.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.fiir twig» 3:553: A: iii“.#539191.tire-(.329 . i p’ al'flhflfig‘wIRANMHHB ...:1!Li‘ "‘ ‘ ‘3' ' max. I .1 11‘ I . ,‘m d ,.‘§‘A (xi ugh?! » '31.“:1. .. .amtumlw . . « W; ".9 isixfi‘fmm S I’ . .........— Im~«-r>‘v- u. .. ,w- . A. . a.” , m... .. ... .. . .. . ... ... l m. . . . ,$,~-4A,.n , -. 351% .. Edi-2.92%- iffifizm mum} '-»1:'!I:wv:{;'76 ‘ as; : “HRH”!!!AK.}€J1“?}4‘31‘!‘:,§figy‘ "“12““ z": 2 ,1 v.4; ‘5‘» Fifi” _.. i -.< ‘ -' Er.) n’fimfiifi‘vEndi’wh-I . ”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; ”5." ‘1 ”N1“ ‘5- u‘ 9‘“ 1:. b. :B 14b . . ' E? i m! r ‘3. . 1" vi'ti'! 1 | _ :" i u. A .. . . . ‘ . n . L 4 u ‘. ”"1. .A , .... I. in ‘ . .n £77 I c. ~ ‘ ’ A .4 .v . - M, w 1 l P i .L .... v "wk-1w, .. ... , i._ i ”' .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.”. A ,ué. . fin m A...” $3- a rmtxzx: D _ ’ . ' J, ii" .i‘A“"‘," ‘3" : , 5 Wind" . ’ A‘ '( t; 1:an .J‘ .u pa. "IN-C 4.13. .’ -~ - .- ' any... .- ”am—- . “Aw -,..‘. M”_» _ w . .\ mm... < ‘ WSW! ...... . 4L .— ‘. HI 4 “V 2.7.1:: 17."; -,.A .m- . "a...“ ‘F ‘ .qu ') ‘ “hi—3LT; .‘ 3‘ v.- .snmonov— .u «no». £7735}:- ..0 , .. : g‘h'ilfi aiss’139‘:43¥ , _ h. w! as H 93:3?» 37" . ' "H 5‘ I" 2*..- ’t‘ R - -" ‘ _ MAL ‘E‘E":£;’r‘e‘.§iv:« M .. A sum-“i .1: .9 m m Mfifiéfifififfiifitx. . 1:353: Alfit‘igzfiilfiv Mai" 1%? . f: [i' #351115 V “gym; 'I 7}] '-‘< .‘fl’l;_ fl ._ ’-' J. ‘ , .-Ix:‘: ‘|=.:. ; . .» ' : ‘3; a ' i i I I ‘ii 1' futigiigziiflfld “HEM”? E gig; . 1. {hikfiii , -fi’§zéééfi ‘ 55% x 1 . ! I ... '... r ’ . I ' A -. ' m 1“!) ' . ' ‘ ‘J'nT-J awe—«- ~aw£llh \ID" a u ”L." F”; ~..$ w iv “dam... I- A. ., '3 . :- t'-. .- - 4km: " - ‘ -‘ ' i ’ - .unn". 4 :‘vml WM 43 1"" "‘3 r , , A --.». . . ‘u‘ .mfi. ‘ r _ u' u. ‘ ‘ i > - . . ‘vtl u um} " '2: 1 i ? "Jilififiniig .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 ”:3 .. ' n , .. A .. m... ;- . 3m; l l‘:|'!ir:‘ "; 5"!“ ‘r H "iiaiééiffiz, ‘ H33". RI n... as." s vow-«av... 0 .m.., .A - o » , -... ‘t. in: Mafia: “:’:'-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. "“. ”.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 . '. . : ”‘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 . . ”‘3.” A . ; M . I T ‘ c- . .4. ' ’3'. ‘ .1 4' . I ' . . ' . ' . ... no“ vnqqnp— u ..' 4: w ”gs.- w a it» _ iiH1jI;!"’.€6 its”; ‘ 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}; . fig 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 fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. degree in Weation Mug/WK professor Date ply-t \D to \D MSU i: an Affirmative 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 fulfillment 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, field 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 field-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 field-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 benefits 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 LIBRARY” 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 definition 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 colleagueship” 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 Definitions 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?” 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 difficult, 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; Office, 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 (Penfield, 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; Penfield, 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 “ CTs”) with whom they worked in a multilingual elementary school, Tapestry Schoolz, participated in a six-month autobiography discussion group (hereafter, “ ADG”) 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 modified 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 field notes and a teaching journal, studied participants’ writing from the group, and interviewed each participant about their experiences. Utilizing methods drawn fiom sociolinguistics (Cazden, 1988; Gofiinan, 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 “ interns”; experienced teachers are referred to as “ cooperating teachers” or “ CTs.” 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 fiamework 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-five 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 findings suggest that as preservice and practicing teachers confi'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 fiarneworks 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 recognize” (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 definition 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 significant. (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 first 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.” 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 shifi and a very new way of using language. Hereafier, 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 firll-time with classroom cooperating teachers. Busy with the daily demands of instruction, the interns and CT’s found it difficult 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 field-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 satisfied by casual “war stories” or “ experience swapping” (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 figure 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 find 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 "figure 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 first 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 significant 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 first 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 ofien 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 first few sessions-~will provide evidence for this stance. Like forgers of fine paintings, timing the first 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 first 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 field-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 first 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 first 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:” 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 firmly 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 verification 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 first 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 first 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. Significantly, 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 finther 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 Library” (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: Defining 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 difficult 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, Highfield, & 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 significant 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 findings 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 firll participants, as presenters and attendees. I offer these images of activity as evidence of the level of energy and commitment exerted toward firlfillment 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 profile. 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 identified a field experience in Mexico as formative in her life. Stacy who had taught three years, spoke often of her homelife in a first 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 specific 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 discussions”. 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 difficult (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 fiom 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 fictional 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 final 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 definitions of autobiography as a genre. Literature scholar Robert Folkenflik (1993) describes current views on the nature of autobiography: ...autobiography is a battlefield 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 fiction, 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 definition of autobiography. Like Jerome Bruner, who advocates a somewhat looser stance regarding the definition 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 ”revelatory” texts as follows: any text can be read as revelatory of the author, so long as it can be interpreted as fulfilling intentionally or inadvertently the conditions imposed on speech acts of self-revelation. (p.42) Bruner, defining 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 define 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-figured 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 ofien 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 define 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 significance 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 first 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.” 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-five 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 benefits) 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 office. 