PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2/05 p:/C|RC/DateDue.indd-p.1

 

NEW HABITS OF MIND: INVOLVING STRUGGLING READERS
IN AN ERA OF NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND

By

Jodi Sue Harris

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University
In partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Teacher Education

2005

ABSTRACT

NEW HABITS OF MIND: INVOLVING STRUGGLING READERS
IN AN ERA OF NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND

By
Jodi Sue Harris
Given the pressures placed on educators to ensure that no child is left behind,
school districts are concerning themselves with the kinds of programs they must put in
place for struggling readers. Traditionally, middle school students, who have been
deemed “struggling” readers, have received instructional interventions described as
“bottom-up” approaches, consisting of skills done in isolation, in tracked classes, or pull-
out programs.

As a teacher researcher, using methods of qualitative inquiry, I explored and
examined what happened in two Grade 6 Reading Essentials classes. Data for this study
include students’ written work, transcripts of audio- and videotaped reading discussions,
and student interviews.

This study reveals how Grade 6 students deemed “struggling” readers learned to
involve themselves and others as members of a literary discourse community, developed
into highly competent, strategic readers, and markedly improved their standardized
reading comprehension scores.

The results of this study suggest that in order to involve middle level students who
struggle as readers, instructional interventions need to be re-mediated instead of the

students themselves.

Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.

William Yeats

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
It is with gratitude that I thank the members of my committee for their guidance
throughout this entire process. It is both humbling and awe-inspiring to surround myself
with those who are not only accomplished scholars, but exemplary teachers as well. I
especially thank my dissertation advisor, Doug Campbell, for his gentle nudges and
insightful feedback that shaped my work in significant ways, and the ease with which he
made revising key segments of my work, because he paid such close attention.

I thank Susan Florio-Ruane for her direction, especially from her own scholarly
work with literacy educators and their students. Her work has greatly influenced my
teaching practice, which has benefited my students tremendously. I am grateful to Troy
Mariage for his time spent in conversation with me, especially concerning the ways in
which he invited me to think about enhancing the chapters on discourse analysis. I am
indebted to Dorothea Anagnostopoulos for her helpful commentary early on in the
construction of this dissertation, and especially for the ways in which she influenced my
own teaching strategies, when attempting to help students make meaning from expository
text. She evidenced that “all teachers are teachers of reading” in her Education Policy
Analysis course, and my own students found ways to connect with dense pieces of
writing due to the influence her instruction had on me.

I thank Sue Koczara, Deborah Peck, and Kathy Heitman, my best girlfriends and
“sisters” for knowing when to leave me to my writing and when to demand that I take a

break. They exemplify the meaning of true friendship.

iv

“M" n? “
L31) rikk‘

continue
administr

I 1
sages of

mix 31:.

3163' mg
the)" rd“ 3
"You MI]
F1
lllVegtme

Wm.

 

 

I extend appreciation to Robert Papazian for keeping me “grounded” throughout
this process and I took great joy in convincing him that qualitative research is real
research.

I thank my principals, Mark Mulholland and Allan King, who supported my
work and, especially, supported the students and their Reading Essentials program, and
continue to do so. I am fortunate to work for and with these two outstanding
administrators.

I thank Don Stevens, who bravely came into my life during the frenzied, final
stages of this document’s completion. He has been there to cheer, coax, read, listen,
motivate, and problem-solve. He is extraordinary.

I owe my parents, John and Kay Harris, everything. As retired master teachers,
they taught me early on that teaching is not a thing you do, but who you are. As parents,
they always told me I could achieve anything and said often through this degree process,
“You will do this because you can!”

Finally, I thank my students for their hard work in class and their authentic
investment in this document. They were incredible editors, thinkers. and accomplished

readers. Geniuses!

LEIOFI

CHAPTER
flRlGGl
lntoducdt
Xatonaln
Consequi
Akkni
‘Scknfif
lhe"ber
A tali for
Research
limhods-
lieorent.
Phnfbrd
Summan

Clltl’lll
“HAID
lNSTRl(
lntoduc‘
Smgflk
Dues;
“Snug.
lfisonf
Paar:
Engage:
Reader I
SOCKJZ;
[fiscc.
Emits.
Adolcs
Resea:
Sunni.

 

  
 
 

CHAPl
lILl(l
\lllli
Innog
Sinai
Sinai
Sling

Cit.

Tea.

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................ x
CHAPTER ONE
STRUGGLING READERS: SITUATING THE PROBLEM ..................................... 1
Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 1
National reading crisis ...................................................................................................... 1
Consequences of low reading ability .............................................................................. 2
A federal response to the reading crisis ............................................................................ 2
“Scientifically based” reading methods? ........................................................................ 3
The “benign neglect of adolescent literacy ..................................................................... 5
A call for the re-mediation of instruction .......................................................................... 5
Research questions ............................................................................................................ 6
Methods ............................................................................................................................. 7
Theoretical framework ...................................................................................................... 7
Plan for this study ............................................................................................................. 8
Summary ......................................................................................................................... 10
CHAPTER TWO
WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO BE A READER WHO STRUGGLES?:
INSTRUCTIONAL LEGACIES AND POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVES .................... 11
Introduction ..................................................................................................................... l l
Struggling readers ........................................................................................................... 11
Diversity among readers who struggle .......................................................................... 12
“Struggling” — a pejorative and politically charged term ............................................. 13
Historical treatment of struggling readers ....................................................................... 14
Past reading treatments of my students ......................................................................... 17
Engagement vs. involvement .......................................................................................... 17
Reader response theory ................................................................................................... l9
Sociocultural theories of learning ................................................................................... 21
Discourse communities ................................................................................................. 22
Embedded reading strategy instruction ......................................................................... 23
Adolescent literature ....................................................................................................... 25
Research questions .......................................................................................................... 26
Summary ......................................................................................................................... 27
CHAPTER THREE
TEACHER AS RESEARCHER: WORKING AND LEARNING IN TANDEM
WITH MY STUDENTS ................................................................................................. 28
Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 28
Situating this study as interpretive .................................................................................. 29
Situating this study as participant observational ............................................................. 3O
Situating this study as teacher research ........................................................................... 31
Criticisms of teacher research ....................................................................................... 32
Teacher as researcher: A particular perspective .......................................................... 33

vi

The rese
The tea
The re:
Test 63

Form;
Inforr
Suden
"I the
‘Ain'
llie re;

Dan :01
Particul.
D313 an:
A ques
Modes
Sums;

CHAPT]
“AIN'T T
APPRE.‘
l troduc
Panieip
Strum.
Airy:
Anahs
Analys
Acco
Acco
Summa

CHAPT
TRlNS
oruti'
inked.
Trans 5 I

Are}

 

The research setting ........................................................................................................ 34

The teacher researcher .................................................................................................. 34
The reading essentials students ..................................................................................... 35
Test data ........................................................................................................................ 35
Formal assessments ..................................................................................................... 35
Informal assessments .................................................................................................. 36
Student voices ............................................................................................................... 38
“I thought our questions came from Massachusetts” .................................................. 38
“Ain’t nobody never asked what I thought before” .................................................... 39
The reading essentials program ..................................................................................... 40
Data collection ................................................................................................................ 42
Particular artifacts ........................................................................................................... 43
Data analysis ................................................................................................................... 44
A question emerges from the data analysis ................................................................... 45
Modes of involvement emerge from the data analysis .................................................. 46
Summary ......................................................................................................................... 46
CHAPTER FOUR
“AIN’T NOBODY NEVER ASKED WHAT I THOUGHT BEFOREl”:
APPRENTICING NEW HABITS OF MIND .............................................................. 48
Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 48
Participation structure: From old to new ........................................................................ 49
Structuring consciousness ............................................................................................. 50
Analysis of section 1: Setting the stage ........................................................................ 54
Analysis of section II: Collecting evidence ................................................................. 5 7
Analysis of section III: Solidifying claims .................................................................. 61
Accountability to knowledge and standards of reasoning .......................................... 63
Accountability to the learning community .................................................................. 66
Summary ......................................................................................................................... 67
CHAPTER FIVE
TRANSFER OF CONTROL: STUDENTS INVOLVING THEMSELVES AND
OTHERS IN A LITERARY DISCOURSE COMMUNITY ....................................... 70
Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 70
Transfer of control .......................................................................................................... 71
Analysis of section 1: Setting the stage ........................................................................ 73
Analysis of section II: Collecting evidence ................................................................. 76
Accountability to knowledge ...................................................................................... 77
Accountability to standards of reasoning .................................................................... 79
Analysis of section III: Solidifying claims .................................................................. 85
Accountability to the learning community .................................................................. 87
Summary ......................................................................................................................... 91
CHAPTER SIX
DIALOGIC TRANSFORMATIONS ............................................................................ 93
Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 93

vii

Stance: The fabric of our classroom ............................................................................... 94

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Literature as envisionment building ........................ -- .............. 96
A Turn on (of) events ....................................................................................................... 97
Dialogic transformations .................................................................................................. 98

Analysis of April transcript ............................................................................................ 99
The discourse community: “Collaborative effort” as stance ........................................ 112
Comparisons of modes of involvement ......................................................................... 116

Gathering mode ............................................................................................................ 117

September .................................................................................................................. 117
November - - - - - -- -117
April ........................................................................................................................... 118

Supporting mode .......................................................................................................... 119

November ................................................................................................................... 120
April ........................................................................................................................... 120
Advancing mode .......................................................................................................... 121
September ............................................... - .... 121
November ..................................................................................... 121
April ........................................................................................................................... 122
Analysis of utterances .................................................................................................. 122
September .................................................................................................................. 122
November ................................................................................................................... 123
April ........................................................................................................................... 124
Summary ........................................................................................................................ 125
CHAPTERSEVEN
TEXTUAL FEATURES AND INVOLVEMENT ....................................................... 128
Introduction .................................................................................................................... 128
Designs on the reader ..................................................................................................... 128
Student views: Analysis of core class novels ............................................................. 132
Analysis of literature with high involvement features ............................................... 132
Character .................................................................................................................. 132
Setting ...................................................................................................................... 133
Plot ........................................................................................................................... 133
Theme ...................................................................................................................... 134
Tone ......................................................................................................................... 1 34
Analysis of literature with low involvement features ................................................ 136
Character ........................................................................ - __ . . .................... 136
Setting ...... _. - .............................. . ............ 137
Point of view ............................................................................................................ 138
Plot ........................................................................................................................... 138
Theme ...................................................................................................................... 139
Considering reading levels of core novels - - 141
Summary ........................................................................................................................ 144

viii

CHAPTER EIGHT

 

 

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS ................................................................... 146
Conclusion ..................................................................................................................... 146
Quantitative grth as readers ..................................................................................... 149
Implications for readers deemed “struggling” ............................................................... 151
Monologic vs. dialogic participation structure ............................................................ 151
New possibilities ............................................................................................................ 153
Teacher research as a means to professionalize practice ............................................... 154
Teacher researchers as change agents .......................................................................... 154
Teacher research: An intersection of theory and practice ............................................. 155
Teacher research as central to learning to teach .......................................................... 156
APPENDICES ............................................................................................... 157
Appendix A — Transcript of reading discussion — mid-April - _ - 158
Appendix B - Gates-MacGinitie reading comprehension pre- and post-test scores ..... 164
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 165

ix

Table 4.

laile 5.

Table 6.

 

 

 

Table 2.1:

Table 3.1:

Table 4.1:

Table 5.1:

Table 6.1:

Table 6.2:

Table 7.1:

Table 7.2:

LIST OF TABLES

Gradual release of responsibility model ......................................................... 25
Timetable of core novels read in class ............................................................ 40
Transcript of initial reading discussion - mid-September, 2004 .................... 52
Transcript of reading discussion — end of November, 2004 ........................... 72
Comparative analysis of modes of involvement ........................................... 124
Comparative analysis of utterances .............................................................. 125
Core novels with high and low involvement features ................................... 143
Reading level by work of adolescent fiction ................................................ 144

Introducti
Mil
kinds of lit
lrditiona'
received ir
skills done
qualitative
Grade 6 “2
received.
PMS as it
strategic 17
scores. 11
inten'entil

National

011 lite re‘

grades 4‘

 

1M em.

ThPCn ' I

Chapter 1
STRUGGLING READERS: SITUATIN G THE PROBLEM

Introduction

Middle level educators are feeling a great deal of pressure to put in place the
kinds of literacy programs which will ensure that their students are not left behind.
Traditionally, middle school students who have been deemed “struggling” readers have
received instructional interventions described as “bottom-up” approaches, consisting of
skills done in isolation, in tracked classes, or pull-out programs. Using methods of
qualitative inquiry, as a teacher researcher, I explored and examined what happened when
Grade 6 “struggling” readers were given opportunities different than they typically
received. This study revealed how these students learned to involve themselves and their
peers as members of a literary discourse community, developed into highly competent,
strategic readers, and markedly improved their standardized reading comprehension
scores. This study urges middle level literacy educators to re-mediate instructional
interventions, and not the students themselves.
National reading crisis

According to the NAEP (National Assessment of Educational Progress), statistics
on the reading scores of our nation’s youth indicate that more than 8 million students in
grades 4-12 are struggling readers. Two in three high school students read below grade
level and one in four reads far below grade level (US. Department of Education, 2003).
These low reading scores mean that 70% of 8th graders cannot give details and examples
to support themes they identify in a literary passage, or describe the purpose of an

expository passage, and support their views with examples and details. Roughly 70% of

not gm
Student
drop on
Snow 8
62% of
prepare:
0m 63
Sfi‘ansor
therefore

A leder:

(5.0.3)

311511 and

 

12‘” graders cannot explain the use of irony and symbolism in a literary passage, or apply
information or directions appropriately to read a practical passage.
Consequences of low reading ability
Low reading skills lead to low achievement. Each year, 1.3 million students do

not graduate with their peers. Thirty per cent of students drop out of high school.
Students in the bottom quartile of reading achievement tests are 20 times more likely to
drop out than students in the top quartile (Camevale and Desrochers, 2003; Kamil, 2003;
Snow & Biancarosa, 2003). This means that each day, we lose 7,000 students. Only
62% of those seeking to enter the work force, upon graduation from high school, are
prepared to do so. Of those students who attend college, 53% enroll in remedial courses.
Over 68% are unprepared for college altogether (NCES, 2001 ;Greene & Forster, 2003;
Swanson, 2004). Indeed the statistics are troublesome. The Federal government,
therefore, sought ways to respond to the problem.
A federal response to the reading crisis

On January 8, 2002, President George W. Bush signed the No Child Lefi Behind
(N CLB) Act into law. This legislation, passed by a bipartisan coalition led by President
Bush and Senator Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.), promised to close the reading gap between
African American and Hispanic students, when compared to their Caucasian peers, and to
improve the overall reading achievement of every student in America. With specific
regard to reading improvement, schools and districts that received Title I funding were
expected to make annual yearly progress (AYP), as determined by the state, by raising

the achievement levels of students. Those not meeting AYP requirements for two

coastal“
parents thl

A:
New Hart
communi
order for
conseque:
being tray

school eh

 

consecutive years would be identified as “in need of improvement” and required to offer
parents the option of sending their children to another public school within the district.

As President Bush explained in a January 8, 2002, speech at the University of
New Hampshire, "If a school can’t change, if a school can’t show the parents and
community leaders that they can teach the basics, something else has to take place. In
order for there to be accountability, there has [sic] to be consequences. And the
consequence in this bill is that after a period of time, if a parent is tired of their child
being trapped into [sic] a failed school, that parent will have different options, public
school choice, charter, and private tutoring” (Office of the Press Secretary, January,
2002).

Similarly, Senator Kennedy - who has since charged that NCLB has been
inadequately firnded and implemented — initially declared that the bill’s "message to
every parent" is "help is on the way. " In one of many press releases celebrating the act,
US Representative John Boehner (R-Ohio), chairman of the House Education
Committee, promised that "these changes represent a significant departure from the status
quo, and will empower low-income parents with new options and new choices" (Office
of the Press Secretary, January, 2002).

“Scientifically based” reading methods?

No Child Left Behind places special emphasis on determining which educational
programs and practices have been proven effective through rigorous scientific research.
Federal funding is targeted to support these programs and teaching methods that work to
improve student learning and achievements. Given that federal finding is tied to

evidencing a close in the reading gap, and proving that all children make adequate yearly

inters'enl

math-ext

Stat). ":
systems

educatic

 

 

progress, school districts and classroom teachers are questioning what kinds of reading
interventions to put in place for their students that align with “scientifically based”
methods of reading instruction.

According to the NCLB document (Public Law 107-110, January, 2002 115
Stat), “scientifically based” means (A) research that involves the application of rigorous,
systematic, and objective procedures to obtain reliable and valid knowledge relevant to
education activities and programs; and includes (B) research that -

employs systematic, empirical methods that draw on
observation or experiment; involves rigorous data
analyses that are adequate to test the stated hypotheses
and justify the general conclusions drawn; relies on
measurements or observational methods that provide
reliable and valid data across evaluators and observers,
across multiple measurements and observations and
across studies by the same or different investigators;

is evaluated using experimental or quasi-experimental
designs in which individuals, entities, programs, or
activities are assigned to different conditions and with
a preference for random-assignment experiments, or
other designs to the extent that those designs contain
within-condition or across-condition controls; ensures
that experimental studies are presented in sufficient
detail and clarity to allow for replication or, at a
minimum, offer the opportunity to build systematically
on their findings; and has been accepted by a peer-
reviewed journal or approved by a panel of independent
experts through a comparably rigorous, objective and
scientific review.

“Scientifically based” reading methods have been taking the form of commercial
reading kits and programs, which are highly skill based and expose students to a scripted
curriculum and an overabundance of phonics taught in isolation (Kohn, 2004). These
scripted programs do allow students to do well on tests of phonics, but not on tests of

comprehension (Vacca & Vacca, 2001). These results, however, are for early

e‘rernei‘?L3
fiddle 1
Center f
lilCCarl

lire “be

proficie:
into seer
unable ll
Brown, I
able to d
"PM 8“
”PM gm
above, ar
19311 and I

555003111

(1997.,

 

elementary-aged students. Statistics of the past decade show little improvement for
middle level students, and declining scores for secondary school students (National
Center for Education Statistics) when the instructional interventions are similar
(McCardle, P. & Chhabra, 2004).

The “benign neglect of adolescent literacy”

In classrooms, teachers are seeing a visible number of students who are less
proficient readers in grades 4 through 8. Too many learners are moving from elementary
into secondary school with serviceable levels of skill in decoding and fluency, yet are
unable to comprehend what is read (W ilhelrn, 1997; Greenleaf, Jimenez & Roller, 2002;
Brown, 2003). What counts as being a highly proficient reader demands more than being
able to decode; one needs to enact strategies in order to make meaning, especially in the
upper grades, when texts are used to learn new material (Pearson, 2004). Middle and
upper grade students, when given “scientifically based” reading instruction, as described
above, are unprepared for the demands placed on them with regard to what they must
read and understand. Richard Vacca, former president of the International Reading
Association, has characterized this situation as the “benign neglect of adolescent literacy”
(1997, p. l).

A call for the re-mediation of instruction

Given that commercialized reading programs, with an over-emphasis on phonics
and other reading skills taught in isolation, are ineffective for middle and high school
students (Stanovich, K. & Cunningham, A., 1992; Schoenbach, R., Greenleaf, C., Cziko,
C. & Hurwitz, L, 1999; Moje, E. & O’Brien, D., 2001), this dissertation study explores an

alternative form of instruction — one in which traditional reading practices are re-

medialed
an alrem

Researc

impleme
field of 1
interven
element:
connect
bringing
imponan
discussio
my stude
scholar a
Michigar
malegy 1'

became:

PU

 

mediated and not the students. In this dissertation study, I explore, examine, and analyze
an alternative form of instruction for struggling middle school readers.
Research questions

As a classroom teacher who was given the challenge of designing and
implementing a program for struggling Grade 6 readers, I had read extensively in the
field of reading research. I also considered my familiarity with the instructional
interventions entering Grade 6 students who “struggle” with reading received during their
elementary education in my district. Therefore, I realized my first challenge was to
connect students with books, and to find the kinds of books that would assist me in
bringing this about. The literature on sociocultural theories of learning, specifically, the
importance of providing students with ample opportunities to engage in authentic
discussions about what they read, also shaped the interventions I would put in place for
my students. I then reflected back on conversations I had with David Pearson, a noted
scholar and educator in the field of reading, while taking doctoral courses from him at
Michigan State University, and realized that I needed to embed purposefirl reading
strategy instruction into these dialogues. Hence, my research questions for this study
became:

1. What factors involve Grade 6 struggling readers with reading?

2. How do Grade 6 readers become involved as members of a literary

discourse community?
3. How do Grade 6 readers become involved as strategic readers?
4. How do particular features of adolescent literature involve Grade 6

readers?

Method

tracked

audio- a

analyzer

through

lheoret

 

Another research question grew out of the data analysis. This research question
became:
5. What are the particular discourse strategies used by a group of Grade 6
readers involving themselves and others with reading?
Methods
In the qualitative traditions, I studied my thirty students who were enrolled in a
tracked, remedial reading course — Reading Essentials — during the 2004 -2005 school
year. Data sources consisted of student work, student interviews, student surveys, and
audio- and video recordings of reading conversations, as I explored, examined, and
analyzed what happens when Grade 6 readers deemed “struggling” work and learn
through instructional interventions contrary to traditional approaches.
Theoretical Framework
To guide this dissertation study, I used the discourse analysis frameworks of
Tannen (1989) and Cazden (1991). These frameworks were utilized in order to evaluate
growth in students’ ability to become involved as members of a literary discourse
community, and evidence competence as strategic readers. I looked to identify various
discourse strategies in both the teacher’s and students’ talk that advanced the literary
discourse, which would indicate involvement. I further analyzed the discourse within the
theoretical framework of “accountable talk” put forth by Lauren Resnick (1977). The
realm of accountable talk consists of three norms for researchers — two academic
(accountability to knowledge and accountability to standards of reasoning) and one social
(accountability to the learning community) to evaluate student utterances for use of

reading strategies, textual involvement, and membership in the discourse community. I

also anal
referred ‘
point S
in and m
and Step

consani

called gr;
involve-tr
also dreu
to identif
im’oltem
Plan for I

lr
lustructic
my. l d
the ”Cathie
inVOlVing
limo. so

Teacher ,

 

l115 dissel
463cm). .

UllCQeC

 

also analyzed student discourse from Judith Langer’s (1989) theoretical framework
referred to as envisionment building — how meaning develops from the reader’s vantage
point. She identified four stances - Being out and stepping into an envisionment, Being
in and moving through an envisionment, Stepping back and rethinking what one knows,
and Stepping out and objectifying the experience — which are recursive stances,
constantly informing the knowledge-building of the reader.

Out of the data analysis, three complementary modes of involvement, which I
called gathering, supporting, and advancing, became prevalent. I applied these modes of
involvement to further analyze each discourse event, individually and comparatively. I
also drew from Rosemary Chance’s (1999) adolescent literature book analysis framework
to identify and analyze particular features in core class novels that brought about
involvement.

Plan for this study

In Chapter Two, What does it mean to be a reader who struggles?:
Instructional legacies and possible alternatives, I frame the problem addressed in this
study. I define and discuss “struggling” readers, and provide an historical perspective on
the treatments typically received by them. I also describe an alternative plan for
involving struggling readers, based on the literature in the fields of reader response
theory, sociocultural theories of learning, and adolescent literature. In Chapter Three,
Teacher as researcher: Working and learning in tandem with my students, I situate
this dissertation study by describing my methodology as a teacher researcher, and
describe the context and participants for this study. I also illustrate how data was

collected and analyzed.

dissemf
discussi
what I

the min
seafloic
pantie
themse
discoun
compete
com 111'
third rea
conversa
wmpete:
This char

lllmf)’ d:

“IDOIC coj

 

Chapters Four, Five, Six, and Seven comprise the data analysis of this
dissertation study. In Chapters Four, Five, and Six, discourse transcripts of reading
discussions are analyzed in great detail. In Chapter Four, “Ain’t nobody never asked
what I thought beforel”: Apprenticing new habits of mind, I investigate and analyze
the initial reading discussions with my Grade 6 students. I examine the various
scaffolding moves enacted by me, as I worked to apprentice students into a new
participation structure. In Chapter Five, Transfer of control: Students involving
themselves and others as readers in a literary discourse community, I analyze the
discourse from a subsequent reading conversation that evidences students gaining more
competence as strategic readers who are highly involved as members of a dialogic
community. In Chapter Six, Dialogic Transformations, I analyze the discourse from a
third reading conversation, in which students take complete control over the literary
conversation, as full-fledged members of a literary discourse community, and as highly
competent, strategic and critical readers involved in sophisticated analysis of a novel.
This chapter evidences that students deemed “struggling” are capable of the kinds of
literary discourse observed in reading classes typically reserved for those considered
“more competent.” This chapter also includes a comparative analysis of the modes of
involvement and utterances as I look across the three discourse transcripts. In Chapter
Seven, Involvement Features of Adolescent Literature, I analyze the core pieces of
adolescent literature used in class, in terms of the high and low involvement features of
the literary elements, and through the responses of my students. I also explore the
reading level of each core novel based on Fry’s Readability Index. In Chapter Eight,

Conclusions and Implications, I summarize and discuss the findings of this dissertation

study 311C
with res:

Summal

Concern
those at
be call e
based" 11
approach
younger -
vocabula

and there

lILstructio
the issues
literature

methods

   

Ihe result

(7
O
:1
(f
9‘?
e:

lflloll'er?

CUBCllls‘

study and explore venues for further study. I then address implications from this study
with regard to struggling readers, teacher research, and teacher learning.
Summary

Faced with top-down mandates, school systems are seeking ways to measure up.
Concerning reading, schools are faced with the challenge of closing the gap between
those who are left behind and their higher-achieving peers. Due to this daunting task, and
the call embedded in the No Child Left Behind mandate to implement “scientifically
based” interventions, more and more school systems are enlisting “bottom-up”
approaches with readers who struggle. In some cases, these approaches may help
younger students perform adequately on tests closely matched to phonics, sight word
vocabulary, and fluency, yet do very little to assist older readers with meaning-making
and, therefore, gains in standardized reading scores.

This dissertation study examines an alternative approach to “bottom-up” reading
instruction for middle grade readers deemed “struggling.” In the next chapter, I discuss
the issues surrounding readers who struggle in greater depth and review relevant
literature. In Chapter 3, I address how I situate this dissertation study and describe the
methods employed to respond to the research questions. In Chapters 4, 5 and 6, I present
the results of my findings in great detail, through the discourse analysis of three reading
conversations. Chapter 6 also includes a comparative analysis of the modes of
involvement. Chapter 7 addresses the analysis of core works of adolescent literature with
high and low involvement features and readability scales. In Chapter 8, I draw

conclusions from this study and address its implications.

10

lntrodu

study. it
behind. !
mg: it
for resul
cerpleri;
examine
categoriz
inters'ent
urge an 3

instead a

Struggli:

 

Chapter 2

WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO BE A READER WHO STRUGGLES?:
INSTRUCTIONAL LEGACIES AND POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVES

Introduction

The purpose of this chapter is to frame the problem addressed by this dissertation
study. As federal and state policy makers increase pressures to ensure that no child is left
behind, school districts wonder what kinds of programs they should enact for their
struggling readers. As these mandates are imposed on classroom teachers, the pressure
for results is heightened. Interventions for readers who struggle become increasingly
perplexing as students move through the grades. The first aim of this chapter is to
examine what it means to be a struggling reader and to explore the diversity among those
categorized as such. The second aim of this chapter is to examine the instructional
interventions typically implemented to remediate middle level struggling readers, and to
urge an alternative plan — one in which the instructional interventions are remediated
instead of the students themselves.
Struggling Readers

There is an extensive body of research on struggling readers (Carlsen, 1974;

Smith, 1984; Applebee, Langer & Mullis, 1985; Atwell, 1987, 1990; Nell, 1988;
Donnellson & Nelson, 1989; Sherrill & Ley, 1994; Huck, 1997; Ivey & Broadus, 2001).
Struggling readers, who are often at the low end of classroom performance, are
distinguished by a set of characteristics that are common and consistent across schools.
They read and write less than their higher performing peers, do not choose to read and
write (even actively avoid doing so), are less metacognitively aware, less likely to

connect what they have read to their own lives, and are more likely to cling to simplistic

ll

interpretations (Allington, 1983; Palinscar & Brown, 1984). Struggling readers will tell
you that they do not like to read, that it is boring, and too hard. They have not developed
personal reading lives and avoid reading whenever possible (Robb, 2000). They do not
engage with text because it is a painful chore. As a matter of fact, struggling readers find
reading so painful that the majority avoid it at all costs (Beers & Samuels, 1995).
Diversity among readers who struggle

The term “struggling reader” is an umbrella concept covering a broad range of
diversity. Many struggling readers have difficulty with phonological decoding.
Difficulties with working out the correct pronunciation of a certain grapheme string
negatively influences reading accuracy, fluency, and comprehension. These readers
typically distance themselves from reading whenever possible, as it is too labor intensive.
This avoidance puts them on a downward spiral compared to their more competent peers,
because by avoiding reading, they do not continue to develop a language base or
background knowledge (Samuels, 1995).

Some have difficulties with fluency. According to Wolf and Katzir-Cohen
(2001), reading fluency refers to “a level of accuracy and rate where decoding is
relatively effortless; where oral reading is smooth and accurate with correct prosody; and
where attention can be allocated to comprehension” (p. 219). Disfluent readers who lack
sufficient decoding and word recognition skills, and may lack awareness of prosodic
cues, read in a slow, hesitant, and often laborious manner, which interferes with
comprehension.

Others, at the opposite end of the spectrum with regard to fluency, are considered

hyperfluent. These readers are characterized by “effortless reading in which automaticity

l2

3.31; thsflt
mprehe:
shils are l
in the reac

Yr
reader is c
5" deemed
‘ s. lgglin
Phelps t it
lacing edu
unmet

as being a

10 apply cc

 

and accuracy are evident” (Lipson & Lang, 1991), which makes them seem contrary to
their disfluent peers. They do, however, often manifest the same difficulties with
comprehension as those who are disfluent. Their decoding and sight word identification
skills are highly polished, yet they do not enact meaning-making strategies while engaged
in the reading act.

Yet another subcategory of struggling reader is the aliterate reader. The aliterate
reader is described as one who is capable of reading, but chooses not to, because reading
is deemed undesirable (Beers & Samuels, 1995). Often, these students are rarely labeled
“struggling” readers and exit school with an antipathy toward reading. Alverman &
Phelps (2001) state that aliteracy is fast becoming one of the most vexing problems
facing educators today. I argue that the aliterate reader warrants concern equal to those
described above and should be deemed “struggling” for three reasons. First, what counts
as being a highly competent reader in school, and today’s society, demands the capacity
to apply complex, critical reading strategies to a variety of texts (Pearson & Stephens,
1993) and these aptitudes do not stay polished if not practiced. Second, this reluctance
toward reading may have the potential to deny these students access to exchanges of
critical thought and ideas in a global society, in which literacy is necessary to knit people
and ideas together. Third, their antipathy denies them the pleasurable experience
savoring books brings about and, therefore, they are unlikely to become lifelong readers.
“Struggling” - a pejorative and politically charged term

There are as many reasons why middle level readers struggle as there are readers
themselves. labeling someone a struggling reader, therefore, is far more complex than

the term indicates. It bears noting that the teacher/researcher of this dissertation study

13

 

‘ .

ehdreng. .
“3

58115-6. :11

‘77
I L ial

(1')

groups. it
uninvolve
on stroggl
pressures
the term v
mponsibi
garlic be

nature oft

Historical

 

recognizes the pejorative nature of the term “struggling reader.” First, to “struggle,”
means to labor with great effort in pursuit of a goal or a task (Webster’s Encyclopedia,
1981). Certainly in the academic setting, learning experiences should be intellectually
challenging for our students, as this is how they move from the new to the known. In this
sense, “struggling” has a positive connotation. With regard to readers, those labeled
“struggling” are often isolated from their peers in academic settings, as well as social
groups, which often does a great deal to perpetuate their low self-esteem and
uninvolvement in and out of school (Stanovich, 2000). In the literature on reading, work
on struggling readers, specifically, has drawn considerable attention, especially with the
pressures of No Child Left Behind (2000). Therefore, for the purpose of this study, I use
the term with intent, as I hope to speak to fellow educators who are given the
responsibility and privilege of working with such students, and to contribute to the
specific body of research on struggling readers. I recognize, however, the derogatory
nature of the term.
Historical treatment of struggling readers

Historically, the research indicates that struggling middle level readers have
encountered different treatment in schools than their more successful peers (Stanovich,
2000). Most struggling readers are placed in remedial classes for reading instruction. In
these remedial classes, isolated skills and tasks are emphasized. This kind of instruction
is prevalent, as teachers perceive the remedy for their deficits as needing a “bottom up”
approach (Carrillo & Cox, 1992). For example, if teachers recognize that struggling
readers have difficulty with reading fluency, they frequently design lessons around

phonics activities done in isolation fi'om real text, instead of selecting appropriate texts

14

haflmmP
inisolation do it

did not produce

  
  

in pro-
have a difficult 1
reading comprel
come away witl
then have dilfn
mmuw
Oldfather (199
Struggling read
3!? rarely git e
read

Sims...
Bunches and ,g l
mgagcmem i I
Widens foun I
Fling stud.I

Ilimitation .

 

Content of Qt
litemillre.

ll is

IS the kind (3.

 

for students to practice fluency while doing actual reading. These kinds of lessons done
in isolation do nothing to engage struggling readers with real text, and skills in isolation
did not produce competent readers (Stanovich, 2000).

In programs for struggling readers, in which skills are overemphasized, students
have a difficult time responding to the more demanding critical and creative aspects of
reading comprehension (Tovani, 2004). When given opportunities to read real text, they
come away with only surface-level understanding (Applebee, 1991). These students,
then, have difficulty when asked to think more deeply about what they have read; when
they are asked to defend, elaborate, or write about their ideas, they cannot do so.
Oldfather (1995) claims that this lack of critical thought occurs not only because
struggling readers are rarely given opportunities to read real text, but also because they
are rarely given opportunities to engage in interesting discussions about what they have
read.

Struggling readers often lack being a part of a community of learners that
enriches and extends mutual thinking and ideas, and enhances their motivation for further
engagement in reading. A study by Nystrand and Gamoran (1991) of middle school
Students found a substantive difference in the discourse between high and low tracks of
reading students. The low track reading classes commonly were asked for recitable
information and little to no student-generated questions. In the higher track classes, the
content of questions and classroom discourse in general, was more thoughtful about the
literature.

It is evident from the research that part of what works to create struggling readers

is the kind of instruction these children receive in school. I liken this to the infamous

15

«pttmalian
{he exptflfill
kmllOI. Ir
elementaryf
of’lle studet
sigriticant g
youth" Al
“intelligent"
teachers exp
students to h
change in tea
from those it
In 19
muma
mid) based :
iflltstigated t
engaging low

mggling rea

    
  
  
 

Goatley& p3
2001: Florio.
The lDSlIuctit
the tillical tr.

