing to assist them to broaden their perspectives about
their capabilities. In other words, teachers must create literacy learning
opportunities for students to see themselves in different roles as students, and
ensure that they successfully do so. Concomitantly, successful literacy learning
opportunities for students would help educators to broaden their perspectives
about what it means to be a student, and what needs to be done for educators to
reconstruct their notions of low-achieving students. In this study, to be a student
meant performing in various roles including being a teacher, a partner in learning,
and an analyst for understanding the literacy and social nature of activities that
were planned for the preparation seminar and the cross-aged discussions. These
multiple roles gave the low-achieving students opportunities to successfully
participate in their own learning in alternative ways.
Limitations of the Study

This research study is significant for the insights it provides regarding the
strengths and capabilities of low-achieving adolescents as they encounter
multiple ways of literacy learning. However, it is limited to the procedures and
process of literacy instruction and does not address issues of administrative
involvement. As the researcher for this study, I fulfilled many different roles (e. g.,
researcher, teacher, project manager). Several important issues emerged that
needed to be addressed while developing a context—based alternative literacy
program for adolescents who struggle with literacy and schooling.

The process and procedures for this study required that the high school

teachers and students change their daily school schedules. Changing schedules

255

also meant changing the way students organized their personal time in order to
meet the demands of their high school classes. Undoubtedly, making changes in
the organizational structures of high school for purposes of providing alternative
literacy instruction, experiences and learning opportunities for poor readers and
writers raises concerns related to resources (i.e., financial, human, instructional).
Possible issues would include the availability of additional teachers to work
closely and in small group situations with high school students who struggle with
reading, writing, and schooling. Issues of guidance, monitoring, and assessment
of progress over time would be a part of the responsibility as teachers worked
with students in alternative literacy learning contexts. Changing how students
“go to school” so that we might better understand their literacy learning
opportunities and experiences was an authentic concern in this study.

Other areas of administrative involvement that we need to explore include
systematic and consistent communication between the administrative personnel
at the high school and elementary levels. Initially, contacts were made and
necessary in order to develop an administrative organizational structure for the
Cross-Aged Literacy Program. However, such communication should be
maintained throughout the study. Systematic and consistent collaboration was
also needed between principals, teachers and the students. In this study,
providing feedback and collaborating with the elementary and high school
teachers was a part of my responsibility. It was necessary so that the teachers
(especially the high school teacher) might be informed and aware of the on-going
development and struggles of the students’ literacy education. Suggestions for
facilitating communication among all personnel might include a liaison between

schools and parent volunteers. Reports of progress and struggles might be

Irn

256

conducted in monthly seminars where all administrative personnel can discuss
their observations.

Finally, the high school students should be given credit for participating in
cross-aged literacy programs. To learn more about the procedures and processes
for this issue, administrative personnel might consult other subject areas that give
students credit for their work that is done off campus. Possibilities include gifted
and talented and vocational education (Boyd, 1995).
Suggestinnstnnfittnrnknseatnh

Students’ growth and development in alternative literacy learning
programs cannot be evaluated by traditional forms of assessment (e.g.,
standardized tests). This study has assessment implications that were not directly
addressed. The methodology, depth, and time period of this research study
enabled me to gather multiple data source to access written and oral language
and social interactions. Since I argued that researchers and all educators need to
reconstruct meanings of literacy for low-achieving adolescents, the multiple data
sources I gathered might be useful in helping us to further broaden our definitions
of literacy learning for students who struggle. For instance, current research that
looks at performance based assessment could be expanded to include the
complexity of the social interactions, and the oral and written communication that
was prevalent in this study. In addition, systematic and consistent interviews of
the students’ perceptions about their experiences in alternative literacy learning

programs would add to our understanding about how students view learning.

APPENDIX A

FIELD NOTES

Preparation Seminar
February 12, 1994

High School Students Present: Mark, Michael, and Teresa
Meeting Held @: Pizza Hut

Saginaw Street

Lansing, MI.

Key: [P] = Prompt Question asked by Researcher

Today we made history! This is my third consecutive day having some contact
with the high school participants in my research study. I am thrilled! Although I
did see all students today nor yesterday, it feels good to have had the contact
with three out of five for the past two days. Michael and Mark were already at
the restaurant when I arrived.

I began our meeting by asking Mark, Michael and Teresa if they knew what I
would be doing with the information we collect from this project. Michael said I
explained it to them at the beginning when I asked for volunteers and during our
interviews. I asked Michael to tell me what I said. He said that I told them that I
would be using the information to help people learn about reading, writing, and
discussions when older and younger kids do it together (paraphrased). He also
said that I told them that I would be presenting this information at conferences I
attend, and that they all know that I will be getting a grade for what I do in this
project (Teresa’s words). I told them that I have to write what’s called a
dissertation and that it is basically a book. Michael mimicked book along with me
and Mark said oh um hm, I heard about that. Mark then said, oh so we’re helping
you out and you’re helping us out. I told them that they are helping me out a lot,
and that I need them to help me finish this project. Michael wanted to know
how long my dissertation will be. I explained that it’s hard to say, that it depends
on what I choose to write about and how I choose to write it. I ended up saying
though that I doubt if my dissertation will be under 400 hundred pages. Michael
then wanted to know what the minimum could be? I said again that it depends.
So I then proceeded to tell them what a dissertation is and that I must write one
based on the entire project which includes the Prep sem. We talked once again
about the significance of the Prep sem (i.e., the interaction between them and me,
planning for the activities we do at Verlinden) and why they seriously need to
attend each meeting. They said that they understood. Michael said that he and
Mark were talking about the Prep sem when they saw me drive into the parking
lot. Michael told Mark that they have to start coming because I am getting

257

258

“pissed” at them. Mark said yea we gotta start coming. I told him it’s not so
much that I’m “pissed” but I become very disappointed when they don’t show
up because we need to spend the time together working. Also, when they don’t
participate in the Prep sem, the consequences are a lot of confusion when we go
to Verlinden. I told them that we need to look at what they consider to be
positive or going well in their individual groups, and what they think needs
improvement, or what we need to do to make things better. I told them that it’s a
lot of work involved in this project and that I know that I’m asking a lot of you
and of your time, but I need them basically to do the work on this project. I said
that I think that they should know that they are needed and that they are helping
me out a great deal.

I told the students that a lot of research of this nature isn’t conducted on high
school students. I told them that as a result of their participation in this project,
they are adding to the research literature by participating in this project. Michael
immediately said, so we can use this as a reference. Mark said um hmm(positive).
I said yea.

O. C. - After having said that the students were helping me out a lot and that I
need them to make this project work, , I thought about what we talked about in
my ENG 872 class. During our first session, Diane Brunner talked about as
researchers, we should think about whose getting what out of a research study. I
wonder what Michael, Mark, Teresa, Devon and Marty think they’re getting out
of this other than getting out of their English I class two days a week?

Michael:

Positive - Students work very fast. Get through stuff quickly. No distractions in
group. Kids are smart, can read and write, can write good, can write good for
grade level. [P] What do you mean by good? They know what to write and
how to write. They write good enough to understand. The kids all like each
other (i.e., Michael told a story about kids going to Valentine’s Party with some
s/he liked). They like me ‘cause I asked. The kids are outspoken.