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 field notes and personal reflections as well as notes on my instructional decisions that documented my planning and thinking regarding the group. I took field notes about the sessions detailing 41 observations, ongoing questions, concerns and instructional decisions regarding the sessions. These field 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 final 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 field notes, observations, documents, plans and follow-up field 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 first 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 defined 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 confidentiality 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 refinement 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 refined 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 disconfirming evidence. Through analysis of the data, I formulated substantive theory (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) specifically 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 field 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 field 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 field notes: I will need to remember that this is a significant element in this piece of research. That I had already "gained entry" into this scene--at least through the official 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 definitely 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 fieldwork, 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 specifically 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 Benefits 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 benefits 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 benefits. 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 benefit 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 confidentiality 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 finished 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 finished 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 benefits 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 specifically 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, first, I will define 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 specifically 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 realities” (Greene, 1978) and to check in on how these realities fit 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 definitions 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 field 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 defined 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!”, 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 find 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 significant 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 first 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 find 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 configuration. 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 “ scripts”. 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 field-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 defined in the context. Gutierrez, Baquendano-Lopez, and Turner write further about how knowledge is constructed via departure from normative scripts into a conversational “third space”: "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.” (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 contexts”-- 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) defines 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 confining 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 form”. 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 fiction such as tropes, metaphors, and alliteration, personification and other literary devices in their personal narratives. 14The categories of content and form are artificial 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 “ introduced” 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 first 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 confidence in themselves as teachers, it appears that all participants gained confidence 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 conversations”, 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 “ right”] 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!" (Unidentifiable 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!”. 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.” 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 first 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 financially. Cause I remember, if we didn't have $20, to fix 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.” 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 significantly 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 first 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 work”. 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 find 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 difficult to render on paper- the energy, prosody, and pace are difficult 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 first 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. ‘ ”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 find this disrespectful” and “ We do things this way” and “ This is when you say, please and thank you”. 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 polite”. 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 fiiends because he acts that way. You know, you don’t want him to labeled “ bad” , but you have to, you have to make him fit 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 fit into this community and this, this culture here at the school. This stance contrasted with F ran’s: “ We uphold a standard in our classroom”. Fran implied a much narrower range of the acceptable that will offer students “ success.” 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.” 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 first day of Ramadan, the month when Moslems fast during the day. Naturally none of the Moslem families come. We hadn’t even bothered to find 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?” Minutes Topic 00 Tfis 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 final 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 figure 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 figure 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-ness” 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 me” 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 me”. 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.” 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, “maybe”. 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,”] 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,/ definitely. 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 first 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!” 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 .” 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)?” 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 nutshell” 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: Defining 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 define 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 LIBRARY” 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 narratives” (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 five 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 finds her "spiritual life" in books, leads directly through Lorraine's declining neighborhood. Eventually, Lorraine carries out her threat. She finds 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 first 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 filled 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 find 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 figures 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 find 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 confidence 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 figuring 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 find. 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 find 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 fight 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 significance 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 filled 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 deficient 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 fight 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 defining 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 exemplifies the "arts of the contact zone" (Soliday, 1994). Soliday quotes Pratt and defines 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 fireplace. 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 identified 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 group”. Once invited to talk, Laura responded by recounting two narratives, both directly connecting her life experiences to the reading. In the first 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 first 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 first 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 significant 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 first graders and commented that this was probably a developmental thingnthat first 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 first large group story to be told, Laura's voice was significant. 