“Plununiut-

“Pygmalian in the classroom” study (Rosenthal & Jacobson, 1968) that evidenced that
the expectations teachers have of their students’ behavior can unwittingly influence that
behavior. In this study, researchers gave an intelligence test to all students in an
elementary school at the beginning of the school year. Next, they randomly selected 20%
of the students and reported to teachers that these students could be expected to make
significant gains during the school year, as they showed potential for “intellectual
growth.” At the end of the year, all students were re-tested and those labeled
“intelligent” showed significantly greater gains. The findings indicated that when
teachers expected students to do well, they tended to do well; when teachers expected
students to fail, they tended to fail. Implicit in these findings was that, conversely, a
change in teachers’ expectations can lead to an improvement in intellectual performance
fi'om those who are usually expected to achieve the least.

In 1996, a study was conducted by Taffy Raphael and Susan Florio-Ruane, as
part of the Center for the Improvement of Early Reading Achievement (CIERA). This
study, based in part on previous work on dialogue, inquiry, and learning in Book Club,
investigated teacher’s learning in dialogue and inquiry, and addressed the problem of
engaging low-achieving learners in classroom literacy learning. As a result of this study,
Struggling readers did make gains in reading comprehension ( McMahon, Raphael,
Goatley & Pardo, 1997; Raphael, Florio-Ruane, Kehus, George, Hasty & Highfield,
2001; Florio-Ruane & deTar, 2001; F lorio-Ruane, Raphael, Highfield & Beme, 2004).
The instructional practices implemented in these classrooms were unique, compared to

the typical treatments received by most struggling readers elsewhere, as they were given

Opportunities to read and write ofien, and become members of a literary discourse

l6

community-
Peers in hete
Past reading
I we:
snagging n
instruction.
When they l
muttering p
character. pl
these questic
would skim :
Whole. This.
Would not co
could make it

Engagt’ment

    
  

En33.2mm
Reading R55,
Rfitarch an;
“m functit

Mtlt'r. ] 996

community. Struggling readers also worked and learned alongside their more competent
peers in heterogeneous classrooms.
Past reading treaauents of my students

I went back to my classroom and discussed past instructional practices with my
struggling readers. My students described being pulled out of class for reading
instruction. Most indicated that they worked on phonics worksheets during this time.
When they had opportunities to read, it entailed reading a book on their own and
answering prepared questions about the basic literary elements of a story such as
character, plot, and setting. When asked how they would go about finding the answers to
these questions, my students described a method which I call “seek and find.” They
would skim and scan the chapters to find the answers, instead of reading the chapter as a
whole. This, they explained, they did so they would not have to read. Several simply
would not complete their assignments in the first place. Many of them indicated that they
could make it through an entire school year without reading very much at all.
Engagement vs. Involvement

My students had taught me that they were artful at finding ways to avoid reading.
They were so disengaged, that I realized my first challenge was to find ways to connect
them with books, or the gap between them and their more proficient peers would widen.
Engagement in reading has been deemed central to literacy growth by the National
Reading Research Center ('NRRC), which was funded by the Office of Educational
Research and Improvement (Guthrie & Wigfield, 1987). Engagement is defined as the
“joint functioning of motivations and strategies during reading” (Guthrie & Van

Meter,1996, p. l). Guthrie and Alao (1997) state that engaged readers

17

acquire the competencies and motivations to read for diverse
purposes, gaining knowledge, performing a task, interpreting an
author’s perspective, sharing reactions to stories and informational
text, escaping into the literary world, or taking social and political
action in response to what is read.

Interest and engagement are two constructs sometimes used interchangeably
with each other and with involvement. Of the three, the term engagement is the most
widely used in current research literature on reading. In contrast, involvement refers to a
psychological process in which an individual, while involved in a task, has his/her
attention wholly concentrated on that task, making a sense of time irrelevant, coinciding
with deep comprehension of the task material (Reed et al, 1996). Involvement is at the
juncture of the cognitive and affective processes necessary for a task. When involvement
is deep, a coupling of comprehension and concentration occurs (Reed & Schallert, 1993).
When involved in a story, a reader is focusing on it to the exclusion of other possible
tasks, and is constructing meaning that is rich and complex. Involvement also adds a
focused, emotional investment in the task along with a motivational drive to continue.

In terms of the relation of involvement to engagement, involvement is seen as a
special type of engagement. Engagement subsumes involvement in the sense that it is
possible to be engaged without experiencing much involvement in a task, but it is not
possible to be involved in a task, without first being engaged. Although engagement
includes the idea of invoking strategies and making conscious choices to fulfill a literacy
task, strong involvement is not likely to be associated with an awareness of striving or of

willing oneself to complete a task. When deeply involved, the term “flow” is used to

describe an individual’s state of mind as he/she is so engrossed in an activity that

18

will

on.

for ED)

factors

tothe

reader.

,.___

llCthT.‘

Reade.

Rosenh
term
her ran
hetu eei
rtsearcl
lotions
leader a
Whole l.‘
“'1‘ the
the text
hint on

W cam

stretches and challenges abilities, and is pursued for its own sake (Csikszentmihalyi,
1 993).

With this in mind, I considered the kind of program I would need to put in place
for my students. This brought me to my first overarching research question: What
factors will involve Grade 6 struggling readers with reading? Considering an alternative
to the traditional skills-based, pull-out program for struggling readers, I capitalized on
three ideas prevalent in the research literature to design a program for struggling Grade 6
readers: Reader response theory, sociocultural theories of learning, and adolescent
literature itself.

Reader response theory

Reader response theory has been greatly influenced by the work of Louise
Rosenblatt (1938/1976). Rosenblatt defines response to literature as a transaction
between the reader and the text, an integrated relationship between reader and text. In
her transactional theory, she argues that meaning exists as a result of the interaction
between the reader and text, and not solely within the reader or the text. In the past,
researchers in the field presumed that meaning resided solely in the text, and it was the
responsibility of the reader to find that meaning on the page. This stance overlooked the
reader as bringing his/her unique experiences to the page. Others, especially during the
whole language movement, claimed that meaning resided in the reader, that the reader
was the most central element in the reading (Purves, 1985). This stance overlooked that
the text was also an important contributor to meaning. Rosenblatt (1985) was quick to
point out that, although meaning is constructed, interpreted and revised by readers, the

text cannot be ignored. This theory implies an active reader, constantly working to

19

with t
text n
llany
the ef

feels :

contin

prt‘gra
solely
titpen.
ripen.-
l3 utter
ll‘us p1

[mesh

achieve meaning with the guidance of the text. This is why Rosenblatt used the term
“transaction” to describe the interrelationship between the reader and the text.

The nature of this transaction depends on the stance or approach the reader takes
with the text, focusing the reader and making an impact on how he or she responds to the
text and constructs meaning (Ali, 1994; Cox & Many, 1992; Enciso, 1992; Langer, 1992;
Many & Wiseman, 19923). Rosenblatt (1976) identifies two stances — the aesthetic and
the efferent. The aesthetic stance focuses on what the reader experiences, thinks, and
feels during the reading. It is the lived-through experience described as entering the story
world that characterizes this stance. In contrast, the efferent stance has as its purpose to
carry information away from the text, to learn something rather than to experience
something. Rosenblatt states that these stances are not binary, but, operate on a
continuum.

In school, however, the predominant mode of response is efferent, especially in
programs for struggling readers. When students respond efferently, they are responding
solely to the literary elements of a book. They are not having a “lived through”
experience. When individuals read literature efferently, they are reading to study it, not
experience it. Rosenblatt’s transactional model is contrary to the way in which literature
is often taught in schools. Literature instruction ofien focuses mostly on correct answers.
This predisposes students to take the efferent stance and prohibits a greater degree of
investment — or involvement — than an aesthetic stance allows.

Beers & Samuels (1995, p. 46) state that when a reader reads aesthetically,
attention is centered directly on what he is living through
during his relationship with that particular text and he pays

attention to the associations, feelings, attitudes and ideas
that these words and their referents arouse within him,

20

er;
the:

liOl

“lite
built

mi‘ol

SOClt

synthesizing these elements into a meaningful structure.
Said another way, when readers read aesthetically, they are involved. As Probst (1988)
points out, the aesthetic response allows students the freedom to deal with their own
reactions to the text, which also means that teachers should ask students what they see,
feel, think, and remember as they read, encouraging them to attend to their own
experience with the text. They are allowed the opportunities to respond to what moved
them in the text, to connect the experiences of the characters with their own lives, and to
wonder and ask questions they have generated on their own. The strongest involvements
are made when a reader can have a “lived through” experience with the text.

Soter (1999) advises that to involve readers, teachers must invite students first to
experience text aesthetically, since students cannot effectively move to an analysis level
until they have first worked through, processed, savored, and shared their personal
responses. Probst (1988) adds that the pathway to analysis and to more sophisticated and
defensible interpretations of literature must go through aesthetic response and not around
it. If the strongest involvements are brought about when a reader is able to first have a
“lived through” experience with the text, a program for middle level struggling readers,
built with reader response theory in mind, may be more successful in increasing their
involvement and, therefore, their motivation to read.

Sociocultural theories of learning

The second idea in the literature that is relevant to the problem of middle level
Struggling readers comes from the research on sociocultural theories of learning (Mead,
1934; Cicourel et al, 1974; Bandura, 1977; Mehan, 1979; Gumperz & Gumperz, 1981;

Leont’ev, 1981; Minsky, 1986; Winograd & Flores, 1986; Latour, 1987; Resnick, 1987,

21

llll; 0
tell of
press:
shield
and hit
normal}
Social i
this “sit
context
the sun
l989; L
lncomp

Discoui

of leam]
del‘thp;
Bf‘dtlnin
genres.

with p
mlmttlc
mlllOnm

pmhtxah

1991; Ochs, 1988; Eckert, 1989). Sociocultural theories of learning, based largely on the
work of Vygotsky (1978), emphasize the interdependence of social and individual
processes in the co—construction of knowledge. In Vygotsky’s view, peer interaction,
scaffolding, and modeling are important ways to facilitate individual cognitive growth
and knowledge acquisition. Lave (1996) elaborates by asserting that learning as it
normally occurs is a function of the activity, context, and culture in which it occurs.
Social interaction, she claims, is a critical component of situated learning because it is in
this “situatedness” that learners become involved in a community of practice, which
embodies certain beliefs and behaviors to be acquired. Said another way, the social
context in which cognitive activity takes place is an integral part of that activity, not just
the smrounding context for it (Egan & Greeno, 1973, 1988; Brown, Collins, & Duguid,
1989; Lave, 1988; Resnick, 1990). It is in this environment that learners move from
incompetence to competence.
Discourse communities
The notion of a discourse community is a key component of sociocultural theories
of learning. Many researchers have described the vital role language plays in the
development of thought (Mead, 1934; Vygotsky, 1978, 1979; Wertsch, 1988; Gee, 1990).
Bahktin (1986) states that when students interact with others, they adopt various speech
genres. They move from one social setting to another and, as they do, they modify their
speech patterns to fit the new context. Gee (1990) calls this an identity kit for each group
interaction. Teachers can help students create a literary identity kit by building an
environment that supports the kind of thinking and involvement with text that leads to

provocative and complex discussions. Responding to text in such a community involves

22

Hf

3C!

En

readers by building understanding and both the opportunity and ability to communicate a
perspective. Being members of a literate community allows students to communicate
their developing responses (V ygotsky, 1987). In a joint position paper, the International
Reading Association and the National Middle School Association recommended actions
in schools that included providing struggling readers with ample time to read and discuss
reading with others (Raphael, 1996). Creating an effective learning environment in such
a manner would demand the existence of a discourse community rich in language that
enables learners to express their developing thoughts (Gee, 1990). This discourse
community would be one in which students think deeply about their reading, with the
ability to elaborate on their ideas, as this is critical to involving middle school readers,
especially those who struggle and resist reading (Berthoff, 1981). g Therefore, meeting the
needs of struggling readers requires, first and foremost, the development of classroom
environments that sustain inquiry and reflection, agency, and authentic, collaborative
action (Resnick, 1977).
Embedded reading strategy instruction

Responsible teaching, however, dictates that these conversations not become
“anything goes.” Students must be taught to have more strategic competence with what
they read. In order to do this, I had to shape our discourse community into an
instructional one embedded with reading comprehension strategies. Embedded strategy
instruction is derived fi'om the work of Vygotsky’s (1981) social development theory.
Vygotsky (197 8) asserts that social interaction plays a fundamental role in the

development of cognition, and that “every function in the child’s cultural development

23

arrear-

peoplf

acuiuy
theyjoi
uuuuct
McDon
Instruct
thatare
1999)
adtanc
probler
capable

50that

finposn

 

appears twice: first, on the social level, and later, on the individual level; first between
people (interpsychological) and then inside the child (intrapsychological).” (p. 57)

Vygotsky claims that all development and learning originates as socially based
activity, because real learning always entails collaboration between children and adults as
they jointly negotiate understanding. These understandings come about through
instruction that is challenging, contextualized, and scaffolded (Pressley, Wharton-
McDonald & Mistretta, 1998; Tracey & Morrow, 1998; Bransford et a1; 1999).
Instruction in this form works to sustain children’s active involvement in conversations
that are fundamental for acquiring effective reading strategies (Guthrie & Anderson,
1999). He refers to this as the zone of proximal development (ZPD) which is learning in
advance of development. The ZPD is the distance between the, level of independent
problem-solving and the level of problem-solving in collaboration with an adult or more
capable peer. Wertsch (1978) adds that the learning interaction must be difficult enough
so that it has not already been mastered, but simple enough so that it will not be
impossible for the child to understand.

Pearson and Gallagher (1983) further elaborated on Vygotsky’s theory by
developing a gadual release of responsibility model (GRR) with specific focus on
literacy instruction. In the GR model (Figure 2.1) learning comes about through
scaffolding. The zone of actual development represents the student’s current independent
application of knowledge and strategies. The teacher models successful task completion
for the student while drawing attention to the key portions of the experience. In this way,
the teacher assists the student in developing strategies beyond his/her current level of

development. Over time, responsibility is transferred to the student as he/she intemalizes

24

dalegue
collabor.

rays (H-

T

Zone
deve

St

hhalh
can 3!
indEp

\
\

 

.hdolescc

F
0f literati
Ml inter
Beach IS
Shier, 1!
The Uni qr
directly it
such as id
nl

and utilizes the tools for accomplishing the task on his/her own. The gadual release of
responsibility requires variable amounts of assistance on the part of the teacher.
Teaching and learning are the responsibility of both the teacher and the learner
throughout all phases of this process, since each are full participants in a collaborative
dialogue (V ygotsky, 1962, 197 8; Bakhtin, 1981 ; Wertsch, 1991). Through this
collaborative dialogue, students are apprenticed to think in academically appropriate

ways (Herrington, 1985; McCarthy, 1987; Berkenkotter et al, 1988).

 

 

 

 

 

 

TABLE 2.1: GRADUAL RELEASE OF RESPONSIBILITY MODEL
New zone of
2:399: 2:3? Zone of proximal development actual
p development
Student Teacher Joint Student
. Transition from
What the student Assnstanee from receiving assistance . What the student
can already do teacher, peer, or to working can do
Independently envnronment independently Independently
F Gradual release of responsibility b

Adolescent literature

Finally, a progam for middle school struggling readers needs to attend to the kind
of literature available for them to read. Literature for adolescents covers a broad range of
both interest and genre for young persons, ranging in age from ten to nineteen (Purves &
Beach, 1972; Smith, 1983; Alverman & Moure, 1991; Wood, Iapp & Flood, 1992;
Stover, 1994; Berliner, 1995; Hynds, 1997; Campbell, 1998; Brozo & Simpson, 1999).
The unique appeal of adolescent literature is the way in which works deal with issues
directly related to those individuals who are moving fiom childhood to adulthood Issues
such as identity formation, the tension between dependence and independence, ones’
place in the family, social justice, and fairness are of great interest. Adolescents do not

find much appeal for works that are overly moralistic and “preachy.” Adolescents prefer

25

MEI

ch:

an
3' ,

ad

inter

Rest

“ha
Hon
com
How
Hour

trade

ronmd characters — those who can grow and change as the story unfolds -— as well as
characters with whom they can identify. Specifically, they prefer round protagonists who
are also dynamic characters (Chance, 1997). Adolescents find adventure stories
appealing as they can be “swept away” into the story world through well—developed plots
and quick-moving action (Blasingame, 1999). Carlsen (1980) suggests that for both boys
and girls aged eleven to fourteen, “literature becomes a way of seeing themselves and of
testing possible solutions to their own problems” (p. 40). Typically, struggling readers
have access to books based primarily on their reading level, which often means
vocabulary controlled works of literature which often are not age- or interest-level
appropriate for middle gade students.

These reviews did not specify the kinds of adolescent readers who found these
characteristics appealing. They focused, instead, on the books students chose to read. It
remains to be seen whether or not struggling readers would find these books to be of
interest.

Research Questions
The overarching questions for this dissertation study are these:
What factors involve Grade 6 struggling readers with reading?
How do Grade 6 readers become involved as members of a literary discourse
community?
How do Grade 6 readers become involved as strategic readers?
How do particular features in works of adolescent literature involve Grade 6

readers?

26

What
in\0|\'

Sumrr

tartan

(’1
tr”;
(1 2

mm
the mil
hum re

brough

 

 

What are the particular discourse strategies used by a group of Grade 6 readers
involving themselves and others with reading?
Summary

This chapter provides a description of readers who struggle and highlights the
variation within those students labeled as such. According to the research literature,
struggling readers, historically, have received very different treatment in school. These
treatments have not been effective in improving their reading achievement as they reach
the middle grades. Thoughtfinl consideration of this, along with the research literature
from reader response theory, sociocultural theories of learning, and adolescent literature

brought Margaret Mead’s (1934) question to mind, What if it were otherwise?

27

W0

lntroducti.

 

 

Chapter 3

TEACHER AS RESEARCHER:

WORKING AND LEARNING IN TANDEM WITH MY STUDENTS

Introduction

“Teachers are subjective insiders involved in classroom
instruction as they go about their daily routines of instructing
students, grading papers, taking attendance, evaluating their
performance as well as looking at the curriculum. Traditional
educational researchers who develop questions and design
studies around those questions and conduct research within
the schools are considered objective outside observers of
classroom interaction. But when teachers become teacher-
researchers, the traditional descriptions of both teachers and
researchers change. Teacher-researchers raise questions about
what they think and observe about their teaching and their
students’ learning. They collect student work in order to
evaluate performance, but they also see student work as data
to analyze in order to examine the teaching and learning that
produced it” (MacLeon & Mohr, 1999, p. x).

This study was designed to explore and investigate what happens when a group

of Grade 6 students deemed “struggling” readers in a tracked class titled, Reading

Essentials, receive reading instruction embedded in an alternative participation structure.

This study was a form of teacher research, since I held dual roles as classroom teacher

and researcher. The research questions that framed this dissertation study evolved from

the charge I was given by my principal, Mr. Mark Mulholland, to improve the reading

scores of entering Grade 6 students, who were at least l 1/2 years deficient in reading,

compared to their peers, according to results on standardized tests. These questions were:

1) What factors involve Grade 6 struggling readers with reading?

2) How do Grade 6 readers become involved as members of a literary discourse

community?

28

3) H0
rea
4) “I

ma

that suppoi
and then as
researcher.
and mticis
including p
including tl
gathering n
Situating t;

Fre
Watch is 1
assumrition
COMchtior

riscarch foc

lKAplan ant

expeiltnt‘es

 

 

3) How do particular features in works of adolescent literature involve Grade 6
readers?

4) What are the particular discourse strategies used by a group of Grade 6
readers involving themselves and each other with reading?

In this chapter, I provide a rationale and description of the research methodology
that supports this dissertation study. I first situate this dissertation study as interpretive
and then as participant observational. Since I shared dual roles as both teacher and
researcher, I then situate this study as teacher research. Next, I address the benefits of
and criticisms surrounding such research. I then describe the design of this study,
including participants and field data. Lastly, I describe my methods of data analysis,
including three complementary modes of involvement the data revealed, termed
gathering mode, supporting mode, and advancing mode.

Situating this study as interpretive

Frederick Erickson (1986) claimed that the primary characteristic of qualitative
research is the centrality of interpretation. Interpretive researchers start out with the
assumption that access to reality (given or socially constructed) is only through social
constructions such as language, consciousness, and shared mearnings. Interpretive
research focuses on the fill] complexity of human sense making as a situation emerges
(Kaplan and Maxwell, 1994). Individuals and their beliefs are influenced by their
experiences and the contexts in which they operate, and also influence those experiences
and contexts by existing in them. A hallmark of interpretive research is that it allows the

researcher to capture those complex experiences as they function in real life (Spradley,

29

1980). The 2
another spec
Situating th

The l
participant 0
phases. and
Somekh. 19‘
amt-mt
phses of th
educatitmal
Bill ).

One
iui'olrement
the the rese
Waring 35
Oh?“ aSSOCiz
Ecahedrea,
endemed w
A teacher re:
Mattie of 1~
item and

on Wllh the

 

biiiai'ior (p.

1980). The ability to focus on the targeted data in the most natural settings available is
another specific advantage of interpretive research.
Situating this study as participant observational

The key data collector in qualitative research is the participant observer. The
participant observer is not a stranger to the situation, therefore she knows the language,
phrases, and particular vocabulary common to the environment (Altrichter, Posch &
Somekh, 1993). This knowledge allows the participant observer an understanding of the
events - in this case — the classroom and the educational culture — from the beginning
phases of the data collection. The participant observer can ask sensible questions about
educational events, and can develop strategies for data collection of all kinds (Bardine,
2001).

One criticism of participant observational research is the level of personal
involvement of the particular researcher. In the classroom setting in which the teacher is
also the researcher, she is deeply and personally involved with her students. A teacher,
operating as a participant observational researcher, can markedly reduce the problem
often associated with an outside researcher coming into a particular environment, which
is called reactivity. Reactivity is referred to as the degree of artificiality that may be
evidenced when an outside observer comes into a setting and, thereby, alters the setting.
A teacher researcher can reduce problems of reactivity among the members of the study
because ofher personal involvement and familiarity. She understands the educational
system and how it operates, and fits in well, so the class and school participants soon go
on with the business of allowing the researcher to collect data, with a minimum change in

behavior (Bumaford, 2001).

30

Situating th

Set't
including: as
interactive n
names
interchange:
reseath is t
consumer oi
identify the
focus on the
the daily life
Thine & hi;

teacher rese;

The
Wu (R05
ah011i leach l

Publishers. 1,

 

e”inns n

comtmm if}:

 

Situating this study as teacher research
Several terms for teacher research are encountered in education literature,

including: action research, practitioner research, teacher-as-scholar, practical inquiry,
interactive research, classroom inquiry, and practice-centered inquiry (Downhower,
Melvin & Sizemore, 1990; Williamson, 1992). These terms may not be completely
interchangeable, yet, a common thread running through various conceptions of teacher
research is that the teacher is an active constructor of knowledge, rather than a passive
consumer of it (Miller & Pine, 1990; Williamson, 1992). McCutcheon and Jung (1990)
identify the core components of teacher research as systematic inquiry, reflexivity, and
focus on the practical. It seeks to answer questions and solve problems that arise from
the daily life of the classroom, and to put findings into immediate practice (McKay, 1992;
Twine & Martinek, 1992). It is this systematic inquiry that is the hallmark of effective
teacher research (Shalaway, 1990). Defined more succinctly,

teacher research is a distinctive way of krnowing

about teaching and learning. It involves the careful

study of students in educational practice - what and

how they learn. The research is personal because it

represents not only the search for general principles

or theories of school curriculum or instruction but

also the search for understanding and improving

one’s everday practice (Zeichner & Noffke, 2001).

The benefits of teacher research are many. The key to professional growth is
inquiry (Ross, 1999). When teachers become agents of inquiry, the locus of knowledge
about teaching shifts from sources external to the classroom (researchers, textbook
publishers, administrators) to sources of practical classroom experience. This shift

enhances the professional status of teaching, because teachers, through this knowledge

construction, actively help to shape the knowledge base of their own profession (Johnson,

31

1993)- T'
pedagogi
Groundin
their our]
indeed in
capacity 1
litle. ZOI

Criticism.

With the it
professior
and promc
fiber is
Oi’he clas
does not it
teachers‘ \I
extensive l
dilailtd an
the typical
i0r doing 3(

A se
h'OICe that te

reSearch cop

 

1993). Teacher research is viewed as a powerful vehicle for deepening teachers’
pedagogical content knowledge (Shulman, 1987, Tom, 1999, Cochran-Smith, 2003).
Grounding teachers’ learning experience in their own practice, by conducting research in
their own classrooms and school community, makes it likely that what they learn will
indeed influence and support their teaching practice in meaningful ways, and build the
capacity to increase student leanning as well (Putrnam & Borko, 2000; Cochran-Smith &
Lytle, 2001).
Criticisms of teacher research

Teacher research, however, is not without its criticisms. One critique has to do
with the teacher’s role. Academic researchers engage in research as part of their
professional role, which means that resources and time are provided for their research,
and promotion and credit are gained through such research. The role of the classroom
teacher is to teach, which is a hectic and time-consuming activity, and the responsibilities
of the classroom teacher do not cease once the students have left the classroom. This role
does not include research, so the resources and time for research are not a normal part of
teachers’ working conditions. As a consequence, teachers do not have time for writing
extensive literature reviews, for constructing complex data collection procedures, or for
detailed analysis of findings (Kemmis, 1988). Research is not integated into the life of
the typical classroom teacher, so they rarely receive advancement or monetary rewards
for doing so.

A second critique of teacher research comes from professional researchers who
voice that teachers are neither professional researchers, nor members of a professional

research community who support and sustain research. Opportunities for publication are

32

limited 2
research
addition
hit is di
n’nich te

. I"
appled.

{Cochran
“throttle
same epi
assunpn
bowled;
questioni
difficult t
possibilit
Challenge

Teacher 1

O{defiant ;
Hitler. lot

limited as are events for reporting and discussing research. Not only are teacher
researchers in environments which do not promote research, they are also subject to
additional criticisms by professional research bodies as conducting the kind of research
that is devalued and considered less than rigorous (Mickan, 1990). The very qualities for
which teachers’ research is advocated by teacher educators — contextualized, descriptive,
applied, and anecdotal in style — cause critics to make such derogatory claims.

A third critique of teacher research stems around epistemological issues
(Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999). This criticism asserts that if teachers are to generate
“knowledge” about teaching, learning, and schooling, it should be done according to the
same epistemological traditions as research intended to generate formal knowledge. The
assumption embedded in this criticism is that only formal knowledge, not practical
knowledge, is valid. Specifically, criticism is centered around methodological issues
questioning whether or not teacher research is research at all. It posits that it is extremely
difficult to understand events when one is participating in tlnem, and therefore, the
possibility of a teacher finnctioning as a researcher in his/her own classroom, or school, is
challenged (Henson, 1996).

Teacher as researcher: A particular perspective

To address these critiques, teacher researchers have provided standards of rigor,
systematicity, and intentionality (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1993; Hubbard & Power,
1999). Erickson describes the role of the teacher researcher as “that of an unusually
observant participant who deliberates inside the scene of action” (in Baumann & Duffy-
Hester, 2000, p. 93). Teacher researchers offer a particular perspective on classroom

practice as they have an insider perspective, and mix theory and practice (praxis), while

33

teaching
teacher
problen
The res

The tea

teaching
Elemen'
predom:
teaching
year sah
Work in
asked to
Simgglii
position
concern
Were fa}
”Show

leadingi

teaching and researching within the worlds of their classrooms (Baumann, 1996). The
teacher researcher is pragnatic and goal oriented - there are practical classroom
problems that need to be solved in an organic, real-world setting.
The research setting
The teacher researcher

I was a twenty-year veteran teacher at the time of this study. Most of my
teaching career had been spent working with fourth-and fifth-gade students at Monteith
Elementary School in Grosse Pointe. Grosse Pointe is an upper-middle class,
predominantly Caucasian suburb of Detroit. I had also spent the last five summers
teaching graduate courses in literacy for Michigan State University. I had taken a one-
year sabbatical from the Grosse Pointe Public School System to complete the course
work for my doctoral studies at Michigan State University. During the fall of 2004, I was
asked to move to Parcells Middle School to work with Grade 6 students who were
struggling with reading. Central Office adrnirnistration had created Reading Specialist
positions at each of the three middle schools in Grosse Pointe, as there was growing
concern that more and more entering Grade 6 students were not achieving in reading, and
were falling behind their more accomplished peers. These Reading Specialists would be
responsible for teaching tracked courses titled, Reading Essentials, to students whose
reading test scores indicated they were 1 '/2 years or more below grade level.

I accepted the position and the challenge that came with it. My responsibility
was to design a program in which students would not only improve in reading, but make
up gound when compared to their peers. I consider myself a whole language educator,

yet am cognizant that the term is politically charged. As a self-described whole language

34

educa‘:
isolati
term t
for lea
room ;
define
extend
neanii

The Rt

course
Twelve
ll0 ma}
Which i
cOmmu
househr
dcsciipt
Shared t‘!
to P00] r
T514014

[OHM/c

learned {k

educator, I mean that I believe skills and strategies are best taught in context and not in
isolation. I do not, however, consider myself a facilitator, coach, mentor, or any other
term that positions me in the classroom in ways that have the potential to be miseducative
for learners. I am the teacher. I consider myself the more knowledgeable person in the
room and, therefore, believe it is my responsibility to instruct. I view instruction as
defined by Underwood & Pearson ( 2004) as a “staging of purposeful activity over an
extended time frame.” I believe these learrning activities should be substantive,
mearningful, challenging, and based on theorized practice.
The Reading Essentials students

I was to have two classes of fifteen students each (16 males and 14 females) in a
cause called Reading Essentials. These students ranged in age fi'om eleven to twelve.
Twelve students were Afiican American (6 male, 6 female) and eighteen were Caucasian
(10 male, 8 female). Over half of my enrollment lived in a section of Harper Woods,
which is a part of the Grosse Pointe school district, yet on the periphery of the
community. Many of my students were from working class and working class poor
households in which several lived with a single parent, which is contrary to the
description of Grosse Pointe as an affluent community. Many of these same families
shared three-bedroom apartments with each other, in an area of Harper Woods, in order
to pool resources and send their children to the Grosse Pointe schools.
Test data

Formal assessments

I received files on my incoming students from each of their feeder schools and

learned they were labeled struggling readers based on a holistic array of both formal and

35

. r,
Kilt

A s
Stilt
int‘r

SCOl

scor
perc
plac

port:

pullc
being
has I

lift/n

assess

informal reading assessments. First, standardized tests such as the MEAP and the CTP-
IV indicated that these students struggled with text, and these test scores, along with
recommendations by Grade 5 teachers and Language Arts Specialists, qualified them for
placement in the Grade 6 Reading Essentials course. Scale scores ranged from 220 to 326
in story reading and from 257 to 349 in informational reading on the Grade 5 MEAP test.
A score on either reading test below 300 is considered low. Of the 30 student scores, 17
students scored in the low range in story reading and 16 students scored low in
informational reading. Fifteen of the 17 students who scored low in story reading also
scored low in informational reading. Thus, over half of the students scored in the low
range in story reading and half scored in the low range in informational reading.

Student scores on the reading section of the CTP-IV were also low. Their raw
scores in the reading subtest ranged from 10-25, placing them at the 24th to 66th
percentiles when compared to the national norms. The average score of the 30 students
placed in the Reading Essentials classes was 18.24. A perfect score on the reading
portion of this test is 45. Again, these students fell in the low range.

These students had also received support in the form of remediation from a
language Arts Specialist for at least three years in elementary school. This support was a
pullout progam. These students also were recommended by their Grade 5 teachers as
being in need of additional intensive support in reading as their middle school placement
was being considered.

Informal assessments
Upon enrollment in Reading Essentials, I administered two informal reading

assessments. The first was a Reading Interest Inventory from the Literacy Assessment

36

Ham

often

moth
maga
pictui
book
5 clas

them

l“cl; tl

Handbook of Instruments (Rhodes, 1993). This inventory asks questions such as, how
often do you read on your own? What are your favorite kinds of books? Do you like to
read? And, how many books have you read in the last month? Responses to these
questions revealed that these students did not like to read because they thought reading
was “boring’ or “too hard.” Others said they did not like to read because it took too long
and that they liked to “watch the movie better.” Two students indicated that they liked to
read, but “couldn’t remember what they read” and “weren’t very good at reading.”
Rarely did the results indicate that these students chose to read at home. Only five out of
the 30 responded that they read at home, and three of these said they did so because “their
mothers made them.” The other students indicated that they read skateboard and sports
magazines, yet elaborated in a follow-up interview that they mostly looked at the
pictures. Most had a difficult time listing a favorite book. When they did, it was often a
book a teacher had read to them. Nine students, all of whom had been in the same Grade
5 class the previous year, chose Tuck Everlasting (Babbit, 1975), a book read aloud to
them by their teacher. Seven students listed that they did not have a favorite book.

The second informal reading assessment used was the Qualitative Reading
Inventory IV (Leslie & Caldwell, 2001). This inventory evaluates students for fluency,
sight word identification, and reading comprehension. When given a gade level passage
to read orally, and then asked to retell the main idea, key events and details, students
could not achieve above 85% comprehension without the help of the teacher. Without
help from the teacher, the comprehension ranges were from 18% to 37%. Said another
way, when reading on their own with grade level passages, they scored at the frustration

level; the text was too difficult for them to comprehend. Results indicated that in reading

37

comprt'
indent

O

fmme

Twent
ranging
tempt:
test w]

4.9 wit

reading
there a:
immm
success

Hamre (

comprehension, 27 out of the 30 students ranged fiom a 3.2 to 4.1. This meant that their
independent reading level - text they could read and comprehend on their own - ranged
from early Grade 3 to early Grade 4.

In the sight word section of the reading inventory, students scored equally low.
Twenty six of the 30 students scored at the fi'ustration level with Grade 4 sight words,
ranging from 12% to 62%. A score above 85% indicated independent reading level
comprehension based on this inventory. I also gave them the Gates-MacGinitie reading
test, which is a standardized reading comprehension test. Their scores ranged fiom 2.9 to
4.9 with an average reading level of 4.05.

Many questions ruminated in my head. What made these children so resistant to
reading? What kinds of reading encounters would support them in the best ways? Were
there any particular kinds of books they would find involving and willing to read? What
instructional strategies would be the most effective for them? Factors leading to reading
success are complex (Drago-Severson & Pinto, 2004) and I knew I needed to explore the
nature of struggling readers in greater depth if I was going to be successful working and
leaming with my students. I decided to study these students in a more systematic way.
Student voices

“I thought our reading questions came fi'orn Massachusetts ”

Early conversations with these students suggested that they matched the
characteristics of students fiequently labeled “struggling” in the research literature. I was
aware, from my years of familiarity working within the school district, that these students
received remediation in the form of a pull-out program, and that interventions were based

on phonics practice in isolation, black-line materials from commercialized reading

38

pm

control

questic

wonde‘

“Ain 'z ,‘

programs, and reading books based on their reading level which were vocabulary
controlled.