What needs improvement - Students need to learn how to speak louder. I tell
them to speak up a little bit louder. We all need to express more. There’s a lot
more we could tell. I need to give them time to think more.

Mark:

Positive - Everybody is working together. When we read a book, everybody
cooperates. Everybody has their own imagination. Everybody had their own
thoughts. They’re all their own person. Good kids overall. They think a lot.
They helped us to bring out the parts of the book that we didn’t think about.
The kids helped us bring out our own imaginations. I like ‘em. This is a little
relaxation and it’s fun. This is a whole different world (gets into a discussion
about the difference in being a high school student and remembering what it was

259

like being in elementary school).
What needs improvement - Helping them learn.
Teresa:

Positive: They share their ideas and work together. Not selfish. I like their
discussions. I like the ideas they bring out because they are more like mine (i.e.,
like staying out of school). The kids never have the same idea.

What needs improvement - We need more ideas. Stanley talks too much. He’s
always jumping in and won’t let other students finish what they have to say. He
knows everything.

[P] What did you think about my having you read a wordless picture storybook?

I thought it was stupid and corney (Michael). But the kids helped us bring out
our imaginations. Teresa said she liked it because she is sick of reading. That’s all
we ever do is read books without pictures. I liked the book because I liked the
illustrations. It was something different. In our classes we can’t use our
imaginations. You don’t have to imagine because the author paints the picture
for you. We imagined everything that was going on, what the people would
really say. We imagined what the people in the pictures were thinking. We don’t
get to look at picture books. You don’t feel the pressure when you’re reading a
picture storybook.

APPENDIX B

ANALYTICAL MEMO

Description and Analysis
January 14, 1994

WHATISTHISASTUDYOF?

This week was exciting because of two significant events: (1) I conducted
a preparation seminar with four of the five high school students as a group (2) We
went to Angelou today for the first time and conducted a cross-age discussion.
We characterized our first cross-age session as a “Getting To Know You”
activity. These events were encouraging, as things went reasonably well. I will
describe the Preparation seminar and the Cross-age “Getting To Know You”
activity session. In the final part of this memo, I will analyze the literacy
occurrences of the preparation seminar and the cross-age session.

PREPARATION SEMINAR

The first “Preparation seminar” was conducted on Tuesday, January 11th
during the second hour. Teresa was the only student who “showed up” on
Monday afternoon at 3PM. I didn’t see think I should keep her and talk about
what we would be doing without the rest of the group. So I took her home after
waiting for the other students for approximately 20 minutes. Carol agreed to let
me pull the students from her second hour class on Tuesday, and that is what I
did. All of the students were present. I started the session by telling the students
how disappointed I was when they didn’t show up for our first meeting as a
group on Monday. I had talked with Marty and Michael over the phone on
Monday evening to find out what happened to them Monday afternoon. Marty
said that he forgot and Michael said he had transportation problems. I talked
with them about how important it is for them to meet for the Preparation seminar
and that we cannot afford to miss any more meetings. Michael, Devon and Marty
were asked if they still wanted to participate in this project. I asked them this
pointed question when we met on Tuesday. They were given the opportunity to
leave the project without any “hard feelings.” I told them that if they wanted to
leave, now is the time to do it because I must find other students. They said that
they wanted to stay and we proceeded with the activity for the day. This was
contextualized within the concept of making a commitment and keeping that
commitment. Michael said that his mother talks to him about responsibility and
commitment all of the time.

Carol arranged for us to meet in the security guards lounge. The lounge is
approximately 75 yds. away from Carol’s classroom. The lounge has two sofas,

260

and
woe
gin
hilt
are
let)

gm

«e (000 821273

261

and a table with two to three chairs. The ceilings are high. The floor is hard
wood without carpet. There are two tall windows in the lounge. The security
guard(s) keep snacks on the table with a coffee pot. The coffee pot was half-
filled with coffee when we entered the room. The security guard (female) and
another man (I assume another security guard or maybe a teacher) was in the
lounge when we entered. The female security guard got a cup of coffee and left
the room. She sat in her chair located just outside of the lounge. The male
gathered his papers and left the room also.

I began by explaining the title of the project and why I’m calling it the
Cross-Aged Literacy Program, the two related phases of the project and general
procedures (i.e., where we will meet to leave for Angelou, the meetings for the
preparation seminar, the activities we will engage in for the preparation seminar
and the cross-age literary sessions). We talked about general procedures once we
get to Angelou, what materials we will use. I passed out their reading logs and
explained to the students what they we about and how we would use them (i.e.,
writing down thoughts after reading a story or book.)

As I talked with my students, I watched “body language” as well as oral
language. At the beginning I felt that Devon wasn’t with me. I base this
statement on the fact that he was looking around the room and chewing on his
finger nails. This doesn’t necessarily mean that he wasn’t listening to me. After
all, we met in a room that he probably hadn’t been in before (i.e., the security
guards lounge). Teresa seemed proud that she was the only student to show-up
on Monday. She made the other students aware of the fact. Michael appeared to
be listening as he made eye contact with me and the other members of the group.
Marty seemed to be listening to me also as he made eye contact with me as well
as the other students whenever someone spoke.

When I showed the students the first book I selected (i.e., TUESDAY by
David Weisner), I again observed body language as well as oral language. After
they browsed through their book for a few minutes, I saw smiles, laughs, and
expressions of surprise (probably due to the pictures). I stated that I thought we
might use this book as a “fun” book before we began reading more serious
books. I asked them for suggestions about what we might do with the books
once they went to Angelou to read and write with the fourth/fifth graders. They
had a range of reasonable suggestions (i.e., write a sentence about each picture,
go around the small-group and have each student state what he or she wants to
write about the picture). The contributions were not made by one students, but
each students contributed something in some form or another. Marty seemed to
be the most reluctant to contribute for some reason(s) which I’m not sure about
right now. From studying him during the interview process, he appears to be shy.
Perhaps he didn’t want to contribute anything during the first meeting because
this was the first time that all of the students had met together as a group for the
project. I know that they know each other because they are all in Carol’s class.
Some of them are in other classes together too (i.e., Teresa and Devon have math
together during first hour). But I’m not sure, in fact, I have no idea just how
much they’ve interacted or even socialized with each other in school or outside
of school related activities.

262

NOTE: This makes me think and wish that I had met with the five students
together as a group at least two times before we started the Preparation
seminar this semester. This would have given them and me the opportunity to
talk together before starting the planning and preparation phase of our
study. Live and Learn!

The one thing that surprised and excited me in a pleasant way during our
first meeting of the Preparation seminar was that the students asked about
choosing books, implying that they would like to have the opportunity to look at
some books and make choices. This was the most exciting part of our first
session. They made some suggestions. I told them that I have lots of books and
that I will bring some to our prep sessions so that they can look through them. I
asked them to think about the fact that if we decide to use something different
than what I had originally selected, that the books must be related in some way.
The examples I gave them were either by theme or by author. They shook their
heads affirmatively.