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 verified 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 tenified 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 verified the existence of book-lovers such as Judith and her own library's faithful patrons, yet she also defined her distance flom this kind of literacy. As she put it in line 24, "This is just a job!" Laura's repetition of "Wow!s” 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 terrified 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 first 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 defining 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 identified with Judith’s devotion to books. I talked about howl identified 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 find 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 firmly 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. Significantly, 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 defined 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 first phrase firmly 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 fit 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 figure 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 figure 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 benefits of literacy were appealing and Beth wanted in on how to help her children reap these benefits. 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 final 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 first section, everything outside of the kind of literacy that Judith finds 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 defines 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" identified 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 definitions of who “ a reader” is through their stories of self, the group began to grapple with multiple definitions 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 definitions of who “ a reader” mi t be, and how literacy is shaped by cultural contexts. Fran, Stacy and Cindy, all cooperating teachers, describing sources of their own literacy, identified 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 final statements of prescription, tailoring their narratives to Beth's implied request: 100 17. You know, and I, I was trying to figure 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 Franfiteading 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 figuratively 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. Significantly, 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 first 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 figure 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 find 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 final words of advice to Beth about what children may find 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 finding 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 find 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 finishing 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?” 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 find 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 finished, 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 find 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?!” 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 identified the roots of their literacy within childhood experiences, they defined 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 specifically. 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 identified with Judith's finding a "spiritual life in books.” 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 significant 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 defining 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 anything”: 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 find 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 specific 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 stuff”. 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 filled 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 them” 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 finished 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 definition, 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 find 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 finding 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 definitely, 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 first 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 find 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- definition 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-definition 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 first 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 specifically about the relationships of students and teachers, even venturing into the difficult 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 author”. 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 find a life in New York City. Alvarez provides many images of Laura leading her four daughters on treks throughout the city, efficiently 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 final 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-define and re- define 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 chatting”. The second semester had just started, and teachers and interns saw this as an important milestone”. The complexities of teacher/ student relationships were central to the everyday work of the intern/CT pairs. One of the most significant contextual factors on this day was that the interns were beginning their “lead teaching”. 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 significant 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 finished 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 first 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 field 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 significant, 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 officially became Laura’s CT. Both Laura and Fran had struggled somewhat as they worked to define their roles with the children and with each other. 3"Also significant, 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 officially became Laura’s CT. Both Laura and Fran had struggled somewhat as they worked to define 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 first 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 Definition 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 definitions of "destroy the teacher" were generated by group members as they discussed a number of difi’erent kinds of teacher/student relationships. This conversation ultimately led to a high involvement interchange-a situated text-based debate--generating significant "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 definitions of "destroy the teacher." Reading through the definitional 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 Definitions 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'fiomething you‘d see in college- creative writing class, or a writing class But, like that one, urn, tefiher that came into our class, she had taught a 5th grade class. And you know the first 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 first 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 destroyTfirough, I don’t like the word destroy. Yeah, and to be yourself or rndependent or you know ‘T ceIébrate myself and srng myséll” right- “He most honors my style” 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 figure 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 Definitions Stacy Cindy e best student challenges fire setting her up But I don’t understand what it’s teachers. supposed... Yeah, hey--T”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 (finishing 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 figure more out about it? They fliink they know everytiTrrTg, and they’re filling 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 mfimd fiat 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 you”— ” Add to me, not destroy me!” (laughs) a little toofiiarsh. 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 first 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 specific 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 definitions for “ destroy the teacher." The conversation then underwent a significant 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 definitions of “ destroy the teacher” were floated in this first 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.” Cindy: But I didn't understand, like destroy--I mean are they gonna come back and (slaps hand) pulverize you? [overlapping “ yeah”] Unlike Laura, who stated at first that the idea of destroying the teacher was “just kinda, you know...” (a bizarre idea), Marcy “likes it!” She firmly 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 teachers”. 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, figuratively "pulverizing" the teacher. Speakers were highly involved in these initial definitions of“ destroying the teacher”. 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 defining "destroy the teacher." As the talk continued, five 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 first 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.” Cindy: “ Well, why the heck you asking me for?” 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 first 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 definition 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. Affirming 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?” 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 figure more out about it?” 