.s {v
my
‘
‘c41' — .
v—W\ _Vv‘
‘. . u...
on
.L-
iziq.‘ I'm, ~ .
15"“,1‘gg‘15'é
‘lisi‘igzii'iv‘i
0
haw:
'4' 2' "‘;‘_"~!-'.U.". ‘
. u‘Aé;~?‘-'e.ï¬ir twig» 3:553:
A: iii“.#539191.tire-(.329 .
i p’ al'flhflï¬g‘wIRANMHHB
...:1!Li‘ "‘ ‘ ‘3' '
max.
I
.1
11‘ I .
,‘m d
,.‘§‘A
(xi
ugh?! »
'31.“:1. ..
.amtumlw . . «
W;
".9
isixï¬â€˜fmm
S
I’
. .........— Im~«-r>‘v-
u. .. ,w- .
A. . a.†, m...
.. ... ..
. ..
. ...
...
l
m. . . .
,$,~-4A,.n ,
-. 351% .. Edi-2.92%- iffiï¬zm
mum} '-»1:'!I:wv:{;'76 ‘ as;
: “HRHâ€!!!AK.}€J1“?}4‘31‘!‘:,§figy‘ "“12““
z": 2 ,1 v.4; ‘5‘» Fiï¬â€ _.. i -.<
‘ -' Er.) n’ï¬mï¬iï¬â€˜vEndi’wh-I . â€9‘
"ii; sum: #:rzmezzsm' s -
".4, n4}1i3gé§jii1p§§af13i'.§ V1 . . .
‘kg‘ ~“.' - : . ‘n ."- i}‘ J 0 1:,“
f‘ .mi’?‘?;*="" 82%;. L“ .
‘ §"§{!13r1§f33i.‘m’:5‘-1
"Q; â€5." ‘1 â€N1“ ‘5-
u‘ 9‘“
1:.
b. :B
14b . .
' E? i m!
r ‘3. .
1" vi'ti'!
1 | _
:" i
u.
A .. . .
. ‘ . n . L
4 u ‘.
â€"1. .A , .... I. in ‘ .
.n
£77
I
c.
~ ‘
’ A .4 .v
. -
M, w
1 l P i .L .... v
"wk-1w, .. ... , i._ i
â€' .Efl“ ~ '
'v < . » um~ -
. ,. .1 A., _
'. u. . A '
< - .. - 4:355: i. _.
‘ .' "'3 «w i
‘ ' n ' ‘V
:3?
L‘:
b
An!
Pf;
A... m
$3
._‘
.. .
3441.4."
W.
w
«a
.
" P3911;
L
la.
in;
i
t
{I
K
1. 0-
:51:35 ..
W1:
n-Mnn
w .
m.-.».,._—.- 4.â€. A
,ué.
. ï¬n
m
A...â€
$3-
a
rmtxzx:
D
_ ’ . ' J,
ii" .i‘A“"‘," ‘3"
: , 5 Wind"
. ’ A‘ '( t;
1:an .J‘
.u
pa. "IN-C
4.13.
.’
-~
- .- ' any...
.-
â€am—-
. “Aw -,..‘.
Mâ€_»
_ w . .\
mm... <
‘ WSW!
...... . 4L
.—
‘.
HI
4
“V
2.7.1::
17."; -,.A
.m- .
"a...“
‘F ‘ .qu ')
‘ “hi—3LT; .‘
3‘
v.-
.snmonov— .u
«no».
£7735}:-
..0 , ..
: g‘h'ilï¬
aiss’139‘:43¥
, _ h.
w! as
H
93:3?»
37" . ' "H 5‘ I" 2*..- ’t‘ R - -" ‘ _
MAL ‘E‘E":£;’r‘e‘.§iv:« M .. A sum-“i .1: .9 m
m Mï¬ï¬Ã©ï¬fiï¬fï¬iï¬tx. . 1:353: Alï¬t‘igzï¬ilï¬v Mai" 1%? . f:
[i' #351115 V “gym; 'I 7}] '-‘< .‘fl’l;_ fl ._ ’-' J. ‘ , .-Ix:‘: ‘|=.:. ; . .» ' : ‘3; a '
i i I I ‘ii 1' futigiigziiflfld “HEMâ€? E gig; . 1. {hikï¬ii , -ï¬â€™Â§zÃ©Ã©Ã©ï¬ â€˜ 55%
x 1 . ! I ... '... r ’ . I ' A
-. ' m
1“!)
' . ' ‘ ‘J'nT-J
awe—«-
~aw£llh
\ID"
a
u
â€L." Fâ€;
~..$
w
iv
“dam...
I-
A.
., '3 .
:- t'-. .- -
4km: " -
‘ -‘ ' i
’ -
.unn". 4
:‘vml WM
43
1"" "‘3
r , , A
--.». . .
‘u‘ .mï¬. ‘ r _
u' u. ‘ ‘ i >
- . .
‘vtl
u
um}
" '2: 1
i ? "Jiliï¬ï¬niig .n
I ,u 'z..1-’;éfi13..:€1.k ]. a
. :,‘~,.|§‘§.I:“U(I‘§ Chg?“
Mug-5%Igngizgw
"1‘ "Wit-.1" L“?
rut
A.
2:. 3.
. u ‘A
2:..x..;~:;..::':
. .
£4
.»
3..
5:“.
7‘
‘ “mm
.A â€:3
.. ' n
,
..
A ..
m... ;-
. 3m;
l l‘:|'!ir:‘ "; 5"!“ ‘r H
"iiaiééifï¬z, ‘
H33".
RI
n...
as."
s vow-«av...
0 .m..,
.A - o
» , -... ‘t.
in: Maï¬a:
“:’:'-T"‘ 2 I ‘4‘ '5’ ‘
.‘-v,-.
‘ Mark
~44
. Rt,
:9
f
7
.
,.
a v
m—uw...
' ‘ 4 .
' .-
L44.
. . A.
p...
' Z. a
A ff" , -‘-
A A A . v .
$.35
.. .A
...'~.
u.“ nun. ..
m ‘lwth--vm
i.
f.'..\,‘ .
....... ¢. A
- 4-
- v-
. m.
A #5
.H-~...~..N~.,..A. -
. a
‘ m vnn—
- r - ‘ ...,. -. .7. ...,
. AA... .. -
A PL- .
- ..
0:. m
“A
In. ,. . ,
. V .
~ r.
er. 1 .. y .
. . .
A .w
L'
.au—
-m-.- 4.-“3
“mam-
n
.-..
r . . _ .
. .. . .
. - . - "‘1, A . AJ , v . :A
. A. A. . .,.A . . .. . ' _ . . _ ,
. .. ; A ' 1 ' 4' ‘ > . ‘ ~ .1 ‘ . _' - . ‘ _, , . ,. A.
.. . . A_ i “" .il‘ " . r A - ~ .1, , . V. . . at. u. A . " ’1 - .1,
- .3 v u- ..1. y‘. ‘ .. . 7 < U ..I . v , "a. .3- . _ ‘ u- v ' - * .. ' , j .A J H
.. -‘ . . :2. “:7 . .‘ r ' - : w .. . “5.".- .~,_ ‘ n .'.. A -. . ‘ ’5: u. . A ‘ . - ‘ " .v "A" - -
. .. ‘ .wu .. A ~ A, . A . u .. . . I .. .. A ‘ . nu: u... . A .7 M . ‘ A ' ‘ v ' an o
- . . - mo - -c- . a.“ tu- - . . . .. . - . “a - . U , _ 3: 3‘: - q: H ,_, ,_, ._
a: . a ' _ . - :33“ v“ V ,, I. :- - '. ' . . ’H . . . . r u- r [N : < y; a ~ - ‘.- . _ .a u ' - V ~ g- a ,. r"...
a. "“. â€.1 . 4-,“. .“2 -¢- .... . . . .. : ..... . w. A ‘ “m†. ‘ -‘ v .- A' . F ' *0 .‘ ‘ “ ’ Rn ‘
Twitg‘E’ ' ,, .:A'. a . '.' . . , , A. " A ', ‘ . ~ _. m up. . ." A “fl . . . __ co-vT‘ :r J! mg;
~ v . . : u 4 I '1 n '1 .. I - ‘ ‘ v ‘ ' n. ' , ' ' I ’
, - - - . . . 0 A1 1, . w. . .. _. m4 -_ ‘ - , A ‘ . _. .. - “4v ‘ . M
n... 1“?» ‘.- . ~ . a A i . i , .. .' , , . . ,..,. . . A A r . ‘ i ., A 3, . ' . $1 3:"
“m". - ... , - u "'33 . .. .w . '. . : â€â€˜1 g'. ' . .. u , , A. . - - -
'- ~.A A Am r. . . . A m . i . .‘ . . . .. . . . « | . . m . . . 3. A.__
‘ . . i . As 4 .t“ A , .. .. - i. .. A .. .. ,. . 0 A
. '3‘ . , . ..- A. . .
..' ' " 1.." 415' ‘3 ‘ " ‘ . 3. . A " A .. ‘.' ... ‘ n~ ‘ ‘ A ' V
. n . v . .A . . . . . . . i, A . . . A .
1307.. . w. .3"? . . . . . . . -
"‘ " w h' . . . . . A . . â€â€˜3.†A .
; M . I T ‘ c- . .4. ' ’3'. ‘ .1 4' .
I ' . . ' . '
. ...
no“ vnqqnp—
u ..' 4:
w
â€gs.-
w a it» _
iiH1jI;!"’.€6 itsâ€; ‘ I? l“ 6‘ 1i , i: ‘: .( ‘1‘“! £319.
% 1i} ,
uwouu—w
Ww‘Gp—m—A ...
l ' -,
1‘ i ‘ i' ._ .
1m: 1:! N 1* fi -. “I a; a «we»
Mgtiigflg’gfl.:rmlgu mg 'I’ m}; . ï¬g I‘ k ‘1‘ ' ‘ ‘3'. ,, $391311? '
THESIS
'3
00:;
This is to certify that the
dissertation entitled
TELLING STORIES OF SELF IN MULTILINGUAL CONTEXTS:
BEGINNING AND EXPERIENCED TEACHERS' CONVERSATIONS IN AN
AUTOBIOGRAPHY DISCUSSION GROUP
presented by
Catherine Hindman Reischl
has been accepted towards fulï¬llment
of the requirements for
Ph.D. degree in Weation
Mug/WK
professor
Date
ply-t
\D
to
\D
MSU i: an Afï¬rmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0- 12771
LIBRARY
Michigan State
University
PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAYg RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.
an
DATEDUE | DATE DUE DATE DUE
cp
6’01 cJCIRC/DaeDuepss-p. 15
TELLING STORIES OF SELF IN MULTILINGUAL CONTEXTS:
BEGINNING AND EXPERIENCED TEACHERS’ CONVERSATIONS IN AN
AUTOBIOGRAPHY DISCUSSION GROUP
By
Catherine Hindman Reischl
A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulï¬llment of the requirements
for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
College of Education
1 999
ABSTRACT
TELLING STORIES OF SELF IN MULTILINGUAL CONTEXTS:
BEGINNING AND EXPERIENCED TEACHERS’ CONVERSATIONS IN AN
AUTOBIOGRAPHY DISCUSSION GROUP
By
Catherine Hindman Reischl
This study explores the educative nature of conversation and the evocative quality
of autobiographical literature and its potential as a focal point for beginning and
experienced teachers' discussions regarding their beliefs and practices about the role of
literacy and culture in the education of diverse students. Pre-service teaching interns and
their cooperating teachers in an urban elementary multilingual school participated in a
six-session, monthly autobiography discussion group in which they read, wrote about,
and discussed excerpts of autobiographies about the language, literacy, and cultural
experiences of immigrants and refugees and their teachers. The "book club" model was
adapted from a technique developed for teaching literature with children (Florio-Ruane &
deTar, 1995; Raphael & McMahon, 1994) .
Utilizing methods drawn from sociolinguistics and ethnography, analysis focused
on the discourse dynamics of the group and the participants' perspectives and learning.
Data examined included video and audio tapes, ï¬eld notes, participants' writing, the
researcher's teaching journal, and interviews with the participants. As participants
narrated experiences from their own lives and listened to those of others, they appear to
have grown in their understandings of how language, culture and literacy experiences
help to shape identities and school experiences of both students and teachers. In addition,
these conversations created opportunities for teachers to examine their own relationships
as teachers at different points in their careers and to challenge traditions of hierarchy.
The ADG had at its core engaging and artful content--autobiographical literature.
ADG participants vigorously responded to this literature, constructing a conversational
"third space" (Gutierrez et al., 1995) , a place where the scripts of beginning and
experienced teachers intersected with the voices represented in the literature and created a
new set of language practices. The talk that ensued was exploratory, inquisitive,
uncertain, awkward, personal, and surprising. Thus, the mediational device of telling of
stories of self, offered beginning and practiced teachers new avenues for constructing a
dynamic culture of teaching (Eisenhart, 1995).
This study offers insights into the use of autobiographical literature as a
pedagogical tool in ï¬eld-based teacher education and the role of conversation between
beginning and experienced teachers in promoting reflection on teaching in multicultural
and multilingual settings.
Cepyright by
CATHERINE HINDMAN REISCHL
1999
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This research was funded by an American Fellowship through the American
Association for University Women. I am very grateful for their support of this
dissertation.
Teachers, interns, bilingual instructional assistants, and administrators at
“ Tapestry School†have taught me much about what it means to create a school that
focuses on compassionate, intellectual, and artful education for diverse children. I am
grateful for the opportunity to participate in everyday life in this school and for the
friendships I have been privileged to develop with Tapestry people.
I would like to thank my committee members, Susan Florio-Ruane, Jenny Denyer,
Lynn Paine, and Doug Campbell for their support and assistance throughout the research
and writing process. I am inspired by their excellent and creative work.
I would also like to thank my friends, Jennifer Borman, Jocelyn Glazier and Mary
McVee for our many conversations about becoming researchers, writing dissertations,
and being women of many interests and commitments.
Finally, my children, Hannah and Charlie Reischl and my husband, Tom Reischl,
have been remarkably patient and encouraging as I did this work. Their love and laughter
is central to my life.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Tables
List of Figures
CHAPTER I: EDUCATING BEGINNING AND EXPERIENCED
TEACHERS WHO WORK WITH MULTILINGUAL/
MULTICULTURAL STUDENTS
Introduction: Statement of problem and rationale for this study
Brief Description of this Study
Central Questions
Literature Overview: Situating understandings of language, literacy
and culture at the core of teacher education
Sociocultural Approaches to Teacher Education
Approaches to Educating Teachers to Teach Diverse Students
Developing Teaching Identities
Beginning and Experienced Teachers As Colleagues
Potential of autobiography discussion group as a context for
, teacher development
Beginning and experienced teachers’ development in ï¬eld-based teacher
education in a multicultural, multilingual school
Intern and CT stances early in the year
Change over time
Organization of the following chapters
CHAPTER 2: CONTEXTS AND METHODS OF THIS STUDY
Context of this Study
Brief Description of Tapestry School
Description of Participants
Readings
Structure of Autobiography Discussion Group Sessions
Research Methods
Design and data collection
Methods of analysis
Other research issues
'Gaining entry
Risks and beneï¬ts to participants
Playing many roles
vi
H
N\O\IO\O\ mun-a
CHAPTER 3: SEEKING A THIRD SPACE: ANALYSIS OF
BEGINNING AND PRACTICED TEACHERS’
CONVERSATIONS
Features of teachers’ talk about text
Perceptions of self within a community of practice
Scripts and spaces
“High involvement,†learning, and third space conversations
Personal narratives and situated text-driven debate.
Examples of high-involvement conversations
Using personal narrative in constructive conversation
Situated, text-based debate as constructive conversation
Upcoming analyses
CHAPTER 4: WHAT’S LITERACY GOT TO DO WITH IT? TELLING
STORIES OF SELF IN RESPONSE TO “THE PATTERSON
PUBLIC LIBRARYâ€
Introduction
Synopsis of "The Paterson Public Library"
Themes in the text
Story .and Space
Literacy as a "state of grace"
Evocative literacy narratives
Participants' responses to the text and to each other
Laura's themes
Beth's Descant
The chorus of responses
Conversations of critique of the text
Discussion: What’s literacy got to do with it?
CHAPTER 5 : HONORING STYLE BY DESTROYTNG THE TEACHER.
DEFINING TEACHER/STUDENT RELATIONSHIPS BY
TALKING THROUGH TEXT
Introduction
Synopsis of "Daughter of Invention"
Examining the Conversation
Context
Initial conversation
Constructing a deï¬nition of destroying the teacher
First cuts on destroying the teacher
Destroying by challenging the teacher
Destroying the teacher by stepping back
Destroying the teacher by stepping forward
Destroying the teacher by creating thinkers
Destroying the teachers with whom we work
Practicing transformational talk
vii
CHAPTER 6: TALKING THROUGH TEXT AS ONE ROUTE TO THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A DYNAMIC TEACHER CULTURE
Introduction
The ADG as a space for constructing “ critical colleagueshipâ€
Autobiographical literature as a provider of space
Further questions
Further implications
Appendix A: Key to transcription conventions
Appendix B: Tirneline for research
Appendix C: Data Chart
Appendix D: Interview Protocol (Interns)
Appendix E: Interview Protocol (CTs)
Appendix F: Statement of Informed Consent to Participate (Interns)
Appendix G: Statement of Informed Consent to Participate (CTs)
Appendix H: Application for Approval of a Project Involving Human
Subjects
Bibliography
viii
143
143
143
149
156
157
161
163
165
167
175
178
181
190
Table 1:
Table 2:
Table 3:
Table 4:
Table 5:
Table 6:
Table 7:
Table 8:
Table 9:
LIST OF TABLES
ADG Participants
Autobiography Discussion Group Readings
Typical Schedule of ADG Sessions
Features of high involvement in third space conversations that
featured personal narratives
Features of high involvement in third space conversations that
featured situated text-based debate
Beth’s Descant
Cooperating Teachers’ Initial Responses to Beth
Trio of narratives with Beth's Descant
Interns’ Destroy Deï¬nitions
ix
l?
m
(D
30
34
4o
63
63
97
101
102
126
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Conversation in the Third Space
Figure 2: Timeline for ADG#4: Situated text driven episode:
“ Should we be teaching culture?â€
lit?
59
75
CHAPTER 1
EDUCATING BEGINNING AND EXPERIENCED TEACHERS WHO
WORK WITH MU LTILIN GUAL/MULTICULTURAL STUDENTS
Introduction: Statement of Problem and Rationale for this Study
Teaching language minority students requires particular attention, knowledge, and
insights into the roles of language and culture in the classroom. As a teacher, teacher
educator, and researcher, I have been fascinated and puzzled by the responses of
educators to language minority students who have joined their mainstream classrooms.
Some teachers seem to engage fully in the complex personal and professional work of
drawing language minority students into learning with their monolingual peers. Others
claim that they are not "trained to do this kind of work"--that someone else should "teach
English to those kids before they plunk them in my classroom" and that “it’s not fair to
other children!†I've heard these responses from what appear to be very reasonable and
committed teachers. Confronted with language diversity in their own classrooms, most
teachers feel less than well-prepared; a few welcome this challenge.
Assisting students who are learning English to become full participants with an
English speaking group of students is routinely difï¬cult, and teacher education programs
have rarely educated teachers to develop the skills, knowledge, and dispositions that
might assist them in this work. Yet American teachers have been teaching diverse
students from a wide array of language and cultural backgrounds since school has existed
in this country. Today, approximately one in seven students between the ages of 5 - 17
speaks a home language other than English and the number of these students is estimated
to be growing (Minicucci, 1995; Ofï¬ce, 1994) The majority of these students are poor
and often do not have access to adequate nutrition, housing or health and dental care.
Dropout rates are high--estimated, for example, at 43% for Hispanic immigrants--and
academic success in school is low (Cummins, 1994; Minicucci, 1995). Even when
students are participating in formal English as a second language or bilingual programs,
most spend the majority of their time in regular education classrooms with English
speaking teachers and peers (Genesee, 1994) So, while teachers continue to debate
whether teaching language minority students is “really their job†, more and more of
these students appear in their K-12 classrooms. And, unlike the classrooms of a hundred
years ago, there is growing press to teach higher order reasoning to all children in and
through dialogue with others (Gavelek & Raphael, 1996).
Although current demographics indicate rising numbers of culturally and
linguistically diverse students, the current and projected population of teachers, especially
K—8, remains females who come from mainly lower-middle and middle income Euro-
American families (Cazden & Mehan, 1989). Increasingly, teachers and their students do
not share cultural and social experiences. In addition, while research shows that more
than 50% of all teachers interact with students who speak English as a second language
(Penï¬eld, 1987), few teacher candidates or veteran teachers have had opportunities to
examine their beliefs and practices regarding the teaching of linguistically and culturally
diverse students in their teacher education programs or professional development
activities (Clair, 1995; Grant & Secada, 1990; Penï¬eld, 1987; Zeichner, 1993). Thus, it
appears that the teaching of culturally and linguistically diverse students in public school
classrooms is left largely to chance.
Researchers claim that while documentation of these problems is ample, studies
examining ways of preparing a largely homogeneous teacher population to work with
increasingly diverse students remain relatively under represented in the literature on
teacher education (Grant & Secada, 1990; Zeichner, 1993). Clearly, there is a great need
to identify and research teacher education practices that prepare both beginning and
experienced‘ teachers to effectively educate students from linguistically and culturally
diverse backgrounds.
' I have chosen to use the terms "beginning" and "experienced" as terms that generally distinguish how
long participants have worked as teachers in classrooms. However, I assume that all participants are
Brief Description of This Study
To that end, this dissertation examines the experiences of interns and their
cooperating teachers in a full academic year, post-bachelor's degree, teacher education
program at a major university in the Midwest. In this study interns and the cooperating
teachers (hereafter “ CTsâ€) with whom they worked in a multilingual elementary school,
Tapestry Schoolz, participated in a six-month autobiography discussion group (hereafter,
“ ADGâ€) which I created, led, and documented as a participant-observer. 1n the sessions,
we read, wrote about, and discussed autobiographical literature written by linguistic,
ethnic, and racial minority writers and their teachers. This literature focused on the
authors’ language, literacy, culture, and schooling experiences.
The ADG had considerable structure. Each session followed a modiï¬ed book
club format (F lorio-Ruane & DeTar, 1996; Raphael & McMahon, 1994). This format3
offered opportunities for listening, reading, writing, and conversation in small groups of
three to four pe0ple and in the entire group of nine people. As the researcher and
university instructor in this group, I facilitated and studied the ADG conversations as a
participant-observer. I collected audio and video tapes of sessions, kept ï¬eld notes and a
teaching journal, studied participants’ writing from the group, and interviewed each
participant about their experiences. Utilizing methods drawn ï¬om sociolinguistics
(Cazden, 1988; Goï¬inan, 1981; Gutierrez, Baquendano-Lopez, & Turner, 1997;
Gutierrez, Ryrnes, & Larson, 1995; Tannen, 1989) and ethnography (Erickson, 1981;
Erickson, 1986) my analysis focused on a close examination of the patterns of discourse
in the ADG, and how that discourse changed over the six months that the group met.
The group offered both context and content for educative talk--for beginning and
practiced teachers to share in the reading of personal narratives and then to begin to tell
"experienced." All of the participants in this study draw on their experiences, both personal and
professional, as they interact in the autobiography discussion group. Beginning teachers are also referred
to as “ internsâ€; experienced teachers are referred to as “ cooperating teachers†or “ CTs.â€
2The school and all participants are referred to by pseudonyms.
3See Chapter 2 for a detailed description of this format.
stories of themselves (Eisenhart, 1995; McVee, in press) in a context that allowed them to
teach and learn in each other's company (Florio-Ruane & DeTar, in press). In addition,
these occasions for talk offered opportunities to study teachers and interns in conversation
about issues regarding the teaching of diverse students and about their mentor/novice
relationships and to begin to understand both what they talked about and how they
participated in these conversations. Currently, research on children’s cognitive
development advocates dialogic literature-based learning (Au, Mason, & Scheu, 1995;
Gavelek & Raphael, 1996; McMahon & Raphael, 1997; Raphael & Hiebert, 1996;
Samway & Whang, 1996; Wells, 1997), this study is an example of similar dialogic
literature—based learning on the part of beginning and practiced teachers.
In this dissertation, I examine the autobiography discussion group as a possible
site for constructive conversations in a “third space†(Gutierrez et al., 1997; Gutierrez et
al., 1995) in which participants explored their beliefs and practices as individuals and as
members of communities of practice (Rappaport, 1995; Spindler & Spindler, 1993).
Such conversations, though complex and fleeting, offered opportunities to research
teachers’ talk as they worked to construct knowledge about engaging diverse students in
meaningful learning. As such, this study offers images and analysis of a teacher
education pedagogy that views learning to teach as participation in the acquisition of a
particular discourse, the creation of an "identity kit" that includes the use of language in
particular ways in particular contexts (Denyer & Florio-Ruane, 1995; Gee, 1990;
Gutierrez, 1999). Such "acquiring" of discourse includes creative interchange between
participants that renews and recharges the language and constructed knowledge of all
participants.
Perhaps most importantly, the context of the autobiography discussion group
(ADG) had at its core engaging and artful content--autobiographical literature. The
representations of self present in the autobiographical literature provided templates of
authorial voices of individuals working to create narratives that analyzed their lives in
particular points in space and time (Bruner, 1993; Coles, I989; Dyson & Genishi, 1994;
Florio-Ruane, 1997; Franzosa, 1992; Greene, 1978; Salvio, 1995; Spindler & Spindler,
1993; Witherall & Noddings, 199]). As the analysis of the autobiography group
discussions will show, ADG participants vigorously responded to this literature. Through
reading, responsive writing, and discussion of this literature, participants in the ADG
constructed a "third space" (Gutierrez et al., 1995), a place where the scripts of beginning
and practiced teachers intersected with the voices represented in the literature and created
a new set of language practices. The kind of talk that ensued was exploratory, inquisitive,
uncertain, awkward, personal, and surprising. Occasionally, especially during the last
three sessions of the ADG, the conversation centered on identifying problems of teaching
practice and naming the range of possible solutions. Participants used the literature to
construct this talk; they used the context and the content to tentatively move out of
conversational positions with which they were familiar and into discursive positions
where they practiced new forms of talk.
Central Questions
As a participant-observer in this group’s ongoing conversation, the following
questions bitcame my focus as I analyzed the data:
- What is the nature of teachers' involvement when they talk together around a selection
of autobiographical literature that tells of the language and cultural experiences of the
writer?
0 How does this talk unfold in the company of beginning and practiced teachers who
work together in a multilingual setting?
- What discourse patterns, processes, and content are exposed through analysis of such
talk?
0 How do participants describe their involvement in such conversations?
- What extensions do participants make from this experience to their thinking about the
teaching of their multilingual students?
In the following section of this introductory chapter, I outline the theoretical basis
for this study by Situating understandings of language, literacy, and culture at the core of
teacher education. I draw on interdisciplinary research on teacher education,
anthropology, sociolinguistics, and literature studies to make this case. While I include
related research throughout the chapters of this dissertation, the following synthesis of the
literature situates the reader within the foundational research base for this study.
Literature Overview: Situating Understandings of Language, Literacy
and Culture at the Core of Teacher Education
Sociocultural Approaches to Teacher Education:
Sociocultural theory frames language, culture and learning as intricately
intertwined. Gutierrez, Baquedano-Lopez, & Turner (1997) summarize the role of
language in learning:
...individuals use language to communicate a variety of meanings in different
contexts where they exist both as individuals and as members of communities.
Language is a tool for social interaction and thus, indexes or signals particular
identities and membership in groups (Cole, 1996; Gee, 1990; Ochs, 1992; Rogoff,
1990). Language is also a tool we use to express and make sense of our
experience; it is a tool that transforms our thinking (V ygotsky, 1978; Vygotsky,
1986; Wertsch, 1986). Thus, language is fundamental to the constitution of self
and is at the core of our social, emotional, and cognitive experiences (p.369).
From this perspective, language is at the heart of all our work as teachers. It is central to
our interactions with students; it is central to our own learning. The ways that we use
language fundamentally constitute who we are as individuals and as members of larger
communities.
Language and literacy are always situated in particular cultural and social
contexts. Current re-examinations of literacy pedagogy (New London Group, 1996;
Gutierrez et al., 1997; Pearson, 1996) offer visions of classrooms in which students use
language in ways that equip them to productively deal with changes in their work,
citizenship, and private lives. In discussing the consequences of these changes regarding
the teaching of literacy, The New London Group (1996), an international group of
scholars who are working to frame new conceptions of literacy, emphasizes that teachers
will need to create a “pedagogy of multiliteracies†(p.64) that demands carefully
constructed curriculum that is responsive to language, culture, and context issues. The
New London Group authors explain this pedagogy:
...we decided to use the term “multiliteracies†as a way to focus on the realities of
increasing local diversity and global connectedness. Dealing with linguistic
differences and cultural differences has now become central to the pragmatics of
our working, civic, and private lives. Effective citizenship and productive work
now require that we interact effectively using multiple languages, multiple
Englishes, and communication patterns that more frequently cross cultural,
community and national boundaries (New London Group, 1996 p.64)
This “pedagogy of multiliteracies†serves as a useful ï¬amework for teacher
education as well. Teachers live in a richly diverse world and teach students to be
participants in this world. Thus, teacher education must offer teachers opportunities to
learn to think of the work of teaching as situated, culturally saturated, and embedded in
language. Teachers must similarly learn to think of their students and themselves in this
way. The challenge for teacher educators is in creating contexts and content that provide
opportunities for this kind of teaching and learning. This study represents a foray into a
“ pedagogy of multiliteracies†in teacher education.
Approaches to Educating Teachers to Teach Diverse Students
Paine (1989) in a study of pre-service teachers' views of diversity, found that
prospective teachers focused mainly on "individual difference" in their discussions of
diverse students, viewing diversity issues as decontextualized and static. Similarly,
Sleeter (1996) in a study of professional development on multicultural education that
involved twenty-ï¬ve experienced teachers, found practicing teachers had a similar focus
on individual difference:
Most teacher conceptions of multicultural education emphasized individuality and
success within the existing social system. They differed from each other mainly in
the extent to which they saw race and culture as helpful factors to consider in
preparing children to compete successfully. They also differed in their assessment
of their own students' chances for success and their estimate of the kinds of
support and help their students needed. Theirs were mainly debates between
conservatism and liberalism. Several had adopted the conservative "children-at
risk" discourse in that they focused on characteristics of students that hinder their
success (culturalist explanations of inequality) rather than characteristics of
institutions that block attempts to advance. (Sleeter, 1996 p.75)
These ï¬ndings suggest that as preservice and practicing teachers conï¬'ont the social and
historical dilemmas played out in daily interactions in classrooms, their orientation
towards diversity may lead them into pedagogy that simply reinforces unequal practices.
The available research focusing on preparing undergraduates and classroom
teachers to teach diverse students emphasizes the importance of creating supportive
contexts in which teachers explore their individual identities and their identities within
society, and creating opportunities for collaboration with colleagues as contexts for
learning and reflection (Clair, 1995; Florio-Ruane & DeTar, 1995; F lorio-Ruane &
DeTar, 1996; Harris, 1995; M011, 1992; Salvio, 1990). Other current research suggests a
range of approaches. Neito (1992), describing necessary actions for becoming a
"multicultural " teacher, states that teachers need to 1) learn more about cultural pluralism;
2) confront their own racism and biases; and 3) learn to see reality from a variety of
perspectives. Sleeter and Grant (1987) focus on assisting teachers to conceptualize their
teaching within ï¬arneworks that acknowledge larger forces of political power and
oppression. Similarly, Zeichner (1993) and Zeichner et a1 (1998), reviewing the literature
regarding the importance of direct intercultural experience, emphasize the importance of
teacher candidates establishing a clear sense of cultural identity. Zeichner concludes that
all teaching is "intercultural," and that teacher development is a long-term process.
Cochran-Smith (l 995)summarizes the underpinnings of a teacher education
program that promotes systematic and self-critical inquiry on the part of prospective
teachers and the teacher educators who teach them:
I propose that what we need are generative ways for prospective teachers,
experienced teachers, and teacher educators alike to work together in communities
of learners--to explore and reconsider their own assumptions, understand the
values and practices of families and cultures that are different from their own, and
construct pedagogy that takes these into account in locally appropriate and
culturally sensitive ways to work together in communities of learners (p.495).
Such an approach to teacher development within a community of learners gives
teachers opportunities to participate in pedagogical practices that they might to put into
practice in their own classrooms (Trueba, 1989). Similarly, Cochran-Smith & Lytle
(1992) recommend teacher research projects conducted in classroom contexts through
cooperative work between teacher candidates and practicing teachers as a means of
"interrogating diversity" (p.104). Teacher discussion groups and other structures for
coordinating instruction and increasing exchange of ideas and information may offer
teachers the support to challenge the bureaucratic and meritocratic nature of school (Lord,
1994; Milk, Mercado, & Sapiens, 1992; Trueba, 1989). For example, M011 (1992)
teaches teachers to be ethnographers by exploring the narrative practices of their students’
families and communities and thereby recreating the curriculum. Christine Sleeter
flames the teacher educator’s role in such practices:
Teacher educators who work with teachers in multicultural education need to
confront teachers' political perspectives, doing so in a way that accounts for,
rather than dismisses, the experiential basis of those perspectives. (Sleeter, 1996,
p.89)
Rather than imparting information or “ methods†to teachers, such practices support and
acknowledge the incremental and long range deve10pment of beliefs and practices over
time. These teacher development practices portray teachers as active constructors of their
own knowledge and consistently note the importance of interaction between teachers as
they learn.
Developing Teaching Identities
Sociolinguists and educational anthrOpologists offer several ways of
understanding how beginning and practiced teachers learn to teach. Drawing on the work
of Gee (1990), Denyer and F lorio-Ruane (1995) and Harris (1995) describe the process of
learning to teach as the acquisition of a "secondary discourse." Gee describes the
acquisition of a secondary discourse as the taking on of, in his words, a new “identity kit
which comes complete with the appropriate costume and instructions on how to act, talk,
and often write, so as to take on a particular social role that others will recognizeâ€
(p.142). Teacher candidates begin their internships equipped with a discourse of teaching
that they have acquired through years of participation and observation in school settings.
Teacher education that offers opportunities to practice new was of acting, talking and
writingaa new “identity kit†-- offers possibilities for teachers to acquire a secondary
discourse of teaching through interactions with students and teachers who are part of that
discourse. New participants in a secondary discourse may create opportunities for
transformation of that discourse. Thus, acquiring a secondary discourse may be a
dynamic, transformative activity for individuals and for the discourse community.
Language, literacy, and culture are intertwined in this process; interns, like their
linguistically and culturally diverse students who are learning the secondary discourse of
school, need opportunities to interact with members of the discourse and use language in
meaningful ways within the new context. Thus, acquiring the discourse means using
language—becoming literate--in ways that allow one to play particular social roles in
particular cultural settings.
This broad-based deï¬nition of literacy from a sociocultural perspective flames
literacy as a cultural phenomenon that is heavily dependent on social interaction within
particular contexts. To become literate is to learn to function within particular social and
cultural contexts. Therefore, literacy is closely related to identity and intertwined with
issues of power and authority (F erdman, 1990; Gee, 1989; Gee, 1990; Heap, 1992;
Hudelson, 1994; Lemke, 1989). From a sociolinguistic perspective, examining what it
means to become literate-—both as teachers and as students--in a given cultural context
needs to be a part of teacher development practices that prepare educators to work with
diverse students.
10
From a different perspective, educational anthropologists examining teacher
education view the process through the lens of culture, claiming that educators need to
examine their own cultures in order to begin to understand their beliefs and practices
within the culture of school. Spindler and Spindler (1993) describe a process of "cultural
therapy"4 in which through a series of activities, teachers examine their own cultures in
their many forms, identifying "enduring selves" and "situated selves". This
understanding allows teachers to distance themselves from contexts of conflict and think
and act from an objective distance in order that "potential conflicts, misunderstandings,
and blind spots in the perception and interpretation of behavior may be anticipated"
(p.28).
Eisenhart (1995) focuses in particular on how new participants in a setting work
to “ construct†culture as they become part of a new setting. Telling “ stories of self†as a
mediational device is key in this process. In her view,
...telling stories about self is not only a way to demonstrate membership in a
group or to claim an identity within it. Telling stories about self is also a means
of becoming; a means by which an individual helps to shape and project identities
in social and cultural spaces; and a way of thinking about learning that requires
the individual to be active as well as socially and culturally responsive (p.19).
Eisenhart emphasizes that as newcomers become old-timers in a cultural “ space,†the
stories they construct of themselves within that space offer potential for change in the
. culture. She asserts that
...although such spaces are constrained, individuals' actions within them are
formative for them as individuals and consequential for culture change. Although
the pressure on culture exerted by any one individual may be small, the effects
over time can be signiï¬cant. (p.20-2l)
4The term "therapy" is controversial, implying some sort of treatment or psychological intervention.
Spindler and Spindler (1994) claim that psychological analysis is not the focus of the process. Rather, the
focus is on helping teachers understand how their cultural assumptions affect their beliefs and practices in
the classroom. Others, such as Mary Hauser (1994), who uses the term "reflective cultural analysis", have
utilized the concepts under a different name.
11
Thus, opportunities to examine oneself through the mediational device telling of stories
of self, may offer beginning and practiced teachers new avenues for constructing the
culture of teaching.
Beginning and Experienced Teachers as Colleagues
Teacher education that has as its core the acquisition of a dynamic discourse of
teaching and the careful examination of culture requires school contexts and teachers who
are willing to engage in the exploration of language and culture with teacher candidates.
However, given the constraints of time and the complexities of school days, teachers
rarely get a chance to talk meaningfully about their work (Lord, 1994). Rather than
forcing a sort of "contrived collegiality" (Hargreaves, 1991) on teachers and teacher
candidates, contexts must be created in which serious examination of beliefs and
practices can happen more spontaneously as they are grounded in meaningful activities.
Relationships in which beginning and practiced teachers are working together
offer promise as contexts for teacher learning. Mentoring relationships that include
opportunities for educative conversation and examination of shared teaching practice may
offer avenues for this kind of teacher education (Stanulis, 1994). Yet we know little
about what thoughtful mentors teach novices and how they make their knowledge
available (F eiman-Nemser, 1992). Recent work on the nature of mentoring relationships
suggests the positive potential of mentoring as a vehicle for promoting reformed teaching
practices (Dembele et al., 1995; Feiman-Nemser, 1992; Little, 1990; Reischl, in press).
Current studies focus on the importance of examining contexts of mentoring (Paine, in
press), and the situated nature of learning for mentors and novices (John-Steiner, 1996;
Lave & Wenger, 1991). Vygotskian models of mentoring (Tharp & Gallirnore, 1988)
flame the learning of the novice as internalization of concepts that are ï¬rst introduced in
the public sphere through talk about shared work ("joint productive activity") and then
made one's own. As mentors induct novices into the teaching of diverse students,
12
contexts for engagement with a more experienced thinker need to be constructed as a part
of the teacher education program. Such contexts need to shift from an emphasis on roles
and relationships to an emphasis on supporting the learning of the new teacher (F eiman-
Nemser, 1999).
Potential of Autobiography Discussion Group as a
Context for Teacher Development
A promising teacher education practice that embraces the complexity of preparing
teachers to teach diverse students is the use of autobiography discussion groups with
teachers and teacher candidates. A growing number of researchers (Blachowitz &
Wimett, 1994; Florio-Ruane & DeTar, 1996; F lorio-Ruane & Raphael, 1996; Florio-
Ruane, Raphael, Glazier, Mary, & Wallace, 1998; Galindo & Olguin, 1996) have
examined autobiography discussion groups made up of monolingual teacher candidates
and experienced teachers or bilingual teacher candidates. Florio-Ruane (1995) in The
Future Teachers' Autobiography Club, provided a context for undergraduate teacher
candidates to explore their own cultural identities and beliefs about literacy through the
reading and discussion of autobiographies and the telling or writing of autobiographical
vignettes of their own. These vignettes especially focused on their language-related
school and family experiences, what Soliday (1994) calls “personal literacy narratives.â€
Combining the exploration of text and identity as a means of professional development,
F lorio-Ruane suggests that,
learning that language, identity, and culture are inextricably entwined, they
(teacher candidates) may approach the teaching of literacy inside school with
greater insight, imagination, and sensitivity (p.56).
Similarly, F lorio-Ruane et a1 (1997) have designed and studied a masters level course that
engaged practicing teachers in collaborative discussions regarding autobiographies of
immigrants and refugees and their experiences with literacy.
l3
In summary, studies such as those noted here draw on the power of personal
narrative to provide avenues for discussion of teacher beliefs and knowledge and also
create opportunities for teachers and teacher candidates to "apprentice to the discourse5"
(Gee, 1990)l of educators who construct their practice around carefully considered
understandings of language, literacy and culture. Thus, conversation that closely
examines issues of language, literacy, culture, and schooling may be integral to the
development of teachers who intend to seriously examine the challenges of teaching
diverse students .
Issues of identity, collaboration, literacy, language, and culture are interwoven in
the teacher education research cited above. Sociolinguists suggest that teacher
candidates' task is to acquire the discourse of teaching. Educational anthropologists
suggest that teachers and teacher candidates need to carefully consider their own cultural
identities and the contexts in which they work. Research on mentoring suggests that the
mentoring relationships may be a context in which teacher candidates and teachers might
engage in learning and acquiring the discourse of teaching as they explore issues of
identity and “learning to teach†(F eiman-Nemser, 1999) flom multiple perspectives.
Creating a teacher education context such as the autobiography discussion group in which
these elements are interwoven--as subject matter and as part of the process--may have
potential for being a powerful learning context for both teachers and interns.
Beginning and Experienced Teachers’ Development in Field-Based
Teacher Education in a Multicultural, Multilingual School
This study is about an attempt to more fully utilize autobiographical literature and
conversation as tools for teacher education, placing language, in all its forms, at the heart
of teacher learning. However, opportunities for educative talk do not just happen. At
56cc uses a capital“ D†in his writing about primary and secondary discourses, emphasizing that acquiring
a new discourse represents an identity shiï¬ and a very new way of using language. Hereaï¬er, I will uses
lower case “ d†as I write about discourse.
l4
Tapestry School, year-long teaching interns came from the nearby university to work
nearly ï¬rll-time with classroom cooperating teachers. Busy with the daily demands of
instruction, the interns and CT’s found it difï¬cult to initiate moments to talk together
about ideas and issues raised by their work among linguistically and culturally diverse
youngsters. Teachers and interns reported that most of their talk tended to focus on
immediate needs. Questions such as “ What about that student who's been gone for three
days? What's happening after recess? When are we going to plan for parent-teacher
conferences?" (Field notes, 12/96, 2/97) typically began many interchanges.