CROSS-AGE LITERARY ACTIVITY

If everything had moved smoothly as planned, I would have been
surprised and ecstatic. However, things didn’t move as smoothly as planned and
I will describe the dilemmas we encountered on our first adventure to Angelou.

Before leaving to go to Angelou to set-up (i.e., cassette recorders and
video camera), I realized that I had forgotten to take the cassette recorders to
Angelou the previous day. Therefore, I had to go to Erickson hall to get the
cassettes. I left home approximately 8AM. This caused me to loose about a half-
hour of my set-up time. When I arrived at Angelou it was almost 8:30AM. I had
planned to be there at 8AM. I set up everything except the video camera, which
I left in the car because I couldn’t bring everything up at once. Incidently, the
video camera had been left in the car all night long. The temperature was around
15 below with the wind chill.

I left Angelou to go to Septima Clark to pick up the students at
approximately 8:50AM. They straggled up to me one at a time. Marty arrived
first, Devon second, Teresa third. Mark came but I told him that we need to do an
interview first, some permission slip paper work, and plus he missed the
preparation seminar on Tuesday, so he wouldn’t know what we had planned to
do. He seemed okay with what I said and left for class. We waited until 9AM for
Michael. The second bell had rang to signal that students should be in their
second hour class by that time. Michael had not reached us yet. I was getting
anxious and very nervous, as we were supposed to be at Angelou at 9AM. At
least this was the plan. I waited for Michael for about 2 more minutes. He still
hadn’t arrived, so we left. I felt very uncomfortable leaving without Michael. But
at the same time, I felt that we had to “get moving” because saving as much time
as possible during transition and travel is crucial for this project. Saving time is
crucial because we will only have so many minutes for “solid engagement” of
our literacy activities once we arrive at Angelou. The high school students have
to get settled once we arrive. I predict that we will have no more than 30 nrinutes

263

of “solid engagement” of literacy activities per session. This means
approximately one hour per week with the fourth/ fifth graders. This isn’t a lot of
time! But when I am at Septima Clark, and I glance in passing at what seems to
be going on in classes, I wonder just how much “solid engagement” of learning
and activities is going on?

Anyway, we arrived at Angelou at approximately 9:05, maybe seven
minutes after nine. I don’t recall exactly because I was in a frenzy. Jennifer was
ready for us. She and her students had rearranged the desks in groups of four as I
had asked her if she would do while I went to Septima Clark to pick up the
students. Jennifer frequently rearranges her students’ desks. In fact, at the
beginning of Fall Semester, she informed me that she rearranges the classroom
once a week. Today, she had the students sitting in rows in two different areas of
the classroom. Thus, students who weren’t in the first row across, faced the
backs of their peers.

When we arrived, I introduced the students to Jennifer first and then the
class. I explained how we were going to work today to the whole-class. I
originally told the high school students to just sit with a group of students. They
were asked to do a “getting to know you” activity in their small groups before
they started reading, writing and discussing their books. Jennifer suggested that
the students ask questions as a whole-class rather than in small groups. She said
that they should get the questions out of the way before they start the literacy
activities. I agreed with her and felt that she made an excellent suggestion. I was
nervous and wasn’t thinking about the kids and what they might want to know
about each other, but that I need to get some data for my study. However, as it
turned out, the question and answer session was great! The fourth and fifth
graders asked a lot of questions; school related and personal experience. The
high school students did a great job of answering their questions. Jennifer asked
the high schools students questions related to social issues. She was asking the
high school students to give her fourth/fifth graders advice from a “teenagers
perspective.” Below, I list some of the questions that Jennifer and her fourth/fifth
graders asked the high school students.

NOTE: I am sorry to say that one of the problems I faced during my first day in
the field while having the high school and elementary students together was that
the video camera failed to work. I think it was because it had been out in my car
all night in the cold. Each time I pressed the record button, I got a message in the
view finder that said DEW. This was very disappointing. Also, I didn’t audio
tape this session either. However, I managed to write down most of the questions
that the children and Jennifer asked.

List of questions raised by fourth/fifth graders

What school did you go to before going to Septima Clark?
What do you like to do?

Do you have any boyfriends or girlfriends?

Did any of you go to Angelou?

264

What elementary school did you go to?

What are your plans for the future?

What are your hobbies?

Why are you going to Europe to play baseball? (This question was asked
because Marty talked about upcoming events for him in baseball.

Do you live by yourself?

Where is your dad?

What kind of dogs do you have?

How good are you at Sega?

What are your likes/dislikes about school?

What do you want to be when you grow up?

Have you ever gotten into any really big trouble?

Have you ever had any major medical surgery? (Teresa talked about her
eye surgery, and Devon talked about the 120 stitches he received down
his back from falling and breaking a glass table during a “tussle” with his
brother.)

0 Do you have any teachers that you just hate?

List of questions raised by Jennifer Brody (teacher):

What is your favorite TV program? What is your favorite book?

What do you like to do?

Do you have any plans for the future?

What advice could you give these young people (fourth/fifth graders),

being that you are 14 and 15 years old, what advice would you give them

as they grow older?

0 What age would you recommend girls start wearing make-up?

0 What age would you recommend dating, not dating, but do you think that
it’s a good idea for fourth and fifth graders to have girlfriends and
boyfriends?

- What do you think about boys making sexually degrading comments to
girls?

0 What colleges do you want to go to?

ANALYSIS OF THE PREPARATION SEMINAR

We began the first meeting of the preparation seminar with my having to
challenge the students about responsibility and commitment to themselves as well
as the Cross-Age Literacy Project. This was uncomfortable but at the same time
it was necessary. It was uncomfortable because of the “mini-lecture” I had to
give the students. I don’t know them very well and they don’t know me. I
worried about sounding “preachy” and about giving them the impression that
I’m the authority figure. It was necessary because I believe that Marty, Devon,
Teresa and Michael should realize the seriousness of the project. I feel that the
beginning of our first meeting as a group was productive because I sensed that
the students got my message. The message I tried to convey was that this project
is important to each of us. Everyone involved will learn from this research. They
have something to contribute to help me learn from them. What I learn will help
others to learn as well. After a 50 minute session, I left feeling like the students

265

want to do this and that they are anxious to get started and willing to make
valuable contributions.

I observed them as they browsed through the first book we plan to use
with the younger students. I looked to see what their expressions might be like
since the book is a wordless picture book. I didn’t exactly know what to expect.
They know that they will be using the book with 4th/5th graders, but at the same
time they are expected to actively participate in a literacy activity along with the
younger students. I was explicit about this with the high school students. I
believed that they need to understand that they shouldn’t think of themselves as
the one’s who would be telling the younger students what to do and when to do
it. Rather, they should think of themselves as engaging in the reading and
writing activities with their 4th/5th grade reading buddies. They seemed to
understand and accept what I said.

I opened the planning phase of the preparation seminar up by asking them
how might we use Tuesday by David Weisner. As they browsed through the
book there were smiles (at the pictures in the book), expressions of confusion (i.e.,
flying frogs), and questions. Some of the students even said “I like it.” Michael
raised a question about why was the book ending with a flying pig at the end. I
was surprised in a pleasant way to hear Teresa answer him. Her response to
Michael was that the author was beginning the next scene or episode. Michael’s
question and Teresa’s response to his question is a literacy event that helps me to
begin thinking about what discussion and response might look like with my high
school students.