I asked them if they had ever been given the opportunity to ask their own
questions about what they read, and if they had ever been asked what they thought, or
wondered about. The majority of students shook their heads, No, and one commented, “I
thought our reading questions came from Massachusetts.” He was referring to the
ancillary materials teachers provided as follow-up questions to chapters or entire books,
but he had made his point. Questions were given fi'om without, not generated from
within. Again, I knew this to be true from teaching in the district and witnessing the
kinds of interventions used with children who struggled with reading. I knew that these
children, given that their reading interventions had historically been a curriculum of skills
in isolation, had not been given opportunities to either become a part of —- or learn to
become a part of - a literary discourse community.

“A in ’t nobody never asked what I thought before! ”

My Reading Essentials students, when told they would be discussing what we
read, and that their voices would become the springboard for our literary learning, looked
quite surprised. One student captured the look of surprise on the faces of most of the
others, when he replied, “Ain’t nobody never asked what I thought before!” They were
about to learn to become members of a discourse community — one embedded with
strategic reading instruction — and for most of them, it would be a new experience.

Through my intensive study of the research thus far, I had begun to shape a
curricular framework for my students. I had come to believe that moving them out of a

traditional, monologic participation structure and into a dialogic participation structure

39

Week

m Ne
let‘s]. l
rim a}
(filing
Pretoco
Compre
00mm]
”996)!
Chapma

Comprel

I
N

7:;

7;
(‘)
Ff r
x

N
(V
C.

”v—K)‘
:37);
Aggy?

‘
53
S:-
(b

—*

would provide them with the cognitive tools necessary to become involved, competent,
strategic readers. I believed that providing them opportunities to read age- and interest-
1evel works of adolescent literature would enhance their involvement and also their
literary discussions.
The Reading Essentials Program

Reading Essentials students were in a double block of 48 minutes, five times per
week. Three days a week were devoted to guided reading of a common novel selected by
me. Novels used during guided reading were age-appropriate and at an instructional
level. Books at an instructional level for students are defined as books students can read
with a high degree of comprehension (87%) as long as the teacher provides support
(Allington, 2001). During guided reading, strategies were embedded such as think aloud
protocols, text look backs, and other forms of comprehension monitoring.
Comprehension monitoring strategies were embedded in this way since the
comprehensive studies conducted by Pressley and his colleagues (1990), Dole and hers
(1996), Pearson and Dole (1987), Pearson and Fielding (1991), Rosenshine, Meister &
Chapman (1996) and Mastropieri and Scruggs (1997) converge on one conclusion:
Comprehension can be improved when students are provided explicit demonstrations of
the strategies literate people use when they read. See Table 3.1 for a timetable of the core
novels read in class.

Table 3.1: Timetable of Core Novels Read in Class

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Great Gilly Hopkins late September through mid-November
Nightjohn mid-November through early December
Walk Two Moons mid-December through late January
The View From Saturday late January through mid-February
Freak the Mighty late February through mid-March
Sarny: A Life Remembered late March through mid-April

Max the Mighty mid-April through mid-May

 

40

 

riser
brou

WET!

ll’gliiy
lawns E
$7331,de
flttq flu

gildtllngg‘ 4'

 

The guided reading was followed by written response time. During this time,
students would respond aesthetically to what we had read, and/or be given
questions/issues to consider and respond to. Responding in writing provided students
with an opporttmity to organize their thoughts and gave them support for the reading
discussion that followed (Wong-Kam & Au, 1988). These questions and issues were
brought up during our guided reading and generated by the students. The discussions
were also embedded with reading strategy instruction when the need arose.

Two days a week were devoted to free choice reading time and process writing.
Books read as free choice were age- and interest-appropriate and written at an
independent reading level for each student. Books at the independent reading level are
those students can read on their own with a high level of comprehension (90%). In a
study on reading difficulty and achievement conducted by Garnbrell, Wilson, and Gant
(1981) it was found that time and opportunity for students to do much reading at the
independent level brought about gains in fluency, vocabulary development, and overall
comprehension. For reading, students could select a book they were capable of reading
on their own, from either the classroom library, or the school library, and spend time
reading and responding in their reading log.

Ofien, students would meet in pairs, or with me, to discuss chapters, or to
highlight points of interest in the reading. During this time, I would teach writing mini-
lessons and follow up with writing time, so students could apply the new learning to their
written drafts, and I would conference individually with students about their written
pieces. Students chose their own topics for most of their narrative writing and, within

guidelines, for report topics as well.

41

Data collection
This interpretive study, within the qualitative traditions, is the product of working

and learning with my Grade 6 Reading Essentials student throughout the 2004-2005
school year. The tradition of interpretive, participant observational fieldwork, according
to Frederick Erickson (1986) involves,

(a) intensive, long-term participation in a field setting;

(b) careful recording of what happens in the setting using

field notes and other documentary evidence (e. g., memos,

records, examples of student work, audio tapes and video

tap“);

(c) subsequent analytic reflection on the documentary record

obtained in the field;

(d) reporting in detailed description, using narrative

vignettes and direct quotes from interviews, as well

as by more general description in the form of analytic

charts, summary tables and descriptive statistics (p. 112).

In this conception of qualitative research, the researcher enters the field,
observes the field, documents as carefully as possible the phenomena that transpire;
participates in the field enough to interpret the meanings and significance of the
phenomena observed; and then analyzes, describes, and reports on her findings.

The qualitative researcher’s goal is to better understand human behavior and
experience. It is to grasp the process by which people construct meaning and to describe

what those meanings are. Field observers use empirical observation, because it is in

42

Wilde

 

finding concrete incidents of human behavior that researchers can think more clearly and
deeply about the human condition (Bogden & Biklen, 1998).
Particular artifacts

Erickson’s (1986) description of interpretive or qualitative research begins with
participation in the field and collection of evidence of “what happens.” For this project,
the data collected included daily observations and field notes from one class of eleven
Grade 6 Reading Essentials students from September 2004 through mid-June of 2005.
Copies of students’ written responses to literature were collected three times per week.
Transcriptions of audio taped conversations were gathered as well. These audio tapes
and transcriptions recorded the conversations Reading Essentials students had while they
shared, elaborated on, and discussed their written responses.

Transcriptions of audio tapes are of great learning value for both teachers and
students because they represent a “grounding of their own discussions of learning and
teaching, of moment to moment talk in classrooms” (Cazden, 2001, p. 6). Transcriptions
of audio tapes were made of fifteen whole-class and small group reading discussions.
Transcriptions of audio recordings from one-on-one follow-up student interviews were
made, when greater elaboration or explanation was warranted.

Student interviews concerning the works of adolescent literature were also
conducted and analyzed. An additional data source was the pre- and post-Gates-
MacGinitie reading comprehension tests which were given in September of 2004 and in
J une of 2005.

Video recordings were used to capture some of the reading conversations and to

provide an alternative venue to the audio recordings. Four to five video recordings of

43

tot

R”
A V‘

W

Dal

(799?
Comp;
Pattern
WM:
it?! 1ft (1

 

reading discussions were made and transcribed. These, again, were both whole—class and
small-group recordings.

Introducing video equipment into a classroom is a risk that could prove disruptive
to the class and, therefore, undermine the authenticity of classroom interactions. The
Reading Essentials students, however, were familiar with and comfortable around a video
recorder. They had been videotaped and photographed for daily morning
announcements. In Reading Essentials class, they were videotaped as they performed
their commercials during a study on propaganda and “reading” the media. They also
were videotaped as a part of their classroom activities when they presented dramatic
readings and choral readings. In addition, they were videotaped as they conducted small
group work on various activities, so they could view how their group worked together to
solve a common problem. Therefore, videotaping in the Reading Essentials classroom
had become a familiar learning tool through which children engaged in daily learning
activities. As a result, the making of videotapes for purposes of this research should not
be viewed as significantly altering students’ interactions around literature.

Data Analysis

Qualitative researchers tend to analyze data inductively. As Strauss & Corbin
(1990) point out, qualitative data analysis is a process of engaging in constant
comparative analysis, through which patterns of change emerge and can be notated. For
patterns to be analyzed, coding strategies are needed. Developing a coding system
involves searching the data for regularities, patterns and topics (Bogden & Bilden, 1998)
that are data-specific to the researcher and her work. Upon close examination of

transcriptions of both audio- and videotaped sessions, patterns began to emerge. These

('12

from

 

were influenced by the discourse analysis fiameworks of Tannen (1989) and Cazden
(1991). I used these frameworks in order to evaluate growth in students’ ability to
become involved as members of a literary discourse community and evidence
competence as strategic readers. Specifically, I was looking to identify discourse
strategies in both the teacher’s and students’ talk that supported and advanced the literary
discourse, which would indicated involvement. I also needed to examine and analyze the
discourse data for student growth as strategic readers. To enhance my analysis even
further, I utilized the realms of “accountable talk” put forth by Resnick (1999). These
realms consist of norms for researchers — two academic (accountability to knowledge and
accountability to standards of reasoning) and one social (accountability to the learning
community) — to analyze discourse events. These discourse moves were coded and
identified with empirical examples. After being identified, they were subjected to further
examination in order to compare them and to construct a coherent description for them.

As students moved to levels of critical analysis and were able to make meaning
fiom multiple vantage points — stances - developed by Judith Langer (1989) were used to
analyze their capacities to have thoughtful and intelligent discussions about texts.
A question emerges from the data analysis

Unlike quantitative research, in which data analysis is usually the end point,
qualitative analysis is often a part of data collection as, often, the most important
questions emerge from the field in the course of that analysis (Miles & Huberman, 1984).
The research question, What are the particular discourse strategies used by a group

of Grade 6 readers involving themselves and each other with reading? was one such

question.

45

El

012
2m;

50m:

at“, ’
willlpd

 

 

Modes of involvement emergefi'om the data analysis

The inductive analysis of the interactive data revealed three complementary
modes of participation, in orchestrating and working within a literary discourse
community, that bring about involvement, and evidenced the strategy use of highly
competent readers. I termed them gathering, supporting and advancing. The gathering
mode includes asking initial, open-ended questions, evoking initiations, inviting opinions.
The supporting mode focuses on revoicing questions and interpretations, clarifying
responses, drawing perspectives together, modeling reasoning processes, monitoring
metacognitive strategies, identifying textual evidence, and valuing and validating
contributions. The advancing mode emphasizes strategic reading comprehension
instruction through the interjecting of, naming of, building upon, or confirming a strategy
in use. These three coding categories evidenced the gradual release of responsibility
(V ygotsky, 1962) I turned over to the students, as they began to evidence increasing
levels of sophistication as involved members of a literary discourse community, and as
strategic readers, who matured in the ways in which they were able to talk about text.

I also drew from the adolescent literature book analysis framework of Rosemary
Chance (1999) to identify and analyze particular features in the core class novels that
brought about involvement.

Summary

This chapter situated this dissertation study as interpretive, participatory, and as

teacher research, and described the methods and design for the study. The setting,

participants, and program were also portrayed. I also discussed how a pertinent research

46

question and modes of involvement emerged from the data analysis. Chapters Four, Five,

and Six look more closely inside this setting and at the participants and the program.

47

im-

M.
HM
(cider
llow (l
“W

 

Chapter 4

“AIN’T NOBODY NEVER ASKED WHAT I THOUGHT BEFORE2”:
APPRENTICING NEW HABITS OF MIND

Introduction

How did a group of Grade 6 students deemed “struggling” readers develop into
sophisticated, strategic readers capable of involving themselves and each other in a
literary conversation about what they read? They developed within the discursive
environment in which they were immersed. Students were inducted and apprenticed
through the tools of strategic talk. Specifically, I worked to apprentice students in the use
of the strategies and discourse patterns of expert readers and involved members of a
literary discourse community. Since talk is the central tool of a teacher’s trade (Johnston,
2004) I enacted specific discourse moves, as I modeled the ways in which competent
readers talk about reading, and the ways in which those involved in conversation work
together with purpose. Specific reading strategy instruction was embedded in these
dialogues, again, as a way to model the talk of one who is able to read critically. Also,
quality pieces of adolescent literature were selected which met specific criteria for high
involvement. This chapter explores and analyzes a transcript of these strategies and
responds to the research questions:
What factors involve Grade 8 struggling readers with reading?
How did particular features in works of adolescent literature involve Grade 6
readers?
How did Grade 6 readers become involved as strategic readers?
How did Grade 6 readers become involved as members of a literary discourse

community?

48

Yr

art

5’?

Mi
“a:
M
‘ '\
Mr,

Ms.

 

Participation structure: From old to new

A participation structure is defined as the setting and structure in which students
are expected to participate, especially with reference to an adult (W atson—Gegeo &
Boggs, 1977). It is largely through discourse that norms for participation are constituted
within any such activity or event. It is through the norms for talk, artifacts, the goals and
social/cognitive resources of participants, the roles assumed, interacting together that
constitute the activity (Engestrom et a], 1999).

Typically, when my students had opportunities to discuss what they had read in
the past, it was a traditional response model referred to as the IRE model ( Cazden,
1988). The participation structure in this model was teacher dominated, as the teacher
would initiate (I) the conversation with a question, a student would respond (R) and the
teacher would reply with an evaluative (E) response.

In order to apprentice students into a very different participation structure,
rigorous demands were placed on me. Scaffolding moves such as modeling, think aloud
protocols, specific texts, and specific discourse moves —- particularly repetition — were
enacted to involve students as highly competent readers and members of a literary
discourse community. These scaffolding moves were enacted to bridge students fiom the
new to the known via the Vygotskian (1962, 1978) orientation to teaching and learning.
Vygotsky posits that teaching and learning consist of the transformation of student
participation from that of a novice to an expert, and that this transformation must take
place in a community of practice — a real context - in which becoming lmowledgeably
skillful and developing an identity as a member of the community, are part of the same

process.

49

pm:

W85 C.

nth s
W 0
relario
bacon
immrt

tense

sophist
literary
Schooli.
[0 See a

Strum

member
is 0U! fr:

l’ZPD). ]

Due to my familiarity with the treatments my Grade 6 students received in
previous reading instruction in my district, and through extensive interviews with them, it
was clear that I would be inviting them into something new. I embraced a sociocultural
approach to mind (V ygotsky, 1962, 1978; Bakhtin, 1981; Wertsch, 1991) whereby
thinking originates in collaborative dialogues, which are internalized as inner speech,
enabling children to do later in verbal thought what they could at first only do by talking
with supportive, more knowledgeable others. I believed that apprenticing them into this
type of participation structure would involve them as strategic readers in dialogic
relationship with each other. As Wilhelm (2001) states, in an apprenticeship, people who
become competent in a particular domain make use of social practices to complete
important tasks, to create and communicate knowledge, and to participate in, and identify
themselves, as competent members in that field’s particular community of practice.

This chapter reveals the initial progression toward my students’ becoming
sophisticated strategic readers capable of involving themselves and each other in a
literary conversation about what they read. It also reveals how the conventions of
schooling have a profound effect on the kinds of literary response that students will come
to see as appropriate and natmal (Purves, 1973).

Structuring consciousness

In order for my students to become more involved as both strategic readers and
members of a literary discourse community, I applied Vygotsky’s social learning theory
as our framework. Vygotsky (1962, 1978) asserted that good leaming is always learning
in advance of development. He referred to this as the zone of proximal development

(ZPD). The ZPD is the distance between the level of independent problem-solving and

50

[hf 1
We
not

chi

"53'
com

lIlOl'

is to
be in
film
(Per.
(.1983
come:
m
Inscm.
C011ml
the act

ml'oll‘c

could l,

rCadet.

the level of problem-solving in collaboration with an adult or more capable peer.
Wertsch (1978) added that the learning interaction must be diffith enough so that it has
not already been mastered, but simple enough so that it will not be impossible for the
child to understand.

The dialogue in the following transcript fiom September, 2004, was aimed at
“structuring consciousness” (V ygotsky, 1978) in terms of the disciplinary knowledge
competent readers access when they read in critical ways, and in terms of the dialogic
moves members of a discourse community make when involved in literary conversation.

With specific regard to the disciplinary knowledge of competent readers, the goal
is to develop students’ critical literacy (Harvey & Goudvis, 2000) which requires them to
be involved in constructing and negotiating meanings, reflecting and connecting. Critical
literacy demands that students infer and think beyond the superficial meanings of texts
(Pearson, 2001). To assist students in doing this, I applied Pearson and Gallagher’s
(1983) gradual release of responsibility model (GRR) of instruction in which learning
comes about through scaffolding. I utilized several scaffolding moves which are
instructional mechanisms that assist in moving learners from the new to the known.
Instruction is direct and explicit (Doyle, 1983) as students are apprenticed into a
community of practice (Lave & Wenger, 1989) in which they are involved as novices in
the actual work of the expert. I modeled the behaviors of a highly competent reader
involved in the process of inferencing.

I enacted think aloud protocols in which I made my thinking known, so students
could both view and hear the “in process” metacognitive work of a highly competent

reader. I used various discourse moves, particularly repetition, to involve students in

51

air
the
5m

iii

men
for

[00

Sm.-

Teach

developing new habits of mind as highly competent readers. I also used works of
adolescent fiction with particular involvement features to involve them with text. I knew
their learning histories. Given that this was their first encounter with a participation
structure of this nature, the majority of the responsibility was on me, as teacher, to
actively guide and explicitly assist my students into more competent performances.

We had read the first two chapters of The Great Gilly Hopkins (Paterson, 1978)
and students were asked to write a response to what they had read. They were given the
following prompts - Write about whatever caught your attention in the chapters. What
made you laugh? What did you wonder about? What made you feel anng Shocked?
Confused? I invited them to respond in writing prior to our discussion as it allowed them
to organize and elucidate their thoughts and to consider and mold their initial impressions
(Cobine, 1995). In mini-lessons previous to beginning this novel, we had read and
written responses to three picture books, Wilma Unlimited (Krull, 2000), Two Bad Ants
(V anAllsburg, 1988) and My Hiroshima (Morimoto, l992) as a way for me to model
what an aesthetic reader response entails.

Table 4.1: Transcript of Initial Reading Discussion - mid-September, 2004

Participant Verbal Action Mode of Involvement Analysis

Section 1: Setting the Stage

 

Teacher 1 Who would like to share their Gathering Evoking
2 response first? (scans group) invitations
(nominates, hand raised)
Student I 3 (Student reads) If I acted like Gilly Supporting Revoicing
4 I would be grounded. She is a brat interpretations
Identifying textual
evidence
Teacher 5 Shania thinks Gilly is a brat. How Supporting Revoicing
6 many others agree with her and Gathering interpretations
7 wrote about that? (scans group) Inviting opinions
8 OK, so we all think she is a brat.

52

What happened in the chapter
to make us think she is like that?
(nominate Student 2)

 

Student 2

Teacher

Student 3

Student 4

Teacher

Several
Students

Teacher

Several
Students
(1,2,4,6,1 1)

Teacher

Several
Students

11
12
l3
14

15
l6
I7

18
19
20

21
22

23
24
25
26
27
28

29
30

31
32

33
34
35
36

37
38
39
40

4]

She blew bubbles on her face
and hair on pmpose. She was
trying to make herself look like
a mess. (reads)

(nomination) Dustin, do you
know something else Gilly did
that makes us know she is a brat?

She stuck gum on the handle. (reads)
That is so gross. What if someone
else touched it? (groans from class)

(Ins hand raised, nominated)
Ms. Ellis told her not to. (I nod)

So, what I have asked you to do

is to collect evidence. Let’s write
all the evidence on the board. (walk
to board, repeat and record verbal
responses) What does this evidence

show? What are we trying to prove?

(scans class. Motions with hands)

That Gilly is a brat.
—--Gilly’s bad.
(overlapping talk)

How do we know that these
things show bratty behavior?

Because you don’t act like that!
She wasn’t minding. Just look
at what she did. It was bad
manners! (overlapping talk)

So, you are saying that these
pieces of evidence from the
chapter are proof that Gilly is

a brat and it isn’t right to act that way?

Yes. Yea. Uh-huh. Sure.
(overlapping talk)

53

Section H: Collecting Evidence

Supporting

Gathering

Supporting

Supporting

Advancing

Supporting

Advancing

Supporting

Strpporting

Supporting

Identifying
textual
evidence

Evoking
invitations

Identifying
textual
evidence

Identifying
textual
evidence

Drawing
perspectives
together
Monitoring
metacog-
nitive
processes

Revoicing
interpretations

Drawing
perspectives
together
Modeling
metacog-
nitive
processes

Revoicing
interpretations
Modeling reasoning
processes

Revoicing
interpretations
Drawing
perspectives
together

Revoicing
interpretations

Section III: Solidifying Claims

Teacher 42 What we just did was what good Advancing Naming a
43 readers do when they read. They Supporting strategy
44 inference. Does anyone know Inviting opinions

45 what it means to inference? (long
46 pause) Has anyone ever heard the
47 word ‘inference’ before?

Student 11 48 I heard of it before but I don’t Supporting Clarifying
49 remember for sure. I think we responses
50 did it once in fourth grade. . .
51 I’m not sure.

Teacher 52 Inferencing is when a good reader Advancing Naming a
53 uses evidence from the book and strategy
54 from the brain to figure out what Drawing perspectives
55 is going on. I wrote down all the together

56 pieces of evidence we found in the

57 chapter when I asked you how you

58 knew Gilly was a brat. The author

59 never came out and wrote down that

60 “Gilly is a brat” but she did show it

61 by having her behave in certain ways.

62 Those are pieces of evidence that came

63 from the book. We also used our brains

64 to inference. You said that when someone

65 behaves like Gilly does that it is bad manners

66 and not minding. Someone must have taught

67 you that. That part did not come from the book.
68 It came from your brain. Good reader use

69 evidence from the book and from their own brain
70 to figure things out and that is what we did. That
71 is inferencing. Nice job! You won’t believe what
72 Gilly is up to in the next chapters! Let’s continue
73 reading to find out. (We continue reading.)

Analysis of Section I: Setting the stage
I pull the tables together so we can sit facing each other. My intent is to make the
seating arrangement conducive to talk. I begin by collecting students’ thoughts, opinions
and reactions to the reading. Verbal contributions are imperative if students are to learn
to dialogue as readers with readers. I invite conversation by asking, “Who would like to
share their response first?” (line 1). I am working in gathering mode as I evoke
invitations to the dialogic event with student responses. Starting with student

observations, rather than the teachers, allows instruction to begin with a joint focus of

54

attention, as the student is already attending. Johnston (2004) terms this “attentional
following.” I scan the group until Student 1 raises her hand. She reads from her paper,
“If I acted like Gilly I would be grounded. Gilly is a brat” (lines 3, 4). This is all she has
written on her paper. This response is typical of most in the group. Written responses
are short and either sparse summaries of the reading or acknowledgements that identify
Glly as a brat.

The students provide me very little with which to work. As the teacher, it is my
responsibility to make something meaningful out of what the student says. Having little
to work with cannot stop the dialogic exchange. I must take “intentional discursive
action” and irnpute intentions to position the student’s comment -— and the student — as a
reader enacting competent reading behaviors (Rio & Alvarez, 2002). Aware that they
were in transition on multiple levels — moving from elementary to middle school, moving
from a single, homeroom teacher to seven teachers a day, encountering a new student
body and new classmates, and moving from a monologic to a dialogic participation
structure - I capitalize on this generative response as our way into the literary
conversation. The onus is on me as I work to translate what is important for them to
learn into a format appropriate to their current state of understanding (Langer, 2002).

The involvement features in Katherine Paterson’s novel operate as a scaffold,
helping me to assist my students. Authors have designs on the reader (Soter, 1999) and
Katherine Paterson opens up the novel with a bombardment of contemptible behavior on
the part of her main character, Gilly. She has constructed such an outrageous character
that students cannot help but focus in on her behavior. She sets up the reader and forces

us to feel shocked and outraged. This begs students to respond aesthetically, which

55

makes involvement primary (Rosenblatt, 197 8). I am working in gathering mode,
evoking invitations to put thoughts on the table.

In lines 5 through 7, I refiame and rebroadcast Shania’s response. My question is
partially closed and partially open. “How many agree. . .?” is a closed, yes or no question
which allows for non-verbal participation as well. I am attempting to validate her
thoughts and emphasize that she has recognized something important in the reading. By
rebroadcasting and then asking for group agreement, it validates Shania to the group as
well. It also puts other opinions on the table, even though they are in the form of non-
verbal nods. A dialogic community necessitates talk, yet, recognizing the degree to which
my students are in unfamiliar territory, non-verbal cues also become significant and valid

6

contributions. ‘. . .And wrote about that?” is an open question and an attempt to solicit
more verbal contributions. I am working in supporting mode as I revoice student
contributions and am working in gathering mode as I attempt to solicit more verbal
contributions. Students neither raise their hands to volunteer a response, nor speak
without being nominated by me. There are, however, several nods from the room. They
indicate either that many agreed with S1 ’s claim, and/or have written about a similar
reaction to the main character’s behavior.

I confirm (line 8) that we are in agreement and then attempt to face them back
toward the text, because the text must be considered as we construct meaning, which is
the goal of comprehension (Langer, 1998). An aesthetic response is stressed in
Rosenblatt’s (1980) argument for involving readers, yet she rejects pure subjectivity. The

language of the text shapes which interpretations are feasible. Her concept of “poem” is

the transactional experience of the reader under the guidance of the text (Rosenblatt,

56

1986). True comprehension goes beyond literal understanding and involves the reader’s
interaction with text. They need to become cognizant of the conventions that govern how
texts work to deepen their involvement with them. Since texts are culturally constructed
and, therefore, conventional, learners cannot naturally stumble upon how they operate
and communicate. They must be taught the conventions that govern how they work
(Soter, 1999). So, I scaffold with the question, “What happened in the chapter to make us
think she is a brat?” (lines 9, 10). I want them to focus on the ways in which authors
construct characters to involve the reader. I also want to highlight that they are beginning
to make inferences, which is a complex and important reading strategy. I nominate
Student 2 who has her hand raised.
Analysis of Section II: Collecting evidence

Student 2 (lines ll-14) responds by saying, “Gilly blew bubbles on her face and
hair on purpose.” She adds, “She was trying to make herself look like a mess.” Student
2 elaborates by expanding on her response. In the opening scene of the novel, Gilly is
sitting in the back of the social worker’s (Ms. Ellis) car. Ms. Ellis asks her to stop
blowing such large bubbles with her gum because she is getting it on her hair and face.
Gilly blows another one, immediately, in defiance of Ms. Ellis. Student 2 works in
supporting mode as she cites three instances of textual evidence.

I then nominate Dustin as I reframe and rebroadcast, “Dustin, do you know
something else Gilly did that makes us know she is a brat?” (lines 15-17). By saying
“something else” I am both validating that Student 2 identified evidence from the text
while I continue to ask for more contributions — there are more clues in the text that prove

Gilly is a brat. I am working in gathering mode, positioning my question as a scaffold to

57

continue to connect readers with text. Dustin (Student 3, lines 18-20) adds, “She stuck
gum on the handle” which is another behavior Gilly displayed. Ms. Ellis demands that
Gilly get rid of her gum, so Gilly complies - she sticks it on the underside of the door
handle of the car! Dustin’s response operates in supporting mode as he, too, provides
another piece of textual evidence. Dustin adds a personal opinion, “That is so gross. What
if someone else touched it?” His last question is not meant to be answered in the literal
sense. It is a rhetorical question of a sort — imagining the disgust of touching already
chewed gum. He receives a collective groan from the class which works to provide some
comic relief and binds students together in agreement.

Student 4 raises her hand and comments, “Ms. Ellis told her not to.” She is
identifying more textual evidence by paraphrasing the dialogue of Ms. Ellis, Gilly’s
social worker. Ms. Ellis has made several desperate pleas with Gilly to make a good
impression and to change her attitude before she meets her next foster mother. Her
contribution operates in supporting mode as she identifies more evidence from the text.
Students were recognizing rhetorical patterns in the novel, which is very powerful; once
they start to notice these patterns and their recognition is highlighted, it is likely to
influence perception, as they will notice them again (Johnston, 2004).

We had collected textual evidence as a group to support our claim that Gilly is a
brat. Eisner (1997) argues that the process of meaning making must be highlighted
through instruction, and good teachers know that learning cannot be left to discovery
(Wilhelm, 2001) so I use this collection of evidence as a scaffold into the next step of the
inferencing process. In lines 23-28, I am working in advancing mode, drawing

perspectives together and showing students another way to see the evidence we have

58

collected to support our claim. I create a fixed text of this evidence on the board and say,
“So, what I have asked you to do is to collect evidence. Let’s write all the evidence on
the board. What does this evidence show? What are we trying to prove?” As I record
student contributions, I repeat them verbally. This scaffolding move provides yet another
way to see inferencing at work — how we, as competent readers, make a claim, locate
evidence from the text to support our claim and catalogue that evidence to prove its
validity.

-She blew bubbles on her face and hair
on purpose.

-She stuck gum on the handle.

-Ms. Ellis told her not to do these things
and she did anyway.

I write the above contributions on the board, making my thinking visible as I
verbalize the metacognitive processes good readers use when they inference. I employ
the collected contributions of textual evidence provided by my students, while I model a
think aloud of my metacognitive processes (Pressley, 2002). I want to make known the
thinking of the group in its entirety, socializing their attention to textual evidence, and the
importance that it was a collaborative effort. I am emphasizing that when competent
readers read, they begin to form thoughts, opinions, and theories about characters, which
come about through ways in which characters are constructed — what they say, what they
think, how they behave. Competent readers constantly catalogue these constructions as
evidence.

In lines 29-30, several students respond with overlapping talk to my questions,

“Gilly is a brat. Gilly is bad.” They are working in supporting mode, revoicing the

59

interpretation and validating that, yes, these behaviors most certainly show Gilly is a brat.
I ask, “How do we know that these things show bratty behavior?” (lines 31-32). This
question operates as a scaffold to move us into the second component of inferencing.
Inferencing does not simply include locating textual evidence to support a claim.
Inferencing also demands world knowledge. In this case, to fully verify our claim that
Gilly is a brat, we need to consider what we know about the norms of appropriate
behaviors. Working in advancing mode, I transition us into the other component of
inferencing, making my thinking visible once again.

Several students respond (lines 33-36) with overlapping talk, “Because you
don’t act like that!” “She wasn’t minding.” “Just look at what she did!” “It was bad
manners!” They are responding with what they know about living in the world. First, a
person does not behave in such a way. Second, a child is supposed to mind an adult.
Third, being defiant and rude is bad manners. Proper norms of behavior indicate that,
indeed, Gilly is being a brat.

Working in supporting mode, I revoice and reframe their responses (lines 37-40)
by asking, “So, you are saying that these pieces of evidence from the chapter are proof
that Gilly is a brat and that it isn’t OK to act that way?” I use this question to focus us in
once again on textual evidence and world knowledge emphasizing that highly competent
readers consider both when they inference. Students respond with overlapping,
backchanneling talk (line 41) by saying, “Yes, Yea, Uh-huh, Sure,” working in
supporting mode, as they confirm that they have found ample proof for their claim and

that it came from the text as well as their understanding of appropriate social norms.

6O

Although they are not able to come to these understandings without teacher scaffolds, I
want to emphasize their valuable contributions.
Analysis of Section III: Solidijying claims

In lines 42-47, I review what we have done up to this point. I say, “What we just
did was what good readers do when they read. They inference.” This is the first time I
have introduced the term. I work in advancing mode by naming the strategy. It is my
responsibility not only to teach them the ways and procedures for reading like highly
competent readers; I must teach them the names for things as well. Students must
possess declarative knowledge — the names of things in specific disciplines (Garner,
1987) — if they are to become fully apprenticed into the ways of lmowing as highly
competent readers. I then ask, “Does anyone know what it means to inference?” Since I
receive neither a verbal nor a nonverbal response, I reframe my question and ask, “Has
anyone ever heard the word ‘inference’ before?” This question performs an assessment
function (Doyle, 1983) as I work to understand their working knowledge of the term.
Student 11 (lines 48-51) responds, “I heard of it before but I don’t remember for sure. I
think we did it once in fourth grade. . .I’m not sure.” Student 11 is trying to recall her
experience with inferencing from two years ago and cannot seem to. No other students
respond. I am fairly certain that they have not gone through schooling from kindergarten
through Grade 5 and not had some encounter with inferencing, but it is evident they have
no working knowledge of either the term or its procedural use as a reading strategy.

I work in advancing mode, tying the lesson together by naming the strategy and
modeling metacognitive processes once again (lines 52 — 73) by repeating the entire

process of what we have just done together as a way to review the strategy. This

61

scaffolding move is a rebroadcast summarization of the metacognitive strategies highly
competent readers use when they read. It is also a rebroadcast summarization of the work
we have done together as strategic readers up to this point. Verbal explicitness is
particularly important (Duffy, Roehler, et al, 1986) so I review in words, yet again, the
entire process and use the proper vocabulary. I say, “Inferencing happens when a good
reader uses evidence fi'om the book and from the brain to figure out what is going on.” I
walk over to the board where our list of evidence is written and point to it again. I then
say, “I wrote down all the pieces of evidence we found in the chapter when I asked you
how you knew Gilly was a brat. The author never came out and wrote down ‘Gilly is a
brat’ but she did show it by having her behave in certain ways.” I add, “Those are pieces
of evidence that came from the book.” This statement is a reframed repetition of my
initial utterance that provides a retrospective narrative about what took place in the
dialogic event.

I repeat (lines 63-71) the other component of inferencing — a good reader’s
ability to use what is known about social norms and the world, by saying, “We also used
our brains to inference. You said that when someone behaves like Gilly, it is bad
manners and not minding. Someone must have taught you that. That part did not come
fiom the book. It came from your brain. Good readers use evidence fiom the book and
from their own brain to figure things out and that is what we did.” I emphasize once
again that inferencing is a strategy good readers use. I also highlight, yet again, that to
inference, a good reader uses evidence fiom the text as well as his/her own brain.