Interns and cooperating teachers in this ï¬eld-based program often found it hard to
have conversations that offered them opportunities to examine the sources of their beliefs
about their work. This is not surprising. Researchers studying the culture of schooling
note an emphasis on individual accomplishment and independence (F eiman-Nemser &
Floden, 1986; Lord, 1994; Lortie, 1975) and few institutional, personal, or professional
opportunities for serious talk about the work of teaching. As Little notes:
Productive talk about teaching is not mere shop talk. The standard of productive
talk is not satisï¬ed by casual “war stories†or “ experience swappingâ€
(Rosenholtz & Kyle, 1984). It requires familiarity with and high regard for
principles and conclusions derived not only flom immediate classroom experience
(Hargreaves, 1984), but also from the experience, and observations of others.
(Weyand, 1983 quoted in Little, 1987, pp.503-504)
Conversations about how teachers and interns think about the dilemmas of their work in
this multilingual school--particularly issues regarding language and culture--needed both
context and intriguing content to begin.
David Hawkins, in his essay, "I, Thou, and It" (1967/ 1 974), describes teaching
and learning as a process of creating contexts where participants engage in curious
examination of an "It" outside themselves in the company of others. Hawkins describes
the features of such learning contexts as follows:
No child, I wish to say, can gain competence and knowledge, or know himself as
competent and as a knower, save through communication with others involved
with him in his enterprises. Without a Thou, there is no I evolving. Without an It
there is no content for the context, no ï¬gure and no heat, but only an affair of
mirrors confronting each other. (p.52)
15
In this study, I researched this view of learning, investigating whether as teachers
of varied experience read autobiography in each others’ company, they would ï¬nd an
engaging “It†offering a “heat†, as Hawkins puts it, to generate new understandings
about multicultural education. But how to start such conversations between beginning
and practiced teachers? Given the fleeting nature of collegiality in schools (Little, 1987)
and the few opportunities teachers and interns typically have to talk publicly about their
beliefs and practices, it seemed unlikely that participants--especially of varying
experience and backgrounds--would simply offer up their views if I posed a question (i.e.
"So, in what ways do you think becoming literate in English impacts the lives of your
bilingual students?"). In Hawkins' terms, this had no "ï¬gure and no heat" and had the
potential of creating a setting which was "only an affair of mirrors confronting each
other."
In designing this research project, I hoped to create an environment for more
focused and sustained talk among teachers about multicultural education. To that end, I
planned to create a setting where the idealism and fleshness of beginning teachers’
perspectives might be valued alongside more seasoned teachers’ views. Analyses in the
following chapters focus on these two areas: the participants’ perspectives and learning
about teaching in multicultural and multilingual settings, and also how participation in
the ADG created a context for new kinds of interactions between interns and cooperating
teachers.
By designing this kind of literacy activity for interns and CTs, I wanted to study
and help to create the scaffolding that would help beginning teachers internalize and
critically transform their practices. I also wanted to offer cooperating teachers settings
where they could examine their work as teachers and teacher educators and experiment
with new ideas about this work. It seemed likely that teachers in a variety of points in
their careers might value and learn from each others’ perspectives. John Dewey frames
this perspective on learning as ongoing growth:
16
Since life means growth, a living creature lives as truly and positively at one stage
as at another...hence education means the enterprise of supplying the conditions
which insure growth.
(Dewey, 1916/1944)
As the teacher educator, the “liaison†between the school and the university, I saw my
role as “ supplying the conditions that insure growth.†As a researcher, I wanted to
investigate whether and how growth was fostered by the conditions I helped put in place.
Intern and CT Stances Early in the Year
Valuing both beginning and practiced teachers’ perspectives was complicated by
the ways that interns and CTs flamed their own changing roles and development over the
course of the year. In this section, I offer a description of an interaction that illustrates
intems' stances as beginning teachers working to build teaching identities and practices
early in the year. I also briefly analyze a conversation between interns and CTs in the
ï¬rst ADG session (ADG#1) that illustrates initial stances that beginning and practiced
teachers took in their early work in the ADG. I provide these early images as points of
contrast to further analyses. As the data will indicate, interns and CTs appeared to
undergo signiï¬cant shifts in the ways they engaged in the discussion in the ADG over the
course of the six months we met together, starting out playing out rather traditional
apprentice/master roles and moving towards relationships of shared practice and joint
inquiry.
Prior to and throughout the year that I conducted this study, I served as a liaison
for the university teacher education program, working with interns and CT’s to help
integrate the university and school-based learning experiences for both beginning and
practiced teachers in the program. One of my activities in this role was to facilitate
weekly “ Guided Practice†sessions in which interns would meet to discuss issues of
practice. I planned these sessions as occasions for reflection on practice in the company
of colleagues who worked in the same school context. Interns met weekly for Guided
Practice; cooperating teachers joined us once a month.
17
During the ï¬rst September Guided Practice discussion session with interns only, I
asked interns to think about their hopes and fears about the internship (Conway, 1998) on
which they were embarking. In response, interns anonymously wrote brief statements
about their hopes and fears on sticky notes. We then posted these notes in the middle of
the table and talked together about what they had written.
Hopes and Fears Activity, September 1996
Hogs
I hope to be as organized as my CT (in activities or lesson planning)
This year I hope to be successful in whatever I do.
I hope that I will be as good as my CT.
This year I how to gain some valuable teaching techniques that will help students learn
more about the things they are doing in class.
Fears
I fear that I will not have enough time to give extra attention to those students who are
falling though the cracks.
I fear that I’ll make some big mistake or a wrong decision that might make me think
twice about being a teacher.
I fear that my students will not respect my authority.
I am afraid (about) if I will be able to get a job after my student teaching.
(Guided Practice Handout, 9/96)
As these statements indicate, in the early months of their internships, the interns
oï¬en flamed their goals in terms of becoming as much like their cooperating teachers as
they possibly could. Both their hopes and fears indicated beliefs about wanting to be the
“ right†kind of teacher-~one who was respected, who found time for children, who didn’t
make mistakes, and who looked and sounded enough like a teacher to be able to secure a
job.
New to the role of teacher and new to the setting of this school, interns, not
surprisingly, tended to privilege the experiences of their cooperating teachers, granting
them “real†status as teachers (Lin, Interview, p.2) and discounting what they themselves
18
brought to the scene. Interns also seemed to focus on their intern/CT relationships as
opportunities for them to learn a set of instrumental practices. By working in the
company of people who knew what they were doing, they might become “ as good as
(their) CT(s)†and would avoid making “ some big mistake or wrong decision†that
would provide them with evidence that they really weren’t cut out to be teachersé.
Analyses of the ADG sessions--especially the ï¬rst few sessions-~will provide evidence
for this stance.
Like forgers of ï¬ne paintings, timing the ï¬rst few months of their internship year,
interns worked to match the artful practices they saw their c00perating teachers enacting.
Like forgers, they wanted to have the artists’ secrets revealed, they wanted their own
practices to match their mentors. They gathered information on techniques, strategies,
and in this case, philosophical stances on who and how to be with students. The brief
discussion above of intems’ hopes and fears from our ï¬rst Guided Practice session begins
to illustrate themes of this early stance.
While the metaphor of "forgery" carries negative connotations, I believe it is an
apt metaphor for the early stages of the internship. Given the ï¬eld-based nature of this
program, interns were immediately immersed in the classroom and confronted with
difficult students and completely new teaching challenges. While they were not
immediately in charge, they were expected to engage as teachers in interactions with
students. The immediate demands of the work did not allow one simply to be an
"understudy" or "apprentice." Rather, interns looked to their most available model, their
CT, saw that person as more knowledgeable and experienced than they were, and worked
to emulate the CTs' practice. Taking a “ forger’s†stance early on in the year was a
practical strategy in the face of multiple and immediate demands. Interns seemed to
appreciate the work of their CTs as artful; initially, they worked to imitate their CTs’
practices.
6This activity was developed by Paul Conway. See Conway’s (1998) dissertation for related research on
teacher candidates’ hopes and fears.
19
Similarly, the ï¬rst session of the Autobiography Discussion Group, which took
place on November 21, provided an example of how interns used the ADG group to
experiment with "forging" a practice. The group had read a chapter from Of Borders and
Dreams (Carger, 1996), an etlmographic portrayal of an ESL teacher’s reflections and
dilemmas about an incident when she took one of her Spanish-speaking students and his
family to the zoo and to her home for dinner. In the chapter, titled “ Uncommon
Ground,†the author reflected on her feelings of discomfort when she realized that her
cultural practices, such as assuming that all children would like spaghetti, and her
possessions, such as her dishwasher, created awkward contrasts between her life and her
students’. As will be discussed in Chapter 3, CTs and interns critiqued this piece,
criticizing Carger’s naiveté regarding cultural and socio-economic differences between
teachers and students. In addition, in this ï¬rst ADG conversation, Lin, an intern, took the
opportunity to check in with CTs in the group about whether this was an accurate
portrayal of“ what teachers really do7:â€
Lin : What I want to know is how realistic is this? Where a teacher really takes on
a student in his or her own, you know, gets involved with the family and do things
outside of school and stuff? Cause I don't see that
Carol (mentor teacher): I think that's a really good question.
Lin: much. Yeah. How, how, like how often does that happen? Or /
(ADG #1, Transcript, 11/96, p.21)
Lin’s voice rang out in the group as she ï¬rmly stated “ what (she) wanted to
know.†Seeking out the advice and experience of the “real†teachers around her, she got
what she asked for as CTs responded with a set of overlapping examples of moments
when they had become deeply involved with their own students.
Beth: I did it, before I had my own family-J got involved with kids.
Carol: Same with me, before I had my own family.
Beth: I'd invite em over to my house for a weekend
Carol: roller-skating
Beth: take em to the zoo-
(ADG #1, Transcript, 11/96, p.21)
7See Appendix A for a description of transcription conventions.
20
Answering Lin's question, four CTs in the group went on to tell stories of their
own involvement with kids, giving evidence that such a stance with students could be a
“ realistic†stance for a teacher. Interestingly, teachers represented these stories of their
work as private efforts, rather than "professional" involvements as Beth says below:
Beth: This one little girl, was just, she was in a really bad situation. Custody was
taken away fl'om her mother and she was placed with her grandmother. And it was
a mess. And she was suffering in school. And so I just, you know, thought I
would give her a little bit of escape from her situation. Invited her over.
Carol: Well it's really like a big sister
Cindy: yeah, yeah. That's what I was thinking.
[Overlapping agreement]
Terry: It is. It's like a big sister. It is. And you can do that.
Beth: I just did my best. I didn't really want to get professionally involved [softly].
Carol: I think alot of teachers who, fl'om both extremes--teachers who would
never, never consider doing that, would think that maybe they, were either
uncomfortable, whatever the reason they were uncomfortable with or didn't think
that they would like to do something like that. For many different reasons, be
uncomfortable with it. And other teachers who, who uh, who really have a lot to
do with kids, um, and not school times and even with their families too. They
really try establish, a, a bond, with the child and family. There's really a range
there. So, I guess it's pretty-J would say it's pretty realistic
Cindy: pretty realistic [softly]
Carol: But there are certainly lots of teachers who never do, I think.
Terry: If we weren't all sitting here and talking, we would not
Lin: yeah
Terry: know that we had done this. (agreement)
CTs responded to Lin’s request for veriï¬cation with stories of their own
experiences caring for their students. Yet, they represented this kind of care as a
decision, a choice, even as a secret part of the teaching life. As Terry put it, “ If we
weren't all sitting here and talking, we would not know that we had done this.†At Lin’s
insistent request, the “ real†teachers--the CTs--appeared to be educating the outsiders,
the interns, about the unseen choices teachers make. Lin continued to push the group,
returning to the text and to her original question:
Lin: I know. That's why when I asked the question, there was like, one, two,
three, four people (counting those around the table) who said it. That's why, cause
I mean reading this, you know, I don't know, how realistic this is. How many
teachers do take a student
Carol: uh-hum- right
Lin: like under their wings or whatever, you know?
Carol: Yeah. Good question.
21
Carol: Again, nothing that’s part of your college preparation.
Lin: No!
Cathy: Except for now!
[laughter]
Carol: Except for now. Be totally involved.
Even having heard testimony from the cooperating teachers, Lin openly talked about her
skepticism about this intense role with students. She held Carger’s stance up to scrutiny,
collecting information from the cooperating teachers as well, and continued to examine
this image of the teacher, which apparently, stood in contrast to Lin's experience and her
expectations of her own teaching life. I entered the conversation and questioned Lin
about her questions:
Cathy: It sounds like it’s surprising to you though.
Lin: Yeah, it is. It is surprising to me. Cause I've never really
Laura (intern): It'd be so different to have-
Lin: Yeah. It would be so different. But I guess my teachers, they might have done
it, but I, you know, didn't know about it. Or else they don't say or whatever
[Overlapping response]
Lin: Of all the teachers I've seen, I've never seen anyone really do that. Not that
they would tell me, but--
(ADG #1, Transcript p.23)
Through Lin’s survey of the teachers around her, of the text we had just read
together, and of “ all the teachers (she’s) ever seen,†we heard her working to identify a
story of herself as a teacher with choices to make about her own involvement with
students. As I will discuss further, such stories appear to have assisted her to begin to
organize a sense of the culture of teaching and to begin to construct her identity within
that culture. Telling stories of self in new contexts, participants in the ADG were
"engaged in a social, cognitive and emotional process in which one works to interpret the
past, construct the present and launch the future" (Eisenhart, 1995 p. 21).
The set of images Lin was presented with via CTs’ stories and Carger’s dilemmas
in the text we had read together offered few prescriptions for practice. Rather, they
revealed teachers involved in the murky, human elements of their work. Thus, as interns
sought answers to their questions about “ what teachers are really like,†they were
confronted with a set of “ real teacher†stories that challenged their forgers' stance. In
22
this ï¬rst ADG session, participation in a conversation about teaching challenged interns
to begin to see themselves constructing their own identities as teachers and playing a role
in constructing the larger community of practice.
Vygotskian models of mentoring (Tharp & Gallirnore, 1988) describe the learning
of the novice as internalization of concepts that are ï¬rst introduced in the public sphere
through talk about shared work ("joint productive activity") and then made one's own.
Gallirnore, Tharp, and J ohn-Steiner (n.d.) describe the supportive and productive nature
of effective mentoring relationships as follows:
Creative work requires a trust in oneself that is virtually impossible to sustain
alone. In the course of effective mentoring relationships the apprentice starts
building a sense of self knowledge while honing his or her technical knowledge.
Part of the process of engagement with a more experienced thinker through close
proximity is that it reveals the processes as well as the products of thought
(emphasis in original, p.38).
For mentoring to be effective, particularly as mentors induct novices into the
teaching of diverse students, contexts for "engagement with a more experienced thinker"
need to be constructed as a part of the teacher education program. Yet this process of
internalization does not mean simply taking on another's practice. Teachers constructing
a practice in multicultural and multilingual environments are constantly revising,
reinterpreting, and reinventing their work. Figuring out who you are in the world and
how your teaching practice will reflect this understanding requires ongoing analysis of
self in context (Cochran-Smith, 1991; Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1992; Sleeter, 1996).
Change over Time
In subsequent chapters, I analyze discourse data from the ADG sessions,
examining how beginning and practiced teachers in conversation around autobiographical
literature changed in the ways they talked together and what they talked about over the
course of the year. As they increased their involvement in discussions, interns appeared
to move away from the copying or “ forger’s†stance and towards designing their own
artful work as teachers. Signiï¬cantly, CTs also seemed to make related shifts as they
23
practiced reflecting on their beliefs and practices by talking through the literature in the
ADG group. Rather than committing forgery and taking on each other’s identities,
interns and CTs learned to share a studio space, where they sustained and influenced each
other in their creative work (Denyer & Apol, 1999; Gallirnore et al., n.d.) This transition
was neither linear nor without tension. Rather, at various moments in the talk, interns
and CTs ranged widely in their views and utilized the ADG conversations to puzzle
through problems of practice, at some points gaining a sense of “ intellectual
interdependence†and “ mutuality†(J ohn-Steiner, 1996) through their conversational
work together.
For example, Fran, a cooperating teacher who worked with Laura, described her
experience in the ADG as “ rounding out†her relationship with her intern:
It was an intellectual growth and an intellectual experience we went
through together and I think it, because we were able to talk together on that level in
that arena, that controlled arena, then we could take back that talk and be able to
talk like that together in our classroom, back in our old roles.
So we sort of had that new talk that we could, we could take back and use.
And I think it did--I think it did, I don't mean broke, it didn't break down, but it
gave us a, it rounded out or expanded our way of relating. (Fran, Interview, p.26)
Fran emphasized the “ controlled arena†of the talk around text that took place through
the consistent format of the book club process. She described how this structure helped
her and Laura to break out from other discourse patterns and talk in new ways, expanding
their discourse as beginning and practiced teachers.
However, conversations where participants stepped out of traditional
mentor/novice roles and engaged in exploratory talk were only one of the forms of talk in
the ADG. Often, interns silently observed CTs do all the conversational work,
privileging their voices of experience. Frequently, our conversations led only to
questions. Occasionally, we argued with the characters in the texts and with each other.
Sometimes, we avoided digging deeply into unsafe, “ hot lava†topics (Glazier, in press)
like racism and gender issues, preferring to explicate the text as a safer route to the talk.
Yet, as we continued to talk together over the course of the school year, it appears that
24
ADG participants were learning to talk with each other in ways that they valued and that
afforded them opportunities to construct and tell personal and professional stories of
themselves as teachers.
Organization of the Following Chapters
This introduction is intended to offer the reader an overview of the study and a
broad description of the theoretical underpinnings of this work. The following chapters
explain the theoretical foundations of this research, analyze data collected, and discuss
the implications of this study for teacher educators and the teachers with whom they
work. Chapter 2, titled Context and Methods of this Study, re-visits and expands on the
themes introduced in Chapter 1, describes the context of the teacher education program,
the school where this study took place and introduces the participants in this study. This
chapter also describes the ADG process and the literature we read offering ï¬nther
theoretical underpinnings for this work and describes the research methods. Chapter 3,
Seeking the third space: Analysis of beginning and practiced teachers conversations,
introduces the reader to several vignettes in which participants began to construct a
conversational "third space" in their discussions about language and culture
Chapter 4, titled What's literacy got to do with it?: Narratives in response to "The
Paterson Public Library ", provides a detailed case study of the second autobiography
discussion group session in which participants discussed “ The Paterson Public Libraryâ€
(Cofer, 1993). This chapter analyzes participants’ personal narratives as they talked
through the text as a means of constructing culture by telling stories of self about their
own literacy beliefs and practices. Chapter 5, Honoring style by destroying the teacher:
Deï¬ning teacher/student relationships in response to "Daughter of Invention, †provides
a detailed analysis of a “ third space†conversation in which participants utilized both
personal narratives and situated text-driven debate to talk through the text of “ Daughter
of Invention†(Alvarez, 1991). This analysis focuses on how participants used the text
25
as a vehicle for examining difï¬cult issues in their work with students and their
relationships with each other, emphasizing how both interns and cooperating teachers
appeared to be co-constructing the conversation. Chapter 6, titled Talking through text as
one route to the construction of a dynamic teacher culture returns to issues of
professional development for teachers of multilingual students and examines possibilities
and dilemmas of conversation-based professional development for beginning and
experienced teachers. This chapter re-examines the use of an autobiography discussion
group as one means for assisting teachers to become resourceful creators and critics of
their own language and cultural practices in the contexts of schools.
26
CHAPTER 2
CONTEXT AND METHODS OF THIS STUDY
Context of this Study
I worked from four central assumptions in designing the Autobiography
Discussion Group at Tapestry School. First, I assumed that teachers are people of various
cultures, that they hold beliefs about literacy based on their cultural identities, and that all
that is taught in schools is culturally produced (F erdman, 1990). I assumed that
examination of these facets of culture was neither easy nor without tension. Secondly, I
assumed that creating an opportunity to examine culture and literacy in the lives of
immigrant students and their teachers through literature might open doors for
examination of teachers' own identities as individuals and within this particular culture of
teachers (F lorio-Ruane & DeTar, 1996; Hauser, 1994; Spindler & Spindler, 1993). Third,
I assumed that participants, given engaging content (Hawkins, 1967/1974), would
actively construct personal and professional knowledge through social interaction
(Raphael, Pardo, Highï¬eld, & McMahon, 1997; Tharp & Gallirnore, 1988; Vygotsky,
1978). Finally, I assumed that ADG conversations might offer a promising route to
creating opportunities for new and experienced teachers to critique their own practice and
make such critique part of their ongoing professional conversation (Little, 1993; Lord,
1994)...
This study draws on prior research on the use of autobiography in teacher
education that has been situated in university courses or discussion groups (Blachowitz &
Wirnett, 1994; F lorio-Ruane & DeTar, 1995; F lorio-Ruane & DeTar, 1996; Florio-Ruane
& Raphael, 1996; Galindo & Olguin, 1996; Glazier, in press; McVee, in press), yet
differs fl'om it in three signiï¬cant ways (Pailliotet, 1995). First, participants in this study
shared a working context; cooperating teachers and interns worked together in pairs in
classrooms throughout the school year. Consequently, they came to the discussion group
27
with shared experiences and shared classroom dilemmas yet differences in background
knowledge and teaching experience. Their conversations within the discussion group
provided occasions for new ways of using text and talk to learn in each other’s company.
Secondly, the school context that the participants shared, Tapestry School, unlike
the university teacher education context, was rich in social, cultural and language
diversity and, as a "focus school" in an urban district, claimed the development of a
multicultural/ multilingual learning community as a focus for its existence. A third
important contrast to most previous studies is that the participants were linguistically and
culturally diverse. All of the participants were women. The four cooperating teachers,
two of whom were European-American fluent Spanish speakers, had elected to work in
this school; they had expressed a commitment to multicultural education and were
experienced teachers in multilingual contexts. The interns were ethnically and
linguistically diverse as well. Adding to the ï¬ndings of previous studies (Pailliotet,
1995), this study offered an opportunity to listen carefully to the conversation of a diverse
group of beginning and practiced teachers who worked together and begin to examine
how they responded to the literature and to each other. The following sections provide
more detail regarding the school, participants and research methods.
Brief Description of Tapestry School
Tapestry School was a "school of choice" in an urban school district; 70% of the
approximately 300 students in this school came from families who spoke languages other
than English at home. These languages included Arabic, French, Hmong, Laotian,
Haitian Creole, Spanish, and Vietnamese. Teachers and interns were immersed in a
school culture that focused its mission on valuing diverse languages and cultures and
encouraged ongoing decision-making about educating students in this American school.
The following mission statement for the school emphasizes its multicultural focus:
The mission of Tapestry School is to create a unique global environment based on
the premise that diversity enriches the lives of everyone. The School will foster a
climate of unity, mutual respect, and excellence in achievement. As participants
28
in a global learning village, we are committed to the development of the whole
child through the collaboration of students, teachers, parents and members of our
community. The Center is dedicated to a thorough academic preparation while
emphasizing the value of a multilingual, multicultural and inter-generational
approach to learning, and to the ability to artfully communicate with the world
around us. (1995-96 Staff Handbook, p.l)
In contrast to the university contexts of previous studies, group participants in this diverse
school-based setting were dealing directly every day with dilemmas of language and
culture similar to the issues that the ADG readings raised.
The school demonstrated its commitment to creating a “ unique global
environment based’on the premise that diversity enriches the lives of everyone†(Mission
Statement) in many ways- It is not my intention to provide a full ethnographic
description of the school context. However, the following examples provide some
images of the setting. For example, Federal Title I money was used to hire bilingual
instructional assistants in many of the children’s home languages. These assistants taught
alongside CTs and interns in classrooms regularly using students’ home languages to
enhance instruction; learning to plan for their meaningful inclusion in instruction was part
of the interns’ experience in this school. Including parents, many of whom were recent
refugee arrivals, in the life of the school was also a priority. For example, in February,
teachers and students in the lunch time enrichment program stenciled scenes from around
the world on inside stairwell windows and a 8’ x 10’ mural on a wall. Parents were
invited to assist in the painting of these artworks. Consequently, during several February
afternoons, Hmong, Haitian and Arabic speaking parents, along with speakers of other
languages and many pre-school aged children spent time in the hallways, adding beauty
to the school and also witnessing the everyday goings-on of American education
happening around them (Field notes, 2/ 14/97). This activity was carefully designed to
include speakers of languages other than English in a relaxed and effective way for them
to contribute to the school.
Administrators in this school created many opportunities to make the school
mission public. For example, The Tapestry School October Third Anniversary and F all
29
Family Reunion, titled “Different Rhythms, Shared Song,†included students in a broad
range of arts and music performances and highlighted prominent local people, including
the mayor, the state representative and local school board members. More than 400
people crowded into the gym to attend the “ reunion†of people who cared about this
three year old school. The school also organized a yearly city-wide symposium on
multicultural issues that brought together various stakeholders in the political and social
spheres in the region. Teachers and bilingual instructional assistants, while not all
directly involved in the planning of this event, were ï¬rll participants, as presenters and
attendees. I offer these images of activity as evidence of the level of energy and
commitment exerted toward ï¬rlï¬llment of the school’s mission.
Description of Participants
Once a month, cooperating teachers were invited to participate in Guided Practice,
in the Autobiography Discussion Groups. I facilitated the group and researched the
interactions as a participant observer. Table 1 indicates roles and relationships of the
participants. C00perating teachers are listed on the same line with the interns with whom
they worked. Stacy was a cooperating teacher whose intern had left the program in
November. Terry, another teacher who worked with a student teacher from another
university participated with her student teacher in ADG#l only. She is not listed on this
chart.
Table l: ADG Participants
Teachers Interns
ran
8Among the participants, we alternately called this the Autobiography Discussion Group or the CT/Intem
group.
30
Our group consisted of nine women: three interns, three cooperating teachers, another
teacher, the school mentor teacher9 and myself. One of the interns, Marcy, was bilingual
in Spanish and described herself as the daughter of Mexican migrant parents. Another
intern, Lin, a speaker of Vietnamese and Chinese, described herself as the daughter of
ethnic Chinese parents who were refugees from Vietnam. Both of these interns had
completed all of their educations in the US. The third intern, Laura was a Euro-
American woman from the Midwest. The interns were in their early to rrrid twenties.
The other six participants, including myself, were Euro-American in background,
and each claimed bilingualism and/or a special interest in multicultural education. Given
that the current teaching population is largely made up of white middle class females,
even as classrooms are becoming more and more diverse (Cazden & Mehan, 1989;
Minicucci, 1995), these teachers looked somewhat typical. However, every participant
had particular multicultural experiences and language backgrounds which distinguished
her flom the typical teacher's demographic proï¬le. Beth had taught in bilingual
classrooms for 12 years. Her husband was Mexican and she was a fluent Spanish
speaker. Fran, a French speaker, was a long-term substitute teacher who had chosen this
school for her own child's elementary education. Cindy, a Spanish speaker, had also
taught in bilingual classrooms for ten years and identiï¬ed a ï¬eld experience in Mexico as
formative in her life. Stacy who had taught three years, spoke often of her homelife in a
ï¬rst generation American Greek family. Carol had worked more than thirty years in a
variety of urban multilingual educational programs and was a fluent speaker of Spanish.
My own background is in literacy and professional development for teachers of
multilingual students, my interest in these areas stemming from teaching and professional
deve10pment experiences in Southeast Asia, India, New Zealand, and the US.
9The mentor teacher designation was a school district term. Carol planned and implemented professional
development within the school, coordinated curriculum planning and development and had other
administrative duties. As the teacher liaison to the university, she coordinated all university activities that
occurred within the school.
31
Readings
As a teacher education tool, the ADG offered beginning and practiced teachers
opportunities for reflection by: 1) providing content-autobiographical literatureuas a
focus of study so that participants could actively examine the role of language and culture
in the lives of the writers; and 2) providing a context for discussion and reflection so that
participants could actively examine the role of language and culture in their own lives as
beginning and practiced teachers. As Jackson (1995) writes:
...the study of autobiography and personal accounts is a viable and compelling
way to engage preservice teachers in discourse about differences and about their
impact on individuals and their lived experiences. The study of autobiography
provides concrete contexts in which to experience difference, for the subjects are
real persons to whom one can respond to and relate (p.31).
ADG participants examined the writers' experiences with language, culture, and
literacy by reading excerpts of a range of autobiographical texts written by multilingual
students and their teachers. Because of constraints on participants’ time and in order to
create a sense of immediacy, we read only excerpts from the texts and the reading took
place during the session. Table 2 indicates the text excerpts and dates for the ADG
meetings. Some of these texts focused on the lives of students, some focused on teachers
working in diverse contexts. I chose these texts because each offered images of teachers'
or students' life in story form and each had speciï¬c episodes that related stories dealing
with language, culture and schooling.
Choosing to read only excerpts had positive and negative consequences. Because
we usually entered a book in mid-stream, I talked for a few moments about the piece
before we read. Although I worked to present the excerpts neutrally, it is likely that the
ways that I characterized the plot, characters, and themes in my oral synopses influenced
readers’ readings. In addition, because I had always read the whole book from which the
excerpt was taken, participants may have given my comments added weight during the
discussionsâ€. Further, reading excerpts of autobiographies seemed antithetical to our
loWearing many hats in this group (university instructor, liaison, researcher, fliend), my comments were
already granted authority by group members. While it is not a focus for this dissertation, my role as a
32
purposes because we were trying to understand people in the process of constructing
culture (Eisenhart, 1995; Spindler & Spindler, 1993), a process that was lifelong and
multifaceted. In order to minimize the feeling that we were just reading an isolated
episode, I choose pieces that were either self-contained short stories or excerpts that
included text that contextualized the authors’ lives.
Several participants reported that they found it difï¬cult (Interviews, June-July,
1997) to read and respond quickly to the texts, having only read them once quickly in the
ADG setting.
However, participants reported that they liked reading excerpts, mainly for practical
reasons-~they were short, they did not have too much detail, you could read them in one
sitting. In follow-up interviews with interns and CTs (Interviews, June-July, 1997), all
reported that they appreciated not having outside reading to complete before the sessions.
Their lives were exceptionally busy1 1.
facilitator, the way I used my “ voice†and my dilemmas and choices about this role are addressed in the
analyses sections of this dissertation and are the subject of further writing I am doing about this research.
11While they were very busy, our interactions in the group led four cooperating teachers to borrow the
whole texts of the excerpts we read or other texts by the same authors. Two cooperating teachers also
exchanged books with each other as a consequence of their conversation in the group. (Field notes, 2/97,
4/97)
33
Table 2 : Autobiography Discussion Group Readings
1996-97 School Year
November 21
Carger, Chris Liska. (1996). Of Borders and Dreams. New York: Teachers College Press,
pp. 35-41.
December 12
Cofer, Judith, Ortiz. (1993). The Patterson Public Library. In Kathleen Aguero (ed.) Daily
Fare: Essays ï¬om the multicultural experience. Athens, Georgia: University of Georgia
Press, pp. 28-33.
Jan. 30
Alvarez, Julia. (1991). Daughter of Invention. In How the Garcia girls lost their accents.
New York: Penguin Books, pp. 133-149.
Feb. 13
Paley, Vivian. (1995). Kwanzaa and Me. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.
pp. 13-19 & pp. 63-66.
March 6
Kingston, Maxine Hong (1975, 1993). The Woman Warrior. In Wesley Brown & Amy
Ling (eds.). Visions of America: Personal narratives of the promised land. New York:
Persea Books, pp. 195 - 200.
April 9
Lightfoot, Sarah Lawrence. (1985) The lives of teachers. In L. Schulman and G. Sykes
(eds.) Handbook of Teaching and Policy. New York: Longman, Inc. .
Several of these pieces (Alvarez, 1991; Carger, 1996; Kingston, 1975/1993;
Paley, 1995) were excerpted, in chapter form flom larger works. Carger’s writing is part
of an ethnographic study of her work with a student learning English in an urban school
in the Midwest. Alvarez’s short story is part of a ï¬ctional book that relates the
experiences of a family that immigrated to the US. from the Dominican Republic, like
her own family. Paley, a Euro-American teacher, writes of her own teaching experiences
in a school that included multilingual and multicultural children. Cofer, a Puerto Rican-
American author, writes a short story about an experience from her childhood;
Kingston’s writing tells of her experiences growing up as a Chinese-American woman.
34
The ï¬nal excerpt was a cutting from a research study conducted by Li ghtfoot which
quoted one teacher reflecting on the passages she had gone through in her development as
a teacher.
While some of these pieces are not autobiographies in the strictest sense, they are
autobiographical in that they represent the life experiences of the writers in narrative
forms. Literary theorists vary along a continuum of deï¬nitions of autobiography as a
genre. Literature scholar Robert Folkenflik (1993) describes current views on the nature
of autobiography:
...autobiography is a battleï¬eld on which competing ideas about literature, (and
for that matter history) are fought out. It is a highly problematic form (some
would say genre) that encourages the asking of questions about fact and ï¬ction,
about the relations of reality and the text, about origins. Is autobiography to be
found in referentiality, textuality, or social construction? Is there a self in this
text? The subject is radically in question (p.11-12).
As Folkenflik states, among scholars of literature there is considerable debate
about what constitutes autobiography as a form of literature. For the purposes of this
study, I have adopted a relatively broad-based deï¬nition of autobiography. Like Jerome
Bruner, who advocates a somewhat looser stance regarding the deï¬nition of
autobiographical literature, the autobiographical pieces I considered for this study
represent authors' attempts to construct personal reality in narrative forms. Bruner (1993)
describes such â€revelatory†texts as follows:
any text can be read as revelatory of the author, so long as it can be interpreted as
fulï¬lling intentionally or inadvertently the conditions imposed on speech acts of
self-revelation. (p.42)
Bruner, deï¬ning paradigmatic ways of knowing, describes the ways that people construct
a sense of who they are in story form. Calling this a "narrative construction of reality,"
he describes an understanding of self in the world as a process of "narrative accrual," the
construction of set of stories that account for and organize a particular person.
My intention in structuring this group around the reading of autobiography was to
promote participants' active reflection on the authors’ and their own lives and experiences
35
with language, literacy and culture. Bnmer (1990) describes the importance of
individuals' making meaning through the narrative construction of reality:
even our homely accounts of happening in our own lives are eventually converted
into more or less coherent autobiographies centered around a Self acting more or
less purposefully in a social world (p.18).
By examining the language, literacy and cultural experiences of their lives, teachers, both
beginning and practiced, might approach their practice with new awareness of the
multiple elements influencing their students’ lives.
Others, (Salvio, 1994; Witherall & Noddings, 1991) describe the life coherence
that constructing narrative affords the narrator. Through the reading and discussion of
personal narratives that focused on stories of experience with literacy and culture,
participants have opportunities to "explore the profound cultural force language exerts in
their everyday lives" (Soliday, 1994) and in the lives of their students and their families.
Stories that closely examine issues of language, culture and schooling may be thought of
as "literacy narratives.†Eldred and Mortenson (1992) examine texts for such narratives,
seeking ways in which "text constructs a character’s ongoing, social process of language
acquisition" (p.512). They deï¬ne literacy narratives as stories which:
foreground issues of language acquisition and literacy. These narratives are
structured by learned, internalized 'literacy tropes' (Brodkey 47) by 'pre-ï¬gured
ideas and images (see White 1-23). Literacy narratives sometimes include explicit
images of schooling and teaching; they include texts that both challenge and
affirm culturally scripted ideas about literacy (1992 p. 513).
Such stories of educational autobiography oï¬en deal with the writers’ experiences of
normalization and resistance (Franzosa, 1992) in their school lives as students or as
teachers. Franzosa writes:
As Stone (1982) suggests, autobiographers are like anthropologists returning to
their own pasts. The reconstruction of the world a self has inhabited in the past
necessarily involves the autobiographer in cultural analysis and critique. Thus,
while autobiographies appear to focus on identity, they inevitably deal with
questions of time and place as well. They must be able to understand and
convincingly portray in writing a world in which a self and life belong. (p.404)
I suggest that educational anthropologists encourage acts of autobiography when
they work to assist people to examine the "cultural basis for their perceptions and
36
behaviors relations to other actors on the scene†(Spindler, 1990, p.324). The
autobiographer takes an anthropological stance when working to tell a story that situates
herself in time and place, working through a process that is comparable to Spindler and
Spindler's concept of cultural therapy. The Spindlers deï¬ne culture as follows:
We think of culture as a process. It is what happens as people try to make sense of
their own lives and sense of the behavior of the people with whom they have to
deal (Spindler & Spindler, 1990, p.2).
Thus, anthropological perspectives may inform the writing, reading and telling of
autobiographical narratives. .
Given the close working relationships of the participants and the shared reading of
literature, these autobiography discussion group sessions invited participants to tell
"stories of self in new contexts" (Eisenhart, 1995). These stories appeared to deepen and
broaden the nature of conversation between cooperating teachers and interns by creating
opportunities for reflection on practice as well as broader social critique. Eisenhart
characterizes the telling of stories of self as a mediational device that allows the teller to
construct new social and cultural categories as they "interpret the past, construct the
present, and launch the future" (p.21). She emphasizes the potential for change as
newcomers to a setting construct new understandings of the social and cultural context.
As interns confronted the realities of everyday life in classrooms, they were
confronted with personal and professional issues of identity, culture, and language. The
autobiography discussion group was structured to provide a context in which they could
puzzle through these issues, in the company of practiced teachers. Similarly, the
cooperating teachers, who were new to the teacher educator role, were continuing to
explore their own beliefs and practices regarding the teaching of multilingual students.
Their participation in responsive discussion offered a forum for this exploration.
Through the reading of autobiography, participants also had opportunities to
discuss the role of school in individuals' lives and equity issues that arise in contexts
where students enter a school setting with a range of backgrounds, expectations, and
37
goals. This included examining how school-based literacy education frames the purposes
of literacy for individuals within the culture--whether it provides access to power and full
participation in a democracy or whether the goals are primarily to assimilate minorities
into majority norms and practices (Delpit, 1988; Reyes, 1992; Scribner, 1984):
A look at literacy education and acquisition in the context of an ethnically diverse
society forces us to go beyond viewing these processes simply as the transmission
and internalization of a set of cognitive functions or skills and to consider both the
symbolic aspects and the content of what is taught and learned. In doing so, we
are also confronted with the need to clarify our underlying assumptions and values
about the nature of such a society.(Ferdman, 1990 p.182, emphasis mine)
This type of examination created occasions for teachers and interns to look at the
signiï¬cance of individual lives but also place them in social and political contexts and
examine pedagogical implications for teachers and diverse students. Given that the
majority of the students in Tapestry School were immigrants and refugees, the
autobiographical texts of linguistic, cultural, and racial minorities generated teachers'
inquiry into their students' individual experiences as well as the broader social contexts of
their lives. Like Marshall, Smagorinsky and Smith (1995), who studied literature
discussion groups with high school students, and other book clubs with adult participants,
my interest in the use of literature as a tool in the professional development of beginning
and practiced teachers
...comes out of our beliefs in the ethical power of literature, a belief in its capacity
to help students understand themselves and enter into harmonious relationships
with others, the two fundamental goals of education according to
Rosenblatt( 1938). (Marshall et al., 1995)
Seeking to tap into the “ ethical power of literature†we approached reading, writing, and
talking together by using a consistent format for our sessions that invited participants to
use oral and written language to learn in the company of each other. The following
section describes the structure of the autobiography discussion group.
38
Structure of Autobiography Discussion Group Sessions
The discussion sessions centered on the reading and discussion of excerpts from
autobiographies of immigrants and refugees that emphasized the language, literacy, and
school experiences of the writers. At the beginning of the discussion sessions I offered
background on the excerpts we were reading in order to flame the excerpt within a
broader context and emphasize the importance of seeing both the texts and lives of the
writers as wholes. Participants wrote extemporaneously in response to the readings, met
in small groups to discuss the readings and then came together as a large group to discuss
issues that had arisen in the reading, writing and discussions (see Table 3). The model for
each session was adapted from a technique developed by Raphael and others (F lorio-
Ruane & DeTar, 1995; Gavelek & Raphael, 1996; Raphael & McMahon, 1994) for
teaching literature with children. The model provided several avenues for talk about text,
allowing participants to construct new understandings through the interactive use of
language in social interaction.
Unlike traditional staff development sessions, in which teachers often sit passively
and "receive" information (Grant & Zozakiewicz, 1995; Zeichner, 1993), participants in
the ADG actively read, wrote about, and discussed literature and their responses to it
throughout the hour and a half to two hour sessions. The group usually met after school
from 3:15 to approximately 5:00 pm on Thursdays. Although it was the end of the week
and the end of the day, group members often were talkative and upbeat as they entered
the school library where our sessions took place. I always brought food and drink; after
the ï¬rst session, both interns and teachers also brought cookies and other treats to place in
the middle of the table for all. In follow-up interviews (June-July, 1997) after the
sessions were completed, both interns and teachers consistently characterized the group
as "comfortable" and "friendly.â€
39
Table 3: Typical Schedule of ADG Sessions"
Total time: 1 hr. 40 minutes to 2 hours
Introduction: 10 minutes
(Whole group discussion of content and process in previous discussion group meetings
and introduction of reading and writing for the day)
Sustained Silent Reading: 20 minutes (varying by reading)
(Whole group reads day's excerpt)
Response Log Writing: 10 minutes
(extemporaneous writing in response day's reading )
Small groups: 30 minutes
(groups of 3-5 talk about day's reading)
Large group #2: 30 minutes
(Whole group sharing of small group discussions, raising further issues)
*Adapted from: Raphael & McMahon, (1994) and Florio-Ruane & deTar, (1995).
Research Methods
Design and Data Collection
The activities interns and teachers engaged in were a part of a year long "Guided
Practice" course at a major Midwestern university. The course was designed to provide a
context for ongoing reflection and discussion of intems' experiences in their schools. I
also served as the course instructor and the liaison to the interns and cooperating teachers.
In that role I was responsible for supporting and co-evaluating the intems' progress along
with their cooperating teachers. This course was evaluated on a "Pass/No—Credit" basis;
criteria for passing the course were based on students' minimal meeting of MSU program
standards and participation in course activities.
The discussion group was held for six monthly sessions fl'om November through
April, lasting approximately one hour and forty-ï¬ve minutes to two hours each. Sessions
were scheduled flom 3: 15 to 5:00 on the third Thursday of each month. The timeline for
the study is indicated in Appendix B. Interns participated in the discussion group as a
part of their regularly scheduled "Guided Practice" course; cooperating teachers were
40
paid to participate at the staff development hourly rate of $30 (including stipend and
beneï¬ts) by the school.
I co-convened the group with Carol, the mentor teacher in the school and the
teacher liaison to the university teacher education program- I completed application
processes to do research in the local school district and received approval from the district
ofï¬ce. I also completed the University Committee for Research on Human Subjects form
and received approval (See Appendix H). To insure participants' anonymity in providing
consent, Carol administered consent forms and answered questions regarding
participation in the study (See Appendices F & G for Intern and CT consent forms). This
allowed interns and cooperating teachers to participate or decline to participate in the
research in ways which did not bias me as the course instructor or influence the
instruction or assessment any intern received. Individuals were informed that those who
declined to participate would not be highlighted or focused on in any way in the analysis
and writing. Participants were informed in writing that they could withdraw flom the
study at any time by informing Carol of their decision. The identities of participants were
not known to me until students had completed the program and graduated in early May.