I noticed that Michael looked at me when he asked his question. I didn’t
have opportunity to respond as Teresa immediately proceeded to answer him.
This is interesting to me because first of all, I know that Michael ask questions
when I’ve observed him in his General English class. However, I have yet to see
Teresa respond immediately or even answer a question when her teacher openly
asks questions in class. I can only remember hearing Teresa speak openly in class
only once before we met for her interview. Her response to Michael was direct,
specific and to the point. It made sense to me and I believe to Michael as well.
After Teresa responded, Michael looked at the picture again and said “Oh!” as if
he suddenly understood what was going on in the book.

Having interviewed Teresa, I can speculate as to why she doesn’t talk very
much in class. First, she says that reading is a struggle for her because of her
learning disability. She says that she is dyslexic. Carol, Teresa’s English teacher
does quite a bit of oral reading in her class. If reading is hard for Teresa and if she
doesn’t like reading in front of people because of her disability, perhaps she felt
comfortable with only a small group of people. Perhaps this was an opportunity
for her to speak about something she seemed to know, and feel comfortable and
good about herself. After all, the Preparation seminar is a setting where students
can take risk in reading, writing, and speaking. Perhaps Teresa felt that I
wouldn’t pass judgment and her classmates wouldn’t laugh of pass judgment
about what she said.

266

Another reason that Teresa felt comfortable speaking immediately and
openly was because the textbook is a wordless picture book. Teresa told me that
she like to draw. From what she described, she is an artist. Perhaps Tah-Sah was
able to make some type of meaningful connection with the picture book.
Perhaps, she was thinking about her own talent in drawing, and used her artistic
ability and skills to think about an ending or draw a conclusion about why the
author moved from pictures of frogs to a picture of a flying pig at the end of the
book.

ANALYSIS OF THE CROSS-AGE LITERARY DISCUSSION

What is this a study of? Good question! Jennifer brought a whole new
and different perspective to this study through her questions. I want to address
social issues related to how and what high school students might learn about
themselves when they have opportunities to interact with younger children.
However, I wasn’t sure what angle to broach the topic. I’m not sure now but,
Jennifer’s questions helped me to think about my study from a social aspect.
High school students have experiences that they might share with younger
children to help them face and deal with the struggles of approaching early
adolescence. Seemingly, having to broach issues of a social nature for younger
students, high school students should reflect about these issues based on their
own struggles.

Jennifer asked the high school students some “pointed” questions, forcing
them to face their experiences both socially and academically. Her questions
forced the students to think about social issues of their lives in terms of gender. I
thought that this was rather powerful. For example, the question she asked
Teresa about what age would she recommend that they wear make-up was one
that Teresa has probably had to consider at some point. Teresa probably has had
adults giving her advice about when she should and when she should not wear
make-up. Today, she was put in the position and in the “spotlight” of having to
answer the question as a mature teenager. When Jennifer asked Teresa this
question, and as Teresa contemplated how she would answer (she paused
appearing to think first), I wondered how she must have felt having been put in
this position. After all, Teresa is a young adolescent too. Jennifer is an adult, I
assume in her early thirties. Jennifer wanted her fourth and fifth grade girls to
hear what a young teenage female might say about wearing make-up because her
girls are maturing fast, and appear anxious to start doing seemingly “grown-up”
things. In fact, Jennifer explicitly stated that her students were rather anxious to
do things that adults do (i.e., wear make-up and start dating). I wondered if
Teresa’s perspective about wearing make-up matched Jennifer’s (i.e., her 4th/5th
grade girls are too young) or if Teresa’s thinking about wearing make-up
matched the young girls perspective? It wasn’t clear to me just what Teresa
believed. She said that they should start around sixteen years old. I don’t know
if she said this because this is what she really believes, or if she said this because
she thought this is what Jennifer wanted her to say. At any rate, Jennifer seemed
pleased that Teresa didn’t say that it was okay for 4th/5th grade girls to wear
make-up.

267

Likewise, Jennifer put Marty and Devon on the spot by asking them about
what they think about boys making sexually degrading comments to girls. Marty
answered the question in a simple yet direct and appropriate way; “You
shouldn’t do it.” I don’t remember what Devon said or even if he answered the
question. However, both of these two young men were forced to face their own
beliefs and values about appropriate and inappropriate behavior when interacting
with females. Perhaps Marty and Devon have made inappropriate comments to
young women. Who knows! If they have made inappropriate comments to
females in the past, today they were forced to face their past behaviors within the
context of being asked by an adult female to give her fourth/fifth grade boys a
statement about making inappropriate sexually degrading comments to young
girls. I wondered how Devon and Marty felt. I wondered what they struggled
with in having to answer this question before a classroom full of boys and girls,
from various walks of life, various backgrounds, races and cultures.

What did Jennifer’s questions have to do with cross-age literacy
activities? A great deal! Jennifer’s questions were questions of enlightenment
for her fourth/fifth graders. The younger students were given the opportunity to
hear these social and gender related issues from a group of older peers
(teenagers).

Jennifer’s questions were questions that forced the high school students
to think! They had to think about their own beliefs, values, culture, and
experiences related to the issues Jennifer put on the table. Coupled with
reflecting on themselves spontaneously, they had to think about how they might
answer Jennifer’s questions given that there were two adult females in the
classroom at the time. Jennifer is a teacher and I am a teacher/researcher. Jennifer
is a woman in a position of authority. I wondered if these issues crossed Devon,
Marty and Tah-Sah’s minds?

The high school students were given the opportunity to learn about social
and gender related issues that fourth/fifth graders think about. This first cross-age
literary discussion was embedded within an “experience related context.” That
is, it appears that the issues Jennifer raised were issues that Teresa, Marty and
Devon have undoubtedly had to face at some point. It was goal-embedded
because Jennifer wanted her fourth/fifth graders to hear what teenagers had to
say about these issues. She wanted them to hear opinions from teenagers
because she said when she talks to her students about these issues, they think
that she is just being “motherly.” Motherly is the word Jennifer used to describe
how the students think about her when she has discussions with them about
appropriate and inappropriate social behaviors. Her questions helped all of the
students, both the elementary and high school students to struggle with issues
related to gender and social behavior; what is appropriate behavior and what is
inappropriate behavior. This is literacy in a broad sense! This first cross-aged
literary activity was about the lives and experiences of the students who
participated and contributed to the discussion.

APPENDIX C

Preparation Seminar Lesson Plan #1
Septima Clark High School
February 22, 1994
Book: Song Of The Trees by Mildred D. Taylor

Source: Children’s Literature in the Reading Program
Bernice E. Cullinan, Editor

Chapter 9 - Characterization in Literature: Realistic and Historical Fiction
by Dianne Morison

Teaching Idea: Getting to Know a Character in a Book

Pose this problem for students: Suppose you want to know more about a person
so you can write a description of him or her. What questions would you ask the
person?

*Let students work in small groups to generate questions. The following are
some of the possibilities they may suggest:

0 Describe yourself. What do you look like? What do you like best about
the way you look? What would you like to change about your looks?

