MICHI RARI

"mulllilillliliillIIlium '

, n 3 1293 01770 4390

 

 

 

This is to certify that the

dissertation entitled

Making Sense: Literacy Learning in
A First-Grade Discourse Co-Inity

presented by

Peggy Sue Rittenhouse

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

degree in

 

 

Doctor of Philosophy
Depart-cut of Teaching, Curriculul, and Educational Policy

W1, fang

liajor professor

Date ”'S’CIS

 

M5 U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

k ‘ Ffl—v—v—i .-

 

PLACE IN RETURN Box to remove this checkout from your record.
To AVOID FINE return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earIier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1M WM“

MAKING SENSE: LITERACY LEARNING IN
A FIRST-GRADE DISCOURSE COMMUNITY

By

Peggy S. Fiittenhouse

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial iulfiilment of the requirements
for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Teaching, Curriculum, and Educational Policy

1998

Sil

f0!

apt

ABSTRACT

MAKING SENSE: LITERACY LEARNING IN
A FIRST-GRADE DISCOURSE COMMUNITY

By
Peggy S. Fiittenhouse

This study sought to understand the literacy teaching and
learning in one first-grade, reform-oriented classroom. Classroom
observations, teacher and student interviews, and samples of
student work, gathered over a period of 15 weeks, were used as
means to collect data. Data was analyzed using methods from
qualitative research.

Findings from the study indicated that the literacy instruction
in the classroom--in which the language arts were taught in a more
holistic manner, in which students' ideas were made part of the
curriculum, in which talk among students was actively encouraged
as a means to foster literacy learning, and in which the teacher
shared authority of knowing with students-- seemed to support
students' learning of literacy and their disposition to use literacy
for their own purposes.

An unintended consequence of the literacy teaching and
learning in this classroom seemed to be the development of a kind of
school literacy discourse different from other, more traditional,
school literacy discourses. This different literacy discourse
appeared to result in some children experiencing difficulties in
knowing how to engage in more traditional school literacy

discourses.

Copyright by
Peggy Sue Fiittenhouse
1998

To My Favorite Teachers

You taught me to stand up for what I know,
even when no one else sees the lion in the yard.
You taught me to love reading, to view the world with wonder,
and to always keep learning.
Your taught me about courage and dreams and determination,
and that life, though changed by hardships
and heartaches, does go on, and can be good again.
You taught me well.

Thanks, Mom and Dad.
All my love.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank Ms. Murray and her first-grade students
for allowing me to be a part of their classroom. Without their
willingness to let me observe their work and talk with them about
that work, this study would not have been possible. I would also like
to thank the members of my committee for their support throughout
this process. Dr. Cheryl Rosaen, committee chair, Dr. Suzanne
Wilson, Dr. Lauren Young, and Dr. Penelope Peterson provided me
opportunities to talk about my emerging ideas, then pushed me to
think about and explore those ideas more deeply. Their comments
and suggestions did much to help me clarify my thinking. My deepest
appreciation to you all.

In addition to my official committee, I would like to thank the
members of my "kitchen committee." Bonnie & Mick and Angie &
Scott provided good conversation and good food as only good friends
can. Thanks also to Helene and Deb for always being there when I
needed to talk. Now that I'm finished, our long distance phone bills
ought to go down, but they probably won't. To others of my friends
and family who took such an interest in what I was doing, many
thanks for your support and encouragement throughout this process.

Finally, I would like to acknowledge the financial support for
this study, made possible through my participation in the Education
Policy and Practice Study at Michigan State University. My thanks to
the principal investigators for the opportunity they provided me to
be a part of the EPPS project and to all the "EPPSers" for the

intellectual climate that helped nurture my thinking.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................... x
LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................ x i
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 1
CHAPTERl

DISCOURSES, LITERACY, AND LEARNING ....................................................... 5
The Purpose of This Study .............................................................................. 5
Questions Guiding This Study ....................................................................... 6
Discourses and Literacy .................................................................................. 7
Primary and Secondary Discourses ...................................................... 7
Mismatches Between Home and School Discourses ....................... 8

From Discourses to Literacy . . . ............................................................ 12

A Cognitive Perspective on Literacy ............................................. 13

A Political Perspective on Literacy .............................................. 17

. . . And Back to Discourses ...................................................................... 19

Issues of Voice, Position, and Power ............................................ 23

Voice ...................................................................................................... 23

Position ................................................................................................ 24

Power ..................................................................................................... 25

Differences Among School Literacy Discourses ............................. 27

A Final Note .............................................................................................. 29

Literacy Instruction Considered .............................................. _ .............. 3 0

Components of a Literacy Instructional Program .................... 33

Curriculum ........................................................................................... 34

Instructional methods .................................................................... 3 6

Physical space. .................................................................................. 36

Classroom community. ................................................................... 37

vi

Ideas and Beliefs about Learners and Learning ......................... 39

Stepping into my Classroom .............................................................. 44
Summary ................................................................................................................. 54
CHAPTER2
METHODOLOGY .......................................................................................................... 56
The School Setting for This Study .............................................................. 5 7
Burnside Elementary's Student Population ....................................... 59
The Participants of the Study ...................................................................... 60
Ms. Murray, First-Grade Teacher ........................................................... 60
The First-Graders ........................................................................................ 61
Keesha Adams .......................................................................................... 64
Chelsea Byers ........................................................................................... 65
Mimi Davidson .......................................................................................... 67
Samuel Johnson ....................................................................................... 67
Rondell Keith ............................................................................................ 69
Robert Scott ............................................................................................. 70
Data Collection .................................................................................................... 71
Data Analysis ....................................................................................................... 77
One Final Note ...................................................................................................... 80
CHAPTER 3
A FIRST-GRADE LITERACY COMMUNITY ......................................................... 8 2
Differences in Students' Language Knowledge. . . ................................ 83
. . . and What Schools Value .............. 84
The Literacy Terrain of One First-Grade Classroom .......................... 89
Stepping Inside a First-Grade Literacy Community ..................... 90
Reflecting on the Classroom Literacy Terrain ................................ 99
Developing a Sense of Community .................................................. 100

Physical support for a community of learners. .................. 101

An emotional space for learning. .............................................. 106
Mediating the Ends of the Continuum ............................................ 108
Students and standards. ................................................................ 109
Multiple and official languages for learning. ...................... 112
Teacher- and student-directed instruction. ........................ 117
Literacy skills and literacy process. ...................................... 121
Summary ................................................................................................................. 136
CHAPTER4
LEARNING ABOUT DISCOURSES AND LITERACY .......................................... 1 37
Discourses, Literacy, and Learning ............................................................ 139
Gaining Control of a Discourse for Learning .................................... 140
A Discourse of Pooled Knowledge ................................................... 141
Supporting One Another‘s Learning ................................................. 144
A Discourse for Trying Out New Ideas .......................................... 147
Gaining Control of a Discourse for Living ......................................... 149
"We Talk About Stuff That Happened Around Us" ..................... 149
"We Talk About Stuff That Never Happened" .............................. 150
Shared Knowing and Individual Ideas About Literacy .................. 152
The "How" of Reading, Rather than the “What" .......................... 153
Strategies for reading text. ........................................................ 154
Strategies for improving as a reader ...................................... 156
Handwriting or Story Writing ................ 158
Communicative purposes of writing ........................................ 158
What students knew about writing. ......................................... 162
What students said they were learning .................................. 164
Encountering Different Discourses ...................................................... 165

viii

A Community of Shared Knowing, But Some Know

Better .......................................................................................................... 166

Different Discourses in the Same Building ................................ 169

Encountering a Traditional School Discourse ............................ 174

Pedro and the substitute ............................................................... 1 74

Keesha and the substitute. ........................................................... 177

Summary ................................................................................................................. 182
CHAPTERS

REVISITING APPROPRIATE LITERACY INSTRUCTION ............................... 185

Revisiting a Literacy Instructional Program ......................................... 185

Important Features of the Literacy Instruction ............................. 186

Use of Physical Space .......................................................................... 187

Student Talk as an Instructional Method ..................................... 188

A Community of Shared Knowing ..................................................... 190

Voice and Power in a Classroom Community ............................. 194

Problems of Literacy Teaching and Learning ................................... 197

Revisiting Beginning Questions ................................................................... 200

Instruction and Students' Literacy Learning .................................... 200

The Role of the Teacher ............................................................................. 201

Students' Perceptions of Their Literacy Learning ......................... 208

Summary ................................................................................................................. 214

BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................ ' ................ 21 6

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 -Classroom Demographics ................................................................... 62
Table 2 -Overview of the Six Focus Children .............................................. 64
Table 3 -Categories that Emerged from Student Responses ................ 79

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1-Core Components of Any Literacy Program ............................... 32
Figure 2 -Classroom Seating Arrangement .................................................. 72
Figure 3-Sample Field-Note Entry (From 3/9/95) .................................... 76
Figure 4-Match/Mismatch of Language and Literacy Knowledge ........ 87
Figure 5-Journal Entry for the Day .................................................................. 95
Figure 6-Spelling Words on the Chalkboard ................................................. 97
Figure 7-Diagram of Ms. Murray's Classroom ............................................ 102
Figure 8-Approaches for Thinking about “What to Teach" ................... 110
Figure 9-Teacher Directed or Student Directed Teaching .......... - ........ 118
Figure 10-Approaches to Literacy Instruction ......................................... 131
Figure 11-Mimi's Journal (circa 5/16/95) ................................................. 151
Figure 12-Mimi's Report of What Happened ............................................... 159
Figure 13-Robert's and Keesha's Letters of Apology ............................. 160
Figure 14-Robert's Letter of Apology to Rondell ..................................... 161
Figure 15-Rondell's First Journal Entry ...................................................... 162

xi

INTRODUCTION

When I began thinking about this study, I knew I wanted to
consider the political and moral implications of literacy instruction
in schools. I had been doing quite a bit of reading of feminist and
critical theorists' ideas about education, and what they said
resonated with me. As a teacher working with Hispanic students in
south Texas during the mid and late 19803, I had come to believe
that some of the education policies the state mandated didn't seem
in students' best interests. For example, like many states, Texas at
that time had a mandated state-level test of basic skills given to
children in odd-numbered grades. For students just learning English
as a second language (ESL), the first cycle of that test (be it given in
third grade or fifth grade or so on) could be taken in Spanish; all
subsequent tests, however, were to be taken in English. This didn't
mesh with what I knew about second language acquisition.

Research in second language acquisition indicated it took most
ESL learners about seven years to acquire near-native fluency in
their new language. Assuming ESL students in my district began
first grade in the United States (which wasn't necessarily true),
they were allowed to take the state-mandated test in Spanish of
their third grade year, but were required to take the test in English
during their fifth grade year. In short, under optimal conditions, ESL
students would not even have had five full years to learn English
before being required to use it to demonstrate their academic
competence. Further, since the tests were given to all Texas

students, native English speakers included, the results of the tests

were used by some legislators to compare districts across the state
(a separate issue in its own right).

Now, some of the students in my district spoke less Spanish
than I did (and that's not muchl), and for them, this testing policy
likely wasn't a problem. But for the children learning English as a
second language, this policy, in my opinion, created a barrier that
kept many students from demonstrating their competence. What
they knew academically couldn't easily be made known because of
language differences. It didn't--and still doesn't--make sense. That
was my introduction to the politics of literacy, and, I suspect, an
underlying influence in my interest in feminist and critical theories
of education.

Which brings me back to this study. In thinking about the
study, I assumed issues of voice, position, and power would likely be
present in any educational setting, because of my own experiences
as a teacher and the reading I had done in graduate school, but I
didn't realize they might be present in unintended ways. I don't mean
to imply that I thought there would be an "evil empire” attitude by
some unknown "they" whose goal was to oppress poor, minority,
and/or female children. I did wonder if I might find some more or
less overt instances of the political implications of literacy (like a
phonics-first debate among staff, perhaps). What I found was much
more subtle, and I think more along the lines of what Heath (1983)
found in her study of language learning in three communities. Heath
helped us understand the different ways children learn about
language and how to use it, and what can happen when what children

know doesn't match what schools often expect.

This study lief—Fe:

. nfifl‘"
gemofieflied are” “’6

 

tress literacy grow“
ears-s knowledge a“
gag in the stewgil
resign on some of l*
re: the literacy discsl
”l differs from

IIIIII

25:35. wan schools.

"til.

are been concern

 

EiI'E-i at: from my res-

tate—“:5 ed.cailonal re‘

£5237": ievel seem M

I g V

::..~. Cli'C'Jiiles in 0:"

5’; :w‘ 1

our. These L.

35.513 00 harm; indee-

Hgi': 1‘ .IA
.9 rulCe, DOSTIO
...,_ .
"ul "ls-.29 m.
' "v'. 1988: c
h
‘n
:Ul,‘

'9 \- 'C

" thnCSll VP ‘

H. Line midi-Jig ,.

5 CS dOCl . HQ

6:3: 33 I VJmemES .

\ ’* ‘
*3; A SUCCeSSt, i’.

\ "figs Ul

This study helped me better understand the ways in which a
reform-oriented approach to literacy instruction can support
children's literacy growth. It also helped clarify the importance of
teachers' knowledge and beliefs about literacy, learners, and
learning in the shaping of literacy instruction. Finally, the study
shed light on some of the unintended consequences that can arise
when the literacy discourse children engage in within their
classroom differs from a more traditional literacy discourse often
associated with schools. This issue of unintended consequences is
one I have been concerned about, both from my own experiences as a
teacher and from my research and reading. Much like the history of
systemic educational reform, changes in instruction at the
classroom level seem to both improve some aspects of learning and
lead to difficulties in other aspects, as I will discuss in chapters
three and four. These unintended consequences do not grow out of a
desire to do harm; indeed, they often are the result of trying to do
good. Yet, harm can result because of underlying (and often hidden)
issues of voice, position, and power that are present in any cultural
setting (Delpit, 1988). Because of my own interest in improving

education, my past experiences as a teacher of nonmainstream1

 

1The terms "mainstream" and "nonmainstream" can be used to
describe a wide range of raced, classed, and/or gendered
characteristics. Heath (1983), for example, describes

mainstreamers as "people who see themselves as being in 'the main
stream of things'" (p. 236). She includes within her description both
black and white individuals. I do not agree with this. Ellis Case
(1993) has documented stories of many black individuals some might
describe as "successful" or as "mainstreamers," but who do not see
themselves as part of what they feel is the white-dominated
mainstream. In this study, I use the term "mainstream" to describe

3

guests in a state if)
snagging ol the

-;-:lhg education. |
3'37]! experiences C'
:le'ted teacher.

Ir. C apter l.
2.2; and describe the
:.es reared to net:
maleacher and st-
.‘ha Cheaters Three
are places where l
method it from he
57-35": perspectives
«d issues oil

first; and discours
53.9: of voice. posnior
risen: in this “,5ng

.155: A
...n of the stat:

 

students in a state trying to improve education, and my deepening
understanding of the unintended consequences associated with
improving education, I designed this study to examine the school
literacy experiences of nonmainstream children with a reform-
oriented teacher.

In Chapter 1, I discuss the research literature that frames the
study and describe the study's rationale. In Chapter 2, I describe
issues related to methodology and introduce the reader to the
school, teacher and students with whom I was privileged to work. I
think of Chapters Three and Four as my "stepping in" chapters. They
.are the places where I examine the literacy teaching and learning as
I understood it from the teacher's perspective (Chapter 3) and the
students' perspectives (Chapter 4). In these chapters, I bring to the
foreground issues of literacy as they relate to the ideas of
community and discourse. In Chapter 5, I "step back" and examine
issues of voice, position, and power as I understood them to be
present in this first-grade classroom, then conclude with a

discussion of the study's implications.

 

individuals raised in middle-class settings with the potential to
access the middle-class culture of power (Delpit, 1988). I use
'nonmainstream" to describe people of color and/or from
backgrounds where English is not the primary language spoken in the
home and/or from lower socioeconomic backgrounds. Finally,
although I use the terms "mainstream" and "nonmainstream," I am
uncomfortable doing so. These terms tend to create a sense of
"other," an idea that traditionally has not necessarily meant an equal
or neutral sense of "different." Historically, "other" has been used to
imply an assignment of value, with "other" being less valued than
whatever the other is different from.

DISC

Young Chiid.’
:escnaf' way. T:
as "lily? of the
215 a transition
smite world b
as more likey to
:-::‘«.;_. How they I
’i'estractured, I
39 as it IS

.f,‘ 3:31 Ianfl‘ hp
s‘avt

‘3'"). oral (a.

niT - A .-
a._

:6 - _
'" DCOnicg

:z‘q_4

. 'CH In Order
" "is Piger. E

.CTEn mUSI .

\-
..

"”58 of l

‘-
5? ,.
‘v

Lions

:3:

In:

CHAPTER 1
DISCOURSES, LITERACY, AND LEARNING

Young children learn about the world in an "up close and
personal" way. They touch and feel and taste, and when necessary,
ask 'Why?" of the older people in their lives. But formal schooling
marks a transition in most children's lives. Where once they learned
about the world by observing, touching, and tasting, at school, they
are more likely to learn by listening to the teacher or by reading a
book. How they learn and what they learn becomes more organized,
more structured, more analytic. This is as true for learning about
language as it is for other subjects.

While most children come to school already knowing how to
use oral language to request, entertain, and inform others, when they
begin their schooling, these same children often must learn how to
transform oral language into written language. Letters of the
alphabet, phoniCs, capitalization, punctuation--all this must be
learned in order for children to communicate in the written language
schools prefer. But these aspects of school-related language are not
all children must learn. They also must learn how and when to use
certain kinds of language, as well as the norms for conversational

interactions. In short, children must learn a new discourse.

The Purpose of This Study
This study sought to add to the body of knowledge regarding
nonmainstream children's school literacy experiences by examining

the ways in which a particular classroom discourse supported or did

export the litera:
tests of the litera:
the classroom 39;»:
eésrerieoted ideas
erg. this study as
:‘J':.'eh
'lE'EWEfe not able
'sal themselves in
we able to exerc

The knowiedge 9
37h the kinds of
‘i'fafrstieam chum.
Life." knOWlédge 9a
tithe kinds Of Me

Ina-"3:786:71 SiUdEP'

Oues

 

Thee queSilOnS g

, What are the sch:
sfidehts in classr

ills ti

Ve 0f Curie
aid IGaming?

leracy' and how I

niimal’lStream

In

not support the literacy learning of children. Further, because
aspects of the literacy instruction and physical and emotional space
of the classroom appeared, from my perspective, to resonate with
reform-oriented ideas about literacy and the social nature of
learning, this study also sought to examine ways in which these
children

0 were/were not able to express themselves within the community,
0 saw themselves in relation to others within the classroom, and

- were able to exercise ownership over their learning.

The knowledge gained from this kind of examination may shed
light on the kinds of literacy instructional practices that help
nonmalnstream children develop a critical awareness of literacy.
Further, knowledge gained from this study raises new questions
about the kinds of literacy instruction schools provide

nonmalnstream students,

Questions Guiding This Study

Three questions guided this study:

1) What are the school literacy experiences of nonmalnstream
students in classrooms where the literacy instruction is
reflective of current understandings about literacy teaching
and learning?

2) What are nonmalnstream students' perceptions of school
literacy, and how do school literacy experiences shape

nonmalnstream students' perceptions of themselves as literate

2. How do Schooi

inleldUaIS? VI

literacy?

students 3’9 a:

they are drSPCS

A
/

about literaCY-

E

The term 'discc
5';.a;e. thoughts. a"
tartar groups (Gee
‘" you taLk. dress
Ms like 'parenl' or

is lszcurse group. b

.rnuifcate in Wei/3 '

... chemise would

Primary

In addition to the

iii-r i
:- dscourses can

is?!” '
ship j

o the persr

{jinn .

..ourse among
‘ '«hCOurses, which
tiegi‘ lh h
. ese discourse

after this. The

3:1
'0

5v.

"’ dISCOUlSG l Gee

 

individuals? What do these students know and believe about

lfieracy?

3) How do school literacy experiences shape what nonmalnstream
students are able to do with their literacy abilities, and what
they are disposed to do, given their knowledge and beliefs

about literacy?

Discourses and Literacy

The term "discourse" refers to the particular ways in which
language, thoughts, and actions are used to identify members of
particular groups (Gee, 1991). If you are a member of a “teenage
group,” you talk, dress, and act in ways that are different from other
groups, like "parent" or "teacher." People can belong to more than
one discourse group, but they must remember to dress, act, and
communicate in ways that are appropriate for the particular group.

To do otherwise would mark you as not a member of the group.

rim r nd nd r Di our

In addition to the multiple discourse groups to which one can
belong, discourses can also be thought of in terms of their
relationship to the person using the discourse. Children learn their
first discourse among intimates within their family setting; all
other discourses, which involve interactions with non intimates
(though these discourses can also include family members), are
learned after this. The first discourse has been referred to as the

primary discourse (Gee, 1991, p. 7), while others are secondary

accuses (Gee. 199'

 

rated their primar,
rel secondary disco.
sedan discourses
'= tscourse of sch-c

pimp. and acting r

:szsuses.
, l
Illsmal he 8

Acquifl lg a SCHC
‘r,.5's. For some
erasures features <
treasured. there it
ternary and seconc

 

T’s”; desco' 'r ‘
«$88 mat
Wale
. some featur
when (for exarno‘i
up;
5‘23 rli'
softer dependrh
growing up in
11‘s. n '
aid Mexrco as
”gulf H I
uakot

P ::l'

drim mar)’ diSCo. u,“

a may lea

ii “‘3an

”Worth Bake;
33~ni 0f the NOW

I.

N

r-J'll‘, DakOta m0
O‘vc

discourses (Gee, 1991, p. 8). For school children, who have already
acquired their primary discourse, school requires the learning of a
new secondary discourse. Even if children have learned other
secondary discourses (e.g., preschool, church, their neighborhood),
the discourse of school will be new because the ways of being,
thinking, and acting required in school differ from those of other

discourses.

Miemetehee Between Heme and School Diseemees

Acquiring a school discourse is easier for some children than

 

for others. For some children, the primary discourse they learned at
home shares features of the secondary discourse of school. For
other children, there may be very little overlap of features between
the primary and secondary discourses. This is because of
differences among primary discourses and the influence particular
primary discourses may have on the secondary discourse of school.
While some features of a primary discourse may be common to
all children (for example, the use of American English), other
features differ depending on, among other things, geographic factors.
Children growing up in south Texas may learn about hurricanes,
citrus, and Mexico as part of their primary discourse, while children
in North Dakota may learn about blizzards, wheat, and Canada as part
of their primary discourse. Further, children in south Texas may
learn words and phrases influenced by the Spanish heritage of the
area, while North Dakota children may learn words and phrases
reminiscent of the Norwegian heritage of the area. Thus, if a child

from North Dakota moved to South Texas, s/he likely would not have

, . .
um qyu- 'IfiO-h
.e u::C L.

'P U
'té’acy learnt
g".r.*=rg up II

I
F O

': aaztuai a

extents of it

A
“u
~_.
:3: . .,
in
' 03m

'91 r't is
i: rC’
V‘M‘n by
b. v."
" 5
The.
as. ‘
‘. ~‘Sseq .
r I
‘3 Fl
'43 ex... .
“I “Us"!
~-e
i“-

the kind of background knowledge about hurricanes, for example,
that the school might assume. Compounding these geographic
differences among primary discourses are cultural and social
factors.

Heath's (1983) study of three communities provides us with a
rich description of the influence of culture on the language and
literacy learned and used by different cultural groups. Children
growing up in white working-class Roadville learned that stories
are factual accounts of real events; attempts to create fictional
accounts of those events were viewed as lying. They learned to see
print as a means of entertainment or learning, and book-reading as
performance.

Children growing up in black working-class Trackton acquired
a different understanding of language and literacy. They learned
that questions are requests for information, with the answers
known to the person being asked the question, but not known by the
person asking the question. Trackton children also learned that
stories do not need obvious beginnings or endings and that a story's
facts can be hidden by creative embellishment.

In contrast to children from Roadville or Trackton,
middle-class black and white children growing up in Maintown
acquired different knowledge about literacy. Their rooms were
filled with books and items representing characters from those
books. They learned that information within books could be
discussed in other contexts. Thus, after reading a story about a dog,
these children could make connections to that story when they

encountered real dogs on the street.

Willie eacl
:a'eipprnent of
a": Literacy knC

Guild-'9 of to

array of speak:

L).

r: s. 'lest he:
arrests in orig
:“e'ed from the
ate-ts 'ofteri

531355 —e (7055
"eah. 1983. p_

7' All!
i

. «til seemed

.: ed non"
ilchaels
“:y. to tier 3
waive 0
ie Amenca

}.'n;”
: m P"
3' iii A
‘ia‘UI

While each of these communities fostered children's
development of oral and written language ability, only the language
and literacy knowledge of children from Maintown meshed well with
the culture of the school. For example, many Trackton children used
a way of speaking in which they dropped the final consonants from
words, "test became fess, build became bill" (Heath, 1983, p. 277,
emphasis in original). Roadville children also spoke in ways that
differed from the ways their teachers expected. For example, these
students "often dropped the unstressed first syllable of words
(across -> 'cross ) or the d in the sequence -ndle (bundle —> bun'l )"
(Heath, 1983, p. 278, emphasis in original). Further, both groups of
children seemed not to understand the underlying directive of
questions like "Will you get the door?" When Heath helped teachers
learn about the different kinds of literacy knowledge children bring
to school and about ways to help parents work with their children to
promote school literacy, teachers were able to make explicit their
expectations or change their instruction in ways that better
supported nonmainstreamers' learning.

Michaels (1981) has also identified cultural differences with
regard to literacy. In her study of sharing time, Michaels found that
the narrative oral-story-telling style of Deena, a first-grade
African American girl, differed from the story style of her white
teacher. While the teacher expected stories to have a clear
beginning, middle, and end, Deena's story was topic associative in
nature. That is, in the culture in which Deena learned to use
language, telling stories involved loosely connecting one part of a

story to another, based on their common link to a core idea. The

10

 

rarer thought Dee
11: kept admonish”;
liraeis makes clea'
sister's knowledge a
rirl'edge and expe:

Both Heath's a'
rsiedge about life
r:r~i:.als. Their st.
51.755. Chandier, Go;
trey-Gaines. 1988.
*cf'rarstrearn backg'
Corsage of literacy,
ere from different

orange of literacy E

 

azure might not be t
:r..'af groups acqui'e
52115396 some studs

1:1e school discou

'4’ the

secondary d5

.11 primary (liSCOUrs

II.“
.35.: S

. tudents d

E

ifficuitt

211
"119i 3

teacher thought Deena's story was a collection of unrelated events
and kept admonishing Deena to talk about only one thing. What
Michaels makes clear in her study is the mismatch between the
teacher's knowledge and expectations of a story and Deena's
knowledge and expectations of a story. '

Both Heath's and Michaels' studies document differences in

knowledge about literacy between white and African American

individuals. Their studies (as well as those of Au, 1993; Snow,

Barnes, Chandler, Goodman, and Hemphill, 1991; and Taylor and
Dorsey-Gaines, 1988) clearly dispel notions that children from

nonmalnstream backgrounds are somehow deficient with regard to

knowledge of literacy. Rather, these studies demonstrate that

Deome from different cultural backgrounds do acquire extensive
knowledge of literacy and language, although the knowledge they
aCquire might not be the same kind of knowledge individuals in other

Cultural groups acquire. As a result, the primary discourse

knowledge some students bring to school may differ significantly
frorn the school discourse they are expected to master. Trying to
|earn the secondary discourse by drawing on knowledge gained in
their primary discourse may not be helpful; it might, in fact, cause

these students difficulty. This is an issue to which I will return in

Chapter 3.

11

Wtai

1,; answer i."

1.13:? A9“

id‘vb

urcec'r' so:
ivaaur) 5..
l

:escn who

'1' ”H i fip‘
3 r. 102.54
V

an
”i: Dri
V

I 'h
I. “Van t
n_\_l‘..“ I
U U“
:_. ~ a j
‘::~
o":
:._ ,' n0 8
I ”.LR
U. ‘\
vcafl
!;‘§ ‘5'
o“: .
V L.
- " Lie.-
.‘ \r

r t Lit ra .

What is literacy? What does it mean to be literate? Attempts

to answer these questions stretch far back in time. In his

discussion of the development of Western literacy, Venezky (1991)

tells us "...the modern terms 'literate' and 'illiterate' both derive

from the Latin literatus... " (p. 49). During the early part of the

Middle Ages, a literatus was a person who could read, write, and

possibly speak Latin. After 1300, however, literatus came to mean a

person who had minimal ability to read in the vernacular. While Latin
is no longer the requisite language of literacy, today's common
definition of literacy as "the ability to read and write" (American

Heritage Dictionary, 1983) appears little changed since the Middle

Ages.
For those concerned with elementary education in the United

States, however, defining literacy seems more problematic. How

rhight this kind of literacy be developed? Does literacy include oral
language (to allow for discussion of text among a group for
example), or is literacy limited to silent interaction with written
|ar‘iguage? Should literacy education be concerned only with learning
how to read and write Standard Englishl, or should literacy in other
Ianguages or English dialects also be fostered? Should literacy

education focus on teaching students to read and write at a

"functional level," or should it focus on "critical" literacy (ideas I

1 Though the term "Standard English" is used by many people to
describe a kind of English they believe does/should exist in United
States, no such standard form truly exists in the day to day lives of
Americans. For the purposes of this study, I will use the term to
describe the type of English that is taught in school or is referred to
in dictionaries and handbooks of English language use.

12

iii discuss later
ssues related to
sees literacy enco
razrenatlcs?
Questions ll-
e:.:ators trying 1
f't'en in the Uni
easy (Resoick a
leaky. 1991), in
espectlves: ccgn
sensors and pm

a“: literacy inst".

l Cognitive Pe

From a C09”
at; to read and
is can we recogf
Iiarrpwly define
‘ee ed to a varie

it-e de

ermine
it“: r "
i." HGi‘l’id" .
ea! 8 S
its?

Asking in:

5:. ll

‘ .1 are literaie

7.’ i , L
sate

will discuss later in this chapter)? Does literacy deal only with
issues related to disciplines associated with reading and writing, or
does literacy encompass other disciplines like science and
mathematics?

Questions like these currently confront policy makers and
educators trying to shape literacy instruction for public-school
children in the United States. While there are many ways of viewing
literacy (Resnick and Resnick, 1977; Stedman and Kaestle, 1991;

Venezky, 1991), in the remainder of this section, I will focus on two

perspectives: cognitive and political. Each provides insights into the

problems and potentials associated with various views of literacy

and literacy instruction.

A nilv Pr tiv nLitr
From a cognitive perspective, literacy can be viewed as the

ability to read and write. But what do reading and writing look like?
How can we recognize these actions when we see them? Attempts
to narrowly define the term literacy from a cognitive perspective
have led to a variety of ways to determine who is literate. At one
time, the determination of a person's literacy abilities was left up
to the individual's self report by asking, "Are you able to read and
Write?" Asking individuals to self-report, however, is problematic.
Fil’st, there is no clear definition of what is meant by read and
Write; different individuals may have different interpretations
about the terms (Stedman and Kaestle, 1991). Thus, they may report

ihat they are literate when in fact they are not, or may say they are

not literate when in fact they are. The second problem with this

13

trinition is its life

 

re; Venezky. 199‘
recognize the literati,
eat out not write.
ife'ence between a
secretary level and
facelerel. Thus. '
rcear picture of l.
Another way it
storing. During ti
te term 'functional
firming (3180.378

5'65 of schooling ;

:‘I’M‘SAA

definition is its literate/illiterate dichotomy (Stedman and Kaestle,

1991; Venezky, 1991). For example, the definition does not

recognize the literacy possessed by individuals who might be able to

read but not write. Nor does this definition recognize degrees of

difference between a person who can read and write at an
elementary level and a person who can read and write at a sixth

grade level. Thus, "the ability to read and write" offers us an

unclear picture of literacy.
Another way to define literacy is to link it to years of formal
schooling. During the 19303, the Civilian Conservation Corps coined

the term "functional literacy" and defined it as three or more years

Of schooling (Stedman and Kaestle, 1991). Over time, the number of

Years of schooling associated with being functionally literate has
increased. By 1970, for example, high school completion was

c>C>rlsidered by some to be the necessary minimum to be considered

functionally literate (Stedman and Kaestle, 1991). Linking years of

fOrmal schooling to literacy removes some of the variability in how
"the ability to read and write" is interpreted and establishes an

"Outside" standard against which to measure literacy.
However, using schooling as an indicator of literacy is still

problematic. The two are not synonymous; simply being in a

Classroom for a specified number of years does not guarantee that a

person is able to read and write. Linking schooling to literacy also

overlooks the fact that many people learn to read and write, become
literate, without benefit of formal schooling (Scribner and Cole,

1981; Venezky, 1991). Additionally, describing literacy in terms of

schooling still does not address the either/or nature of the

14

ignition. As such
no may have 50m
11 schooling is the
safe. what about
ca: person compie
Unhng lhera:
eesents a third i
at, are used bot:
use; have not fr
it: is literate.‘ F
icon (Johnston,
E'zostrate that the
ifé'tieess SC’TO'
. . L
AQEIE-Ee-pet" Teadrnr
3337'; Who is lira

3'3 l3 ”Oi (Lew ihC'

definition. As such, it again fails to take into account those persons
who may have some degree of literacy. For example, if eight years
'of schooling is the standard for being considered functionally
literate, what about the person who has six years of schooling? Is
that person completely illiterate, or only somewhat so?

Linking literacy to scores on functional-literacy tests
represents a third approach to defining literacy. Tests of literacy
ability are used both in school and out. School-based tests of
literacy have not traditionally been used specifically to determine
"who is literate." Rather, these tests have served an accountability
function (Johnston, 1984), providing a way for schools to
demonstrate that they are doing what the public expects them to do.
Nevertheless, school-based testing does purport to estimate the
"grade-level" reading and writing ability of students, in essence
deciding who is literate (i.e., those "at" or "above" grade-level) and
Who is not (i.e., those "below" grade level). Many school-based tests
are designed to evaluate decoding and comprehension skills found in
basal reading texts (Shannon, 1989). Other tests, (e.g., minimum
Competency tests) mandated by state law (Brown, 1991), require
students to demonstrate mastery of certain "basic" skills in order to
be considered literate.

Clearly, describing literacy as the ability to read and write is
ambiguous. Attempts to define literacy based on evidence of years-
OT-schooling or skills and tasks mastered help focus a broader
definition, but do not take into account the various literacy abilities

different individuals possess. Recognizing the need for a term like

“functional" to capture the literacy abilities that lie between

15

'sti'ate' and 'illite'
MW can not be
re term 'lunctiona!‘
messed as an a:
atria presence or .

The term 'eme
“* reading and w'
maritime! literacy
Tar expressing lite
eelsol abgizly. 'er
"1%? as a process
martial to be com;

What is sinkm
:zz'text. Individuafs
istead, literacy is a
a?" for D'Ulposes
13?.13335 of the SC
5636 terms mini 10
CEI‘llllllon of II'

"‘3" t0 say

g‘i.

that kg

m definition f
33m -
a SOCia] a
' ny delln

"literate" and "illiterate" is a move toward understanding that
literacy can not be defined as an either/or dichotomy. Implicit in
the term "functional" is the idea that literacy may better be
addressed as an ability that develops along a continuum, rather than
as the presence or absence of skills.

The term "emergent," which Sulzby and Teale (1991) define as
"the reading and writing behaviors that precede and develop into
conventional literacy" (p. 728), addresses this continuum. Rather
than expressing literacy in terms of skills possessed or different
levels of ability, "emergent" carries with it the connotation of
literacy as a process unfolding over time, and one that has the
potential to be continually improved upon.

What is striking about these terms is their implicit notion of
C><>Intext. Individuals do not acquire literacy for the sake of literacy.
lnstead, literacy is a tool that is used, in home, work, or other
Settings, for purposes of our own making or of those of the
institutions of the society within which we live. In essence, what
these terms point to is the inadequacy of the "ability to read and
Write" definition of literacy to describe how literacy is used. That
is not to say that knowing the skills or strategies of reading and
Writing are not important. They are. Defining literacy in terms of
the acquisition of reading and writing skills reflects what [we have
|earned about the processes of reading and writing. However, the
historic definition of literacy pays little attention to the fact that

literacy is a "social achievement" (Scribner, 1984, p. 7).
Thus, any definition of literacy that ignores contexts and

purposes limits our comprehension of the nature of literacy. Once

16

re understand the
w'e‘ies and that
hit .

re time. a new

lPolitical Per.

Examining lit
focally examining
59536. literacy ca
[ting abilities of
tacountry). Viev
teneceéved as no
:“ssc'er illiterate) \
3.3::- ol ability (t

"it-9'. n’
ma re.

as havrr‘g

\h‘

literacy). A
In its continuum
*::;t:‘.als to have
team to use l
tie: noose is $6
237:.far group?
Stuckey (199l
sis l

ECOnomiCS

33?" 3W) ensur
,{I '

we understand that literacy is linked to human institutions and
societies, and that the purposes for which literacy is used can shift

over time, a new perspective about literacy emerges.

l i r tv on Lit r

Examining literacy from a political perspective requires
critically examining the purposes for which literacy is used. For
example, literacy can be viewed as a continuum of the reading and
writing abilities of a particular group of individuals (e.g., citizens
of a country). Viewed in this way, some members of the group might
be perceived as not having any literacy ability (those we would
COnsider illiterate) while others might be perceived as having some
c'egree of ability (the functionally literate) and still others would be
perceived as having a high degree of literacy (those who possess
Critical literacy). A political view of literacy compels us to ask
Why this continuum exists. Why is it acceptable for some
individuals to have little or no literacy ability, while others have
the ability to use literacy to reflect critically on social issues?
What purpose is served by this array of literacy practices within a
particular group?

Stuckey (1991) believes the purposes of literacy are tied to
iSsues of economics, privilege, and power. Differing kinds. of
Iiteracy ability ensure that only certain people will be qualified to
hold jobs of power. As a result, the level of literacy practice in a
Society is often blamed for societal problems, when in fact it is the

structure of the society that is at fault. Mismatches in literacy

Practices can be used as a diversion to draw society’s attention

17

are)” from target

ale-tel 0’ “indie
22;»??? 'OW'Staws
in: coufd do be".
sii'is.

But literacy
zoos-ms and ”‘93
ire-re, 19,7099;
:ezarate what has
rated the text (t
:35 in light of t?
use facts and ic
it‘d. rather than

Thus. in 0rd
tuition of litera:
tits at being peo;
Ezef'inition of lite
”333$ cultural ane
9.21515. 1981) ar
iii-jai-ieS in orde
""‘r. a delinitio
2T5“550” of litera
Sher and pm
£11992; Freir
,h‘ a definition

" and Secon:

away from larger social and economic questions. Those who possess
a level of functional literacy that qualifies them only for low-
paying, low-status jobs can be dismissed by society as individuals
who could do better if they would only acquire additional literacy
skills.

