, 1' V‘ . - . ‘ I . 'van-un~ 1 . "u‘, ,lllllllllll This is to certify that the dissertation entitled ISABELLA'S JOURNEY: CONSTRUCTING A PATHWAY IN LEARNING TO TEACH ENGLISH' DURING A YEAR-LONG INTERNSHIP IN A PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT SCHOOL presented by Cathy J. Siebert has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D . degree in Philosophy Ckwq/ fl? «um/ Mafir professor Date August 12, 1999 MS U is an Affirmatiw Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0- 12771 ISABELLA’S JOURNEY: CONSTRUCTING A PATHWAY IN LEARNING TO TEACH ENGLISH DURING A YEAR-LONG INTERNSHIP IN A PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT SCHOOL BY Cathy J. Siebert A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Teacher Education 1999 ABSTRACT ISABELLA’S JOURNEY: CONSTRUCTING A PATHWAY IN LEARNING TO TEACH ENGLISH DURING A YEAR-LONG INTERNSHIP IN A PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT SCHOOL BY Cathy J. Siebert Drawing on qualitative research methods, this case study considers the question of how a novice English teacher, during a year-long internship in a Professional Development School, went about constructing a teaching practice. I consider the knowledge, skills, and dispositions the preservice teacher drew on in constructing her practice and how those elements grew or changed over time. This study also explores how the preservice teacher used an innovative curriculum created by the College Board which would seem to support the goals and objectives of the Standards for the English Language Arts (NOTE/IRA, 1996). A third factor examined in this study was the context in which the preservice teacher completed her internship--a Professional Development School--and its role in supporting and shaping the type of teaching practice the intern constructed. This research highlights the challenges preservice teachers may face when they try to incorporate into their practice the types of literature that has the potential to support the Standards established for K-12 English Language Arts instruction. It explores the crucial role “ownership” played in the preservice teacher’s construction of her teaching practice. Implications for the teaching of English and teacher education are drawn and research and curriculum questions for further study are presented. Copyright by CATHY JO SIEBERT 1999 In loving memory of my dad Dr. George W. Siebert, Ph.D. 1930-1995 Your example taught me that all things truly are possible. I’m sure you’re leading the angels in hallejuias at the long-awaited completion of this project. ********** To my mom Clara E. Siebert Through all of the ups and downs of this seemingly unending process, you supported me in all ways. Without your love, understanding, and patience this dissertation would simply not have been completed. ********** To my sister Sue Ann Siebert Your unwavering belief in my ability to successfully complete this dissertation powered me through some difficult times. Your passionate commitment to your elementary and middle school students continues to inspire my own goals to improve public education. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I have been drafting these acknowledgments in my head for a number of years. As the process took longer and longer to complete, the list of people I needed to remember to thank grew. Difficult as it is for the English teacher in me to admit, I now find myself in the position of literally not having the words to express my heartfelt gratitude to all those who supported me in so many ways along this very long journey! I hope they’ll read between the lines and know how very, very grateful I am to each of them. I start these acknowledgments with my committee, a group of extremely intelligent, reflective, committed educators. Each of my committee members represents the type of teacher and teacher educator I hope to become. Drs. Laura Apol, Diane Brunner, Susan FIorio-Ruane, and Marilyn Wilson have treated my work with respect while pushing me to make it ever better. I truly believe that this dissertation would not have reached completion without Dr. Cheryl Rosaen’s guidance. As my dissertation director, she has continually challenged me to develop as a researcher and writer. I cannot possibly thank her enough for her mentoring and the innumerable hours she has invested in my work. By her example, Cheryl has taught me more than she’ll ever know. As I begin my career at the university level, I am very fortunate to have such exemplary role models as these women provide. A special note of thanks goes to Dr. Perry Lanier who convinced me oh so many years ago that MSU was the place to pursue my Ph.D. It was through vi his guidance that I became involved with the Professional Development School initiative and Holt High School. The opportunities I have been afforded through my affiliation with Holt High School have been many, and I thank Perry for opening this particular door for me. I also thank him for steering College Board to Miller High School, thus providing the opportunity for this dissertation. Dr. Diane Holt-Reynolds has taught me much of what I know about teaching secondary English methods classes and working with preservice teachers throughout their undergraduate preparation. As my faculty mentor, she has pushed me to stretch my thinking about how best to help others learn to teach. I have valued our many conversations, and her insights and suggestions have contributed greatly to my growth as a teacher educator over the past several years. All graduate students engaged in writing a dissertation should be as fortunate as l was to have colleagues such as Dr. Lynn Brice and Dr. Carol Crumbaugh share in the process. As each of us labored through writing the final document, meeting together provided opportunities to realize that none of us were alone in our struggles. Without Lynn and Carol’s unstinting support and belief that I really would bring this document to completion, this dissertation would never have made it to paper. Their presence at the dissertation defense was both fitting (since they had been part of the process from the very beginning) and much appreciated. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you much! I am extremely grateful to the faculty and staff at Holt High School who have included me in their professional lives over the past ten years. l have vii been made to feel a welcome and valued member of their learning community. Much as I’ve longed to finish this Ph.D., leaving my friends and colleagues at Holt High School will be an extremely difficult thing to do. I have learned a great deal about what it means to be a reflective practitioner from the HHS teachers with whom I’ve been privileged to work, and I thank them for allowing me to be a part of their efforts to improve public education. A special thanks to Dean Manikas, Assistant Principal in charge of the Professional Development School initiative, who, perhaps unknowingly, did a great deal this past year to provide me with the space and time to finish this document. To even attempt to begin to describe all the many ways in which Deb Childers has been part of my life over the past ten years would take literally pages. I count Deb among my most precious of blessings. I believe that certain individuals are put into our lives for important reasons, and I am absolutely convinced that Deb is one of those special people. Through her willingness to open up her classroom, to share her questions and struggles, to push her own thinking and help me push mine, she has contributed more than she can ever know to my development both as an English teacher and a teacher educator. When I think of a teacher who epitomizes what it means to be a professional educator, I think of Deb. Not only do I value Deb as a colleague, but I treasure her as a friend. I truly believe I am a better person because of Deb’s influence and friendship. I would also be remiss not to thank Deb’s husband, Kenny, and children, Ryan and Andrew, for allowing me to “borrow” her for lengthy telephone conversations, research consultations, and viii weekends away to present at national conferences. Thanks guys! You’re the best! I owe a huge debt of gratitude to the many students at Lansing Community College and Siena Heights University who have helped me craft my practice as an English teacher. To all the TE 401/402 and TE 802/804 students and interns I have had the privilege of working with at Michigan State University, I thank each of you for the essential part you played in shaping me into a teacher educator. Thanks go as well to my colleagues in the Humanities and Performing Arts and Communications Departments at Lansing Community College. I’ve appreciated the opportunity to keep one foot in the world of English teaching while pursuing this degree in teacher education. A resounding thank you to Lynda Cowes from Siena Heights University for the many hours of telephone conversations we’ve shared. Her interest in my dissertation work, as well as her continuing support of my teaching with her institution, is greatly appreciated. Siena Heights is indeed fortunate to have someone of her caliber working with their students. I’d also like to recognize and thank the many wonderful people in the Outreach and Extension programs of the Criminal Justice Department at MSU. I have been privileged to have the opportunity to see what productive teamwork can actually accomplish and was made to feel a valued member of their team. I have learned much about the community policing initiative and am incredibly impressed with the caliber of people who are a part of these efforts. Thanks go to Eunice Weber for having a baby last summer thus putting me in the right place at the right time! Karen Sherman, Kamilah Parker, and Christina Wilkerson have listened to my trials and tribulations with great compassion and provided much needed encouragement at crucial times this past year. They are truly women of the 21st century! You go, girls!!! A special thank you to Audrey Martini who recognized skills in me that would serve the Outreach efforts and offered me a job. Crystal Waits Smith played a crucial, albeit long-distance, role in the completion of this work. Her love and belief in me sustained me through many difficult periods. Lots of good things came from my year in Houston, Texas, but the very best of all has been Crystal’s friendship. Some things really are bigger and better in Texas! Nan Jackson began as a member of my cohort at Michigan State and became a treasured friend. Although her professional ambitions took her on another path, she has supported me every step of my journey to achieve this Ph.D. I honestly don’t think I would make it through each year now without our annual pilgrimage to Stratford and St. Jacobs! Nan and her husband, Vern Mesler, did me the very great honor of establishing a Stratford Travel Award through Lansing Community College in my name to commemorate my Ph.D. There simply aren’t words to convey my appreciation! Laura Wheeler represents another of my many blessings. Everyone needs a friend like Laura! She was always available to listen to my complaining, consider the “latest plan,” to cheer the highs and bolster me through all the lows. Throughout it all, Laura helped me maintain perspective, providing me with a caring, compassionate sounding board. There is simply no way I can ever adequately express my gratitude or repay her for her many, many acts of kindness over this seemingly never-ending process. I am indeed privileged that she calls me friend. I have been extremely blessed to have a number of non-teacher friends in my life who have helped keep me grounded in the “real world” outside of the academy. To Tami, Dan, Vanessa and Bill at the Book Barn--thanks for always asking how it was going! Thanks as well for keeping me supplied with all those non-education books. Reading them may have lengthened this process, but it also kept me a somewhat sane and relatively happy camper! A huge thank you to Olga Briseno and Mary Campau who heard more than they probably ever hoped to hear about this dissertation. Their sincere concern and unwavering support across the process have been much appreciated. The successful defense was made even sweeter by their sharing in the event. More times then I can count, they have made me feel good about myself mentally, physically, and emotionally. To be able to do that is a true gift, and I am very lucky to have such wonderful women in my life. Mrs. Mary Wojcik, a dear neighbor and valued family friend, deserves a special place in heaven for her part, not only in this dissertation, but in getting me through the program itself. Even when my doubts were at all time highs, she never, ever questioned that this dissertation would become a reality. Thanks, Mrs. Wojay! xi It may seem a bit unusual to include a radio station in the acknowledgments of a dissertation, but the staff of 88.1 The Light deserve a huge thank you. If I was writing, The Light was on! All The Light on-air personalities have, at one time or another, accompanied the creation of this dissertation. Their words and the music they played continually reminded me of what really is important in the larger scheme of things. Thanks as well to Jen Czelada and Rhonda Pease who have allowed me to play a small part in the wonderful work the station continues to do. Unquestionably, you are all truly a blessing in my life. As He has been part of this process long before I even considered beginning the Ph.D., I give thanks and all glory to God, the One from whom all blessings flow. Our God is truly an awesome God, and all things really are possible through Him. This dissertation is proof of that immutable truth. xii TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1 LOCATING THE PROBLEM AND MAPPING THE TERRAIN ........................... 1 Scanning the Terrain: Recent Reform Initiatives and the Teaching of English .......................................................... 4 Establishing Standards for the Teaching of English ............................. 5 Research on Multicultural Education ....................................................... 10 The Pacesetter Curriculum and Multicultural Education .......... 21 Standards for Preparing Teachers ............................................... 33 Research on Learning to Teach ................................................................ 37 What Preservice Teachers Bring to Their Professional Preparation .................................................... 39 The Knowledge Base of Teaching ................................................ 46 Becoming a Professional Teacher ................................................ 53 Summary ....................................................................................................... 56 CHAPTER 2 THE DESIGN OF THE STUDY .............................................................................. 58 The Research Questions ............................................................................ 58 The Research Site and Subjects .............................................................. 60 Research Procedures ................................................................................. 63 Data Collection ................................................................................. 68 The Pathway Analogy and Developing an Analytical Lens ..... 70 The Voice Analogy and Another Analytical Lens ....................... 75 Strategic Control .................................................................. 75 Isabella’s Ownership of Her Planning and Teaching... 76 Testing the Assertions ..................................................................... 78 CHAPTER 3 BACKGROUND INFORMATION ABOUT THE CONTEXT AND RESEARCH SUBJECTS ........................................................................................ 80 CE. Miller High School and Pacesetter Involvement ........................... 80 Professional Development School Affiliation ............................. 80 Miller’s Investment in the Pacesetter Curriculum ...................... 83 The Preservice Education Program .......................................................... 85 The English Faculty’s Involvement in Preservice Teacher Education ............................................................................... 88 Intern Involvement with the Pacesetter Curriculum ............................... 89 xiii The Pacesetter Curriculum ......................................................................... 89 The Curriculum and Preservice Teachers ................................... 95 The Curriculum and Experienced Teachers ............................... 98 The Curriculum and Standards for the Discipline ...................... 102 Participants in This Study ............................................................... 103 Isabella - The lntem ............................................................. 1 03 Rachel - The Mentor Teacher ............................................ 107 Cathy - Researcher and Field Instructor .......................... 113 Summary ....................................................................................................... 1 16 CHAPTER 4 UNIT TWO - ‘STRANGER IN THE VILLAGE’: ENCOUNTERING THE OTHER, BEING THE OTHER ................................................................................. 1 17 Isabella’s Ideals for Unit Two .................................................................... 1 17 Beginning the Unit ....................................................................................... 120 Recognizing Student Difficulty and Responding: Isabella’s Use of Subject Matter Knowledge and Pedagogical Content Knowledge in Constructing Curriculum around Unit Two Writing Activities .................................... 122 Creating Good Paragraphs: An Introductory Activity ................ 123 Isabella’s Lack of Subject Matter Knowledge in Constructing Curriculum around the Two Short Stories of Gabriel Garcia Marquez ................................................................................ 132 Constructing a Broken Pathway: The Missing Mortar of Pedagogical Content Knowledge ................................................. 1 53 The Beginnings of a Persistent Dilemma for Isabella: Managing the Classroom ................................................................................... 161 Isabella, The Curriculum, and Unit Two ................................................... 166 Leaming to Teach and Issues of Ownership .......................................... 167 CHAPTER 5 UNDERSTANDING THE STORY: PARALYZED BY THE POSSIBILITIES ........................................................................................................ 1 70 Isabella’s Ideals for Unit Three .................................................................. 170 Isabella’s Control of the Text ...................................................................... 172 Problems with Pedagogical Content Knowledge .................................. 179 The Pragmatics of Managing Discussion . . . Continued ...................... 192 Detouring from the Pacesetter Pathway: Using Pedagogical Content Knowledge to Begin Constructing Her Own Pathway ............................................................................................. 1 98 Isabella, The Curriculum, and Unit Three ................................................ 206 Something “Clicks” for Isabella ................................................................. 207 xiv "t CHAPTER 6 UNIT FOUR: FINDING SUCCESS IN OTHELLO .............................................. 214 Isabella’s Ideals for Unit Four .................................................................... 214 Beginning the Unit ....................................................................................... 217 Confidence in Subject Matter ........................................................ 220 Forging Her Own Pathway ............................................................. 224 Facilitating Classroom Community ................................... 224 Scaffolding Learning Experiences ................................... 225 Establishing Her Own Direction ........................................ 228 Learning from Previous Experiences ............................... 232 Success with the Director’s Notebook ............................. 234 Isabella, The Curriculum, and Unit Four .................................................. 236 The Socratic Seminar ................................................................................. 240 “Teaching the Way I Thought It Would Be” .............................................. 249 CHAPTER 7 LEARNING FROM ISABELLA’S PATHWAY ....................................................... 250 Conclusions .................................................................................................. 250 Implications and Further Questions .......................................................... 260 New Directions in Teaching English ............................................ 260 Implications for Preservice Teacher Education .......................... 266 Questions for Further Study ....................................................................... 282 Research Questions ........................................................................ 282 Curriculum Questions ...................................................................... 286 The Journey Continues ............................................................................... 287 APPENDICES ........................................................................................................... 289 APPENDIX A ............................................................................................................ 290 Pacesetter-Suggested Pathways and Literature Used by Isabella in Units 2, 3, and 4 ....................................................................................... 291 APPENDIX B ............................................................................................................. 295 Teacher Education Program Overview and Standards ........................ 296 REFERENCES .......................................................................................................... 298 xv CHAPTER ONE LOCATING THE PROBLEM AND MAPPING THE TERRAIN Americans have, traditionally, expected a great deal from their public schools. These expectations frequently go beyond academic achievement in reading, writing, mathematics, and social studies. Perhaps, in part, this is a legacy of the rationale used by advocates to promote the creation of mandatory universal public schooling early in the twentieth century (Church & Sedlak, 1976). As a response to the tidal wave of immigration occurring in the United States, one rationale used for establishing mandatory public education was as a mechanism for teaching newcomers to the country appropriate behavior and their “place” in the New World. Since then, public education has been seen as the answer to a wide variety of societal ills. People have turned to the schools to advance equality and social justice, eradicate racism, create committed citizens able to participate effectively in a democracy, develop creative thinkers, produce competent workers, and the expectations go on. Often, however, the expectations for what schools should be or do actually conflict or compete with one another. Different stakeholders expect different things. While all might be invested in advancing equality and social justice through public education, for example, the ways in which they think this should be accomplished are many. Schools, most specifically the teachers in individual classrooms, find themselves caught in the crossfire of these conflicting, competing agendas. Along with these diverse expectations comes a demand for accountability. Americans want evidence that their money is being wisely spent and that students emerge from their public school years capable of assuming a productive place in society. This need for accountability manifests itself most specifically in standardized testing and graduation requiremehts such as exit exams. The past decade has seen a plethora of reform initiatives designed to answer the expectations and demands of the American public. Most recently, the major academic disciplines have established standards reflecting what professional organizations comprised of teachers, administrators, educational researchers, and policymakers deem important for students to know or be able to do upon graduation from public school. The standards created for the discipline of English (Standards for the English Language Arts, NCTE/IRA, 1996), seem to embody, in many ways, the types of knowledge and skills exhibited by critical thinkers, by people willing to open their minds to alternative viewpoints and interpretations and able to consider their own beliefs critically. Although, according to its creators, not meant as a prescriptive document, the Standards for the English Language Arts offer a great deal of possibility for transforming the kinds of learning K-12 students would experience in English classrooms. Yet, even with companion standards for the preparation of teachers (NCTE, 1996), what exactly would need to occur in order to produce English teachers capable of teaching in ways that would enable their students to achieve the Standards remains ambiguous. These issues, for me, raised a number of questions in relation to the preparation of the next and future generations of English teachers. Specifically, what types of experiences should preservice teachers have before and during student teaching or interning? What kinds of support would they need during their field experiences? From their mentors? From their university field instructors? What kinds of schools and classrooms would be suitable as sites for preservice teachers to learn exemplary teaching skills? What kinds of curriculum might support their development? While there is much written about what should be accomplished in English classrooms and what good English teachers should be able to do, there is less written about what would facilitate the development of such teachers or about the difficulties novices face in learning to teach English in ways which would support the Standards (NOTE/IRA, 1996) established for the discipline. My dissertation research grows out of these questions. It considers the question of how a novice English teacher, during a year-long internship, went about constructing a teaching practice. As part of this broad question, I considered the knowledge, skills, and dispositions the preservice teacher studied drew on in constructing her practice and how those elements grew or changed over time. Another key aspect considered in this dissertation involves how the preservice teacher used an innovative curriculum that would seem to support the goals and objectives of the Standards for the English Language Art__s (NOTE/IRA, 1996) and what types of challenges and dilemmas she faced while Ieaming to teach with the curriculum. It also looks at the types of strategies the preservice teacher drew on in the face of problems she encountered and considers the types of support she needed while Ieaming to teach with the curriculum, especially in incorporating non-canonical and multicultural literature. In addition to a curriculum that seemed aligned with the Standards for the English Language Arts (NCTE/IRA, 1996), another important factor in this dissertation study was the location in which the preservice teacher completed her internship. As will be explicated at length in Chapters Two and Three, the study is situated within a context that would seem to provide exactly the types of support necessary to encourage the development of a teaching practice that would reflect the current standards in our discipline. Scanning the Terrain: Recent Reform Initiatives and the Teaching of English This section presents a discussion of the professional and political contexts affecting the teaching of English and provides a context in which this specific study took place. Outlined by this discussion are the current expectations for K-12 English Language Arts curricula and practice as well as expectations for Teacher Education curricula and practice. Based on research on teaching and Ieaming, the reform initiatives presented illustrate what should occur in K-12 English Language Arts and Teacher Education programs. I present three recent reform initiatives relevant to the teaching of English and discuss their implications for this study. I begin by considering what the Standards IQE the English Language Arts (NCTE/IRA, 1996) appear to advocate in terms of the goals and objectives for K-12 experiences in English. Given this discussion, I then overview the body of research literature concerning multicultural literature since a key ingredient in the Standards for the English Language Arts is the study of diverse cultures both within the United States and in the world at large. Furthermore, the use of multicultural literature is an important aspect of the Pacesetter curriculum, the curriculum used by the intern in this study. While Pacesetter English is discussed in much greater detail later, here I consider the curriculum as a representation of a curriculum that has the potential to promote the goals and objectives of the previously discussed reform initiatives. Finally, I present the guidelines for the Preeeration of Teachers of English Lenggege Arts (NCTE, 1996) as an initiative designed to prepare new English teachers to teach in the spirit of new expectations for K-12 English Language Arts instruction. E blishin tandards for the Teachin of En lish Several years ago, K-University representatives from two professional organizations, the National Council of Teachers of English and the lntemational Reading Association, collaborated in an effort to define . . as clearly and specifically as possible, the current consensus among literacy teachers and researchers about what students should learn in the English language arts-- reading, writing, listening, speaking, viewing, and visually representing” (NOTE/IRA, 1996, p. 1). According to the authors of the SW W (NOTE/IRA. 1996). The ultimate purpose of these standards is to ensure that all students are offered the opportunities, the encouragement, and the vision to develop the language skills they need to pursue life’s goals, including personal enrichment and participation as informed members of our society. (p. 1) Out of this commitment, twelve “Standards for the English Language Arts” were created. The first three standards address the kinds of literature to be studied and how students should study literary texts. Students should read a variety of print and nonprint texts from different historical periods and genres (Standards 1 and 3). From this, students should gain . . an understanding of themselves, and of the cultures of the United States and the World; to acquire new information; to respond to the needs and demands of society and the workplace; and for personal fulfillment” (Standard 1) and “. . . to build an understanding of the many dimensions (e.g., philosophical, ethical, aesthetic) of human experience” (Standard 2). According to Standard 3, students should “apply a wide range of strategies to comprehend, interpret, evaluate, and appreciate texts.” They accomplish this by taking a reader-response approach to their study of literature (Rosenblatt, 1978) by drawing on . . their prior experience, their interactions with other readers and writers, their knowledge of word meaning and of other texts, their word identification strategies and their understanding of textual features” (NOTE/IRA, 1996, p. 3). Standards 4 through 6 apply more specifically to speaking and writing. These standards reflect a goal for students to be able to use a wide variety of “writing process elements appropriately” (Standard 5) in order to . . communicate effectively with a variety of audiences for a variety of purposes” (Standard 4). According to Standard 6, students draw on “knowledge of language structure, language conventions . . . media techniques, figurative language, and genre to create critique, and discuss print and nonprint texts” (NOTE/IRA, 1996, p. 3). Issues of language are also addressed in Standards 9 and 10. Standard 9 reflects a need for students to understand and be able to appreciate language diversity. Aimed at English as a Second Language Speakers, Standard 10 directs non-English speakers to use their first language to gain mastery of the English Language Arts and use that mastery to “develop understanding of content across the curriculum” (NCTE/IRA, 1996, p. 3). Research skills are represented by Standards 7 and 8. Specifically, students are to “use a variety of technological and informational resources to gather and synthesize information and to create and communicate knowledge” (Standard 8). They are to “conduct research on issues and interests by generating ideas and questions, and by posing problems. . . . to communicate their discoveries in ways that suit their purpose and audience” (Standard 7). The last two standards, Standards 11 and 12, speak specifically to the kind of people the standards are attempting to develop. Standard 11 reflects a desire for students who “participate as knowledgeable, reflective, creative, and critical members of a variety of literacy communities” (NCTE/I RA, 1996, p. 3). Standard 12 attends to students’ abilities to use all of the aspects of the language arts--spoken, written, and visual-~for their own purposes. As the writers of the Standerds for the English Language Arts warn, the twelve standards “. . . are not distinct and separable; they are, in fact, interrelated and should be considered as a whole” (NOTE/IRA, 1996, p. 3). In addition, these twelve standards were not intended to be prescriptive, but rather serve as guidelines for the types of teaching and learning that should occur in English classrooms. Therefore, there is little specific direction provided in the standards concerning the kinds of curricula or pedagogy that would support the acquisition of the standards for K-12 students. Furthermore, the very interrelatedness of the Standards reflects a sophisticated level of planning and teaching that novice teachers, beginning the pathway to constructing a teaching practice, would in all likelihood find difficult to achieve. The Meme were not received without controversy. Some critics of the W claim that the document reflects a “coordinated effort by US. corporations to discredit public schools in order to reduce the costs of social services and to significantly reduce tax burdens on businesses” (Shannon, 1996, p. 16). Others claim that the document is so riddled with doublespeak (Lutz, 1996) or so vague and confusing (Stopper, 1996) as to make it virtually meaningless. Additionally, some critics point to the deliberate omission of specific objectives for different grade levels as a weakness in the Standerds (Diegmueller, 1996). Proponents of the document argue that the Standards represent a much needed vision and framework for English Language Arts (Chin, 1996). While the document avoids prescriptions, the Standarde represent principles “of, for, and by professionals that look to the future” of English language arts (Brewbaker, 1997, 80). The controversy raging around the Standards could thus be summarized as disagreement regarding the intentions or agenda for the Standards and challenges regarding the clarity of meaning in language used. Few studies are available which speak specifically to what Standards-based English Language Arts instruction actually looks like in real classrooms. While the research reported here was not intended to measure a preservice teacher’s practice against the Stendards, Isabella’s experiences do provide a lens through which to consider the challenges and obstacles teachers may face when attempting to create and implement a coherent program of instruction designed to achieve such goals as those established by the Standards for the English Languege Ads (NOTE/IRA, 1996). In this research, the Standards are important for two primary reasons. First, while it is recognized that some disagreement over the Standards continues in our discipline, the fact remains that for the majority of stakeholders, the Standards represent goals that we, as a profession, have established for the Ieaming experiences of K-12 students in our schools. Therefore, as will be discussed later, they hold implications for the ways in which the preservice teacher featured in this study leams to teach during her internship. Second, the Standards establish a need for diversity in the types of literature studied in K-12 classrooms. Although the Standards call for the inclusion of more non- canonical and multicultural literature, they avoid discussion of the differing, often competing, schools of thought concerning multicultural education in our schools. Since the issue of multicultural literature has implications both for the types of challenges and dilemmas encountered by the preservice teacher in this study and in terms of the curriculum highlighted in this research, I now focus on the research regarding multicultural education. Research on Multicultural Education Although definitions of what exactly constitutes a multicultural curriculum vary, there seems to be a common underlying belief that by learning about other races, cultures, or genders, we will Ieam to understand and respect people different from ourselves (Gates-Duffield, 1993). Yet, as Renyi (1993) points out, these efforts are troubled by “tribal fears” which . . . seem to dominate much of the discussion--fear of the other, the alien, taking over or intruding his ideas on ours; fear of the general populace Ieaming too much and getting out of hand; fear of new and different forms of knowledge and ways of knowing; fear of losing our national integrity; fear of losing cultural integrity. (p. 203) While on the one hand we seem to want to learn about, understand, and respect people unlike ourselves, on the other hand, we seem to fear losing ourselves in that knowledge, understanding and respect. Even taking into account these tribal fears which confront multicultural efforts, an initial examination of the research literature involving multicultural education reveals a number of directions from which researchers and teachers have approached the conceptualization and implementation of programs and curricula that embrace and reflect cultural diversity. In fact, in considering the array of literature available, several researchers have developed categories of IO multicultural education. These categories become especially helpful in considering what kinds of curriculum might be needed to achieve the goals outlined by the Standards for the English Language Arts (NOTE/IRA, 1996). They also provide a window into the kinds of problems preservice teachers may encounter in their learning about and working with multicultural literature in their teaching. Banks (1993) breaks multicultural education into five dimensions: content integration; the knowledge construction process; prejudice reduction; an equity pedagogy; and an empowering school culture and social structure. Within these dimensions, Banks emphasizes what he calls the knowledge construction process. Within the knowledge construction process, Banks identifies five types of knowledge which he maintains have implications for multicultural teaching. These types are personal/cultural, popular, mainstream academic, transformative, and school. Of particular interest are the mainstream academic knowledge and transforrnative knowledge categories. According to Banks (1993), mainstream academic knowledge consists of “the concepts, theories, and explanations that constitute traditional Westem-centric knowledge in history and in the social and behavior sciences” (p. 26). Transformative academic knowledge, on the other hand, “challenges the facts, concepts, paradigms, themes, and explanations routinely accepted in mainstream academic knowledge” (p. 26). While Banks’ categories are certainly relevant when considering the types of teaching which might result in achievement of the goals outlined in the 11 Standards, his layering of categories of different knowledge within the dimensions of multicultural education make his system more complicated and, to some extent, too abstract. It also seems somehow less accessible to teachers since much of what he discusses in the categories of mainstream academic knowledge and transformative academic knowledge reflects work done (or in progress) at the university or research level without providing much guidance as to how the theory might be translated into K-12 curriculum. While Banks’ model is helpful in considering the different types of knowledge construction embedded in multicultural education efforts, his model is less helpful in providing a framework against which to consider and categorize the variety of approaches evident in multicultural education programs. Although elements of their categorization system are similar to Banks’ model, Sleeter and Grant (1987) offer a clearer framework which teachers could use to sort various approaches to multicultural education. Sleeter and Grant identify five approaches to multicultural education: (1) Teaching the culturally different; (2) Human Relations; (3) Single Group Studies; (4) Multicultural Education; and, (5) Education that is multicultural and social reconstructionist. The first three approaches identified by Sleeter and Grant seem limited in their goals. The Teaching the Culturally Different approach focuses its efforts at assimilating students of color into the cultural mainstream and contemporary social structures. Such programs modify or revise existing school programs to provide necessary resources and bridges to students of color as they make the journey from their cultures to the predominate culture. Given this approach’s 12 emphasis on acquiring the cultural capital of the dominant culture, E. D. Hirsch’s (1987) notion of cultural Iiteracy--that is that there is a set body of knowledge that every American needs in order to be considered culturally literate-matches nicely with the objectives of the Teaching the Culturally Different approach. This is especially true since the body of knowledge Hirsch identifies as crucial for cultural literacy comes from a traditional Westem-centric perspective. The Human Relations Approach holds as its primary goal to help students of different backgrounds get along better and appreciate each other more. Efforts of this group might include celebrating dates important to various cultures (i.e., Cinco de Mayo, Martin Luther King, Jr.’s birthday, Chinese New Year), ethnic food festivals, and studying/honoring significant individuals from various cultures. The Teaching Tolerance initiative promoted through the Southern Poverty Law Office exemplifies this approach with their emphasis on celebrating the beliefs, practices, and contributions of non-whites (Heller & Hawkins, 1994). The Single Group Studies aims to foster cultural pluralism by considering single ethnic, gender, or social classes. Their efforts result in courses such as African American History which would focus on the experiences, contributions, and concerns of African Americans. It could be argued that an extreme example of Single Group Studies would be represented in the Afrocentrism movement (Watkins, 1993) with its emphasis on an African perspective and interpretation of historical and contemporary events and literature. However, contemporary Afrocentric efforts go further than Single Group Studies by 13 demanding an education and a curriculum by and for blacks. Proponents of Afrocentrism seek to “construct a set of beliefs about America, but from an African rather than northern European perspective” (Renyi, 1993, p. 181). Sleeter and Grant’s (1987) final two categories, Multicultural Education and Education that is Multicultural and Social Reconstructionist, go far beyond the goals and objectives held by the first three categories. Both categories promote cultural pluralism and social equality by calling for reform of the entire school curriculum for all students in order to reflect diversity. Both respect and promote the value of cultural diversity, and emphasize the need for social justice, equal opportunity for all people, and an equitable distribution of power among all ethnic groups. However, Education that is Multicultural and Social Reconstructionist goes further in its goals by striving to prepare students to actively challenge social structural inequality. Schwartz (1995) argues that Sleeter and Grant’s first four categories fall into what has been called “mainstream multiculturalism,” that is multiculturalism that tries to reform rather than transform existing schools, communities, and society. Mainstream multiculturalism, according to Schwartz, reflects the tenets of twentieth-century modernism (i.e., an unquestioning belief in progress, linear, rational thought processes viewed as the epitome of intellectual achievement, a belief that society is best controlled when all power is centralized). Multicultural education within the paradigm of modernism forces cultures to “fit”. Cultures which didn’t fit the tenets of modernism would be excluded, assimilated, or viewed as the “exotic other.” Schwartz states, “Thus, as long as 14 ‘multiculturalism is generally about ‘otherness,’ as long as it does not question the ideological hegemony of the dominant culture’ (Giroux, 1992, p. 18) and does not interrogate the root causes of White Anglo-Saxon privilege, the social efforts of such approaches may be viewed as transitory and reformist at best” (p. 635) Multicultural approaches which concentrate primarily on introducing White Anglo-Saxon students to the “exotic others,” people different from their own racial and ethnic backgrounds, without considering how and why the White Anglo-Saxon culture became the dominant culture in power will have little chance of effecting change. Merely studying “others,” who they are and how they may have come to the positions in our society they inhabit, does not necessarily mean students will come to understand the fundamental causes of inequality in our society. Nor does it mean that students will Ieam how to take action in ways that would effectively address inequality and injustice. In contrast to multiculturalism within a modernism paradigm, Sleeter and Grant’s (1987) fifth category reflects a “critical postmodern multiculturalism” (Schwartz, 1995, p. 636). In this type of multicultural program, recognizing and honoring diversity itself is not the end goal. Rather, as Estrada and McLaren argue, “diversity must be framed within a politics of cultural criticism and a commitment to social justice” (qtd. in Schwartz, 1995, p. 636). Critical postmodern multiculturalism, also referred to by Giroux and McLaren (1994) as “border pedagogy,” makes explicit a transformative political agenda within an investigation of the creation of difference as it has developed in the areas of 15 history, culture, power, and ideology. Without such an agenda, multiculturalism becomes just another form of accommodation to the larger social order. However, such an agenda also reflects an understanding that “multiculturalism means across cultures, against borders; multiculturalism doesn’t mean only people of color” (Schwartz, 1995, p. 643). Clearly, a critical postmodern multiculturalism requires more from teachers than merely selecting a more culturally diverse body of literature to be studied in a classroom (Adams, 1995). As Giroux (1988) argues, . . schools are not neutral sites, and teachers cannot assume the posture of being neutral either . . . teachers should become transformative intellectuals if they are to educate students to be active, critical citizens” (p. 127). Giroux goes on to state that an essential aspect of the notion of teacher as transformative intellectual is the “. . . necessity of making the pedagogical more political and the political more pedagogical” (p. 127). By making the pedagogical more political, critical reflection and action become part of a fundamental social project to help students develop a deep and abiding faith in the struggle to overcome economic, political and social injustices and to further humanize themselves as part of this struggle. . . . Making the political more pedagogical means utilizing forms of pedagogy that embody political interests that are emancipatory in nature; that is, using forms of pedagogy that treat students as critical agents; make knowledge problematic; utilize critical and affirming dialogue; and make the case for struggling for a qualitatively better world for all people. (p. 127) Interestingly, Giroux’ move to treat students as critical agents resonates with several goals and objectives presented in the Standards fer the English LengdegeAds (NOTE/IRA, 1996) as discussed earlier. However, it is also interesting to note, that while the Standards do not define the ways in which 16 multicultural literature should be used in classrooms, Giroux’ perspective clearly calls teachers to develop pedagogy that uses multicultural literature to teach students to work towards a better world for everyone. Learning to construct a teaching practice that is Standards-based while also meeting Giroux’ conception. of teachers as transformative intellectuals, may increase the challenges for preservice teachers. Each of these categories of multicultural education obviously have important implications for the kinds of teaching and curricula found in English classrooms. Again, however, the Standards for the English Language Arts (NOTE/IRA, 1996) do not explicitly define a specific purpose for the use of multicultural literature. Some might argue that by calling for the inclusion of non-canonical or multicultural literature, and its emphasis on understanding and respecting diversity in language use, the Standards fall within the Human Relations category of multicultural education (Sleeter & Grant, 1987). Others, however, might argue that the goal of preparing students who can “participate as knowledgeable, reflective, creative, and critical members of a variety of literacy communities” (NOTE/IRA, 1996, p. 3) requires more of a Multicultural Education or Education that is Multicultural and Social Reconstructionist (Sleeter & Grant, 1987) approach. The inclusion of multicultural literature into the curriculum has also not been without controversy. For example, Sandra Stotsky (1995) focuses on ways in which multicultural curricula have left out some American groups, watered down a coherent presentation of American Literature, and run the risk 17 ofpromoting reverse cultural stereotyping. Wayne Joseph (1998) argues that literature should be judged on the merits of its message and not the author’s race or ethnicity. According to Joseph, . . . the main focus must always be the quality of the work, not a system that forces students to place authors and their efforts in separate compartments. To divide literature in that way misleads students about the true nature of literature. (p. 64) Andrea Fishman (1996) warns that “reducing choices to black or white and rural or urban oversimplifies the world in which we and our students live” (p. 14). Additionally, Kazemek (1986) questions the “reality” of the literature included in multicultural curricula and its usefulness in preparing students for the future. Obviously, given these comments, preservice teachers engaged in constructing a teaching practice may find themselves pulled between perspectives. While the Standards demand the inclusion of multicultural literature, the authors above reflect a perspective that challenges the purposes for including such literature. As a novice teacher, Ieaming when and how to use multicultural literature becomes even more problematic given the competing, oftentimes politically charged theories on its use in K-12 classrooms. In addition to a large number of books available concerning the theoretical implications and providing support for multicultural education and literature (i.e., Miller & McCaskill, 1993; Rogers & Soter, 1997), a number of books and articles have been published showcasing a variety of ways in which multicultural literature is being incorporated in K-12 classrooms. United in Diversity; Using Multicultgral Young Adult Literature in the Slassroom (Brown & 18 Stephens, 1998), oic i n Ii h lassroomS' Ho orin Diversi _C_h_mge (Cook & Lodge, 1996), and 12 Multicultural Novels: Reading and Teeching Strategies (Wood, 1997) are merely three examples of books designed to offer practical suggestions for the teaching of multicultural literature in K-12 classrooms. Articles from a variety of professional journals provide a range of examples of how multicultural literature can be incorporated in English Language Arts classrooms. Pfeuffer (1998), for example, describes her efforts in a secondary English classroom by putting aside the traditional American literature canon and studying instead Alex Haley’s Roots, Jess Mowry’s M of Seven, Luis J. Rodriquez’s Always RunninglLa Vida Loca, and Victor Villasenor’s Bein of Sold. Rodney Smith (1995) discusses the effects on one Latina girl when The House en Mengo Street was added to the curriculum. Nine illustrated children’s books and nine novels are presented in Kathleen Ralph’s (1995) article, “Classrooms without Borders” and their usefulness in teaching children about multicultural issues is discussed. Yet with all that has been written on the “whys and hows” of incorporating multicultural literature into K-12 English Language Arts curricula, little is available on the problems and obstacles encountered by teachers attempting to include multicultural texts into their teaching. For example, an ERIC search using the descriptor “teaching multicultural literature” yielded only two citations (Dilg, 1995; Murphy & Trooien, 1996) which addressed the problems which might be or were encountered by teachers teaching multicultural texts. 19 Dilg (1995) argues that white teachers who use works by writers of color need to understand the specific works, the writers themselves and the unique historical contexts and literary histories from which the texts emerged. She goes on to discuss the issue of classroom dynamics, such as the possibility that students dislike being cast as a representative of the race or group being discussed and the potential that students will not have models of or the skills to engage in the types of discussion which might emerge from the study of multicultural texts. In Murphy and Trooien’s article (1996), the authors argue that foregrounding the ‘class’ element of “race, class, gender" in studying multicultural literature could serve to reduce white male resistance to such texts. As they caution, . . . students seem unaware of the existence of class and its attendant issues. The lack of socioeconomic class awareness, plus the instructor’s tendency to emphasize gender and race, allows and encourages the majority white student population, especially the males, to define problems in terms of gender and race and to continue to place blame for their decreasing economic opportunities on women and minorities. (pp. 296-97) They conclude their argument by emphasizing that concentrating on white male students’ places within the American socioeconomic system may enable such students to move from “horizontal rage and vertical fantasies and from feeling pitted against the “Other" to establishing associations with others” (p. 302). Both of the above cited articles touched in some respects on issues which were likely to emerge in this dissertation research. For example, this study investigated the extent to which aspects of subject matter knowledge and 20 pedagogical content knowledge associated with multicultural literature were a major obstacle for the intern. Furthermore, the Pacesetter curriculum itself makes much of the construct of “otherness” as reflected most in the content of the second unit. This dissertation research contributes to the emerging discussion on the kinds of obstacles teachers, in this case a preservice teacher, face when attempting to include multicultural literature into their practices. In addition, although the Standards leave the purpose for including multicultural literature in the English curriculum somewhat vague, as Giroux (1988) points out, teachers must make decisions regarding the kinds of curricula to use and the ways in which to teach the curricula and those decisions are not neutral ones. While researchers have obviously spent a great deal of thought on the various purposes and desired results for multicultural education, little is available on pragmatic, practical ways in which teachers would need to teach in order to specifically achieve the goals of multicultural education programs that fall within the Multicultural Education or Education that is Multicultural and Social Reconstructionist (Sleeter & Grant, 1987). Given this, I now turn to a brief look at how the specific curriculum featured in this research has the potential to fit within the categories discussed above. es r rri m and M Iti ltural E ca i The Pacesetter curriculum, “Voices of Modern Cultures” is discussed in much greater detail in Chapter Three. Wrapping back to the W EflgushLenggegeArjs (NOTE/IRA, 1996), however, in many respects, the Pacesetter curriculum could be viewed as a vehicle useful to moving toward the 21 types of goals and objectives embedded in the Standards. The Pacesetter curriculum includes a wide variety of literary genres representing both historical and contemporary voices from different cultures. Suggested literature includes a number of non-canonical or multicultural texts such as essays by Chinese- American and Hispanic authors, poetry by Langston Hughes, short stories by Gabriel Garcia Marquez, and Zora Neale Hurston’s novel, Their Eyes were Watching Sod or Amy Tan’s, The doy Luck Slub. In addition, critically analyzing nonprint texts is a major portion of one unit. The curriculum emphasizes student voice and the voices of others in the world. It provides a wide range of writing activities encompassing a number of different writing processes and genres. A major research project occurs in one of the units, encouraging students to draw on a variety of information sources. Finally, students present their thinking and work in a number of different formats--written, oral presentation, video, graphic representations, and so on. At this point, I would like to briefly outline the curriculum’s connection to the multicultural educatiOn discussion presented above. In my opinion, the Pacesetter curriculum clearly provides multiple opportunities for the introduction of literature from diverse cultures. The overarching course dimensions, goals, and objectives for the curriculum (discussed in greater detail in Chapter 3) virtually require the use of literature reflecting the voices of diverse people. It would be difficult, if not impossible, for a teacher to achieve the objectives of this curriculum without the use of multicultural or noncanonical literature. For 22 example, Robert Scholes’ overview of the curriculum (1999) describes the course as . . . about “voices” and “cultures.” Modern American culture is a product of its history--a history in which many voices have spoken and continue to be heard: voices from our past, voices from abroad, individual voices, institutional voices, the loud voice of the media and the still, small voice of individual conscience. This course is about listening to those voices, understanding how one culture can be made out of many voices, and finding the voices one needs to express oneself and be heard in the midst of this hubbub. To choose not to include multicultural or noncanonical texts would, therefore, clearly undermine one of the major tenets of the curriculum and would call into question why a teacher or district would choose to adopt this particular curriculum in the first place. In addition, the structure and organization of the units comprising the year-long curriculum advance the intenNeaving, or what William G. McBride (1999) refers to as “rethreading” of concepts throughout the units. Because the curriculum asks teachers to select literature that would support the concepts threaded throughout the curriculum, teachers are literally required to select literature from multiple cultures. For example, a major goal for Unit One, “Many Selves, Many Voices,” involves students investigating “. . . how she or he is ‘situated’ as an individual who belongs to certain groups and addresses insiders and outsiders in different voices” (Scholes, 1999). Using texts that represent a variety of different cultures not only supports this investigation in Unit One, it also lays critical groundwork for Unit Two, “‘Stranger in the Village”: Encountering the Other, Being the Other.” 23 Change is not always a comfortable or welcome thing. As the English teaching profession continues to move toward the types of goals and objectives identified in the national Standards, curriucula such as the Pacesetter curriculum can provide both the impetus and support for those teachers reluctant to move outside their comfort zones in selecting literature. Additionally, it can provide a supportive platform from which teachers, unfamiliar or uncomfortable with multicultural or noncanonical literature, can begin to expand their subject matter knowledge, thereby increasing the liklihood that students would experience more diverse literature throughout their K-12 educafion. The curriculum supports teachers in making decisions about texts to be studied by providing both clear and coherent goals and objectives for each unit and by including a list of suggested works. By explaining to teachers what needs to emerge from the study of texts within a specific unit, teachers can then freely review the multicultural texts with which they are familiar to select ones which would advance the goals and objectives of the unit. Although continually emphasizing that teachers are free to select texts which fulfill their own needs (i.e., texts available to the teacher, district requirements, needs of specific student populations) the curriculum also provides a suggested network of texts. Copies of the Pacesetter-suggested texts are included in the materials provided to teachers and oftentimes are also found in the workbook provided to students. Given that both experienced and novice teachers might have minimal knowledge of texts from a wide range of cultures, I believe the curriculum serves 24 as a strong resource for a teacher wanting to introduce more multicultural, noncanonical works into her classroom. While suggestions are made and texts oftentimes provided (a boon if a teacher’s access to multicultural, noncanonical texts is limited), the creators of the curriculum are clear about the freedom teachers should feel in constructing pathways of texts for themselves. However, it is important to note that simply because the curriculum provides a coherent year of instruction predicated on the use of noncanonical and multicultural texts, it does not necessarily follow that the curriculum will be implemented in a way that moves it beyond the level of merely substituting noncanonical and multicultural literature for more canonical texts. It is entirely conceivable that a teacher might use the suggested texts, or even incorporate alternative noncanoical/multicultural titles of her own choosing, in ways which reflect a Human Relations approach (Sleeter & Grant, 1987) to multicultural educafion. As noted earlier, what differentiates the categories of multicultural education from each other are the goals and objectives a teacher has for the curriculum, her agenda for teaching in specific ways or for including specific texts. Yet, just as the Standards for the English Language Arts (NOTE/IRA, 1996) leaves out attention to specific agendas, the Pacesetter curriculum too seems to provide latitude for teachers to use the curriculum in different ways. I believe the curriculum has the potential to be used in ways which would advance the goals and objectives of the Multicultural and Social Reconstructionist (Sleeter & Grant, 1987) category discussed earlier. With its 25 emphasis on voices and the multiplicity of voices represented both in the world at large and in texts, the curriculum provides a vehicle by which teachers could choose to consider issues such as social inequality and injustice and begin studying with their students the underlying causes of institutionalized and individual prejudices and biases. This is, however, not an explicit goal of the curriculum as outlined by its creators. Nowhere in the curriculum does it state that teachers should be or even could be using the curriculum in ways that would move students toward considering the issues of social inequality and injustice and, as critical pedagogists would encourage, begin to take action against these forces in our society. Yet, the types of texts and activities suggested by the curriculum would readily support just such an agenda if a teacher chose to approach it in such a way. For example, the essay suggested to begin Unit Two is James Baldwin’s “Stranger in the Village.” The curriculum’s suggested questions include a few which might lead to discussions about societal inequality and injustice, such as “Why doesn’t it occur to Baldwin that there ‘could be people somewhere who have never seen Black people? What does this say about where he has lived before?” and “In what way is the village symbolic of the Western world?” (leaeher’s Gdide, p. "-9). Once again, however, it would be up to the teacher to both choose to include the questions in her discussion of the essay and choose to encourage students to think beyond surface responses to connect with larger issues of social inequality and injustice. 