- What is your favorite color? What are your favorite clothes? What color
don’t you like? Why?

0 What do you like to do best when nobody else is around? Do you collect
anything? Do you have a favorite book? What kinds of jobs do you
dislike the most at school? At home?

0 Who are your best friends? Why do you like them? Who don’t you like?
Why?

0 How do you feel about brothers and sisters? Do you get along with
yours? When you disagree, what is it usually about? Do you like them
better as you are getting older?

0 If you could go anywhere you choose, where would it be? Why?

0 If you could plan one whole day for yourself, what would you do?

268

269

*After children have created such a list, they can use it as a resource in getting to
know characters in books, pretending to ask the questions of the book character
and trying to imagine what the character would answer.

APPENDIX D

Cross-Aged Literacy Plan #3

Angelou Elementary School
February 9, 1994

Theme: Creating Meaning - Tuesday by David Wiesner

- In a picture storybook, authors convey meaning in both the art and the
text.

- Narrative art is subtle and interesting

Prompt Question

Each picture in TuesdaLis a narration of the story. Each picture conveys a
message and enhances the meaning of the story.

What does David Wiesner do in this picture storybook (wordless) to help you
(the reader) create meaning from this story? How does he use pictures to help
convey meaning? Hint: You must look at each picture closely and discuss
details (i.e., plot - action, climax, color, mood, setting(s), size of objects in pictures,
expressions, character development, accuracy and consistency) you see in the
pictures in order to discover how David Wiesner creates meaning through
pictures.

270

LIST OF REFERENCES

Allington, R. L. (1983). The reading instruction provided readers of differing
ability - Demenmfihnnllnuml, 83, 548-559.

Allington, R. L. (1986). Policy constraints and effective compensatory reading
instruction. A review. In J. Hoffman (Ed), iv t
and research and practice (pp. 261- 289). Newark, DE. International
Reading Association.

Allington, R. L., Stuetzel, H., Shake, M. C., & Lamarche, S. (1986). What is

remedial reading? A descriptive study. Readingmehandlusuucmu,
26, 15-30.

Allington, R. L., & McGill- Franzen, A. (1989). Different programs, indifferent

instruction. In A. Gardner & D. Lipsky (Eds. ), Beyend sepatate edueatien
(pp. 75- 98). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.

Allington, R. L, & McGill-Franzen, A. (1993). Placing children at risk. Schools
respond to reading problems. In. R. Donmoyer, & R. Kos (Eds). A__t-risk
studeuts: Remait s, pelieies, progtams, ad practices. (pp. 197- 217).
Albany: State University of New York Press.

Allen. V. L. (Ed). (1976). thldtmrnanlm: Ihenntand W.

New York: Academic Press.

Alvermann, D. E. (1996). Peer-led discussions: Whose interests are served?

InanoiAdnlnsnenLkAdnlLLitntafl. 39(4). 282-289.

Alvermann, D. E., & Hayes, D. A. (1989). Classroom discussion of content area
reading assignments: An intervention study. Rea 'n R se u r1 ,
24, 305-335.

Alvermann, D. E., O’Brien, D. G., & Dillon, D. R. (1990). What teachers do when
they say they’re having discussions of content area reading assignments:

A qualitative analysis. Readiug Research Quaderly, 25, 296-332.

Anyon, J. (1981). Social class and the hidden curriculum of work. Journal of

Edueatien, 162(1), 317-341.

271

272

Applebee, A. N. (1989). The teaching of literature in programs with reputations
for excellence in English. (Report 1.1.). Albany, NY: StateUniversity of
New York, Center for the Learning and Teaching of Literature.

Applebee, A. N. (1991). Environments for language teaching and learning:
Contemporary issues and future directions. In J. Flood, J. M. Jensen, D.

LapP, & J. R. Squire (Eds) r
languageart s-(549 556). New York: Macmillan.

Atwell, N. (1987). , - '
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

 

Au, K. H., & Mason, J. M. (1981). Social organizational factors in learning to read:

The balance of rights hypothesis. Reading Research Quarterly, fl(1),
1 15-152.

Babbitt, N. (1975). Tuck Everlasting. New York: Farrar, Straus, Girous.

Baker, 0-, & Luke. A. (Eds). (1991). I‘rmardnnrinnalmnlngyntrnnshng
W. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Bakhtin, M. M. (1986). Smeeh genres d; ether late essays. Austin: University of

Texas Press.

Barnes, D. (1993). Supporting exploratory talk for learning. In K. M. Pierce & C.
J. Gilles (Eds), Exploring the mtenu'al of glh in lea_m_ing commuru'ties (17-

34). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Barnes, D. (1990). Oral language and learning. InD. Rubin & S. Hynds (Eds.,)
Bennennxnsnntalknndlnanlingml- -54) Urbana IL NCTE

Barr, M., l)’ Arcy, P., &Healy,M. K. (1982). What’s geingon. Lan anagu ge
WWW Montclair NJ:
Bounton/Cook.

Beach, R. (1993). WWW Urbana.
IL: NCTE.

Becker, J. M. (Ed.). (1979). Scheoling for a global age. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Bellack, A., Kliebard, II. M., Hyman, R. T., & Smith, Jr., F. L. (1966). Ihelanguage
of the classroom. New York: Teachers College Press.

Berrill, D. P. (1988). Anecdote and the development of oral argument in sixteen-
year-olds. In M. MacLure, T. Phillips, & A. Wilkinson (Eds.), gaey
Matte;s (pp. 57-68). Milton Keynes: Open University Press.

273

Bernstein, B. (1964). Elaborated and restricted codes: Their social origins and
some consequences. In J. J. Gumperz & D. Hymes (Eds. ), The ethnography

of communication. W. 66, 55- 69.

Bernstein, B. (1975). Class and pedagogies: Visible and invisible. In B.
Bernstein (Ed.), W, vol. 3. Boston: Routledge and

Kegan Paul.

Black, J., & Seifert, C. (1985). The psychological study of story understanding.
In C. Cooper (Ed. ), t r
literature e(p.p 190-211). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Blatt, G., & Rosen, L. M. (1982). MW. Paper

presented at the 30th annual meeting of the Michigan Council of Teachers
of English, East Lansing, MI.

Bloome, D. (1988). Building literacy and the classroom community. Theoty Into
We 25(2), 1'6°

Bloome, D., & Green, I. (1984). Directions in sociolinguistic study of reading. In

P D Pearson (Eds) Bandunknmnnmgmeatchmp 393- 421) New
York. Longman.

Bloom, S. (1988). Peer and cross-age tutoring in the schools: An individualized
supplement to group instruction.

Bogdan R C &Biklen S K (1992) Qualitatimnsnatnhfntnnltnannnm
W Boston: Allyn and Bacon Inc

Boyd, F. B. (1995). The cross-aged literacy project: An alternative instructional
program for adolescents who struggle with literacy and schooling.

Michigan Reading Journal, 28(4), 46-56.

Boydston, J. A. (Ed.). (1981). Jehn Dewey; The later werks, 1925-1953.
Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois Press.