At that time I learned that all of the cooperating teachers and interns had signed consent
forms agreeing to participate in the research.
As a means of making decisions about further readings and directions for the
group, I kept a teaching journal during the six months of the program (see below).
However, I did not analyze the data for research purposes until interns had completed the
program and graduated in early May. To address the research questions from a variety of
angles, as a participant observer in the group I collected data in the following multiple
ways:
' Teaching journal: I kept a teaching journal of ï¬eld notes and personal reflections
as well as notes on my instructional decisions that documented my planning and
thinking regarding the group. I took ï¬eld notes about the sessions detailing
41
observations, ongoing questions, concerns and instructional decisions regarding the
sessions. These ï¬eld notes provided a set of observations and reflections on the
content and process of the session. My journal allowed me to have a record of my
thinking over time and a record of my observations about the group.
Discussion logs: Participants wrote brief written responses to the readings during the
sessions in preparation for discussion. With participants' permission, these discussion
logs were collected by Carol after interns had graduated and my involvement with the
school was over. Discussion logs provided additional individual data through a
written record of participants' responses to the readings.
Audio and video tapes: Each session was audio and video taped for subsequent
analysis of the participants' conversations. These tapes provided both a visual and
audio record of the participant's interactions, for subsequent transcription and analysis
of the conversation. All tapes were catalogued by me and either full sessions or key
sections were transcribed by me or by a professional transcriber. (See Appendix C for
Data Chart indicating audio and video recordings.)
Individual interviews: I conducted hour to hour and a half long individual interviews
with cooperating teachers and interns after the ï¬nal session to discuss their
experiences in the discussion group. These interviews focused on participants'
learning and individuals’ experiences in the group.(See Appendix D for Interview
Protocols for Interns and CTs)
Field notes, observations, documents and other materials: To situate the group
within the context of the school and larger community to understand the
conversation's topics as well as the group dynamics, I also collected ï¬eld notes,
observations, documents, plans and follow-up ï¬eld notes from Guided Practice
sessions and other materials from my experience in the school to serve as background
data for analyzing the conversations and to help me set them in a general description
of the school context.
42
Methods of Analysis
The analysis of this data required attention to a web of important elements that
characterized this group. Participants included interns, cooperating teachers, the mentor
teacher in the school and the researcher. These participants differed on several
dimensions: l)their level of experience as teachers; 2) their cultural and language
backgrounds and life experiences; 3) their roles within the school setting.
My analysis of the data focused on two areas: 1) the discourse dynamics of the
group; and 2) the participants' perspectives and learning. First, I analyzed the discourse
dynamics of the group using videotape and audio tape recordings, transcriptions of
selected sections of these tapes and video tapes of the viewing sessions as primary
sources. My teaching journal, participants' logs and interviews with the participants
served as secondary sources. Through ongoing analysis of the data (Glaser & Strauss,
1967), I ï¬rst looked at the general landscape of the conversations and then I focused in
particular on analyzing particular narratives, conversations of high involvement, and
whole session cases.
This included analysis of involvement strategies, and the structure and content of
the conversations (Edelsky, 1981; O’Connor & Michaels, in press; Tannen, 1989). I was
particularly interested in 1) personal narrative that arose within the conversation; 2) the
forms and functions of these personal narratives; 3) how participants dealt with issues of
power and took on leadership roles within the group, especially between mentors and
novices; 4) how topics were established and maintained; 5)the nature of the conversation-
-debate, consensus building, and argument. 6) the establishment of patterns of interaction
and change over time in these patterns.
Concurrently, I examined participants' perspectives and learning regarding
language and culture primarily through analysis of interviews. Video and audio tape
recordings of sessions and viewing sessions and my teaching journal also served as
secondary sources of data I was particularly interested in 1) how participants deï¬ned and
43
flamed language, literacy, and culture issues in the autobiographical literature and in
their own professional and personal lives; 2) how this talk changed over time; 3) what
participants claimed to have learned through participation in the group.
Data analysis began in mid-May, 1997 after all interns had graduated from the
program. Throughout the data collection and analysis process, all data was collected and
stored at my home to insure the privacy and conï¬dentiality of participants. All data were
collected and analyzed using methods drawn from ethnography and sociolinguistics
(Bogdan & Biklen, 1992; Gumperz, 1982; Harnmersley & Atkinson, 1983; Santiago,
1993; Tannen, 1989). Erickson (1981) describes qualitative researchers' main question as
"What's the game and how can it be described?" (p.19). As a participant in and
constructor, facilitator, and researcher of this particular game, I worked to understand the
data fl'om a number of angles. Analysis included reï¬nement of research questions and
the creation of analytic categories during the process of reviewing data. Analysis
activities included the following:
- I selectively transcribed video and audio tapes using type-case analysis (Erickson &
Shultz, 1977) as a tool for examining the data. I also had interview data completely
transcribed by an outside transcriber.
- I coded data and sought patterns in the talk, looking at structure and content and
development of the group over the six month period (Harnmersley & Atkinson,
1983). I sought“ episodes†of the talk (Marshall et al., 1995), where speakers utilized
involvement strategies (Tannen, 1989) to create conversations that explored the text
and their responses to it and to each other.
- I reï¬ned the units of analysis further, focusing on narratives (Riessman, 1993) and
high involvement interchanges (what I began to frame as “ third space†conversations
(Gutierrez et al., 1997; Gutierrez et al., 1995) between interns and CTs. I determined
that both micro analyses of individual narratives and conversations as well as more
44
macro analyses of whole sessions would be necessary to illustrate themes in the data,
as will be discussed in Chapter 3.
0 As a means of furthering the analysis, and acknowledging that any data are
incomplete and partial versions of the social context (Coffey & Atkinson, 1996), I
triangulated data and also sought disconï¬rming evidence.
Through analysis of the data, I formulated substantive theory (Glaser & Strauss, 1967)
speciï¬cally related to this study and also used what I had learned to generate broader
formal theory about the use of autobiography discussion groups as a professional
development tool for educating beginning and practiced teachers who work with diverse
students. Erickson (1981) describes such an approach:
The qualitative researcher’s ability to pull out flom ï¬eld notes a key incident, link
it to other incidents, phenomena, and theoretical constructs and write it up so that
others can see the generic in the particular, the universal in the concrete, the
relation between part and whole (or at least between part and some level of
context) may be the most important thing he does (p.22).
Chapters 3-5 use the data to illustrate the development of theory; Chapter 6 applies this
theory to the larger context of teacher education.
Other Research Issues
Gaining Entry
Gaining entry to this setting, although it involved careful building of relationships
and trust, was eased by the fact that I had known the principal and mentor teacher, Carol,
for ten years. In an earlier professional role, I had led professional development activities
for the principal’s school faculty in another setting; I had maintained a friendship and
professional relationship with her over the years and I had stayed in contact as Tapestry
School was started. This made for a relatively smooth entry into the school. As I wrote
in my ï¬eld notes (2/ 14/97), the principal made a point of saying to me that she was glad
that “they don't have to spend a year orienting or teaching me about the what we're about
45
at Tapestry.†Such ease of entry would not necessarily be easily or immediately
replicable elsewhere. As I wrote in my ï¬eld notes:
I will need to remember that this is a signiï¬cant element in this piece of
research. That I had already "gained entry" into this scene--at least through the
ofï¬cial channels. There are lots of aspects of this research that this has affected
too-~the fact that the teachers are getting paid for staff development time for this
project (this would deï¬nitely not have happened if I had just walked in off the
street); the support I've gotten from Carol--both time to talk, materials (video) and
enthusiasm for the project, general involvement; a general sanctioning of the
activity by the administration has created an expectation that if you were going to
have an intern, you'd be involved in this group (Field notes, 2/ 14/97)
Gaining entry with the cooperating teachers and interns was facilitated and
complicated by my other role as liaison to the school. I was in the school building for
several hours at least three different times a week, doing observations, co-teaching or co-
planning with cooperating teachers and interns, meeting with the administrators or
involved in other activities. I regularly talked on the phone with interns and cooperating
teachers as well. Thus, we had many opportunities to know each other well and to earn
each others’ respect and trust. On the other hand, as the representative of the university, I
held the power to evaluate interns and to make decisions, along with their CTs, about
their advancement in the program. Although they received pass/no credit ratings for
grades in their ï¬eldwork, interns also wanted to receive good letters of recommendation
fl'om me. In addition, CTs, all of whom were new to the cooperating teacher role in this
full year internship program, were not used to having university teacher educators
regularly entering their classrooms. Their work felt more “ public†12 than usual; interns
interviewed them about their pedagogy, I appeared for scheduled “ observations†of
interns and saw them in action, and we me with interns to talk about their progress and
involvement in CTs classrooms. As discussed previously, as in most schools,
interactions like these were contrary to the culture of teaching that prevailed in this school
as well.
12See Chapter 6 for an analysis of our ADG #6 conversation in which CTs and interns talked openly about
the how they felt about other adults observing their work.
46
My central strategy for gaining entry (and for being the kind of teacher educator I
wanted to be) was to establish myself as a legitimate player in the school context. Thus, I
worked to be a part of the setting. For example, when kids were running down the hall to
the bathrooms, I played a typical teacher role and slowed them down. While I was in
CT/intem classrooms at least once a week for at least a half hour, I rarely strictly
“ observed†interns. Unless an intern speciï¬cally asked me to stay out of the action, I
always participated in classroom activities, helping groups or individual students. I also
used my language skills in Thai to communicate with Hmong and Lao students and
bilingual instructional aides in the school. I tried to be at the school during the lunch
hour so that I could eat with teachers, interns and aides in the school staff room and
participate in casual conversation. I also met with interns and CTs in Guided Practice
sessions once in September and in October, to talk about the program goals, mentoring
and planning for the intem’s lead teaching. These were also moments when trust-
building was going on.
In sum, as a teacher educator, I believe that the triangle of the cooperating teacher,
intern, and university instructor needs to be strongly bonded with trust. This trust builds
over time through mutual participation in the activities of school life. I tried to be a
trustworthy person in this setting. By getting to know interns and CTs through these
activities, I also trusted them.
Risks and Beneï¬ts to Participants
As a researcher and teacher educator, I was especially concerned about conducting
this research with integrity, minimizing the risks to participants and making this a
worthwhile activity for all involved. Having worked in many professional development
settings, I knew that the building of trust would be key to interns’ and CTs’ full
participation in the group as well. As an element of this trust building, I carefully
considered the risks and beneï¬ts of participation in the group and wrote about them in the
university human subjects approval form and also in the consent forms (See Appendices
47
F. G. H ). I include text flom the human subjects form below and include my
commentary between sections as a route to explaining howl dealt with these potential
risks and beneï¬ts.
Conversation that is prompted by the reading of personal narrative about
language and culture is likely to be both personal and professional in its form and
content. Consequently, there is a slight risk that interns and cooperating teachers
may experience embarrassment or anxiety about their participation in talk about
their beliefs and practices. This may be especially true for interns who may
consider themselves in subordinate positions to their cooperating teachers. This
slight risk is offset by the potential beneï¬t of the opportunities for learning that
may arise through serious talk between beginning and experienced teachers as
they examine issues of language, culture and education. Teachers and interns
rarely have extended periods of time for talk about their practice; this discussion
group provides both context and content for educative talk. Use of pseudonyms
and adherence to procedures that protect conï¬dentiality and anonymity should
also off-set participants' potential anxiety regarding the documentation of the
discussion group through written and taped forms. (U CHRIS form, 10/96)
Participants in the group did experience anxiety about talking openly in response
to the texts. As will be discussed in the analysis, interns, in particular, developed
listening strategies in the sessions so that they could gauge the conversation before
joining the talk (Interviews, June-July 1997). One participant consistently stayed after
the group had ï¬nished to talk through issues that had arisen for her during the
conversations that she did not want to raise with the whole group. Both interns and CTs
made reference to video and audio-taping equipment at each session, but did not seem to
be particularly wonied about being taped—in fact, they readily turned tapes over for me
when a side had ï¬nished and willingly picked up tape recorders to take with them to the
small group sessions.
Because we had a structured format that included, writing, small group talk, and
large group talk, participants also made individual choices about to what degree and in
what contexts they wished to “ go public†with an idea or response to the text or to
another participant’s comment. As I quoted flom interview transcripts in this
dissertation, if I used quotations that appear to have the risk of embarrassing participants,
I identify them only as being from an interview, rather than naming the source. Having
studied the video and audio recordings and observed participants remaining silent, and
48
having also heard participants in interviews describing how they made decisions about
“how much†to talk, I believe that participants individually exercised control over their
involvement in this setting.
The following further excerpt from the human subjects approval form addresses
issues of coercion:
The researcher's role as course instructor may pose a risk given that interns
might feel coerced to consent to participate in the research. Cooperating teachers,
although they are not being evaluated in any way, might also feel some pressure
to consent out of concern for their interns. To minimize this, interns and
cooperating teachers may decide to decline to participate in the research at any
time during the course without the knowledge of the researcher. Participants will
communicate with (Carol) about consent issues rather than Reischl, in order to
minimize any feelings of coercion (UCRHIS form, lO/97)
Given their busy schedules and lives outside of the group, participation in the ADG on
the part of cooperating teachers may have felt like a burden. For exanrple, a CT was
concerned about paying for child care during these after school meetings. This was
slightly offset by the fact that CTs were paid for their participation, but it was still an
issue for her. I addressed issues of consent in the following manner:
Similarly, given that cooperating teachers and the researcher co-evaluate
interns for their internship on a Pass/No Credit basis, interns might feel some
pressure to consent to participate in the research. To minimize this, all participants
will be informed that no one except (Carol) will know the identities of persons
who have declined to participate in the research. Neither interns or cooperating
teachers will know of each others' decisions about consent. Furthermore,
evaluation of the interns is based on an array of observations, conferences,
informal interactions and intems' participation in Guided Practice (See attached
document regarding evaluation). The two hour monthly discussion group is one
small element of the broader array of elements that c00perating teachers and the
course instructor consider when assigning a Pass/No credit grade (U CHRIS form,
10/96).
While participants were informed of their options, it is impossible for me to know
if they felt coerced to participate in the research. I believe the consent process was
carried out thoroughly as designed and that all participants understood the risks and
beneï¬ts of participating in the research aspects of the sessions. From another angle, there
was considerable risk for me, the researcher, in designing the study in this way--if one or
more participants had declined to participate, analyzing and writing about the discourse
49
O
‘ )
r;-
E.
t (r
.4
data would have been extremely problematic. I continue to seek routes to participants
granting of “ consent†that protect and promote all parties’ interests.
Playing Many Roles
Being researcher, teacher, liaison, colleague, and participant in the Tapestry
School setting and in the ADG group, I found myself making many decisions in the
moments of engagement with others in the school. Paula Salvio describes a shift away
from the detached observer into a more active researcher as a step towards what she calls
the “ engaged participant†(Salvio, 1994 p.419). I like this term; it connotes the kind of
authentic involvement in the research/teaching process that I hoped to enact and to
convey to others. As I will discuss throughout the analysis, engagement in these many
roles was both satisfying and perplexing. The following excerpt from my teaching
journal raises some of these issues:
I am trying to work with the various roles I'm playing (teacher, researcher,
colleague, MSU representative, grader of students) rather than try to forget these
roles.
I found myself wanting to raise issues in the group-usually wanting to ask
questions that would focus the group on particular aspects of the text that I
thought were problematic and that raised questions about our own beliefs and
practices. The researcher in me told me to stay out--to let the conversation
develop on its own. The teacher in me wanted to ask, but also wanted to let the
group grope around a bit so they could construct some understanding flom each
other rather than rely on me so much.
I was struck by how "compliant" people seemed-everyone seemed to
follow directions and move on. I remember most people looking directly at me as
they talked, or at least glancing my way very flequently. I can't discount the fact
that I'm in the organizer/authority role here too--how to use that role well?
(Teaching Journal, 11/25/96)
I am particularly interested in pursuing further the role of the teacher educator as a
facilitator of talk in sessions such as these. I found as I enacted my multiple roles
simultaneously, that I actively posed questions, told my own personal narratives, or
otherwise intervened in the ADG conversations when it felt “ right.†This was not a “ sit
back and see what happens “ role for me. As the analyses in the subsequent chapters will
indicate, as an “ engaged participant†in the research, as a responder to the texts, as a
teacher educator with commitments to excellence in education for multilingual students, I
50
was involved. Because our activity was responding to text and to each other, I did not
hold right answers to the dilemmas that were raised. Yet, I did fully participate. I believe
this was an ethical move (Newkirk, 1996).
The following chapter will introduce the reader to several vignettes in which
participants began to construct a conversational "third space" in their discussions about
language and culture, focusing speciï¬cally on two patterns of high involvement in these
constructive conversations: personal narratives and situated text-based debate. Examples
of each pattern will be analyzed. through examination of several data points.
51
CHAPTER 3
SEEKING THE THIRD SPACE: ANALYSIS OF
BEGINNING AND PRACTICED TEACHERS’ CONVERSATIONS
Features of Teachers’ Talk about Text
In this study, autobiographical literature offered a focal point for discussion
(Hawkins, 1967/ 1974), providing artful literary voices of individuals writing to
understand themselves in social contexts, voices that were intermingled with the voices of
interns and cooperating teachers (Bakhtin, 1981; Fairclough, 1992; Soliday, 1994) as they I
created new forms of participation in talk. In this chapter, I describe these forms of
participation as talk within a “third space,†(Gutierrez et al., 1995) a conversational space
in which interns and CTs practiced new “ scripts†or discourses (Gee, 1990) as they
reflected on their enduring and situated selves. I argue that participation in contexts such
as the autobiography discussion group created the possibility of opportunities for critical
colleagueship (Lord, 1994) and complementarity (John-Steiner, 1985) in intern/CT
relationships. Given the ongoing challenges of working in multicultural/multilingual
school settings (Group, 1996), such educative relationships may be especially crucial to
both beginning and practiced teachers. Developing the skills and dispositions to readily
engage in conversations about working in multilingual and multicultural contexts creates
the possibility for changing the culture of teaching and the experience of students in
American schools (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1992; Sleeter, 1996; Zeichner, 1993).
Studying the transcripts from ADG sessions, I was struck by the episodes that
occurred in each session in which CTs, interns, and others in the group seemed to be
particularly engaged in the talk. Utilizing Tannen’s (1989) concept of“ involvement,†I
examined these moments of energy and intriguing content. These appeared to be
moments when interns and CTs stepped out of “ scripts†they were accustomed to and
into a “ third conversational space†that they mutually created and maintained (Gutierrez
et al., 1995).
52
In the following sections, ï¬rst, I will deï¬ne the concept of third space
conversations and the role that “ involvement†(Tannen, 1989) appears to play in this
kind of talk. Secondly, I will illustrate howl have utilized these ideas in my analysis by
identifying high-involvement, third space conversations in this study. I will illustrate two
central participation strategies in these third space conversations: a.) the telling of
personal narratives , and b) high involvement, multiple-speaker interchanges that I call
“ situated text-driven debate.†This chapter serves as pre-amble to Chapters 4 and 5
which offer case studies of whole sessions focusing speciï¬cally on layered personal
narratives in Chapter 4, and on situated text-based debate in Chapter 5.
Perceptions of Self Within a Community of Practice
In this group, beginning and practiced teachers, by reading, writing about and
discussing literature, were doing the conversational work of identifying and revising the
discourse they were a part of--that of teachers of multilingual students (Denyer, in press;
Denyer & F lorio-Ruane, 1995; Gee, 1990). As teachers who shared a common purpose,
their participation in the ADG offered them occasions to share their “ personal realitiesâ€
(Greene, 1978) and to check in on how these realities ï¬t into a larger community of
practice. From a social constructivist perspective, what it means to know, involves
understanding one’s own practice within the larger activity system of the community.
Jean Lave (1991), writing particularly about the roles of newcomers and old-timers
learning in social settings, describes learning within a community of practice:
This recommends a decentered view of the locus and meaning of learning, in
which learning is recognized as a social phenomenon constituted in the
experienced, lived-in world, through legitimate peripheral participation in
ongoing social practice; the process of changing knowledgeable skill is subsumed
in processes of changing identity in and through membership in a community of
practitioners; and mastery is an organizational, relational characteristic of
communities of practice. (Lave, 1991, p.64)
53
The ADG offered participants occasions to explore and begin to articulate their
individual beliefs and their beliefs about the connnunity of practice of Tapestry School as
“legitimate peripheral participants†in this social setting. The community of practice of
“ Tapestry teachers†was situated in larger social and cultural deï¬nitions of mentors and
novices, teachers in general, and notions of schooling. Consequently, participants, given
their various histories, understood themselves within this community of practice quite
variously. In interviews, interns expressed that they had expected a kind of uniformity to
the beliefs and practices of the practiced teachers around them. As Laura, an intern, said:
Talking about each other’s experiences, things that we read. Everybody, some
people agreed, but some people had totally opposite opinions about things and
that was really interesting-that we are in the same ï¬eld but we have such
different ideas about education (Interview, p.2)
Interns were surprised by the range of beliefs and practices that their colleagues rather
openly talked about. Their conceptions of the community of practice were challenged
and deï¬ned through the reading and discussion of the literature. Lin characterized herself
as listening in on the practice of other teachers:
I think, it’s good, I think overall it’s a good experience. You know, I mean
especially for interns to hear the CTs talk and to know, you know that, “ Oh wow!
I can’t believe this happened!†or “I can’t believe this happened to more than one
person!â€, or “My gosh! Maybe that’s going to happen to me! I can be on the
lookout for something like that. You never know--you know, you ï¬nd out a
whole bunch of interesting stuff about people too in general. And you sort of get
to know them....(Interview p.28)
All three interns appeared to flame knowledge about teaching as the signiï¬cant
possession of CTs, something gained only through experience and something they could
not hope to match at this point in their own development. In interviews with the interns,
all three described themselves as initially feeling like they had low status in the group, a
perception that changed over time. In response to my question: "When you think about
your experience in this group, can you give me a general sense of what it was like for
you?", they talked about how they initially felt like they had little to offer given their lack
of experience as teachers. Laura described the teachers as "way above (me)" (Interview,
p.3) and "so much higher" (Interview, p.18). Lin's ï¬rst words about the group dealt with
54
how she felt "inferior" and "just sort of lacking" in experience (Interview, p.2-3). She
compared herself to teachers in the group and claimed that she was "not up on
everything" like some of the teachers in the group (Interview, p. 9):
I felt, I guess at times I felt inferior, you know because I haven’t really
been teaching very long, and I look at all the other teachers as being more
knowledgeable. They, you know, know about what they’re talking about.
Or they have a lot of experience, you know, and can relate. And ï¬nd like,
oh, if they were to read something like this, (they might say) "Oh yeah,
you know, I might have gone through that before! "... And plus with them
being real teachers, they might have some sort of understanding and
connection to some of the pieces we’ve been reading (Interview, p.2).
Lin voiced the view that teaching experience was really what counted in understanding
the work of an educator. She implied that her other life experiences, including her
experiences growing up as a Vietnamese and Chinese speaker learning English in school
were not the kind of resources that“ real teachers†might draw upon. Lin characterized
“ experience†as a possession to be acquired.
Marcy also described herself as "lower level" and "lower scale" on her Intern/CT
hierarchy. She spoke about her place:
Lower scale. Internship year, you're still a novice, and you're still a student, and
you have all these ideals and you're bright and you just came flom college and
you have all these classes that tell you all these theories and I think they kinda see
it as, like, not reality. (Marcy, Interview, p.15)
The interns descriptions of their early roles in the group evoked traditional visions of
themselves as apprentices working with master teachers. Yet, analyses of the ADG
conversations indicate that interns also resisted this traditional apprentice/master
conï¬guration. As will be indicated in the analysis occasionally they explicitly used the
group to resist being positioned as “ inexperienced.†Over time, they participated in
ADG conversations in ways that allowed them to draw on and share other sources of
knowledge fl'om their own enduring selves.
Practiced teachers in the group all described themselves as having experience that
could be useful and informative to the interns. Yet they also said that simply trying to
expose interns to what they had learned or transmit their knowledge to them probably
55
would not be useful. The following cuts provide examples of how teachers talked about
their experience:
I think it may have been a learning experience for them (the interns) to hear our
(experiences)...Maybe just the difference between an older, more experienced
person’s point of view. How much they’ll internalize, I don’t know. (Beth,
Interview, p.19)
Another teacher also talked about experience:
It was a generational thing too. You know, I think I feel that, that need to nurture
the next generation. I have been feeling that over the past maybe 5 years or so.
And now realizing that that's a part of wrapping up my career is to, uh, is to enjoy
opportunities to pass on to others, or to do whatever, to have contact with them
too....
So then with the group I'm, ummmm, at the same time I felt a little....uh, there's a
little bit of, “ Oh there's such an incredible gap here.†I know that we, I know that
they can't hear me across the, they can't hear some of the things I would like to
share with them across the 25 year, or even more of the gap of experience in
life .....
CTs also described their years of experience as the source of their knowledge about
teaching. Yet, as they talked through the texts, CTs also took conversational positions
where they asked questions about their work, inquired of others, and co-constructed
debate with interns about issues of practice.
Scripts and Spaces
Gutierrez et al (1995) studying interactions between high school classroom
teachers and their students found that as the members of a classroom community
interacted over time, they developed “ normative patterns of life†that were characterized
by “ social, spatial, and language patterns that members use to interpret the activity of
others and guide their own participation (p.449). Gutierrez calls these normative patterns
“ scriptsâ€. Very similar to Gee’s (1990) concept of discourses, such scripts embody
power relationships, delineating who’s knowledge counts, and “ shaping the identity and
consciousness as participants seek to become members of particular cultural and social
spheres or communities of practice (p.451). Gutierrez examined the consequences of
shifting out of normative scripts:
56
When a true dialogue between students and teacher occurs, rather than random
associations between their scripts, a new transitional, less rigidly scripted space-
the third space--is created. Within this space, there is more than a random
association between script and counter script; an actual merging of the teacher and
student world views occurs. (Gutierrez et al., 1995 p.452)
Applying these ideas to the ï¬eld-based teacher education setting, interns and
cooperating teachers, like the students and teachers that Gutierrez studied, through their
participation in larger social and cultural contexts and through their participation in this
school community, had developed normative scripts. These scripts privileged the voices
of more “ experienced†teachers and also burdened the practiced teachers with the
responsibility of having “the answers.†What counted as knowledge in this setting was
tied to participants’ years of experience as teachers and students and to the roles deï¬ned
in the context. Gutierrez, Baquendano-Lopez, and
Turner write further about how knowledge is constructed via departure from normative
scripts into a conversational “third spaceâ€:
"the third space in learning environments refers to a place where two scripts or
two normative patterns of interaction intersect, creating the potential for authentic
interaction and learning to occur. This is a new sociocultural terrain in which a
space for shifts in what counts as knowledge and knowledge representation is
created (Gutierrez et al., 1997, p.372).
I argue that the ADG sessions provided a context in which intern and CT scripts
occasionally intersected, creating the potential for “ authentic interaction and learning to
occur.†By using the literature as a focal point in the discussion, interns and CTs
occasionally experimented with a range of forms of participation in the talk. Such talk,
which was distinguished by features of high involvement, appeared to be exploratory,
interspersed with explanatory and distinguishing personal narratives, referred to both
personal and professional experience, and critiqued the literature. These departures from
normative “ scripts†(Gutierrez et al., 1995) appeared to lead participants into deeper
exploration of individual and community selves (Rappaport, 1995). Thus, a third space
conversation between interns and CTs might offer a new “ sociocultural terrain†for the
construction of new knowledge about the teaching in multilingual contexts--for both
57
newcomers and old-timers in the communityua space in which both beginning and
practiced teachers might participate in constructing knowledge. Figure 1 illustrates the
construction of third space conversations in the autobiography discussion groups.
Applying these principles to the teaching of literacy, Gutierrez et a1 (1997)
examined literacy pedagogy, arguing that new pedagogies must be developed to assist
students in learning to use language in which “learning takes precedence over teaching;
instruction is consciously local, contingent, situated and strategic; and our current
knowledge about language learning and language users informs the literacy curriculum.â€
(Gutierrez et al., 1997 p.372). Utilizing P. David Pearson’s (1996) concept of the
“ radical middle†as a way of characterizing literacy pedagogy that is neither balanced nor
eclectic, but a reconceptualization of the role that language and literacy play in
communities of learners, they argue that such pedagogies might create third spaces for
students and teachers in new kinds of learning communities. Similarly, if we think of
learning to teach as learning to function within particular social and cultural contextsâ€--
learning a particular kind of literacy (F erdman, 1990; Gee, 1989; Gee, 1990; Heap, 1992;
Lemke, l989)--pedagogies such as those Gutierrez et a1 and Pearson describe may be
useful teacher education pedagogies as well. Teacher education pedagogies that create
opportunities for third space interactions between beginning and practiced teachers might
open up opportunities for new kinds of learning communities within the culture of
teachers.
13See Chapter 1, p.12-13 for a discussion of sociocultural perspectives on literacy.
58
Transcendent Script
CT Script Unscripted 2::
autobirrgraphical text
| Third Space
Community of Practice
Figure I: Conversation in the third space
Adapted fl'om Gutierrez, Rymes, & Larson (1995)
As indicated in Figure I, in the Autobiography Discussion Group, the teacher and
intern scripts did not just meet; they intersected with autobiographical text, a third script
in the third space, that included the author's voice telling a story of self (Eisenhart, 1995),
a literacy narrative (Eldred & Mortenson, 1992; Soliday, 1994). Group members
responded to these texts by telling stories of self as well, creating possibilities for
engagement with others and the mutual inhabiting of this third space. As Gutierrez puts
59
it and as Figure I illustrates, conversation in the third space is negotiated by the
participants:
and the possibility of contesting a larger societal, or transcendent script emerges.
By departing flom their own scripts, teacher and students (in this case, CTs and
interns) let go, slightly of their defensive hold on their exclusive cultures, and the
interaction between their scripts creates a third space for unscripted improvisation,
where the traditionally binary nature of the student and teacher (CT and intern)
script is disrupted. (1995, p.453)
“High Involvement,†Learning, and Third Space Conversations
Participants in the autobiography discussion group worked together to construct
meaning from the autobiographical texts they read. Given intriguing content
(autobiographical literature) and a shared context (the facilitated autobiography
discussion group centered within the school context in which interns and CTs worked)
participants in the ADG appeared to engage in exploratory talk that pushed beyond the
boundaries of their everyday conversations. There were moments--spaces--sometimes
extended segments of talk, when participants appeared to be seriously engaged in
working to understand the text and articulate their own beliefs and practices. They were
involved. (Tannen, 1989). As I analyzed the ADG data, I looked for instances of the use
of high involvement strategies as indications of possible third space conversations. This
section explains the concept of involvement and provides detailed examples of two kinds
of high-involvement conversations, personal narratives, and situated text-driven debate,
offering analysis of the nature of this talk and its impact on the participants.
Deborah Tannen (1989) deï¬nes involvement strategies as “the basic force in both
conversational and literary discourse by means of their sounds and sense patterns†(p. 1 7).
She explains how high involvement is a factor in leanring:
It is a tenet of education that students understand information better,
perhaps only, if they have discovered it for themselves rather than being told it.
Much as one cares for a person, animal, place, or object that one has taken care
of; so listeners and readers not only understand information better but care more
about it--understand it because they care about it--if they have worked to make its
meaning (Tannen, 1989, p.17)
60
As Tannen puts it, “ by doing some of the work of making meaning, hearers or readers
become participants in the discourse†(p. l 7). Like Tannen, it made sense to me that
high-involvement conversations about the literature we read together in the ADG would
indicate emotional involvement and investment in the conversation at hand. Such
conversations could be thought of as reasonable sites for learning. I argue that these
moments of highest involvement were moments when participants were constructing a
kind of substantive “ third space†talk that offered them opportunities to explore their
“ enduring†and “ situated†selves (Spindler & Spindler, 1993) in ways that were unique
to this conversational context.
As I analyzed transcripts fl'om the ADG sessions, I focused on how participants
appeared to be making meaning through conversation. Adapting Marshal et al’s (1995)
construct of an “ episode†of talk as a “ series of thematically connected speaker turns,†I
particularly looked for episodes in the talk where participants used multiple involvement
strategies as a means of engaging in exploratory conversations (See also Florio~Ruane
and deTar, 1994.) The conversations of highest involvement, third space conversations
(where participants appear to have stepped out of conï¬ning scripts of intern as learner
and CT as person who knows), are ones in which participants are talking about the
literature, ideas, and their own practices in contextual] at once. These are the episodes of
the talk in which interns showed the greatest participation as well, where they seemed to
moving towards “ sharing studio space†rather than forging a practice, as discussed
earlier. I want to emphasize that third space conversations did not necessarily lead to
resolving questions or bringing topics to closure. Rather, they were exploratory in nature,
raising questions that were closely tied to the work and personal lives of both interns and
CTs.
As will be illustrated in the analyses, participants drew on dilemmas presented in
the texts as sources of topics for discussion in a number of ways: they retreated to
explicating the text when the conversation became heated, they granted the authors of the
61
texts authority or proved them foolish, and used the text in many other ways. Third space
conversations always included participants experimenting with stepping out of role
boundaries. Further, third space conversations braided conversation about individual
beliefs, and community beliefs, often Situating the conversation in the school setting the
participants shared.
Personal Narratives and Situated Text-driven Debate
High involvement “third space†conversations took on two central forms in the
ADG sessions: personal narratives and situated text-driven debate. The two types of third
space conversations shared some features of content but differed in formâ€. As Figures 2
and 3 indicate, both types of third space conversations utilized the texts as resources in a
variety of ways.
While the content of third space conversations was relatively similar in the two
central patterns of the talk, the form of the talk differed. As Figure 2 indicates, personal
narratives were distinguished by participants’ use of relatively similar narrative forms in
their talk (Labov, 1972; Riessman, 1993), throughout long distributed turns. These
stories of self introduced some aspect of the participant’s personal or professional history
to group members. These narratives were sometimes “layered†in the sense that
narratives with related themes were usually told one after the next, often in pairs or trios,
somewhat like three playing cards of the same suit laid out with edges touching so that
they remained distinct, but similarities could be seen. Participants’ talk utilized
involvement strategies commonly found in ï¬ction such as tropes, metaphors, and
alliteration, personiï¬cation and other literary devices in their personal narratives.
14The categories of content and form are artiï¬cial designations--forrn and content were intertwined in the
talk. I use the categorres here as tool for talking about the conversations.
62
Table 4: Features of high involvement in third space conversations that featured
' personal narratives
Content Form
1rutilized the texts as resources in a variety * use of consistent narrative forms (Labov,
of ways 1972; Riessman, 1993)
* crossed “ role†boundaries between CTs,
interns, and facilitator
*explored individual beliefs particularly
focusing on narratives that “ introducedâ€
participants to each other
*explored community beliefs
*examined school practice
* long, distributed turns
* extensive repetition of words, and
themes across turns
* use of imagery, metaphor
*varying forms of constructed dialogue
*use of literary devices
*often prompted by questions flom the
facilitator
Situated text based debate was similar in content although such debate often was
focused on ongoing dilemmas or current issues in the school. The form of situated text-
based debate was quite different than the form of personal narratives. These debates were
characterized by fast-paced, overlapping, inclusive talk in which participants took short
turns, often including repetition of other’s words or phrases, thus increasing involvement
of all participants maintaining general topics throughout segments of talk.
Table 5: Features of high involvement in third space conversations that featured
situated text-based debate
Content Form
Tutflized the literature as resource Situated text-based debate
* crossed “ role†boundaries between CTs, * extensive repetition *
interns, and facilitator overlapping talk
*explored individual beliefs * fast pace
*explored community beliefs * all group members participate to some
*examined school practice particularly degree
focusing on current school dilemmas
* short, distributed turns
*varying forms of constructed dialogue
*often included short personal narratives
*participants asked questions of group
Again, interns and CTs appeared to step out of their scripts in this kind of talk, playing a
variety of roles. This was especially true regarding the asking of questions. While I often
asked questions, it was common in situated text-based conversations for interns and CTs
63
to also pose questions to the group. I call this kind of third space talk “ situated†because
it always included references to the school issues that participants shared. I use the term
“text-based†because group members pulled issues from the text as starting points for the
talk while occasionally returning to the text as the conversation proceeded. These
conversations felt like debate-like people earnestly trying to understand a range of
approaches to puzzling issues of language, literacy, and culture.
Third space conversations of both types occurred to greater and lesser degrees in
episodes of talk during each of the six ADG sessions. Incidences of situated text-based
debate were highest in the last four sessions of the ADG.; participants seemed to use
layered narratives in the ï¬rst two sessions to introduce themselves, offer images of
themselves as people with histories and people actively thinking about their lives. As
interns and CTs gained experience with each other by sharing classrooms in intern/CT
pairs and as the interns moved through their lead teaching period and gained more
conï¬dence in themselves as teachers, it appears that all participants gained conï¬dence in
their voices in the conversations and were more willing to co-construct the talk in high-
involvement situated text-based debates. The following section illustrates the two pattems
of talk.
Examples of High-involvement Conversations
Using Personal Narrative in Constructive Conversation
One of the ways that participants in the ADG sessions got“ involved†was
through the telling of personal narratives in response to the text or others’ responses to
the text. These narratives were always situated in larger conversationsâ€, and served
different purposes in the talk. I found it useful to analyze narrative structures to analyze
both the structure and content. Following the example of others (F lorio-Ruane &
Raphael, 1996; Glazier, in press; McVee, in press; Riessman, 1993), I utilized Labov’s
15See Chapter 4 for a case study of a whole ADG session that developed around layered personal
narratives
64
(1972) narrative structures of abstract, orientation, complicating action, resolution and
coda to analyze the narratives participants told. I found parallels and differences by
looking across narratives via this structure.
The following example is an episode of the large group conversation flom
ADG#1. CTs and interns had been discussing a section of the text, Of Borders and
M (Carger, 1996), in which the author was reflecting on her experience having
invited one of her ESL students and his family to her home. The author, Carger, was
distressed by her mixed emotions about the obvious differences in social class between
she and her students’ family and she writes about her thoughts. One of her former
professors had made a statement to her about social class: “ that teachers don’t have the
right to expose minority children to a more affluent way of life that was out of their
reach†(p.40). The author, as well as the group members were puzzled by the professor’s
thoughts and by Carger’s reflections on her experiences with the family. They took turns
talking about whether she should feel guilty about owning something as “ innocent as a
dishwasher.†After speakers talked about this topic, Lin read the words again from her
own writing, where she had written the words from the Carger text:
Lin: “ Do you have the right to expose minority children to a
more affluent way of life that wasn't, that was out of their reach?" was what , the
words that were in there. And that was the question that we all, had. We wrote
down, what did you think about the part where they..? So, did you guys have that
question? (laughs)
[someone whispers "good question"]
Lin voiced the words from the text, animating Carger’s question. She invited
response, asking “ So, did you guys have that question?“ Marcy, another intern
responded immediately, her words in the form of questions to the professor in the text:
Marcy: Why say it was out of their reach? Why determine that already?
[ soft, overlapping response: uh-hum]
Marcy: You're already labeling them, like stopping them from whatever they
want. [softly] You know?
Marcy’s opposed the “ professor†in the excerpt, questioning the validity of his statement.
Rather than directly confronting anyone in the group, she talked back to the text.
65
Interestingly, both interns have used the text to raise their points; Lin read the text aloud
and Marcy talked back to it. But a second theme was immediately raised by Terry,
Terry: They're totally immersed and inundated on TV, anyway. Even if you
weren’t showing them or exposing them to whatever. They're being exposed to it
anyway. We ’re exposed to it.-that there are class differences. That's it!
Terry raised the theme that awareness of social class was just a fact of life--that this just
can’t be an issue for teachers. Carger, directly confronted with the differences in her
everyday life compared with her student’s, has stopped to assess her social standing.
Terry’s response was, this is a bigger issue in the culture, it’s out of our control as
teachers, it’s not our issue. Lin pursued, summarizing what Terry had said and Terry
responded, emphasizing that“ exposure†to class is just part of American life:
Lin: So whether we do it or not, it's gonna happen one way or another.
Terry: It happens. It even happens to us!
[ overlapping “ rightâ€]
Terry: We think of ourselves as middle or upper middle or whatever middle, and
we see on TV, you know, the Vanderbilts, or this or that. And we see all their
luxuries and maids and everything, and we like, accept it, but we say, "Yeah,
right!" [laughter] "I mean, get real!"
(Unidentiï¬able voice): Then I also don't think, “I wish I had that.†How do we
know that these people are sitting there wishing that they did?
Lin and Terry repeated the word “ happen†, apparently meaning that people
become aware of social class by simply living in the society-~it happens:
Lin: So whether we do it or not, it's gonna happen one way or another.
Terry: It happens. It even happens to us!
Their repetition of the word involved listeners in a process; we hear it “ happening†again
and again. Emphasizing that class is something we see all around us, Terry created an
image of“ we†responding to riches we see on TV. Her “ we†is the people who think of
themselves as “ middle or upper middle or whatever middle.†Terry involved her
listeners through her use of the particular--we saw the Vanderbilts, their luxuries and their
maids as we gathered with her around the TV. She also constructed dialogue through her
use of the familiar "Yeah, right!" [laughter] "I mean, get real!â€. Her dialogue was
66
familiar; it sounded like something “ we†might say; in Tannen’s terms “ we†were
involved in her speech.
Marcy responded to this, drawing on her own life experiences, and telling a
personal narrative that marked a contrast between thinking about class from a middle
class position, versus thinking about class from the position of the poor. Marcy set
herself apart from Terry’s “ we,†complicating the conversation. Rather, she painted
herself as one of “these people†that might or might not be “ wishing they had that.â€
Marcy told the following story:
Marcy’s slumber party experience
Abstract
I remember feeling like that though. [softly].
Orientation
I mean I really remembering going to fliends,
I didn't realize,
didn't realize I was poor ‘til I went to school.
You know, we didn't have a bathroom,
I took a bath in an aluminum tub.
And I slept on a cot and I didn't have a room.
Complicating Action
I remember being amazed that they like a --
I'm getting choked up--uh!
I remember they had like a Lazy Susan,
and they'd spin around on the table, and all this food!
And then cupboards
Yeah. It was at a, my ï¬rst slumber party.
And I remember I had to borrow somebody's sleeping bag,
I didn't have a sleeping bag.
Resolution
But I came home just thinking, you know,
I never realized how much people have.
And then I started thinking about how much I don 't have.
Yeah, that's kind of hard.
Oh yeah. Cause I didn't realize that was gonna happen
until I got there and I was just shocked!
Coda
Yeah. It depends on how bad it is ï¬nancially.