26 Whereas the theme of stranger in the village is attended to at great length throughout the teacher’s materials accompanying the Pacesetter curriculum, references to ways in which suggested literature gets at issues of social inequality and injustice are rarer. A teacher who desired to use the curriculum to achieve the goals of critical pedagogists would need not only the will to do so, but would also need to be able to recognize how the titles and activities suggested by the curriculum could be used to achieve those purposes. This might prove especially difficult for novice teachers who have limited prior experience from which to draw. The curriculum itself does not explicitely outline or highlight ways in which individual titles or activities can specifically be used to surface issues of social inequality and injustice. This raises the issue of what Dr. Susan Florio-Ruane1 has termed “teaching multiculturally” which seems to go beyond simply selecting noncanonical or multicultural texts to insert into the curriculum. The Pacesetter curriculum itself does not appear to provide much support in helping teachers think about new or different ways of conceptualizing their teaching practice especially in such advanced ways as might be inherent in teaching multiculturally. As will be seen in Chapters 4, 5, and 6, the potential for using the curriculum in a transformative or multicultural and social reconstructionist way is ‘ Florio-Ruane’s questions concerning “teaching and reading “multiculturally” appeared in a written critique of this dissertation. Such questions require and deserve a great deal of concentrated attention as the implications for both K-12 English teaching and Teacher Education are immense. 27 present. The curriculum also provides what many might consider appealing and useful pathways which appear to weave together multiple threads thereby presenting a coherent year-long experience. Again, however, as will be evidenced in the ways in which the preservice teacher interacts with the curriculum, it is apparent that a teacher must bring a specific agenda to the teaching of the curriculum to use it in such ways. In addition, novices especially might not notice Pacesetter’s emphasis on intertextuality, or they may not have the skills necessary to exploit the potential advantages of the curriculum. As will become apparent through Isabella’s story, the inherent complexity of the curriculum with its multiple threads poses challenges to Isabella’s subject matter knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge/pedagogical reasoning. As a preservice teacher beginning to craft her own teaching practice, the Pacesetter curriculum would, at times, present a formidable obstacle. Soon after “Voices of Modern Cultures” was piloted in nine districts throughout the United States, controversy broke out among theorists in the field of English Education. Basically, the Pacesetter curriculum was attacked on two fronts: first, critics charged that the “Voices of Modern Culture” did not represent a truly multicultural curriculum. Rather, they argued, the creators of the curriculum paid lip service to the increasing demand for inclusion of multicultural literature in English curricula by inserting a handful of suggested minority authors and texts. 28 The College Board countered these charges by pointing out that it had never marketed the curriculum as a multicultural program. Rather, they asserted, the curriculum emphasized bringing into the English classroom voices of authors traditionally left out of the curriculum (Wolf, 1993; 1995). The distinction Pacesetter creators seemed to be trying to draw was one of purpose or rationale in selection of literature. They chose suggested texts not necessarily on the basis of race or ethnicity, but rather on the basis of whether the voices represented in the literature selected reflected voices traditionally left out of English curricula (Wolf, 1993). Because such voices typically reflected those of minorities and women meant that the Pacesetter curriculum shared, on the surface, some of the characteristics of a multicultural program. Since the College Board had not intended to create a multicultural program, the curriculum would, naturally enough, not meet the criteria that some critics were trying to apply to it. Therefore, they argued, critics who may have assessed the Pacesetter curriculum in terms of its promotion of multicultural literature to meet the goals of perspectives such as Multicultural Education or Education that is Multicultural and Social Reconstructionist (Sleeter & Grant, 1987) might be disappointed by the ways in which teachers chose to implement the suggested curriculum. Second, opponents of the curriculum argued that contrary to the College Board’s assertions, the curriculum was elitist (Daniels, 1994). Critics charged that the curriculum was elitist in that it did not provide the targeted clientele of students (typically non-college bound) experiences with the same standard of 29 literature and writing as that encountered by the college-bound students. In other words, while the ‘advanced students’ were reading Dickens, Dante and Shakespeare and writing essays of literary criticism in response to the literature, the Pacesetter students were reading lesser known authors and writing personal narratives. The College Board refuted these charges by pointing out that while the literature might be different from that encountered in a British Literature course (since that would be what college-bound seniors would often take), the curriculum focused on developing ways of reading and responding to literature that would serve students well no matter what literature they encountered (Elias, 1994; Wolf, 1993). Similarly, while personal narrative did, indeed, serve as an entry point into writing, students were also provided with opportunities to write short stories, critical essays, screen plays, and the more traditional research paper (Scholes, 1995; Wolf, 1993). As will be described at more length in Chapter Three, the Pacesetter curriculum is designed around “pathways” of texts and activities which tie into major curricular themes and goals (See Appendix A). While the curriculum materials provide suggested pathways of texts for each of the units, it is also made clear that teachers should feel free to make alternative choices based on their specific students and communities (Wolf, 1995). Responding to Daniel’s (1994) charge that the curriculum . . is profoundly reactionary. It’s a traditional teacher-centered, teacher-driven, teacher-dominated, transmission-model 30 course that leaves little or no ownership, responsibility, choice, or voice for students” (p. 45), Kristina Elias (1994) states, . . . Pacesetter English is the first course written to try to bring all students into the fold. I emphasize the word course because Pacesetter English is the only standards project I know which de- emphasizes the philosophic, the talk about what should be done, and actually creates a template for how to do it. It’s teacher user- friendly. The course is designed to move students from paper into school practice and into lives of students. A lot of talk about democratic ideals will not do that; only a well-written curriculum will. (pp. 50-51) Again, what seems clear here is that the teacher’s intentions or agenda for teaching the texts and selecting the activities, determine how closely the curriculum comes to advancing the democratic ideals outlined by Daniels (1994) and Elias (1994). As discussed earlier, the conceptual foundation of the Pacesetter curriculum, the types of activities and texts it suggests, would indicate that the curriculum holds the potential to achieve the goals as established by the Standards (NOTE/IRA, 1996). However, as I’ve argued previously, certain intentions or a particular agenda determined by the teacher would need to be attached to a curriculum to make it useful for meeting the goals and objectives of Multicultural Education or Education that is Multicultural and Social Reconstructionist (Sleeter & Grant, 1987) or the goals and objectives of a democratic ideal such as discussed by Daniels (1994) and Elias (1994). Obviously, curriculum is dead paper until instantiated by a teacher in a community of learners. Given this, my study was designed to help me look 31 closely at what one preservice teacher tried to accomplish with the Pacesetter curriculum. This dissertation also explores how one preservice teacher attempted to implement the Pacesetter curriculum in actual practice. Whereas the previous controversy seemed to remain in the theoretical or philosophical realm, little seems to have been written concerning what happens when a teacher, in the case of this dissertation research, a preservice teacher, tries to use the curriculum in real classrooms with real students. Critiques or assessments of the curriculum itself are also few. I was unable to locate any independent studies assessing the Pacesetter curriculum. Upon contacting the College Board, I was furnished with a Final Report Executive Summary (n.d.) which reported that an evaluation study of the program’s effectiveness within and across Pacesetter sites was conducted by Human Resources Research Organization (HumRRO) at the request of the College Board. The goals for the evaluation were to deal with implementation and effectiveness issues of the Pacesetter® English program in order to answer the questions that decision makers in school districts use to help them in making adoption decisions. The study was guided by research questions targeting implementation and effectiveness issues. (p. ii) According to HumRRO’s findings, Pacesetter English students outperformed the Control group on the posttest reading test, AP essay writing test, and on the 1997 culminating assessment task measures (College Board, n.d., p. iv). Analyses showed that “in terms of reading, writing, and other leisure- time activities, the Pacesetter program did not have a strong impact on 32 changing student preferences or activities” (p. iv). Another interesting finding involved the importance of professional development for teachers. Successful implementation of the Pacesetter English program is very related to professional development. It is likely that the responses of each teacher group reflect a tendency to be comfortable and want to stay with what is “known.” Teacher preparation is a strong and important tool in helping teachers make the changes in attitudes and behaviors that will allow them to adopt the instructional approaches that are promoted under the new curriculum standards. (p. vi) While teacher training and inservices have been part of the College Board’s implementation of the Pacesetter curriculum from its inception, the College Board has also recently turned its attention to reaching preservice teachers. At the 1998 National Council of Teachers of English Fall Conference in Nashville, Tennessee, the College Board offered a session aimed at introducing teacher educators to the Pacesetter English curriculum. From the description of the session, it appeared that the College Board hoped to encourage teacher educators to use the Pacesetter English curriculum in their teacher education methods classes, thus making preservice English teachers aware of the program before leaving their university preparation. Yet I question how much attention has been given to the types of challenges and difficulties the curriculum presents for novice teachers. This dissertation portrays one preservice teacher’s experiences in learning to teach with the Pacesetter curriculum. Standerds for Preparing Teachers The enormous expectations for individuals entering the field of English Education are reflected in the National Council of Teachers of English 33 publication, Guidelines for the Preparation of Teachers of English Language Arts (1996). Designed to “state what English language arts teachers should believe, know, and be able to do as teachers” (p. 4), the Guidelines also describe “. . . a set of initial dispositions, knowledge, and pedagogical knowledge and skills for the beginning teacher, and they set goals for the career teacher” (p. 4). Paralleling the types of goals established in the Standards for the English Language Arts (NCTE/IRA, 1996), the Guidelines for the Preparation of Teachers of English Language Arts (1996) organize around three areas: attitudes, knowledge, and pedagogy. Five “Principles” undergird and permeate the three categories: Principles of Diversity; Content Knowledge; Pedagogical Knowledge and Skills; Opportunity; and Dynamic Literacy (pp. 7-9). The Principles of Diversity reflect the call to value and draw upon the diversity of students and constructing “meaning from multiple sources” in order to “encourage the development of students’ multiple ways of knowing and understanding” (NCTE, 1996, p. 7). The Principles of Content Knowledge consider the breadth and depth of an English teacher’s knowledge. Such knowledge should include, among other things, “a broad view of what constitutes texts, including both print and nonprint media,” an “understanding of the role that literature plays in the development and understanding of human cultures,” the writing process and all it entails, knowledge of the English language, language varieties, and respect for the languages of students and their families (p. 8). In addition, English teachers should be prepared to “know 34 and be able to use and teach a wide range of critical and interpretive approaches to literature” (p. 8). While Principles of Content Knowledge focus primarily on what preservice teachers should know and understand, Principles of Pedagogical Knowledge and Skill concentrate more on what teachers should be able to do with their knowledge and understanding. According to the Guidelines (NCTE, 1996), teachers should implement instruction that addresses the interests and needs of their students, as well as the various ways in which different students Ieam. They should “understand and be skillful in employing authentic ways of assessing students’ learning” (p. 8). Finally, they should recognize the “multiple positions or orientations for teaching English language arts” and when various positions or orientations are valid given certain contexts (p. 8). Principles of Opportunity speak most specifically to experiences and opportunities English Language Arts education programs should provide preservice teachers. These include opportunities to “develop teaching/learning processes through experiences with a wide range of verbal, visual, technological and creative media” (NCTE, 1996, p. 8), develop abilities as literate individuals necessary to “participate in a democratic society,” “experience a wide range of literature consistent with their own and their students’ motivations, interests, and intellects,” “participate in model classrooms that function as communities of learners and users of language,” and “experience and consider the uses of multiple means of assessment” (p. 9). Preservice programs should also provide students with opportunities to 35 experience and value professional community and growth and become reflective practitioners (p. 9). Finally, Principles of Dynamic Literacy exhort teacher education programs to “recruit, nurture, and graduate new teachers” (NCTE, 1996, p. 9) who can write and read with “proficiency and pleasure,” who will take part in school and community cultural events, and who can and will “write and share their experiences as writers and as readers with their students” (p. 9). Connections between each of these principles and the three categories of attitudes, knowledge, and pedagogy are then explicated and cross- referenced at length in the guidelines (NCTE, 1996) with the Principle of Content Knowledge sub-divided into four categories: Language, Literature, Composing and Media. Later in the document, the principles are cross- referenced to five different Standards Projects including the NCTE/IRA project which resulted in the Standards for the English Language Arts (1996). Clear from the chart and discussion presented in the Guidelines (NCTE, 1996) is the breadth and depth of knowledge, skills, and dispositions teacher education programs are supposed to develop in prospective teachers of English. Interestingly, much as the Standards for the English Language Arts (NOTE/IRA, 1996) leaves open for question how and what instruction should be implemented to achieve the goals, the Guidelines for the Preparation of Teachers of English Langgage Arts (1996) also identifies outcomes without defining the program or programs that would achieve the outcomes. Rather, it is left up to teacher education programs to design programs and set levels of 36 achievement to reach the standards prospective English teachers are expected to achieve during their preservice preparation. This dissertation research takes a close and careful look at one preservice teacher’s demonstration of the types of standards discussed above across a year-long internship within the context of a program that works toward those standards. The study considers how the intern used the curriculum to construct a teaching practice. Specifically, it looks at the obstacles and challenges faced by the intern as she attempted to construct for herself a teaching pathway. Having established the goals for teacher education programs as proposed by the Guidelines for the Preparation of Teachers of Englis_h Langnage Arts (NCTE, 1996), I now look at three specific areas of the body of teacher education literature relevant to this research: what prospective teachers bring to their preservice education programs; the research concerning the knowledge base of preservice teachers; and assuming the role of teacher or becoming a professional. Research on Learning to Teach Designed as a case study, the research reported in this dissertation considers the major question, “How does a novice English teacher, during a year-long internship, go about constructing a teaching practice?” The previous bodies of literature were reviewed to locate this research within the current thinking about “best practices” in the teaching of English. Current ideas include the call for more multicultural literature, and a specific curriculum which appears 37 to provide the types of literature and experiences called for in the Standards (NCTE/IRA, 1996). I now turn to the literature on teacher preparation to locate my study within the body of research considering what we know about how people learn to teach, especially the kinds of knowledge, skills, and dispositions necessary to construct a teaching practice, and the implications that holds for preparing preservice teachers to teach in the spirit of the new Standards (NCTE/IRA, 1996). We know that teaching, and by extension Ieaming to teach, is a messy, complicated endeavor filled with uncertainty. As Schempp, Sparkes, & Templin (1999) describe it, Teachers spend their time in a multidimensional and often frantic venture called a school day. Pressed by time constraints, curricular demands, the competing and contradictory needs of individual students, limited resources, and a relentless schedule, teachers must establish themselves in a caldron of activity. (p. 156) Truly a daunting task for experienced teachers! Yet the complexity and uncertainty faced by preservice teachers increases exponentially as they begin to Ieam to teach. Diane Brunner (1994) eloquently points out the tenuous position preservice teachers are in especially when completing field experiences such as the internship described in this research. “We ask them to perform, to model, to have their acts together, to preserve the dignity of their teacher education programs, at the same time that they are trying to survive as strangers in a strange Iand” (p. 49). 38 What Presergice Teachers Bring to Their Professional Preparation Preservice teachers enter their teacher preparation programs having spent a great deal of their lives involved in the enterprise they wish to enter as professionals. It is estimated . . that the average student has spent 13,000 hours in direct contact with classroom teachers by the time he graduates from high school” (Lortie, 1975, p. 61). However, as Lortie points out, this “apprenticeship of observation” does not enable students to analyze the endeavor of teaching from a perspective other than that of a student. In other words, while students spend a great deal of time watching teachers, engaging in activities designed by teachers, and evaluating teachers and their actions, “[wjhat students learn about teaching, then, is intuitive and imitative rather than explicit and analytical; it is based on individual personalities rather than pedagogical principles” (Lortie, 1975, p. 62). As Lortie goes on to warn, while what students Ieam from their apprenticeships of observation represent powerful, enduring lessons, they are frequently not the kinds of lessons which will help them assume a critical stance toward Ieaming to teach. The student’s learning about teaching, gained from a limited vantage point and relying heavily on imagination, is not like that of an apprentice and does not represent acquisition of the occupation’s technical knowledge. It is more a matter of imitation, which, being generalized across individuals, becomes tradition. It is a potentially powerful influence which transcends generations, but the conditions of transfer do not favor informed criticism, attention to specifics, or explicit rules of assessment. (Lortie, 1975, p. 63) 39 Drawing on a variety of methods, including “historical review, national and local surveys, findings from observational studies by other researchers, and content analysis of intensive interviews” (Lortie, 1975, p. ix), Lortie’s research, a sociological study, advanced our understanding of the lives of teachers, especially on the ways in which teachers are socialized into a school community. However, his research did not include specific attention to the ways in which preservice teachers learn to construct a teaching practice. While Lortie explicates the variety of purposes teachers bring to their practices (pp. 109- 133), he does not explore the process teachers engage in when actually attempting to plan and implement curriculum which would translate those purposes into practice. Diane Holt-Reynolds’ (1991; 1992) research into the “personal history- based beliefs” preservice teachers bring to their study of teaching and their influence on what they Ieam from their preservice education programs extends the importance of Lortie’s “apprenticeship of observation.” As Holt-Reynolds (1992) states, If we take seriously our own theory about the importance of prior knowledge, then teacher education programs must reflect the assumption that preservice teachers’ personal history-based knowledge and beliefs are important for teacher educators to discover and for students of teaching to explore. (p. 347) Given this, Holt-Reynolds argues for the importance of entering and influencing the intemal dialogues engaged in by preservice teachers. “Preservice teachers are not internally silent, waiting on professional points of view to ‘tell’ them what to believe and how to act as teachers. They are vibrant, active, meaning- 4O making thinkers with a long-standing conversation about “teaching” already in progress . . . ” (1991, p. 20) when they enter their preservice education programs. Holt-Reynolds’ research, through its attempts to uncover connections between preservice teachers’ beliefs and their professional teacher preparation, provides important data in thinking about what may or may not support their development as teachers. It is invaluable in illuminating the ways in which preservice teachers’ personal history-based beliefs influence or shape how they approach and what they value in their teacher education coursework. As she concludes, The personal histories of preservice teachers appear to function as prior knowledge of what “good” teaching should look, sound, and feel like. . . . . Their conclusions--their beliefs about what actions, states of mind, attitudes and intentions combine to personify a “good teacher”--work behind the scenes as invisible, often tacitly known criteria for evaluating the potential efficacy of ideas, theories, and strategies of instruction they encounter as they formally study teaching. (1992, p. 343) In turn, her conclusions parallel concerns raised in this dissertation regarding how preservice teachers’ beliefs interact with new curricula, such as the one described in this research, and with shifting notions within the profession of what constitutes standards for K-12 English and Language Arts teachers. Holt-Reynolds’ research concerning the role of personal history-based beliefs contributes to an understanding of what the preservice teacher in this study may have brought to her internship. Yet, Holt-Reynolds’ research is focused on the role personal history-based beliefs played in what preservice teachers did or not did not take from a specific undergraduate teacher 41 education course. This case study attempts to uncover how such beliefs may have contributed to one preservice teacher’s construction of a teaching practice. As part of what preservice teachers bring to their professional preparation through apprenticeships of observation and personal biographies, are their attitudes and beliefs about teaching and learning. Virginia Richardson (1996) in her review of research concerning the role of attitudes and beliefs in teaching and Ieaming to teach, defines attitudes and beliefs as . . a subset of a group of constructs that name, define, and describe the structure and content of mental states that are thought to drive a person’s actions. Other constructs in this set include conceptions, perspectives, perceptions, orientations, theories, and stances” (p. 102). Thus, preservice teachers come to their teacher education experiences with attitudes and beliefs that oftentimes fuel their decisions and actions in planning and teaching. Richardson’s research review reflects a critical component to understanding the kinds of attitudes and beliefs preservice teachers bring to Ieaming to teach and how those attitudes and beliefs might influence decisions they make in the planning and teaching process. Richardson makes clear that current research offers a clearer understanding of what constitutes attitudes and beliefs and begins to consider the important role attitudes and beliefs play in teachers’ planning and teaching. What the current literature does not offer, however, is the opportunity to delve closely into how a preservice teacher constructs a teaching practice and in what ways and to what extent the practice she constructs reflects her attitudes and beliefs. 42 While there has been a great deal of research done on what preservice teachers bring to their professional preparation and what does or should occur in teacher preparation courses and experiences, less research has been done on how preservice teachers actually come to construct a teaching practice of their own. As Feiman-Nemser (1983) points out, while the multitude of studies available on teacher socialization, teacher development, teacher education, teacher training, staff development, school improvement, autobiographies and descriptions of teacher experiences over time, together provide a . . picture of how someone learns to teach and improves at teaching over time. Rarely is this topic addressed directly, however, and what we know is far from adequate” (p. 151). More recently, Ruth Vinz (1997) has taken up Feiman-Nemser’s call to address more directly the complexity of learning to teach. A major question guiding Vinz’s work has been “what should beginning teachers know, be able to do, and believe?” (p.138). Through her research (1993; 1996), Vinz has focused on trying to identify and describe the multiple realities teachers must negotiate for themselves and their students. For example, Vinz (1993) investigated the nature of inquiry in literature education. Drawing on conversations and limited observations of three literature teachers, this research provides a more in-depth picture of novice teachers attempting to construct a teaching practice within changing representations of their discipline. In Sempesing a Teaehing Life, Vinz (1996) turns her attention to considering the complexity of teaching, as reflected in major issues faced by 43 four first-year teachers and four student teachers. In the case of the first-year teachers, Vinz accessed their teaching logs, attended group meetings, observed a limited number (4 visits per teacher) of times during the year, and conducted informal interviews after observing the teaching. With the four student teachers, Vinz read their teaching logs, visited and observed their teaching once a week, conducted informal conversations after each teaching observation and facilitated a weekly seminar where the student teachers dictated the focus for discussion. Vinz focuses on pervasive themes that emerged from her interactions with these novice teachers. For example, with the first-year teachers, issues of translating ideals and beliefs into practice particularly in light of restrictive district/school curricula, encountering and handling student resistance, and confronting incongruities between what they learned in the teacher preparation programs and their daily and cumulative experiences in classrooms emerged. Student teacher concerns centered on issues of socialization (i.e., negotiating a place for themselves in another teacher’s classroom), facing the unanticipated, and recognizing and handling the uncertainties inherent in the very fabric of teaching. A theme which cut across both the first-year teachers and the student teachers’ experiences reflected struggles with forging a teacher identity or, in Vinz’s words, “forging a self as teacher’ (1996, p. 46). For the student teachers, this concern was manifested in the question, “How will I become the teacher I want to be?” (p. 69). Yet, as Vinz points out, “Becoming a teacher is a 44 continuous process and one through which a teaching identity is produced and reproduced through the social interactions and particular contexts that exist within schools and classrooms” (p. 70). The four student teachers she studied had, in her words, “. . . mostly decontextualized conceptions” of their selves as teachers (p. 70). For the first-year teachers, self as teacher issues were revealed in their struggles to make concrete and ‘stable’ their teacher identity. The move from student and student teacher to full-time teacher was a difficult transition. These four teachers’ impulse was to search out a stable identity within what were the ever-changing dynamics of the school environment. They came to teaching with the belief that they could and should find themselves as teachers rather than with an understanding that they would create themselves continuously. . . . These teachers’ sense of self-worth and identity was, at least temporarily, shaken. (Vinz, 1996, p. 48) For these first-year teachers, the struggle centered on developing their voice and locating “a comfortable position between their private self and their public teaching self” (p. 53). Many of the themes identified by Vinz resonate with the research reported in this document. Struggles with matching classroom practice with beliefs and ideals, with figuring out what to do with a curriculum, with finding a voice and identity as a teacher are apparent in Isabella’s story as well. However, whereas Vinz attempts with broad strokes to paint a picture of the complexities of teaching as experienced by student teachers and first-year teachers, this study, with its intense focus on one preservice English teacher, tries to piece together how the various obstacles and challenges contributed to or inhibited Isabella’s attempts to construct a teaching practice. It seeks to 45 understand more specifically how one intern’s sense of ownership and knowledge base evolve in relation to the struggles she faces. The Knowledge Base of Teaching Much has also been done in the area of research on the knowledge base of teaching and its relationship to learning to teach. Some of this research addresses the issue from a standpoint of defining teacher knowledge. Buchmann (1987) describes four categories of teacher knowledge: folkways of teaching, local mores, private views, and teaching expertise. The folkways of teaching describe ‘teaching as usual’, learned and practised in the half-conscious way in which people go about their everyday lives. Local mores constitutes teaching knowledge held like the folkways and mostly based on them, yet local mores are more variable and often articulated as maxims or missions. Teachers’ private views are personally compelling, arising from the peculiar experiences and characteristics of individuals. . . . teaching expertise goes beyond their mastery or skilled performance by including judgments of appropriateness and testing of consequences. (p. 151) Taking a more concrete, perhaps less philosophical stance, Wilson, Shulman and Richert (1987) identify seven domains of knowledge critical to teaching: knowledge of other content, knowledge of curriculum, knowledge of learners, knowledge of educational aims, goals, and purposes, general pedagogical knowledge, knowledge of subject matter, and pedagogical content knowledge (p. 113). Knowledge of other content includes knowledge outside of the discipline in which teachers are teaching. For example, in the case of an English teacher, knowledge of other content might include historical or psychological information. The knowledge of curriculum domain refers to a teachers’ 46 “understanding of the programs and materials designed for the teaching of particular topics and subjects at a given Ievel” (Wilson, Shulman & Richert, 1987, p. 18). Knowledge of Ieamers includes knowledge of how and why students Ieam at different periods in their development, as well as student characteristics, both in general and specific to a particular set or community of learners. Knowledge of educational aims, goals and purposes refers to knowledge of national, state, and district definitions for education as a whole, and within specific disciplines. General pedagogical content knowledge is defined as “knowledge of pedagogical principles and techniques that is not bound by topic or subject matter” (Wilson, Shulman & Richert, 1987, p. 18). Subject matter knowledge or content knowledge is defined as “the amount and organization of knowledge per se in the mind of the teacher" (Shulman, 1986, p. 9). According to Shulman, content knowledge goes beyond knowing the concepts or facts of a discipline. In his model, content knowledge also includes “understanding the structures of the subject matter in the manner defined by such scholars as Joseph Schwab” (p. 9). Schwab (Westbury & Wilkof, 1978) argues that structures of knowledge within a given discipline embrace both substantive and syntactic structures. The substantive structures are the variety of ways in which the basic concepts and principles of the discipline are organized to incorporate its facts. The syntactic structure of a discipline is the set of ways in which truth or falsehood, validity or invalidity, are established. (Shulman, 1986, p. 9) 47 Pedagogical content knowledge layers in the dimension of subject matter knowledge for the specific purpose of teaching. As such, pedagogical content knowledge represents knowledge of the most useful forms of representation of those ideas, the most powerful analogies, illustrations, examples, explanations, and demonstrations--in a word, the ways of representing and formulating the subject that make it comprehensible to others. . . . Pedagogical content knowledge also includes an understanding of what makes the learning of specific topics easy or difficult: the conceptions and preconceptions that students of different ages and backgrounds bring with them to the learning of those most frequently taught topics and lessons. (Shulman, 1986, p. 9) For example, in the discipline of secondary English, pedagogical content knowledge might include knowing how to weave together reading a piece of literature with a variety of activities and discussion to foster student response to and understanding of the text. Pam Grossman (1990) folds Wilson, Shulman and Richert’s (1987) seven domains into four arguing that “[w]hile researchers differ in their definitions of various components, four general areas of teacher knowledge can be seen as the cornerstones of the emerging work on professional knowledge for teaching: general pedagogical knowledge; subject matter knowledge; pedagogical content knowledge; and knowledge of context” (p. 5). As will be explained in more detail in Chapter Two, and illustrated through Chapters Four through Six, 1 found the domains of subject matter knowledge, general pedagogical knowledge, and pedagogical content knowledge as explicated by Wilson, Shulman and Richert (1987) and Pam Grossman (1990) to emerge most prominently. 48 In The Making of a Teacher: Teacher Knowledrfi and Teacher Edneatien (1990), Pam Grossman looks critically at the effects of teacher education programs. By comparing and contrasting the pedagogical content knowledge of three teachers who graduated from a professional education program and three teachers who entered teaching without teacher education coursework, she builds an argument for the importance of teacher education preparation. In the six case studies presented, Grossman outlines “the teachers’ intellectual biographies and conceptions of English as a discipline, their entry into teaching, their conceptions of teaching English, the contexts in which they taught, and a description of a unit taught by each teacher” (p. 18). Grossman’s (1990) case studies reveal the variety of pedagogical content knowledge challenges each novice teacher encountered and builds a persuasive argument for the critical role of teacher education courses in the development of pedagogical content knowledge. Her research does not, however, reveal the process by which the novices constructed coherent teaching practices over time. While pedagogical content knowledge assumes an important role in this research, it is one of several aspects I examine in order to understand how Isabella constructs a teaching practice. Calderhead’s (1991) research on the nature and growth of knowledge in student teaching considers “key features of teachers’ knowledge . . . and their possible implications for the training of teachers” (p. 531). Much as Lortle (1975) did earlier, Calderhead points to the substantial prior knowledge about teaching which teachers bring to their practice. He notes that oftentimes this 49 knowledge may not be “well adapted to teaching” (1991, p. 532), that knowledge acquired from a student perspective may complicate their understanding of the complexities of teaching. Another key feature of teachers’ knowledge is that it is frequently “taken for granted in their practice” (p. 532) and may grow and change with time and various experiences. According to Calderhead (1991), “teachers’ knowledge also takes different forms.” Teacher knowledge is not discrete, or in Calderhead’s words, “a series of recipes” (p. 532). Rather it is a body of knowledge constructed from a number of sources, including classroom experience, value judgments and beliefs. He goes on to point out that growth in various domains of knowledge (Wilson, Shulman & Richert, 1987), “occur in the processes of learning to teach” (Calderhead, 1991, p. 533). Another key feature of teachers’ knowledge involves the problematic relationship between teachers’ thinking, knowledge, and practice. Calderhead (1991) goes on to argue that “learning to teach is different from other forms of Ieaming in academic life” (p. 533) and that preservice teachers enter their professional preparation with different conceptions of what it means to learn to teach. Finally, Calderhead identifies an affective aspect to learning to teach which involves both “developing particular attitudes towards children and the task of teaching and Ieaming . . . and developing an appreciation of oneself and one’s relationship to the teaching role” (p. 533). Calderhead’s (1991) summary of the research highlights important dimensions of teachers’ knowledge and has significant implications for the 50 preparation of teachers. Yet, while he recognizes that teachers’ knowledge is influenced by personal histories and the apprenticeship of observation, and that it grows and changes in the process of teaching, how these key factors are manifested in a preservice teacher’s attempt to construct a teaching practice is left open to question. Furthermore, while he acknowledges the importance of the affective dimension of teachers’ knowledge, he does not explore in what ways and to what extent the affective dimension advances or impedes a preservice teacher’s transition to teacher. Other researchers have attempted to describe the differences in expert and novice understandings. In Lampert and Clark’s essay (1990), they argue that “simply knowing how experts structure their thinking about a problem tells us little about how they use those knowledge structures in practice. . . . it cautions us to pay attention to how experts acquire whatever knowledge might be said to characterize their thinking about the problems of practice” (p. 22, italics in original). They go on to differentiate “expert” from “experienced” in teaching and raise questions concerning how good teaching (and thereby what constitutes an expert teacher) is defined and by whom. Leinhardt and Greene (1986) describe differences in lesson structure and subject matter knowledge between expert and novice teachers. They identified a major difference in routines and segmenting of lessons between expert and novice teachers. While the experts used well-practiced routines, novices tended to exhibit “a constantly changing pattern in how they performed these activities” (p. 94). They concluded that “the absence of routines in the 51 performance of novices was due mainly to their lack of experience, but this was exacerbated by the lack of repetition in the activity structures that the novices used” (p. 94). Livingston and Borko (1989) suggest that “novices may possess insufficient knowledge and skills to adopt the routines and actions of expert teachers or to Ieam effectively from their own experiences in the classroom” (p. 39). They go on to point out, A central aspect of planning for instruction is determining how to organize and represent content in ways that will facilitate student learning. In terms of cognitive structure, planning requires developing and elaborating structures for pedagogical content knowledge. As our data indicate this is an extremely time- consuming process for novices. Consequently, thorough preparation for full-time student teaching can be unmanageable. (p- 40) In addition to questioning the role of full-time teaching responsibility, Livingston and Borko also reiterate the necessity of assigning preservice teachers to teach within subjects for which they have strong content preparation. Furthermore, they emphasize the need to place preservice teachers with cooperating/mentor teachers who “will provide support, guidance, and feedback” (p. 40). A clear implication to be drawn from the research on expert-novice differences concerns the immense complexity involved in constructing curriculum. Expert teachers bring to their planning a greater degree of content knowledge, general and content-specific pedagogical knowledge, knowledge of and experience working with students, and experience in orchestrating classroom activities than novices. What these studies do not illuminate, however, is the process novices go through in developing the knowledge and skills necessary to construct curriculum. How do they begin to pull together various domains of knowledge to create their own pathway in teaching? And, in what ways and to what extent does the affective dimension play a role in their construction of a teaching practice? This research begins to answer those questions by presenting a case study of how one preservice teacher in a year-long internship constructed a teaching practice. It considers the various obstacles in her path and illustrates the importance of constructing a teaching practice for which she felt ownership. Furthermore, it‘ explores the critical connection between subject matter knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge and ownership of her practice, especially in light of the innovative curriculum with which she was asked to work. Becoming a Professional Teacher A significant body of research is also available on preservice teachers’ assuming the role of teacher. Buchmann’s research into morality and authenticity in teaching (1986) and professional development (1990) provides a philosophical framework for thinking about how people who enter the teaching profession assume the role of teacher. As Buchmann (1990) states, The term “professional” suggests, moreover, an unfolding of positive potentials of no mere contingent, private kind. . . . Growing into--and in--such social roles requires living and thinking well and enhances the self and others: this makes it psnfacégy plain why people care about professional development. This notion of becoming a professional, growing into and in social roles such as teaching, involves constructing a teaching identity. 53 In investigating ways in which an intern constructed a teaching practice, this research sought to understand how an intern constructed a teaching identity which seemed inseparable from her construction of a teaching practice. Who Isabella was as a teacher and who she was becoming as a teacher were examined in relation to how she thought about the Pacesetter curriculum and planning decisions she made about the curriculum. One aspect of constructing a teaching identity, as Rosaen and Schram (1997) point out, involves issues of ownership and autonomy during the preservice teaching experiences (p. 272). Preservice teachers struggle to define themselves as teachers within other teachers’ classrooms and face issues such as who they are, who they want to be, and who they can be within the constraints of the situation. Drawing on Maxine Greene (1981), McLean (1999) describes . . . becoming a teacher as a process of choosing yourself-making deeply personal choices about who you will be as a teacher. But this is not a solitary or self-contained process--it occurs in a time and place where others, some much more powerful than yourself, also are bent on “constructing” you, in an image they value. (p. 60) Additionally, as Britzman (1989) points out, “Marginally situated in two worlds, the student teacher as part student, part teacher has the dual struggle of educating others while being educated” (pp. 144-145). In her introduction to a special issue of the Cambridge Jouma_le_t Egdeajten, Jennifer Nias (1996) stipulates the central place of teachers’ feelings in their lives, careers, and classroom behaviors. As she states, If one takes the view shared by all the authors represented in this volume, that the emotions are rooted in cognition, then one cannot 54 separate feeling from perception, affectivity from judgement. It follows that one cannot help teachers develop their classroom and management skills without also addressing their emotional reactions and responses and the attitudes, values and beliefs which underlie these. (p. 294) While Nias’ work is helpful in foregrounding the affective dimension of teaching and learning to teach, it does not consider the critical place a preservice teacher’s feelings of ownership may have in the process of constructing a teaching practice. This study examined Isabella’s struggle to construct a teaching identity for herself while she used the Pacesetter curriculum. It examined the extent to which the curriculum may have assumed the role of yet another teacher with whom Isabella had to negotiate her teaching, and by extension, her teacher self. In addition, it examined Isabella’s emerging practice in the context of teaching a complex curriculum while 1) Ieaming how to teach in general; and 2) Ieaming how to teach with this specific curriculum. While much research has emerged and continues to emerge concerning this aspect of learning to teach--constructing a teaching identity--relatively little attention has been paid to the role or function of preservice teachers owning” their practice, a powerful theme that emerges in data reported in this dissertation. An ERIC search using the descriptors “ownership” and “teaching” produced a number of documents reporting on planning and implementing K- 12 instruction that results in student “ownership” of their learning (Petty, 1997; Spandano, Zeidler, & Chappell, 1997), but no citations concerning teachers’ 55 ownership of their practices. In Chapter Two I discuss how this concept grew out of my data analysis and how it is defined in this study. Borich (1999) has written of the “dimensions of self that influence effective teaching” (p. 92). These dimensions include the teacher’s sense of bodily self, of self-identity, of self-extension, of self-esteem, and of self-image (pp. 98-100). Yet none of these categories seems to account for the need of preservice teachers for a sense of ownership of their planning and teaching as they develop into teachers. This study makes a contribution towards understanding the role and function of preservice teachers’ sense of ownership of their teaching and its connection to constructing a knowledge base for teaching. It also raises questions concerning the potential connections between this aspect of ownership and preservice teachers’ conceptions of constructing a teaching practice. Through Isabella’s story, we learn how inextricably bound together these two dimensions were for her. Summary This chapter began by considering what Americans expect from their public schools. Those expectations as they relate to the discipline of English are, to some degree, reflected in the Standards for the English Langdage Ans (NOTE/IRA, 1996). But, as was evident in the review of literature on multicultural education/literature, competing agendas for the inclusion of multicultural literature into K-12 classrooms reflect the competing agendas held for public education. An innovative curriculum which appears to provide the 56 types of Ieaming opportunities and literature called for by the Standards and which was used during a novice’s year-long internship was overviewed. That discussion set the stage for considering what teachers would need to know and be able to do in order to teach in ways that would exemplify “best practices.” Subsequently, I reviewed the bodies of literature relevant to Ieaming to teach in order to present what research has revealed about my research questions and What is yet to be learned. In Chapter Two, I present my research questions, context, and methods. Chapter Three provides more detailed background information on the research site, subjects, and the Pacesetter curriculum. Isabella’s story is told in the next three chapters. Chapter Four relates the story of Isabella’s teaching of Unit Two, “‘Stranger in the Village’: Encountering the Other, Being the Other,” and illustrates her difficulties with subject matter knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge. Chapter Five describes Isabella’s struggles with pedagogical content knowledge/pedagogical reasoning as she planned and taught “A Medley of Voices: Investigating Cultures and Voices in a Single Text” and chronicles her evolving sense of constructed knowledge which would result in a major epiphany. Unit Four, “Voices from the Past: lnheriting and Re-creating Drama through Performance,” discussed in Chapter Six, provides the clearest example of Isabella’s ability to forge her own pathway which led to her growing sense of authenticity and ownership as a teacher. Finally, Chapter Seven draws conclusions and raises questions for further study. 57 CHAPTER TWO THE DESIGN OF THE STUDY This chapter provides background information necessary to understand the research questions, context, and methods. I begin by presenting the research questions guiding the study. I then provide a brief overview of the research site and subjects which will be developed more fully in the following chapter. Next, I discuss the research procedures followed in this study including data collected and analytical tools used to understand patterns emerging from the data to address the research questions. Finally, I discuss how I came to choose the three Pacesetter units as an organizational strategy for presenting and discussing the findings. The Research Questions The past decade has witnessed multiple, oftentimes competing, reform initiatives growing out of diverse, again oftentimes competing, agendas about what public education should embody in the United States. Amidst this debate, we have seen the emergence of standards for each of the major academic disciplines--Mathematics, Science, Social Studies, and English. These include standards for students--what students should know and be able to do in a discipline--and standards for teachers--what teachers should know and be able to do to craft instruction that will enable their students to achieve the disciplinary standards. These standards have attempted to define what is important to Ieam in the subject matter and give us language to talk about our expectations for the goals and objectives of each of the disciplines. 58 At a time when the goals and objectives for English teaching are shifting, many questions emerge for educating prospective teachers. What types of schools would be necessary to support novice teachers in their efforts to teach in ways that would achieve the Standards for the English/Language Arts (NOTE/IRA, 1996)? What would a curriculum look like that would support the acquisition of the types of knowledge, skills and dispositions defined by the Standatds (NCTE/IRA, 1996). What problems might arise for novices in teaching in ways that would enable successful achievement of such goals and objectives (NCTE, 1996)? Given that preservice teachers are in the preliminary stages of learning to construct practice, in what ways might such a curriculum affect their developing practice? What challenges and dilemmas would arise for preservice teachers engaged in learning to teach with such a curriculum? As I began to craft a dissertation study, my interest in better understanding how preservice teachers learn to teach and what they do with literature and writing in classrooms that fits with standards-based goals coalesced into an overarching question guiding the research: How does a novice English teacher, during a year-long internship, go about constructing a teaching practice? Embedded within the overarching question are several subsidiary questions: 0 What knowledge, skills, and dispositions does a preservice teacher draw upon to construct her practice? How do these areas grow or change over time? 59 To what extent and in what ways does a preservice teacher make use of an innovative curriculum made available to her that suggests materials and teaching strategies consistent with Standards-based curriculum? What key challenges and dilemmas does she face in Ieaming to teach this curriculum? What types of strategies does the preservice teacher draw on to address the challenges and dilemmas she encounters? What kinds of support does she need while learning to teach using an innovative curriculum that requires the incorporation of non-canonical and multicultural literature? The Research Site and Subjects Given the rich complexity of the research site and subjects, I provide a brief overview here which will be developed in much greater detail in the next chapter. The research site, C. E. Miller Senior High School‘, is a Professional Development School (PDS) (Holmes Group, 1990) where a new, innovative curriculum developed by the College Board focusing on non-canonical and multicultural literature had been piloted in 1994-95 and continued to be taught. While this curriculum provided support to teachers in selecting literature and activities and developing units around themes, it also seemed to reflect the ‘ Pseudonyms for the school, teachers, interns, and students have been used throughout this document. 60 types of teaching and Ieaming advocated by the emerging standards for the English discipline (NOTE/IRA, 1996). This study focuses intensively on one research subject-~a preservice secondary English teacher completing a year-long internship. While the main subject in this dissertation is the intern (Isabella Jorgenson), both Rachel Kenandry, her mentor teacher, and myself, her university field instructor also assume importance. As her mentor teacher and university field instructor, Rachel and l interacted with Isabella in important ways throughout her internship. Rachel Kenandry, the mentor teacher in the study, had been instrumental in Miller’s piloting of the Pacesetter curriculum. Since 1992, Rachel had worked with a total of six interns as well as a number of preservice teachers completing field experiences in her classroom. From 1990 through the period of data collection, I had collaborated with Rachel on a number of Professional Development School projects including redesigning the eleventh grade English course, documenting the implementation of the American Studies block, and creating a Preservice Teacher’s Survival Guide. More specific to the research reported here, I had collaborated with Rachel in documenting the implementation of the Pacesetter curriculum for evaluative purposes and served as the university field instructor for interns placed with Rachel who had teaching responsibilities for the Pacesetter course. Based on my previous work with Rachel, my knowledge of Isabella’s (the intern’s) disposition to work with an innovative curriculum, and my interest in 61 and questions about the Pacesetter curriculum itself, I decided to conduct an in- depth study of Isabella’s use of the Pacesetter curriculum during her internship. This provided me with an opportunity to look closely at how a novice worked with a complex curriculum involving material new to the intern as she learned to teach English. Isabella Jorgenson was a 25 year old single mother. On the one hand, Isabella was not quite the typical intern. She was a few years older than many of the other interns, had entered college a bit later than most, and was the sole support of a seven-year-old daughter. On the other hand, Isabella brought to her preservice education program many of the dispositions and beliefs of her classmates. Both positive and negative experiences in English classrooms throughout her K-12 schooling contributed to her decision to become an English teacher. Like so many of her classmates, Isabella entered her preservice education program determined to “make a difference” in her students’ lives. At the time Isabella entered the internship, she, as well as many of her peers, were “irritated by thinking theory all the time with no real-life experiences to draw on” (TE 802 Essay, Fall 1996, p. 1) and was anxious to get into the “real world” of the classroom. Finally, Isabella began her internship with the same questions and fears many preservice teachers bring to their field experiences: “What will I say? How will I act? . . . How will I separate my ‘professionaI/teacher’ self from my ‘regular’ self?” (TE 802 Essay, Fall 1996, p. 1). 62 5L I knew Isabella from her participation in TE 401/402, a secondary English methods course sequence which I had taught the previous year. As part of 401/402, Isabella completed field experiences in Rachel’s classroom and both Isabella and Rachel expressed interest in working together during the internship experience. Isabella became one of three C. E. Miller English interns for whom I provided university field instruction during 1996-97. Briefly, my university-designated responsibilities as field instructor included facilitating the planning process of the intern, observing the intern’s teaching, providing feedback on the teaching, and conducting a number of conferences, involving the intern, the mentor teacher and myself, to discuss the intern’s strengths and weaknesses and to develop plans of action to guide further progress. Given that Isabella agreed to participate in my research, more extensive and intensive time was spent with her than I would normally spend with an intern. During data collection, I frequently met with Isabella anywhere from two to five times per week for periods of one to three hours, whereas I typically met with interns approximately once every two weeks for two to three hours. Research Procedures In selecting a research methodology, the questions guiding this study lent themselves to qualitative rather than quantitative methods (Shulman, 1988). As Erickson (1986) pointed out, It is important to remember that qualitative research that centers its attention on classroom teaching is a very recent phenomenon in educational research. The key questions in such research are: “What is happening here, specifically? What do these happenings mean to the people engaged in them?” (p. 124) 63 Gates-Duffield (1993), drawing on Susan Florio-Ruane’s work, noted this emphasis on process. According to Gates-Duffield, qualitative research . . considers teaching and learning in action-~how teachers and students make sense--and not just what their activities produce in discrete tests or texts” (p. 9). Since the intention of this study was to attempt to understand how a preservice teacher went about constructing a teaching practice and to capture her perspective, a qualitative study made sense. Since my research focused on one preservice teacher using a specific curriculum in a specific setting, a case study approach was used. As Stake (1988) described it, The case study focuses on a bounded system, whether a single actor, a single classroom, a single institution, or a single enterprise-usually under natural conditions-~50 as to understand it in its own habitat. . . . The case is something deemed worthy of close watch. It has character, it has a totality, it has boundaries. . . . It is a complex, dynamic system. (p. 257) A case study approach seemed to provide the best possible vehicle for attempting to understand one preservice teacher’s journey to creating a practice. Richert (1991) argued that, Because of their tie to practice, cases offer the promise of representing the craft knowledge of teaching-~or the wisdom of practice. They provide a medium for thinking about teachers’ work. . . . Since cases can represent all aspects of teaching practice, they also provide the opportunity for exploring teacher thinking, feeling, and acting in areas other than instruction. (pp. 115-117) Given this, a case study held the best potential for serving as a medium for presenting and explaining my data especially since I wanted to provide a holistic view of Isabella’s experience in constructing a practice. A case study 64 provided the avenue by which I could concentrate specifically on how Isabella thought, felt, and acted as she constructed her own pathway in teaching. Through this approach, I was able to focus more on how Isabella arrived at the instruction she provided. A number of field research techniques including formal and informal interviewing (Wolcott, 1988), detailed field notes, and the collection of a variety of written documents were employed in developing a descriptive case study. Wolcott (1988) differentiated three types of participant-observer styles: ‘active participant,’ ‘privileged observer,’ and ‘limited observer’ (p. 194). During the course of data collection, I assumed each of these roles at various times. I was most clearly a participant in Isabella’s planning and reflection, but more often served as a privileged observer of her teaching. These positions obviously had their advantages and challenges. As Erickson (1986) noted, establishing rapport and trust with focal informants is a necessity (p. 142). Through my intensive interactions with Isabella as a participant in her planning and reflection, I believe a high level of rapport and trust was established early in the data collection process. Frequently, preservice teachers perceive field instructors as primarily evaluators (Hogan, 1983) of their teaching with the power to recommend them for certification or keep them out of the teaching profession. As a result, interns are oftentimes reluctant or hesitant to openly reveal their thinking, struggles, and questions to the field instructor. Yet, because I believe Isabella trusted my intentions and 65 valued my ideas, suggestions, and questions, she allowed me access to what she was thinking and feeling throughout her internship. One of the challenges of my more active participation in Isabella’s planning and reflection was serving as her university field instructor while simultaneously researching her thinking and teaching. The types of activities | engaged in and questions I asked remained fairly similar for both purposes (university field instructor and researcher). For instance, in both roles, I would support an intern’s planning by acting as a sounding board as an intern planned and by going over an intern’s plans and asking questions to further push her thinking about how what she planned for a particular lesson might or might not lead to her goals and objectives for the unit. I would also observe teaching and conduct debriefing sessions focusing on what did and did not happen during a particular lesson. However, as Wolcott (1988) indicated, serving in multiple roles can mean feeling pulled between responsibilities (pp. 193-194). In this case, however, I believe the benefits of being a participant- observer far outweighed the costs. My responsibilities as a university field instructor culminated in verifying that Isabella had achieved the standards established by the university program to qualify for teacher certification.2 While as a researcher I might have been willing to allow Isabella to take as much time as necessary to construct a 2 Interns were assessed in four program standards: Knowing subject matter and how to teach them; Working with students; Creating and managing a classroom Ieaming community; and Working and Ieaming in a school and profession. For a more complete description of what each of these standards entailed, please refer to Appendix B. 66 teaching practice, as a field instructor, I had to certify that she had reached a certain level of proficiency by the end of the internship. At times, this resulted in a struggle between being sympathetic to Isabella’s struggles as they would naturally unfold and needing to see progression toward the university standards. Additionally, while I certainly didn’t want to penalize Isabella for her honesty and openness in discussing her thinking and teaching, I also had to uphold the standards established by the university. The second, perhaps most important, challenge of being a participant- observer researcher involved my personal and professional investment in Isabella. For obvious reasons, both as researcher and field instructor, I wanted Isabella to do well in her internship. At times, it became a challenge to remain objective, to stand back a bit from Isabella’s struggles and successes. In some cases, I understood all too well the feelings Isabella was experiencing. My own learning to teach experiences had not been forgotten, and my more recent work with a number of preservice teachers continually reminded me of what it feels like to try to learn to teach. I, too, am a woman struggling to achieve goals while also juggling work and family responsibilities. And, I am also a middle-class, white English teacher striving to incorporate non-canonical and multicultural literature into her practice. I had to guard against empathizing too much. While at times these challenges presented a dilemma, overall the costs were mitigated by several factors. First, Isabella’s willingness to lay bare her thinking, successes, and failures contributed greatly to my understanding of how she constructed her practice. Isabella knew that there were university 67 standards in place that she would need to meet, but she also seemed to realize that by being open about her thinking and teaching, she stood a greater chance of getting the types of support from me that she would need to meet those standards. Rachel, as her mentor teacher, also provided a safeguard against my allowing the researcher role to dominate the responsibilities of field instructor by consistently holding Isabella accountable to the school and university standards. O Finally, my own awareness of the closeness that developed between myself and Isabella helped alleviate potential conflicts. _Da_ta Collection Audio-taped planning and post-observation conversations with Isabella provided a window into her thinking about her planning and teaching and revealed reasons for her decisions thus speaking to the question of what knowledge, skills, and dispositions a preservice teacher drew upon to construct her teaching practice. They also provided a record of how these areas grew or changed over the course of her internship. Furthermore, these conversations yielded important data addressing the question of the kinds of support she needed while Ieaming to teach the Pacesetter curriculum. Field notes of planning and post-observation conversations as well as observations of actual classroom teaching added further perspective as to how Isabella implemented her plans. This provided information concerning key challenges and dilemmas she faced in constructing a teaching practice and what types of strategies she drew on to address the challenges and dilemmas. 