But literacy does not have to serve as a screen, masking social
problems and inequality. It can also serve to empower people
(Freire, 1970/1992) if those who read text with a critical eye
separate what has been written from the biases of the writers who
created the text (Olson and Astington, 1993). Examining facts and
ideas in light of their merit. and then examining how authors use
those facts and ideas, increases readers' abilities to act upon their
World, rather than being subject to the "authority" of the text.

Thus, in order to describe more fully what literacy “is,” a
definition of literacy should encompass listening, speaking, and the
Ways of being people use as they communicate (Gee, 1991). Further,
a definition of literacy should recognize different literacy practices
across cultural and social boundaries (Delpit, 1988; Heath, 1983;
Michaels, 1981) and provide a means for individuals to cross those
boundaries in order to acquire and use different literacy practices.
I=inally, a definition of literacy should acknowledge the political
dimension of literacy so that the links among literacy practices and
the power and privilege within a social context are made visible
(Delpit, 1992; Freire, 1970/1992; Olson and Astington, 1993). In

Short, a definition of literacy must take into account the idea of

primary and secondary discourses. Assuming for a moment that all

18

this is a give

about acquiring

Acquiring s
agndévidual nee
r‘a discourse lc
nzerstand how i
rc'rs isn‘t enoug
:szcurse group,
"Wee fluently-
3? natural i

1559359. Over

m! ‘ - .
erasing in“

.t.te C
:gr, degree of cc
trays the case.

Delpit (198;

*" who airea-d

345'; ch
"‘9” least an

TEE nl
Jies l0r Dar

i" is" Woud

h-S is
' “at mat.
Peopie Who

3- Dim .
U
u g D In

”its, -

of this is a given, a question still remains; how does an individual go

about acquiring a secondary discourse?

. And flack to W

Acquiring secondary discourses is a two-part process. First,
an individual needs to learn about the rules and structural guidelines
of a discourse formally (as in school). This helps the individual
understand how a discourse "works." But knowing how a discourse
works isn't enough. In order to sound like an expert member of a
discourse group, an individual must also be able to use the secondary
discourse fluently. This second part of the process is addressed
through natural interactions with more knowledgeable users of the
discourse. Over time, a novice should be able to move from
exercising little control over a secondary discourse to exercising a
high degree of control over the discourse. However, this is not
always the case.

Delpit (1988) asserts that "rules" for power exist within
Cultures, and that those rules are based on the cultural norms of
t"lose who already have the power. However, those with the power
are often least aware that they have it, and may not even be aware
that rules for participating in the power do in fact exist, though
they likely would recognize instantly when those rules were broken.
This is what makes acquiring and using literacy political.

People who have acquired the rules of power are those who

have grown up in the culture which dictates what the rules of power
Will be. These people haven't had to consciously learn the rules of

power because they have been exposed to them from birth, simply by

19

undpaung in l
Taiiflg those rut
ear-.iouals not fr
audition of por
tied: to do be:
sore. unobtrusiv
err reaiize th.
pressed to \

deds not
Eudons about t
:suerses. HOW
:esor. does not i
fiwxuu? And

33-33 about the

CE 'iiri
w iea'n anc

ifi-Ei ' k
“1"” the .
.E.:l"hl

“‘v‘ v‘i‘i'iedge ”6

teen together. G

‘0.

'“tm3How can
if‘tin eh ..

lie 0:5C0Ur:
ilfien~

“’3 Dower in t

u“.
0": i.‘
13: f

i at wouir

Er “

. .an be i
‘2: ,

x be “liable lc

@376 .: .
Within th

OUnd

participating in the daily rituals of their culture. Delpit argues that
making those rules explicit for examination and practice by
individuals not from the culture of power may make their
acquisition of power easier and more successful. But this is

difficult to do because these rules have been acquired in such a
subtle, unobtrusive manner that people who have acquired the rules
seldom realize that they have in fact done so, and likely would be
hard pressed to verbalize the rules if asked to do so.

Delpit's notion of the rules of the culture of power raise
questions about Gee's ideas regarding the acquisition of multiple
discourses. How can a person fully acquire new discourses if that
person does not have access to the rules of power for those
discourses? And how can those raised in different discourses teach
others about the rules of those discourses when the insiders are
least likely to recognize that rules do in fact exist? Finally, even if
one did learn another discourse without being aware of the rules of
power within the discourse, would that person have the
metaknowledge needed to critique that discourse (Gee, 1991)?
Taken together, Gee's and Delpit's ideas present an interesting
Problem: How can anyone fully acquire a different discourse if those
Within the discourse can't inform newcomers of the rules, because
they themselves are unaware of the existence of the rulesfor
gaining power in the discourse, or won’t make the rules explicit,
because that would change existing power relationships? Unless a
Way can be found to solve this problem, it would seem that people
would be unable to acquire full control over any discourse other than

the one within which they were raised, a point of concern that Delpit

20

(1992i 3350 rat
11.553515 into p

nooks l1
W and thos
ga'mam DOC
he :enter oi tl
margin. hi
ills of both It
are margin C
was and its r

hooks‘ nc
“red at in De"
are margin c.
its to join the
iii-'6) working

”JESS to be 2

Te ’0 excli,
~ tn order

so al 1
r.ua.'S can
. works, D?
it? e'orlr within
Ellsworth l
is in power
2?: die a”

(1992) also raises. The work of hooks and Ellsworth provide
insights into possible solutions to this problem.

hooks (1984) describes the relationship between those with
power and those without it as one based on a "center" and a "margin"
of a "main body" ( p. ix) with the ones holding power being located at
the center of the body and those without the power being located at
the margin. hooks believes that those at the margin know about the
ways of both the margin and the center because the survival of those
at the margin depends on their understanding of how the center
works and its power over those at the margin.

hooks" notion provides a way of partially resolving the problem
hinted at in Delpit and Gee because her idea acknowledges that those
at the margin can learn about the center to one degree or another and
work to join the center, even when those at the center might be
actively working against this. Although Delpit wants those at the
margins to be able to move to the center, relying on those within a
culture to explicate the rules for outsiders may not always be
possible. hook’s idea about the margin having to understand the
center in order to survive provides an additional means of access to
the center. The collective knowledge those at the margin acquire
about those at the center can serve as a powerful reservoir
individuals can draw from and add to in order to understand how the
center works, providing the means for those at the margin to enter
and work within the center.

Ellsworth (1989) believes that unless those in power, even
those in power who subscribe to critical theoretical views of

pedagogy, acknowledge their power and are willing to talk about it

21

with those not
lithin educatior
the doorman
:cs'essed grou;
Bbwonh
cassettes at it

titer and the r
triteragy; dei;
2‘ .iié'acy 10 be
u: literacy is

Bt’ asking

"4.x...

:‘AI

.
I
A
U-
“A

with those not in power, attempts to change the power structure
within education will not succeed. Ellsworth argues that members
of the dominant group must be willing to interact with members of
oppressed groups in order for both to learn more about each other.

Ellsworth provides a way for those in the center to reposition
themselves at the margin (in essence, the margin becomes the
center and the center becomes the margin). This is an important
aspect of literacy for it begins to open up the traditional definition
of literacy; deliberate repositioning allows for the multiple layers
of literacy to be exposed and highlights why it is not enough to say
that literacy is the ability to read and write.

By asking that individuals consider both the margin and center,
Ellsworth and hooks provide a way of redefining literacy in ways
that closely align with Gee's definition. Like Gee, Ellsworth and
hooks acknowledge multiple contexts (discourses); yet their
discussion of what can be learned by deliberately repositioning one's
self at different points along the center and margin adds a new
dimension to Gee's definition. Awareness of one's own position with
regard to literacy, as well as an awareness of others' positions,
hints strongly of another dimension of literacy, that of Freire's
notion of praxis, reflection and action on the world with the goal of
transforming it (1970/1992, p. 119), a dimension I believe is
necessary in order to be fully literate.

Including reflection and action components is important
because it is through reflection and action that one can become
aware of issues like voice, position, and power that are inherent in

literacy. In the next section, I describe what I mean by these three

22

terms and Why I t

sues with regart

issues l Voicr

In order for
aiariety ol literac
:t rdce. position.

section. I exa

m VOi<
he piece of text
tsgh the author
esccnent oi voic
.se it, the conce

titles that shi

n . .
.....

terms and why I believe it is necessary to examine these kinds of

issues with regard to literacy learning in school contexts.

I i P i i n P W

In order for students to develop full and powerful control over
a variety of literacy discourses, they need to have an understanding
of voice, position, and power associated with literacy discourses. In

this section, I examine each of these issues.

1919;, Voice is often thought of as the presence of an author
in a piece of text (the personal style of the author as evidenced
through the author's use of language, tone, etc. ). While this as a
component of voice, what I mean by the term is something more. As
I use it, the concept of voice includes the idea that a person
recognizes that she or he has something to say and can say it. Voice
is not something that one person can give to another; voice is
something that exists in all of us. As Macedo says, " [Voice] is not a
gift. Voice is a human right. It is a democratic right" (1994, p. 4).
Although voice exists in all of us, it is not always heard by others,
either because we believe or have been told that what we have to
say is "not important enough," or because we choose not to assert
our voices. When this is the case, however, voice is still there; it is
just quiet, though I suspect it often is articulated through some

form of passive or active nonverbal resistance.

23

tastiest

rat at position. i

 

rccation...the up?“3
7353). in order to
assesses. a persc
us: That is. dis:
scat context an
:atcdarly importa
re discourse of pr
..d discourse
scan: it is the d.
:suuse is either
Cues-spied one (2
maze the varic
if: may be View
Oten, those
fiesta-rid that the
379’ lwhites, me

it hat

they are a
sand stem is) U
‘at‘he way I Vie"
t‘.’i' the result it
5st or that a part
t 1988; Mcln

Ses Occupy

‘-.
ect-

Mitten. The second concept that is necessary to consider is
that of position. The literal definition of position is "a place or
location...the appropriate place" (American Heritage Dictionary,
1983). In order to think about and use your own and others'
discourses, a person needs to understand where those discourses
exist. That is, discourses need to be understood within the larger
social context and in relation to other, different discourses. This is
particularly important with regard to the discourse perceived to be
the discourse of power within a particular setting. Whatever the
accepted discourse, it is the one accorded privilege within a social
context; it is the discourse of the center. Understanding that one's
discourse is either the "accepted" one (the one at the center) or an
"unaccepted" one (among those at the margins) allows a person to
recognize the various perspectives (or positions) from which the
world may be viewed.

Often, those at the margins (minorities, women, "illiterates")
understand that they are in fact at the margin, while those at the
center (whites, members of the middle-class, males) often fail to
see that they are at the center. While this lack of recognition may
be (and often is) unintentional, based on the unexamined assumption
that "the way I view the world is the way everyone views the
world," the result is a lack of understanding that other perspectives
exist or that a particular perspective may be oppressive to others
(Delpit, 1988; McIntosh, 1988). By understanding that different
discourses occupy different positions, a person can consciously
decide to reposition a particular discourse in order to think about it

differently in relation to other discourses. For example, by placing

24

re Standard Eng'
i‘enacular at the
an something a

tner‘can society

9.01% 0
use is that of c
tcston. when a
:cston within a
:‘i‘i‘ieged discour.
'aie mastered th.
it: have not mas

Mainstream

scnool-base

them and d:

toolish view.

TiiEy iOtesh

the Standard English discourse at the margin and Black English
Vernacular at the center, a person could view both differently and
learn something about each, and about power relations within

American society as well.

ML. One further issue central to the literacy described
above is that of power. As indicated in the previous section on
position, when a particular discourse is afforded the central
position within a social context, that discourse becomes a
privileged discourse, relative to other discourses, and those who
have mastered that discourse are privileged at the expense of those
who have not mastered the discourse, as Gee (1990) makes clear.

Mainstream dominant Discourses...and in particular

school-based Discourses, privilege [those] who have mastered

them and do significant harm to others. They involve us in
foolish views about other human beings and their Discourses.

They foreshorten our view of human nature, human diversity

and the capacities for human change and development. They

render us complicit with a denial of 'goods', including full
human worth, to other humans, including many children. They
imply that some children--including many black, Chicano,
native American and other children who disproportionately fail
in school--mean less than other children. (p. 191, emphasis in
original)

Generally, the power bestowed on a particular discourse is
given by those already fluent in that particular discourse. Thus,

those who are fluent in the standard discourse are most likely to be

25

the ones who at?

tistcillsei white if

 

tier are often t
attantages the Sta
nest people who
ismrse are one:
:ancilar discourse

eath-nship is pteSi

 

zereiit lrom this re
:sadiantage that it
asantage the retat
:uer and its reia’.
tutti-icintosh, 19:

Understanding
taint the poiitica'
Z“trays in which i.
iiiiical level anc‘
sense; to be a mi
Wig those soc

the individgats‘

the ones who achieve political and economic power within the
discourse, while those who do not or can not speak the discourse of
power are often times denied access to the political and economic
advantages the standard discourse provides. While many (perhaps
most) people who are fluent in and derive benefits from a privileged
discourse are unaware that there is a close relationship between a
particular discourse and political and economic power, that
relationship is present nevertheless. Unless and until those who
benefit from this relationship acknowledge not only the
disadvantage that relationship may cause for others, but the
advantage the relationship creates for themselves, the issue of
power and its relationship to discourse will remain hidden from
view (McIntosh, 1988).

Understanding that voice, position, and power are inherently
part of the political aspects of literacy sheds a different light on
the ways in which literacy can shape people's lives, at both an
individual level and societal level. Literacy has traditionally been
assumed to be a means for improving one's life, and more broadly, of
improving those societies in which there is a high percentage of
literate individuals. An important component of this assumption is
the idea that literacy is an independent object that can be "added on"
to a person's life or mixed into a society's context to make life
better. Thus, by adding more literacy, people or societies weak
("deficient") in literacy will be made better. However, this
traditional assumption may not be completely valid (Graft, 1979).
The literacy-as-ingredient view fails to take into account the

embeddedness of literacy within a variety of contexts or to

26

    
  

recognize the d)"
sewer and cocoa.

So, what do
Serraps not l'lltJCih
"0'8 traditional or
adherent kind 0‘
are ditterent from

discourse. SimD‘Y L

 

set not be enougi'
seueen the discou

se in the r

Difference:

The body of t
See's. (Caikins. 19E
Sage and Samue

:2.an those interi
feztional literacy

tau-do, 1994). T .a
u: it reduces liter;
=-::ssedty hierarchi

I
:On
\6
o )1}.
‘h

ed. Further,

3.

6r Certain s

'
é.
w'i

The result i
a -
' adding 0T lite.
$537 it
~ a knowled
n i u

" a
fly, ODDOTTLH

recognize the dynamic relationship between literacy and issues of
power and economics.

80, what does all of this have to do with children in school?
Perhaps not much if the children are learning a literacy based on a
more traditional definition; perhaps a great deal if they are learning
a different kind of literacy. For children whose ideas about literacy
are different from those who have acquired a privileged literacy
discourse, simply "adding on" aspects of the privileged discourse
may not be enough to help children understand the relationships
between the discourse of power and other kinds of literacy

discourse. In the next section, I examine why this is so.

Qijjgms Among school Literacy Discourses

The body of knowledge about literacy has expanded in recent
years, (Calkins, 1983; Gough, 1971; Graves, 1983; Hillocks, 1986;
LaBerge and Samuels, 1974; Moll, 1990; Wixson and Peters, 1984)
causing those interested in literacy education to reexamine
traditional literacy instruction (Allington, 1991; Brown, 1991;
Macedo, 1994). That instruction has been criticized on the grounds
that it reduces literacy to a series of fragmented skills. Although
supposedly hierarchical in nature, these skills can appear to be
unrelated. Further, the hierarchical approach often requires children
to master certain skills before moving on to others (Allington,
1991). The result is that children often have little or no holistic
understanding of literacy, nor do they see connections among
literacy and knowledge generally. In addition, children are provided

few, if any, opportunities to construct their own meanings from

27

:ext. let alone it
1994).

Moreover. C

 

 

 

edits to conside'
retraction. First
and constructive r
“936; Wertsch, 19
children's knowlec;
Fi'aliy, literacy in.

Teachers and stude

 

teeth. 1983: Mona

Further, those
tension perspect.
suction within tr
scraping. Some r

easy instruction

‘iieiir Within Ar

text, let alone think critically about text (Brown, 1991; Macedo,
1994)

Moreover, current understandings about learning suggest three
points to consider with regard to a discourse for literacy
instruction. First, literacy instruction should consider the social
and constructive nature of thinking and learning (Vygotsky, 1978,
1986; Wertsch, 1991). Second, literacy instruction should consider
children's knowledge of literacy acquired outside of school settings.
Finally, literacy instruction should consider the different discourses
teachers and students bring with them to school (Au, 1980, 1993;
Heath, 1983; Michaels, 1981; Moll, 1990).

Further, those interested in literacy from a critical theory of
education perspective view traditional approaches to literacy
instruction within the larger framework of the political purposes of
schooling. Some of those critics believe that this traditional
literacy instruction contributes to the reproduction of social
inequality within American society (Freire, 1970/1992; Gee, 1990;
Macedo, 1994). They argue that instruction needs to change in ways
that will help students understand the political nature of literacy.
Changes would also help students acquire the kind of literacy that
will provide them the means to change society, making it more
equitable for marginalized groups. ,

Classrooms in which teachers are trying to help their students
become meaning makers with regard to literacy may serve as sites
where issues of voice, position, and power are explored by students.
For example, Delpit (1988) describes the teaching of Martha

Demientieff, a Native Alaskan teacher, who actively points out the

28

 

themes in usa
3i her students ir
seccnuniiies for .
exist within Ame":i
:n’caily about an:
use social reprc
Thus, in ctas

;'=.:tice in light of

 

sediscourse for IE
sues! discourses.
snore detail in la
restsdy, however
3935i instruction

Me:

My reading 01

. , .
“I": {an

‘ 'wCes 33 an .

$95 tutoring Yr

exceriences as a

differences in usage between standard English and the English used
by her students in their village. This kind of teaching provides
opportunities for students to explore the different discourses that
exist within American society and may also help students think
critically about and act to counter educational practices that tend to
foster social reproduction (Giroux, 1981).

Thus, in classrooms where teachers are trying to align their
practice in light of current understandings about literacy education,
the discourse for learning may be quite different from previous
school discourses. This issue, and its implications, will be explored
in more detail in later chapters. Before turning to the remainder of
the study, however, I first describe my vision of what appropriate
literacy instruction "looks like," in light of the issues I have

outlined above.

A F I N

My reading of the research in preparation for this study, my
experiences as an elementary teacher, and my work with preservice
teachers tutoring young children struggling with reading, as well as
my experiences as a learner, have all shaped the way in which I think
about literacy instruction, teaching and learning. That thinking, in
turn, influenced what I saw and experienced‘in this study and the
way in which I interpreted my data. While my perspective was the
result of a coming together of various and complex influences, that
perspective was also a beginning one. Like all learners, I, too, have
a zone of proximal development, and the understandings with which I

began this study evolved as a result of the study. The voices,

29

 

actions and expe
students and their
:in intellectual ct,

assumptions l DVD

  
 

zir'uence what I. 8

Li
As I discusse

it a variety of way

 

rays in which They
atzizgon, teachers h
eating. These tdE
Tut. a variety of sc
and the knowledge

sane their unders‘.

5“,“

actions and experiences (as l interpreted them) of the first-grade
students and their teacher helped me push at the boundaries of my
own intellectual development. Below I discuss the values and
assumptions I brought to the study, since they have the potential to

influence what I, as the researcher, see in a classroom under study.

T I tr 1 n I

As I discussed earlier in this chapter, literacy can be defined
in a variety of ways, and how teachers define literacy influences the
ways in which they create an instructional program for students. In
addition, teachers have knowledge and beliefs about learners and
learning. These ideas about literacy, learners, and learning come
from a variety of sources. Teachers' own experiences as learners
and the knowledge accumulated through years of teaching practice
shape their understanding (Clandinin, 1985; Cole, 1990; Lortie,
1975). Knowledge gained through coursework, staff development,
and professional reading also adds to teachers' understanding. The
explicit and implicit theories about literacy, learners, and learning
that emerge from the confluence of these knowledge sources frame
teachers' thinking about their instructional programs.

Because all teachers bring to the classroom a unique mix of
experiences and learning, no two literacy instructional programs are
exactly the same. However, there are four components common to
any literacy instructional program: curriculum content, instructional
methods, use of physical space, and classroom community. In some
ways, these components are analogous to the components used to

build a house. Every house, for example, has structural elements

30

 

reel, walls, fl IC'
list every house I
materials that :a.’
categories. St l'.
unponent ca egil
teachers can m;
rst'uctional p cg'
scnponents a e '

and iearning ( ‘39

 

(roof, walls, floors), plumbing fixtures, and an electrical system.
Not every house looks the same, however, because of choices about
materials that can be made within each of these component
categories. So it is with literacy instruction. For each of the
component categories, there exists a variety of ways in which
teachers can implement a particular component within their
instructional program. What influences teachers' choices about the
components are their knowledge and beliefs about literacy, learners,

and learning (see Figure 1).

31

ssssss
oooooooooooooooo
uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu
ooooooooooooooooooooooooo

ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

   

 

ooooooooooooooooo

Physlcal .................. C|a88r°om

. i i i I Space .................. Community

   
   
   
   
        

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

Commnenfs Of any ..................

.................. LIteracyProgp-am

nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn

ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

 

 

ooooooooooooooooooooooooo

........ Curriculum Instructional
....... content ....-............ Methods .......

oooooooooooooooooooooooo

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

......... The teacher's explicitand implicittheories . . . . . .
' : : : : : : :altoutlteracyalearners; andrlearrrlneupait: : : : : : '
------- influence his or.herliteraoy-program.- - - - - -

oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

 
 
       

 

00000000000000000

..........

Figure 1-Core Components of Any Literacy Program

32

:‘escnbe my thir.

issues my ideas

peers about those
effigy earlier in
{re reader to Da'
resent a hYDOi"
ital literacy ins
Throughout the s-
.rforms my instrt.
:ef‘et's about the
unpcnents. Int
tccponents Wou':

i.. ,,
asters students’

tcsition.

Wt

A” teachers
iifi' A
"'aby programs

he instructional rr

rev . .
is In which lea

he =
M Di CiaSSfr

self students

. ln
Itits.

  
   
 
 
  

 

In this section, I explicate the theories and ideas about
literacy programs that I brought to the study. First, I define and
describe my thinking about each of the four components. I then
discuss my ideas about learners and learning that have shaped my
views about those components. Having discussed my ideas about
literacy earlier in the chapter, I will not revisit them here and refer
the reader to pages 12-27 for that discussion. In the third section, I
present a hypothetical "typical day" sketch in order to illustrate
what literacy instruction might "look like" in my classroom.
Throughout the sketch, I point out how each of the components
informs my instruction, and the ways in which my own theories and
beliefs about literacy, learners, and learning shape those
components. In the final section, I step back to describe how these
components would come together to create an environment that
fosters students' understandings of discourse, voice, power, and

position.

1‘ i a In tr ti I Pr
All teachers, whether they realize it or not, build their
literacy programs around four components: the curriculum content,
the instructional methods teachers use to teach that content, the
ways in which teachers arrange the physical space for learning, and
the kind of classroom community teachers foster among and with
their students. In this section, I define and describe how I use these

terms.

33

   
   
  

were
use the term. Thi-
ccntent processei
and content procr
:cntext clues are
an to use conte-
feet or figuratiu-
rderstanding of .
553')“ or use con:

Additionally
35bit Certain c
”7553‘! 10 know
attitude that Value
sud-ant has to de
titted ab0ut in 8
"at math' or 'he

.-—‘

 

701:0” . .
hmk'”9 a.

at: f
Of What prpr

515M.

is
aware of issue:
~"ini .

s...
I 0 CO
n
tar: 8‘

ChOiCe When
. .v‘aiilciliiar tone
f"

 

W This term refers to what will be learned. As I
use the term, this would include "knowledge about content and
content processes" and "knowledge about how to apply or use content
and content processes." For example, students might know what
context clues are (knowing about content), but they must also learn
how to use context clues to decode unknown words, determine
literal or figurative meaning of words, or construct an
understanding of the tone of a piece of text (knowledge about how to
apply or use content and content processes).

Additionally, curriculum would include helping students
develop certain dispositions towards content areas (such as a
curiosity to know how things work or a desire to read), as well as an
attitude that values content areas. This does not mean every
student has to develop a deep affection for every content area
learned about in school. There are, however, too many students who
"hate math" or "hate writing" because they don't see the value of this
content for their own lives.

Curriculum also refers to metacognitive knowledge used to
monitor thinking about content and about how, when, to what extent,
and for what purpose one uses content or content processes. For
example, knowledge of the writing process would enable a writer to
be aware of issues like tone and word choice and know how to apply
them in a piece of writing. Metacognitive knowledge would enable
that writer to consider the appropriateness of a particular tone and
word choice when writing for a specific audience and to notice when

a particular tone might not be appropriate.

34

wmhe CUrr

 

'tnowing how' \
:cirard that con;
atsct the center
inaeed, curriculu'
earned. Some c
aa-dut what stude

tunucas canno

 

ccr'iculum to te

For exampil
scents need to
arises in deciding
fornostiy) to M

i"—.
we:

tern Europea

While curriculum concerns itself with "knowing what" and
"knowing how" with regard to content, with fostering a disposition
toward that content, and with the ability to monitor one's thinking
about the content, curriculum does not exist free of influences.
Indeed, curriculum is influenced by who decides what should be
learned. Some curriculum comes from generally agreed upon ideas
about what students should know, although problems do arise when
individuals cannot agree on which particular aspects of that
curriculum to teach.

For example, most people in the United States would agree that
students need to become familiar with great literature. The problem
arises in deciding what literature is "great." Does that refer only
(or mostly) to works written prior to 1950 by white males from a
Western European tradition, or does it include a more global
representation, including works written since 1950 or those by
women and people of color? Most Americans would also agree that
students should learn about the democratic process, but there might
be wide disagreement about how to depict that process. Is an
amendment against flag burning an example of protecting the
constitution or of assaulting it?

Further, there is the issue of who makes the decisions about
what is to be learned. Textbooks publishers, state boards of
education, local school boards, parents, administrators, teachers,
and students all have the potential to influence what is taught in the
classroom. I will use the term curriculum to refer to the "what" of
content, process, and metacognitive knowledge that actually is put

forth to be learned in a classroom. A curriculum may come from

35

textbooks: state
students. Wt it

curriculum Uniqi“;

Instructi0

 

ears to how Ci
can range from I.
tenselves to tin
st.dants. or to St

aspear a teacher

 

 

 

isas widely diiie
case. Different
:t‘erent kinds of
he instructional
Carticuiar confer

For exampii

ire-.nzng becaus

textbooks, state and district guidelines, the teacher, parents and
students, but it is still a distinctive subset of all possible

curriculum unique to a particular classroom.

W The phrase "instructional methods"

refers to how curriculum content is taught. Instructional methods
can range from unguided, pure discovery of content by students
themselves to the teacher's direct transmission of content to
students, or to some combination of methods. On the surface, it may
appear a teacher lacks a coherent vision for instruction if he or she
uses widely different methods in teaching, but this may not be the
case. Different instructional methods are better suited for

different kinds of learning, and a teacher may deliberately select
one instructional method over another to better support learning of
particular content.

For example, a teacher may use the method of telling the class
something because that is the quickest way to convey a small but
important piece of information students need in order to construct
meaning as they discuss a topic. To understand why a teacher uses a
particular method, one needs to understand the underlying purpose of
the learning. As with the word "curriculum," I use the phrase
"instructional methods" to refer to the distinctive combination of
methods used by a teacher in a particular classroom, not to the full

range of methods available.

Wm Physical space refers to the actual

classroom, the furnishings and materials in it, and the ways in

36

which those ma
ciassroom. AS

arrangement of

:ra‘i‘ide CiUBS tO
exarnple, a roortr
seas learning as
money for tables
arcs-urages studi
nnented another
sassroom watch

together, or if ta

{in

as, might one
:o;crtunities for

In addition
aranged within a
sec refers to th
anangements of

"Q‘S‘Jtar tabiei

r!”-
U?
U

rneat'n the t.

which those materials and furniture are arranged within the
classroom. As with instructional methods, the kinds and
arrangement of furniture found in a classroom may or may not
provide clues to the kind of learning environment present there. For
example, a room filled with individual desks may indicate a teacher
sees learning as an individual endeavor, or it may mean there is no
money for tables. A room filled with tables may mean a teacher
encourages students to work together, or it may mean a teacher has
inherited another teacher's furniture. Only after spending time in a
classroom watching to see if desks or students are ever clustered
together, or if talk is heard among students sitting together at
tables, might one begin to form some ideas about students'
opportunities for learning.

In addition to the ways in which materials and furniture are
arranged within a classroom, my use of the phrase “physical space”
also refers to the empty spaces that result from particular
arrangements of furniture. For example, if a teacher uses
rectangular tables, one of the empty spaces that results is the area
underneath the tables, and a teacher may or may not allow students
to use this space. Other empty spaces may be large enough for the
class to sit together on the floor or for only two people to sit

together comfortably in a corner nook while reading.

W11, When teachers and teacher

educators talk about classroom community, they often mean the kind
of classroom environment in which students work and share with

one another in order to support one another's learning. Additionally,

37

its an 9mm“

interacting wrth

 

foe front Of the
conceptualizing
phase. When l
people who makl
aetets, and dis‘
* J;- tne concept I
communal in net
when citizens d
tiessrooms in v
‘rdfvgdual seats
Vet. these gatr
communities,
The kind
573 Students 0'
enmity Within

399 tCl tatk wit
cs;

it is an environment in which the teacher moves about the classroom
interacting with small groups or individuals, rather than standing at
the front of the room lecturing (Short, 1990). This is one way of
conceptualizing classroom community, but it is not how I define the
phrase. When I speak of a classroom community, I mean the group of
people who make up a class of learners and teacher and the norms,
beliefs, and distribution of authority within that setting. This opens
up the concept to include classrooms that are not necessarily
communal in nature. Just as there are towns and neighborhoods in
which citizens do not interact much with one another, there are
classrooms in which students work quietly by themselves at their
individual seats and in which the teacher does most of the talking.
Yet, these gatherings of individuals are still considered
communities.

The kind of classroom community that develops among teacher
and students depends on the norms, beliefs, and distribution of
authority within that classroom. Classrooms in which students are
free to talk without first being acknowledged by the teacher are of a
different nature than are classrooms in which the teacher initiates,
regulates, and sanctions talk among students. Classrooms in which
competition is de-emphasized and cooperation emphasized will have
a different “feel" than classrooms in which the reverse is true. It is
therefore important for teachers to explore their norms, beliefs, and
views about authority and to consider the ways in which those
beliefs and norms interact with the other components described

above.

38

Together.
space of the ole
classroom are
teachers and st.
oi that terrain.
is also depende'
learning. This is

gearning shape .
an the physical
'iistrate how tea
learners Shape C
aid emotional 5p

5 beéiels have

 

 

5.13277,- i.
Wing my OW

ld
eas and Beli

I believe in
can the world i
tie in learning.

:39 to interact wi

ate visible othe

Together, the curriculum, instructional methods, physical
space of the classroom, and sense of community within the
classroom are important elements of the literacy terrain in which
teachers and students move about, but these elements are only part
of that terrain. The literacy terrain students are invited to explore
is also dependent on teachers' ideas and beliefs about learners and
learning. This is so because teachers' beliefs about learners and
learning shape their ideas about curriculum, instructional methods,
and the physical and emotional arrangements of classrooms. To
illustrate how teachers' ideas and beliefs about learning and
learners shape curriculum, instructional methods, and the physical
and emotional space of the classroom, I will describe how my ideas
and beliefs have shaped my own classroom instruction. I begin by

examining my own beliefs and ideas about learners and learning.

I f L rner n Le min

I believe individuals learn by constructing their knowledge
about the world in social settings, and that talk plays an important
role in learning. According to Vygotsky (1978), talk is a tool humans
use to interact with others about thoughts and ideas. Talking helps
make visible others' thought processes and reveals to others (and
ourselves) our own thoughts. In making thoughts visible through talk
in classrooms, students are able to "see" different ways of thinking.
As students internalize those ways of thinking, they become part of
the students' own ways of thinking.

Further, social situations provide opportunities for students to

learn more with others than they might on their own. Working with

39

amore knowlec
their ability to t'
"ill in the gaps
example. when
bald on his or i
realize he or sh:
third 3 piece of
construct an un:
szat‘olding or 5L
05.50. move beyc
it‘ll supported

5 the area boun

 

 

 

 

asset-ed ability I
p.86).

The zone c
:saggests that .
trailedgeable pf

jEt'IQE
.iopmema, '6‘

a more knowledgeable peer or with an adult, students can extend
their ability to think about ideas because the peer or adult can help
”fill in the gaps“ in the children's thinking. This happens, for
example, when an adult asks a child questions that help the child
build on his or her knowledge or tap into knowledge the child doesn't
realize he or she has. Further, the adult or peer can often provide a
child a piece of the knowledge puzzle, as it were, to help the child
construct an understanding. Providing assistance through
scaffolding or supplying needed information are ways of helping the
child move beyond his or her independent ability level to a level of
ability supported by assistance (Cazden, 1983). Vygotsky referred
to the area bounded by the child's independent ability level and the
assisted ability level as the "zone of proximal development" (1978,
p. 86).

The zone of proximal development is an important idea because
it suggests that children who are provided assistance from a more
knowledgeable peer or adult can learn to do more than what their
developmental level might indicate. By this, I do not mean to imply
that children should be pushed to do more cognitively than they are
able. Rather, the notion of the zone of proximal development
suggests that children's literacy growth and development might be
better supported through the use of assisted learning experiences.
The concept of the zone of proximal development and the idea that
learning is social in nature influence the way I think about
curriculum, instruction, my classroom setup and the kind of

classroom community I would create.

40

For example, sinc
students are able to c:
interactions, I would d'

I.
netnods designed to to
Support that kind of cu
torture and empty spa.
archer. Further. since
azhooledge that childre-
asense at community ir
tee seen as knowledge

tot rest solely with me c

 

it curriculum, instruc
:assroom community in

sec-enally in light of res

At one time. it was

tiered the most signifICE
ntlors, 1991; Skinner.

55v '

fluent View began to e'

Itto "
SDenIic understandu

:, I-
. than languages (Chi

:‘eEQTCh indicates this in

For example, since I believe learning is enhanced when
students are able to construct their understandings through social
interactions, I would draw from a curriculum and use instructional
methods designed to foster social interactions among students. To
support that kind of curriculum and instruction, I would arrange
furniture and empty spaces to encourage students to talk with one
another. Further, since I view learning as a social process and
acknowledge that children can learn from one another, I would foster
a sense of community in which all students, as well as the teacher,
were seen as knowledgeable. Thus, the authority for knowing would
not rest solely with me or the textbooks. The case for thinking
about curriculum, instructional methods, the physical setting, and
classroom community in this way is applicable to literacy learning,
especially in light of research on children's language acquisition.

At one time, it was generally believed that the environment
played the most significant role in children's language learning
(Lindfors, 1991; Skinner, 1957). Beginning in the late 19505, a
different view began to emerge. Children were seen as being born
with specific understandings about language structures common to
all human languages (Chomsky, 1957; Lindfors, 1991). More current
research indicates this internal capacity for language does not mean
children are born knowing the content of language (Lindfors, 1991).
Rather, it seems children are driven to be active constructors of
language knowledge, using an innate problem-solving ability to look
for patterns, draw inferences, and make decisions about the
structure of the language they will eventually acquire (Donaldson,

1979; Lindfors, 1991; Slobin, 1979).

41

Children are nov
situated language '65"
(997; Vygotsky, 1978l
out the words and gra
55mg that language ll
indifferent social setl
éteracy instruction wo
:ecsion to draw lrorr
tat encouraged child
'entorced.

Likewise, my cr
nembers were seen 2
news regarding the
aliome. Research t
others has helped me
je’r‘iloo about Iangua
5591199 might be
555555 my Students

tell.

My Ullderstandi

lip
ch students Wer e

Children are now seen as active participants in socially
situated language learning experiences (Lindfors, 1991; Morrow,
1997; Vygotsky, 1978). That is, not only do children actively seek
out the words and grammar of their native language by hearing and
seeing that language in use, they also learn how to use that language
in different social settings and for different social purposes. My
literacy instruction would be informed by these ideas and my
decision to draw from a curriculum and mix of instructional methods
that encouraged children to work and talk together would be
reinforced.

Likewise, my creation of a classroom community in which all
members wereseen as knowledgeable would be reinforced by my
views regarding the value of children's literacy knowledge acquired
at home. Research by Au (1980), Heath (1983), Michaels (1981), and
others has helped me understand and value the knowledge children
develop about language before they come to school. While that
knowledge might be different from my own, I recognize that it has
enabled my students to communicate their needs and desires quite
well.

My understanding would help me create an environment in
which students were not empty vessels waiting to be filled, but
active, knowledgeable learners, as their ability to learn a highly
abstract concept like language demonstrates. Further, my
understanding about learners and the kinds of knowledge they bring
with them to the classroom would help me look for their strengths,

rather than for their deficits, in learning. I would then plan

42

 

coniculum “Sing those
steps for learning.
Understanding t
to school. and looking
alow me to see the
Without my understar
inwledge children bl
new a child who spo‘r
:*assroom because of
language. culture, am
new that same child
about the functions 0
hechild acquire En
Finally, becaus
asslengths, not we
inns of literacy that
[advocate requiring c
55‘5“. I would im

i as a class, we

curriculum using those strengths to help address students' next
steps for learning.

Understanding the range of knowledge children bring with them
to school, and looking for strengths rather than deficits would also
allow me to see the diversity among my learners differently.
Without my understanding of the varied cultural and linguistic
knowledge children bring with them to school, I might, for example,
view a child who spoke only Spanish as unable to learn in my
classroom because of a language "deficit." Because I think about
language, culture, and home literacy experiences as I do, | instead
view that same child as someone who already knows a great deal
about the functions of language, and I can use that knowledge to help
the child acquire English.

Finally, because I view these cultural and linguistic variations
as strengths, not weaknesses, I also have a broad view about the
kinds of literacy that should be allowed in schools. I do not
advocate requiring children to leave their home language at home.
Instead, I would invite children to bring that knowledge with them
and as a class, we would use the variety within our classroom to
examine larger issues about discourse. Children whose parents
speak only Spanish should, I believe be allowed to write in Spanish
as needed. If my class were writing Mother's Day cards, for
example, I certainly would expect a child whose mother spoke
Spanish to write the card in Spanish. To do otherwise would
unnecessarily create a barrier between parent and child.

Inviting in all languages and dialects does not mean, however,

that I would not teach English. I fully recognize the value of

43

roaming the kind of
and most jobs. Ice
English in ways tha‘
other their educati-
create within my ci
students would lear
iaued by schools a
naintain their home

In light of my
woold I bring toget
instructional methoc
C's-ate a literacy ir

.‘h
.e next section, I

learning the kind of English that provides access to more schooling
and most jobs. I certainly want my students to be able to use
English in ways that will provide them a range of choices as they
further their education and join the work force. However, I would
create within my classroom the kind of literacy community in which
students would learn that they could acquire the kind of English
valued by schools and the larger society and at the same time,
maintain their home language or dialect.