Cause I remember, if we didn't have $20, to ï¬x the car,
then the whole family would shut down. What would we do?
Would we get thrown out ?
Like the carburetor, or something is wrong with the car...just $20 ...... So.
/////
67
’
Marcy’s used her personal narrative to push the group to consider that “ exposure’
to differences in class might be very impactful for children, that the lack of $20, could
make “the whole family shut down.†Like Carger, she urged her colleagues to take these
issues seriously, to consider the fact that teachers and their students lived very different
lives-particularly in this school, where many of the children lived in families that
struggled economically. Marcy situated this story of the consequences of going to school
in her abstract:
I didn't realize,
didn't realize I was poor ‘til I went to school.
Like the family members in Carger’s story who were fascinated by the dishwasher and
the house cat, Marcy was amazed by details at her fliend’s house. She created
involvement with the group by describing images flom the kitchen:
I remember being amazed that they like a --
I'm getting choked up--uh!
I remember they had like a Lazy Susan,
and they'd spin around on the table, and all this food!
And then cupboards
Marcy involved the listeners in her emotion as she states the emotion she felt:
“I'm getting choked up—uh!†Unlike the previous turn, where Terry’s images were of
detached TV viewers, Marcy involved group members by narrating her emotions.
Resolving the story, we saw her coming home, her images of her home life
completely changed by going to school, making fliends and seeing the range of ways that
people live. Unlike Terry’s image of exposure “just happen(ing)†, Marcy was
“ shocked.â€
But I came home just thinking, you know,
I never realized how much people have.
And then I started thinking about how much I don 't have.
Yeah, that's kind of hard.
Oh yeah. Cause I didn't realize that was gonna happen
until I got there and I was just shocked!
Marcy’s story challenged the group to rethink their responses to Carger’s piece. Like
Carger, participants’ conversation had focused on how teachers should think about
68
themselves and issues of class. Marcy’s narrative offered the image of the student for
whom school represented a life of contrasts from her home. Her personal narrative is
very personal--she chose to introduce aspects of herself by offering a slice of her history--
her experience--to the group. She spoke as both the child she had been and as an intern.
Marcy’s story was met with a loud 4 second silence, which was broken by me:
Cathy: Yeah it sort of seems like one of the things she's realizing in here is that
kind of, she's all the sudden realizing our/lives/ are/ really/ different. And I don't
know how to think about that. .Umm. How do I be in relationship, and be a teacher
of somebody, whose life is so different flom mine?
Rather than talking back to Marcy, I talked about the themes from the text that Marcy’s
narrative had helped me consider. In reading this transcript, I’m curious about my own
response. Why didn’t I talk to Marcy? Like others in the group, I think I retreated to the
text, using it for my next conversational move. Marcy’s personal narrative had jarred the
group and it had jarred me. I retreated to the safety of the text.
CTs in the group immediately began to tell a series of layered narratives16 about
ways that they had worked to be teachers of children whose lives were different fl'om
their own. Carol told a story of getting to know her migrant students early in her teaching
career and taking them roller skating and on a special trip to hear Ceasar Chavez speak;
Terry told of taking kids to a performance and to her home; Cindy spoke of a student who
wanted teachers to give him toys--all were stories of teachers working out how to be with
students different than themselves. Participants told of individual experiences; they did
not flame their narratives in statements of larger social themes. In response to Terry’s
early comments about the pervasive nature of awareness of social class, these narratives
provided images of teachers responding in everyday ways to large social problems. Lin
pushed the conversation further, when she asked whether this was a “ realistic†stance for
teachers to take (See Chapter 1).
“By “layered†I mean that participants themes and actual talk overlapped. As one narrative ended the
other was layered on this ending, creating a chain of narratives dealing with similar themes and content.
69
This episode of the talk represents an example of a third space conversation that
utilized personal narrative as a central involvement strategy in several ways. Lin
introduced a topic by reading the text aloud, constructing dialogue by making Carger’s
question her own and then offering it to others. Others responded with vivid images.
Marcy utilized the text to enter the conversation and then to tell a narrative of her history,
her enduring self (Spindler & Spindler, 1994), that was informing her interpretation of the
text and her current work as an intern. Her story challenged the theme of the
conversation-~that social class was just a fact of life that teachers shouldn’t get too
worked up about. Her story created an image of a real student, “ shocked†by “ how
much people have.†Playing out a facilitator role, when there was no immediate uptake
of Marcy’s themes, I broke the silence, and posed a question creating the voice of Carger:
“ How do I be in relationship, and be a teacher of somebody, whose life is so different
from mine?†Teachers responded, again working to tell their histories, this time their
histories as teachers who had tried to be authentic in their relationships with children
whose lives were different than their own. Dropping the larger social questions they had
debated when criticizing the professor’s comment, the group moved to explaining their
personal stories.
Marcy temporarily stepped out of the stance of “ inexperience,†out of the intern
“ script†to tell a story that stood in rather stark contrast to positions that were on the
table. Her strategies for involvement, with my further questioning of the group, sparked a
series of layered narratives in response to the text. By raising topics from the text
through narratives that utilized involvement strategies, group members experimented
with third space talk that was beyond the boundaries of typical intern/CT hierarchical
scripts. Participants appeared to be signiï¬cantly engaged in making meaning.
Situated, Text-based Debate as Constructive Conversation
In the following section I use an episode of the talk from ADG#4 to illustrate a
second third space conversation. I offer an analysis of this cutting as an example of the
70
kind of episode of talk I call a “ situated text-based debate,†talk that interwove text,
statements of position, personal experiences and shared experiences in the school.
The fourth session of the ADG met on Feb. 13, just as interns had completed
several weeks of lead teaching at the beginning of the second semester. I chose a reading
that included two excerpts flom Vivian Paley’s Kwanzaa and Me, (1995) a book in which
she revisits themes she had written about in White Teacher (Paley, 1979), where she had
questioned how her own culture and ethnicity impacted her teaching in multicultural
classrooms. I choose two sections of the book, a total of 10 short pages. The ï¬rst section
was about Paley’s conversations with parents and children about what it was like to be a
person of ethnic minority background in predominately White classrooms. Paley wrote
about her school:
Nearly 80 percent of the teachers are white. It is the sort of place the
sociology professor does not want for his child. All of the colors of woodland and
beach can not disguise the attitudes, sounds, and rhythms of our school: it is
white. If the professor sat in my classroom, even if he liked my ways with
children, he would see the absence of color. More important, perhaps, he would
worry about the behavioral monotones of a middle-class teacher (1993, p.13).
Paley went on to include conversations she had with parents about racism and
schools. The second section we read was an interview Paley had conducted with two
Canadian teachers who talked candidly about the complications and dilemmas they
experienced as they were working towards taking a multicultural approach to their work
in their school. I chose this piece because, in ADG#3, participants had taken up themes
from the text and built them into their own talk about their relationships and workâ€. As I
wrote in my teaching journal:
I thought juxtaposing the two pieces (Alvarez and Paley) might be very
interesting-J was curious about whether the talk might parallel the structure of the
literature. I was also interested rn using these two pieces because Beth, Stacy and
Marcy had read White Teacher (and I thought others had as well) and Beth had
said she really liked it. Also, Lin and Cindy had talked to me several days before
about how a Hmong student in their class had come to school saying her mother
had told her that she couldn't play with Black kids-and this had caused a problem
in the classroom with several Haitian students (Teaching Journal, 2/14/97).
1.,Chapter 5 analyzes ADG #3, focusing on a 22 minute situated text-based debate.
71
I was determined to ï¬nd a piece for the group that would have some direct connection to
concerns they were experiencing. My own thoughts were about what kind of impact
participation in talk actually had on participants. As I wrote further in my journal:
There is something fleeting about teaching/learning activities that focus on
discussion as the medium. They happen and then they are gone. I have lots of
questions at this point about whether the experience of being in this group is
actually registering in any way for the participants-«if they simply have vague
recollections of engaging or boring conversations--or if they are building up
images of teachers in collaborative talk, or if it's just a dull memory of having
attended when one was supposed to-or what?! (Teaching Journal, 2/ 14/97).
As I will discuss in the following sections, interns and CTs responses to the Paley text
seemed to me to be an experience of the conversation “ registering†as I put it in my
journal.
Situated, text-based conversations seem especially difï¬cult to render on paper-
the energy, prosody, and pace are difï¬cult to type into text. I will work with this by
offering a time line of the 12.2 minute episode of the talk, and also by asking the reader to
turn her mental metronome up to “ allegro†rather than the “ andante†pace of layered
personal narratives.
Having read the text at the table and talked in small groups, participants returned
to the large group and talked for 14.5 minutes about a wide range of topics, including
Paley’s focus on only Black and White issues to talk about race, children’s designation of
race on forms in school, and questions about whether our own children would know what
race they were. The talk was situated in the school context they shared and text-driven,
applying issues raised in Paley’s text to issues in the school and in the lives of the
participants. Lin and Laura, two interns, had raised the ï¬rst two topics; Fran and Beth
also led the talk through the other topics. We also had talked about celebrating holidays
and the school policies around not celebrating mainstream holidays such as Christmas
and Halloween, a subject that both interns and teachers had mixed opinions about. ‘3.
‘
â€At the request of several participants in the ADG, because these policies had generated much debate in
school, and were “touchy†as both interns and CTs put it, I have not included transcript data from the
segment of the conversation in which we discussed school celebrations of holidays.
72
Talk up to this point involved both interns and CTs raising questions to the group,
bringing up stories from their own experiences and raising new issues flom the text. . A
new “ heat†(Hawkins, 1967/1974) seemed to get generated when Fran made a comment
about the teaching of culture:
In a way, maybe part of our job is to teach these children that we have,
about our culture and the way things are done here and you know, how you’re
polite, and “ We ï¬nd this disrespectful†and “ We do things this way†and “ This
is when you say, please and thank youâ€. You know, and sort of indoctrinate
them, certainly not to hurt them, but, maybe that is part of our job.
Following up on the immediately prior conversation about holidays, Fran had taken the
conversation further; by focusing on the particular—issues about politeness, she raised
broader questions: What is our job anyway, and what does culture have to do with it? As
she said, “In a way, maybe part of our job is to teach these children that we have, about
our culture and the way things are done here and you know, how you’re politeâ€. Her
words implied both general membership in and consensus about “ our culture.†Fran’s
choice of the word “ indoctrinate†added a political tone to her comments that may have
created further involvement in the following talk.
Both CTs and interns immediately responded to Fran in overlapping turns where
they gave examples of their own practices around teaching “politeness†and began to
debate how such aspects of culture were played out in this school. The following excerpt
of the conversation is marked to show repetitions of the words “ culture†and
“ acceptable†, themes that the participants seemed to be debating.
Cindy: Well I do, literally, teach the kids, when to say thank you, and
you’re welcome
Stacy: Oh I do that too.
Lin: It’s manners, though
Cathy: It’s part of culture though--
Beth: yeah it is.
Lin: It’s part of your culture but it’s part of everybody else’s culture,
you know?
Beth: I don’t know.
Fran: We uphold a standard in our classroom--
[overlaps]
Lin: I mean they might be different kinds of mannerisms--you know what
I mean? I don’t know--
73
Beth: but you know, kids’ classify each other as saying, this kid is really
bad cause he does this, this and this. And it’s not that he’s bad, he just
doesn’t know that that’s not acceptable for us, you know, or in this
culture, or whatever. You know, but, you know, they classify ‘em as
bad, but maybe that’s ok in his culture to act that way.
Cindy: uh-hum
Beth: But here it’s not acceptable, and he’s not having any ï¬iends
because he acts that way. You know, you don’t want him to labeled
“ bad†, but you have to, you have to make him ï¬t into this community
and this, this culture here at the school. I don’t know, I mean there’s
things that are acceptable and not--
Fran: And to be successful when he leaves.
Cindy: Yeah, especially if they plan on staying in the United States.
They’re gonna have to learn certain kinds of behaviors that are
acceptable. What’s going to get them into big trouble.
Fran mentioned culture, and participants took up this theme, repeating it 6 times
in the 2.6 minutes of talk, their repetition indicating uptake. Group members took up a
range of positions on these questions, implicitly raising questions about the purposes of
schools and their own powerful roles as teachers. Beth described the basis for her
decisions about what “ acceptable†ranges of behavior are for children, flaming her
reasons for teaching “ culture†around opening up possibilities for fliendship and
acceptance flom other children. Her 3 repetitions of “ acceptable†stated her theme:
searching for an acceptable, middle ground stance on whose culture becomes the culture
of the classroom. She stated her dilemma:
you don’t want him to labeled “bad†, but you have to, you have to make him ï¬t
into this community and this, this culture here at the school.
This stance contrasted with F ran’s: “ We uphold a standard in our classroomâ€.
Fran implied a much narrower range of the acceptable that will offer students “ success.â€
Cindy combined these stances as she stated: “ Yeah, especially if they plan on staying in
the United States. They’re gonna have to learn certain kinds of behaviors that are
acceptable. What’s going to get them into big trouble.â€
What was striking for me about this conversation was that Fran had asked a
question that all participants had considered in their own work, a question that had no
easy answers. These were the issues raised in the second section of the reading flom
74
Paley as well. The two teachers Paley had interviewed talked about their dilemmas trying
to be a “multicultural†school:
What we are,†Celia explains, “more than being white is very middle class, very
Canadian-ethnocentric. We’re not nearly careful enough of people’s sensitivities.
Here’s an example: our school plans a big family potluck supper and it falls on the
ï¬rst day of Ramadan, the month when Moslems fast during the day. Naturally
none of the Moslem families come. We hadn’t even bothered to ï¬nd out about
Ramadan. (Paley, 1995 p. 64)
The voices of the ADG group joined the voices of characters in the text., trying to do
“ good wor †«planning potlucks, celebrating holidays, teaching people to be polite, and
then abruptly being reminded of the range of pe0ple and cultures they were serving.
Interns and CT’s immediately placed opinions about Fran’s statement on the table
igniting further related talk about themes of culture, “ acceptability,†and whose culture
was acceptable. Figure 2 indicates a timeline of participants' topics. I have indicated the
point of beginning of a new topic, and the question that was raised either implicitly or
directly in regard to that topic. I also indicate the person who generated the topic.
Figure 2: Timeline for ADG#4 Situated text driven episode:
“Should we be teaching culture?â€
Minutes Topic
00 Tï¬s our jtfb to teach cul'tu—re? (Fran)
2.6 Eye contact narrative (Cathy)
4.2 Eye contact narrative (Beth)
5.2 Is it a white middle-class thing?
(Cathy) _
6.7 What’s Amencan, anyway?
(Lm) ,
7.8 Whose culture does this school represent? (Cathy)
10.0 Do children/parents see us as having a culture?
(Cathy) _
11.2 Ethnic background and parents: narrative (Beth)
12.2 Summary statement (Marcy)
12.4 Connection to Paley text (Beth)
75
As the timeline indicates, over the course of 12.4 minutes, we continued to
discuss issues of culture and appropriateness, in a number of different school situations.
The topics were distributed across interns, CTs, and myself. Fran began the conversation.
I raised four topics; Lin and Marcy, each proposed topics; and Beth raised three topics.
Like the two Canadian women in the second half of the Paley excerpt that we read, we
were puzzling through the practical details of trying to teach in a multicultural school,
and working to say what we believed about these issues.
I responded strongly to Fran’s suggestion of indoctrinating children. I was
reminded of the stories of re—education camps told to me by Southeast Asian refugees I
worked with in Thailand. In response I took the floor for a 1.6 minutes and told a
narrative about my experiences working with a teacher who was flustrated with Southeast
Asian students who did not make eye contact with him. Beth followed up with a
narrative (layering her topic onto my previous topic) about having read an article about
how one should teach one’s children to shake hands and look adults in they eye when
they meet. In her ï¬nal words, she again emphasized that the prescriptive tone of the
article she had read was based on cultural beliefs:
Beth: So, you, with your children, have this secret graph that you make,
where they’re supposed to look the person in the eye and ï¬gure out what
color their eye is. So, I mean, that was really cultural!
Stacy: really cultural
Beth: Telling people to teach that to their kids! To shake hands, and ï¬gure
out what color their eyes are so that when the people leave, you make a
graph! (laughs)
The conversation continued as I responded to Beth’s story, continuing to look at eye
contact as a case in point, and raised the theme of white rrriddle class “American-nessâ€
that had been raised in the reading:
Cathy: So what do we--it’s a white, it’s a white middle class American
thing.
Stacy: It is. It is!
Cathy: It’s a class thing, almost more -.
Fran: Do you think it’s white middle class? Cause think about it, isn’t it
76
sort of all the way through. “ Look at me†when we talk to our children.
It doesn’t seem like it’s just middle class. But it’s very American--†Look
at meâ€
Beth: Well, I don’t push the eye thing, but I push them looking at my
mouth at least, so that they can see how I’m saying the words.
Fran: And I’m not even saying that I talk to my kids like that, but I mean
it’s just something that you, hear, in the grocery store, you hear, you
know, the neighbors are talking--†Look at meâ€.
This debate continued until Lin took the floor by challenging the notion of what’s
American:
Lin: But you know what you just said, it’s very American.
Fran: It is
Cathy: It’s very direct.
Lin: I mean, who’s American here?
Fran: this culture
Lin: There’s another one that’s always an
Beth: that term, yeah
Lin: underlying issue here, because, “American†? What do you mean?
Are you Mexican American, are you just American, are you just
American
Fran: In this country, in this country-American.
Lin: Do you know what I mean? It’s probably
[overlaps]
like, you know, Dutch-American, or Polish-American, you don’t hear
that. But you would hear Asian-American, you know, Mexican
American.
Fran: I just mean the culture in this country. The dominan --
[overlaps “the dominant!"]
Lin’s question, put to both Fran and me, challenged the group to think flrrther about
who’s culture counted, in this school, and in this conversation. Utilizing involvement
strategies, she repeated the term American, 9 times in her 54 second turn, modifying it 7
times. Her repetition emphasized the range of ways that one could easily modify a notion
of w ’s “American.â€
As this fast paced debate continued, I asked a direct question of the group about
whose culture the school represented, picking up on the word "dominance" that Fran has
used and the group had repeated in overlapping response (below). This question was met
with complete silence for about 4 seconds, when Lin, softly uttered, “maybeâ€. After
three more seconds of pause, every person in the group talked at once, until Beth took the
floor.
77
Cathy: Well, what about in this school? I mean, most of the teachers who
are in teaching roles, are white women. Does that make a difference, in terms of,
like you said, the Christmas thing is a touchy, touchy issue. I mean, does that
mean that the, the dominant culture in this school, in the end is sort of the culture
of white middle-class women?
////[ 4 second pause]
Lin: maybe--
/// [3 second pause]
[loud overlaps: “I don’t know!†, “ We:ll,â€]
Beth: I think we have so much influence on us because of other issues,
cause of who’s working in our room with us". I have my husband’s influence on
me,/ deï¬nitely. I always talk to the bilingual assistant in my room about things
that are Vietnamese, you know, what they’re culture does. I mean, she was the
one who opened my eyes to the fact that most of those kids do celebrate
Christmas.
Fran: Maybe us being open to all that and being able to reach out and all
those different things-maybe that’s even white middle class female...
//// (long pause)
Beth: Well, white middle class...female...female, middle class!!! Have to
do everything, right!! Flexibility in everything!! (laughter)
Interestingly, the ï¬rst person to speak in response to my question about whether
the culture of the school was the culture of white, middle—class women, was Lin, who was
Vietnamese. The group responded loudly to this question. Like Paley, the thought that
we are enacting a “ dominant†culture in the school was disconcerting. In response, Beth
offered images of her being “ influenced†by people of other cultures. Fran’s comment
made the point that part of her culture might be being “ Open to all and being able to reach
out†to other cultures. The silence that followed her comment might be best described as
tense thoughtfulness. Beth broke this tension with humor by listing adjectives (“ white
middle class...female...female, middle class!!!†and calling for “ flexibility in
everything!â€
Beth went on to tell a narrative about how she and Marcy had been mistaken for
each other by a parent. Marcy entered the conversation here, making a summary
statement about her beliefs:
78
Marcy: But I think with all the diversity and all the different holidays and all the
different customs and cultures that are celebrated in the school, whatever the
teacher is saying, you’re saying it’s important enough to teach...
As was typical for Marcy, she had listened to the whole conversation, responding to agree
or participate in overlapping responses, but she waited until many ideas were on the table
to state her stance. She emphasized the power of teachers to determine what counted as
valid. “ What ever the teacher is saying, you’re saying it’s important enough to teac .â€
Beth brought the debate to closure, by returning to the text and constructing
dialogue by reading flom the text. Here the text served as a refuge flom the multiple
issues that have been raised.
Beth: (referring to text): Well like right here. This,“ Can white people be
role models?†This tells what happens here at Tapestry. “ As long as they respect
and encourage children to express their differences. and their particular cultural
knowledge†That’s it right there!
Marcy: Yeah. Yeah!
Beth: In a nutshell.
Fran: Yeah I thought of it too, that that’s this (school).
Paley had interviewed an Aflican American mother of one of her students, asking
her the question, “ Can white people be role models (for Aflican American children)?â€
Paley wrote that the mother responded, saying: “ You bet. As long as they respect and
encourage my children to express their differences, their particular culture and
knowledge†(Paley, 1995 p.19). The ADG group landed on these words as their resting
point, having struggled throughout the past 12.4 minutes with all of the complications of
what it meant to enact “ respect and encouragement and expression of particular culture
and knowledge†(p.19). Beth, Marcy and Fran agreed that they liked the “ in a nutshellâ€
quality of this statement, even though they had been discussing the complexity of the
issues throughout the conversation.
The issues raised over the past 12.4 minutes were everyday dilemmas for teachers,
dilemmas which, as their conversation here illustrated, were rooted in their personal
beliefs about culture and in school policies and practices regarding culture as well. Their
conversation illustrated that cultural differences arise in the smallest of everyday
79
interactions in schools; that cultural differences are a regular part of interacting in a
multilingual, multicultural environment; and that simply having “ respect†doesn’t
provide one with answers about building a classroom culture. This conversation exposed
a broad array of beliefs and questions about culture as well. Both interns and CTs, with
the exception of Laura, who had spoken in the early conversation, but listened throughout
this episode, seemed willing to enter this third space debate and to talk about their beliefs
and how they applied to this setting.
Through the high-involvement conversation that they co-constructed, all of the
group members appeared to be using their reading of the text to generate talk about the
murky issues of culture and language practices in their work together. This conversation
was messy; the pace was fast, suddenly stopped when difficult questions were raised and
then resumed its speed. I had the feeling that speed was crucial to this talk--that if people
paused too long on a given topic, that too much would need to be said. Group members
raised many issues although they did not come to conclusions or even consensus about
the role of their beliefs about culture and how that impacted their work at Tapestry.
Rather, they took refuge in the text, saying “ This tells what’s here at Tapestry.†Yet,
participants had begun to say, in the company of colleagues, both what they believed and
how they enacted these beliefs.
Upcoming Analyses
The following two case studies in Chapters 4 and 5 will illustrate interactions
within third space conversations between teachers and interns. Chapter 4, titled What's
literacy got to do with it?: Narratives in response to "The Paterson Public Library ",
especially focuses on participants’ use of personal narratives to explore their own beliefs
about literacy. Chapter 5, titled Honoring style by destroying the teacher: Deï¬ning
teacher/student relationships in response to "Daughter of Invention, †illustrates the
energy of situated text-based debate as interns and CTs talked through text and thereby
80
worked to deï¬ne relationships between teachers and students and between interns and
cooperating teachers.
81
CHAPTER 4
WHAT’S LITERACY GOT TO DO WITH IT?
TELLING STORIES OF SELF IN RESPONSE TO
“THE PATTERSON PUBLIC LIBRARYâ€
Introduction
This chapter analyzes the second session of the autobiography discussion group
which took place flom 12:30 to 2:30 on a teacher professional development day in
December. Participants’ utilized personal narrative, and particularly “literacy narrativesâ€
(Soliday, 1994) as routes to creating involvement within this conversation. Having
worked together for three and a half months and having already participated in one ADG
session, interns and CTs came to the group starting to know each other well and knowing
what to expect in the sessions. Therefore, I selected a reading that raised challenging
questions about literacy, and elements of culture. In this session, the group read and
discussed "The Paterson Public Library", a ï¬ve and a half page autobiographical story-
essay by Judith Ortiz Cofer (1993).
The purpose of this chapter is to offer a textured descriptive analysis of the
interplay between readers, text, and context in the ADG session and to discuss how
participants told stories of self (Eisenhart, 1995) and actively examined their beliefs about
literacy and culture through a conversation within this context. By doing this
conversational work, group participants challenged the images of literacy presented in
“ The Paterson Public Library†and shared stories in the form of literacy narratives
(Soliday, 1994). Written as a case study of the session as a whole, this chapter analyzes
the conversations of teachers of varying experience using literacy narratives in written
and oral forms to examine their individual and community beliefs about literacy and, in
the process, expanding their discourse practices as educators.
82
Synopsis of "The Paterson Public Library"
"The Paterson Public Library" is a brief story-essay about Judith, a sixth grader in
the sixties. Offering images of the social, cultural, and economic tensions between
Blacks and Puerto Ricans in her life in Paterson, New Jersey, it focuses on Judith’s
escape into books and how the local library functioned as a "sanctuary" for her. While
not explicitly an autobiography, this piece personalizes the narrator's experience of
literacy, culture, and conflict.
The narrator, Judith Ortiz Cofer, who is Puerto Rican, writes about her love for
the Paterson Public Library and her central terror: that "the black girl Lorraine", who her
teacher required her to regularly tutor in spelling in the hallway outside their classroom,
would carry out threats to beat up Judith. The only route to the library, where Judith ï¬nds
her "spiritual life" in books, leads directly through Lorraine's declining neighborhood.
Eventually, Lorraine carries out her threat. She ï¬nds Judith in the school yard and at the
center of a circle of Puerto Rican and Black onlookers, slaps her to the ground and yanks
out a hank of her hair leaving "a bald spot advertising (her) shame for weeks to come"
(p.32). The story ends with further testimony to the effectiveness of escape into books as
an "alternative mode to survival in Paterson" (p.33) and as "empowering" Judith in her
adult life:
Looking though the card catalog reassures me that there is no subject I cannot
investigate, no world I cannot explore. Everything that is, is mine for the asking.
Because I can read about it. (p.33)
Themes in the Text
Story and Space
Spaces and how people occupy them are central to this story and to the
conversation participants constructed around it. Cofer uses the literary trope of
regionalism (Eldred & Mortenson, 1992) in dramatic form, setting up the library as a safe
zone and the surrounding neighborhood and school as a danger zone. Cofer's words in
the ï¬rst paragraph flame these zones:
83
It was a Greek temple in the ruins of an American city. To get to it I had
to walk through neighborhoods where not even the carcasses of rusted cars on
blocks or the death traps of discarded appliances were parted with, so that the
yards of the borderline poor, people who lived not in a huge building, as I did, but
in their own decrepit little houses, looked like a reversed archeological site,
incongruous next to the pillared palace of the Paterson Public Library. (p.28)
With arresting clarity, Cofer flames the contrasts between the zones. Everything
about the library represents what is valuable, lasting, and positive. Everything other than
the library is fleeting, lifeless, and ï¬lled with danger. Eldred and Mortenson (1992) note
that authors' use of regions, such as the library versus the decrepit little houses
surrounding it, "ftmction in narrative as an argument for abject otherness" (p.524). They
point out:
"As Levy (1991) notes, 'representation of the working classes along with
those of the 'primitive', the insane, the criminal and the 'oriental' function by
establishing boundaries between the self and the other, culture and nature, male
and female, middle class and lower class" To this list we would add literate and
illiterate. (Eldred & Mortenson, 1992 p.524)
The only place of value in this story is the shining temple of the library and
Judith's central task is to navigate through the rejected region to ï¬nd her "spiritual life"
there. Cofer describes the ornate library lions guarding the doors, the "immortal words of
Greek philosophers" carved into the library walls and the delightful "aroma" of the
library: "the musty, organic smell of the library, so different flom the air outside. It was
the smell of an ancient forest..." (p.30) She writes poetically--her alliterative words
describing the place that is her "sanctuary" emphasize its distinct nature and contrast it
with the outside world. The pillared palace of the Paterson Public Library stands boldly
amid the "reversed archeological site" of the neighborhood that appears to be gradually
sinking into ruin.
Cofer represents the library as the dwelling place of refuge to the worthy few who
had discovered the power of literacy. She describes the "little houses that circled the
library like sackclothed suppliants" lining "dreary streets and slush-covered sidewalks
and the skinny trees of winter looking like dark ï¬gures flom a distance" (p.29). The
84
library is rich with detail; the neighborhood is without form, covered over with slush,
made up only of silhouettes.
Exploring concepts of space and place, Paula Salvio, in related work (Salvio,
1995), quotes the work of Michael Ondaatje (1992), author of The English Pa;ie_nt:
Reading is not a map, but a cartography of the dwelling places
of others. (Ondaatje, 1992)quoted in (Salvio, 1995 p.8)
Ondaatje utilizes metaphors of space and persons' attempts to navigate and mark their
places in space and time as central to his story of cartographers and archeologists seeking
to ï¬nd places of love and safety in real and symbolic deserts in The English Patient.
Similarly, "The Paterson Public Library" offers a cartography of the textured social and
cultural conditions in Paterson, New Jersey, flom Judith's perspectives, as a child and as
an adult. The story invites readers to share in this cartographer's act as they work to
understand Judith's map of her particular literacy landscape and map the literacy
landscapes they themselves inhabit.
Literacy as a "State of Grace"
The author vividly describes her life as "an insatiable reader " (p.31) as she moves
between two cultures as a navy brat shuttling between Puerto Rico and New Jersey and
bringing along "the lightest of carry-on luggage" (p.31) with hep-what she "had learned
flom books borrowed flom the Greek temple among the ruins of the city" (p.31). Judith
speaks of her own literacy:
I gained conï¬dence in my intelligence by reading books. They contained
most of the information I needed to survive in two languages and in two
worlds ..... I read to escape and also to connect: you can come back to a book as
you cannot always to a person or place you miss...I still feel that way about books.
They represent my spiritual life. A library is my sanctuary and I am always at
home in one. (p.32)
Cofer’s story frames literacy in particular ways. Her use of the images of the
library as a "pillared palace" and a "sanctuary" connote a sacredness both to the place and
to the texts and activities it contains. The author's construction of Paterson is dominated
by a metaphor Scribner (1984) sees as prevalent in Western society: viewing books and
85
reading as sacred, and literacy or the ability to read and write books as "a state of grace."
As will be discussed later in this chapter, this theme was also taken up by the members of
the ADG in their discussion.
Viewing literacy as a "social achievement", Scribner (1984), conceptualizes the
problem of ï¬guring out "what counts as literacy" through the metaphors of literacy as
adaptation, power, and a state of grace. Scribner describes a "literacy as a state of grace"
metaphor as "the tendency to endow the literate person with special virtues" (p. 1 3). Like
others (Cochran-Smith, 1991; Cummins, 1989; Heath, 1991; Reyes, 1992), Scribner
argues that educators need to know that literacy serves broad social functions and thus
that the teaching of literacy is a political act.
The metaphor of literacy as a state of grace is evidenced throughout the Paterson
Public Library19 and is highlighted by Cofer's use of the language of spirituality to
express her passion for books. Describing the library as a "temple", a "sanctuary", a
"wedding feast", an "ancient forest" and an "adventure", the author flames literacy as
something the "lucky ones" (p.31) seek and ï¬nd. There is a curious ambiguity to this
quest, as Cofer's story does not reveal what the conditions were that made it possible for
her to ï¬nd the library or who might have led her there while others remained in the
squalor of everyday life. Rather, she alternately flames her discovery of books as
features of her as an individual-duck and also a personal quality of "obsessiveness". She
explains her course of action as follows:
...another course of action other than ï¬ght or flight is open to those of us lucky
enough to discover it and that is channeling one's anger and energy into the
deve10pment of a mental life. It requires something like obsessiveness for a
young person growing up in an environment where physical labor and physical
endurance are the marks of a survivor--as is the case with minority peoples living
in large cities. But many of us do manage to discover books. (p.33)
l9Others (Gee, 1990; Graff, 1979/1991) argue that literacy has been inaccurately and recklessly framed as
a means to the intellectual and social "good life".
86
Cofer leaves us with a mystery: How does it happen that some discover books and
others do not? Who gets access, and how? Cofer's story appears to be a story of
individual achievement cloaked as a story of social critique.
Susan Franzosa (1992), writing about the educational autobiographer's stance,
describes the autobiographical perspective as a "later perspective", that is rooted in the
discourse and landscapes of one's personal history:
Thus, in educational autobiographies it is not a child as student but an adult as
author who articulates a critique of schooling...The particular authority of the
critique offered in educational autobiography is that its rhetoric of persuasion
requires a writer to develop a social analysis that consciously proceeds flom the
memories of the past rather than concealing them, and honors the personal
signiï¬cance of lived experience rather than repressing it. (F ranzosa, 1992 p.410)
As Franzosa suggests, Cofer's literacy narrative is told flom dual perspective of
the child she was and the analytical adult she now is. These voices are often intertwined;
for example, Cofer describes how as a child she loved fairy tales and stories ï¬lled with
duels, villains and super heroes and uses this stance to reveal her understanding of the
complexity of the social problems of Paterson, a large, poor city in northern New Jersey:
I understood those black and white duels between evil and justice. But
Lorraine’s blind hatred of my person and my knee-liquefying fear of her were not
so clear to me at that time. It would be many years before I learned about the
politics of race, before I internalized the awful reality of the struggle for territory
that underscored the lives of blacks and Puerto Ricans in Paterson during my
childhood. Each job given to a light skinned Hispanic was one less job for a black
man (p.30-31).
Cofer continues to describe the social setting of school, shifting to a more
distanced, analytical adult voice and perspective:
Worst of all, though the Puerto Rican children had to master a new language in
the schools and were often subjected to the scorn and impatience of teachers
burdened with too many students making too many demands in a classroom, the
blacks were obviously the ones singled out for “ special†treatment. In other
words, whenever possible they were assigned to special education classes in order
to relieve the teacher’s workload, mainly because their black English dialect
sounded “ ungrammatical†and “illiterate†to our white Seton Hall University and
City College-educated instructors. I have on occasion become angry at being
treated like I’m mentally deï¬cient by persons who make that pre judgment upon
hearing an unfamiliar accent. I can only imagine what is must have been like for
children like Lorraine, whose skin color alone put her in a pigeonhole that she felt
she had to ï¬ght her way out of every day of her life (p.31).
87
Cofer, taking the "later perspective" as the autobiographer to describe the social tensions
in her school and community, stops short of analyzing her own role of relative power and
privilege in Paterson. Rather, her story focuses on the spiritual impact of books in her
life-again deï¬ning her own literacy as "a state of grace" (Scribner, 1984).
In another example, Cofer calls Lorraine's experience of being tutored by a Judith,
the younger, favored Puerto Rican student, a "ritual humiliation." We briefly hear her
perspective of the adult's analysis of the situation as she takes the perspective of Lorraine,
and places the act of being tutored into a larger social context. In the next lines, Cofer
takes on the voice of the child who assumes the racial tensions of daily life that she
experiences are just the way things are:
Lorraine resisted my efforts to teach her the basic rules of spelling. She
would hiss her threats at me addressing me as "You little Spic. " Her hostility sent
shudders through me. But baffling as it was, I also accepted is as inevitable. She
would beat me up. (p.29)
Cofer, as autobiographer, acknowledges her lack of consciousness of the larger social
forces at work in Paterson as a child, but, flom the same “later perspective†attributes her
own literacy successes to luck and to her own positive personal qualities.
Readers in the ADG puzzled over Cofer's story of self, at times identifying points
of commonality with their own literacy experiences, and at times beginning to critique
Cofer's representation of her own literacy, questioning why and how Cofer had such a
sense of agency in the Paterson context.
Evocative Literacy Narratives
Soliday (1994) maintains that literacy narratives offer opportunities to translate a
self across cultural borders and that when people examine the profound force of language
in their lives through literacy narratives, they achieve a "narrative agency by discovering
that their experience is, in fact, interpretable" (p.512). In Soliday’s terms, "The Paterson
Public Library" is a literacy narrative. In this piece, Cofer appears to gain narrative
agency by interpreting her childhood literacy experiences in a social and cultural context.
88
Such a story exempliï¬es the "arts of the contact zone" (Soliday, 1994). Soliday
quotes Pratt and deï¬nes contact zones as "social spaces where cultures meet, clash and
grapple with each other, often in contexts of highly asymmetrical relations of
power"(p.34). Cofer's narrative offers images of struggle between the Black and Puerto
Rican inhabitants of Paterson. Yet her story is a hero’s tale of an individual who escapes
this social scene, rises above it via her encounters with books. While her story takes
place in the contact zone, her focus is on the individual rather than on the context.
As we talked together about this piece, through the telling of their own literacy
narratives, participants raised questions about the individualist, essentialist stance Cofer
seems to hold in regard to literacy and herself and began to notice her general dismissal
of “that black girl Lorraine†as simply a product of a social scene. In the following
sections, I argue that Cofer's literacy narrative provoked interns and teachers to begin to
identify and question the author’s and their own beliefs about literacy and culture. Their
reading and discussion of the story represents an exercise in cartography (Ondaatje,
1992), an expedition into the dwelling places of others. The beginning and experienced
teachers in this group engaged in a third space conversation (see Chapter 3)--a kind of
talk, atypical of beginning and practiced teachers in professional development settings,
interweaving text and stories of self, crossing boundaries and exploring individual and
community "dwelling places" of beliefs about literacy and teaching.
Participants' Responses to the Text and to Each Other
Our dwelling place for this second session was the library at Tapestry School, a
room that was airy and artfully decorated with textiles, paintings, and everyday items
flom all over the world. This was a comfortable place with movable tables, chairs of
different sizes, a wall of windows, and a ï¬replace. The nine ADG members talked in
three small groups after reading and writing and then returned to the central table to talk
together. While the small group talk was an important element in the book club process,
I focus in this section on the large group, where the whole group engaged in a high
89
involvement conversation, third space conversation (Gutierrez et al., 1995; Tannen,
1989).
Readers responded in two central ways to "The Paterson Public Library": 1)
Participants initially told personal narratives of connection with Cofer's story that situated
the sources of their own literacy inparticular dwelling places; 2) Participants gradually
began to critique images of literacy as a "state of grace" represented in the story by
examining their own experiences as literate people. Beth, one of the cooperating
teachers, persistently pushed the group to explore these issues as she reflected aloud on
the text and on her own literacy and posed questions to the group. My analysis of this
conversation will focus on the following:
- A. Laura’s themes expressed through the literacy narratives she told focusing on the
practical lessons for teachers that she gleaned flom this reading.
0 B. Beth's descant in response to Cofer's text, flaming her own literacy and critiquing
the literature.
- C. The chorus of responses to Beth's descant, focusing on the themes raised by
cooperating teachers, Fran, Stacy, and Cindy as they told layered literacy narratives.
Like Cofer, these stories located dwelling places for literacy or identiï¬ed literacy as a
dwelling place.
0 D. Conversations of critique of the text around two themes: a) critiquing the idea
of literacy as an escape route flom the problems of everyday life (Carol, Fran, Cathy,
Beth) and b) critiquing the idea of literacy as a "state of grace" (Marcy, Lin, Laura,
Beth)
90
Laura's Themes
Our conversation began when Carol invited Laura, an intern, to tell about two
stories she had told in their small groupâ€. Once invited to talk, Laura responded by
recounting two narratives, both directly connecting her life experiences to the reading. In
the ï¬rst she told a story about, her own attempts to have students tutor each other and her
doubts about whether this was a good idea. Her second narrative dealt with her own
experiences as a librarian.
Laura: Putting kids in the hall
6. The ï¬rst one that she's talking about is about, um,
7. I was wondering if the feelings that Lorraine had, you know,
8. stem flom that separation of the author of this, you know,
9. helping her with her spelling and, you know,
10. made her feel inferior, so maybe she didn't like her as much.
11. But I kind of felt, you know, I've done that.
12. We've done that a couple of times.
13. Just, you know, we have a student in our class
14. who always gets his work done.
15. And you know, I'll say, "Well, maybe you can help so and so."
16. And after I read this, I thought, "Ohhhh-you know,
17. I mean I wouldn't want to make that other person, you know,
18. not like the one who's helping him because of that.
19. But I don't know. It's probably in the older grades.
20. In ï¬rst grade they don't seem to be bothered by it.
21. They kind of like to have their fliends help them
22. Cathy: That's such an amazing thing in here
23. Laura: It kind of made me think about that
24. Cathy: Where is that? (looking in text) Where she says, " You little
25 Laura: Right!
26: Cathy: And the teacher seems completely oblivious to that
27. Laura: I was wondering what happened...
Laura's reading was a practical one; as an intern, she was leaming to teach. She
read this piece in the company of other teachers and looked for lessons that would inform
her own practice, making sense of Cofer's writing by working through a process of
comparison with her own experience as in lines 11-17. For Laura, a practical response
20The practice of "inviting" interns to speak became an established conversational move in the group.
Across the ADG sessions, when participants broke into small groups they started their conversations by
asking each other about their response writing, usually saying something like "What did you put?". Both
interns and CTs usually referred to the response writing they had just completed to bring up topics for
discussion in the small group. As we moved into the large group, often, cooperating teachers, Carol or I
would invite interns to tell a story that they had had a chance to "rehearse" in the small group. Interns
generally waited for these invitations before they talked in the large group time.
91
was one route to responding to the text--Cofer's story offered her an opportunity to think
aloud about the consequences of asking kids to help each other.
As a beginning teacher, Laura took a signiï¬cant risk by critiquing her own work
in the company of more experienced others. Yet the stories she chose to tell here
provided images of her in action, as a teacher and as a librarian. As Reissman (1993)
explains, "lnformants' stories do not nrirror a world "out there." They are constructed,
creatively authored, rhetorical, replete with assumptions, and interpretive" (p.5). Telling
stories of self (Eisenhart, 1998) in the autobiography discussion group appeared to be one
way that beginning and practiced teachers could make choices about how they interpreted
themselves to others. This was the second session of the ADG; Laura took this
opportunity to tell a story that introduced her as a teacher who wanted children to have a
positive sense of themselves among others in the classroom.
Even when I raised the issue of the tensions between Lorraine and Judith (lines
2227), Laura did not talk about this relationship in racial terms. Lorraine hissed "you
little Spic!" at Judith and the message for Laura was that they simply were not fliends.
Laura reflected on her own work with ï¬rst graders and commented that this was probably
a developmental thingnthat ï¬rst graders weren't like sixth graders. For Laura, the social
tensions in the story were personal rather than political. In Laura's words, Lorraine's
feelings: ’
8. stem flom that separation of the author of this, you know,
9. helping her with her spelling and, you know,
10. made her feel inferior, so maybe she didn't like her as much.