Language works to position people and the way they think about themselves. It

is constitutive and invites a certain identity (Johnston, 2004). l validate them by saying,

62

“Nice job!” as I emphasize that we were doing the work of good readers. By
representing them as good readers, I open the door for them to entertain the possibility of
becoming the kind of people who are good readers, in hopes that they also welcome
further interactions based on that premise. Each dialogic exchange in this growing
community of practice between teacher and students, provides building material for their
understanding of a wide range of literary concepts, practices, and responsibilities. I also
work to shape their identities through each encounter (Davis & Harre, 1999). I want to
build conscious awareness of their ability to be effective as competent readers whose
purposeful actions control outcomes. I entice them a bit before we continue reading by
saying, “You won’t believe what Gilly is up to in the next chapters! Let’s continue
reading to find out.” We continue reading.
Accountability to knowledge and standards of reasoning

Modeling, think aloud protocols, discourse moves and specific works of
adolescent fiction were utilized as scaffolds, to involve my students as highly competent
readers and as members of a literary discourse community, in a very different
participation structure. As this transcript reveals, my students were on the periphery of
this participation structure in which certain ways of knowing were required. Resnick
(1978) describes these ways of knowing as “accountable talk.” There are two academic
realms of “accountable talk.” The first is “accountability to lmowledge” in which
students must posit claims, provide evidence for those claims and recognize the kinds of
knowledge to access in order to do so - the “what” of discipline-specific knowledge. The
second is “accountability to standards of reasoning” meaning that rational strategies are

used to present arguments, draw conclusions, and justify claims - the “how” of

63

discipline-specific knowledge. In order to legitimize themselves as highly competent,
strategic readers, students must develop both capacities.

With regard to the criteria legitimizing them in the ways of knowing, students
did not automatically invite textual cues (Enciso, 1990) unless strategies were scaffolded
for them. The initial scaffold provided for them was my selection of this particular novel.
In The Great Gilly Hopkins, Katherine Paterson (197 8) employs specific narrative
techniques to evoke certain responses from the reader (Benton, 1992). She bombards the
opening scene of the novel with images of Gilly’s outrageous behavior which serves as a
flaming function for all subsequent developments (Soter, 1999). Texts invite readers to
look at them through certain analytical lenses and, in this case, the reader cannot help but
be shocked by Gilly’s behavior and then ask, Why does Gilly act this way?

These particular features involve my students as the initial written response
shared by Student 1 (lines 3-4) asserts, Gilly is a brat. This is the claim we must prove as
readers throughout the entire dialogic exchange; the focal point. Additionally, I
scaffolded throughout the discourse by repeating the word ‘brat’ in either direct or
paraphrased form six times (lines 5, 8, 10, 32, 65, 66). Students, as they became involved
themselves, repeated the word ‘brat’ in either direct or paraphrased form eight times
(lines 17, 29, 30, 33, 34, 35, 40, 58).

As we proceeded to find evidence for our claim, I scaffolded first with questions
(lines 9-10 and 16-17) to face students back toward the text. They were able to locate
several pieces of textual evidence to support the initial claim:

11 . . .blew bubbles on her face
12 and hair on purpose. She was

13 trying to make herself look like
14 a mess.

18 She stuck gum on the handle.

22 Ms. Ellis asked her not to.

I also repeated the textual images located and verbalized by my students to emphasize
that we were proceeding as strategic readers — accumulating evidence to justify our claim.

Competent readers involved in literary dialogue also speak with specific
vocabulary. Therefore, I employed repetition to emphasize key terms highly competent
readers use when involved with reading in critical ways. Repetition, in this sense, aids in
comprehension by providing semantically less dense discourse (T annen, 1989).
Repetitions of the following terms serve a connective function as well. Each of these
terms are linked together and related to each other as they are the ‘what’ and the ‘how’ of
accountable knowledge with regard to being legitimized as a highly competent reader. I
repeated the word ‘inference’ in either exact or paraphrased form seven times (lines 44,
45, 47, 52, 59, 64, 71). I repeated the word ‘book’ in exact or paraphrased form five
times (lines 9, 39, 53, 67, 69). I repeated the word ‘evidence’ in exact or paraphrased
form fourteen times (lines 9, 10, 16, 17, 24, 25, 27, 28, 38, 39, 56, 60, 61, 62, 69). I
repeated the word ‘brain’ four times (lines 54, 63, 68, 69) which are paraphrased
repetitions of student responses from lines 33, 34, 35, and 36.

The summarizing monologue at the end (lines 52-73) serves a tying function
(Cazden, 2001) as it is a condensed review of the ideas, vocabulary, and procedures we
constructed together in this dialogic event. I barrage these words into the discourse with
intent as they are critical terms for both the “what” and the “how” of “accountable talk.”
Highly competent readers involved with reading know that they must recognize textual
features that cause them to make inferences. As they infer, they must provide evidence

for these claims, and can find that evidence in the book and in their brain. Having

65

working knowledge of the terminology strategic readers use, as well as working
knowledge of how to proceed, will involve them as the critical readers they must be in
order to make meaning. Knowing that this is the work highly competent readers do, I
also repeat ‘good readers’ (lines 42, 52, 68) three times. I want students to begin to take
on identities that they are “good readers” so they will act accordingly. This offers
students the opportunity to claim competency and agency. Competency and agency must
begin with their belief that they can achieve a thing. As they work in the foreign territory
of a dialogic community, I must repeat often how they are being instrumental in
contributing to and constructing knowledge. It reinforces a solid foundation that readers
use certain language and strategies in certain ways (Johnston, 2004) to achieve certain
results.
Accountability to the learning community

The third realm of Resnick’s (1978) “accountable talk” is “accountability to the
learning community.” This realm is more social in nature. Participants in a learning
community — a literary discourse community — in this instance, must engage in talk and
learn to listen attentively. Speakers must take responsibility for giving conversation a
life. The coherence created in such a learning community sends a metamessage of
involvement. Several scaffolding moves were enacted to bring this coherence about. The
primary scaffolding move was repetition as it is the central linguistic meaning-making
strategy for personal involvement (Tannen, 1989).

I used a predominance of particular pronouns - “we,” “us” — to involve students

as participants in the literary discourse community we were creating (lines 6, 10, 23, 24,

28, 31, 37, 42, 44, 46, 56, 57, 63, 64, 70, 71). My intent was to send a strong message of

66

unity that “we” were in this together, constructing knowledge as a group, involving
ourselves in the task at hand and with each other. I emphasize that, for a time, we are
part of the same social and intellectual mind. For example, in lines 9-10, I ask, “What
happened in the chapter to make us think she is like that?” The pronoun “us” was used
with intent. Although, at this point in the dialogue, only one student had offered any
verbal contribution, the point was made clear that we are a collective of one; socially
constructing knowledge as a single unit.

A second way in which I used repetition to bind us together, as members in a
literary discourse community, was through refrarning and rebroadcasting student
contributions. For example, in line 5, I refiarne Shania’s initial comment and rebroadcast
it to the group. Her comment sets the stage for the rest of the conversation so I must give
it a bigger voice to emphasize its significance, and to emphasize that this is how highly
competent readers construct knowledge together as a group — they provide verbal
contributions to involve each other in membership. My summarizing monologue in lines
52 through 73 is yet another reframing and rebroadcasting of the entire dialogic event we
constructed together. Again, my emphasis was to celebrate their emerging competence as
involved readers (W ertsch, 1998) validating that, together, we are doing the work of
highly competent readers immersed in a community of literary practice. This encourages
the collective identity of a community of practice that people like us do things in this
way.

Summary
Gee (I 992) writes that a discourse is a sort of “identity kit” which comes

complete with the appropriate instructions on how to act, talk, and proceed, so as to take

67

on a particular role that others will recognize. Scaffolding moves such as modeling, think
aloud protocols, particular texts, and various discourse moves -— primarily repetition —
were enacted intensively to involve my students as highly competent readers, and
members of a literary discourse community. By enculcation with dialogic tools, my
students were learning that developing an identity as a member of a community of
practice, and becoming knowledgeably skillful, are part of the same process (Lave &
Wenger, 1991 ). Through the overt sharing of structural support, my students were
apprenticed to use the strategies of expert readers, and members of a literary discourse
community.

Although in the infancy of their apprenticeship, students were able to do with
assistance what they could not yet do on their own (Pressley & McCormick, 1995).
Given that the predominance of dialogue was mine, both in terms of number of lines (51)
and the number of turns taken (8) it looks similar to the traditional IRE model. Student
responses, however, were generative. They came from within as we created what was to
be discussed together. The dialogic event began with the “lived through” experiences of
my students (Rosenblatt, 1978). The dialogic encounter was neither predictable nor
scripted in advance. It was responsive teaching in action (Shuhnan, 2004) as the
instructional dialogue was constructed fiom and with the contributions of my students,
created out of the discursive environment in which students were immersed. I had to
provide much assistance to these novice learners, however, in order for them to achieve
higher levels of conceptual and communicative competence.

Through these scaffolds, they were involved in both dialogic thought and

strategic reading. Students were able to supply, both orally and in writing, initial,

68

emotive responses to a literary work. These responses, at this point, were not
sophisticated, yet they did become the springboard to initiate the dialogic event. They
were able to identify textual evidence as a way to support claims, yet a predominance of
teacher scaffolding was necessary to turn them back toward the text. Students still raised
their hands as a way to be nominated by me to take the floor. There were a few instances
of non-teacher nominated utterances, but these were instances of overlapping talk.
Students were unable, yet, to get the floor through non-verbal or backchanneling venues,
and did not seek ways to either accept or enact these cues with each other. They looked
to me, still, as the person in the sole role of knowledge “validator.” They also were
unable to combine the use of textual evidence with world knowledge to support their
claims without teacher scaffolding.

Chapter 5 evidences how, through continued dialogic encounters such as this, I
begin to extract myself as the bridge between the transactions students have with texts
and each other. My students, as they enact various discourse moves, take greater
ownership over the literary event. They begin to legitimize themselves as both highly
competent readers and involved members of a literary discourse community, as control is
transferred to them.

Students no longer need me to nominate them for each student utterance. They
are able to face themselves back toward the text to cite evidence to support claims, and
begin to reveal their developing internalization of combining textual evidence with world
knowledge to do so. They interrogate the text, the claims of their peers, and re-think
initial stances through an accumulation of evidence. They evidence that they share this

dialogic universe with each other through their use of unifying pronouns.

69

Chapter 5

TRANSFER OF CONTROL: STUDENTS INVOLVING THEMSELVES AND
OTHERS IN A LITERARY DISCOURSE COMMUNITY

Introduction

This chapter illustrates students’ use of a variety of discourse moves to involve
themselves and each other with reading. It showcases students taking on a greater degree
of ownership over the entire literary discourse event. They use talk as a tool to move
themselves out of the traditional, monologic participation structure, and into a dialogic
participation structure. Students evidence their increasing internalization of involvement
strategies, both as strategic readers and as members of a discourse community.

As strategic readers, students evidence “transfer of control” (Pearson &
Gallagher, 1983) over the discourse event as they make claims, use evidence from the
text to support them, and use the language of strategic readers. Students not only
evidence their use of discourse moves as competent, strategic readers, they also use
discourse moves to involve each other in fellowship in this dialogic event.

Students initiate the literary conversation, working in gathering mode, which is
typically the teacher’s role in a traditional classroom. Students also work intensively in
the advancing mode of involvement, as they interject reading strategies in use, primarily
by their use of evidence from the text to support their claims, combined with real world
knowledge. Earlier in the year, the advancing mode was used predominantly by me, as
students did not yet possess working knowledge of more complex strategies competent,
critical readers enact when they read and discuss a literary work.

In this chapter, students not only evidence ways in which they use discourse

moves to involve themselves and each other as critical readers, they illustrate ways in

70

which they use discourse moves to invite peers into the literary conversation and to
sustain it. They show repeatedly their commitment to the cohesiveness of the group.
They are developing into highly capable discourse users, working as thoughtful, active
listeners and speakers involved and invested in the dialogic event and each other.

This chapter explores what it looks like in a classroom setting of Grade 6 students
who have been deemed “struggling” readers. It addresses and analyzes the research
question:

What are the particular discourse strategies used by a group of Grade 6 readers
involving themselves and others with reading?

Transfer of control

The following is the transcript of the reading conversation that took place after
students had finished the last chapters of Katherine Paterson’s (1978) novel The Great
Gilly Hopkins. This novel tells the story of Galadriel “Gilly” Hopkins, a recalcitrant pre-
teen, who has been shuffled from foster home to foster home, since the age of three. She
has convinced herself that if she persists in being a behavior problem, she will be reunited
with her biological mother. Early in the novel, Gilly’s biological mother sends her a
postcard that reads:

My Dearest Galadriel,
The agency wrote me that you had moved.
I wish it were to here. I miss you.
All my love,

Courtney
(excerpt, p. 28)

This letter creates tension, persistent throughout the story, as it forces students to wonder
why a child and her mother would not be together, when the evidence seems to indicate

that they both want exactly that. In the last chapters of the novel, Gilly is finally reunited

71

with her mother at the airport. During the scene at the airport, the mother’s true feelings

about her daughter become clear.

Table 5.1: Transcript of reading discussion — end of November, 2004

 

 

 

 

Participant Verbalization Mode of Involvement Analysis
Section I: Setting the Stage
Student 4 l I can’t believe that morn! Gathering Evoking
invitations
Several Students 2 It was a lie! That letter was Supporting Revoicing
3 a lie! interpretations
Teacher 4 I see you have some strong Supporting Revoicing
5 opinions about this chapter. interpretations
6 Let’s slow down so I can hear Inviting opinions
7 each of you better. What’s going
8 on?
Section 1]: Collecting Evidence
Student 5 9 Courtney doesn’t want Gilly after Advancing Modeling reasoning
10 all! I told you, Dustin. I told you Supporting processes
11 guys! I know for sure because of Identifying textual
12 how she acted at the airport. She evidence
13 didn’t even pay for her own ticket!
Student 7 14 And. . .she didn’t even hug her! Supporting Identifying textual
evidence
Student 11 15 Well, she sort of hugged her, but Supporting Identifying textual
16 she kept that big bag in the way. evidence
17 That’s cold, man!
Student 4 l8 Yea, and then she wasn’t even Supporting Identifying textual
19 going to stay very long. And. .. evidence
20 she called Gilly ‘the kid’ instead
21 of ‘my daughter.’
T830116! 22 So, what do you think all of this Supporting Monitoring
23 means? Gathering metacognitive
processes
Inviting opinions
Student 6 24 She does NOT want her child. Supporting Drawing
25 She just doesn’t care. And, another Advancing perspectives
26 part was that the grandma kept giving together
27 Courtney dirty looks. She was mad at Identifying textual
28 her, too. evidence

72

Modeling reasoning

processes

 

 

Teacher 29 Do we agree with what Kia just said? Gathering Inviting
opinions
Several 30 YES! She is just a big liar! Supporting Revoicing
Students 31 Poor Gilly! I feel sorry for her interpretations
32 that her mom doesn’t want her.
33 How can a mom not want her own
34 child?
Teacher 35 Did the author ever come out and Supporting Revoicing
36 say , “Gilly does not want her child?” Gathering interpretations
Inviting opinions
Section III: Solidifying Claims
Student I 37 No, but we have all the proof we need Supporting Identifying textual
38 in the chapter. She did all those evidence
39 things in the airport.
Student 8 40 And. . .the grandma, she knew, too. Supporting Identifying textual
evidence

Analysis of Section I: Setting the stage

This particular section of the transcript opens with an utterance Tannen (1989)
describes as summarizing dialogue. Although it is not a summary of the talk of another
member of the discourse community, it captures the gist of the most salient information
hour the ending chapters; it is a summary of the voice of the author. Student 4 is shocked
that Gilly’s mother truly does not want her child. This utterance foregrounds what has
been revealed in the chapters, and also sets the stage for the dialogic event about to
unfold. Student 4, the initial speaker in the transcript, fore grounds the entire literary
conversation by making prominent her shock at how Gilly’s mother really felt. Because
students have come to understand their “way in” to a literary work is through an aesthetic
stance, they are able to generate a receptivity to entertain ideas, overtones, or attitudes.
Rosenblatt (1938/1976) explains that one can think of this as an altering of certain areas

of memory, a stirring up of certain reservoirs of experience, knowledge, and feeling. As

73

the reading proceeds, attention is fixed on the reverberations or implications that result
from fulfillment or frustration of those expectations.

Her statement, “I can’t believe that mom!” makes visible the most important
feature of the reading - we realize that Gilly’s mother did not want her child after all.
Student 4 works in gathering mode by both initiating the literary conversation through
this exclamatory claim and by drawing her classmates in, inviting them to dialogue with
her. She is involved and wants her peers to become involved with her.

Several students support Student 4’s claim with overlapping speech (lines 2, 3) by
saying, “It was a lie! That letter was a lie!” They accept the invitation and engage.
Often, overlapping speech indicates an interruption. In this case, however, it indicates
agreement and solidarity - a cooperative overlap (T annen, 1990). This overlap would be
considered cooperative, as the responses include words of encouragement or elaboration
about the topic. Specifically, the students are offering positive verification that they, too,
agree with Student 4’s assertion that Gilly’s mother is a liar. Evidence again that this
overlap is cooperative is the exuberance with which the words are expressed. Students
are responding as “high involvement” speakers (Tannen, 1990) as they are expressing
enthusiastic support through simultaneous speech. Most students are shocked at the
behavior of Gilly’s mother and have realized her letter, in which she indicated that she
wanted her daughter to be with her, is not true. Lines 2 and 3 also paraphrase what
Student 4 uttered to open up the dialogue as a way to show agreement and support for
Student 4’s claim. The cooperative overlap represents the supporting mode of

engagement. Students are revoicing the interpretation of Student 1’s utterance.

74

In lines 4-8, I revoice the claims of what has been uttered by my students so far
and reframe their words. Students have worked to set the stage for our literary discussion
by leveling claims about the mother’s true feelings toward Gilly. This is a critical
moment. I want to continue to nurture their degree of involvement, yet they are in such a
state of high emotion, that I feel the need to slow them down, so we can unravel why they
have come to this conclusion about Gilly’s mother. I need to hear their utterances clearly
in order to use them to lead us forward. So, I use a stalling tactic by using three
sentences instead of simply asking, “What do you mean?”

I want them a bit more grounded so we can do the work good readers need to do.
I am honoring that they have strong opinions and indicating that I want to hear more. I
support them with metacognitive questions (Duckworth, 1998) and use these questions to
call attention to student thinking and knowledge-building. I am working in the
supporting mode as my focus is on scaffolding (V ygotsky, 1980). These questions and
my stalling tactic are platforms on which to construct on-going talk. This scaffold will
move us into deeper analysis of the reading. I “shoot a literary arrow” (Langer, 1990) by
refonnulating student responses into questions, in order to face them back toward the
text. Facing students back toward the text will reposition them so we can build stock of
common knowledge with textual evidence. I continue to socialize students’ attention to
language, opening it up for analysis. Socializing their attention to where they are being
successful is also likely to continue to develop their sense of self-efficacy or agency
(Bandura, 1996). This question also works as a bridge between the discourse that sets the
scene of the literary conversation, and the opportunities in the next section, in which we

will dig more deeply into textual analysis and do the work of critical readers.

75

Analysis of Section II: Collecting evidence
Authors use imagery and details to engage readers. In this section of the

transcript, the students use imagery and details to engage each other. The images (lines
12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20 and 21) are repetitions of the author’s images from the
ending chapters. Specifically, they are repetitions of the images the author created as she
wrote the scene at the airport where Gilly finally met with her mother. Katherine
Paterson underscores the significance of ideas by repeating them, and by clustering them
at the climax of the story. This allows for a greater emotional response on the part of the
reader. The author bombards the reader with image after image of the mother’s words
and actions, to force the reader to draw the conclusion she wants them to see:

Line 12 . . .how she acted at the airport-

Line 13 She didn’t even pay for her own ticket!

Line 14 And.. .she didn’t even hug her!

Line 15 Well, she sort of hugged her but she
Line 16 kept that bag in the way.

 

Line 18 . . .and then she wasn’t even going to
Line 19 stay very long. . .And. . .she called Gilly
Line 20 ‘the kid’ instead of

Line 21 ‘my daughter. ’

Line 26 ...the grandma kept giving
Line 27 Courtney dim looks

This section of the transcript includes a predominance of repetitions that assist
students with both production and comprehension (Tannen, 1989). With regard to the
ways in which repetition aids production, it enables a speaker to produce language more
efficiently. The speaker can produce fluent speech while formulating what to say next.

With regard to comprehension, repetition and variations provide semantically less dense

76

discourse; the utterance is not completely new information. The redundance of words
already said in one variation or another allow the bearer to receive information at roughly
the rate the speaker is producing it. Repeated in this section of the transcript are those
things Gilly’s mother did not do. In these ways, then, repetition allows members of the
dialogic event to make meaning together.
Accountability to knowledge

Directly related to this, Resnick (1990) discusses the kind of “accountable talk”
needed in a community of learners to contribute to the overall learning of the group. Two
of these refer to intellectual, academic utterances. The first is accountability to
knowledge meaning that participants make use of specific and accurate knowledge,
provide evidence for claims and arguments, and recognize the kind of knowledge or
framework required to address a topic. Students make use of the text, allowing the
author’s rhetorical moves to inform them. They access this textual information to find
evidence for their claim that Gilly’s mother does not want her. They work as strategic
readers who recognize that claims need support. Students have integrated accumulated
information (Anderson, 1982) by identifying key images in the text. Students reveal they
are cognizant of how the author used imagery in the “airport scene” of the chapter to
construct Courtney’s true feelings about her daughter. I draw their attention to this,
showing them how their decisions and strategic actions were responsible for validating
their claim. This increases the perception of their ability and the effectiveness of their
focused efforts (Pintrich & Blumenfeld, 1985).

Students repeat these images in their literary conversation with each other as a

way to evidence the initial claim by Student 4 (Line 1) in which she says, “I can’t believe

77

that mom!” This is a paraphrased allo —repetition, repeating the words created in images
by the author. By repeating the images, they give each other additional snapshots that
spark strong emotion. These images work to show characters in relationship with each
other, which is highly emotive. Through the repetitions of these images, students are
involved by the extremes in behavior. This has a dramatic effect on them and keeps them
involved. The repetition of images in the text paired with the repetitions of students
retelling them creates involvement, as it is “through the details and emotions brought
about through imagery” (F redericks, 1986) that meaning is made — where students
integrate knowledge and perceptions. The students work together in student-to-student
exchanges to integrate their knowledge and' understanding of how certain rhetorical
moves provide evidence for their claim.

Student 5 then self-repeats with variation as she reframes and rebroadcasts to
the entire group, “I told you guys!” (Lines 10-1 1) This works to give her own claim a
“bigger voice” and to draw other students into the literary conversation. Student 5
continues to advance her claim (Lines 11-13) with another self-repeat with variation. “1
know for sure” (Line 11) is a paraphrase of her initial utterance, “Courtney doesn’t want
Gilly. . .” (Line 9). She is doing the work of a competent strategic reader here. She is
using evidence from the text to support her claim that Gilly’s mother does not want her.
In lines 12 -13, she first utters a global statement, “. . .because of how she acted at the
airport” and then becomes more precise when she repeats a specific action on the part of
the character with, “. . .She didn’t even pay for her own ticket!” She works from a
general claim to a specific piece of textual evidence, as a competent, strategic reader is

able, combining the evidence from the text, with what she knows to be appropriate social

78

behavior, confirming her suspicions that Gilly’s mother does not want her child. She is
highly invested in making her point to the class as she speaks in exclamatory sentences,
while also uttering several lines to enable her to hold the floor.

Student 5 (Lines 9-14) advances this section of the transcript as she builds on
what Student 4 and several others have claimed in lines 1-3. Repetition is pervasive
throughout the transcript as format tying evidenced again here, working to highlight the
point of the story; the official conclusion. She paraphrases by saying, “Courtney doesn’t
want Gilly after all” (Lines 9-10). She directly addresses a fellow student in Line 10 by
saying, “I told you, Dustin.”

She and Dustin had been in a debate for several days over whether or not Gilly’s
mother really wanted her. This fiiendly debate had spilled out of the classroom and into
the hallway. This is strong evidence of involvement as text processing occurred not only
during the reading act but after the reading had ceased (Koriate, Greenberg & Kreiner,
2002). Dustin was holding fast to his belief that Gilly and her mother would find a happy
ending with each other. Student 4, on the other hand, was far more skeptical. Although
she directly addresses Dustin, she is not criticizing him. She is attempting to prove her
claim with evidence gleaned from the airport scene. During a follow-up interview with
these students, Dustin stated that upon reading the last chapters of the book, he, too, was
completely convinced the mother had lied. Not even Dustin, who was holding out hope
for a happy mother-daughter reunion, could refute the obvious.

Accountability to standards of reasoning
The second realm of “accountable talk” Resnick (1990) discusses is

accountability to standards of reasoning, meaning that participants use rational strategies

79

to present arguments and draw conclusions, and to challenge the quality of each other’s

reasoning. As strategic readers, students recognize that an inference is validated through

textual evidence as well as world knowledge. They are showing an accountability to

standards of reasoning as they measure the actions and words of Gilly’s mother, against

what they deem to be appropriate and loving treatment toward one’s own child. Student

7 (line 14) begins his utterance with “And. . .” as a way to get the floor but also to show

agreement with what has been said previously. He utters yet another piece of evidence

from the text as he says, “. . .she didn’t even hug her!” He reveals his shock that this is

not how a mother would respond to a daughter, especially since they had not seen each

other for over nine years.

They also recognize the inaccuracies in claims on the part of others in the group

and respond as invested members of the discourse community. Student 11 (Lines 15-17)

advances the conversation further as he initiates his comment with a backchannel, as a

way to show a degree of agreement with what Student 7 has said, and also to get the

floor. His explanation, “Well, she sort of hugged her, but she kept that big bag in the

way,” provides the group with a closer and more accurate observation of the image

Katherine Paterson portrayed. Gilly’s mother did hug her, but she held a shoulder bag

between Gilly and herself —

At this point, Courtney hugged her, pressing the bag
into Gilly’s chest and stomach. . .
(excerpt, p. 145)
Student 11’s comments are elaborative. He is repeating the comments made by

Student 7 and clarifying them - there was a hug that was not really a hug. Katherine

pa terson used this detail as she described the scene to the reader to reveal yet another

80

distancing mechanism Gilly’s mother used to keep herself away fiom her daughter. And,
again, it was a choice. This segment of the discourse evidences how peers are coming to
view each other as a diverse group of readers. This further consolidates their identities as
competent and varied readers. They are becoming literate, not simply learning the skills
of literacy. They are developing different personal and social identities — uniquenesses
and affiliations — that define the people they see themselves becoming (Johnston, 2004).

Student 11 adds, “That’s cold, man!” (line 17) as a way to paraphrase more
globally what he had said in the previous lines. He captures in his own words the image
from the text, evidencing it as additional proof of how Gilly’s mother truly feels, then
code-switches to level an opinion about the cruelty of her actions. He is involved on two
levels in this literary conversation — first, as a member of a reading community who uses
the academic language appropriate for a literary discussion. Second, as a member of a
group of middle school children, who relate to and engage with each other through the
use of slang — who have a world and a language outside the walls of a classroom.

In the following lines of the transcript, Student 4 (lines 18-21) gets the floor by
backchanneling, “Yea...” which evidences agreement with what has been discussed
beforehand. She advances the claim that Gilly’s mother does not want her child by
adding two pieces of evidence from the text. She paraphrases the words of the text by
saying, “. . .and, then she wasn’t even going to stay very long” (lines 18-19). She stalls as
she begins her next sentence by using “And. . .” to maintain her position of speaker, and
paraphrases the dialogue spoken by Gilly’s mother in another scene from the chapter
(lines 19-21). Student 4 has contributed to the evidentiary purposes of this part of the

dialogue by capturing two additional images from the text. She has highlighted yet

81

another of the distancing mechanisms Gilly’s mother uses when relating to her own
daughter — referring to her as “the kid” instead of “Gilly” or “my daughter.” Student 4
was persistent in the ways in which she gained and held the floor through the use of
backchanneling, stalling, and the amount of words uttered. She had important
contributions to make and wanted to be heard. She advanced the conversation for the
entire group as she worked as a strategic reader by pinpointing evidence from the text,
and by paying careful attention to the powerful rhetorical moves used by an author.

Each student is working in the advancing mode in this section of the transcript.
The advancing mode emphasizes strategic reading comprehension through the
interjecting of, naming of, building upon, or confirming a strategy in use. Students
advance the conversation amongst themselves through the cataloging of images, proving
they have taken on identities as sophisticated readers, who are able to access the
cognitive functions associated with inferencing.

In lines 22-23, I gain the floor by asking, “So, what do you think this all
means?” I am attempting to glue each of these pieces of evidence together so students
can begin to recognize that they are able to inference, which is a sophisticated reading
strategy and one deemed “central to meaning-making.” (Pearson, 1985). I want to
underscore their capacity to read as highly competent readers and highlight the
metacognitive processes they enacted to do so. I want them to see their own thinking so I
scaffold with this type of question. Again, I am working in supporting mode here to tie
together the textual evidence we have accumulated thus far.

Student 6 responds to me with, “She does NOT want her child.” This response

draws perspectives together, which is a characteristic of supporting mode as well. This is

82

not only a response to my question, it is a repeated statement with variation of lines
spoken by other students in lines 1, 2, 3 and 9:
Line 1 I can’t believe that mom!
Line 2 It was 1119! That letter was
Line 3 m!
Line 9 Courtney doesn’t want Gilly. .
Line 24 She does NOT want her child.
Student 6 invites herself verbally into the conversation by taking the floor as she involves
her classmates by voicing a paraphrased agreement.
She continues in line 25 with a variation repeat of her initial statement by saying,
“She just doesn’t care.” Student 6 wants to keep the floor evidenced through the use of
“And. . .” in her next sentence (lines 25-27) when she adds yet another piece of evidence
to support her claim that Gilly’s mother does not want her. She repeats another image
from the text, in which the reader sees the grandmother giving her daughter dirty looks.
Not only are we appalled by Courtney’s behavior, her own mother is. She varies
her statement by adding in lines 27-28 that “She was mad at her, too.” Her use of the
adverb “too” is intriguing. Student 6 is saying that grandma also is angry at Gilly’s
mother for her behaviors at the airport, which prove she does not want her child. Gilly,
however, is the only other person involved in this scene. Gilly’s emotions are not those
of anger; Gilly is heartbroken. The question becomes, then, Who are the others with
whom grandma is being included? The adverb ‘too’ is used to include grandma with us —
the readers who are also enraged. This evidences Student 6’s involvement with the text
as she puts herself, emotionally, into the scene. Arguably, she plucks grandma out of the

story world and gives her life beyond the page, as she also makes her one of us. One of

83

the characters (grandma) feels like we do — very angry. Her statement works in
supporting mode, drawing perspectives together as she adds the perspective of another
character in the story, who is formulating the same truths as the readers. In line 29, I
refiame Kia’s statements in a question by asking if we agree with what she just said. I am
inviting additional opinions to gain concensus. I am working in gathering mode here as I
attempt to tie the discussion together. I am attempting to collect all opinions, seeking out
any dissent if any exists.

Several students overlap their responses (lines 30-34) and agree, “YES! She is
just a big liar! Poor Gilly. I feel sorry for her that her mom doesn’t want her. How can a
mom not want her own child?” The interjection ‘yes’ shows agreement and is also a
variation repeated from line 18. The next sentence in which students say “She is just a
big liar” has been repeated fi'om lines 2 and 3, changed slightly in form. Other students
reveal the compassion and pity they feel toward Gilly, that her own mother does not want
her. She feels sympathetic toward her, evidencing her emotional engagement. Lines 32
and 33 are paraphrased repetitions of each other, and are also paraphrased repetitions of
lines 9 and 24. In lines 33-34, rean the statement into a question moves the
realization that Gilly’s mother does not want her, out of their cognitive realm as critical
readers making sense of claims and evidence, and into the emotive realm. “How can a
mom not want her own child?” is really a statement of shock and wonderment — cognitive
dissonance — that says to the heart of a child, This is not how a mother is supposed to
feel.

I recognize that students have used a multitude of textual evidence and reached

concensus about Gilly’s mother. Therefore, I reframe and revoice the question fi'om lines

84

33-34 to give it a bigger voice, as I rebroadcast it to the entire group, “Did the author ever
come out and say, ‘Courtney does not want her child?”’ I am working in the supporting
mode. This mode focuses on drawing perspectives together, monitoring metacognitive
strategies, identifying textual evidence and valuing and validating contributions. Again, I
lead fiom behind (Dewey, 1938) using this question as a scaffold nudging them into the
second component of inferencing, which involves world knowledge. Inferencing is the
glue that cements the construction of meaning (Pearson & Anderson, 1984) and I aim to
nudge students to recognize that inferences are implied, and can be proven, through the
use of both textual evidence and what people know from living in the world. This leads
us into the last section of the transcript.
Analysis of Section III: Solidifying claims

Student 1 responds in lines 37-39, “No, but we have all the proof we need in the
chapter. She did all those things in the airport.” Student 1 evidences the work competent
readers do — they look for evidence fiom the text. Her statement also paraphrases in a
summary statement what her classmates have been evidencing in the body of the
transcript. The scenes created by Katherine Paterson become evidentiary images
repeated in the words of her classmates. Gilly’s mother did not buy her own ticket. She
kept a bag between Gilly and herself when she hugged her. Gilly’s mother was not going
to stay permanently, and she referred to Gilly as ‘the kid’ and not “my daughter” or
“Gilly.” These were scenes fiom the airport. These overt actions affirrn how she feels.
Student 1 works in advancing mode as she verbalizes that the implication is clear.

Student 8 takes the floor (line 40) by reminding us that we were not the only ones

who witnessed these behaviors, and made the appropriate conclusion about how Gilly’s

85

mother really felt, that“. . .the grandma, she knew, too.” This is a paraphrased repetition
of Student 6 in lines 26-28. It works as yet another piece of evidence that an additional
person both saw and was shocked by what Courtney’s behaviors and words meant.
Students were evidencing that they could work within a literary discourse community as
highly accomplished readers who knew how to inference. Readers who inference gather
evidence fiom the text as well as their own minds to draw conclusions. The images
written in the text, combined with what these students have come to know about
appropriate actions and words one shows another when offering affection, have led them
to the conclusion that Gilly’s mother neither loves her nor wants her. Student 8’s
comments about“. . .the grandma, she knew, too” seal their conclusion, creating a
bounding episode (Tannen, 1989) that is a variation on the initial utterance by Student 4,
who both initiated and fiamed this dialogic event by saying, “I can’t believe that mom!”
(line 1). Bounding episodes operate as theme-setting mechanisms, which Student 1
established in the beginning, and as a coda, bringing the literary conversation full circle
by Student 8’s claim that“. . .the grandma, she knew, too (line 40). It ties the dialogic
event together.

Students evidenced how they used various discourse moves to involve each other
as competent, strategic readers. These discourse moves worked to bind them as learners
in a literary discourse community - members who could use the language spoken by
critical readers to talk about reading in critical ways. Language, however, works in many
ways at once. In this transcript, students are working as readers in a discourse
community, yet they are also working on an interpersonal level. The functions of

repetition are also social. Repetition works to build relationships and to accomplish

86

social goals. It not only ties parts of discourse together, it bonds participants to each
other, linking speakers in conversation and relationships. In order for individuals to
mutually participate in sensemaking (Cazden, 2001) they must be involved in this way.
Language operates within relationships and also to build relationships. Several discourse
moves were enacted by these students, revealing their involvement on a personal level as
well.
Accountability to the learning community

When discussing “accountable talk” Resnick (1990) describes a third aspect that
is more social in nature. She terms this accountability to the learning community. She
describes this as participants engaged in talk who listen attentively to one another and ask
each other questions aimed at clarifying or expanding a proposition. Participants who
learn how to disagree without making it a personal attack, and how to receive criticism
without feeling rejected. This is social learning in the service of the topic under
discussion. Students learn how to ask, add, and refute with peers and do so politely. This
transcript also evidences an array of discourse moves enacted by the students as they
involve each other socially.