In light of my ideas about literacy, learners, and learning, how
would I bring together the four components of curriculum,
instructional methods, use of the physical space, and community to
create a literacy instructional program within my classroom? In
the next section, I present a vignette of what my instruction might

look like, given my ideas and beliefs.

stepping into my Classmgm
Stepping into my classroom, the first thing you likely would

notice would be the sound of children talking, to me and to their
peers. You might also notice children scattered about the room,
some sitting together in groups at tables, others on the floor,
working in various-sized groups or alone. If you moved about the
room and looked at the children's work, you might see that they were
researching and writing about some aspect of state history in
preparation for sharing with the class their "movie?" depicting a

particular ethnic group's settlement of the state.

 

2 These movies would be very "low tech" consisting of long sheets of
paper rolled into scrolls. On the scrolls would be colored marker

44

If you Iislened I

ioestions like 'Why dc

 

right also hear stude
about an idea or proce
no moving about the
easier questions studi~
that the talk, the nal
students, and my row
on my part to create al
about the ways in whic
ateacher in suppomp:
Using an instruct
5959' in groves and

reflects my belief that I

 

 

argoage by being tarot

:irerent kinds of settin

3%?!

i, not would provide
I would do to compl
Silent

swi

th differing i

 

If you listened to some of the conversations, you might hear
questions like "Why do you think so?" or “How do you know?" You
might also hear students or me explaining to others our thinking
about an idea or procedure. If you were to watch me, you would see
me moving about the room, stopping to ask students questions or
answer questions students asked of me. What you might not realize
is that the talk, the nature of that talk, the social gathering of the
students, and my roving would be reflections of a deliberate effort
on my part to create an instructional program based on my beliefs
about the ways in which children learn language and about my role as
a teacher in supporting students' language learning.

Using an instructional approach in which students work
together in groups and talk with one another about their work
reflects my belief that children learn, and learn how to use,
language by being provided opportunities to actually utilize it in
different kinds of settings and for different purposes. Working
together would provide my students the chance to negotiate what
they would do to complete the assignment, resolve conflicts among
students with differing ideas, and explain and clarify their ideas
about the content to one another. As the students wrote their
scripts, they would likely discuss how to phrase their commentary
in ways that helped their audience understand the important points.

Providing students opportunities to talk would support their

 

pictures of the ethnic group's milestones in the settlement of the
state. When completed, the scrolls would be wound around cardboard
cylinders on which paper towels once were rolled and "shown" on
cardboard-box-screens by rolling the paper from one cylinder to the
other.

45

knowledge about la!
their interactions ‘

As the childri
particular settler g-r
about the content.
had about the come
Thus, the group WC
thinking about the
among students wo
students would sha
anong students.

If you had asl
was an assessmen
:rorided me inform
335W. Rather than
'isoonse from stud
5We in on the
inking about the c

ff. a
”tie a student's

knowledge about language and how to use it appropriately through
their interactions with others.

As the children discussed important points about their
particular settler groups, they would be listening to others' ideas
about the content, possibly clarifying any points of confusion they
had about the content, and perhaps seeing the content in new ways.
Thus, the group work would provide windows into each others'
thinking about the content. Additionally, this kind of interaction
among students would reflect the sense of community, in which
students would share the authority for knowing, that l fostered
among students.

If you had asked me about my roving, I would have told you this
was an assessment aspect of my instructional methodology that
provided me information about any misconceptions I might need to
clarify. Rather than depending on a show of hands or a short answer
response from students to check their understanding of concepts, my
listening in on their conversations would allow me to hear their
thinking about the concept. Thus, I would have a better sense of
where a student's understanding broke down. I could then build on
that understanding by asking a question that could scaffold or extend
the student's thinking within his or her zone of proximal
development. _

If you continued to visit in my classroom, you might see me
teach a lesson on the use of the comma to set off the name of a
person being addressed in a piece of writing. I probably would write
my favorite sentence for this lesson, "Let's eat Grandma," on the

board, then ask the children to tell me what it meant. At first, many

46

night say it was a 5
unknown speaker to
discussion, someone
sentence could have
The class and I wou
is related conventio
it this case, how a
safe.

YOU might als<
rude language gam‘
children understand
i'lE‘j’ COUld use langt
hatched, y0u Would
we” a sentence c
ten select from a C
55W addr
wage .H 935 that I

8y there!“
55,10 greet (

, a) the
lend, of (C)

might say it was a statement directed at Grandma for she and the
unknown speaker to get something to eat. At some point in the
discussion, someone might realize (or I would suggest) that the
sentence could have another meaning--Grandma was on the menu!
The class and I would then talk about how we could use language and
its related conventions to help readers understand what we meant,
in this case, how a comma could change a sentence from sinister to
safe.

You might also observe my students playing some teacher-
made language games. I would have designed these games to help the
children understand the different informal and formal ways in which
they could use language when writing or speaking to others. As you
watched, you would see a student select a card on which was
written a sentence or phrase. The student would read the phrase,
then select from a choice of three the audience to which he or she
might address that phrase. For example, a card might have the
phrase "Hey there!" and a statement reading, "This phrase might be a
way to greet (a) the president of the United States, (B) your best
friend, or (C) your parents." Other cards might ask students to
consider word choice in writing for a particular audience. For
example, a card might read, "When talking with your parents about a
raise in your allowance which word might be a better choice to use
in the sentence "I a raise in my allowance." (A) request,
(8) demand, (C) need.

The games would have been designed to help the children
understand that some choices are clearly inappropriate (as in

demanding a raise in an allowancel), while other choices might

47

depend on the come
achild this"t say to
child were late for ‘
ohrase. During 0Ur
students and me tal
words to create a IT
certain mood.

You might havu
ei'eglone. including t
linown to the class
might have observec
others about their co
one to me insisting
ll‘ClJld have watched
ii'ery books for 'is."

What you WOUIC
593599 games. our

oer
oerate attempt to
m9

but more subtle

I longs like comma
C

ro-
.lthat I had tried t:

depend on the context in which the comment was made. For example,
a child might say to a parent “Hey there!" in one context, but if the
child were late for dinner, he or she likely would not use that
phrase. During our reading groups, you might have observed my
students and me take time to discuss the author's use of particular
words to create a mental image of the setting or to suggest a
certain mood.

You might have observed time during the day in which
everyone, including the teacher, "Dropped Everything and Read"
(known to the class as DEAR time). During writing workshop, you
might have observed my students writing, reading, and talking with
others about their compositions. You might have seen some students
come to me insisting they had to use "be" verbs in their writing. You
would have watched as I invited them to analyze their textbooks and
library books for "is," "am" and "was," then discuss their findings.

What you would have seen during the lesson on commas, the
language games, our reading groups, and writing workshop was my
deliberate attempt to help students learn not only how to read and
write, but more subtle aspects of how language is used and enhanced
by things like commas and word choice. I would have explained to
you that I had tried to develop a curriculum in which students
learned specific content knowledge (for example, learning (about
commas and be verbs, as well as learning the skills and strategies
that would enable the students to know when and how to use commas
and be verbs), metaknowledge about the content (as with the
language games and peer discussion during writers' workshop) and

knowledge about the process associated with the content area (as

48

with the process 0
have shared my be
also developing a d
earning. Thus. m'
develop that desire
the.

You would al
curriculum derived
curriculum guides.
students' needs. be
comes, for exam
language arts. The
examination of stu
cult of conversat
03 you I crafted
“Eng 80 provides

“ant

Went knowledge

with the process of writing during writers' workshop). I would also
have shared my belief that knowing how to read and write without
also developing a desire to do so was only part of a person's
learning. Thus, my curriculum included many opportunities to
develop that desire through the use of writers' workshop and DEAR
time.

You would also have seen reflected in my classroom practice a
curriculum derived from a variety of sources such as textbooks,
curriculum guides, my own ideas, students' interests, and from
students' needs, based on my analysis of their work. The lesson on
commas, for example, likely came from the curriculum guide for
language arts. The lesson on "be" verbs likely came from my
examination of students' writing, while the language games were the
result of conversations I had with fellow teachers. I would have
told you I crafted this particular mix of curriculum because I believe
doing so provides a better opportunity for students to develop their
content knowledge and to foster within them positive dispositions
and attitudes toward content.

After the children were gone for the day, you might have asked
me about the physical arrangement of my classroom. Because I
believe the physical space of the classroom can support children's
learning (Jewell and Zintz, 1990; Morrow and Tracey, 1996), I would
have explained how, after repeated requests to my principal, I
replaced individual desks with tables that seated six. The various
nooks and crannies were the result of my constant reconsideration
of how to use existing bookcases, tables, my desk, and an empty

refrigerator box to create within my classroom open "public" spaces,

49

as well as
children to
variety of I
shall grout
Our c
structured |
nerged Ski
on the auti
wrilet’s wor
nonponent:
tells that
and write I
tainted Ou
durieg the
‘kethe iar
El the sam

"ya.

learn 1099
You

mfllen WE

any I had
2ne IWC
the for SI
Feeders ant

as well as relatively secluded “private" areas designed to draw
children to those areas. I did so because I believe children need a
variety of public and private spaces within which individuals and
small groups could work, while still being easily viewed by me.

Our conversation might have turned to the ways in which I
structured my literacy instruction. I would have told you that l
merged skills instruction (as in the comma lesson, or the discussion
on the author's use of language) with application through the use of
writer's workshop or novel reading groups. Both of these
components of my instruction gave me a way to restructure time in
ways that provided students extended opportunities to read books
and write compositions of their choosing. Additionally, I would have
pointed out the various centers through which students rotated
during the week. It was here that I placed reinforcement activities
like the language games. Since several students were at each center
at the same time, these kinds of games could be worked on in small
groups, creating places to extend children's opportunities to talk and
learn together.

You might have noticed that the library corner was a center
children were encouraged to visit each day. You likely would ask
why I had the children read silently for twenty minutes of class
time. I would have explained that the classroom library and daily
time for silent reading reflect my belief that children improve as
readers and develop a desire to read by having much time each day to
read silently and for pleasure (Anderson, Wilson, and Fielding, 1985;

Lamme, 1981; Morrow, 1997; Spiegel, 1981).

50

 

if you had askE

I would have explain

—-——

istening, and speakir.

helped the children b-

—-_

find of integration re
processes outside of s
consumer might spengl
tings in order to na
Defson might talk witr

riduiduals own. Bet;

 

respective buyer likel
spent on a car and rn
doing at different mc

school-related “content

tell car (math, scienc

ixiggiel no consumer
lnvrting Children

hem

make connectior
in»;
'de them Opportur
its,

nble learning in

"agile. 1994)

’ , Fu
.cnded all my stud
. e
.cnlettt F
. or ex
:mmm ampm
(LEP) stude

‘i‘if‘r

If you had asked about other subject areas like social studies,
I would have explained how I tried to integrate reading, writing,
listening, and speaking into the content areas because doing so
helped the children better learn the content. Further, I believe this
kind of integration reflects a more authentic way of using literacy
processes outside of school. For example, before buying a car, a
consumer might spend time researching repair records and consumer
ratings in order to narrow the list of prospective purchases. That
person might talk with friends and coworkers about the cars these
individuals own. Before talking with different dealers, a
prospective buyer likely would calculate how much money could be
spent on a car and might spend several weekends visiting car lots
looking at different models and colors of cars. While several
school-related "content areas" would be included in the search for a
new car (math, science, language arts, research skills, and art, for
example) no consumer would think about his or her quest in this way.

Inviting children to integrate several content areas would help
them make connections between discrete content areas and would
provide them opportunities to learn in ways that more closely
resemble learning in out-of-school contexts (Dewey, 1902/1956;
Walmsley, 1994). Further, this kind of integration would have
provided all my students an opportunity to participate andlearn
content. For example, my class might have several limited English
proficient (LEP) students. Talking with one another, listening to
more proficient English speakers read or tell about information from
different texts, and acting out and drawing important scenes about

settlers' experiences would provide LEP students the kinds of

51

oonllrehensil
olllrollmaI ‘
students dev
i wOUiC
integrating d
teaching Sta
oesoiipilve v
extended “lei
explalnw i0
‘toorporaled
listing and n
search on
troortunities
presentations
retirements
As we
ustructiortal
acquisition of
child brought

acquired at l

comprehensible input (Krashen, 1983) and support within their zones
of proximal development (Vygotsky, 1978) that could help these
students develop their own conceptual understanding of the content.

I would also have explained to you the ways in which
integrating different content areas helped me create spaces for
teaching state-mandated objectives about informational text or
descriptive writing that helped make literacy something that
extended well beyond "the language arts block." I would have
explained to you how different writing genres could be easily
incorporated into content areas, giving students time for personal
writing and me time to teach mandated skills. For example,-the
research on ethnic groups' settlement in our state provided
opportunities for students to read, summarize, and make oral
presentations about informational text, all state-mandated
requirements for elementary students.

As we talked, I likely would have explained how I saw my
instructional program supporting students' understanding and
acquisition of various discourses. Since I recognized that every
child brought to the classroom his or her own primary discourse
acquired at home, inviting students to talk with one another would
provide opportunities for every child to hear the different ways in
which language can be used to accomplish the same purpose. I would
have pointed out how the language games, study of commas and "be"
verbs, and learning to read and write a variety of genres also helped
students acquire a secondary discourse valued by schools. Since I
believe students gain control over different discourses by actually

using them (through interactions with one another and me) and by

52

gnmng 350
“gammah
choice illlilac
curricuillm in
focusing on
littowledge 5‘]
As we
wondering ii
would have t
he is an imp
ordained to
encouraged, f
discourse spa
henselves as
another about
iwhglhelar
author as kr
When in

first with each

'iiilortse migh
d-

eady knew,
'iSpond by as
Either, If

”C
ill h

”eip. Only

learning about their structure and norms (by examining conventions
of grammar, the way authors create mood or tension, and how word
choice impacts a message), I would have explained how the
curriculum in my classroom was designed to help students do this by
focusing on content, processes, dispositions and metacognitive
knowledge about literacy and other subject areas.

As we talked, you might have asked again about the noise level,
wondering if all that talk among students was really necessary. I
would have reminded you that I believe talk among students and with
me is an important means of learning. In addition, I would have
explained to you my belief that a classroom in which students were
encouraged, even expected, to talk with one another provided them a
discourse space in which to develop their voices and their sense of
themselves as meaning makers. As students negotiated with one
another about their ideas for the social studies movie and while
playing the language games, they would have been speaking to one
another as knowledgeable individuals.

When in doubt about something, students would have spoken
first with each other to figure out what to do or what a correct
response might be. They would have done this because my students
already knew, that if they came to me for help, I likely would
respond by asking them if they had tried to solve the problem
together. If not, I would have sent the students back to their group
for help. Only after discussing the problem with their group, and
failing to resolve it, could students come to me for help. Asking
students to try for themselves is one instructional approach I used

to help students see themselves as learners in their own right.

53

Fullher
from one an
for knowing
Item and ml
learning”r
themselves a
have aSSUIed
ready for loiE
when Wiih

hwec
mtheadni
and we discus
together comi
nbuwh as
those beliefs
hmpmg
notion, ant

'itetaoy ab‘

Further, encouraging students to solve problems with help
from one another reflected my belief that I wasn't the only authority
for knowing in the classroom. The ways in which I helped students
learn and my stance toward them as people who were capable of
learning for themselves reflected my desire that students see
themselves as having power and control over their learning. I would
have assured you that I recognized elementary students weren't
ready for total control, but to the extent possible, I wanted students
to share with me the authority for knowing.

As we concluded our conversation, I would have reminded you
that the activities, methods of instruction, and content you observed
and we discussed were a result of the ways in which I brought
toQether components of a literacy instructional program, shaped by
my beliefs about literacy, learners, and learning. Taken together,
t“Dace beliefs and components represented my enactment of a
literacy program designed to address issues of discourse, voice,
DOSition, and power so that all my students could develop their

literacy abilities to the fullest.

Summary

The above scenario was my vision of appropriate literacy
instruction at the beginning of this study. It was a visioninfluenced
by my belief that there are four components every teacher addresses
when planning literacy instruction. All teachers teach a curriculum,
the “what” that children learn about literacy. This curriculum may
Come solely from a textbook, or it may come from some degree of

blehding ideas from texts, district guidelines, and the teacher's own

54

audiences
decisions ab
teach the CU
all teachers
in use in ll
:iassroom 0‘
Finally.
na‘. take pla
about learner
influence 166
nettods. Dill
some cases.
these compo
eating, and
reasons ma
to teacher:
In the
:essroom an
tee. Thoug
Stung. that
trade regardi
in-Ei‘rd some .
iii-bu said
iii chapter,
mi learner

.123:er
V

.. rallding

experiences about what should be learned. Teachers also make
decisions about the kind of instructional methods they will use to

teach the curriculum. In addition to these components, I also believe

all teachers have ideas about the kind of physical arrangement they
will use in their classrooms, as well as ideas about the kind of
classroom community they wish to create for or with their students.

Finally, I believe the kinds of literacy teaching and learning
that take place in classrooms depend on teachers' ideas and beliefs
about learners and learning. Further, those ideas and beliefs
influence teachers' thinking about the curriculum, instructional
methods, physical layout, and emotional tone of their classroom. In
some cases, the ideas, beliefs, and decisions teachers make about
these components are deliberate ones, the result of thinking,
reading, and reflecting on their practice. In other cases, these
decisions may be "default" decisions, unconsciously made as a result
0" a teacher's own experiences as a learner (Lortie, 1975).

In the chapters that follow, I will explore one first-grade
C'assroom and the literacy teaching and learning that took place
the re. Though my focus is on the children and what they were
leell"ning, that learning was influenced by the decisions their teacher
made regarding her literacy instructional program. Thus, I will
spend some time describing her program before examiningwhat the
chilczlren said and did with regard to their literacy learning. In the
'ast chapter, I will revisit the teacher's literacy program in light of
What I learned during the study and reflect on my current

understanding of what an appropriate literacy program should be.

55

 

A cultural
psycnOFOG
connomse
cmfl$n0
they are C

I agree
classrooms is
teaching and
lose actions,
study, I tried
first-grade cla
lad to say ab

this Sidin

1) What ar
students
reflective

and lear

What are
literacy,

nonmaing
individual

IHGFacyj

CHAPTER 2
METHODOLOGY

A culturally oriented cognitive psychology does not dismiss folk
psychology as mere superstition, something only for the anthropological
connoisseur of quaint folkways. l have long argued that explaining what
children do is not enough; the new agenda is to determine what they think
they are doing and what their reasons are for doing it.

Bruner, 1996, p. 49 (emphasis in original)

I agree with Bruner that knowing what individuals do in I
classrooms is not enough to help us understand the complexities of

teaching and learning; we also need to understand the reasons for

 

those actions, as teachers and students perceive them to be. In this
Study, I tried to understand the literacy teaching and learning in one

firSt-grade classroom by focusing on what the teacher and children

had to say about what they were doing. Three basic questions guided

"1 is study:

1 ) What are the school literacy experiences of nonmainstream
students in classrooms where the literacy instruction is
reflective of current understandings about literacy teaching

and learning?

2 ) What are nonmainstream students' perceptions of school
literacy, and how do school literacy experiences shape
nonmainstream students' perceptions of themselves as literate
individuals? What do these students know and believe about

lHeracy?

56

3) “0” d
studen
they 3'

about

I drew
gbsewallons'
artifacts. 35
my understal
Uqgeriylng re
setting, partlc

my data. I I

lwante
'easoos. Fill
hoght. The
"homalnstrea
tackgrounds.
'hoer-city' s:
teas. it was
area, in an 23
holes. Bec
Backgrounds,
hoseAnyoM
footing the

tCKgrounds

3) How do school literacy experiences shape what nonmainstream
students are able to do with their literacy abilities, and what
they are disposed to do, given their knowledge and beliefs

about literacy?

I drew on qualitative research methods, including classroom
observations, teacher and student interviews, and the collection of
artifacts, as a way to gather information that might better inform
my understanding of what the participants in my study did, and their
Underlying reasons for doing so. In this chapter, I describe the
Setting, participants, and methodology I used to gather and analyze

my data. I begin with the setting and participants.

The School Setting for This Study
I wanted to conduct my study at Burnside Elementary for two
reasons. First, Burnside was a school not unlike those in which I had
tau ght. The student population was composed largely of
"on mainstream students from lower socioeconomic and nonwhite
backgrounds. Further, although Burnside might not be considered an
"inner-city" school similar to those found in major metropolitan
areas, it was an urban school, located at the fringe of the downtown
area, in an area of the community not sought out by middle-class
faI'T‘ailies. Because of their economic and racial and ethnic.
backgrounds, the children who attended Burnside were not unlike
thcse Anyon (1981) and Cakes (1985, 1988) have described as not
receiving the same kinds of education as children from mainstream

backgrounds.

57

 

Secor
tattler i” V
part of anot
ways of intr
understand“
experiences
incorporate
and Ms. M“
more deeply

At the
school with
school is loc
hid-size city
ccigrchorhoor
area immedi.
neighborhooc
litany of the
lwellings in
too World l
the lime in
Ella had bee
he area. Hc

he area havr

to rats at

"llewcay.

Second, I had been an observer in Ms. Murray's classroom (the

teacher in whose room my study took place) the previous year as

part of another study, and l was drawn to her teaching practice and

ways of interacting with students. Since I was interested in better

understanding nonmainstream students' literacy learning
experiences, especially in classrooms where instruction seemed to
incorporate reform-oriented ideas, I felt the context of this school
and Ms. Murray's classroom would provide me an opportunity to think
more deeply about these issues.

At the time this study began, Burnside Elementary was a K-5

school with an enrollment of approximately 275 students. The

sChool is located at the edge of the downtown area of Mapleton, a

mid-size city located in the upper midwest. Burnside is a

neighborhood school; most of the children enrolled here live in the
area immediately surrounding the school and so walk to school. The
neighborhood in which Burnside is located has seen better days.
Many of the older homes evolved from owner-occupied single-family
dwellings into multi-unit apartments, first for soldiers returning
from World War II and more recently for lower income families. At
one time in the neighborhood's recent history, several homes in the
area had been seized and boarded up by the city during drug raids in
the area. However, the neighborhood is changing. Home owners in
the area have formed a corporation to purchase houses seized during

drug raids and concerted efforts to rebuild the neighborhood are

u I"Iderway.

58

 

 

Accor
stud‘,’ 100k
transient. C
heeconon
huhem
hddhe
district with
hmymh
ircone cou
its-'93), ac
with a prer
approximate
school luncl

MS. N
refiected the
thmlm
were from It
(fishew
hdgmunds
Students at
h

Murray '

‘l‘ElEntt eVen

time

3

“mos
"tilde did
and I"039 kir

"hmnm

r i l nt r ' nt P ation

According to Ms. Murray, the teacher in whose classroom my
study took place, the student population at Burnside is highly
transient, comes overwhelmingly from families at the lower end of
the economic spectrum, and is quite racially and ethnically diverse.
Because most of the families in the neighborhood are from the lower
end of the economic scale, Burnside is one of three schools in the
district with the highest number of low-income families. While Ms.
Murray acknowledged there were a few families in the area whose
income could be considered middle-class (Murray interview
3/1 6/93), according to information obtained from an interview done
With a previous principal (Underwood interview, 11/14/91),
approximately 80% of the student body qualifies for the federal
School lunch program.

Ms. Murray told me that she felt her first-grade classroom
reflected the racial, ethnic, and socio-economic diversity of the
School at large. Many of these children, according to Ms. Murray,
We re from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, and had not had the
kinds of experiences she believed children from middle-class
backgrounds had. She cited the nearby university as an example.
StUdents at Burnside had recently taken a trip to the university and
MS- Murray "was really shocked" at the number of studentswho
We ren't even aware that the university was down the road. At the
Same time, she acknowledged that many lower income students at
Burrlside did have "Nintendo and they wear the expensive sneakers
and those kinds of things. But then at the same time, there are some

of them not.even eating regularly" (Murray interview 3/16/93). Ms.

59

 

Murralds C

Denis
at this stUC
WES in Ede
arts. In thr
ccsrsework
was consid

When
her sixth ye
tears in a
:rogram. T
trading in n

reading in a

, .

V .
hilt

Murray's comments suggest she recognized the diversity of

experiences those from the poorest backgrounds brought to school.

The Participants of the Study

M . M rr ir - r T h

Denise Murray is an African American woman, who, at the time
of this study, was in her mid to late thirties. Her bachelor's degree
was in elementary education, with minors in social studies and fine
arts. In the year prior to this study, Ms. Murray had taken
Coursework toward her master's degree in child development, but
Was considering switching to a literacy master's program.

When Ms. Murray agreed to participate in my study, she was in
her sixth year at Burnside. Prior to that, she had worked for eight
Years in a neighboring school district in the reading helping-teacher
Program. That work experience provided Ms. Murray with extensive
training in reading assessment. When asked about her knowledge of
reading in an interview conducted prior to this study, she replied, "I
think in the reading area, I know an awful lot. I probably know a lot
m(Dre than I ever use here at Burnside because there's no call for it.
I I“Wave been trained to do reading assessment, and I don't really do
that now, other than what I do for my own students" (Murray
interview, 3/16/93). ‘

Ms. Murray was involved. in her state's teacher education
association, co-chairing committees and attending her
organization's state and national conferences. In 1993, she

presented an overview on racism and sexism at one of the state

60

 

 

conferences
eemhdons
thaem sh

Funhe
She worked
elementary l
needs and a.
school choic

oarents abm

conferences and served as her region's representative at her national

association's annual convention. In addition, she had served on

different state-level education committees.
Further, Ms. Murray was active in committee work at Burnside.
She worked with other K-3 teachers to restructure the lower
elementary curriculum to take into account children's developmental
needs and abilities. She also served as a member of her campus'
school choice committee, designing brochures and meeting with

parents about the schools-of—choice program in her district.

The Phat-Grader}

Before introducing the children, I would like to comment on my

methods for reporting what they had to say to me and each other. I

inserted words in the transcripts, as designated by brackets, only

When I felt it helped to clarify the children's meaning, but I did not

translate their comments into standard English. Since I chose to

Come to the children for their perspective, I don't feel comfortable
nTaking them come to me by changing how they speak. To do so
if"Ewes they don't speak "correctly," and that their views can't

become official until expressed in middle-class ways, a notion I
r 9] ect. In choosing this stance, I am well aware of the debate over
nonmainstream children needing to learn standard English. . However,
as an outsider conducting research, and not the students' teacher, I
do not feel it is my place to make changes to student comments,
beYond those that help clarify meaning.

There were a total of twenty-one children in Ms. Murray's

<“essroom. The race and gender makeup of the class is shown in

61

 

Talle 1 be
stable durll

moving OUt

Number
:0f M3395
W
of Feta
W

\

 

or the
sldd)’ began
because the
not give per
wrcse parel
cored away
:bserve a 3‘

0f the
wnsideratiol
sire permiss
rateeriews ill

classroom 66

Table 1 below. The student population of this classroom was very

stable during the time of my study, with one European-American girl

moving out and another moving in.

Table 1 - Classroom Demographics

 

 

 

 

African Hispanic European TOTAL
American American American
Number 4 2 7 13
of Males
Number 4 1 3 8
of Females
TOTAL 8 3 10 21

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Of the twenty-one children in the classroom at the time the
Study began, three were never considered to be a part of the study
because their parents either did not return a permission form or did
"Ot give permission for their child to be included. One student,
Whose parent did give permission for her to participate in the study,
mOved away in the early stages of the study. Nor did I consider or
observe a student who enrolled in the class late in the study.

Of the remaining eighteen students, four were removed from
Consideration as focus students because their parents either did not
give permission for the child to be interviewed or required that
interviews not be audio taped. One other student, who left the
classroom each day for extended periods of time in order to receive
sI‘Decial education services, was also not considered for the study.

Thus, from the original pool of twenty-one students, a pool of
t""irteen possible students remained. Three of the thirteen were not

i“(zluded because they appeared to me to have a great deal of trouble

62

 

getting in.
learning (
students I
resistance
to be eng;
ways and
paniclpalir

This
interviewer
Pedro) wo
One other,
Silly prog
‘illow him,
Since I ha
tall with al

'El'esenla

getting their work done and seemed not very interested in the
learning opportunities offered them. While talking with these
students might have yielded insights into what I perceived as their
resistance to learning, I wanted to focus on children who did appear
to be engaged. I recognize this decision shaped my study in certain
ways and not others, but I felt talking with children who were
participating would be more productive for me at this time.

This left ten students for me to follow more closely. I
interviewed each of these children and found that two (Jaime and
IDecjro) would not talk with me at all in a formal interview setting.
one other, Edward, at first seemed willing to talk to me, but as the
$tley progressed, his willingness varied greatly, so I decided not to
follow'him. This left seven children, three girls and four boys.
since i had originally planned to interview six children, I decided to
talk with all the girls and three of the boys. These six students
represented a mix of African-American and European-American
individuals and a balance of boys and girls. Additionally, several of
the students were table mates, and I thought including them as a
group might provide me information about the kind of talk students
engaged in with one another while they worked.

Mimi and Chelsea were table mates who seemed to interact
Well together. Ms. Murray described Mimi as very capable and
Chelsea as an average student. The third girl was Keesha. She sat
with Jaime and Pedro at a table near Mimi and Chelsea. Ms. Murray
saw Keesha as a very capable student, on par with Mimi. I was
immediately drawn to Keesha because she was so talkative and

curious about what I was doing. No matter what question I asked.

63

Keesha us
Randell, at
lriends an:
lenograpt

Foilowing l

i Chit

. lnlervi

.‘
lKeesna Ac
l

\

ECnelsea B
l\

‘llimi Davi<

N
.Sa'lluel JOI
\
‘Rondell K5

 

Keesha usually was willing to talk with me about it.

Roben,

Randall, and Samuel were also table mates. They seemed to be good

friends and often talked while they worked. Table 2 outlines

demographic and interview data for each of these children.

Following the table, I introduce each of the six children.

Table 2 - Overview of the Six Focus Children

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Child Race or FIM A99 at NUMDG' 0'
I nterviewed Ethnicity Time Study Times
Began Interviewed
Keesha Adams African F 6 yr. 4 mo. 4
American
Chelsea Byers African F 6 yr. 9 mo. 6
\ American '
Mimi Davidson African F 6 yr. 0 mo. 6
.\ American
Samuel Johnson European M 6 yr. 10 mo. 5
\ American
Randell Keith African M 6 yr. 10 mo. 6
.\ American
l§<3bert Scott European M 6 yr. 4 mo. 6
\ American

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

W

Six-year-old Keesha Adams lived with her aunt and two

Cousins. According to Keesha, she had a father who did not live with

the family, and a stepfather, with whom she kept in touch through

Ietter writing. At home, Keesha liked to read and reported that when

her grandmother came to visit, Keesha read to her (citing W

M and n Fi

Tw FihR

Fih Bl

h , both by Dr.

Seuss, as examples). When I asked Keesha if she had books at home,

64

 

she replied.
(Keesha int
stories with
because, 'I
bedtime sto
asked Kees
denlhed ll

Ms. ll
:apahle oil
Keesha to r
Enl'iSh snez
3697i€d to i
the class, i
T3997 alounc
dhds Che
Wahdeh
‘steainu
Th hnd oi.
Tileler mo
TTT' My h
T and tr

Steiner} to g

TTTT ‘0 me

ChelSe;

33h .
TTepbrc

she replied, "Yep! I got two bags with a whole bunch of books"
(Keesha interview, 5/2/95). I asked Keesha if anyone read bedtime
stories with her, and Keesha said she did not like bedtime stories
because, “I'm not a little kid" (Keesha interview, 5/2/95). I asked if
bedtime stories were only for little kids, and she said yes. When I
asked Keesha who in her classroom was a good reader, she quickly
identified Ms. Murray, herself, Mimi and two other students.

Ms. Murray felt Keesha was a good student who was very
Capable of helping others. In fact, Ms. Murray seemed to depend on
Keesha to help the two Hispanic boys (both of whom were limited
Ehgglish speakers, according to Ms. Murray) with their work. Keesha
Seemed to get along well with the boys and with other students in
the class. However, Chelsea seemed to think Keesha was a little
r Ough around theedges. When I asked Chelsea if Keesha was a friend
of hers, Chelsea made a face and said, "No, because, like, when she
got a hole in her outfit, she's always got to show her drawers"
(Chelsea interview, 5/25/95). While I never saw Keesha engage in
this kind of display, she could at times be full of energy and seemed
to prefer moving from one spot to another, rather than staying in one
place. My impression of Keesha was that she was bright and eager to
team, and that she possessed an independent spirit. That spirit
Sbeemed to give her a confidence to try different things (as when she

talked to me with such ease).

w
Chelsea Byers was the youngest of five children. She had two

Q'der stepbrothers, a stepsister, and a "real" brother (as she

65

described
inn irienc
at her hor
and the 8
iii 51’95).

Chei

 

lhegan m
cstrict jus
leaning in
devious sr
which she
”all they di
lien“ (Che
did that 'S(

Chels

he [fillers .
ieters by c
lien she
ti,

”' ay Wou
,raij We. F
“tiliiliaieiy
“T was lear
lear

‘Up 090;
TTTT Say lha
T'Tiaid h

described him). She enjoyed riding her bike and playing basketball
with friends when not in school. When I asked her if she had books

at her home, Chelsea said, “A whole bunch of them" and named Beauty

awe: and The Jungle Book as examples (Chelsea interview,
3/15/95).

Chelsea had only been in Ms. Murray's room about a month when
I began my study. She moved to Burnside from another school in the
district just after Christmas. According to Chelsea, she was
learning more things in Ms. Murray's room than she had at her
previous school. For example, Chelsea felt spelling was one area in
which she was improving. At her old school, according to Chelsea,
“all they did was put words up on the board and then let us write
them“ (Chelsea interview, 5/12/95). In Ms. Murray's room, she also
did that “sometimes," but students also had many chances to write.

Chelsea mentioned stories that she was able to make up and
the letters of apology, or as she said, "we learn to write sorry
letters. by ourselves" (Chelsea interview, 5/12/95). Chelsea also
thought she was learning how to read better at Burnside because Ms.
Murray would help them with the "hard words," instead of making
students sound out every word as teachers at Chelsea's old school
had done. Finally, Chelsea also seemed to be learning to behave more
appropriately at Burnside. When I asked if there was anything else
she was learning at Burnside, she said, "Ah...not to fight. I used to
beat up people at my other school" (Chelsea interview, 5/12/95). I
must say that I never saw Chelsea act in a belligerent manner
toward her peers. Further, other students seemed to like Chelsea as

I often saw her talking and working with others.

66

 

 

llimi Da
Mimi
Al the lime
school lear
his job anc
according 1
in ninth gre
none, Mim
esoecially c
many books
oéctlres at
Ms. W
Seem able l
on interview
mil studer
Twiliize ti
Mimi Was a
she had 90(
T"Phone in

T95? friend.

W

Mimi Davidson was the younger of two sisters in her family.

At the time of the study, Mimi reported that her mother was in
school learning to be a police officer. Her father had recently lost
his job and was also in school, taking courses in mechanics,
according to Mimi. Mimi's fifteen-year-old sister would have been
in ninth grade, but Mimi reported she was not currently in school. At
home, Mimi liked playing with her friends and watching television,
especially cartoons. She also liked to read and reported she had
many books at her house. l asked if Mimi liked to write or draw
pictures at home. She didn't.

Ms. Murray spoke highly of Mimi as a student, and Mimi did
'seem able to complete any task assigned her easily and well. Based
on interviews with. my focus children, Mimi seemed to viewed by
other students as the best reader in the class, and seemed to
recognize this about herself as well. Further, many students thought
Mimi was a good writer, both because she wrote stories and because
she had good handwriting. Mimi seemed to get along well with
everyone in the class. She named Samuel (introduced below) as her

best friend.

Ween

Samuel Johnson, age 6, was the middle child of three children.
His older sister was seven and his younger brother four at the time
this study began. Samuel, his siblings, and his mother lived
together, but I am not sure his father lived with the family. When I

asked Samuel what he liked to do, he mentioned calling his father on

67

 

the teleph
and with I
from Mimi

Attel
until his rr
Samuel li'r
stay with t
and mentic
asked it he
night be it
he proceed
in his lamil
His mom n
Tfiieillle‘w, .
including '5
Easter. He

Ms. ll
Milled 10 R
TT‘TQMMentg
Sameel Whe
TT TTS Stor
TTTT 10 Min
TTTT' Was

[3 ,
be a Sim

the telephone, something he also did to talk with his grandmother
and with Mimi (introduced above), after Samuel and his family moved
from Mimi's neighborhood.

After school, Samuel went to a baby-sitter, where he stayed
until his mother came for him after work. When they went home,
Samuel liked to play Nintendo with his friends, watch television, or
play with toys. When I asked if he liked to read books, he said yes,
and mentioned books about sharks, snakes, spiders, and birds. I
asked if he looked at the pictures or read the words, thinking he
might be looking at the pictures, and Samuel said he did both. Then
he proceeded to tell me what he had learned. I asked if anyone else
in his family read, and he said his sister read the same books he did.
His mom read books "with lots of pages but no pictures" (Samuel
interview, 4/25/95). Samuel also said he liked to write stories,
including "spooky" ones, some about Santa Claus, and some about
Easter. He also enjoyed drawing pictures of monsters and animals.

Ms. Murray thought of Samuel as a good student. He often
talked to Robert and Rondell while he worked, but always completed
assignments on time. Robert and Rondell both seemed to turn to
Samuel when they needed help. When Samuel needed help or feedback
for his stories, he turned to Fiondell and Robert, sometimes walking
over to Mimi's table to confer with her. It appeared to me» that
Samuel was also liked by other students in the class, and he seemed

to be a student others would come to for help.

68

BondelLl

Seven
he only one
tends, Ron
recalled "ll
based on a
tends. Flon

When
did me her
lestairs in l
ilEd. He 3
lccording tc
lasted him
lies. Am
W5 becau

Alsch
readily on j
:tlet limes,

TT Was cap;

With

Seven-year-old Rondell was the youngest of four children and
the only one still living at home with his mother. When he was with
friends, Rondell liked to ride his bike, play Power Rangers, or a game
he called "Witches Night." According to Rondell, this game was
based on a story he wrote at school (see Chapter 4). When not with
friends, Rondell played his Sega game or watched television.

When I asked Rondell if he ever read at home, he said yes and
told me he had "a whole bunch" of books at home. Some were
upstairs in his room and some were downstairs in the main living
area. He also said he and his mother went to their local library.
According to Rondell, his mother liked to read scary books, but when
I asked him to tell me more about that, he could not recall any book
titles. According to him, however, he knew his mother read scary
books because he had seen her reading them.

At school, Rondell could be moody. Sometimes he worked
steadily on his tasks, talking with Samuel and Robert as he did so;
other times, Ms. Murray had to remind him to stay on task. She felt
he was capable, but didn't always have the self-direction he needed
to get his work done. On one occasion when I was in the room,
Rondell was under his table, not working and Ms. Murray told him he
needed to decide how to behave or he would not get to go out for
recess. Rondell seemed to be a popular boy in class. Other students

would stop by and talk with him on their way to the games or books.