Like Judith in the story, she located Lorraine's anger as dislike of Judith and
embarrassment at being placed in the hallway. She explicitly did not address the racial
tensions between Judith and Lorraine.
As the ï¬rst large group story to be told, Laura's voice was signiï¬cant. She
implicitly raised the question, "What does this story have to do with my teaching?," a
theme that was picked up by Beth later in the conversation. Following up, Laura told
92
another story that connected her life experiences to the reading. In this narrative, she
veriï¬ed that there really are people like Judith who cared deeply about reading, but she
also claimed that such people and their feelings about books were a mystery to her.
Laura: I work at a library
01: Laura: Another thing was the library, cause you know,
02 I work at a library too
03 Cathy: oh yeah, yeah!
04 Laura: And I was thinking,
05 Wow! You know this kid kept going to the library,
06 even though she was teniï¬ed to go,
07 partly cause she could get beat up, you know.
08 Every time she walked, she was taking that chance.
09 So I was just kinda thinking how powerful, you know, libraries can be to
10 Cause we have some people that will never miss--
11 they'll come every Tuesday,
12 and we were closed one Tuesday and they get mad-- (laughter)
13 I don't work on Christmas, I'm sorry though.
14 But they get really upset with you when you close down on their day, that
they're supposed to come.
15 So I just thought-Wow!-—you know,
16 I don't feel that way-
17 maybe it's cause I work there.
18 Cathy: Do they ever talk with you like about how they feel about why
they're there? What they're--
19 Laura: Oh we had a thing once when we were going for a millage,
20 and we were asking if they support or not,
21 and we were asking if they could write a letter in support of it.
22 One lady said, "This library just, you know, is what keeps me going and
has changed my life"--
23 And we're kind of like, "Wow!" (laughter).
24 This is just a job!
25 But to some people, you know, it's a big thing. So...
(ADG #2, Transcript, p.3)
Again, connecting the text to her own experience and to the larger conversation
with her colleagues, Laura both veriï¬ed the existence of book-lovers such as Judith and
her own library's faithful patrons, yet she also deï¬ned her distance flom this kind of
literacy. As she put it in line 24, "This is just a job!" Laura's repetition of "Wow!sâ€
emphasized her wonder at such people and maintained listeners’ involvement.
05 Wow! You know this kid kept going to the library,
06 even though she was terriï¬ed to go,
15 So I just thought-Wow!-you know,
93
16 I don't feel that way-
17 maybe it's cause I work there.
23 And we're kind of like, "Wow!" (laughter).
24 This is just a job!
25 But to some people, you know, it's a big thing. So...
Laura animated her talk with visions of her and her colleagues being startled by
individuals who take reading so seriously. We heard their voices in constructed dialogue;
this created involvement. She acknowledged "it's a big thing" to them while setting
herself apart flom what she appeared to think of as a radical stance on reading.
In the ï¬rst ADG session, Laura either remained silent, or only made statements of
agreement with others’ comments. In this second session, she made concerted moves to
join the conversation. At Carol’s invitation, through these stories, she introduced herself
to the group as a well-meaning teacher and a librarian who does her job. She also flamed
herself in contrast to Judithuthere’s nothing sacred about literacy to Laura.
In Laura's opening narratives she used her own experiences in comparison to the
text to raise several themes as areas that others took up in further talk. She focused on the
utility of this story for practicing teachers and on deï¬ning her own stance on literacy. In
conversation, she offered up her own life experiences as literacy narratives as she
interpreted the text.
Beth's Descant
Following up on Laura's narratives, I took a contrasting position on literacy. I
pointedly stated to the group that I strongly identiï¬ed with Judith’s devotion to books. I
talked about howl identiï¬ed with the author and stated:
Cathy: ...when she wrote that line about, how books created a
spiritual life for her, I actually think that's how I feel. And we were talking about
how not (laughs) not everybody feels that way!
(ADG #2, Transcript, p.3)
Beth and Marcy and I had met in a small group and had been talking about these ideas as
well. Both Beth and Marcy had talked about how Cofer’s character seemed very
94
different flom their own experience-that they did not ï¬nd any enchantrnent in books. In
response to my comment, Beth made a move to talk about this with the whole group:
Beth: I'm embarrassed to say it, but I'm not a reader.
Laura: I'm not either [softly]
Beth: I'm not a reader.
Laura: I'm really not [softly]
[overlapping talk]
Beth: And I'm mad that I'm not a reader. I am, I am! [overlapping talk]
(ADG #2, Transcript, p.3)
Beth’s voice, loudly and ï¬rmly stated her position. Interestingly, Laura quietly echoed
Beth’s “I’m not a reader†reflain, sharing her words and her stance. Beth’s voice became
key throughout the next fourteen minutes of talk. She had taken a bold move—having
participated in the reading of "The Paterson Public Library", which had strong themes of
literacy as a state of grace, and having heard the facilitator of the group state that she too
found a “ spiritual life†in books, Beth flamed herself as outside the sacred literacy that
Cofer had described and challenged the group to take up her questions about what this all
means.
While intems’ and CTs’ responses to the literature were generally made up of
narratives of connection or critique, these narratives were not neatly ordered and
sequenced as topically linked turns by individual speakers. Rather, the talk was a medley
of narratives, and responses to them. Signiï¬cantly, Beth, the cooperating teacher who
worked with Marcy, provoked the group by persistently raising questions about her own
literacy practices in her family and with her students. However, she did not speak in
story-form herself. Instead, singing out between narratives and others' responses, she
urged the conversation on. Beth's voice was individual, yet connected to and influencing
of the ensemble, as if she was singing a descant against a central melody.
When analyzing this data, I extracted Beth's voice flom the twenty-two minutes of
large group transcript, and placed it in flee-verse form (see Table 6). I called this poem
“ Beth’s Descant†for several reasons. A descant is deï¬ned by Webster’s New Collegiate
Dictionary as “a superimposed counterpoint to a simple melody sung typically by some
95
or all of the sopranos.†Complirnenting and complicating the tune of the larger group,
Beth "sang" her descant over the course of fourteen minutes of large group talk, winding
in and out of the conversation and changing its topic and form by her questions. Her
descant did not exist alone-~it was shaped by the text we read and by the larger
conversation as well.
The lines that are included in Beth's Descant are like an inner conversation one
has when reading an engaging text. Yet Beth spoke aloud, and her voice influenced
others' talk as well.
Reading Beth's Descant as a poem, I was struck by the repetition of the phrase "a
reader", which is repeated six times in lines 1-18. Beth ï¬rst phrase ï¬rmly stated her
position:
1. I'm embarrassed to say it, but I'm not a reader.
2. I'm not a reader.
3. And I'm mad that I'm not a reader.
4. I am.
5. I am.
Beth talked about being embarrassed and mad about not being "a reader. " The vision of
Judith as "a reader" that she was presented within Cofer's text didn't match her vision of
herself-and this irked her. As discussed in previous sections, Cofer located literacy
within the individual; in her story, those who were literate were endowed with special
virtues. Cofer's essentialist images of literacy as a state of grace imply that great things
are possible for readers like Judith ("Everything that is, is mine for the asking. Because I
can read about it"(p.33); Beth found this jarring. Reflecting on her own reading, on what
she wants for her own children, and how she thinks about herself as a teacher, Cofer's
image of "a reader" did not ï¬t Beth's image of herself--and this was both embarrassing
and maddening. Something felt wrong. Like Lorraine in Cofer's story, because she held
different views of literacy, Beth was shut out flom the "state of grace" reserved for the
truly literate-she felt other.
96
Table 6: Beth’s Descant
Beth's Descant
I'm embarrassed to say it, but I'm not a reader.
I'm not a reader.
And I'm mad that I'm not a reader.
I am.
I am.
...yeah but that w --
Well, I don't know,
I guess, I picked it up,
and it was something that interested me,
10. and it was light enough reading that I could do it.
11. But I'm not a reader,
12. You know, I don't choose to go the library and get things, and I'm mad.
13. And I wanted to know what was different in her life that made her a reader?
14. And when it stopped-«I want my kids to be readers.
15. I want them to read like their father.
16. Not like me.
17. You know, and I, I was trying to ï¬gure out why she's a reader.
18. What happened in her life that made her a reader?
19. I don't know!
20. I never experienced it.
21. Uh-uh.
22. It's the books.
23. But then we kind of talked about too--
24. What are the implications of a teacher who's a non-reader?
25. Well, yeah, yeah.
26. I mean, you can, if you would watch me teach all day,
27. you would know that my best,
28. what I love the most is math.
29. You know, I'm the most excited in teaching math.
30. You know, and, the kids in my class probably know it too,
31. and they're into math
99°39�?wa
32. yeah
33. well right.
34. right.
35. well, a non-seeker of books.
36. I don't know. I don't know.
37. Ok. Well at least I'm not damaging any children
38. All right. At least I'm not damaging them.
39. I'm damaging all of them!
40. Think I better change my career (laughs)...
This was maddening; and Beth demanded explanation. Beth's descant continued
to question this essentialist vision of "a reader." Again, hitting upon the element of "The
Paterson Public Library" that was left unexplained, Beth demanded to know how people
97
become "readers" like Judith. She insistently asked how Judith became "a reader" in lines
13 -21:
13. And I wanted to know what was different in her life that made her a
reader?
14. And when it stopped-«I want my kids to be readers.
15. I want them to read like their father.
16. Not like me.
17. You know, and I, I was trying to ï¬gure out why she's a reader.
18. What happened in her life that made her a reader?
19. I don't know!
20. I never experienced it.
21. Uh-uh.
Beth appeared to be saying, "Hey! I'm not "a reader" like Judith. Does that
somehow make me not as a good as others, as this writer is implying? At the same time,
Cofer's description of the beneï¬ts of literacy were appealing and Beth wanted in on how
to help her children reap these beneï¬ts. Again, feeling other, she appeared to be asking,
How can I save my children and myself flom being judged like Lorraine ?
Beth also considered her work as a teacher. As she put it:
23. But then we kind of talked about too--
24. What are the implications of a teacher who's a non- reader?
Shifting her thinking towards her students, she examined her own teaching, questioning
whether she could serve students well as a "non-reader." She openly flamed her
questions about her own literacy and her teaching to the group, yet also offered an image
of herself as a competent teacher:
25. Well, yeah, yeah.
26. I mean, you can, if you would watch me teach all day,
27. you would know that my best,
28. what I love the most is math.
29. You know, I'm the most excited in teaching math.
30. You know, and, the kids in my class probably know it too,
31. and they're into math
Cofer's essentialist image of literacy as a state of grace appeared to have startled Beth.
She doesn't feel "other"; she feels like an educator--yet she has never experienced the
kind of“ state of grace†literacy that Cofer writes about. This isn't the way she thinks
98
about her own literacy; yet Cofer's images of literacy as a "spiritual life" look like the
kind of literacy she would want for her children and her students. However, rather than
questioning the validity of Cofer’s flaming of literacy, Beth questioned her own literacy
practices and her work with students. In the ï¬nal words of her descant, she raised her
questions again, involving her listeners in the seriousness of her questions through her
repetition of the word "damaging":
37. Ok. Well at least I'm not damaging any children
38. All right. At least I'm not damaging them.
39. I'm damaging all of them!
40. Think I better change my career (laughs)....
Cofer’s trope of regionalism appears to have had its effect. As discussed in the
ï¬rst section, everything outside of the kind of literacy that Judith ï¬nds in the Paterson
Public Library is without worth. Examining her own beliefs and practices around
literacy, in her personal and professional life, Beth raised questions about whether she
stood outside of the kind of literacy that teachers should believe in and practice. As she
put it.
39. I'm damaging all of them!
40. Think I better change my career (laughs)...
Talking through her interpretation of the text, Beth used her reflections on her
literacy beliefs and practices to push the group members to examine their own literacy
further. As a reader and responder to this text, she pushed herself and the group to
examine Cofer's text and their own lives more carefully. Salvio (1995) discusses
Umberto Eco's conceptions of the "reasonable reader", claiming that the reasonable
reader is a pragmatic reader. She deï¬nes this as follows:
The reasonable reader is not only skilled at making inferences and predictions
- within the text, but she also tests the validity of her insights in the world as social
action. Thus the pragmatic reader inhabits and takes action on a social landscape:
she is a dweller and an actor (Salvio, 1995, p.14).
Beth, through her persistent descant, worked with the ideas presented in the text and, as
the "reasonable reader" identiï¬ed the contexts of family and classroom as places in which
to try out these ideas. Salvio, (1995) interprets Eco's "reasonable reader†(Eco, 1994) as
99
avoiding treating the literary text as her own private garden, rather she "must locate clues
and signs that announce common places between herself and others" (p.13). Beth pushed
her colleagues to think this through-seeking common places of belief and practice as she
voiced her questions about the text.
The Chorus of Responses
It is important to note, however, that there was little uptake regarding Beth’s basic
challenge: "I'm not a reader (in Cofer's sense)-but I am a teacher--what do you think
about that?" Participants in the group-both interns and teachers--seemed unwilling to
talk about the relationship of literacy to Beth’s professional role. Rather, participants
responded to Beth by telling her instructive stories in the form of layered literacy
narratives that explained both the sources of their own literacy and how and why Beth
might assist her own children in becoming literate.
As they shared their deï¬nitions of who “ a reader†is through their stories of self,
the group began to grapple with multiple deï¬nitions of what it means to be literate.
Cofer’s story seemed limited--we saw those who had achieved the “ state of grace†and
those who had not. As group members began telling about their own experiences in
relation to the text, we began to generate a broader range of deï¬nitions of who “ a readerâ€
mi t be, and how literacy is shaped by cultural contexts.
Fran, Stacy and Cindy, all cooperating teachers, describing sources of their own
literacy, identiï¬ed places in their own histories that paralleled the text, and responded
with a trio of narratives explaining, like Cofer, that the roots of such literacy began in
their childhoods.. They seemed to be saying, “ Here’s who and how I am, and this story
of my literacy history will tell you why.†In this way, they told stories of themselves as
people for whom language, culture and literacy were intertwined. Each situated reading
in a place or as a place. Each gave an explanation of how and why reading was engaging
to her as a child. Fran and Stacy included ï¬nal statements of prescription, tailoring their
narratives to Beth's implied request:
100
17. You know, and I, I was trying to ï¬gure out why she's a reader.
18. What happened in her life that made her a reader?
Table 7 summarizes the three narratives. Their stories began to complicate the singular
vision of“ a reader†, as one who has achieved a state of grace, that they were conflonted
with in Cofer’s story.
Table 7: Cooperating Teachers’ Initial Responses to Beth
Narrative Description Themes
Franï¬teading gave me pow Described encounters with -Iiteracy offers her feelings
books as a child and young of power and independence,
woman particularly as a woman
tacy: Thursdays at the Talked about going every -Iiteracy happens when
library Thursday to the library with adults lead you to books
her father, also tells of when you are very young
nephew who is learning
within his family to value
literacy
Cindy:We always hicfbook Descrrhed different kinds of Wteracy connects you to
reading that family things that are safe and
members did in the home. comfortable (families,
rockers)
The CTs responded by telling Beth stories about what made them "readers."
Interestingly, they did not try to explain how Judith became a reader-even though this
was one of Beth’s central questions (“ And I wanted to know what was different in her
life that made her a reader?†). Rather, they referred to their own experiences, and
ï¬guratively stepped up to the mike, one by one, with explanatory stories about their own
literacy histories. Table 8 indicates the points in which other narratives intersected with
Beth’s Descant. Signiï¬cantly, throughout this trio of narratives in response to Beth's
Descant, the interns were listeners. Although Laura had started the large group
conversation at the invitation of Carol, like in the ï¬rst ADG session, interns waited to
hear CTs’ responses before joining the talk.
101
Table 8: Trio of narratives with Beth's Descant
Minutes
1.3
3.0
5.1
5.2
6.0
8.2
Laura’s story: Putting kids in the hall
Laura’s story: I work at a library
Cathy: I identify with spiritual life in books
Beth: I’m not a reader (beginning of descant)
I'm embarrassed to say it, but I 'm not a
reader.
I'm not a reader.
And I 'm mad that I'm not a reader.
I am.
I am.
yeah but that w --
Well, I don 't know,
I guess, I picked it up,
and it was something that interested me,
and it was light enough reading that I could
do it.
But I'm not a reader,
You know, I don 't choose to go the library and
get things, and I ’m mad.
And I wanted to know what was different in
her life that made her a reader.
And when it stapped-«I want my kids to be
readers.
I want them to read like their father.
Not like me.
You know, and I, I was trying to ï¬gure out
why she ’s a reader.
What happened in her life that made her a
reader?
Fran: Reading gave me power
I don 't know!
I never experienced it.
Uh-uh
Stacy: Thursdays at the library
It’s the books.
102
10.0 Cindy: We always had books
But then we kind of talked about too--
What are the implications of a teacher who 's a
non-reader?
Well, yeah, yeah.
I mean, you can, if you would watch me teach
all day,
you would know that my best,
what I love the most is math.
You know, I 'm the most excited in teaching
math.
You know, and, the kids in my class probably
know it too,
and they ’re into math
yeah
well right.
right.
well, a non-seeker of books.
Fran told a story that incorporated her response to the text, her feelings about
books as an adult, and her experiences as a child,
Fran: Reading gave me power
Abstract
I can say something about me and it's sort of what I said.
For me reading gave me power that I didn't have in any other place and I kind of
sensed that in this in different ways.
And also as a writer. I think that she has power as a writer to be able to express
hersel ,
that she doesn't maybe feel that she has otherwise in the culture.
And you know, you have to negotiate,
whether it's because you're a girl, or whatever it is,
you have to negotiate power
and, and with books, you don't .
You don't.
10. You, it's not, you interact with it and it gives you information,
11. it gives you pleasure,
12. it gives you spiritual whatever, guidance,
13. but, you don't have to negotiate power.
14. You're in control and you don't have to ,
15. one's not dominant the way when you're interacting with others,
16. you have to constantly being negouconstantly negotiate.
Orientation/Action
17. So for me as a child, that was a place where I could ask questions,
18. be entertained or amused,
19. have my curiosities--even read how-to books, you know, whatever!
20. And I didn't have to deal with another person,
21. who would be-you know--who I had to negotiate with.
103
Resolution
22. So, I guess, what I'm, trying to say is that if your children ï¬nd
23. that that their reading affords them a place where they can get
24. information and how to and pleasure,
25. that's the beginning of being a reader
26. Don't you think? (softly)
27 Or do you? (laughs softly)
28. Beth: I don't know!
29. Fran: Do you kinda know what I mean?
30. Beth: I never experienced it.
(ADG#2, Transcript, p.5)
F ran's literacy story paralleled Judith's story of escape into books. Like Judith,
she flamed her own reading as a "place," a place where she could be powerful, not have
to negotiate with anyone, and simply do as she wished. Rather than developing a
spiritual life through books, Fran found power through her own literacy, another of
Scribner's (1984) metaphors. She connected her own literacy with J udith's in the opening
lines,
1. I can say something about me and it's sort of what I said.
2. For me reading gave me power that I didn't have in any other place and I kind of
sensed that in this in different ways.
3. And also as a writer. I think that she has power as a writer to be able to express
herself,
4. that she doesn't maybe feel that she has otherwise in the culture.
Fran again characterized reading as a place in her ï¬nal words of advice to Beth about
what children may ï¬nd in books. Like Judith, the images in F ran's narrative were of a
solitary child and adult in the particular dwelling place of the reader, not having to
"negotiate" with anyone. While she did not identify an actual setting, like The Paterson
Public Library, Fran told a story of ï¬nding refuge in texts. In lines 17-21, we saw her
actively exploring her curiosities and avoiding other people:
104
17. So for me as a child, that was a place where I could ask questions,
18. be entertained or amused,
19. have my curiosities-—even read how-to books, you know, whatever!
20. And I didn't have to deal with another person,
21. who would be--you know--who I had to negotiate with.
By flaming reading as a dwelling place of escape flom troublesome people, Fran’s story
paralleled Cofer’s. Like Judith, reading and writing had offered Fran a route to
independence and possibility. Her story was interwoven with references to Judith as a
writer and as a reader-Judith’s experience made sense to her and she wanted to explain
this to Beth. Fran directly addressed Beth at the end of her turn, checking in:
26. Don't you think? (softly)
27. Or do you? (laughs softly)
Similar to her response to Judith, Beth did not connect with this vision of literacy. As she
put it:
28. Beth: I don't know!
29. Fran: Do you kinda know what I mean?
30. Beth: I never experienced it.
There was an insistence to Beth's descant, that appeared to encourage others to
take a shot at explaining the sources of their own literacy. Stacy immediately stepped in,
layering her narrative on Fran's, telling a story about how as a child, she visited the
library with her father, and then telling of herself as an adult, observing the literacy
development of her nephew.
Stacy's Thursday at the Library Story
Abstract
1. Stacy: I think it does start when you're very young.
Orientation
2. I mean, I remember for me, it was Thursdays.
3. Every second Thursday, or third Thursday.
105
Action #1
My dad would sit at the table down in the children's section,
and we would run and we got a book and we'd set it there
and 12:6"! go back and we'd ï¬nd another book and we each had a pile of seven
0 .
Cindy: umm
Stacy: You know, and that's how it would be,
and then as soon as we got ours all set, you know,
he'd get us setting down,
and then he'd go and look for his books, you know.
-©ws 999
r—IO'
Action #2
12. And I've seen it with my sister, my sister and my nephew.
13. I mean she started reading to him when he was born.
14. Cindy: uh-humm
15. Stacy: and he's four, and I mean, he loves books.
16. Cindy: uh-humm
17. Stacy: And I mean you don't have to have books that are set aside for him,
18. he treats all of his books with the utmost respect,
l9. and he's not even four yet-
20. and he reads!
21. Cindy: uh-hurn
22. I mean, he knows, I know, he tells you which book he wants to hear,
23. Cindy: yeah
24. Stacy: and then he takes part
25. and he's an active part in it.
26. Cindy: uh-um
Resolution
27. Stacy: So, it does, it begins when you're
28. Cindy: (very softly) really little.
Again, Stacey’s message to Beth seemed to be an instructive one. Stacy described
roles for adults to play in the lives of children. Her father and her nephew's parents were
suppliers of both books and relationships to support the reading of those books. Being a
part of the language and cultural practices in this family included valuing books, treating
them “with the utmost respect†as she put it in line 18.
Literacy had dwelling places here as well--in the library and among the book
collection of her nephew. Using a stylized form†of cueing listeners that a story was
21Other examples: "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times", "Once upon a time" "A long, long
time ago"
106
coming, Stacy told her story as if she was reading a text, creating involvement by using a
literary opening:
1. Stacy: I think it does start when you're very young.
2. I mean, I remember for me, it was Thursdays.
3. Every second Thursday, or third Thursday.
Her repetition of the word “ Thursdays†effectively emphasizes the regularity of her
routine of heading off to the library with her fatherumaking literacy a regular part of her
life and her relationship with her family. Similarly, her nephew was routinely read to,
even when he was very young. Cindy was involved in Stacy’s story, responding with
“ uh-huh†, and “ yeah†to each line and ï¬nishing Stacy’s thought for her.
27. Stacy: So, it does, it begins when you're
28. Cindy: (very softly) really little.
To be part of these families, part of these cultures, one participated in literacy.
However, this was a very different vision of literacy than that offered by Fran or in
Cofer's text. This was a literacy that involved other people in relationship around books.
Adults were facilitating children's literacy in the two points of action that Stacy related.
Carol, immediately questioned Stacy about this:
29. Carol: Well she doesn't talk about, any background here--
30. becoming an avid reader
31. Stacy: And that's the questions I had.
32. Where did she learn the importance of schooling
33. and who, what were her models?
34. Cindy: uh-hum
35. Carol: Because if you're talking about [overlap] doing that with your parents,
36. I mean there's no indication of that in here.
37. Cindy: And her dad is gone all the time.
38. Carol: yeah.
39. And her mother, her mother gives her the hour to go.
40. If her mother's not going with her to the library--
41 Stacy: But she's allowing her to go
42. Cathy: It seems like a very independent thing though, for her,
43. like you said,
44. “ Where did she learn the importance of schooling?â€
45. But, but it looks to me like schooling isn't very important to her at all.
46. Beth: It's the books
47. Stacy: It's the books.
(ADG#2, Transcript, p.6)
107
Carol, bringing the text back into the conversation, contrasted Stacy's narrative
with Judith's story. The group talked about this, contrasting the adult models and parental
support that Stacy emphasized with Judith's solitary existence. Judith and Stacy had
different stories to tell, different routes to being “a reader.†The group persisted in trying
to ï¬nd points in common between their stories, examining the ways parents were
involved and what role the library played in their lives. They seemed to hit upon another
possible answer to Beth’s question when Beth suggested in line 46 "It's the books," which
was repeated by Stacy. The group, through their repetition, overlapping talk, and short,
overlapping turns continued to search for answers to Beth’s question: What makes one a
reader? I
As Stacey’s story ï¬nished, Cindy immediately took up this theme and told her
own literacy narrative, incorporating the themes of "beginning when you're really young",
family involvement, and books themselves into her narrative. As is indicated in her
narrative below, she appeared to be continuing to respond to Beth's descant.
Cindy: We always had books
Abstract/Orientation
l. I don't know,
2. I was just read to alot as a child.
3. We always had books.
Action
4 My mom was always reading.
5. Now my dad tended to read just the newspapers or magazines.
6. And so my brothers tended to read the newspaper or magazines more,
7 whereas the girls in the family all read the books.
8 I've noticed that
9. Cathy: hmmm
10. Cindy: that distinct difference.
11. And alot of my brothers are closet readers.
12. They don't show anybody that they're reading.
13. But now that they're older, and I see them more socially now, than, you, know as
brothers and sisters, they show me they actually have books.
14. One of my brothers has glasses that he has to wear when he reads books!
15. Never would have showed me that, couple years ago.
16. But he happened to invite me over for dinner when I was home,
17. and he showed me his book collection--
18. course he reads Stephen King, which I personally ï¬nd really gruesome-
19. but (laughter) but that was a shock to me because,
108
20. (he) was never a reader.
21. He was always into sports, or you know, going out--
22. my brothers were all like that.
Resolution
23. Just to know that he reads now, made--
24. I don't know--
25. it was a big difference to me.
26. It was, it was nice to know that he cared,
27 . because it was something I loved so much.
28. And I was always the one who was sitting with a book.
29. You know, the most.
30. Me in my rocking chair
(ADG#2, Transcript, p.7)
Cindy's literacy narrative was the third layered image of childhood literacy
offered to Beth. However, Cindy's description of her own literacy experiences contrasted
markedly with Judith Cofer's and Fran's. This was an image of the ordinary; Cindy
described her family members, reading newspapers and magazines, sitting in rockers and
reading books, even getting interested in a Steven King novel. This was literacy as a part
of everyday life-and this everyday life appeared to be quite different than the life of
Judith. We saw Cindy’s dwelling place, in her rocker, comfortable in the company of
other women in her family, doing what appeared to be part of the family routine:
We always had books.
My mom was always reading.
Now my dad tended to read just the newspapers or magazines.
And so my brothers tended to read the newspaper or magazines more,
whereas the girls in the family all read the books.
N99?!â€
In her persistent descant, Beth requested directions for the route to becoming "a
reader" like Judith "for whom there is no subject I cannot investigate, no world I cannot
explore. Everything that is, is mine for the asking. Because I can read about it."(p.33).
Her colleagues responded with an array of images of "readers," thereby challenging the
singular sacred image of literacy presented in "The Paterson Public Library." I
Through the literacy narratives they told, Fran, Stacy and Cindy implicitly raised
questions about the range of routes to literacy, questions that were important to group
members as individuals, parents, and teachers. While they valued their literacy and
109
identiï¬ed the roots of their literacy within childhood experiences, they deï¬ned literacy
differently flom Judith's. With a broader range of images of literacy on the table, the
conversation shifted into further exploration of what this meant to individuals in the
group.
Conversations of Critique of the Text
Eldred and Mortenson (1992) discuss a kind of disciplinary romance prevalent in
education, an unfounded belief in the transformational power of education generally and
literacy speciï¬cally. Such literacy myths emphasize that "the 'problem' of literacy--
particularly as it relates to modern culture and progress-has been a controversial topic
since the rise of industrial capitalism." (p. 514). The central theme of "The Paterson
Public Library" revolves around this romantic notion of the transformational power of
literacy and education. My own response to the literature had reinforced this romantic
notion as I stated emphatically that I identiï¬ed with Judith's ï¬nding a "spiritual life in
books.â€
Given that this was only the second ADG session, participants especially paid
attention to my comments, using them as indicators of my intentions for the group22
(Interview transcripts, Carol, Fran, Beth, Lin, Marcy, Laura). Therefore, it seems
especially signiï¬cant that, through their telling of literacy narratives about themselves in
response to the text, that CTs and interns began to critique the text and the talk.
Participants, with the exception of Fran, all challenged the romantic notions of literacy
that were presented in the piece by telling stories of themselves as standing outside of the
experiences of the kind of literacy described by Cofer.
While this conversation offered CTs and interns conversational space to present
themselves as people with literacy narratives that were constructed via their own
22My teaching journal flom sessions #1, 2, 3, includes notes about how participants consistently asked me
about what I wanted from them, what they should write about, even if they could write on the handouts of
the stories. I always responded by asking participants to write or talk about what had struck them about the
reading, generally and as teachers.
110
language, culture and literacy experiences, we did not explicitly move into discussion of
what that meant for us as teachers, or, the implications of teachers deï¬ning literacy from
a broad range of perspectives, as Beth had questioned. Similarly, like Cofer, participants
in the group avoided analyzing The Paterson Public Library as a story of race and class.
Rather, the literacy narratives of connection and critique were narratives of introduction,
stories of selves told to colleagues who had just engaged in the reading of another literacy
narrative. Given that this was ADG #2 and that the group was just beginning to develop
forms of talk in response to literature, this may have been a necessary step in our
development as a group. In subsequent sessions we began to do more discussion that took
the form of text-driven debate.
As the conversation progressed, Beth's descant Opened up conversational paths
for others to tell stories that presented challenges to the theme of literacy as "a state of
grace". At this point, Lin and Marcy chose to join the conversation-hut in response to a
direct question flom me, “ What was reading like for you, when you were a kid? Can I
ask you that directly? I mean, I know you were learning English--,†Lin took the floor,
constructing an image of herself as a casual reader who “just picked up anythingâ€:
Lin: yeah, I liked reading. Uh, my parents were always supportive of that. They
read, but they're not avid readers, or you know, very passionate about reading, um.
They're more into like news, like reading magazines, newspapers and stuff. But I
always liked just picking up anything, you know, um. But mostly just what ever I
felt like at that time. just grong up and I'd always order those books and.. but
they're always like, you know, what Candy Hall girls/
Cindy: uh-huh
Lin: or Sweet Valley High (laughs) or whatever/
Cindy: the Bobsey twins/
Lin: or Judy Bloome books, I mean things, anything that I was just interested in I
would read. So I really enjoyed reading, but I don't do it as much now. Which, I
don't know why-(laughs)--probably because of time/
Marcy: no time!/
Lin: No time, but. I ï¬nd that during the summer I do alot more, cause that's when
things are a little bit slower and I can squeeze-but I like reading novels, and last
summer I was really into reading Asian American subjects, like authors, you
know. And uh, the books that they wrote, so I got into a lot of that. But it's, its',
readinguit's not something I dread or anything like that, cause I do enjoy it. But
it's just--it depends on what kind of reading, I guess. Textbooks readings I can do
without--(laughter)
lll
Lin named speciï¬c series of books that girls typically read in American
elementary schools, books that presented mainstream images of American life. In my
question, I had mentioned that Lin was learning English because she had talked earlier
about how she anived in the US. flom Vietnam, just before she started school. The
books she named gave us an image of her involved in school just like all the other kids.
Unlike Judith, Fran, and I, who found a “ spiritual life†in books, and unlike Stacy and
Cindy, who flamed their literacy within the lives of families, Lin represented herself as a
regular school kid doing ordinary reading, reading that connected her to the language,
culture and literacy practices in her school, even though those practices were different
flom her home culture. She talked about her parents as not “ passionate†about reading,
being more “ into like news, like reading magazines, newspapers and stuffâ€. These
images again contrasted with Stacy and Cindy’s stories of parents passing on their
reading interests to their children. Lin added another image of“ a reader†to the mix.
CTs in the group added another trio of voices of critique at this point, 19 minutes
into the talk. Carol and Fran told about how they had both gone through periods when
they had retreated into books, rather than conflont relationships. As Fran put it:
I wanted to be a librarian, you know, when you ï¬lled out the papers with your
major and your minor. Cause I just wanted to hide in the stacks and not deal with
people. And that was true, and that was true, for, you know, for a long time. And
it took alot for me to switch and think that I wanted to be a teacher and deal with
people and be out in the real world.
Beth also talked about thinking of being a librarian when she was having migraine
headaches while teaching. Teaching was “ out in the real world,†while the kind of
literacy one might pursue in the library, especially as represented in the character of
Judith, was an escape into something unreal Images of “ a reader†were further
complicated by ideas about who one should be in the world.
Continuing the pattern of inviting interns into this conversation, I turned to
Marcy, who had been responding to others but had not taken a conversational hurt, and
said: “ That’s--you’re going “ Wow!†or “ Ohh!†Marcy responded with a statement of
112
herself as a learner. Adding another image of a reader, she described herself in
relationship with others, rather than leading a solitary life with books:
Marcy: It's just like ah-hah! I'm starting to understand-J really need a connection
with people and the interaction with people and talking with people is how I learn.
I really need that in my life. And so, staying away flom people, reading a book, I
feel like I'm missing out.
I really need the interaction, um learning about different people and
different cultures that way. And, oh that's, that's , you know, we can read the same
thing, and I'll get more information flom another person's perspective. I have a
really strong connection with people, so when you said that (to Fran in reference
to isolating herself), I'm like , ohhh, I'm opposite of that!
Marcy, having heard a range of versions of how people in the group thought about
their own literacy, now entered the talk and offered a statement of self. She constructed
dialogue at the end of her turn in her words, "I'm like, ohhh, I'm opposite of that.†,
offering participants an image of her thinking through these positions on literacy.
We appeared to have moved flom Beth’s solitary voice, singing out:
I’m embarrassed to say it, but I’m not a reader.
I’m not a reader.
And I’m mad that I’m not a reader.
I am. I am!
to a medley of voices, claiming different stances on being “readers†. Interns and CTs
appeared to be listening to each other, hearing this variety and introducing themselves to
each other via stories of their own literacy. These voices felt introductory—group
members did not go on to examine their work with children in their classrooms via their
literacy stances, or critique larger social or political issues via this conversation. In the
last several minutes of this conversation, both interns and CTs engaged in fast paced,
overlapping turns in which individuals described what they were like as readers--how
they read, where they read, what they liked and disliked about reading in the company of
others. I responded to this talk as follows, thinking this was a way I could encourage talk
about how all this applied to our work as teachers:
Cathy: It's really interesting to think about how everybody has these very personal
stances on literacy. [soft-uh-hums] I meannthey're not just practices. They're,
we're talking about "This is the way I am.!†(laughter)
I think it's really interesting to think about that in terms of being a teacher.
And uh, here we have like thirty kids, or 26 or 42, and probably they have, they're
113
probably already formulating these "This is the way I am" kind of stances too.
And then we teach them “literacy†, or we teach them language arts or....
Carol: As Beth says “damaging themâ€
Beth: I'm damaging all of them! (laughter) Think I better change my career
(laughs)
Group members offered no uptake on the theme of how all this applied to our teaching.
Rather, we laughed with Beth apparently to ease all of our discomfort at her honest and
public questioning of her stance on literacy. We ï¬nished this conversation without
making the move to apply what we had voiced about ourselves to our work as teachers.
This was conversational work that it appears we were not ready to do, although analysis
of later conversations will show movement towards such talk. Yet, group members in
this second session did seem to be doing the work of exploring their own lives in relation
to Judith, and going “ public†with their thoughts. The literature provided the engaging
“It†creating a kind of “heat†to the talk (Hawkins,1967). Interns and CTs appeared to
be interpreting their literacy beliefs and practices to each other.
Discussion: What’s Literacy Got to Do with It?
This story about the dwelling places of literacy assisted us in moving to a third
space in our conversational work with each other where we used the text to initiate talk
outside of traditional intern or CT scripts. Through the telling of layered personal
narratives, urged on by Beth's insistent descant, we created a kind of“ common place†of
conversation as Salvio (1995) puts it:
We might think of the common place as a hospitable gathering place, which, like
the Italian piazza, invites readers to dwell on ideas, to debate, to inquire. The
common place does not subsurne the differences among readers, rather it makes it
possible for them to identify and interpretive issues and make a commitment to
attend to it with a "patient vigor." Inclusive by deï¬nition, the common place
includes the students' histories as well as the theoretical and literary texts we
study. (1995 p.13-l4)
Salvio draws on Borgmann's (1992 p. 124) use of the term "patient vigor" to
describe an attitude that "has the time and to recognize complicated conditions and
difficult people, to engage them in cooperation and conversation." Similar to John
Dewey's concept of "reflective attention" and the Buddhist teacher Thich Nhat Hanh's
114
concept of "mindfulness", she suggests “that more extensive research in curriculum
theory explore ways of reading in the classroom that strengthen these capacities and
attitudes†(p. 14).
Third space conversations incorporate this notion of patient vigor both in their
conversational form-high involvement interactions and in their content» personal
literacy narratives and debate fueled by investigations of the literature. Patient vigor
seems to me to be a quality one would hope to ï¬nd in teachers. It is my argument that
this is not only a disposition, it is a discursive practice that, if explicitly incorporated into
teacher education, might more readily be found in the personal and professional lives of
teachers.
Analysis of our conversation as we talked through Cofer’s text illustrates our
moves towards ï¬nding this common place. Particularly important in this second session,
seemed to be participants’ efforts to state their differences and questions and to dwell on
and in the puzzles these differences created. Interns and cooperating teachers tested the
conversational waters, floating literacy narratives , hearing responses flom others (or not
hearing a response), and hearing their views echoed in others' responses. They displayed
the kind of “ patient vigor†Salvio suggests. Participants told their narratives in ways that
involved listeners, using literary forms, repetition, and constructed dialogue to engage
others (Tannen, 1989). Both interns and CTs tried talking in response to text, telling
literacy narratives that illustrated their individual stances on what it meant to be "a
reader," as a means of introducing aspects of themselves to the group and seeing how
their colleagues might respond.
In a follow-up interview, Beth described her own experience of responding
strongly to the text:
Beth: ...well, I think I think this was a very natural way of having people
respond, and respond at that the level they felt comfortable responding at.
And then, you know, like you said, once I said that I’m not a reader, that
opened up to the whole table to talk about reading and what made them a
reader--to reflect on their past. Um, although they may have seen it in a
115
different way to begin with. Just that comment maybe changed people’s
look at what the article could have evoked.
No deï¬nitely, I’ mean if you had come in and just said, let’s talk about
libraries or whatever, it wouldn’t have happened the same way as this.
(Beth, Interview, p.11)
lntems made new conversational moves. Laura at the invitation of Carol, had
initiated the talk by comparing her experiences with those of the author. Lin and Marcy,
although they waited to speak until all CTs had told their stories, offered stories of self
that flamed their literacy beliefs and practices as distinct flom both the author and the
experienced teachers. This contrasted with their interactions in ADG#l 23, when they had
mainly been listeners or had requested information flom CTs about what it was like to be
a teacher.
Participants had engaged in a pursuit of what it means to be “ a reader.†Cofer,
through the character of Judith, drew that space narrowly, individually, within a private,
privileged space. Everyone outside of that space was represented as “ other.†Carol,
Fran, and I saw how we had resonated with the “ spiritual†aspects of literacy, yet we
questioned the validity of literacy as a retreat. Laura puzzled over these ideas,
questioning the appeal of such a life. Stacy’s and Cindy’s narratives represented literacy
within family contexts—both told stories of self in which literacy created a bond between
them and family members. Lin’s literacy narrative described her using literacy to
participate with others in school language and cultural practices. Marcy represented
herself as opposite Judith as a learner and user of language and literacy, a person looking
for connections between people rather than isolation in texts. Beth’s voice was
intertwined with others’ as she examined herself and then pragrnatically (in Salvio’s
sense) worked to understand what this might mean to her in her teaching and her
interactions with her children.
As the teacher educator and facilitator of this group, to paraphrase Beth, I’m
embarrassed to say it, but I am a reader, and I think that I learned much about my
23 One of the central ways that interns had participated in the ï¬rst session was to ask questions of CTs
about “what it’s like to be a teacher†(See Chapter 1).
116
assumptions about other teachers and their beliefs about literacy through my participation
in the reading and discussion about this text. I did ï¬nd Judith’s spiritual life via books to
be similar to my own experience-J think I assumed that that kind of encounter with text
is what many pe0ple seek. While I “ know†, flom my experiences working in a broad
range of settings with teachers that this is not the case, I think this is a place of
ethnocentricity in my own cultural stance on literacy and language. This experience of
talk and text challenged me to think carefully about how I construct my understandings of
other educators’ beliefs and practices.
Soliday (1994), writes that "reading and writing literacy stories can enable
students to ponder the conflicts attendant upon crossing language worlds and to reflect
upon the choices that speakers of minority dialects and languages must make†(p.512).
She talks about building classrooms where "writing can be used as a means of self-
deï¬nition and self-representation" (p.512). In this second ADG session it appears that
writing in response to reading literacy narratives and then constructing talk provided a
similar opportunity for interns, CTs, and me to engage in self-deï¬nition and self-
representation via our critique and reflection on what it means to be "a reader."
Occasions for talk around text such as those described in this autobiography
discussion group session, may be important learning “ spaces†where we re-conceptualize
intern/CT relationships flom an educational anthropological perspective that focuses on
“ organizing culture†in new contexts (Eisenhart, 1995) rather than on internalizing the
practice of a c00perating teacher. As individuals new to a context begin to build an
identity within this context,
Thus , telling stories about self is not only a way to demonstrate membership in a
group or to claim an identity within it. Telling stories about self is also a means
of becoming; a means by which an individual helps to shape and project identities
in social and cultural spaces; and a way of thinking about learning that requires
the individual to be active as well as socially and culturally responsive.
(Eisenhart, 1995 p.19)
The individual teachers in the process of“ becoming,†as Eisenhart puts it, are
part of the larger culture of teaching. Like all cultures, the culture of teaching is "in
117
process" (Spindler & Spindler, 1990) as well. Conversations around autobiographical
literature that created a space in the lives of the teachers in this study, provided
participants opportunities to tell stories of self in this new context, and participate in the
shaping of their teaching culture.
Teaching in a multicultural, multilingual world, requires an orientation to
language and culture that is fluid, situated and in processCNew London Group, 1996). By
utilizing autobiography and this type of discussion in teacher education, teachers had a
context in which to see themselves and their work as "in process." Developing
opportunities for discourse between beginning and experienced teachers where they
discussed both others and themselves in the processes of understanding language,
literacy, and cultural issues in school settings, offered teachers opportunities to engage in
this process of constructing and organizing culture.