The way in which Student 4 initiated the conversation worked to involve the
entire class in conversation. She exclaimed, “I can’t believe that mom!” (line 1), not only
to reveal her shock at a character’s behavior, but also to call her classmates together to
meet for a literary dialogue. She was working in gathering mode here, bringing the
group together; calling on her peers to converse with her. Immediately, several students
overlap with comments that the letter was a lie (lines 2-3). Again, this overlapping talk is

not showing disregard for each other, it works to reveal their overwhelming agreement;

87

their solidarity with their classmate and her claim. Students are not being rude, forgetting
how to “get the floor” in school, which, typically, is through teacher nomination after
hand-raising. Instead, they are showing respect for their classmates and their voices.
They want to involve themselves in this conversation, so their overlapping talk operates
as an acceptance to an invitation, showing that they want the dialogue to carry on.

The overlapping talk occurring again in lines 30-34 operates in the same way.
Tum-taking demands participation and reaction in social interaction of the dialogic event
(Hymes, 1989). Speakers must take responsibility for giving conversation a life and also
sustaining that life. Students are not being impolite with each other. They do not use
language that would indicate they want the conversation to end. To the contrary, their
voices, in unison, add to the cohesiveness of the group as they work to involve
themselves and create membership through global agreement. This, again, is what
Tannen (1990) would describe as a cooperative overlap with high involvement, as
students are voicing agreement with Kia (line 29) and do so with strong emotion.

The discourse moves students use to get the floor also evidence how they work
to involve each other socially, as members of the discourse community. Bakhtin (1975)
discusses the notion of “internally persuasive discourse” as essential to the learning
process. He states that internally persuasive discourse is affirmed through assimilation,
tightly woven with one’s own word. These words, he explains, are half ours and half
someone else’s. The semantic structure of the internally persuasive discourse is not
finite, it is open, enabling ever new ways to mean. He argues, then, that students will be
more apt to “try on” new ways to mean if ideas are heard by their peers. The initial claim

spoken by Student 4 (“I can’t believe that mom!”) becomes a template for peers as they

88

revoiced paraphrased utterances of this initial assertion in line 1. Student 1’s initial claim
was repeated over and over again, as other students involved themselves in the dialogue.

Line 1 I can’t believe that mom!

Line 2 It was a lie! That letter was

Line 3 QM

Line 5 Courtney doesn’t want. . .

Line 24 She doe; NOT wa_n_t her child.

Line 31 She is just a big liar!
If any students were not quite convinced how Gilly’s mother felt toward her daughter
after reading the chapters on their own, the spoken words of their peers worked to
convince them. They used these words as a pattern for their own utterances — each
preceding utterance leaving residuals for the next. These utterances also assisted students
in maintaining ownership over this discussion, in terms of establishing the topic to be
discussed and moving the conversation forward. It made the group cohesive and
involved. The discourse strategies implemented, afforded them opportunities to
participate fully in conversation with each other.

They were immersed and so highly involved that they were in pursuit of the task
for its own sake. Csikszentrnihalyi (1991) describes this as “flow.” Students evidenced
this through several backchanneling (lines 14, 15, 18, 30, 37 and 40) moves as a way to
show agreement, while continuing to move the conversation forward. The use of the
word “an ” to gain the floor (lines 14 and 40) was connective and supportive in nature.
Each time, “and” was used as a way to show agreement for what had been uttered

previously and to contribute more. The words were used as a transition to a new speaker,

and to maintain the cohesiveness of the entire dialogic event, while the opinions of others

89

were supported in their claims. Listening in this view is an active enterprise, requiring
interpretation comparable to that required in speaking; a joint production (T annen, 1989).

Even the backchannel response “Well. . .” (line 15) was used to sustain
cohesiveness. Previously, Student 7 (line 14) states, “And. . .she didn’t even hug her!”
Student 11 (lines 15-17) gains the floor with “Well. . .” to show agreement but also to
clarify. In a sense, this is indirectness. Lakoff (1979) describes indirectness as a
mechanism conversationalists use either to save face, if a contribution is not well
received, or to achieve the sense of rapport that comes from being understood, without
saying what one means. The use of the word, “Well. . . is an indirect way to take the
floor. It establishes that Student 11 wants to speak, but also that there is something to
refute. He is making clear that although Gilly’s mother did briefly put her arm around
Gilly, she kept her overnight bag between them, and clearly did it with intent to distance
herself from her own daughter. In essence, he is clarifying that, yes, there was a hug, but
can one honestly call it an authentic hug? He clarifies, however, with great respect for
his classmate as a member of the literary discourse community.

He does not enter the conversation and get the floor by saying, “No, that isn’t
true. . .” or make use of any derogatory word to gain access and shame his peer. Instead,
he softens it with “Well. . .” which shows that he is going to disagree but not in any way
to show disregard for his classmate or her words. He wants to stay involved in
conversation with his classmate and not shun her. His entry into the conversation saves
the face of his classmate, while he shows agreement with clarification.

Yet another way members of this literary conversation show how they used

discourse moves to involve themselves, and nurture the overall membership of the group

90

is through the repetition of particular pronouns. Lines 4, 6, 7, 10, 22, 29 and 37 use the
pronouns “you,” “Let’s” (Let us) and “we” to create group cohesiveness. These
pronouns speak globally to the collective body of students in our classroom, who are
working together to make meaning and solve problems. The use of these pronouns binds
us together and sends the message that we are members of a particular community - a
literary discourse community, in this instance, and we are in this work together. We
share a universe which is this literary discussion.

Repetition not only ties parts of the discourse together, it bonds participants to
the discourse and to each other. It links individual speakers together in conversation and
relationships. When discourse mechanisms succeed in creating meaning, it sends a
metamessage of rapport between the communicators, who experience and share
communicative conventions, and habit the same world of discourse (Tannen, 1989). It
forges a collection of individuals into a community and unites individuals in relationship.
Summary

In summary, this chapter reveals how Grade 6 students used a multitude of
discourse moves to involve each other academically, as competent strategic readers, and
socially, as members of a literary discourse community. Highly involved readers are
those who are motivated, knowledgeable, and socially interactive (Guthrie & Wigfield,
1997, p. 2). The prevalence of discourse moves utilized by these students confirmed their
active participation in dialogue as a coordinated interaction. Goodwin (1981) defines this
as conversational engagement in which coherence and involvement are the goals.
Building new identities, they are beginning to “wear the mantle” of what it sounds like

and feels like to be competent discourse users in a literary discourse community. They

91

are evidencing greater self-efficacy (Bandura, 1977) as they are showing growing
confidence in their capacities to produce desired effects.

Chapter 6 evidences students highly involved in a literary discourse event in
which teacher scaffolds are removed. Students initiate, sustain, and take full ownership
over the dialogic event. They evidence their transformation from readers labeled
“struggling” to readers who are thoughtful, purposeful, metacognitively aware, and able
to enact the cognitive tools necessary to conduct a literary dialogue — new habits of mind.

These new habits of mind evidence themselves through a variety of stances
students are able to assume as they move through affective response and into critical
analysis of the text — “multiplicities of response” (Hines, 1997) -— in which literary works
are responded to in multiple ways, through a wide, interpretive range, utilizing various
ways of noticing (Soter, 1999). Students view a literary work through psychoanalytical
and rhetorical lenses. They bring questions to the literary dialogue, and also generate
additional questions that manifest as a part of the dialogic event itself. They use the text
to cite a multitude of evidence to support their claims and positions, and broaden what
they consider as text in the process. They cite movies, other novels, television programs,
book covers, chapter headings, and life experiences. They model the rhetorical moves of
authors as a way to construct knowledge within the group. They use discourse moves to
gate-keep and hold the floor for peers who have something substantive to contribute to
the knowledge construction of the group. They also show acute and active listenership as

they attend to the non-verbal cues of their peers.

92

Chapter 6
DIALOGIC TRANSFORMATIONS
Introduction

Chapter Six consists of the transcript analysis of a third reading discussion, and a
comparative analysis of the modes of involvement, viewed across each of the three
discourse transcripts. The transcript analysis of the reading discussion in mid-April of
2005 evidences student transformations from “struggling” to highly competent and
critical readers who had internalized the teacher-scaffolded discourse heuristics
(Gadamer, 1975). Although students evidenced themselves as highly competent readers
in Chapter 5, they did so while still utilizing a degree of support from teacher scaffolds.
This transcript reveals students who are in full control of the exploration and selection of
strategies, not just the exercise of them. By way of a multitude of scaffolding moves on
the part of the teacher, I emphasized both the content and procedural knowledge of
strategic readers, in membership in a literary discourse community. This is part of
teaching toward the development of “inner control” — freeing the strategy use from the
teacher’s support (Clay, 1991). This is the goal when apprenticing novices into new
habits of mind.

An analysis of this transcript displays student involvement on many levels,
through the use of a multitude of recursive stances. Students initiate the literary dialogue
and sustain it, due to their involvement with the task at hand, their expertise at viewing
literature through multiple lenses, and due to their investment in fellow group members.
They reveal both independence and belonging - “collective agency” - as they enact the

behaviors of highly competent, strategic and critical readers, who shuttle between the text

93

and self, response and reflection, public and private understandings (Iser, 1978). In this
chapter, students evidence new habits of mind.

The comparative analysis of the modes of involvement also reflects student
transformations. Students became highly skilled at working in gathering mode, as they
initiated the dialogic event, and used questions to both sustain the discourse and to
interrogate the text and each other. They were sophisticated while working in supporting
mode as they identified textual evidence, revoiced interpretations, and modeled reasoning
processes. They also worked in advancing mode as they were able to inference, which is
a highly complex reading strategy. Their use of discourse moves and reading strategies
elevated to such complex levels, that there was no demarcation between the “setting the

’9 66

stage, collecting evidence,” and “solidifying claims” stages, as in the two previous
transcripts.
Stance: The fabric of our classroom

Bruner (1986) states that no one can teach without transmitting a sense of how the
material is to be viewed. Within the social setting of our classroom, my students learned
how different forms of knowledge are used and communicated — what counts as knowing
and what that knowledge looks like. As they took ownership over the semiotic tools they
were taught, their ability to think and reason developed in ways that allowed them to use
certain cognitive strategies to structure their thinking in various ways about texts. By
mid-April, we had begun our last core novel, and students had transformed into critical
readers with capacities to take multiple stances with regard to what they read.

Throughout the year, through encounters with the core works of adolescent

literature read in class, and through additional reading lessons using picture books and

94

illustrated texts, I made explicit how I wished students to view what they read. Viewing
texts in particular ways is stance — the manner in which one uses or orients one’s mind
toward something (Langer, 1989). For example, during a mini-lesson on author’s stance,
I read The Great Kapok Tree: A Tale of the Amazon Rain Forest (Cherry, 1990). In this
story, a man walks into the rain forest, sees a great Kapok tree, and begins chopping it
down with his ax. He soon tires and falls asleep beneath the tree. As he slumbers,
various rainforest animals approach him, with pleas to stop cutting down the great tree.
At the end of the story, he is convinced and leaves the great Kapok tree to tower over the
rain forest unharmed.

Authors always assume a stance toward the content of their writing (Thompson
and Ye, 1991). Authors either support, reject, or are neutral in their position. After
reading the story, we discuss the author’s stance and our evidence for thinking as such.
Lynne Cherry’s stance most certainly is in support of preserving the rain forest and we
locate much evidence for this. She uses a multitude of rhetorical and illustrative moves
to reveal her position. The forest creatures, from the tree frogs to the three-toed slotlrs,
are constructed as watercolor paintings against a backdrop of the lush and equally
colorful rain forest. Each has a warm and inviting smile as they snuggle up to the ear of
the sleeping man and plea, “Please Senhor, do not cut down our tree. . .” and level various
reasons as to why he should leave the tree alone. Each forest creature is positioned as a
close-up on a two-page spread, which also draws us in and helps convince us of the
author’s stance. The repetition of both the pleas made by each personified creature, as
well as the beauty and warmth of the creatures themselves, work, again, to convince us.

Cherry also reveals her stance through the colorful, detailed maps of the dwindling rain

95

forest in the fiont and end matter of the picture book, emphasizing with a sense of
urgency, that the reader must align with her position, or the rain forest will disappear.

To shape my students into critical readers, who possess the capacities to view a
literary work through a multitude of lenses, I also want them to assert a position of power
by speaking against the text as well (Smith, 1991). Lynne Cherry has made a strong
argument in support of preserving the rain forest, yet there are other ways to see; other
stances to take. So, we work in small groups and consider the positions — and reasons for
them — of each of the following: A group of AIDS researchers who believe they have
found the cure for AIDS in the bark of the Kapok tree, a group of lurnberers who risk
unemployment if they are no longer able to cut the Kapok tree, a group of investors who
want to turn the rain forest area into a 5-star resort and employ the indigenous people,
and, finally, a group of the indigenous people themselves, who want to preserve their
lives and culture as it is. Each small group discusses what their stance would be and
why, as well as the positive aspects of their position. Each group then presents their
argument to the whole class. A debate ensues as the class considers the negative
repercussions of each group’s position. Enculturating students to recognize the author’s
stance and to interrogate it, through the consideration of alternative stances, is to view
literature as something to be explored, and invites them into interpretation and critical
analysis (Langer, 1987).
Literaatre as envisionment building

Judith Langer (1989) states that reading is an experience of envisionment
building, of growing understandings that change over time. She describes envisionment

building is an act of becoming — where questions, insights, and understandings develop as

96

the reading progresses, while understandings that were once held are subject to
modification, reinterpretation, and even dismissal (Iser, 1978; Langer & Applebee, 1985;
Langer, 1987, 1989). Langer studied the ways in which envisionments develop — how
meanings grow from the reader’s vantage point — and she devised a theoretical
fiamework for the stances the reader takes toward the text. Each of these stances adds a
somewhat different dimension to the reader’s growing understanding of the work.

There are four stances, which are recursive and constantly informing the other
stances. The first stance is Being out and stepping into an envisionment, in which the
reader forms tentative questions and associations about the story world in an attempt to
make contact. The second stance is Being in and moving through an envisionment in
which the reader uses the text and personal knowledge to build and elaborate
understandings. In this envisionment, the reader is caught up in the story world. The
third stance is Stepping back and rethinking what one knows in which the reader uses
growing understandings to rethink previously held ideas, beliefs, or feelings. The fourth
stance is Stepping out and objectifying the experience in which the reader distances
him/herself from the text to examine, evaluate, or analyze the reading experience or
aspects of the text.

A turn of (on) events

Shortly after spring break, my students stood at the doorway of the classroom
whispering amongst themselves. I asked what was going on and one student said, “We
would like to have a class meeting.” I told them to come in and sit down so we could
talk. One student said that the class had been talking at lunch yesterday and they felt they

did not need to write reader responses anymore. They “promised” to do a “really good

97

job” on their reading. They said that they felt written responses were no longer necessary
as they “had it in their heads” and “knew what they wanted to say” and “maybe use it to
jot down some thoughts, but not write too much if you didn’t need to.” I told them their
argument seemed reasonable, and that we would give it a try, as long as they continued to
work hard in class.
Dialogic transformations

The following is the analysis of the reading conversation that took place in
mid-April of 2005, shortly after my students convinced me that they had “graduated”
from their need to use written responses to assist them with their reading discussions.
This analysis not only evidences the appropriateness of removing this scaffold, but others
as well. They had no need for me in the discourse, either, other than to view this event
behind the lense of the video recorder. Students were involved in this literary dialogue
for forty-seven minutes. Due to the length of the original transcript, it has been included
in the Appendices section in its entirety (See Appendix A). This section addresses the
following research question:
What are the particular discourse strategies used by a group of Grade 6 readers
involving themselves and others with reading?

We had just finished reading a section of Max the Mighty (Philbrick, 1998) which
is the sequel to Freak the Mighty (Philbrick, 1993). At this particular point in the story,
Max, the main character, and Worm, are running away to Montana in search of Worrn’s
father. Max met Worm when he defended her from a bully who was throwing her
backpack and all of her books on the ground. The bully was teasing her for being a

“bookworrn” which is where her nickname “Worm” originated. Max saves her once

98

again when he overhears Worm’s stepfather, the Undertaker, yelling and hitting Worm’s
mother. Max breaks down the door, takes Worm (at her mother’s urging) and escapes on
foot to Montana, where Worm claims her father lives. The Undertaker, Worm’s
stepfather, calls the police to report Worm as being kidnapped. Now there is a nation-
wide search for Max, and a sizable reward for his capture.

While they are making their way on foot to Montana, they meet a retired teacher
who calls himself the Dippy Hippy (Dip). Dip is driving a converted van - the Prairie
Schooner — to California simply for the sake of adventure. He offers Worm and Max a
ride and they accept. Further down the road, the three travelers meet two more
characters, Joanie and Frank, who flag them down. Frank claims to have an injured foot
because he was hurt by a man who stole their car. Dip offers them a ride, too. During
the ride West, Joanie tells the group that she and Frank ran a hospital for orphans who
have polio, but their accountant stole all their money, leaving them broke. She adds that
they, too, are headed to California in search of employment.

Analysis of April transcript

At this particular point in the story, students are half way through the novel and
the author has left a trail of clues about Joanie, Frank, and Dip, in the form of both verbal
and non-verbal behaviors. Students have become highly suspicious about their intentions
toward Max and Worm: Who is there to help them and who is there to make their
troubles worse? Students evidence their involvement and their capacities as critical
readers by recognizing these inconsistencies. Their suspicions allowed them to enter the

text and the discourse emotively, and move into deeper levels of analysis (Rosenblatt,

1980).

99

Cognizant that the author had designs on them (Soter, 1999), by constructing
characters who were behaving inconsistently, they knew to interrogate the text and
identified several pieces of textual evidence to unravel whether characters were
trustworthy or not, with regard to the welfare of Max and Worm. Students stepped in to
the literary dialogue with a focus on a particular character (line 1) with Student 1 asking,
“What do we think about Joanie?” Students responded to his question, involving
themselves in the dialogue, and began cataloging textual evidence and considering what
they deemed appropriate behaviors, as they leveled claims and formulated theories about
Joanie.

2 She’s trying to get back at Worm...

4 . . .like when she told the story about. them
5 helping kids with polio. . .

7 It’s probably a lie...
8 ---she’s really nosey.
9 . . .like “What’s your story?’”
J oanie’s behaviors were inconsistent and, therefore, warranted a degree of suspicion from
the group. As students cite textual evidence, they position themselves in another stance —
being in and moving through — as they use the text to inform themselves while continuing
to build knowledge. They scrutinize the textual elements closely as a way to use them as
tools to solidify their claim.
The students were in agreement, thus far, that Joanie warranted suspicion, so
focus turned to another character, as student 5 involved the group by stepping in and
inviting opinions by asking, “What do y’all think about Dip?” (line 47). Dip had entered

the dialogue at line 11. Most students, however, felt Dip was well-intentioned and had

100

Max and Worm’s best interests in mind. They identified several pieces of textual
evidence to support their claim:

11 I think Dippie Hippie willl go to Montana

12 not to California because he is getting

13 suspicious of Frank and Joanie. I trust

14 him to help Worm and Max.

17 ...and he don’t nose in. And he has
18 been feeding them and giving them a ride.

51 Yea, hejust wantstodoagood deed.

52 Well, he is a retired teacher. Nice person.
53 Likes kids.

Students were able to step out and objectify their growing thoughts about Dip, as they
cited world knowledge when considering his trustworthiness with regard to Max and
Worm. It seemed to make sense that if Dip was a retired teacher and he is being helpful
toward Max and Worm, that he must care about children and, therefore, have their safety
and well-being in mind.

While working to figure out the legitimacy of Joanie and Dip, Student 9 (lines 54-
56) steps out and objecttfies the experience as she leveled in with a warning. She is able
to distance herself from the story world in order to look critically at the rhetorical moves
of the author. She stated, “But we don’t know what he ‘gonna do. We been fooled
before by Gilly’s mom.” Student 9 believed Dip would help Worm and Max, yet was
willing to change her opinion as she continued to make meaning with future chapters of
the novel. She was cataloging “textual indices” (Iser, 1978) in which she reminded her
classmates that all the evidence was not in. She was considering the significance of
placements of events in a story (Langer, 1995). When considering significance, critical

readers ask themselves how the placement of various events and behaviors contribute to

101

the overall meaning. Stories continue to inform us and we had half of the novel left to
read. It was reasonable, then, to suspend any “official” opinion about Dip’s intentions
toward Max and Worm, although, at this point, his intentions seemed honorable. So far,
his behavior had been consistent, but he could be fooling us!

Student 9 was also stepping in and moving through a novel previously read in
class as she cautioned the group and reminded them to remain a bit skeptical. In The
Great Gilly Hopla'ns, (Paterson, 1978), which we read in class in the fall, Gilly’s mother
fooled us right up until the last pages of the story. So, Student 9 was warranted in her
skepticism. She claimed that Dip’s words and actions seemed to indicate that he cared
about the welfare of Max and Worm, but HE could be fooling us as Gilly’s mom did
Student 9 was clear how narrative works and she understood that texts are not static. Her
stance allowed her to question the “reliability of the author” (Smith, 1991). She had
learned not to submit herself completely to the words of the text, but to consider also
what she knew about how narrative works. Therefore, an expectation of ambiguity and
suspended belief needed to be maintained (Diaz, 1992). A reader can have opinions, yet
these are dynarrric and changing, since more textual evidence reveals itself as the story
unfolds. She was willing to build and revise her understanding based on accumulating
and adding together details from throughout the text (Marshall, 1993) and from other
texts as well.

Her caution brought about new envisionments the group must consider, which is
evidenced later on in the transcript. Student 4 (lines 98-99) asked, “I have a question.
Why is the Prairie Schooner important?” She was aware of the particular rhetorical

moves by the author — the placement of items in a story — and so she stepped in

102

to the discourse, questioning why there was so much attention being drawn to the Prairie
Schooner at this particular point in the story. The Prairie Schooner is a converted van Dip
is driving west across the United States. Student 1 (lines 100-103) responded by being in
and moving through with, “It helps get them where they need to go because look at the
cover. It’s a picture of Max and Worm running on foot. They need wheels!” Student 3
(lines 107-109) also responds by being in and moving through by adding, “It’s important
because the Prairie Schooner makes them go faster that walking, and riding is safer.” By
being in and moving through, these students inform growing understandings with textual
evidence.

Student 11 responded with a cautionary claim and said, “It’s safer as long as Dip
is a good person. I don’t believe Joanie and Frank work at an orphanage, either.” She
stepped back and rethought what she knew by cautioning her classmates that the Prairie
Schooner is a safe way to travel as long as Dip, the driver, is safe himself. She
considered what her other classmate pointed out earlier, to continue to shape her growing
envisionments — that we believe Dip is a good person, but we can’t be sure because we
were fooled before. She also stepped in and moved through with her comment about
Frank and Joanie, who are also passengers on the Prairie Schooner. The safety of Worm
and Max, since they are riding in the van, too, is contingent on whether or not its other
passengers are trustworthy. She used information from the text as well as information
from the preceding group discussion - yet another text — to build meaning.

Several other students also had adopted stances that what counted as “text” to
validate claims went far beyond just the “text” under discussion. Student 2 (lines 111-

112) asked, “I wonder about Worm’s mom. Why would she marry the Undertaker?”

103

Student 4 (lines 113-114) asked, “Yea, why would she and when did Worm start going in
her book?” These students stepped in to the discussion with these questions and the
group stepped out and objectzfied the experience by referencing other “texts” to find
answers. The novel itself offered up no solid answers concerning Worm’s mom and how
she ended up married to the Undertaker. Student 1 (lines 121-122) identified textual
evidence by referencing the movie I Am Sam, as he considered that it may be possible
Worm was simply abandoned by her father. He also identified textual evidence by
referring to a court television program, Judge Joe Mathews (lines 147-151). He theorized
that possibly Worm’s father left her mother, and, therefore, abandoned Worm in the
process. Student 3 (line 125) referenced another novel, A Wrinkle in Time (L’Engle,
1962) as he and his classmates considered whether the significance of this book, which
Worm protects, offered information as to why Worm and her father were apart in the first
place.

Smith (1991) argues that readers must assert power in order to have meaningful
transactions with text. One way readers assert power is to take inferential walks through
the writing of ghost chapters (Eco, 1978) as a tool for the interpretation of meaning. Eco
explains that, “texts are lazy machineries that ask someone to do part of their job” (p.
214). Readers, therefore, must write ghost chapters to compose events the story leaves
out. As Eco explains, “Given a series of causally and linearly connected events a ...... e
a text tells the reader about the event a and, after a while, about the event e, taking for
granted that the reader has already anticipated the dependent events b, c, d” (p. 215).

Eco contends that, in effect, readers compose these dependent events and that authors

count on readers’ compositions when they construct their narratives. Readers must base

104

their ghost chapters on the cues the text provides, since the text is a territory for many
possible interpretations, yet only some are reasonable and acceptable. Students, by
stepping out and objectifying the experience, access other texts to construct ghost
chapters, as a way to find plausible explanations to questions the novel under discussion
could not answer.

Students were also curious as to why Worm hid in her book. Lines 58-95 and
113-156 of the transcript focused on why Worm need to feel “safe inside her book.” The
students agreed that she used her book as an escape:

fl Whenever there’s trouble, she hides in
62 her book.

63 She jumps inside.
64 She doegn’t want to get involved.
65 She likes to feel safe.

66 Safe inside her book means like she
67 doesn’t wa_rnt trouble so she (motions

68 by coverirggher face with book) so she
69 doesn’t have to deal with it.

 

10 The Undertaker hits her mom. fig
71 didn’t wapt to face it. She hid in her

72 book in the hallway.

They wanted a clearer understanding, however, as to why she would behave this way.
What was it that Worm hid fiom? What was she avoiding? Students had stepped into the
story world with their initial question about Worm’s behavior. Worm was a co-
protagonist going through a rite of passage. She was experiencing both an inner and
outer journey, as one does when going through any rite of passage that, hopefully, results

in maturation. Students took the stance of psychoanalytical critics (Soter, 1999) with

105

regard to Worm as they posed the question, “What makes her behave this way? They had
stepped into the story world, citing multiple pieces of behavioral evidence, yet had to step
back and rethink what they knew in order to inform their understandings further.

After listening to multiple repetitions of textual evidence that Worm certainly hid
in her book, and that, possibly, she “didn’t want to face” the Undertaker’s abuse, Student
6 (lines 7 3-74) steps back and asks the question, “What would YOU do? Fight the
Undertaker?” Worm’s stepfather, the Undertaker, physically abused Worm’s mother.
Student 6 questioned whether anyone in the group would want to face such an horrific
situation. She was really asking, Would any of us, as children, be willing to have a
physical confrontation with an adult, who has the physical strength to beat up our
mother? Student 1 reiterated the importance of probing this further as he also stepped
back and rethought with, “Yea, you guys. Let’s compare that. . .” (line 77). Student I
placed himself in an agentive role, with respect to knowledge production, and all of the
rights and responsibilities that confers. Responsibility means that he cross-checks
sources and warrants - his classmates. He accessed them as sources of information or
logic, which boosts his confidence, and his peers, in the construction of knowledge,
rather than having to seek verification from the teacher as “outside authority” (Johnston,
2004).

Students interrogated Worm’s behavior — as well as their own, if placed in a
similar circumstance — through the use of scenes. These scenes were fiom their own
lives, used to create imagery, to reason through this important question. Fredericks
(1986) states that imagery creates involvement as students are integrating knowledge and

perceptions in the collective imagination of the group. It is in the imagination, he claims,

106

where meaning is made. Four different students reasoned, through the use of imagery, as
they presented scenes from their own lives:

78 .............. I know sometimes when

79 I get mad at home, I’ll go to my room just

80 to get away.

81 I stay in my room, make up a dance or
82 read a magazine.

86 I’ll play video games or go outside and play
87 basketball.

89 I just get grounded. That’s all.

After all these images were put forth as reasoned arguments, Student 8 (lines 94-
95) drew perspectives together and said, “OK, so we do some of the same things that
Worm does.” They had wrestled with this issue and had arrived at consensus. They
would not fight back, either. Evidence came from the scenes they shared from their own
lives. These scenes worked as images to communicate details in the dialogue. They
provided internal evaluation (Tannen, 1989) which led them to come to the conclusion
that they would have responded exactly as Worm did. They had avoided situations that
were far less troubling than Worm’s.

Students realized highly competent readers consider multiple perspectives
(Enciso, 1990) which is a very complex sociocognitive process. It entails considering
what someone else might be seeing, thinking, or feeling. It requires recalling the reader’s
own experiences and considering the experiences of others in a situation. They
evidenced their involvement, yet again, as they stepped in and moved through the story
world by recognizing how the author constructed Worm through her behaviors and

words. They also stepped back and rethought what they brew as they were initially

107

highly critical of Worm’s behavior and had changed their minds. Benton and Fox (1985)
argue that the experience of considering perspectives and shifting viewpoints is critical to
the development of more sensitive and powerful readings that lead to a greater
understanding of self and other.

Through the use of a common strategy —- imagery created by scenes fi'om their
own lives — they had reconsidered their position with regard to Worm’s responses to fear
and conflict. They authored the literary discourse, through the creation of images as
Katherine Patterson had done when writing The Great Gilly Hopkins (1978). In her
novel, these rhetorical moves had worked to involve and convince them, so they supplied
images, as scenes from their own lives, to reason while interrogating their own position.
Students used her rhetorical moves as “strategy talk” — adopting other voices and drawing
language from other sources -— as a dialogic tool to make meaning. Because students felt
so competent, they planned well, chose to challenge themselves in these tasks, and
interrogated their own stances. As they posed these challenges for themselves, they
deepened their literary strategies. The entire process was cyclical, because as they
worked toward academic success on their own, and within the group, they reinforced
their sense of agency (Bandura, 1996).

Interestingly, this was also when students called classmates to take the floor, both
through direct nomination, and through the recognition of non-verbal cues. This
evidenced, again, their high degree of involvement, as they attempted to figure out what
they would do in this situation, and if they should be so critical of Worm for her own
avoidance. They wanted many contributions, as a bombardment of evidence, in the form

of imagery, which allowed them to come to consensus. Students created meaning

108

through the enactment of a common strategy used for reasoning, and requested multiple
contributions from members of the group. They sought further information to glean
understanding that was acceptable, and reinforced that people can have opinions that
differ. This played out in the context of a real and relevant problem. This sent a meta-
message of cohesiveness (Cazden, 1991) between members that they share common
communicative conventions as highly accomplished, strategic readers, who inhabit the
same world of literary discourse, who honor the communicative fimction of language,
and recognize multiple sources of language as tools for thinking (O’Reilly, 1993).

Students were able to build and re-build envisionments by taking a variety of
recursive stances. They were thoughtful readers of text, who could step in to the story
world, move through it, step back fi'om it, and step out and objectijy the experience
through the use of a multitude of semiotic tools. They were able to use their prior
knowledge as well as the rhetorical cues from the author to inform their growing
understandings. They were able to broaden what they considered to be “text” to inform
their emerging knowledge. They referenced the chapter headings and book covers of the
novel under discussion, other novels read in and out of class, movies, television
programs, and the “text” created in literary dialogue with each other.

Students had also come to embrace the stance that questions were yet another
semiotic tool critical readers use when transacting with text. Questioning is central to
developing understandings, not merely to resolve uncertainties (Langer, 1995). They are
treated as part of the literary discourse. Questions are utilized to consider alternatives,
weigh evidence and to develop yet other questions. These questions operated as

additional mechanisms to sustain the literary dialogue and also to develop thinking.

109

Students understood that highly competent readers not only ask questions as they read,

they pay attention to those questions. Fifteen questions were put on the table by students

in this literary dialogue:
I
47
48
54

59
6O

73
74

95
96

98
99

111
112

113
114

135

145
146

So what do you think about Joanie?
What do y’all think about Dip?
Yea, what if HE isn’t what he seems?

But we don’t know what he gonna do next...

What does she need to be safe from?
What’s going to happen next?

So what would YOU do? Fight the
Undertaker?

. . .How about Maxwell
and the ants?

...... Why is the Prairie
Schooner important?

I wonder about Worm’s mom. Why
would she marry the Undertaker?

Yea, why would she and when did Worm
start going in her book?

Why are they separated?

What if it’s like Gilly? What if her dad
doesn’t want her?

Students had evidenced their understanding that one way to reason with and

respond to a novel was through questioning. Questions had become matters of inquiry

that had further important properties. This suggests a very different role for the students

as knowledge producers, especially when student questions are both solicited and

generated by them. Early in the year, students were submissive to the text, viewing it as a

110

cultural icon to be left unquestioned. Now transformed as active interpreters and
interrogators within the fiamework the text provides (Rosenblatt, 1987), they enacted
behaviors of critical readers, who understand the balance of power between readers and
texts. They were metacognitively aware, through the use of the questions they had asked
of the text, as well as questions they asked while immersed in the literary dialogue — yet
another “text.” They reasoned with questions for multiple purposes.

Some questions allowed them to be out and step in as they brought characters
and their behaviors to the literary discussion, in order to be interrogated with regard to
their intentions toward other characters (lines 1 and 47). Some questions were brought to
the discussion as a warning (line 48) or to suspend opinions (line 54). Other questions
were utilized as ways to be in and move through, to interrogate the rhetorical features of
the text. Students had come to recognize that authors were deliberate in their placement
of characters and scenes in stories (lines 59, 95, 96, 98 and 100). Some questions
allowed them to step back and rethink what they brew and were used to predict (line 60)
or to place themselves in the story world (lines 73-74), to examine whether their reactions
to events would be the same as the character’s. Questions were also used to wonder why
characters behaved the way they did (lines 111, 112, 113, 114, 135, 145 and 146).

Students verified they were highly competent and critical readers who carry on
dialogues with the text, and with fellow readers. They were metacognitively aware,
knowing that the questions posed were significant contributions to enrich the thinking of
each member of the literary discourse community. These questions were yet another tool
students used to initiate movement (Langer, 1995), to create reasoned positions, and to

involve themselves and each other in the dialogic event. They wore the mantle of being

111

empowered readers with capacities to evidence agentive action by taking multiple stances
through the use of questioning.
The discourse community: “Collaborative effort” as stance

Not only had students transformed the ways in which they were able to take
multiple stances toward text, as strategic, critical readers. They had transformed, as well,
that, when in a dialogic community of readers, they were in collaborative effort with their
peers. There was a mutually held expectation that they were responsible for constructing
and maintaining the literary dialogue, and that this required certain expectations from the
community membership as a whole. They had embraced the stance that they were a
collective of one, and, for a time, inhabited the same world of discourse. They enacted
multiple instances of active listening, knowing that acute listenership was mandatory for
maintaining the literary dialogue. They also recognized that in order for the literary
dialogue to be maintained in substantive fashion, they needed contributions from multiple
voices. They had embraced the stance that literacy learning was largely a social
enterprise (Soter, 1999). This was a far different stance than they embraced at the
beginning of the year when they “thought their reading questions came fiom
Massachusetts,” and indicated that “. . .nobody never asked what they thought before.”