69

helle W
Robert “T
wheeTeT b
or with di
on occasll
lead The”
31595)-
cookSl 3”
note ab0l
sale a ”T
aeSC'iPTTOT
risen a T
Al 8
occasion.
Mortal tel
IE‘lE‘iOpme
rent by.
tan-o'writint

'l am thlil

beginning

lzntinued

Elem—$3.913

Six-year-old Robert was the oldest of three boys and lived at
home with his mother, father, and brothers. When he was at home,
Robert liked to play with his younger brothers or ride his two
wheeler bike. He also enjoyed playing with his friends on his swing
or with different toys he had. He also enjoyed watching television
on occasion. Robert did have books at home and liked to look at or
read them, since he could read "a little bit" (Robert interview,
3/15/95). Robert told me he had Cet in the He: books, rhyming
books, and music books as well at home. When I asked him to tell me
more about the music books, he said one was about a cricket and it
made a noise when the book was opened. Based on his further
description, it sounded to me like Robert was describing Eric Carle's
The Vegy Quiet Qrieket. Robert also liked to write stories and had
written a book about a good witch and a bad witch.

At school, Robert was very talkative and on more than one
occasion, I heard Ms. Murray remind him to talk more quietly. Ms.
Murray felt Robert was behind some of the other students
developmentally, but she felt he would catch up with as the year
went by. For example, she felt he didn't have good control over his
handwriting, but toward the middle of March, I heard her tell Robert,
"I am thrilled with your writing. Remember how it looked at the
beginning of school?" Robert replied, "I'm a good writer." and

continued writing (field notes, 3/1/95).

70

F

 

ll
week:
obsen

Gener

Data Collection

I began my study during the winter. Over a period of fifteen
weeks1, I observed in the classroom twenty-seven times, with my
observations ranging from one hour to the entire school day.
Generally, I stayed three hours during the morning when the students
were engaged in literacy-related tasks.

While observing, I often sat at the back of the room, taking notes
and audio-taping classroom interactions. At other times, I moved
around the room talking with different children about their work,
gathering approximately five hours of informal conversations on
audio tape using a recorder strapped to my waist.

About three weeks after I began my general observations in the
classroom, I selected the six children described above to follow
more closely. These children sat at different tables: table 1--Mimi
Davidson and Chelsea Byers; table 2--Rondell Keith, Samuel Johnson,

and Robert Scott; and table 3--Keesha Adams (see Figure 2).

 

1 There were three weeks in that 15-week time frame when I did
not observe at all because of university and school-district spring
breaks, and because I attended the annual convention of the
American Educational Research Association.

71

Bulletin Board Chalkboard Bulletin Board

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

i

Wallolwindows
Figure 2-Classroom Seating Arrangement

72

I l
Games, Puzzles, Tape Recorder, and Math ULPJOLI
Manipulatives stored under chalkboard Toilet
Cl
eachers
Table
S
. . I
D D MImI .‘. Chelsea 0
r
B Keesha a
5 9
h e
e Rondell RODG” 3.
Teacher '
V Samuel Sink D
a I 063k D
S
S t
El [1 D o
r
upplies D a
Table I: 9
. e
'oeadin
a. DD
Easel /\ Bulletin Board
Space
for
New — North —>
Computers
. E
WI CI D l a

 

lselec
what the c
literacy-rel
general sr
conversati
at the lat
dermissior
nicroohor
of student
students'
worksheet

Finally
the study,
DEECG whe
Tblaiy to l
salable :
Dbhng the
its abo:
T‘ Talei ir
Students.
T‘TWEl/er,
T the Ola:
Tether 0
TTT'glade
At llml
BSked 0f E

h a

I selected the children I did in part because I was interested in
what the children at each table might say to one another about the
literacy-related tasks they were working on, as well as to get a
general sense for the kinds of children's classroom talk. To collect
conversations between these students, I placed remote microphones
at the tables at different times. I always asked the children for
permission before doing so, and if a child said no, I did not place a
microphone at that table that day. In addition to collecting samples
of student conversations, I also collected samples of the six
students' work over time, including the students' journals,
worksheets, and projects done with a fifth-grade class.

Finally, I interviewed each child several times over the course of
the study, between four to six times each. These interviews took
place wherever we could find an unoccupied area, ranging from the
library to the speech teacher's room when she wasn't in. When every
available space was claimed, we (on occasion) sat in the hallway.
During the first interview, I asked background questions as a way to
learn about the children's families, interests, and so on. Questions
in later interviews generally related to literacy and about the
students' perceptions of the classroom's learning environment.
However, during one interview (after a substitute had been in charge
of the class one day) I did ask students about that day, andon
another occasion, I asked the children about work they did with their
fifth-grade buddies.

At times, my interview questions were predetermined and were
asked of each child. For example, I asked all the children for general

background information. I also asked about literacy issues (e.g., to

73

tell me i
child's le
Robert a
but since
He descr
writing 0|
66:95).
i learned
teacher v
asled dll
or group
to speak
to Speak
thidlen l
Sin
students
TTTMD a
T39 ove
cocdncye,

tell me what reading was). Other times, I tried to "follow the
child's lead" when asking question. For example, in talking with
Robert about writing at home, I learned he wrote "sweet" stories,
but since I had no idea what those were, I asked him to explain them.
He described them as stories that were "not mean" and said he was
writing one about a princess and an angel (Robert interview,
6/6/95). It was also by following Keesha's conversational lead that
I learned she had been sent to the office the day the substitute
teacher was present, an incident described in Chapter 4. I also
asked different questions depending on what a particular individual
or group of children were doing. Although I had parental permission
to speak with the children, I always asked the children's permission
to speak with them before each interview. I did not talk with
children when they declined to be interviewed.

Since I was interested in trying to understand how the
students made sense of their literacy learning, I also needed to
develop a sense of Ms. Murray's intentions. I interviewed Ms. Murray
twice over the course of the study. I also drew on an interview I
conducted with her the year prior to my study, as well as on two
interviews of Ms. Murray conducted by another research assistant
two years prior to my study. I also spoke informally with Ms. Murray
over the course of my study in regard to the instruction and
activities I observed, as well as about students.

The first day I was in the classroom, Ms. Murray introduced me
to the class. During my first two weeks in the classroom, I
concentrated on getting to know the children and establishing a

routine that I hoped would help both the students and Ms. Murray feel

74

more C0
atrive Tr
back of
tralilc'
the first
not anT
I r
editiona
generady
up with 1
tradtiona
Murray h
wrote W
aselne‘
acculateI
Fol
rgnfalnln!
iitoa ne
o‘cseivall
land 00“
minutes l
lierbal (it
Comment:
band coll
Because
by relies

rc‘?
.uE-Ci'

IONS

more comfortable with my presence. For example, I always tried to
arrive and set up my equipment as quietly as possible. I sat at the
back of the room where I seemed to be out of the flow of classroom
traffic. During those early weeks, I did take field notes, and after
the first day, audio-taped the general classroom interactions. I did
not mingle with the students as much then as I later did.

I recorded my field notes using a laptop computer. I felt
comfortable using the laptop to record my field notes, and was
generally able to type quickly (though not accurately!) enough to keep
up with the classroom action. I did find that I needed to take some
traditional paper and pencil notes as well. For example, when Ms.
Murray had the children work on a mathematics problem, I usually
wrote the arithmetic sentences or geometric figures by hand,
labeling each witha reference date. In this way, I was able to more
accurately record the chalkboard placement of these tasks.

For my computer notes, I created a document template
containing a three-column table. Each day, I copied that template
into a new document, and named the document using the date of the
observation. I recorded the time I began taking notes in the left-
hand column of the table and additional reference times every ten
minutes or so, though I was not always precise about this. I kept
verbal descriptions and direct quotations of students' and teacher's
comments in the middle column of the table, and I used the right-
hand column of the table to record my own comments and questions.
Because of the way I set up my note-taking table, I was able to place
my reflective comments near the descriptive comments to which the

reflections referred. (See Figure 3 for sample field notes).

75

 

 

Time l

5:57 |

 

 

 

Time

Classroom Observation

My Comments

 

8:57

Malcolm comes to T and shows her his 'hug"
sentence--Hug a jet. T asks if you can hug a jet
and sends Malcolm back to his desk to create
another sentence. Malcolm comes back with
another sentence "hug a <inaudible>" T tells
Malcolm that doesn't make sense. She asks him
what hug means, "Tell me Malcolm what does it
mean to hug? What am I doing when l hug? If you
told someone to go over and hug Robert, what
would that person do?" Malcolm says it would
make Robert feel better." T says “yes, but what
are they doing? What are they using to do it?" T
asks Malcolm what arms are and asks what they
have to do with hugging. Malcolm says they are
arms and are twisted around a person. T keeps
probing to get Malcolm to describe a hug. She
then tells him she heard him say "hug me" and
says "That is a sentence. You gave me a sentence.”
Malcolm remains at the reading table looking in
the air. He is not writing. Malcolm then gets up
and goes to his desk.

Okay, I thought this activity
was a creative writing
activity that also helped
kids make connections
between the words they
were learning and being
able to use them in
sentences. But the instance
with Malcolm makes me
wonder if this isn't also
about the T finding out what
background knowledge the
Ss have about the words
they are learning. this
activity is also a chance for
$5 to talk about text with
each other and with the
teacher. As I look around
the room, I hear lets of talk
about the activity. Ss are
asking each other how to
spell words and are reading
their sentences to one
another.

 

 

9:05

 

Keesha is coming back to show T what she is doing.
This is the fourth time in the past few minutes
that she has done this. She asked the T if "u" was
the only letter that could "go in the middle" then
showed T her words, then asked if she and Jaime
could get another piece of paper. As I watch her
now, I see her moving her chair closer to Jaime's
and talking to him. Jaime seems involved in what
she is saying as he is watching her and
responding. He seems more talkative than I
remember him being in the past. Keesha calls T
over to her table and asks if every word has to
start with a capital letter. T says every sentence
has to start with a capital. Chelsea asks T how to
spell a word and T tells her to sound it out.

 

 

Figure 3-Sample Field-Note Entry (From 3/9/95)

76

 

 

Eac
room and
For exam
the childr
with studl
by everyc
llimi had
held note
students |
observatic
tilt Il'l ga;
99fl6tallza
teld note
SMineed

0m
and litter
Tailetlet
each da
TCClltted
TECaUSe
and an“

Twat s

Data Analysis

Each time I observed, I tried to capture the feel of the entire
room and also move in more closely on a child or group of children.
For example, I sometimes sat at one table, listening and talking to
the children. On another occasion, after reviewing my interviews
with students about reading, and learning that Mimi was perceived
by everyone to be a good reader, I decided to "track" interactions
Mimi had with other students. So, instead of writing descriptive
field notes, I sketched the seating arrangement, noting which
students came to Mimi and to whom she went. As soon after the
observation as I was able, I listened to that day's tape and tried to
fill in gaps in my written field notes. I tried to not make
generalizations while I was still in the field. Instead, I read my
field notes and interview data to try and decide what areas I might
still need to explore.

Once I began more formal data analysis, I read my field notes
and interview data multiple times to better understand what had
happened or to look for patterns within the data. For example, I read
each day's field notes and identified literacy-related activities that
occurred each day. I described these activities as literacy-related
because they required students to write, read, think about spelling,
and encouraged them to talk. This helped me identify areas Ms.
Murray seemed to concentrate on in her instruction.

For my initial analysis of the students' interviews, I read each
student's interviews several times, then grouped by topic what they
had to say. Generally these topics reflected the questions I asked

(for example, "What is reading?"). Other topic groupings included:

77

students
learning
the role
paticula
larger r
0
topic, |
pasted"
new do
l'om he
set of i
Daticull
gain a
laticul
A
151a in
bégan .
lllien l
Tdudel
lied ll

TTGEt y

students' personal background information, impressions of students'
learning in Ms. Murray's classroom, reading related comments, and
the role of talk in learning, among others. I asked about these
particular issues as a way to gather information related to my
larger research questions.

Once I had the students' interview data grouped by a particular
topic, I created a new electronic document and literally "cut and.
pasted" relevant pieces from each student's interview data into the
new document. In this way, I was able to examine the interview data
from two perspectives. First I could examine one student's original
set of interviews, as a way to become more familiar with that
particular student. Second, I could examine the data by topic and
gain a broad overview of what multiple students had to say about a
particular topic.

As with individual student interviews, I read my reorganized
data many times and it was then that more fine-tuned categories
began to emerge from what the students had to say. For example,
when I asked "What have you learned this year?" students' responses
included information about how to read, how to spell, and so on. I
used these larger ideas (how to spell, how to read) as categories

under which I grouped individual comments (See Table 3).

78

Table 3 - Categories that Eme_rged from Student Responses

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How to Spell How to Read How to Handwriting Classroom
Write Behavior
Sound out Sound out Letters of Take your time Active
words words apolog listening
Ask the teacher Look at Ask others for Write nicely Be respectful
for help pictures story ideas
Ask for help Get story ideas Talk quietly
from own head
Read a great How to spell Raise your
deal hand
read silently Sound out
words
Select own Ask for help
books
Phonics Write often
Read to others

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The larger ideas students mentioned (how to spell, how to
read) are located in the shaded row along the top. Beneath each
column heading are comments students made about the larger ideas.
By categorizing students' comments according to what they said, I
was able to better understand what students had to say about their
learning and then compare that to what I observed the students
doing. I did this same kind of reading, categorizing, and rearranging
of data with Ms. Murray's interviews as well.

Once I had organized my data by categories, I was able to
compare information from Ms. Murray's interview with student
interviews and my own field note observations. This helped me test
my assertions by finding support for them among a variety of data
sources. On the other hand, this process also sent me back to look
more closely at the data when my assertions were not confirmed by

multiple data. This happened, for example, when I read and reread

79

my field notes and developed a hunch that these students would be
able to talk about writing as a communicative process, since I had
observed students writing for a variety of purposes. Instead, their
comments about writing dealt more with issues like handwriting,
spelling, and neatness. Students' comments made me rethink the
relationship between what I was seeing and what they were saying.
Finally, in addition to the multiple readings I did in order to
make sense of my data, I also did very close reading of text, drawing
on methods from discourse analysis, as a way to help me better
understand what Ms. Murray and the students were telling me. For
example, when Keesha told me about her experience with the
substitute, I at first thought it was an instance of a student not
doing what the substitute wanted. But in rereading Keesha's
comments more carefully, I came to see what happened to her very
differently. Looking closely at what the children said helped me
gain a deeper understanding of their school literacy experiences in
this classroom and helped me think differently about school literacy
experiences and how they shape children's perceptions of

themselves, issues addressed in my larger research questions.

One Final Note
The following chapters represent the product of my data
analysis. One final note before turning to those chapters. Some
students are more prominently displayed in my writing than are
others. As I analyzed and thought about what the students had to
say, and about what they did, I began to realize that certain students

helped me better present a panoramic view of this classroom, while

80

others helped better demonstrate specific issues. Thus, Mimi and
Keesha, for example, may be dealt with in a more in-depth manner
than Samuel because their experiences highlight specific issues of
concern to me. Samuel, Chelsea, Rondell, and Robert, on the other
hand, help tell an overall story of this classroom. Each of these
students, however, was important to this study, for each person's
experiences and comments helped me gain a better understanding of
the potential and problems that may confront other students who
learn about literacy through a discourse similar to the one in which
Ms. Murray and her students engaged.

While the children upon whom I focused helped me to consider
issues that may be of importance to other students, I also am aware
that, as with any attempt to capture a sense of classroom life, the
children I focused on for this study, and the things that I attended to
while focusing on them, helped me understand this classroom in
ways that likely would have differed if I had focused on other
children or other aspects of classroom life. I acknowledge that this
study reflects my own knowledge and beliefs about learners,
learning, and teaching and that my knowledge and beliefs, as well as
what the children chose to share with me, have shaped my

interpretations of the data.

81

CHAPTER 3
A FIRST-GRADE LITERACY COMMUNITY

When children come to school as first graders, they bring with
them knowledge about language and literacy. Some of this
knowledge may have been acquired in kindergarten or preschool.
Much of it, however, comes from home. Research on emergent
literacy (Bissex, 1980; Sulzby and Teale, 1991; Teale and Sulzby,
1986; Wells, 1986, 1990), for example, has helped us understand
that even very young children begin the process of becoming literate
within their home and community settings.

From birth, most children are surrounded by talk, learning that
language is a tool for communicating ideas (Dudley-Marling and
Searle, 1991; Heath, 1983; Wells, 1986). Children are surrounded by
written language as well (Taylor and Dorsey-Gaines, 1988).
Environmental print1 and written text used by families (e.g., grocery
lists, notes and letters to friends and family, and school- or
business-related correspondence) convey a similar message to
children: language is a tool for communicating. Because of these
kinds of literacy experiences, most children enter school already

knowing something about language and literacy.

 

1Environmental print is defined as the print that surrounds us in
daily life. Examples include brand names on cereal boxes, fast food
names on billboards, text found on traffic signs, and so on.

82

Differences In Students' Language Knowledge

Although many children do know something about language and
literacy before they walk into a first-grade classroom, what they
know may vary considerably due to social and cultural differences.
For example, when thirsty, most children likely know how to ask for
a cold soft drink. But while a child from North Dakota may learn to
ask for "pop," a child from New York may ask for "soda," and a child
from Texas may ask for "coke." Within their own cultural or familial
contexts, each child would likely be understood. In a different
context, however, the child from Texas might find herself with a
Coca-Cola®, when what she really wanted was a Dr. Pepper®l These
cultural differences are easily spotted, but other, more subtle,
differences often are not, as the work of Heath (1983) and Michaels
(1981) makes clear. What children know about language and literacy
will vary, simply because each child's experience with language and
literacy differs.

While different children may come to school knowing language
and literacy in different ways, what is common to most children--
regardless of their experiences--is the understanding that language
is used for communication. Further, for most children, learning a
language and how to be literate happens in the natural context of
daily use. Most parents talk to their children in the course of
getting ready for the day or when the child is reprimanded. Young
children see and hear adults and older children talk to one another in
a variety of "genuine" conversations. By that I mean these
conversations usually occur between two or more participants, they

are based on a shared language system, and they have a degree of

83

intersubjectivity. That is, all the participants know what the others
are talking about, or when they do not know, they know to ask for
clarification (Pappas, Kieffer, and Levstik, 1990). It is through
these kinds of conversations that children come to understand that
conversations are ways to communicate information, to entertain, or
to persuade. In short, children learn about language by using it and
hearing it being used for real purposes. Once they begin their school
careers, however, all children must construct new understandings
about language and literacy. How well they do so depends in large
part on what they already know, what their teachers know about
language differences among children, and to what degree teachers
use that knowledge to help all students learn the standardized forms

of the language taught in schools.

. and What Schools Value

Traditionally, elementary schools have been places where
students learned the "nuts and bolts" of language and literacy,
including the conventions of written language and the standard ways
of using language. For example, while most first graders are able to
put together individual sounds to make words, they lack an
awareness that these sounds are the building blocks for spoken
language, phonemic awareness (Adams, 1990; Stahl, 1992; Yopp,
1992). When asked, many first graders may not be able to identify
those individual sounds or divide them into discrete units. This
ability, however, can be taught, and when so done, appears to support
children's growth as readers, and in turn, be further developed by

students' increasing ability to read (Blachman, 1987; Yopp, 1992).

84

In addition to learning about the individual sounds in spoken
language, school is also the place where children often learn how
those sounds are represented in written language (i. e., phonics).
Some children may learn phonics using methods based on a whole
language philosophy (Freppon and Dahl, 1991; Gaskins, Gaskins, and
Gaskins, 1991; Trachtenburg, 1990). Others may learn phonics using
methods derived from a skills-based philosophy (Clymer, 1963;
Groff, 1986). Still others may learn phonics using a combination of
philosophical approaches (Stahl, 1992).

Learning about sounds and how they are represented are not the
only aspects of language children learn at school. They must also
learn how to use the standard mechanic and usage guidelines of the
language as well. For example, children must learn the conventional
spelling of words and where and how to look up unknown words using
a dictionary. They learn the mechanics of punctuation and how to
use punctuation in both their reading and writing. Children also
must learn how to use language in standard ways, for example,
rephrasing a sentence so as not to use double negatives--even
though double negatives might be commonplace in a child's home
language use. Children from nonmainstream backgrounds often have
additional issues like dialect differences and interaction patterns
for oral language use with which to contend (Au, 1993; Heath, 1983;
Michaels, 1981). Even children whose knowledge of language more
closely resembles the kind of knowledge valued by schools are likely
to encounter new ideas and ways of thinking about language.

At school, then, the focus of language learning covers a range

of "nuts and bolts." Students learn concrete tasks such as printing

85

the letters of the alphabet to highly abstract tasks like analyzing
sounds and translating them into written representations. They
learn how and when to use punctuation, as well as how to rephrase
thoughts and ideas expressed in an informal register into more
formal registers depending on one's purpose. School is the place
where students not only use language but study it, developing a
meta-awareness about language. And, as Gee (1991) points out, this
kind of meta-awareness is essential for individuals if they are to
exercise full and powerful control over their discourse.

Thus, the issue is not should schools focus on this meta-
awareness. Each of these concepts and abilities is important and
has a place in helping children develop their literate abilities.
However, these concepts and abilities do not by themselves
represent the whole of being literate. While schools also focus on
other aspects of language (for communication or reading for
pleasure), these aspects may not receive the same degree of
attention (especially in the early years) as the "nuts and bolts"
aspects of language often do. Thus, schools may send inadvertent
and unintended messages to children about "what counts" as
legitimate language knowledge. By valuing aspects of language that
may (often) differ from what a child has learned of and about
language at home, most children, when they first enter school, are
confronted by a very different literacy terrain than that with which

they are familiar (See Figure 4).

86

 

Aspects of Student B's T

Knowledge of Language
and Literacy
Valued by School

        
  
    

SChOOI-Valued

Aspects of Student A's
Knowledge of Language
and Literacy
Valued by School

  

Uteracy Does Not
Closely Match

The Knowledge
Valued by Schools

 
 
 
 

 

 

L J

Figure 4-Match/Mismatch of Language and Literacy Knowledge

87

Upon coming to school, Student 'A,‘ may find that her use of
language (for example, while at school, asking when the class will
go to "dinner") is quite different from the language of school (where
students and teachers go to "lunch"). Student 'A' may also find that
her style of answering a question while someone else
simultaneously answers that same question (much like the native
Hawaiian children in Au's 1980 study) is not what is expected at
school. In fact, Student 'A" may find that what she knows about
language bears little resemblance to what her teacher seems to
expect

Student 'B,‘ on the other hand, may find the area of shared
literacy aspects between home and school to be much greater.
Perhaps She comes from a home where both parents are high school
teachers and the language interactions they have taught Student 'B'
are more in line with what her teacher expects at school. Student 'B'
may still encounter new ideas about language, however, as she
learns about phonics based on her teacher's whole-language
philosophy. While what they know about language is different, both
Student 'A' and Student 'B' encounter aspects of school literacy that
are new and unlike what they have learned at home. Thus, each must
begin to redefine who she is as a literate being within the new and
larger literacy terrain of school. How well students do this, and
how well schools help students master this new discourse, has
implications for their future school success, as will be seen in the
discussions of Mimi's and Keesha's literacy experiences later in this

study.

88

 

WE
he

Dre

T'Tar
lerr
FESE
lion

its:

The Literacy Terrain of One First-Grade Classroom

In this chapter, I examine the classroom literacy terrain, for it
was within this physical and emotional space that Ms. Murray and
her students developed their own vision of a literate community.
Drawing on my own observational field notes, I first sketch a
representative morning vignette to provide an overview of the
classroom's literacy terrain, and to examine ways in which the
terrain of this classroom community resembled and differed from
the terrain often associated with school. I do so by drawing on
interviews with Ms. Murray, my own insights, and my reading of
literacy-education literature.

Taken together, Ms. Murray's insights and my own provide a
framework for understanding this particular classroom's literacy
terrain, and provide a beginning step in helping me answer my first
research question: What are the school literacy experiences of
nonmainstream students in classrooms where the literacy
instruction is reflective of current understandings about literacy
teaching and learning? Further, looking closely at the classroom
literacy terrain provides a context for my own understanding of
these particular nonmainstream students' literacy experiences and
of their sense of position within the literacy terrain of their first-
grade classroom. Charting the terrain within which thesestudents
moved, and recognizing how they saw themselves positioned in
relation to it serves as a starting point for exploring literacy
problems and potentials the children encountered. Those encounters

will be discussed in Chapter 4 and Chapter 5.

89

The following vignette describes a typical morning at the end
of February. The morning's instruction consisted up of a wide range
of literacy-related activities, not an unusual morning in that regard.
Ms. Murray and her students engaged in many different literacy
activities, some of which were not that different from those found
in many other classrooms, others of which were. Taken together,
the literacy activities members of this class participated in and the
interactions among students and between students and teacher
resulted in a terrain filled with different kinds of literacy "nooks
and crannies," including the mechanics of reading and writing as
well as the purposes for which reading and writing can be used, for
these first-grade students to explore. My description of the
morning's activities is presented in italicized text. Occasionally, l
interject my own commentary (notated in regular text) as a way to

guide the reader through the actions described within the vignette.

-,-_-i~ rio- : Firt- ..- Lir om l
The air outside is cold and crisp this morning in late

February. It's 8:20 and Burnside Elementary School is
relatively quiet. Ms. Murray's first-floor classroom is also
quiet , and I am able to settle in before the students arrive.
Then, as the 8:30 bell rings, students stream into the ‘
classroom. They talk animatedly with one another as they
remove chairs from the tops of several round tables
scattered about the room and prepare for the day ahead. Ms.

Murray reminds those with money for the school bank to

90

bring their money to her2. After the students take care of
their banking, Ms. Murray calls for a "red light, " her signal
that she wants the class quiet and looking at her. The
students quickly settle down, sit at their tables, and look at
their teacher.

“We have an assembly at nine o‘clock, " she tells them,
”and we haven't finished watching our movie about
Ftumpelstiltskin. I also need to take attendance and lunch
count, so right now I'll let you finish watching the movie
and then we'll get ready to go to the assembly.“

”Yes!" shouts Robert as Randell walks up to Ms. Murray
to show her his new book, The Very Hungry Qaterpillar, by
Eric Carle. He also asks if he might read it to the class. Ms.
Murray tells him he may, handing back the book and telling
Randell to hold onto the book until then. Talking with
Randell about the book reminds Ms. Murray about the
upcoming reading activities during March and she addresses
the class.

”Next week starts March and March, every year, is
reading month. That means we have a ton of activities to do
for that mont She then tells the class about this year's

theme--Jog your mind, Ftead!--and outlines several

 

2A local bank has "adopted" the school and helped the students set up
a savings bank. Older students interviewed for positions within the
bank (e.g., teller) and ran the operation. While I was in the building,
I saw those of Ms. Murray's students with money to deposit leave the
classroom to take care of their banking business. I also observed
"tellers“ coming in to the classroom to double check that everyone
who wanted to make deposits had had an opportunity to do so.

91

 

in this
the cl;
this (3|
.ladllic
”real I
Ci88m
the m
illeyac3
incorpc
35639”

ll mm

the

activities including mystery readers, a storyteller day,
activities on St. Patrick's Day, and a school-wide read-a-
thon. She also tells them about a reading contest, complete
with prizes. While some students seem uninterested in
what Ms. Murray is outlining, most are listening carefully
and "ooh" and "ah” appropriately, especially about the prizes.

Then Ms. Murray moves to the television and VCR,
begins the movie, and takes care of the morning bookkeeping
while students turn their attention to what is happening on
the screen. At nine o'clock, the principal announces over the
public address system that K-3 students should go to the
RIF (Reading is Fundamental) assembly.

We already see in this vignette the various literacy activities
in this classroom. For example, talk is a key cultural component of
the classroom. A variety of literacy experiences are also present in
this classroom: Rondell's sharing of text, the movie rendition of a
traditional tale, and the activities for "Reading Month." Further,
"real life" experiences are incorporated into the lessons within this
classroom, as the school bank activity exemplifies. These issues--
the role of talk within the literacy community, the variety of
literacy experiences within which the students engage, and the
incorporation of authentic purposes for literacy--were not. only
present in this particular vignette. Rather, they appeared throughout
my time in this classroom.

At 9:40 the students come back, and Ms. Murray asks
them if they can tell her about the books they heard read

aloud to them. Some say no, but most are eager to share and

92

together the class remembers the books, including a story
from Mexico, AbueLa, by Arthur Dorros; and a Native
American tale, The Rough-Faced girl, by Rafe Martin.

Once everyone is seated, Ms. Murray goes to the front
of the room, and holding up a box with books in it, tells the
class the principal has brought them some new books to
read. The box contains six copies each of different
beginners' biographies of African Americans, including one
called gliiah MQQQy, written by Garnet Nelson Jackson. Ms.
Murray describes the books as being about, "people that you
normally don't hear about, who were very, very important in
our lives, who made all our lives better. I've taken a look at
the words, and if you take one of the books and practice it, I
think you'll be able to read them. They'll be here for you to
share. This morning our journal entry is going to be about
one of the people out of here, Elijah McCoy, who you might
not hear about. If it wasn't for him, our machines that
operate wouldn't operate very well because they wouldn't
have a way of oiling them efficiently, and he invented a
piece of equipment that oils machinery. So, he is very
important. "

Ms. Murray places the box of books on the floor under
the chalkboard at the front of the room, then gives the class
their first assignment, ”This morning, I would like for you
to draw scenes from one of the stories that you heard that
you really, really liked and we'll put your names on them and

send them to our reader. After you draw your picture, Ill

93

come around and you can tell which story it is and I'll help
you get it spelled. "

Brandee announces she liked all the stories, and Ms.
Murray says she liked them all, too. As Ms. Murray passes
out drawing paper to each of the three or four students
seated at one of six round tables in the room, most students
begin working right away. Some students work quietly by
themselves; others busily talk with their peers about the
pictures they intend to draw.

Too soon, Tommy announces, "I'm almost done!"

Ms. Murray goes to Tommy and, after looking at his
picture, contradicts his assessment, "Tommy, I want you to
think about what you heard. One figure is not a scene from
the story. You put some background with it. " She moves on,
checking with other students, and Tommy returns to his
work.

The class continues working. Brandee reports that she
is doing the Rgugh-Fageg Qirl. A moment later Brandee
asks, "Is she White or Black?"

Ms. Murray tells Brandee the main character is Native
American, saying, " [one of the custodians] is Native
American; what color is he?" _

Before Brandee can answer, another student informs
Ms. Murray, "He's mixed! "

Brandee replies, "Well, I'll just color him light brown. "

Note several aspects of Ms. Murray's literacy instruction. She

often provided opportunities for her first-graders to demonstrate

94

their knowledge by drawing pictures. As emergent and early readers
and writers, many of these students were better able to express
themselves through drawing. Additionally, drawing provided a
format for students to talk with one another and extend their
understanding through shared interactions with others. As Ms.
Murray walked about the classroom, she reminded them of the work
she wanted to see.
"I will not accept one little picture of somebody. I

want to see background. Where does the story take place?

Who were the characters in the story?" As the students

work, Ms. Murray goes the front of the room and writes the

day‘s journal entry on the chalkboard (see Figure 5 ).

 

F V

Good Morning.
This is Black History month.

Today we honor Elijah McCoy.
Elijah was an inventor.

Mr. McCoy invented lubricators
(a way to oil machines).

 

 

Figure 5-Journal Entry for the Day

Ms. Murray tells the class that when they finish their
drawing, they are to copy the journal entry into their Black
History Month Journal. She reads the entry to them and
explains what a lubricator is. As the children begin

working, the noise level rises and falls as they talk with

95

one another while working. Some are talking about their
drawing; others talk about different topics.

Brandee is still interested in the color of the
different characters. She asks her table peers about
Abuela’s skin color. Ms. Murray overhears Brandee and
points out to her the four students in the class who are
Hispanic. Then Ms. Murray tells Brandee that Abuela is
Hispanic like the four students. She asks Brandee what she
thinks that might mean. Brandee replies she thought Abuela
was Black.

At this, Malcolm, an African-American student,
announces "I'm Hispanic and so is my whole family!”

Keesha quickly responds, "No!" and pointing to her
outstretched palm, says, "Your hand is the same as mine!"

As Ms. Murray walks by Malcolm '3 table, he asks what
she is and Ms. Murray replies, "A human being, but if the
government wants to keep track of me, they call me
African-American." With that, she smiles at Malcolm and
moves on.

She stops when a student asks for help spelling the
title of the book for which a picture has been drawn.
"Listen to the sounds, " says Ms. Murray. She says the title
slowly and carefully, but without losing the sense of a
complete word being said. "What do you hear?" As the child
identifies sounds in the word, Ms. Murray says, "Good!" and
walks on. As other students ask for help, she repeats the

process, helping those who have trouble hearing the sounds.

96

As students begin finishing their drawings and journal
entries, Ms. Murray points to the spelling word list on the

chalkboard (see Figure 6).

 

r n

bat
cat
tat
hat
rat
sat

 

 

\ J
Figure 6-Spelling Words on the Chalkboard

Note that Ms. Murray mixes more traditional school tasks (such
as copying from the board and lists of spelling words) with tasks
that are more in line with reform-oriented instruction. Students
often wrote in Ms. Murray's classroom. Sometimes, as in the
vignette, they copied what their teacher had written. Other times,
students wrote about topics of their choice. Further, learning a list
of spelling words coexisted with students' use of invented spelling.
This blending of old and new was an essential part of Ms. Murray's
teaching and exemplified what I came to describe as Ms. Murray's
mediation of various continua (for example, skills instruction and
holistic learning; teacher-directed instruction and student-directed
instruction and so on). These continua will be discussed in more

detail later in this chapter.

97

As Ms. Murray points to the list of spelling words, she
tells the class, "We are going to make chain words. What
that means is--"

Tommy interrupts her saying, "I know what to do!"

Ms. Murray focuses her attention on him, saying,
"Tommy, you are being rude, and I don 't like it." Tommy
falls silent and looks at his teacher.

A student comments that the chain is like a bracelet.
Ms. Murray agrees, but says it will be a chain instead of a
bracelet. She tells them, "You write a word in the middle of
the paper, big enough to see. The paper will look like this.
You'll write the word 'bat' on a piece of paper. On another
slip of paper, I'm going to write the word 'cat.’ To make the
chain, we have to hook them together, like this. You will
end up with a chain of six words. Then take them home and
study them. "

After completing the instructions, Ms. Murray hands
out the strips of paper along with some tape to fasten them
into links, and students begin working. As they do, Ms.
Murray walks about the room telling those who are working
they may go outside for a break. Finally, only she and one
student, who wandered about the room while others worked,
remain. When he asks if it is time to go outside, Ms. Murray
asks what he thinks. He says he thinks it is, and Ms. Murray
talks to him about doing his work and not bothering others.

Then they leave the room for recess. I pack my bags then

98

leave, turning out the light and closing the door behind me
as I do so.

The literacy terrain of this first-grade classroom was quite
varied. Instruction in the grammar and mechanics of writing
occurred along with instruction in the process and purposes for
writing. Many links between reading, writing, listening, and
speaking were made as well. I describe this richness and variety as
the "nooks and crannies" of the terrain, and have come to see this
particular terrain as one in which children were able to wander
about and explore those nooks and crannies, rather than stay on one
predetermined path outlined by their teacher. In the next section, I
examine in more detail the literacy terrain of this first-grade
classroom, and point to those features that both seemed to support
and seemed to cause problems for the children as they developed

their literacy abilities.

flefleeflng on the Classroom Litereey Terrain

At first glance, a visitor to this classroom might not think

 

these first graders are doing much literacy learning. After all, the
children were not divided into three ability-based reading groups, no
one read from a basal reading textbook, and no dittos were
completed. Further, Ms. Murray did little lecture-like talking with
the class. Yet reading groups and teacher-dominated talk are what
many (most) of us remember from our own days in elementary

classrooms. What's going on here? Ms. Murray's instructional

99

approach reflects her belief in a particular kind of classroom
community, as well as her beliefs about curriculum and instruction3.
in the remainder of this chapter, I examine the ways in which
Ms. Murray created a particular learning environment for her
students, informed by her perspective of developmentally-
appropriate practice for learners and learning. I begin by describing
the classroom community, for it was upon this foundation the
learning environment was based. Then, I examine the literacy
learning offered students in this classroom and discuss the ways in
which Ms. Murray mediated that learning in light of larger, and often
differing, philosophies and beliefs regarding curriculum and
instruction. Understanding the kind of community and literacy
learning Ms. Murray offered her students provides a context for
better comprehending students' experiences as they moved about

this particular terrain.

v I i n e of omm n'

Walking into a classroom can provide an observer clues as to
the kind of learning environment that may be present. Sometimes
those clues may seem quite evident. Student desks arranged in
straight rows, all facing the teacher's desk (placed strategically at
the center front of the room) implies a very different sense about
acceptable learning behavior and classroom norms than does a room

where the teacher's desk is off to the side and student desks are

 

3| use the term "curriculum" to refer to what was taught in Ms.
Murray's classroom and the term "instruction" to refer to how that
content was taught.

100

clustered together, facing each other. While the first arrangement
often conveys a sense that students should work quietly by
themselves and look first to their teacher for help, the second
arrangement often conveys the idea that students should work
together and support one another's learning.

A second way learning environments can be shaped is through
the emotional tone or climate in the classroom. Classrooms with
little talk can convey a message that learning is best done by one's
own interaction with the material to be learned, while a classroom
where talk is present can convey the idea that learning is a social
endeavor. In this section, I examine the physical and emotional
aspects of Ms. Murray's classroom in order to better understand the
ways in which that environment supported the literacy learning

within it.

Ehysieel suppert for e community of learners. As the

vignette above described, Ms. Murray's students often talked with

 

one another as they worked and learned. In large part, their ability
to do so was supported by the physical arrangement of the
classroom. Ms. Murray arranged her classroom (see Figure 7) in ways
that seemed to deliberately invite talk and cooperation among

students.

101

Bulletin Board Chalkboard Bulletin Board

1 1
Games, Puzzles, Tape Recorder, and Math ULF—‘F‘OLI
Manipulatives stored under chalkboard Toilet

 

 

 

Cl

Teacher's

 

Table

CI
0.0 0.0 0.

CDCOU“O"’(D

 

 

D Desk D

D. 0.0

w0<—O='UD

 

 

 

 

upplies
Table

0.0 D On
Teacher D Sink Us
t
o
r
a
9
e

 

 

 

 

Toilet

 

[3
D .' eading
Table

   

 

 

 

 

Ease'/\ Bulletin Board

 

Space
for

New — North —>
Computers

 

 

 

 

 

WV

Com . uters
JEE—_

Wall of windows

Figure 7-Diagram of Ms. Murray's Classroom

102

Ms. Murray's students sat in groups of three at round tables.
She seated boys and girls together at most tables, though a few
tables were "boys only." I believe this was more a result of the boys
outnumbering the girls in the classroom, rather than a desire by the
boys to separate themselves from the girls, or from Ms. Murray
deliberately isolating them. I often saw the boys at all-boy tables
talk to, and sometimes get up and go over to, girls seated near them.