118
CHAPTER 5
HONORING STYLE BY DESTROYING THE TEACHER:
DEFINING TEACHER/STUDENT RELATIONSHIPS BY
TALKING THROUGH TEXT
I am the teacher of athletes,
He that by me spreads a wider breast than my own proves the width of my own,
He most honors my style who learns under it to destroy the teacher.
Song of Myself 47, Walt Whitman
Introduction
Walt Whitman, widely considered one of the great American voices24
(McMichael, 1974), offers, at ï¬rst glance, a startling vision of teacher/student
relationships in “ Song of Myself.†This line of Walt Whitman’s poetry is at the core of a
family conflict in Julia Alvarez’s “ Daughter of Invention†, a short story embedded in
How the Garcia Girls Lost Their Accents (1991). the reading for our third autobiography
discussion group session on January 30, 1997. In this story, Yoyo, a high school student
recently immigrated flom the Dominican Republic, read and was captivated by
Whitman’s image of destroying the teacher, which led her to write a graduation speech
that alienated her flom her father. Like the main character in the story, interns and CTs
puzzled through these lines of Whitman’s poem, "Song of Myself. " as they are found in
the story. Similar to Yoyo, the vivid image of“ destroying the teacher†led participants
to use this conversation to talk broadly and speciï¬cally about the relationships of students
and teachers, even venturing into the difï¬cult or “ hot lava†topic (Glazier, in press) of
their own mentor/novice relationships. This chapter offers a close analysis of an episode
of that conversation, an example of situated text-based debate, in which all participants
were highly involved in talk about teaching and learning stemming flom their reading of
24Whitman is described by American literature scholars as follows: “ ...he helped make possible the flee-
verse unorthodoxies and the private literary intensities of a twentieth century that would one day come to
honor him as one of the great poets of America.†(McMillan, 1974, p. 1 749)
119
the vignette flom How the Garcia Girls Lost Their Accents and the Whitman quotation
embedded in the text.
In the analysis which follows, I mine their conversation for evidence of how
discussion of autobiographical text offered beginning and practiced teachers new
opportunities to learn and to build a sense of "critical colleagueship" with each other
(1994). This can be thought of as constructing a kind of secondary discourse-an
educators' discourse--in which teachers' work involves articulating beliefs about
teacher/ student relationships and theories of knowledge both in their work with children
and in their relationships with each other (Denyer & Florio-Ruane, 1995; Gee, 1990).
Construction of this discourse, as discussed in earlier chapters, happened as participants
made conversational moves into a “ third space†where they stepped out of normative
scripts and into participation structures and explored their individual beliefs and
continued to construct a community of practice as beginning and practiced teachers
(Gutierrez et al., 1995; Lave & Wenger, 1991).
Synopsis of "Daughter of Invention"
Alvarez, an American writer who immigrated as a young girl flom the Dominican
Republic, writes about a family of four girls and their parents who have immigrated flom
the Dominican Republic to New York City in order to escape the consequences of their
father's political activity in the revolution. The novel parallels Alvarez's own life in many
ways†and the central character in this story, Yoyo, appears to be a representation of the
authorâ€. Finding little to connect to in her surroundings, Yoyo has retreated into reading
and writing and developing her English. Alvarez describes Yoyo's response to her life as
an immigrant:
25F or further description of the autobiographical links to Alvarez's life, see her most recent book,
Something to Declare (1998).
26Review Rifkind, D. New York Times, Oct. 6,1991.
120
Back in the Dominican Republic growing up, Yoyo had been a terrible student.
No one could ever get her to sit down to a book. But in New York, she needed to
settle somewhere and since the natives were unfliendly, and the country
inhospitable, she took root in the language. By high school, the nuns were
reading her stories and compositions out loud in English class. (p. 141)
Yoyo responds to the changes in her life, in her words, by "taking root" in the language of
the people who reject her.27 She becomes the nuns’ success story and is chosen to do the
Teachers’ Day address by her English teacher. The speech she writes becomes the point
of conflict in the story.
Paralleling Yoyo's story is the story of her mother, who also struggles to ï¬nd a
life in New York City. Alvarez provides many images of Laura leading her four
daughters on treks throughout the city, efï¬ciently organizing her husband's medical office
in the Bronx, and most importantly, and scratching out plans for a variety of inventions.
Laura often invents English as well, constructing new idioms out of old ("no use trying to
drink spilt milk", "it takes two to tangle"). While she is comical in her bungled pursuits,
she is portrayed as actively and poignantly trying to create an American life. Her
offspring Yoyo, is literally the "daughter of invention."
As Yoyo works to write the speech, she picks up the copy of Whitman's "Song of
Myself" that her father found at a second hand book store and had given to her. She is
captivated by the transcendentalist voice, especially by the words "He most honors my
style who learns under it to destroy the teacher." (p.143), and uses the theme of
“ destroying the teacher†as the centerpiece of her speech. Emerging as a young adult
recently immersed in the fleedoms that life in the US, as a daughter of parents whom
she loves and respects but sees as representing the old ways in the Dominican Republic,
and as a graduate flom a school where she has feels intellectually constricted, Yoyo is
ready to "honor" her teachers and parents by "destroying" them and standing as an
27From a second language learning perspective, this is a very unusual stance. Research on second
language acquisition indicates that people learn language to do the things they want to do with people who
speak that language--Yoyo’s decision to “ take root†in the language is inconsistent with the assumptions
underlying some bilingual education policy and practices. However, authors such as Rodriguez (1982)
have attended to this dynamic in their accounts of their own childhood experiences (see Florio—Ruane and
deTar, 1996)..
121
individual. She passionately writes about this in her speech. Her mother is similarly
enthralled by this very American theme and joyously reads the speech aloud to her father.
Outraged by such "insubordinate" and "improper" (p.145) words, he forbids Yoyo to
deliver the speech, rips the paper into tiny bits, and chases Yoyo to her room. Later,
mother and daughter concoct
two brief pages of stale compliments and the polite commonplaces on teachers, a
speech wrought by necessity and not much invention on one of the pads of paper
Laura had one used for her own inventions. (p. 148)
The story ends as Yoyo reports of a successful, if bland, speech. Her father lugs home an
electric typewriter, placing it on the kitchen table as an ironic peace offering. Alvarez's
ï¬nal paragraph describes the story as the moment that marked the period of Laura's
inventing days being over, and Yoyo's just beginning.
Examining the Conversation
While there are many possible routes for analysis of the conversation in this
session, I focus here on how the how the group, like Yo-yo, also worked to co-construct
an understanding of Whitman’s quote, “he most honors my style who learns under it to
destroy the teacher.†This conversation opened up avenues for involvement for all the
participants and led to exploratory debate around themes of the nature of knowledge, the
role of culture in teacher/student relationships, and the complicated and evolving nature
of intern/cooperating teacher relationships. lntems and CTs appeared to co-deï¬ne and re-
deï¬ne understandings of these themes as they moved through 11 minutes of
conversation; the following sections walk the reader through the path of this talk.
122
Context
It is important to note several contextual factors regarding this session. There was
a relaxed, upbeat feel on this evening; participants arrived on time and began eating and
chattingâ€. The second semester had just started, and teachers and interns saw this as an
important milestoneâ€. The complexities of teacher/ student relationships were central to
the everyday work of the intern/CT pairs. One of the most signiï¬cant contextual factors
on this day was that the interns were beginning their “lead teachingâ€. The lead teaching
period was intended to be a period when interns would gradually (over a period of 9
weeks) take on full responsibility for planning and implementing instruction in the
classroom, with the guidance and assistance of their cooperating teacher. While interns
had been working collaboratively with cooperating teachers since the beginning of the
year, this role shift represented signiï¬cant tensions for both interns and CTs. lntems had
worried aloud to me and to each other about their competence; CTs had worried aloud to
me and to each other about “ giving up their classrooms.†30 Yet both interns and CTs had
also talked with me about the awkwardness of expressing these concerns to each other.
This session marked the middle of our six sessions together. This January session
began where we had ï¬nished in December, with participants again calling out titles and
offering quick synopses of books and reviews for others. My introduction and our
reading of the seventeen page story took 35 minutes, the longest reading of all the
28T'his session marked the ï¬rst time that participants spontaneously chose to bring in food for all. As I had
in other sessions, I had brought bagels, cream cheese and juice. This time, two interns and a CT had
brought homemade brownies and cookies to share. From this point on, participants always brought
refleshments for the group. Their unplanned taking-on of this responsibility appears to be an indication of
"ownership" for the group. Interestingly, my ï¬eld notes indicate that each session, additional group
members contributed to the food supply.
29Marcy and Beth talked openly about their concerns that children had not made enough progress for this
point in the year. Also signiï¬cant, Fran and Laura had only recently started working together. Laura’s
c00perating teacher had left on a medical leave in late November and Fran had been the substitute teacher
in the class before the holiday break. In January, the district assigned Fran as a long-term substitute in the
classroom, thus, she ofï¬cially became Laura’s CT. Both Laura and Fran had struggled somewhat as they
worked to deï¬ne their roles with the children and with each other.
3"Also signiï¬cant, Fran and Laura had only recently started working together. Laura’s cooperating teacher
had left on a medical leave in late November and Fran had been the substitute teacher in the class before
the holiday break. In January, the district assigned Fran as a long-term substitute in the classroom, thus,
she ofï¬cially became Laura’s CT. Both Laura and Fran had struggled somewhat as they worked to deï¬ne
their roles with the children and with each other.
123
sessions. Stacy and Fran had both indicated that they had to leave early so I suggested
that we skip the small group talk on this evening. Unlike other sessions, when
participants met in small groups and usually read flom their writing or inquired of others
about their writing to get the conversations going, we moved directly flom response-
writing into large group talk.
Initial Conversation
Cooperating teachers and Carol and I did almost all of the talking for the ï¬rst 21
minutes of our large group conversation. lntems were silent, although video tape of the
session indicates that all three were carefully watching each speaker. The CTs and Carol
responded to my question: “ So what struck you about this reading?†by raising questions
about the characters’ beliefs, summarizing events in the story, and making statements
about the meaning of the piece. Cooperating teachers and Carol individually took the
floor (Edelsky, 1981) through uncontested turns in which they explained their viewpoints
on the literature and responded to each other. Fran talked for several minutes about how
the constraints on women in the story were “ very moving to me.†Group members
debated this a bit, but the conversation continued to be carried by the experienced
teachers in the group. Carol read flom the response writing she had done about the
themes of the story:
This story is about the emotional power of language, the difference between the
uninhibited use of speech in public places and the knowledge that truly
uninhibited speech can incur seriously negative consequences. In that sense it’s
even a story about power.
The story is also about the knowledge that one must learn to exercise a
certain amount of self censorship if one is to survive in an inhospitable
environment. (Carol, written response to How the Garcia Girl’s Lost Their
Accents, 1/30/97)
Having read this aloud, Carol critiqued Alvarez’s description of the mother in the story as
“ infantalizing†, “ over done and contrived.†Group members debated this a bit, but the
conversation continued to be carried by the practiced teachers in the group. The speaker
124
turns were long and individual, often marked by the telling of personal narratives to
illustrate a point. However, the interns were strikingly silent.
Constructing a Deï¬nition of Destroying the Teacher
Twenty-one minutes into this conversation, we moved into an episode that was
marked by many repetitions of phrases, fast pace, constructed dialogue, and short,
overlapping turns by all of the interns and CTs in the group. Multiple deï¬nitions of
"destroy the teacher" were generated by group members as they discussed a number of
diï¬â€™erent kinds of teacher/student relationships. This conversation ultimately led to a high
involvement interchange-a situated text-based debate--generating signiï¬cant "heat" in
which CTs and interns directly talked about their own relationships as teachers and
students and what this concept of " destroying the teacher†meant to them.
The following analysis illustrates the path group members took as they worked
together to understand Whitman's quote as it applied to the story and to the various
contexts of their own lives. As a preview of this conversation, I have included Tables 9
and 10 below, which represent brief cuts flom the talk where intems' and CTs voiced
tentative deï¬nitions of "destroy the teacher."
Reading through the deï¬nitional talk generated through the conversations, it
appears that interns ideas about this phrase underwent transitions as they participated in
the talk. Marcy shifted florn "I like it!" to "I don't like the word destroy." Lin moved
flom critiquing destroying the teacher as "intentional destruction" to telling a story of a
student destroying the teacher and describing her by saying “ she's not there to “ destroy
the teacher†, or anything like that. You know, she's just / a thinker."
125
Table 9: Interns’ Destroy Deï¬nitions
Marcy Lin
‘Oh I Like it! Ilike it! mtentional destruction
ey Wome their own teachers. setting her up
When I read rt, 1 really Ifltedif I thought it was
funny, cause the way I see teaching is, I want the
students to be able to, um, look towards each other,
as teachers. “ Like how do you do this?†And then
them showing each other, and then eventually,
they'll become their own teacher or teaching other
students? Like, as far, I don't see the word as
‘destroy’--I didn't read it as like, you know, as
embarrassment, embarrassment or anything like
that. I guess it‘s really a strong word. look towards
each other....become their own teacher...not
embarrassment..
I see it as having the children become their own
independent thinkers and teachers with each other,
and um, as not seeing the teacher as the only
source of answers or anything like that but looking
towards each other.
“ What do you mean really ?†[like a teacher
saying this]
They’re just information gatherers. (students in
Mexican schools that Beth has described)
Or maybe you need to read the poem, and see what
exactly it says...you know, instead of just taking it,
one little sort of, out of, could be taken out that
context and you know, put in here, so, it changes
that too.
Well, it depends.
eah, if I really don't know. ‘Welfwhat do you
think?’
destroy....because you shII neeTsomebody there to
help you do that...
Talks alot hbout our schoolsjiough. If we
constantly are having our students become more
independent in America and how we are always
giving that culture to the student-you know.
“ Come on, you come up with it†--or “ you think
of it'“ . And she was thinking of it! She got it! It
was like a springboard for her for all those pages
that she wrote--
You don‘t say that to just anybody either! I mean its
not like as a teacher in the classroom...(inaudible)
You don't destroy the teacher, you know what I
mean? I would expect that in college, you know-
independent thinkers and stuff, but, you know, not
to the point where they're going to take you down
or whatever.
Maybe that'ï¬omething you‘d see in college-
creative writing class, or a writing class
But, like that one, urn, teï¬her that came into our
class, she had taught a 5th grade class. And you
know the ï¬rst day, she comes in to teach about
history or whatever, and she you know, she writes,
or she asks them, you know, “ What would you like
to learn about history, or for this, semester or
something?†And this one girl says: " I wanna
learn about how Columbus wasn't the ï¬rst person
to come to America" [laughs] or something like
that--you know, just, I mean just very,/ very smart.
I mean, but, she's not there to “ destroy the
teacher†, or anything like that. You know, she's
just / a thinker (softly).
‘ I don't [Re the word destroyTï¬rough,
I don’t like the word destroy.
Yeah, and to be yourself or rndependent or you
know
‘T ceIébrate myself and srng myséllâ€
right-
“He most honors my styleâ€
l s 511 taken out of context anyway-
student learns to
better.
it kinda, stuck in mind cause I was to
0 en times theykrll hi master and they become
the master (laughs)!
e could be talking about himseIf(quTet1y)
just kinda kept coming back to it, going, “Well, maybe
a
not it the
way?†/ So
it out.
126
Similarly, though their situated text-based debate, CTs worked to ï¬gure out how
this idea had caused such controversy in Alvarez's story and what it might mean in their
many personal and professional contexts. My analysis of the conversation will try to
explain how talking through the text with others encouraged participants to do
exploratory talk about this concept. By puzzling through Whitman's phrase, interns and
CTs talked flankly, if briefly, about the paradoxes of learning in the company of others.
The following sections walk the reader through this 11 minute segment of conversation to
illustrate and analyze how talking through the text with others encouraged participants to
do exploratory talk about this concept
Table 10: CT s’ Destroy Deï¬nitions
Stacy Cindy
e best student challenges ï¬re setting her up But I don’t understand what it’s
teachers. supposed...
Yeah, hey--Tâ€s brother- He woul But I guess I, rTstudents come to But I didn't understand, like
think of questions that he's already me with questions I tend to say, destroy-J mean are they gonna
investigated the answer to, and the “ Well what do you think?†come back and (slaps hand)
he would go and ask the teacher thr pulverize you?
question. (laughter-Marcy) And
then the teacher would probably,
give cm the wrong answer or
something, you know, not
completely true. And the kid, be,
his little brother would tell the
teacher, “ No teacher, you're
wrong, this is what it is, this is wh
it is, this is what it is.†You know
But he would do it in flont of the
classroom and destroy that teacher
and so, / you know, in a wa::y,/
that student can destroy the teache
because they have learned how to,
you know
In Mexrcofhat’s the way it rs. Yeah. Or even just sometimes if manipulate (ï¬nishing Beth’s story
[overlapping agreement] Teachers they have a real deep question. I about Mexican teachers)
are lecturers; they pour out their
knowledge.
mean even if I do know the answe
I'll say, or if I think 1 have an idea,
I'll say, “ Well what do you think?
And you know, “ What's one way
we could ï¬gure more out about it?
They fliink they know everytiTrrTg,
and they’re ï¬lling up the kids. An
his brother, [Marcy is laughing]
man, he was something with those
teachers.
(Stacy exits for pre-arranged appt.
I don't mï¬md ï¬at versron,
(laughter) but I don't like the
version of making a total fool of
you! (laughter)
You don’t say Eat to nuzunsT
I can see gifted students doing flral
(laughs). Almost, you know just
because they are so smart. And its
like, “ OK, well maybe I can come
up with some questions the teache
can't answer!"
127
Well, see we don't have the whole
poem
Would see really gifted kids, caus
some of them are quite little
hellions with the teacher. They
tend to be behavior problems.
Becauseih a way I mean, if, if yo
can destroy the teacher then you a
Maybe thatfs how she felt.r She ju
didn't like those, nuns, maybe. She
very knowledgeable and then in felt hampered by them
that sense, you know, the teacher
really did her job.
But stHKyedh, Imean look at us, Yeah, I guessT just didn't
we're struggling with understandin understand
it, too. And the father just hears it
in a speech
how that's a compliment-
rn English and that's not hrs
language. And you know you hear
the word destroy then right away
you're thinking, God! This is too
radical! I mean, this is too
I want to [mow die poem-
And wedre the ones that arehhann
this in English! Think about what
he feels in Spanish, you know, wit
his background language in
Spanish. Maybe that's why he ble
up as much as he did too.
“ Now youhecome the teacher, an
cs
Is that what you 're going to do to
me?
You ’re doing to destroy me ,and
take over?
[laughter]
yeah, radrcaI. Hmmmm
I’m lflce, “No::oo.Whafs so bad
about me that you want to destroy
me?!†(Marcy laughing
throughout) It's more like, “ OK,
teach me some things that youâ€â€”
†Add to me, not destroy me!â€
(laughs)
a little tooï¬iarsh.
First Cuts on Destroying the Teacher
Laura seemed to welcome the invitation to talk when I said directly to her: “ You
guys are silentuwhat'd you think of the story?†She responded by glancing at her
response writing and raising a question using a quotation flom the text:
Laura:: Um. I just kept coming back to that quote that he had-- to what they said
on p.145. The one that the “ best student learns to destroy the teacher.†At ï¬rst I
thought, “That is kinda-«you know...†(laughs)
Cindy: But I don't understand what it's supposed
Laura:: Right, I don't understand it either.
128
Cindy: to say--
Laura, immediately engaging others in conversation, invoked the Whitman quote
flom the literature saying that she “just keeps coming back†to Whitman’s “ destroy the
teacher†quotation. Laura used a speciï¬c reference to the literature as an avenue into the
talk.. She had written down Alvarez's paraphrase of Whitman's quotation and reading his
words aloud now, thus constructed dialogue and created involvement (Tannen, 1989)
among the group members. Cindy overlapped Laura's talk and also acknowledged, “I
don’t understand.†Laura repeated the line, affirming Cindy's confusion. Thus, Laura,
stepping out of her silent role, had flamed a topic for the group, and her conversational
turn sparked an initial diverse set of deï¬nitions for “ destroy the teacher."
The conversation then underwent a signiï¬cant shift as both interns and CTs
suddenly became highly involved in the conversation. Like Yoyo, the nuns, and the
mother and father in “ Daughter of Invention,†interns and CTs began to speak about
what they believed about power and authority in teacher/ student relationships as they
struggled to interpret Whitman's words. Several deï¬nitions of “ destroy the teacherâ€
were floated in this ï¬rst segment of the talk.
Marcy: Oh, I like it! [louder] I like it!
Laura: 1 don't know ifI do or not, because I don't really understand it.
Beth: The best student challenges the teachers.
Marcy: They become their own teachers.
Laura: Right, challenges. But I just didn't like “destroy.â€
Cindy: But I didn't understand, like destroy--I mean are they gonna come back
and (slaps hand) pulverize you? [overlapping “ yeahâ€]
Unlike Laura, who stated at ï¬rst that the idea of destroying the teacher was “just kinda,
you know...†(a bizarre idea), Marcy “likes it!†She ï¬rmly voiced her position: “ They
become their own teachers,†a position that directly contrasted with her CT, Beth, who
had stated that“ The best student challenges the teachers.†Marcy, like Yoyo, was
captivated by an image of independent students “ become(ing) their own teachersâ€. Beth,
like the mother in the story, opted for a risky middle ground where students challenge
their teachers and the consequences may be serious. Cindy, like the father, considered the
129
whole idea outrageous and illustrated the absurdity of it all by punching her own hand,
ï¬guratively "pulverizing" the teacher.
Speakers were highly involved in these initial deï¬nitions of“ destroying the
teacherâ€. All of these comments overlapped, intertwining the text with personal life and
school experiences. The pace was quick and the volume was loud. Speakers repeated
each other’s phrases ("destroy the teacher", "I don’t understand", "challenge"), linking
their turns at deï¬ning "destroy the teacher." As the talk continued, ï¬ve different images
of destroying the teacher were constructed and explored through the conversation.
Destroying by Challenging the Teacher
Beth continued this initial foray by offering a ï¬rst narrative that illustrated a
student “ challenging†the teacher:
Beth: Yeah, hey--T's brother-- He would think of questions that he's
already investigated the answer to, and then he would go and ask the teacher the
question. (Marcy laughs) And then the teacher would probably, give ‘em the
wrong answer or something, you know, not
completely true. And the kid, he, his little brother, would tell the
teacher, “No teacher, you're wrong, this is what it is, this is what it is,
this is what it is.â€
Cindy: “ Well, why the heck you asking me for?â€
Beth: You know? But he would do it in flont of the classroom
[overlapping response] and destroy that teacher, and so, / you know, in a way, /
that student can destroy the teacher because they have learned how to, you
know--
Cindy: manipulate
Beth: inter-- yeah!
In contrast to the previous episode of high involvement conversation and multiple
speakers, Beth took an extended turn, telling a story. Beth had asserted that “the best
130
student challenges the teacher.†Her narrative Created an image of the teacher in a
tenuous position. From this perspective, ownership of knowledge offers one power; the
teacher/student relationship is flamed as a series of tests in which the teacher must
triumph to maintain his position of authority. Knowledge is a possession that teachers
own and students acquire. This ï¬rst image of teachers and students in competition for
power and authority has a familiar ring. Like T's brother, most of us have experienced
classrooms where transmission models of education have reinforced traditional roles for
teachers and students. Some of us have challenged these roles, some of us have been
challenged by students balking at being the recipients of learning.
Destroying the Teacher by Stepping Back
Moving on and inviting Marcy to talk, I revoiced her “I liked it!†claim and asked
her about her “ take.†Marcy focused her comments on how she h0ped the way she
enacted her role as a teacher would flame how her own students would view themselves
as learners:
Marcy: When I read it, I really liked it. I thought it was funny, cause the way I
see teaching is, I want the students to be able to, um, look towards each other, as
teachers. “ Like how do you do this?†And then them showing each other, and
then eventually, they'll become their own teacher or teaching other students?
Like, as far, I don't see the word as ‘destroy’--I didn't read it as like, you know, as
embarrassment, embarrassment or anything like that. I guess it's really a strong
word.
Lin: It's a strong word...
Marcy: I see it as having the children become their own independent thinkers and
teachers with each other, and um, as not seeing the teacher as the only source of
answers or anything like that but looking towards each other.
Cindy: I don't mind that version, (laughter) but I don't like the version of making a
total fool of you! (laughter)
Marcy’s philosophical statement on teaching elaborated on her earlier plunge into
the talk. Marcy offered a second deï¬nition of power and knowledge in teacher/student
131
relationships, an image of engaged students, powerfully generating their own knowledge.
She created involvement by utilizing instantiated metaphors (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980) of
learning as “ seeing†and “looking towards each other†as a theme in her talk. Afï¬rming
that she is listening, but not necessarily agreeing with Marcy’s stance, Lin responded to
Marcy by repeating “It’s a strong word.†But where and who is the teacher in such a
setting? Marcy's vision destroyed the teacher in yet another way; in her statement of
philosophy teachers created a context for students and then stepped away, leaving
students to "look toward each other."
Destroying the Teacher by Stepping Forward
The exploratory conversation continued with a third image of teachers and
learners. At this point, Stacy entered the conversation and situated the debate by offering
an image of her own practice:
Stacy: But I guess I, if students come to me with questions I tend to say, “ Well
what do you think?â€
Marcy: Yeah, if I really don't know, ‘Well what do you think?’
Stacy: Yeah. Or even just sometimes if they have a real deep question. I mean
even if I do know the answer I'll say, or if I thinkI have an idea, I'll say, “ Well
what do you think?†And you know, “ What's one way we could ï¬gure more out
about it?â€
Moving away flom stories of other people's teachers and students, Stacy offered
an image of herself as teacher with an example of the kind of dialogue she uses to engage
students. She used constructed dialogue, inventing lines of script flom her interactions
with students that placed the teacher in a central role by assisting students as they
constructed their own knowledge. Different flom the classrooms that Beth and Marcy
had described, Stacy provided images of a teacher who was directing responsibility for
learning back to students through her use of questions. Stacy was making decisions about
her own language use with students "even if (she didn’t) know the answer". Her story
132
included lines of dialogue that might be heard and repeated by others in the group; her
construction of this dialogue enlivened the talk and boldly placed her own practice in
flont of her colleagues. Marcy tried out a line of this dialogue:
Marcy: Yeah, if I really don't know, ‘Well what do you think?’
By repeating Stacy's words, Marcy ratiï¬ed her listenership and implied that she and Stacy
shared views (Tannen, 1989).
As the facilitator, I referred to the text to complicate this image of teachers and
students happily learning through inquiry. I broke in on Stacy, pushing for a cultural
view on teachers, students, and knowledge:
Cathy: That's very American though too--
Stacy: (laughs)..Is it?
[overlapping talk, yeah]
Cathy: Like Whitman's saying if you destroy the teacher, you're an individual.
Carol: yeah
Cathy: You're not created by the teacher, you create yourself as an
individual. [fast pace here]
Cindy: uh-huh
Cathy: And we do that in classrooms all the time. And think--it could be very
confusing to kids
Stacy: what's that?
Cathy: who are used to adults, in settings being the authority and we come back at
them
Lin: “ What do you mean really ?†[like a teacher saying this to a student]
Beth: In Mexico that’s the way it is. [overlapping agreement] Teachers are
lecturers; they pour out their knowledge.
Lin: They’re just information gatherers. [referring to students in Mexico]
Marcy: ohh::hhh
Beth: They think they know everything, and they’re ï¬lling up the kids. And his
brother, [Marcy is laughing] man, he was something with those teachers.
This segment of the conversation invited broad participation. Lin created a line of
dialogue to illustrate my point:
133
Lin: “ What do you mean really?†[like a teacher saying this to a student ]
Beth re-introduced her story of the boy in a Mexican schooldrawing further on her
knowledge about culture as she and Lin described the ways that they thought Mexican
teachers and students would think of themselves:
Beth: In Mexico that’s the way it is. [overlapping agreement] Teachers are
lecturers; they pour out their knowledge.
Lin: They’re just information gatherers. [referring to students in Mexico]
Marcy: ohh::hhh
Beth: They think they know everything, and they’re ï¬lling up the kids. And his
brother, [Marcy is laughing] man, he was something with those teachers.
Using imagery to describe the roles of teachers and students, (information gatherers,
pouring out knowledge), Beth and Lin involved us as they began to shift flom describing
what it might be like to be in a classroom where teachers framed their work as “pouring
out†their knowledge. Beth's characterization of T's brother in this iteration of the story
was different in tone than her ï¬rst telling. Through her second telling we could see the
student, “ T’s brother†responding to authoritarian teachers:
Beth: They think they know everything, and they’re ï¬lling up the kids. And his
brother, [Marcy is laughing] man, he was something with those teachers.
Unlike the earlier version, where Lin had flamed T's brother as undertaking "intentional
destruction" of the teacher, he was now represented as responding almost heroically-- "he
was something with those teachers."
Destroying the Teacher by Creating Thinkers
At this point, Lin told another narrative of a student whose interactions with a
teacher were not intended to be "intentional destruction." In her story, a ï¬fth grader who
was invited to participate in creating a history unit and took up the invitation. Lin
portrayed this student as just "very smart" and "a thinker."
Lin: But, like that one, um, teacher that came into our class, she had taught a 5th
grade class. And you know the ï¬rst day, she comes in to teach about history or
134
whatever, and she you know, she writes, or she asks them, you know, “ What
would you like to learn about history, or for this, semester or something?†And
this one girl says: " I warma learn about how Columbus wasn't the ï¬rst person to
come to America" [laughs] or something like that--you know, just, I mean just
very,/ very smart. I mean, but, she's not there to “ destroy the teacher†, or
anything like that. You know, she's just / a thinker (softly).
Cindy: uh-hum...
//
Cathy: Yeah. And do you have to destroy the teacher in order to be yourself?
Lin: Yeah, and to be yourself or independent or you know?
Drawing on Lin's story and returning to themes flom "Daughter of Invention, I raised a
broader question about what it meant to "be yourself?" Lin, involved in thinking this
through, repeated my words "be yourself" and added "independent." Lin had added the
image of the student as thinker—a positive take on the concept of destroying the teacher
that stood in direct contrast to her earlier position.
Destroying the Teachers with Whom We Work
At this point in the conversation, we had worked our way through several
different images of teachers and learners struggling to deï¬ne their relationships. The
conversation shifted as participants talked about what this meant in their own CT/intem
relationships. Beth immediately entered the conversation, making a summary statement
that led us into conflonting the complexities of the intern/CT relationships as well.
Beth: Because in a way I mean, if, if you can destroy the teacher then you are very
knowledgeable and then in that sense, you know, the teacher really did her job.
Cindy: Right. / I mean I wanted to know that it's a, a deï¬nitely a positive thing to
destroy your teacher. I mean, “ Yes, you've surpassed me at this point, ok.â€
Beth: uh-hum
Cindy: “Now you become the teacher, and “
Lin: often times they kill’the master and they become the master! [she laughs,
general laughter]
135
Carol: That’s right!
[lots of laughter]
Cindy: Is that what you're going to do to me?
Lin: no::oo!( high pitch, laughter)
Cindy: You’re doing to destroy me ,and take over?
[laughter]
Carol: yeah there you go....
This segment of the debate was very fast moving, every turn overlapped with the
previous turn. Beth flamed a possible take on Whitman's words, Cindy took this up as
something "positive" but also deï¬ned destroying the teacher as "surpassing", using
metaphors of competition. Lin invoked a contrasting image:
Lin: often times they kill the master and they become the master! [she laughs,
general laughter]
Carol responded with a loud affirmation: "That's right!" and suddenly destroying the
teacher took on a threatening tone. Cindy responded by applying this interpretation to her
relationship with Lin, the intern with whom she worked:
Cindy: Is that what you're going to do to me?
Lin: no::oo!( high pitch, laughter)
Cindy: You 're doing to destroy me ,and take over?
[laughter]
Carol: yeah there you go....
While there was a playful tone to this interchange, it appeared that the conversation about
teacher/student relationships had afforded the group an opportunity to apply Whitman's
thoughts about teachers and students to their own relationships. Both interns and CTs
were feeling tensions about lead teaching as their roles and responsibilities shifted, as
interns became more independent and took on stronger identities as classroom leaders.
136
As the facilitator of this group, I made a move to continue this topic“. Rather
than asking a question, I talked about being able to see the process of students destroying
the teacher in intem/CT relationships. However, I reflamed the image flom Lin's ‘killing
of the master’ to an image of destroying the teacher in order to build yourself:
Cathy: Well you know, though, isn't that, I'm actually thinking about interns and
CTs,
Cindy: oh, ok
Cathy: that's actually, I mean, I can sort of see it there, you know, that you start
out, sort of being the teacher
Cindy: uh-hum, uh-hum, yeah
Cathy: that you work with. And then you, bit by bit, you
Marcy: [laughs]
Cathy: You could say it another way- you could say you build yourself (loudly).
Marcy: I don't like the word destroy, though,
Cathy: In that case-
Marcy: I don’t like the word destroy.
Cathy: Well, not when they're sitting right next to you!
(lots of laughter, Marcy’s laughter is heard above others)
Beth: Oh, I don't know....! (laughing)
Cindy: I’m like, “No::oo. What’s so bad about me that you want to destroy
me?!†(Marcy laughing throughout) It's more like, “ OK, teach me some things
that you†--†Add to me, not destroy me!†(laughs)
This segment of the talk was intense--participants were leaning in to the table,
looking flom person to person and responding with laughter or sounds of agreement to
each utterance. Now that we were talking about intern/CT relationships, Marcy
announced " I don't like ‘destroy," to the group using laughter to smooth the tensions of
the talk. Ten minutes earlier, she had been the ï¬rst to align herself with Whitman, saying
“I like it! I like it!†The tensions and complexities of the mentor/novice relationship
31See Chapter 6 for further discussion of my role as facilitator, liaison, and researcher in this group.
137
were on the table--a “ hot lava topic†(Glazier, in press) that participants stuck with, if
briefly.
Signiï¬cantly, Cindy took on this tension and constructed a deï¬nition of
destroying the teacher that called for the intern/CT relationship to be a situation where
both parties were learners :
Cindy: I’m like, “Nozzoo. What’s so bad about me that you want to destroy
me?!†(Marcy laughing throughout) It's more like, “ OK, teach me some things
that you†---†Add to me, not destroy me!†(laughs)
Cindy’s words are a poignant description of the challenges to beginning and
experienced teachers as they build an evolving sense of colleagueship over the course of
the school year. In Chapter 1, I described beginning interns as forgers, initially copying
their cooperating teachers’ practices. At this point in the year, interns had developed
skills and conï¬dence--identities-- as competent teachers. No longer forgers, they were
developing their own artful practices as teachers, yet they still sought kind of “ critical
colleagueship†(Lord, 1994) with their CTs. Cindy’s words call for recognizing a
intellectual interdependence and mutuality (J ohn-Steiner, 1996) to the intern/CT
relationship, a relationship that offers a positive sense of colleagueship to both parties.
As she put it:
It's more like, “ OK, teach me some things that you†---†Add to me, not destroy
me!†(laughs)
As discussed in Chapters 3 and 4, this kind of conversation, where participants
stepped into discourse that was “unscripted†both in form and content, is an example of a
move into a “common place†(Salvio, 1995) or “third space†(Gutierrez et al., 1995)
With energy and forward movement, we had debated multiple views on what Whitman
could possibly have meant by “ the best student learns to destroy the teacher.†Like
138
Yoyo and her family, we had been irked and driven to conflont each other about these
strong words.
Carol stepped in to the conversation at this point, urging the others to go back to
the text, and thereby easing the intensity of this moment:
Carol: The quote's really different though, I mean the quote
Cindy: Obviously, the quotes are...
Marcy: “I celebrate myself and sing myselfâ€
Marcy: “ He most honors my styleâ€
Carol: Yeah, “ He most honors my style (reads simultaneously with Marcy) who
learns under it to destroy the teacher.â€
Carol returned to the quote, pointing out Whitman’s emphasis on the individual,
thus implicitly challenging Cindy’s image of teacher and learner adding to each other.
Marcy, using the text to reafï¬rm her original stance (“I like it! I like it!†), animated
Whitman's words, leaning on the poet for added authority. Carol joined her, reading
simultaneously, the combined voices of intern and experienced teacher giving weight and
a sense of ï¬nality to their statements. As in other sessions, the text served as a support to
the speakers, offering a place of refuge and authority.
_ Practicing Transformative Talk
I had careflrlly selected “ Daughter of Invention†as the evening’s reading for
particular reasons. We had read about a teacher’s experience of social class and culture in
the ï¬rst session, we had read about a student’s experience of literacy in the second
session; it seemed clear to me that this piece would offer a route into discussion about the
impact of language and schooling on family life. Rather than neatly meeting my
expectations, participants in the group utilized the literature to address the dis-hannonies
they were experiencing as teachers working together.
139
As we read about the Garcia girls, we began to get to know Yoyo as a model of
independence, as a person struggling to become herself and consequently “ destroyingâ€
her teachers-~nuns and parents. Yoyo, as a model of a learner in the literature, and
Whitman's metaphor of destroying the teacher shook us all up-to the point where our
conversation led us to examine our own teacher/ student relationships. Anthropologist
Ruth Behar, quotes Alice Walker about the importance of models in literature:
Alice Walker has written that “the absence of models in literature as in life...is an
occupational hazard for the artist, simply because models in art, in behavior, in
growth of spirit and intellect--even if rejected-enrich and enlarge one’s views of
existence.†(Walker, 1983) quoted in (Behar & Gordon, 1995 p.13)
As a model in literature, Yoyo enriched and enlarged our views of ourselves as
teachers and learners and invited us to take a position on the nature of knowledge and our
response to teaching roles. Yoyo, in all her clashes with the people who meant to be her
teachers, offered us a story of self enveloped in language in a new context--a literacy
narrative. Participants in the group responded by telling literacy narratives about the
many roles of student and teacher that they played out--crossing boundaries and placing
the complexity on the table to be examined. Soliday writes about the roles that literacy
narratives may play for students:
....students can read and write literacy narratives in order to see that reading and
writing are not natural acts, but culturally situated, acquired practices. In the
process of exploring their language use in various cultural settings, students can
also begin to think through basic issues of difference and assimilation that are
conflonting American education today" (Soliday, 1994 p.520)
Similarly, interns and cooperating teachers read, wrote about and engaged in
conversations about teaching by way of narratives, illuminating that teaching is not a
“ natural act†either. Rather, it is set of acquired practices that is culturally situated,
political and powerful.
Soliday asks her college students to write literacy narratives to assist them to
explore language use to “think through basic issues of difference and assimilation that are
conflonting American education today†(p.520) and to recognize “the tense
interdependence that has historically existed between dominant and subordinate cultures
140
in American society†(p.522). Thus literacy narratives may complicate and challenge
“ monumentalist†notions of culture (West, 1993) that celebrate radical differences
between cultures and discount the particularity of our stories of everyday life.
In the ADG group we read, wrote about and talked about narratives of literacy,
culture, and schooling to conflont the tensions that directly conflont teachers working in
multilingual American classrooms. Like Soliday’s college students, ADG participants
were “ represent(ing) themselves in reference to each others’ literacy stories and to those
of professional writers†(p.522). These conversations offered us opportunities to
complicate our ideas about working in multicultural settings and also to complicate
“ monumentalist†visions of who we were as beginning and experienced teachers
working in each other’s company. Interns working with experienced CTs, were
examining the consequences of beconring the people who were in roles that they hoped to
play out. The ADG group gave them a context in which they could move away flom an
“us/them†orientation to this process over time and practice telling and hearing stories of
self that were about seeing all teachers in a process of transformation.
lntems had begun the year seeing their cooperating teachers as competent,
experienced, and able. They talked in September Guided Practice sessions about how
they were eager to learn how to be like their CTs. Their approach to the mentor/novice
role was like that of forgers of a ï¬ne pieces of art; each intern seemed determined to
carefully recreate her master’s practice. However, having worked side-by-side for ï¬ve
months at this point, interns struggled with feelings of their own competence. They had
witnessed and participated in the messiness of teaching, the in-the-moment decisions of
the classroom, the mistakes. lntems were creating a practice with particular children in
particular social spaces. Their own images of themselves as teachers were changing--
they appeared to be moving away flom apprentice roles towards an image of themselves
as fellow artists, sharing the studio space of the classroom. Like painters, interns and
141
CT’s shared similar elements of teaching style, yet struggled to be distinctive, artful
teachers. Their stories of self in this session offer a set of images of this struggle.
When we gathered together as a group of beginning and experienced teachers who
were reading literacy stories of persons who have “ multiple and sometimes conflicting
commitments, aspirations, and choices†we were offered opportunities to move away
flom “ monumentalist†visions of either/or teaching. We were acknowledging the
personal and professional work of teaching as a murky yet intriguing practice--a space
where the particularity of our own stories, the stories of our colleagues and the stories of
our students are always part of the story of teaching and learning in these particular
contexts. This is a complex vision of what it means to be a teacher in a multicultural
world. Working flom such a vision could offer teachers perspective, flexibility, and care
for the particular students and colleagues they encounter.
142
CHAPTER 6
TALKING THROUGH TEXT AS ONE ROUTE TO THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A DYNAMIC TEACHER CULTURE
Introduction
In this ï¬nal chapter, I will examine what participation in the autobiography
discussion group offered begimring and experienced teachers working in a multilingual
and multicultural context in this ï¬eld based teacher education program and how
participation in this kind of professional development could be one feature of teacher
education and professional development activities that create contexts for the construction
of a dynamic teacher culture. This chapter draws together related research; analysis of
further data focusing on the ï¬nal ADG sessions and participant interviews’ regarding
their experiences in the group; and a discussion of the implications of this research.
The ADG as a Space for Constructing “Critical Colleagueshipâ€
This focused, conversation-based form of professional development (Denyer &
Apol, 1999; Reischl, 1999), was based on sociocultural (Gee, 1990; Tharp & Gallirnore,
1988; Vygotsky, 1978; Vygotsky, 1986) and anthropological (Eisenhart, 1995; Florio-
Ruane & Raphael, 1996; Spindler & Spindler, 1994) views of teacher learning. The
ADG group had the following signiï¬cant features:
- it was actively facilitated by a teacher educator who provided the focal content
and a structure for the group time;
- it included teachers of varying experience who worked together in school
contexts;
- it drew on the participants’ wide ranging personal and professional knowledge;
0 it was based on the assumption that professional growth involves issues of both
personal and professional identity;
- it offered teachers a flamework within which to construct their own
professional development curriculum;
143
- it encouraged teachers to work with content, in this case, autobiographical
literature written by immigrants and refugees and their teachers, in ways that were
meaningful to them individually and as participants in shared school contexts.