68 Isabella’s written plans, academic calendar, handouts, and reflective memos were collected to provide additional information on how Isabella chose to structure her instruction. These artifacts provided further evidence in answering the subsidiary research question concerning to what extent and in what ways a preservice teacher made use of an innovative curriculum made available to her that suggested materials and teaching strategies consistent with standards-based curricula. They also provided evidence as to how Isabella understood and implemented the Pacesetter curriculum in assignments and assessments. Two reflective interviews conducted at the completion of her internship provided additional information regarding how Isabella thought about her Pacesetter teaching experiences as a whole, as well as discrete units of instruction. A structured, formal interview after the internship yielded further insight into Isabella’s ideals, goals and priorities for teaching English. An extensive formal interview was conducted with Isabella’s mentor teacher, Rachel, to help me understand Rachel’s perspective on the Pacesetter curriculum and the kinds of support Isabella was receiving from her mentor teachen Pacesetter documents were collected and analyzed to develop an understanding of the intended curriculum. These documents included position papers written by the curriculum developers, the Pacesetter curriculum itself including revisions, the Teacher’s Guide, Student Workbook, and various letters 69 and materials sent from College Board to Pacesetter teachers during the pilot yean Data collection began in early September of 1996 when the intern assumed primary responsibility for teaching the curriculum starting with Unit Two. Data collection continued through Units Three and Four until the end of the internship in early April 1997. Reflective interviews occurred in late April and early May of 1997. Each audio-taped planning and post-observation conversation was recorded by date and primary topics on a Data Collection Log. This was also done for the reflective interviews. All audio-tapes were later transcribed. Written documents were organized according to each Pacesetter unit. Th Pa h An Io an Develo in an Anal ical L ns As is appropriate with qualitative research, I wanted to allow the data to reveal significant themes and categories to me, rather than searching the data to find predetermined ideas. Although I began data analysis with an idea of preliminary categories that might provide useful starting points, important patterns and themes emerged which were frequently not captured or fully explained by the preliminary categories. As I will discuss in greater detail in Chapter Three, “pathways” represent an important organizing concept in the Pacesetter curriculum. The curriculum developers used the term to describe a network of texts, strategies and activities from which teachers could construct their own curriculum to achieve curricular goals and objectives. I also began to see this pathways concept as a metaphor 7O with important implications for understanding Isabella’s role in using the curriculum. A pathway could simply be followed, or it could be created--blazed or forged in a sense. As I continued data analysis, it became clear that Isabella did both at various times in her teaching. On one level, I identified multiple pathways for teaching the Pacesetter course that were available to Isabella from the beginning of her teaching. Within the written Pacesetter curriculum, a suggested pathway was provided for each unit. The way In which Rachel and previous interns had taught the course constituted another possible pathway. As her field instructor, I was at times encouraging Isabella to walk or create a different pathway, one that pushed the curriculum to more closely align to both the university standards, especially the standards involving knowing and teaching subject matter, working with students, and creating an effective classroom community (see Appendix B), and NCTE/lRA (1996) Standards. Additionally, Isabella herself came to her internship with ideas and beliefs about the kind of pathway she wanted to construct for herself as an English teacher. I noticed that sometimes, especially early in her internship, Isabella followed the pathway provided by the curriculum with few, if any, detours from the College-Board suggested trail with varying degrees of success. At times she would deviate to pathways suggested by Rachel or myself. Again, she would construct and walk these pathways sometimes more successfully than at other times. As she continued to construct her own practice, Isabella began to blaze her own pathway, using bits and pieces of the other pathways as building 71 materials. It might be said that Isabella needed to de-construct the other pathways in important ways in order to forge pathways uniquely her own. On another level, I investigated how Isabella’s knowledge base influenced her ability to construct a practice, to make choices among pathways, or to strike out on her own. The primary building blocks or the foundation Isabella used in creating her pathway consisted initially of various domains of knowledge such as the seven categories described by Wilson, Shulman and Richert (1987) which were discussed in more depth in Chapter One. These domains of knowledge were Subject Matter Knowledge, General Pedagogical Knowledge, Content Knowledge, Pedagogical Content Knowledge, Knowledge of Curriculum, Knowledge of Other Content, Knowledge of Learners, and Knowledge of Educational Aims. I used Wilson, Shulman and Richert’s categories as an analytical lens to try to identify and explain sources of knowledge that seemed to influence the successes and difficulties Isabella experienced in her planning and teaching. From my analysis, I developed an initial assertion about Isabella’s knowledge use and its relationship to her feelings about her teaching. As Isabella negotiated her internship, there were clear instances where she drew on one or more categories of knowledge. One pattern that emerged revealed that, at times, weaknesses in her knowledge base would cause for a rocky path or unproductive detours. At these times, Isabella would express much frustration and dissatisfaction with her teaching. Another pattern I observed was that at other times, Isabella’s knowledge base enabled her to construct a 72 smooth path in her planning and teaching. When Isabella was able to plan and teach in ways that laid down a path by which all elements of her teaching practice came together, Isabella felt success as a teacher. To understand the knowledge base Isabella drew upon to construct her curriculum, 1 analyzed the extent to which Isabella drew upon Wilson, Shulman and Richert’s (1987) various domains of knowledge during her planning and teaching. Different patterns of knowledge use emerged in each unit and resulted in Isabella’s having different feelings about her teaching during each unit. The kinds of knowledge that emerged most predominantly as key factors in the challenges Isabella faced involved her knowledge of subject matter and pedagogical content knowledge/pedagogical reasoning. Subject matter knowledge included such things as knowledge of specific texts, authors, genres, literary terminology and techniques and literary movements (i.e., philosophical movements reflected in literature such as transcendentalism or romanticism). I developed and tested a second key assertion about Isabella’s teaching during Unit Two (“Stranger in the Village: Encountering the Other, Being the Other”): Isabella’s incomplete subject matter knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge hindered her ability to construct and negotiate her own pathway and resulted in Isabella’s feelings of dissatisfaction with her planning and teaching. Pedagogical content knowledge consisted of bringing together her knowledge of subject matter specific uses of techniques, strategies and methodologies. Pedagogical reasoning emerged from the intersection of 73 subject matter knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge. Pedagogical reasoning occurred when subject matter knowledge was combined with knowledge of subject matter specific techniques, strategies, and methodologies to plan effective instruction that achieved specific goals and objectives. A third key assertion which I explored resulted from Isabella’s teaching during Unit Three (“A Medley of Voices: Investigating Cultures and Voices in a Single Text”). Although Isabella’s subject matter knowledge was stronger with Unit Three material, her fragile pedagogical reasoning again hindered her ability to plan and implement instruction for which she could take satisfaction and ownership. In testing the second and third assertions against patterns emerging from the data, a fourth assertion emerged from Isabella’s teaching of Unit Four, “Voices from the Past: lnheriting and Recreating Drama through Performance.” This assertion reflected another pattern in Isabella’s use of various kinds of knowledge in constructing her curriculum. When Isabella had a greater degree of subject matter knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge, she was able to develop pedagogical reasoning that gave her greater strategic control over her decisions in constructing the curriculum and resulted in more positive feelings about her teaching of this unit. Wilson, Shulman and Richert’s (1987) categories of knowledge helped explain some of what I was observing with the pathways Isabella constructed. Yet, the knowledge base categories did not explain Isabella’s feelings about 74 her teaching-the affective dimension of what she called making the curriculum and her teaching “her own.” The Voice Analogy and Another Analytical Lens Isabella frequently referred throughout her teaching of the Pacesetter curriculum to “making the curriculum my own,” “making the teaching mine,” and wanting to “feel in control of my teaching.” These recurring comments led me to think about her feelings of ownership and its relationship to knowledge construction. In order to try to understand how Isabella constructed her knowledge in ways that seemed to result in strategic control and her feeling that her teaching was her own, I turned to Women’s Ways of Knowing (Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger, and Tarule, 1986). r i ontrol For Isabella, strategic control of the curriculum and her teaching seemed to reflect what Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger, and Tarule (1986) defined as “constructed knowledge.” Constructed knowledge is . . a position in which women view all knowledge as contextual, experience themselves as creators of knowledge, and value both subjective and objective strategies for knowing” (p. 15). Constructive knowledge moves beyond the procedural knowledge category. Procedural knowledge is . . a position in which women are invested in Ieaming and applying objective procedures for obtaining and communicating knowledge” (p. 15). Belenky and her co-authors argued that, Unlike procedural knowers, who remain subservient to disciplines and systems, constructivists move beyond systems, putting systems to their own service. They make connections that help tie 75 together pockets of knowledge. There is a new excitement about learning and the power of the mind. (p. 140) For Isabella, strategic control of the curriculum, and ultimately her teaching, involved more than just having knowledge of the subject matter or knowledge of what she might do with the subject matter. It required varying degrees of subject matter knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge and the ability to skillfully bring these two things together through pedagogical reasoning. To Isabella, her teaching wasn’t her own until she could see herself as the one in control of the curriculum and teaching, until she was able to forge her own pathway. Exploring this concept of knowledge in relation to Isabella’s planning and teaching helped me understand how she constructed and used knowledge--not just whether she had it or not. Moreover, it helped me consider in what ways and to what extent Isabella followed or forged a pathway with the Pacesetter curriculum. Based on my analysis, I developed another key assertion: While Isabella used her knowledge at the procedural level--implementing the curriculum as presented in the Teacher’s Guide or implementing ideas offered by Rachel or myself--lsabe|la did not consider her planning and teaching “her own.” This assertion seemed closely tied to the earlier pattern I observed in which Isabella felt little success in her teaching unless she was able to construct a pathway in which “everything came together.” Isabella’s anership of Her Planning and Te_aching This affective dimension of “ownership” also seemed related to issues of voice. Much as voice is represented as an overarching concept in the 76 Pacesetter curriculum itself (explained in detail in Chapter Three), finding her voice as a teacher became a prominent concern for Isabella. As Belenky and her co-authors (1986) described it, “[a]t the positions of . . . procedural knowledge, other voices and external truths prevail. Sense of self is embedded either in external definitions and roles or in identifications with institutions, disciplines and methods” (p. 134). While Isabella had the role of teacher, she didn’t see herself as a teacher until her voice was represented in the pathway she forged. When Isabella allowed other voices to dominate-~the Pacesetter curriculum itself, Rachel’s, mine, even other interns’--she seemed to feel less ownership of her teaching. When Isabella was able to pick and choose from what others were telling her, her own voice became more prominent in her planning and teaching. Isabella seemed to feel greater satisfaction and her sense of self as a “real teacher” seemed to grow. At the position of procedural knowledge, knowledge is separated from the knower and the knower may experience herself as, to use Peggy McIntosh’s term, a “fraud” (1989). When Isabella did not have strategic control of her teaching, she did not see herself as a “real teacher.” Rather, she was implementing the thinking and plans of others. For Isabella, this did not represent authentic teaching. Until she was able to pull things together for herself and forge her own pathway, she seemed to feel like a fraud, passing herself off as a teacher and worrying that someone would discover her deception. As Isabella began infusing her own voice in her planning and 77 teaching, as she began forging her own pathways, she felt more authenticity in her role of teacher. She began to pay attention to her own voice (McIntosh, 1989) in constructing her teaching practice. Along with this more authentic sense of self as teacher came greater satisfaction with her teaching. This analysis led me to my next major--and perhaps most important-- assertion: Until Isabella developed a voice, began making and articulating choices and decisions for herself about her teaching, she was unable to construct a curriculum pathway she felt was her own. Isabella did not feel ownership of her teaching. It wasn’t “her own.” Testing the Assertions I tested each of the key assertions I developed by returning again and again to the various data to find evidence to support the assertion or, in some cases, to uncover instances where the assertions did not provide evidence to support the claim. For instance, I initially began by looking for the presence or absence of different types of knowledge. However, this did not seem to fully explain what I was observing in my data. Therefore, it was necessary to continue exploring finer gradations within the patterns. By looking across multiple sources of data (i.e., audio-taped planning and post-observation conversations, interviews, various forms of written documentation), I was able to test assertions and determine “key Iinkages” (Erickson, 1986, pp. 147-148) providing patterns of generalizations about Isabella’s knowledge use and its relationship to her sense of ownership in her teaching. 78 In discovering these key linkages, it became apparent that the best way to show how the assertions were warranted was by constructing a story line that would highlight the different dimensions of Isabella’s knowledge use as they occurred in the context of her teaching of units during her internship. A story could also show how her unit teaching was connected to her evolving sense of ownership. As an organizational strategy, I decided to use the three units Isabella taught of the Pacesetter curriculum as a way of discussing in what ways and to what extent Isabella used various dimensions of knowledge to construct her curriculum and how that knowledge evolved and contributed to Isabella’s sense of ownership of her teaching. The chronological organization also enabled me to illustrate how her construction of knowledge grew and changed over time. In order to provide a richer picture of the context of this research, I now turn to a more detailed look at the research site, subjects and the Pacesetter curriculum. 79 CHAPTER THREE BACKGROUND INFORMATION ABOUT THE CONTEXT AND RESEARCH SUBJECTS In this chapter, I introduce in greater detail the research site, the curriculum, and the research subjects. The high school within which the research was conducted is discussed including a description of its evolution as a Professional Development School (PDS) and its investment in the Pacesetter curriculum. I then provide a brief history of the faculty’s involvement with preservice education including a description of the preservice education program itself. An overview of the Pacesetter curriculum around which this research was centered follows including a summary of the theoretical framework of the curriculum and the structure of the curriculum itself. Finally, I provide additional information about Isabella, the intern; Rachel, the mentor teacher; and myself, field instructor and researcher, the three major participants in the study. C. E. Miller Senior High School and Pacesetter Involvement Prefessienal Develepment School Affiliation C. E. Miller Senior High School, located twenty miles from the state’s capitol, is a Professional Development School affiliated with a nearby university, renowned for research and teaching in the field of preservice education. Miller became a Professional Development School in 1989, and its involvement in PDS activities has grown steadily over the past eight years. At the heart of Miller’s evolution as a P08 is the Holmes Group’s (1990) vision of Professional Development Schools. A PDS, as defined by the Holmes 80 Group, is a school “for the development of novice professionals, for continuing development of experienced professionals, and for the research and development of the teaching profession” (p. 1). The authors of Tomorrow’s Schoels; Principles for the Design of Professional Development Schools see their plan as an “effort to invent an institutional coalition that will bring all the required forces together--universities, schools of education, and public schools. And . . . promises to work on the problems of teaching over the long haul--as long as several generations of teachers” (Holmes Group, 1990, pp. 2-3). As a result of Miller’s investment in the PDS initiative, and with the support provided by the Michigan Partnership for Higher Education and Michigan State University, the faculty and administration, with agreement from the community, restructured the school calendar to enable teachers to spend each Wednesday morning together in professional development time. Student contact time remains the same over the course of the year by adding to the number of overall school days in the year and restructuring each day of the school week to add time. On Wednesdays, high school students do not report to school until 11:30 a.m., thus freeing up a consistent block of time for teachers to engage in sustained critical reflection and inquiry about teaching and learning. Almost all of the teachers at Miller are involved at varying levels in research projects specifically targeted at teaching and Ieaming issues in their disciplines or in projects more generically concerned with school reform which would result in a better teaching and Ieaming environment overall. 81 it Miller has won several prestigious awards including State and National Exemplary School awards and received national recognition for its efforts to improve teaching and learning. Miller has also received several Eisenhower grants and, more recently, a multimillion dollar grant through the Federal Department of Education to develop an effective program to address the complex needs of students at risk. It was due, in large part, to Miller’s reputation for innovative teaching and risk taking that representatives from the College Board approached the English faculty about piloting the Pacesetter English course, “Voices of Modern Cultures.” In the fall of 1993, a representative from the College Board and the Educational Testing Services approached the faculty at C. E. Miller High School to invite their participation in the piloting of a new twelfth grade English course developed by the two organizations. Designed as a capstone English class for all ability levels, “The Voices of Modern Culture” curriculum (frequently referred to as “Pacesetter English”) met several needs identified by the C. E. Miller English faculty. Consequently, the Miller English teachers agreed to participate in piloting the curriculum. The College Board/Educational Testing Services had designed several training opportunities for the participants in the pilot program. In the spring of 1994, the two English teachers who would teach the class, the building principal, a representative from the local University and myself were invited to New York City for a two-day introduction to the concepts fundamental to the Curriculum. This was followed by a ten-day, intensive training held during the 82 summer in Boulder, Colorado primarily for the English teachers. Although the administrators were present the first few days, the main purpose of the training was to introduce and coach teachers in the philosophy, literature, and methodology of the curriculum. Finally, the College Board and Educational Testing Services brought all the pilot teachers, as well as the administrators, together in November in Dallas, Texas for a “taking stock” meeting. Since, in most cases, the Pacesetter teachers would be close to finishing the first semester of the curriculum, this meeting provided a forum in which participants could share their successes, raise concerns, and, according to the curriculum developers, help shape the revision of the curriculum. Miller’s Investment in the Pacesetter Curriculum The English faculty at Miller agreed to pilot the course for a number of reasons (Kenandry Interview, 1/6/97). First, although Miller’s student population of approximately 1,100 tenth-twelfth graders reflected a high degree of socioeconomic diversity, it was racially homogenous with approximately 96% Caucasian. Eleven percent of the student body received Special Education services. With this predominantly homogenous student and teacher population, the English teachers viewed the Pacesetter curriculum as holding the potential to introduce a multicultural element to their programs thereby providing their students with a “window” into the lives and cultures of people unlike themselves. In addition, the Pacesetter curriculum had been presented as a course suitable for all students, including special education students. 83 With only 50% of Miller’s students going on to two- or four-year colleges, the English faculty had identified as a goal for their department to encourage more students, especially non-college bound students, to elect to take a fourth year of English. At the time, however, students had extremely limited course options, and the English faculty at Miller saw the Pacesetter curriculum as providing an alternative choice to the traditionally college-bound course offerings such as British Literature. Finally, for the previous year or so, the English faculty had begun to seriously question their goals and methods for teaching English at the sophomore, junior and senior years of high school (1993-94 English Departmental Meeting Field Notes). Several teachers were in the process of critically examining their beliefs about what it means to teach English and how they should go about teaching their subject matter in ways that would empower their students in whatever direction their lives took after leaving high school. In essence, the English faculty wanted to ensure that their students would have the skills, knowledge, and dispositions necessary to succeed in whatever they chose to do after high school whether that meant entering a two-year or four-year college or entering the job market. As a consequence of this inquiry and reflection, some of the English teachers saw the philosophical and theoretical underpinnings of the Pacesetter curriculum (i.e., the notion of a “network of texts” and Scholes’ (1985) theories of textual power) as complementary to their own emerging views concerning the teaching and Ieaming of their subject matter (Kenandry Interview, 1/6/97). 84 From my viewpoint, many of the issues raised by the English faculty reflected issues also embedded in the NCTE/IRA Standards (1996). My conversations with Rachel Kenandry, in particular, revealed a teacher anxious to push her teaching in ways that would map onto established outcomes (both school-based and standard-based) for her students. Given Rachel’s disposition, when Isabella was placed within this context, I saw a rich opportunity to support Isabella in constructing a standards-based practice, an opportunity that was further supported by Rachel, Isabella’s mentor teacher. In addition to the assistance provided by College Board, the English faculty received significant support in implementing the curriculum both from the school district and from the Professional Development initiative. This support took the form of money to purchase new texts and materials for the course, release time for development and reflection for the teachers teaching the course, and the resource of a research assistant (myself) from the university to help in the development of the curriculum and to document the process. The Preservice Education Program Several years ago, the Teacher Education program at the local university made a transition from a 4 year program with a one-semester “student teaching” experience to a 5 year program with the 5th year (post-BA) encompassing a year-long unpaid internship. Building on substantial preservice education coursework and increasing time and responsibilities in the field, the program culminates with preservice teachers completing a year-long internship in a school setting while concurrently engaging in graduate coursework at the 85 university (see Appendix B). Interns enter their internship placements at the same time as classroom teachers report back in the fall and typically remain in their placements until the first week of May. During the fall semester of the internship, interns assume lead planning and teaching responsibilities for one class from the first day of school. This becomes the intern’s “focus class” and remains the intem’s responsibility until the end of the internship. In addition to their focus class, interns gradually take on the lead planning and teaching responsibilities of their cooperating teachers’ schedules building toward a 2-3 week period of a full teaching load in October. Interns then step back out of full teaching responsibility for several weeks to process their experiences with their cooperating teachers and university field instructors and begin planning for another round of 2-3 week full responsibility in November. After the full teaching responsibility period in November, interns again step back out of total responsibility to assess strengths and weaknesses, design a professional development plan for the spring semester, and begin intensive preparation for assuming more extensive lead planning and teaching responsibilities in the second semester. Typically, interns begin second semester as “the” teacher in charge of a full teaching load and continue this responsibility until the school’s spring break, usually in early April. After spring break, interns use the next 2-3 weeks to finish teaching any units they began before spring break, fade out of their classroom responsibilities, reflect on their year-long experience and complete university graduate course requirements. 86 During the internship itself, interns work closely with their cooperating teachers and university field instructors. University field instructors work in close partnership with the cooperating teachers to facilitate the Ieaming opportunities for the preservice teachers while maintaining high caliber instruction for high school students. As a way of managing the complexity of helping novices Ieam to teach, cooperating teachers usually assume responsibility for assisting interns with preparing daily lesson plans and processing happenings in the classroom each day. University field instructors, since they are not with the interns on a daily basis, generally concentrate on supporting interns’ development of coherent units of instruction and reflecting on their experiences more holistically. Due to my dissertation research, my field instruction with Isabella looked slightly different from my normal interactions with interns for whom I served as field instructor. My work with Isabella around the Pacesetter curriculum was more intensive (frequently resulting in daily meetings of 1-3 hours). Since I was providing a consistent, almost daily, presence, Rachel focused her efforts on supporting Isabella’s planning and teaching of the American Studies block, another of Isabella’s teaching responsibilities. While Rachel was certainly involved in Isabella’s daily planning and teaching of the Pacesetter curriculum, it tended to be to a lesser degree than would have occurred if I had not been present conducting research. Isabella frequently consulted with Rachel about her unit and daily plans, and Rachel continued to push Isabella to think about her desired goals and outcomes for the Pacesetter curriculum. Rachel was also 87 present at several of the planning and post-observation conversations between myself and Isabella. The English Faculty’s Involvement in Preservice Teacher Education Over the past several years, the English faculty’s interest in issues of preservice teacher education has grown and deepened. Several of the teachers have become extremely reflective about their roles as teacher educators and seriously question what it means to help a novice Ieam to teach English. Since a major tenet of the Holmes Group’s (1986, 1990) thinking which guides the work in Professional Development schools involves developing exemplary sites of practice in which to place preservice teachers, the English teachers’ inquiries into issues of teacher education have been encouraged and supported. The teachers who worked with interns at Miller understood that learning to teach was a process; thus, multiple opportunities would be available to examine how Isabella constructed a practice throughout her internship. In large part because of their intensive involvement in preservice education, the English teachers at Miller were often as sensitive to the challenges and dilemmas faced by preservice teachers as I was. In my attempts to understand how Isabella constructed her practice, I was also interested in determining what types of support Isabella drew on or needed. The type of culture present at C. E. Miller Senior High School seemed to provide a rich context within which to situate this research. 88 Intern Involvement with the Pacesetter Curriculum Since the inception of the Pacesetter curriculum at C. E. Miller Senior High School, interns from the local university have been involved in the development and implementation of the course. The pilot year of the course, 1994-95, saw two sections of the course taught by interns. Because of higher numbers of students enrolling in the course, three sections of Pacesetter were offered for the 1995-96 academic year. Two sections were taught by interns with the third section taught by a faculty member who had not previously taught the curriculum. Two sections of Pacesetter were offered for the 1996-97 academic year, again involving two interns. The pattern of intern involvement in the Pacesetter classes taught by Rachel (the mentor teacher involved in this study) had remained fairly standard since 1994. Rachel assumed lead responsibility for Unit One (“Many Selves, Many Voices: An Introduction to ‘Voices of Modern Cultures’”) of the curriculum with interns participating in the planning and implementation. Interns assumed lead responsibility for the Pacesetter class with the start of Unit Two, “‘Stranger in the Village’: Encountering the Other, Being the Other.” Interns, therefore, typically had lead responsibility for the planning and implementation of Units Two through Four of the Pacesetter curriculum, with Rachel taking responsibility for the final units, which usually occurred after the completion of the internship. The Pacesetter Curriculum “Voices of Modern Cultures” represents an English curriculum created and marketed by College Board as part of their Pacesetter initiative. Designed 89 as a twelfth grade offering, “Voices of Modern Cultures” is intended to serve as a capstone course for the many years of Language Arts/English courses students experience over their K-12 education. In explaining the design of the curriculum, Wolf (1993) argued that while literacy has changed as surely as subjects such as physics and mathematics, the curriculum taught in English classrooms has not changed significantly. In particular, Wolf believes that these changes affect not only m we read, write, and view, but also the ms in which we read, write, and view texts. Drawing heavily on the theories of Gerald Graff (1992) and Robert Scholes (1985), Wolf (1993) suggested that we need to re-envision the disciplinary study of English as students and teachers participating in “on-going conversations about issues, ideas, and images that matter" (p. 10). Integrating Graff’s theory of teaching “literature as part of a critical debate about how to read it, which in turn is part of a larger theoretical debate about how politics and power affect the way we read literature,” “Voices of Modern Cultures” attempts to introduce students to the multiple cultural conversations embedded in texts and the usefulness of “networks of texts” which act as supplements to the primary texts (pp. 11-12). Consequently the curriculum heavily emphasizes the concept of “voice,” both the student’s multiple voices and the diverse voices represented in literature and film. As part of this emphasis, the creators of “Voices of Modern Cultures” frequently point to the number of voices which historically have been 90 left out of the conversations in high school English classrooms, typically the voices of minorities and women. The curriculum has as overarching themes two course “dimensionsz” making meaning from texts and creating and presenting texts. The course objectives developed from these two dimensions represent the philosophical backbone of the curriculum. The “making meaning from texts” dimension reflects a reader-response disposition toward literature especially in terms of seeing the reader as an active participant in the reading process and in the emphasis placed on working collaboratively to develop interpretations (Rosenblatt, 1978). An overriding objective concerns students demonstrating growth in making meaning and constructing knowledge. As part of that objective, students should also increase their abilities to reflect on and evaluate processes for making meaning. The curriculum speaks of students “inheriting” texts, and in a sense “rewriting” texts based on their individual and collaborative interactions with the literature. Students are encouraged, sometimes directed, to draw on their cultural backgrounds and personal experiences as they interpret and analyze texts. In addition to making connections between their own lives and the literature, objectives in this dimension include students placing texts in context by making connections “between the text and other texts, fictional characters, real people, current events, cultures, and recurring themes” (Teacher’s guide, 1986, p. 14). Students also study “historical, cultural, and geographical influences on authors and their texts, as well as the setting of texts, and explain 91 how this information helps with the understanding of texts” (Teacher’s guide, 1986, p. 14). The second course dimension turns toward students “creating and presenting texts.” A major theme of the curriculum involves the prominent role of “voice” and students are encouraged to recognize the individual and collaborative voices found in literature throughout history. As part of this dimension, objectives focus on eliciting and developing the voices of students in oral and written pieces they create individually and collaboratively. As was true with the previous dimension, students are also to reflect about and evaluate the process of creating and presenting oral, visual and written texts (Teacher’s Guide, 1986, p. 15). The curriculum offers teachers multiple choices of texts and activities arranged in “pathways.” Pathways are defined as suggested networks of interconnected texts and assignments. Teachers could use a pathway as a basis for creating units that provide coherent experiences that result in students achieving course objectives. Teachers are also encouraged to create their own “pathways” of texts and assignments to serve the needs of their particular student population. Teachers can pick and choose from the suggestions provided by the curriculum makers. Or, they can choose to create completely new pathways (See Appendix A for Pacesetter-suggested pathways for Units 2, 3, and 4). Whatever choices the teachers make should encompass the two course dimensions and lead to the outlined goals and objectives. This is seen as particularly important given that students complete a culminating assessment 92 in the spring which is evaluated through holistic scoring of their writing by unknown scorers. The year-long curriculum is divided into seven units, each building on and connecting with the others. Unit 1, “Many Selves, Many Voices: An Introduction to ‘Voices of Modern Cultures,” invites students to discover their own multiple voices and to begin to recognize the diverse voices represented in literature and media. Unit 2, “‘Stranger in the Village’: Encountering the Other, Being the Other,” requires students to explore the concept of “otherness,” including identifying times and situations when they, themselves, felt like “strangers in the village.” In Unit 3, “A Medley of Voices: Investigating Cultures and Voices in a Single Text,” students encounter the multiplicity of voices within a single work--a novel. The suggested text for this unit is Their Eyes were Watching (jod by Zora Neale Hurston. Other potential texts mentioned include Kate Chopin’s The Awakening and Amy Tan’s The Joy Luck Club. “Voices from the Past: lnheriting and Re-creating Drama through Performance” represents Unit 4. The suggested play for this unit is MILO. As the Pacesetter student manual suggests, a major goal or objective for this unit is to challenge students to “inherit” a text from the past not passively but actively. As “heirs” to the text, Pacesetter argues that it is the students’ responsibility to reinterpret the play by investing it with their own ideas about how the play should be performed. Unit 5, “Visible Voices: Reading Film,” shifts students’ focus from written text to film. The primary objective for students in this unit is to learn to evaluate how meaning is communicated through film. Unit 6, “Multiple 93 Perspectives: Investigating Media Representations of Events,” considers how different forms of media shape how we know and what we know about particular events. This unit culminates in students conducting an independent investigation of an historical event of their choosing. Finally, in what the Pacesetter material calls the course conclusion rather than a unit, “The Changing Voice: Acknowledging Linguistic Powers and Choices” targets the review and final preparation of the End-of-the-Year Portfolio. The Teacher’s Guide (1986) indicates that this course conclusion could be developed into a full Unit 7 if time remains in the year and provides suggestions for how to shape the material into a more coherent unit of instruction (pp. 8-9). As indicated above, the goals of the Pacesetter English curriculum are ambitious. They involve different ways of reading and teaching literature within the discipline of English oftentimes not typically found in current English classrooms. They also involve extensive objectives for increasing students’ writing abilities. In addition, while the Pacesetter English curriculum provides teachers with a broad outline of networks of texts and ways of connecting texts, it also professes to provide teachers with the flexibility and latitude to tailor curriculum to the cultural and social needs of their student populations. In many ways, which will be discussed below, the goals of the Pacesetter curriculum are consistent with the Standards for the English Language Arts (NOTE/IRA, 1996). 94 The Curriculum and Preservice Teacheig Preservice teachers frequently enter their internships armed with limited knowledge of subject matter and methodologies (Borko & Livingston, 1989; Leinhardt & Smith, 1985; Livingston & Borko, 1989; Wilson, Shulman, & Richert, 1987). Oftentimes, novices begin planning instruction from the “bottom-up,” beginning with specific pieces of literature (usually canonical selections they have worked with in high school or college classes) or with specific activities they have collected and think would engage students’ interest. Experienced teachers, on the other hand, tend to begin with some sort of mental map of the big picture and weave together literature and activities that will help students achieve the goals and objectives (Holt-Reynolds, 1996; NOTE, 1996). As preservice teachers progress in their internships, they begin to acquire the knowledge and skills necessary to weave together individual or isolated pieces of literature, activities and strategies in order to move them towards thinking about their planning and instruction as developing interconnected units. These units, in turn, begin to be seen as chunks of instruction in which each piece of literature, each activity, each strategy within the unit provides the foundation for the next unit and so on in ways that achieve “big picture” goals. The Pacesetter curriculum begins with the “big-picture” of the goals and objectives the curriculum is designed to achieve over the year-long course of study. Consequently, teachers must begin with an understanding of the “big picture” in order to understand the ways in which the curriculum breaks 95 instruction into the seven units. These units are linked thematically and each unit requires students to acquire skills and dispositions that will be built on in the following units. Preservice teachers may find it difficult to grasp the big picture and how each of the texts and activities in specific units are designed to fill in the big picture. My experiences over the past five years with preservice teachers in a senior year methods sequence confirm this supposition. In addition, as discussed in Chapter One, preservice teachers frequently draw on their apprenticeships of observation (Lortie, 1975) as they craft their teaching practices. Yet, as is often observed, students in K-12 classrooms rarely recognize or experience their activities in classrooms as a coherent whole stretching across a year of instruction. Consequently, one of the strengths of the Pacesetter curriculum--its big picture conceptualization--may actually prove in reality an obstacle for preservice teachers. Furthermore, in order to achieve the goals and objectives of the Pacesetter curriculum, teachers are required to draw on non-canonical literature or literature that might be relatively unfamiliar to them. Although it may be argued that college English programs are providing more and more courses in multicultural literature, it seems safe to say that most preservice teachers’ knowledge of and experience with non-canonical and multicultural literature remains limited. Even in cases where a preservice teacher has had university coursework in non-canonical and multicultural literature, that does not necessarily mean that they have had experience with planning and teaching such literature to adolescents. Consequently, preservice teachers working with 96 this curriculum might find the suggested texts difficult to understand, particularly in terms of understanding the texts in ways necessary to plan and implement instruction for high school students. In addition to the above obstacles, preservice teachers working with the Pacesetter curriculum may also face challenges in methodology. Their pedagogical content knowledge may not be sufficiently developed to enable them to plan activities occurring simultaneously. The Pacesetter curriculum provides little support in this area beyond suggested time frames for each unit. For example, beyond suggesting that the historical investigation in Unit Three should be interwoven with the reading of the novel and suggesting that it should take seven to ten days, the Teacher’s Guide (1986) offers little in the way of support in actually planning for that to happen. As will be seen in Chapter 5, this will represent a major obstacle for Isabella’s planning and teaching. On the one hand, the Pacesetter curriculum provides preservice teachers with a framework or model of a coherent program of study, something that they may have difficulty conceptualizing for themselves. On the other hand, preservice teaches may have difficulty grasping the big picture and therefore may approach the curriculum as separate, discrete units. For example, unless the preservice teacher has a solid understanding of the ways in which the theme of stranger in the village ties together the various units, the preservice teacher may miss opportunities to surface those connections for her students throughout the different units. In other words, the Othello unit could be taught as a unit in and of itself without making the connections to the common theme of 97 stranger in the village. By teaching it in such a manner, however, the teacher weakens one of the strengths of the Pacesetter curriculum--its coherency across literature and experiences throughout the year. The curriculum may also present obstacles for preservice teachers in terms of subject matter knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge. For preservice teachers without an understanding of the “big picture,” the literature, and methodologies of the Pacesetter curriculum, teachable moments (Duckworth, 1987) or opportunities to assist students in making connections across the units might be lost. The urriculum and Ex erienced Teachers The Pacesetter curriculum was initially created by scholars and researchers in the fields of English Education, Educational Reform, and Standards and Assessment. The curriculum was piloted in 1994-95 in ten districts across the country representing urban, suburban, and rural school contexts. As explained earlier, pilot teachers attended a two-day introduction to the curriculum in the spring, participated in a ten day intensive training held during the summer, and provided feedback regarding the curriculum during a two day “taking stock” meeting in the fall. Additionally, a representative from the College Board made a site visit to the school during the pilot year. To my recollection, all teachers (with perhaps one or two exceptions) involved in the piloting of the curriculum were experienced classroom teachers. The initial meeting in New York City, therefore, seemed designed to introduce participating teachers to the theoretical framework undergirding the Pacesetter 98 curriculum. Although not explicitly referenced during the inservice, the creators of the curriculum seemed to embrace a social contructivist approach to teaching and learning. Student collaboration, discussion, and small group work is heavily emphasized in the curriculum. The intensive ten-day workshop in the summer seemed designed to ensure that all pilot teachers had (or Ieamed) the skills necessary to teach the curriculum effectively. As Rachel Kenandry will point out later in this chapter, one of the advantages of the Pacesetter curriculum is reflected in the theoretical framework it provides for teachers. The labor-intensive work of conceptualizing the big picture of the curriculum, establishing goals and objectives, and weaving texts and activities across the units to form a capstone course for twelfth graders has been done by the curriculum developers. For experienced teachers who are, typically, more capable of seeing the big picture of a curriculum and more experienced in breaking curriculum down into chunks, the Pacesetter curriculum provides a coherent structure from which to work. For teachers anxious to include multicultural and noncanonical texts into their teaching, the Pacesetter curriculum provides numerous suggestions and, in most cases, actual texts. Since many experienced teachers are likely to have limited backgrounds in multicultural, noncanonical literature, the fact that the curriculum offers access to multicultural/noncanonical texts suitable to a high school audience provides teachers with a place to begin in incorporating such literature into their classrooms. An additional advantage to the curriculum is 99 that the texts suggested are scaffolded across the curriculum, woven together to provide a coherent year-long experience. An experienced teacher is more likely to see the curriculum as a framework, one in which texts and activities can be added, deleted, and modified to suit a particular teacher, student population, or district. In some respects, the curriculum is rather like a tree. It provides the theoretical framework and goals and objectives for the year (the trunk and branches) and makes suggestions for texts and activities (the leafs) with which to flesh out the curriculum. Teachers are free to pick and choose among the texts and activities, adding their own choices or modifying those provided by the curriculum. The curriculum developers walked a fine line, however, in creating a curriculum that on the one hand provided teachers with enough guidance to ensure a coherent experience, while on the other hand stopping short of being prescriptive or “teacher proof”. This tension is perhaps most clearly felt in the discussion questions provided for texts suggested in the curriculum. As one of the teachers at Miller Senior High School pointed out in an informal conversation with me, she sensed from the questions provided that the curriculum developers anticipated or desired discussions to go in certain directions. Yet, she was frequently left somewhat clueless about what kind of answer curriculum developers expected in response to the questions. As she remarked, it would have been helpful if the curriculum developers had included a range of answers for the questions. 100 Providing teachers with some sense of what kinds of answers might or should be elicited from the discussion questions could reinforce the possibilities of connections across the units. If the intention is to use the curriculum for transformative or critical purposes, providing some sense of where students could go with the questions could also highlight for teachers where opportunities might occur for discussions concerning issues of social injustice and inequality. Another area of tension evident in the curriculum involves expectations regarding teacher knowledge. It was clear from the inservice workshops and professional development opportunities provided to the pilot teachers that the curriculum developers expected the pilot teachers to be unfamiliar with or uncomfortable using some of the strategies and methods necessary to fulfill the objectives of the curriculum. To this end, they provided a great deal of assistance and practice in cooperative learning techniques. They also provided instruction in and assistance with alternative assessment strategies. The curriculum developers seemed to have missed the mark, however, in some areas of a teacher’s subject matter knowledge, especially as it related to multicultural and noncanonical literature. As will become readily evident in Chapter 4, knowledge of the literary technique of magic realism is important in planning and teaching the suggested texts by Gabriel Garcia Marquez. Yet little information is provided in the Teacher’s Guide and what is provided is relatively useless. Similarly, while the Teacher’s Guide makes it clear that providing a historical context for pieces of literature used throughout the year (such as in the 101 case of Zora Neale Hurston’s Their Eyes were Watching God and the Harlem Renaissance) is important, little is actually provided in the materials for the teachers. The Curriculum and Standards for the Discipline In important ways, the Pacesetter curriculum reflects the types of teaching and Ieaming opportunities that have the potential to achieve the goals and objectives recently established by professional organizations such as the National Council of Teachers of English and the lntemational Reading Association (1996). The Pacesetter curriculum views students in English classrooms as people engaged in an on-going conversation that stretches backwards in time and forwards into the future, much as the Standards require students to “participate as knowledgeable, reflective, creative, and critical members of a variety of literacy communities” (NCTE/l RA, 1996, p. 3). With its focus on “voice,” the curriculum encourages students to develop their own voices while also studying the voices of others throughout history as reflected in texts from diverse cultures, thereby reflecting the Standards’ emphasis on a “wide range of'literature from many periods in many genres” (p. 3). The types of strategies and activities suggested by the Pacesetter curriculum further reflect the weight the Standards give to students to “use spoken, written, and visual language to accomplish their own purposes;” using “a wide range of strategies as they write and . . . to appropriately communicate with different audiences for a variety of purposes;” and to effectively conduct research (p. 3). 102 Given the complexity of the curriculum, the research documented here provided an especially interesting opportunity to study how a preservice teacher used it to construct her practice. In many respects, a curriculum such as “Voices of Modern Culture” requires interns to build a boat while attempting to sail it. Simply, as described above, preservice teachers must figure out how to implement a curriculum that asks them to work with unfamiliar literature and strategies to achieve year-long goals and objectives. Yet, in important ways, this curriculum reflects the types of teaching and Ieaming opportunities necessary to achieve the goals and objectives established by professional organizations such as the National Council of Teachers of English and the International Reading Association (1996). Because of its emphasis on voice, multicultural, non-canonical texts, constructing meaning across networks and varieties of texts, and writing, the Pacesetter curriculum seems to match well with the intentions of the Standards for the EnglishZLanguage Arts (NOTE/IRA, 1996) Participants in this Study Isabella - The Intern At the heart of this dissertation research is Isabella Jorgenson, the main research subject. Isabella entered her preservice education program knowing that she wanted to become an English teacher and that the road to completing her degree would be a rough one. As a small child, Isabella suffered a catastrophic illness that confined her to a hospital for months at a time. During this period, Isabella’s mother read to her constantly. As she explained, “There 103 wasn’t much else to do. So everyday she [her mom] went to the library before she came to visit me in the morning and just brought stacks of books every day and that’s what we did all day when I was in the hospital” (Reflective Interview, 5/28/97, p. 37). Although she came from a family of non-readers, this early experience would result in a lifelong love affair for Isabella with reading. In addition to her early illness, Isabella described a childhood in which things weren’t “always the best at home” (Reflective Interview, 5/28/97, p. 35). Isabella’s family moved around a lot during her elementary school years, although they stayed in the same general geographical area. In addition, My mom was an alcoholic and so . . . I spent a lot of my time . . . at school because it was a stable place and I was good at school and I always did well academically. So it was a place where I was successful. (Reflective Interview, 5/28/97, p. 35) During third or fourth grade, Isabella started “hanging out with the bad girls and doing bad girl things” (Reflective Interview, 5/28/97, p. 36) a pattern that would continue throughout her teen years. I was hanging out with older bad girls too, so I was exposed at a young age to lots of older type things. Plus my mom was actually a cross-addicted alcoholic, so there were a variety of drugs available at my house that I could steal . . . so I was a pretty bad kid and did a lot of not really good things at a really young age. (Reflective Interview, 5/28/97, p. 36) Yet through it all, Isabella remained a voracious reader. Even though her “bad girl” friends didn’t understand what she got from it, Isabella credited her mom for her continued reading. My mom did a lot of wrong things but one of the things that always, always, always she said to me over and over and over and that always made a lot of sense to me was that if you could read and write you could do anything you want. . . . I knew that I was having 104 fun doing bad girl things, . . . but I always knew that wasn’t what I wanted forever. . . . And I believed when my mom told me if I could read and write I could do anything, and so I practiced those skills a lot because I wanted to do anything that I wanted to do. I didn’t know what it was, but I wanted to be able to do anything I eventually decided I wanted to do. (Reflective Interview, 5/28/97, pp. 36-37) Eventually, what Isabella would decide to do was become an English teacher. When Isabella entered the internship, she was 25, a single mother, with sole support of a 7 year-old-daughter. When asked what motivated her to enter college and, more specifically, English Education, Isabella defined two catalysts. First, and foremost, her daughter provided the impetus for taking charge of her life. In Qrdinary People, Conrad says you have to have a reason to get up in the morning. You have to have a purpose for living. And I don’t think for a long time I had any purpose other than the party of the day. And that was getting old but there wasn’t anything else that I wanted for me at the time . . . but then I got pregnant on purpose . . . and the farther along I got in my pregnancy and when she was born and was getting older, I wanted to be able to give her more. I wanted to be a good example. A good role model. I wanted to be the best mom I could be. (Reflective Interview, 5/28/97, pp. 38-39) Teaching was something Isabella identified that she could do for both herself and her daughter. It would reflect Isabella’s belief in the critical importance of education, of reading and writing well. It was something Isabella believed she could do well. And, it was a career in which she felt she could be fulfilled while also providing an adequate income to take care of herself and her child. This was the example Isabella wanted to provide for her daughter. 