Students were encouraged to talk with one another, though on
occasion Ms. Murray would tell students to work without talking.
This usually happened only when students took a spelling test or had
been rowdy and needed time to quiet down. According to the children
I spoke with, Ms. Murray told students they were free to talk quietly
with their table mates and with students sitting at tables
immediately adjacent to their own. In practice, however, I noticed
students moving about the room talking with peers at distant tables.
I never heard Ms. Murray tell students to return to their seats
because of this, nor did I hear her tell any students they weren't to
talk to distant classmates.

Students' location within a seating arrangement can
sometimes indicate who has preferential access to the teacher, and
thus the learning (Rist, 1970). While Ms. Murray's classroom did
have a defined "front" where Ms. Murray often wrote on theboard or
from which she addressed the class, all students seemed to have a
clear view of the board and teacher. For those who did not, moving
one's chair in order to better see was an acceptable and encouraged
behavior. Further, Ms. Murray tended to not stay at the front of the

room. Instead, she often roamed about the room, stopping at each

103

table to talk with students. Thus, there did not seem to be a
permanent "T" arrangement to the room that allowed only students in
the front row or center column to have preferential access to the
teachen

However, certain students did seem to have an advantage with
regard to their proximity to the chalkboard. During the three months
I observed in the classroom, students' seating assignments did not
change. That meant that some students always sat closer to the
chalkboard. For the most part, these were students who were not
disruptive and who were described by Ms. Murray as capable
students. Other, less capable (according to Ms. Murray) or more
disruptive (based on my observations) students tended to sit at
tables further removed from the unofficial front of the room. The
notable exceptions to this were two Hispanic boys who seemed to
struggle with many learning tasks. They sat with Keesha, one of my
focus students, at the front table nearest the door to the hallway.

The close proximity of some students to the chalkboard meant
these students may have been able to rely more on it as a learning
aid. For example, when Ms. Murray wrote "Good Morning" messages on
the chalkboard, students sitting at the front could more easily point
to a specific word if they needed help spelling that word. Students
seated further from the chalkboard, while able to read what was
written there, weren't as able to "zero in" on a targeted word. I
often saw students from more distant tables get up and go to the
chalkboard to better focus on a particular word while they were

writing.

104

all. .n'i'ni‘

 

The table and seating arrangements were not the only feature
of the classroom that physically supported a talk-filled and
cooperative environment. There were large areas of the room where
numerous children could gather, and they often did so. For example,
when children finished their morning work, they were encouraged to
play folder games that reinforced reading skills (e. 9., short vowels,
compound words), work on puzzles (The Lien King puzzle was
especially popular during my time in the classroom), play with math
manipulatives or checkers, and read together. I often observed a mix
of boys and girls moving to the front of the room to play games or go
to the back of the room in the carpeted reading nook to read books.
Some children chose to read by themselves next to another child
(much like young children engaging in parallel play), while others
chose to read a book together, and still others chose to read a book
to a small group of children (as if in imitation of their teacher
reading aloud to the class).

The groups of students tended to be quite fluid, and during the
times I observed, I saw no students being overtly excluded from a
group by the others. That does not mean students never "picked on"
other students. At times, usually when Ms. Murray stepped out of the
classroom for a moment, I would hear a student start a game of
"Who's Got Cooties?" or "Who's Better at , Boys or Girls?"
These games spread across the room like wildfire, but they always

stopped instantly the moment Ms. Murray reentered the classroom.

105

t l f r l rni In addition to the
physical arrangement of the classroom, Ms. Murray created an
emotional space that supported her students' learning. Ms. Murray
spoke to her students in a warm, friendly manner. She seldom raised
her voice with students (in reviewing my field notes, I found only
two instances where she spoke harshly to the class), and she spoke
to them in a way that struck me as being respectful of them as
people. I never heard Ms. Murray "put down" a student in front of
others, and when disciplinary measures for called for, she did so
quietly (usually by taking that child out into the hallway) and in
ways that did not appear to attack the dignity of the child being
reprimanded.

This seemed to be a deliberate stance Ms. Murray took with her
students, as: her retelling of a disciplinary event indicated, "I think
even when I call children on some inapprOpriate behaviors, we are
able to leave at the end of the day still being friends, or still
respecting what one another did. I think that just happened [with a
student]. I don't think that person went home feeling totally wiped
out by what I did. That person went home saying, 'Ok I'll come back
tomorrow, and we'll start all over again.“ That's what I always do.
We start fresh the next day. I don't let anything carry over" (Murray
interview, 4/8/94). .

Ms. Murray also encouraged her students to treat one another in
the same respectful manner. For example, she often talked with
them about respecting each other, one of the building goals at
Burnside. According to Ms. Murray, "It is in our mission statement

that you will respect others, and we set about teaching respect to

106

everyone in the whole building. You will see me get pretty upset
with children who aren't respecting other children, their space, their
rights. We all have rights and if you are going to do something to
someone and it's disrespectful, I'm going to call you on it" (Murray
interview, 4/8/94).

The issue of personal rights seemed an important one to Ms.
Murray. She reminded her students that each of them had the right
to tell others when they wanted to be left alone, and she supported
that choice. When one first-grade girl came to Ms. Murray asking if
she could work with another girl, Ms. Murray replied, "No, because
she has chosen to work by herself and that's okay" (field notes,
2/21/95). Ms. Murray also reminded the class that there were
certain rights they did not have, "You have no right to tell someone
their work is no good" (field notes 3/9/95).

In addition to rights, Ms. Murray also talked with her students
about personal responsibility and how this responsibility was a form
of respect. She reminded Malcolm he needed to control his wiggling
because future teachers might misinterpret his actions as not
showing respect (field notes, 3/9/95). During sharing time, when
the entire class was gathered together in a small circle on the floor
at the front of the room, Ms. Murray elaborated on this idea of
responsibility as respect. _

She recounted for the class a recent incident at a local high
school where a teacher and student there had been involved in a
scuffle. Ms. Murray talked with her own students about the choices
both the teacher and student had made, saying each had had a chance

to be responsible and not say anything that would make the other

107

person mad, but that neither had done so. My impression of her
comments was that Ms. Murray was trying to help her class
understand that neither the teacher nor the student had taken the
responsibility to choose NOT to act, as if their lack of responsibility
was a form of disrespect toward the other. These kinds of issues
likely are not often raised in first grade classrooms, yet, Ms.
Murray's willingness to discuss them candidly, indicates a
classroom climate of acceptance and openness.

In summary, this was a classroom where talk was encouraged,
and where students and teacher worked together. While Ms. Murray
was clearly "in charge," she encouraged her students to help each
other, in essence sharing the authority for knowing among all those
in the room. Further, this was a classroom in which students' voices
could be heard, where students could bring to the conversational

table a variety of t0pics to explore and wonder about as a group.

n nd f h ontin

In addition to the physical and emotional climate of
classrooms, teachers themselves influence, or mediate, what is
taught and how it is taught (Parker and McDaniel, 1992, p. 97). Like
all teachers, Ms. Murray brought her own knowledge and beliefs about
teaching, learning, and learners with her into the classroom, and
what she knew and believed mediated what and how she taught. In
looking closely at Ms. Murray's knowledge and beliefs about
curriculum, instruction, and learners, I came to understand that Ms.
Murray brought together many philosophies. Because some of these

philosophies were quite different one from another, I also saw

108

tensions in the ways Ms. Murray approached teaching, learning, and
learners in her classroom. In this section, I examine Ms. Murray's

beliefs and attitudes and explore some of the tensions I noticed.

t n t n r Ms. Murray's instructional
practices were influenced by her developmental perspective4 on
teaching and learning. For her, what to teach depended as much on
what the children were ready to do as on what curriculum guides
said should be taught. During an interview in March, I showed Ms.
Murray a continuum representing two different approaches for
thinking about what to teach. One end of the continuum represented
a curriculum that emerges from the students' own needs. The other
end of the continuum represented a curriculum designed to transmit
a collected body of knowledge to students. My intent in showing Ms.
Murray this continuum was to prompt a conversation about where Ms.
Murray might place herself in one of the classic conversations in
education: the question of whether instruction should be curriculum
centered or child centered (Dewey, 1902/1956).

Underpinning a more curriculum-oriented approach is the
belief that all children should be provided an opportunity to learn
from a common, rigorous curriculum emphasizing the certain core
subject areas (Bloom, 1987; Hutchins, 1936). A commonly heard

argument in favor of this approach is that a society needs all its

 

4According to Bredekamp (1987), the term "developmentally
appropriate" refers to those practices that take into account the age
appropriateness and individual appropriateness of activities made
available to children and that take into account the physical,
emotional, social, and cognitive needs of children (pp. 2, 3).

109

 

citizens to have a common base of knowledge in order for that
society to continue to exist (Hirsch, 1987; Ravitch, 1985). A more
child-centered approach to instruction grows out of the belief that
education should acknowledge the particular needs of the children
(Montessori, 1972; Neill, 1960; Pestalozzi, 1900). Others believe in
a balanced approach to education that takes into account both an
agreed-upon curriculum and the particular needs of the children
(Dewey, 1902/1956). Figure 8 below shows where Ms. Murray placed

herself with regard to the issue of the origin of instruction.

 

I I 1111114111

Curriculum A Child
Centered Centered

 

Figure 8-Approaches for Thinking about "What to Teach"

As the bold hash mark indicates, Ms. Murray placed herself
slightly beyond the halfway mark toward a child-centered approach.
Ms. Murray acknowledged she looked at her curriculum guides, but
she weighed that information against what she believed about
students needs. She elaborated on her placement by giving 'me an
example, based on the wide range in ages of students in her class.
At the time this study began, for instance, the students I focused on
ranged in age from 6 years, 0 months to 6 years, 10 months. Ms.

Murray felt some of the children who wouldn't celebrate birthdays

110

 

until near the end of the school year were not as developmentally
ready to handle some first-grade work as were others. She
explained that because of the age variations and resulting
developmental differences, there was a "big range in which children
will learn" in her classroom (Murray interview 3/29/95).

Age was not the only criteria Ms. Murray kept in mind as she
planned instruction. She also considered the prior literacy
experiences of her students. For example, Ms. Murray told me that
during March, when the school celebrated reading month, she got a
note from Gabe's mother stating they had no books in their home. In
contrast, Mimi and Keesha each reported to me that they had many
books at their homes.

The same range of experiences seemed to also exist with
regard to students' writing experience. According to Ms. Murray,
Pedro began the year not able to write the letters of the alphabet.
Shethen elaborated, "He could not even pick his pencil up and put the
symbols on the paper. Now, that's not a fear anymore. He readily
picks his pencil up and gets the symbols down. Now getting him to
understand that those symbols have a message or meaning, is really
more difficult for him, and it may take him another year to
understand that idea" (Murray interview, 4/5/95). Keesha, on the
other hand, seemed to know about the meaning-making purpose of
putting letters together to form words, sentences, and ideas as she
reported to me that she often wrote letters to her father, who was
not living in her home.

In light of this range of literacy experience, Ms. Murray felt

asking all students to do a year's worth of first-grade work made

111

little sense. Ms. Murray did not hold a deficit view of some of her
students based on their socioeconomic backgrounds. Rather, she
recognized that some students started in quite different places with
regard to their knowledge of literacy than did others. For children
who came to school with less extensive literacy knowledge, it made
little sense to her to expect those children to be at the same place
at the end of the year as other children. The learning burden would
simply be too great.

As a result of the age and experience differences among her
students, Ms. Murray believed it made little sense to have all
students engage in first-grade activities as set forth by some
curriculum guide. Instead, her goal was to help each student grow as
much as possible over the school year. She recalled having a
discussion about this very issue during a faculty meeting in which
teachers discussed curriculum goals for each grade level. During
that discussion, Ms. Murray reported she had insisted that teachers
needed to recognize not only where students were at the end of the

year, but from where they had started as well.

I fflcl l l n f r I ni In talking
with Ms. Murray, I was able to gain insights into her thinking about
the nature of learning and the many ways she fostered learning. I
have already discussed how the physical arrangement of the
classroom fostered an atmosphere of talk, and talk seemed an
important component of Ms. Murray's views about learning. She

believed her students learned from hearing one another talk about

112

the tasks they were engaged in and cited several examples of
students who helped others in this way.

According to Ms. Murray, Keesha often helped Jaime and Pedro,
two students whose first language was Spanish, with their tasks.
Keesha appeared to foster the boys' learning in two ways. First, she
would talk through the task and explain what to do in ways that
Jaime and Pedro could understand. Second, she reinforced their
learning when they accomplished a task in a manner that differed
from the way she had done it. For example, Ms. Murray described how
Keesha would "represent" Jaime and Pedro by going to another group
of students, explaining what the boys had done, and gaining
confirmation that others had accomplished a task in the same way.

Ms. Murray also encouraged other ways of learning and
demonstrating learning. She often had students draw pictures of
favorite parts of stories. This extended into other content areas as
well. In February, as the class read about African American
inventors, Ms. Murray had students draw pictures of the inventors
and their inventions, collecting the drawings in personal booklets
the students eventually took home. Ms. Murray's students were also
able to use drawing as a way to learn in other classes.

During a unit on seasons, the science teacher (who also taught
first grade) had Ms. Murray's students draw pictures of thechanging
seasons as viewed from the scene outside their classroom window.
These scenes and accompanying captions became the students'
personal books about the seasons. The reading specialist also had
students draw pictures describing how they made pine cone bird

feeders after reading a story about wild birds. Toward the end of the

113

year, the reading specialist, the fifth-grade teacher, and Ms. Murray
worked together to create a unit in which the fifth-grade and first-
grade students collaborated in the writing of original poems.
Drawing was also a part of this assignment.

Of course, reading and writing were also vehicles for learning.
Ms. Murray read a variety of genres to her class, including poetry,

informational text about bears, biographies about African-American

inventors, narrative favorites like Brewn Bear, Brewn Bear, What de

yeujee? by Bill Martin, Jr. and The Napping Hesse, by Audrey Wood.
The class wrote almost every day, incorporating a mix of teacher-

directed writing activities and students' personal journal or story
writing.

Teacher-directed writing included letters of apology to staff
members when students had misbehaved, a get-well letter for the
reading teacher on the occasion of her car accident, informational
text about Native Americans and African-Americans, short answers
in response to mathematics problems of the day, creative
narratives, content-area writing in response to spelling, English,
and reading assignments, and journal writing in response to a
teacher prompt. Students also wrote on topics of their choosing, and
the genres chosen reflected those students learned from the
teacher-directed writing assignments. A more in-depth discussion
of student writing follows in Chapter 4.

Ms. Murray's students also engaged in cross-age reading and
writing activities with a fifth-grade class at Burnside. Early in the

year, the two classes completed an in-depth study of Native

114

Ji‘é'

 

Americans of Michigan. During the time of my study, the classes
worked together to create their own books of original poetry.

Other means for learning and demonstrating learning included
the use of drama, manipulatives, music, and games. For example, in
April, the class presented a play about Earth Day for a neighboring
first-grade class. During one of my observations, I watched as two
groups of students used unifix cubes to see who could make the
longest "train." Each group engaged in a great deal of counting and
estimating before they tired of the game and moved on to something
else. The music teacher often used songs to promote learning. Many
days I listened to a joyful rendition of Chieka Chieka Beem Beem, by
Bill Martin, Jr. and John Archambault. This song recounts the
adventures of the alphabet letters. Games also helped the children
learn. During free time, I observed many students playing different
reading-related file-folder games5, as well as commercial games
like checkers or puzzles.

Overall, Ms. Murray's students were provided an array of ways
to learn and demonstrate their learning. However, toward the end of
the school year, I noticed more emphasis on pencil and paper kinds of
tasks, as well as on students working by themselves. For example, I

noticed students completing more phonics ditto pages, as well as a

 

5These folder games consisted of commercially produced skill-
related board games that the teacher could color, cut out and paste
to file folders, hence the name "file folder games." The skills
reinforced through these kinds of games are generally decoding or
comprehension related. For example, a game might require students
to identify the long and short vowel sounds of different words to
locate rhyming pairs of words. These games do not require a great
deal of time and can be used in centers or as extension activities for
students who have completed other assignments.

115

comprehension page about a short story they read. While this kind of
work did not dominate children's work, there did seem to be a subtle
shift toward more "school-like" tasks.

Unfortunately, I did not think too much about this at the time,
so I did not ask Ms. Murray about it. In looking over our interviews,
however, I did find comments that seemed to shed light on her
actions. According to Ms. Murray, at least one of the second grade
teachers was quite traditional. Ms. Murray mentioned that during
one faculty meeting, the second grade teachers had complained about
the "holes" they had to fill in some of the children's knowledge. Ms.
Murray related how she had explained to them the idea of
developmentally appropriate instruction and helping children make a
year's worth of growth, regardless of the point at which they may
have started.

Ms. Murray also described moving to second grade as a "rude
awakening" (Murray interview, 4/5/95). It wasn't until the children
moved on to third grade that things "opened up" and the students
were able to do much more "fun stuff" (Murray interview 4/5/95).
Neither of the second grade teachers took their students to camp at
a nearby nature center, an activity both the first and third grade
teachers participated in, and one to which Ms. Murray said
"everybody's been invited to go" (Murray interview, 4/5/95).

It may well be that Ms. Murray was trying to prepare her
students for more traditional tasks or was trying to fill some
"holes" before they moved on to second grade. It may also have been
that Ms. Murray was trying to document her students' learning in

"traditional ways" that the second grade teachers would

116

acknowledge. Whatever the reason, toward the end of the year, Ms.
Murray's students encountered convergent, traditional type tasks in

addition to more open-ended ones.

Leasher- and t- ir t in tr io While Ms.

Murray offered her students multiple ways to learn and show their

 

learning, she also supported them by providing different kinds of
assistance for that learning. In some cases, students engaged in
tasks that were more teacher-directed in nature; in other cases,
students exercised more control over their learning.

By student-directed, I mean learning experiences that students
have more or less control over. They are able to make choices about
what they read and write, and about how they will accomplish a
task. In Ms. Murray's classroom, for example, students were often
encouraged to write, but they were free to choose what they would
write about. Students were also able to read books of their own
choosing. Additionally, students were generally able to seek
assistance from peers they chose, rather than only going to the
teacher or a predetermined helper.

However, student-directed does not mean students are entirely
free to decide what they will learn and how they will learn it.
Rather, I see student-directed learning encompassing some. degree of
negotiation between teacher and student about what will be learned,
as well as a gradual release of control over the decision-making
power about learning from the teacher to the student over a period
of time. In short, this kind of learning is more democratic, and there

is an increased likelihood that students will be engaged in their

117

learning, and that students are more likely to see the worth of that
learning in their lives (Brown, 1991; Shor, 1992). Teacher-directed
learning, on the other hand, is less likely to go to the students to
find out what they are interested in, and is more likely to revolve
around what the teacher believes students need or would enjoy. In
short, there is little negotiation between teacher and student about
learning tasks or approaches.

As with other issues, I asked Ms. Murray to locate herself in
terms of teacher-directedness and student-directedness of tasks
and activities. Ms. Murray placed herself in the middle of the

continuum, as Figure 9 shows.

 

 

 

l .L .1 l l l... l I l l 1
Teacher A Student
Directed Directed

 

Figure 9-Teacher Directed or Student Directed Teaching

Ms. Murray placed herself in the middle of the continuum,
explaining, "I'm in the middle with that. There are things that I'm
definitely going to do that I think are going to be fun to do, and they
usually are. But even the things that I choose to do, I allow students
to have their input" (Murray interview, 3/29/95). Her description of
the activities she selects for her students to do as "fun" indicates

Ms. Murray does try to keep in mind the interests of her students, but

118

 

her comment also hints strongly that she makes most of the
instructional decisions. While still clearly in charge ("I allow"), Ms.
Murray is open to the idea that students should have input into their
learning.

Ms. Murray's next comments shed light on how she views the
ways in which her students influence the learning in this classroom,
"They may change the way I teach the lesson, totally. It may be my
idea, but just by working with them may change everything I'm about
to do. I'm really flexible" (Murray interview, 3/29/95).
Unfortunately, I did not realize at the time the importance of talking
with Ms. Murray about how the day's actual activities might have
differed from what she had planned so I am unable to identify
instances where her instruction was influenced by students.

Ms. Murray did describe how she did things differently at
Burnside than she had done in another, wealthy school, indicating it
was due in part because of "the type of children" she worked with at
Burnside. Though she did not directly say so, my sense in listening
to her comments was that Ms. Murray was not disparaging her
students. Rather, she seemed to be conveying the idea that she took
into account her students and their wide range of abilities in order
to create a more meaningful learning experience. If that meant
changing her instructional plans, she did so. .

The Good Morning Message was an example of a teacher-
directed task. Sometimes, as in the earlier vignette, students were
directed to copy a message Ms. Murray wrote. Other times, they
copied and added to one of Ms. Murray's Good Morning Messages.

Other teacher-directed tasks included learning a common list of

119

spelling words, learning sentence structure by placing mixed-up
sentences in correct word order, and phonics exercises Ms. Murray
did with the class. The purpose of these teacher-directed activities
seemed to be to provided all students with common understandings
about literacy, as well as to introduce students to the mechanical
aspects of literacy.

Over time, however, the control of some literacy tasks shifted
from Ms. Murray to the students, as when Ms. Murray had the class
write letters to others. Like many students, Ms. Murray's sometimes
behaved less than well while in the lunchroom. At those times, Ms.
Murray required her students to write a letter of apology to the
offended party. At the beginning of the year, Ms. Murray had students
copy a form letter she generated, but over time, she turned the task
of generating their letters over to the students, "I have written it on
the board. Well, today we took it another step. I told them, 'you write
the letter to Ms. Johnson (the principal)5. I'll give you the opener,
now what can you remember and come up with?‘ It was okay if they
helped each other. I don't care if kids help each other. They learn
from each other. They learn those secrets that help others succeed,
those who already know them. So, I want them to use whatever is
around" (Murray interview, 3/29/95).

Thus, gradually over the course of the year, studentstook more
control for their own writing. Where early in the year, Ms. Murray
provided the whole class a letter of apology for each student to
copy, toward the end of the school year, Ms. Murray was providing

minimal support and direction, generally by supplying words she

 

6Samples of these letters of apology can be found in Chapter Four.

120

knew the students might need or by telling them what couldn't be in
their letters. The same shift was present in students' journal
writing. Where earlier, Ms. Murray had written Good Morning
Messages for students to copy or had told them what topic to write
about, toward the end of the year, students' journal writing

reflected many entries of topics generated by the students

themselves.
Literaey skills ane literaey ereeess, Ms. Murray's beliefs

about learning and learners were reflected in the many ways in
which her students could both gain entree into literate activities
and develop their literacy knowledge. For example, watching a
movie version of Remeelstiltskin provided the children with visual
and aural background information that could support their
understanding of other traditional tales told to them during the RIF
assembly. For those students whose prior knowledge of this genre
potentially did not match that assumed by the larger school
discourse, the movie provided an opportunity for them to acquire an
understanding of "traditional tale" schemas--by exposure to the
story grammar, figurative language, and stock phrases (e. 9., "once
upon a time") common to this type of literature. That is, the movie
version provided the kind of comprehensible input (Krashen, 1983)
useful to non- and emergent-readers.

Trying to read a story version of Remeelstiltskin likely would
have made heavy demands on many students' decoding and
comprehension skills. The movie version, while still visual,

required no specialized knowledge of the reading code. Thus, more

121

children were potentially able to make meaning from this story in
particular, and about the genre of traditional tales in general.

Ms. Murray also fostered students' individual literacy
development by encouraging them to draw pictures in response to
stories they heard, read, or wrote. For example, after returning
from the previously described RIF assembly, Ms. Murray asked her
students to draw pictures of their favorite scenes from the stories
they heard. In doing so, students engaged in a kind of retelling
(Morrow, 1985). These retellings can potentially provide teachers
insight into the ways in which their students comprehend text.
Because many of these first-graders were not yet facile writers,
drawing provided a means for them to "reconstruct the concepts and
ideas being presented in the curriculum" (Gallas, 1994 , p. 118).

Further, drawing provided students not yet facile with the
mechanical and sound-symbol knowledge necessary to easily and
quickly write extended text, the means to elaborate much more in
their retellings. For example, in the vignette presented earlier in
this chapter, Ms. Murray asked students to retell their favorite part
of a story, including characters and setting, through the use of
drawing. She encouraged them to create detailed renderings, rather
than a picture of only one person (see vignette, page 93), though not
all students did so, as Tommy's "I'm almost done!" comment in the
vignette revealed.

Student drawings also provided Ms. Murray an opportunity to
"follow the children's own expressive interests while also using the
artistic process as an integral part of the identification and

expansion of their knowledge in different areas" (Gallas, 1994, p.

122

132). Ms. Murray appeared to do just this, when, in response to
Tommy's "I'm almost done!" comment in the vignette, Ms. Murray
replied, "Tommy, I want you to think about what you heard. One
figure is not a scene from the story. You put some background with
it" (field notes, 2/23/95).

Her comment indicates Ms. Murray intended the assignment as
an opportunity for her students to reflect on the stories ("Tommy, I
want you to think about what you heard") and construct personal
understanding of the story by creating a concrete and elaborated
representation of that understanding ("You put some background with
it."). She reiterated the idea that students were to think about the
stories in a more analytic way when, after looking at other students'
drawings, she reminded the class that she would not accept "one
little picture of somebody. I want to see background. Where does
the story take place? Who were the characters in the story?" (field
notes, 2/23/95). In Tommy's case, the process of thinking about the
stories seemed more individual in nature.

For Brandee, however, the construction of understanding was
more social in nature, as evidenced in the following segment from
the earlier vignette. The class had been working on their drawings
when Brandee, who was working on The Rough-Faeee girl, asked, "Is
she White or Black?" Ms. Murray told Brandee the main character
was Native American, saying, " [one of the custodians] is Native
American; what color is he?" Before Brandee could answer, another
student informed Ms. Murray, "He's mixed!" and Brandee replied,

"Well, I'll just color him light brown" (field notes, 2/23/95).

123

By pointing out to Brandee the custodian's ethnicity and asking
her to think about his skin tone, Ms. Murray supported Brandee's
understanding of the character in the book. The school-context
connection Ms. Murray helped Brandee make also modeled for Brandee
the ways in which readers use prior knowledge to aid their
understanding of text. Later, Brandee returned to the issue of color,
asking her table peers about the skin color of an Hispanic character
from a different book. Ms. Murray overheard Brandee and again used
the social context of school ( pointing out to her the four students in
the class who were Hispanic) to help Brandee draw on her prior
knowledge as a way to better comprehend the story.

In thinking about the ways in which drawing helped students
construct understandings about literacy, l was struck by the ways in
which drawing served as: a language for learning (Edwards, Gandini,
and Forman, 1993; Gallas, 1994). Using conventional written text
would have involved printing, a laborious activity for some, and,
when words were unknown, writing also involved time spent
thinking about spelling or what word to use. For some students,
drawing is the preferred method for conveying ideas. While learning
to express ideas in writing is certainly a goal most teachers would
have for their students, young children or those struggling with
written language expression may be motivated to develop their
written language abilities if provided opportunities to use drawing
and other visual arts as a way to demonstrate and extend their
understanding (Clyde, 1994; Hoyt, 1992).

In describing why she used drawing in her instruction, Ms.

Murray seemed to acknowledge the difficulties writing posed for

124

some students, along with their preference for drawing "I try to use
all the skills. Everybody's not good at writing and answering
questions. Someone might be a great drawer. Maybe you can answer
my question by drawing. I don't just do all writing and reading"
(Murray interview, 3/29/95).

In addition to providing a means of assessing students' story
comprehension, drawing scenes provided students opportunities to
talk about and deepen their understanding of those same stories.
Brandee chose to draw a picture of Abuela, the grandmother in a tale
from Mexico. Yet Brandee didn't have a clear understanding of what
Abuela looked liked. She asked her peers and teacher what color to
use and, with her teacher's help, extended her knowledge of race and
ethnicity. In so doing, Brandee seemed to acknowledge the
importance of understanding characters within the context of the
setting.

Another aspect of Ms. Murray's instruction was her integration
of the language arts: reading, writing, listening, and speaking.
Students in Ms. Murray's room often wrote or drew pictures about
text they read or listened to. Toward the end of the school year,
Mimi shared with me a book the class had written early in the year
after hearing Ms. Murray read Br wn B r Br wn B r Wh
See? by Bill Martin, Jr. In the book written by the class, students
had used the pattern in Br wn B r Br wn B r Wh t
and applied it to school items. So, one page read "White glue, white
glue, what do you see? I see a yellow crayon looking at me" (Mimi's

book, undated).

125

On other occasions, students copied journal entries from the
board and elaborated on them in some way. For example, during the
month of February, students copied entries about African-Americans
and their contributions to American society into their Black History
Month Journals. Once this was done, students were encouraged to
draw pictures depicting that person and his or her contribution.
Additionally, toward the end of the month, when the principal
brought in a set of beginning biographies about significant African
Americans for the class to use, Ms. Murray encouraged her students
to read more about the people they were including in their journals.

The integration of language arts was also evident in the
amount of student talk heard in this classroom. Ms. Murray felt talk
was an important factor in her students' learning, saying, "I've seen
students get up and walk over to what‘s going on, to hear what's
going on. You learn from oral language. Why would you hush
somebody up?" (Murray interview, 3/29/95).

As she continued to talk, Ms. Murray explained why she felt
student talk was so important, "It's okay to tell somebody,
'remember she said do this,’ and to explain it back. Students need to
hear [what others have to say] and [see what they have done]." Her
comments highlight two purposes she saw present in student talk.
First, student talk provided an opportunity for these first graders to
acquire the secondary discourse of school. That is, talking with one
another helped students learn certain aspects of "how to do school."
As first-graders, these students were learning a secondary
discourse that not only included content area knowledge, but the

ways of acting within the school discourse as well. Hearing a peer

126

reiterate the teacher's directions for a task or activity might help
another student better understand not only what needed to be
accomplished, but how to accomplish it according to the discourse
patterns of the school. Further, the act of explaining carried the
potential for helping the student doing the clarifying. After all, in
order to offer an explanation, the speaker had to understand (to a
greater or lesser degree) what it was the teacher wanted done,
internalize that information, and find the appropriate words to
convey the message to someone else. Thus, the student providing
help was gaining a deeper understanding of the discourse norms of
schooL

At the same time these first graders were learning the school
discourse of their particular classroom, they were also learning to
participate in the larger discourse of schools generally; they were
learning how to engage in an ongoing conversation (Bloome
and Egan-Robertson, 1993). In this sense, student talk about school
tasks was a link both to the past and to the future. In this sense,
the conversations Ms. Murray's students had among themselves were
shaped by past conversations others had had and which would, at
some future point, shape others conversations as well. Bakhtin
describes this idea of current conversations building on past ones as
dialogic and multivocal. From his perspective, no conversations
stand alone; they are all connected to what has been (Bakhtin, 1981,
1986)

For the first graders in Ms. Murray's classroom, this idea of
interconnectedness was an important one. In helping her students

acquire a literacy discourse that differed from the more traditional

127

discourse about literacy, Ms. Murray not only provided opportunities
for her students to develop a more empowering kind of literacy, she
also created conditions that caused problems for her students.
Because the discourse they were learning differed from the literacy
discourse others had learned, Ms. Murray's students at times found
themselves at odds with what others seemed to know and believe
about literacy, an issue examined in more detail in Chapters 4 and 5.
Second, student talk provided opportunities for Ms. Murray's
students to develop and extend their cognitive understanding of the
educational tasks within which they engaged. Their talk helped
make visible the different kinds of thinking other students engaged
in as they worked on learning tasks (Vygotsky, 1978). Thus,
students were provided opportunities to learn about the different
viewpoints of their classmates, and to learn about the different
ways in which students thought about problems and issues. Further,
learning about each others' ways of thinking about problems helped
foster a supportive environment for student learning among peers.
As an example, Ms. Murray commented, "I heard Keesha today. She
came over and wanted a clarification on something, and I answered
her. Before she got all the way back over to her table, she said,
'Jaime, you were right. That was the right way to do it.‘ So, she's
reinforcing for them. Mimi is probably doing the same thing with
Samuel. Samuel's her friend, so I believe that's going on there"
(Murray interview, 3/29/95). Not only was Keesha's comment
reinforcing for Jaime, it also validated for Keesha Jaime's way of
thinking about a problem and it provided an opportunity for other

students to see Jaime as a knowledgeable person. Thus, student talk

128

helped extend students' knowing by making visible others ways of
thinking and by creating a climate of shared knowing, issues to
which I will return in Chapter 4.

In addition to her comments, the arrangement of Ms. Murray's
classroom also seemed to reflect her belief in the importance of
student talk. All students sat at round tables and were encouraged
to talk to their table mates, as well as to their peers sitting near
them, while working. Seldom did I hear Ms. Murray tell her students
to be quiet. In fact, I asked her about this after I heard a substitute
teacher tell the class to be quiet. Ms. Murray readily admitted that
was not a comment she often made. The only times I heard Ms.
Murray request quiet from her students occurred when she was
giving them important directions (as when she reviewed tornado
safety procedures) or when the class had misbehaved while under
the supervision of others (like the lunchroom aide) and Ms. Murray
was reprimanding them.

While students often talked with one another about the work
they were doing (as when Brandee asked for help with Abuela's skin
color, Keesha validated Jaime's work, or students talked together to
solve a mathematics problem of the day), they also engaged in talk
not specifically related to the task at hand. This talk was more like
the "talk-around-the-edges" Dudley-Marling and Searle (1991, p. 71)
describe. That is, this was talk about events in one's life, or about
one's future, or simply about the latest movie releases (as when
Disney's [he Lien King (Hahn, 1994) was released on home video).

While not directly task related, talk-around-the-edges is still

important for it provides students opportunities to deepen their

129

understanding of how language works (Dudley-Marling and Searle,
1991). For example, one day Chelsea recounted the story of her dog
chasing her around the yard and knocking her over. In order to tell
her story, Chelsea had to draw on her knowledge of narrative
storytelling and mood setting. She also had to anticipate questions
her listeners might ask and incorporate them as she spoke so her
audience could follow her storyline.

On another occasion, Mimi and Chelsea talked about being
famous cartoonists. In order to do so, they had to draw on their
knowledge of how to keep conversational partners engaged and how
to maintain a degree of intersubjectivity.

Finally, the integration of language arts was not limited to the
language arts areas; it extended across content areas as well. The
first graders wrote several stories about social science issues, as
when they put together books about Native Americans with a class
of fifth-graders and when they presented a play about Arbor Day.
Though the students studied science with a different teacher and
that work was beyond the scope of my study, I did see evidence of
much writing about science in looking through students portfolios.
For example, they wrote booklets about the changing seasons and
about trees. Students also wrote about mathematics, as when Ms.
Murray asked them to describe in their journals how to solve a
problem of the day.

Ms. Murray's instruction also reflected aspects of a holistic
approach to teaching and learning literacy. By that, I mean students
were much more likely to read trade books than controlled-

vocabulary stories (though these were also available for students to

130

 

read). Students were also more likely to write what for them were
extended pieces of text, rather than compose sentences using a
prescribed list of spelling words (though on occasion, they did this
as well).

When I asked Ms. Murray to place herself on a continuum
representing different approaches to teaching literacy, she placed
herself a little more than two-thirds of the way toward a

literature-based approach, as shown in Figure 10 below.

 

 

I l l I l l l I l l J.
. 1F

Basal . A Literature

Based Based

 

Figure IO-Approaches to Literacy Instruction

As can be seen in Figure 10, one end of the continuum
represents a basal approach based on a sequential hierarchy of
reading skills to be mastered while the other end represents more of
a literature-based approach like that advocated by many whole
language supporters7. Like others, (e. g., Throne, 1994), Ms. Murray

recognized an either/or approach did not take into account the

 

7I recognize my depiction of the skills/whole language debate is
somewhat awkward. In talking with Ms. Murray about this issue, I
was trying to avoid negative or positive connotations. For example,
ditto sheets, skills instruction, and the like are seen by some as
always "bad," whereas reading a "real book" is always "good." In
truth, however, sometimes skills instruction is "good," and giving a
child a "real book" may be "bad." It depends in great part on how the
materials are used and on their underlying purpose.

131

 

complexity of the classroom. Children, after all, do not come neatly
packaged with care instructions proclaiming them "phonics only" or
"whole language preferred."

Classrooms are complex interchanges where individuals'
approaches to learning intersect with societal ideas about formal
instruction; where student background knowledge merges with
teacher expectations; and where learner interests must often yield
to mandated curricula. In an interview conducted prior to this study,
Ms. Murray acknowledged part of this complexity and her response to
it, "Well, some kids need phonics, and some kids can't learn that way.
I've seen children from either side of the economic spectrum who
can't work one way or the other. I think you do need to offer
something for the child in what they can learn in. That's basically
where I am" (Murray interview 3/16/93).

In addition to her belief that not all children needed the same
learning experiences, Murray also acknowledged that she did not
believe there was only one way for students to acquire specific
skills, "I do feel that some students need some skills instruction,
but I don't think necessarily it has to come from a basal text. I don't
believe it has to come from the basal. I think it can come from a
multitude of other places. It the basal is what you have, I guess
you've got to use it, but there are so many other things out there.
So, I wouldn't just use that basal" (Murray interview 3/29/95).

For example, the Mapleton School District provided teachers
with two instructional reading programs, a synthentic-phonics
program, and a basal reading textbook series. Ms. Murray did not

care for the basal series, and would have preferred a series

132

published by another company. In her opinion, the district's basal did

not have many stories relevant to the lives of her students. She had
' spoken with other minority teachers in her building about the lack of
multiple perspectives in the text, and according to Ms. Murray, they
agreed that this was an area in which the text was lacking. Ms.
Murray appeared to address this issue, as when she brought in
multicultural literature for the class to read.

Trade books8 were an additional source of instructional
materials Ms. Murray drew on to help her students develop their
reading abilities. In her previous position as a reading teacher with
another district, Ms. Murray had used primarily trade books,-
something she said she "would just as soon do" (Murray interview,
3/16/93) at Burnside as well.

Ms. Murray felt supported in her use of trade books by her
district's reading department, but as she put it, "The Board of
Education [thinks the basal] is the Bible" (Murray interview,
3/16/93). And while Ms. Murray believed the basal could fit into her
instructional program, she did not let it shape that instruction.
Phonics-based readers, traditional basals, and trade books all had
their place in Ms. Murray's classroom, for as she said, "there's a
whole ton of [materials] one can use to teach reading" (Murray

interview, 3/16/93).

 

8According to Tomlinson and Lynch-Brown (1996), trade books are
books "primarily for the purposes of entertainment and information"
(p. 3). They are sometimes also referred to as 'real books,‘ or
'library books.‘ As can likely be surmised, unlike textbooks, trade
books are not intended only for school settings.