Burbules, N. C. (1993). Dialegueiuteaehing. New York: Teachers College
Press.

Byars, B. (1974). AfteethefidaLMau. New York: The Viking Press.
Calfee, R. (1986). Qudgulhudauduustmetien. Washington, DC: Designs for

Compensatory Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
293912.

Carter, L. F. (1984). The sustaining effects study of compensatory and
elementary education. Educational Researcher, 12, 4-13.

274

Cazden, C. B., John, V. P., & Hymes, D. (Eds.). (1972). Eunetjehsdflaumeiu
the elassroom. New York: Teachers College Press.

Cazden, C. (1986). Classroom discourse. In M. E. Wittrock (Ed.), Haudhmhef
research on teaching (pp. 432-463). New York: Macmillan Publishing
Company.

Cazden, C. (1988). Interactions between Maeri children and Eakeha teachers.
Aukland, NZ: Aukland Reading Association.

Cazden, C. (1988). Classroom discourse: The language ef teaching aud leamng.

Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Cazden, C., & Leggett, E. L. (1981). Culturally responsive education.
Recommendations for achieving Lau remedies II. In H. Trueba, G. Guthrie,

& K H Au (EdS) anteansmnhihngndnlassrnnmLMnsm
lcassroom ethnography (pp. 69-86). Rowley, MA. Newbury House.

Clark, S. P. (1986). w' ' ° ' l 'v'
movement. Navarro, CA: Wild Trees Press.

Cloward, R. (1967). Studies in tutoring. Wflperjmentalfidueatien, 36,
14-25.

Cloward, R. D. (1976). Teenagers as tutors of low-achieving children: Impact on

tutors and tutees. In V. Allen (Ed.), Children as teachers: Theory ar_ld
W. New York: Academic Press.

Cochran-Smith, M. (1984). The making of a reader. Norwodd, NJ: Ablex.

Coerr, E. (1977). Sadaknannthnthnmndnamannn. South Holland. IL:
Yearling Books.

Cooley, W. W. (1981). Effectiveness in compensatory education. glueatieual
Leadership, 38, 298-301.

Commeyras, M. & Sumner, G. (1995). ' ' w
literature: What teacher (1 students learned in a sec n - d
elassreem. (Research Report No. 47). Athens, GA: NRRC, Universities of
Georgia and Maryland College Park.

Davies, D. (Ed.). (1981). WIM- New York: McGraw-
Hill.

Delpit, L. (1988). The silenced dialogue. Power and pedagogy in educating
other people’s children. WM, 58, 280- 298.

Dewey, J. (1938). Ezpeueueeahdedueauen. New York: The Macrrrillian
Company.

275

Dillon, J. T. (1988). The remedial status of student questioning. letuuaLef
Curriculum Smg'es, 20, 197-210.

Dillner, M. (1971). Tutedug by students: Whe benefits? Florida Educational

Research and Development Council, Vol. 7, #1 - 2.

Dollar B (1974) W W

tutering yeuth. New York: The National Commission on Resources for
Youth.

Duffy, G. G., Roehler, L. R., Siven, E., Rackliffe, G., Book, O, Meloth, M. S.,
Vavrus, L. G., Wesselrnan, R., Putnam, J., & Bassirir, D. (1987). Effects of
explaining the reasoning associated with using reading strategies.

Reading Research Quarterly, 22, 347-368.

Edelmann, M. W. 1988. Forward. In Children’s Defense Budget. Washington,
DC: Children’s Defense Fund.

Edwards, A. D. (1981). Analysing classroom talk. In P. French & M. MacLure
(Eds), Adult-child conversation (pp. 291-308). London: Croom Helm.

Edwards, A. D. (1979). Patterns of power and authority in classroom talk. In P.

Woods (Ed.), Teacher strate ies: Ex lorati n in h ociolo of
$13.92! (Pp. 237-253). London: Croom Helm.

Eeds, M., & Wells, D. (1989). Grand conversations: An exploration of meaning

construction in literature study groups. Resegehjhtheleaehjngef
English 23(1) 4-29

Ellson, D.G. (1969). WWW. Indianapolis Public

Schools.

Evans, K. S. (1996). Creating spaces for equity? The role of positioning in peer-
led literature discussions. W, 73(3), 194-202.

Fader, D. N., & McNeil, E. B. (1968). mm: W. New
York: Berkley Publishing Corporation.

Fitzhugh, L. (1964). Hgietdredpy. New York: Harper & Row.

Florio- Ruane, S. (1987). Sociolinguistics for educational researchers. American

WM 24(2) 185- 197

Florio-Ruane, S. (1994). The future teachers’ autobiography club: Preparing
educators to support literacy learning in culturally diverse classrooms.

_nghshfinncatinn 26(1) 52- 66

Freeman, D. E., Freeman, Y. S., & Fennacy, J. (1993). California’s reading
revoluation: A review and analysis. The New Adveeate, e(l), 41 - 60.

276

Fulwilcr T (1982) Lanenaeennnnectinnsflritinenndrnadingnntossm
curlieulum. National Council of Teachers of English, Urbana, IL. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. 218667).

Galda, L. (1988). Readers, texts and contexts: A response-based view of
literature in the classroom. W, 1(2), 92-102.

Gall, M. D. (1970). The use of questions in teaching. Review of Educadonal
Resemeh, 40, 707-721.

Gambrell, L. B. (1985). Dialogue journals: reading-writing interaction. Reading
Teaehen 38(6), 512-515.

Gavelek, JR. (1986). The social context of literacy and schooling: A

developmental perspective. In T.E. Raphael (Ed.), Week
hasedJitetaey (pp. 3-26). New York: Random House.

 

Glass, G. V. (1986). The effectiveness of special education. BelieyMes

Review, 2, 65-78.
Goatley, V. J. Brock, C. H., & Raphael, T. E. (1995). Diverse learners
participating in regular education “Book Clubs.” i arc

Qtl art,erly 30(3), 352- 380.

Goatley, V. J. & Raphael, T. E. (1992). Non-traditional learners' written and
dialogic response to literature. In C. K. Kinzer and D. J. Lea (Eds),
Literacy research, theory, and practice: Views from many perspectives.
Forty-first yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp.3l3-323).
Chicago: National Reading Conference.

Golden, J. M. (1990). A semiotic perspective of text: The picture story book
event. Journal of Reading Behavior, 22(3), 203-219.

Golden, J. M. (1988). Text and the mediation of text. Lingutsdesandflteatien,
1(1), 1943.

Golden, J. M., & Guthrie, J. T. (1986). Convergence and divergence in reader
response to literature. Reading Resea;eh Quarterly, 21(4), 408-421.

Golden, J. M. (1986). Reader-text interaction. W. 25(2), 91-96.
Goodlad, J. l. (1984). Apiaeeealledseheel. New York: McGraw Hill.

Granick, L. (1968). Youth tutering yeuth: it worked. New York: National
Commission on Resources for Youth.

Green, J. L., & Harker, J. O. (Eds) (1988). Muluple mrspectives analyses of
Wm (pp. 11-47). Norwood, NJ. Ablex.

 

277

Green, J. L., & Smith, D. (1983). Teaching and learning: A linguistic perspective.
Elementm School Journal, 83(4), 353-391.