Students, embracing the stance of “collaborative effort,” was evidenced through a
multitude of repetition moves, which created a connectivity and cohesiveness to the
entire dialogic event. They enacted acute listenership in order to do this. Goodwin
(1981) refers to this as “conversational engagement” in which participation is seen as
coordinated interaction. Coordinated interaction (Merritt, 1982) exists when both

speaking and listening include traces of the other. Listening, in this view, is an active

112

enterprise, requiring interpretation comparable to that required in speaking. Speaking
entails simultaneously projecting the act of listening; a joint production. Through highly
attuned listenership and repetition moves, students were able to echo earlier utterances of
group members in later utterances of their own. These utterances operated as cohesive
devices that wove the dialogic event together.

For example, this literary dialogue was initiated with a focus on Joanie (line 1).
Discussion of Joanie took place fiom lines 1 through 10. At this point, the primary focus
of the discussion was on Dip (lines 11-18) yet embedded within this section, was mention
of Joanie (line 13). An elaboration of a discussion focused around Dip was again
evidenced in lines 47 through 56, which had been retrieved from lines 11-18, earlier in
the discourse. Worm was the focal point of the section of discourse in lines 58 through
69, yet she was addressed at length in lines 116 through 165. This revealed dialogic
involvement through highly active listenership, and worked to connect the discourse as a
singular, cohesive event.

This cohesiveness serves as a referential and tying function (Cazden, 1991) as
new utterances were linked to earlier discourse, and ideas presented in various segments
were tied to others. The discourse was tied together through a cohesive link of student-
to-student turns. One link was a continuous exchange of sixteen student utterances.
Another was a link of fifty-five! These student-to-student links not only allowed the
literary dialogue to be maintained in substantive fashion, they allowed participation of
group members to be highly involved as they tied one member’s idea to the next — unity
was maintained throughout the entire dialogic event. They stepped in, moved around,

and stepped out of the discourse as they alternated between emotive and critical stances

113

(Rosenblatt, 1980). The ease with which they both conducted and sustained this dialogue
looked like a fluent, polished performance — a highly sophisticated use of mental tools.

A second way in which they revealed their new-found stance as collaborative
discourse users was through their investment in the contributions made to the literary
dialogue. Each student in the class contributed verbally to the dialogic exchange.
Students were so invested in the voices of others that there were five instances in which
students were directly nominated by classmates to take the floor. In line 19, Student 3
directly nominated Abria to speak by asking, “Abria, what do you think?” In lines 84 and
88, students nominated two other classmates to take the floor through direct address.
Student 8 (line 84) nominated Dustin by asking what he thought. She also added, “I can
tell you’re thinking something.” She evidenced involvement with the group, and the task
at hand, by paying such critical attention to non-verbal cues. Dustin responded without
hesitation, which worked to validate her assessment that he was, indeed, thinking
something. Even Dustin’s nonverbal cues themselves evidenced him as being highly
involved in listenership. Dustin was called to take the floor again by Student 3 (line 131)
through a direct nomination, in which his classmate asked him if he ever read A Wrinkle
in Time (L’Engle, 1962).

In line 88, Student 8 directly nominated Dullas to take the floor and contribute.
Dullas responded in line 89 (“I just get grounded. That’s all”). Dullas was in attendance
on an average of two days per week. This was all he contributed verbally to the entire
discussion, yet, the message was clear from his classmates: When you are here, what you
have to say matters. More evidence of voices that “matter” took another form in line 115.

Student 4 (line 115) silenced the overlapping talk in response to the question (lines 1 13-

114

1 14), “Why would she (W orm’s mother) marry the Undertaker and when did Worm start
going inside her book?” Student 4 silenced the multitude of voices by saying, “Wait, you
guys. Listen to Maria.” Student 4 evidenced highly involved interpretive listening. She
was in closer physical proximity to Maria so she heard what Maria said. She felt it
warranted a bi gger voice. Given that she did hear Maria, she also evidenced her
evaluative strategies as a critical reader. What Maria had to say was valuable to the
collective understanding of the group. This also evidenced her investment in the
knowledge-building of the group as a whole. Maria’s valuable insights deepened the
envisionment-building being constructed. Therefore, she took the floor and handed it to
Maria, in order for her to rebroadcast her contribution to the group.

A third way in which students evidenced their transformative stance as discourse
users in collaborative membership with each other was by their use of pronouns. Their
use of pronouns indicated a shared universe (Cazden, 1991). This literary discussion was
their shared universe — they initiated it, sustained it, and owned it. The use of pronouns
indicated their connection with each other as they worked in unison at the task at hand. It
also indicated that they were unified in a joint activity around shared goals, possessing
not only the ability and desire to collaborate, but understanding that doing so is normal
(Johnson, 2004).

1 So what do we think about Joanie?

26 You guys.. .we should ask Ms. H. if we can
make a movie.

28 Can we?...

30 Let’s get back to the book...

94 Ok, so we do some ofthe same things...

115

115 Wait, you guys.
Pronouns were interspersed throughout the entire dialogic event as a way to maintain the
cohesiveness of the conversation, and to sustain both membership and involvement
among the group. They had transformed as competent discourse users who embraced the
responsibility they had toward the discourse community as a whole — viewing it as a
collective of one — as they conducted critical literary conversations with each other. They
utilized their collective minds to think, reason, and build and re-build envisionments.
The social and the cognitive reciprocally informed each other.
Comparison of Modes of Involvement

Students proved they had transformed into highly competent, strategic, and
critical readers, who learned to extend and question responses for themselves, that
became socially valued in class. They leamed to involve themselves and each other by
initiating the dialogic event, asking questions of the text and of each other, and sustaining
it through the use of discourse moves, and critical reading strategies. Students developed
the capacities to do this through the use of scaffolded, strategic actions on the part of their
teacher and, over time, the scaffolds were stripped away, as they had internalized the
strategies and could utilize them on their own.

They had transformed into highly involved, competent readers who developed
control over the literary discourse. Not only had they taken on the strategies of
competent readers, they had moved to levels of critical analysis as well. They had
successfully moved out of a monologic participation structure and into a dialogic

participation structure. A comparative analysis of the modes of involvement- gathering

116

mode, supporting mode and advancing mode — and a comparative analysis of the
utterances illustrate this further.
Gathering Mode
September

Students were unfamiliar with a participation structure in which they were able to
generate questions and initiate literary conversations based on their emotive responses to
text (Rosenblatt, 1985). One student commented earlier in the year that he thought the
reading questions “. . .came from Massachusetts.” Therefore, gathering mode was
enacted solely by me, as I initiated the dialogue to draw them into the discourse. I was
also the only one, at this point in the year, who worked in gathering mode as scaffolds to
move the conversation forward; to shape the dialogic event in specific ways. Students
were unfamiliar with the ways in which self- generated questions enhanced a literary
discussion. I worked in gathering mode to face students back toward the text when they
made claims about characters. I was modeling the work of a competent reader who uses
textual evidence for verification. I also worked in gathering mode to invite more students
to take the floor and supply additional textual evidence. I was nudging them to make
contributions. 1 also worked in gathering mode to assess their workable knowledge of
the term inferencing.
November

I worked in gathering mode four times as I continued to “structure
consciousness” (V ygotsky, 1978) and shape the discourse. I continued to model the tools
utilized by strategic readers involved in a literary dialogue. Students were beginning to

supply more textual evidence on their own, so much of my work in gathering mode took

117

the form of revoicing their contributions and asking for elaboration. I worked in
gathering mode once as a way to gatekeep — I attempted to slow the pace of the dialogue
when there was much overlapping talk.

One student worked in gathering mode by invoking invitations to discuss the
chapters we had read. Central to Rosenblatt’s (1978) theory of reader response is her
interest in describing the capacity for aesthetic response to bring about involvement. The
submerged associations these words and images have for the reader largely determine
what the work communicates. These associations evoke emotive responses on the part of
the reader. This student was so shocked at the character’s behavior, he could not wait to
discuss it. This was a critical event. Students realized that they, too, could initiate
literary dialogues; it was not solely the role of the teacher.

April

Students worked in gathering mode nineteen times. They initiated the dialogue
and opened up the literary event. They also worked in gathering mode to quiet the
overlapping talk, to give a student’s utterance the floor and, again, to refocus on the task
at hand. They had come to understand that there were mechanisms to put in place to
gatekeep overlapping talk, as I had done previously. They did this without leveling
criticisms toward those they wanted to halt temporarily. They moved in and out of the
dialogic event without any hand-raising; they shared the knowledge building and
meaning making.

Students worked in gathering mode to ask questions of the text and of each other.
They had internalized that questions were a generative and imperative part of the

discourse, and a part of what metacognitively aware readers do when they read. They

118

worked in gathering mode to interrogate the intentions of characters, to question the
placement of events in the story, to shift the focus to different chapters, and to probe each
other further when they felt elaboration was necessary. Students had recognized that they
could both initiate and move the literary discourse forward without scaffolding supports
on the part of the teacher.

I worked in gathering mode once as I invited a student to elaborate on a comment.
This was the only utterance I made in the course of this particular dialogic event.
Supporting Mode
September

I worked in supporting mode three times. Once I revoiced claims made by
students as a way to rebroadcast that they were doing the work of highly competent
readers, who used the text as a tool to locate evidence to justify claims. I revoiced again
as a way to rebroadcast that students were employing standards of reasoning to validate
claims as well. The third time I worked in supporting mode was to draw perspectives
together, recapping the work we had done in this literary discussion thus far, validating
that this was the work of highly competent readers. Through these repetition moves, 1
was scaffolding the knowledge they contributed as a way to solidify these complex
understandings.

Students worked in supporting mode five times. Three times students supplied
textual evidence. One was through direct nomination. Students were beginning to enact
the behaviors of competent readers by locating this evidence without as many scaffolds
fiom me. This was also the first evidence of student-to-student turns. Twice there were

instances in which students were taking more initiative, providing dialogue to move the

119

literary discourse forward, without any nomination on my part. They were starting to
move away from the traditional IRE participation structure, with which they were so
familiar. They were evidencing growing awareness that they were knowledge brokers,
too (Rosenblatt, 1938/1976).

The other instances in which students worked in supporting mode were
overlapping talk. This is important as students were realizing that in order for a literary
dialogue to take place, voices needed to be heard. They were revoicing interpretations,
which also showed active listening on their part.

November

Students nearly doubled the work they were doing in supporting mode. Students
identified textual evidence seven times, and accessed reasoning processes twice, as they
sought justifications for assertions they had made. I worked in supporting mode three
times and each was an instance of revoicing student utterances. I continued to scaffold
through these repetition moves, yet the necessity for such scaffolds was dissipating.
April

This transcript evidenced only one instance of working in supporting mode on
my part. I requested that a student elaborate on his previous utterance. Students, on the
other hand, worked in supporting mode fifty-nine times. They revealed their
transformation as strategic readers, who were competent in using both the text and world
knowledge, as tools to solidify claims. They identified textual evidence twenty-four
times, and even resourced texts other than the novel under discussion to do so. They
enacted reasoning processes twenty-four times, in order to apply world knowledge to

verify their assertions.

120

They also worked in supporting mode to show listenership to classmates, who
were members of their dialogic community, by revoicing ten times, validating
contributions eight times, and by clarifying responses. They were able to draw
perspectives together as a way to unify the strings of dialogue. They also worked in
supporting mode by monitoring metacognitive strategies, and they had internalized the
importance of question- generating. Enacting such behaviors evidenced them as highly
competent readers who ask questions of the text, and each other. Questions were brought
to the dialogic event for discussion and arose out of the discourse itself. Students had
recognized that questions were an imperative part of the literary discourse.

Advancing Mode
September

I was the sole contributor working in advancing mode. Advancing mode is a
framework representing a highly sophisticated way of discussing a literary work.
Working in this mode evidences the capacities to be able to inference — combine textual
evidence and world knowledge to justify claims. Early in the year, students were not able
to inference and had no working knowledge of the term. I worked in advancing mode to
shape the discourse through repetition moves, as I named the strategies in use,
summarized what we had accomplished, and reiterated that this was the work of highly
competent readers.

November

Advancing mode was taken over completely by students. They worked in this

mode twice, as two students made inferences by combining their use of textual evidence

and what counts as reasonable behavior to justify their assertions. They did not call the

121

strategy by name, but competent readers do not do that as a rule; they simply enact the
strategy and go about their work.
April

More students evidenced their growing sophistication and competence as readers.
Eight students worked in advancing mode. They inferenced by combining textual
evidence and world knowledge to validate their claims. I did not work in advancing
mode at all. Students had taken ownership over the dialogic event as highly competent,
strategic and critical readers. They were ridding themselves of teacher scaffolds, and
using highly sophisticated reading strategies such as inferencing. Their capacities to
combine the modes of involvement were highly complex. They simultaneously framed
questions and comments that operated in more than one mode-

For example, Student 3 (lines 4-7 of the April transcript, see Appendix A) said,
“Yea, like when she told the story about them helping kids with polio. They’ve had a
cure for polio for a long time. It’s probably a lie.” She is working in supporting mode by
identifying textual evidence and by modeling reasoning processes. This also constitutes
advancing mode because, together, this is an inference. This is just one example of
students’ awareness of the power of discourse to serve multiple functions. Table 6.1
summarizes the comparisons of the modes of involvement.
Analysis of Utterances

An analysis of the utterances revealed students’ involvement and growing
competence fiom novices, with little understanding of how to navigate within a literary
discourse community, to experts who took full ownership over the dialogic event. The

analysis of the utterances firrther illustrates their competence as discourse users.

122

September

Students and I shared eight speaking tums, yet I still had the majority of
utterances. I spoke fifty-one lines to their twenty-two. One of my utterances was twenty-
two lines, in which I recapped the event in a lengthy, summative monologue. Most
student turns were not self-initiated. I had nearly full ownership over the discourse, yet I
was working to scaffold their responses, and apprentice them as both strategic readers
and members of a literary discourse community. They did not have command over the
cognitive tools, or the procedural knowledge necessary, to enact the behaviors of those
learning in a dialogic participation structure. There were two instances of student-to-
student turns. These turns were both made up of two student links.
November

Transfer of control was taking place, as students revealed their growing
competence in terms of how to conduct themselves as strategic readers in a dialogic
community. Many of the scaffolds on my part were no longer necessary. Students had
over twice as many speaking turns — their ten to my four. Students spoke three times the
number of lines. They uttered thirty lines of dialogue, evidencing their growing
understanding of how to operate competently within a dialogic participation structure.

There were three student-to-student links in this transcript. Two were utterances
involving two students; one involved four. I spoke ten lines as scaffolds were not
completely removed, yet most of my utterances were revoicing moves. I continued to
reinforce and validate the dialogic moves they were making as developing critical readers
working in dialogic membership. I reinforced that we were rejecting a traditional

participation structure as well.

123

April

Students evidenced transformation into highly competent readers, who moved
strategically in and out of the text, as involved member of a discourse community. They
had seventy-one turns to my one. They spoke one hundred and fifty-five lines to my one.
There were only two student-to-student turns, yet one involved sixteen student voices
while the other involved fifty-five. Students revealed their ownership over the cognitive
tools necessary to dialogue as strategic readers, and the procedural knowledge to involve
both themselves, and others, in the literary discourse. Table 6.2 summarizes this firrther.

Table 6.1: Comparative Analysis of Modes of Involvement

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Modes of Involvement
Transcript Participant Gathering Supporting Advancing
evoke l revoice . 3 -draw pets. 3
Teacher invite 2 name strat. l
assess 1
September Total: 4 Total: 3 Total: 4
textual ev. 4
Total: 5
invite 4 revoice 3
Teacher 0
November Tom: 4 Tom]: 3
-evoke 1 textual ev. 7“ inference 2
reason 2*
draw pets. 1“
Student revoice 2
‘ = multiple
Total: 1 Total: 9 Total: 2
inviting
Teacher 0 0
evoke 3 textual ev. 24‘ inference‘ 8
invite" 16 reason 24‘
revoice 10‘
-validate 8*
Student monitor 5"
-draw persp. 3*
~clarify 1*
’=multiple ’=multiple ‘=multiple
Total: 19 Total: 59 Total: 8

 

 

 

 

 

124

 

Table 6.2: Comparative Analysis of Utterances

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Student-to-
Transcrlpt “radium Turns Lines student Turns
Length
September Teacher 8 51 2
2 (2)
Student 8 22
November Teacher 4 10 3 2 (2)
1 (4)
Student 10 30
April Teacher 1 l 2 1 (l6)
1 (55)
Student 71 155

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Summary

Although it is true that students internalized new dialogic tools and reading
strategies, they did far more. Students were transformed. To be transformed means to
change the characteristics, qualities, or behaviors of a thing; to transubstantiate. This
section evidenced student transformations into highly involved, competent, critical and
strategic readers who could no longer be considered “struggling.” They were capable of
performing strategies taught, and evidenced not only the habits of their use, but the
capacity to judge for themselves when they were useful (Resnick, 1999). They also
created images, by sharing scenes from their own lives, to generate understanding. They
developed new habits of mind, meaning they possessed the dispositions toward behaving
intelligently when confronted with problems, and drew forth certain patterns of
intellectual behavior in order to solve them (Costa & Kallick, 2000).

This section also proved that students possessed complete competence in their

facility to converse in membership, through their sophisticated and abundant use of

125

discourse moves, revealed by the modes of involvement. They elicited input from each
group member, showing the value they placed not only on the verbalization, but the
person as well. Through their use of a variety of discourse moves - primarily cohesive
repetition moves — they sent a meta-message that they were involved in fellowship with
each other.

Students took multiple stances toward text to create reasoned positions in
discussions, capable of performing every strategy needed to do so, and exercised the
astuteness to know when to enact each. They connected text and personal experience,
questioned the text, each other, themselves, re-evaluated possible interpretations, and
generated alternative, plausible explanations. They moved back and forth from the
landscape of actions to speculation about human intentions and consciousness (Langer,
1995) and created imagery to generate reasoned understanding.

Instances of thinking and constructing knowledge evidenced in this way is called
the “intermental development zone” (IDZ). This is a refined and more social framing of
Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development (ZPD). This is where the collective intellect
in which a student participates, accomplishes things that the solitary intellect cannot, and
in the process and over time, makes it possible for the individual intellect to accomplish
the same complexity of thought. The IDZ differs fiom the ZPD as it is nonhierarchical.
It is not a matter of a more advanced other who can already accomplish something,
building a scaffold up which a less advanced other climbs. Rather, it is a process in
which mutual participation produces development without the associated assymetrical

positioning (Mercer, 2000).

126

Knowing how to participate in and to generate such positions came about,
however, through a variety of scaffolding moves — revoicing, repetition, summarizing,
modeling reading strategies, stances, and procedures, in the Vygotskian (1980) tradition.
Students had to become involved, and take possession of the cognitive tools used by
competent readers and literary discourse users, before they could utilize them on their
own and with each other.

These cognitive tools were not the only devices enlisted on my part to bring about
involvement. The core novels selected by me were chosen based on specific features
which would also work to involve my students. My aim was to choose novels that would
allow readers to become engrossed by the author’s creation of the textual world (Schallert
and Reed, 1997).

The next chapter looks closely at the works of adolescent literature selected as
core novels for Reading Essentials class. The chapter analyzes the high and low
involvement features and readability level of each work. My Reading Essentials students

also contribute to the analysis of the involvement features of each core novel.

127

Chapter 7
TEXTUAL FEATURES AND INVOLVEMENT

Introduction
Chapter 7 is a detailed analysis of the core novels, in terms of involvement

features and readability level, read in Reading Essentials throughout the year. The core
features of these novels are analyzed with regard to the involvement features of the
literary elements through the theoretical fiamework of Rosemary Chance (1999). An
additional analysis of the involvement features is explored through the responses of my
students. This section responds to the research question:

How did particular features in works of adolescent literature involve Grade 6
readers?
Designs on the Reader

Certain choices by the author are expressed in particular textual moves that

appeal to readers when they encounter text (Guthrie & Wigfield, 1997) and these textual
moves work to involve readers. Richter (1989) explains that particular features of text
operate as a “semantic encyclopedia” on our ability to identify and be informed by the
text world. Eco (1979) discusses how these authorial moves, such as narrative shifts in
setting and time, major and minor characters, and significance of repeated events, are
ways that the text has designs on the reader.

For example, the students were reading Nightjohn (Paulsen, 1993), a work of
historical fiction about an adult male slave, who escapes from several plantations, and
intentionally has himself captured and re-sold to other slave owners, so he can teach the
slaves to read and write. Ni ghtjohn, the main character, is repeatedly beaten, and

publicly humiliated, as a way for the slave owner to intimidate other slaves, and even has

128

his toes cut off, when it is discovered that he has taught a particular slave girl the first
three letters of the alphabet. The horrific nature of what this character tolerates, due to
his beliefs in the importance of learning to read and write, was shocking to my students.
The author constructed a character possessing such an incredible degree of commitment
to his beliefs, that it brought about self-questioning in the reading discussions. The
author forced students to make a connection on a deeply personal and emotional level,
due to the conditions he created for Nightjohn to face, and also through Nightjohn’s
response. Students wrote about and wondered out loud whether or not they would be
willing to tolerate such brutality for a cause. Mary wrote:

I don’t know if I could be that brave to do what

Nightjohn did. I am black so I would be a slave

back then but I still don’t know if I could be that
brave.

There are rhetorical strategies employed by the author as well, that work to
involve readers (Soter, 1999). For example, The Great Gilly Hopkins (Paterson, 1978)
begins with Gilly, the main character, being driven by her caseworker to her fourth foster
home in eleven years. It becomes obvious that Gilly is what my sixth-graders term “a
brat” as she sticks a wad of gum under the door handle of the car, rolls her eyes, and
sticks out her tongue, whenever her caseworker talks to her, and she messes up her long
blonde hair, defiantly, before meeting her new foster parent.

The initial aesthetic responses from my students ranged fi'om shock to
enjoyment. Many found pleasure in living vicariously through the misbehavior of Gilly,
as they could experience it from the outside, and not have to receive the consequences.
Immediately, students asked, Why is she such a brat? Why would she act like that? One

student, Jeffrey, was mortified. His stance, which he maintained throughout the entire

129

novel, was that “all she needs is a whoopin.” They were intrigued by Gilly. Not only did
they want to read more, in order to understand why she acted the way she did, they
wanted to read more as they derived sheer pleasure fiom living vicariously through her
defiant behavior.

A second way in which authors have designs on the reader is through the
placement of certain rhetorical moves. For example, Katherine Paterson makes
provocative rhetorical moves early on to involve readers immediately. On page 28 of
The Great Gilly Hopkins (Paterson, 1978) Gilly’s biological mother writes her a letter in
which she says,

My Dearest Galadriel,

The agency wrote that you had moved.
I wish it were to here.

All my love,
Courtney

This placement of words serves a framing function (Soter, 1999) for further
developments in the novel. In this case, the letter creates in the reader what Piaget (1970)
calls “disequilibrium” which is an intellectual tension that drives literary growth. Upon
reading this letter, there was confusion as to why Gilly is not with her mother. After all,
it seemed as if her mother wanted Gilly, and that Gilly wanted her mother. The students
asked, What’s going on? This letter brought about more questions fiom the students such
as, Why isn’t she with her mom? Where is her mom? Why can’t her mom have her?
Questions were treated as part of the literary experience; they were central to
developing understandings — a time to explore possibilities, not necessarily a time to

resolve uncertainties, but to move beyond — to consider alternatives, weigh evidence, and

130

develop more questions (Langer, 1995). We generated a list of possible explanations as
we tried to figure out, What’s going on? This confusion became the impetus for students
to formulate puzzles and welcome, accept, or reject what Iser (1978) calls ”hermeneutic
challenges.” The text called upon readers to set up detective games, in an attempt to
solve them. Students theorized that possibly the mom was too poor or too sick to have
her child with her, or maybe she went on a trip. They had a limited understanding of the
foster care system, which became another part of the discussion, at a later point in the
novel. This served, as well, to puzzle and involve them firrther.

Yet another way texts worked to involve the reader was by using the interest
value of topics that have consensual appeal. This included vivid examples, anecdotes, or
colorful language (Garner, Gillingham & White, 1989). The consequences of consensual
appeal, with regard to involvement, are that students are motivated to read as they
connect to characters, their situations, and struggles. For example, while reading Freak
the Mighty (Philbrick, 1995) students expressed often how they empathized with Max’s
feelings about himself. Max is a seventh-grade boy who is in special education. He
refers to himself as “having no brain” and “being in the stupid classes with other
brainless kids.” My students knew why they were in Reading Essentials and this made
them the brunt of jokes and teasing almost on a daily basis. They certainly connected
with Max, since many of them, literally, experienced similar academic challenges and
social ridicule. DeAndrea wrote:

I know how Max feel. I get teased alot.
Kids say I’m in the dumb class but I tell
them I’m in the cool class and that we
read better books. They have to read

Christmas Carol and I hate that book.
I told them I’m not dumb but that reading

131

is hard for me. My momma says I’m lazy.
DeAndrea was referring to a particular core text the “regular” track English students read.
Her other comments about being teased were typical of those heard by my students.
Student views: Analysis of core class novels
Upon finishing a novel, my students and I would discuss and write about each,
and why they found them either involving or uninvolving. Students found The Great
Gilly Hopkins (Paterson, 1978), Nighg’ohn (Paulsen, 1993), Sarny (Paulsen, 1999),
Freak the Mighty (Philbrick, 1993), and Max the Mighty (Philbrick, 1998) highly
involving. Students found Walk Two Moons (Creech, 1994) and The View from Saturday
(Konigsburg, 1998) uninvolving. Several student evaluations of the literary elements of
each core novel shed light on why they found certain texts highly involving.
Analysis of literature with high involvement features
Character
Of the five core novels students found highly involving, each had round, dynamic,

well-developed characters. The central character in each novel was near the age of the
students. Primary characters ranged in age from 11 to 14. The exception was the main
character in Sarny (Paulsen, 1998) yet the students first met her in the novel Nightjohn
(Paulsen, 1993) when she was twelve. The characters in each novel also grew in "human
terms" - meaning that their growth did not occur in a linear fashion. Instead, they
stumbled, made mistakes, and refirsed to learn before they evolved. Ryan commented:

The stories don't just tell us about a kid and their life. Like here I am

and this is what happens and now the book is over. I didn't know what

was going to happen to Gilly or to Sarny until the end. Freak was the

same and it really surprised me what happened to him. These books
are cool.

132

Consistent across each novel was the protagonist’s telling of the story fiom first person.

My students expressed that this helped to "hook" them into the books. Shania stated:
I like when the characters talk to each other with quotes. It is
more fim to read and I don't get as mixed up. It is more firn
because it feels like a movie and makes me feel like I am
there in it.
A common discourse pattern for purposes of involvement was the use of first person,

direct address. It came as little surprise that this writing convention pulled students into

the story world.

Setting

ram. _ _

The setting in each novel was integral to the story in terms of characterization as
well as plot. For example, The Great Gilly Hopkins (Paterson, 1978) opens up with Gilly
being driven to a new foster home by her social worker. The settings in each novel
operated as symbolic mechanisms in terms of the problems faced by the primary
characters, and the challenges they needed to overcome. This framing function (Soter,
1999) used by the authors, pulled readers in, forcing them to ask questions of the text
early on. Robert explained:

I knew there was a big problem if Gilly was going to a

new foster home on the first page. Why did she have to

leave? Why did they take her to Mrs. Trotter? Why
couldn't she go back to be with her mom?

The plot in each novel was progressive, meaning it had a structure of rising

action-clirnax-falling action-resolution. Characteristic of each of these novels, too, was

the pattern of rising action-climax-cliflhanger in each chapter. Each author left the reader

133

wanting more as resolution was not immediate and determined by chapter's end. My
students found this highly involving. Veronica wrote:

I think these books are really exciting because I didn't

know what was going to happen next at the end of

each chapter. It was exciting like drama. I wanted

to know more. That's why some of us girls read

ahead and we promised not to tell the boys in the

class what happened next. I'm glad we could read

ahead.
Theme

Themes in each novel were multiple. They were explicit and implicit. The

predominant theme dealt with the issue of self-awareness and empowerment. Each
primary character faced multiple challenges from other characters, from the social
conditions or socio-political tenor of the times, and from their often misguided
perceptions of themselves. Involving for my students was that they could recognize
and/or relate to characters in these novels on many levels. There were elements of
bullying, academic challenges, struggling to fit in, feeling like an outcast, family issues
and understanding one's place in the family, temptations from peers or important others,
and learning to believe in one's self. These are certainly "coming of age" issues each pre-
adolescent experiences. As Collin commented:

Max and Sarny learned that being a good reader would help

them. Max even wrote the story that we read well the author

wanted us to think so. Sarny wrote it, too. She wrote the book

in Afiican language and Southern language. People thought they

were dumb but they just didn't get to learn to read or write or

go to a real school.
Tone

The tone of each novel was slightly more varied than the other categories.

Common across novels was the combination of seriousness and humor. Characters were

134

dealing with some difficult, real-world issues such as death, prejudice, defining family,
and the meaning of familial love. Most novels, also, had humorous elements, which my
students found involving. These humorous elements were often embedded within a novel
dealing with very serious issues. This seemed to offer some relief from some of the
painful issues characters were facing and also made the stories more realistic - life
promises us ups and downs, good and bad, laughter and sadness. Abria elaborated:

I never read books that made me have so many feelings at the

same time. Like Gilly, I thought she was very mean in most

of the book, but then at the end I almost cried when her mom
didn't want her. I couldn't believe that a mom wouldn't want her
own daughter. I am glad that my mom loves me. I also laughed
when Trotter fell on Gilly and said "Squished you juicy!" That
was so firnny.

Nightjohn (Paulsen, 1993) was different with regard to tone. It was serious but
also dark. There were points in the novel which were very violent. There was a rape
scene implied, and artfully crafted, by the author. There was also a dismemberment
scene, in which Nightjohn lost two toes, because he was caught teaching Sarny to read.
This was engaging on two levels for my students. First, they are old enough to realize
that there is a dark side to the world, and have learned enough about our country during
the time of slavery, to have a certain degree of understanding about the violence imposed
on slaves, both male and female. They make themselves readily available to ask
pertinent questions about these kinds of issues. Second, many students found the horrific
scenes enticing by what Soter (1999) calls "engaged resistance." A few of the scenes
were so horrific, yet held their interest, as they were too drawn in by the events to skip

over them. During one class discussion, we likened this to driving by an accident on the

135

“.7

fi'eeway — we are horrified and concerned for those in the accident, so turn our heads
away, yet have this voyeuristic tug to continue looking. J asmie explained:

It made me sick to think that Nightjohn got his toes cut

off and that Waller smiled when he cut them. He is a

sicko and I hate him. Nightjohn is brave that he did

not even cry or scream. I would have. I took the book

home and read it to my Momma and she said that it was

a terrible thing but that Nightjohn was showing his

courage and not letting Waller get the best of him.

It was my intent to select core novels that would assist me in involving my
students. I sought novels with high involvement features as I wanted to use them as yet
another scaffold to connect my students with text. Although students indicated there
were five novels they found highly involving, they indicated there were two they found
uninvolving.

Analysis of adolescent literature with low involvement features

Students did not find Walk Two Moons (Creech, 1994) or The View from Saturday
(Konigsburg, 1998) involving. Each of these novels had different features compared to
the novels students found highly involving. Students responded as to why these features

made these two novels uninvolving for them.

Character
Walk Two Moons (Creech, 1994) and The View from Saturday (Konigsburg,

1998) each possessed an abundance of characters. Walk Two Moons (Creech, 1994) had
twenty and The View fi'om Saturday (Konigsburg, 1998) had fifteen. Students found this
very confusing. As Mary stated:

I tried to do my character map but I still don’t get who all the
characters are. I can’t remember. This is too confusing for me.

136

Although the main characters in The View fi'om Saturday (Konigsburg, 1998)
were four sixth-grade students, most students still considered them to be inauthentic.
Brandon wrote:

A sixth-grade boy who has a tea party? I don’t think any boy that
age would do that. These kids are nerdy or weird, too. They talk
like they are in college. Normal kids don’t talk like that. And, that
girl is obsessed with sea turtles. I don’t really care too much about
sea turtles that much. These kids seem too perfect.

The characters in The View fiom Saturday (Konigsburg, 1998) were highly intelligent

students who had been selected to be a part of the school Academic Bowl team. They did

use sophisticated vocabulary, and had interests which were contrary to most of my

students. Characters constructed in this way did not involve my students.

Setting
The setting in each of these novels was shifting. In The View fiom Saturday

(Konigsburg, 1998), the setting is determined by whose story is being told, as the entire
novel is a series of short stories, written by each of the four main characters. Students
found this confirsing to the point of fiustration. Allie wrote:

I am very sorry but I do not get what is going on. I can’t tell who is

talking and where they are. I thought in this chapter they were at

the school but they are not. I reread and did some other strategies

but I can’t figure it out. I do not want to read this book.

In Walk Two Moons (Creech, 1994), the setting was also shifting. The setting
was either in Sal’s house, Phoebe’s house, school, or in Sal’s grandparent’s car. Students
did not find this as frustrating as the setting in The View from Saturday (Konigsburg,
1998), but we spent a great deal of time reviewing the chapters for clarification. Austin
wrote:

It helped that we talked about the settings. Can you leave that on the

board so we can just add to it? I don’t know why the author wrote

137

such a confusing story. Why couldn’t she just say, OK now we
are at Phoebe’s house and tell us at the beginning of a chapter?

Point of View

The point of view in The View from Saturday (Konigsburg, 1998) was
determined by which of the four main characters was telling his/her story. The novel is a
compilation of four shorter stories, each written by one of the primary characters. At the
end, each of the stories is tied together and connections are made. One chapter is written
in third person limited in which the author’s perspective is seen through the eyes of a
secondary character, Mrs. Olinski. Unlike first person, which students found highly
involving, third person distanced them fiom the story. Kia stated:

I cannot tell who is saying this. Why would a writer write a

book this way. It is confusing to me and I don’t understand
what is going on. What is going on? '

Walk Two Moons (Creech, 1994) was written in first person, but it is in the reflective
stance. Sal, the main character, conveys the point of view of others, as she attempts to
understand them through their experiences. The story is written from her eyes, almost as
if we are reading her diary. The use of past tense further removed my students from the

story and they did not feel as if they were “living in” the story as it unfolded. Jake

explained:
This is a boring story. Why don’t the other characters talk with their
own words? There are not many quotations. I don’t think I really
like stories like this too much. Are we reading another book like
this? I vote against it.