133

Using a variety of methods and tasks also appeared in Ms.
Murray's spelling instruction. During the time I observed in her
classroom, for example, Ms. Murray provided students with lists of
spelling words. These lists centered around a particular word
family, or rime9 pattern, as in the -at pattern in the earlier
vignette. Each of the words in the list (bat, cat, fat, hat, rat, and
sat) were based on a different onset attached to the -at rime.
Understanding onset and rime patterns appears to promote students'
reading and writing ability by helping them attend to word patterns
(Stahl, 1992) and apply that knowledge in decoding unknown words
(Johns and LenskL 1997)

At the same time, Ms. Murray encouraged her students to use
invented spellinglo. Sometimes she would say a word slowly, as
she did in the vignette presented earlier in this chapter. Recall that
when a student came to her for help spelling the title of the story
for which a picture had been drawn, Ms. Murray replied, "Listen to
the sounds" then she said the title word slowly enough for the
student to hear the sounds that made up the word and asked, "what
do you hear?" so that students could listen closely for the sounds in
the word. Encouraging students to listen for the sounds in spoken

language is a strategy that can help them develop phonemic

 

9An onset is that part of a syllable that occurs before thevowel.
Rimes are the vowel and all that follows it (Stahl, 1992). So, in
'meat,' the onset is 'm' and the rime is 'eat.‘

1OInvented spelling occurs when children spell words according to
the sounds they hear. Thus a child might spell 'cat' "kt" because she
hears the M and ltl sounds but not the lal sound. Invented spelling
provides a window into a child's phonemic awareness, an awareness
that seems to play a strong role in learning to read (Adams, 1990;
Stahl, 1992).

134

awareness and conventional spelling ability (Stahl, 1992; Yopp,
1992)

At still other times, Ms. Murray helped the class generate a
common word list, which she would write on the chalkboard. This
collection of words provided opportunities for students to expand
their print vocabularies using words drawn from their listening
vocabularies“. For some, the expansion might result from the
simple act of putting a label on a concept already known. For others,
the expansion might result from the learning of a new word and
concept

Ms. Murray also encouraged students to turn to other sources
for help. Sometimes this meant asking a peer for help with harder
words. Sometimes Ms. Murray would tell students how to spell
really difficult words, or in the case of Mimi, demonstrate how to
use a dictionary as a resource. Ms. Murray related how she had done
this, "When I was a going over her story with her, I got the
dictionary, and we looked up a word. She spelled 'ordinary,‘ and she
was really close to the correct spelling. I said to her, 'You know,
here's another way that you can help yourself.‘ After I showed it to
her she said, 'Wow. That's really neat. I can use this?‘ I said, 'Sure.
I'm going to leave it out on the table, and you can go and get it

whenever you think you need to check your spelling.”

 

11The term "print vocabulary" refers to words a person has a
conceptual understanding of and can recognize or generate using the
conventions of written language. "Listening vocabulary" refers to
words a person has a conceptual understanding of and can recognize
when he or she hears them in spoken language.

135

Thus, Ms. Murray's students were provided opportunities to
learn about words and spelling in variety of ways, sometimes by
analyzing words using sound or sound-symbol knowledge, sometimes

by direct instruction, and sometimes by turning to other sources.

Summary

This, then, was the literacy terrain within which Ms. Murray's
students moved. The terrain was a complex one, based on a
developmental perspective of learning, and holistic in its approach.
Ms. Murray's placement of herself along the different continua, as
well as her comments with regard to the positions she chose, left
me with the impression that Ms. Murray was not only aware of, but
actively mediating the complexity within her classroom.

Ms. Murray seemed to take into account issues regarding
learning, learners, and literacy education as she planned instruction,
and the terrain she and her students explored was filled with a
variety of literacy nooks and crannies as a result. As I step back to
get an overall sense of what I learned about this terrain, I am most
struck by Ms. Murray's efforts to create an environment that would
support all the learners in the classroom, as they gained competence
as literate beings, and as they continued to develop a sense of
themselves as individuals living in a complex world. In the next
chapter, I examine the ways in which this literacy terrain supported

and caused problems for students.

136

CHAPTER 4

LEARNING ABOUT DISCOURSES AND LITERACY

In Chapter 3, I examined the community and instructional

support Ms. Murray offered her students from the perspective of a

teacher and literacy researcher. In this chapter, I shift my focus

from understanding the literacy instruction offered students to
understanding the literacy learning, as Keesha, Mimi, Chelsea,
Robert, Rondell, and Samuel described and demonstrated it1. In so
doing, I am aware that teaching and learning are in reality tightly
interwoven and not easily unraveled one from the other.

Focusing on the learning from the children's perspective helps
me begin to answer my second and third research questions--
understanding children's perceptions of their literacy learning, the

ways in which school experiences shape those perceptions, and what

these students are able to do with ilteracy. Further, examining

literacy from the children's perceptions also provides a way for me
to view their experiences in ways that illuminate issues of power,

voice, and position (as described in Chapter 1) that I might not have

seen from the perspective of a teacher.

 

1 Throughout the chapter, the children's comments and writing
samples will appear in differing degrees. As I have thought about
these first graders and their contributions to my learning, I have
come to think of them metaphorically as "actors" in the production
called "my study." While Keesha, for example, seems to have a larger
"role" than does Chelsea, that does not mean Chelsea's contribution
to my understanding is "minor." While Chelsea does make fewer
"entrances" than does Keesha, they are important ones for helping me

think about issues.

137

For my analysis, I have drawn on a variety of data sources,
Including multiple interviews with each child, and informal

discussions with the children while they worked and played. The

informal discussions were of two kinds. First, as I moved about the

classroom, I would stop and talk with the children about what they
were doing. I was able to record these conversations by wearing a
small recorder connected to a broadcaster's microphone attached to
my collar. Second, tape recorders placed at the students' tables
recorded conversations among the children without the intrusion of
my physical presencez. In addition, I drew on field notes and tape
recordings taken during my classroom observations. Finally, I also
drew on samples of students' work to inform my analysis.

In reading and thinking about my data, the broad issues of
community and literacy again emerged. That these issues are the
same as those I explored in Chapter 3 should not be surprising.

After all, Ms. Murray emphasized a sense of community within the

classroom and an attitude of caring among students. Further, since

learning about literacy was a large part of these first-graders'
school experience, it seems logical they would attend to that.
Additionally, since I was interested in issues regarding literacy, my
interview questions and the children's comments reflect that.

However, as I analyzed and thought about the data, I came to

understand that for the children in this particular classroom,

community and literacy learning were not separate issues. Rather,

 

 

2$ee Chapter Two for a more complete discussion of my use of these
Various methods for recording conversations and for my thoughts as
to the benefits and drawbacks of using each of these recording

methods.

138

children in this classroom were members of a particular discourse
community that strongly influenced their understanding of literacy.
In this chapter, I first review the idea of a discourse, then examine
the ways in which this discourse mediated students' literacy
learning, using writing as an example. Second, I examine the ways in
which the discourse mediated students' development of voice, sense
of position, and control of a particular kind of literacy. Finally, I
explore the ways in which this discourse did not fit other discourses

of schooling, resulting in problematic consequences for the children.

Discourses, Literacy, and Learning

As I described in Chapter 1, Gee (1991) provides a way of
thinking about literacy as more than reading and writing. For him,
literacy is the control of uses of language in discourses other than
the discourse one first learned as a child. Gee describes the term
discourse as the particular ways in which language, thoughts, and
actions are used to identify members of particular groups (1991, p.
3). Thus, if you are a member of an “accountant group,” you will
talk, dress, and act in ways that are different from other groups,
like “teacher.” People can belong to more that one discourse group,
but must remember to dress, act, and communicate in ways that are
appropriate for the group currently being joined. To do otherwise
would mark you as “not a member” of the group.

As described in Chapter 3, the community in this classroom
was a cooperative, talk-filled one in which children could request
help from and provide help for their peers. Because of these kinds of

interactions among students, the children had opportunities to

139

broaden their own understandings of the world and the different
perspectives others had about the world. Further, in using what they
knew of the world to help them learn more about if, children
expanded their personal knowledge, narrowing the gap as it were
between their own knowledge and the knowledge schools often value.
For example, Samuel, Rondell, and Robert extended their
understanding of writing--gaining control over the conventions of
print, developing voice, crafting mood, and so on when they drew on
their personal knowledge to write "spooky stories," a topic to which
I will return later in this chapter.

Even the "talk-around-the-edges" (discussed in Chapter 3)
helped students use their own prior knowledge to develop their
understanding of the purposes and ways in which oral language
"worked." As a result, this was a classroom in which students were
able to draw upon their own experiences as they worked to construct

their understanding of the larger curriculum of school.

 

Gaining Centrol of a Diseoerse fer Leareieg

According to Rogoff (1990), "The value of cooperative
classroom learning, in which peers work together on academic tasks
and provide one another with motivation, guidance, and feedback
(Damon, 1984; Slavin, 1987), also suggests that in circumstances in
which children have practice in interaction, they may be very helpful
to one another" (pp. 169, 170). Students in Ms. Murray's classroom
interacted with one another regularly, and Ms. Murray encouraged
them to do so in ways that were respectful, such as using active

listening, helping but not giving answers, sharing and so on. This

140

caring, supportive interaction style was important to the children's
growing understanding of literacy. In this section, I examine the
ways in which this particular classroom discourse mediated

students' learning as they engaged in writing tasks.

i r f P l n wl

Ms. Murray encouraged her students to write every day, and
often she asked them to select the topics they were going to write
about. From the beginning of the school year up until the end of
March, most of the students' writing had been on sheets of "first
grade paper." These individual, unbound sheets of paper were what
the students had been using to copy down, or write in response to,
the "Good Morning Message."

During the last week of March, Ms. Murray gave each student a
large-ruled, spiral notebook to be used as a personal writing journal.
This was pretty exciting for some of the students, though Keesha,
for one, wasn't convinced she would be able to keep her journal. In
talking with her about the new journals, Keesha felt sure the class
would have to give back their journals at the end of the year. Earlier
in the year, Keesha had seen Ms. Murray tear pages out of a spiral
notebook and give the notebook to Mimi. Mimi was going to miss
school for a week while her family vacationed. Ms. Murray had
removed pages from her own spiral notebook and given the notebook
to Mimi so Mimi could keep a journal of her trip. Ms. Murray did that,
she said, because Mimi's mother thought Mimi should have school
work to do and Ms. Murray didn't want Mimi to do many worksheets.

Because of what she had seen, Keesha thought the writing journals

141

would somehow be recycled for next year's class. Once Keesha found
out she did in fact get to keep her journal, she seemed very pleased.

On the day the students were first going to write in their new
journals, Ms. Murray had the class brainstorm a variety of topics
about which to write. That day, as well as on other occasions, I did
observe that some students chose to write about a topic generated
by the whole group. Other times, students wrote about topics of Ms.
Murray's choosing, as when they copied down the "Good Morning"
message, or wrote in response to a prompt like "What's at the end of
the rainbow?" Still other times, students came up with their own
topics. Mimi, for example, often wrote about her friends, what she
was planning to do later in the day or week, or why she liked her
teacher. Students also generated ideas for writing by talking with
one another. For example, Samuel told me that Robert, Rondell, and
he often talked to each other as they thought of topics for their
writing, "Um, lemme think. First we think about [our stories] and we
tell each other [about them]. Then we all write" (Samuel interview
4/25/95).

In addition to helping each other think of story ideas, Robert,
Rondell, and Samuel turned to one another for help with spelling or
the mechanics of writing. Because these boys were beginning
writers, their spelling and conventions-of-writing abilities had not
yet been over learned to the point that calling up a word and writing
it down conventionally was an automatic process. Depending on one
another for the conventions of school-valued literacy increased the
available pool of information each of the boys had to work with.

What Samuel didn't know, Robert or Rondell might. As Samuel noted,

142

"Sometimes Rondell needs a word, and it's on my paper, and I let him
copy?

I do not mean to imply that Robert, Rondell, and Samuel were
overly concerned with the conventions of writing. They did use
inventive spelling; they left off punctuation at the ends of
sentences, and so on. However, these boys were also developing both
an understanding of conventional text and a pool of knowledge about
text, and having each other to draw on for help when needed helped
them further their ability to gain control over the conventions of
writing. In this regard, their use of the discourse helped Robert,
Rondell, and Samuel tap into a much larger "database" of knowledge
than any one of the boys possessed separately. Like the "funds of
knowledge" the adults of Moll's (1990) studies tapped into, Robert,
Rondell, and Samuel were able to extend their writing abilities
because they had the resources of each other at hand from which to
draw.

In addition to talking about ideas for stories and helping one
another with the conventions of writing, Rondell, Robert, and Samuel
talked about the "stuff" that went into their stories. Doing so helped
them elaborate on their initial ideas, but it also helped them create

place holders for those ideas.
Rondell We were thinking of the stuff for our stories.

R And so, why do you need to talk as you think about
stuff for your stories?

Rondell Because it gives us, we remember our stories.

R So, if you talk to each other about your story while
you're thinking, it helps you remember your story?

143

Rondell Um-hm.
(Rondell interview 4/25/95)

As first graders still learning the mechanics of writing and
spelling, the boys could more quickly think of ideas to write about
than they could capture those ideas on paper. Sharing stories with
each other increased the chances that if one of the boys forgot his
story before he could write it down, he could turn to the other two

for help.

In n n ' L in
Working with others was also a way for students to extend
their own understanding about the things they were learning.
Talking with her students even helped Ms. Murray clarify her
understanding, as can be seen in the segment below. In February, the
class attended an assembly and listened to a story teller recount
several traditional tales. When they returned to the room, Ms.

Murray asked them to draw a scene from their favorite story.

Murray I would like you to draw a scene from one of the
stories you really, really liked. I liked all of them;
it would be really hard for me because they were
all very, very good.

Tommy I liked only one.
Brandee I liked all of them.
Murray I did too, Brandee. If you want to divide your paper

into four, and draw a little scene from each, that's
fine. It's up to you. Actually she did five, I think.

Student No, four!

144

Murray (Murmuring to herself the different titles as if
counting) Why did I think there were five?

As the students worked, Brandee wondered what color to use
as she drew the Rough-Faced Girl, and she asked those around her for

help.
Brandee Is she white or black?

Student White.

The help Brandee got from this student wasn't accurate since
The Beegh-Faeee Girl is a traditional Native American tale. Ms.
Murray joined the conversation at this point, as if to help them think

more about Brandee's question.
Murray The Rough-Faced Girl? She's Native American.
Brandee White?
Murray Is she?

Student Blood color.

Brandee still seemed to wonder if the color white would work,
but the tone in her voice had a much more questioning quality to it
than did her earlier question, "Is she white or black?" It was as if
Brandee was trying to think about what Ms. Murray's comment might
mean. Meanwhile, another student appeared to somewhat understand
what the additional information Ms. Murray had provided ("She's
Native American") meant. While there are a variety of

interpretations one could make about the student's comment "blood

145

color," my sense in listening to the audio tape of this segment was
that the student was suggesting a reddish-brown color, rather than
alluding to any stereotypical notions about Native Americans.
Regardless of the student's intent, Ms. Murray seemed to think
she needed to provide the students additional support, as she
clarified her earlier information by asking them to consider a person

they knew.

Murray The custodian is Native American. What color is
he?

Student He's mixed.

Brandee Oh. Well, I'll just color her light brown.
-» (field notes 2/23/95)

The school custodian was a person very familiar to the class.
They often waved to him and said "Hi" when he came in the room or
they passed him in the hallway and they saw him daily in the
lunchroom. At least one student presumed to know the custodian
well enough to comment on his background ("He's mixedl"). For
Brandee, the connection to the custodian allowed her to select a
color that she felt was appropriate. Her "Oh" had a sense of "now I
get it," and her decision about which color to use seemed to me to be
spoken with more assurance than her earlier comments.

As I thought about this exchange among the students,l
perceived it to be an example of the group helping to support
Brandee's understanding of the Rough-Faced Girl's identity.
Brandee's knowledge about this character and this story appeared to

deepen as she moved from considering the character as white (as

146

was implied in her first choice of color) to light brown. This kind of
knowledge could help Brandee better understand the nuances in
traditional tales commonly found in many cultures. As a variant of
the Qineerella tale (Tomlinson and Lynch-Brown, 1996), The Reugh-
Faeee Girl (Martin, 1992) shared similarities with other tales of
this kind, yet it also differed due to cultural variations.
Understanding the Rough-Faced Girl's ethnicity may have offered an
opportunity for Brandee to consider the similarities and differences
of this variation of a classic tale in comparison to other versions

with which she might have been familiar.

A Diseeurse fer Trying Out New leeas

Finally, talking together was a way to support one another's

 

efforts as authors learning the craft of writing. Writers gain better
control over their discourse as they move beyond conventions to add
flavor and their own unique touches to text. In the segment below,
Samuel's comments indicate that he, Robert, and Rondell seemed to
be developing control over their discourse. The boys often read their
stories to each other, getting one another's feedback about what
they had written. Here, Samuel's describes what happened when he
showed Rondell and Robert the "spooky handwriting" he was using in

one of his scary stories.

R And sometimes you're writing in spooky
handwriting. Do you talk to Robert and Rondell
about writing in spooky handwriting?

Samuel Yeah.

R And what do they say?

147

Samuel They get scared, and sometimes they shiver.
Sometimes I get shivery.

(Samuel interview 4/25/95)

Rondell and Robert supported Samuel's use of this mood-
creating device by shivering appreciatively and making comments
about how scared the writing made them feel as they read the text.
For Samuel, talking to his peers appeared to support the development
of his craft as a writer. The response he received from his friends
(shivering and getting scared) seemed, from my perspective, to help
him think about what he did as a writer in relation to his audience.

Samuel seemed to use Robert and Rondell as sounding boards to
try out a new idea before making it part of his writer's toolbox.
Theirdiscourse allowed Samuel to visualize his thinking about how
to make his writing more appealing to his audience. Robert and
Rondell's response validated Samuel's thinking about his writing. In
talking about language, rather than just using language, the boys
engaged in a consideration of language as a entity to be studied in
its own right. Their conversation provided an opportunity for the
boys to develop a metalinguistic awareness about writing and to
gain more control over this secondary discourse.

I doubt that Rondell and Robert were truly scared by Samuel's
spooky handwriting, but their reactions to his idea likely validated
Samuel's attempt at establishing mood. Further, talking with one
another helped these boys see the ways in which they could be
resources for one another, so that they were not totally dependent

on their teacher as a source of knowing. Each served as a sounding

148

board for the others' ideas, and as a source of information about
spelling, mechanics, and style. Finally, talking with each other
helped the boys get new ideas for their own writing. I am not sure
who introduced scary stories to the group, but each of the boys
wrote several of these stories, ranging from dragons and witches to

blood vampires and monsters with 101 eyes.

i in n r I f Di r f r Liv
While schools are charged with helping the next generation

acquire the knowledge and thinking skills they will need to I

 

perpetuate the society to which they belong, schools also play a role
in students' socialization as members of that society. The discourse
community to which these first graders belonged supported their
development as functioning members of a larger group. In this
section, I describe how engaging in the discourse of this particular
classroom helped students learn more about literacy and how to use

itto make sense of the world around them.

"We Talk AMff That Haeeenee Areune Us"

Having opportunities to talk with one another as they worked

 

provided the children a way of thinking about the world beyond their
classroom. In the following interview segment, for example, Samuel
related an incident that occurred at an elementary school near his

home.

Samuel We talk about stuff that happened around us. I live
by Glenn Road School, and | talk about the time a

149

.m-

kid brung in a knife, and sometimes they tell on
someone else.
(Samuel interview 4/25/95)

Although Samuel did not say any more about the student with
the knife, what he did say indicated he was concerned about the
issue and about how to react to it. For students aware of others
bringing weapons to school, the decision to tall or not poses many
ethical and practical dilemmas and can have real consequences.
Being able to discuss this topic with his friends provided a way for
Samuel to begin exploring the range of possibilities open to him if
he were ever in the know about a situation like the one at Glenn Road
School. Whatever his reasons for sharing what he knew, the
discourse community of his classroom enabled Samuel to bring to
the conversational table a topic of concern to him. The physical
structure and sense of community present in this classroom
provided a context supportive of talking about and making sense of

the world's sometimes scary nature.

"We Talk Ammrt That Never flamed."

The classroom discourse community also supported students'

 

efforts to think about themselves in the world beyond their
classroom. Mimi and Chelsea used talk to explore not only the space

beyond their classroom, but a point in time as well.

R Do you find it helpful to sit at a table with your
fflends?

Mimi Yeah, someone to talk to sometimes.

R What kinds of things do you talk about?

150

Mimi Uh, we talk about stuff that never happened, like
we are famous, we rent limos.

R Really, what are you famous for?
Mimi Well, we made something like a cartoon.

(Mimi interview 3/15/95)

This idea of being adult was one Mimi explored further in her journal

writing (see Figure 11).

 

F 1
When I grow up.

I will have kids.
I will get a job.

 

 

)
Figure 11-Mimi's Journal (circa 5/16/95)

For Mimi and Chelsea, the classroom discourse nurtured a
creative interaction with their world. It also provided a way for the
girls to project themselves into a different time and place. That is,
the discourse of this classroom made visible the girls' visions of the
possible and ways of thinking about themselves at a future point in
time. By imagining themselves as famous and able to "rent limos,"
Mimi and Chelsea were linking their present lives to future ones,
providing them a window through which to view their own futures.
While they might not become famous cartoonists, the discourse of

this classroom helped Mimi and Chelsea imagine themselves as

151

successful adults, able, in Mimi's case, to juggle the demands of
family and career.

The discourse in this classroom community mediated students'
learning about literacy by fostering a shared pool from which
students could draw and to which students could contribute
different kinds of knowledge about literacy (Moll, 1990). Since each
of the students brought with them knowledge about literacy and
language from home (Heath, 1983; Michaels, 1981) and since the
knowledge each brought was likely different, given the different
backgrounds of the students, the pool of knowledge this community
of learners created was informed and enlarged by the diversity of
the students' individual knowledge. Much as yeast helps a dough to
rise and increase, the discourse of this community extended both
individual student's learning of and ability to use literacy, as well
as the community's conception of literacy (Lave and Wenger, 1991).
Having examined how the discourse mediated students' learning
about literacy, in the next section I shift my focus to examine more
closely what literacy knowledge Keesha, Mimi, Chelsea, Robert,

Rondell, and Samuel demonstrated through that discourse.

$_I1a_r_e_c_l Knewing and Ineividual Ideas Aeeut Literaey

The students in Ms. Murray's classroom demonstratedan

 

understanding of literacy that ranged from learning the alphabet (as
Pedro was doing), to more nuanced uses of literacy present in

Samuel's spooky stories. Just as the students' classroom discourse
echoed and built on themes of community and learning present in Ms.

Murray's instruction, so to did their understandings about literacy

152

reflect and grow out of their teacher's mediation of differing
philosophies and beliefs about literacy. Below, I examine what this
particular group of children had to say and could do with regard to

reading and writing.

IDLWew" ef Beading, Rather than thL"Wlm_t:
Early studies of young (approximately 5 to 7 years in age)

 

 

children's perceptions of reading described children as having
unclear or no ideas about how to read (Denny and Weintraub, 1963),
uncertain notions of the purposes for reading (Downing, 1970; Reid,
1966), and misperceptions of their abilities to read (Mason, 1967).
These early studies paint a picture of children as quite without
"real" knowledge of reading, as Mason's (1967) conclusion implies,
"one of the first steps in learning to read seems to be the
realization that one doesn't already know how" (p. 122). In contrast,
more recent studies, informed by ideas about emergent literacy
(Teale and Sulzby, 1986), suggest children do have understandings
about reading and that what they know is very much influenced by
what they have experienced (Bissex, 1980; Dahl and Freppon, 1995;
Harste, Burke, and Woodward, 1981; Michel, 1990, 1994). For
example, when my twin nephews were two, I observed one of them
(who is read to regularly) sit down and "read" a book aloud to
himself, even though he was not decoding text in the conventional
way. His behaviors, however, including holding the book as if
reading (though upside down) and turning the pages (though not
always left to right or one at a time) indicated to me his emerging

understanding about reading.

153

W In thinking about what

Keesha, Mimi, Chelsea, Robert, Rondell, and Samuel had to say about
reading, I found they had several strategies to help them read text.
For example, phonetic decoding was a strategy identified by most of
the students. Keesha and Samuel described the process as "sounding
out," while Robert described it in terms of spelling, saying, "you just
got to spell in the words and then you know how to read" (Robert
interview 5/2/95). Keesha and Robert demonstrated what they
meant by saying the names of letters in words then blending the
sounds together. Students' use of decoding makes sense since Ms.
Murray included phonics instruction in her teaching of reading.
Students ‘were encouraged to listen for sounds (like short and long
vowels) in words they read, both on phonics worksheets and in "real"
stories.

Students also used picture clues to help them figure out words
and to help them understand what the words said. As Keesha said,
"whatever the picture is doing that's what the words say" (Keesha
interview 5/2/95). Mimi also talked about the role of pictures, but
when I asked her it looking at the pictures was reading, she said no
but that looking at the pictures "helps you a little bit [because] the
words describe the pictures" (Mimi interview 5/3/95). Samuel
described a more arithmetic approach to using the picturesand the
words, saying, "if you add the pictures and the words up, you might
get it; you might know how to read" (Samuel interview 5/12/95).

Implicit in the students' understanding of the supportive
nature of pictures to the text is an awareness of their role as

readers making meaning from text. Mimi articulated this idea when

154

I asked her my "What is reading?" question, "[Reading] is something
that you like to work at. You like to relate the pictures and who
wrote it and talk a little bit about it" (Mimi interview 5/3/95). The
idea that they had to interact with the text, the pictures, or both
paints a picture of these students as understanding that reading is
an interactive process between the reader and text, whose endpoint
is the making of meaning (Wixson and Peters, 1984; Rosenblatt,
1978).

Another strategy students used to identify unknown words was
asking for help from others, either Ms. Murray or a peer. Sometimes
that peer was someone at their table; more often it was Mimi.
Keesha, Chelsea, Robert, Rondell, and Samuel all said Mimi with a
good reader and someone they went to for help. Mimi, on the other
hand, only named Ms. Murray as someone she would go to for help.
When I asked if there were any children she could ask, she hesitated,
then said no. I don't think Mimi was being arrogant in her remark.
Rather, I think she understood, that in this particular community,
she was a very good reader. While other students might very well
have been able to help her, she and her peers might not have seen
themselves in this way. As Chelsea, Mimi's table mate, said, when
describing Mimi's reading ability, "she can read hard books, [the] kind
of books Ms. Murray will read" (Chelsea interview 5/2/95). At first
glance, Mimi's reluctance to turn to her peers seems a contradiction
of my earlier claim that students in this classroom pooled their
knowledge and supported one another's learning. However, I do not
believe this was a contradiction. While I did not ask Mimi directly

why she did not turn to her peers for help, my hunch is that both she

155

and the other students likely saw her as much more like Ms. Murray
in her reading abilities than like her peers. If so, Mimi and her peers
may have felt the class had little to offer Mimi, even if their

knowledge had been pooled.

Stealeeies fer imezevjng as a reader, In addition to the

strategies these students had for reading text, I also found they had

 

a variety of strategies for becoming better readers. One was
persistence. For Robert, becoming a better reader meant, "try, try,
try, then you get better and better and better" (Robert interview
6/6/95). Ms. Murray often stopped to tell Robert how well he was
doing and how much he had grown. These kinds of comments, as well
as the cooperative community within which Robert and his peers
worked, may well have fostered in him the willingness to persist
with learning to read.

The persistence theme was echoed in Chelsea's comments
about choosing books to read. According to Chelsea, Ms. Murray
brought in a wide variety of books for the children to read, "She gets
hard books in for people who know how to read real good, and the
people who doesn't know how to read real good, they get to read
them kind of books, too. And she brings in easy books so people can
read" (Chelsea interview 5/12/95). Having a wide variety of reading
material helped the students develop an understanding of what they
are able to read at a particular point in time, as well as enticed
them to keep reading by making available interesting text for future
points in time. According to Chelsea, Ms. Murray told the class they

could try any of the books and if they found that a book was too hard,

156

they could "just get another book" (Chelsea interview 5/25/95).
Robert talked about how he liked being able to read both "hard" and
"easy" books and how, in so doing, he had discovered that sometimes
easy books turned out to be hard and vice versa. Like Chelsea, when
he had misjudged the difficulty of a book, Robert simply put it back
and chose another.

Roller and Fielding (1992) discuss the importance of having a
mix of difficulty in the books available for students to read and of
the importance for creating within the classroom a norm that it is
perfectly acceptable for everyone to be able to read any of those
books. Doing so provides students a context for learning how to
choose books that they can handle. Not only does this help students
learn how to select books, it can also help them see the tracks of
their growth as readers. What was once "too hard" becomes "just
right," and what was once "just right" becomes "too easy"
(Ohlhausen and Jepsen, 1992).

In addition to the persistence idea, all the students realized
they simply needed to practice if they wanted to improve as readers,
or, as Rondell said, "Reading, reading, reading, reading, reeaaad,
read, read, read" (Rondell interview 6/6/95). Rondell's comment
highlights an important difference in the instruction of good and
poor readers-~the amount of time students have to actually engage
in the reading of real text (Allington, 1980; Allington, 1983; Collins,
1986; Leinhardt, Zigmond, and Cooley, 1981). The reading Ms.
Murray's students did helped them develop automatic recognition of

words, enabling them to spend more of their cognitive attention on

157

comprehending what they were reading (LaBerge and Samuels, 1974;
Samuel and Kamil, 1984).

In comprehending, the students were then able to connect with
text. When I asked Robert how being able to read made him feel, he
replied "happy, sad, and mad, 'cause sometimes [books] talk about sad -
stuff, mad stuff, and happy stuff" (Robert interview 6/6/95).

Finally, the students felt they had many options for how to "read,
read, read" (Rondell interview 6/6/95). They described how they
read silently at their tables or in the library corner, read to one
another, and read to Ms. Murray, using both trade books and writing

generated by their teacher, their peers, and themselves.

H dwritin r t r

Ms. Murray's students wrote every day. As described in Chapter
3, sometimes that writing was copying into their journals a "Good
Morning" message; other times it was writing in response to a
prompt or about a topic of their own choosing. As with reading, the
students learned many things about writing. I begin by describing
some of the purposes for which students wrote, and present samples
of student work that demonstrates those purposes. Then, I examine
those samples for evidence of what Ms. Murray's students knew

about writing.

Cemmunieative eureeses ef writing, Ms. Murray's students

learned that writing had a variety of communicative purposes. They
used it to demonstrate learning, as when they researched Native

Americans of Michigan with their fifth-grade partners and wrote

158

books about what they learned. On another occasion, Ms. Murray had
students "show what they know" in a very different way. One day at
the end of April, Ms. Murray was not at school. While she was gone,
the class had apparently gotten themselves in trouble. The next day,
upon her return, Ms. Murray had students write in their journals what
had happened. Mimi's version (reproduced as written by Mimi) is

shown below (see Figure 12).

 

/ 4-28-95 fl
Mimi
We were in the class

room when Mrs. X came

in. Eveyone was out

their
of thier— seats. And

there was lots of
noice. Most of them
went to the office.

Then we went to
Mrs. Y's class.
Then we came back

to the classroom
and finih our work.

 

 

kAnd that's what happed. j

 

Figure 12-Mimi's Report of What Happened

This journal entry clearly addresses the purpose for which it
was written. There is a clear sense of structure that outlines what
happened and when, as well as an overall sense of beginning and end.
I will return to this piece of writing shortly to examine it further

for evidence of what Mimi knows about writing.

159

Students also had an opportunity to learn that writing could be

used to express remorse. Toward the end of March, the class

misbehaved in the lunchroom, and the principal sent them to the

library instead of outside to play. When Ms. Murray and the class

returned to the room, she told them to write letters of apology to

Mrs. Johnson.

Ms. Murray wrote the principal's name and the word

"sorry" on the board, then told the class, "You may not write 'I am so,

so, so sorry'" (field notes 3/29/95).

Students could use one "so" and

had to explain why they were sorry (see Figure 13).

 

 

f N
Robert's Original Letter Conventional Format of Robert's Letter
Dear Mrs. Johnson, Dear M’S- Johnson,
I am sorry dekis I den lam sorry because I been
dab bad
from the lunch room. from ”79 lunchroom.
luv Robert S. love Robert S.
Keesha's Original Letter Conventional Format of Keesha's Letter
Dear Mrs. Johnson, Dear Mrs. Johnson
I am sorry for making all of the , am sorry for making all of the
“0'89 and I am .SOITY 10" Ietten the noise and lam sorry for letting the
0'3931'9” and "1 the Iutromm class fight and in the lunchroom
I Will never let the class fight. I will never ,9, the class fight.
Keesha 3-29-95 Keesha 3-29-95
L J

 

 

Figure 13-Robert's and Keesha's Letters of Apology

Robert later used his knowledge of writing letters of apology

when he and his friend Rondell had a fight (see Figure 14).

160

 

K \

~90 ,
m9 9 W
1F gInI are WIIQL/Ipafil‘a

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 14-Robert's Letter of Apology to Rondell

As with Mimi's journal entry, Robert's and Keesha's letters
clearly addressed the purpose for which they were written. I will
also return to these letters in the following section to discuss what
the letters reveal about Robert's and Keesha's knowledge of writing.

Finally, students also wrote to express their creativity. As
mentioned earlier, Robert, Rondell, and Samuel often chose to write
scary stories. The scary story in Figure 15 below was written by

Rondell, and was his first entry in his writing journal.

161

 

 

Rondell's Original Story Conventional Transcription
the whis niot the witches night
331 -95 3-31-95
one niot win I WUS in one night when l was in
bed I see sum whis bed I see some witches
I wus os afad I was so afraid
I rad down the sar I ran down the stairs
ad the whis fold and the witches followed
me down the sar me down the stairs
ad | ur the whis and I heard the witches
tr me nito a tum me into a
dagne ad the dragon and the
(end of story) (end of story)

 

k J

Figure 15-Rondell's First Journal Entry

What steeents knew about writing, In looking at the
kinds of writing students did in this classroom, I found they wrote
for many different purposes. As evidenced by the samples above,
Keesha, Chelsea, Mimi, Robert, Rondell, and Samuel were aware of
and could write creative stories, a variety of letters (I saw
examples of apologies, friendship, and get well letters), and
informational pieces (whether for research reports or behavior
reports).

In addition to learning about different purposes for writing,
students also learned about the conventions of writing through tasks
that were much more teacher-directed than the above writing
samples. For example, the Good Morning Messages students copied

from the chalkboard provided them models of the conventions of

162

writing (paragraphs, capitalization, punctuation). Traditional
spelling activities like the common set of spelling words were also
part of the writing instruction, and students were often directed to
use each spelling word in a sentence. Finally, students also learned
about correct sentence structure by rearranging words in mixed-up
sentences. For example, when given the scrambled sentence "test.
Today we take a," students were expected to rewrite it so that it
made sense "Today we take a test." Ms. Murray usually asked the
class what clues they could look for to help them know how to
reorder the words, and students were able to tell her they looked for
capital letters and punctuation marks.

Students' writing samples also indicate these students knew
how to write for a variety of purposes. Mimi's description of what
happened the day Ms. Murray was absent (see Figure 12) has a clear
beginning, middle, and end. The events flow logically and she makes
clear the passage of time by telling which teachers either came into
the room or the students left to go see. Rondell's story also conveys
a very logical sequence of events. His sentences are long and convey
a sense of cause and effect. Finally, Rondell makes good use of
inventive spelling to use exactly the words he wants to use
(witches, afraid, dragon).

Each of the student examples has a strong sense of content and
organization. Further, each contains sentences that really say
something and that move the action along. Each piece also has a
sense of the author about it; though the styles are different, each

author's voices comes through clearly.

163

What steeents sale they were leazhjng, The students in

Ms. Murray's classroom wrote extended pieces of text for a variety
of purposes, yet when they talked about writing, they mostly talked
about their ability to print letters nicely, to use periods and capital
letters, and so on. When I asked if they had improved as writers, I
got comments similar to Robert's, "Yep. I make D's better, A's
better, E's better" (Robert interview 6/6/95). Even Mimi, who
seemed to have such a good understanding about reading as meaning
making, said, when asked if she had improved as a writer, yes, she
was learning to. take her time and not rush.

These comments could be interpreted as the students not fully
understanding just what it was they were learning, or that I hadn't
phrased my question well enough. However, I think something else is
at work here. In Chapter 3, I discussed the differences in what
children know about language and literacy prior to coming to school
and what they learn at school. At school, first graders do tend to
engage in learning activities that focus on phonics, grammar,
handwriting. This was true in Ms. Murray's room as well. Although
students in this class engaged in a great deal of "real" reading and
"real" writing, they also copied Good Morning Messages from the
chalkboard, wrote sentences using a predetermined list of spelling
words, and completed English usage exercises. So, even though I saw
evidence of students engaging in the craft or process of writing,
they chose to tell me about the more mechanical aspects of writing.
I suspect this was so because these aspects were markers of their
transition from nonreaders and nonwriters to "real" readers and

"real" writers. Further, helping children with handwriting is

164

something many parents do at home; if this were the case with Ms.
Murray's students, this parental influence likely would have
reinforced the students' sense of conventional handwriting being an
important part of writing.

In stepping back to think about what Keesha, Mimi, Chelsea,
Robert, Rondell, and Robert knew about literacy, I saw some of the
same issues in the ways they described their learning present in the
ways Ms. Murray described her teaching. That this was so makes
sense. Student learning is after all influenced by the teaching they
encounter (Dahl and Freppon, 1995). For example, Ms. Murray's
students tended to talk about the more mechanical aspects of
learning to read and write, yet they were also able to talk about or
demonstrate an understanding of literacy as meaning making and
communication.

This reflected Ms. Murray's use of phonics as well as
literature, of direct instruction in spelling and conventions of
writing as well as student-generated writing. 80, in addition to
learning about the more mechanical aspects of reading and writing
common to many first grade classrooms, these students were also
able to talk about text, both their own and others, and draw on one
another as resources as they extended their knowledge about and

ability to use literacy.

n ntrin Dif rnt D or
Up to this point, I have described what students said and could
do with regard to literacy and showed how the sense of community

and literacy learning came together to create a particular discourse

165

within the classroom, one built on ideas of respect, cooperation, and
shared knowing among and between students and teacher. However,
this was not the only discourse Ms. Murray's students encountered.
Another, different discourse also influenced the children's
understandings.

This discourse was a traditional discourse common in many
schools: teaching is telling, silence is learning; life is a meritocracy
so students must compete to get ahead; and choice is the province of
grownups. Within the context of schools, it is a discourse of power
and position (refer to Chapter 1 for a discussion of issues of
position and power with regard to discourse), and it manifested
itself in different ways in the experiences of Ms. Murray's students.
In this section, I explore the ways in which this "other" discourse
shaped student experiences, both within and beyond their classroom.

I begin in the classroom.

A Community ef Sharee Knowing, Bet fime Knew eager

Ms. Murray stressed with her students ideas of respect, active

 

 

 

listening, and cooperation. She modeled the sharing of

responsibility with her students, actively encouraged them make
choices about their own learning, and supported their efforts to help
each other learn as well. When I think of Ms. Murray's classroom, the
words that come to my mind are democratic, noncompetitive, caring,
and egalitarian. However, as I reviewed students' comments about
literacy, themselves, and their peers, I began to see that even in this
classroom issues of position and power were present, and that they

were present through the subtle manifestation of the other

166

discourse, described above. While never officially, and rarely
overtly, addressed, evidence that this discourse existed was present
in conversations I had with the children about literacy.