Green, J. L. (1990). Reading is a social process. In J. Howell & A. McNamara
(Eds), Social context of literacy (pp. 104-122). Canberra, Australia: ACT
Department of Education.

Guzak, F. J. (1967). Teacher questioning and reading. The Reading Teacher, 21,
227-234.

Halliday, M. A. K. (1975). Learning how to mean. Explorations tn me
dLnlannntnLlanenagn London Edward Arnold

Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as social semietic: The social intetpretatien
eflanguagemdtneaning. London: Edward Arnold.

Hammersley, M., & Atkinson, P. (1983). Ethnegtaphy prineiples in praetice. New
York: Tavistock Publications.

Hansen, E. (1986). Emotional processes engendered by poetry and prese
reading. Stockholm: Alrnquist & Wiksell.

Hansen, J. (1987). When writers read. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Haroutunian-Gordon, S. (1991). i l: T
conversation in the high school. Chicago: The University of Chicago
Press.

Hartman, D. K. (1991). The intertextual links of readers using multiple passages.
A postmodern/semiotic/cognitive view of meaning making. In J. Zutell &

S McCormick (Eds ) Lnamnttadnrsltnnmmwtussneslnhtnm

research and instruction (40th yearbook of the National Reading
Conference, pp. 49-66). Chicago: National Reading Conference.

Hausman, J. J. (Ed.). (1980). Arts and the schools. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Haynes, M. C., & Jenkins, J. R. (1986). Reading instruction in special education
resource rooms. American Educational Research Journal, 23, 161-190.

Hickman, J ., & Kimberly, K. (1988). WWW- London:
Routledge.

Hiebert, E. H. (1983). An examination of ability grouping for reading instruction.
Reading Resegch Quar_terly, 18, 231-255.

Johnston, P., & Allington, R. (1991). Remediation. In R. Barr, M. L. Karrlil, P.
Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds), Handheok of reading research, vol II
(pp. 984-1012). NY: Longman.

278

Jose, P., & Brewer, S. (1984). Development of story liking: Character
identification, suspense, and outcome resolution. Developmental

Bsxchnlngx: 20. 911-924.

Juel, C. (1988). Learning to read and write: A longitudinal study of 54 children

from first through fourth grade. WM, 80:
437- 47.

Juel, C. (1991). Cross-age tutoring between student athletes and at—risk children.

The Rendingleanher. 45(3). 178-186.
Keller-Cohen, D. (1993). Rethinking literacy. Comparing colonial and

contemporary America WW 24(4)
288- 307.
Kennedy, M. M., Jung, R. K., & Orland, M. E. (1986). P v ' v

the distribution of compensatot'y edueation services. Washington DC:
Office of Educational Research and Improvement, USDOE.

King, M. L. (1984). Language and school success: Access to meaning. Theot'y
InInEILantinn. 23, 175-182.

LeCompte, M. D., & Preissle, J. (1993). Ethnogtaphy and qualitative designn in
edueatienaTteseaeeh (2nd, ed..) San Diego: Academic Press, Inc.

Lofland, J. (1971). Analyzing social settings: A guide te gudt'tative observatien
and malyses. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co., Inc.

Lortie, D. C. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociologieal study. Chicago: The
University of Chicago Press.

Malinowski, B. (1923). The problem of meaning in primitive languages. In C. K.
Ogden & I A. Richards (Eds). The Megtn ng ef Meaning. London: Kegan
Paul (International Library of Psychology, Philosophy & Scientific
Method).

McMahon, S. I., & Hauschildt, P. (1993). MW
struggles with talking about hooks. Paper presented at the annual meeting

of the American Educational Research Association, Atlanta, GA.

McMahon, S. I. (1992). A gtoup ef five students as they partieipate in their
studentdeflwheluh. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, East Lansing,

MI: Michigan State University.

McNeil. L. M. (1986). antradrnunnsnfnontrnkfinhnnlntntnnneandsnhml
Wedge. New York: Routledge & K. Paul.

279

McNeil, L. D. (1988). i r v ' ' ' i
literatme elassroom. Paper presented at the 39th annual meeting of the
Conference on College Composition and Communication, St. Louis, MO.

McCarthey, S. J., & Peterson, P. L. (1991). Reflections on resteueturing at
,- -_'_v w in w o '1!‘ I! re r. ' Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, Chicago, IL.

McMillan, T. (1989). W. New York: Viking.

Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons: Social organization in the classroom.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Merriam, S. B. (1988). W

San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass.

Michaels, S. (1981). “Sharing time”: Children’s narrative styles and differential
access to literacy. WM, 10, 423-442.

Michaels, S. & O’Connor, M. C. (1990). Literacy as reasoning within multiple
discourses: Implications for policy and educational reform. Council of
Chief State School Officers Summer Institute.

Morris, D. (1967). The nahed ape. London: Johathan Cape.

Naidoo, B. (1986). W New York:
HarperTrophy

National Center for Education Statistics. (1992). Dropout rates in the United
States: 1992 (NCES 93-464). Washington, DC: U. S. Department of
Education. OERI.

Nist, S. L. & Mealey, D. L. (1991). The relation between self-selected study

processes and test performance. American Educatienal Research Jemal,
28(4), 849-874.

Oakes, J. (1985). Keeping traek: How schools strueuue inequality. New Haven:
Yale University Press.

O’Flahavan, J. F., Hartman, D. H, & Pearson, P. D. (1988). Teacher questioning
and feedback practices. A 20-year retrospective. In J. Readance & R.
Baldwin (Eds), Dialeguesjnluexaeytesemh (37th Yearbook of the
National Reading Conference ) (pp. 183- 208). Chicago, IL: National
Reading Conference.

O’Sullivan, M. J. (1987). The group journal. Jeumal ef Qeneral Edueation,
38(4), 288-300.

280

Palincsar, A. S., & David, Y. M. (1991). Promoting literacy through classroom

dialogue. In E. H. Hiebert (Ed. ), Literacy for a diverse society:

Woollen: (pp 122-140) New York: Teachers
College Press.

P80DI,...FJ(1971);‘ 001' ' l‘Ja. Lul' l!‘:!‘ 'l
reading. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Oregon State University,
Corvallis.

Patton, M. Q. (1985). Quahtauyeflaiuatienmmdds. Beverly Hills: Sage.

Philips, s. U. (1983). , - -, '
W White Plains NY:

Longman.

 

Pierce, K. M.&Gilles, C. J. (Eds). (1993). e ' ' x 1
potential of talk in learning communities. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Pierce, M. (1982). W. Boston: Little, Brown, and Company.

Pinnell, G. S. & Jaggar, A. M. (1991). Oral language: Speaking and hstening in
the classroom. In J. Flood, J. M. Jensen, D. La‘pp, & J. R. Squire (Eds),

Handbook of research on teaching the English language arts (pp. 691-
720). New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.

 

Powell, A. G., Farrar, 13., &Cohen, D. K. (1985). The sho in m hi sch

WWW Boston: HoughtonL
Mifflin Company.

Probst, R. E. (1988). - ..- ° ' ' i ' '
meshighsehdel. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook Pilblishers.