105 The second catalyst for entering education was Isabella’s desire to “give back” to the profession for the desperately needed stability she experienced in classrooms during her childhood. I think a lot of teachers really encouraged me too and believed in me at times when I didn’t believe in myself. And I know what a hard childhood I had and so I thought teaching would be good because I could do English and I could be doing what I love to do and I could be working with kids and I could maybe be the one place where they could come and feel someone’s in their comer. (Reflective Interview, 5/28/97, p. 39) Isabella took her passion for reading and writing and her goal of wanting to be there for kids like she had been into her internship. Another of Isabella’s dimensions relevant to this study was her commitment to multicultural literature. Raised in generally white, middle-class neighborhoods, Isabella described her early neighborhoods as “Redneckville. Isabella grew up hearing the people around her saying a lot of negative, derogatory things about various ethnic groups when she felt they had no basis to say such things. I recognized at an early age that these people [her family and neighbors] were trashy and kind of low lives and [wondered] what validity did they have for what they said. . . . and living close to Detroit I heard a lot of the negative things about black people or what not and I didn’t have any basis on which to disagree except that I knew probably there were as many nasty white people out there as there had to be black people and I didn’t think color of skin had anything to do with it. . . . I always tried to keep a real open mind and I always tried to see other sides of things. Even if I didn’t know from experience, I would theorize about what might be the other side to that. (Reflective Interview, 5/28/97, p. 40) A variety of experiences--both positive and negative-~with people from other ethnicities would coalesce for Isabella into a deeply held belief that a lot of 106 misunderstandings, distrust and hatred between races could be avoided if everyone would just take the time to try to understand the other side. For Isabella, this further solidified her beliefs in the importance of education. More specifically, Isabella saw literature and writing as two arenas in which she could encourage students to actively challenge stereotypes and prejudices (Reflective Interview, 5/28/97, p. 40-43). Underlying Isabella’s goals for her teaching was a conviction that her role involved encouraging students to question what they were seeing and hearing and reading and writing--to think for themselves. She wanted students to become active constructors of knowledge and not merely receptacles. Isabella wanted to open the world of literature and writing to her students; and, in turn, she wanted to be open to what her students brought or discovered. Given Isabella’s biography and her interest in multicultural literature, I felt that she would find much in the Pacesetter curriculum satisfying. While C. E. Miller High School might not offer the racially diverse student population Isabella wanted to work with, many of her goals and objectives, both academic and affective, seemed achievable through the Pacesetter curriculum. Given this, an opportunity to observe how Isabella used the curriculum to construct her own teaching practice emerged. Eschel - The:Msntor Temei Rachel Kenandry, Isabella’s mentor teacher, brought an extensive teaching background to her teaching at C. E. Miller Senior High School and in her work as a mentor teacher. After spending eight years in private, Christian 107 schools in Ohio and West Virginia teaching everything from first to eighth grades (including a short stint as an assistant principal), Rachel taught American Literature, served as yearbook advisor and director of school plays an additional two years in a public high school in West Virginia before relocating to Michigan. In 1989, Rachel worked as a substitute teacher. During this time at C. E. Miller High School, several teachers were granted “reassigned” time (usually one class for a semester or year) to work on Professional Development School projects. Rachel frequently assumed teaching responsibility for English classes assigned to teachers released under these circumstances. In 1991, Rachel was employed full time as an English teacher at C. E. Miller High SchooL Rachel’s experience working with preservice teachers was equally extensive. Her first year as a full-time teacher, Rachel worked with a senior completing a field experience of four hours per week in her classroom. In 1992, due to efforts to provide student teachers with a coherent schedule, Rachel shared responsibility for two preservice teachers. Since the university’s Teacher Education program moved to year-long internships in 1993, Rachel has served as a mentor teacher every year but one. In total, Rachel assumed responsibility for six interns from 1993-1996, as well as mentoring a number of junior and senior-level preservice teachers who spent limited amounts of time in her classroom. Rachel felt that her involvement in teacher education efforts enabled her to “give back to the profession.” As she explained it, 108 I love teaching. I love what I do and I always have. And I’ve always considered myself to be a decent teacher. I don’t want to say I owed it to the profession because that sounds really corny, but I thought that if I could help establish good teachers then that would be good. I truly believe that we, as people, are not successful unless we build other successful people and so that was part of why I wanted to be a mentor teacher--to be able to help students do that. (Kenandry Interview, 1/6/97, p. 3) As both a field instructor and Professional Development School researcher, I had oftentimes observed Rachel’s interactions with preservice teachers. An extremely reflective practitioner (Schon, 1987), Rachel brought to her work as a teacher educator not only her experiences as a teacher, but also her disposition to continue to grow as a teacher. Never satisfied with the status quo, Rachel continued to push her thinking about the “whys” and “hows” of teaching, especially the teaching of English subject matter. Rachel’s ability to “talk through” her inquiry and reflection aloud with preservice teachers and her skillful way of posing the right question at just the right moment supported the preservice teachers working with her in their attempts to construct their own practices. Clearly demonstrated through her work with preservice teachers was Rachel’s investment in teacher education efforts. In addition to serving as a mentor teacher, Rachel was actively involved in a number of Professional Development School projects focused on issues of teacher education. She participated in numerous school-wide study groups and often presented with other English faculty and/or myself on teacher education topics at state and national professional conferences. Rachel was a co-author of a manual for preservice teachers entering Miller High School entitled A Preservice Teacher’s 109 Survival Guide. Frequently asked to speak in English methods classes at the university, Rachel eventually agreed to co-plan the subject matter-specific graduate course sequence interns completed concurrently with their internship (TE 802/804) and co-taught the second semester of the sequence with a university instructor (myself). Isabella was a student in this course sequence. In addition to her position as mentor teacher to Isabella, another important dimension Rachel brought to this study was her long-standing involvement with the Pacesetter curriculum. As one of the teachers consulted when C. E. Miller was initially approached by the College Board and Educational Testing Services as a possible pilot site, Rachel felt that the Pacesetter curriculum was worth piloting for several reasons. First, Rachel was impressed by the organizations involved in the development of the course. “It was College Board. It was ETS. I mean, those people have done some pretty powerful things and that impressed me” (Kenandry Interview, 1/6/97, p. 5). She also saw the curriculum as an opportunity to enhance her own repertoire of literature and methodologies. As she pointed out, “I had no background in multicultural literature, and I thought it might be interesting to experience some of the literature [recommended in the Pacesetter curriculum]” (Kenandry Interview, 1/6/97, pp. 4-5). As well as pushing her own growth as a teacher, Rachel felt that the Pacesetter curriculum held the potential to address the lack of cultural diversity within C. E. Miller Senior High School. . . Miller primarily has a very small minority population. . . . we’re 97% or 98% white. . . . I thought it would be 110 interesting for our students to be able to experience cultures other than their own” (Kenandry Interview, 1/6/97, p. 5). Through Pacesetter’s emphasis on bringing voices to English classrooms that typically get left out of the more canonical, traditional literature selections, Rachel believed her students would benefit from the curriculum. Although the English faculty were trying to encourage more students to take a fourth year of literature, C. E. Miller had a limited number of choices in senior-year English classes. Because the Pacesetter curriculum represented a capstone course, Rachel felt that it could provide a much-needed alternative to English Literature as an option for students seeking a fourth year of English, especially since College Board . . touted the Pacesetter curriculum as being for average level students” (Kenandry Interview, 1/6/97, p. 5). Perhaps the single most important reason Rachel chose to support piloting the Pacesetter English curriculum, however, was connected to the “big picture” thinking she saw reflected in the curricular materials. The big picture thinking with the themes and the tying things together had already been done as a curriculum. And I don’t think saying that makes me feel like I’m a lazy teacher, but trying to establish a class by yourself and to be able to create those kinds of things in a vacuum is really difficult to do given the limited time that we have to find pieces to put into a curriculum and to find a general theme that fits. One of the things that the Pacesetter course does is . . . it’s not just thematic. It builds from one unit to the next. When I teach by myself, I can come up with themes, okay, yeah, that fits, but there’s not that strand that kind of runs through all of the units and the Pacesetter curriculum provides that. I thought that was worthwhile that that thinking had been done. (Kenandry Interview, 1/6/97, p. 5) 111 Along with this sense that “important conceptualization” (p. 6) had occurred in order to provide a “big picture” for the curriculum, Rachel liked the flexibility the curriculum developers had included in the course. Pacesetter offers things you can do, but it also gives you another pathway of having individuality and taking it . . . where you want to take it. It was kind of like the best of both worlds. They gave you the kinds of stuff that was there. This is a pathway that you can follow and this will lead you in this direction. Or, here’s another way you can get there if you decide to go in this direction. Or, it’s totally wide open. It was there as guidelines if you wanted it, but then it was also freedom to go different ways and be able to plug in different things. (Kenandry Interview, 1/6/97, p. 6) The “big picture” provided and the flexibility allowed, along with the other reasons provided above, convinced Rachel to volunteer to teach one of the pilot secfions. During both the pilot year and the second year Rachel taught Pacesetter, she also mentored an intern. Consequently, as Rachel attempted to shape and implement the curriculum, she was simultaneously working with a preservice teacher who was trying to Ieam to teach using the Pacesetter curriculum. As Rachel and I interacted both as Pacesetter teacher with PDS researcher and as mentor teacher with field instructor, we began to discuss the difficulties and challenges we thought trying to teach the Pacesetter curriculum posed for preservice teachers. Because of Rachel’s deep interest both in helping preservice teachers succeed in Ieaming to teach and in the Pacesetter curriculum, she agreed to participate in this dissertation study. 112 Qsthy - Rsssarcher and Field lnstrustor My initial involvement with the Pacesetter curriculum came about through a graduate assistantship I held at C. E. Miller to support the Professional Development School activities--inquiry and research--engaged in by the English teachers and other faculty involved in teacher education endeavors. The Pacesetter curriculum became a Professional Development School activity in that, as part of my work in the school, I helped document the implementation of the pilot program and facilitated the teachers in collecting the data (i.e., samples of student work, copies of common assessments, etc.) requested by the College Board/Educational Testing Services. In addition to the program evaluation undertaken for the College Board/Educational Testing Services, a major element of this research also involved trying to determine if the goals the Miller High School English teachers had for choosing to offer this particular curriculum in their school were being met. Student response to the program was solicited through written questionnaires throughout the year and intensive oral interviews were conducted by me at the end of the pilot year. Interviews were audiotaped and transcribed. These research activities also continued through the following year. In addition to the program evaluation and research concentrated on the curriculum, I was also serving as field instructor for interns placed at C. E. Miller Senior High School from the local university. From the pilot program in 1994- 95 to the third iteration of the program in 1996-97, I assumed the role of field instructor for the interns placed in the Pacesetter classrooms. 113 My association with Rachel was, therefore, of long-standing. We shared many beliefs, concerns and questions about teaching, teaching English subject matter, the preparation of future English teachers, and the Pacesetter curriculum. As a field instructor, I had worked with several interns for whom Rachel served as mentor teacher. Through all of our various interactions, we had developed a truly collegial relationship. I Ieamed much from Rachel, and I felt that Rachel valued my experiences and thinking as well. My association with Isabella was multi-Iayered. I first encountered Isabella in the fall of 1995 when she was a student in the TE 401/402 Secondary English Methods course sequence I taught. Through this relationship, I had the opportunity to observe Isabella as she questioned, read, discussed, and wrote about the teaching of English in preparation for entering the internship. Isabella also completed a four-hour per week field experience in Rachel’s class during TE 401/402 and since I was working with the intern in Rachel’s class at the time, I often had the chance to discuss with Isabella her observations and questions in the field. By the end of spring semester 1996, I had identified the Pacesetter curriculum and the implications the curriculum had for preservice teachers Ieaming to teach with it as the area for my dissertation research. I also knew at that time that I would be serving as field instructor for the three secondary English interns placed at C. E. Miller High School in the fall, including Isabella. Isabella had Ieamed by that time that she would be placed with Rachel to complete her internship. 114 Consequently, I knew something of who Isabella was and where she was coming from as she continued the Ieaming to teach journey. I obviously came to know a great deal more about her as I worked with her as her field instructor. Generally, field instructors meet with their interns on average of once every two weeks. Given that Isabella agreed to participate in my dissertation research, I met with Isabella a great deal more than was typical for a field instructor-- frequently several times a week during data collection. Since my field instructor responsibilities were not confined to Isabella’s teaching of Pacesetter, I also had the opportunity to observe and talk with Isabella about her planning and teaching in the other courses for which she was responsible. These included American Studies (10th grade) and an American Literature (11th grade) course. The American Studies class was a two-hour per day block class, taught by an English teacher and a Social Studies teacher withva Student Advocate (Special Education teacher) frequently present. Combining 10th grade General English and American History, this class had a student enrollment of fifty to sixty students including several special needs students. The American Literature course was part of a different English teacher’s schedule. Therefore, Isabella actually worked with Rachel for three hours per day and with Christy for one hour per day. Because of this, Isabella’s schedule included two planning periods enabling her to collaborate with both mentors in her planning and teaching of their courses. Finally, in addition to participating in my dissertation research, Isabella was also completing the graduate course sequence, TE 802/804, for which I 115 was the instructor. Designed to capitalize on the interns’ experiences in their internships, this two-semester secondary English methods course emphasized connecting theoretical perspectives to real-classroom applications. Through a variety of activities, interns were encouraged to become “reflective practitioners” (Schon, 1987). Intern planning was supported in a number of ways at critical junctures in their internships, such as in preparation for the two, two-week periods of lead teaching in the fall and the more extensive lead teaching responsibilities in the spring semester. TE 804, spring semester, focused heavily on the then recently released NCTE/IRA Standards fsr the EnglishZLanguags Arts (1996). Summary Having provided this more detailed picture of the research site, subjects, and the Pacesetter curriculum, I now turn to taking a close look at how Isabella taught three of the Pacesetter units. Specifically, I begin by examining Isabella’s planning and teaching of Unit Two, “‘Stranger in the Village’: Encountering the Other, Being the Other.” With this unit, Isabella assumed lead planning and teaching responsibility for the Pacesetter class; and as will be demonstrated, the metaphor of stranger in the village would seem to apply to more than just a theme found in the literature presented in the unit. 116 CHAPTER FOUR UNIT TWO - ‘STRANGER IN THE VILLAGE’: ENCOUNTERING THE OTHER, BEING THE OTHER With this unit, I was still having my problems with adapting Pacesetter’s curriculum to fit me instead of feeling like I had to adapt to fit Pacesetter. . . . I was having difficulty kind of making it mine. Reflective Interview, 4/28/97 I just thought I had to be perfect. . . I shouldn’t have to need help. Reflective Interview, 5/21/97 Isabella’s Ideals for Unit Two As will be seen in this chapter, Isabella lived up to her ideals in some respects, while seeming to lose sight of other ideals in the heat of planning and teaching. In a final analysis, Isabella summed up her feelings about “The Stranger in the Village” unit by saying, “I think I did really well with the Stranger in the Village even though I was having difficulty kind of making it mine. I think I did pretty well especially with the writing parts” (Reflective Interview, 4/28/98, p. 5). In her final reflections, Isabella would say nothing about the difficulties she had planning and implementing instruction for Unit Two especially in terms of literature and classroom management. Isabella began her planning for Unit Two by analyzing what the curriculum wanted students to be able to do at the completion of the unit. Because the common assessments would require her students to be able to write an essay and a short story, Isabella concentrated on what she would need to do with students to enable them to successfully accomplish the common assessments. According to the Pacesetter teacher materials, a good essay typically followed a recognizable formula: “1) relate an event; 2) describe the 117 essayist’s personal response to that event, and 3) make some general reflection about that event and response” (Teacher’s Suide, p. "-8). According to the teacher materials, in order to facilitate the writing of good short stories, teachers were urged to point out the commonalties between essays and short stories (i.e., use of character, setting, action, complication, and point of view) and then discuss what distinguished short stories from essays (i.e., . . as works declaring themselves to be imagined about rather than real events” thus . . granting them an imagined space not present in essays”) (Teacher’s Guide, p. ll-12). The bottom line for Isabella was that she wanted her students to be able to write good essays and short stories by the end of the unit (Reflective Interview, 4/28/98, pp. 2-3). As a teacher, Isabella also wanted her students to have enjoyable interactions with literature (see Appendix A for a graphic represenation of the literature used by Isabella in Unit 2). In a Post-Internship Interview (5/28/97), Isabella described herself as a “student-focused” teacher (p. 3). By this, she seemed to mean that she would make decisions about what to teach and how to teach based on her assessment of what her students were interested in or needed (pp. 2-5). “I guess I would really try to pay close attention to where my students are at as readers and go from there and think about topics or general issues or themes of interest and choose material accordingly” (p. 2). If “forced” by a school or curriculum to teach something she didn’t think students would like or find relevant, she would work hard to “make it relevant to their lives, to find connections to their lives” (Reflective Interview, 5/28/97, p. 25). 118 Isabella was also extremely concerned, understandably so, with beginning her lead teaching successfully in terms of classroom management. As she would say in a Reflective Interview in May, I wanted to be like the best intern anybody ever saw. Do you know what I mean? And I just wanted to just come in there and be this wonderful teacher and just do everything right and just be wonderful. And it was hard for me to face the reality of the fact that it wasn’t necessarily going to happen that way. (5/21/97, p. 18) Isabella’s classroom management dilemmas manifested themselves most prominently in the area of discussion. This would prove especially frustrating for Isabella, given her personal goals for teaching literature. Isabella believed that reading and discussing literature provided a forum for individuals to challenge their ideas about a text, and through an intellectual exchange. “. . . grow as a person” (Reflective Interview, 5/28/97, p. 25). Isabella recognized that the Pacesetter curriculum could be an avenue that would provide students with many opportunities to engage with literature and each other in ways that would meet her goals (Reflective Interview, 5/21/97, pp. 2324). But when Isabella’s goal to “be the best intern anybody ever saw . . . to just do everything right and just be wonderful” (Reflective Interview, 5/21/97, p. 18) bumped up against her difficulties in conducting effective whole class discussions, Isabella would think seriously about eliminating classroom discussions. As she would say, “I don’t want to ditch it [class discussion], but I also don’t want to do a bad job at it. Or, have it not done right because then what’s the point of doing it in the first place?” (Planning, 10f7/96, p. 13). 119 Beginning the Unit Students, under Rachel’s direction, had worked their way through Unit One: “Many Selves, Many Voices: An Introduction to ‘Voices in Modern Cultures.”’ In Unit One, students concentrated on themselves and their relation to language. Students examined “. . . their own position as cultured speakers, with voices shaped by their heritages, their experiences, and their schooling” (Tssshsr’s Guide, p. 3). They did this by considering the questions “Who am I?” and “Who are we?” through personal reflection, investigation and writing and through the variety of texts they read. Each of the texts selected for this unit connected to or addressed the primary questions of self and group identity. As the Teacher’s Guide pointed out, “If this were Sesame Strsst, we might say that this unit is brought to its audience by the pronouns “,"I “you,” and “we” (p. 3). Unit One established one of the guiding themes of the Pacesetter curriculum by asking each student to . . investigate how she or he is ‘situated’ as an individual who belongs to certain groups and addresses insiders and outsiders in different voices” (Tsashsr’s Suids, p. 3). As explained earlier, this notion of insider versus outsider, being the “other” or “otherness,” inclusion and exclusion, represents an important thematic thread woven throughout the entire curriculum. Isabella assumed lead planning and teaching responsibility of the Pacesetter curriculum with Unit Two, “‘Stranger in the Village’: Encountering the Other, Being the Other.” While “,’I’ “you,” and “we” were pronouns used to describe Unit One, the Pacesetter curriculum described Unit Two as focusing 120 more on the pronoun “they" through its attention to . . the way culture and language work to include and exclude individuals” (Teacher’s Guide. p. 3). This unit continued to tie back to Unit One by concentrating on “I/they” or “us/them” relationships (Teacher’s Guide, p. 3). An interesting goal for this unit entailed “help[ing] students avoid feeling like strangers in the village of literature but like members of a literary culture that includes them as well as writers like Baldwin and Orwell” (Teacher’s Guide, p. 4). Students would accomplish this by reading a medley of texts written by others across a wide range of historical and cultural contexts and by writing a variety of kinds of texts themselves. In addition to the overarching theme of “otherness,” another of the major goals for this unit as defined by the curriculum stipulated that students “recognize the formal features of the essay and short stories they read and understand how particular literary devices create effects” (Teacher’s Guide, p. II- 2). The formal features of the essay referred to by the curriculum developers appeared to be that students should recognize in others’ writing and be able to use in their own writing a “formula” for formal essays. According to the Pacesetter materials, this formula consisted of the writer first describing an event; second, providing a personal response to the event; and third, making a more general reflection about the event and response (Teacher’s Guids, p. "-8). The curriculum developers went on to define the parts of a short story as: “1) character and setting . . . , 2) action and complication . . . , and 3) point of view” (Isssnsr’s Guide, p. "-8). It is unclear from the materials whether the developers considered the elements or structure of the genres to also function 121 as literary devices or if they defined literary devices in another way. However, the only other “literary device” that received attention in the Teacher’s Guide was a small paragraph on the literary technique of magic realism (p. Il-13). As a way of measuring student achievement of the goal of recognizing the formal features of essays and short stories and understanding how literary devices are used to create effects, the Pacesetter curriculum required two common tasks for assessment. These assessments required all students to create an essay and a short story thereby demonstrating their understanding of the features of essay and short story through their ability to use appropriate features in their own writing. Layered throughout the suggested writing activities was the assumption, oftentimes direct suggestion, that students would include the theme central to the unit as explained earlier--the stranger in the village--in the writing they produced. Recognizing Student Difficulty QLd Responding: Isabella’s Use of Supjsst Mstter Knowledge and Pedagogical Content Knowledgs in ngstructing Gurriculum around Unit Two Writing Activities In this section, I will show how Isabella’s own subject matter knowledge of writing enabledher to approach the Pacesetter curriculum from a position of strength. Specifically, Isabella drew on her knowledge of formulas or formats for different genre of texts, and the components of a strong essay such as an introduction, thesis sentence, topic sentences, coherent paragraphs, transitions between and among paragraphs, and a strong conclusion. She also brought to bear her knowledge of paragraph construction, such as use of a topic sentence that connected to and developed the thesis sentence, making sure each 122 sentence in the paragraph contributed to the development of the topic sentence and using smooth transitions between sentences, to her planning and implementation of the unit. I will also illustrate how, from this position, Isabella was able to consider her students’ abilities to recognize and be able to create coherent essays and short stories, analyze what the common assessments would ask of her students, and evaluate the activities suggested by Pacesetter as to the potential of the activities to address her students’ prior knowledge (i.e., of paragraph construction) and provide her students with the skills and knowledge necessary to succeed on the common assessments. Through her analyses of these factors, Isabella constructed a curricular pathway that demonstrated her use of a form of pedagogical content knowledge and enabled her students to achieve the objectives for the unit. re in d Par ra hs: An lntr duc Ac ivi In order for her students to successfully accomplish the two common tasks designated in the unit, Isabella quickly recognized the importance of her students’ ability to write well constructed paragraphs. Isabella would evaluate the Pacesetter-suggested activity and abandon it for an activity she created herself. As Isabella explained the rationale for her activity, “. . . it was a way for my assessing that they don’t know what a paragraph is . . . and it [got them] thinking about the stranger in the village theme” (Planning, 10/7/96, 2). In response to Isabella’s assessment of her students’ prior knowledge about paragraph construction, she wove into her activity a . . discussion about 123 what’s a paragraph . . . and then I had them on the outside (of the folder they created) evaluate whether or not their paragraphs met the criteria that we decided as a class you would need to have to have a paragraph” (Planning, 10/7/96, 2). Isabella learned from a conversation she had with students prior to beginning the activity that her students’ ability to write strong paragraphs ranged from being unable to create simple paragraphs to demonstrating proficiency in writing developed paragraphs that advanced the writer’s purpose (Planning, 10/7/96, pp. 1-2). Isabella discovered that many of her students were unaware of the need for a topic sentence at the beginning of each paragraph that connected back to and helped develop the thesis of the paper, or that each sentence in the paragraph should clearly contribute to the development of the topic sentence. She also felt that students were unaware or needed to be reminded of the necessity of providing strong transitions from one paragraph to the next. Isabella evaluated the opening Pacesetter-suggested activity and discarded it in favor of an activity she created herself. Isabella felt her activity enabled her to address the weaknesses she saw in her students’ writing in a way that the Pacesetter-suggested activity did not (Planning, 10/7/96, pp. 2-4). According to the Teacher’s Guide. the opening activity for Unit Two was supposed to provide . . a comfortable approach to the challenging concepts of the unit and should help students begin to watch for, in texts and in experience, instances of cultural separation or disjunction” (p. "-7). Basically, the opening 124 activity was a game in which groups of students would need to decipher a “code” to enable them to join the group on a desirable trip. The game was specifically designed to include some students in the group while excluding others. Two people in each group would be given a predetermined “linguistic or visual code” by the teacher or a student “director.” Beginning with one of the students who knew the code, each student would “. . . state that he or she would like to go on the trip and will bring a ” (Teacher’s Guids, pp. “-7 & 8). If the student had deciphered the code and planned to bring an “appropriate” thing on the trip, the student would be invited to “join the group. If the objective (sic) brought forth does not fit the code, the student is rejected and must try again the next time around the circle. After a few rounds, some of the students will have deciphered the code and be included, and some will still be excluded” (pp. ”-7 & 8). After a few rounds, the teacher would lead a discussion in which students responded to questions designed to elicit their feelings about being accepted or rejected by the group. The discussion would also lead into defining the concepts of “village” and “stranger.” The Pacesetter-suggested activity was designed to introduce students to the overarching theme discussed earlier and central to many of the pieces of text they would encounter both in Unit Two and in future units: the stranger in the village or “otherness.” In addition, the suggested activity would move students toward one of the primary goals for the unit: students would “grow to understand the risks associated with being either the “stranger" or a part of the 125 “village” (Teacher’s Guide, p. ”-2). Through their experiences either as an included member of the group (someone who was either given the code to begin with or figured the code out) or as an excluded member (prior to figuring out the code or never figuring out the code at all), students would begin to identify what it feels like to be included or excluded from a group. By experiencing for themselves feelings associated with inclusion or exclusion in the group for what they might perceive as trivial or irrational reasons (i.e., knowing the right word or action to gain entrance to the group), students would begin their work in Unit Two already considering what it means to be a stranger in a village, to be the “other,” and what it means to be a member of a community or group. While Isabella understood why the curriculum developers were suggesting this particular activity, she “didn’t like it” so she chose to create her own opening activity (Planning, 10/7/96, p. 2). In her activity, students began by looking through magazines to find a picture of somebody “that looked like they belonged to a village in which you [the student] would feel a stranger" (Planning, 10/7/96, p. 2). Students pasted their pictures on the cover of a folded piece of construction paper. On the inside left flap of the construction paper folder they created, students wrote a paragraph “explaining what it would be like to be in that person’s village” (Planning, 10/7/96, p. 2). On the inside right flap, students then wrote a paragraph “explaining what it would be like for that person to be in [the student’s] village” (Planning, 10/7/96, p. 2). 126 Isabella then led a class brainstorming session eliciting the elements of a good paragraph. As a class, they decided the criteria for good paragraphs: the paragraph needed to have a topic sentence and all the sentences in the paragraph needed to relate to the topic sentence. Isabella concluded the activity by having students return to their construction paper folders and, on the back of the folder, “evaluate whether or not their paragraphs met the criteria that we decided as a class you would need to have a [good] paragraph” (Planning, 10/7/96, p. 2). By electing to develop her own activity rather than use the one suggested by the curriculum, Isabella created an opportunity to address a deficiency in her students’ ability to write strong paragraphs (Planning, 10/7/96, pp. 2-3). The Pacesetter activity had also not included a writing component. By creating her own activity, Isabella intended to satisfy the Pacesetter objective of introducing students to the essential theme of the unit, the stranger in the village, while simultaneously addressing the need to work with students on paragraph construction, a necessary skill for them to develop, as mentioned earlier, in order to successfully complete the common assessments (Planning, 10/7/96, pp. 2-4). Interestingly, Isabella’s activity also changed the dynamics of classroom management by avoiding the use of multiple small groups. The Pacesetter curriculum asked students to engage in what held possibilities for being highly sensitive interactions between students. The activity was designed to purposely exclude one group of students while making another group of 127 students “superior" to those excluded thus evoking feelings of exclusion or superiority in the students. According to the Teacher’ Guide, through participating in this experience, students would begin to identify “emotions that can accompany being a ‘stranger in the village’” (p. ”-7). As further explained, “[t]he exercise is meant to be a comfortable approach to the challenging concepts of the unit and should help students begin to watch for, in texts and in experience, instances of cultural separation or disjunction” (p. "-7). Although Isabella never explicitly articulated her concern regarding classroom management as a reason for avoiding this particular Pacesetter activity, as will be seen later, she (as is true with most novice teachers) was extremely concerned with not losing control of the classroom. Given that this activity represented the beginning of her lead teaching, Isabella would have been, understandably, even more concerned with the potential for the activity to disrupt the classroom community. Another possible reason Isabella chose to create her own activity might have been to avoid possible classroom management problems by having students work individually rather than in groups. Students only interacted with each other during the brainstorming activity which Isabella directed and controlled as a whole group activity. In addition to her understanding of the goals for the unit and considerations of classroom management, Isabella deviated from the Pacesetter curriculum for what may appear to be rather contradictory reasons. First, she had the subject matter knowledge--knowledge of the components or elements of the genres of essays and short stories--necessary to know what her 128 students were going to need to know and be able to do to write essays and short stories in order to successfully complete the common assessments. Yet, while Isabella had the necessary subject matter knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge to successfully create and implement her own activity, she lacked pedagogical content knowledge of how to actually use the Pacesetter suggested opening activity. Therefore, the second reason Isabella had for deviating from the curriculum was that she “didn’t get the opening activity that Pacesetter suggested;” she didn’t seem to understand how to make the activity work in practice (Planning, 10/7/96, p. 3). Consequently, Isabella elected to create an activity that would enable her to meet Pacesetter objectives, yet would avoid using an activity she didn’t like or understand. When asked why she elected to create her own activity, Isabella responded by saying: Cause they had some activity which I didn’t like but it said if you don’t use that you should do some kind of thing at least to get them thinking about the stranger in the village theme. Sort of like a concept thing. So I thought this would be a good way for them to start thinking about what it would be like to be a stranger and what it would be like to have a stranger come into one of your villages. Cause I didn’t get the opening activity that Pacesetter suggested. (Planning, 10/7/96. PP. 2-3; emphasis added) Not liking a Pacesetter suggested activity or text because she didn’t understand it became a reoccurring pattern in Isabella’s planning and teaching. In some cases, Isabella wouldn’t understand how to make a Pacesetter-suggested activity actually work in practice (as the previous example reflects). In other cases, Isabella would have difficulty understanding how texts or activities were supposed to connect to the “big picture.” Additionally, as will be seen next with 129 the Gabriel Garcia Marquez stories, Isabella also experienced times when she literally could not interpret the meaning of texts and strategies. These reasons (dislike or lack of understanding) on the part of Isabella were not considered supportable reasons for changing the curriculum by Isabella’s mentor, Rachel. Rachel was insistent that Isabella have a clear understanding of why she was doing something, “what it would get her” in terms of student Ieaming, whether it was a Pacesetter suggested text or activity or something that Isabella suggested herself. It was not acceptable for Isabella to justify her use of a text or activity by saying that “Pacesetter suggested it.” As Rachel would repeatedly state, “It doesn’t matter what they suggest. You gotta know why you’re doing what you’re doing!” (Post-Observation, 10/15/96, 10). Rachel also argued that it was not acceptable for Isabella to change the curriculum merely because she didn’t like or didn’t understand it. In this case, Isabella abandoned the Pacesetter-suggested activity for one she created herself. Since, according to Rachel, rejecting the Pacesetter- suggested activity simply because Isabella didn’t like or understand it was not a sufficiently viable reason, Isabella needed to be able to justify her decision to create a different activity. Because Isabella was able to explain how her activity not only achieved the objectives stipulated for the Pacesetter-suggested activity, but also moved her students forward in acquiring a prerequisite skill they would need to succeed at later Pacesetter-demanded activities (the common assessments), Rachel found her rationale acceptable. 130 It is important to note that at this point in Isabella’s internship, Rachel played a very active role in supporting Isabella’s planning. Although Rachel was less of an active participant in the planning conversations I held with Isabella, it was clear from various comments Isabella made in our many planning meetings that she was receiving a great deal of feedback and input from Rachel at other times throughout the day. Rachel frequently acted as a sounding board for Isabella, asking questions and pushing Isabella to think through her plans more thoroughly. At times, Rachel served as a devil’s advocate, assumed the part of students, and demonstrated potential obstacles and pitfalls. In this part of Isabella’s planning and teaching, she seemed to have a certain degree of strategic control of the curriculum. As discussed in Chapter Two, strategic control, for Isabella, entailed weaving together subject matter knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge to develop instruction that would enable her students to achieve goals and objectives. With the Pacesetter-suggested activity, she was not in a position to accomplish this. Through her assessment of her students’ prior knowledge, the class discussion concerning what constituted a good paragraph, and the students’ evaluation of their own paragraphs based on the criteria they had established for good paragraphs, Isabella was able to craft and implement instruction that developed the writing skills her students would need to create strong essays and short stories. 131 Yet, although this was an example of an activity that Isabella could have felt ownership of (she created it from scratch all by herself), it did not figure in any of Isabella’s reflections. In post-internship interviews, when she talked about aspects of her practice she took the greatest pride or ownership for, she never mentioned this writing activity as an example of when she felt in control of her planning and teaching. It may be that any feelings of ownership Isabella felt about her teaching at this point would become overshadowed by her experiences with the rest of the unit. As Isabella moved deeper into Unit Two, she experienced problems with subject matter knowledge that resulted in a lack of strategic control of the curriculum and her teaching. This, in turn, may explain why Isabella said she did not feel ownership of her teaching in Unit Two. Isabella’s Lack of Subject Matter Knowledge in Constructing Curriculum around the Two Short Stories of Gabriel Garcia Marquez The Pacesetter curriculum suggested two primary short stories as the framework around which students would consider elements of short stories and continue their exploration of the Stranger in the Village theme. Both stories, “A Very Old Man with Enormous Wings” and “The Handsomest Drowned Man in the World,” were written by Gabriel Garcia Marquez, a Latin American author. Renowned for his use of magic realism, Marquez frequently used his fiction to communicate political and philosophical beliefs critical of the government in power and the encroachment of Catholicism. In “A Very Old Man with Enormous Wings,” a poor village man discovers a very old man struggling to extricate himself from the mud but failing due to the 132 enormous wings growing out of his back. Pelayo, a villager, takes the old man home and pens him in a chicken coop. The old man becomes a sideshow with people traveling from all over to see the strange sight, and Pelayo and his family become rich from the entrance fees they charge. There is much argument over whether the man might really be an angel since his “miracles” never seem to come out right (for example, a leper whose sores, rather than being cured, grew sunflowers). Eventually, after several months, the very old man with enormous wings manages to fly away. In “The Handsomest Drowned Man in the World,” an enormous drowned man washes up onto a small village’s beach. The man is the tallest, biggest, most handsome man ever seen by the village women. The villagers create an entire fantasy life for the drowned man, one in which he was the most magnificent of men but very unhappy because of his size. The villagers hold a spectacular funeral for the drowned man, whom they call Estaban, and return him to the sea. They realize that because of Estaban, nothing would ever be the same in their village again. They would build their houses bigger and stronger, paint them in gay colors, and plant flowers in memory of Estaban. Their town would become known as “Estaban’s village.” Both of the short stories are considered examples of magic realism. Magic realism is defined as, a kind of modem fiction in which fabulous and fantastical events are included in a narrative that otherwise maintains the ‘reliable’ tone of objective realistic report. . . . The fantastic attributes given to characters . . . are among the means that magic realism adopts in order to encompass the often phantasmagoric political realities of the 20th century. (Baldick, 1990, p. 128) 133 In both Marquez stories, the fantastic is embedded within a story that, on the surface, retains the appearance of reality. For example, in my reading of “The Handsomest Drowned Man,” children playing with a corpse, a drowned man who is too large, too tall to fit in a house, and the women scrapping the mud and scales from the drowned man to prepare him for an elaborate funeral are all elements of the fantastical. The political realities of a country so overwhelmingly dominated by an encroaching religion may also be revealed through Estaban’s arrival from the sea much in the way Catholicism had entered the country. Further, the way in which Estaban comes to dominate the small village’s thoughts and actions might be a cloaked comment of the demands made by the religious authorities in Latin America at the time. Similarly, in my interpretation of “A Very Old Man with Enormous Wings,” the overwhelming influx of crabs in the house, looking a being with wings in a chicken coop, the carnival sideshow of a woman who had been changed into a spider for disobeying her parents, and the terms in which the angel is described all contribute to a sense of the fantastical. This story could be seen as revealing the power struggle occurring between the Catholic church on one side and the pagan beliefs of the indigenous religion on the other. If the angel represents the spirit of God or a Christ figure, the “owners” build a structure around him and charge people to view him much in the way it could be said the church built ornate structures to keep God in and charged people for access to Him. 134 Both Marquez stories represented a huge roadblock for Isabella. She was unable to “control” her teaching of the short stories because she lacked necessary subject matter knowledge, in this case, knowledge of the literary concept of magic realism, especially how magic realism was used to create a desired effect. Knowledge of magic realism would potentially enable Isabella to see how the short stories could connect with and perhaps advance the overarching themes of the Pacesetter curriculum (i.e., the concept of “stranger in the village,” oppression and subjugation experienced by “others”) and the concept of intertextuality (i.e., how the Marquez stories connected with or “fit” with other texts students would encounter throughout the course of the curriculum). At the very beginning of planning for this portion of the unit, Isabella stated that she didn’t want to teach the Gabriel Garcia Marquez stories. During our September 11, 1996 planning meeting, Isabella admitted that, just as with the opening activity Pacesetter suggested for the unit, she would have preferred creating her own curriculum. I would have liked to have picked different ones and I talked with [Rachel] and she asked me my reasons for not wanting to do the two in here [the Pacesetter curriculum] and l was like cause I don’t like them and I don’t get them. And she said I needed to have a better reason why not to do those. (p. 2, emphasis added) Whereas with the opening activity, Isabella was able to explain her decision to create a different activity for reasons that Rachel could support, Rachel did not find Isabella’s reasons for dropping the suggested short stories justifiable, and as Isabella’s field instructor, I agreed. Since Isabella could not provide any 135 rationale for abandoning the stories other than she didn’t like or understand them, Rachel suggested that Isabella work harder at trying to find meaning in the short stories. Isabella’s first reaction to the stories was based on an initial reading of the texts. Rachel believed that Isabella needed to try harder to understand the stories before discarding them. Consequently, Isabella next called on a number of “reader strategies” that had previously served her well in accessing and making meaning from text. The strategies Isabella would draw on included rereading the story several times, viewing a film version of one of the short stories, and searching out reference materials. In a very real sense, Isabella’s employment of these reader's strategies was an attempt to claim control of the texts. Isabella first began by re-reading the stories a number of times. When this provided little more insight into the stories, Isabella discovered a movie version of “A Very Old Man with Enormous Wings.” She hoped by renting and viewing the movie it might provide her with new understandings about what the written texts might actually mean. But the movie deviated from the text in ways which made it even more difficult for Isabella to make sense of the stories. For example, the wings worn by the Old Man in the movie version were obviously a costume that the Old Man put on and took off at various points in the movie. Isabella’s reading of the short story left her with the understanding that the Old Man’s wings were actual wings, physically attached to his body the same as his arms and legs, an understanding clearly supported by the text. 136 She explained that she was “even more confused after I saw the movie. I’m like great, and now I’m even less sure what to do!” (Planning, 10/11/96, p. 4). Because Isabella’s strategy in trying to understand the story resulted in an interpretation that remained in the text at the plot level, the plot deviations in the film version served only to confuse her further. Her insecurity in her understanding of the story resulted in her inability to 1) see the deviation in the film version as not supported by the text; and 2) consider the reasons why the film makers might have chosen to deviate from the text (i.e., the possible symbolism reflected in the wings being removable). By remaining in the text at the plot level, Isabella was unable to see possible connections outside the text and therefore was unable to move to an interpretive understanding of the short stories. Since Isabella’s interpretation of the text remained at a surface or plot level, Isabella was not in a position to “use” the movie director’s interpretation of the text. Someone who has mastered the text, who has developed a coherent interpretation of the text that goes beyond the surface or plot level, is in a position to evaluate a movie interpretation against her own interpretation. She can analyze how the movie version deviates from the position of her own understanding of the text. Sometimes the movie version enriches the person’s interpretation, extending her understanding of the written text without contradicting her interpretation. Sometimes the movie version is so far off from the person’s interpretation of the written text that the reader/viewer discards it. 137 And, sometimes, the movie version changes the reader’s interpretation of the written text in part or all together. In Isabella’s case, because her reading of the text was at an elementary level, she could only identify discrepancies in details between the written text and the film version. Because she did not have an interpretive understanding of the written text, she did not consider and evaluate what the movie makers might have been trying to do through their representations of the details of the story. Watching the movie version did not enable Isabella to add to her understanding of the written texts. Rather than finding a route into the story, the movie served only to confuse and frustrate her further. Another “reader strategy” Isabella employed was to try to locate reference materials that might provide a window into the texts. Given the limited amount of time available, Isabella did not conduct actual research into Gabriel Garcia Maquez or the two short stories in question. Isabella did read several pages of biographical material on Marquez that another Pacesetter English teacher had discovered on the lntemet. While she found the biographical information interesting, Isabella did not locate anything in the material that helped her find a way into the short stories (Field Notes, 10/14/96). Isabella was unable to make connections between the information on Marquez’ life and the short stories. Information about the political upheaval of Latin America during Marquez’ lifetime, Marquez’ own political and philosophical beliefs, and the use of story as a form of protest are reflected in Marquez’ short stories. Such background information might enable a reader to 138 understand the stories differently by making connections between the biographicthistorical information and the stories. Yet, even though the Pacesetter materials suggested if at all possible to provide students with a context for the short stories in the form of information about Latin American history and culture (Teacher’s Guide, p. ll-13), Isabella did not gain enough understanding of the history and culture from the biographical information to see how Marquez’ philosophy and cultural context might be reflected in his writing, and more specifically, in the two short stories in Unit Two. Next, Isabella turned to the Pacesetter Teacher’s Guide in the hopes that the curriculum developers provided insight into the meaning of the short stories. Unfortunately, the only support provided by the Teacher’s Guide was a directive to acquaint students with the literary concept of magic realism (p. lI-13). While an understanding of the literary element of magic realism would, as explained earlier, clearly aid in interpreting these stories, the Pacesetter Teacher’s Guidj provided only the following definition to explain the concept as it applied to the works suggested by the curriculum: One distinctive feature of magic realism is the fiction of consciousness beyond death, of characters voicing their thoughts after they have died. That feature is not present in this story [“The Handsomest Drowned Man in the World”], however. (p. II-13) Note that the very abbreviated definition of magic realism provided inapplicable information in relation to the short stories suggested by the curriculum. The only element of magic realism it mentioned, that of consciousness beyond death, is not present in either of the short stories in the unit. Consequently, the definition 139 offered in the Teacher’s Guide did not assist Isabella in forming an understanding of the literary concept or the stories. According to the curriculum materials, throughout the study of the two Marquez stories, students would be making “connections not only to encounters with the ‘other’ but also the descriptive writing, storytelling, and dialogue they have encountered in other pieces” (Teacher’s Guide. p. ll-14). In addition, it might be assumed, given that one of the overriding objectives for the unit included a “concentration on cultural separation or disjunction,” that the short stories should also be moving students’ understanding closer to that objective. However, no information was provided in the curriculum materials to inform teachers of ways in which the short stories reflect cultural separation or disjunction. Nor were there suggestions of ways in which teachers might go about helping their students discover these more complex themes within the stories. Isabella felt that not enough information regarding Latin American history and culture and the literary concept of magic realism was provided to enable her to make substantive connections that would help her understanding of the stories. Given the importance of magic realism to the stories, Isabella was understandably disappointed in the lack of information provided. As she pointed out with some exasperation, “I’m like well great! Cause I have no clue what it is, so how would I go about acquainting my students to what it is?!?” (Planning, 10/11/96, p. 4). 140 In another move to try to master the texts, Isabella also attempted to draw on her knowledge of text conventions as a strategy to fathom out the meaning(s) of the Marquez short stories. Isabella keyed into the subtitle of “The Handsomest Drowned Man in the World: A Tale for Children.” Having noticed that the subtitle seemed to indicate that the story was a tale for children, Isabella reasoned that perhaps the tale was meant to be read out loud, the way many fairy tales were designed to be told. In rereading the story out loud, Isabella felt that she “got a lot more out of it” (Planning, 10/14/96, p. 3). Isabella found support for this move to make the short story an oral one in her knowledge of other texts. By connecting this knowledge of other texts (known) to the Gabriel Garcia Marquez material (unknown), Isabella seemed to be making a move to take ownership or control of the texts. I’ve been reading Women Who Run with the Wolves and that’s Latin American, a lot of it, and she talks about, she’s what they call the keeper of the stories . . . and it’s her job to tell other people the stories that make her people who they are . . . and it’s usually done orally. So I was thinking about that. And the first time I read through these [the Marquez short stories], I mean I kind of read through them as I would any other short story, but I don’t think most writers write their stories to be read orally. . . . And so the first time I read it I just read it in my head and . . . like I said, I didn’t really like it. I didn’t really understand what was going on in it. (Planning, 10/14/96, p. 6) Here, Isabella continued to struggle with making meaning from the short stories. Given her knowledge of the intentions of most short story authors-~they write to be read--she remained stymied in her attempts to understand the Marquez stories. Isabella then attempted to connect her knowledge of another Latin American author (Clarissa Tinkola Estes) with the Marquez short stories. 