In reviewing what students had to say about reading and
writing, I was struck by the fact that every single child I talked
with identified Mimi as being a good reader and writer. For some,
including Mimi herself, Mimi was second in line only to Ms. Murray.

It was as if Mimi became a benchmark against which the other
children measured themselves. This seemed particularly true for
Keesha. During our last interview, I asked Keesha if she thought she

had gotten better at reading during her first-grade year.

R Okay. Do you think you're getting better at reading?

Keesha Um, not that good. Because I don't know every word
like Mimi do. Mimi, she knows a lot.

Later in the conversation, I asked the same question about writing.

Keesha I don't know how to write that good like Mimi do.
Mimi, she can write better than me.

(Keesha interview 6/6/95)

Now, it could be that Keesha recognized she still had much to
learn and that Mimi represented a goal toward which Keesha was
striving. But in looking closely at my questions and the words
Keesha used to respond to them, I'm not convinced Keesha saw Mimi's
literacy abilities as something to which she, too, could aspire.

To begin with, my questions in no way referred to Mimi. In

fact, prior to asking Keesha if she felt she was getting better as a

167

reader, I asked her what she had learned during the year, and she
answered without hesitation that she had learned to read books. Yet
when | asked if she felt she was getting better at reading and
writing, it was as if Keesha shifted gears, changing the focus from
herself to Mimi. As I think about why this was so, I wonder if my
use of the word "better" somehow implied a comparison to others--
in this case, Mimi. Ironically, I used the word "better," rather than i
"improving," because I thought "better" would be more easily
understood by first graders.

I am bothered by Keesha's comments downplaying herself in

 

In

comparison to Mimi for two reasons. First, I am concerned that
Keesha seemed to have already begun to compare herself to her
classroom peers, even though competition was not an overt (or
covert, as far as I could determine) part of Ms. Murray's classroom
practice. In fact, the physical and emotional tone of this classroom
seemed very much in line with the kind of classrooms found to be
supportive of students' conceptions of themselves as learners
(Rosenholtz and Simpson, 1984; Stipek, 1988). Second, Keesha was a
student who could read, who could write stories, and who was
willing and able to help her fellow students. Ms. Murray shared with
Keesha on several occasions her opinion of Keesha as a reader and
writer, with comments like, "You're not only a reader; you're a bona
fide writer! My goodness, I'm impressed" (field notes 3/1/95). And
Keesha even seemed to recognize her abilities on occasion. In an
earlier interview, when I asked Keesha what made a person a good
writer, she said, "Mimi writes good, she do her work good, she helps

peOpIe a lot, like me" (Keesha interview 5/2/95, emphasis added).

168

Yet, when I asked Keesha to talk about how she had improved
over the year, in essence inviting her to brag about herself, Keesha's
immediate comment was one in which she compared herself
unfavorably to Mimi. In fact, her comments came close to bragging
about Mimi. It wasn't enough that Mimi was better than Keesha;
Mimi knew "a lot;" she knew "every word." Keesha's comparison of
herself to Mimi seemed to foster a lowered expectation for her own
success in school. Why? It was as if the discourse that was
supposed to support Keesha's growth as a literate person did not
have enough impact to mitigate against other influences (including
the more traditional discourse of school, as well as society's
tendency to identify "the best" and downplay the accomplishments of
everyone else). Thus, Keesha may not have been able to view herself
as "able" and instead seemed to develop an ability-stratification
mentality more common to a school discourse that emphasized

competition and comparison among students.

Diff t Di rs s i h am B il '

I also saw evidence of the influence of this discourse-of-
comparison on Keesha when she shared with me an experience she
had with the Burnside School librarian. In relating how she would
describe reading to a kindergarten child, Keesha quickly replied,
"Reading is, how you can read is to tell the kindergartner that if they
don't know how to read, they can look at the picture and whatever
the picture is doing that's what the words say. But if it don't have
pictures, I can't read books like that. And we can't get them from

the library either" (Keesha interview 5/2/95).

169

 

Keesha's comment, "And we can't get them from the library
either" intrigued me, as it hinted strongly of a boundary beyond
which Keesha and her friends could not go in selecting books to read.
I asked Keesha to explain what she meant by her comments, and she
said,

Yesterday, at the library, my friend got a fat book, and it

didn't have no pictures in it, and it was hard to read. But

my other friend got one that was easy to read because it

had pictures, and it was fat. Then Ms. Page, our library

teacher, took my friend's book away because hers didn't

have no pictures, and it wasn't easy to read, and she can't

read that. When I went over to the shelf over there, I

said, "Ms. Page, can I pick a book from here?" She said,

"Yea, but not a fat book, because if you do, I'm gonna take

it away. You get one more I'm gonna take that one away,

too." She said, "Get a skinny one."

(Keesha interview 5/2/95)

The Iibrarian's goal in telling these first graders they could
not have pictureless books likely was to reduce the girls' frustration
with reading by limiting their choices to books they could read
easily. Since many picture books are intended for beginning readers,
I suspect the librarian was trying to be helpful. However, 'her "you
can't" message had the potential for being misinterpreted to mean
something very different.

"Can't" carries two connotations with it. The first is a

negation of permission, derived from the interchangeable use of

170

"can" for "may." While many teachers still admonish their students
on the 'proper' use of "may" and "can," Webster's Dictionary of
English Usage (1989, referred to hereafter as WDEU) provides
support for the interchangability, especially in oral language use.
WDEU is even more clear about the negations "can't" and "mayn't."
Both are used to express denied permission. It is this connotation,
denying permission, I suspect the librarian intended when she told
Keesha and her friends they could only select books with pictures.
As a novice reader (based on my observations of her reading), Keesha
did not yet have the ability to fluently read and comprehend books
such as those in the Qeesehumps3 series, for example.

The potential problem with the librarian telling Keesha and her
friends they did not have permission to get "fat books" arises from
understanding the second connotation of "can't." According to WDEU,
"can" commonly is used to mean "knowing how," or, as the American
Heritage Dictionary (1983) defines it, "[possessing] a capacity or
skill" (p. 101). Thus, "can't" conveys a sense of "not knowing how" or
"not possessing a capacity or skill." Historically, these two uses of
"can't" have. been part of a school discourse with an ominous
message for some children. For example, the research literature is
filled with lack-of—ability-terms like "deficient," "disadvantaged,"
and "deprived," used by researchers to describe nonmainstream

children4. In turn, these messages are used to justify the

‘

3A series of beginning- to intermediate-level scary stories popular
at the time this study began.

4See for example, Flores (1992). This "lack of ability" message is
not new. Gould (1981) documents the long history of white, male
researchers "proving" the inferiority of women and people of color.

171

 

 

institutional denying of permission for nonmainstream students to
participate fully in school.

Numerous studies document the differential access to
education afforded nonmainstream students as a result of these
restrictive views (Anyon, 1981; Jencks, et al., 1972; Oakes, 1985;
Rist, 1970). The result of this "I deny you permission because you
are not able, and because you are not able, I deny you permission"
message is a cycle of lowered expectations and outcomes for many
nonmainstream students. In light of these messages, how long might
it be until Keesha, who already seemed to view herself as less able
when compared to Mimi, transforms an externally imposed can't (the
librarian denying Keesha permission) into an internally imposed
can't (I don't know how; I don't possess the capacity or skill)? The
question is not as hypothetical as it might sound; much research
documents girls' declining sense of themselves as capable
academically as they move through school (American Association of
University Women, 1992; Sadker and Sadker, 1994).

These comments (however benign, even helpful, the librarian
intended them to be) are important to consider for one additional
reason; they contradicted the discourse of Keesha's classroom. In
talking with Chelsea, one of Keesha's peers, I learned Ms. Murray

brought in a variety of books for her students to read.

Chelsea She gets hard books in for people who know how to read
real good and the people who doesn't know how to read
real good, they get to read them kind of books too. And
she brings in easy books so people can read.

R And anybody can read any of those books?

172

Chelsea Yea.
(Chelsea interview 5/12/95)

Providing books of varying difficulty for students to read is an
important ingredient in helping children develop their abilities as
readers. Roller and Fielding (1992) suggest that allowing children
to "read" books beyond their current reading level can promote
students' knowledge and make easier their future interactions with
difficult text. Ohlhausen and Jepsen (1992) state that encouraging
children to make choices about the texts they read helps promote
students' growth as independent learners. Ohlhausen and Jepsen
suggest students be allowed to experience a range of books--"too
easy," "just right," and "too hard" (p. 34). Reading easy books
encourages fluent reading and provides practice with personal
reading strategies.

Periodically trying out books that are too hard helps children
see their growth as books that were once "too hard" become "just
right," and eventually, "too easy." Keesha described this process as
she talked about her reading across the year, "I learned how to read
easy books and after I read a lot of easy books that I know, then I got
hard books that I know" (Keesha interview 5/12/95). Thus, even if
Keesha was not internalizing a "can't" message, she still bumped
into a different discourse that may have caused her problems
because of the mixed messages she received. There was no question
bumping into a different discourse caused Keesha problems the day a

substitute was in charge of the classroom.

173

i l I r
In early April, Ms. Murray was absent from school. This was
not a new occurrence, as she was quite active in both the local and
state levels of her teachers' organization and often had to attend
meetings during the school day. My intent that day was to interview
individual students since I knew ahead of time that Ms. Murray would

be gone.

P r h i t I changed my plan to interview
students and decided to observe them instead, when I saw the
substitute teacher taking Pedro out into the hall. According to my
field notes, "8:35AM. Pedro and Jaime are sitting quietly and Keesha
is talking. Just after I come in, the substitute pulls Pedro out of the
room and disciplines him. Wow! I haven't seen Pedro get in trouble
before" (field notes 4/4/95). Later that same morning, as the
substitute teacher left the classroom so the music teacher could
work with the students, I heard the substitute say to Pedro, "Excuse
me, we don't copy Keesha's or Jaime's papers," then observed her
taking Pedro's paper from him (field notes 4/4/95).

Pedro was a very quiet boy who hardly ever spoke, even when
Ms. Murray explicitly told the class they were free to talk with one
another as they worked. According to Ms. Murray, Pedro was an
English-as-a-Second-Language student and was one of the boys
Keesha often helped. She did so by sharing her work with Jaime and
Pedro, talking about it and helping them complete their work,
without actually giving them the answer. Because of my teaching

experience working with Hispanic students, I was drawn to Pedro

174

and thought we might get along well. In fact, I initially thought he
might be one of my focus students. I was wrong! He was so quiet I
couldn't coax anything out of him. I wasn't even able to speak with
him enough to know how fluent in English he might be.

I couldn't imagine what Pedro had done to get himself in
trouble with the substitute teacher. After I completed my
observation, I made a note to talk with students about this day, as it
seemed quite different from a typical day I was used to seeing.
Rather than the "gentle simmer" of talk and activity that was the
norm for these students when Ms. Murray was present, their talk and
interactions with one another seemed more like that of a boiling pot
threatening to spill over at any moment.

The next day, I came back to interview students about what I
had seen. It was then I learned seven students had gotten their
names on "the bad list," as Ms. Murray described it to the class. She
told the class she would talk with those seven, whom she did not
single out or mention by name, because, "some people who got their
name on the list usually don't get in trouble." While she never said
who the seven students were, I wondered if one of those seven might
have been Pedro. l was surprised to hear how badly the class had
behaved, as they usually were on task and self-controlled with Ms.
Murray. Occasionally she did have to reprimand students or_ send
someone to "time out," but never had I witnessed her writing names
on the board or creating a "bad list."

While I wasn't close enough to the substitute or to Pedro to
see what exactly he did that caused her to take away his paper, in

thinking about the experience, I suspect Pedro was discussing and/or

175

checking his work with Keesha and Jaime. If that was the case, that
kind of behavior would have been well within the norms for this
classroom. Unfortunately, I do not have Pedro's account of the
incident. The next day, when I asked him to tell me what happened
the day the sub was in the room, he said he didn't know. Since I had
seen Pedro go out into the hallway, and I had observed the substitute
taking away his paper, I thought he might share if I asked him
explicitly, "Did anyone get in trouble?" His answer was no.

As I've thought about what happened to Pedro that day, I've
wondered if the substitute teacher might have been concerned about
working at Burnside. As an urban school, Burnside might have
brought forth stereotypical images of what the children would be
like. As I considered that possibility, I remembered a comment one
of Ms. Murray's colleagues made to me during my first week in the
school, "when some teachers come to the 'real world' here at
Burnside, they don't know what to do and are put off by the kids'"
(field notes 2/23/95).

I've rejected the possibility that the substitute was concerned
about working with Burnside children, or that she was "out to get"
Pedro because her manner toward the other boys and girls didn't
strike me as harsh or hostile. Nor do I think the substitute was
being overly firm as a way to keep order--something I saw
substitutes do in buildings where I taught. I am well aware why
substitutes often take a firm hand. After all, being a substitute is
hard work, and it has been my experience that the substitutes who

are called back are those who don't cause trouble for the principal.

176

Rather, I suspect Pedro's experience is another instance of the
discourse of Ms. Murray's classroom bumping into a different
discourse. In many classrooms, children working together and
talking with one another is still not the norm. What was acceptable
in the discourse of this first grade classroom might be seen as
cheating in the discourse of other classrooms. I suspect the
substitute assumed Ms. Murray's classroom operated on that same
kind of "default" discourse and felt Pedro was trying to "get away"
with something. It would be expected, then, for her to stop Pedro
from cheating. A clash of discourses also seemed to be the case

with Keesha and the substitute.

Keesha and the sehstitete. When I asked Keesha to tell me

about the day the substitute teacher was in the classroom, and how
it had been different from or similar to a day when Ms. Murray was

present, Keesha had plenty to say.

[The substitute] erased the whole problem of the day
yesterday. And I told her we wasn't supposed to erase the
problem of the day. You supposed to leave the problem of the
day up there but just erase the things so you can put a
different color problem of the day up there; don't erase the
part that says 'problem of the day.‘ She didn't hear me, so she
just erased the whole thing.

(Keesha interview 4/5/95)

At first glance, Keesha's comments could be interpreted in a
couple of different ways: as a child who was being disrespectful of

an "outsider" adult who was not privy to the classroom norms, or as

177

 

 

a child who was so used to a particular routine that she couldn't
accept it when someone did something a different way (much like
children do when a grandparent, for example, puts peanut butter on
both pieces of bread, rather than on only one slice, as dad always
does). But viewed from Keesha's perspective, her comments
illustrate the collaborative norm of her discourse community. Ms.
Murray had, on many occasions, erased only parts of the board while
leaving other, recurring phrases, specifically, the "Problem of the
Day" phrase. Keesha may in fact have been trying to save the
substitute some time or effort since she likely knew the phrase
"Problem of the Day" was a phrase that was more or less a
permanent part of the chalkboard.

If Keesha's attempt was an effort to provide some "need to
know" information to the substitute, then her talk was in line with
the norms of this classroom. Helping those who didn't know how to
do something was a theme constantly stressed by Ms. Murray. Later
in our conversation, this theme emerged as Keesha described an
incident where she and Jaime had tried to help another boy, sitting

at a nearby table, with his work.

Me and Jaime was all done with our problem of the day 'cause I
helped him with it, [so we] was helping Marcus and the
substitute made us go back to our seats. She didn't know we
was up talking to Marcus trying to help him. So, then'l told the
substitute I was trying to help Marcus 'cause, we're not
supposed to help each other unless it's people at our table or
next to us, like the brown table, [where Marcus sits].

(Keesha interview 4/5/95)

178

 

In this segment of dialogue, Keesha described what happened
when she and Jaime, who had each finished their problem of the day
activity, went to the table next to them to help Marcus, who was
still working on the problem of the day. Yet the substitute made
Keesha and Jaime go back to their seats. Keesha then tried to
explain to the substitute what they were doing. Keesha's comment,
"She didn't know we was up talking to Marcus trying to help him
(emphasis added)," provides insight into why Keesha told the
substitute what she and Jaime were doing.

From Keesha's perspective, the substitute wasn't aware of the
two students' motive, nor with the fact that what they were doing
was acceptable in this classroom. Keesha was giving the substitute
the information she needed to see that what the children were doing
was permissible, "we're not supposed to help each other unless it's
only, unless people don't know at our table or next to us, like the
brown table." From Keesha's point of view, it was okay to talk to
Marcus about the work. In short, Keesha was acting based on what
she knew about the learning discourse in this classroom.

As an outsider to the classroom culture, the substitute did not
know this. Instead, she seemed to draw on another discourse, one
that had children staying in their seats and working quietly. In fact,
while I observed that day, I heard the substitute say just this to the
class.

Keesha and I continued to talk about the similarities and
differences in the ways the class operated when the substitute and
Ms. Murray were in charge. At the conclusion of our interview, as l

was thanking Keesha for talking with me and was just reaching to

179

 

 

 

turn off the tape recorder before walking down to the classroom

with Keesha, she suddenly spoke again.

 

Keesha But sometime I, I don't, I have to practice my
Ss and 25--
R In here? How come?
Keesha Like in the office we come from yesterday
cause the substitute sent me down to the 1

office, me and T'Meka, and we had to write
our name down--

R Why?

 

tr

Keesha «and stuff and then we had to practice our
letters in our name.

R How come you and T'Meka had to go to the
office?
Keesha Cause she forgot how to get the soap out at

the sink. I was gonna help her get the soap
out, cause she didn't know how to get the
soap out, so I had to push that thing for her
and turn the water on for her cause she had
already rubbed her hands--

 

R IVIm hm. Mm hm.

Keesha --and when you, in that sink, when you push,
you push the water down it stays down by
itself but with the other faucet, when you
push it and you let it go, it don't stay on. -

R Is there a sink in the bathroom?

Keesha Mm hm.

R Oh, okay, so T'Meka forgot how to get the soap

out and push down the faucet, so you were
helping her--

180

Keesha Yeah, that's it. On the thing that you push, it
says push, but T'Meka didn't know how to do
it. She thought you push it up like that.

R Oh, and so what did the substitute say to you?

Keesha She told us to go down to the office from
playin'. She collected our papers and told us
to go down to the office. I said, "I know our .
way down to the office." So then she took us Pa

all the way down, and then we had to do our
work down there.

R So the substitute thought you were playing
instead of helping T'Meka. Okay. And so you I
had to do your work down in the office. - E9:

 

Keesha 'Cause the substitute told the secretary that
we were playing in the bathroom, but we
wasn't.

(Keesha interview 4/5/95)

Keesha's comments could again be interpreted as two little
girls getting in trouble for playing in the bathroom. Yet, from
Keesha's perspective this was not the case. Through her description
of what happened, themes common to this classroom again emerged.
First, helping one another was the norm in this classroom.
According to Keesha's account, she provided T'Meka some needed
assistance. Helping others was something Keesha often did; she was
even encouraged to do so by Ms. Murray. Ms. Murray commented to me
early in the study that Keesha often helped Pedro and Jaime with
their work, and that she was good at it because she helped them do
the work on their own, rather than simply doing the work for them.

A second classroom norm, that of helping those near you, also

181

 

seemed to influence Keesha's actions. T'Meka sat at a neighboring
table to Keesha; to ask Keesha for help was well within the
established classroom pattern. Further, Keesha's comments in this
conversation indicate she thought she was helping, even if it might
not have looked that way to the substitute. According to Keesha, the
substitute told the girls, "to go down to the office from playin'"
(emphasis added).

Finally, Keesha's actions of operating the faucet demonstrated
a third classroom norm. I had on several occasions observed a second
person operating the faucet of the large classroom sink while
students washed their hands after an art project or before going to
lunch. In fact, Ms. Murray asked students to do this, or did it herself,
on several occasions. Keesha's comment, "Yeah, that's it, on the
thing that you push, it says push, but she didn't know how to do it.
She thought you push it up like that," indicates that Keesha
recognized T'Meka might be having trouble getting the faucet to
work, especially since one faucet required being pushed down while
another required being pushed up. Having two people at the sink, one
operating the faucet and the other washing up likely made sense to
Keesha, especially since that was the way things were done in this

classroom.

Summary
The students in Ms. Murray's classroom did learn about
literacy, both its conventions, as well as a form of literacy
discourse, in this particular classroom. Working together allowed

students to pool their knowledge about literacy, and act as

182

 

resources for one another when a correct spelling or a writing
convention was needed. Further, students were able to support one
another's learning and help each other deepen their understanding
about the things they were learning. Additionally, students were
able to try out new ideas as authors by sharing their stories with
their peers and getting feedback. However, learning about the
conventions of literacy was not the only lesson these students I
helped one another acquire. They also learned how to use language
and literacy for different purposes: communicating with others (as

with the letters of apology or the descriptions of what happened

 

while Ms. Murray was gone), demonstrating learning (as with the
reports produced with the fifth-graders), creative expression
(through story and poetry writing) and as a way to make sense of
their own lives, both in the present and in possible futures.

Just as the classroom discourse and sense of community
helped support students' literacy learning, so to did the kind of
instruction Ms. Murray provided them. Ms. Murray's encouraging her
students to use different strategies while reading (sounding out,
looking at pictures, and asking peers or teacher for help), as well as
her asking them what they thought provided students opportunities
to think about the metacognitive aspects of reading. In addition,
because of the nurturing and supportive classroom environment,
students were encouraged to continue to improve as readers. There
were no restrictions on what particular students could try to read,
for example, nor were they forced to stay with a particular book if
it proved to difficult. Finally, the classroom structure provided

much time and many resources for students to interact with text.

183

Students wrote every day and were encouraged to read a variety of
books.

However, students also encountered some problems as a result
of the discourse in which they engaged. Keesha and Pedro found
themselves in trouble with the substitute for doing things that were
perfectly acceptable within their classroom community. Keesha
heard mixed messages with regard to her ability to read different
kinds of text. In none of these instances did I get the sense that the
children understood, even vaguely, what had happened. Thus,
important lessons about the discourse of this particular classroom
seemed to be missing: that this discourse wasn't necessarily like
other discourses, and that students needed to be able to engage in
different kinds of discourse across different settings. The absence
of these lessons raises questions about the ethics of this kind of

classroom discourse, an issue discussed in Chapter 5.

184

CHAPTER 5
REVISITING APPROPRIATE LITERACY INSTRUCTION

In Chapter 1, I discussed different definitions of literacy and
ways of thinking about literacy and discourse. I also outlined those
theories I believe teachers draw upon as they develop their visions
of appropriate literacy instruction. I then described the ways in
which those theories informed decisions teachers made about four
components of their instructional program: curriculum, instructional
methods, the physical space of the classroom, and the sense of
classroom community. I also discussed my values and assumptions
about literacy instructional programs that I held at the beginning of
the study in order to make clear the lens through which I viewed this
classroom.

In this chapter, I revisit Ms. Murray's literacy instructional
program using the instructional frame introduced in Chapter 1, then
discuss the ways in which those features influenced students'
literacy development. In the final section, I return to my initial
research questions, and drawing on what I learned from Ms. Murray
and her students, describe what I have learned about the kind of
literacy instructional program I now believe would better foster the

literacy abilities for both mainstream and nonmainstream children.

Revisiting a Literacy Instructional Program
Present in Ms. Murray's instructional program were several key
features which supported students' acquisition of literacy abilities

and the development of their sense of voice, power, and position

185

 

 

 

with regard to literacy. However, there were certain elements of
that instructional program which, if more explicitly addressed, had
the potential to enhance students' control over the literacy abilities
they were acquiring and increase their awareness of and response to
the different discourses they encountered at school. In this section,
I discuss those important features and describe the potential and

problems encountered by students as a result of the features.

lm rtntFtr fh ter Itrctin

In any classroom, there are certain features of the
instructional program that stand out, even to the casual observer.
Some classrooms are marked by their complete silence, stark walls,
or rows of desks. In other classrooms, observers immediately
notice the clutter, the high levels of student talk, or the rudeness of
students' behavior toward one another. In still other classrooms,
observers are struck by the collegial interactions among students
and teacher, the abundance of reading materials or student work on
display, and the nature of class discussions.

As I observed in Ms. Murray's classroom, I began to see how
three features played important roles in students' literacy learning.
The first feature was the way in which Ms. Murray addressed the
component of physical space to create opportunities for students to
extend their literacy learning. The second feature dealt with the
component of instructional methods. In Ms. Murray's classroom, the
high level of student talk, among students and between students and
teacher, provided an important way for students to learn. The third

feature addressed the particular kind of classroom community Ms.

186

FI

 

Iii.-.” ' '

 

Murray fostered. In her classroom, Ms. Murray shared the authority
for knowing by encouraging students to look to themselves as
knowledgeable individuals.

While each feature added a distinctive aspect to the classroom
community, together they created a classroom climate in which
students were able to exercise voice and power and to claim
positions as knowers and users of literacy. I begin with a
discussion of each feature, then discuss the ways in which this

particular combination extended students' literacy learning.

Lise e1 Physieal Seaee

Ms. Murray used the physical space of the classroom to create
an environment that actively invited children to talk, listen, read
and write together. Table mates interacted with each other both
about their work and while they worked. For example, Keesha's
proximity and willingness to talk with Jaime and Pedro helped
support their learning. Robert, Rondell, and Samuel could turn to
each other for ideas and commentary about their writing.
Additionally, students sitting at neighboring tables could easily turn
and ask one another questions or comment on their peers' ideas.
Those sitting near Mimi, for instance, often went to her for help
with spelling or reading. Brandee's neighboring peers helped her
develop a better understanding of race as they discussed a
character's skin color while drawing pictures of their favorite
stories.

The arrangement of the space and items within it also provided

opportunities for students to see connections between reading and

187

 

 

 

writing, and between literacy and other content areas. For example,
multiple copies of the beginning biographies of African Americans
were located at the front of the room, near the morning message
describing those same individuals. As children went to the
chalkboard to look at the morning message, the near proximity of the

books created an opportunity for the children to browse through

 

them and to see the ways in which the topics they were writing n
about could also be read about. Opportunities to make connections

between written language and oral language were also available as

 

children revisited stories and brainstormed lists generated by the

class and recorded on large sheets of paper hung about the room. “I
The manner in which Ms. Murray utilized the physical space,

and the ways in which students seemed to make use of the

arrangement, have reinforced for me the importance of physical

space as part of the learning environment. Beyond merely providing

 

students an inviting place in which to learn, the arrangement of the
furniture and empty spaces and the easy access to books and
artifacts from prior activities (such as the charts of brainstormed
ideas or the messages written on the chalkboard) created a
reference zone students could tap into. Students didn't have to
remember how to spell every word, retrieve past information, or
depend on only themselves for ideas. This allowed them to quickly

access needed information and get back to the learning task at hand.

Student Talk as an Instructional Methee

A second feature of Ms. Murray's classroom was the amount and

 

kind of student talk fostered. Ms. Murray actively encouraged her

188

students to talk with one another. If students came to her with a
question, she would often direct them to figure out the answer by
talking with other students. This emphasis on talk grew out of her
belief that students learned academic content by talking with one
another about that content. The result was a classroom in which
children were not only encouraged, but expected, to turn to one
another for support with spelling, story ideas, reading, math story
problems and the like.

In some ways, the opportunities for talk'within the classroom

resembled an intranet system in which children could access

 

information from one another in a variety of ways. Sometimes the
talk was as public as a message posted to a bulletin board, as when
Brandee and her peers co-constructed their understanding about race
and color after the RIF assembly. Other times the talk was more
like private email correspondence between individuals, as when

Chelsea asked Mimi for help with spelling or when Ms. Murray

 

showed Mimi how to use the dictionary.

While talk provided access to knowledge within the classroom,
it also provided students opportunities to learn how to use language
for a variety of purposes and to see the various ways in which the
same purpose could be accomplished through different kinds of talk.
During free time, for example, some individuals moved fluidly among
a group of children playing checkers to a group putting together a
puzzle to still another group constructing a "snake" of unifix cubes.
Opportunities to talk with different children for different purposes
provided students practice in the kinds of conversation often found

outside of school. While most children do talk with family and

189

m-

 

friends outside of school for serious and more casual reasons,
classrooms often bring together children from different backgrounds
and different social interaction styles. Thus, children at school can
encounter a variety of conversational interactions for accomplishing
the same purpose.

For example, an older sister who joined in a game with her
younger siblings without asking their permission, and regardless of
their feelings in the matter, might find herself in the middle of a
fight, but it likely wouldn't result in permanent banishment from the
family. The same kind of behavior at school likely would result in
other students ostracizing the girl, especially if her behavior
continued over time. Learning how to negotiate entry into a group
without forcing one's way in, inviting in an outsider, and talking
with peers about ideas are important discourse skills outside of
school. I leave this study more convinced than ever of the need to
encourage children to talk with one another in order to learn.
Classrooms in which children have multiple opportunities to engage
in a wide variety of social interactions have the potential to help
children learn different discourse patterns and how to move more
easily between discourses. I also leave the study with a deeper
understanding of the teacher's role in facilitating this kind of

learning, which I will discuss later in this chapter.

A mm nit f h r n w'
The third important feature of Ms. Murray's literacy
instruction was the manner in which she encouraged students to

view themselves as knowledgeable readers, writers, and problem

190

 

T
LH"‘-'

 

 

solvers. When a student came to her for help, Ms. Murray might
provide an answer if she felt the question was difficult. It the
question were one Ms. Murray felt the child could figure out, she
often provided scaffolding by asking the student what he or she
thought might help. If the child couldn't say or didn't know, Ms.
Murray would ask a more specific question designed to help the child
recognize which strategies might be helpful.

For example, if a child were reading and came to a word he or
she did not know, that child might ask Ms. Murray for help. Instead
of telling the child what the word meant, Ms. Murray might respond
with "What can you do if you don't know what a word means?" If
that didn't help, she might say, "You could look at " and
encourage the child to fill in the blank. Often, Ms. Murray would
suggest the child talk with another student. Turning a child's
request for help back to the child shifted the authority for knowing
from Ms. Murray only, to everyone in the classroom. This shared
authority changed the character of knowledge from being a
commodity passed from one person (the teacher or textbook authors)
to another to something students could construct for themselves.
They controlled knowledge, not the other way around. The result
was students who saw themselves and others as knowledgeable.
Thus, Chelsea would ask Mimi for help, Robert and Samuel ~were
qualified to give editorial feedback to Rondell, and Brandee could
depend on her peers for help understanding a character's ethnicity.

Even those students Ms. Murray considered weak academically
were encouraged to work together. When three boys came to her for

help with a math problem of the day, she sent them back to figure it

191

 

 

out together (one of the boys then came to me for help, telling me
they weren't smart enough to solve the problem because they were
just little boys). But Ms. Murray didn't send the boys away
completely unsupported. She stopped at their table, asked probing
questions, helped them identify important points in the problem, and
congratulated them for their problem-solving abilities when they
figured out the problem. They beamed. The result of this shared
authority for knowing was a sense of "I can do this" among students
in the classroom. They were willing to try, knowing they had each

other and Ms. Murray to turn to if needed.

 

Another result of Ms. Murray's belief that students learn to
solve problems for themselves was a reduced sense of a hierarchy
among the class as to who was smart and who wasn't. In some
classrooms it is very clear who the smart students are--the Eagle
reading group has all the stars, while the Buzzard group doesn't. I

recall in my own teaching experience a boy who, on the first day of

 

school, told me he was "stupid," and that he knew this because last
year's teacher had told him so. The rest of the class confirmed that
the teacher had indeed let everyone know this boy was stupid. Even
after two years in my classroom as both a fourth and fifth grader,
this boy still saw himself as stupid, though I used every opportunity
to convince him that I knew he wasn't. _
Classrooms in which some students are viewed as smart while
others aren't, create devastating and long-lasting consequences for
children. In my literacy classes with preservice teachers, we talk
about this issue. I ask students to reflect on negative experiences

they had in school, and for those who choose to share their stories,

192

the pain of being labeled stupid is what they remember. It is a pain
that lasts into adulthood, and for some of my students, their
negative experiences are the driving force in their desire to become
teachers. They want to create classrooms in which children are not
subjected to the kinds of negative experiences they encountered.
For the most part, Ms. Murray's students saw themselves and
each other as readers and writers, as evidenced by the long list of
student names they gave me when I asked who among them were
good readers and writers. None of the students described
themselves as stupid, though Keesha did seem to see herself as less
capable than Mimi. Although I began this study believing it was
important for a teacher to see his or her students as knowledgeable
individuals, I leave the study with a new understanding that simply
holding this belief isn't enough. Teachers need to put that belief
into action by providing many opportunities for students to work
together to solve problems, to the point that doing so is
commonplace. I wish I had been more aggressive about creating

ongoing situations in which my "stupid" student could have had

opportunities to solve for himself, or with a small group of others, a

variety of learning problems. If I had done so to the point that this
kind of learning was commonplace, my student might have come to

see himself as knowledgeable.

Ms. Murray's use of the physical space, her emphasis on student

talk, and her attitude of sharing the authority for knowing with
students helped to create a classroom community in which students
were able to learn much more than a functional kind of literacy.

They also came to see themselves as able to exercise control over

193

 

 

 

that literacy. In the next section, I describe the ways in which
students development of voice and power led to that sense of

control.

Veiee and Power in W

Ms. Murray's first graders had a great deal to say as they

 

talked with one another, as they wrote in their journals and as they
spoke with me about their experiences in Ms. Murray's classroom.
They were willing to try "fat books," to write stories with a sense
of structure, or to help peers with their work. Even when the first-
graders worked with their fifth-grade buddies to write poetry, they
saw themselves as having something to contribute, and several
first-graders expressed exasperation with older students who didn't
want to listen to what Ms. Murray's students had to say. In short,

' these first graders felt comfortable expressing their opinions and
ideas through talk, reading, and writing; they were finding their
voices as members of the literacy community.

Part of that voice was expressed through the first graders'
willingness to use literacy for their own purposes. Robert's letter
of apology to Rondell reflected an understanding that words could be
used to heal and make personal relationships better. His "we will be
friends" contained within it the desire to reassure and the.
conviction to maintain a friendship. This willingness to use literacy
is an important, but often missing, aspect of becoming literate.
"They know how to read, but they don't read" is a common complaint
voiced by many teachers and parents about children. The literacy

instruction Ms. Murray provided her students, composed of a mix of

194

 

is» _

 

 

skills and application and of teacher-generated tasks and student-
generated tasks, offered students opportunities to develop not only
the tools, but the desire, to use literacy.

In addition to believing they had something to say, and feeling
confident enough to say it, Ms. Murray's students also exercised
power over their literacy. Every day they had opportunities not only
to learn about but to use the conventions of literacy and discourse
valued by schools. They developed power over the writing process,
from brainstorming topics to peer editing to the publication of final
drafts. When reading, these students knew how to sound out
unknown words and how to look at surrounding text and pictures for
clues to meaning. If that failed, students knew they could ask a
friend for help. Students felt comfortable "tasting" a variety of
text, from easy joke books to "fat" books with few pictures, as well
as a variety of genres covering both fiction and nonfiction. Students
also knew it was perfectly acceptable to put down a book that
proved for the moment to be too difficult or that didn't really appeal
to them.

The idea that they can make these kinds of decisions about
text isn't something all students know. I recall telling my class of
fourth-grade remedial readers (most of whom were reading at a
first-grade level) they could skip parts of a book or stop reading it
entirely if they found it unappealing. Several of my students told me
they didn't know it was "okay" to do that. They thought once they
selected a book, they had to finish it. While this seems a tiny detail
for those of us who are used to making choices about our reading, for

beginning readers it is an important idea. When students feel they

195

 

 

 

MITI-

 

are in control of their own reading and writing, a change occurs in
the relationship between the reader and the text. Power shifts from
the text to the reader. With that power comes the responsibility of
engaging with the text to construct meaning. To do that, readers and
writers need strategies, something these first graders were also
learning about.

Knowing how to write rough drafts, figure out the meaning of
text, sound out a word while reading, or draw a picture before
writing were all strategies that enabled the first-graders to take
control of their own literacy. While some students tried to use the
strategy of immediately going to the teacher for help, Ms. Murray
regularly encouraged them to try again on their own or ask a peer for
help. In so doing, she was helping them develop the knowledge and
disposition for being independent readers and writers. When needed,
however, she was there to help students. As Ms. Murray moved about
the room, she would remind students about strategies, ask probing
questions, give hints, and provide the answer when necessary.

Learning about different strategies and learning how to use
them helps students become strategic readers and writers. Good
readers and writers have at their disposal a variety of strategies to
draw on as they construct meaning from text, while poorer readers
and writers tend to have only a few. By turning students' requests
for help around and asking them what they might do to solve a
problem, Ms. Murray provided opportunities for the first-graders to
not only learn about literacy strategies but learn to make their own
decisions about when to apply them. Further, asking students what

they might do helps keep the array of strategies in front of students,

196

 

0

reminding them there are often multiple ways to approach problems.
This kind of "What can you do?" questioning also provides the kind of
scaffolding that helps students internalize and make automatic a
way of thinking about text. Once students begin asking themselves
"What can I do?" they begin to engage in the kind of metacognitive
thinking that helps readers and writers construct their own meaning
from text.

The classroom community and literacy terrain Ms. Murray
provided students created an environment in which they not only
learned how to read and write, but began to develop their voices and
power as literate individuals. They were free to actively explore a
literacy terrain that extended well beyond a basal reading text,
English book, and classroom discourse in which they could only
respond to teacher-initiated talk. Instead, these students were
encouraged to engage in a range of conversations with both their
teacher and their peers. They were encouraged to assume roles as
both learners and teachers. They were encouraged to read and write
a variety of texts. As a result, they developed a sense of control
over and willingness to experiment with their emerging literacy
abilities. While the instruction Ms. Murray offered her students held
much promise for their literacy learning, there were also unintended

problems, and it is to that discussion I now turn.

Pr I m of Lit r T hin and mi
The kind of literacy instruction Ms. Murray's students
experienced encouraged them to learn together, talking and

interacting with one another about a variety of issues. While this

197

 

 

 

certainly helped the students see themselves as exercising control
over literacy, it also led to problems in different settings. In the
lunchroom, the class was continually reprimanded for talking too
much. In the library, students found they didn't have the same
freedom to choose books as they had in their classroom, and the
substitute viewed Keesha's attempts to help T'Meka as play,
reprimanding her accordingly.

These problems were the result of the children not recognizing
the different kinds of discourse they were encountering. Within the
classroom, the discourse norms included freedom of movement,
helping one another, much talk, and the right to sample a wide
variety of text, but these were not necessarily the norms of other
discourses. While the classroom discourse helped students develop
their own voices and power with regard to literacy, it seemed less
able to help them understand how the discourse of their classroom
was positioned with regard to other discourses. As a result,
students weren't able to see when the norms they were used to
didn't apply in other situations.