Purves A C &Beach R (1972) WWW

"A.l'. :Ql‘. _1.’l'! '2ll‘

Urbana, IL: NCTE.

 

Quirk, T. J., Trisman, D. A., Nalin, K., & Weinberg, S. (1975). Classroom behavior
of teachers during compensatory reading instruction. iourn al of

Edncnttonalfinsnarnh 68 185-192

Raphael, T. E. & Boyd, F. B. (in press). When readers write. The book club
writing component. In S. I. McMahon & T. E. Raphael (Eds) Boekfluh:

W New York: Teachers
College Press.

Raphael, T. E., Goatley, V. J., McMahon, S. I. & Woodman, D. (1995). Promoting
meaningful conversations in student book clubs. In N. Roser & M.
Martinez (Eds), l h
Litetann'e (pp. 66- 79) Newark, DE: International ReadingAssociation.

281

Raphael, T. E., & McMahon, S. I., Goatley, V. J., Bentley, J. L., Boyd, F. B., Pardo,
L. S., & Woodman, D. A. (1992). Research directions: Literature and
discussion in the reading program. Language_A_rts, 69, 55-61.

Raphael, T. E., & McMahon, S. I. (1994). Book club: An alternative framework
for reading instruction. The Reading Teaeher, 48(2), 102-116.

Raphael, T. E., Boyd, F. B., & Rittenhouse, P. (1993). Voice and pums e in
4! “our! -l‘ri‘! ’nw l8901‘08 Paper

presented at the annual meeting of the Merican Educational Research
Association, Atlanta, GA.

Raphael, T. E., & Englert, C. S. (1990). Writing and reading: Partners in
constructing meaning. Reading Teacher, 43(6), 388-400.

Reed, S. D. (1988). Logs: Keeping an open mind. English Jeutnai, 77(2), 52-56.
Rogoff, B. (1990). AW. New York: Oxford University
Press.

Roller, C. M. & Beed, P. L. (1994). Sometimes the conversations were grand, and
sometimes LanguageAns, 71(7), 509-515.

Rosenbaum, J. E. (1976). M 'n in li ° i ncurri ulum f h'
sehool traeking. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Rosenblatt, L.M. (1983). Litetatute as enpleration. New York: The Modern
Language Association of America.

Rosenshine B & Furst N (1969) Wendi
aehie_etnent;_A_resea;eh_tme\y. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Rowan, B., & Guthrie, L. F. (1989). The quality of Chapter I instruction: Results
from a study of twenty-four schools. In. R. Slavin, N. Karweit, & N.

Madden (Eds), Effective pregtams for students at risk (pp. 195-219).
Needham Heights, MA: Allyn-Bacon.

Santa Barbara Classroom Discourse Group. (1992). Do you see what we see?
The referential and intertextual nature of classroom life. Jeumadef

Wu. 27(2). 29-36.

Schmuck, P. & Schmuck, R. (1990). Democratic participation in small- town
schools mm 19(8) 14-19

Shepherd, L. A. &M. L. Smith, (Eds..) (1989). Flunidn ng g;a azdes Reesar areh and
peheiesengtentien. Philadelphia: Falrner.

282

Short, K. G. & Armstrong, J. (1993). “More than facts”. Exploring the role of
talk in classroom inquiry. In K. M. Pierce & C. J. Gilles (Eds), Explorin ring
thnnotnntialnfltahsianamingmmrnnnitinflll9- 137) Portsmouth NH:

Heinemann.

Sims, R. (1983). Strong black girls A ten year old responds to fiction about
Afro—Americans InnmnlnansnmhMDexelnnmnntinEdnnntinn 16
21- 28.

Sizer, T. R. 1985. . ...
sehddl. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.

 

Slavin, R. E. (1991). Chapter I: A vision for the next quarter century. EhLQelta
Kannan, 72(8), 586-592.

Sloan, G. D. (1991). ' " ° ' ' ' l
nndd1e_sc_heels. New York: Teachers College Press.

Snapp,M. (1970).A t o. t or on u ifri it. .-I. '10.: or
' 1!-.1‘ 'lieV It! 0‘ 0 r ‘ 9192.11.93.19
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Texas, Austin.

Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of
individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Researeh

Quarterly, 21, 360-407.

Strodtbeck, F. & Granick, L. (1972). An eval i n f th 0 torin m
' - i . New York: National
Commission on Resources for Youth.

Tannen, D. (1982). Oral and literate strategies in spoken and written narrative.

W. 58. 1-21.

Tannen, D. (1985). Relative focus on involvement in oral and written discourse.
In D. R. Olson, N. Torrance, & A. Hildyard (Eds),

Litntanxrlangnagnand
learning: The nature and consequences of reading and writing (pp. 124-
147). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Taylor, M. D. (1975). Seng of me trees. New York: Bantam Books.

Taylor, M. D. (1990). Messissippihddge. New York: Bantam Books.

ThaIP,R Ga &Gallirnore R (1988) WWW,
.Cambridge, England: Cambridge

University Press.

Topping. K (1988) Ihnmntnttnnnehandmnkzflrnmwmxe
lemg. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Brookline Books.

283

Tough, J. (1973). ' ' w'
ehildr en. London: George Allen & Unwin.

Tough, J. (1979). Taikjetteaemngandleamng. London: Ward Lock.

Vygotsky LS (1978) Minimizer Ihnnnkelnnmnntnthighnrnsrnhnlnginal
dreeesses. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Wagner, L. (1982). ReeLteaehing: Histenealfietsmyes. Connecticut:

Greenwood Press.

 

Walmsley, S.A., & Walp, TR (1990). Toward an integrated language arts
curriculum in elementary school: Philosophy, practice and irnphcations.

Elementaiy Scheel Journal, 90, 257-294.

Watson, K. (1987). 511W (2nd ed.). Milton Keynes:
Open University Press.

Weade, R. & Green, J. (1989). Reading in the instructional context. An
interactional sociolinguistic/ethnographic perspective. In C. Emihovich
(Ed), .0 «.-i,‘ in: it! «or I r 0 _V‘ or , run ‘ i,
(pp. 17- 56). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Wells, G. & Chang-Wells, G. L. (1992). ' w
W Portsmouth. NH:
Heinemann.

Wells, G., Chang, G. L., & Maher, A., (1990). Creating classroom communities of

literate thinkers. In S. Sharan (Ed.) Ceeperative learning: Theot'y ad
Leseapeh. New York: Praeger.

Weitzman, D. (1965). Effect of tutoring on performance and motivation ratings in

secondary school students QahfnrnlaMnlnlntEdncannnaLRnsemh,
16,108-115.

Wiesner, D. (1991). Tuesday. New York: Clarion Books
Wiesner, D. (1992). June 29, 1999. New York: Clarion Books.

Wilkinson, L. C. (Ed.). (1982). W. New York:

Academic Press.

Ysseldyke, J. E., Thurlow, M. L, Mecklenburg, C., Graden, J. (1984). Opportunity
to learn for regular and special education students during reading

instruction ancdinLarldSnnninJEdncan'nn 5 29- 37

"Ilillllllll’illlllflllf