141 Isabella reasoned that since many of the stories told by Estes in her role as storyteller were meant to be told orally, then perhaps the same might hold true with the Marquez stories. So then I tried reading it out loud. And then I was kind of picking up on certain things in the story when I was hearing it . . . and a lot of it had to do with the inflection of my voice and stuff like that. So then I read it again a third time and I tried to really concentrate on reading it as if I were telling it as a story. As if I were reading a script. And then you know there was a couple of times where I would have to go back and really find out, how, you know, where’s the emphasis in this sentence and stuff. But I think I worked that all out pretty much and when I read it out loud again the final time, I’m like, oh, this is just so good! And this was a story that was meant to be told orally not necessarily read and there’s certain things in the tone of voice that will come across that won’t come across in the cold black and white letters. (Planning, 10/14/96, pp. 6-7) Isabella, through reading the story out loud, felt she has discovered the key to the short stories. For her, this key seemed to indicate that the meaning of the stories was somehow found in the tone and inflection a storyteller would give the stories in reading them out loud. Isabella’s reading experiences with poets such as Gertrude Stein suggested to her that authors may deliberately write in ways that just reading the words silently might not enable readers to understand the texts. As Isabella put it, “Gertrude Stein plays around with that in her poetry where if you’re just reading the words you won’t catch it, but if you hear it being read out loud it’ll be a totally different experience” (Planning, 10/14/96, p. 7). From this, Isabella extrapolated a reading strategy: “So part of me, I guess, just knows to try that (reading the text out loud) when I’m not making sense of whatever way I’m 142 trying” (Planning, 10/14/96, p. 7). Isabella, in determining the stories were meant to be read aloud, gained a kind of mastery or control of the text. By deciding that the short stories were meant to be read aloud, Isabella may also have decided that it was not necessary to delve beyond the plot for meaning. If it is one of the functions of a storyteller to amaze and entertain his or her audience, then through tone and inflection the Marquez stories take on a fantastical lilt that could leave a listener walking away thinking, “wow, that was some strange story,” but never really wondering or understanding what the stories might have meant beyond the level of plot. In an odd way, this places the responsibility for making the stories meaningful on the storyteller and not the listeners. Although Isabella never explicitly addressed this in her discussion of how she came to define the stories as part of an oral tradition, it might explain how she could feel more in control of the texts while still not understanding magic realism or being able to use an understanding of magic realism to move to a deeper interpretive level. The form of textual mastery Isabella gained by connecting the stories to an oral tradition neatly sidestepped working with the concept of magic realism, a concept that—the curriculum developers, her mentor, her field instructor, and another building teacher all felt was critical to developing a coherent understanding of the two short stories. As will be seen next, while Isabella eventually acquired a workable definition of magic realism and would be able to identify elements that constitute magic realism within the Marquez stories, her understanding remained tentative and fragile. Isabella’s acquisition of subject 143 matter knowledge (the concept of magic realism) and understanding of the texts (recognition of the concept within the short stories) may have been too new to enable her to construct curriculum that would move her students toward acquiring knowledge or understanding of the literary concept as it is employed in the short stories. Without an understanding of magic realism and the ability to apply the concepts of magic realism to the text, the students would be unlikely to uncover the political statements Marquez might be making about Catholicism’s unyielding dominance in Latin America. Such an understanding would be additionally critical if students were to see how themes developed by Marquez through the use of magic realism paralleled themes of cultural separation and disjunction present in other literature in the Pacesetter curriculum. Marquez’ portrayal of the pagan rituals intermingled with trinkets of Catholicism used by the peasants in Estaban’s funeral (“The Handsomest Drowned Man in the World”) or the seeming contradiction between the peasants’ treatment of the angel and their petition to the church to determine if the being met the church’s criteria for angels (“A Very Old Man with Enormous Wings”) both elicit consideration of what happens when a culture is dominated by an outside force, whether that force is a religion such as Catholicism or another culture such as the British culture represented in George Orwell’s “Shooting an Elephant,” a piece students had read earlier in Unit Two. Although Isabella stated that an understanding of magic realism was . . just about critical to the stories,” her understanding of the short stories gained 144 through reading them aloud did not integrate or gather in the importance of magic realism to the stories. Without an understanding of magic realism, students might be able to identify the fantastical elements of the story but would not be given the support necessary to be able to connect those elements to the possible political messages Marquez may have written into his stories. Isabella still did not have sufficient control of the texts (subject matter knowledge) to understand how the stories fit with the rest of the Pacesetter curriculum (knowledge of the curriculum). Therefore, while Isabella achieved some sense of ownership of the texts, she was unable to take strategic control of her planning and teaching that would result in her instruction moving her students toward the Pacesetter goals and objectives for the short stories. At approximately the same time as Isabella’s discovery of what she perceived as the oral nature of the texts, I had put together a meeting with another C. E. Miller High School teacher who knew quite a bit about Latin American writers and the concept of magic realism. Felicity Beech agreed to participate in a conversation about the short stories and magic realism with Isabella, Rachel, and myself. Through this conversation, everyone involved attempted to clarify their understanding of magic realism and how it helped to connect the stories to other texts in the Pacesetter curriculum. For the most part, Isabella participated very little in the conversation. She did state that she had some familiarity with magic realism through her reading of other Latin American authors. “I kind of have an understanding of it (magic realism) because I really like Laura Esquivale and I’m reading right now 145 Women Who Run with the Wolves and so I’ve read some Latin American stuff and I kind of knew it was there but wouldn’t have been able to articulate a name for it or why it might be there. What about the culture makes it particular to their stories (Post-Observation, 10/14/96, p. 12). Isabella contributed the names of other Latin American writers she was familiar with such as Laura Esquivale, Clarissa Tinkola Estes, and Isabel Allende. Isabella also mentioned the movie version of “A Very Old Man with Enormous Wings” which she had recently viewed. Having established her background with other Latin American authors and magic realism, Isabella asked what Felicity could tell her about the culture and how it might be reflected in Marquez’ stories. As the conversation became more specific to the Marquez stories, Isabella put forward her idea that the stories were meant to be read aloud rather than silently. She again referenced the subtitle, “A Tale for Children.” Isabella wanted to know, “Is there something inherent in these stories or in Latin American storytelling about written versus telling stories. Like as in story telling?” (Post Observation, 10/14/96, p. 13). Felicity was unsure about the significance of the subtitles, although she did hypothesize that it might be because children’s stories are sometimes simplified or allegories (Post-Observation, 10/14/96, p. 14). Isabella was unwilling to let her point go, however. He calls them both a tale for children in the subtitles. . . . I can see an old person sitting with a group of children around him, you know, talking, telling the story. I can see that but on another level I can see it meaning something to the older parents standing in the 146 back. . . . But is that, do you think that’s a Latin American thing or am I just reaching? (Post-Observation, 10/14/96, p. 14) Although Isabella was committed to her position that the stories were meant to be read aloud, she also seemed willing to entertain alternative possibilities, a reflection of her belief that you read and talk about literature as a way of pushing your thinking about a text. When I offered the suggestion that Marquez might have used the subtitle to both avoid potential political repercussions and as a possible metaphor, where the children for whom Marquez was ostensibly writing the story actually represented the way in which the government or perhaps the Catholic religion was treating the people of Latin America as children, Isabella agreed that she could see how I might reach such an interpretation. Cathy: Felicity: Cathy: lsabeHa: Felicity, you said yesterday that a lot of times they write things like this as a way of striking out against larger forces without being put physically at risk, so if you bury something very political in a story for children would the authorities look to a story for children as a place where rebellion is festering? Um-hmmm. That’s a good point. Yeah, I think that’s the way I would interpret it. Well, the regimes that would have been in power at those times that someone like Marquez would have been upset at or rebelling against, it seems to me that oftentimes if they’re dictatorships or if they’re somehow evil or very repressive or oppressive types of governments they treat the people like children. They don’t give them the opportunity to make decisions for themselves. They make all the decisions for them. Oh, I see what you’re saying. I mean I can see where there’s evidence to support that. (Post-Observation, 10/14/96, p. 14) 147 It was clear in this conversation that Isabella was open to alternative interpretations. Isabella was able to take the information discussed about Latin American history, culture, and magic realism and recognize the elements of magic realism in the short stories that Felicity, Rachel and I suggested. While Isabella agreed with the examples other participants offered of how elements of magic realism were used to imply deeper political or religious significance, she did not offer any examples of her own. Rather, Isabella’s contributions to the conversation were to identify examples of the fantastical component of magic realism, the level at which her understanding of magic realism appeared to remain. Isabella demonstrated in the conversation her developing awareness of what constituted examples of magic realism in a story. For example, when I offered Like Water for Ghocolate as an example of magic realism, Felicity began identifying elements of the story that represented magic realism. Isabella quickly contributed additional fantastical examples to the conversation. Felicity: How when her tears go into the cake and everyone loses their minds. Her sister runs naked across the desen. Isabella: Oh, yeah, and when she makes the rose petal sauce and everybody starts having orgasms on the kitchen table. (Post Observation, 10/14/96, p. 12) However, nowhere in the conversation did Isabella move beyond examples of the fantastical to suggest what deeper meaning those examples might hold. Isabella was able to apply her new understanding of the fantastical as an element of magic realism to the Marquez short stories. When I suggested that 148 the children playing with a corpse in “The Handsomest Drowned Man in the World” was an element of magic realism, Felicity concurred and added a further example: “Oh, yeah, there are a lot of things about that. Scraping the stuff off of him. I mean if a body really washed up and it was dead and you scraped things off it, the skin and everything would come off. It wouldn’t look so good” (Post- Observation, 10/14/96, p. 13). Isabella contributed her own example of magic realism in the story. “And the fact that he’s so big! When they stretch him out in the house, he barely fits in the house (Post-Observation, 10/14/96, p. 13). Again, however, Isabella’s understanding of the magic realism was new and tentative. She understood features of magic realism (i.e., the fantastical represented as reality) and was able to identify examples of those features in the two short stories, as well as other examples brought up in the conversation. Isabella also recognized that elements of magic realism frequently signaled a deeper significance. It could be argued in the case of the Marquez stories that magic realism was used as a tool to make potentially dangerous comments about Latin American politics or Catholicism. Isabella’s biographical and historical knowledge about Marquez and magic realism was still too fragile to enable her to apply the knowledge to move her to the interpretive level of the stories. She was able to recognize and accept interpretive suggestions made by other participants in the conversation, but she was not yet able to find those connections for herself. Interestingly, when Angela, another teacher of the Pacesetter curriculum, entered the conversation late, she made a comment that demonstrated her 149 similarity to Isabella’s position in teaching the Marquez stories. “I guess it [magic realism] is a little more familiar to me because I’ve read a lot of that same stuff but I never knew what it was called” (Post-Observation, 10/14/96, p. 22). Isabella responded with a delighted, “Yeah, me too!” (Post-Observation, 10/14/96, p. 22). Angela also stated that she was feeling much as Isabella was in preparing to teach the stories. “I guess I feel like I’m probably in some ways in the same place as Isabella because I’m trying my way through it the first time too” (Post-Observation, 10/14/96, p. 23). Isabella quickly drew Angela into our conversation by asking her opinion of an issue we had been struggling with earlier, the significance of Estaban’s name in “The Handsomest Drowned Man in the World.” The Pacesetter curriculum suggested asking this question but provided no idea of what kind of student responses they hoped to elicit from the question. As Angela, an experienced teacher, lamented, “It drives me nuts about some of these questions because you don’t know what they are trying to get at with this. I mean obviously some of them are very pointed questions” (Post-Observation, 10/14/96, p. 26). Isabella agreed, and pointed out that we had not been able to discover the significance of the name in our conversation. “Yeah, and we’ve been talking about it quite a bit, but we can’t come up with any deep meaning. We keep coming back to, doesn’t it just mean Steve?!?” (Post-Observation, 10/14/96, p. 26). Isabella welcomed Angela to the conversation as another teacher much like herself, struggling to understand new and unfamiliar concepts and theories. 150 Interestingly, none of the other participants in the conversation had characterized themselves as more knowledgeable or expert about Marquez, magic realism, or the short stories. In fact, Felicity stated early in the conversation that she was “really uncomfortable as being seen as an expert on this” (Post-Observation, 10/14/96, p. 10). However, Isabella may not have experienced the discussion in the way in which it was intended--as several teachers presented with unfamiliar curriculum coming together to share and discuss their developing understandings. Philosophically, Isabella may have believed that the conversation modeled what should be done with literature (socially constructing an interpretation through an exchange of ideas and opinions). Yet, as a “novice” teacher, Isabella may have experienced the event as arranged to “fix” a “deficiency" in her subject matter knowledge, in this case her knowledge of magic realism and its implications for the Marquez stories. Because of Angela’s frank admission and the explicit way in which she linked her own position to Isabella’s, Isabella may have viewed Angela more as a peer. In a way that Rachel and Felicity perhaps did not, Angela may have more clearly served as an example to Isabella of the reality that when presented with unfamiliar subject matter all teachers face potential struggles in their planning and teaching. The potential struggles might even increase exponentially when the subject matter is multicultural literature, literature that probably wasn’t a significant part of most English teachers undergraduate training or experiences. Additionally, Angela confirmed many of the complaints Isabella had regarding the Teacher’s Guide. thereby perhaps reassuring 151 Isabella that what she was finding problematic was not, to some extent, due to some lack within herself. Isabella recognized the significance of magic realism to the Marquez stories. In fact, she agreed that it was absolutely essential to acquiring a meaningful understanding of the short stories. Yet, this new understanding of magic realism remained tentative and fragile. Consequently, Isabella decided she wanted to continue to think about the stories as part of an oral tradition, a position of strength for her. She decided to ask Felicity to serve as a guest lecturer on the topic of magic realism after she (Isabella) read the first short story, “The Handsomest Drowned Man in the World,” out loud twice to her students. By providing her students with an “expert,” someone who Isabella believed was more knowledgeable about magic realism, Isabella ostensibly fulfilled the curricular goals while protecting herself from being in the position of trying to teach material that she didn’t feel she completely understood. Isabella attempted to gain understanding and control of the texts by overlaying the short stories with an oral tradition. This strategy did not serve her well, however, as it still left her virtually sidestepping the significance and place of magic realism in her own interpretation of the short stories. By concentrating her interpretation solely on surface features of the stories, Isabella’s control of the text remained weak. Isabella was also unable to gain strategic control of the curriculum because without some understanding of the texts at an interpretive level, a form of content knowledge, she lacked the ability to draw upon her subject matter knowledge and general pedagogical knowledge to construct 152 subject matter-specific pedagogical content knowledge. As this account of Isabella’s planning showed, she was unable to plan and implement a pathway of instruction that would result in meaningful conceptual understanding for her twelfth graders. Constructing a Broken Pathway: The Missing Mortar of Pedagogical Content Knowledge Isabella initially did not want to use the Gabriel Garcia Marquez stories. She could not, as a reader, make sense of the short stories. Therefore, she found it a daunting--if not impossible--task to plan instruction around the short stories. Once Isabella discovered a way into the short stories for herself as a reader, she was more able to move ahead into planning instruction around the texts. Isabella designed a series of lesson plans that mirrored the activity she herself had engaged in that enabled her to make meaning from the short stories. Isabella would provide students with opportunities to engage with the stories as oral texts and then, she reasoned, the students would be able to make meaning from the text in the way she had (Planning, 10/14/96, pp. 8-9). Isabella planned to introduce her students to “The Handsomest Drowned Manin the World” by reading the story out loud twice, modeling for her students how to use inflection to gain understanding of the story. She felt that this was particularly appropriate because this story was the shorter of the two. Thus, reading it aloud twice would not require too much class time. For the second story, “A Very Old Man with Enormous Wings,” she wanted to break students up into small groups to develop dramatic interpretations of a scene in the story, an activity suggested in the Pacesetter curriculum. 153 As she put it, “I’m definitely thinking of some kind of reader’s type theater activity for the second story . . . cause that one’s a little bit harder and I think having them split up into groups and work on it would be a good thing” (Planning, 10/14/96, p. 10). Isabella did not think that students would be able to gain as much understanding through reading “A Very Old Man with Enormous Wings” out loud as she anticipated they could by reading aloud “The Handsomest Drowned Man.” Therefore, she would break the students up into groups around important paragraphs and have them portray, through a reader’s theater format, the meaning of the paragraph “. . . in a way that they think Marquez would be proud of. How did he mean for this paragraph to come across and help us to see it kind of thing” (Planning, 10/14/96, p. 10). In Isabella’s planning, her goal to get students into the text in order to gain understanding seemed to mean three things. First, she wanted to thoroughly engage them with the plot as seen through discussion questions like “What do the children look like on the beach? What are they doing?” (Isabella’s discussion questions for “The Handsomest Drowned Man in the World,” 10/15/96). Second, she wanted students to identify elements of the stranger in the village motif in the stories, draw connections to their own lives, and formulate implications for universal themes/concerns. To move them to this level she used questions such as “How do the men determine that the drowned man is a stranger?; Think back to when you were a child and you played imaginary games; and Why do they choose family for the dead man? How does that make 154 them all kinsmen and why do they want that?” (Isabella’s Discussion Questions for “The Handsomest Drowned Man in the World,” 10/15/96). Third, Isabella wanted students to interact with the stories in ways that enabled them to identify elements of short stories. She needed them to be able to do this since the major assessment for this unit involved students creating their own short stories. She focused students’ attention to elements of story through a chart she created which asked students to identify for each of the short stories elements such as how the story illustrated and developed the theme, character development, and how conflict/plot was developed and resolved. Through the use of this chart, Isabella planned and provided a structure for her students as they analyzed the short stories as examples of the genre prior to creating their own short stories. Although Isabella may not have achieved an understanding of the short stories in ways that would further certain aspects of the Pacesetter curriculum’s objectives (i.e., oppression and subjugation of individuals or groups), she was able to plan an activity which would enable her students to achieve another Pacesetter objective--writing a short story. As with the opening activity for Unit Two, Isabella demonstrated a level of pedagogical content knowledge through her ability to take a Pacesetter designated assignment (writing a short story) and break it down into ways that were likely to successfully scaffold the task for her specific students. Although through the questions she asked and the chart she developed it appeared that Isabella had strategic control of the curriculum, in actuality she 155 remained more dependent on the curriculum than in control of it. She used the reader’s theater suggestion because, according to her reasoning, her own strategy of reading the story aloud to gain meaning would not work with the second story. Yet, with her minimal mastery of the texts, she was unable to develop an alternative activity or array of activities that would move student thinking forward in understanding the stories. Therefore, Isabella returned to the Pacesetter suggested activity, justifying this move in part because “There’s some kind of suggestion in here, in the teacher part, about using theater and how that will come in handy too because of later they’re going to use that when we do Gth_ell_q” (Planning 10/14/96). In addition, all of the questions Isabella used for the essays and short stories read by the students in Unit 2 came from selecting from and, in some cases, slightly revising questions suggested in the Teacher’s Guide or from materials left by previous interns. She also created the chart by slightly revising questions provided in the Teacher’s Guide and presenting them in a chart format. Isabella’s cobbling together a pathway by taking material from the curriculum and other teachers’ materials may have reinforced her feelings that the teaching wasn’t “hers.” Isabella began the internship with the belief that “good” or “real” teachers created their instruction from scratch (Reflective Interview, 5/21/97, pp. 16-19). Since she had not created many of the activities for the unit, Isabella apparently felt little ownership of the pathway she created and, in turn, of her planning and teaching. When identifying times in her teaching of the Pacesetter curriculum when she felt in control or experienced 156 some sense of ownership of her teaching, Isabella never mentioned any of her planning or teaching of Unit Two (Reflective Interview, 4/28/97; Reflective Interview, 5/21/97; Reflective Interview, 5/28/97). Although she would take some pride in the writing aspects of the unit, enabling her to feel that she did “well” with the unit, Isabella would not consider Unit Two her “own” (Reflective Interview, 4/28/97, p. 5). Clearly, Isabella’s incomplete and sketchy understanding of the short stories prevented her from planning instruction that would fully engage her students with the texts. Rather, she artificially imported the essential element of magic realism by providing a guest speaker and requiring the students’ stories to include magic realism. After Isabella’s two readings of “The Handsomest Drowned Man in the World,” little class time was left for Felicity to present and discuss her understanding of Latin American culture and magic realism as she saw it reflected in the short stories. This was especially problematic given that students had only heard the first story and had not yet encountered “A Very Old Man with Enormous Wings” at all. Although little time was left for questions or discussion, several students asked questions or made comments that reflected their confusion. Observation notes (10/15/96) indicated that Peter wondered whether “any time there’s something weird or outrageous in a story then does that mean the author is using magic realism? . . . (inaudible) National Imuirir magic realism?” Laura was confused about how “come a drowned man can mean that the author was ashamed of his background?” And JD was totally caught up in talking with his 157 neighbors about kids burying and digging up the drowned man (Observation Notes, 10/15/96). Students clearly had difficulty processing the information Felicity provided and connecting it to the short story they had just heard. Isabella’s response to these questions again seemed to indicate her uncomfortableness with her understanding of the literary concept. For example, according to observation notes, she told Peter that there was more to magic realism than just “weirdness or outrageousness” but then didn’t provide any further definition or criteria (Observation Notes, 10/15/96). It was unclear whether she heard Laura and JD’s comments at all since observation notes record no response to their concerns. The concept of magic realism was not discussed at any other point during students’ work with the short stories until towards the end of the unit when Isabella explained the requirements for the short stories students would create as one of the common assessments. Initially, Isabella’s criteria for the students’ short stories did not include attention to the element of magic realism. Instead, Isabella’s original criteria focused on the stories including the theme of stranger in the village and uses of fictional techniques such as dialogue, description, plot, conflict, resolution, and point of view (Isabella’s Lesson Planning). After our multiple conversations concerning magic realism and Felicity’s participation in the class, Isabella required that students include magic realism in their stories. Most students interpreted this to mean that they had to include elements of fantasy in their stories (Observation Notes, 10/23/96). Tara and Larysa specifically asked me, an observer in the class the day the assignment was given, if having their 158 character fall into a very, very long well into another world (in their words, “sort of like Alice does”) would qualify as magic realism (Observation Notes, 10/23/96). Isabella would later return to her initial criteria for the short stories by focusing on the elements of story. She would make the inclusion of magic realism an option as evidenced on her Short Story Criteria Chart. In the box labeled “What elements of fiction are used and how do they contribute to the story overall,” Isabella would include the following in parentheses: “description, dialogue, interior monologue, perhaps even magic realism.” As Isabella explained, “I am giving less weight than I would like to to interpretation of the stories. I’m focusing on elements of the short story because they’re going to write a short story . . . because that’s one of the common assessments” (Planning, 10/28/96, pp. 13-14). With this decision, Isabella in effect focused students’ attention to structural issues of writing (subject matter of which she felt more control) rather than substantive issues of literature. By the time Isabella evaluated the essays, her rubric showed no mention of magic realism. Without an interpretive understanding of the text, the strategic control Isabella gained was not sufficient to enable her to truly accomplish some of the goals and objectives of the Pacesetter curriculum. It could even be argued that Isabella subverted, perhaps unconsciously, the curriculum in ways which enabled her to feel some measure of strategic control of the texts and her teaching. Yet, this seemed to leave Isabella with no feelings of ownership of her planning and teaching in Unit Two. 159 Interestingly, a week or so into Unit Two, Isabella began a Pacesetter planning conference by talking about the other class, an 11th grade American Literature class, in which she was also lead teaching. “Things went really well in American Lit. today. I think that’s why I feel so good about teaching. I felt like a teacher for the first time today. It was soooo cool!” When I asked how she felt, Isabella responded, “I just felt really in control . . . both with the subject matter and the students. Like I knew what I was doing. . . . I just felt really like a teacher for the first time” (Planning, 10/10/96, p. 1). Clearly, Isabella did not seem to have a similar experience in her teaching of Unit Two in the Pacesetter class. Although Isabella constructed a practice that enabled her to do something that felt worthwhile with the stories (i.e., reading them aloud as part of an oral tradition), she was unable to forge a pathway that integrated the critical notion of magic realism into her students’ study of the stories. Isabella may have recognized that while her planning and teaching was “okay,” it didn’t truly result in meaningful Ieaming for her students. Since Isabella seemed unable to move from procedural knowledge to constructed knowledge (Belenky, et al., 1986) during this unit, she lacked strategic control and her voice remained silent. What Isabella learned about magic realism came from what others told her, such as the teacher’s materials, other English faculty, and myself, and therefore her knowledge remained procedural. Without the time and opportunities to substantively work through her own understanding of the literary concept, she was unable to create constructed knowledge. 160 The Beginnings of a Persistent Dilemma for Isabella: Managing the Classroom While issues of subject matter knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge clearly posed problems for Isabella in Unit Two, she also struggled to establish herself as a teacher in control of the classroom (which Wilson, Shulman, and Richert (1987) refer to as developing and implementing general pedagogical knowledge). Although Isabella had been in the Pacesetter classroom since the beginning of the school year, she did not assume the lead teacher position until Unit Two, approximately six weeks into the school year. She would keep primary planning and teaching responsibility through Units Two, Three and Four. As is true with most beginning teachers, Isabella worried about whether the students would accept her as their teacher or would dismiss her as a “student” teacher. She also worried about her ability to establish and maintain an educative classroom environment conducive to the teaching and Ieaming of the curriculum and to her goals for teaching literature and writing. Several factors contributed to the challenges Isabella faced in assuming responsibility for the Pacesetter class. First, the curriculum was designed as a capstone class for seniors in high school. Many of the students in Isabella’s class were already well into the throes of what they frequently and laughingly called “senioritis.” Most had already sent out college applications, and there was a general sense shared by many of the students that what occurred in their senior year didn’t really “count” for much. Many of the seniors felt that their 161 senior year was to be “enjoyed” and asking them to engage in academic work and critical thinking was unreasonable. To further complicate the situation for Isabella, her Pacesetter class was the last period of the school day. The majority of students in her class were engaged in various extracurricular activities and absences or early exits from the class to attend competitions or meetings were frequent. For many students there was a sense that as the last class of the day, they couldn’t reasonably be expected to pay attention or “work.” Classroom control issues became of immediate concern for Isabella when she took primary responsibility for the Pacesetter class. These issues were manifested most clearly in the area of classroom discussions. Isabella valued class discussions highly and found them to be of utmost importance in working with literature with students. As she explained it, When I’m a participant in a discussion it always helps me to talk about things because sometimes you talk about things and you hear other people’s points of view (and) it may change the way you originally felt about something. So that’s why I really like to have some kind of interaction and not people just answering questions on their own. But I’m beginning to wonder if it’s going to be possible with this class, with this group of people. (Planning, 10/7/96, p. 5) When I asked Isabella to consider whether the difficulties she was observing in discussions were a case of the students literally not knowing how to conduct themselves during a discussion or choosing not to behave appropriately, Isabella quickly responded that “they’re choosing not to behave the way they should” (Planning 10/7/96, p. 5). 162 Isabella found some reassurance in the fact that the students had treated her mentor, Rachel, in much the same way. Isabella reported that “Rachel actually said that she may have to take like five of them out of class and say ‘I really believe your behavior is inappropriate and you can choose to work on it or you can choose to drop the class.’ I think that’s going to have to happen because they’re just not behaving” (Planning 10/7/96, p. 5). But, the bottom line for Isabella was that students would not behave in class discussions and, as a consequence, she might have to eliminate discussions entirely. “Maybe it’s [classroom discussion] something I won’t be able to do with this class” (Planning 10/7/96, p. 5). Isabella acknowledged that eliminating class discussion would change the Pacesetter curriculum, that it “just wouldn’t be the same” (Planning, 10/7/96, p. 5). She felt that without the opportunity to discuss, students “might just have a really narrow perspective on a certain thing. Whatever that certain thing is that we’re doing” (Planning, 10/7/96, p. 6). Isabella wanted productive classroom discussions but was stymied as to how to achieve her goal. Both Rachel and I believed that it was important for Isabella to meet this problem head on especially since it was still early days in her lead teaching of Pacesetter. Since she had only recently taken over the teaching of this class from her mentor, it was important for her to establish a workable classroom community that included her as the teacher. We also felt it important that she explicitly address the whole problem with the Pacesetter students themselves. Rachel and I explored this with Isabella over the course of several 163 conversations (Planning, 10/7/96; Post-Observation, 10/7/96; Post-Observation, 10/8/96). Isabella did address the issue explicitly by developing and handing out a Discussion Protocol Questionnaire and giving her students fifteen minutes to jot down their responses to the questions. She limited the questions to the following four: 1) What is the value of a productive discussion; 2) What are some pros and cons for discussion; 3) What is acceptable behavior in a productive discussion; and, 4) What can you do to facilitate productive discussions in this class? (Discussion Protocol Handout, 10/8/96). At the end of approximately fifteen minutes, Isabella began a whole class discussion regarding their answers. The discussion went fairly predictably. Student responses to Question One revealed that they, themselves, valued classroom discussions for several reasons. Walter felt that the value was in getting to hear other people’s opinions to get multiple sides of an issue. Lance felt that whole class discussions generated new points you might not have thought about on your own. Kevin felt he could say more than he could write. Alex added that class discussions were better than “regular work,” that they relieved the monotony of the other activities typical of English classes. Finally, Heather thought that class discussions were a helpful way for teachers to assess their students’ understanding of the material (Observation Notes, 10/8/96). Students also were clearly able to distinguish desirable discussion behavior and generate a list of “rules” for future discussions. These rules 164 included: no side conversations, respecting others by remaining silent while another was speaking, respecting other people by not attacking a person, but rather disagreeing with the opinion or idea they had offered (Observation Notes, 10/8/96). Throughout the entire discussion, the students exhibited exactly the kind of behavior Isabella wanted during class discussions. There was little interrupting, no side conversations, no rude or disrespectful comments. Students seemed to be paying careful attention to what others were saying, and all students were engaged in the discussion. In her post-observation reflections of this event, Isabella felt that she had moved toward accomplishing some of her goals in establishing a classroom community that could handle class discussions, but they all still had a ways to go. She framed the day’s discussion as a clarion call to the students. Her students now realized that she was serious about her teaching and their learning and that while she wanted the class to be fun and would work hard at developing a curriculum and activities that would be enjoyable and educative, there would still be limits (Post Observation, 10/8/96, p. 3-5). Although Isabella felt good about this discussion and recognized the necessity for reinforcing the rules during future discussions, she basically designed instruction absent of whole group discussions throughout the rest of the unit. In fact, as seen previously with the Stranger in the Village paragraph activity, she frequently developed ways of limiting or even eliminating entirely whole group discussion. Isabella continued to struggle with this issue throughout her lead teaching, and Unit Three would pose another challenge to 165 Isabella’s classroom control (general pedagogical knowledge)--the ability to facilitate students’ work when a small group activity required them to go off in a variety of different directions. Isabella, The Curriculum, and Unit Two As demonstrated throughout this chapter, the Pacesetter curriculum clearly presented a great deal of frustration for Isabella as she began her lead teaching experience. Demands of the curriculum challenged both Isabella’s subject matter knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge without providing much in terms of support. As pointed out earlier, the Teacher’s Guide provided little of value to help a teacher unfamiliar with Gabriel Garcia Marquez’s literature and/or magic realism. No biographical or historical information was provided for Marquez although the materials make it clear that such information would be useful for students to know. What little information was included about magic realism did not apply to the stories suggested for the unit. Although Isabella attempted to acquire this information from other sources, she did not have time to fully construct knowledge for herself, thereby making it extremely difficult for her to plan and implement effective instruction. Similarly, at the very heart of the Pacesetter curriculum was discussion. As a preservice teacher beginning her lead teaching, Isabella had, justifiably, concerns about classroom management especially during whole class discussions. Compounded by her insecurity in terms of the texts, the necessity to use discussion in order to implement the curriculum effectively raised the 166 stakes for Isabella. Her self-perceived inability to handle discussions increased her frustration with the curriculum, her students, and herself as a teacher. For Isabella, the curriculum seemed to act as a fickle resource. At times, it provided her with a direction, a starting point in her planning, and enough guidance to successfully implement instruction. At other times, it left her high and dry without the information and guidance that she needed in order to plan and teach effectively. As Isabella struggled to achieve strategic control of her planning and teaching, the curriculum served mostly as a complication. As Isabella began to attempt to construct her own teaching practice, her interactions with the curriculum were unsatisfactory to say the least. Learning to Teach and Issues of Ownership Isabella’s planning and teaching in Unit Two exhibited several dimensions and levels of leaning to teach. First, she demonstrated her subject matter knowledge (elements of a strong paragraph) and pedagogical content knowledge of writing (ability to scaffold material) in her construction of curriculum that would enable her students to successfully complete the common assessments for the unit. Isabella also demonstrated her lack of subject matter knowledge (ability to move to an interpretive level; literary device of magic realism; biographical, cultural, political knowledge of the author) with the Marquez’ stories and magic realism. When she added to her subject matter knowledge in this area by Ieaming more about magic realism and the political realities of Marquez’ life, her tentative understanding was not sufficient to enable her to plan and 167 implement instruction that would help her students fully discover themes woven throughout the curriculum. Difficulties with general pedagogical knowledge also emerged as problems with classroom management as evidenced in the episode early in her lead teaching concerning class discussions. These problems clearly influenced her planning decisions. Isabella’s reflections on this unit would show her own assessment of Unit Two. Overall, she was pleased with her planning and teaching of writing. “I really liked my introductory activity [the Stranger in the Village paragraph activity] . . . and I came up with that three column way of having them look at the stories and essays as a model for their writing . . . and I thought that was really good” (Reflective Interview, 4/28/97, p. 2). Isabella’s final comment on the Gabriel Garcia Marquez material, “They were wonderful short stories that I’m really glad not only did I read but had the chance to expose others too” (Reflective Interview, 5/21/97, p. 28), reveals that, while she doesn’t explicitly recognize the discrepancy, she didn’t meet her goal of having students actively engaging with and discussing literature by “exposing” them to the short stories. This, in combination with Isabella’s difficulties with discussion, may have contributed to her feeling little ownership of her teaching in Unit Two and may have left her feeling very much a fraud as a teacher. Since she was unable in many respects to attain the ideals she set for herself in her planning and teaching, she may not have considered herself an authentic teacher. Instead, she may have felt herself an instrument of the curriculum. As one of the opening quotes to this chapter revealed, Isabella struggled to find her place as 168 a teacher in working with the curriculum. Until Isabella defined for herself who was in control of the planning and teaching-her or the curriculum--she may not have seen herself as a “real teacher.” This struggle seems reflected in Isabella’s final analyses of her Unit Two planning and teaching: “I was having difficulty kind of making it mine” (Reflections, 4/28/97, p. 4). 169 CHAPTER FIVE UNDERSTANDING THE STORY: PARALYZED BY THE POSSIBILITIES I was doing all the work. I was saying these are the things I think are important about this novel. Do you know them? Have you been reading? Instead of letting them through discussion think about what’s important about the novel and kind of listening to each other which is ideally howl want my teaching and my classes to be--where what we do in class comes out of students and not necessarily me, what I think is important about this piece of work. I mean there are going to be some things that I think are important and that I will make sure get touched on but sometimes I want to see if maybe they will get to those things on their own, or maybe just one student and he brings it out or she brings it out to the rest of the class. And it becomes a more authentic exchange of ideas. I don’t think Their E yes was anywhere like that at all. Reflective Interview, 4/28/97 I was still having a hard time being able to adapt. Seeing the Pacesetter curriculum as something that I could make my own. Transform. Not necessarily transform into something completely different, but make it mine. Reflective Interview, 4/28/97 Isabella’s Ideals for Unit Three A major purpose for teaching literature, according to Isabella, involved opening students’ eyes to the world outside their immediate surroundings and to alternative perspectives and opinions (Reflective Interview, 4/28/97, pp. 9- 10). Isabella felt that teaching multicultural works such as Their Eyes were Watshing God was particularly important to do in schools such as Miller with its predominantly racially homogenous (Caucasian) culture (Reflective Interview, 4/28/97). (Refer to Appendix A for a graphic representation of the literature used by Isabella in Unit 3.) As she indicated by the first quote presented above, while Isabella wanted her students to actively construct interpretations and to freely exchange ideas and opinions about the themes revealed in the novel, she did not feel that she met those goals in Unit Three. 170 Classroom management would continue to represent a dilemma for Isabella in Unit Three. In this unit, however, the problems were more prominent in terms of Isabella’s ability to simultaneously manage instruction involving two different activities which requires an advanced level of general pedagogical knowledge. She also struggled with ways in which to integrate a historical investigation with the study of a specific novel which requires a greater degree of pedagogical content knowledge and pedagogical reasoning. Compared to her knowledge of the Marquez stories, Isabella clearly operated from a stronger subject matter base. This base included knowledge of the novel, ability to construct multiple interpretations, and knowledge of relevant connected material such as the Harlem Renaissance, biographical and autobiographical information about the author, and knowledge of ancillary texts. Still, problems bubbled up when she tried to make decisions among numerous alternatives (themes and activities) and when she tried to successfully craft a pathway which would enable the achievement of unit objectives--both hers and Pacesetters. Even with her strong subject matter knowledge, Isabella’s sense of ownership of her teaching in Unit Three would be small. Although her mastery of the text provided some measure of ownership, she would continue to struggle to make the planning and teaching “hers.” As shown in the second opening quote, her reflections of her planning and teaching for Unit Three would be colored by her self-perceived inability to take strategic control of the curriculum. Yet, even with the difficulties Isabella experienced and her general feelings of lack of ownership, something extremely important would, in her words, “click” for 171 her by the end of Unit Three which would contribute to her feeling less like a fraud and more like a ”real teacher.” This epiphany would reflect Isabella’s transition from being a procedural knower to a constructivist knower (Belenky, et al., 1986). Isabella’s Control of the Text Compared to her previous unit, Isabella found more success in making sense of the primary text for Unit Three, Their Eyes were Watching God. Unlike her struggles with the Gabriel Garcia Marquez stories, Isabella was able to access and make meaning from Their Eyes were Watching Ggg on her own. She was able to move beyond comprehending the plot of the novel to develop a coherent interpretation, and she could analyze other interpretations and historical/biographical information against her own understanding of the novel, something she was unable to do with the Marquez short stories. Written by Zora Neale Hurston and published in 1937, Their Eyes were Watching God is a novel about the life of its major character, a black woman in central Florida named Janie Crawford. The story is one in which Janie chronicles her life experiences to her friend Pheoby. Janie tells of her three marriages, the places she has lived, and the roles she has assumed at different times in her life. The story is about Janie’s journey from self-denial to self- realization and eventual selfhood and independence. A variety of language dialects are found in the novel, most prominently, the rural, southern Black vernacular used by the main character and narrator, Janie. 172 4 Isabella was able to entertain a variety of interpretations of this novel. For example, early in the planning process, Isabella and I had a conversation in which we discussed various approaches into the novel. I suggested that with this re-reading of the novel, what I chose to pay attention to changed. Rather than focusing on the novel as an “African-American book,” I saw it more as a book with women’s issues at the heart of it. In this reading what struck me as important wasn’t so much the topic of blackness but rather the theme of finding a voice as a female in a primarily male-dominated society. Isabella felt that the book was actually about both topics, although she suggested that, “The whole focus is the black incorporated common life in that structure” (Planning 10/29/96, p. 3). Isabella agreed that . .there are a lot of female issues that are very prevalent [in the novel], but I think it’s not one or the other. It can’t be I don’t think” (Planning, 10/29/96, p. 4). Isabella was also cognizant of various lines of literary criticism about the book such as a feminist or African-American interpretation, but felt that “. . . Zora [Neale Hurston] doesn’t have any control over who decides to get interested in this book and do criticism on it. Or what they decide to see in it” (Planning, 10/29/96, p. 3). With her more substantial understanding of the subject matter in this unit (the novel), an understanding that went beyond mere comprehension of the plot to the interpretative level, Isabella could more readily consider implications for teaching the novel. She could take a critical step toward transforming her understanding of the novel into representations that would help her students construct meaning for themselves--a major goal for Isabella in her teaching. 173 While Isabella saw the different interpretations I was making and agreed that they were justifiable interpretations, she drew on her knowledge of her students and expressed concern “about going at it from the female perspective” (Planning, 10/29/97, p. 4). As she put it, “A lot of the girls would probably be able to relate, but I could picture a lot of the guys, I’m thinking of Alex in particular, as being really resistant” (Planning, 10/29/97, p. 4). She also didn’t want to “subjugate the African American issues and make it more female considering that the only three blacks in [the Pacesetter] class are males” (Planning, 10/29/07, pp. 4-5). Isabella’s overriding objective as she planned her instruction for this unit was to “create avenues for everybody” (Planning, 10/29/97, p. 5). By this, Isabella seemed to mean that she wanted to construct curriculum that would invite all of her students to have enjoyable, meaningful experiences with the text-«another major goal for her teaching. Isabella’s understanding of the text enabled her to move quickly to considering what she wanted to do with the text with her students. Her primary frustration with planning for Their Eyss were Wstshing ng had more to do with seeing too many possibilities. With this text, Isabella’s big problem was revealed in the classic teacher question she asked, “How do I decide what’s most important? Because there is so much” (Planning, 11/4/96, p. 11). As a way of getting a handle on all the possibilities, Isabella created a concept map or graphic representation for Their Eyes were Watching God. Evident in this graphic representation was Isabella’s ability to look both within and outside the novel. She was able to consider the Harlem Renaissance and 174 its influence on the author and text, other influences on Hurston such as the effects of Hurston’s religious upbringing, her family and community, and Hurston’s influence on later writers. Whereas previously Isabella was stymied by material outside of the Marquez stories, such as historical and biographical considerations, with Their Eyes were Watching God Isabella was able to conceptualize the connections between the different elements she placed on the graphic representation. Yet with this deeper, more complex understanding came frustration about where she should start and what she should include in the unit. As Isabella said, . . the problem is they’re [the different elements identified on the concept map] so interconnected.” Even when puzzled about where to start and how to impose a structure on her approach to the teaching of the novel, Isabella was still in control of her understanding of the novel. She never doubted her ownership of the novel and, unlike the Marquez stories, was able to look toward to questions and challenges her students might raise that could push her own interpretations evenfunhen In addition to demonstrating knowledge of the novel and its historical context, Isabella also exhibited the ability to draw on her knowledge of other literature as she planned the unit. One of the major goals of the Pacesetter curriculum involved students making connections across a variety of texts. As will be shown, Isabella’s planning for Unit Three showcased her ability to draw from her knowledge of a variety of literature and media to piece together a number of different selections of text that supported and advanced students’ 175 f _ work with a theme. In this, Isabella demonstrated a sophisticated level of pedagogical content knowledge by weaving together her subject matter knowledge with her knowledge of the curriculum and her students to create a coherent pathway of instruction. As discussed in the previous chapter, Isabella’s lack of subject matter knowledge, in combination with her lack of confidence as a teacher, may have resulted in her experiencing planning conversations about the stories as “tutorials” held to teach her what she didn’t know. For the most part, Isabella did not participate in the Unit Two conversations as a colleague, a teacher. Rather, she participated as a student. With Their Eyes were Watching_C‘Lod, Isabella’s ability to access and interpret the text seemed to enable her to operate more from a collegial stance. For example, during a preliminary planning conference, Isabella began by immediately making decisions concerning the use of supplemental materials, in particular a video entitled My Name is Zora. In reviewing the teacher's materials with her at the beginning of the conversation, I asked if she had watched the video and if she was thinking about using it to introduce the unit as suggested by the curriculum developers (Planning, 10/29/96, p. 1). Isabella responded: I could see that would be a cool introductory thing but in a way I kind of want to save it [the video] for at least a day or two into the unit after they’ve already done some thinking, maybe even read the first couple pages of the first chapter or something. Then read something by somebody else about Zora and then go into the video. Because then they’ll have something to bring to the video which I think would make it more meaningful. (Planning, 10/29/98, P- 1) 176 Isabella was unable to make such decisions in her planning of the Marquez stories because she did not have sufficient subject matter knowledge to enable her to develop pedagogical reasoning. In addition to enabling her to see how ancillary material might best be used in her planning, Isabella’s greater subject matter knowledge gave her greater strategic control in making decisions about what direction to take with the novel. Isabella was also able to consider potential pathways and their consequences for her specific students. Isabella began her planning by considering ways in which to introduce the novel. The Pacesetter curriculum suggested a wide variety of ancillary texts that “add multiple dimensions to the inquiry surrounding the primary text” (Teacher’s Guide. p. Ill-8). Each of the suggested ancillary texts connected to one or more of the three major ‘themes’ they had identified for the novel: identity, escape to freedom and reclaiming language (Teacher’s Guids, III-8). To introduce the theme of Janie’s evolving self-identity, the curriculum suggested that teachers might use Harriet Jacobs’ Incidents from the Life of a Slave Girl or Walt Whitman’s poem, “There was a Child went Forth.” To connect with the theme of escape to freedom, the flight from Egypt depicted in the Bible and stories of Harriet Tubman and the underground railroad were suggested. Ancillary texts noted for dealing with the language of the novel included Stowe’s use of slave vernacular in Uncle Tom’s_Cab£1, excerpts of Jim’s speech in Wm and autobiographical sketches such as selections from Dust Tracks on a Road and I Love Myself when I am Laughing (Teacher’s Guide, pp. lII-8-9). 177 Many of the suggestions provided actually attended to multiple dimensions curriculum developers anticipated emerging in the unit. Richard Wright’s review of the novel was suggested to further illuminate the historical context of the novel as part of a generation of writers emerging from the Harlem Renaissance and to point out the controversial nature of Hurston’s use of black English vernacular. To further strengthen the study of the historical context, teachers might also choose to introduce works from other writers of the Harlem Renaissance such as Langston Hughes (whose poem, “Mother to Son” was included in the materials provided to teachers) and music and painting from African American artists of the time (Teacher’s Guide, pp. Ill-9-10). Isabella’s first attempt at planning the unit was a bit complicated by her unfamiliarity with the word “ancillary,” a word used frequently in the Pacesetter curriculum. At one of our first planning conferences, Isabella mentioned that she had meant to look the word up, but hadn’t found time (Planning, 10/31/96, p. 4). When I explained what the word meant to her, however, she quickly began to see possibilities for bringing in supplementary literature to support and develop students’ work with the primary novel. In the preliminary planning conference, Isabella made several suggestions of ancillary texts not suggested by the Pacesetter materials which she felt could extend thematic connections with the novel, such as You Just Don’t Understand and Men are from Mars and Women are from Venus. While Isabella’s subject matter knowledge was definitely more evident in this unit in that she was more familiar with and understood both the text 178 suggested for the unit and other texts she could draw into the unit, she still experienced difficulties in weaving the texts and activities together into a productive unit of instruction. Problems with Pedagogical Content Knowledge Even with Isabella’s mastery of the novel and her thoughtful analyses of possible pathways for her students into the novel, Isabella did not have full strategic control of the curriculum. Isabella experienced difficulties in planning instruction that would help students achieve her objectives. In stark contrast to her problems with entry into the Marquez stories, Isabella found too many avenues into the story. She was able to identify multiple themes and aspects of Hurston’s novel all of which would move her students toward achieving the Pacesetter goals for the unit. These goals included: - understand the connection between language and character in a novel; 0 identify and analyze a variety of voices within a single work in order to 1) recognize the cultural influences on those voices, including the differences that occur even within cultures; 2) understand such features of a novel as point of view, scene, and manipulations of chronology in the plot, and the depiction of characters’ voices in monologue, dialogue, or interior narration; 3) link the novel to other works and to students’ own expenences - analyze historical/social/cultural contexts for literary works; 179 - Critique their own and others’ use of language. (Teacher’s Grids, p. III-3) In response to Isabella’s complaint that she didn’t know where to start, Rachel suggested that she spend time over the weekend creating a concept map or graphic representation of the possible approaches to the novel Isabella was considering (Planning, 10/31/96, p. 26). In explaining her concept map to me the following Monday, Isabella initially thought she would begin the unit by attending to issues of language use such as dialect, metaphors and similes, and the literary technique of dialogue and narration which would begin to address the first, second, and last goals. As our conversation continued, she considered beginning with a biographical sketch of Zora Neale Hurston including some preliminary background information concerning the Harlem Renaissance which would have more directly attended to the third goal. Finally, she considered the themes that Pacesetter suggested-identity, escape to freedom, and reclaiming language (Planning, 11/4/96, pp. 1-15). When Isabella finally settled on using the theme of relationships, a suggestion made by Rachel, she initially experienced difficulties making several of the Pacesetter-suggested activities fit with the theme she had selected. For example, Isabella had decided to begin the unit by having her students do a freewrite in response to the first two paragraphs of the novel (Lesson Plans, 11/5/96), an activity suggested by the Pacesetter curriculum. As a whole class students would examine the first two paragraphs (which focus on ships on the horizon as representative of men’s dreams and women’s dreams) presented on 180 an overhead. They would then do a five minute freewrite on what they understood the first two paragraphs to mean. But Isabella was unsure about how that would connect with the theme of relationships: When we were talking yesterday I understood perfectly how we were going to get to the relationship aspect through this. But when I got home and I was writing it up and I was trying to think about the questions, it didn’t make sense to me anymore. I couldn’t remember how this . . . related at all. When I got home I couldn’t see where the relationship part fit together. (Planning, 11/5/96, p. 2). Although Isabella had selected the theme, she did not seem to have strategic control of it--it wasn’t really hers. At that point it was actually more Rachel’s. The previous day Rachel had described how she had used the relationship theme in the past.1 From that discussion Isabella thought she understood how to use the theme to structure her planning and teaching, but discovered that when she attempted to put it together that evening, she clearly did not see how the pieces would fit. She couldn’t see how the relationship theme fit or connected with the specific activity she had chosen to use to introduce the novel. Isabella’s lack of pedagogical reasoning, her inability to conceptualize how to break down her understanding of the chosen overarching theme for her students and tie it together through a variety of instructional strategies and activities, resulted in a dilemma for Isabella. ‘ Rachel began to fade a bit from Isabella’s planning in this unit. While she continued to make suggestions and ask questions during the planning process, she participated more frequently as an observer of Isabella’s teaching who would provide feedback during debriefing sessions after the observation. 