P_10_t

Students were highly involved with a progressive plot line of rising action-
climax-falling action, especially when each chapter ended in a cliffhanger. Although

Walk Two Moons (Creech, 1994) had a progressive plot line, the action was not overt.

138

 

1?.11 A

The rising action entailed Sal’s retelling of her fiiend Phoebe’s mother’s disappearance.
The climax consisted of Sal’s drive on a treacherous stretch of highway to view the crash
scene of her mother’s death. The climax, though, is almost anticlimactic, as students had
already figured out where she was going, what she would find, and how she would feel.
Kyrah wrote:

We were right when we predicted this. I knew four chapters ago

what was going to happen. I can’t believe that the grandpa would

let his daughter drive without a license and that she didn’t get in

an accident. That seems fake to me. 1 think the author could have

come up with a better idea.

The View fiom Saturday (Konigsburg, 1998) had a looping plot. Students found
this to be confirsing. Given the non-linear plot, and the way in which the author
constructed the novel as a series of four shorter stories, there was not a great deal of overt
action. In real time, the entire story takes place in one afternoon. The real-time
sequencing is disrupted to recount episodes from the character’s past, which, in essence,
is the story. Students did not find this involving at all. Collin commented:

Why don’t they get to the point. This is a boring and confusing

story. The writer wrote a whole book about one aftemoon? That,

in my opinion, is too much description. I like more action in a book.
Theme

The novels students found involving possessed both explicit and implicit themes.
In The View fi'om Saturday (Konigsburg, 1998) and Walk Two Moons (Creech, 1994),
themes were implicit only. The predominant themes from A View from Saturday

(Konigsburg, 1998) were friendship and teamwork. These are certainly issues with

which pre-adolescents deal and relate. Students, however, found many of the other

139

 

elements in this novel to be either so fiustrating, confusing, or unbelievable that the
themes became irrelevant. DeAndrea commented:
I think the author should have written the book in a different way.
She spent a whole book about one afternoon just to say that people
need to work together? And, the kids already worked together so
they knew it already. This book was sorta dumb.

Walk Two Moons (Creech, 1994) also had implicit themes, primary of which was
the role of stories in shaping human experience. Although we spent a great deal of class
time discussing how someone’s perspective or point of view on something becomes what
they believe, this seemed far too sophisticated for my students.

Mark explained:
So, everyone can have their own opinions. Is that what all
this was about? Why didn’t the author have the characters
ask the other ones how they felt instead of having Sal just think
that’s how everyone felt? If I asked my Grandpa something
he would just tell me straight out.

They could understand having differing perspectives, yet could not see the sense in
constructing a story around this. It seemed far more sensible and efficient to “go to the
source” to find out how other characters felt.

Since the primary goal was to bring about involved reading, it became necessary
to select whole-class novels constructed in ways which would entice my students. I also
needed to consider the accessibility of novels in terms of their readability level. At the
middle level, this becomes challenging, especially when working with readers who
struggle, as they are typical middle school-aged students, when compared to their peers,
possessing similar interests and world views, yet, atypical in terms of texts they find

accessible. Given that their independent reading levels were so far below those of their

more competent peers, the challenge became finding novels sophisticated and

140

challenging enough to bring about involvement, reading growth, and appeal to middle
level readers. At the same time, these novels could not be childish, unchallenging or
insulting to students of this age. Therefore, readability level needed to be considered.
Considering reading levels of core novels

Students entered into Grade 6 with an average reading level of 4.05, according to
the Gates-MacGinitie Reading Comprehension Scores administered in the Fall of 2004.
The range of reading levels was from 2.9 - 4.9 according to Fry’s Readability Scale (Fry,
1977). This would suggest that the reading levels of each of these novels (possibly with
the exception of Nightjohn (Paulsen, 1993) should have been inaccessible. Nightjohn,
however, is written from the point of view of a slave girl during the pre-Civil War. She is
not formally educated and speaks in Southern Black regional dialect. Therefore, there is
a great degree of circumlocution in her discourse patterns, which makes the novel more
challenging than a readability scale can measure. Reading level, however, was not a
factor determining involvement or uninvolvement.

Involvement or uninvolvement was determined, instead, by specific features in
each novel. Instead of novels being selected by me, which were reading-level
appropriate, they were selected as being age- and interest-level appropriate. My students
expressed that they were not only capable of reading these novels and understanding
them; they devoured them. For them, an involving story, combined in the beginning with
guided reading support from their teacher, superseded their “ability” to read books that
would normally be deemed “beyond their reach.” Involvement occurred as there was an

optimal match between students’ abilities and the challenge of the task.

141

Students found the challenge of reading novels — possessing the involvement features
analyzed above - appealing as they had to attend to them appropriately. They were not
too simplistic to be insulting, or to force students not to devote time to them. They could
be wholly involved with these texts, due to their specific features and to their age- and
interest-level appropriateness.

Although each novel chosen by me was selected with the intent of involving my
students, I learned a great deal from conversations with them as to why they found two
particular novels uninvolving. I wondered if the positioning of the novels for use during
the school year would have changed their degree of involvement with either of the works,
especially since, according to reading level, Walk Two Moons (Creech, 1994) was the
most difficult in terms of readability, at 6.8. We had read Walk Two Moons (Creech,
1994) and The View fi'om Saturday (Konigsburg, 1998) during the middle of the school
year. I theorized that possibly students needed more directed action on my part, when
accessing a more challenging text, and placing the text later in the year, may have
allowed them greater opportunity to internalize more cognitive tools. In this way, I
thought, they could have found it more accessible and, in turn, involving. Students
indicated that this was not the case. They found them, instead, to be opaque texts.

Nystrand (1997) proposes that what creates the possibility of entering into textual
space with an author is the transparency to the reader of the language used. For some
readers, a text may be opague, too uninvolving, and impossible to render meaning. A
text can be opaque due to the complexity or obscurity of language, which can block
comprehension. This impedes both the ability as well as the willingness of readers to

involve themselves with texts.

142

 

femur.“
* J

 

Students had indicated they did find the language obscure in The View fiom

Saturday (Konigsburg, 1998). Although characters were sixth-graders just like them,

they were far more sophisticated in their vocabulary, and had interests and considered

issues to which my students could not relate. They found both plot lines to be confusing

to the point of frustration in this novel as well as Walk Two Moons (Creech, 1994).

These texts were also opaque to my students in terms of characterization, language use,

and theme. Table 7.1 provides a summary of the high and low involvement features of

the works of adolescent literature used as core novels in Reading Essentials class

throughout the year. Table 7.2 provides a summary of the readability level of each core

novel based on Fry’s Readability scale (Fry, 1977).

Table 7.1: Core Novels with High and Low Involvement Features

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Novel Character Setting ‘ Plot Theme Point of Tone
View
2700'“! round explicit first humorous
Hopkins dynanuc integral progressrve rmplrcrt person serious
round integral progressive explicit first serious
”WW" dynamic implicit person dark
round explicit first
5“"9’ dynamic integral progressive implicit person serious
flashback
Freak the round integral progressive explicit first humorous
Migh’y dynamic implicit person serious
Max the round integral progressive explicit first humorous
Mighty dynamic implicit person serious
multiple
77" View round first serious
1;: Zr day predictable shifting looping implicit person humorous
static third (subtle)
person
limited
Walk T WO round first humorous
M00” flat shifting progressive implicit person serious
reflective

 

143

 

Table 7.2: Reading Level by Work of Adolescent Fiction

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nightjohn 4.6
The View fi'om Saturday *5.9
The Great Gilly Hopkins 6

Sarny 6.1
Freak the Mighty 6.3
Max the Mighty 6.4
Walk Two Moons *6.8

 

 

 

 

*novels students found uninvolving

Summary

Students became highly involved with works of adolescent literature possessing
well-developed, well-constructed, round, primary characters and plot lines which had a
dual layer of rising action-climax-falling action-resolution embedded within chapters
constructed as cliffhangers. Involving for them, as well, were novels written in first
person when the setting was integral to the characters and the challenges they would face.
They also became highly involved when themes were multiple and inspired conversations
in which they could compare, contrast, and wonder about issues connected to their own
lives. Although they did not experience the foster care system or slavery directly, they
found these issues intriguing, as they could connect them to their lives in contrary ways.
They became highly involved, too, when novels were a juxtaposition of seriousness and
humor in tone.

They did not, however, find novels involving, which were laden with an
abundance of characters, a complex and non-linear plot, and the absence of overt action.

They also found novels uninvolving which were not written in first person. Particularly

144

uninvolving were novels in which the characters seemed inauthentic and the themes were
implicit.

Students revealed that novels they found highly involving were those they
considered to be challenging, yet not overwhelming. They found great appeal in novels
that provided shock, surprise, novelty, complexity, and a degree of ambiguity. These
characteristics pulled them into the story world.

. Readability level had very little to do with bringing about involvement. My
students indicated that certain features in each novel made text accessible - with
structural support fiom me, via scaffolding — regardless of readability level. Historically,
texts were selected for students based on their individualized reading comprehension
scores. They had revealed they had far greater success as readers when they were given
age- and interest-level appropriate pieces of quality adolescent literature.

Chapter 8, Conclusions and Implications, addresses learning opportunities
necessary for struggling readers based on the evidence from this dissertation study. It
also suggests, with regard to reader response theory, sociocultural theories of learning,
and adolescent literature, why readers who struggle benefit from these learning
opportunities. Chapter 8 also poses concerns and questions for future research and

addresses implications for teacher research and teacher learning.

145

Chapter 8
CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS
Conclusion

The purpose of this study was to investigate the factors that involve Grade 6
readers deemed struggling. The analysis of the discourse revealed that the teacher and
students, working together, created a literary discourse community of highly involved,
strategic readers. Using Vygotsky’s (1980) notion of scaffolds as extemal structures on
which to brace other structures being built, the teacher provided graduated assistance to
students. These mechanisms enabled students to achieve more sophisticated levels of
conceptual and communicative competence as readers, and as discourse users, in a
dialogic community of practice. The scaffolds were cognitive tools in the form of
modeling, a variety of discourse moves, namely, repetition, and quality works of
adolescent literature, which were age- and interest-level appropriate, and possessed
certain textual features. Throughout the year, students took on greater ownership over
their capacities to utilize these cognitive tools without teacher support. These cognitive
tools were identified further as three modes of involvement - gathering, supporting, and
advancing.

The gathering mode was enlisted primarily to invite and encourage students to
participate, question, and share. This mode was recursive and non-linear, and was
eventually taken over by the students, who were so involved with the events in the novel,
and their new-found capacities to sustain substantive literary discussions, that they called

the discourse community together to dialogue.

146

[IT .11;
l

 

 

The supporting mode consisted of scaffolding moves such as revoicing, drawing
perspectives together, modeling reasoning, modeling reading strategies, and validating
contributions. Eventually, as students began to internalize the dialogic conventions of
more competent readers, they gained complete ownership over this mode as well.
Scaffolding in this mode was used by students in recursive fashion as meanings were
socially negotiated and shaped by the perspectives of many students. Students solicited
equal participation from each other, which operated as yet another involvement
mechanism.

The advancing mode was used to further student disciplinary knowledge with
specific regard to the complex reading strategy of inferencing. This came about through
the teachers’ knowledge of both adolescent literature as a discipline for study, lmowledge
of appropriate reading strategies, and knowledge of her students. Leading students from
the new to the known came through directed action (Dewey, 1973) by building toward a
strategy, identifying a strategy, or narrring a strategy. Eventually, students were able to
work with sophistication in advancing mode as involved, strategic, and critical readers.

Works of adolescent literature, with particular features, also operated as scaffolds
to involve students. They found several works so involving that many indicated they had
read more during the year than in previous years. Students not only evidenced their
capacity to become highly involved in these works; they wanted to sustain their
involvement with them. Students asked to make a movie or play out of one novel and
requested to read the sequels to both Freak the Mighty (Philbrick, 1998) and Nightjohn

(Paulsen, 1993). For them, an involving work of adolescent literature, combined with

147

 

 

guided reading support, helped to transform them into readers who interrogated the text,
each other, and their own initial stances.

Students had legitimized themselves as highly competent readers and discourse
users in several ways. First, they were able to put forth and demand knowledge that was
accurate and relevant to the topic under discussion. For example, they located textual
details to validate claims and advanced in their understandings of what counts as “text.”
They not only referenced the text under discussion, they referenced movies, television
programs, other books, paid close attention to book covers and chapter headings, and
cited instances from their own lives. Students also recognized that ambiguities and
puzzlements are to be expected when reading, and stances are dynamic and changing.
They learned that the collective understandings of the discourse community, under the
guidance of the text, will reveal which positions are warranted and reasonable.

Students also used rational strategies when they discussed novels, drew
conclusions, and challenged reasoning. They were their own larowledge brokers and,
therefore, solicited verbal contributions from each group member, as a way to construct
knowledge, instead of having to seek verification fiom the teacher as the sole authority.
They understood that multiple perspectives needed to be considered, and that considering
such perspectives, and, possibly shifting viewpoints, as a result, was critical to more
powerful readings of the text. They brought questions to the text and the group, and
generated additional questions throughout the literary dialogue. They had come to
understand that questions were central to developing understandings, and tools used for
considering alternatives, weighing evidence, and interrogating the text, each other, and

themselves. They used the discourse as a meaning-making tool for strategic talk, and

148

also to create cohesive group membership. They developed the capacities of critical
readers — those who possess the know-how — through the enactment of strategies as they
viewed literature through a variety of stances — to discuss literature in sophisticated ways.
They evidenced “literate minds” (Langer, 1992) as they were able to use language and
thought to gain knowledge, share it, and reason with it. Through the building and re-
building of envisionments, they were active producers and interpreters of meaning.

Students used pronouns as a part of the literary discourse as a way to confirm
their cohesiveness with the task at hand and each other. They shared this dialogic
universe and were involved in a joint activity around shared goals. They involved
themselves in active listenership by gatekeeping overlapping talk, and giving the floor to
members who had something valuable to contribute to the collective knowledge of the
group. Students evidenced they were a cohesive and connected group of highly involved,
strategic, critical readers and discourse users, who no longer could be considered
“struggling.”
Quantitative growth as readers

Interestingly, students not only developed into highly involved, strategic readers,
who evidenced competence at both initiating and sustaining a literary dialogue, they also
grew in their overall reading comprehension, as measured by the pre- and post- scores of
the Gates-MacGinitie standardized test (See Appendix B for a summary of pre- and post-
scores from both Reading Essentials classes from Fall 2004 and Spring 2005).

The overall growth in reading comprehension for the two classes of Grade 6
students, from the fall of 2004 through the spring of 2005, as measured by the Gates-

MacGinitie standardized reading test, was significant at 1.66 years. The overall growth

149

in reading comprehension for Caucasian males (CM) was 1.989 and for Caucasian
females (CF), 2.08. The overall growth in reading comprehension for Afiican American
males (AAM) was 1.01 and for African American females (AAF), 1.67. The Caucasian
females evidenced the most growth and the Afiican American males the least. Only two
students, both African American males, did not evidence at least one year's growth in
reading comprehension (Student 16, Student 21). When the scores of these two Afiican
American males were subtracted from the averages, the range of growth for the African
American males was between 1.1 and 1.6 years. The average grth was 1.3 years.

As with most studies, this one introduces new questions: How do I involve
students with works of literature they find opaque? Will it demand different pedagogies?
Will students be able to sustain their degree of involvement as they find themselves in
English language arts classes in the fixture, since it is important that strategy use endures
to enhance learning? What happens to students’ use of these particular dialogic strategies
when they find themselves in an English language arts classroom, operating within a
traditional participation structure? With regard to the two Afiican American males who
did not show significant growth as indicated on the pre- and post- Gates-MacGinitie
standardized test scores, what additional instructional interventions might they need in
order to improve their growth? Are there ways in which the modes of involvement can
be used to interrogate and improve our pedagogical practices as literacy educators? What
additional ways can pre- and inservice educators use the study of classroom discourse to
talk about and improve teaching and learning? These are questions that warrant further
systematic inquiry, as I continue to work and learn with readers deemed “struggling” and

continue to consider ways to improve my pedagogical practices.

150

Implications for readers deemed “struggling”

No Child Left Behind has challenged schools and teachers to ensure first, that the
gap between struggling readers and their more competent peers does not widen, and,
second, that struggling readers reconnect with books, and accelerate growth toward
grade-level reading achievement. The pressures of hi gh-stakes mandates often impose
deficit-model pedagogies made up of drill and practice, brief encounters with vocabulary-

controlled texts, and pre-packaged literal-level comprehension questions. The focus,

 

becomes “mastery over massive amounts of material to be covered” (Kohn, 2001, p. 2).
These interventions are enacted especially with lower track readers deemed “struggling.”
Monologic vs. dialogic participation structure

The monologic participation structure, in a classroom in which such treatments
are enacted, perpetuates the problem further for readers who struggle, as it denies them
additional access to knowledge and opportunities for cognitive growth. First, it
establishes a power relationship with the teacher on top, and reinforces that there is a
correct answer for each question. Second, this participation structure places the teacher
at the center of discussion, which diminishes students’ participation and their interpretive
options. Third, a monologic discourse structure establishes literature as a cultural icon,
with little room for students to develop critical, interpretive skills (Agee, 2000). Fourth,
the pattern of teacher question, student response, teacher evaluation (IRE) does little to
verify if any real learning is taking place. Verification is more about eliciting a
predetermined answer, than a true investigation or discussion of an open-ended issue.
Students learn to provide an acceptable answer, yet may not necessarily master the

learning; they simply master the structure (Cazden, 1988). This is mock participation

151

 

 

(Bloom, 1952), which is nothing more than a procedural display; not a mark of authentic
involvement or understanding. This lack of involvement does little to promote
substantive thought (Lukinsky and Schachter, 1978) and limits students’ opportunities for
involvement and growth as strategic readers. Students simply learn that the role they
play is one of uninvolved passivity (Marshall, 1989).

On the other hand, a dialogic participation structure enhances student learning in
many ways. First, knowledge construction is shared and socially negotiated. Shared
criteria for the validity of interpretation in a social context of this nature allows for
different interpretations of the same physical text to be acceptable, while some readings
may satisfy the criteria more fully than others (Soter, 1999). Through social negotiation,
what counts as knowledge requires both a consciousness of the reader’s own angle of
refraction, as well as information implicit in the text (Rosenblatt, 1978). Second, student
voices are the focal point of the discourse. This shifts the focal point away from the
teacher and/or the text as central, and positions the learners as central. Not only do
student voices transact with the text; they transact with each other. In sophisticated
instances — which were evidenced in Chapter 6 — a spiraling, nonlinear, to and flu,
continuously reciprocal transaction amongst student voices, and the voice of the text can
occur. Third, a dialogic participation structure, in which meaning is socially negotiated,
allows literature to become a work to be explored. This provides students with
opportunities to move through aesthetic response and into more complex interpretations
of literary analysis. Multiple interpretations are arrived at through the implementation of
cognitive tools. Fourth, verification of authentic learning is evidenced in the strategic

discourse use of students as a legitimate and purposeful exploration of a work unfolds. It

152

was evidenced through the modes of involvement — gathering, supporting, and advancing
— in this study.
New possibilities

This study indicates that readers deemed “struggling” are capable of becoming
involved as highly competent, strategic readers and invested, competent members in a
dialogic participation structure. Involving readers in a dialogic participation structure, in
which they have opportunities to read rich, authentic works of adolescent literature,
respond emotively (Rosenblatt, 1978), and have opportunities to learn how to read, think,
and discuss as highly competent readers, should not be the privileged treatments reserved
for those in advanced English language arts classes alone. The teacher must invite
readers deemed “struggling” to have some version of, “Yes, I imagine I can do this.” A
teacher must also view the present child as competent and on that basis, imagine new
possibilities (Dyson, 1999, pp. 396-397). These “new possibilities” must then be
enacted.

Ensuring this takes conviction and a real commitment in time. Students in this
study were taught strategies. More importantly, they were taught to be strategic. By
being strategic, they continued to develop a deeper sense of agency, and were already
being agentive by doing so. Agency is the belief in ones’ abilities to achieve a thing and
the know-how to proceed (Johnston, 2004). By the spring, students organized and
executed the course of action as strategic, critical readers involved in a literary discourse
community. Employing these agentive actions over time transformed students. They

drew from an expansive array of intellectual resources, evidencing this transformation

153

from readers deemed “struggling” to readers who took competent command over their
learning.

These new habits of mind were evidenced through the sophisticated ways in
which students behaved intelligently and thoughtfully, through the use of cognitive and
verbal tools, working as highly competent, strategic discourse users, involved in a
dialogic community of practice. Findings from this study, therefore, urge teachers of
readers who struggle, to reconsider what needs changing — students or their pedagogical
treatments. Teachers need to relinquish the notion that “struggling” readers need
remediation and, instead, embrace the notion that their instructional interventions need
remediation.

Teacher research as a means to professionalize practice

This study also has implications for teacher research. Teachers, as they go about
their work, are faced with multiple and often conflicting goals and pressures. Top-down
mandates add to these conflicts and challenges by de-legitimizing and de-intellectualizing
teaching. High stakes mandates impose a technical conception of teaching manifested in
the overregulation of teacher behavior, prescriptions for effective teaching, the over-
standardization of curriculum, and measurement—driven instruction (Zumwalt, 1987).
This fiirther devalues teaching as a profession, as the educator’s role becomes one of
uncritical and subservient irnplementor of prescriptive curricula.

Teacher researchers as change agents

Through teacher research, inservice educators have an opportunity to

professionalize practice, by evidencing their critical role as discourse users, who

construct, manage, and build opportunities for their students. Good teachers know that

154

authentic learning is brought about neither by commercialized reading kits, nor when left
to discovery (Pressley, 2002). Teaching, instead, is comprised of the intellectual activity
of a knowledgeable educator, actively guiding and explicitly assisting students to more
competent performances. Students become apprenticed into new habits of mind through
the expert sharing of the cognitive tools of a knowledgeable teacher. Teacher research
that reveals the teacher-student interactions, in which cognitive tools are used to mediate
and transform mental actions into new patterns of knowing and doing, (W ertsch, 1995)
are necessary to debunk the myth of teaching as a non-intellectual practice. Instead, this
constructivist paradigm of teaching promotes images of teachers as intellectual,
researcher, inquirer, and curriculum planner (Connelly and Clandinin, 1988). Therefore,
teachers can become change agents for the profession by conducting research that
evidences classroom educators putting these images into action.
Teacher research: An intersection of theory and practice

Teacher research is often criticized for possessing little or no theoretical basis. If
professional knowledge is considered theoretically based lmowledge, then classroom
educators can contribute significantly to the body of research on learning to teach.
Questions generated by teacher researchers are distinctive because they do not emanate
solely fi'om theory, or solely from practice, but from a critical reflection on the
intersection of the two (Cochran-Smith and Lytle, 1990). Practicing teachers are in direct
contact with, and most responsible for the education of children. They are most familiar
with the complex and challenging circumstances they experience in the day-to-day
activities in classrooms. Teachers conducting research in their own classrooms also have

a vested interest in the outcome - they live with the results. This places them in direct

155

position to generate a body of theorized practice to contribute to the knowledge base
necessary for preservice teachers. Therefore, university teacher educators must regard
the findings that emerge from teacher research, as theoretical knowledge, since teacher
researchers are both consumers and generators of theory.

Teacher research as central to learning to teach

Contributions from inservice teachers should be central to the knowledge base for
learning to teach. Teaching is complex and the understandings, knowledge, and language
for teaching, generated and used by inservice teachers, should become an integral part of
preservice preparation. Teacher research, used in the form of teaching cases in preservice
courses, reveal teaching as problematic, shaped by cultural, political, social, and
economic forces (Shulman, 1992). Critical discussions around these particular teaching
cases reveal teachers doing their work within these forces. These cases may assist
preservice teachers in developing the stance of “critical, reflective practitioner” (Schon,
1990) who work to understand and improve the way things are, in relation to the way
they could be.

By conducting research that improves practice, teacher researchers are providing
teacher-generated knowledge embedded in and emerging out of practice. In this way,
teacher research empowers teachers to make a positive difference in terms of classroom
practice, while providing relevant information about teaching and learning in actual

classrooms. Ultimately, this knowledge directly enhances student learning, which is the

point.

156

 

 

APPENDICES

157

 

 

APPENDIX A

Transcript of reading discussion — mid-April, 2005

Participant Verbal Action Mode of Involvement Analysis
Student 1 1 So, what do we think about Joanie? Gathering Evoking
invitations
Student 2 2 She’s trying to get back at Worm Supporting Identifying
3 (reads passage from text) textual evidence
Student 3 4 Yea, like when she told the story about Supporting Identifying
5 them helping kids with polio. They’ve Advancing textual evidence
6 had a cure for polio for a long time. Modeling reasoning
7 It’s probably a lie. processes
Student 4 8 ---She’s really nosey. (overlap) Supporting Identifying
textual evidence
Student 3 9 Like, what’s your story? Just us girls. Supporting Modeling reasoning
10 Let’s talk. Yea, right...like she cares. processes
Student 1 11 I think Dippie Hippie will go to Montana Supporting Modeling reasoning
12 not to California because he is getting processes
13 suspicious of Joanie and Frank. I trust
14 him to help Worm and Max.
Student 2 15 Yea, because he told the c0ps they were Supporting Identifying textual
16 his grandkids. evidence
Student 5 l7 ---and he don’t nose in. And he has Supporting Identifying textual
18 been feeding them and gave them a ride. evidence
Student 3 l9 Abria, what do you think? Gathering Inviting opinions
Student 4 20 Yea, Abria, you’ve been awfully Gathering Inviting opinions
21 quiet this morning! Supporting Revoicing
Interpretations
Student 6 22 I don’t’ trust Joanie. She’s a fake. Supporting Revoicing
23 I like Dip, though. Interpretations
Student 7 24 1 think the Undertaker in in Montana Supporting Modeling reasoning
25 Already. He knows where they’re going. processes
Student 3 26 You guys. . .we should ask Ms. H. Gathering Inviting opinions
27 if we can make a movie of this!
(Several 28 Yea. Yes. Can we? I’m director. I’m Supporting Validating
Students) 29 I’m Dip. (overlapping talk) contributions
Gathering Inviting Opinions
Student 3 30 Let’s get back to the book for now. Gathering Evoking invitations

31

Focus! Focus!

158

Student 1

Teacher

Student 1

Student 3

Student 8

Student 7

Student 5

Student 9

Student 1

Student 7

Student 5

Student 3

Student 8

Student 4

Student 7

32
33

34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43

45

47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54

55
56

57

58
59

61
62

63

Max’s character would have to be a
good actor. . . . (fades to thought)

Say more about that, Pierre.
Well, like because he helps people

but the cops, well, they think he’s like
his dad, but he isn’t. So, his character

would have to be like more than one thing.

Supporting

Gathering
Sapportins

Advancing

Yea, like it says on the cover (refers to book). Supporting

‘In search of the truth no matter where it
Like I think that means something.

Yea, like you can break the law but still
be a good person.

Like the Undertaker pretends to be a good
- a preacher— but he beats his wife and
steals money.

What do y’all think about Dip?

Yea, what if HE isn’t what he seems?

I mean...1 like Dip. I think he cares

about Max and Worm-m

“Yea, he just wants to do a good deed.
Well, he is a retired teacher. Nice person.
Likes kids.

But we don’t KNOW what he ‘gonna do

next. We been fooled before by Gilly’s
morn.

Like in chapter twelve. The title of it.

Yea, it says (reads) safe inside her book.

That’s Worm. What does she need to be
safe from? What is going to happen next?

Whenever there’s trouble, she hides in her

book. (Flips through the pages of book)

She jumps inside.

159

Supporting

Supporting
Advancing

Gathering

Supporting

Supporting

Supporting

Supporting

Supporting

Supporting

Supporting
Advancing

Supporting

Modeling reasoning
processes

Inviting opinions

Identifying textual
evidence

Modeling reasoning
processes

Identifying textual
evidence

Modeling reasoning
processes

Identifying textual
evidence

Modeling reasoning
processes

Inviting opinions

Monitoring metacog-
nitive strategies

Revoicing
Interpretations

Identifying textual
Evidence

Identifying textual
evidence

Modeling reasoning
processes

Validating
Contributions

Drawing perspectives
together

Identifying textual
evidence

Monitoring metacog-
nitive strategies

Identifying textual
evidence

Modeling reasoning
Processes

Revoicing
interpretations

 

Student 3

Student 7

Student 3

Student 8

Student 6

Student 8

Student 1

Student 3

Student 8

Student 9

Student 8

Student 10

Student 4

Student 3

Student 8

64 She doesn’t want to get involved. Supporting
65 She likes to feel safe. Supporting
66 Safe inside her book means like she Supporting
67 doesn’t want trouble so she (motions
68 by covering her face with book) so she
69 doesn’t have to deal with it.
70 The Undertaker hits her mom. She Supporting
71 didn’twantto face it. She hid in her
72 book in the hallway.
73 So what would YOU do? Fight the Gathering
74 Undertaker?
75 Her MOM didn’t fight back. She was Supporting
76 mad at her mom, too. I don’t know.
77 Yea, you guys. Let’s compare that. Safe Gathering
78 inside her book. I know sometimes when
79 I get mad at home, I’ll go to my room just Supporting
80 to get away.
81 I stay in my room, make up a dance or Supporting
82 read a magazine. It takes the stress away.
83 She wants to take the stress away.
84 Dustin, what do you think? I can tell you’re Gathering
85 thinking something.
86 I’ll play video games or go outside and play Supporting
87 basketball.
88 Dullas? Gathering
89 I just get grounded. That’s all. Supporting
90 When I get in trouble it’s because of Supporting
91 my little brother.
93 It’s always the younger siblings! Supporting
94 Ok, so we do some of the same things Supporting
95 that Worm does. How about Maxwell
96 and the ants? I love that chapter! Gathering

160

Validating
contributions
Modeling reasoning
processes

Modeling reasoning

processes
Revoicing interpreta-
tions

Drawing perspectives
together

Revoicing interpreta-
tions

Identifying textual
evidence

Inviting opinions

Identifying textual
evidence

Clarifying responses
Inviting opinions

Modeling reasoning
processes

Modeling reasoning
processes

Inviting opinions
Modeling reasoning
processes

Inviting opinions

Modeling reasoning
processes

Modeling reasoning
processes

Modeling reasoning
processes

Drawing perspectives
together
Inviting opinions

 

Student 1 97 That was so funny! He’s like, “AAHH!”

Student 4 98 I have a question. Why is the Prairie
99 Schooner important?

Student 1 100 It helps get them where they need to go
101 because look at the cover. It’s a picture
102 of Max and Worm running on foot. They
103 need wheels!

Student 3 104 It’s important because the Prairie Schooner

105 makes them go faster than walking and
106 riding is safer.

Student 11 107 It’s safer as long as Dip is a good person.
108 I don’t believe Joanie and Frank work at
109 an orphanage to help little kids, either.

(Several
Students)

110 Me, neither. No way. NOpe.

Student 2 111 I wonder about Worm’s mom. Why
112 would she marry the Undertaker?

Student 4 113 Yea, why would she and when did Worm
114 start going in her book?

Supporting

Gathering

Supporting

SUpporting

Advancing

Summing

Advancing

Supporting

Supporting

Gathering
Supporting

Supporting

Identifying textual
evidence

Inviting oopinions
Modeling reasoning
processes

Identifying textual
evidence

Modeling reasoning
processes

Revoicing interpreta-
tions

Modeling reasoning
processes

Validating
contributions
Modeling reasoning
processes

Validating
contributions

Inviting opinions
Monitoring metacog-
nitive strategies

Validating

contributions
Monitoring metacog-
nitive strategies

(Student 12 verbalizes a response that is inaudible as others are theorizing out loud in response to Student

2’s and Student 4’s questions. lnaudible)

Student 4 115 Wait, you guys. Listen to Maria.

Student 12 116 I think her books connect her to her dad.
117 Her dad’s in Montana. We don’t know
118 what happened but look at how important
119 his helmet is. It’s her dad’s.

Student 8 120 Yea, that’s a really good point.

Student 1 121 Like in the movie I Am Sam. The mother
122 left Sam hanging.

Student 11 123 She protects that one book a lot. What’s
124 What’s the name of it?

Student 3 125 A Wrinkle in Time. She loved that book.

161

Gathering
Supporting

Supporting

Advancing

Supporting

Supporting

Supporting
Gathering

Supporting

Evoking invitations
Valuing contributions

Identifying textual
evidence

Modeling reasoning
processes

Validating
contributions

Identifying textual
evidence
Identifying textual
evidence

Inviting opinions

Clarifying responses

Student5

Student 2

Student 9

Student 3

Student 9

Student 8

Student 3

Student 8

Student9

Student 1

Student 8

Student 3

126 Maybe the title means something.

127 Maybe the story is a clue.

128 Do you have that book, Ms. H.?
129 We could check

130 I know. It reminds her of time with her dad.

131 Did you read the book, Dustin?

132 No, I saw the movie. The dad is lost
133 and the girl finds him. He’s lost in
134 time or something. Like Worm is

135 Why are they separated?

136 Oh, my gosh! Her books ARE her dad!
137 Think how she scrunches up with them
138 and puts on the helmet and falls asleep.
139 She feels like she’s in her dad’s arms!

140 You could be right. Look how she tried to
141 beat up that Bully in the beginning of the
142 book and he was way huge but he had her
143 books and was throwing them all over.

144 I still want to know why they are separated.

145 What if it’s like Gilly? What if Worm’s dad
146 doesn’t want her?

147 Could be. On Judge Joe Mathews, this guy
148 wouldn’t be with any woman unless she
149 weighed under one hundred pounds and his
150 wife weighed one hundred and five so he
151 left her and his child. He just left.

152 She puts her daughter in more danger by
153 marrying the Undertaker. He beats them up.

154 That’s why Worm ran away. She’s using
155 her girl power!

SUpporting

Gathering

Supporting

Gathering

Supporting

Gathering

Supporting
Advancing

Supporting
Gathering

Supporting

SUpporting

Supporting

Supporting

Modeling reasoning
processes

Revoicing interpreta-
tions

Inviting opinions

Revoicing interpreta-
tions

Evoking invitations

Clarifying responses
Identifying textual
evidence

Inviting opinions

Identifying textual
evidence

Modeling reasoning
processes

Identifying textual

evidence

Evoking invitations
Validating
contributions

Identifying textual
evidence
Monitoring metacog-
nitive strategies

Identifying textual
evidence

Identifying textual
evidence

Revoicing interpreta-
tions

(At this point, I looked at the clock and we had one minute before the bell rang to end class)

Teacher: 156 Unfortunately, we are running out of time. You have one minute before lunch begins. This
157 conversation was incredible. Does anyone have anything else they feel the need to add

158 before we end class?