Teacher education programs that are built around a core ï¬eld-based experience
assume that intems’ creative work will be supported by working in the company of an
experienced teacher (F eiman-Nemser, 1999; Gallirnore et al., n.d.; Little, 1990; Wildman,
Niles, Magliaro, & McLaughlin, 1989). Yet close, collaborative relationships such as the
intern/CT relationship are neither easy nor clearly deï¬ned and are constantly under
construction. Discussion of autobiographical text offered beginning and experienced
teachers new opportunities to learn and to build a sense of "critical colleagueship" with
each other (Lord, 1994) This can be thought of as constructing a kind of secondary
discourse--an educators' discourse--in which teachers' work involves articulating beliefs
about teacher/student relationships and theories of knowledge regarding their work with
children and in their personal and professional relationships with each other (Denyer &
Florio-Ruane, 1995; Gee, 1990).
Brian Lord (1994) describes professional deve10pment that focuses on the
development of this kind of critical colleagueship:
The point is to ask increasingly more powerful and revealing questions about the
practice of teaching, especially about those facets of teaching that are influenced
by the constructivist approaches so richly described in standards documents and
the research literature. This kind of professional development provides support
for greater reflectiveness and sustained learning. It invites teachers to think more
deeply and experiment more thoroughly with what, for many are altogether novel
ways of teaching. Through exchanges that support the description and
redescription of teaching practices, it substitutes a more complex phenomenology
of teaching for commonplace instrumentalist accounts. (p. 184)
As I have described in Chapters 3, 4, and 5, construction of this kind of discourse
happened in the ADG as participants made conversational moves to “ ask more powerful
and revealing questions†of themselves and of others. Further, participants occasionally
moved into a “ third space†in their talk, where their involvement in ADG conversations
led them to step out of normative scripts and into participation structures where they
144
explored their individual beliefs and continued to construct a community of practice as
beginning and experienced teachers (Gutierrez et al., 1995).
Marshall, Smagorinsky, and Smith's study of voluntary book club groups offers
interesting parallels to this study (1995). From their interviews with participants about
their involvement in the group, three themes emerged: l) the importance of the social
aspects of the group; 2) the importance of equality among members; 3) a sense of a spirit
of cooperation among group members. Themes that emerged flom interviews of ADG
group members were similar yet also differed, suggesting that participants experienced
ADG sessions as a form of professional development that was not like a class or
workshop and not like a book club, but like a hybrid of the two that included both
personal and professional growth.
Participants talked about the importance of the social aspects of the group,
especially emphasizing how the setting was a good way to get to know each other well.
Lin described the group:
Lin: ...1 would say, that we talk about, that we read stories, you know, that deal
with culture, experiences in teaching, and talk about it and share our experiences.
And we get to eat!
(Lin, Interview, p.26)
Fran used several metaphors when she described her experience of people coming
together around the literature. She talked about it being like “ everyone tasting the same
chocolate cake†and then offering an opinion on it (Fran, Interview, p.5). She also used
the metaphor of “ playing in the sandbox†(Fran, Interview, p.10) to describe her
involvement in the group. Both images connote pleasant, highly sensory social
experiences.
Teachers especially talked about the limits on their time and energy, and how this
group offered them opportunities for socializing and talking about their work as teachers
in ways that felt safe and unstressful. Members of the ADG talked about a sense of
cooperation and Openness among group members. Cindy talked about hearing the range
of views that people expressed in the group:
145
Cindy:...it was nice to hear people's opinions about things that I wouldn't normally
have read. If you hadn't brought these books, I wouldn't have probably picked
one up myself. It was nice to read excerpts and hear people talk about it. Because
sometimes my perception was totally different flom somebody else. (Cindy,
Interview, p.20)
When I asked Laura if there were any surprises about her participation in the
group, she talked about being surprised and pleased that people were open:
Laura: ...So I was really surprised that people were really open and felt okay to
tell about mistakes they made so that tells me that they felt comfortable with the
pe0ple in the group. If they could share stories like that with them.
(Laura Interview, p.23)
Unlike Marshall et al’s study, group members did emphasize being very aware of their
unequal status because of their roles as interns or CTs, but also found that the ADG
context allowed them opportunities to step out of rigid notions of those roles.
Marcy: To keep the professional image up, you can't be questioning your
mentor's ideas. Not to the point that we did in the discussion groups. In the
discussion groups, you wouldn't be questioning just your mentor's ideas. Since
everyone else was there, you were questioning everyone else's ideas and so we
were kind of, it's kind of like you almost put us in the same level. So in that, in
that room for that amount of time, we were all kind of at the same level. Where
you could say a lot more and get away with it. (Marcy Interview, p.35)
Signiï¬cantly, these environments of critical colleagueship needed both a context
and content to begin and to develop over time. In this case, as the teacher
educator/facilitator I scheduled a regular, third Thursday of the month, after school
meeting, with a structured bookclub format and placed provocative autobiographical
literature into the hands of the participants. I believe the “ active facilitation†I did as the
teacher educator in this setting signiï¬cantly influenced the tone of the group and the level
of involvement of participants. While I have not focused on this aspect of the research in
this dissertation, I plan to do further analyses and writing on the role of the teacher
educator in focused, conversation-based professional development. The following cut
flom my teaching journal offers an example of the kind of reflection I did during the
process of facilitating the group:
This makes me think that as I have made choices about the readings I have always
had goals in mind--I have tried to approach issues of culture and literacy through
146
different angles and flom different perspectives, but this has been a rather
concerted effort on my part. I have usually based a choice at least in part on what
kind of conversation I think it might generate.
For example, when we read the Maxine Hong Kingston piece, I really
wanted to encourage people to talk about how they think about culture views of
women and how this might impact their interactions with kids. This was in
response to my own involvement in the setting where I have had many thoughts
about the ferrrinist "feel" of the setting--so many very strong women--and yet have
wondered about what the issues are for girls in this setting-especially Somali,
Hmong, Iraqi girls who may come flom very traditional backgrounds regarding
women. When we read Paley, this was my direct response to a conflict that had
occurred in one of the classrooms.(I-lmong girls coming to school saying that they
were no longer allowed to play with any Black children)
So, I think I have been rather directive and "theme" oriented in the pieces I
have chosen. (Teaching Journal, 4/12/97)
Clearly, professional development that Offers opportunities for critical
colleagueship does not happen in contexts of professional isolation. Both contexts and
content are crucial to this process. In interviews with both CTs and interns, participants
indicated that the structure of the bookclub format and the active facilitation of the group
by a teacher educator offered direction and conï¬dence to group members.
lntems and CTs regularly drew on personal and professional knowledge in their
daily work with multilingual children. The ADG conversations were an opporttmity to
read and tell stories that illustrated how they did this work and furthered their
understandings of their teaching. Several participants described this kind of talk as
"intellectual." Fran talked about her surprise at the intellectual quality of the
conversation:
Fran: It was very intellectual and I didn't think it would be at all. Well, it wasn't
very, but it was, it was getting there. It was, it was an intelligent conversation and
people, you know, found things to say that... you know, even me. I was happy that
I was able to say things that were fairly intelligent. (Fran, Interview, p.29)
My own experience with “ staff development†when I was a teacher in a high school was
far flom “ intellectual†in nature. Generally, we were talked at, informed, made aware of,
or ordered to implement some new policy or methodology. I am struck by F ran’s
surprise and delight at having the Opportunity to be “ intellectual†with her colleagues.
When I interviewed Stacy, I asked her why, given that her intern had exited flom
the program, she had kept conring to the group:
147
Cathy: So but you actually just did this sort of on your own, I mean, this,
participating in this group. I mean, what made it worthwhile to keep coming to it?
Stacy: Intellectual gathering.
C: An intellectual gathering?
S: Pretty much, yeah.
C: Huh. And that, what's worthwhile about that for you?
S: I, it motivates me to talk about learning and... I mean, all these different
situations here are all other people's experiences that I can, I will never live
myself. Most more than likely. But I like to learn about these things. But for me
to sit down and read this kind Of stuff on my own, I won't do it.
C: Hm, uh huh
S: Not because I don't want to, but because I'm a, Okay, what do I have to do
ï¬rst? And then I get that done and I get that done and I get that done.
C: Yeah, yeah.
S: And the only thing that I would do not ï¬rst is pick up a pleasure book. But
I don't do that because I know I'd put everything else Off that I'm supposed to do.
C: You know yourself.
S: Yes, I do. SO and then, but with going and reading it and talking about it,
you know, you hear other people's views about it and Opens up your...and then,
you know, and, too, when I go, like say for instance, when I go to class, I feel
that I can, if someone talks about culture or ESL students, I feel that I can
represent... you know, I'm learning enough more so that I can, I feel I'm practicing
and I feel like I've always had the ideas behind what our school is. But to
verbalize them is very hard. And it helps me to verbalize those ideas much better.
C: To have that practice in a situation like this.
S: Yeah.
(Stacy Interview, p.28)
Several elements of Stacy’s interview cut are signiï¬cant. First, Stacy saw the group as a
place of motivation, a place where she could do the kind of reading and talking she did
not have time for in her everyday life. Stacy also used the group to rehearse talk with
outside colleagues about her positions on culture and ESL issues. As she put it:
when I go to class, I feel that I can, if someone talks about culture or ESL
students, I feel that I can represent... you know, I'm learning enough more so that I
can, I feel I'm practicing and I feel like I've always had the ideas behind what our
school is. But to verbalize them is very hard. And it helps me to verbalize those
ideas much better. (Stacy Interview, p.28)
Practice in a professional development setting that offered Stacy critical colleagueship
assisted Stacy to go beyond the culture of her school and begin to interpret the
multilingual and multicultural approaches at Tapestry to other educators.
148
Autobiographical Literature as Provider of Space
In this group, autobiographical literature that focused on the language, culture and
schooling experiences of the writers appeared to be particularly evocative as an engaging
It (Hawkins, 1967/1974)) for our conversations. Carol described her experience of
professional development that focused on the reading and telling of stories:
Carol: And I do think there's value to people comin _r flom the outside inside to let
us know what's going on out here, of course. But ing to each other, is, um, is
part of the, part of the way a school is a community, and it's part of the way that
school is a place of communication and language. And, and it's part of a place
where children share their stories with all of us and we, I think, can be learning a
lot, sharing out stories with each other. (Carol Interview, p.31)
I have argued that occasions for talk around text such as the ADG conversations,
are important learning “ spaces†(Gutierrez et al., 1997; Gutierrez et al., 1995) where
participants’ high involvement in conversations (T annen, 1989) created opportunities for
signiï¬cant engagement in professional and personal conversation. These conversations
included talk about what teachers actually did as they taught diverse learners, as well as
how they thought about their work and their relationships with each other. Participants in
this group began to venture into difï¬cult or “ hot lava†(Glazier, in press) topics, such as
discussion of their own literacy (see Chapter 4) and their mentor/novice relationships (see
Chapter 5). This talk took many forms, but featured the telling of personal narratives,
particularly in the form of literacy narratives (Soliday, 1994) and debate about the
autobiographical texts and their relationships to participants’ experiences and beliefs.
The substance Of our conversations was less about methods and materials
regarding working with multilingual kids; more about how we understood who we were
as teachers and who we were in our broader livesuour situated and enduring selves
(Spindler & Spindler, l994)--and how these understandings impacted our work.
Further, I have argued that participation in activities such as the ADG promoted
growth in both beginning and experienced teachers, that the telling of stories of self
creates opportunities for teachers to build identities within the particular social contexts
in which they worked and to share these identities. In this group, they heard their
149
colleagues critiqued and conï¬rm the beliefs and practices embedded in the stories they
told. For example, Carol talked earnestly about wanting to use the group to work with
the differences she felt between what she had learned through experience and where the
interns were in their development:
Carol:...You know, I think I feel that, that need to nurture the next generation. I
have been feeling that over the past maybe 5 years or so. And now realizing that
that's a part of wrapping up my career is to, uh, is to enjoy opportunities to pass
on to others, or to do whatever, to have contact with them too. (Carol Interview,
p. 1 1)
She puzzled over how to work within their differences:
And I don't want, I want to try to ï¬nd that space between what’s in
between what they can't hear, because it just wouldn't have any meaning yet and it
will have meaning, but it's through their own experience that it will have meaning.
Otherwise it'll be just so much chatter on my part, or me going into this nostalgia
thing, and other, but wanting to give them an additional whatever it is beyond
where they are. That they can hear and take in. (Carol Interview, p.11)
The autobiography discussion group provided a context and content that made it
possible to re-conceptualize intern/CT relationships flom an educational anthropological
perspective that focused on “ organizing culture†in new contexts (Eisenhart, 1995) rather
than simply learning the skills to fulï¬ll a role or internalize the practice of a cooperating
teacher. As Eisenhart puts it, as individuals new to a context begin to build an identity
within this context,
...claiming an identity for self in a given context is what motivates an individual
to become more expert; that developing a sense of oneself as an actor in a context
is what compels a person to desire and pursue increasing mastery of the skills
knowledge, and emotions associated with a particular social practice (Holland,
1992; Lave and Wenger, 1991 cited in Eisenhart, p.19).
As evidenced in the analyses of ADG conversations in Chapters 3, 4, and 5, for
both interns and cooperating teachers the conversation group served as context in which
participants told stories of self, where they pursued ideas and dilemmas sparked by the
texts we read together. The high level of engagement, evidenced by participants’ use of
variations in pace, repetition, overlapping talk, imagery, literary tropes and other
involvement strategies, indicated that participants were engaged in the process of
“ claiming an identity for self†in this context. Thus, by telling stories of self, they
150
appeared to be engaged in creatively constructing new understandings about teaching. In
Reissman’s words (1993): "Inforrnants' stories do not mirror a world ‘out there.’ They
are constructed, creatively authored, rhetorical, replete with assumptions, and
interpretive." (p.5). Telling stories of self in the autobiography discussion group
appeared to be one way that beginning and experienced teachers could make choices
about how they interpreted themselves to others and “ organized culture†in the school.
Fran described her thoughts about reading and talking about stories:
Fran: Well, the more you expose yourself to other people's stories, the more able
you are to see others as individuals, as others but also, you know, with stories,
although the words are different or the terms, the content is different. The context
is all very much like your own. And so, yeah, I think it can’t help but help you
walk into a classroom of 24 to 30 kids every day and be able to relate to them on a
more-what's the word?- not realistic but reasonable, a more reasonable way.
(Fran, Interview, p.32)
When I asked Marcy about what it was like to talk about readings in the ADG, she
described reading the autobiographical literature as “better†than reading typical class
“ sociological†readings. She explained her views:
Marcy:...the best way to understand somebody is to talk to somebody. Well, this
is as close as you're gonna get to a lot of these people. And these are their stories.
Do you know what I mean? It's like if you can't have me, yeah, if you can't have
me to talk to about being poor, and grong up in a rural environment, then the
next best bet would be literature about somebody who did. And it would probably
be similar. There'd be lots of similarities.
But a sociological piece deï¬nitely comes out with what the author wanted
you to see. And so it's geared toward a certain way and with everybody being so
PC today, they'd probably be PC. It'd be more of a PC piece. Where here you get
to know the person.
You get to understand the character and either like or hate the characters in
the story and so I think because they're human people, they're human, that you can
identify with certain pieces. Where if you read a sociological piece, I don't know
if they're gonna think, oh, this is a piece that says oh, this is the only thing that's
right and that's kind of, this open the door, okay, I know. I know.
This opened the door to people about issues, certain issues, each story had
several issues in it, and then the teachers around and the mentors around the table
would talk about it and develop a whole bunch of different ideas based on just one
story. Instead of being, instead of hearing just one piece that's only one sided.
That's by the author, you know, in sociology, I think there's a lot of... I'm not
tshagiling all of them are because I like to read sociology, too. I would have enjoyed
t, too...
But I think in general, I think people got more out of it. Cause they
determined, they kinda like made sense of it in their own way. And we all
151
brought things up that were connected to us in certain ways. (Marcy Interview,
p.25)
Through the telling of literacy narratives, beginning and practiced teachers re-
examined their identities in each other’s company, offering narratives and arguments that
drew on a broad range of their personal and professional experiences. lntems, who were
outsiders, new to the school context, and cooperating teachers, who were insiders in the
school context, talked through literacy narratives they were reading in the ADG, their
insider/outsider positions became less focal. Even Laura, who often was quiet, appeared
to be “ constructing cultureâ€. When I asked Laura about her stance as a regular listener in
the group, she described her listening as an activity, in which she was comparing herself
with others:
C: Is that why you listen?
L: Sometimes just to see, I guess, how Open people were, maybe. What
things probably people wouldn't say, and if they felt comfortable saying what they
did. Cues like that. But just in general, I just like to hear other teachers talk about
their profession. Their ideas, I think. I was more focused on maybe what they
were actually, their ideas about teaching maybe that didn't even maybe relate
always. I don't know. It's hard to describe. I guess I'm a listener. Yeah.
C: But you like to hear them talk like teachers talk.
L: Right. Just to see how close I am to that maybe.
(Laura Interview, p.16)
Mary Soliday (1994) describes her own college students’ experiences as they
read and wrote literacy narratives that complicated their beliefs about their “ places†in
the multiple cultures they inhabited:
...then the outsider’s own language overlaps, conflicts with, shapes, and is
shaped by the insider’s language; movements between worlds take on a lirninal
rather than a dichotomous character. If students and teachers begin to see their
languages as mutually shaping, they also recognize their double-voicedness and,
in so doing, can see the self as rooted in other cultures yet also belonging to,
becoming transformed by, and rn turn transforming school cultures. (1994, p. 522)
As outsiders working to become insiders within a community of practice, the
interns were practicing telling stories of self in this new context of conversation about
literacy narratives with people whom they saw as insiders (Lave & Wenger, 1991).
152
Soliday describes these kind of conversations as opportunities to cross boundaries, to
have to engage in “ liminal talk.†Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary deï¬nes “ liminalâ€
as “barely perceptible.†The Oxford English Dictionary deï¬nes “ liminal “ as “of or
pertaining to the threshold or initial stages of a processâ€. In the context of ADG
conversations, I am deï¬ning liminal in both senses-movement between worlds is barely
perceptible yet part of an ongoing process. I heard interns and CTs engaged in linrinal
talk, using language in ways that were “ mutually shaping†(John-Steiner, 1996).
Engaging in ADG conversations offered a space for identity construction through a
collaborative linguistic endeavor (Gutierrez, 1999).
In our ï¬nal session, ADG #6, the group read a cutting flom a piece of qualitative
research on teachers’ lives (Lightfoot, 1985). This cutting was a one and half page piece,
written by a teacher who had analyzed her career as an educator and identiï¬ed stages in
her development. Given that this was our last session, I gave considerable thought to our
reading for the session:
In planning for the session I looked at a wide range of materials. I was
really trying to decide whether this session was about furthering the exploration of
literature regarding schooling, literacy and culture, or whether this session should
be some sort of wrap up--some sort of chance to say, "where am I now?" for each
of the participants.
I felt like it was important to emphasize that teacher development is a life-
long process, and I wanted the interns to have an opportunity to hear teachers they
know well talk about their own development as teachers. I also wanted the interns
to describe their development over the course of the year--and to possibly project
what they thought next steps might be. Given that one of the functions of this
group has been for the interns (and for the CTs) to be in conversation-Jo be
participating in, hearing, apprenticing to the discourses in which they operate, I
wanted this ï¬nal session to be a chance to have people really talk about how they
are in process.
Teaching Journal, April 12, 1997, p.1)
As in other sessions, the group wrote after reading. Interestingly, this time, most
of the group members chose to write about parallel stages in their own careers. In small
groups, CTs, interns and I all took long extended turns, interpreting out passages to each
other. We had all used the pattern provided by the writer: we named each passage and
153
described ourselves within that passage, working in chronological order and ending with
where we were now. Marcy’s passages below offer an example:
Marcy: Mine’s not that extensive! I’m not there yet! Um. I went all the way
back. My ï¬rst passage, I called it pre-conceived ideas? And I characterized it as
like, like a teenager, when you think you know everything, in classrooms. It’s
like during my college career? I remember classes, like having lots of heated
debates about what’s the best way to teach? And Um, I was always thinking
about it, and during that time it was more important to be right.. Do you know
what I mean? The student who was right. And, so you’re more focusing on
yourself. And how you have the perfect formula on how to teach the students.
You had this idea that there’s the perfect formula out there, and uh well that’s
basically what I talked about during that part.
Um, the second passage-J put down, imitating past teachers. And I
characterized it as a lot of guessing? And, trying to be like the teachers you liked
during your school years. I think you begin like this because it’s what we ï¬rst
remember, and what we hope, we hope we’ll affect the students in the same
positive way? So you try to imitate those as best as you possibly can?
And my third passage, was, attempting to imitate your mentor. (laughter) I
characterized this as alot of worrying. (laughter) Let’s see. I began observing
everything my mentor did and said, throughout the whole day. I could see all the
results she would have with her students and I tried to imitate her style, but
somehow I was never obtaining the same results. Hmm.
And then, passage number fouruthis is a long title-«Self Realization of
Developing Your Own Style While Taking the Students into
Consideration...Which is not, students weren’t included in any of these right here-
-it was all focused on me the whole time. So, focusing on the kids, and less on
me. Feeling comfortable with the classroom, and being able to read the students,
and being able to take my CT’s advice and somehow transform it into something
that would work for me and the students? So, kind of like creating your own,
style? So, self acceptance and getting more in tune with the class. Um, at this
point I feel that it’s more about the kids than it is about me. (ADG #6, Transcript,
p. l 3)
Marcy, having practiced collegial talk in ï¬ve previous ADG sessions, took on the
task at hand and interpreted herself to other CTs and interns. She utilized the writer’s
structure of naming passages, giving her own development as a teacher a sense of
movement and progression. We heard her looking for people who would serve as
reference points in each passage. She moved flom seeking the “ perfect formula†when
she was in college, to emulating good teachers flom her past, to flying to imitate her
mentor’s teaching, to suddenly noticing the children and taking her cues flom them. To
utilize the metaphor flom earlier chapters, Marcy had moved flom a “ forgers†stance into
154
a stance where she was designing her own artful practice. Paralleling the author we had
all read, she analyzed her teaching in a thoughtful and safe way and publicly claimed a
teacher’s stance.
By reading our own passages, each of us claimed a sense of being “ in process.â€
We spoke of the puzzles we had encountered and our current understandings of our work.
As the conversation continued, Beth talked about currently being in a period of self-
discovery, like the writer, and she discussed with the group the way the ADG and
mentoring work had pushed her to think:
Beth:...and this, with you Cathy, has really made me look at what I’m doing.
Being a mentor teacher has made me really think about what, what it is that I’m
doing and reflect alot more on who I am and howl do things and why I do things.
I think I do alot of it, without really thinking about it? And now I have to
go back and really think, well why am I doing this?
And I’m really into reading things now, things that you’ve pointed out.
There’s really neat stuff out there! (laughter) And I’ve been really, you know,
interested in reading more of the new information that’s out there.
(Beth, ADG #6, p.17)
Beth was especially interested in reading the work of other teachers, such as Paley
and she began to see possibilities for writing about her own work. Prior to this ADG
session, when I was observing Marcy with her in their classroom,
Beth came and sat by me and asked me about a journal program-I showed
her the one on my computer. She talked about how next year she wanted to keep
a journal about her teaching and how she though this would be a great way to
work with an intern--to compare notes. She was very excited about this--said that
someday she’d like to write a book like Vivian Paley. (Teaching Journal, March 6,
1997, p.2)
Similarly, I continued to have phone conversations over the next year with Stacy
where we talked about her work using the book club format with her students and often
discussed books we were currently reading. Stacy and Beth also borrowed books flom
each other, following up on our spirited discussion of books we had read and loved in
ADG#3. My sense is that the “ intellectual†nature of the conversations we had in our
conversation group ignited the imaginations and interests of group members in a broad
range of ways.
155
Follow up conversations with CTs and interns offer some anecdotal evidence that
the participation in the ADG conversations may have offered individual participants
opportunities to come to value the kind of critical colleagueship they practiced in the
ADG and that they may have gained insights regarding teaching in multicultural and
multilingual environments. Marcy, since graduating flom the program and taking a job
as a bilingual teacher in an urban elementary school, has called me often and has
particularly described her search for substantive talk with her new colleagues. As she put
it, “It just doesn’t happen when you’re picking up your mail!â€
Lin and I have had similar conversations about her work as a long-term substitute
in an elementary school. She has talked about what it’s like to be the only minority
teacher in the school, what her expectations of teacher room talk are--and her
disappointment with what she bears, and how she is searching for colleagues who want to
talk about ideas. Laura, in her job as a pre-school teacher in a very under-resourced
school and neighborhood, has talked with me about her flustrations with parents. In a
phone conversation, she described her reactions to parents interactional styles with their
children that she observed: “ Sometimes you just wanna say to these parents, what are you
doing? But I guess they just have a different way of thinking about it.†She went on to
tell me about several episodes where she had observed parents caring for their children,
but using language that sounded harsh to her. While none of these responses to ï¬rst year
teaching contexts are unusual, what does seem signiï¬cant is that these former interns
seem to have a vision of possible collaborative relationships they are seeking. I also ï¬nd
that there is a depth to the kind of talk that these former interns want to do with me, that I
believe is influenced by our mutual involvement in the ADG.
Further Questions
While this dissertation has focused on examining the nature of the talk between
beginning and practiced teachers in the autobiography discussion group, a range of
156
approaches to this data warrant further study. In follow-up work, I intend to closely
examine the role of the teacher educator as facilitator in conversation-based professional
development. Further analysis of how the facilitator’s involvement in the talk and in the
practical and theoretical structuring of conversation groups may inform the work of
teachers educators more broadly.
I would also like to look at a range of focal points or "Its" (Hawkins, 1967/1974)
for conversation groups. Autobiographical literature seems to have inspired talk about
self. I am curious about similar genres. For example, would the reading of cases serve a
similar function? Would poetry or video viewing create different kinds of conversations?
Finally, this work leads me to look for further venues for the development of "third space
talk" between beginning and experienced teachers in ï¬eld-based teacher education
programs. I am inspired by my experience in the ADG to work to create other contexts in
which teachers might step out of traditional scripts and work to develop new forms of
teacher discourse.
Further Implications
Close examination of this year of conversations has added to my understanding of
teacher education and the details of this data have offered me avenues to "develop
theoretical ideas about social processes and cultural forms that have relevance beyond the
data themselves†(Coffey & Atkinson, 1996 p.163 ). I draw on the work of Karl Weick
(1983), in thinking about the worth and impact of this kind of professional development.
Weick, a social psychologist, makes the case for sealing down social problems into
meaningful “ small wins†in order to promote larger social changes. He deï¬nes such
small wins as follows:
A "small win" is a concrete, complete, implemented outcome of moderate
importance. By itself, a small win may seem unimportant. A series of wins at
small but signiï¬cant tasks, however, reveals a pattern that may attract allies, deter
opponents, and lower resistance to subsequent proposals. Small wins are
controllable opportunities that produce visible results. (Weick, 1983 p.3 5)
157
Weick claims that people often deï¬ne problems in ways that overwhelm their ability to
do anything about them. He makes the simple, common sense argument, that if we
promote small, incremental successes, we will promote change.
Problems, such as how to develop relationships of mutual respect and learning
between beginning and experienced teachers in a ï¬eld-based teacher education program
or how to create school cultures that include contexts where teachers share their personal
and professional knowledge about their work, seem rather formidable. Weick’s small
wins orientation is helpful in approaching such problems. In the ADG, participants
experienced small wins when they strongly stated an opinion, told of an incident that had
shaped their thinking, or challenged a colleague with a question. These were not
monumental moments; they were moments of moderate importance, moments of practice
at developing a discourse that drew on a broad range of participants’ knowledge.
Seizing opportunities to attempt to explain oneself through the telling of a story of
self or the interpretation of a piece of autobiography are small moments of connection
with other educators, and small moments of organizing the culture of teaching. These
small wins, cumulatively, may make signiï¬cant changes in the ways teachers go about
their work. Eisenhart describes small wins as “ pressure on cultureâ€:
Although social and cultural patterns set parameters, there is considerable "space"
within the organization for individuals to make different connections, anticipate
different identities and to learn different things. Further, although such spaces are
constrained, individuals' actions within them are formative for them as individuals
and consequential for cultural change. Although the pressure on culture exerted
by any one individual may be small, the effects over time can be signiï¬cant.
(Eisenhart, 1995 p.21)
It is possible that the pressure on culture exerted by individuals within contexts
such as the autobiography discussion group could lead to signiï¬cant cultural change over
time. When writers write the stories of their lives they are constructing understandings of
who they have been, who they are, and who they might become. As Folkenflik puts it,
"biography is about a completed life; autobiography is about a life in process" (1993,
p.15). In the autobiography discussion group, reading, writing, and discussing
158
autobiographical literature created opportunities for beginning and experienced teachers
to examine their enduring and situated selves (Spindler & Spindler, 1993), to ask
questions of themselves and of each other, and to see themselves and their colleagues as
similarly “ in process.â€
Teacher education practices that create contexts in which teachers may practice
telling their stories and experience cumulative small wins-particularly across generations
of experience--create potentially dynamic teacher cultures. As Brtmer puts it:
n ,9
"In any case, the publicness†of autobiography constitutes something like an
opportunity for an ever-renewable "conversation" about conceivable lives, (1993,
p.41)
If we want teachers who will take risks, and who will engage in “ adventurousâ€
teaching (Cohen, 1988) that will prepare them to teach a “pedagogy of multiliteracies†as
they take on “the realities of increasing local diversity and global connectedness†(New
London Group, 1996, p.64), then creating conversations around autobiographical texts
may be a viable activity in the ongoing education of teachers. If, as Henry James claims
"adventures happen only to people who know how to tell them†32 , then teachers and
their students may enliven the culture of teaching by telling of their adventures, telling
their stories of self in new teaching contexts.
32Quoted in Brunet, 1993, p.41.
159
APPENDICES
160
APPENDIX A
161
Tin—1* - ..
Appendix A
/
//
italics
underline
CAPS
indentation
?
a:
[brackets]
Kev to Tra_nscriptionf Conventions
short pause
longer pause
marks emphatic stress
marks more emphatic stress
marks very emphatic stress
overlapping speech
marks question
marks rising intonation
used for comments on pitch, amplitude, quality of
speech
(parentheses) used for comments about actions such as nods
(inaudible)
indicates transcription impossible
162
APPENDIX B
163
Appendix B: Timeline for research
June-August, 1996
Met with principal, mentor teacher; talked with cooperating teachers, university faculty,
Attended start of school activities, meetings.
Reviewed related literature.
September, 1996:
School district research form approved
Met with CT's and interns to discuss project
October, 1996
Proposal approved
University Human Subjects form approved
November 21, 1996:
Obtained consent flom participants
ADG #1
December 12, 1996:
ADG #2
January 30, 1997:
ADG#3
February 13, 1997
ADG#4
March 6, 1997:
ADG #5
April 9 :
ADG #6
May - July:
Conducted follow-up interviews with participants
Coded and analde data
Sept.- May
Oct. UCI-IRIS renewal approved
Analysis/writing
June, 1998
Defended dissertation
164
APPENDIX C
165
Data Chart
Sessions Audio
App_endix C
Video Sm.Grp#l Sm.Grp#2
WI Carger: one tape, mï¬ing wide angIe, lst Befh, Marcy Ja., Caï¬ry, Laura, Ti,
Of Borders and last 20 minutes- half of session N., Carol Lin, Cindy
Dreams strong notes (in art room) (inaudible)
1 1/21/96 (catalogued) (catalogued)
“arms: one tape wrde angle, no Cathy, Beï¬, CaroI,FHn,Laura
Cofer: The (catalogued) sound Marcy (catalogued)
Patterson Public (in library) (inaudible- notes in Sm. Group #3:
Library teaching journal) Cindy, Lin, Stacy
12/12/96 (inaudible)
m: two tapes (one wrde angle vrdeo no small groups
Alvarez: Daughter w/sound grabber, w/good sound this night
of Invention one w/out
1/30/97 (catalogued)
W two fluent tapes wrde angle video Beth, CrndyKIarol, tacy, Fran, Laura,
Paley: Kwanzaa w/sm. groups w/ good sound, Marcy Cathy
and Me ï¬nal whole group (transcribed) Lin
2/13/97 holiday discussion (not transcribed)
section on video
HUG—#5 two dif. auï¬o no video (did not Fran, Cmdy, Marcy, Cam
Hong Kingston: tapes with small record-) Laura, Carol, Beth, Stacy
The Woman groups Lin (transcribed)
Warrior (transcribed)
3/6/97
two drï¬tapes wrfr video with good tacy, Marcy, Cindy, Lin, Fran,
Lightfoot: The small groups sound, (has ending Beth, Cathy, Carol Laura
Lives of Teachers talk not recorded (transcribed) (transcribed)
4/10/97 on tapes)
166
APPENDIX D
167
Appendix D
INTERVIEW PROTOCOL(Interns)
Reischl, May 1997
Open ended questions--do not direct... .Tell me about--
I’ m wondering if---I’ m really curious about-«What was it like---
Can you give me a sense--
Intro:
Thanks alot for coming to talk with me today. As we talked about on the phone,
I’d like to talk with you about your experiences in the CT/Intem group sessions and get
some sense of what that experience was like for you. If it’s ok with you, I’d like to tape
the interview so that I can listen carefully to it and possibly transcribe it later on. Is that
OK?
The purpose of all this rs to help me understand what actually went on for
participants in this group and to try to get an idea of what kind of learning may have
taken place. Like we talked about 1n the group, I’m especially interested rn ï¬nding out
about what it was like for you to use autobiographical literature to begin conversations
with other interns and CTs about literacy and culture.
Let me just stop for a minute and ask you if you have any questions about this
interview? O.K.
General Opening questions:
*O.K. The group we were in met over six months--a long time--, flom November to April
and we read, wrote about and talked about lots of different autobiographical
literature....(look though the literature together--spread it out on table--Do these look
familiar? Walk through the titles---
* I’m curious about your experience in the group--can you give me a general sense of
your experience in the group? What did it feel like to be a participant?
*If you were talking with another intern about the CT/Intem group and they said, "What 3
that group like?’, what would you have said?
(Did that ever happen-~did anyone ever ask you?)
*When you think back over the sessions, do any stick out in your mind for any reason?
*Were there particular sessions where you felt more connected to the conversations or
readings?
*What was it like for you to read in the group and then write and talk about the literature?
What did it feel like to read silently together?
How did you use the writing time?
What do you remember about small group talk?
What was the large group discussion like for you?
Learning about langpage, Iiteragy, culture
** Our readings were autobiographical and mainly were about students and teachers
telling stories about their experiences with language, literacy, schooling, and culture. As
you think back over the sessions, what were some of the personal experiences that you
spoke about in our group as a way of responding to the readings?
168
- What was it like to do that kind of storytelling? What did you learn flom telling that
story?
- Tell me about a story you remember someone else telling-what was signiï¬cant about
that story for you?
- What do you think about learning and teaching flom stories?
- I’m wondering if our conversations had any impact on the way you think about
language
literacy
schooling
culture
Learning in Context with CTs and Interns
This group was made up of interns, cooperating teachers, a mentor teacher (Sharon) flom
the school, and me. These are all people who played out different roles and had different
life experiences-what was it like to participate in conversations with this diverse group?
Any surprises? Any complications?
*You worked very closely with your CT this year and had lots of different situations
where you talked about teaching with your CT/intem. Tell me about what it was like to
talk with your CT in this setting.
(small group? large group?)
Did you ï¬nd that you talked with your CT about the conversations in the group in
between sessions?
What was it like to be with other CTs in this group?
What was it like to be with other interns?
We
I’m curious about how and when you chose to talk in the group--what was that like for
you? Can you think of some ways that you entered into the conversation? How did you
ï¬gure out how to get into the conversation?
*(How would you describe your involvement in the group?)
*What kinds of choices did you make about your participation?
***(Did you ever choose not to say something, even though you had an idea? Did you
talk more in some parts of the sessions than others? Why?)
*As you think back over the 6 sessions, do you think your involvement changed in
anyway over time? Why?
*What about listening--did you ï¬nd that listening in the group was important to you?
169
*Can you give me a sense of what expectations you think people had of you? What did
you expect flom other people? lntems? CTs?
*What did you think about other people’s involvement in the talk?
*Was there any particular person that was especially interesting or helpful to you in the
group? In what way?
Learning to Teach in this Context with this Content
*I’m really curious if this experience influenced your teaching in anyway. Can you give
any examples of this?
*Did others’ talk about their teaching influence your teaching?
*Did any of the literature influence your work?
*How would you describe the kind of learning that goes on in a group like this?
*What would you say are some of the strengths/weakness of learning about literacy and
culture in this kind of autobiography discussion group?
What kinds of things do you wish had gone differently?
Are there other things about your experience that you’d like to talk about?
170
APPENDIX E
171
Appendix E
Interview Protocol: CTs
Reischl June, 1997
Intro:
-intems and experienced teachers in conversation using autobiographical literature
about the experience of refugees and immigrants and their teachers as a focus for the
conversations.
-interested in experience as a group member talking about literacy and culture,
and beliefs and practices about teaching that are related to these themes.
Opener:
*If you were talking with another teacher about the CT/Intem group and they said,
‘What’s that group like?’, what would you have said?
* I’m curious about your experience in the group--can you give me a general sense of
your experience in the group? What did it feel like to be a participant?
Reviewing sessions: Walk through literature.
*When you think back over the sessions, do any stick out in your mind for any reason?
What do you remember about that session? *Were there particular sessions where you
felt more connected to the conversations or readings?
Follow up by asking again. Walk through the literature again.
Group Participation
I’m curious about how and when you chose to talk in the group--what was that like for
you? Can you think of some ways that you entered into the conversation? How did you
ï¬gure out how to get into the conversation?
*(How would you describe your involvement in the group?)
*What kinds of choices did you make about your participation?
***(Did you ever choose not to say something, even though you had an idea? Did you
talk more in some parts of the sessions than others? Why?)
*As you think back over the 6 sessions, do you think your involvement changed in
anyway over time? Why? Do you think others’ involvement changed over time?
*What about listening--did you ï¬nd that listening in the group was important to you?
* What was it like to write in the group? How did you use the writing that you did?
What about reading silently? What did that feel like for you?
*Can you give me a sense of what expectations you think people had of you? What did
you expect flom other people? lntems? CTs?
*What did you think about other people’s involvement in the talk?
172
*Were there any people who were especially interesting or helpful to you in the group?
In what way?
Learning in Context with CTs and Interns
This group was made up of interns, cooperating teachers, a mentor teacher flom the
school, and me. These are all people who played out different roles and had different life
experiences--what was it like to participate in conversations with this diverse group?
Any surprises? Any complications?
***This year one of your many roles was the role of “teacher educator†. I’d like to ask
you some questions about how the CT/Intem group was a part of your work as a teacher
educator.
*You worked very closely with your intern this year and had lots of different situations
where you talked about teaching with your intern. Would you tell me about what it was
like to talk with your intern in this setting?
(small group? large group?)
Did you ï¬nd that you talked with your intern about the conversations in the group in
between sessions?
What was it like to be with other CTs in this group?
What was it like to be with interns?
Learning about langpage, literagy, culture
** Our readings were autobiographical and mainly were about students and teachers
telling stories about their experiences with language, literacy, schooling, and culture. As
you think back over the sessions, what were some of the personal experiences that you
spoke about in our group as a way of responding to the readings?
- What was it like to do that kind of storytelling? What did you learn flom telling that
story?
- Tell me about a story you remember someone else tellinguwhat was signiï¬cant about
that story for you? !
- What do you think about learning and teaching flom stories? Has the experience of
teaching and learning flom stories in this group affected your own teaching practices in
anyway?
- Thinking back over our conversations, how did your participation in group affect the
way you think about culture? Literacy? About the education of diverse students?
173
Conversation as professional development
I want to ask you to think for a minute about the range of professional development
activities you’ve participated in as a teacher (workshops, staff meetings, cuniculurn
development--how does she deï¬ne these?) How would you describe your involvement
in these activities?
In what ways was your experience in this group similar and different flom other
professional development activities?
*What would you say are some of the strengths/weakness of learning about literacy and
culture in this kind of autobiography discussion group?
What kinds of things do you wish had gone differently?
Are there other things about your experience that you’d like to talk about?
174
APPENDIX F
175
Appendix F
Statement of Informed Consent to Participate
lntems
I agree to participate in Catherine Reischl's study titled "Telling Stories of Self in
Multicultural Contexts: Interns’ and Experienced T eachers’ Conversations in an
Autobiography Discussion Group ". This study will explore the nature of conversation
between interns and their cooperating teachers as they explore issues of language, culture,
and teaching. I understand that Catherine Reischl will be the instructor for Guided
Practice (TE501) which will include the Autobiography Discussion Group sessions in
which interns and cooperating teachers will participate on a monthly basis.
By agreeing to participate in this study, I understand that the class will be
documented in a teaching journal and ï¬eld notes by Reischl. In addition, the discussion
sessions will be audio and video taped for teaching and research purposes. I agree to
share samples of extemporaneous writing that I will do during the sessions. I understand
that XXXXXXDOC, not Catherine Reischl will seek my consent to participate in Reischl's
research; Reischl will not be aware of my participation in the research until after the
course is over and that my involvement (or decision not to participate) will not affect my
course leaming or evaluation in any way.
I further understand that after the course and grading are complete, Reischl will
learn of my participation and will analyze the data collected in the course. I understand
that after the course is over I may be invited to participate in interviews and viewing
sessions of videos in order to frnther explore my involvement in the group. I may accept
or decline that invitation. I also understand that I may choose to waive my right to
conï¬dentiality and choose to co-author or co-present about this research. If I choose to do
this, I will maintain other participants' rights to conï¬dentiality and anonymity. I
understand that Reischl will communicate ï¬ndings to me in the spring of 1998 and will
also write and speak about the research to scholarly audiences.
I understand that throughout the school year, Reischl will collect observational
notes and public documents in the school to serve as background data for a general
description of the school context. I understand that because the school where the study
takes place is well known for its program and involvement with MSU, there is some
possibility that I could be identiï¬ed in research reports. I also understand that Reischl
will, nevertheless, do everything she can to protect my identity. I understand that Reischl
will always use a pseudonym for my name, both in the data she collects and when writing
or speaking about the research. I understand that Reischl will observe precautions in how
she stores and handles tapes, ï¬eld notes, photocopies of my work, and tapes in order to
insure my privacy. She will always use pseudonyms for me and for other identifying
material. Research materials will be kept in a secure place; other people will not be
permitted to view or use these materials without direct supervision by Reischl. When
Reischl reports about the study, it will be for research or teaching purposes only and she
will include in those reports only limited examples of my talk or writing. If I decline to
participate, my involvement will not be the focus of any written report or presentation.