181 After further discussion, Isabella’s understanding became more concrete: Part of my problem with yesterday was I didn’t see how it (the freewrite) fit into the relationships thing. . . . I could see how I felt it was important to look at the differences between men and women and then think about them as far as building relationships and how . . .those differences play out in relationships. Isabella’s understanding of the freewrite’s connection to the overarching theme of relationships made sense to her as we discussed the possible ways of approaching the beginning of the novel. However, once she tried to move beyond the horizon freewrite and the differences between men and women, she was unclear about how to tie it back into the theme of relationships and the next part of the novel students would encounter. So I was thinking about it and there’s like two things I see. . . . Janie has this mission or quest that she’s on . . . she sees a dream for herself and she’s working her way to it. . . . Through that she has relationships with other people and her differences or female/male differences influence those relationships. Like for instance her grandmother pressured her to get married. So that was a relationship between female and female. And so she backed herself into another relationship, a male/female relationship, which didn’t work out because she had her dreams going this way and he had his dreams out on the horizon. He was just waiting for them to come in. (Planning, 11/6/96, p. 1) Isabella’s comment reflects her mastery of the text at an interpretive level. She understood Janie’s words and actions to mean something important about what Hurston was attempting to reveal about relationships between men and women. This understanding enabled her, with further thought, to work out the connections between the horizon freewrite activity, the overarching theme of relationships, and what she would do next with the novel. She drew on 182 pedagogical content knowledge and used pedagogical reasoning in order to plan coherent instruction. Prior to this, Isabella had difficulty in moving from the ideas of the different dreams men and women had as represented in the first two paragraphs of the novel to the overarching theme of relationships. While her introductory activity was, in itself, a perfectly acceptable way to introduce the novel, until Isabella made concrete her understanding of the connection between the content of the first two paragraphs and the theme of relationships, the activity stood alone. With her clearer understanding of the connections, Isabella was able to utilize pedagogical reasoning to weave together separate activities using as thread the theme of relationships. Isabella was able to draw on a number of ancillary texts--some suggested by the Pacesetter curriculum, some suggested by Rachel, and some she thought of herself--to make the students’ introduction to the novel a coherent whole. After the horizon freewrite, Isabella had students read the essay “Girl” by Jamaica Kincaid and the poem “Mother to Son” by Langston Hughes as well as Polonius’ speech to his son, Laertes, from Shakespeare’s Liam to compare and contrast the types of relationships portrayed in each of the texts. Through her students’ examination of the types of advice each of the children in the three texts received from parents, Isabella was able to lay important groundwork concerning the aspirations of men and women. Isabella then moved into Wordsworth’s “There was a Child went Forth,” Alice Walker’s dedication in I Love Myself When I am Laughing, and Hurston’s “How it Feels to 183 be Colored Me” to consider how individuals are influenced in significant ways by others. Isabella’s subject matter knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge thus enabled her to weave together a set of experiences around texts that were likely to successfully move her students toward conceptual understanding and accomplishment of her objectives for the unit. But even given this stronger start to the unit in which she selected what to take and what to discard from the Pacesetter suggestions and her ability to articulate her reasons for her choices to Rachel on the basis of student outcomes, Isabella was unable to sustain that ownership through the majority of the novel. In particular, Isabella struggled with planning ways in which to have students read and interact around what they read in the novel while simultaneously having them complete the major task required by the curriculum, the historical investigation of the Harlem Renaissance. Successfully pulling these two activities together required a very sophisticated type of pedagogical reasoning, something even experienced teachers might struggle to accomplish. Isabella lacked this degree of pedagogical reasoning at this point in her teaching. The historical investigation activity was designed by Pacesetter to provide students with an opportunity to do substantive research on an aspect of the Harlem Renaissance which would ideally enhance their understanding of Thsir Eyss wsre Watching God and/or Zora Neale Hurston. The Pacesetter Teacher’s Guide recommended that the historical investigation begin at the end of the first week of work with the novel (p. Ill-19). Isabella followed this 184 suggestion on the eighth day of her unit by using her concept map as a starting point for brainstorming topic ideas for research. The brainstormed topics fell under the broad headings of “Art/Music,” “History of the Harlem Renaissance,” “Author,” and “Themes of the Novel." The difficulty began for Isabella after establishing research topics and grouping students for the historical investigation. In her later reflections about the unit, Isabella identified the major problem she experienced with attempting to negotiate the novel and the historical investigation simultaneously: “I got all screwed up. And I don’t know if I’m just blaming it on the research project or if it happened. I don’t think I was very good at interweaving the reading of the novel and the research. . . . I wanted them to be, you know, one thing, like one thing” (Post-Intemship Interview, 5/21/97, p. 7). Isabella remained uncomfortable with the research piece of the unit and struggled with the day to day planning for that portion of the unit. It was easy in the unit planning phase to block out the two weeks of the unit for the research, but when it came down to how to plan students’ work in the library while simultaneously reading the novel, Isabella basically made reading the novel an independent study. She supplied students with a reading calendar and daily quesfions. Isabella created the pages of discussion questions by primarily taking questions from the Pacesetter Teasher’s Guids and selecting from discussion questions previous interns had used in their teaching. These questions did reflect various interpretive levels, ranging from plot details such as “Describe 185 Janie’s first meeting with Teacake” (Discussion Questions for Chapter 10) to more interpretive or analytical questions such as “How did Janie’s life change immediately after Joe’s death” (Discussion Questions for Chapter 8) to more personal opinion questions such as “During the argument about whether it is nature or caution that keeps man from getting burned on a hot stove, which position did you side with and why” (Discussion Questions for Chapter 6). Toward the end of students’ reading of the novel, some of the quiz questions became even more critically personal such as “Should Janie have forgiven Tea Cake (for beating her)? Why or why not” (Chapters 13-15 Quiz)? Students read the novel at home and during odd snatches of time during class, completed the questions for each day, and submitted their answers to Isabella at the beginning of the hour the next day. She also gave frequent reading quizzes in an attempt to keep students to the reading calendar. Questions on the quizzes were primarily plot questions such as “Identify the following characters in 1-2 sentences: Janie, Nanny, Johnny Taylor, Logan Killicks, and Leafy” (Quiz #1). At the same time students were reading the novel basically on their own, Isabella was trying to manage the implementation of the Harlem Renaissance historical investigation task. She tried to assume strategic control of the project by providing students with a detailed project description outlining students’ responsibilities as individuals and group members. But as they actually began the historical investigation, spending time in the library and primarily reading the novel at home, she rapidly lost control of the curriculum. 186 Isabella’s pedagogical reasoning was not sufficient to enable her to provide support for students to juggle the researching for the historical investigations with allocating time for discussions and classroom interactions around what students were reading. Although Isabella had discussed her preliminary plans with both Rachel and myself, when. it got down to planning the day-to-day activities that would keep students focused, yet also enable them to see connections between the activities, Isabella struggled. For example, in order for students to do a good job with the historical investigation, they needed to focus on the aspect of the Harlem Renaissance which they were researching. Yet, in order for the historical investigation to be useful, students also needed to be able to see how what they were researching connected to what they were reading in the novel. Isabella was unable to plan ways to help students connect the background knowledge they were accumulating through the historical investigations with their reading of the novel. As she lamented in a journal entry, “The research project. It’s driving me crazy. What if it doesn’t all work out?” (Journal Entry, 11/18/96, p. 1)? Negotiating the historical investigation with the reading of the novel was difficult for Isabella in that she felt for the unit to progress in a timely manner, students also needed to move forward in their reading of the novel. Isabella did not want the two activities to become discrete or separate endeavors. She did not want to put the reading of the novel on hold while students completed the historical investigation. 187 Unfortunately, her level of pedagogical reasoning was insufficient to allow her to create a pathway which would support the successful completion of simultaneous activities. It is also interesting to note that Isabella seemed unable to define the problem to enable her to seek assistance from her mentor or field instructor. While she clearly experienced frustration with what was happening in her planning and teaching, she was so busy trying to construct a pathway that she couldn’t step outside of the activities to figure out what help she needed from Rachel or myself. To some extent, Isabella’s feelings of losing strategic control were exacerbated by the fact that, per a Pacesetter suggestion, students were allowed to choose their own topics from a brainstormed list developed by the class. Four days later, Isabella’s journal2 revealed her growing frustration, The research continues. I’m so confused. I just found out what everyone’s topic is. . . . I still feel like I want to push some of the students into other topics. Kevin, for instance, is trying to report on the connections between music then and now. I don’t even know how I’d begin to get him to narrow it down or switch but he is so attached to his idea. Kellie still isn’t sure, but says it will have something to do with jazz that no one else is doing. JD and Walter are doing something on Frederick Douglas and the “Escape to Freedom” theme, but they haven’t looked up a resource yet. Toni and Marilyn are doing something with folktale/oral storytelling, but they are having a hard time finding any resources. (Journal Entry, 11/21/96, p. 4) Isabella was clearly unable to orchestrate the Pacesetter task that sent her 2 Although Isabella kept a fairly regular journal during her internship, she chose not to share the majority of the journal with me. When I attended NCTE in November, however, Isabella provided me with a copy of the journal entries she made during that period in order to “show” me how things went while I was gone. 188 students off in multiple directions. And, although the topics were brainstormed by the class and would supposedly connect in recognizable ways to Their Eyes wers Watching God, Isabella was already worrying about whether the presentations students would eventually give would fulfill the dual Pacesetter objectives of the historical investigation: 1) deepen students’ understanding of the novel by providing historical, social and cultural contexts; and 2) hone students’ abilities to conduct research, and report their findings in writing and h oral presentations (Journal Entry, 11/21/96, p. 1). In the meantime, Isabella had lost touch with what her students were doing with the novel. . . . l have got to really do some thinking about making the groups and planning for the presentations and try to keep us up to speed on the novel! I feel kind of cut off from the novel right now. I just hope they are keeping up with the reading! (Journal Entry, 11/21/96) Even with the flood of completed sheets of discussion questions and the frequent quizzes, Isabella did not know what sense students were making of the novel. Student answers tended to be brief and perfunctory, and Isabella was so overwhelmed with reading twenty-six sets of answers each evening that her reading tended to be cursory (Reflective Interview, 4/28/97, p. 6). Even more importantly, students never had the opportunity to share their responses or discuss the novel with her or with each other. Students finished reading the book at approximately the same time the historical investigation research time ended and their presentations began. This occurred just prior to 189 the final exams which signaled the end of the first semester. “There just wasn’t enough time” according to Isabella and she “just couldn’t figure out how to handle having the students read the novel on their own at home while we were conducting the Harlem Renaissance research during classtime” (Reflective Interview, 5/21/97, p. 8). Five months later, as the opening quote to this chapter revealed, Isabella was troubled by what she felt she had “bought into” by providing discussion questions each evening. She recognized that the discussion questions represented much more work on her part than on her students. Not only that, but she felt that she shortchanged her students’ opportunities to interact meaningfully with the text, a philosophical goal she had for teaching literature. A week before the completion of the unit, while students were making their presentations, Isabella was obviously regretting the lack of discussion about the novel. As the following exchange between Isabella and Rachel illustrates, there was clearly a sense of recognizing lost opportunities. Isabella: . . . Ifeel like I need to talk about the book. Rachel: Gee, why? Isabella: Cause I haven’t done so. Rachel: Yeah. Isabella: I think I have been doing a good job when they do the presentations adding on and getting at things in the novel and how they connect. Clarifying those connections. Cause sometimes they get a good connection, but they’re not real sure or they almost get it but not quite. You know what I mean? 190 Rachel: And had we talked about the novel in class, they might have gotten it, huh? Isabella: Yeah. (Planning, 12/12/96, pp. 5-6) Isabella was clearly uncomfortable with what she saw reflected in her teaching of the novel. She felt that, in important ways, she was betraying her beliefs about what it meant to teach literature to high school students. Because Isabella believed that one of the primary purposes for teaching literature was to provide an arena in which students could negotiate meanings individually and with each other, the lack of discussions around Their Eyes were Watching God troubled her a great deal. Isabella’s reflections on her Unit Three teaching continued to reveal her intense dissatisfaction with the way her planning and teaching had gone. I did not like at all what happened with their research projects. And I lost touch with the book and I totally did that whole questions every night for them to answer and I did too many questions for them to answer every night. Too many for me to grade. And it just became real tedious for the students. (Reflective Interview, 4/28/97, p. 6) When asked why that happened, Isabella explained, Because I wasn’t sure what else to do. I felt the questions were because I needed to know where they were at as far as what’s going on in the book but I just didn’t have any discussions about the novel until we finished it. Like we had a couple like the first few chapters and then that was it until the end. And I didn’t like that. (Reflective Interview, 4/28/97, p. 6) Isabella needed to know what sense her students were making of the novel. She also needed to ensure that students were keeping up with the reading. Whereas she might have normally been able to determine these things through conversations about the novel, because students were spending their time on 191 the historical investigation in the library, she was unable to figure out a way to have classroom discussion. Even with her relatively strong subject matter knowledge, Isabella’s pedagogical content knowledge was not strong enough to enable her to plan and carry out instruction at such a sophisticated level. The Pragmatics of Managing Discussion . . . Continued Isabella’s difficulties with classroom discussions continued in Unit Three. As seen above, Isabella struggled with the practical problem of students reading a novel while simultaneously engaging in the historical investigation activity. She “just couldn’t figure out how to handle having the students read the novel on their own at home while . . . conducting the Harlem Renaissance research during class time” (Reflective Interview, 5/21/97, p. 8). While certainly a justifiable dilemma, It is striking that in resolving the problem in the way in which Isabella did, she basically avoided having discussions entirely, a pedagogical tool that she had already experienced difficulties with in Unit Two. What few discussions Isabella conducted occurred early in the unit--prior to the historical investigation--or were confined to brief “thought” questions that she would throw out to students prior to their leaving for the library or moving into groups to continue their historical investigation work. In a Post-Intemship interview, Isabella explained that the daily questions represented her strategy for ensuring that students were staying on the reading schedule and to check on student understanding. But she was clearly dissatisfied with this both during the actual implementation of the unit and in her reflection. Isabella attributed 192 her difficulties with managing classroom discussion as a contributing factor to her developing the daily questions routine. I was having a hard time with discussion in there and I was afraid because discipline was a really hard thing to do within that particular class. And so I didn’t make a conscious decision about I’m not going to have discussions because they can’t behave, but unconsciously or subconsciously that decision happened and I just didn’t have any more discussions about the novel until we finished it. Like we had a couple around the first few chapters and then that was it until the end. And I didn’t like that. (Reflective Interview, 4/28/97, p. 6) Isabella’s difficulties with classroom management in combination with her inability to develop a coherent way to successfully weave the study of the novel with the historical investigation resulted in very minimal classroom discussion of the text. It is worth noting that Isabella did attempt one other activity during this unit that demanded a great deal of discussion in order for the activity to be successful. As suggested by the Pacesetter curriculum materials, a paralogue activity involved students creating a chart with “Text” written in the left column and “Connections” written in the right column. In the left hand column, students noted words and phrases from the novel that stood out for them in terms of “sound, beauty, or complexity” (Teacher’s Guide. p. Ill-8). Students then responded in the right column by first interpreting the image evoked by the words or phrase and then “making connections to their personal views of experience or to other works they have read” (Teacher’s Guide, p. III-8). According to the curriculum developers, “some teachers make this exercise a communal experience by passing around one paralogue with five or six right- 193 hand columns to different students. The students can then comment to each other as well as about the text” (Teacher’s Guide. p. Ill-8). Isabella chose to modify this activity to serve different purposes, one of the few times up to this point in Isabella’s teaching that she adapted or modified a suggested activity in response to her students’ learning needs. Whereas the intent of the original activity seemed to be to direct students’ attention to the author’s use of evocative language and encourage students to make connections between the imagery in the novel and their own experiences, Isabella’s modification of the activity seemed designed to address more directly students’ difficulty with the language itself. Isabella was hearing a lot of grumbling from her students about their difficulty with understanding the southern Black English dialect used in the novel. This was especially evident with the first chapters Isabella assigned as homework while students were using class time in the library working on the historical investigation. Chapters 5-10 represented the first chapters assigned to students to read on their own. As Isabella explained it: So I thought, they’re having a problem with the language and if I choose conversational excerpts from each of the chapters and assign different groups different parts and have them translate it they’re getting help with the language that they need. They’re Ieaming strategies to use to translate the language to help them understand it better. (Planning, 11/26/96, p. 1) Isabella designed the activity in a way that asked students to translate one “chunk of text into ‘Standard English’ (the kind that you see in newspapers, magazines, textbooks, essays, etc.)” (Isabella’s Paralogue Assignment, 11/25/96, p. 1). Isabella intended that students work in groups of 2 or 3 on their 194 selection. Students would then present their translation to the rest of the class. By breaking down the text in this manner, Isabella hoped that students would benefit from hearing the “difficult” parts of Chapters 5 through 10 translated by each other. Isabella spent an inordinate amount of time developing the paralogue activity. As she lamented, “. . . it took me eight hours to get it [the 5 chapters of the novel] into thirteen groups and each group had two pages worth of text to translate” (Planning, 11/26/96, p. 3). Isabella combed through the five chapters for areas of dialogue that seemed to have posed problems for her students. She then wrote that dialogue into the “Text” column of the chart, leaving the “Translation” column blank for students to complete. Each group was given approximately two pages of Isabella’s chunked dialogue to translate. Groups would then present their translation to the class. Since Isabella had arranged the group presentations in chronological order of the novel, she thought that by listening to each of the presentations, students would have a better understanding of what occurred in Chapters 5-10. But classroom management difficulties compounded by inadequate pedagogical reasoning made this activity less than effective. Isabella was unable to use the tool (the paralogue activity) in a way that led to greater student understanding. Isabella explained that after translating the text, . . . if each person reads what they wrote then we’ll be able to keep up with what happened in the novel last week. Well, you know how that probably went in this class! Not so good because you know Wendy and Heather are reading their thing that they translated. Nobody’s listening. Derrick and Casey are talking. JD and Walter are talking. Alex is talking with Greg. Jason Rogers is 195 talking with Lance. Everybody’s talking their own little thing and I’m the only one who’s hearing what Heather and Wendy have to say. (Planning, 11/26/96, pp. 1-2) Isabella clearly attributed part of the problem to her inability to control the classroom, to keep students quiet and attentive while classmates presented their work. But Isabella also sensed that something in the way she initially designed the activity mitigated against its success. In analyzing what went wrong with the activity, Isabella decided that in having students complete the assignment she should have made it a necessity for students to return to the actual text in order to successfully translate the dialogue. “I didn’t tell them to get out their books and find out, okay I gave you this part of chapter six. They just sat there and translated it literally and they didn’t look in the book to see the context out of which I took the excerpts and that was a wrong mistake” (Planning, 11/26/96, p. 2). Isabella also mentioned that she hadn’t made it a point to tell students to follow along in their books while a group presented a translation. “I didn’t tell them to get out their books and follow along” (Planning, 11/26/96, p. 2). Interestingly, I was unaware of Isabella’s plans to use a modified paralogue activity. Her planning and use of this activity occurred when l was attending the National Council of Teachers of English annual fall conference in Chicago. Apparently, Isabella had also not discussed the activity prior to its implementation with Rachel. This was, perhaps, due to the fact that Rachel’s mother had unexpectedly died, and Rachel was out of the state for several days attending to family business. When Isabella reported her frustrations after 196 Rachel returned, Rachel responded by telling her to . . think about it. Don’t you think it’s kind of boring to sit there and listen to what thirteen other people wrote. And they all read the novel too” (Planning, 11/26/96, p. 2). Since neither Rachel nor I had seen her plans prior to implementation of the paralogue activity, we were unable to raise questions with Isabella which may have triggered her thinking about the potential pitfalls of the activity before using it. However, Isabella’s reflections revealed her increasing ability to analyze her planning and teaching in ways that demonstrated her deepening pedagogical content knowledge and reasoning. Isabella was clearly aware that the strategy by which she chose to address her students’ difficulties with the language was insufficient. She was able to recognize ways in which the strategy might have been tweaked to perhaps have made it a more effective event for her students. Isabella was also cognizant of the implications of Rachel’s suggestion that perhaps this activity, from the beginning, was not a good option for addressing her students’ needs. Yet, it could be argued, Isabella chose to use this particular Pacesetter-suggested activity because she did not have a storehouse or repertoire of strategies and activities of her own to draw upon in addressing the problems her students were encountering with the text. Based on her reflections, Isabella changed the plans for the rest of the presentations. She had students return to the novel and locate the excerpt they translated. She then instructed them to individually answer the following questions in writing: “tell me what chapter it’s from, identify the speakers, tell me 197 what’s going on in your scene, tell me how your scene fits in or relates to the rest of the novel” (Planning, 11/26/96, p. 4). Students then shared this information with their classmates. While the students were apparently more attentive during this version of the activity, Isabella described the whole activity as a failure. The paralogue activity did not serve to move her students toward achieving the primary objective she held for the activity-students becoming more comfortable with the southern Black English dialect and their ability to understand it. The revisions to the activity did help meet her objective to ensure that students understood important plot developments in Chapters 5-10, but it was a laborious, time-consuming way to achieve the objective. In her final words on the activity, Isabella described it in three simple words: “a big flop” (Unit 3 Handouts Debriefing, 4/23/97, p. 1). Detouring from the Pacesetter Pathway: Using Pedagogical Content Knowledge to Begin Constructing Her Own Pathway Although Isabella’s pedagogical reasoning was not sufficient to allow her to successfully weave together study of the novel while simultaneously completing the historical investigation, she learned from this experience. Increased competency in pedagogical content knowledge and pedagogical reasoning became clearly evident in Isabella’s planning and teaching of Unit Four. Prior to beginning Unit Four, however, another event--a final exam-- occurred which may have influenced Isabella’s development of pedagogical reasoning in important ways. 198 The completion of Unit Three coincided with the end of C. E. Miller’s fall semester. As a result, Rachel suggested that Isabella write a test for Unit Three and then fold the common assessment for the unit into a comprehensive final exam. Rachel had, however, serious reservations concerning the common assessment dictated by the curriculum. In addition, as Isabella’s field instructor, I was urging Isabella to think about alternative ways for students to respond to literature rather than the traditional pattern: read the text, discuss the text, and write a five paragraph essay. Consequently, Isabella joined a cooperative effort with Rachel and myself to create a final examination that would comprehensively assess students’ achievement of goals and objectives for Units One through Three. Pacesetter’s common assessment for Unit Three was entitled “Changing Times and Places: Character and its Transformations.” In this task, students were to transport a character from the novel into a different time or place. The time could be in the future and the place might be imaginary. According to the curriculum materials, this would provide students with an opportunity to demonstrate their “understanding of a character and how that character is affected by the time and place in which the novelist has set the novel” (Teacher’s Guide. p. III-33). Students would also be drawing on their imagination and what they had learned about story conventions to create the short story or scene. Rachel strongly disagreed with this assessment. During the first iteration of the Pacesetter curriculum in 1994, Rachel’s intern had tried the common 199 assessment and, as Rachel had reported to me at that time, it had been a dismal failure. Rachel told me that most students took the license to place Janie in a future time period on some imaginary planet, allowing them to create all the “facts” of the time and place that would effect Janie. Not only did the students not do a very good job, according to Rachel, but it also made the assignment difficult to assess. Rachel believed that the curriculum developers hadn’t thought through the assessment completely. It was like okay I could see how it would be able to say, yeah, they understood the character but there was so much more [the students would need to know] to do a really good job of that. They would have to have researched the other time period to make sure that all of that fit or it seemed really trite to just throw her into another time period and go with that. And so that was one thing that I don’t think that they had really thought through. I think that was like, okay, we need a couple of assessments for this unit [so we’ll have students write a story] putting a character in another time period. (Kenandry Interview, 1/6/97, pp. 6-7) Rachel conveyed her concerns to Isabella at some point, because when Isabella and I sat down to plan the wrap up of Unit Three, Isabella explained that they wouldn’t be doing the common assessment . . cause it doesn’t make sense and Rachel says it hasn’t worked before when they tried it” (Planning, 12/5/96, p. 6). Isabella understood Rachel’s concerns, but struggled with creating assessments that would test students’ knowledge of the novel and provide a comprehensive assessment of their work across the semester. I suggested that Isabella use the creation of the cumulative final exam as an opportunity . . . to do some thinking about one of the strengths of the Pacesetter curriculum, according to the creators, is the interconnectedness of the texts . . . what would be really 200 interesting is if you could stretch your thinking to trying to determine if there’s some other way [besides the stranger in the village theme that had dominated discussion for the past five months] to get students to look across the set of texts they’ve worked with for the semester and do something with it. (Planning, 12/5/96, p. 6) Isabella claimed that she was “thinking [about alternatives], but I don’t know any way but exam” (Planning, 12/5/96, p. 7). At this point in our discussion, I asked Isabella to think about an activity she and her classmates were working on for TE 802, a graduate seminar interns completed concurrently with their internship and which I was teaching. As I had explained in TE 802, an area of my own teaching practice which I was trying to develop involved finding ways to evaluate student learning other than through writing. . . . as English teachers it concerns me that the way we deal with our subject matter is we read something and we have students write about it. . . . And it’s like this continuing pattern where we can’t seem to think of anything else to do with a novel other than read it and write about it. And even a research project like this [the historical investigation] to some extent is writing. I’m not saying this is a bad thing. I mean that’s what as English teachers a big part of our job is [teaching writing]. but I think we just need to stretch our thinking about how to work with students around novels that balances the amount of writing we want them to do with some other kinds of activities. (Planning, 12/5/96, pp. 7-8) I wanted Isabella to see the creation of the first semester final exam as a chance to think further about ways in which knowledge in our discipline is represented, both by teachers and students. Through this, I hoped to encourage the development of Isabella’s pedagogical reasoning skills and repertoire of strategies. 201 Isabella was resistant to these ideas. As she stated, . . that’s what English is, man, it’s reading and writing! It’s not a teacher education class. It’s not an art class. It’s Englishl” (Planning, 12/5/96, p. 8). In order to move the planning conference forward, I suggested that she think about developing a final exam that would involve students writing but that wouldn’t look like the traditional five paragraph essay. Precedence for this had been set earlier in the unit, when students had completed a lifeline activity. For this activity, students filled in a lifeline for themselves, charting the important, significant, in some cases life-changing, events which had occurred in their lives. After completing the personal lifeline as an example, students began a lifeline to track important events for Janie throughout the novel. The completion of Janie’s lifeline became part of the assessment for Unit Three. As part of the final exam, I suggested that Isabella think about modeling the exam after an old television program, which I believed had been called “Meeting of the Minds.” Three or four famous people (usually historical figures) or fictional characters sat around a table with a moderator and discussed two or three topics about which they would all hold strong opinions. I had seen, and actually used, this idea in different contexts. I suggested that Isabella have students select one character from each of Unit One and Two and two characters from Unit Three (since the novel represented a large chunk of instructional time in the fall). Then, perhaps as preparation/review for the final exam, students could think about what topics the people they had selected would have in common to discuss. For example, the moderator might have a 202 series of questions to pose about becoming a member of a community to the narrator in “Housekeeping” (Rasheeda Adams), the handsomest drowned man (Gabriel Garcia Marquez), Janie, and Teacake (Their Eyes were Watching Gcfi). Students would respond in ways appropriate to the characters they had selected. The final result could look something like a script of the dialogue in which the characters would engage (Planning, 12/5/96, pp. 11-12). Isabella embraced this idea wholeheartedly. “Wow! That’s a really cool idea. I like that!” (Planning, 12/5/96, p. 12). She also felt that her students would enjoy doing such an activity and that she would enjoy evaluating it much more than an essay exam. Isabella pointed out that “. . . I’ve been through college for four years and that’s all you ever do [essay examinations] so maybe that’s part of why I can’t think of anything else is because that’s all I know" (Planning, 12/5/96, p. 16). While Isabella was convinced of the merits of such an exam, she was concerned about how Rachel would respond. I suggested that she take the weekend to think through her objectives for using this idea and the pragmatic issues, such as who would be in charge of selecting the characters and what topics might be appropriate, before presenting the idea to Rachel. In presenting her idea to Rachel, Isabella clearly articulated how the final exam format would measure student achievement of the major goals for the first three units established by the Pacesetter curriculum. Isabella detailed how the final exam would result in students demonstrating their understanding of . . . voice and how it depends on audience and purpose 203 . . . how a ‘text’ could be studied . . . how texts reflect the speaker’s cultural context as well as the speaker’s individuality . . . make connections among/between texts and real life . . . how language and culture explain different perspectives of ‘otherness.’ (Planning, 12/9/96, p. 2). She pointed out which major goals were not represented in the final exam, such as features of essays and short stories, but explained where student achievement of those goals had been demonstrated thoroughly in previous assessments. Isabella went on to explain how the exam would actually work from the preparation/review stage all the way through the actual two-hour exam period and the evaluation of the exams (Planning, 12/9/96, pp. 2-4). Rachel was extremely receptive to Isabella's ideas. She commended Isabella for the way in which she had crafted an activity that would get her students to a desired outcome--in this case, demonstrating their knowledge and understanding of the semester’s work. “This is good thinking, Isabella, really good work. Great job!” (Planning, 12/9/96, p. 4). Rachel went on to help Isabella tweak the exam to make it more practical in terms of evaluation (i.e., allowing students to collaborate on selecting topics and writing scripts, but individually answering each question for the characters each had selected). She also helped Isabella think through ways in which to break the exam process down so students could prepare for parts of the exam prior to the actual exam date (Planning, 12/9/96, pp. 4-17). Isabella was extremely proud of the final exam she crafted. In her reflections on her teaching, the exam came up a number of times as a pivotal moment in her Ieaming to teach English. As she put it: 204 l was so proud. I am still proud about that final exam. Because there is no way that any essay, multiple choice true/false exam could have measured the kinds of things I was wanting them to Ieam in Pacesetter that first semester as well as I think that actual final exam, how it turned out, measured them. . . And I don’t think it was a piece of cake. . . . They had to work. They had to think. They had to understand certain things in order to do it that we had studied and it was the best way I think I could have measured what they did first semester. And I am so proud of that now. I mean it was mostly your idea, but I’m so proud of what I was able to do with it. (Reflective Interview, 5/21/97, p. 25) Isabella saw the final exam she created as a much better alternative to what the curriculum itself had suggested. She also saw her final exam as pulling together a number of goals and objectives determined by the Pacesetter curriculum, but in a way that gave her ownership of her teaching. She had decided what goals and objectives were most important for her students to demonstrate their achievement of and was able to take a curricular idea, in this case the format for the final exam, and make it hers by clearly connecting the idea to her goals and objectives. Isabella had drawn on the suggestions of others (Rachel and myself), added her own ideas to the activity, and created an activity of which she felt ownership. It was at this point in her teaching that Isabella referenced as the moment at which she realized that she was in strategic control of the curriculum, that it was up to her to decide what to do with the curriculum. Although she recognized that Rachel and I had, from the first, been pushing her to justify her curricular choices based on outcomes for her students rather than because the curriculum suggested it, it wasn’t until the final exam that she clearly saw that it was acceptable for her to deviate completely from the curriculum. 205 I was hearing your voice in the back of my head and Rachel’s voice in the back of my head saying, “Why? What’s your bigger objective?” Questions like that. . . . you guys did a lot of asking me about the whys, the whys, the whys, and with my objective how does it [this activity or strategy] get me there, and I think I got a lot better towards the end [of Unit Three] at talking about those kinds of things. (Reflective Interview, 5/21/97, p. 19) As was demonstrated earlier, Isabella had difficulties using Rachel’s idea of relationships as a focus for her planning of Unit Three. Yet, in the case of the final exam, Isabella was able to take an idea that wasn’t originally hers (the format for the exam) and make it hers. Isabella was able to take her subject matter knowledge and my suggestion of a format for the exam and create an assessment instrument of which she felt strategic control. Through this development of pedagogical content knowledge, Isabella felt more ownership of the final exam; and, in fact, blazed her own pathway for the end of the unit. In addition, unlike the historical investigation, Isabella was able to weave multiple objectives and activities together into a coherent event for her students demonstrating sophisticated pedagogical reasoning. As will be seen, Isabella would demonstrate her more extensive pedagogical content knowledge and reasoning through her more active modifications of the curriculum and her teaching in Unit Four. Isabella, The Curriculum, and Unit Three Unit Three represented both highs and lows for Isabella especially in terms of her interactions with the Pacesetter curriculum. In sharp contrast to the Marquez stories, the Teacher’s Guids provided a great deal more information about the text suggested, in this case Their Eyes were Watchingm. It 206 seemed particularly helpful in identifying and outlining the variety of themes that could be addressed through the text and offering suggestions for ancillary texts to support whichever theme the teacher chose to emphasize. Whereas with the Marquez stories little useful information was provided on an aspect of the text that held the potential to cause difficulties (magic realism), with the Hurston text it raised the issue of possible problems arising from the use of Black English Vernacular in the story. The curriculum did not provide enough guidance, however, for Isabella in helping her plan how to interweave the historical investigation with the reading and discussion of the novel. While proclaiming the importance of doing both, the curriculum made no suggestions about how to logistically implement both strands simultaneously. As has been pointed out, planning for and effectively implementing instruction which juggles two or more activities at the same time requires a fairly sophisticated level of pedagogical reasoning, a level that, as a beginning teacher, Isabella did not have yet. Even with the frustrations Isabella encountered with studying the novel and the historical investigation, something important happened for Isabella in Unit Three. Whereas before, Isabella felt constrained by the curriculum but also reluctant to modify or abandon it, by the end of Unit Three Isabella would make great strides in taking strategic control of the curriculum and her teaching. Something “Clicks” for Isabella Isabella stated early in the planning process her need to make this unit her own: “I want it be mine. I mean, yes, it has to be Pacesetter’s too, but 207 chances are what I’m going to say is important and [will] probably agree [with the Pacesetter curriculum]” (Planning, 11/4/96, p. 2). Unfortunately, although Isabella’s subject matter knowledge was demonstrably stronger in this unit, her pedagogical content knowledge and classroom management skills were unequal to the challenges posed by the curriculum. Even with these dilemmas shading her reflections of Unit Three, something important happened for Isabella during this unit. In Isabella’s words, “something clicked” (Reflective Interview, 5/21/97, p. 19). As was seen in Unit Two, when Isabella reflected about her thinking and learning over the course of the three units, she began her planning and teaching with the conviction that she wanted--in a sense felt she had to be--the best intern ever and “. . . just come in there and be this wonderful teacher and just do everything right and just be wonderful” (Reflective Interview, 5/21/97, p. 18). Isabella went on to mention, for the first time, her sense of competition with the other two English interns at Miller (for whom I also served as university instructor). . . . And then there was Carl and Joyce who were just looking like perfect down the hall” (Reflective Interview, 5/21/97, p. 18). As a field instructor, I knew that interns frequently compared themselves with other interns in their cohort, a fairly human thing to do in such situations. Unfortunately, I also knew that an intern’s comparisons were frequently faulty since she had nothing on which to base her judgments except what she perceived to be happening in other interns’ classrooms based on her classmates’ self-reports. Since, like most interns, Carl and Joyce were reluctant 208 to admit to other interns their struggles and failures, Isabella seemed to believe that both were much better intems and, by extension, teachers than she herself was. Isabella had a long-standing friendship with Carl, and I knew that she seemed to be influenced greatly by what he thought and did. Several times throughout data collection, Carl would drop in on planning and post- observation conversations between Isabella and myself, and sometimes Rachel. Early in the internship experience, I moved to try to mitigate some of Carl’s influence over Isabella. For example, during our very first planning conference, Isabella revealed to me her frustration with what she saw as her inability to develop good questions about literature that would push her students beyond simple recall. Carl, who happened to be in the room at the time, downplayed Isabella’s concern. He suggested that Isabella should certainly know how to develop such questions because she, herself, had been a student in numerous literature classes, high school through college (Planning, 10/7/96). I was anxious to move Isabella away from making decisions based on her experiences as a student and instead begin responding from the stance of a teacher. Consequently, I rather firmly stated that I thought Isabella’s concern was an extremely legitimate one and that she might want to begin working on developing questions by considering her goals and objectives for teaching a particular text. As I suggested, “For me, I can’t think about what kinds of questions I need to ask students until I think about what kinds of connections I 209 want them to make. Is it a connection to something like theme? Is it a connection to another issue? Another piece of literature?” (Planning, 10/7/96, p. 21). As our discussion continued, Isabella’s comments seemed to reveal an underlying insecurity and lack of confidence in her abilities to plan and implement instruction that would achieve her, self-admittedly, high standards. As she stated, I think what happens is I start thinking of them [questions] all in my head and then I start saying, oh this isn’t going to be good enough, and then I start saying oh, I’m not going to do this well. And then I start believing that. (Planning, 10/7/96, p. 24). When I responded by saying, “If you constantly question everything you do, over and over and over again, you’ll paralyze yourself to where you can’t do anything,” Isabella admitted, “T hat’s exactly what I’m doing” (Planning, 10/7/96, p. 25). At this point, early in her internship, I urged Isabella to pay more attention to what Rachel and l were telling her rather than comparing herself to other interns. or relying too heavily on her own perceptions of her growth as a teacher. If Isabella was at the position of procedural knower (Belenky, et al., 1986), it made sense to encourage her to . . . pay attention to what more experienced others in your life are telling you. If more experienced others are giving you feedback saying try this, try that, try this, it’s not because they think you’re doing an evil job. It’s because they’re trying to get you to feel more comfortable and try different things so that you’re not paralyzed any longer. I think you also have to trust that when we say you’ve done something well that, yes, you’ve done something well! And not second guess whether or not we’re just trying to be nice to you! (Planning, 10/7/96, p. 25) 210 Even though Rachel and I would reinforce this position throughout Units Two and Three, it wasn’t until the end of Unit Three that Isabella felt something “click” and recognized for herself what we had been trying to tell her all along, that if she planned and implemented instruction based on what she wanted her students to Iearn--her goals and objectives--she would succeed in becoming the kind of teacher she wanted to be. Telling her this wasn’t sufficient; Isabella needed to construct an understanding of what this meant for herself. It seems at this point, most clearly, that Isabella moved from a position of procedural knower to that of a constructivist knower (Belenky, et al., 1986). Isabella pointed to the final weeks of the Their Eyes were WatchingGod unit as a pivotal moment in her growth as a teacher and her growing self- confidence in the role. It was here that she began to feel herself thinking and acting like a “real” teacher. . . . little moments that were like the best was like talking to Carl about what he was doing with Their Eyes were WatchingGod. And I’d be like well why are doing that? [He’d respond] well Pacesetter says to do it. I’m like, well, but I mean what’s your objective for doing it? Just getting him on little things that you guys got me on was awesome. You don’t know how great that was. And like, well, you don’t have to do something just because Pacesetter suggests it! And telling him that, it’s just suggestions and you can change it or you can add things or you can take things away. (Reflective Interview, 5/21/97, p. 18) Given Isabella’s earlier judgment of Carl as somehow being a much better teacher than she herself was, the opportunity to “get him” on his not thinking through his planning and teaching for himself provided a huge boost to Isabella’s conception of herself as a teacher. 211 It was through hearing him say things that I was probably saying to myself and then hearing your [Cathy’s] voice in the back of my head and Rachel’s voice in the back of my head asking why? What’s your bigger objective? Questions like that. And then to hear somebody else telling me what they’re doing in their class and to have those questions really popping up in my head about, okay, why? . . . you guys did a lot of asking me about the whys, the whys, the whys. With my objective how does it get me there? And I think I got a lot better towards the end [of Unit Three] at talking about those kinds of things. . . . When I was observing in my senior year, I didn’t know those questions to ask. Do you know what I mean? And once I knew those questions to ask because having been asked them so many times myself, I started to be really curious about those kinds of things. I started to see those questions for myself! (Reflective Interview, 5/21/97, p. 19) Isabella’s reflections clearly represented her experiences at the end of Unit Three as a kind of epiphany, one in which she recognized for herself the importance of pedagogical reasoning to becoming the kind of teacher she wanted to become. It was also the point at which she felt she finally took complete strategic control of the Pacesetter curriculum. Doing something because Pacesetter suggested it wasn’t a good enough reason for Rachel. And I didn’t understand that at first. It took me a while to understand. You know? She doesn’t want me to follow something just because. It’s not bad to follow something just because the book says to do it, but it is bad if that’s your only reason for doing it. . . . Carl and I had this rival thing going. It wasn’t a mean competition . . . it was more like a kind of fun thing to put him on the spot and hear his answers to those questions. That was really a good feeling. To know those questions to ask! To be able to be thinking about those questions in my own planning I thought was a big step and then to kind of show it off that I was thinking about these bigger things. (Reflective Interview, 5/21/97, p. 19) As will be seen in the next chapter, Isabella would take this growing recognition of her abilities and confidence and bring everything-subject matter knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, pedagogical reasoning-together in her 212 planning and teaching of Unit Four. Isabella would forge her own pathway in Unit Four and would feel a great deal of pride and ownership of her teaching as a result. 213 CHAPTER SIX UNIT FOUR: FINDING SUCCESS IN GTHELLG . . . one of my major goals was to get them actively involved with Shakespearean text because, and I don’t think I’m alone in this, but I believe that Shakespeare is just as far as the English language goes, one of the gurus, and I wanted them to be acquainted, maybe even start to appreciate his language. And his stories. I wanted them to see how ‘today’ his plots are. Which I think happened. I think most of them got it. Reflective Interview, 4/28/97 I think now I’m at the point where I can take a book like a Pacesetter curriculum or like the book you loaned me with the Othello unit. . . and I think I’m better and in a better position now to take a resource like that and make it my own rather than feeling like, okay, I’ve either got to come up with everything by myself or I’ve got to follow their plan to the letter. I think I can make some things up myself, pull from these suggestions out of this resource, and kind of come in the middle and find my own way through it. Reflective Interview, 5/21/97 Isabella’s Ideals for Unit Four As discussed with Units Two and Three, Isabella held several important ideals for the teaching of literature and writing. (See Appendix A for a graphic representation of the literature used by Isabella in Unit 4.) Isabella wanted to develop her students’ writing abilities in ways that would have real world application. She also wanted to select literature and teach it in ways that made it relevant to her students and might broaden their perspectives and opinions. Most importantly, Isabella wanted to provide opportunities for her students to engage with literature in ways that would encourage them to “grow up to be life long readers” (Reflective Interview, 5/21/97, p. 23). With her QILLGLIQ unit, Isabella believed she had come the closest to achieving her goals. 214 Isabella demonstrated ownership of both the text in terms of greater subject matter knowledge and the curriculum as evidenced in her skillful modifications to the Pacesetter unit. Isabella began to blaze her own pathway from the very beginning of the planning process. Unlike planning conferences conducted for Units Two and Three, Isabella came to the initial planning conference for Unit Four with a substantial and coherent understanding of the text (Gttrsltg) and with numerous ideas about how she could structure the teaching of the play. Rather than finding all the choices paralyzing as she had with the previous unit, Isabella was able to take strategic control of the direction of the unit from the beginning, thereby forging her own pathway and leaving her feeling more ownership for her planning and teaching. Isabella recognized that in planning for the Shakespeare unit there were multiple avenues available to her by which she could connect the play to her students’ lives. Isabella chose to continue weaving in the relationship theme that began with Their Eyes wsre Watching God and felt that her decision was a good one. She judged that the ways in which she chose to focus students’ attention were particularly effective because “[they’re] real life things but also are things for us to explore within a text too” (Reflective Interview, 4/28/97, p. 17). Isabella would also come much closer to realizing her ideal of planning instruction in ways that would enable her to respond flexibly to her students’ interests and difficulties, something she was unable to do well in the previous units. As seen earlier, Isabella wanted to see where her students would go 215 with a piece of literature and then push them to go further. She wanted her students to become involved as readers, . . almost like they become part of the text” (Reflective Interview, 5/28/97, p. 15). This ideal, coupled with her beliefs that in order to truly understand a Shakespearean work it must be performed, led to planning that resulted in students becoming much more involved in interpreting the text in order to perform scenes. Isabella rode the wave of her growing confidence in her planning and teaching into Unit Four. Not only did she bring stronger subject matter knowledge to the thetlg unit, but she also demonstrated her ability to pull from a number of different resources. Rather than feeling tied to any one resource or curriculum, Isabella made the unit her own by borrowing, modifying, creating, and completely discarding material based on her assessment of what her students would need to do in order to achieve the goals she had set. Consequently, Isabella’s planning and teaching of Unit Four exhibited a much deeper, more sophisticated level of pedagogical reasoning. Perhaps the most striking examples of Isabella’s growing confidence and abilities were apparent in the area of classroom management. In direct contrast to her teaching of the Marquez stories, Isabella was willing to provide students with opportunities to challenge both their thinking and opinions about the text and hers. Discussion around GthtLQ was prominent during this unit. Notable by its absence in Units Two and Three, there was lots of talk occurring in Isabella’s class around the play. In fact, Isabella’s new confidence in her abilities to manage classroom discussion and her growing skills at pedagogical 216 reasoning would enable her to experiment with varying formats for discussion, most specifically, a form of Socratic Seminar. Isabella was not only willing but able to plan activities that resulted in students going in a number of different directions. In Unit Four, Isabella successfully integrated a research project remarkably similar to the historical investigation that tripped her up so badly in Unit Three without losing touch with the play. She was also able to plan instruction around multiple disruptions in the schedule due to federal holidays, mid-winter break, snow days and proficiency testing. Isabella’s reflections of Unit Four were vivid and satisfying. While she certainly did not feel that everything went perfectly, she did feel that what happened in Unit Four was more like what she expected “real teaching” to be like. “I don’t necessarily think M was perfect and we got where I wanted to be and that’s it, I’m done, I don’t have to improve my teaching any more. But I think it was a lot better. It was a lot closer to what I expected of myself [as a teacher]” (Reflective Interview, 4/28/97, p. 7). A number of very important elements came together for Isabella during Unit Four, and it would be fair to say that Isabella would finish her internship defining herself a teacher as opposed to a fraud playing the part. Consequently, in Unit Four, Isabella had experienced what it was like to forge her own pathway to becoming a teacher. Beginning the Unit Unit Four, “Voices from the Past: lnheriting and Creating Drama through Performance,” began immediately after the C. E. Miller High School’s winter 217 break. According to the Pacesetter materials, “In Unit Four, students will have an opportunity to extend to another kind of literature many of the concerns about cultural encounters and voice raised in the previous units. This unit will feature a literary form uniquely suited to an exploration of multiple voices--drama and its performance” (Teacher’s Guide, p. IV-1). Attention to the curriculum’s overarching themes--voice and stranger in the village-~should, according to the Teacher’s Guide, continue to appear throughout the Shakespeare unit (IV-9- 11). Although alternative texts such as The Elephant Man. Hyacinth tislvey, A Doll’s House, and Pygmalion were mentioned as potential pathways to achieve Pacesetter objectives, the primary text suggested by the curriculum was William Shakespeare’s Othe_llg. While teaching Shakespeare to high school students is frequently considered a daunting task for both novice and experienced English teachers, Isabella began her planning with more confidence and excitement than she had exhibited at any other time in her Pacesetter planning and teaching. As a condition of her internship, Isabella was required to begin the unit with fully developed unit and lesson plans. Because Isabella’s ability to create coherent plans on her own represented a part of what Rachel and l were assessing for certification, we began to pull back or fade a bit in terms of the intensive planning support we provided. As a result, two preliminary planning conferences were held involving both myself and Rachel. Isabella used these planning conferences as brainstorming sessions, discussing her philosophy of 218 teaching Shakespeare, throwing out some initial ideas, and soliciting our suggesfions. While Isabella continued to “run” her plans for the unit by Rachel, it was more to keep her mentor informed of what was happening in their classroom. This represented an important shift in that instead of seeking Rachel’s “permission” to teach her plans which seemed to characterize Isabella’s consultations with Rachel in Units Two and Three, Isabella now shared her plans more as a courtesy to the teacher whose classroom she had “borrowed.” Rather than asking Rachel if her plans were “right” or “wrong,” Isabella shared her plans with Rachel confident of their worthiness. A shift in my interactions with Isabella also occurred with Unit Four. Because of other spring semester commitments, it was necessary for me to “fade” out of data collection to some extent. Additionally, since the January through March months represented a critical time in which Isabella had to demonstrate her growth as a teacher to myself and Rachel for certification purposes, I had to also distance myself to a degree from the extensive support I had been providing in planning sessions. Consequently, my interactions with Isabella began to resemble the more typical field instructor supervising an intem. My consultations with Isabella were reduced to two or three hours every other week. Isabella was aware, as were my other interns, that she could call me at any time during this period for help with planning, to schedule an observation of a specific lesson, or just to debrief whatever was on her mind, especially her successes and problems. It was a measure of Isabella’s growth 219 as a teacher that by Unit Four Rachel and I were able to recede for the most part from the Pacesetter class. Gonfidence in Subject Matter Isabella entered her planning for Unit Four with a clear and coherent understanding of the complexities involved in the text, thrsflg. As she would later reveal, “I really felt comfortable going into 9M9 because I knew a lot about Ot_he_llg” (Reflections, 4/28/97, p. 10). She demonstrated a sense of ownership of the text right from the start. Isabella had read and studied several plays by Shakespeare both formally through high school and college classes and informally on her own. Isabella had seen several movie versions of Gthfl and was able to discuss the strengths and weaknesses she saw in the different interpretations, a striking contrast to her inability to do so with the video version of “A Very Old Man with Enormous Wings” in Unit Two. In fact, Isabella elected to use clips from different videos to encourage her students to consider multiple interpretations of the same scene as presented by various directors and actors. As Isabella explained her thinking, Like at the beginning, not for every Act, every Scene, but to think about interpretation, read Act 1, Scene 1 and then watch two different productions on video of that same scene . . . and talk about interpretations. . . . I know Video-to-Go has four or five different productions of Gth_e|_lg, some better than others. They have like this 93% section!!! (Planning, 12/19/96, pp. 1-3) Isabella’s interactions with both her mentor, Rachel, and myself, her field instructor, were much more collegial from the beginning of her planning for this unit. All of the planning sessions were characterized by Isabella taking the 220 lead, dictating what she felt was important to talk about rather than waiting for Rachel or myself to take the lead. For example, as indicated earlier, Isabella immediately began our first preliminary planning meeting for Othello by explaining how she was thinking about beginning the unit. She had viewed a number of productions of the play on video and, in light of her objectives for the unit, decided on using a series of clips of the same scene to emphasize issues of interpretation. Whereas with the Marquez stories Isabella had difficulty understanding or even considering a variety of interpretations and with Their Eyss wers Watching God she was paralyzed by the multitude of possibilities, with th ll , she was eager to explore multiple interpretations of the text with her students. . . . just to talk about interpretation and then have them do things where they would decide how they would interpret that scene. Like they would produce a scene, if you put them in groups and each group would produce a scene and then they would have to talk about or decide about the things that they would do for that scene. How would they interpret it? What would people be wearing? How would people’s voices sound or what would the emotion behind these certain lines be and maybe talk about why they would do that. Rather than looking to the curriculum or her mentor or field instructor for suggestions as to where to start, Isabella demonstrated strategic control of her planning and teaching from the beginning. She had considered a number of alternative pathways into the text, as well as her students’ abilities and needs, and chosen to forge a pathway of her own. Although we did engage in conversations around our interpretations of various characters and their actions and of Shakespeare in general, our talk 221 was characterized by the give and take of three English teachers sharing their understanding and perceptions of the story. This was clearly in marked contrast to conversations we engaged in around the Marquez stories in Unit Two and more like the conversations we engaged in concerning Their Eyes were Watching God. During the conversations around Gthello, however, Isabella was a fully knowledgeable participant. For example, after Isabella introduced the topic of lago’s evilness, our discussion leapfrogged around with each of us pulling in examples from a variety of other texts. IsabeHa: Cathy: lsabeHa: Rachel: Cathy: Rachel: Cathy: That’s what Othello is about. If Desdemona and Othello would communicate more or better then maybe they wouldn’t have this problem. It really is kind of silly when a man places all of his trust and faith in who actually owns a handkerchief. . . . To make a decision of the magnitude he did on something like that. Course he does ask Desdemona, which is more than Claudio does in Much Ado about Nothirg. . . . I agree with you. It’s pretty lame making that decision over the handkerchief but I also can see how lago’s working him too. And he’s putting these ideas into Othello’s brain. He’s weaving that web. Isn’t that what he tells him? It’s a three hundred year old version of “Men Behaving Badly!” But then women have their cross to bear in Shakespeare too. lago’s wife is not totally blameless. She participated in the scam. Oh, yeah. She’s an idiot. . . . Are there any strong women in Shakespeare? Beatrice in Much Ado about Nothing. Kate in Taming of the Shrew. 