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 ratified 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 filling 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 filling 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 first 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 filling 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 fifth 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 first 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 first 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 define 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 definitely a positive thing to destroy your teacher. I mean, “ Yes, you've surpassed me at this point, ok.” 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 defined 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 first 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. Significantly, Cindy took on this tension and constructed a definition 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 confidence--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 myself” Marcy: “ He most honors my style” Carol: Yeah, “ He most honors my style (reads simultaneously with Marcy) who learns under it to destroy the teacher.” 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 reaffirm 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 finality 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 first 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 “ destroying” 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 fine pieces of art; each intern seemed determined to carefully recreate her master’s practice. However, having worked side-by-side for five 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 final 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 field 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 final 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 Colleagueship” 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 significant 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 field-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 defined 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) Significantly, 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 significantly 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 confidence 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 first? 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 first 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 significant. 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 significant 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 difficult 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 confirm 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 find 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 fulfill 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 definitely 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 culture”. 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 defines “ liminal” as “barely perceptible.” The Oxford English Dictionary defines “ liminal “ as “of or pertaining to the threshold or initial stages of a process”. In the context of ADG conversations, I am defining 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 final 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 identified 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 final 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 first 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 first 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 five 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.” 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!” 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 first year teaching contexts are unusual, what does seem significant is that these former interns seem to have a vision of possible collaborative relationships they are seeking. I also find 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 field-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 defines 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 significant 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 define 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 field-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 significant changes in the ways teachers go about their work. Eisenhart describes small wins as “ pressure on culture”: 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 significant. (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 significant 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.” 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 “ adventurous” 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, mfiing wide angIe, lst Befh, Marcy Ja., Cafiry, 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, Befi, 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 final whole group (transcribed) Lin 2/13/97 holiday discussion (not transcribed) section on video HUG—#5 two dif. aufio 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 drfitapes 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 finding 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 significant 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 find 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 figure 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 find 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 figure 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 find 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 find 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 significant 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 define 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 field 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 confidentiality and choose to co-author or co-present about this research. If I choose to do this, I will maintain other participants' rights to confidentiality and anonymity. I understand that Reischl will communicate findings 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 identified 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, field 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 confidential 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 (office: 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 field 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 confidentiality and choose to co-author or co-present about this research. If I choose to do this, I will maintain other participants rights to confidentiality and anonymity. I understand that Reischl will communicate findings 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 identified 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, field 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 confidential 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 (office: 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 field 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 confidentiality. 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 certification 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 financial 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 confidential. If a person 185 declines to participate, the research report will not present findings about him or her. Names and other identifiers in written work will be removed or masked. All data will be stored in the locked office of Sharon Peck until the end of the school year and thereafter be stored in the locked office of Reischl. Reischl will cite or quote flom field 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 confidentiality yet follow procedures to protect the anonymity and confidentiality of other participants. There are some limits on the extent to which confidentiality 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 identified even though pseudonyms will be used. Participants will be informed of this possibility in the consent form. Also, given that neither anonymity nor confidentiality 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 benefit 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 confidentiality 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 benefits 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 confidentiality 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 first 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 finished 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, field 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. finther 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 confidential 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 field 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 confidentiality. 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’ definitions 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 fi'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 fictional 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: ”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). Affirming diversity. White Plains, New York: Longman. O’Connor, M. C., & Michaels, S. (in press). Shifting participant fiameworks: 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. Office, G. A. (1994). Limited English proficiency: 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 first r: Everlchild’a right to read (pp. 259-274). New York: Teachers College Press. Penfield, 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., Highfield, 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). Redefining the scale of social issues. In E. Seidman & J. Rappaport (Eds), Redefining 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