I understand that the analysis of the data or the reporting of the research will not
begin until after the end of the Guided Practice course in May, 1977. Moreover, I
understand that my participation in this project is voluntary. I understand that it will be
kept strictly separate and conï¬dential flom my learning in this course. I will not be
penalized in any way if I decide not to participate in the study nor will I receive special
credit in my academic work for participating. I understand that at any time during the
176
study, I may discontinue my participation without giving a reason and at no penalty
to my regular educational experiences or assessment and grades. I understand that I
will communicate with XXXXXXXXX about all matters regarding consent. Reischl
will not know of my participation until after the course is completed.
I understand that participating in this study will not require additional time
beyond what I would normally spend in the Guided Practice course.
I have met with X)O(XXXXXX and discussed this project and the contents of this
form. Any questions have been answered to my satisfaction and I understand the purpose
of the study. I understand that I can contact XXXX)O(XXX in person or by telephone
(ofï¬ce: XXXXXXXX) if I have further questions or concerns as the study progresses.
I agree to participate in the study in the manner described above:
Intern Signature
Date
Consent coordinator signature
Date
177
APPENDIX G
178
Appendix G
Statement of Informed Consent to Participate
COOPERATIN G TEACHERS
I agree to participate in Catherine Reischl's study titled "Telling Stories of Self in
Multicultural Contexts. Interns' and Experienced Teachers Conversations in an
Autobiography Discussion Group". This study will explore the nature of conversation
between interns and their cooperating teachers as they explore issues of language, culture,
and teaching. I understand that Catherine Reischl will be the instructor for Guided
Practice (TE501) which will include the Autobiography Discussion Group sessions in
which interns and cooperating teachers will participate on a monthly basis.
By agreeing to participate in this study, I understand that the class will be
documented in a teaching journal and ï¬eld notes by Reischl. In addition, the discussion
sessions will be audio and video taped for teaching and research purposes. I agree to
share samples of extemporaneous writing that I will do during the sessions. I understand
that Reischl will not be aware of my participation in the research until after the course is
over and that my involvement (or decision not to participate) will not affect intems'
course learning or evaluation in any way nor will it affect my relationship with MSU or
my role as a cooperating teacher in any way.
I further understand that after the course and grading are complete, Reischl will
learn of my participation and will analyze the data collected in the course. I understand
that after the course is over I may be invited to participate in interviews and viewing
sessions of videos in order to further explore my involvement in the group. I may accept
or decline that invitation. I also understand that I may choose to waive my right to
conï¬dentiality and choose to co-author or co-present about this research. If I choose to do
this, I will maintain other participants rights to conï¬dentiality and anonymity. I
understand that Reischl will communicate ï¬ndings to me in the spring of 1998 and will
also write and speak about the research to scholarly audiences.
I understand that throughout the school year, Reischl will collect observational
notes and public documents in the school to serve as background data for a general
description of the school context. I understand that because the school where the study
takes place is well known for its program and involvement with MSU, there is some
possibility that I could be identiï¬ed in research reports. I understand that Reischl will
always use a pseudonym for my name, both in the data she collects and when writing or
speaking about the research. I understand that Reischl will observe precautions in how
she stores and handles tapes, ï¬eld notes, photocopies of my work, and tapes in order to
insure my privacy. She will always use pseudonyms for me and for other identifying
material. Research materials will be kept in a secure place; other people will not be
permitted to view or use these materials without direct supervision by Reischl. If I decline
to participate, my involvement will not be the focus of any written report or presentation.
When Reischl reports about the study, it will be for research or teaching purposes only
and she will include 1n those reports only limited examples of my talk or writing.
I understand that the analysis of the data or the reporting of the research will not
begin until after the end of the Guided Practice course in May, 1977. Moreover, I
understand that my participation in this project is voluntary. I understand that it will be
kept strictly separate and conï¬dential flom my learning in this course. I understand that
neither I nor interns will not be penalized in any way if I decide not to participate in the
study nor will interns receive special credit in their academic work for participating. I
179
understand that at any time during the study, I may discontinue my participation
without giving a reason and at no penalty to my intern's regular educational
experiences or assessment and grades. I understand that I will communicate with
XXXXXXXXX about all matters regarding consent.
I understand that participating in this study will not require additional time
beyond the two hour monthly session in Guided Practice.
I have met with XXXXXXXX and discussed this project and the contents of this
form. Any questions have been answered to my satisfaction and I understand the purpose
of the study. I understand that I can contact XXXXXXXXX in person or by telephone
(ofï¬ce: XXXX)O{X) if I have further questions or concerns as the study progresses.
I agree to participate in the study in the manner described above:
Cooperating Teacher signature
Date
Consent coordinator signature
Date
180
APPENDIX H
181
Appendix H
Application for Approval of a Project Involving
Human Subjects: Initial Review
UCRIHS-Michigan State University
David. E. Wright, Ph.D., Chair
225 Administration Building
East Lansing, MI 48824-1046
1. RESPONSIBLE PROJECT INVESTIGATOR (Faculty or staff
supervisor)
Susan Florio-Ruane
Faculty ID: 155-40-715
I believe the research can be safely completed without endangering human subjects.
further I have read the enclosed proposal and I am willing to supervise any student
investigators.
Signature
ADDITIONAL INVESTIGATOR
Catherine Hindman Reischl
Student ID: A18234793
2. ADDRESS
Susan F lorio-Ruane Catherine Hindman Reischl
305 Erickson Hall 302 University Dr.
Michigan State Univ. East Lansing, MI 48823
East Lansing, MI 48824 (517) 332-2536
(517) 353-3887
3. TITLE OF PROPOSAL: Telling Stories of Self in Multilingual Contexts:
Interns’ and Experienced Teachers' Conversations in an Autobiography Discussion Group
4. PROPOSED FUNDING AGENCY: none
5. DOES THIS PROJECT UTILIZE AN INVESTIGATIONAL DRUG,
DEVICE OR PROCEDURE? No
6. DOES THE PROJECT INVOLVE THE USE OF HUMAN BLOOD OR
TISSUE? No
7. DOES THIS PROJECT HAVE AN MSU ORD NUMBER? No
8. WHEN WOULD YOU PREF ER TO BEGIN DATA COLLECTION? Nov.
21, 1996
182
9. CATEGORY:
c. This proposal is exempted from full sub-committee review. Specify
category or categories: 1a, 19, 1d, 1e.
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
Subcommittee Agenda
10. PROJECT DESCRIPTION (ABSTRACT)
Current research documents the need to identify pedagogical practices that will
offer beginning teachers contexts in which they may construct knowledge, understanding,
and strategies for teaching diverse students. This research project will investigate intern
teachers' learning about language and culture in the company of experienced cooperating
teachers of linguistically diverse students. As a part of their "Guided Practice" (TE501)
course, interns and their cooperating teachers will read, write, and talk about these topics
in a monthly autobiography discussion group. These discussion sessions will focus on
autobiographies of irnrrrigrants and refugees that relate the literacy learning and school
experiences of the writers. Participants will write extemporaneously in response to the
readings, meet in small discussion groups, and then discuss issues as a whole group.
Qualitative methods drawn flom ethnography and sociolinguistics will be used to
collect and analyze the experiences of participants. Through an analysis of the group
discourse, this study will explore the role reading autobiographical literature and
conversation about it may play in helping interns and their COOperating teachers learn
about language and culture. Analysis of the data will focus on two areas: 1) the discourse
dynamics of the group; and 2) the participants' perspectives and learning. None of the
data will be analyzed until the course is completed in May of 1997. While intems'
participation in the course is a required part of the internship, participation in the study
will be optional and no student evaluations or grades will be tied to participation. The
principal investigator, Reischl, who is also the course instructor, will not be aware of the
identities of student volunteers until after the course is completed and she is no longer in
an evaluative relationship with them. Cooperating teachers are voluntarily participating in
the discussion group.
1 1. PROCEDURES
The researcher, Catherine Reischl, serves as the instructor for the weekly Guided
Practice course. The autobiography discussion groups will meet once a month during the
Guided Practice scheduled time; cooperating teachers have volunteered to join interns in
Guided Practice once a month for this discussion. Participants include four interns and
their four cooperating teachers who work together in a multilingual, K-5, urban
elementary school.
Data to be collected during the course will be generated as part of the ordinary
routine procedures and content of the course. This includes a teaching journal kept by
Reischl of ï¬eld notes and personal reflections as well as notes on instructional decisions
that will document planning and thinking regarding the group. Reischl will also take field
183
notes immediately following the sessions detailing Observations, ongoing questions,
concerns and instructional decisions. Pseudonyms will be used in all written notes to
insure anonymity and conï¬dentiality. Reischl will record audio and video tapes of each
session. Participants will write brief written responses to the readings during the sessions.
With participants' permission, copies of these discussion logs will be collected
periodically. Their names will be deleted flom these written records.
As a part of her normal teaching practice as a teacher educator, Reischl routinely
documents her thinking, classroom interactions, and reflections in writing and through
audio and video recording. Interns and cooperating teachers will be informed of these
practices at the beginning of the course and participants will provide or decline consent
for the instructor to use this data for research purposes after the course has ended. lntems
and cooperating teachers who decline participation in the study will be visible or audible
in the tapes, but will not be the focus of any description or analysis. In addition, when
writing about the research, all participants as well as the school and community will be
referred to by pseudonyms. Audio and video tapes will be used for research and teaching
purposes only, and the investigator will only show others these tapes within teaching or
research contexts. All consent procedures and questions will be handled by Sharon Peck,
a resource teacher in the school (see #15).
When the course is completed and interns have graduated, interns and cOOperating
teachers will be invited to participate in individual interviews and viewing sessions in
which they will view videotapes of various sessions and discuss their learning and
participation with the researcher. Throughout the school year, Reischl will also collect
observational notes and public documents in the school to serve as background data for
a general description of the school context. Permission to collect these observational
notes and public documents will be obtained flom the school principal.
12. SUBJECT POPULATION
a. The study population may include (check each category where subjects may
be included by design or incidentally):
Minors [ ]
Pregnant Women [x]
Women of childbearing age [x]
Institutionalized persons [ ]
Students [x]
Low income persons [x]
Minorities [x]
Incompetent persons [ ]
b. Number of subjects (including controls) 8 - 10
c. If you are associated with the subjects (e. g., they are your students,
employees, patients), please explain the nature of the association).
The activities interns and teachers will engage in are a regular part of yearlong
"Guided Practice" course (TE501) at Michigan State University which is designed to
provide a context for ongoing reflection and discussion of intems' experiences in their
schools. The course takes place at the school where interns work and is structured as a
discussion session. Reischl is the course instructor and the MSU liaison to the interns and
cooperating teachers. In that role, Reischl is responsible for supporting and co-evaluating
184
the intems' progress along with their cooperating teachers. This course is evaluated on a
"Pass/No-Credit" basis; criteria for passing the course are based on students' meeting of
MSU program standards and participation in course activities (see attached document
regarding Pass/No-credit criteria). Reischl works collaboratively with the cooperating
teachers and the principal to support the learning of interns. In this role she conducts
regular observations of interns, holds meetings with the interns and cooperating teachers
to review progress, and has frequent informal interactions with interns, cooperating
teachers and the principal regarding intems' progress. While she functions as a link
between MSU and the school, she does not evaluate cooperating teachers or the principal
in any way.
(I. How will your subjects be recruited?
Interns will be participating in the discussion group as a part of their regularly
scheduled TE501 "Guided Practice" course, a required part of their internship year in the
teacher education certiï¬cation program at Michigan State University. Cooperating
teachers have volunteered to participate in the monthly meetings, having been informed
of the nature of the study. Reischl has explained to interns and cooperating teachers that
the purpose of the study is to examine the use of autobiography as a pedagogical tool for
interns learning about language and culture in the company of experienced teachers.
Reischl has explained that analysis of the data will focus on two areas: 1) the discourse
dynamics of the group; and 2) the participants' perspectives and learning.
e. If someone will receive payment for recruiting the subjects, please
explain the amount of payment, who pays it and who receives it?
There will be no payment for recruitment of subjects.
f. Will the research subjects be compensated? No.
g. Will the subjects incur ï¬nancial costs as a result of their
participation in this study? No.
h. Will you be advertising for research participants? No.
i. Will this research be conducted with subjects who reside in another
country or live in a cultural context different from mainstream US. society?
No.
13. AN ONYMITY/CONFIDENTIALITY
The participants (interns and cooperating teachers) will be provided with
pseudonyms and any identifying information about them will be deleted or protected with
pseudonyms. Participants' identities will be known to the researcher and a limited number
of people involved in the research process but will be kept conï¬dential. If a person
185
declines to participate, the research report will not present ï¬ndings about him or her.
Names and other identiï¬ers in written work will be removed or masked. All data will be
stored in the locked ofï¬ce of Sharon Peck until the end of the school year and thereafter
be stored in the locked ofï¬ce of Reischl. Reischl will cite or quote flom ï¬eld data and/or
reproduce segments of student work or audio or video taped conversations on a limited
basis only when reporting the research for teaching or scholarly purposes. Data and
results will be shared with the public for educational and scholarly purposes only. Results
of the research will be shared with the participants in the spring of 1998. Should
participants wish to become involved in co-authoring or co-presenting reports of the
study they may waive their rights to conï¬dentiality yet follow procedures to protect the
anonymity and conï¬dentiality of other participants.
There are some limits on the extent to which conï¬dentiality can be guaranteed for
the interns and cooperating teachers. Because the school where interns and cooperating
teachers work is unique in its multicultural focus and because of its involvement with the
MSU teacher education program and its proximity to MSU, it is likely that the name of
the school and the participants could be identiï¬ed even though pseudonyms will be used.
Participants will be informed of this possibility in the consent form. Also, given that
neither anonymity nor conï¬dentiality can be guaranteed with the use of video, Reischl
will ask for permission flom participants to use excerpts flom the videotapes and audio
tapes for research or teaching purposes only, and only in her presence.
14. RISK/BENEFIT RATIO:
Conversation that is prompted by the reading of personal narrative about language
and culture is likely to be both personal and professional in its form and content.
Consequently, there is a slight risk that interns and cooperating teachers may experience
embarrassment or anxiety about their participation in talk about their beliefs and
practices. This may be especially true for interns who may consider themselves in
subordinate positions to their cooperating teachers. This slight risk is offset by the
potential beneï¬t of the opportunities for learning that may arise through serious talk
between beginning and experienced teachers as they examine issues of language, culture
and education. Teachers and interns rarely have extended periods of time for talk about
their practice; this discussion group provides both context and content for educative talk.
Use of pseudonyms and adherence to procedures that protect conï¬dentiality and
anonymity should also off-set participants' potential anxiety regarding the documentation
of the discussion group through written and taped forms.
The researcher's role as course instructor may pose a risk given that interns might
feel coerced to consent to participate in the research. Cooperating teachers, although they
are not being evaluated in any way, might also feel some pressure to consent out of
concern for their interns. To minimize this, interns and cooperating teachers may decide
to decline to participate in the research at any time during the course without the
knowledge of the researcher. Participants will communicate with Sharon Peck about
consent issues rather than Reischl, in order to minimize any feelings of coercion.
Similarly, given that cooperating teachers and the researcher co-evaluate interns
for their internship on a Pass/No Credit basis, interns might feel some pressure to consent
to participate in the research. To minimize this, all participants will be informed that no
one except Sharon Peck will know the identities of persons who have declined to
participate in the research. Neither interns or cooperating teachers will know of each
186
others' decisions about consent. Furthermore, evaluation of the interns is based on an
array of observations, conferences, informal interactions and intems' participation in
Guided Practice (See attached document regarding evaluation). The two hour monthly
discussion group is one small element of the broader array of elements that cooperating
teachers and the course instructor consider when assigning a Pass/No credit grade.
After the course has ended and grades have been assigned, both interns and
cooperating teachers will be invited to examine their experiences in the discussion group
through interviews and viewing sessions. Should they decide to participate, these
activities offer further potential beneï¬ts for the both interns and cooperating teachers as
they examine their own learning and involvement in the group. Reischl will invite
participants to be actively involved in analysis and reporting of the research. By offering
opportunities for co-presentation and co-authoring of written work about this study,
participants have further potential for opportunities to learn through their involvement.
In a broader sense, the close examination of this particular intervention may add
to our understanding of teacher education 1n the following areas: 1)The use of
autobiographical literature as a pedagogical tool 1n teacher education, 2) The role of
conversation in promoting reflection on issues related to the teaching of diverse students,
3) The structuring of educative contexts for mentor/novice talk.
15. CONSENT PROCEDURES:
In order to insure participants' anonymity and conï¬dentiality in providing consent
and to minimize any appearance of coercion on the part of the researcher, Sharon Peck, a
resource teacher in the school, will handle consent procedures. Peck is a regular
participant in Guided Practice and interacts daily with interns and cooperating teachers in
the school. She does not evaluate either interns or cooperating teachers in any way.
Reischl will inform participants about the research at the beginning of the ï¬rst session.
Peck will give participants consent forms to sign. Peck will collect the forms flom each
participant individually within one week and answer any questions they may have about
the research. This will allow interns and cooperating teachers to participate or decline to
participate in the research 1n ways which do not bias Reischl as the course instructor or
influence the instruction or assessment any intern receives. Reischl will not know the
identities of interns and cooperating teachers who have declined or consented to have the
data used for research purposes until after the course is ï¬nished and grades have been
submitted. Participants may withdraw flom the study at any time by informing Peck of
their decision. After the course has ended, interns and cooperating teachers who have
agreed to participate in the research will be invited to participate in interviews and
viewing sessions with the researcher.
Analysis of the data will include examination of the group as a whole as well as
individuals' perspectives and learning. Involvement of individuals who have consented to
participate in the research will be examined through a number of data sources. This will
include analysis of the data sources mentioned above: the researcher' 3 teaching journal,
ï¬eld notes, discussion logs, observational notes and public documents, interviews and
viewing sessions. Reischl will not use these sources to examine the participation of
individuals who have declined to participate in the research. Audio and video tape will
also serve as a data source for discourse analysis. Although participants who have
declined consent may be visible or audible in tapes, Reischl will not highlight or focus on
any participant who has declined to participate in the research.
187
Application for RENEWED APPROVAL of a Project Involving Human Subjects
UCRIHS-Michigan State University
David. E. Wright, Ph.D., Chair
225 Administration Building
East Lansing, MI 48824-1046 IRB # 96-726
1.: RESPONSIBLE PROJECT INVESTIGATOR (Faculty or staff
supervisor)
Susan F lorio-Ruane
Faculty ID: 155-40-715
I believe the research can be safely completed without endangering human subjects.
ï¬nther I have read the enclosed proposal and I am willing to supervise any student
investigators.
Signature
ADDITIONAL INVESTIGATOR
Catherine Hindman Reischl
Student ID: Al 8234793
2. ADDRESS
Susan F lorio-Ruane Catherine Hindman Reischl
305 Erickson Hall 302 University Dr.
Michigan State Univ. East Lansing, MI 48823
East Lansing, MI 48824 (517) 332-2536
(517) 353-3887
3. TITLE OF PROPOSAL: Telling Stories of Self in Multilingual Contexts:
Intems' and Experienced Teachers' Conversations in an Autobiography Discussion Group
4. DOES THIS PROJECT UTILIZE AN INVESTIGATIONAL DRUG,
DEVICE OR PROCEDURE? No
5. DOES THE PROJECT INVOLVE THE USE OF HUMAN BLOOD OR
TISSUE? No
6. HOW MANY SUBJECTS HAVE BEEN ENROLLED TO DATE? 8
7. IS THE HUMAN SUBJECTS PROTOCOL THE SAME AS IN PREVIOUS
STUDIES? Yes
8. HAVE THERE BEEN ANY ILL EFFECTS SUFFERED BY THE
SUBJECTS DUE TO THEIR PARTICIPATION IN THE STUDY? No
188
9. HAVE THERE BEEN ANY COMPLAINTS BY THE SUBJECTS OR
THEIR REPRESENTATIVES RELATED TO THEIR PARTICIPATION IN
THE STUDY? No
10. HAS THERE BEEN A CHANGE IN THE RESEARCH ENVIRONIVIENT
OR NEW INFORMATION WHICH WOULD INDICATE GREATER RISK TO
THE HUMAN SUBJECTS THAN THAT ASSUMED WHEN THE PROTOCOL
WAS INITIALLY REVIEWED AND APPROVED? No
11. The autobiography discussion group met once a month for six sessions,
cooperating teachers volunteered to join interns in Guided Practice (TE501, 502) for this
discussion. Participants included three interns and four teachers, and the mentor teacher
in the school. The study began on Nov. 21, 1996; all participants signed UCRIHS
approved consent forms. All consent procedures and questions were handled by Sharon
Peck, a resource teacher in the school. Peck kept all consent forms conï¬dential and did
not share this information with the researcher, Catherine Reischl, until May, 1997, after
interns had graduated and teachers' involvement with the MSU program was completed.
All eight participants provided consent for their participation in the study.
Data collected during the course was generated as part of the ordinary routine
procedures and content of the coruse. This included a teaching journal kept by Reischl of
ï¬eld notes and personal reflections as well as notes on instructional decisions that
documented planning and thinking regarding the group. Reischl took field notes
immediately following the sessions detailing observations, ongoing questions, concerns
and instructional decisions. Pseudonyms were used in all written notes to insure
anonymity and conï¬dentiality. Reischl recorded audio and video tapes of each session.
Participants wrote brief written responses to the readings during the sessions. With
participants' permission, copies of these discussion logs were collected at the end of the
six sessions. Participants' names were deleted flom these written records. Throughout the
school year, Reischl also collected observational notes and public documents in the
school to serve as background data for a general description of the school context.
Permission to collect these observational notes and public documents was obtained flom
the school principal. After the course was completed and interns had graduated, all eight
participants voluntarily participated in individual interviews regarding their experience of
the autobiography discussion group.
Analysis of the data rs underway. Projected completion date of this dissertation
study rs March 16, 1998. As analysis proceeds, interns and cooperating teachers may be
invited to participate in viewing sessions in which they will view videotapes of various
sessions and discuss their learning and participation with the researcher. Participation in
these sessions will be completely voluntary. Participants consented to participate in these
activities in the original consent form (attached).
W
Subcommittee Agenda
189
BIBLIOGRAPHY
190
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Alvarez, J. (1991). How the Garcia girls lost their accents. New York: Penguin
Books.
Au, K. H., Mason, J. M., & Scheu, J. A. (1995). Literacy instruction for today.
New York: HarperCollins College Publishers.
Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The dialogic imagination (Emerson, C.
Holquist, M., Trans.) Austin: University of Texas Press.
Behar, R., & Gordon, D. A. (Eds). (1995). Women writing culture. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Blachowitz, C., & Wimett, C. (1994, ). Reconstructing our pasts: Urban
preservice tea_c_h‘ers’ deï¬nitions of literacy and literacy instruction. Paper presented at the
National Reading Conference, San Diego, California.
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (1992). ngjitative research for education: An
introduction to theog and methods. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Borgmann, A. (1992). Crossing the mst-modgm divide. Chicago: The University
of Chicago Press.
Bruner, J. (1990). Acts of meaning. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard
University Press.
Bruner, J. (1993). The culture of autobiography. In R F olkenflik (Ed), Ih_e_
culture of autobioggphy (pp. 38-56). Stanford: California: Stanford University Press.
Carger, C. L. (1996). Of borders and dreams: A Mexican-American experience of
urban education. New York: Teachers College Press.
Cazden, C. (1988). Classroom discourse: The langugge of teaching and learning.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Cazden, C., & Mehan, H. (1989). Principles ï¬'om sociology and anthropology:
Context, code, and classroom. In M. Reynolds (Ed), Knowledge base for the beginning
teacher (pp. 47-57). Oxford: Pergamon.
Clair, N. (1995). Mainstream classroom teachers and ESL students. TESOL
Quarterly, 29(1), 189-196.
Cochran-Smith, M. (1991). Learning to teach against the grain. Harvard
Educational Review. 61(3).
Cochran-Smith, M. (1995). Color-blindness and basket making are not the
answers: Confronting the dilemmas of race, culture, and language diversity in teacher
education. American Ed1£ation Resear_ch Journal 32(3), 493-522.
Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (1992). Interrogating cultural diversity: Inquiry
and action. Journal of Teacher Education, 43(2), 104-115.
191
Cofer, J. O. (1993). The Paterson Public Library. In K. Aguero (Ed), Daily fare:
Essays from the multicultural experience (pp. 22-33). Athens, Georgia: University of
Georgia Press.
Coffey, A., & Atkinson, P. (1996). Making sense of qualitative data:
Complimentafl research strategies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Cohen, D. K. (1988). Teaching practice: Plus ca change. . East Lansing, MI:
National Center for Research on Teacher Education, Michigan State University.
Cole, M. (1996). Cultural psychology: A once and future discipline. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Coles, R. (1989). The call of stories: Teaching and the moral imagrLa' tion. Boston:
Houghton Mifflin Company.
Conway, P. (1998). Anticipatog reflection while lm’pg to teach: Ihe role of
hog, fear, and expgctation. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Michigan State
University, East Lansing, MI.
Cummins, J. (1989). Empowering minority students. Harvard Educational
Reviews, 56(1).
Cummins, J. P. (1994). The socioacademic achievement model in the context of
coercive and collaborative relations of power. In R. A. DeVillar, C. J. Faltis, & J. P.
Cummins (Eds), Cultural divarsitv in schools: From rhetoric to practice . Albany: State
University of New York Press.
Delpit, L. (1988). The silenced dialogue. Harvard Educational Review 58.
Dembele, M., Feiman-Nemser, S., Murdoch, J ., Paine, L., Schwille, S., Wang, J .,
& Wolf, N. (1995, ). Mentoring in the service of reform: The case of PDS mentor
teachers. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, San
Francisco.
Denyer, J. (in press). A community of writing teachers talk about text: Exploring
the educative potential of the conversational workspace. .
Denyer, J ., & Apol, L. (1999, April). Letting each other into our lives:
Negotiating identifl in a community of writing teachers. Paper presented at the American
Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, Montreal, Canada.
Denyer, J ., & Florio-Ruane, S. (1995). Mixed messages and missed opportunities:
Moments of transformation in writing conferences and teacher education. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 11(6), 539-551.
Dewey, J. (l 91 6/ 1944). Education as growth, Democracy and education (pp. 41-
53). New York: The Free Press/MacMillan.
Dyson, A. H., & Genishi, C. (1994). The need for stog: Cultural diversitrm
classroom and communig. Urbana, Illinois: The National Council of Teachers of
English.
192
Eco, U. (1994). Six walks in the ï¬ctional woods. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Edelsky, C. (1981). Who’s got the floor? Language in Socieg, 10(3), 383-421.
Eisenhart, M. (1995). The fax, the jazz player, and the self-story teller: How do
people organize culture? Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 26(1), 3-26.
Eldred, J. C., & Mortenson, P. (1992). Reading literacy narratives. College
English, 54(5), 512-539.
Erickson, F. (1981). Some approaches to ethnography in school-community
ethnography. In H. Trueba & G. Guthrie (Eds), Culture and the bilingual classroom . Au,
Katherine: Newbury House Publishers.
Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In M. C.
Wittrock (Ed), Handbook of research on teaching . New York: MacMillan.
Erickson, F., & Shultz, J. (1977). When is a context? Some issues of theory and.
method in the analysis of social competence. Quarterly Newsletter of the Institute for
Comparative Human Development, 1(1), 5-10.
Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change. Cambridge, England: Polity
Press.
F eiman-Nemser, S. (1992). Helping novices learn to teach: Lessons from an
expe_rienced supmrt teacher (Research Report 91-6). East Lansing, Michigan: National
Center for Research on Teacher Learning, Michigan State University.
Feirnan-Nemser, S. (1999, April). Learnin to “ o†discourse in the com an of a
reform-minded mentor teacher. Paper presented at the American Educational Research
Association Annual Meeting, Montreal, Canada.
Feiman—Nemser, S., & Floden, R. E. (1986). The cultures of teaching. In M. C.
Wittrock (Ed), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd edition) . New York: MacMillan
Publishing Co.
F erdman, B. (1990). Literacy and cultural identity. Harvard Educational Review
69(2), 181-204.
Florio-Ruane, S. (1997). CAB 1996 presidential address. To tell a new story:
Reinventing narratives of culture, identity, and education. Anthromlogy and educatiop,
28(2), 152-162.
Florio-Ruane, S., & DeTar, J. (1995). Conflict and consensus in teachers
candidates’ discussion of ethnic autobiography. English Educatioa 27(1), 11-39.
F lorio-Ruane, S., & DeTar, J. (1996, ). Losing and remembering: Beginning
teachers narrating cultural identity and difference in response to ethnic autobiography.
Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, New
York City.
193
Florio-Ruane, S., & DeTar, J. (in press). In good company: Autobiography,
conversation and teacher learning about culture and literacy. Mahavah, New Jersey:
Lawrence Erlbaum Publishers.
F lorio-Ruane, S., & Raphael, T. (1996, November). Reading culture in
autobiomphy: The education of literacy teachers. Paper presented at the American
AnthrOpological Association, San Francisco, CA.
Florio-Ruane, S., Raphael, T., Glazier, J ., Mary, M., & Wallace, S. (1998).
Discovering culture in discussion of autobiographical literature: transforming the
education of literacy teachers, Annual Yearbook of the National Reading Conference .
Folkenflik, R. (Ed). (1993). The culture of aptobiogpaphy. Stanford, California:
Stanford University Press.
F ranzosa, S. D. (1992). Authoring the educated self: Educational autobiography
and resistance. Educational Theory, 42(4), 395-412.
Galindo, R., & Olguin, M. (1996). Reclaiming bilingual education cultural
resources: An autobiographical approach. Urban Education 31(1), 29—56.
Gallirnore, R, Tharp, R, & John-Steiner, V. (n.d.). The developmental and social
foundations of mentoring : The MacArthur Foundation.
Gavelek, J. R., & Raphael, T. E. (1996). Changing talk about text: New roles for
teachers and students. Langtpage Arts, 73(3), 182-193.
Gee, J. (1989). What is literacy? (Technical Report 2). Newton, Mass: The
Literacies Institute, Education Development Center.
Gee, J. (1990). Social lingg'stics and literacies: Ideology in discourses. Bristol,
PA: The Palmer Press.
Genesee, F. (Ed). (1994). Educating second language children: The whole child.
the whole 0111116111ng the whole communig. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discoveg of ggounded theory:
Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.
Glazier, J. (in press). Speaking the unspeakable: White teachers talking about
race.
Goffman, E. (1981). F onus of talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania
Press.
Grant, C., & Secada, W. (1990). Preparing teachers for diversity. In W. R.
Houston (Ed), Handbook of research on teacher education . New York: Macmillan.
Grant, C. A., & Zozakiewicz, C. A. (1995). Student teachers, cooperating
teachers, and supervisors: Interrupting the multicultural silences of student teaching. In J.
L. Larkin & C. E. Sleeter (Eds), Developing multicultural teacher education curricula
(pp. 259-278).
Albany: State University of New York Press.
194
Greene, M. (1978). Teaching: The question of personal reality. In A. Lieberman
& L. Miller (Eds), Staff development: New demands, new realities, new parspactives .
New York: Teachers College Press.
Gumperz, J. (1982). Discourse strategies. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Gutierrez, K. (1999, April). Student talk 1n the‘ ‘Third Space†:eKnowledg
constructioa, classroom diacourse, and personhoo_d,. Paper presented at the American
Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, Montreal, Canada.
Gutierrez, K., Baquendano-Lopez, P., & Turner, M. G. (1997). Putting language
back into language arts: When the radical middle meets the third space. Langgge Arts,
14(5), 368-378.
Gutierrez, K., Rymes, B., & Larson, J. (1995). Script, counterscript, and underlife
in the classroom: James Brown versus Brown v. Board of Education. Harvard
Educational Review, 65(3), 445-471.
Harnmersley, M., & Atkinson, P. (1983). Ethnoggphy: Principles in metice.
New York: Routledge.
Hargreaves, A. (1984). Experience counts, theory doesn’t: How teachers talk
about their work. Sociology of Educatiop, 5 7, 244-254.
Hargreaves, A. (1991). Contrived collegiality: The micropolitics of teacher
collaboration. In J. Blase (Ed), The palitics of life in scths: Power, conflict and
coomration . Newbury Park, California: Sage.
Harris, D. L. (1995). Comppsing a life as a teacher: The role of conversation and
comqu in teachers’ formation of their ideptig as professionals. Unpublished
Doctoral Dissertation, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI.
Hauser, M. (1994). Working with school staff: â€Reflective cultural analysis†in
groups. In G. Spindler & L. Spindler (Eds), Pathways to cultural awareness (pp. 169-
196). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Hawkins, D. (1967/1974). 1, Thou, and It., The informed vision (pp. 48 - 62). New
York: Agathon Press.
Heap, J. L. (1992). A situated perspective on what counts as reading In C. D.
Baker & A. Luke (Eds) Toward a critical sociology of reading md_ago ogy (pp. 103-139).
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Heath, S. B. (1991). The sense of being literate: Historical and cross-cultural
features. In R M. L. Barr, P. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds), Handbook of reading
research (Vol. II, ). New York: Longman.
Hudelson, S. (1994). Literacy development of second language children. In F.
Genesee (Ed), Educating second langgge children: The whole child, the whole
curriculm, the whole commqu . New York: Cambridge University Press.
Jackson, S. (1995). Autobiography: Pivot points for engaging lives in
multicultural contexts. In J. M. Larkin & C. E. Sleeter (Eds), Developing multicultural
teacher education curricula (pp. 31-44). Albany: State University of New York Press.
195
John-Steiner, V. (1985). Notebooks of the mind: Explorations of thinking. New
Mexico: University of New Mexico Press.
John-Steiner, V. (1996, February 23). Creativity afll collaboration in knowledge
construction. Paper presented at the Vygotsky Centennial: Vygotskian Perspectives on
Literacy Research, Chicago, Illinois.
Kingston, M. H. (1975/1993). The woman warrior. In W. Brown & A. Ling
(Eds), Visions of America: Personal narratives of the promised land (pp. 195-200). New
York: Persea Books.
Labov, W. (1972). Langgge in the inner cig. Philadelphia: University of
Pennsylvania
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Lave, J ., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate paripheral
participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Lemke, J. (1989). Social semiotics: A sociocognitive perspective. In D. Bloome
(Ed), Classrooms and literacy (pp. 289-309). Norwood, N.J.: Ablex.
Lightfoot, S. L. (1985). The lives of teachers. In L. Schulman & G. Sykes (Eds),
Handbook of teaching and mlicy . New. York: Longman, Inc.
Little, J. W. (1987). Teachers as colleagues. In V. Richardson-Koehler (Ed),
Educators’ handbook: A research mrsmgtive (pp. 491-518). New York: Longman.
Little, J. W. (1990). The mentor phenomenon and the social organization of
teaching. In C. Cazden (Ed), Review of research in education (pp. 297-351). Washington
DC: American Educational Research Association.
Little, J. W. (1993). Teachers’ professional development in a climate of
educational reform. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15.
Lord, B. (1994). Teachers’ professional development: Critical colleagueship and
the role of professional communities, The future of education: Persxctivea on national
standards in America . New York: College Entrance Examination Board.
Lortie, D. C. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago: The
University of Chicago Press.
Marshall, J ., Smagorinsky, P., & Smith, M. W. (1995). The langpage of
intemretation: Patterns of discourse in discussions of literature. Urbana, Illinois: National
Council of Teachers of English.
McMahon, S., & Raphael, T. (Eds). (1997). The book club connection: Literacy
learning and classroom talk. New York: Teachers College Press.
McMichael, G. (Ed). (1974). Anthology of American Literature. New York:
Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc.
196
McVee, M. B. (in press). A ranch is not a dairy farm: narrative as catalyst and
constraint in exploring cultural identity.
Milk, R., Mercado, C., & Sapiens, A. (1992). Rethinking the education of teachers
of langu_age minority children: Developing reflective teachers for chgging schools
(Occasional Papers in Bilingual Education 6). Washington DC: National Clearinghouse
for Bilingual Education.
Minicucci, C. (1995). School reform and student diversity. Phi Delta
Kappan(September).
Moll, L. C. (1992). Bilingual classroom studies and community analysis: Some
recent trends. Educational Researcher 3(March).
Newkirk, T. (1996). Seduction and betrayal in qualitative research. Urbana,
Illinois: National Council of Teachers of English.
New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social
futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 60-92.
Nieto, S. (1992). Afï¬rming diversity. White Plains, New York: Longman.
O’Connor, M. C., & Michaels, S. (in press). Shifting participant ï¬ameworks:
Orchestrating thinking practices in group discussion. In D. Hicks (Ed), Child discourse
and social learning . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ochs, E. (1992). Indexing gender. In A. Duranti & G. C. (Eds), Rethinking
context: Lan e as an interactive enomenon . Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Ofï¬ce, G. A. (1994). Limited English proï¬ciency: A gtowing and costly,
educational challenge facing many school districts .
Ondaatje, M. (1992). The English Patient. New York: Vintage Books.
Pailliotet, A. W. (1995). Extending inquiries initiated in the Future Teachers
Autobiography Club. English Educatiop, 27(1), 6-10.
Paine, L. W. (1989). Orientation towards diversity: What do proamctive teachers
bring? (Research Report 89-9). East Lansing, MI: National Center for Research on
Teacher Learning, Michigan State University.
Paley, V. (1995). Kwanzaa and me. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.
Paley, V. G. (1979). White teacher. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard
University Press.
Pearson, P. D. (1996). Reclaiming the center: The search for common ground in
teaching reading. In M. F. Graves & P. van den Broek (Eds), The ï¬rst r: Everlchild’a
right to read (pp. 259-274). New York: Teachers College Press.
Penï¬eld, J. (1987). ESL: The regular classroom teacher’s perspective. TESOL
Quarterly, 21(1), 21-39.
197
Raphael, T., & McMahon, S. I. (1994). Book Club: An alternative framework for
reading instruction. The Reading Teacher, 48(2), 102-116.
Raphael, T., Pardo, L., Highï¬eld, K., & McMahon, S. (1997). Book club: A
literature ba_sed curriculum. Little ton, Massachusetts: Small Planet Communications, Inc.
Raphael, T. E., & Hiebert, E. H. (1996). Creating an integgted approach to
literacy instruction. New York: Harcourt Brace College Publishers.
Rappaport, J. (1995) Empowerment meets narrative: Listening to stories and
creating settings. .American Journal of Community Psychology,2 3(5) 795- 807.
Reischl, C. (1999, April). Examining intern/coop_erating teacher relationships
through discussion of autobiogtaphical text. Paper presented at the American Educational
Research Association Annual Meeting, Montreal, Canada
Reischl, C. H. (in press). Constructing colleagues in a mentor/novice relationship:
The case of Jean and Claire. In S. Feiman-Nemser & L. W. Paine (Eds), Mentored
Learning to Teach . NA: NA.
Reyes, M. (1992). Challenging venerable assumptions: Literacy instruction for
linguistically different students. Harvard Educational Review 62(4).
Riessman, C. K. (1993). Narrative analysis. Newbury Park, California: Sage
Publications, Inc.
Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in m ' g: Cogm'tive development in social
context. New York: Oxford University Press.
Rosenholtz, S. J ., & Kyle, S. J. (1984). Teacher isolations: Barrier to
professionalism. American Educator(W inter), 10-15.
Salvio, P. (1990). Transgressive daughters: Student autobiography and the project
of self-creation. Cambridge Journal of Education, 20(3), 283-289.
Salvio, P. (1994). Ninja Warriors and Vulcan logic: Using the cultural literacy
portfolio as a curriculum script. Langgge Arts, 711(October), 419-424.
Salvio, P. (1995). On the forbidden pleasures and hidden dangers of covert
reading. English Quarterly, 27(3), 8-15.
Samway, K. D., & Whang, G. (1996). Literature study circles in a multicultural
classroom. York, Maine: Stenhouse Publishers.
Santiago, E. (1993). When I was Puerto Rican. New York: Addison-Wesley
Publishing Company.
Scribner, S. (1984). Literacy in three metaphors. American Journal of Education
November, 6-20.
Sleeter, C. E. (1996). Multicultural education as social activism. Albany: State
University of New York Press.
198
Sleeter, C., & Grant, C. (1987). An analysis of multicultural education in the
United States. Harvard Educational Review 57(4), 421-444.
Soliday, M. (1994). Translating self and difference through literacy narratives.
College English, 56(5), 511-526.
Spindler, G., & Spindler, L. (1990). The American cultural dialogue and its
transmission. Bristol, PA: The Falmer Press.
Spindler, G., & Spindler, L. (1993). The processes of culture and person: Cultural
therapy and culturally diverse schools. In P. Phelan & A. L. Davidson (Eds),
Renegotiating cultural diversifl in American schools (pp. 27-51). New York: Teachers
College Press.
Spindler, G., & Spindler, L. (Eds). (1994). Pathways to cultural awareness:
Cultural therapy with teachers and students. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.
Stanulis, R. N. (1994). Fading to a whisper: One mentor’s story of sharing her
wisdom without telling answers. Journal of Teacher Educatiop, 45(1), 31-37.
Stone, A. E. (1982). Autobiomphical occasions and original acts. Philadelphia:
University of Pennsylvania Press.
Tannen, D. (1989). Talking voices: Repetitioa, dialogpe, and m eg in
conversational discourse. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Tharp, R., & Gallirnore, R. (1988). Rousing minds to life. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Trueba, H. (1989). Raising silent voices; Educating the lingg'stic minorities for
the 21st centtpy. New York: Newbury House Publishers.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in socie : The develo ment of hi er
psychological processes. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thoaght and Langpage. Cambridge, Mass: The MIT
Press.
Walker, A. (1983). In search of our mothers’ gardens. New York: Harcourt Brace
J ovanovich.
Weick, K. (1983). Redeï¬ning the scale of social issues. In E. Seidman & J.
Rappaport (Eds), Redeï¬ning social problems . New York: Plenum Press.
Wells, G. (1997). Learning to be literate: Reconciling convention and invention.
In S. I. McMahon & T. E. Raphael (Eds), The Book Club Connection . New York:
Teachers College Press.
Wertsch, J. V. (1986). Vygotsfl and the social formation of mind. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
West, C. (1993). Prophetic reflections : Notes on race and mwer in America.
(1993 ed). Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press.
199
Weyand, J. (1983). Reflections on getting good . Loveland, Colorado: Thompson
Valley School District: Far West Laboratory for Educational Research and Development,
San Francisco.
Wildman, T. M., Niles, J ., A., Magliaro, S. G., & McLaughlin, R. A. (1989).
Teaching and learning to teach: The two roles of beginning teachers. The Elementary
School Journal 89(4).
Witherall, C., & Noddings, N. (Eds). (1991). Stories lives tell: Narrative and
dialogpe in education. New York: Teachers College Press.
Zeichner, K., M. (1993). Educating teachers for cultural diversity (N CRTL
Special Report ). East Lansing, MI: National Center for Research on Teacher Learning,
Michigan State University.
Zeichner, K. M., Grant, C., Gay, G., Gillette, M., Valli, L., & Villegas, A. M.
(1998). A research informed vision of good practice in multicultural teacher education:
Design principles. Theoty Into Practice, 37(2), 163-171.
200