222 Isabella: What about Merry Wives of Windsor? . . . or the one where she fakes her death in order to come back as a statue? Isabella participated as an equal in the conversation, adding to and shaping the direction of the conversation. Her greater subject matter knowledge was also evidenced in her ability to both draw in a number of different texts herself and to understand the connections proposed by Rachel or myself to other Shakespearean plays. With this stronger mastery of the subject matter, Isabella was able to immediately begin considering how she would like to teach the text. Flexibly responding to what her students might make of the texts being read and studied was something that Isabella held as a goal in teaching literature, but was unable to actually accomplish in the previous units. However, with thle_llg, Isabella was much more willing to allow her students’ responses to the play dictate to some extent what they discussed and the activities they did around the play. Early in her planning for the play, Isabella stated, “So I’ve kind of left open the end of the play “cause I know where I want to get to with the play but I don’t want to lock myself into the activities yet until I see where we’re actually going as a class. Where my students are. If they’re coming with me. Or not” (Planning, 1/8/97, p. 29). This reflected a completely different stance to her planning and teaching than she exhibited in her planning and teaching for the Marquez short stories and Their Eyes were Watching God. In both Units Two and Three, Isabella frequently began with the activities and worked backwards to the literature and her goals/objectives. Yet with the Gthello material, Isabella 223 was able to envision her “big picture” for the unit and plot a flexible direction for the unit based on her goals and objectives with the confidence that she could create or modify activities to meet both her goals and objectives and her students’ interests. Drawing upon her confidence, she was able to pick and choose from a variety of resources, including activities she created herself, to design a strong, coherent unit plan. Forging Her Own Psthwsy chilitatinl Classroom Community Isabella began her planning for Unit Four by attending to the classroom community. With the start of this unit occurring at the beginning of second semester, Isabella contended with the loss of some students and the advent of a few new students to the Pacesetter class. Her introductory lesson demonstrated her cognizance of the need for a community building activity to bring the new group of students together into a class. Her lesson also introduced students to the performance aspect of their work with this unit, an aspect which would dominate their interactions with the play. She began to acquaint her students with the expectations for student performance through a relatively low risk, “fun, laid back kind of” introductory activity (Planning, 1/18/97, p. 2). Because that’s like the major focus of how we’re going to do this unit, being in front of a group of people. . . . I wanted to start right away, I thought, because the whole thing is set up on a premise of performance we should start off with some performance activities, so I’m using the lines from the Pacesetter book and what I’m going to do and this just gets them up and in front of people in a kind of low stakes way . . . I’m going to call up two volunteers . . . and have them throw this line back and forth at each other a couple of times 224 and then give them different scenarios. Okay, you’re brother and sister or you’re brothers or whatever. How does it sound. . . . So they’re thinking about lines, voice, how does it portray relationships. (Planning, 1/8/97, p. 2) Isabella used this activity as an opportunity for students returning to the class to get to know new students entering the classroom community and to begin setting the stage for the new ways in which students would be interacting with text in this unit. Isabella’s pedagogical content knowledge/pedagogical reasoning was reflected in her attention to multiple objectives within this one activity. 0 Scaffoldig Lesrningjxperiences Evident in Isabella’s planning was attention to laying the preliminary groundwork for the types of activities that would characterize this unit. Through this, Isabella demonstrated her increasing ability to consider a unit of instruction in its entirety and to plan for that unit of instruction in relation to previous and forthcoming units. Isabella drew upon her knowledge of drama and the text (subject matter knowledge) and was able to use that knowledge along with stronger pedagogical content knowledge (teaching strategies) to develop a level of pedagogical reasoning. This reasoning enabled her to plan instruction that would support her students developing deeper understandings of the concepts and skills important to the unit. For example, Isabella wanted to develop her students’ ease with performing in front of the class and, through her introductory activities was able to foster classroom norms conducive to achieving these goals, something she had been unsuccessful at in Unit 2 with classroom discussions. Building on 225 this preliminary work in performance and getting into a character, Isabella then moved to having her students consider how an actor portrays, both verbally and non-verbally, information about his or her character. Exhibiting a more sophisticated level of pedagogical reasoning, Isabella devised a way to connect what students were studying more concretely to their lives by using a popular soap opera, “General Hospital,” as a hook into thinking about an actor’s body language as it contributed to interpretation. Students first watched the video excerpts with no sound. Isabella wanted them to focus on one character “just to look at his actions. His body language. How does he hold himself? What are the looks and how does he hold his facial expressions?” (Planning, 1/8/97, p. 3). Through this activity, she wanted her students to concentrate on what clues they used to determine if the character was a good guy or a villain. She then used this as a transition into considering the characters of Iago and Rodrigo at the beginning of gmellg Drawing on her knowledge of dramatic conventions, Isabella urged her students to continue to consider character motivations. Concurrently, Isabella wove in connections to both the themes of relationships and jealousy and to students’ own experiences, something she had been unable to do in the previous units. Building on an activity she saw suggested in a book I lent her, Setting Shakespeare Free (O’Brien, 1995), Isabella drew on a repertoire of strategies to help her students make important connections. First students wrote about a time when they were jealous and then drew a map or web that illustrated the relationship triangle that resulted. Students discussed their maps 226 in small groups and then selected the story they liked best to narrate and perform (Planning, 1/8/97, pp. 4-5). Although Isabella mentioned that the Pacesetter curriculum suggested a similar activity to teach storytelling, Isabella felt her activity more coherently melded with the direction of her planning while providing students with opportunities to practice storytelling. According to Isabella, increasing students’ abilities in storytelling was a Pacesetter-defined objective, although I was unable to find reference to such an objective in the Teacher’s Guide for Unit Four. In any case, storytelling clearly became an objective for Isabella and she felt her activity enabled her students to continue to develop their abilities in storytelling while simultaneously providing avenues for students to continue practicing being in front of the class. Isabella would continue to work with the relationships and jealousy themes with her students. But she also began to pull in issues of Shakespeare as a playwright, Elizabethan language, and performance, something she was clearly unable to do with the texts in Unit Two and Three. I want to put these [two statements about Shakespeare as a playwright from Randal Robinson’s book] on the board and do an activity . . . to get us into why are we doing so much acting and hands-on with Shakespeare. Why aren’t we just reading it at home and answering questions like we did with Their Eyes were Watching God? (Planning, 1/8/97, p. 10) In addition to justifying the differences in approaches she intended to take, Isabella also used this as an opportunity to encourage her students to think about why Shakespeare wrote plays and what his plays might have to do with them in the late twentieth century. 227 Establishing Her Own Direetien Quoting from a teacher’s resource book, Isabella established the foundation for her thinking about the direction she planned to take in the Othello unit. ‘As a playwright, Shakespeare wrote scripts to be interpreted, performed, and sometimes revised by his theater company. He did not write literature to be read. What does that mean? Talk about it with the class. As a playwright Shakespeare focused on relationships, he did not focus on actions or individual characters. What’s more, Shakespeare cared more about relationships among members of families and relationships similar to those of members of families. Why would this be important for us to know?’ ‘Cause it tells us what to focus on when we’re reading. We need to think about this whole play as about relationships. 80 that’s what I want you to think about a lot while we’re reading the play. (Planning, 1/8/97, p. 10) For Isabella’s growing sense of herself as a teacher, the fact that this resource affirmed the direction she had already chosen to take in her teaching of the play may have been critical. Rather than allowing the resource to dictate her direction, Isabella had already determined her “big picture” for the unit based on her goals and objectives. Recognizing that she not only had strategic control of the curriculum but that experienced others obviously felt that what she intended to do was appropriate may have provided further reassurance to Isabella that she was on the right track in her planning and teaching. Isabella used the resources to supplement her own ideas rather than looking to the resources to provide “answers” for her planning and teaching. By having students think about Shakespeare’s medium (plays) and the emphasis on relationships, Isabella was able to encourage her students to see 228 the importance of their interacting with the play as actors, not simply as readers (Planning, 1/8/97, p. 10). Isabella explained that this was particularly important because: Every time while you [the students] are reading the play, you need to be thinking about the relationships that are going on in this play and how your characters fit into those relationships and then how are you going to interpret, how do you interpret, those relationships? Your character’s part in those relationships? And how can you show me your interpretation in your performance? (Planning, 1/8/97, pp. 10-11) Having laid the groundwork for her approach to the play, Isabella continued to weave together a variety of texts and activities that had the potential to effectively scaffold her students’ work with the material. For example, although the Pacesetter Student Hanflaook provided letters from the time period discussing marriage, Isabella was dissatisfied with the fact that all the letters provided were written by men, thus providing an exclusively male perspective. Consequently, she sought out letters reflecting 16th century women’s perspectives on their lives, cultures, and marriage to supplement the curriculum. As she argued, “I’d like to read one of each [from each gender’s perspective] because we see male and female characters in our play and I think it’s important for us to kind of have an idea of what life was like for a man in this time and what life was like for a woman in this time” (Planning, 1/8/97, p. 16). Through this thinking, Isabella seemed to model an approach that she would take with her students throughout their interactions with the text--trying to “get inside” a character and understand them in their contexts. 229 Isabella also found an opportunity to further the intertextuality focus of the curriculum by connecting her students’ attention back to a Maya Angelou poem presented during one of the historical investigation student presentations from Unit Three. In this poem, Angelou argues for the importance and relevance of not only reading, but of specifically reading Shakespeare. Isabella tied the Angelou quote into asking students to consider how the theme of relationships spans centuries and is equally relevant to people today. As a strategy for short circuiting students’ complaints about the Elizabethan language, Isabella took a short excerpt from Gttreue, Act I, Scene 1, to model how a reader can use the context to make sense of unfamiliar words or phrasing. She then used a fairly common activity in which students created and then shouted Shakespearean invectives at each other. She felt that the activity provided an opportunity for students to interact with the text and in a “low stakes way to use Shakespeare’s language” (Planning, 1/8/97, pp. 14-15). Isabella pulled from a variety of texts-~the Pacesetter curriculum, Setti_n_q Spakespeareflee (O’Brien, 1995), Randal Robinson’s (1988) unlesking Shakespeare’s Lenguege: Help for the Teacher and Studem. other Shakespeare teacher materials, as well as her own thinking and previous experiences in a Shakespeare class--to design her own activities and forge her own pathway. After listening to Isabella continue to describe her plans for the first four or five weeks of the unit, I complimented her on the thoughtful and skillful way in which she was weaving together the literature and activities for her students. In response to that comment Isabella revealed, 230 Thank you. I worked so hard to take ideas from this book, to take ideas from the Pacesetter book, to take my own ideas, ideas from what I learned about Shakespeare from Randal Robinson [professor of an undergraduate Shakespeare course she had taken], to come up with a plan that gets at what I think is important in all these things. And I was a little bit worried because I relied less on the Pacesetter book than I have in the other two units that I taught and I wasn’t sure if that was okay. But I planned my unit and I looked back at what Pacesetter had to do and I think I’m headed in the right direction that Pacesetter wants me to go too. (Planning, 1/8/97, p. 18) Isabella’s self-awareness underscores her sense of strategic control of the curriculum. This was the first time during Isabella’s entire internship experience where she exhibited the confidence and ability to pick and choose from a variety of resources, including activities she created herself, to design a strong, coherent unit plan. In contrast to the previous two units, with Gthello, Isabella created a unit in which her students had opportunities to actively participate in forming interpretations. Because of Isabella’s strong convictions that Shakespeare was meant to be seen, not read, she structured her entire unit around student performance. Whereas in Unit Two, Isabella used student performance with the Marquez pieces because she did not know of anything else to do with the stories, with Gthello, Isabella had concrete, clearly justifiable reasons that related to the specific genre of literature for using the strategy. With her mastery of the text and her command of the curriculum, Isabella was able to create her own pathway. She was able to remind students of prior knowledge and previous experiences that connected to Othello. For example, she reminded them that in their work with Their Eyes were Watching God, they 231 had read Polonius’ famous speech in Hamlet in which he gives advice to his son just prior to Laertes’ departure from Elsinore. In Unit Three, Isabella had used this quote to reinforce and supplement the thinking students were doing about advice given to men and advice given to women and how that advice revealed cultural expectations and limitations. In Unit Four, she returned to the Polonius excerpt as an opportunity to respond to student complaints that the language of Shakespeare was incomprehensible. Basically, she pointed out, they had already proven that they could understand Elizabethan English very well if they put the effort into it (Field Notes, 1/25/96). As mentioned earlier, Isabella was also able to draw in a quote about reading Shakespeare from a Maya Angelou poem that one of the students had used during her Harlem Renaissance presentation (Planning, 1/9/96, p. 7; Field Notes, 1/21/97). Lierning from Previous Experiences Another way in which Isabella forged her own pathway in creating the curriculum with Unit Four was evident in the way she negotiated two major Pacesetter objectives: 1) “Analyze the historical context in which a dramatic text was written”. . . . and, 2) “Understand the distinction between the perspectives of author, performer, and character/speaker" (Teacher’s Guide. IV- 3). In direct contrast to what happened with the historical investigation in Unit Three, Isabella critically analyzed what the Pacesetter curriculum wanted to achieve through the activities they suggested to provide the historical context, and chose to develop her own activity, a research project, which would 232 accomplish the same objectives while students were simultaneously reading the play. In contrast to the Harlem Renaissance historical investigation, Isabella immediately took control of the activities designed to provide students with a historical and cultural context for the Shakespearean play. As evidenced in her reflective comments regarding the Unit 3 historical investigation (presented in the previous chapter), Isabella had thought carefully about what she felt went wrong with the Harlem historical investigations. There were problems with too much student freedom in topic selection. It was also problematic that students within a group were presenting on individual topics rather than working together to create a coherent group presentation. She had also found managing the research while students simultaneously read the novel extremely difficult. She consciously considered these problem areas in her planning for the historical research called for in Unit Four. Isabella addressed these problems in her creation of a tightly structured research project that had her students investigating and uncovering important historical and cultural information while simultaneously reading and working with the play. While student choice was clearly more circumscribed in the Unit Four historical investigation, Isabella felt that it was more important to scaffold each group’s research to provide the most important information in the least amount of time (Unit Handout Debriefing, 4/24/97, p. 1). Clear from her assignment sheet was Isabella’s decision to more firmly guide students’ investigations rather than allow them to flounder around finding information that 233 might or might not help classmates in understanding the play better. Through this activity, Isabella was also able to manage students completing multiple activities at the same time without losing control of the research project or losing touch with what students were doing with their reading of the play. Again, by limiting the scope of topics students researched, she was able to reduce time spent in the library and move through student presentations much more quickly than had been possible with the Their Eyes were Watshing Gee historical invesfigaflons. Success with the Director’s Noteboek In addition, unlike the Pacesetter activities from previous units which Isabella didn’t like because she didn’t understand them, Isabella was able to see the purposes for Pacesetter’s suggestion of a Director’s Notebook activity and determine ways in which using the notebook activity would further her own objectives concerning student interpretation and performance of the play. Although the Director's Notebook was also a new activity to Isabella, just as many of the activity suggestions in Units Two and Three were, Isabella embraced the activity because she understood how it reinforced her own philosophical stance about teaching Shakespeare. According to the Pacesetter teacher’s materials, the Director’s Notebook assignment was intended to “emphasize . . . using performance to explore the text’s meanings. Staging a scene is a way to articulate an interpretation through a medium that depends on social interaction” (Teacher’s uide, p. IV- 4). For this assignment, students were to select a scene from the play to . . 234 interpret, rehearse, and present (Teaeher’s Guide, p. IV-47). As part of this project, students completed a “staging notebook” (what Isabella and her mentor referred to as the Director's Notebook) that reflected . . the group’s interpretation of the scene” (Teacher’s Guide, p. II-47). This included making choices about position and movement of characters, costuming, props, and “delivery of language (pacing, volume, pauses)” (Teacher’s Guide. p. Il-48). With the Director’s Notebook, Isabella acknowledged that she initially thought about doing the activity because Pacesetter “required” it. But rather than implementing the activity as specified by the curriculum, Isabella amended the activity in ways which she felt would more effectively achieve her objectives for the unit. I would have had to do it (the Director’s Notebook) regardless, right? That’s my understanding of it. But I liked that idea and it was also a big part of the plan in the book that I’d gotten from you, the Folger’s plan or whatever. That was their end project too. . . . And actually the notebook I had them do was a combination of kinds of things that Pacesetter suggested, . . . things from [another Pacesetter teacher’s] handout . . . and I used Pacesetter’s Teacher’s Guide and I used the resources in your book. I combined those three things to come up with kind of my own idea of what this director’s notebook I thought should look like. I kind of went along with what we’d talked about in class too so I knew that I wasn’t asking them to do something I didn’t cover. That wouldn’t be fair. (Post-lntemship Interview, 5/21/97, p. 4) Through this activity, Isabella demonstrated a command of the curriculum which included more effective attention to students’ prior knowledge and the ability to draw on multiple resources, a level of pedagogical reasoning not demonstrated with the previous units. 235 Because Isabella had strategic control of the curriculum (predefined goals/objectives, planned direction for instruction, knowledge of how each of the activities connected to form a coherent unit of instruction), she was able to take the Pacesetter suggested activity and make it “hers.” Previously, Isabella had been unable to see how she could modify Pacesetter material to create her own pathway because she either did not have the subject matter knowledge (i.e., deep interpretation of the Marquez stories) or the pedagogical content knowledge (i.e., scaffolding and coordinating the historical investigation in Unit Three with reading of the novel) necessary to enable her to develop pedagogical reasoning and thereby take strategic control of the curriculum. Isabella was extremely proud of what her students were able to accomplish through the Director’s Notebook. In showing me a student example of the notebook, Isabella exclaimed, “I am so proud of this . . . I mean this notebook that they did, it was incredible! . . . They really knew their scene well and they really thought critically about it. . . . All of them did a really good job” (Handout Review, 4/24/97, pp. 1-2). Isabella felt that the notebooks reflected her students’ critical understanding of the characters’ motivations both within the scene and as they connected to other scenes in the play. She also felt that her students’ work exhibited their understanding of the various elements of staging a play. Isabella, The Curriculum, and Unit Four By this Unit, Isabella saw the curriculum provided as a framework from which she could hook her own ideas about text selections and activities. In 236 some cases, this meant adding to or deleting from the curriculum. In other cases, it meant modifying a Pacesetter-suggested activity to fit her own purposes. Isabella also found support from the curriculum in the selection of articles it provided and suggestions it made regarding ancillary texts. It is possible that the curriculum itself supported Isabella’s planning and teaching more comprehensibly with the Ot_heflo_ unit. Whereas suggestions with the Gabriel Garcia Marquez stories centered primarily around the common theme of the stranger in the village and characterizations of the genre of story itself and, as discussed in Chapter 4, provided little assistance with the technique of magic realism, the materials provided for Othello developed a greater number of avenues into the text of the play. For example, suggestions provided for the Marquez stories relied heavily on discussions and the discussion questions listed again focused on the theme of stranger in the village. Only three non-discussion centered activities were provided: 1) writing a steam-of consciousness or interior monologue from the point-of-view of the handsomest drowned man; 2) improvising a drama around “A Very Old Man with Enormous Wings;” and, 3) a letter writing activity again emphasizing the stranger in the village theme. The instructions and details of these activities are presented in approximately four paragraphs in the Teacher’s Guide (pp. lI-13-15) The Gttielte unit included 24 suggested activities (not including the common assessment or the Director’s Notebook) identified as falling into one of four categories: observing, analyzing, contextualizing, and performing. Many of 237 these activities had students interacting with the texts in ways other than answering questions or writing fiction. Rather, students read lines presenting different interpretations through inflection, mapped or webbed personal experiences of jealousy, enacted the plot, and explored Shakespearean invectives through performance (Teacher’s Guide. pp. IV-12-26). The instructions and details of these activities were presented in great detail covering approximately 14 pages in the Teasher’s Guide (pp. lV—12-26). Obviously, there is a great deal more scope for activities when dealing with an entire play as opposed to two short stories. Whereas one activity was suggested after each of the Marquez stories with a third offered to possibly bring the two stories together (Teacher’s Guide. pp. lI-14-16), the M activities were spaced throughout the entire text, occurring at various points throughout the play (Teacher’s Guide, lV-12-26). The curriculum, therefore, may have provided Isabella with more support in the pragmatics of breaking the text down into daily and/or weekly chunks with activities suggested throughout the text. Another striking difference noticeable in the GMQ unit was reflected in the amount of detail provided for the Director’s Notebook, an activity that might have been new to many teachers and with the most potential for disrupting instruction (Teacher’s Guide, pp. lV-27-28). With the historical investigation that caused Isabella so much difficulty in Unit Three, little information was provided as to how to actually implement the investigation while simultaneously reading the novel. Rather, the curriculum presents the investigation as something that could weave through the entire five weeks of the unit without providing any 238 specific suggestions about how a teacher might break the investigation and novel up into manageable chunks that could occur concurrently (Teacher’s Guide. PP. lll-11-22). The curriculum developers also seem to provide more support in terms of unpacking aspects of the text that might be problematic for a teacher. Whereas little information of any use was given concerning magic realism in Unit Two, the curriculum does discuss in more helpful detail how Shakespeare’s play reflects a Renaissance context, something many English teachers might not have been able to identify for themselves (Teacher’s Guide. pp. lV-5-6). Isabella’s own perception of her mastery of the curriculum in Unit Four was apparent in her comments about her planning and teaching of this piece of the curriculum. And I felt like better this time because my issues before with the Pacesetter curriculum where I was feeling like it wasn’t me, whereas this time I did use a variety of [sources] or I did use another source and sometimes I took a unit or lesson just the way they had. Sometimes I made a change. And that if I knew reasons why I would make a change in something, that was okay. Whereas before, I didn’t, I wasn’t able to be doing that earlier in planning. (Planning, 1/8/97, p. 34). Isabella seemed to feel that the Pacesetter curriculum wasn’t “hers” unless she did something with it such as modify, delete, or add her own ideas or activities to the suggestions made by the curriculum. Isabella’s planning and teaching in Unit Four clearly evidenced a much more extensive command of subject matter knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge which enabled her to take strategic control of her teaching. Perhaps as a result of this, Isabella was also 239 able to make strides in classroom management, and in turn, take risks with classroom discussions. The Socratic Seminar During the teaching of Mtg, Isabella worked hard to make the play accessible to her students. She moved easily back and forth between structuring activities to help students get through the language, develop performance skills, and trace important themes in the text. As in Unit Three, Isabella’s written unit plans reflected numerous places where students would be discussing the text. Unlike Their Eyes were Watching Gee, however, few days progressed in the rather lengthy unit that did not include a lot of actual discussion of the play. While this discussion oftentimes occurred in small group formats; such as students discussing a scene as they prepared to perform their interpretation of it, class also frequently began with a short whole class discussion of whatever particular scene with which they were currently working. Perhaps rather ironically, given Isabella’s previous problems with discussions, one of her most successful experiences in this unit was a Socratic seminar she conducted around the focusing question of “Is GmetLe a racist play?” Coming late in the unit as a type of summary activity, the Socratic seminar was obviously an enjoyable experience for everyone involved. Students were given several short excerpts from Norrie Epstein’s The Friendly Shakespeare (1993) to read in preparation for the seminar. Students were to 240 read these excerpts making extensive notes. They were also to formulate questions that arose as they read the excerpts. The excerpts included “Charles ‘Roc’ Dutton on Ira Aldridge, American Black Theatre, and M” in which Dutton is interviewed regarding Ira Aldridge and his views about m and various other plays, his experiences playing Othello, and his beliefs about racism in Shakespeare’s plays (Epstein, 1993, pp. 390-395). Students also read a short excerpt entitled “Charles Marowitz’s An Othello” in which Marowitz explains his decision to emphasize the element of racism in his production of An Othello in 1972. Marowitz brings a radically different interpretation to his production essentially by portraying Othello as “a toady and as someone who made a contemptible adjustment to his white masters” (pp. 387-388). Minus a few students barred from the event because they did not come prepared with appropriate materials (a previously established condition for participation), everyone in class engaged in this discussion and the participation was intense. For example, in response to a question about whether an all black production with one white performer (in the role of thelLo) would stay true to the play, students hotly debated their positions as to whether the play was a racist play. Chris: I don’t think it was about race either. I think that like today’s society made the question of it being about race or not cause it seemed like in the whatever his name is [Dutton’s article] that black people saw 91% in their own way compared to white people and so they disagreed so that made it into a race thing. 241 IsabeHa: Chris: Jason: Chris: IsabeHa: Jason: Lance: Melissa: Chris: Jason: In Shakespeare’s time? No, not in Shakespeare’s time. In our times now. He doesn’t focus at all on race. I think that is just the way it worked out. Are you talking about was it race like back then or was it like now? I’m talking about people like us. I was wondering if the play Othello could be said to be about race. I may not be, I think it might be. I mean because why did they keep, I mean like every time they like talk about him or something they’re emphasizing the Moor and stuff like that, you know the Moor Othello, or you know just, he’s like the only black person in the play. He’s the one that stands out mostly and stuff. . . . It just depends on the way you interpret a lot of things. It’s like I don’t think that Shakespeare ever intended this to be a play about race. I don’t think he sat down and said wouldn’t it be good to write a play about race! I don’t think that was his intention at all. But people just read it and interpret it differently and just see that he’s a black person and just automatically racial issues come out especially now. I think the play in a way is about race because in the beginning Barbantio didn’t want his daughter to marry a Moor. But he liked Othello as a man. But that’s different. My parents like black people but yet when it comes to a white person and a black person dating it’s, I mean not really my parents, but like my grandparents and stuff, they think it’s wrong. Apparent in this excerpt from the seminar was students’ investment in the conversation. Isabella, as the teacher, was virtually absent from the discussion. 242 Instead, students spoke to each other, responding and building on their classmates’ comments. Students pushed their classmates for clarification, as Jason did with Chris, to make sure they understand each other’s points. It was clear that students had prepared for the seminar and enjoyed the opportunity to really dig in and chew on the topic. In answering the question, “Is Othello a play about race,” the students articulated their ideas, connecting them back to Shakespeare’s day and to contemporary situations. As a participant/observer in the seminar, I saw students playing off of each other’s ideas, willing to listen carefully and, in somecases, disagree with one another (Fieldnotes, 3/3/97, pp. 1-2). For example, Jason clearly felt the element of race was prominent in the play, whereas Chris and Lance viewed it as more a matter of reader interpretation. The discussion continued: Isabella: What about on the second page of the Charles Dutton reading, NE says is Gthello a play about race and CD says of course it’s about race. First it has little to do with whether you’ve got a white man standing on stage with black make up. It has more to do with the spirit of the production. Jason: Yeah, I know. . . . Why did they have to paint them and stuff like that? Why did they have to make a big deal out of that? Why couldn’t it have been just a white person doing the play? Heather: Yeah, that’s something I didn’t understand. Lance: But what you just read there is totally an opinion. You said you’re not supposed to give an opinion in this kind of thing [the Socratic Seminar]. This is like absolutely an opinion. It just depends on how you look at it. 243 Jason G: Like a white person might not think that up. Chris: Well listen to what he says. It says of course it’s about race then towards the bottom it says it’s more to do with the spirit of the production. I think that’s saying, he’s saying, okay, yeah it’s about race but then he’s saying all that matters to the play is how they play it. You know what I mean? It like contradicts each other. As seen here, students had carefully read the ancillary texts Isabella had assigned. They had ideas and questions about how what they had read in the ancillary texts either matched or disagreed with their thinking about the play. Students were clearly anxious to share their ideas with each other. Heather: Something I thought that was really kind of bizarre or like unnecessary was when a black actor was given an opportunity to play Othello they still had to wear mud. (murmurs of agreement from classmates) Jason: They said that’s what they’re accustomed to but how can a black person be more black by wearing more black? Isabella: Well why do you guys think that they would have that kind of thing? This represented one of the few times Isabella inserted herself into the discussion. In a rather skillful way, Isabella entered the conversation by posing a question designed to move the discussion fonrvard. Having posed the question, Isabella resisted the temptation to elaborate or answer her own question--a trap into which many beginning (and experienced) teachers fall. Instead, she retreated from the conversation, leaving the floor once again to the students. 244 Jason: Well in Othello in that one that we were watching he’s so dark. Jason G: That’s probably how they picture the black people. Chris: When we were reading the book and we watched the movie like when Othello was talking to the father, Barbantio, they didn’t say anything about him being black at all. Like why he didn’t want her to go out with him or anything like that. They did not make it anything like a racial part of it. (Socratic Seminar, 3/3/97, PP. 1-4) As illustrated by Jason’s questions and Lance’s objections to Dutton’s comments, students had read and thought carefully about Dutton’s argument of the play as racist. Furthermore, as evidenced in Chris’ last remark of the excerpt above, students were making connections among multiple texts such as the various video versions they had watched, the written version of Gthello, and the various ancillary texts they had encountered throughout the unit. The connections they made across texts and insights they offered were truly exciting--both for the students themselves and for Isabella and myself (since I had the opportunity to participate in the discussion also). Isabella, in reflecting immediately after the seminar, was a bit disappointed in that she did not feel the students physically dug into the text of the play more directly. She had hoped that they would go back into the text to support their comments to a greater degree. However, although students may not have gone back into the text in order to say, “well, here in Act II, Scene Three, lines 7-15 . . it was clear that students knew the details of the play fairly thoroughly. For example, during an argument over whether Barbantio would have been as upset with Desdemona if she had eloped with a white man, 245 students knew exactly who was present when Iago informed Barbantio of Desdemona’s flight. Students frequently referenced fairly obscure characters as a way of trying to refresh classmates’ memories of where a particular action or speech took place in the play. In a Post-lntemship interview, Isabella pointed to the Socratic Seminar as an area in which she felt she had successfully negotiated a number of issues she felt she had failed at in Unit Three. She described her decision to use the seminar: I was finding these articles and I was thinking about I would like to work these in with what I’m doing with Shakespeare. How can I do that? And I was reading the articles and I said to myself, self, I think a seminar would be a good idea for this piece or article! And I don’t know why I never thought of it sooner to put it in English. To use it in an English class. It [the Socratic Seminar] just seemed like a history thing. (Reflective Interview, 5/21/97, p. 12) Interestingly, it is unclear whether Isabella had encountered the Socratic Seminar strategy in her undergraduate history courses at the university. However, as a senior completing her fieldwork in a combined American History and English block class at Miller Senior High School, Isabella would have undoubtedly heard and even perhaps participated in Socratic Seminars. Additionally, Socratic Seminars were frequently employed as a strategy in Professional Development School activities, again activities in which Isabella may have participated. Although Isabella brought knowledge of the technique to her internship, it is worth noting, as revealed through her comments, that she apparently had defined the Socratic Seminar as a “history” technique. As she thought about 246 her planning, however, Isabella’s pedagogical reasoning enabled her to see the potential of the strategy for achieving her goals with the material. Isabella therefore attributed her success with the Socratic Seminar to her growing ability to weave together pieces of text, as well as the way in which she structured the entire unit. Because she approached the play from a performance stance and structured a variety of activities that had students talking together in small groups and in whole class discussions, Isabella felt she was more comfortable facilitating discussions. Because we were, everyday, together either as a class or in small groups working on Gthello in class, reading it aloud, and that would give them opportunities to ask questions. And at first a lot of those questions were about language . . . but as we got moving through they started asking more questions about like well does Othello even believe Iago? And that allowed us to get into sometimes a discussion about, well, why? . . . We were always working together as a group on understanding this play and getting at the characters . . . we talked a lot, a lot, a lot about our interpretations and questions about the play. (Reflective Interview, 5/21/97, p. 10) This success in initiating and sustaining student discussion of the play seemed to contribute to Isabella’s willingness to risk trying a new discussion format. Another reflection of Isabella’s growing command of classroom management in Unit Four missing in previous units was Isabella’s ceding of a great deal of control to the students. She judiciously planned in numerous opportunities for students to make choices--from who they would work with to what scene they selected to perform. Whereas in Unit Three, she “taught” using what I basically characterize as worksheets of discussion questions, Unit 247 Four saw Isabella acting more as a facilitator and resource person. Students worked fairly independently in small groups for many of the projects and activities, but unlike the discussion questions which isolated and limited their interactions with the text and other students, Isabella’s planning for Qpeflg resulted in much more student interaction with the play and their classmates. Giving a great deal of choice to her students was not without its problems, however. The unit lasted a great deal longer than either I, or Rachel, had anticipated it would. To a large degree this could be attributed to a significant amount of wasted time in small group work. Since Isabella really wanted student performances to be done well, she often fell into the trap of giving students more and more time to work on “rehearsing” their scenes. From the outside looking in, it was pretty clear to me that students frequently claimed that they weren’t ready or they needed more time to rehearse because they had not used the time allotted wisely. Perhaps Isabella could not recognize this because of her focused attention on individual groups. Isabella, as is often true with novice teachers, may have lost sight of the bigger picture of how the classroom was functioning. Since individual groups seemed on task when she spent time with them, she may not have noticed that when she was not present, groups tended to drift off task. Her inability to recognize off-task time might also have been a reflection of her relief that students seemed to be engaging with and enjoying the activities she had planned. 248 “Teaching the Way I Thought It Would Be” Overall, Isabella’s teaching of Othello revealed several extremely important skills as a teacher that Rachel and I were looking for in order to certify her at the end of her internship. Perhaps more importantly, Isabella’s own evaluation of her teaching of this unit reflected that she, too, saw a great deal of difference between what she had been doing prior to the unit and how she handled Unit Four. Isabella had forged a pathway for this unit uniquely her own by melding together material from the Pacesetter curriculum, other reference books, suggestions from Rachel and myself, and her own creations. Isabella did not feel like a fraud as a teacher in Unit Four. Rather, she found authenticity in her planning and teaching. In her own words, she felt like she “was finally teaching. Teaching the way I thought it would be.” 249 CHAPTER SEVEN LEARNING FROM ISABELLA’S PATHWAY Conclusions Isabella worked extremely hard at Ieaming to create a pathway for herself in constructing a teaching practice. Having Ieamed how to lay down a new pathway for herself, Isabella journeyed forth into her first teaching position. 80, what conclusions can be drawn from Isabella’s journey to construct a teaching practice during her internship? What can be gleaned from her struggles and triumphs? How can Isabella’s story inform our work with preservice teachers? To answer these questions, I return to the assertions regarding various domains of knowledge and the issue of ownership that began this study. Isabella’s story highlights the challenges preservice teachers may face when they try to incorporate into their practice the types of literature that would support the Standards established for K-12 English Language Arts instruction. A conclusion might be drawn that teaching non-canonical, multicultural literature presents preservice teachers with dilemmas not addressed in their undergraduate preparation, thereby making it difficult for them to plan and implement effective instruction for such texts. Non-canonical, multicultural literature may oftentimes represent subject matter for which preservice teachers bring little knowledge to their practices. The strategies preservice teachers had learned as readers or as teachers when confronted with new literature may not serve them well in attempting to 250 understand the literature at an interpretive level, plan, and teach such material. Isabella’s story reveals that when a teacher is unable to access literature at an interpretive level, it hinders her ability to plan and teach the stories. Consequently, when faced with teaching unfamiliar non-canonical, multicultural texts, preservice teachers may be forced to depend heavily on others (such as their mentor teachers, field instructors, other teachers in the building) and/or commercial packages such as prepared teacher’s guides and units. This dependency, however, may result in preservice teachers feeling little control over or ownership of their teaching as it did with Isabella. In addition, subject matter knowledge acquired in the moment of planning and teaching the literature may be too new and fragile to enable preservice teachers to almost immediately use it effectively in their planning and teaching. As evidenced in Isabella’s Unit Two teaching, although she Ieamed a great deal about magic realism and Gabriel Garcia Marquez during the unit, her knowledge remained at the procedural level and she was unable to use it to take strategic control of the curriculum. A second conclusion that can be drawn from the Unit Two data involves the Pacesetter curriculum itself and the challenges such prepared materials may present for preservice teachers as they struggle to create a teaching practice. The uidelinesf r h Pre ration of Teacher 0 En lish _A_rts (NCTE, 1996) reflect a need to prepare teachers to be able to effectively incorporate materials from other sources into their practice rather than letting such materials control or dictate what they choose to teach and how they 251 choose to teach it. Thus, figuring out the place of such materials within their teaching practice becomes an important aspect of learning to teach. Preservice teachers need to Ieam how to integrate resources such as curriculum guides and units, as material to be used in their construction of a curricular pathway. Learning to do this has important implications for preservice teachers’ ownership of their practice. In Isabella’s case, when she gave the curriculum prominence in constructing her practice, allowed it to dominate and direct her planning and teaching, she, as the teacher, seemed to fade away and she took little if any satisfaction in her teaching. When Isabella assumed prominence as the teacher, placed herself at the center of her teaching practice and drew on the curriculum as a resource in constructing her teaching practice, she found more success and felt greater ownership of her teaching. Prepackaged curricula, such as College Board’s Pacesetter English, can provide teachers with a developed, coherent “big picture” for a year of instruction, something many beginning teachers have difficulty conceptualizing. This curriculum, in particular, seems to provide pathways rich with the potential to fulfill the types of goals and objectives for high school English experiences established by the national standards. For new teachers especially, curricula such as this may provide them with opportunities to work with an established curriculum that supports the types of teaching and learning they may value without having to create such a curriculum from scratch. The discipline of English is indeed an extensive one. For both new and experienced teachers, finding time to continually update their knowledge about 252 diverse literature and new strategies can be extremely difficult. Resources such as the Pacesetter curriculum can provide timely and much needed suggestions regarding literature and strategies that might be unfamiliar to teachers. Left here, as a curriculum that provides resources and suggested noncanonical and multicultural literature, the curriculum could be of service to teachers who subscribe to the Human Relations approach to multicultural education (Sleeter & Grant, 1987). In fact, the predominant theme of stranger in the village that weaves throughout the curriculum encourages the exploration of “perceptions of ‘otherness’” (Teacher’s Guide, p. “-2). Such an approach to the literature aligns most clearly with the Human Relations approach described by Sleeter and Grant (1987) as discussed in Chapter One. My analyses of the curriculum reveals the potential for moving interactions students have with the literature and activities into the realm of Multicultural and Social Reconstructionist (Sleeter and Grant, 1987). The possibility for using the Pacesetter course to explore issues of social inequality and injustice is clearly present given the theme of voice and various pieces of literature suggested throughout the curriculum. It is unclear whether this constitutes a deliberate political agenda on the part of the curriculum developers or whether the literature suggested and overarching themes woven throughout the curriculum coincidentally present a platform from which a teacher could implement it in ways that would make it a transformative curriculum. 253 What is clear, however, is that in order for the curriculum to be implemented in such a way as to align it with the goals and objectives of critical pedagogy, a teacher would need to understand the goals and literature in ways that would enable her to approach the curriculum in ways that would exploit those issues. Without this knowledge and deliberate agenda on the part of the teacher, the Pacesetter English class would provide a slightly better alternative to traditional English course offerings by virtue of the inclusion of noncanonical and multicultural literature. It would not, however, reach larger goals associated with teaching English as a way to advance social equality and justice. In addition, as Isabella’s case reflects, a curriculum such as Pacesetter English can also have the unfortunate repercussion of dominating the novice teacher. Rather than seeing the curriculum as a resource to be shaped to meet the ends of the teacher, new teachers may perceive the curriculum itself as the end product. Even with all of the statements in the curriculum, Rachel’s exhortations, and my advice, Isabella still experienced the curriculum as somehow more knowledgeable and in control of what occurred in her classroom than she. Thus, rather than using the curriculum as a brick to be placed in her pathway to constructing her own teaching practice, Isabella allowed the curriculum to become the entire pathway which she felt constrained to walk. The danger of curricula such as Pacesetter English, especially for new teachers, therefore, may be its potential to actually impede or prohibit the 254 beginning teachers development of a teaching practice for which they can take ownership. Conclusions can also be drawn from this research about preservice teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge. Preservice teachers certainly bring general and pedagogical content knowledge to their preservice teaching. Yet, the types of planning and teaching called for in order to achieve the goals and objectives of the Standards for the English Language Arts (NCTE/IRA, 1996) or a curriculum such as Pacesetter English demand a much more sophisticated level of both kinds of pedagogical knowledge, a level that preservice teachers in the process of Ieaming to teach would in all likelihood not have developed. Although preservice teachers gather a number of activities and strategies together throughout their own K-12 school experiences and their preservice preparation, their pedagogical content knowledge may not be developed enough to handle the complexity of orchestrating instruction at a more sophisticated level. In Isabella’s journey, this was reflected in her struggles to plan instruction which sent students off in multiple directions. Nor was Isabella’s pedagogical content knowledge strong enough to support her planning and implementing multiple activities simultaneously. Preservice teachers not only need to be able to conceptualize the “big picture” in their planning, they also need support in learning how to break the “big picture” down into daily instruction that enables their students to achieve the goals and objectives of the curriculum. Developing ways to help preservice teachers 255 begin to acquire this type of sophisticated knowledge prior to their internship experiences represents a worthy goal for teacher education programs. While preservice teachers may have opportunities within their preservice programs to acquire general and content-specific pedagogical knowledge about teaching strategies such as planning effective small group work and facilitating classroom discussions, that knowledge may remain procedural until the preservice teachers attempt to enact their knowledge in real classrooms with real K-12 students. For example, when confronted with the reality of engaging twenty five high school seniors in productive conversations, Isabella’s general pedagogical knowledge was insufficient to enable her to deal with the resistance she encountered from the students. Until preservice teachers are able to develop subject matter and pedagogical content knowledge that is constructed knowledge, their voices may remain relatively absent from their planning and teaching. This research exhibited the critical place ownership of a preservice teacher’s teaching assumed in constructing a teaching practice. Unless preservice teachers feel ownership of their planning and teaching, the practices they construct will not be their own and they may not consider themselves truly teachers. Isabella’s journey reveals that when her subject matter knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge were strong enough to enable her to develop pedagogical reasoning, she was able to create a coherent plan/pathway that moved her students toward successful accomplishment of goals and objectives. She was able to develop constructed knowledge which in turn enabled her 256 voice to become clear in her planning and teaching. Isabella was in charge of the goals and objectives for her teaching, creating her own activities, discarding certain Pacesetter activities, selecting activities from other sources. Isabella created a curriculum rather than merely implementing someone else’s curriculum. When preservice teachers develop constructed knowledge that enables them to take strategic control of their teaching practice, they will experience more satisfaction and success from their planning and teaching. Their teaching will become theirs in ways that support their development as teachers. Clearly, subject matter knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge represent essential bricks in the construction of a teaching practice. Developing their own voices and Ieaming to begin with their voices rather than another’s (i.e., a mentor teacher, field instructor or curriculum) represent other bricks in the pathway to becoming a teacher. Once able to access and build on these bricks, preservice teachers will be able to construct their own pathways to a successful teaching practice. Another important conclusion to be drawn from this research is the critical place the context and length of preservice experiences assumes. Developing a teaching practice requires time and opportunities to try out different ideas, strategies, stances. As discussed in Chapter Three, Isabella completed her internship in a school setting which encouraged and supported teachers to take risks in their planning and teaching. When activities or strategies failed, it was not considered a stigma. Rather, failure was perceived as a valuable Ieaming 257 opportunity as reflected in Isabella’s willingness to openly discuss her struggles and failures with both her mentor teacher and me. Collaboration among faculty members was valued and, again, highly encouraged. Inquiry and reflection was a norm among the majority of teachers at C. E. Miller Senior High School. As Rachel’s comments in Chapter Three reflect, she approached her work with preservice teachers as an avenue to give back to the profession, but also as providing an added dimension to her inquiry and reflection of her own practice as an English teacher. Contextual factors such as these provided a safe, nurturing environment for Isabella to continue her journey to becoming an English teacher. Just as teachers strive to provide optimal Ieaming opportunities for their tenth through twelve graders, so too did the mentor teachers at Miller work hard to craft internship experiences that matched where interns were at in their Ieaming to teach process and pushed them to the next stages. This dimension was further strengthened by the long-standing collegial relationship between the mentor teacher and myself as the university field instructor, as described in greater detail in Chapter Three. Given this relationship, we were able to work together to ensure the multiple dimensions of helping someone learn to teach were attended to in Isabella’s learning experiences. My own knowledge of Isabella in other aspects of her preservice program (i.e., as her TE 401/402 and TE 802/804 instructor) contributed to our ability to both understand where Isabella was coming from in some of her decisions and actions and shape productive agendas for her internship. 258 The turning point for Isabella in her fully assuming the role of teacher occurred in mid-December. Prior to that point, Isabella had heard but not internalized what Rachel and I were telling her about beginning her planning and teaching by establishing goals and objectives. As discussed above, until Isabella made this knowledge hers, until it became constructed knowledge for her, she could not take control of her planning and teaching and, consequently, did not feel ownership. Without this, Isabella did not feel “like a teacher.” Isabella’s epiphany occurred almost five months into her internship. Under traditional student teaching programs lasting eleven to sixteen weeks, Isabella would not have had time to develop constructed knowledge regarding planning and teaching. One of two things would likely have occurred with a shorter period in which to prove teaching competency. Isabella would have failed to meet program standards and therefore not been recommended for certification. Or, Isabella would have found ways to cover her lack of constructed knowledge in order to provide a superficial appearance of success in meeting the program standards. Instead, Isabella was able to use the time available in the internship to Ieam and grow from her experiences. Whereas in a shorter time period Isabella’s pathway might have been constructed with “broken bricks” (i.e., what she learned from negative experiences only), the lengthy internship provided time to “fix” or “replace” those broken bricks. When things didn’t go well in her planning and teaching, classroom discussions for example, she had multiple opportunities to reflect, revisit, refine, recreate and try again. 259 With a shorter time period, opportunities for Rachel or myself to uncover Isabella’s weaknesses would be diminished. In this case, Isabella might leave the preservice experience having achieved recommendation for certification, but she would not have Ieamed an extremely critical component of teaching. In addition, given the data presented in this dissertation, Isabella may have gained certification but would continue to consider herself a fraud as a teacher. Implications and Further Questions Isabella’s story reflects only one preservice teacher’s journey to construct a teaching practice. Yet there are important lessons to be Ieamed from Isabella’s experiences. Her story has implications for both teacher education efforts and for future directions in educational research. New Direetions in Teaching English One of the most striking issues revealed in this dissertation involves the use of non-canonical or multicultural literature in English classrooms. Isabella’s story illustrates how one preservice teacher, as well as experienced teachers, struggled with teaching a type of literature which had not been part of their own learning experiences either in the K-12 classrooms or in the numerous literature classes they took as part of their undergraduate preparation. The incorporation of such literature into English classrooms has become a prime directive, especially as evidenced in the Standerds for the English Language Azts (NOTE/IRA, 1996). Exhorting English teachers to incorporate non-canonical and multicultural literature into their classrooms sidesteps 260 important questions about in what ways and to what extent English teachers will be able to comply with the initiative. Clearly lsabella needed to Ieam more about the particular author and the literary conventions used in that author’s writing in order to be able to plan effective instruction. Since no English teacher could possibly have read and/or studied all the possible writers that she might be required to teach, it could be argued that lsabella would have been in a similar situation if confronted with any canonical author unfamiliar to her. Yet an argument could be made that knowledge of and skills with canonical literature is somehow “transferable” to non-familiar canonical texts, whereas this may not hold true when applied to non-canonical or multicultural literature. In other words, having a background grounded in canonical literature provides a teacher with a foundation of knowledge and skills that can be applied to other canonical literature, even those texts written by authors unfamiliar to the teacher. For example, reading and studying Hawthome’s short stories may provide knowledge and skills useful in reading and understanding Edgar Allan Poe’s short stories because they share similar histories and draw on similar literary conventions in their writing. Similarly, reading and studying Shakespeare may impart knowledge and skills useful in approaching other canonical playwrights. Furthermore, canonical literature tends to reflect common heritages or cultures with the majority of white, middle-class teachers in America today. Canonical literature is written by primarily white authors. Since the majority of 261 teachers in today’s English classrooms are white, the literature emerges from cultures with similarities to their own. Therefore, teachers may more readily recognize and understand historical connections, symbols, and cultural traditions found in canonical literature. A teacher’s K-12 classroom experiences further support the commonality in that they would have both been exposed to many of the canonical writers they would one day teach, and they would have learned history pertinent to understanding canonical literature. This would seem to hold equally true for non-white teachers since they would have had similar K-12 Ieaming expenences. For example, while there are obviously many cultural differences between a white, middle class female teacher in the United States today and Shakespeare, the teacher would have typically read Shakespeare during her own school experiences and she would have, in all likelihood, received some exposure to European history thereby providing context for Shakespeare’s works. On the other hand, the same teacher would, again in all likelihood, not have read many non-canonical authors during her school experiences and she would have, typically, not Ieamed much about the histories of other non- European cultures. Therefore, while the teacher has a foundation from which to approach a Shakespeare play that provides her with a starting point, even when dealing with an unfamiliar play, she would not have a similar foundation to draw on when confronted with non-canonical or multicultural literature. 