As I began analyzing my data, I first thought students had
difficulty because Ms. Murray didn't fully address issues of different
discourses with her students, but I now believe that was not the
case. She did address these issues, but in a very broad sense. For
example, her conversations with the class about the walkout at the
high school certainly had elements of how different discourse styles
are used in different settings embedded within it. But that
conversation may have been too abstract or the conditions too

removed from the first graders' realm of experiences. Students may

198

 

 

not have been able to make the connection between discourse
patterns that led to what happened at the high school and discourse
patterns that Influenced their getting in trouble in the lunchroom.
If Ms. Murray had incorporated a more explicit and focused
examination of different discourses at a level first graders could

understand, her students might have been able to see when those

 

difference occurred in their own interactions. For example, when
Ms. Murray talked with the class about the problems they had in the I

lunchroom, she told them that too much talking caused their

 

problem. If she had extended the conversation to include a
consideration of what "too much talking" looked like in the J
classroom, compared to the cafeteria, the students might have been
able to grasp the idea that what was appropriate with Ms. Murray
wasn't always so with others.

Ms. Murray's students encountered many different teachers
over the course of a day or a week. They went to the library where

the librarian had one set of expectations. Once a week, the reading

 

teacher came to the room with her set of expectations, as did the
music teacher. In many instances, I heard the teacher in charge
remind the class to "behave," but never did I hear Ms. Murray or other
teachers discuss what "behave" might look in different settings.
Helping the students understand that Ms. Murray‘s definition of
"quiet" might be noisier than another teacher's definition could have
provided the students insights into the different norms under which

different discourses operate.

199

Revisiting Beginning Questions
When I began this study, I wanted to better understand

children's perceptions of their literacy learning. While I have gained
insights into children's experiences with literacy, I also leave with
a deeper appreciation for the role of the teacher in creating a
literacy environment in which children can use reading and writing,
listening and speaking for a variety of purposes and in a variety of F1
ways. In this final section, I revisit my initial research questions
and describe my current thinking about the kind of literacy teaching

and learning I believe better benefits mainstream and

 

1;: _ ”:1

Equip-'3‘ J- . L.

nonmainstream learners. I begin by considering instruction.

Intr tin and t nt'Lir r
The first question guiding this study focused attention on the

kind of instruction offered students.

1. What are the school literacy experiences of
nonmainstream students in classrooms where the literacy
instruction is reflective of current understandings about

literacy teaching and learning?

The literacy instruction that occurred in this first-grade
classroom provided students opportunities to engage in a wide range
of reading, writing, and speaking experiences. It fostered students'
sense of themselves as literate individuals and encouraged among
students a willingness to experiment with literacy for different
purposes. This kind of instruction does not occur in a vacuum. It is

shaped by a teacher's beliefs and theories about curriculum,

200

 

 

learning, and learners, as well as by his or her beliefs about the
ways in which teacher and students should interact. This study has
helped me reflect on the role of the teacher and the necessity of
understanding one's own beliefs in creating instructional programs

within the classroom.

 

Th n r [1
As I think about the literacy abilities students in Ms. Murray's , --
classroom seemed to be developing, I am struck by the ways in

which Ms. Murray's beliefs about learners and learning shaped the

 

EI’!‘ r . .- _ _ . .
‘i‘u’u-
1

literacy opportunities to which the students had access. At first

glance, this seems so obvious as to not need pointing out. Teachers'
beliefs (whether or not those beliefs are consciously acknowledged)
shape the instructional programs teachers create for their students.
“For teachers whose beliefs seem at odds (as when a teacher creates

a seating arrangement that encourages student talk but then

 

constantly admonishes students to be quiet), the opportunities
students have for literacy learning may be hampered.

Ms. Murray seemed able to clearly articulate her beliefs about
learning, learners, and how to teach literacy, and those beliefs were
well reflected in the literacy instruction she created for her first
graders. For example, Ms. Murray knew she tended to draw-from both
her knowledge of her children's abilities and from the district
curriculum guides to create the kind of content that would help her
students grow. She also seemed to strike a balance in her
instructional approach, sometimes being quite directive, while at

other times letting students make choices for themselves.

201

As I think about the role Ms. Murray played in her students'
literacy learning, I keep coming back to the idea of informed and
ongoing decision making. Like pilots who make inflight course
corrections in order to land at the appropriate place, teachers who
constantly monitor both what their students are able to do and what
they need to know are more likely to foster those students' literacy
learning. Ms. Murray seemed to me to be a teacher who was
monitoring her students' abilities, and who was willing and able to
make "midcourse corrections" when needed in order to keep her
students on track as literacy learners.

Ms. Murray did not seem to me to be throwing together a
random and mismatched collection of "good ideas" she had acquired
in different places. Instead, the decisions she made about what
should go into her literacy instructional program seemed to grow out
of a deliberate putting together of components that would mutually
support students' learning. For example, Ms. Murray did incorporate
some direct phonics instruction into her curriculum, while at the
same time encouraging her students to read a wide variety of trade
books. She had students learn a prescribed list of spelling words,
while encouraging them to use phonetic spelling in their writing.

At first glance, Ms. Murray's instructional methods might seem
like the unlikely melding of a skills approach with a whole language
approach. But that isn't the sense I got. My sense was that Ms.
Murray was creating a literacy instructional program that required
not only the right mix of "ingredients," but careful attention to the
timing of the addition of certain "ingredients." Phonics instruction,

provided at strategic points, provided students the tools they needed

202

 

 

to continue growing as readers. Phonetic spelling, combined with
the acquisition of a core of known words provided students with the
tools they needed to become more fluent writers.

This kind of thinking about literacy instruction seems to me to
be quite subtle and much more "behind the scenes" than traditional
ideas about the role of the teacher as giver of information. It means
teachers are at once creating the conditions for students' literacy
learning, while at the same time participating in students' literacy
learning. In order to do so, teachers need to be able to analyze and
assess what their students are doing and what they need. Ms. Murray
talked about this in terms of the developmental appropriateness of
what took place in her classroom. She recognized that not all her
students would learn all the first grade objectives. However, she
did think all her students could make a year's worth of progress. She
also seemed aware of where each of her students were and pointed
out to them the growth they had made during the year. This dual role
of acting and directing also implies a strong degree of intentionality
on the part of the teacher.

By intentionality, I mean that teachers have a strong "big
picture" understanding about where it is they want their students to
"go" and act in ways that will help students get there. This does not
mean, however, that teachers ignore the needs and abilities of their
students, nor does it imply teachers go forth without regard to
district and state curriculum requirements. The kind of
intentionality I see teachers needing to engage in assumes that
teachers have a good mental picture of the kind of literacy they wish

their students to acquire, are constantly monitoring what their

203

 

 

students are able to do, are sensitive to aspects of literacy
instruction their students need guidance with, and can plan
instruction in ways that helps students continue to grow.

In Ms. Murray's classroom, writing letters of apology
exemplified the way in which Ms. Murray balanced the needs of
students with her goal for them to be independent learners. Ms.
Murray knew at the beginning of the year that her students couldn't ”ta
write these kinds of letters without help from her, so she wrote the
letters and had students copy them. This provided a model for them.

Gradually, Ms. Murray turned control over to the students for writing

 

these kinds of letters. 1.2.:-
This kind of intentionality also recognizes that the ultimate
goal of teaching is to develop independent learners. For this to
happen, teachers need to share the authority fOr knowing with the
class, while recognizing that this sharing may need time to grow.
Just as most parents are there to guide and support their children
when the training wheels first come off the bike, the teacher who is
intentional about literacy instruction analyzes what students can
do, what degree of control they can handle, and plans instruction
designed to increase the control students exercise over their
learning. Like parents of beginning bike riders, intentional teachers
let go as they sense their students have control. In a first-grade
classroom, this letting go and sharing will likely look very different
than in twelfth-grade classroom. While the entire process of
schooling is one of shifting control for learning from the teacher to

the student, at each grade level there is also a shift from more

204

teacher control at the beginning of the year to more student control
by the end of the year.

I don't mean to imply that I began this study not realizing
teachers needed to have a sense of where they were going or a desire
to release control to students over time. What I have learned is just
how important it is to keep in the foreground one's overarching
vision. As a teacher educator, I leave this study with an increased Fa
understanding of how important it is for teachers to examine what
they know and believe about learners and learning. Since those

beliefs shape instruction, teachers need ongoing opportunities to

 

articulate what they are doing and why they are doing it. Asa 3'
teacher educator, I need to find ways of helping my students learn to
see the importance of knowing what they believe and how their
beliefs shape what they plan to do in the classroom. It is not enough
that preservice teachers graduate with basic understanding of the
various instructional approaches for teaching literacy. They need to
leave with a beginning sense of their personal theories about
curriculum, learners, language, and the politics of the classroom,
then develop an initial plan for the kind of literacy program they
want to create in their own classrooms, given their sets of beliefs.
Understanding one's beliefs and creating instruction based on
them can be difficult. Most of my education students indicate they
want to provide the kind of instruction that helps children acquire
skills and strategies to become effective readers and writers. But
my students also seem fearful of not covering everything "they"
expect. When I press for more information as to who "they" are,

students respond by naming the principal, next year's teacher,

205

parents, the school board, and the state. This desire to provide
children meaningful instruction, coupled with a fear of leaving
something out, can result in a "crazy quilt" of ideas about
instructional programs.

For example, my students read an article by Clymer (1963)
regarding the usefulness of phonics generalizations. In the article,
Clymer reported his findings regarding the usefulness of common
phonics generalizations, calculated by "dividing the number of words

pronounced as the generalization claimed by the total number of

 

words to which the generalization could be expected to apply" (p.

254). Of the 45 generalizations described, only 18 were useful 75
percent or more of the time. Many generalizations were useful less
than 50 percent of the time, with several useful less than 20
percent of the time. .Several students thought it would be
appropriate to teach all the generalizations anyway. When I asked
the class if they would consider a birth control method whose
effectiveness was no better than 20 percent, everyone said no. When
I asked why they would teach a generalization useful only 20 percent
of the time, they claimed it would at least give students a
generalization to try. When I asked how that thinking meshed with
their desire to provide instruction that helped students become
effective readers, the preservice teachers couldn't really say.

This kind of response from students, combined with what I
learned from observing Ms. Murray, has reinforced for me the need to
help my own students better articulate the connections between
their emerging theories about learners and learning and the kind of

literacy instructional program they would create. This seems

206

especially important now that literacy (and specifically reading)
instruction is once again in the spotlight. As more and more states
and districts mandate phonics-only instructional approaches for
teaching reading, teachers who advocate a more holistic literacy
instructional program must to be able to clearly and forcefully rebut
critics of such an approach.

One approach I and other teacher-educators could use to help
novices examine their emerging theories would be to have students
read vignettes of actual classroom practice, then describe the
underlying beliefs about curriculum, instructional methods, use of
physical space, and teacher-student interactions that seem to
undergird the practice. Students could identify ways in which the
beliefs and practice meshed or did not mesh, offer suggestions for
bringing the two into better alignment, and describe ways in which
the vignettes were or were not in line with their own ideas about
Instruction.

A final class project might be to have students write papers in
which they described their beliefs for each of the four areas above,
then create a vignette of what their literacy instructional practice
would look like, given those beliefs. lnservice teachers, too, might
benefit from opportunities to examine their practice in light of their
underlying beliefs. Teacher study groups, or even pairs of teachers
could, using the four components outlined above, describe their
beliefs and examine their practice in light of those beliefs. The
result likely would be instruction that is more consistent and

supportive of children's literacy learning.

207

 

Steeents' Pezeeetiens 91‘ Their I r L

The second and third questions guiding this study were

 

concerned with students' perceptions of their learning, and of

themselves as users of literacy:

2. What are nonmainstream students' perceptions of school
literacy, and how do school literacy experiences shape
nonmainstream students' perceptions of themselves as literate
individuals? What do these students know and believe about

lheracy?

3. How do school literacy experiences shape what
nonmainstream students are able to do with their literacy
abilities, and what they are disposed to do, given their

knowledge and beliefs about literacy?

In Ms. Murray's classroom, students believed they were
learning to read and write. Chelsea, for example, compared her
learning in Ms. Murray's room with that she experienced at another
school, and believed she was learning more in Ms. Murray's room.
Other students felt they were learning to do things they could not do
in kindergarten. Several children felt they had actually learned to
read in Ms. Murray's room, while others realized they were reading
more difficult books than they had in kindergarten. As writers, most
felt they were able to use bigger words, had nicer handwriting, and
were writing more in Ms. Murray's room than they had before.

Ms. Murray's students also used talk as a way to construct

meaning and make sense of their world. They were actively

208

 

 

developing control over the kind of discourse valued by school as
they solved problems together, as they reviewed one another's work
and as they discussed books. These students were members of a
literacy community, discussing issues in much the way adult
members of a literacy community might talk about characterization
or an author's technique. While their conversations certainly

weren't as complex as adult readers and writers' conversations

 

might be, Ms. Murray's students were engaging in a kind of literacy
apprenticeship that fostered their disposition toward literacy.
At the same time, Ms. Murray's students seemed to have not yet

learned how to "read" different situations and adjust their discourse

 

pattern accordingly. Part of going to school is learning how to
interact with different people and most students reach a point
where they have a good idea about the kind of interactions different
teachers value. As first graders, Ms. Murray's students may not yet
have learned this, as their troubles in the lunchroom, library, and
with the substitute seem to indicate. Thus, they may not have
realized that the kind of discourse permitted by Ms. Murray was not
universal within Burnside. The concern for teachers who foster
among their students the kind of discourse present in Ms. Murray's
classroom is not whether or not to do so, but how to help students
navigate among different discourses. After all, it does little good to
help students gain control over a more empowering discourse if, at
the end of the school year, they are told not to use it with next
year's teacher.

One way to help students learn to navigate among different

discourses would be for teachers to encourage students to pay

209

attention to signals the other person might be sending about the kind
of discourse expected. For example, most children can "read" their
parents' moods and adjust their talk accordingly. Thus a child might
respectfully request, but not beg for, candy while in the checkout
line one day because the parent seems in a no-nonsense mood. On
another day, the child might pull out all the stops and beg, plead, and
whine because the parent's mood indicates these tactics will work.
Now, I'm not advocating teachers help students learn how to
manipulate mom or dad, but I am suggesting teachers could engage
students in metacognitive reflection about situations in which the

students have had both success and problems using language to

 

achieve certain goals. Students might then become more aware of
the ways they already pay attention to context, even though they
may not be conscious of the fact they do so.

Teachers could even draw on examples from their own
classrooms to help students develop this kind of understanding. For
example, a teacher might help students understand the ways in
which behavior at an assembly differs from the day-to-day behavior
allowed in the classroom and explore the underlying reasons for
those differences. I recall an instance from my own teaching
experience in which I hadn't gotten much sleep one weekend because
of a teacher-recruitment trip I had participated in for my district.
On Monday morning, I alerted my students to the fact that I was
extremely tired and irritable and that the high level of talk normal
for our classroom needed to be turned down a bit. I could simply
have told the class to "be quiet today," and left it at that, but I

explained the logic behind my request: an increased likelihood of

210

students being reprimanded for what was normally acceptable
behavior. Then I helped students find a noise level that was
tolerable for me while permitting them to continue talking.
Teachers might even point out to students times the teachers have
adjusted their own discourse because of context. Helping students
pay attention to issues of context and to discourse signals of those
around them, as well as helping them learn that everyone uses
different discourse for different purposes, likely would help
students better navigate between discourses.

l and other teacher educators can help preservice and lnservice
teachers develop an understanding of the importance of student talk
and problems associated with a classroom discourse that encourages
student talk in various ways. First, we can demonstrate the
benefits of student talk by asking teachers to listen carefully to the
kinds of talk that occur when students are provided opportunities to
do so. Encouraging talk among students in our own courses or among
teachers in study groups can help teachers see the value of talk in
their own learning. This understanding can then be applied to an
appreciation of the value of student talk. However, helping teachers
understand and learn how to teach about different discourses can be
problematic.

Encouraging student talk is a topic I read about as I evaluate
materials to use in my own classes. Much of what I read describes
the importance of student talk in learning and discusses ways to
promote student talk in the classroom, but there is very little
discussion of the issue of discourse differences and how to help

children learn about them. Yet, a teacher who tries to help students

211

 

 

understand the value of different discourses and their
appropriateness in certain settings may be open to criticism for not
teaching "standard English."

Teacher educators can help preservice and lnservice teachers
learn how to teach students about language differences in ways that
don't make them vulnerable to this kind of criticism. When I discuss
this issue in my own classes, I use my own southern dialect and _.
accent as an example. When we discuss standard English, I r}
exaggerate my southern draw! as I remind students that the

"standard English" I learned might not be the "standard English" they I:

 

learned. I share with my classes how I tried to minimize my j
southern accent during job interviews because some people H
associate that kind of accent with a lack of intelligence. I explain
how I try to sound more "Southern" when I go home to visit my
family so I'm not accused of having "gone Yankee" and how I try to
tone down that same accent when I return north. I also stop and
explain to my classes what I mean by terms like "ya'll" and "fixin'
to." While humorous, the examples taken from my own life seem to
help my students see that "standard" is a relative term and that each
of us uses different discourses depending on the situation.
Helping teachers develop games in which children decide what
kind of language might be appropriate for certain settings could also
help students learn about this issue. My own elementary students
enjoyed playing games in which they had to decide what kind of
language, for example, might be appropriate to use when talking
with the principal. Teachers could be encouraged to tape record

themselves in different settings and analyze the different

212

 

 

 

discourses they use in a day, then discuss how they knew to switch
between those discourses.

In addition to learning about different discourses, I would like
to see every student develop the kinds of perceptions about and
dispositions toward literacy that Ms. Murray's students did. Many
students don't, however, because they are introduced to a literacy
based on fill-in-the blank worksheets or contrived stories. This is I...
especially true for nonmainstream learners. Too often, I. ‘I
nonmainstream students receive a kind of education that reduces

content to isolated pieces of information that seem unrelated one to

 

the other. Poor and/or minority students, as well as those enrolled E;
in less academically challenging tracks at school, tend to receive an .—
education that overly focuses on facts at the expense of making
connections across different content areas and understanding broad
themes (Anyon, 1981; Oakes, 1985). Students served by remedial
education, who are disproportionally from minority backgrounds,
often encounter literacy instruction that is segmented into discrete
skills in an attempt make the learning task more concrete and
understandable (Allington, 1991). The problem with education that
focuses only on facts or that reduces learning to a series of
subskills is that it becomes an empty shell of what the content
matter really is. .
Literacy is not just the decoding or encoding of words. It is
not simply the finding or stating of a main idea. Literacy is a
complex interaction of the reader/writer with the text, embedded
within a particular context. Students who are only provided

opportunities to explore the fundamental mechanics of literacy

213

 

rightly walk away from it thinking literacy has little connection to
their lives. That is not to say students should not be provided the
tools for acquiring the literacy of power. All students should have a
working command of spelling and sentence construction. Doing so
allows them to use literacy in ways that will be recognized and
accepted by those like employers or college admissions committees
with the power to make decisions about the users. ..
At the same time students are learning literacy conventions, r1
they need encouragement to use what they are learning to read and I

write a range of texts of their own choosing and to engage in the

 

kinds of discourse valued by mainstream American society, as well j
as other segments of our society. In this way, students can not only EL
develop an understanding about language, but can develop a desire to

use language for their own purposes, whatever those may be, and to

move more easily among a wide variety of discourses within

American society.

 

Summary

This study sought to add to the body of knowledge regarding
nonmainstream children's school literacy learning by examining the
ways in which a particular classroom discourse did or did not
support first-grade students' literacy learning. Findings from the
study indicated that the literacy instruction in the first-grade
classroom--in which the language arts were taught in a more
holistic manner, in which students' ideas were made part of the
curriculum, in which talk among students was actively encouraged

as a means to foster literacy learning, and in which the teacher

214

shared authority for knowing with the students-- supported
students' learning of literacy and their disposition to use literacy
for their own purposes.

An unintended consequence of the literacy teaching and
learning in this classroom seemed to be the development of a kind of
school literacy discourse different from other, more traditional,
school literacy discourses. The acquisition of this "different" F1
literacy discourse appeared to result in some children experiencing
difficulties in knowing how to engage in more traditional school

literacy discourses. The study concluded with suggestions for ways I:

 

in which teachers and teacher educators might help children develop 1.:
knowledge about different discourses and how to think about and

engage in those different discourses. Helping children understand

these differences, and learn to navigate among them holds the

potential to foster their abilities to use literacy in more powerful

ways, ways in which their voices can be heard, and their position as

knowers of literacy made clear. Children like Keesha, Mimi, Chelsea,

Robert, Rondell, and Samuel deserve no less.

215

ll-

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adams, M. J. (1990). innin t r : T inkin n I rnin
print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Allington, R. L. (1980). Poor readers don't get to read much in
reading groups. Language Arte, 57, 872-877.

Allington, R. L. (1983). The reading instruction provided readers of

different reading abilities. Elementam Seheol Jeurnal, 53,
549-559.

Allington, R. L. (1991). The legacy of "slow it down and make it
more concrete". In J. Zutell & McCormick, S. (Eds.), Learner

faetere, teaeher faetere: leeuee in literaey reeeareh and
inetruetien (pp. 19-29). National Reading Conference. .

American Association of University Women. (1992). Hew eeheele
ehertehange wemen: The A. A. U. W. TQQQQ. Washington, DC:

American Association of University Women.

Ameriean heritage dietienary (1983). (Second College ed.). Boston:
Houghton Mifflin.

Anyon, J. (1981). Social class and school knowledge. W
lnguiry(11), 3-42.

Au, K. (1993). Literaey instruction in multieultural settings. Fort
Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace College Publishers.

Au, K. H. (1980). Participant structures in a reading lesson with
Hawaiian children: Analysis of a culturally appropriate

instructional event. Anthrepelegy and Euueatien Quarterly.,
112(2), 91-115.

Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). Th . .
Bakhtin (C. Emerson & M. Holquist, Trans.). M. Holquist (Ed.).
Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. (Original work
published in 1975)

216

 

Bakhtin, M. M. (1986). Speeeh genree and ether late eesaye (V. W.
McGee, Trans). C. Emerson & M. Holquist (Eds.). Austin, TX:

University of Texas Press. (Original work published in 1979)

BeaugLaijrLe—Beaet. (1995). New York: Golden Books Family

Entertainment.

Bissex, G. L. (1980). Qnys at werk. Cambridge: Harvard University
Press.

Blachman, B. A. (1987). An alternative classroom reading program
for learning disabled and other low-achieving children. In W.
Ellis (Eds.), Intimacy with language: A fergetten baeie in

teaeher euueatien. (pp. 49-55). Baltimore: Orton Dyslexia
Society.

Bloom, A. (1987). The eleeing ef the Ameriean mind: Hew higher

utinhsfil mr nimvrish th l f
teuay'e etudente. New York: Simon and Schuster.

 

Bloome, D., & Egan-Robertson, A. (1993). The social construction of
intertextuality in classroom reading and writing lessons.

Reading Reeeareh Quarterly,2_8.(4), 305-333.

Bredekamp, S. (Ed.). (1987). Develepmentally apprepriate praetiee la

early ehildheeu pregrame serving ehildreu frem birth threugh
ag_e_8 (expanded ed.). Washington, DC: National Association for

the Education of Young Children.

Brown, R. G. (1991). Seneele ef theught. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.

Bruner, J. S. (1996), The eulture of edueatien. Cambridge, MA.:

Harvard University Press.

Calkins, L. M. (1983). L n fr m hil : n th
learning of writing. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Carle, E. (1968). The veg hungry eaterpillar. New York: Putnam
Publishing Group.

217

 

1'.‘.'1-.fi. 3 '13.- v
_I

lain-«u:

Carle, E. (1990). The uery guiet prieket. New York: Putnam
Publishing Group.

Cazden, C. (1983). Adult assistance to language development:
Scaffolds, models, and direct instruction. In R. Parker &

Davis, F. (Eds.), Qevelgping literaey: Ydung phildren'e use at
Language Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Cazden, C. B. (1988). l r m ' r ' Th l hin
and learning. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntaetie etrueturee. The Hague: Mouton.

Clandinin, D. J. (1985). Personal practical knowledge: A study of

teachers' classroom images. Currieulum lnguiry, 15 (4), pp.
361-385.

Clyde, J. A. (1994). Lessons from Douglas: Expanding our visions of
what it means to "know.". _agguage_A_r;te,fl(1), 22-33.

Clymer, T. (1963). The utility of phonic generalizations in the
primary grades. The Reading Teaeher, 18(4), 252-258.

Cole, A. L. (1990). T her ' x ri n kn wl : ntin in
saggy. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American
Educational Research Association. Boston, MA. (Eric document
reproduction service #EDS18733).

Collins, J. (1986). Differential instruction in reading groups. In J.

Cook-Gumperz (Ed.), The epeial penetruetien pf Iiteraey (pp.
117-137). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Cose, E. (1993). The rage at a privileged elaee. New York:

HarperCollins.

Dahl, K. L., and Freppon, P. A. (1995). A comparison of innercity
children's interpretations of reading and writing instruction
in the early grades in skills-based and whole language

classrooms. Reading Reeeareh Quarterly, 39, 50-74.

Damon, W. (1984). Peer education: The untapped potential. deurnal
pf Applied Develppmental Peyehelegy, 5, 331-343.

218

 

Delpit, L. (1988). The silenced dialogue: Power and pedagogy in
educating other people's children. flamatdjdugatmm
Review, 5_8_, 280-298.

Delpit, L. (1992). Acquisition of literate discourse: Bowing before

the master? Theem ipte Praetige, 31(4), 296-302.

Denny, T., and Weintraub, S. (1963). Exploring first graders'
concepts of reading. The Reading Teaeher, 16, 363-365.

 

Dewey, J. (1902/1956). The ehild and the purrieulumflbe seneel Pl
apd_sgei_ety. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Donaldson, M. (1979). Children's minds. New York: W. W. Norton &
Company.
Dorros, A. (1991). Mtg. New York: Dutton Children's Books. is

Downing, J. (1970). Children's concepts of language in learning to

read. Edueatienal Researeh, 12, 101-112.

Dudley-Marling, C., & Searle, D. (1991). When students haye time te
tal_k. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Edwards, 0., Gandini, L., & Forman, G. (Ed.). (1993). Mugged

l_a_n_guages of children: The Reggie Emilia appreach to early
phildhged educatien. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Ellsworth, E. (1989). Why doesn't this feel empowering? Working
through the repressive myths of critical pedagogy. ljarvard

Edueatienal Review, 53(3), 297-324.

Flores, B. (1992). The genesis ef the language deficit view in
edueatipnal pragtiees py deeade. Paper presented at the

National Reading Conference, San Antonio, TX.

Freire, P. (1970/1992). Pe f th r . New York:

Continuum.

 

 

Freppon, P. A., & Dahl, K. L. (1991). Learning about phonics in a
whole language classroom. Language Arts, 6_8_, 190-197.

219

 

 

Gallas, K. (1994). [he languages ef learning; flew ehildren daeee,
r .

hir n rtnln f h wrl.NewYork:
Teachers College Press.

Gaskins, R. W., Gaskins, J. C., & Gaskins, l. W. (1991). A decoding
program for poor readers--and the rest of the class, too!

W. 5.8., 213-225.

Gee, J. (1991). What is literacy? In C. Mitchell & K. Weiler (Eds.),

Rewriting litetaey; Culture and the diseeutse ef the ether (pp.
3-11). New York: Bergin & Garvey.

Giroux, H. (1981). WWW.
Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

Gough, P. B. (1971). One second of reading. In J. F. Kavenaugh & l. G.

Mattingly (Eden). WM (pp. 331-358)-
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Gould, S. (1981). The mismeasure et man. New York: Norton.

Graff, H. (1979). Th lit r m h: it r n h l r r in
the nineteenth-eeetury eity. New York: Academic Press.

Graves, D. H. (1983). Writing: Teachers and ehildren at werk.

Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Groff, P. (1986). The maturing of phonics instruction. The Reading
Teaeher, 919-923.

Hahn, D. (Producer), & Allers, R., & Minkoff, R. (Directors). (1994).
Tm: lion king [Videotape]. (Available from Buena Vista Home
Video, Department CS, Burbank, CA 91521).

Harste, J. C., Burke, C. L., and Woodward, V. A. (1981). Children's
language and world: Initial encounters with print. In J. Langer

and M. Smith-Burke (Eds), Reader meets author: Bridging the
gap (pp. 105-131). Newark DE: International Reading

Association.

220

 

 

Heath, S. B. (1983). Ways with werds: Language, life and werk in
W Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Hillocks Jr., G. (1986). Researeh en written eempesitiep; Neyy
di [eetiens fer teaehieg. Urbana, IL: ERIC Clearinghouse on

Reading and Communication Skills and The National
Conference on Research in English.

Hirsch, E. D. (1987). Cultural literaey: What eyeg Ametiean needs
te knew. New York Vintage Books.

hooks. b. (1984). MW Boston:
South End Press.

Hoyt, L. (1992). Many ways of knowing: Using drama, oral
interactions, and the visual arts to enhance reading

comprehension. The Reading Teaehet, 55(8), 580-584.

Hutchins, R. M. (1936). Th hi h rl min in m ri . New Haven,

CT: Yale University Press.

Jackson, G. N. (1993). Eliiah MeQey. Cleveland, OH: Modern
Curriculum Press.

Jencks, C., Smith, M., Acland, H., Bane, M. J., Cohen, D., Gintis, H.,
Heyns, B., and Michelson, S. (1972). lneeuality: A
r semnt h ff fmi n hlin
America. New York: Basic Books.

Jewell. M., and Zintz, M. (1986). WWW. Dubuque,

IA: Kendall/Hunt.

Johns, J. L., & Lenski, S. D. (1997). Impreving reading; A handeeels ef

mategjes (2nd ed.). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.
Johnston, P. H. (1984). Assessment in reading. In P. D. Pearson

(Eds.), Haedeeek ef Beading Researeh (pp. 147-182). White

Plains, NY: Longman.

The iungle peek. (1990). New York: Golden Books Family
Entertainment.

221

 

Krashen, S. D. (1983). The din in the head, input, and the language
acquisition device. Fereign Language Annals, 16(1), 41-44.

LaBerge, D., & Samuels, S. J. (1974). Toward a theory of automatic

information processing in reading. nitiv P h l , 6,
293-323.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate
peripheral panieipatien. New York: Cambridge University

Press.

Leinhardt, G., Zigmond, N., & Cooley, W. (1981). Reading instruction

and its effects. Am ri n 0 ti n l r h rn l, J_8_,
343-361.

Lindfors, J. W. (1991). Children's language an nd leatning (2nd ed..)

Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Lortie, D. C. (1975). h l h r' A i ' . Chicago:

University of Chicago Press.

Macedo, D. (1994). Lirte raei es ef neuter: What Amer leaniflmm
allewed te knew. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Mamchur, C. (1994). Don't you dare say "fart." Language_Ans, 21(2),

95-100.

Martin, B. Jr. (1995). Brewn pear, erewn pear, what de yeu see? New

York: Henry Holt & Company.

Martin, B. Jr., and Archambault, J. (1989). Chleka ehieka eeem peeln.

Old Tappan, NJ: Simon & Schuster.

Martin, R. (1992). The reugh-faee girl. New York: Putnam Publishing

Group, The.

Mason, J. M. (1967). Preschoolers' concepts of reading. The Reading
Teaener, 21, 130-132.

222

 

 

Jl‘I-‘FI

 

McIntosh, P. (1988). White ptiyilege and male privilege: A persenal

n f m'n orre n n thr ork in
women's studies. Working Paper No. 189. Wellesley College,

MA: Center for Research on Women.

Michaels, S. (1981). "Sharing time": Children's narrative styles and

differential access to literacy. Language in Seeiety,1_0_, 423-
442.

Michel, P. (1990). What first graders think about reading. In R. W.

Blake (Ed.), Whele language expleratiens and applieatiens (pp.
41-46). Schenectady: New York State English Council.

Michel, P. (1994).T he ehild'sv ieW et rinead ng; Under rnsta ndin ngs fer
teaehers and parents. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Moll, L. (1990). it r c r r h in m n' n l ro m: A

see_Ie_-_eitht,I_I;al_appLeae_h. Paper presented at the Conference of
Multi-disciplinary Perspectives on Research Methodology,

Chicago.

Montessori, M. (1972). The diseeveni ef the child. (M. J. Costelloe,

Trans. ) New York: Ballantine Books. (Original work published
1967)

Morrow, L. M. (1985). Reading and retelling stories: Strategies for
emergent readers. lhe Reading Teaeher, 38, 870-875.

Morrow, L. M. (1997). Lit r v I ment in th
H l in H r n r n writ (3rd ed..) Boston: Allyn and
Bacon.

Morrow, L. M., and Tracey, D. H. (1996). Instructional environments
for language and learning. Considerations for young children.
in J. Flood, S. B. Heath, and D. Lapp (eds.). Handeeek fer
Iitr r'R hnt hin mmni iv
and visual arts. New York: Macmillan.

Neill, A. S. (1960). mm rhill: A r lo I r h to child r
New York: Hart.

223

 

 

 

Oakes, J. (1985). Keeping traelt; l;lew seheels strueture ineguality.

New Haven: Yale University Press.

Oakes, J. (1988). Class stratification, racial stratification and

schooling. In L. Weis (Eds.,) Class,r raee an nd gen ndetin
_A_I:n_e_iean_e_dueat_ie_n (npp. 106- -125). New York: SUNY Press.

Ohlhausen, M. M., and Jepsen, M. (1992). Lessons from Goldilocks:
"Somebody's been choosing my books but I can make my own

choices now." New Adveeate, 5(1), 31-46.

Olson, D., and Astington, J. (1993). Thinking about thinking: Learning
how to take statements and hold beliefs. Edueanonal

Psyehelegist, 2_8_(1), 7-23.

Pappas, C. C., Kieffer, B. Z., & Levstik, L. S. (1990). An integrated

language perspeetive in the elementaty scheel. White Plains,
NY: Longman.

 

Parker, W. C., & McDaniel, J. E. (1992). Bricolage: Teachers do it
daily. In E. W. Ross, J. W. Cornett, & G. McCutcheon (Eds).

Teaeher persenal theerizing pp. 97-114. Albany: SUNY Press.

Pestalozzi, J. (1900). H w e r d ch h r hildr n. (L. E.
Holland & F. C. Turner, Trans.). Syracuse, NY: Bardeen.

Ravitch, D. (1985). The seheels we deserve. New York: Basic Books.

Reid, J. F. (1966). Learning to think about reading. Edueatienal
Researeh, 9, 56-62.

Resnick, D. P., & Resnick, L. B. (1977). The nature of literacy: A

historical explanation. Harvard Edueatienal Review, _4_7_, 370-
385.

Rist, R. C. (1970). Student social class and teacher expectations:
The self-fulfilling prophecy in ghetto education. Harvard

Edueational Review, 40(3), 411-51.
Rogoff, B. (1990). A r nitil in hinkin: nitiv

hnt x. New York: Oxford University
Press.

224

 

 

Roller, C., and Fielding, L. (1992). Making difficult books accessible
and easy books acceptable. The Reading Ieaehet, 45(9), 678-

85.
Rosenblatt, L. (1978). The reader, the text, the peem: The
W. Carbondale, IL: Southern

Illinois University Press.

Rosenholtz, S., & Simpson, C. (1984). Classroom organization and

student stratification. Elementani Seheel ,leurnal, 85, 21-38.

Sadker, M, and Sadker, D. (1994). 'lin f 'n : r
W. New York: Touchstone.

Samuels, S. J., & Kamil, M. L. (1984). Models of the reading process.
In P. D. Pearson, R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, & P. Mosenthal (Eds.),

Handeeek ef reading researeh (pp. 185-224). New York:

Longman.

Scribner, S. (1984). Literacy in three metaphors. Ameriean ,leurnal
ef Educatien, 6-21.

Scribner, S., & Cole, M. (1981). The psyehelegy ef Iiteraey.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Seuss, Dr. (1957). The eat in the hat. New York: Random House.

Seuss, Dr. (1960). fi h t fi h r fi h I fi . New York:
Random House.

Shannon, P. (1989). Br k n i ' in in tr I
twentieth-eentuty Ametiea. New York: Bergin & Garvey.

Shor, I. (1992). Erimpeuie ng edueatien. Chicago: The University of

Chicago Press.

Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal eehavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.

Slavin, R. E. (1987). Developmental and motivational perspectives

on cooperative learning: A reconciliation. hil D v I
55, 1161-1167.

225

Slobin, D. l. (1979). Psyenelinguisties (2nd ed.). Glenview, IL: Scott
Foresman and Company.

Snow, C. E., Barnes, W. 8., Chandler, J., Goodman, I. F., & Hemphill, L.

(1991). Unfulfilled expeetatiens: Heme and scheel influenees
enjteyaey. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Stahl, S. A. (1992). Saying the "p" word: Nine guidelines for

exemplary phonics instruction. [tie Reading Teaeher, 45(8),
618-625.

Stedman, L. C., & Kaestle, C. F. (1991). Literacy and reading
performance in the United States from 1880 to the present. In
C. F. Kaestle, H. Damon-Moore, L. C. Stedman, K. Tinsley, & W.

V. Trollinger Jr. (Eds.), Literaey in the United States (pp. 75-
128). New Haven, CT: Yale University.

Stipek, D. J. (1988). Metivatien te learn: Frem tneoni te praetiee.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Stuckey, E. (1991). The vielenee ef literaey. Portsmouth, NH:
Boynton/Cook.

Sulzby, E., & Teale, W. (1991). Emergent literacy. In R. Barr, M. L.
Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), _tl_andb_o_els_e_f

reading researeh: Vel. 2. (pp. 727-757). New York: Longman.

Taylor, D., & Dorsey-Gaines, C. (1988). r win lit r : rnin
ftem inner-eity families. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Teale, W. H., & Sulzby, E. (1986). m r nt Ii r : Writin
Leadi_ng. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Throne, J. (1994). Living with the pendulum: The complex world of
teaching. Harvard Edueatienal Review, 54 (2), 195-208.

Tomlinson, C. M., & Lynch-Brown, C. (1996). Essentials ef ehildren's
literature (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Trachtenburg, P. (1990). Using children's literature to enhance
phonics instruction. The Reading Teaehet, 53, 648-653.

226

 

Venezky, R. (1991). The development of literacy in the
industrialized nations of the west. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P.

Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handeeek ef reading
researeh: Vel. 2 (pp. 46-67). White Plains, NY: Longman.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in seeiety. Cambridge: Harvard
University Press.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Theught and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.

Weester's dietienani ef English usage. (1989). Springfield, MA:

Merriam-Webster.

Wells, G. (1986). T m nin m k r : hil r n l min I n
and using language te learn. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Wells, G. (1990). Talk about text: Where literacy is learned and
taught. Currieulum lnguiry,20_(4), 369-405.

Wertsch, J. V. (1991). Veiees ef the mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.

Wixson, K., & Peters, C. W. (1984). Reading redefined: A Michigan
Reading Association position paper. Miehigan Reading deurnal,
11(1), 4-7.

Wood, A. (1984). The napping heuse. San Diego: Harcourt Brace &
Company.

Yopp, H. K. (1992). Developing phonemic awareness in young

Children. The Reading Teaeher, 55(9), 696-703.

227