Student 3 159 Can we do a movie or a play of these chapters? There is so much to act out!

162

 

Student 8 160 We have lots of questions from this conversation. Can we read ahead if we promise not to
161 tell?

Student 1 162 I hope Worm finds her dad.
Teacher: Pierre, you’re really pulling for a happy ending, aren’t you?

Student 1: (Smiles)

(The bell rings and students exit class to go to lunch)

163

APPENDIX B

Gates-MacGinitie Reading Comprehension Pre- and Pos - Test Scores

 

 

 

 

Student Fall 2004 Spring 2005 Degree of Change
Level Score Level Score
1 CM 2.9 3.9 1.0
2 CF 2.9 5.1 2.2
3 MP 3.1 5.3 2.2
4 CF 3.3 5.0 1.7
5 CM 3.4 5.1 1.7
5 CF 3.4 5.2 1.8
7 CF 3.4 5.8 2.4
8 CM. 3.5 5.7 2.1
9 CM 3.7 5.5 1.9
10 CF 3.7 5.4 1.7
11 AAF 3.7 5.3 1.5
12 MM 3.8 5.2 1.4
l3AAM 3.9 5.3 1.4
14 CM 4.1 5.9 1.8
15 CM 4.1 5.2 2.1
leM 4.2 4.8 .5
17 AAF 4.3 5.0 1.7
18 CF 4.4 7.1 2.7
19 CM 4.4 5.8 2.4
20 CF 4.4 5.7 2.3
21 MM 4.5 4.9 .4
22 MP 4.5 7.0 1.5
23 CM 4.5 5.4 1.8
24 CM 4.7 5.5 1.8
25 CF 4.7 5.5 1.9
25 CM 4.7 5.9 2.2
27AAM 4.8 5.9 1.1
28 AAF 4.8 5.3 1.4
29AAM 4.8 5.0 1.2
307w 4.9 5.5 1.5

 

 

 

 

164

 

 

REFERENCES

Agee, J. (2000). Theory, identity, and practice: A study of two high school English
teachers' literature instruction (Report No. 13003). Albany, NY: National
Research Center on English Learning and Achievement.

Ali, S. (1994). The reader response approach: An alternative for teaching literature in a
second language. Journal of Reading, 37, 288-296.

Allington, R. (1983). The reading instruction provided readers of differing reading
abilities. Elementary School Journal, 83, 548-559.

Allington, R. (1996). Schools that work. New York: Harper Collins.

Allington, R. (2001). What really matters for struggling readers: Designing research-
based programs. New York: Longrnan.

Altrichter, H., Posch, P., and Somekh, B. (1993). Teachers investigate their own work:
An introduction to the methods of action research. New York: Rutledge.

Alverman, D. and Moore, D. (1991). Secondary school reading. In R. Barr, M. Kamil,
P. Mosenthal, and P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of Reading Research. (V 01. II,
pp. 1013-1046). New York: Longrnan.

Alverman, D. and Guthrie, J. (1993). Themes and directions of the National Reading
Research Center (Perspectives in Reading Report No. 1). Athens, GA: National
Reading Research Center.

Alverman, D. and Phelps, S. (Eds) (2001). Content reading and literacy: Succeeding in
today ’s diverse classrooms (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Anderson, J. (1982). Acquisition of cognitive skills. Psychological Review, 89,
369-406.

Anderson, J. (1983). The architecture of cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.

Applebee, A., Langer, J ., & Mullis, I. (1985). The reading report card: Progress toward
excellence in our schools. Princeton, NJ: National Assessment of Educational
progress. Educational Testing Service.

Applebee, A. (1991). Environments for language teaching and learning: Contemporary
issues and future directions. In Handbook of research on teaching the English
language arts (pp. 549-556). New York: MacMillan.

Atwell, N. (1987). In the middle: Writing, reading, and learning with adolescents.

165

 

Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Babbit, N. (1975). Tuck everlasting. New York: Garrar, Strauss & Giroux.

Bakhtin, M. (1981). “Discourse in the novel.” The dialogic imagination: Four essays.
In M. Holquist (Ed.). (C. Emerson & M. Holquist, Trans), Austin: University of
Texas Press.

Bakhtin, M. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays (V. W. McGee, Trans),
Austin: University of Texas Press.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.

Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. New York: General Learning Press.

Bardine, B. (2001). Research to practice: “Teacher research: getting started.”
Available: [Online] http://archon.educ.kent.edu/Oasis/Pubs/0200-20.html

Baurnan, J. (1996). Conflict or compatibility in classroom inquiry? One teacher’s
struggle to balance teaching and research. Educational Researcher, 25 (7), 29-36.

Baurnan, J. and Duffy, A. (2001). Teacher-researcher methodology: Themes,
variations, and possibilities. The Reading Teacher, 54 (6), 608-615.

Baurnan, J ., Hoffman, J ., Duffy-Hester, A. & Ro, J. (2000). The first R yesterday and
today: US elementary reading instruction practices reported by teachers and
administrators. Reading Research Quarterly, 35 (3), 338-377.

Beers, K. (1990). Choosing not to read: An ethnographic study of seventh-grade
aliterate students. Doctoral dissertation, University of Houston, TX.

Beers, K. & Samuels, B. (Eds). (1995). Into focus: Understanding and creating middle
school readers. Norwood, MA: Christopher Gordon Publishers.

Beers, K. (1996). No time, no interest, no way! Part 11. School Library Journal, 42,
1 10-1 13.

Benton, M. (1992). Possible worlds and narrative voices. In J. Many and C. Cox (Eds),
Reader stance and literary understanding (pp. 23-48). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Berkenkotter, C. Huckin, T., and Ackerman, J. (1988). Conventions, conversations, and
the writer: Case study of a student in a rhetoric Ph.D. program, RTE, 22 (l), 9-
44.

Berthoff, A. (1981). The making of meaning: Metaphors, models, and maxims for

166

 

 

 

teachers. Montclair, NJ: Boynton/Cook.

Blasingame, J. (1999). The ALAN Review. The Assembly on Literature for Adolescents
of the National Council of Teachers of English.

Bloom, B. (Ed.) (1952). Taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longmans,
Green Publishers.

Bogden, R. and Biklen, S. (1998). Qualitative research in education: An introduction
to theory and methods (3rd ed.), Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Bogden, R. and Biklen, S. (1992). Qualitative research for education (2"‘1 ed.). Boston:
Allyn & Bacon.

Bransford, J ., Brown, A., & Cocking, R. (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind,
experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Research Council and
National Academy Press.

Brown, A. & Campione, J. (1994). Guided discovery in a community of learners. In K
McGill (Ed), Classroom lessons: Integrating cognitive theory and classroom
practice (pp. 229-270). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Brown, J ., Collins, A. and Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of
learning. Educational Researcher, 18 (1), 32-41.

Burnaford, G. (2001). Teachers’ work: Methods for researching teaching. In G.
Burnaford, J. Fischer and D. Hobson (Eds), Teachers doing research (pp. 49-
82). Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Carlson, G. (1974). Literature is. . .English Journal, 63 (2), 23-27.

Carlson, G. (1980). Reference to kinds in English. New York: Garland Publishing.

Carnevale, A. and Derochers, D. (2003). Standards for what? The economic roots of K-
16 reform. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service

Cazden, C. (1991). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Chance, R. (1999). A portrait of popularity: An analysis of characteristics of novels
from young adults’ choices for 1997. The ALAN Review, 27 (1).

Cherry, L. (1990). The great kapok tree: A tale of the Amazon rain forest. Harcourt
Brace & Company.

Cicourel, A. (1974). Cognitive sociology. Free Press.

167

 

 

 

Clay, M. (1991). Becoming literate: The construction of inner control. Portsmouth,
NH: Heinemann.

Cobine, G. (1995). Writing as a response to reading. ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading
English and Communication. Bloomington, IN.

Cochran-Smith, M. and Lytle, S. (1993). Inside/outside: Teacher research and
knowledge. New York: Teachers College Press.

Cochran-Smith, M. and Lytle, S. (1999). Relationships of knowledge and practice:
Teacher learning in communities. Review of research in education, 24, 249-305.

Cochran-Smith, M. (2003). Standing at the crossroads: Multicultural teacher education

at the beginning of the 21” century. Lynch School of Education, 5 (3), Boston
College.

Connelly, F. and Clandinin, D. (1988). Teachers as curriculum planners: Narratives of
experience. Toronto, Canada: OISE Press.

Cox, C. and Many, J. (1992). Toward an understanding of the aesthetic response to
literature. Language Arts, 69, 28-33.

Creech, S. (1996). Walk two moons. New York: Harper Trophy.
Csikszentrnihalyi, I. and Csikszentrnihalyi, M. (1988). Optimal experience:

Psychological studies of flow in consciousness. New York: Cambridge
University Press.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1991). F low: The psychology of optimal experience. New York:
Harper & Rowe.

Davies, B. and Harre, R. (1999). Positioning and personhood. In R. Harre and L.
Langenhove (Eds), Positioning theory: Moral contexts of intentional action, pp.

32-52. Oxford: Blackwell.

Dewey, J. (1938/1987). Experience and education. New York: Collier Books.

Dole, J ., Brown, K., and Trathen, W. (1996). The effects of strategy instruction on the
comprehension performance of at-risk students. Reading Research Quarterly, 31
(1), 62-88.

Doyle, W. (1983). Academic work. Review of Educational Research. AERA.

Drago-Severson, E. and Pinto, K. (2004). From barriers to breakthroughs: Principals’

strategies for overcoming challenges to teachers’ transformational learning. The
Journal of School Leadership, 14, 653-685.

168

 

Duckworth, E. (1997). Teacher to teacher: Learning from each other. New York:
Teachers College Press.

Duffy, J ., Roehler, M., et a1 (1986). The relationship between explicit verbal explanation
during reading skill instruction and student awareness and achievement: A study
of reading teacher effects. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 237-252.

Donnelson, K. & Neilson, A. (1989). Literature for today’s young adults (3"1 ed.).
Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman and Company.

Echert, P. (1989). Jocks and burnouts: Social categories and identity in the high school.
New York: Teachers College Press.

Eco, U. (1978). The role of the reader. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

Egan, D. and Greeno, J. (1973). Acquiring cognitive structures by discovery and rule
learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 64, 85-97.

Eisner, E. (1997). Cognition and representation: A way to pursue the American dream?
Phi Delta Kappan, 78, 349-353.

Enciso. P. (1992). Creating the story world. A case study of a young reader’s
engagement strategies and stances. In J. Many & C. Cox (Eds), Reader stance
and literary understanding (pp. 75-102).

Enciso, P. (1997). Negotiating the meaning of difference: Talking back to multicultural
literature. In T. Rogers & A. Soter (Eds), Reading across cultures (pp. 13-41).
New York: Teachers College Press.

Engestrom, Y., Miettinen, R., and Punarnaki, R. (1999). Perspectives on activity theory.
New York: Cambridge University Press.

Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In M. C. Wittrock
(Ed), Handbook of research on teaching.

Fielding, L. and Pearson, P. (1994). Reading comprehension: What works. Educational
Leadership, 51 (5), 62-68.

Florio-Ruane, S. with de Tar, J. (2001). Teacher education and the imagination:
Autobiography, conversation, and narrative. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Florio-Ruane, S., Raphael, T., Highfield, K. and Berne, J. (2004). Reengaging
youngsters with reading differences by means of innovative professional
development. In D. Strickland & M. Kamil (Eds). Improving reading
achievement through professional development (pp. 129-148). Norwood, MA:
Christopher-Gordon Publishers.

169

 

Fry, E. (1977). Fry’s readability graph. Elementary reading instruction. NY: McGraw
Hill.

Gadamer, H. (1975). Truth and method. New York: Continuum.

Galda, L. (1993). How preferences and expectations influence evaluative response to
literature. In K. Holland, R. Hungerford & S. Ernst (Eds), Children responding
to literature (pp. 302-311). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Gambrell, L., Wilson, R. & Gant, W. (1981). Classroom observations of task-attending
behaviors of good and poor readers. Journal of Educational Research, 74 (6),
400-404.

Garner, R. (1987). Metacognition and reading comprehension. Norwood, NJ: Ablex
Publishing.

Garner, R., Gillingham, M. and White, C. (1989). Effects of seductive details on

macroprocessing and rnicroprocessing in adults and children. Cognition and
Instruction, 6, 41-57.

Gee, J. (1990). Collaborative literacy strategies: “We don’tneed a circle to have
a group.” In K. Short and K. Pierce (Eds), Talking about books: Creating
literate communities (pp. 55-68). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Gee, J. (1992). The social mind: Language, ideology, and social practice. New York:
Bergin & Garvey.

Greene, J and Forster, G. (2003). Public high school graduation and college readiness
rates in the United States. New York: Manhattan Institute.

Greenleaf, C., Jimenez, R. and Roller, C. (2002). Conversations: Reclaiming
secondary reading interventions: From limited to rich conceptions, from
narrow to broad conversations. Reading Research Quarterly, 37 (4), 484-
496.

Greeno, J. (1988). The situated activities of learning and knowing mathematics. In M.
Behr, C. Lacarnpagrre, and M. Wheeler (Eds), Proceedings of the tenth annual
meeting of PME-NA (pp. 481-521). DeKalb, 11: Northern Illinois University.

Goodwin, C. (1981). Conversational organization: Interaction between speakers and
hearers. New York, NY: Academic Press.

Gumperz, J. and Gumperz, J. (1981). From oral to written culture: The transition to
literacy. Los Angeles: Cooper Publishing.

Guthrie, J ., Anderson, E., Alao, S., and Rinehart, J. (1999). Influences of concept

170

 

 

oriented reading instruction on strategy use and conceptual learning from text.
Elementary School Journal, 99(4), 343-366.

Guthrie, D., Van Meter, P. et a1 (1996). Growth of literacy engagement: Changes in
motivations and strategies during concept-oriented reading instruction. Reading
Research Quarterly, 31, 306-333.

Guthrie, J. and Alao, S. (1997). Engagement in reading for young adolescents. Journal
of adolescent and adult literacy, 40, 43 8-447.

Guthrie, J. and Wigfield, A. (Eds). (1997). Reading engagement: Motivating readers
through integrated instruction. IRA. Newark, Delaware.

Guthrie, J. and Wigfield, A. (2000). Engagement and motivation in reading. In M. L.
Kamil, P. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, and R. Barr (Eds), Handbook of Reading
Research (Vol. 111, pp. 403-422). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.

Harvey, S. and Goudvis, A. (2000). Strategies that work. York, MA: Stenhouse.
Heath, S. (1983). Ways with words. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Henson, K. (1996). Teachers as researchers. In J. Sikula, T. Buttery & E. Guyton
(Eds), Handbook of research on teacher education (2“‘1 ed.), pp. 53-64.

Herrington, A. (1985). Writing in academic settings: A study of the contexts for writing
in two chemical engineering course. RTE, 19 (4), 351-360.

Hubbard, R., and Power, B. (1999). Living the questions: A guide for teacher-
researchers. York, ME: Stenhouse.

Huck, C. (1973). Strategies for improving interest and appreciation in literature. In A.
Beery, et al. (Eds), Elementary reading instruction: Selected materials (an ed.).
Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Hymes, D. (1989). Models of interaction of language and social life. Directions in
sociolinguistics. New York: Basil Blackwell.

International Reading Association and National Middle School Association. (2001).
Supporting young adolescents ’ literacy learning: A joint position statement of

the international reading association and the national middle school association.
Newark, DE: IRA.

Iser, W. (1978). Ways with words: Language, life, and work in communities and
classrooms. New York: Doubleday.

Iser, W. (1992). Extemalism and the production of discourse. In K Thomas (Eds),

171

 

 

Journal of Advanced Composition, 12, 57-74.

Ivey, G. and Broadus, K. (2001). “Just plain reading” : A survey of what makes
students want to read in middle school classrooms. Reading Research Quarterly,
36(4), 350-377.

Johnson, B. (1993). Teacher-as-researcher. ERIC Digest 92-7. Washington, DC: ERIC
Clearinghouse on Teacher Education. ED355205.

Johnston, P., Jiron, H. and Day, J (2001). Teaching and learning literate epistemologies.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 93 (1), 223-233.

Johnston, P. (2004). Choice words: How our language aflects children ’s learning.
Portland, ME: Stenhouse.

Kemmis, S. (1988). Action research in research in retrospect and prospect. In S. .
Kemmis and R. McTaggar't (Eds), The Action Research Reader (3rd ed), Deakin !
University Press, Geelong, Virginia.

 

Kohn, A. (2004). What does it mean to be well educated?: And more essays on
standards, grading, and other follies. Beacon Press.

Konigsburg, E. (1996). The view fiom saturday. New York: Alladin Paperbacks.

Koriat, A., Greenberg, S. and Kreiner, H. (2002). The extraction of structure during
reading: Evidence from reading prosody. Memory and Cognition, 30(2), 270-
280.

Kozberg, L. (2001). Paige joins president Bush for signing of historic no child left
behind act of 2001 . Office of the Press Secretary, January. Available: [Online]
http:l/www.edgov/news/pressreleases/ZOOZ/Ol/01082002.html

 

Krull, K. (2000). Wilma unlimited: How wilma rudolph became the world ’s fastest
woman. Troll.

Lakoff, R. (1979). Stylistic strategies with a grammar of style. New Haven: Yale
University Press.

Langer, J. and Applebee, A. (1985). How writing shapes thinking: Studies of teaching
and learning. Research Monograph Series. Urbana, IL: National Countil of
Teachers of English.

Langer, J. (1986). Children reading and writing: Structures and strategies. Norwood,
NJ: Ablex.

Langer, J. (1987). A sociocognitive perspective on literacy. In J. A. Langer (Ed),

172

Language, literacy and culture: Issues of society and schooling. Ablex.

Langer, J. (Ed). (1987). Language, literacy, and culture: Issues of society and
schooling. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Langer, J. (1992). Rethinking literature instruction. In J. Langer (Ed), Literature
instruction: A focus on student response (pp. 35-53). Urbana, IL: National
Council of Teachers of English.

Langer, J. (1995). Envisioning literature: Literary theory and literature instruction.
Columbia: Teachers College Press.

Langer, J. (2002). Effective literacy instruction. Urbana, IL: National Council
of Teachers of English. «*1
Latour, B. (1987). Science in action. How to follow scientists and engineers through 1
society. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press. '

Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in practice: Mind, mathematics, and culture in everyday life.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation.
Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Lave, J. (1996). Teaching, as learning, in practice. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 3, 149-
164.

Icont’ev, A. (1981). The problem of activity in psychology, In J. Wertsch (Ed), The
concept of activity in Soviet psychology. Armonk, NY. ME Sharpe Publishers.

Leslie, L. & Caldwell, J. (2001). Qualitative reading inventory IV. New York:
Longman.

Lipson, M. and Lang, L. (1991). Not as easy as it seems: Some unresolved questions
about fluency. Theory into Practice, 30, 218-226.

Lukinsky, J. and Schachter, L. (1998). "Questions in human and classroom discourse.
Coalition for the advancement of Jewish education. Available: [Online]
http://www.caje.org/a_lukin.htm.

MacLean, M. & Mohr, M. (1999). Teacher-researchers at work. Berkeley, CA:
National Writing Project, p. 12-24.

Many, J. & Wiseman, D. (l992a). Analyzing vs. experiences: The effects of teaching
approaches on students’ responses. In J. Many & C. Cox (Eds), Reader stance
and literary understanding (pp. 250-276). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

 

I73

Marshall, N. (1989). Overcoming problems with incorrect prior knowledge: An
instructional study. In S. McCormick & J. Zutell (Eds), Cognitive and social
perspectives for literacy research and instruction: 39th yearbook of the
National Reading Conference (pp. 323-330). Chicago, IL: National Reading
Conference.

Mastropieri, M. and Scruggs, T. (1997). Best practices in promoting reading
comprehension in students with learning disabilities: 1976 to 1996. Remedial
and Special Education, 18 (4), 197-214.

Maxwell, J. and Kaplan, R. (1994). The interface between phrasal and functional
constraints. Computational Linguistics, 19(4), 571-590.

McCardle, P. & Chhabra, V. (2004). The voice of evidence in reading research.
Baltimore: Brookes/Moats, LC.

McCarthy, L. (1987). A stranger in strange lands: A college student writing across the
curriculum. RTE, 21 (3), 233-264.

McKay, J. (1992). Professional development through action research. Journal of Staff
Development, 13 (1), 18-21.

McMahon, S., Raphael, T. with Goatley, V. and Pardo, L. (Eds). (1997). The book club
connection: Literacy learning and classroom talk. New York, NY: Teachers
College Press.

Mead, M. (194). Mind, self and society from the standpoint of a social behaviorist.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons: Social organization in the classroom. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.

Mercer, N. (2000). Words and minds: How we use language to think together. London:
Routledge.

Michan, P. (1990). Languages inservice program for teachers manual. Adelaide, South
Australia. State Print.

Miles, M. and Huberman, A. (1984). Qualitative data analysis: A source book of new
methods. London, England: Sage.

Miller, D. and Pine, G. (1990). Advancing professional inquiry for educational
improvement through action research. Journal of Stafl Development, 11 (3), 56-
61.

Minsky, M. (1986). The society of mind. New York: Simon and Schuster.

I74

Ling.-
t.

 

Mish, F. (Ed). (1981). Webster ’s collegiate dictionary. Springfield, MA: Merriarn-
Webster Publishers.

Moje, E. and O’Brien, D. (Eds). (2001). Constructions of literacy: Studies of literacy
teaching and learning in and out of secondary schools. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.

Moll, L. and Greenberg, J. (1990). Creating zones of possibilities: Combining social
contexts for instruction. In L. Moll (Ed), Vygotsky and education: Instructional
implications and applications of sociohistorical psychology, (pp. 319-348). NY:
Cambridge University Press.

Morimoto, J. (1990). My Hiroshima. New York: Harper Collins.

Nation’s report card National Assessment of Educational Progress. Available:
[Online] http://nces.edgov/nationsreportcard/naepdata

Nell, V. (1988). The psychology of reading for pleasure: Needs and gratifications.
Reading research Quarterly, 23, 6-50.

No child left behind act of 2001. Public law print of PL 107-110. Available: [Online]
http://www.edgov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/Index.html

Noll, E. (1994). Social issues and literature circles with adolescents. Journal of
Reading, 38, 88-93.

Nystrand, M. & Gamoran, A. (1991). Instructional discourse, student engagement, and
literature achievement. Research in the Teaching of English, 25, 261-290.

Nystrand, M. & Gamoran, A. (1992). Taking students seriously. In F. M. Newman
(Ed), Student engagement and achievement in American secondary schools (pp.

40-61). New York: Teachers College Press.

Ochs, E. (1988). Culture and language development. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.

Oldfather, P. (1995). Commentary: What’s needed to maintain and extend motivation
for literacy in the middle grades. Journal of Reading, 38 (6), 420-422.

O’Reilley, M. (1993). The peaceable classroom. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann-
Boynton/Cook.

Palinscar, A. & Brown, A. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension fostering and
comprehension monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 7, 117-125. 1

Paterson, K. (1978). The great gilly hopkins. New York: Harper Collins.

175

 

Paulsen, G. (1993). Nightjohn. New York: Boynton/Cook.
Paulsen, G. (1999). Sarny: A life remembered. New York: Boynton/Cook.

Pearson, P. and Gallagher, M. (1983). The instruction of reading comprehension.
Contemporary Educational Psychologi, 8 (3), 317-344

Pearson, P. (1985). Changing the face of reading comprehension instruction. The
Reading Teacher, 38 (6), 724-738.

Pearson, P. (1987). Explicit comprehension instruction: A review of research and a new
conceptualization of instruction. Elementary School Journal, 88, 151-165.

Pearson, P. (2001). Reading in the twentieth century. Michigan State F”

University/CIERA. Available: [Online] ht_tp://ciera.org[libm/archive/2001-
08/200108.htm

 

Pearson, P. (2004). The reading wars. Educational Policy, 18 (1), 216-252.

Pearson, P. and Stephens, D. (1993). Learning about literacy: A 30-year journey. In R.
Ruddell, M. Ruddell, & H. Singer (Eds), Theoretical models and processes of
reading (4th ed, pp. 22-42). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Philbrick, R. (1995). Freak the mighty. New York: Scholastic Signature.
Philbrick, R. (1998). Max the mighty. New York: Scholastic Signature.

Piaget. J. (1970). Piaget’s theory. In P. H. Mussen (Ed), Carmichael ’s Manual of Child
Psychology, (pp. 703-732). New York: John Wiley.

Piaget, J. (1970). Structuralism. New York: Harper & Rowe.

Pintrich, P. and Blumenfeld, P. (1985). Classroom experience and children’s self-
perceptions of ability, effort, and conduct. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77
(6), 646-657.

Pressley, M., Ghatala, E., Woloshyn, V. and Pirie, J. (1990). Sometimes adults miss the
main ideas in text and do not realize it: Confidence in responses to short-answer

and multiple-choice comprehension items. Reading Research Quarterly, 25, 232-
249.

Pressley, M. & McCormick, C. (1995). Advanced educational psychology for educators,
research, and policymakers. New York: Harper Collins.

Pressley, M., Wharton-McDonald, R., and Mistretta, J. (1998). Effective beginning
literacy instruction: Dialectical, scaffolded, and contextualized. In J. Metsala and

176

 

L. Ehri (Eds), Word recognition in beginning literacy (pp. 357-373). Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.

Pressley, M. (2002). Reading instruction that works: The case for balanced teaching
(2ml as), New York: Guilford.

Probst, R. (1981). Response based teaching of literature. English Journal, 70, 43-47.

Probst, R. (1988). Response and analysis: Teaching literature in the junior and senior
high school. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook.

Purves, A. and Beach, R. (1972). Literature and the reader: Research in response to
literature, reading interests, and the teaching of literature. Urbana, IL: National
Council of Teachers of English.

Purves, A. (1973). Literature education in ten countries. International Studies in
Evaluation, 2. Wiley, New York.

Purves, A. (1975). Research in the teaching of literature. Elementary English, 52, 463-
466.

Purves, A. (1985). That sunny dome: Those caves of ice. In C. Cooper (Ed),
Researching response to literature and the teaching of literature: Points of
departure (pp. 54-69). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Purves, A. (1990). Can literature be rescued from reading. In E. Garrell & J. Squire
(Eds), Responding to literature: A fifty year perspective. Urbana, IL: National
Council of Teachers of English.

Putnam, R. and Borko, H. (2000). What do new views of knowledge and thinking have
to say about research on teacher learning? Educational Researcher, 29, (I ), 4-15.

Raphael, T., Florio-Ruane, S., Kehus, M., George, M. Hasty, N., and I-Iighfield, K.
(2001). Thinking for ourselves: Literacy learning in a diverse teacher inquiry
network. Michigan State University/CIERA. Available: [Online]:
http://www.ciera.org/library/archive/2000/07/art-online-00-07.htrnl

Raphael, T. & McMahon, S. (1994). Book club: An alternative framework for reading
instruction. The Reading Teacher, 48, 102-1 16.

Raphael, T. (1996). Creating an integrated approach to literacy instruction. Ft. Worth,
TX: Harcourt Brace.

Reed, J ., Hagen, A., Wicker, F. & Schallert, D. (1996). The temporal dynamics of

involvement in academic tasks: Motivational and cognitive correlates. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 88, 101-1 09.

I77

Reed, J. and Schallert, D. (1996). The nature of involvement in academic discourse
tasks. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 253-266.

Resnick, D. (1977). The “nature” of literacy: An historical explanation. Harvard
Educational Review, 47 (3), 370-385.

Resnick, L. and Klopfer, L. (1989). Toward the thinking curriculum: Current cognitive
research. ASCD. ~

Resnick, L. (1999). Making America smarter. Education Week, 38-40.

Rhodes, L. (Ed). (1993). Literacy assessment: A handbook of instruments.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Rio, P. and Alvarez, A. (2002). From activity to directivity: The Question of
involvement in education. In G. Wells and G. Claxton (Eds), Learning for life in

the 21 “ century: Sociocultural perspectives on the fixture of education, pp. 59-83.
Oxford: Blackwell.

Robb, L. (2000). Teaching reading in middle school: A strategic approach to teaching
reading that improves comprehension and thinla'ng. New York: Scholastic
Professional Books.

Rosenblatt, L. (1938/1976). Literature as exploration (3rd ed). New York: Noble and
Noble.

Rosenblatt, L. (1978). The reader, the text, the poem: The transactional theory of the
literary work. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois Press.

Rosenblatt, L. (1980). What facts does this poem teach you? Language Arts, 57, 386-
394.

Rosenblatt, L. (1985). The transactional theory of the literary work. Implications for
research. In C. Cooper (Ed), Researching response to literature and the teaching
of literature: Points of departure. (pp. 33-53). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Rosenblatt, L. (1985). Viewpoints: Transaction versus interaction — a terminological
rescue operation. Research in the Teaching of English, 19 96-107.

Rosenblatt, L. (1986). The aesthetic transaction. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 20(4),
1 22-1 28.

Rosenblatt, L. (1991). Literary theory. In J. Flood, J. Jensen, D. Lapp & J. Squire

(Eds), Handbood of research on teaching the English language arts (pp. 57-62).
New York: Macmillan.

178

Rosenshine, B. and Meister, C. (1984). Reciprocal teaching: A review of research.
Review of Educational Research, 64, 479-530.

Rosenshine, B., Meister, C., and Chapman, S. (1996). Teaching students to generate
questions: A review of the intervention studies. Review of Educational Research,
66, 1 81-221 .

Rosenthal, R. (1987). “Pygmalian effects” - Existence, magnitude, and social
importance. Educational Researcher, 16 (9), December, 3741.

Ross, D. (1999). A beginning look at Brahui connectives. In E. Loos (Ed), Logical
relations in discourse, pp. 113-193. Summer Institute of Linguistics.

Samuels, B. (1995). Your reading: An annotated booklist for middle and junior high,
10th Edition. NCTE Committee on the Junior High, NCTE, November, 1995-95.

Schoenbach, R., Greenleaf, C., Cziko, C. and Hurwitz, L. (1999). Reading for
understanding: A guide to improving reading in the middle and high school
classrooms. San Francisco: J ossey-Bass.

Schon, D. (1990). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for
teaching and learning in the professions. Jossey-Bass.

Shalaway, L. (1990). Tap into teacher research. Instructor, 100(1), 34—38.

Sherrell, A. & Ley, T. (Eds). (1994). Literature is...Collected essays by G. Robert
Carlsen. Johnson City, TN: Sabre Printers.

Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations for the new reform.
Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1-22.

Shulman, L. (1992). Toward a pedagogy of cases. In J. Shulrnan (Ed), Case methods in
teacher education, pp. 1-30. New York: Teachers College Press.

Smith, F. (1984). Reading like a writer. In J. M. Jenson (Ed), Composing and
comprehending (pp. 47-56). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of
English.

Smith, M. (1991). Understanding unreliable narrators: Reading between the lines in
the literature classroom. Urbana, IL: NCTE.

Snow, C. and Biancarosa, G. (2003). Adolescent literacy and the achievement gap.
New York: Carnegie Corporation of New York.

Soter, A. (1999). Young adult literature and the new literary theories: Developing
critical readers in middle school. Columbia: Teachers College Press.

179

Spradley, J. (1980). Participant observation. Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich
College Publishers.

Stanovich, K and Cunningham, A. (1992). Studying the consequences of literacy within
a literate society: The cognitive correlates of print exposure. Memory and
Cognition, 20, 51-68.

Stanovich, K. (2000). Progress in understanding reading: Scientific foundations and
new frontiers. New York: Guilford Press.

Strauss, A. and Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory
procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Tannen, D. (1989). Talking voices: Repetition, dialogue, and imagery in conversational
discourse. New York: Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Tannen, D. (1990). You just don ’t understand: Women and men in conversation.
New York: William Morrow.

Thompson, G. and Ye, Y. (1991). Evaluation in the reporting verbs used in academic
papers. Applied Linguistics, 12(4), 365-382.

Tom. A. (1997). Redesigning teacher education. Albany, NY: State University of New
York Press.

Tovani, C. (2004). Do I really have to teach reading? Content comprehension, grades
6-12. Stenhouse.

Tracey, D., and Morrow, L. (1998). Motivating contexts for young children’s literacy
development: Implications for word recognition. In J. Metsala and L. Ehri
(Eds), Word recognition in beginning literacy (pp. 341-356). Mahway, NJ:
Erlbaum.

Twine, J. and Martinek, T. (1992). Teachers as researchers — An application of a

collaborative action research model. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation
and Dance, 63 (9), 22-25.

Underwood, T., Pearson, P. (2004). Teaching struggling adolescent readers to
comprehend what they read. In T. Jetton and J. Dole (Eds). Adolescent
Literature Research and Practice. Guilford Publications.

Vacca, R. (1997). Strategies used for phonics instruction in elementary school. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 64 (3), 417-427.

Vacca, R. and Vacca, J. (2001). Content area reading: Literacy and learning across the
curriculum (7‘h ed). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

180

Vygotsky, L. (1962). In E. Hanfrnann & G. Vakar (Eds. and Trans), Thought and
language. Cambridge, MA: The M.L.T. Press.

Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher mental psychological
processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Watson-Gegeo, K. and Boggs, S. (1977). From verbal play to talk story: The role of
routines in speech events among Hawaiian children. In S. Ervin-Tripp & C.
Mitchell-Keman (Eds), Child discourse (pp. 67-90). New York: Academic.

Wertsch, J. (1985). Culture, communication, and cognition: Vygotskian perspectives.
Cambridge University Press.

Wertsch, J. (1985). Vygotsky and the social formation of mind. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.

Wertsch, J. (1988). L. S. Vygotsky’s “new” theory of mind. American Scholar, 57, 81-
90.

Wertsch, J. (1991). Voices of the mind. Harvard University Press.

Winograd, T. and Flores, F. (1986). Understanding computers and cognition. Boston,
MA: Adddison-Wesley.

Wilhelm, J. (1997). You gotta be the book: Teaching engaged and reflective reading
with adolescents. Columbia, NY: Teachers College Press.

Wilhelm, J. (2001). Improving comprehension with think-aloud strategies. Scholastic.

Williamson, K. (1992). Relevance or rigor — A case for teacher as researcher. Journal
of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 63 (9), 17-21.

Wolf, M. and Katzir-Cohen, T. (2001). Reading fluency and its intervention. Scientific
Studies of Reading, 211-239.

Wong-Kam, J. & Au, K. (1988). Improving a 4th grader’s reading and writing. Reading
Teacher, 41 (8), 768-772.

Yolen, J. (1992). Encounter. New York: Harcourt Brace.

Zeichner, K. and Noofke, S. (2001). Practitioner research. In V. Richardson (Ed),
Handbook of research on teaching (40' ed), pp. 298-330.

Zumwalt, K . (1987). Tomorrow ’s teachers: Tomorrow ’s work. Teachers College
Record, 88, 426-431.

181

11n1]murmihjjrjThu