262 As Chapters Five and Six revealed, Isabella’s experiences with planning and teaching Their Eyes were Watching God and M clearly seem to illustrate this point. Her own academic history, as discussed in Chapter Two, included several different experiences with Shakespeare both in high school and throughout college. These experiences, in all likelihood, contributed to Isabella’s success with Othello. Yet, even with a minor in history, Isabella had not learned much about the histories and writings of non-European authors which may have contributed to her dilemmas in planning and teaching Hurston’s novel. It must also be noted that whereas a teacher would have a repertoire of canonical authors from which to draw on to accomplish particular goals and objectives, most teachers lack a similar repertoire with non-canonical or multicultural authors. Consequently, a teacher’s ability to substitute one author for another may be compromised when considering non-canonical, multicultural literature. While I might be able to list ten canonical texts that relate to a particular theme, I may not have the knowledge of non-canonical or multicultural texts that could equally serve in exploring that theme, thereby making it difficult, if not outright impossible, for me to choose a non-canonical text. When confronted with the Gabriel Garcia Marquez stories, literature unfamiliar to her, lsabella understandably wanted to substitute literature with which she was familiar. Although she never explicitly listed any alternative titles, I would predict that, if asked, her choices would have been drawn from 263 canonical authors. I would anticipate lsabella selecting from known materials-- literature and authors she had encountered either in high school or college-- again most likely canonical texts. Any suggestions lsabella might have for altemative non-canonical or multicultural literature would, in all likelihood, be limited to the very few selections she may have experienced. To some extent, this prediction is inferred from Isabella’s experiences in the American Literature course she also lead taught. Although not part of this dissertation study, as her university field instructor in both classes, I was struck by how much more comfortable lsabella was in planning and teaching for the American Literature class--a class that incorporated almost exclusively canonical literature. The implication drawn here reveals the challenges teachers face when desiring to incorporate non-canonical or multicultural literature into their classrooms. With little background in such literature, teachers find it difficult to identify non-canonical or multicultural literature that would serve their goals and objectives. Few teachers have a repertoire of non-canonical or multicultural texts from which to select. They literally do not know what is “out there” and available. This is further complicated in the event the teacher does not see the curriculum as a vehicle to reach the goals and objectives of critical theory. In this case, the noncanonical and multicultural literature may be treated and taught in the same way as more canonical selections might have been approached. As discussed earlier in this chapter, this may result in the Pacesetter curriculum becoming nothing more than a slightly better alternative 264 to more traditional English course offerings through its inclusion of multicultural literature. A second challenge English teachers confront when attempting to include non-canonical or multicultural texts may involve literary conventions or techniques unique to such texts. For example, Latin American authors such as Marquez frequently cloak messages opposing or criticizing leaders or political parties within their literature. To speak out explicitly against regimes in power could be both figurative and literal suicide for the author. This is not something typically found in more canonical, especially American, literature where messages critical of the government or leaders would usually not result in extreme punitive measures being taken against the author(s). Therefore, understanding the relationship between literary techniques and conventions and the political and social context of non-canonical and multicultural literature is something teachers would need to have in order to fully understand and most effectively teach such literature. I also question whether there are conventions or techniques that may be specific to or unique in certain kinds of non-canonical or multicultural texts. Magic realism, for example, is frequently used in Latin American literature and in order to understand such texts at an interpretive level a reader needs to know something about this particular literary technique. Yet most of the English teachers with whom I’ve worked over the last nine years know little, if anything, about this technique. I also wonder whether non-canonical or multicultural literature may use familiar conventions or techniques in unfamiliar ways. For 265 example, while an English teacher would certainly know the importance of symbolism in literature, are there symbols found in non-canonical or multicultural texts which are not typically found in canonical texts or which are used differently in the non-canonical or multicultural texts? Isabella’s journey to construct a teaching practice illustrates multiple dilemmas in terms of incorporating non-canonical or multicultural literature into English classrooms. Many of the challenges faced by lsabella are also faced by experienced English teachers as they try to meet the goals and objectives established by the national standards. The questions raised by these dilemmas are explored more fully in the Directions for Further Research section. Implications for Preservice Tamer Education The primary objective of a preservice education program is to provide prospective teachers with the knowledge, skills, and dispositions necessary to become effective teachers. Most preservice programs do this through a combination of coursework and field experiences. Isabella’s story reveals implications for both aspects of preservice education. Perhaps the most striking implication for preservice education coursework involves Isabella’s dilemmas in Ieaming how to use the Pacesetter curriculum in ways that enabled her to gain ownership of her own teaching. The 400 level coursework Isabella took emphasized both the creation of strategies and activities and the use of available teacher resource materials. Rachel’s insistence that lsabella know why and how specific activities or literature would help her achieve her goals and objectives was also 266 emphasized in Isabella’s secondary English methods classes. Yet when confronted with the Pacesetter curriculum, Isabella struggled with how to use the curriculum in her teaching. Preservice teachers enter their programs with fairly empty “toolboxes.” As they progress through their experiences, they add strategies and activities to their toolboxes thereby providing them with a wider repertoire from which to choose in making planning and teaching decisions. Collecting these strategies and activities is not enough, however. Preservice teachers also need to actually Ieam when to draw on which strategy or when to use a specific activity to achieve a desired goal or objective. Furthermore, they need opportunities to practice selecting strategies and activities within the context of real students’ needs. While lsabella had multiple opportunities to plan units throughout her preservice education program, she did not explicitly Ieam what to do when confronted with an unfamiliar curriculum such as the Pacesetter course or how her planning would need to respond to her specific students. Perhaps another intern in a similar situation but with a different mentor and field instructor might have chosen to follow the curriculum exactly as it was presented in the Teacher’s guide and student materials. While doing so would probably have few ill effects for students, such a move would sidestep the development of teacher’s agency and inhibit the intern in developing a teaching practice of which she was in charge. For example, opportunities for the preservice teacher to move her thinking to constructed knowledge and sophisticated levels of pedagogical reasoning would be reduced. Although I 267 would not consider the Pacesetter curriculum to fall within “teacher proof” materials designed over the past several decades, an intern responding by merely implementing a curriculum skates hazardously close to becoming susceptible to “teacher proof” curricula with all its attendant disadvantages and dangers. It must also be emphasized that whether the teacher follows the curriculum precisely as laid out by College Board or creates pathways of her own, the task of ensuring that all the layers in the curriculum are addressed throughout the year is a complex one indeed. Being able to see the big picture of the curriculum, especially in the goals and objectives for the course, and then being able to break that big picture down into units with specific activities while simultaneously ensuring that important themes surface in each of the units is clearly a very sophisticated skill. While the Pacesetter curriculum begins to do this--provide the big picture and break that big picture down into units--it does so at a relatively surface level. For example, although the curriculum points out ways in which various pieces of literature can be used to explore the stranger in the village theme or issues of voice, it does not go much deeper by highlighting underlying issues that might push the ways in which the literature could be approached to a transformative or critical level. In this respect, it might be argued that the curriculum does little more than substitute noncanonical or multicultural texts for more canonical texts as its critics charged earlier. Although the curriculum makes a start, it does not seem to provide enough support to enable teachers to 268 see ways of working with the texts to fully exploit the power of multicultural literature. To fully exploit the potential of each unit requires a teacher to both flesh out and develop common threads or themes across the units and explore those threads and themes for critical purposes. For beginning teachers especially this may provide a formidable challenge. This ability to construct a curriculum by moving between the big picture goals and objectives for the year and the daily, weekly, monthly pieces that comprise each unit seems exceptionally important when teaching preservice teachers to construct curricula in ways that meet the kinds of goals established by the national standards. Given Isabella’s story, teaching preservice teachers how to use prepared curricula, whether purchased materials or state, district, or school developed, should become a priority. A vast array of materials designed to help teachers in their practice is available. While some of these materials are weak and relatively useless, others provide an excellent supplement to a teacher’s knowledge and repertoire. If the primary purpose of teacher education programs is to produce teachers capable of constructing practices that provide the types of Ieaming experiences called for by national, state, or district standards, then explicit attention needs to be given to helping them Ieam how to access, evaluate, and make decisions about what teacher materials/aids could be drawn on to serve specific purposes in their teaching. Another implication for preservice education concerns the length of and kinds of field experiences in which preservice teachers need to engage in order to prepare them as effective teachers. As was pointed out previously in the 269 Conclusions section, it is extremely doubtful that lsabella would have had the time necessary to Ieam how to construct her own teaching practice in a single semester student teaching experience. Obviously, different preservice teachers move along the Ieaming to teach continuum in their own ways and at different speeds. Yet, Isabella’s journey clearly reveals the necessity for preservice teachers to have multiple opportunities to make decisions about what and how they plan curriculum. Isabella’s dilemmas with implementing pedagogical content knowledge further argue for extended time in the field. Prior to her internship, lsabella had several opportunities through limited, structured field experiences connected to particular undergraduate coursework to observe and, in some cases, participate in English classrooms. One of the purposes for the 401/402 fieldwork was to facilitate the transition of preservice teachers from their “student heads” to “teacher heads.” Preservice teachers frequently view what occurs in their university classrooms as strictly theory, somehow disconnected or distant from the “real world” of high school classrooms. Therefore, the 401/402 field experiences were designed to provide data from actual classrooms which would supply contexts for the theory we discussed at the university level. For example, during Isabella’s TE 401/402 course sequence, she spent four hours a week in Rachel’s classroom. She spent a great deal of time observing an experienced teacher orchestrate the happenings within the classroom. She also had opportunities to discuss Rachel’s teaching with Rachel, to “get inside” Rachel’s teacher head. Unfortunately, given the limited 270 time available for such discussions, preservice teachers rarely have opportunities to learn about the “big pictures” their mentors’ daily lessons are designed to achieve. Given the importance for preservice teachers to develop the pedagogical content knowledge and pedagogical reasoning to fluidly move back and forth between the big picture and daily plans, finding ways to elicit this type of conversation for preservice teachers becomes critical. As 401/402 progressed, lsabella also planned and taught a three day lesson within this context. Within the three day lesson, lsabella would have, in all likelihood, had opportunities to try implementing pedagogical strategies such as classroom discussions and small group work. Even though lsabella had opportunities to practice aspects of her pedagogical content knowledge prior to her internship, the opportunities were not sustained long enough to give lsabella a feel for what using those strategies in her own classroom would be like. Issues of classroom community had already been established by the mentor teacher much earlier in the year. Students knew that lsabella was a student in a local university’s teacher education program and might have participated in Isabella’s activities differently because they would want her to ‘succeed as a student in her university classes. Because the 401/402 field activities were designed for extremely specific purposes of limited planning and teaching, Rachel would have been present during all of Isabella’s teaching. Therefore, issues of classroom management were unlikely to arise for lsabella with the mentor teacher’s presence assuring appropriate student behavior. 271 In addition to having the time necessary to experience classrooms as their own, preservice teachers also need opportunities to try a variety of strategies and curricula. Isabella’s ability to construct her own teaching practice was clearly effected by the presence of the Pacesetter curriculum. Early in the internship, lsabella would have said that the curriculum inhibited or made it more difficult for her to construct her practice. Yet, by the end of the experience, lsabella saw the curriculum as instrumental in her growth as a teacher. Without the opportunity to work with a prepared curriculum, whether a purchased program such as Pacesetter or a locally created curriculum, the teaching practice lsabella created might have looked quite different. This seems especially pertinent in considering ways in which teachers will try to meet the national standards established for their disciplines. In order for teachers to remain in control of their practices while constructing curricula that moves toward the big picture goals and objectives of national standards, they need to make important decisions about what, how, and when to use a variety of resources in their teaching. When pressured to align their teaching in ways which support the achievement of the standards, many teachers will seek out prepared curricula and teaching materials. And there’s nothing wrong with that strategy. However, having opportunities to learn when and how to use such materials in their teaching practice would seem critical. Isabella’s story also reflects implications for the types of support preservice teachers need in their field experiences. lsabella had the advantage of working with an experienced mentor teacher who took her 272 responsibilities as a mentor teacher seriously. Rachel’s philosophy and beliefs about not only what it means to teach English but also how novices Ieam to teach English matched well with the philosophy and beliefs of the preservice education program in which lsabella participated. Consequently, lsabella reaped the benefits of Ieaming to teach within a site and with a mentor teacher who valued and modeled the types of teaching and Ieaming lsabella had come to value in her undergraduate preparation. Among other things, this meant that Rachel was willing to give lsabella the benefit of trying and falling within a supportive environment. Rachel knew that learning to teach is, in many respects, an individual journey and that different preservice teachers need different kinds of support at different points in their journey. Because of this belief, Rachel scaffolded her support throughout Isabella’s internship. “The Stranger in the Village” unit (Unit Two) saw Rachel working intensively with lsabella, spending a great deal of time in the classroom, participating in many of the planning sessions for Pacesetter, and frequently debriefing with lsabella about the class at the end of the day. As Their Eyes were Watching_GLd (Unit Three) progressed, Rachel gradually began to fade back and Isabella began to define when and what kinds of support she needed from Rachel. By Unit Four (M) Rachel served primarily as a sounding board as lsabella made strategic decisions about her planning and teaching, permitting lsabella to work more and more independenfly. 273 lsabella received a great deal of support from me, as the university instructor, during her internship. In fact, because of my dissertation research, she received a great deal more attention than the typical intern would receive. The implications for this are two-fold. First, as mentioned earlier, I question whether lsabella would have progressed as far as she did in learning to construct a practice if I had only seen her once every other week or so. As evidenced in Chapters 4-6, I was present at what appeared to be critical junctures in Isabella’s development as a teacher. This enabled me to identify and respond to Isabella’s needs in a proactive manner as they emerged. Events move rapidly in classrooms, especially for preservice teachers trying to Ieam to teach. If I had not been present as often as I was, I fear that what time I did have for working with the preservice teacher would be spent on rehashing past events. For example, in Unit Two I recognized fairly quickly Isabella’s struggles with the Marquez stories and was able to mobilize what I hoped would be helpful resources (in this case, conversations with other teachers about magic realism) in a timely manner. Similarly, my frequent presence in both planning conversations and in the actual classroom (which, as discussed earlier, facilitated Isabella’s willingness to share her struggles), resulted in my awareness of the difficulties lsabella was having in creating an effective classroom community and enabled me to plan ways in which to support the development of Isabella’s classroom management skills. For example, because I was present and saw the struggles lsabella had with facilitating effective classroom discussions early in Unit Two, I 274 was able to focus Isabella’s attention to exploring options available to her in addressing the problem and the implications of her choice, thereby pushing her thinking about the relationships among her decisions regarding a specific strategy, her goals and objectives for teaching English, and the Pacesetter curriculum itself. By being present frequently, l was present as a teacher educator at “teachable moments” (Duckworth, 1987) critical to Isabella’s progress in her development as a teacher. Clearly, frequent time with the intern represents an incredibly important dimension of the university field instructor’s work in supporting and encouraging the development of the new teacher. The second implication reflects a perennial dilemma for university field instructors. Too frequently, preservice teachers view the university representative as an evaluator, someone who appears occasionally to grade their performance as teachers. Such a disposition mitigates against preservice teachers willingly revealing to the university field instructor their weaknesses. To be frank, preservice teachers are more likely to present only their best planning and teaching to their field instructors, working hard to ensure that the field instructor doesn’t see their mistakes or weaknesses. Unfortunately, for university field instructors who define their work as involving more than evaluation, such a disposition on the part of the preservice teachers makes the work even more difficult. Because of the intensive nature of my data collection, Isabella could not present a facade. l was there too frequently, asking too many questions, to enable her to present only her best planning and teaching or to hide her 275 mistakes and weaknesses. As a result of this, I would argue that lsabella learned to view my presence in her teaching life as an additional resource, as someone else who could provide a sounding board, and as someone who could help her learn to construct the type of teaching practice that she wanted to construct for herself. The types of conversations revealed throughout the data chapters of this research would seem to support this argument. We were able to establish a relationship in which lsabella viewed me as someone truly interested in both issues of teaching English and in learning more about how to help preservice teachers Ieam to teach. Establishing this type of relationship would not have to be dependent on conducting dissertation research, however. Rather, the dissertation research provided a vehicle which enabled me to spend more time with lsabella than is typically feasible in field instruction. Given the limited resources of teacher education programs, it is unlikely that this type of intensive fieldwork can occur with all interns. Yet, it is also clear that sporadic visits spaced two or three times across an intern’s field experience would not provide many educative opportunities. Rather, such a schedule would seem to reinforce the evaluative aspect of the field instructor’s role. Evident from this research is the imperativeness for teacher education programs to allocate sufficient resources to enable field instructors to interact with interns on a more frequent and consistent schedule. In addition to working with interns in the field on a more frequent basis, university field instructors can also work to establish the type of relationship I 276 had with lsabella by viewing their role as a learner as well as a teacher. In order to work effectively with preservice teachers as a field instructor, therefore, it seems important that the field instructor reveal to the preservice teachers ways in which the field instructor continues to be interested in learning more about the teaching and learning of English subject matter and about how novices learn to teach. Such an attitude would again help to reduce the emphasis placed on the evaluative function of the role and support the development of a relationship that would enable preservice teachers to discuss their struggles and failures freely with the university field instructor. Teacher education programs could also facilitate the development of productive relationships between interns and university field instructors by providing opportunities for discussing the roles and responsibilities of each of the participants (i.e., intern, field instructor, mentor teacher) before the preservice teacher entered his or her internship. If field instructors have not been involved in the preservice teacher’s program (for example, as an instructor of one of their teacher education courses), arranging opportunities for the field instructors and interns to interact prior to the internship could also help to lay important foundations. By presenting the university field instructor as one of many resources available to interns during their field experiences, teacher education programs could expedite the process of building productive relationships. Another implication this research holds for preservice education concerns the importance of a number of relationships necessary to provide 277 educative field experiences for preservice teachers. The relationship between Rachel and myself, as university field instructor, seemed especially crucial in enabling us to respond flexibly to Isabella’s needs. The trust we held in each other was a critical factor in creating a partnership in support of lsabella. There were times in Isabella’s planning and teaching, especially during Units Two and Three, when I saw Isabella’s struggles as productive and a sign that she was developing as a teacher, but Rachel did not. For example, I saw Isabella’s struggles in planning and implementing the Unit Three historical investigation in a positive light because of what I saw in Isabella’s reflections about that piece of her teaching. Her reflections indicated that she was noticing important things such as the escalating disconnectedness of the activities students’ engaged in and her inability to keep track and manage the activities in a way that resulted in educative experiences for her students. I also saw her asking the right kinds of questions about the experience, such as what pieces of the activity did work and advance her goals and objectives, what pieces didn’t, and how she might change the activity if she used it again. In my opinion, her verbal and written reflections indicated that lsabella had Ieamed important lessons from the experience. Because Rachel was frequently not privy to these reflections, she was more inclined to judge lsabella as not progressing as she should. Yet, because of the trust Rachel and I shared, Rachel was willing to accept my interpretation of the events and suspend judgment of Isabella’s success through Unit Four. By that time, of 278 course, both of us needed evidence of Isabella’s successful attainment of the program standards in order to recommend her for certification. Similarly, there were other times throughout the internship when Rachel saw progress where I saw only spinning wheels. For example, as shown through Units Two through Four, lsabella had a great deal of difficulty with establishing productive clasSroom communities. Whereas I thought this was an area of her practice that she should have been able to deal with more quickly, Rachel pointed out ways in which she felt lsabella was progressing in this area. Rachel was able to see how little things lsabella did--drawing out students typically silent in discussions, moving to physically stand near off-task students, talking quietly before or after class with students who experience had shown her could be disruptive--reflected Isabella’s thinking about and trying different strategies to improve this area of her practice. ‘ Rachel and I also occasionally noticed different things about what lsabella needed. Sometimes we even disagreed. This, too, was an extremely healthy aspect of our relationship that resulted in more productive Ieaming experiences for lsabella. At times, Rachel felt we should be expecting more from lsabella than I felt we should at that particular time in her internship. For example, Rachel was extremely concerned early in the “Stranger in the Village” unit with Isabella’s apparent difficulties in planning. I felt that the difficulties lsabella was experiencing were fairly typical at that point in an intern’s development. At other times, I lost sight of where lsabella needed to be by the end of the experience to ensure recommendation for certification. For example, 279 whereas I would have continued to provide a great deal of support with Isabella’s planning of the Q_th_el_lo unit, Rachel argued that by that time in her internship, lsabella needed to be able to demonstrate her ability to plan coherent units of instruction independently. Occasionally, I needed to become more directive. Occasionally, Rachel needed to become less judgmental. I would argue that because of our strong relationship, we were able through our discussions about Isabella’s practice to create an even more coherent experience that provided every possibility for Isabella’s success while also staying true to the program standards. Rachel and I had worked together with several previous preservice teachers. In addition, through our participation in a number of Professional Development School projects, we had formed a clear sense of what each of us thought was important both in terms of high school English teaching and preservice teachers Ieaming to teach English. I knew that I could trust Rachel to work with lsabella in ways that would reflect the program standards established by the preservice education program. Rachel knew that she could trust me to collaborate with her in our work with lsabella, rather than merely come in and override her suggestions or concerns. My knowledge of lsabella that extended beyond the internship also holds interesting implications of this research. Because I knew the types of experiences and coursework lsabella had participated in prior to the internship, l was in a position to better understand some of Isabella’s problems during her internship. I was also in a better position to strengthen connections between 280 what lsabella Ieamed in her preservice preparation, both prior to and during her internship, and what she did as she constructed her own practice. This conclusion argues for teacher education programs in which all university personnel involved with a cohort of preservice teachers know the types of Ieaming experiences preservice teachers have had in other courses. By working as teams of educators with cohorts of preservice teachers, stronger linkages could be made across coursework resulting in more coherent programs of teacher education. In addition, communication among teacher educators about the kinds of strengths and weaknesses they have seen in specific teacher candidates would also support the development of the individual preservice teacher across the span of his/her preservice program. For example, when a field instructor has opportunities to discuss the preservice teachers with whom she’s working with the instructors of their teacher education courses, important information may emerge that could help guide the direction of the field instructor’s work. This could result in less repetition across a preservice teacher’s undergraduate program while capitalizing on providing the types of instruction and experiences appropriate and relevant to the preservice teachers as they progress through the program. This also argues for consistent staffing. A program design which enables a teacher educator to move with a cohort of students through the program, as was the case with myself and Isabella, would seem to reap the benefits of more coherency in scaffolding learning experiences to push the preservice teachers’ development. It would also, again, reduce repetition. Perhaps most 281 importantly, however, the opportunity to follow their students into the field would keep teacher educators in touch with the struggles and challenges preservice teacher face as they attempt to put into practice what they’ve Ieamed at the university. Questions for Future Study While the conclusions arrived at through this dissertation research and their implications are clearly important, perhaps even more critical are the questions which this research has raised for further study. As we continue to strive to prepare English teachers who can go out into the public school arena and teach in ways which will enable their students to go out into the “real world” as educated and productive citizens, we must also continue to question the ways in which we prepare preservice teachers. Therefore, this dissertation raises both research and curricular questions for further investigation. Sitting here at my computer thinking about what I’ve learned from Isabella’s story, I am a bit daunted by how much more there is yet to be learned. Research uestions One limitation of this study was its focus on one preservice teacher. As I think about what I discovered regarding the critical place ownership of her teaching assumed for lsabella, it raises a number of further research questions. First, the ownership aspect of Isabella’s constructing a teaching practice seemed to reflect two dimensions--ownership of the texts she was teaching and then ownership of her teaching itself. 282 Given this, questions emerge concerning the process preservice teachers or practicing teachers go through in order to “own” pieces of text in ways that enable them to have strategic control of their teaching. In what ways and to what extent are there differences in the processes teachers use in acquiring ownership of canonical versus non-canonical texts? In what ways and to what extent are there differences in the types of ownership teachers have for canonical texts versus non-canonical texts? In what ways does having ownership of a text assist in or hinder using the texts for different purposes or in .. -5 different ways? For example, how do teachers think about using literature differently given the new or different ways in which they are being asked to teach? Extending the study to other cases would provide further information about how preservice teachers arrive at or assume ownership of texts, and by extension, their teaching. Do different preservice teachers come to own their teaching practices in different ways? If little or no curriculum is in place, in what ways does that affect a preservice teacher’s construction of a teaching practice, especially in terms of ownership? For lsabella, textual ownership and strategic control of the curriculum was critical in order for her to construct a teaching practice of her own. What other obstacles might be present for preservice teachers in constructing a teaching practice for which they feel ownership? Furthermore, this study raises a host of questions concerning in what ways and to what extent minority teachers see and understand non-canonical or multicultural texts. To what extent do they “own” these texts in different ways 283 than they might canonical texts? In what ways might their ownership of non- canonical or multicultural texts affect their gaining strategic control of their teaching and, by extension, their construction of a teaching practice? In what ways does that affect their thinking about how to teach such texts? In what ways might their understandings of non-canonical or multicultural literature conflict with what they are taught in preservice programs or with national, state or district standards? Initially, I had thought this dissertation would be about a preservice teacher learning to teach for transformative purposes (Giroux, 1988). It seemed to me that Isabella’s belief that literature and writing can be used to open students’ minds, challenge stereotypes and prejudices, and work toward a more just and equitable society matched well with the goals and objectives of critical theorists such as Giroux (1992), Sleeter and McLaren (1995), and Shor (1987). Many of the conditions which Cochran-Smith (1991) identifies as necessary to enable teachers to “teach against the grain” seemed to be present in the preservice education program, the participants, the site, and the curriculum. A thread that ran through the Pacesetter curriculum materials involved the oppression and subjugation of others. Given Isabella’s disposition, I had predicted that she would seize on this theme as an opportunity to open arenas for discussion of issues of social justice and equality. Yet that didn’t occur. Did she not recognize the theme? Did she not know what to do with the material to elicit the kinds of discussions that held transformative possibilities? Was she 284 concerned or wary of what would happen if such discussions did occur or how she would handle racially sensitive situations? As my research developed, it became clear that these kinds of questions were outside the scope of my study. The research revealed a story about how a preservice teacher went about Ieaming to construct her own teaching practice. It became important to understand how and why ownership assumed such a central place in Isabella’s construction of a teaching practice. As we continue to learn more about how and why issues of ownership affect preservice teachers’ ability to construct teaching practices, the implications of critical theory will emerge, raising further questions. What would preservice teachers need to know and be able to do in order to achieve the goals and objectives of critical pedagogy? In what ways might that be connected or might it influence a preservice teacher’s ability to construct a teaching practice for which she feels ownership? Will preservice teachers need to “own” critical theory in ways similar to owning literary texts in order to effectively incorporate it into their teaching practice? Another set of research questions has emerged concerning the expanding canon. As we continue to expand the canon, certain paradigms in the field of English Education are being redefined as seen in the recent Standards fer the English Language Arts (NCTE/IRA, 1996), for example. How does or will this paradigm shift affect what happens in K-12 English Language Arts classrooms? In what ways and to what extent will it affect or change students’ learning or understanding of subject matter? What does “successful” 285 integration of non-canonical or multicultural literature look like in an English language arts classroom? Documenting and studying individuals who know how to teach non-canonical and multicultural literature well could inform the efforts of teacher education programs in preparing teachers to teach in such ways. Qurriculum Questiens In addition to research questions, I also have questions regarding the curriculum of teacher education programs. Adams (1995) has argued that if a teacher doesn’t intend to teach Their Eyes were Watchim God any differently than she would Grapes of Wrath, then the teacher should not teach Hurston’s novel. What should English teachers know about the authors, and the cultural and historical contexts of non-canonical and multicultural texts? What skills and dispositions should English teachers acquire in terms of teaching such texts? While the national standards for the teaching of English call for the inclusion of non-canonical and multicultural texts, they do not define what teachers should be doing with those texts in public classrooms. As the discussion in Chapter One concerning the various multicultural education/literature programs reflects, there are many different schools of thought regarding the place and purpose for the inclusion of multicultural literature. Since the Standards do not define a particular approach, teachers are left to decide when and how to use multicultural literature. This gives rise to questions such as, is merely substituting a non-canonical or multicultural text for a canonical selection sufficient? What are the consequences for student 286 Ieaming? As teacher educators, should we be teaching our preservice teachers to use non-canonical and multicultural texts for purposes Other than or in addition to exposing students to cultures other than their own? Should we be teaching preservice teachers to use multicultural texts for transformative and social reconstructivistic (Sleeter & Grant, 1987) purposes? In addition, further questions emerged from this study in terms of preservice coursework and field experiences. With continually shrinking resources, how can we provide preservice teachers with the kinds of support lsabella received? What can or should teacher educators do to establish the kinds of relationships that proved effective in supporting Isabella’s growth as a teacher? To what extent can teacher education programs help preservice teachers uncover and confront feeling like a fraud as a teacher? In what ways can teacher education programs help preservice teachers develop ownership of their teaching? The Journey Continues As lsabella journeyed forth into her first paid teaching experience, her story of learning to construct a teaching practice would continue, for lsabella had developed a disposition that Ieaming to teach was a life-long journey with no established finish line. Similarly, as I finish this dissertation, I too continue a journey. While I have learned much, much remains to be learned as evidenced in the questions raised above. Helping others to Ieam to teach is a complex and multi-faceted endeavor. As we move toward a new millennium, our mission 287 as teacher educators will continue to require much from us in terms of inquiry, research, and reflection. 288 APPENDICES 289 APPENDIX A Pacesetter-Suggested Pathways and Literature Used by lsabella in Units 2, 3, and 4 290 SECOND FOCUS Alta-native Paths F'w—m a... Eu;- 1 A. we: 'In-ile. l rum-4mm . mum | lain-dd“ '. Bel-lathe- I ”can“ butane-VIE. OI FIRST FOCUS , 'A Very on Mun-n m- e m - ”Sanger in the Village” ”2.3m ism-u m) from Note: of a Native Son, with James Baldwin "°" ° " 3 150 m Dru-led llu a. an Wau- cam cm. um (one alternative: an “Shooting an Elephant,” .3 W. w W,” “n George Orwell) tro- mafia...” Rankin Imam “Small?“ OI Thee-undue!“ I-LQWeIh “with “Tit Ithaca-fi- 9,1360%“ EMIL'MWW m m‘ “Va-molt 'IheVeIdt‘ key M OI TM“ 291 CENTRAL TEXT and NETWORK OF RELATED TEXTS The Many Cultural Conversations of Their Eve: Were Watching God Language and identity Escape to Freedom (Reclaiming Language and other (and other works on slavery) forms of Expression) mm. m, f African American oral traditions: Bible - the flight out of Egypt sermon ”the donens.” I'signifying” Whitman’s Theremsa aildeonh Samples of Jim’s speech / Slave narrative: Admmres of Huckleberry Finn Harriet Jacobs’ Incidents from the Life of a Slow Girl Harlem Renaissance and other artists literature: Frederick Douglass’ Langston Hughes Narrative of the Life of a Slave Countee Cullen . Nella Larsen Stowe. Uncle Tom’s Cabin Art: Jacob lawrence, works about Harriet Tubman Ranare Bearden ' Music: Jazz-Billie Holiday and others. male "inheritors": spirituals. blues Ralph Ellison (Arts of improvisation. Ishmael Reed collage, dialogue) James Baldwin journalism: contemporary Richard Wright ,debates about native dialects. languages. and "English first" THEIR EYES WERE WATCHING GOD Other texts in the conversation The evolving understanding of the novel Controversies/Issues photographs and texts about Eatonville early reviews'by Hughes and Wright interviews with Hurston autobiography: Dust Track: on A Road Alice Walker’s reclamation- Hcmenway’s biography Looking for Zora, We competing images of black women (stereotypes) later works that build on Hurston’s: Hurston’s own writing about folklore- Toni Morrison. Alice Walker. Eatonville stories (and songs) collected in Gloria Naylor, Terry McMillan. Mules and Men Maya Angelou 292 Network [weeks 1 and 2] Topics - Historical contest: Maps and timeline - How Europeans saw Africans/Moors circa 1600 (Eldred Jones. Jack D’Amico) - Individuals in Society (Stephen Greablatt) - Family‘Man'iage-Love circa 16m (excerpts from diaries) WW Related scenes from other plays by Shakespeare (see p. 6) Six Degrees afSeparaa‘an - John Guare Early Modern poetry (see texts for "Option 2.‘ pp. 26-27) Jungle Fever - Director Spike Lee [weeks 3 and 4] "Othello in America: The Drama of Racial intermarriage” (56M) Film/Video versions of Othello (see films for ’'Option 3.’ p.30) The Elephant Man - Bernard Pomerance (see 'An Alternative Core Test') Playbayofthe Western World - J.M. Synge A 0011': Home - Henrik Ibsen Muslim - George Bernard Shaw (onlyifnotusedin Unit?) (Teachers build their own network around the core text.) 293 Calendar of Texts Unit Two - ‘Stranger in the Village’: Encountering the Other September 30 - November 4, 1996 “Rule Britannia” *“Shooting an Elephant” - George Orwell ”Housekeeping” - Rasheeda Adams ”Disability” - Nancy Mairs *“A Very Old Man with Enormous Wings” - Gabriel Garcia Marquez *“The Handsomest Drowned Man in the World” - Gabriel Garcia Marquez Unit Three - A Medley of Voices: Investigating Cultures and Voices in a Single Text November 4 - December 13, 1996 “Girl” - Jamaica Kincaid *“Mother to Son” - Langston Hughes Polonius’ speech to Laertes (Hamlet) - William Shakespeare “There was a Child went Forth” - Walt Whitman dedication in l Leve Myself when I am Laughing - Alice Walker “How It Feels to be Colored Me” *Their E es were Watchin od - Zora Neale Hurston Unit Four - Voices from the Past: lnheriting and Recreating Drama through Performance January 7 - April 3, 1997 *Othello - William Shakespeare “outta me onto you” - Ani Difranco * = texts suggested by Pacesetter curriculum 294 APPENDIX B Teacher Education Program Overview and Standards 295 .. 02.00.... 9.3008 0. 3.30... .0 02.02.00. a vow m: .. .00..00.n. 2.032. 302000.03 9.3003 0 00.0... 302000.90 0 now we .0 02.0.0003 9.3000. :30 0.9.0 .0 >020 0030.300 20.0.3.0... 0.0.3.022. .. .0.0E00.. Dws. 000 .0500. 92.0.8230 80.. 9.300023 00002.0. 000 9.3000. 000.. 0.003 .0... mm 000.03.. 00.020 9.3000 ... 5 030.00.... 0 won m0 .3 .50 . .00..00.n. 05.003 c. 0.30... 0 8.62.00 0 08 m: 3333300 0:0 .0050 0... 0. 02.0.0. 2 00.....20..0...00. . .0230... 000 00.0. 0.02000. .0 023.298 9.3000. :30 0.000 .0 >050 30302050 9.3000» .0 00.0... 3020020.... 0 80 we 3:32.50 2 2.03 00.3.38 2300:0000. 8.02.0... 0.0.. .2000 50.0.. . .0.0E00.. 00.020 Dws. 30.. 009.20 ....3 ..0..000. 92.0.2.0..003 9.3000700 0:0 003003.00 0.0033... mm 000.03. 9.3000... c. 03050.... 0 Sn m: =0“. .50. 02.00.... .0300 00 030w 0.003;... 0 0m0.0>< 9.303% 0:0 9.39000 0 Nov m... cam ..w .0030... ..0Em .0 03:03.0... 0. 000000. 0030093038 9.3000. .0 9.300... 0050.020 000... .33 30.0.0000 02.003090 3:30:50 .330 03003.0 E09000... .o 03.0. 920008.000: 3003.0 0.030... 0. 00320.... 020000 .0 32000.3 030.20.... 0.0E00.. 00.020 .0033 .0.0..0E .00330 0:30.000... 0. 0:00E .. .033 02.00... 0:0 >036 0.00370... v 09203. 0. .23.... .0035 9.3000» n 8.. we :0“. :5 0.00.03. .0 0000.. 9.3.00. .0500» .3... ..o 0.30 .30 03003.0 .305... 0. 0000... .. .053 5.33.0000 9.....00. 0 00.... 9.0.2.: 3.0300 0.00.0 0.03000. 30.. .9..E00. 000 9.3000. c0020.. 03002.03. 80.0000 >020 230 2003.0... w 2 9.3.03 0:0 0.00.004 v 80 w... ....w r... 30.00... :0..00_:t0o .030000 05 2 :o.00_E0< 0>..0000.0n. 3.2.32.5... :. 0.00.004 00.020 . ovw a.m.o 02.0... 000.5...0... .O .0 00:00. .0000000... 000... 30:0 0.2.30 9.33.0... 02.000.00.020 0033.. .038 2 332.0000 0:... 30.0.. 30.. .3050 0... 00.020... 20.08 0. 333.0000 0.2.50.0 .0... 0000000... >036 0:02 .0300 3.0.020 c0301 m 000 we :0“. ..... 00330.8 7.0.0. 00 00000.0 000.30 2 9.3.00. :30 0.000 :0 9502.0. 9.3.00. c032. >02m 0:02 9.3.03 :0 0.2.02.0». n on. m: =0“. .00 00 0.8.5.0 .053 2.05.0.0 2.: .o .8532 0.00500 .00 > :20 0. 00:03.00 00.2.03. 0.. h 0.0.3.00 .0>0_. 0.0.00E 9.300030 ....3 9.3000. 02.003 02000.08 00.....E00 c223 030E022 0.09.: .00.. 0:0 0 0200 03003.0 32.03005. .0..< ..0.00E00 92.00 0:. c. .00 we 9.0. 0:0 .00.. .033. 0... .0 =0. 0... 2 002.300 0.0 03003.0 3.05. 3200.300 0.0.0.. c020. 000.38 3020020...- -0... 03. 5.3 2000 0E0.mo.0 02.0.0003 .02000. .00... 0>.. 0.3.0.2 E050... 02.0.2.0... .0500... 2.0.02.5 88m 009:2! 0.. h .o >.0E..5m Bu.>mw>o 5.5.52... 296 MSU Teacher Preparation Program Standards The program standards represent undeutandinn. skills. commitments. dispositions necessary to be an et'fecnve and responsible beginning teacher. Developd by faculty from Michigan State University and by teachers from Alliance Schools associated with the Teacher Certification Programthesestandardsarealsocompatible withstateandnationalinitiativesaimedataaaesaing beginning teaching. Studentswiuworktowardthesesmndardsacrossmepmgiamastheyleunmthmkknowandaa likebeginningteachers. BecausetheProgramStandardsrepresentthedesiredoutcomesofdn progimhowever. theyparticularlypertaintotbeintemyear. TheProgramStandardsofiertb emnemm-ywmfl-wversitymsmnmsemmuleadusMSUfiaismscoflabmanng teachers—aswellastheinterns. aframeworkforassessingprogiessandleaming. Duringthefall semester. weseekevidencematinwrmaiemakingsansfaaayminmaenngmofdn ProgramStandardsinordertopassTESOlandtoberecommendedtocontinuewithTESOQ. Recommendation for continuing the internship experience will be based on the professional judgnentofthSUlmmecouabmanngtemmmndmhvamodnrstamfamihnwih theintern'steachingpractice. lnordertoberecommendedt‘orteachercertificationbytheeraiof theintemshipyear.aninternwillneedtoshowthatsheorheiscapahleofresponsible. autonomousteachingbasedonthel’rogramStandards. Duringthespringsemestenweaeek evidencethattheinternshavemetthergrmSnndudsandmreadymasnnneme responsibilitiesofbeginningteaching. Program Standards for (Mom m1 m'ectmattersandhowtoteachthem .Theinmmundersmndsuiesubjectmanens)asmdedtoteachit(them). Themmmmghtfuflylmkssubjectmnerandsnidenmmnngamspmsivecunicnm Tlieinmmplansandimplementsacmricuhnnofunderstanding. Themmrnismoughtfulabmussessmandinmlanmshipmphmingandteachmg. W W o ‘l'heinmrespectsandcaiesforallsnidentsinhis/hercharge. - TheinternpromOtesactivelearningandthoughtfulness. o lheinmbufldsonsmdents‘intuesmsuengmeandculmralbackgrounds. - ‘lheinmrnn'eatsallsmdentsascapableofleaming. - Theinterncreatesasafe. caring,productiveenvironmentintheclassroom. o Theintemmakestheclassroomaninclusivecomnmnity. o The intern helps students develop personal and social responsibility. Wl' ll . . | l I E . The intern works well as a teacherin a school community 0 o The intern works productively with his/her MSU liaison. collaborating teacher. field instructor and seminar insn'uctors in ways that support his/her learning to teach. The intern reflects on his or her experience and seeks opportunities for continued learning and ‘ improvement. . The intern is open to alternatives and construcrive feedback 297 REFERENCES 298 REFERENCES Adams, N. G. (1995). What does it mean? Exploring the myths of multicultural education. urban Education, QQU), 27-39. Baldick, C. (1990). The concise Oxford dictionary of literary terms. New York: Oxford University Press. Banks, J. A. (1993). Multicultural education: Development, dimensions and challenges. Phi Delta Kappan, _7_5 22-27. Belenky, M. F., Clinchy, B. M., Goldberger, N. R., & Tarule, J. M. (1986). Women’s ways of knowing: The development of self. voice. and mind. New York: Basic Books. Borich, G. D. (1999). Dimensions of self that influence effective teaching. In R. P. Lipka & T. M. Brinthaupt (Eds.), The role of self in teacher development (pp. 92-117). Albany, NY: State University of New York. Borko, H., & Livingston, C. (1989). Cognition and improvisation: Differences in mathematics instruction by expert and novice teachers. American Educational Research Journal. g§(4), 473-498. Brewbaker, J. M. (1997). On Tuesday morning: The case for standards for the English Language Arts. English Journal, §§(1), 76-82. Britzman, D. P. (1989). Who has the floor? Curriculum, teaching, and the English student teacher’s struggle for voice. Qurriculum lnguiry, 13(2), 143-162. 299 Brown, J. E., & Stephens, E. C. (Eds.). (1998). United in diversity: Using multicultural yoeng adult literature in the classroom. Urbana, lL: National Council of Teachers of English. Brunner, D. D. (1994). lnguity end Lefleetion: Framing narrative practice in education. New York: State University of New York Press. Buchmann, M. (1986). Role over person: Morality and authenticity in teaching. Teachers Qellege Beeord, 51(4), 530-544. Buchmann, M. (1987). Teaching knowledge: The lights that teachers live by. Oxford Review of Education. 13(2), 151-164. Buchmann, M. (1990). Beyond the lonely, choosing will: Professional development in teacher thinking. Teachers Cellege Becerd, 9_1_(4), 481- 508. Calderhead, J. (1991). The nature and growth of knowledge in student teaching. Teaching é Teaeher Edueatien, 2(5/6), 531-535. Chin, B. A. (1996). Standards yes: Let’s use the NCTE/IRA standards in our classrooms and communities. English Journal, §§(5), 14, 16. Church, R. L., & Sedlak, M. W. (1976). Education in the United Statee: An interpretive histoty. New York: Free Press. Cochran-Smith, M. (1991). Learning to teach against the grain. time Educational Review, §_1_, 279-310. College Board. (n.d.). Final report executive summary. New York: Author. 300 Cook, L., & Lodge, H. C. (1996). Veices in English classrooms: Honoring divereity end phange. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. Daniels, H. A. (1994). Pacesetter English: Let them eat standards. flgflfl m, 33(7), 44-49. Diegmueller, K. (1996). Standards for Language Arts are unveiled. Education Week, 1_5(26), 1, 13. Dilg, M. A. (1995). The opening of the American mind: Challenges in the cross-cultural teaching of literature. English Joumal, 53(3), 18-25. Duckworth, E. (1987). “The having of wonderful ideas” and other essays on teaching and Ieaming. New York: Teachers College Press. Elias, K. M. (1994). A positive look at Pacesetter English. English Journal. 83(7), 50-53. Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbeok of reeeareh en teaching (3rd ed., pp. 119-161). New York: Macmillan. Epstein, N. (1993). The friendl hakes ear : A thorou hl ainless ui the best of the bard. New York: Penguin Books. Feiman-Nemser, S. (1983). Learning to teach. In L. S. Shulman & G. Sykes (Eds.), Handbook of teaching and policy (pp. 150-170). New York: Longman. Fishman, A. R. (1996). Blinded by the light. English Journal, 85(7), 13-14. 301 Gates-Duffield, P. S. (1993). A gualitative analysis of the use of Language Arts instruction in two sixth grade classrooms to develop awareness and understanding ef cultural diversity. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI. Giroux, H. A. (1988). Teaehers as intellectuals: Toward a critical pedagogy of learning. Granby, MA: Bergin & Garvey Publishers. Giroux, H. A. (1992). Bord r ro in S' ultural w r nd th olitic of education. New York: Routledge. Giroux, H. A., & McLaren, P. (1994). Between borders: Pedagogy and the politics of culturel etudies. New York: Routledge. Graff, G. (1992). Beyond the culture was. New York: W. W. Norton. Greene, M. (1981). Contexts, connections, and consequences: The matter of philosophical and psychological foundations. Journal of Teacher gem, 3_2, 31-37. Grossman, P. (1990). Th makin of teach r: acher knowled e and teacher education. New York: Teachers College Press. Heller, C., & Hawkins, J. A. (1994). Teaching tolerance: Notes from the front line. Teachers College Record. Q56), 337-368. Hirsch, E. D. (1987). Cultural literacy: What evety American needs to know. New York: Vintage Books. Hogan, P. (1983). The central place of prejudice in the supervision of student teachers. Journal of Education for Teaching, 9(1), 30-45. 302 Holmes Group. (1986). lomottow’e teachere. East Lansing, MI: The Holmes Group. Holmes Group. (1990). Tomorrow’s schools: Principles for the design of professional development schools. East Lansing, MI: The Holmes Group. Holt-Reynolds, D. (1991). The dialogues of teacher education: Enteringa_nd influencing preservice teachers’ internal conversations (Research Report No. 91-4). East Lansing, MI: National Center for Research on Teacher Learning. Holt-Reynolds, D. (1992). Personal history-based beliefs as relevant prior knowledge in course work. American Educatienal Research Journal, 29(2), 325-349. Holt-Reynolds, D. (1996). Teaching what I’ve Ieamed: Prospeetive literature teachers’ use of their own expenise to eoneeptualize a teaching role. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York. Joseph, W. M. (1998). Coloring books. Teacher Magazine, 1_Q(1), 63-4. Kazemek, F. E. (1986). Whose reality and preparation for what kind of future? The Reading Teacher, 40, 260-2. Lampert, M., 8: Clark, C. M. (1990). Expert knowledge and expert thinking in teaching: A response to Floden and Klinzing. Educational Researcher, 3(5), 21-23, 42. 303 Leinhardt, G., & Greeno, J. G. (1986). The cognitive skill of teaching. Journal of Educational Psychology, 18(2), 75-95. Leinhardt, G., & Smith, D. A. (1985). Expertise in mathematics instruction: Subject matter knowledge. Journal of Educational Psychology, fl(3), 247-271. Livingston, C., & Borko, H. (1989). Expert-novice differences in teaching: A cognitive analysis and implications for teacher education. Journal of Teacher Edueation, 4_Q(4). 36-42. Lortie, D. C. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociologieal study. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lutz, W. (1996). Standards for the English Language Arts, or the triumph of education doublespeak? Curriculum Review, 16, 2. McBride, W. G. (1999). Introduction to Pacesetter English. [Online] Available http://www.co|legeboard.org/inde_this/pace/htmI/engintro.html, July 7, 1999. McIntosh, P. (1989). Feeling like a fraud: Part tvm (No. 37). Wellesley, MA: The Stone Center, Wellesley College. McLean, S. V. (1999). Becoming ateacher: The person in the process. In R. P. Lipka & T. M. Brinthaupt (Eds.), The role of self in teacher development (pp. 55-91). Albany, NY: State University of New York. Miller, S. M., & McCaskill, B. (1993). Multicultural literature andliteracies: Making space for differenee. New York: State University of New York Press. 304 Murphy, 8., & Trooien, R. P. (1996). Rumblings from the back row: Do we have to read another victim story? Teaching English in the Two-Year College, 2.3, 296-303. National Council of Teachers of English. (1996). uidelines for h r ara i n of teachers of English Language Arts. Urbana, IL: NCTE. National Council of Teachers of English & lntemational Reading Association. (1996). Standards fer the English Language Arts. Urbana, IL: NCTE. Nias, J. (1996). Thinking about feeling: The emotions in teaching. Cambridge Journal of Education, 26(3), 293-306. O’Brien, P. (Ed.) (1995). Setting Shakespeare free: Teaehing Twelfth Night and Cthelle. New York: Pocket Books. Petty, P. (1997). lncr asin dent n a em n n rt i n hr hth s of cooperative groups and authentic asessment. Unpublished master’s thesis, Saint Xavier University, Master’s Action Research Project, Chicago, IL. Pfeuffer, V. (1998). Searching for the authentic. English Journal,81(4), 64. Ralph, K. (1995). Classrooms without borders. Childhood Education. 71. 290- 292. Renyi, J. (1993). Coing public: Schpoling for a diverse democraey. New York: The New Press. Richardson, V. (1996). The role of attitudes and beliefs in learning to teach. In J. Sikula, T. J. Buttery, & E. Guyton (Eds), Handbook of researeh on 305 teacher education (pp. 102-119). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan. Richert, A. E. (1991). Using teacher cases for reflection and enhanced understanding. In A. Lieberman & L. Miller (Eds.), Staff develepment for education in the ‘905: New demands. new realities. new perspectives (2nd ed., pp. 113-132). New York: Teachers College Press. Robinson, R. F. (1988). Unlgeking Shakespeare’s language: Help for the teacher and student. Urbana, IL: NCTE. Rogers, T., & Soter, A. O. (Eds.) (1997). Reading across cultures: Teaching literature in a diverse seciety. New York: Teachers College Press. Rosaen, C. L., & Schram, P. (1997). Professional development for beginning teachers through practical inquiry. Educational Action Research. 5(2), 255-281. Rosenblatt, L. M. (1978). The reader, the text, the poem: The transactional theory of the literaLv work. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. Schempp, P. G., Sparkes, A. C., & Templin, T. J. (1999). Identity and induction: Establishing the self in the first years of teaching. In R. P. Lipka & T. M. Brinthaupt (Eds.), The Bple pf Self in Teaeher Development (pp. 142- 161). New York: State University of New York Press. Scholes, R. (1985). Textual power: Literaty theory and the teaching of English. New Haven: Yale University Press. 306 Scholes, R. (1995). An overview of Pacesetter English. English Journal. 84(1), 69-75. Scholes, R. (1999). Pacesetter English overview: “Voices of Modern Cultures.” [Online] Available http://www.collegeboard.org/inde_this/pace/html /eovrview.htm|, July 7, 1999. Schon, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Schwartz, E. G. (1995). Crossing borders/shifting paradigms: Multiculturalism and children’s literature. Harvard Educational Review. 6_5(4), 634-650. Schweiker-Marra, K. E., Broglie, M., & Plumer, E. (1997). Who says so? Ownership, authorship, and privacy in process writing classrooms. English Journal, 86(6), 16-26. Shannon, P. (1996). Mad as hell. Language Arts, 13,14-19. Shor, l. (1987). Critical teaching and every life. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15, 4-14. Shulman, L. S. (1988). Disciplines of inquiry in education: An overview. In R. M Jaeger (Ed.), Cemplementant metheds fer research in education (pp. 3-17). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association. Sleeter, C. E., & Grant, C. A. (1987). An analysis of multiculture education in the United States. Harvard Educational Review. fl(4), 421-444. 307 Sleeter, C. E., & McLaren, P. L. (1995). Introduction: Exploring connections to build a critical multiculturalism. In C. E. Sleeter & P. L. McLaren (Eds.), Multipultural education. critical pedagggyt and the politics of difference (pp. 5-32). New York: State University of New York Press. Smith, R. (1995). A walk down Mango Street. Teacher Mam, 6, 46. Spadano, J. W., Zeidler, D. L., & Chappell, M. F. (1997, July). Advancing pwnership pf understanding end responsibility through homework in mathematics education. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Pi Lambda Theta International Education Leadership Association, San Diego, CA. Stake, R. E. (1988). Case study methods in educational research: Seeking sweet water. In R. M Jaeger (Ed.), om lement me hod for re in education (pp. 253-269). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association. Stopper, R. (1996). Standards no: Let’s rewrite NCTE/IRA standards in plain English. English Journal, 85(5), 15, 17-18. Stotsky, S. (1995). Changes in America’s secondary school literature programs. Phi Delta Kappan, 26(8), 605-613. Vinz, R. (1993). m os'n at achin life: P rtial ulti I an sometim s contradictoty representations of teaching and learning literature (Concept Paper No. 12). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. 308 Vinz, R. (1996). Composing a teaching life. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook. Vinz, R. (1997). Capturing a moving form: ‘Becoming’ as Teachers. ELEM Edueation, 29(2), 137-146. Watkins, W. H. (1993). Black curriculum orientations: A preliminary inquiry. Harvard Educational Review, 63(3), 321-338. Westbury, |., & Wilkof, N. J. (1978). Jose h . chwab: Science curriculum and liberal education. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Wilson, S. M., Shulman, L. S., & Richert, A. E. (1987). “150 different ways” of knowing: Representations of knowledge in teaching. In J. Calderhead (Ed.), Exploring teachers’ thinking (pp. 104-124). Sussex: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Wolcott, H. F. (1988). Ethnographic research in education. In R. M. Jaeger (Ed.), Complementaty metheds for research in education (pp. 187-206). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association. Wolf, D. P. (1993). Rethinking Language Arts 12 as “The Voices of Modern Cultures.” New York: College Board and Educational Testing Service. Wolf, D. P. (1995). Of courses: The Pacesetter initiative and the need for curriculum-based school reform. English Journal, S40), 60-68. Wood, M. (1997). 12 multicultural novels: Reading and teaching strategies. Portland, ME: J. Weston Walch Publisher. 309 "Illllllllllllllllllllllllll“